ELDER G BEEBE - HISTORY OF PROTESTANT PRIEST-CRAFT IN AMERICA AND EUROPE parts 8 & 9
3 views
Skip to first unread message
T Adams
Nov 15, 2025, 10:14:45 AM11/15/25
to PREDESTINARIANBAPTIST, Adams, Tom
Dear Brethren and Friends,
I submit to you chapters 8 and 9 of Beebe's book entitled "The History of Protestant Priestcraft in America and Europe." I have included both chapters in this submission because chapter 8 was fairly small and chapter 9 is the conclusion of Part 1 of the book.
In chapter 9 there are some pretty extensive footnotes. In the document I am currently typing out these footnotes are located on the same page of the point in focus but unfortunately in this e-mail format they are located at the end of the document. Therefore I have included a pdf version of what is below so that the footnotes are easier to find and understand.
As always, I appreciate any comments! For example, is the font a good size in this email or should it be smaller or larger?
A Sinner in Hope,
Tom
We have seen how cruelly the Catholics and other Dissenters were treated under the “good Queen Bess,” and James I.; we have seen how they were fined, mulcted, robbed, pillaged, and punished in body; but, though the penal code against them was then such as to make every just man shudder with horror, we think it then gentleness when we look at its subsequent ferocity. We have seen how they were fined, hunted, harassed, robbed, pillaged, in the reign of “good Bess.” We have seen the same in the reign of her immediate successor, with this addition, that Englishmen were then handed over to be pillaged by Scotchmen. We have seen that Charles I., for whom they afterwards fought against Cromwell, treated them as cruelly as the two former. We have seen Charles II., most ungratefully abandon them to the persecutions of the church by law established.
But it was after James II., was set aside that the penal code grew really horrible. And here it is of the greatest consequence to the cause of truth that we trace this code to its real authors; namely, the Clergy of the Established Church. This is evident enough through the whole of this Church’s history; but, until the reign of James II., the sovereign was of the Church religion; so that the persecutions appeared to come from him or her. But now, when the King was for softening the penal code; when the King was for toleration; now the world saw who were the real persecutors; and this is a matter to be fully explained and understood, before we come to a more minute account of the code, and to the causes which finally led to its, in great part, abolition.
James II., wished to put an end to the penal code; he wished for general toleration; he issued a proclamation, suspending all penal laws relating to religion, and granting a general liberty of conscience to all his subjects. This was his offence. For this he and his family were seta side for ever! No man can deny this. The clergy of the Church set themselves against him. Six of the bishops presented to him an insolent petition against the exercise of this, his prerogative, enjoyed and exercised by all his predecessors. They led the way in that opposition which produced the “glorious revolution,” and they were the most active and the most bitter of all the foes of that unfortunate king, whose only real offence was his wishing to give liberty of conscience to all his subjects.
Now, we are going to give a sketch of this terrible code. It went on increasing in bulk and in cruelty, from the coronation of Elizabeth, till nearly twenty years after that of George III., till events came, as we shall see, and broke it up. It consisted, at last, of more than a hundred Acts of Parliament, all made for the express purpose of punishing men because, and only because, they continued faithfully to adhere to their religion. The code differed, in some respects, in its application with regard to England and Ireland respectively.
In England, this code, I., stripped Non-conformist peers of their hereditary right to sit in Parliament; II., It stripped gentlemen of their right to be chosen Members of the Commons’ House; III., It took from all Non-conformists the right to vote at elections, and though Magna Charta says that no man shall be taxed without his own consent, it double-taxed every man who refused to abjure his religion, and thus become an apostate; IV., It shut them out from all offices of power and trust, even the most insignificant; V., It fined them at the rate of 20l., a month for keeping away from that Church, to go to which they deemed apostacy; VI., It disabled them from keeping arms in their houses for their defense, from maintaining suits at law, from being guardians or executors, from practicing in law or physic, from travelling five miles from their houses, and all these under heavy penalties in case of disobedience; VII., If a married woman kept away from Church, she forfeited two-thirds of her dower, she could not be executrix to her husband, and might, during her husband’s lifetime, be imprisoned, unless ransomed by him at 10l., a month; VIII., It enabled any four justices of the peace, in case a man had been convicted of not going to church, to call him before them, to compel him to abjure his religion, or, if he refused, to sentence him to banishment for life (without judge or jury), and, if he returned he was to suffer death; IX., It enabled any two justices of the peace to call before them, without any information, any man that they chose, above sixteen years of age, and if such man refused to abjure his religion, and continued in his refusal for six months, he was rendered incapable of possessing land, and any land, the possession of which might belong to him, came into the possession of the next law-church heir, who was not obliged to account for any profits; X., It made such man incapable of purchasing lands, and all contracts made by him, or for him, were null and void; XI., It imposed a fine of 10l., a month for employing a Catholic schoolmaster in a private family, and 2l., a day on the schoolmaster so employed; XII., It imposed 100l., fine for sending a child to a Catholic foreign school, and the child so sent was disabled from ever inheriting, purchasing, or enjoying lands or profits, goods, debts, legacies, or sums of money; XIII., It punished the saying of mass by a fine of 120l., and the hearing of mass with a fine of 60l.; XIV., Any Catholic priest who returned from beyond the seas, and did not abjure his religion in three days afterwards, and also any person who returned to a Catholic faith, or procured another to return to it, this merciless, this sanguinary code punished with hanging, ripping out of bowels, and quartering.
In Ireland the code was still more ferocious, more hideously bloody; for, in the first place, all the cruelties of the English code had, as the work of a few hours, a few strokes of the pen, in one single act, been inflicted on unhappy Ireland; and then, in addition, the Irish code contained, amongst many other violations of all the laws of justice and humanity, the following twenty most savage punishments. – I. A Catholic schoolmaster, private or public, or even usher to a Protestant, was punished with imprisonment, banishment, and finally as a felon. – II. The Catholic clergy were not allowed to be in the country, without being registered, and kept as a sort of prisoners at large, and rewards were given (out of the revenue raised in part on the Catholics) for discovering them, 50l., for an archbishop or bishop, 20l., for a priest, and 10l., for a schoolmaster or ushers. – III. Any two justices of the peace might call before them any Catholic, order him to declare, on oath, where and when he heard mass, who were present, and the name and residence of any priest or schoolmaster that he might know of; and, if he refused to obey this inhuman inquisition, they had power to condemn him (without judge or jury) to a year’s imprisonment in a felon’s gaol, or to pay 20l. – IV. No Catholic could purchase any manors, nor even hold under a lease for more than thirty-one years. – V. Any law-churchman, if he suspected any one of holding property in trust for a Catholic, or of being concerned in any sale, lease, mortgage, or other contract, for a Catholic; any law-churchman thus suspecting, might file a bill against the suspected trustee, and take the estate or property from him. – VI. Any law-churchman, seeing a Catholic tenant of a farm, the produce of which farm exceeded the amount of the rent by more than one-third, might dispossess the Catholic, and enter on the lease in his stead. – VII. Any law-churchman, seeing a Catholic with a horse worth more than five pounds, might take the horse away from him upon tendering him five pounds. – VIII. In order to prevent the smallest chance of justice in these and similar cases, none but known law-churchmen were to be jurymen in the trial of any such cases. – IX. Horses of Catholics might be seized for the use of militia; and besides this, Catholics were compelled to pay double towards the militia. – X. Merchants whose ships and goods might be taken by privateers, during a war with a Catholic prince, were to be compensated for their losses by a levy on the goods and lands of Catholics only, though, mind, Catholics were, at the same time, impressed, and obliged to shed their blood in the war against that same Catholic prince. – XI. Property of a Protestant, whose heirs at law were Catholics, was to go to the nearest Protestant relation, just the same as if the Catholic heirs had been dead, though the property might be entailed on them. – XII. If there were no Protestant heir, then, in order to break up all Catholic families, the entail and all heirship were set aside, and the property was divided, share and share, amongst all the Catholic heirs. – XIII. If a Protestant had an estate in Ireland, he was forbidden to marry a Catholic in or out of Ireland. – XIV. All marriages between Protestants and Catholics were annulled, though many children might have proceeded from them. – XV. Every priest who celebrated a marriage between a Catholic and a Protestant, or between two Protestants, was condemned to be hanged. – XVI. A Catholic father could not be guardian to, or have the custody of, his own child, if the child, however young, pretended to be a Protestant; but the child was taken from its own father, and put into the custody of a Protestant relation. – XVII. If any child of a Catholic became a Protestant, the parent was to be instantly summoned, and to be made to declare, upon oath, the full value of his or her property of all sorts, and then the Chancery was to make such distribution of the property as it though fit. – XVIII. “Wives, be obedient unto your own husband,” says the great Apostle. “Wives, be disobedient to them,” said this horrid code; for if the wife of a Catholic chose to turn Protestant, it set aside the will of the husband, and made her a participator in all his possessions, in spite of him, however immoral, however bad a wife, or bad a mother she might have been. – XIX. “Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” “Dishonor them,” said this savage code; for if any one of the sons of a Catholic father became a Protestant, this son was to possess all the father had, and the father could not sell, could not mortgage, could not leave legacies, or portions out of his estate, by whatever title he might hold it, even though it might have been the fruit of his own toil. – XX. Lastly (of this score, but this is only a part), “the Church, as by law established,” was in her great indulgence, pleased not only to open her doors, but to award (out of the taxes) thirty pounds a year for life to any Catholic priest who would abjure his religion, and declare his belief in hers!
As to the injustice, and to the barbarity, as to the flagrant immorality of the above code, they call for no comment, being condemned by the spontaneous voice of nature herself; but in this shocking assemblage, there are two things which impel us to ask, whether the love of truth, whether a desire to eradicate religious error, could have formed any part, however small, of the motives of these punishers? These two things are, the reward offered to Catholic priests to induce them to come over to the Church, and the terrible means made use of to prevent the inter-marriage of Catholics and Protestants. Could these measures ever have suggested themselves to the minds of men who sincerely believed that the law-church religion was supported by arguments more cogent then those by which the Catholic religion was supported? The Law-Church had all the powers, all the honors, all the emoluments, all the natural worldly allurements. These she continually held out to all who were disposed to the clerical order. And if, in addition to all these, she had felt strong in argument, would she have found it necessary to offer, in direct and barefaced words, a specific sum of money to any one who would join her – break his solemn vow in order to be entitled to the pay? And as the intermarriages, why not suffer them? why punish them so severely? why annul them if the Law-Church were sure that the arguments in her favor were the most cogent and convincing? Who has so much power over the mind of woman as her husband? who over man as his wife?
Talk of the “fires in Smithfield!” Fires, indeed, which had no justification, and which all Catholics of this day severely condemn: but what was the death of about two hundred and seventy-seven persons, however cruel and unmerited that death, to the torments above described, inflicted for more than two hundred years, on millions upon millions of people, to say nothing about the thousands upon thousands who were, during that period, racked to death, killed in prison, hanged, disemboweled, and quartered. And if these punishments were unjust and cruel, as all sane men agreed that they were, what shall we say of, how shall we express sufficient abhorrence of the above penal code, which was for the punishment, not of a few, but of millions of people? If we find no justification, and none, we all say there was, for the punishments of Mary’s reign, inflicted, as all men know they were, on very few persons – for the most part either notorious traitors or felons, and, at the very least, conspirators against the Queen; if we find no justification, and we all agree that there was none for these punishments, inflicted, as all men know they were, during a few months of furious and unreflecting zeal. If we find, even under such circumstances, no justification for these punishments, where are we to look for, not a justification, but for a ground of qualification of our abhorrence of the above-mentioned barbarities of more than two hundred years, inflicted upon millions upon millions of people: barbarities premeditated in the absence of all provocation; contrived and adopted in all the calmness of legislative deliberation; executed in cold blood, and persevered in for ages in defiance of the admonitions of conscience; barbarities inflicted, not on felons, conspirators, and rebels, but on innocent persons, on those who had, under all and every circumstance, even while feeling the cruel lash of persecution, been as faithful to their king as to their God; and as if we were never to come to the end of the atrocity, all this done, too, with regard to Ireland, in flagrant breach of a solemn treaty with the English king!
And is this the “tolerant, the mild, the meek Church as by law established?” Have we here the proofs of faith and good works?
But now all of a sudden, in 1778, the face of things began to change; the Church, as by law established, was all at once though capable of existing in safety with a great relaxation of the penal code! And we find the code suddenly softened by divers Acts of Parliament in both countries, and especially in Ireland! This humanity and generosity will surprise us; we shall wonder when it came; we shall be ready to believe the souls of the parties to have been softened by a sort of miracle until we see the real cause of this surprising humanity and generosity; – the Americans unfurling the standard of independence, and having been backed by France, pushing on towards success, and thereby setting an example to ever oppressed people, in every part of the world, unhappily, trodden down Ireland not excepted! There was, too, before the end of the war, danger of invasion on the part of France, who was soon joined in the war by Spain and Holland; so that, before the close of the contest, the Catholics and other Dissenters had obtained leave to breathe the air of their native county in safety. Thus was fear gratified, in a moment, at the very first demand, with a surrender of that which had, for ages, been refused to the incessant pleadings of justice and humanity; and thus the American revolution, as we have seen, grew immediately out of the “no-popery” or “glorious” revolution in England.
In former chapters we have followed the “Reformation,” and its fruits in Great Britain, down to the period of the American Revolution, in doing which we have copied almost altogether from Cobbett’s History of the Reformation. We shall now go back to the times of the German “Reformers,” Luther, Calvin and Zuinglius, and take a view of the fruits of their “Reformations.” Although we shall devote must less space to this branch of our History, we shall devote sufficient to show that the same infernal spirit of intolerance prevailed with these great “Reformers,” and their followers, leading to as cruel persecutions of dissenters as any that ever disgraced mankind or caused humanity to shudder. In fact it will be seen that there was a perfect accord in narrow-brained clerical tyranny between the German and British Puritans, from the beginning.
We shall commence with the following extract from Orchard’s History of Foreign Baptists:
“The tones of authority assumed by Luther, and his magisterial conduct towards those who differed from him, made it evident that he would be head of the reformers. He and his colleagues had now to dispute their way with hosts of Baptists all over Germany, Saxony, Thuringia, Switzerland, and other kingdoms, for several years. Conferences on baptism were held in different kingdoms, which continued from 1516 to 1527. The support which the Baptists had from Luther’s writings, made the reformer’s efforts of little effect. At Zurich, the Senate warned the people to desist from the practice of re-baptizing, but all their warnings were in vain. The efforts to check the increase of Baptists being ineffectual, carnal measures were selected. The first edict against anabaptism was published at Zurich, in 1525, in which there was a penalty of a silver mark set upon all such as should suffer themselves to be re-baptized, or should withhold baptism from their children. And it was further declared that those who openly opposed this order, should be yet severely treated. This being insufficient to check immersion, the Senate decreed, like Honorius, in 413, that all persons who professed anabaptism, or harbored the professors of the doctrine, should be punished with death by drowning. It had been death to refuse baptism, and now it was death to be baptized; such is the weather-cock-certainty of State religion. In defiance of this law, the Baptists preserved their regular discipline; and some ministers of learned celebrity realized the severity of the sentence. Many Baptists were drowned and burnt. These severe measures, which continued for years, had the consent of the reformers, which injured greatly the Lutheran cause. Wherever the Baptists settled, Luther played the part of universal bishop. He wrote to princes and Senates to engage them to expel such dangerous men; but it was their refusing to own his authority, and admit his exposition of the scriptures, which led him to preach and publish books against them, taxing them with disturbing the peace. We have recorded that the Baptists were the common objects of aversion to Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists, whose united zeal was directed to their destruction. So deeply were the prejudices interwoven with the state party, that the knights, on oath, were to declare their abhorrence of anabaptism. The sentiments of these people, and which were so disliked by statesmen, clergy and reformers, may be stated under five views, viz: A love of civil and religious liberty in opposition to magisterial dominion; and affirmation of the sufficiency and simplicity of revelation, in opposition to scholastic theology; a zeal for self-government, opposition to clerical authority; a requisition to clerical authority; a requisition of the reasonable service of a personal profession of christianity rising out of man’s own convictions, in opposition to the practice of force on infants – the whole of which they deemed superstition, or enthusiasm; and the indefensible necessity of virtue in every individual member of a christian church, in distinction from all speculative creeds, all rites and ceremonies, and parochial divisions. These views, to the statesman, were adverse to his line of policy with his peasants; to the clergy they were offensive, since it placed every man on a level with the priesthood, and sanctioned one to instruct another; to the reformers they were objectionable, since they broke the national tie, and allowed all persons equal liberty to think, choose, and act in the affairs of the soul; thus these sentiments were the aversion of all. An edict issued by Frederick, at a later period, shows how unpalatable these views were. His majesty expressed his astonishment at the number of anabaptists, and his horror at the principal error which they embraced, which was, that according to the express declaration of the holy scriptures, (1 Cor. vii. 23,) they were to submit to no human authority. He adds, that his conscience compelled him to proscribe them, and accordingly he banished them from his dominions on pain of death.
‘This maxim is the true source of the peculiarities of the Baptists,’ says Mosheim, ‘that the visible church was exempt from all those institutions which human prudence suggested;’ but this view of religion, the State and the reformed, could not receive.
Disputations on the subject of baptism continued through this year (1526) and the ensuing year; and the system of drowning those whom the reformers could not convert was still in prevalent use. The reformers’ influence and reflection on the Baptists, with the Catholic hatred, made the situation of our brethren very critical, independent of the iron bondage many endured under their lords.”
Although the old anabaptists had such high expectation from Luther’s reforming efforts in the beginning, and from his decided approbation of their mode of baptism, as being entirely conformable to the primitive pattern, yet the reformer so soon and so violently fell out with them on account of their desire to carry the reformation much further than his secular model had prescribed, that not much by the way of union was effected between the parties.
Calvin’s and Zuinglius’ community or the Presbyterian party – the German reformers – conducted their negotiations with the Waldenses and other oppressed and persecuted parties with consummate skill and with great success; they did not at first require of them full conformity to their standard, as Luther had done, but allowed them entire freedom to follow their own rules of discipline, and continue their old ecclesiastical organization. But one thing was laid down with great firmness and decision, they must not re-baptize any who had been admitted to that sacrament, in infancy, or in riper years. In a word, in the language of the times, anabaptism must be renounced by all who were admitted to their friendship and communion. The sad effects of this law against anabaptism we shall see fully exemplified in the history of the Mennonites.
Although these old anabaptist communities were permitted to confederate with the reformers in their present condition, yet being obliged by the terms of the compact to acknowledge the validity of infant baptism, and never more to to re-baptize any who united with their churches who had been baptized in infancy, whether by Protestants or Catholics, was, as legislators say, butting off the first section of the bill; open communion was established upon a broad scale, and in process of time the whole Baptists interest in Germany and all other parts of the continent was absorbed by the pædobaptist reformers, except that part of of it which adhered to the Mennonites.
Benedict, in his voluminous history of the Baptists, says:
“Historical veracity obliges me to record the following decrees of a Protestant legislature, which I will do in the language of Mr. Bracht:
Of a certain edict issued by the people of Zurich, against the Baptists, A. D. 1525. – This year, the Zuinglian Reformed, in Zurich, laid their hands upon the innocent and defenseless lambs of Christ; yet, as far as we know, they did not inflict any capital punishment upon them, or deprive them of their life by the executioner, but kept them in close confinement till death was the consequence, as may be supposed. But in order to give notice how they should conduct themselves for the present and the future, the magistrates of the city ordained the following:
‘We, therefore, ordain and require, that hereafter all men, women, boys and girls forsake re-baptism, and shall not make use of it hereafter; and they shall let infants be baptized; whosoever shall act contrary to this public edict, shall be find for every offence, one mark; and if any be disobedient and stubborn, they shall be treated with severity; for, the obedient we will protect; the disobedient we will punish according to his deserts, without fail; by this all are to conduct themselves. All this we confirm by this public document, stamped with the seal of our city, and given on St. Andrew’s day, A. D. 1525.’
When this edict was drawn up, the Zuinglian church had existed but five years, and where themselves the subjects of the hatred of the Papists; but they had already begun to persecute those who differed from them in faith. But it would have been well had it stopped with this edict, for when an infant was not permitted to be baptized, reparation could be made by a silver mark, &c., but it did not continue at this; for some years subsequently, and particularly A. D. 1530, having taking courage, they decreed that the anabaptists should be punished with death. This will be treated of in its place.”
The second edict issued at Zurich, threatening all the so-called Anabaptists with death, A. D. 1530. – “A certain writer says, that the Zuinglian church, from its beginning, had a particular hatred and antipathy against the anabaptists, as historians tell us; therefore, they commenced very early to tyranize over them, and according to our opinion, the Zuinglian church had not existed more than ten years when this abuse commenced.
“But they did not abide with this, but they went on with their tyranny till there was an edict issued, A. D. 1530, which equaled the bloody decrees of the Roman emperor. In it was written:
“ ‘We, therefore, determinately command all the citizens of this land, and all those who are any the least connected therewith, namely the chief and under officers, town councils, judges, church deacons and deaconesses, that if they meet with any anabaptists that they will report them to us, according to their oat, not to suffer them anywhere, nor let them increase, but to imprison them and deliver them to us; for we will, according to law, punish with death all the anabaptists and those that adhere to them; and we will also punish those without mercy who aid them, who will not report or disperse them, or do not surrender them to us to be imprisoned; we will punish them all according to their demerits, as such as have violated the oath which they swore to the magistracy.’ This is literally taken from the edict as Bullinger compiled it.”
We are now prepared to make selections proposed. Hans Koch and Leonhard Meister were put to death at Ausburg, A D. 1524, just in the opening scene of the Reformation. These men were reputed to have been descendants of the Bohemian and Moravian Waldenses. They are placed at the head of the long catalogue of martyrs, by this old anabaptist historian.”
“Balthazar Hubmor published a small book, in which he complains of Zuinglius and his Protestant followers, thus: ‘They have carried it so far as to imprison at one time, in a dark tower, twenty persons, consisting of men, pregnant women, widows and young girls; and to pass on them, the following sentence: That they shall never see the light of the sun, nor of the moon, and shall finish their lives on bread and water. For this purpose, they shall all remain in a dark tower, the living having to endure the noisome stench of the dead, till there be no more of them remaining.’
“Some ate nothing for three days, that the rest might have something to eat, &c. ‘O, God!” continues he, ‘what a severe and rigorous doom for pious christians, to whose charge no offence could be laid, only that they had received re-baptism, according to the commandments of Christ. O, distressing deformation we say,k of the re-formers so-called! The Lord forgive them, and be merciful to their souls, in their blind zeal.’”
We again quote from Benedict’s History: – The first decree of the Senate of Zurich, one of the cantons of Switzerland, then under the influence of the Reformers, in 1525, has already been given. But little is said by our author of the doings of any class of the Protestants for about half a century from this period. Martyrdom’s are occasionally reported, particularly in the city of Berne, but from the disposition everywhere shown towards the obnoxious opposers of infant baptism, and particularly by the followers of Zuinglius and Calvin, we have too much reason to believe that the number of victims were by no means small.
In 1577, a severe persecution broke out at Mittleberg, in Zealand, under the influence of the Calvinists, the effects of which were counteracted by the friendly efforts of the Prince of Orange, in favor of the oppressed anabaptists.
I will insert below the proclamation of this noble advocate for religious freedom, as it shows the good principles of the prince on one hand, and the unrighteous, vexations, and cruel policy of the continental Puritans on the other.
“1The Prince of Orange, Duke of Nassau, Lord and Baron of Breda, Diest, &c., to the noble, puissant, honorable, wise, &c.
“Whereas, certain lodgers, who reside there, and are Baptists, as it is said, have, in several complaints made known to us that you daily oppress them, and deprive them of an opportunity of making a living for themselves and family, in that you have prohibited them from opening their workshops under a pretext that they refuse to make oath in the form used by other citizens, all of which we have naturally considered; and whereas the aforementioned people offer to bear all burdens honestly along with other citizens, (yet, as regards the bearing of arms, which chiefly induces them so to act, they shall pay a fine according as you, or they who shall give orders in the matter, shall find expedient, according to the rules of justice and equity,) therefore it seems to us that you do very wrong in not permitting them to live in peace and quietness, according to the dictates of their mind and conscience, agreeably to the letter which we granted them on a former occasion, with the approval of the governor and council, and which they laid before you as they declare. As we perceive that you have been unwilling hitherto to regard it, and also our foregoing letter, therefore we are under the necessity, for the last time, to draw up this ordinance, in which we publicly declare to you that it does not pertain to you to oppress the conscience of any man when there is nothing done that would tend to the prejudice of any one; in which case we do not wish to respect and tolerate any man: Therefore, we command and expressly enjoin upon you, that you hereafter cease from oppressing the aforesaid people, namely the Baptists, or hinder them from pursuing their trades and business in order to make a living for wife and children; but that you permit them to open their shops and work at their trades as they formerly did, till such times, at least, as it shall be otherwise ordained by the States-general, to whom it appertains: – Therefore see that you undertake nothing contrary thereto, and contrary to the ordinance which we have granted them; and take no fines from them for the above-mentioned reasons, as long as they undertake nothing that tends to the prejudice of any man, and besides, bear all civil and lawful burdens, along with other citizens, &c. Nobles, puissant, honorable, wise, discreet, peculiar, we commend you to God.
“Written at Antwerp, July 16th, 1578.
“Copied by BAUDEMONT.
“The aforementioned copy was signed by the clerk Baudemont, and was found to agree with it by me. JACOB MASUREL.
“Subscribed, J. Masureel, Public Clerk.
“Remark. – Notwithstanding the prince, of blessed memory, so strictly commanded liberty of conscience in the worship of God, now the second time, yet the true fruit did not follow, though it was observed for some of the following years; for, after the decease of this good prince they commenced anew. However, it was prevented by his son, (as shall be related in the sequel,) by a third edict.”
This severe onset upon this defenseless people, was the more calamitous and destructive, as they were entirely off their guard, having reposed a full reliance on the safety which had lately been proclaimed to all religious parties in the new republic in which they resided, and under this impression, a large number of their members had collected her from other regions.
In the 17th century, the persecutions of the Reformers were pursued with increased severity, and so continued for a long course of years.
The brief account of the persecutions inflicted on the people under consideration, from 1600 and onward, is thus introduced by the author of the work now under review:
“This century’s account will be brief, not extending much beyond fifty years; the sufferings, moreover, are not so severe as in the preceding centuries. Decapitation, and death from hunger and prisons, are the severest punishments endured by the following witnesses of the lord. Moreover, though in this short period, the greatest mischief was occasioned by the departments of Zurich and Berne, by those who styled themselves Reformed; yet others of the same name, and especially the excellent regents of the United Netherlands, as friends of peace, and enemies to constraint of conscience, opposed such proceedings, and with paternal benevolence, exerted the utmost of their influence for the protection of the innocent objects of persecution. This work commences with Groeningen and Sneek, in Friesland, and terminates at Zurich and Berne, in Switzerland. This, therefore, must be the order of our arrangement.”
The edict of Groeningen, which was issued in 1601, was exceedingly severe on the anabaptists. The authorities of Aardenburg, Deventer, Berne, and Zurich, in the course of a few years, all came out with similar decrees. Some of their hard-bearing enactments were as follows:
1. That these people, at all hazards, nolens volens, willing or unwilling, must be converted to the creed of the dominant party, attend their churches, give up anabaptism, adopt the infant system, and conform in all things to their faith and forms. The prison, with bread and water, the lash, the stocks, fines of different graduations, and other light punishments, were provided for the first offence, banishment for the second, and death for the third.
2. An inventory of all their property, personal and real, must be rendered unto the ruling party, that they might know how to graduate their tariff on anabaptism and non-conformity, which was always extremely high, amounting literally to a prohibition.
3. No person was allowed to harbor the anabaptists, or afford them any comfort, or to suffer their meetings in their houses or on their estates.
4. All unbaptized children should be hindered from being heirs-at-law of property which would fall to them if they were under the seal of the covenant. And children whose parents had died, or fled the country, should be dealt with, so far as their property was concerned as to fines, confiscations, &c., in the same manner their parents would have been.
5. No teacher should exercise any of the functions of the ministry, especially should not administer any religious ordinances, without a license from the civil authority.
6. A refusal to participate in the business of war, or to take or administer oaths, was among the dangerous heresies of the times.
7. To close the whole, “We ordain that the exercise of all other religions but the Reformed is hereby prohibited.”
The following article exhibits the disposition of the church and authorities of Zurich more than two centuries ago. “On the 17th of March, the 17th of August, the 8th of September, and at the close of the year 1636, and finally in May 1637, nearly all the baptist brethren and sisters in Switzerland, and particularly in the department of Zurich, were summoned before a committee of the magistracy, composed of magistrates and ecclesiasticals. First at the castles Wadischwil, Kronav, and Groeningen, where they had to give in the names and families, which were recorded. Secondly, at the same castles, where they were required to conform to the general and public mode of worship, which they refused. Thirdly, at Zurich, in the Prebendary’s room, (not all, however, but a few) where a discussion was held with them respecting three articles of religion, namely, baptism, supper, and church discipline, or evangelical ex-communication; when, having explained themselves respecting these points, and the whole ground of their faith, and having asked their excellencies whether a person holding such a faith could be saved? they received this reply: yes, certainly, a person can be saved who holds such a faith. Nevertheless, the same evening that this occurred, they reviled and aspersed their faith, and menaced them; for as the proverb says: ‘when the fox skin is too short, they use the lion’s pelt.’
The fourth time, again, at the Prebendary’s room, it was proposed to them to give in an inventory of all their property, real and personal, with a promise that not a stiver should be taken from them, which they frankly complied with. Thus all their property was recorded, and afterwards seized. The fifth time, at the aforesaid castles, a pass being granted them. Here they were asked what they had determined to do with respect to the requisition of going to church; whereupon a letter from the high bailiff, by order of the authorities, was read out to them, stating that, if they would not go to church, and therein obey the authorities, they should be committed to prison in certain places, and have to look for no mercy. Meanwhile, the afore-said brethren and sisters asked permission several times to leave the country (taking their property with them), but it was not granted them; but two proposals were made them, either of which they might choose:
To the first they would not consent; therefore they had to expect the second.
Upward of twenty years after this, seven teachers and elders of the Mennonite church at Berne, whose names are all give, had the following choice of evils: – 1st, to go to the established church; or 2nd, to be perpetually consigned to the galleys; or, 3rd, to die by the hands of the executioners. This was in 1569. The result in regard to the prisoners, says our author, we were unable to ascertain; it is certain, however, that six years after, they were still in prison. The custom of sending these afflicted people to the galleys was by no means uncommon among the Reformers.
Most of the anabaptists were indeed poor, but a portion of them had more or less property, and the sacrifice of them by the intolerant oppressors, makes us shudder for the honor of the Protestant cause. A few instances of these unrighteous depredations we will now relate.
In 1637, a minister by the name of Hans Landfs, and two of his brethren were imprisoned, and their property was sold by the authorities for seven thousand florins, and applied to their own use. The minister was imprisoned full sixty weeks.
The same year, an anabaptist church was robbed of two thousand rix dollars in the following manner: the treasurer and his wife were both in prison; they brought the woman into the rack-room, brought in the executioner, and menaced her with severe torture, unless she would tell them where the money could be found. The poor woman, overwhelmed with terror, soon made the dangerous disclosure, and the church was suddenly stripped of all their supplies for the suffering poor. Another church was soon after deprived of nearly a thousand dollars in the same way.
In 1638, an old minister by the name of Hans Meyli, had all his property, both personal and real, taken from him, amounting to fourteen thousand florins. Two of the Reformed ministers are said to have assisted in this transaction.
The year after, Hans Arter and his wife, after being long harassed by these sanctimonious defenders of the church, by their prison discipline, in a wonderful manner escaped from their hands, leaving their children and property behind them. The authorities banished the innocent children, in conformity to their laws, from the country, sold their farm for four thousand florins, and left the family to wander in exile, in a state of destitution and want.
In 1639, Hans Jacob Hess died of a consumption in the prison of the old monastery of Otherback, near Zurich, which became a famous place in the hands of the Reformers for the incarceration of their victims, and his estate, amounting to four thousand florins, was confiscated. This man was also a minister.
Nine thousand six dollars were taken from Peter Bruback in 1640. Two large farms were taken from another of the members, the same year. And thus they went on in the work of imprisonment, banishment, and confiscation, now and then taking off their heads, or in other ways putting them to death, until they had driven most of these opposers of infant baptism and religious tyranny from the Swiss Cantons into the Netherlands and other countries, where they could enjoy tranquility and repose.
The loss of property was exceedingly severe; multitudes with valuable farms and other means of comfort and affluence, were suddenly robbed of all by a set of men who had promised them that not a stiver should be taken, if they would give them an honest list of all they possessed. But it soon turned out that the meaning was they must also attend their worship, and support it, and become converts to the Reformed religion, which condition was not appended at the time the inventory was given.
But the deprivation of all their earthly possessions was a light affair, compared with the vexatious excruciating and interminable sufferings to which they were every exposed. Not only the men, but the women and children were equally the victims of this Protestant intolerance. Females in all the trying conditions peculiar to their sex, after being chased like criminals and outlaws, were doomed to long confinement in gloomy and filthy abodes, and were often loaded with chains and made to suffer the tortures of the rack, as one of the means of grace in the process of their conversion to the religion of the Reformers.2
Parents who had long been driven in haste from the country, their houses and homes, when they came back to seek for their children, who had been scattered they knew not where, were often apprehended and doomed to suffer all the pains and penalties of their intolerant laws.
So intent were the Swiss Reformers in making all classes of people conform to their mode of worship, go to their church, and carry out their system of church building, that they often employed force to carry out their ways.3
After details of these shocking transactions are before me; some of the sufferers who had fled form the Swiss cantons, and settled in Germany, were still alive about two centuries ago; of some of the scenes described in this old book, the author was an eye witness; especially of the distresses which were endured by the refugees, when seven hundred, old and young, were driven out of the department of Berne, in 1671.
It is a singular fact, that while these Reformers were so wantonly sporting with the feelings of their defenseless neighbors and fellow beings, whom a mysterious providence had placed within their power, and making such awful havoc with their property and lives, at the same time, they made bitter complaints of the persecutions which were inflicted by the Catholics on the members of their own communion, in France, Hungary, and other places. Alas for the inconsistencies of fallible men, when hurried forward by the blindness of bigotry, and the rage of party zeal. References to a few public documents pertaining to the doings of these unhappy times, with some extracts from them, will carry out history from the Reformation to about the end of the seventeenth century.
In 1639, the lords of Zurich put forth an apology for their severe measures in defense of the Reformed religion, and against all who dissented from it.
The sum and substance of their impeachment against the anabaptists consisted in the two following things:
1. “That they had departed from the true principles of the Reformation, which they, the Reformers, had scrupulously maintained.
2. “That they, in continuing the practice of re-baptising, and in maintaining a separate church organization, ‘had withdrawn from the obedience which they owed to the christian church.’ ”
The manner in which they retorted on their accusers, will be related after the next document is noticed.
This effort on the part of the Reformers was loudly called for to wipe off the disgrace which had come upon them in the eyes of the world, in consequence of the maltreatment of the Baptists in Switzerland. “And as the city of Zurich had in a measure taken the lead in the ungodly work of persecution,” the rulers of the Church and State there were the first in the field in attempts to exculpate the whole party.
But twenty years after, the authorities of Berne, another stronghold of the Presbyterian party in Switzerland, came out in a very different style. They published, in 1659, an edict exceedingly severe against the anabaptists.
This article if a very lone one, and its syllogisms were much like those employed by the persecuting Puritans of this country, about the same time. In their way of reasoning, they made it out to a demonstration, that their victims deserved all the punishments they inflicted on them, for remaining so obstinate, and so very unaccommodating, as not to see the beauty of their church discipline, feel the force of their arguments, and become converted to their system.
The following passage is a fair specimen of the whole document:
“The anabaptists act contrary to necessary and beneficial regulations of the government, and transgress in the following ways:
“1. They preach with the calling and ratification of the magistracy.
“2. They baptize in their churches with the calling and command of the authorities.
“3. They pervert the church discipline, or have other church ordinances, contrary to the public ordinances or authorities.
“4. They attend no meetings of the church that are held on Sundays or fast days; therefore, as they will not submit as faithful subjects, to such ordinances and regulations as are in conformity to the word of God, but hold them in contempt, they are, therefore, not worthy of a residence in the country.
“For these multifarious and vitally important reasons, we have unanimously resolved, and it is our earnest wish, that all should reflect on this, that they constantly and without delay, practice said banishment and penalties thereunto pertaining, against all who belong to this corrupted and extremely dangerous thereunto pertaining, against all who belong to this corrupted and extremely dangerous and wicked sect, that they make no further progress, much less acquire increase; but that they much rather be expelled at once, by all possible means, and the country be freed from them – upon which in grace we rely.”
The rules were very minutely laid down how their officers should labor for the conversion of these wicked heretics; and how their preachers should address them after they had been admitted within the pale of their church. Whipping, branding with a red hot iron, perpetual banishment, confiscation of property, and other appliances of the kind, were very strongly recommended. But the work of conversion after all went but slowly on.
Various Remonstrances from Holland against the Persecutions of the Anabaptists in Switzerland. – The edict of Berne, to which we have lately referred, which operated with so much severity, and to such a wide extent against the people whom it was designed to exterminate from the country, was promulgated in August, 1659. As fugitives were soon flying in every direction into all the surrounding countries – the Protestant prisons were soon filled to overflowing with the victims of oppression, and the gloomy tidings of distress and misery were everywhere spread abroad, there was a general burst of sympathy in favor of these persecuted people, and six months after, by previous concert, a large delegation of their brethren from Dortrecht, Hærlen, Leyden, Amsterdam, Goude and Rotterdam, assembled at the Hague, and speedily prepared an humble petition to the court of Holland, then in session, in favor of their afflicted brethren. These noble advocates for religious freedom, took immediate cognizance of the matter, and interposed their friendly and paternal efforts in the case. They had no jurisdiction in the country where the persecutions prevailed, but as the church of Holland and Switzerland were of the same religious faith, and both of the Presbyterian order, they appealed to the persecutors as their own brethren, and besought them to cease from oppressing a community whom they could cordially recommend as good citizens and subjects; and whose religious peculiarities were in no way detrimental to the State. “Three letters were immediately written by order of their excellencies. The first to the lords of Berne for the liberation of the prisoners, &c. The second to those of Zurich, in reference to the restoration of the property of the imprisoned, deceased and exiled Baptists, which had been confiscated during the period from 1635, &c. The third was a passport for Adolf de Vrede, who was to go to Berne and Zurich, in Switzerland, in the name of the Baptists, or properly of those who had drawn up the aforesaid petition, and obtain the letter of intercession from their excellencies, and deliver the first two letters to the lords of those places for the purpose above mentioned. True copies of these letters have been forwarded to us; we will present them to the kind reader as far as regards the special circumstances of the case, and assign them a place in this book, in grateful remembrance of what the States-General of these happy United Netherlands did in this matter:
“The States-General, &c., to the City of Berne, in Switzerland – Noble, honorable, wise and provident lords, friends and neighbors: – We have learned from the complaint of several individuals, delegates from their church, called in this country Mennonites, citizens and residents of Dortrecht, Hærlen, Leyden, Amsterdam, Goude, and Rotterdam, cities of Holland, that their brethren, called anabaptists, suffer great persecution at Berne and its vicinity, by reason of rigorous edicts issued against them, wherein they are not only forbidden to reside in the country, but are not permitted to remove with their families and property, though they cannot be charged with any crime or misdemeanor; likewise, that some of the aforesaid denomination have been closely confined in said city; all which has moved us to christian compassion; wherefore we could not pass the matter by, but, on the contrary, have deemed it proper hereby, friendly, neighborly and earnestly to request you, that you would not only not practice, not suffer to be practiced, any improper treatment towards the petitioners’ associate members who are found in your department or dominion, under the name of anabaptists; but that much rather, after the good example of the lord regents of Schaffhausen, you grant the petitioners time to depart with their families and property wherever they choose. To this end we would request you duly to consider that, in the year 1655, when the Waldenses, our and your associate members, were so virulently chased and persecuted by the Romans, solely for the confession of their Reformed religion, that the necessities of the poor dispersed people cold not be relived otherwise than by large collections raised in England, this country, and other parts where the reformed religion prevailed, the churches of the Baptists, the aforesaid petitioners, upon the simple recommendations of their government, in obedience to the same, and in christian love and compassion, contributed with so much benevolence in their meetings to the aid of the dispersed and persecuted christians, that a remarkably large sum was raised, which the ministers of the aforesaid churches, by order of the said government, sent to the place appointed. We confidently hope and trust that you will receive our well-disposed and friendly petition as favorably as justice requires, and as we have reason to expect from your usual wisdom and prudence, and we assure you that we shall not fail to return this favor to you collectively and individually, and to your citizens, if an opportunity should present, and you should be pleased to make trial of us. Meantime, we pray Almighty God, &c.
At the Hague, Feb. 19, 1660. [A true copy.]
J. SPRONSSEEN.”
The States-General of the United Netherlands reasoned in the same manner with the authorities of Zurich, as they did to those of Berne. They also sent the Hon. Mr. De Vrede as a special messenger to intercede for the suffering anabaptists with the authorities in Switzerland, much in the same manner as Sir Samuel Morland was dispatched by Cromwell to the court of Savoy, in behalf of the Waldenses, but a short time before.
In addition to these governmental proceedings, the burgomasters and lords of Rotterdam addressed the commonwealth of Berne, in behalf of their city, on the same subject, and it is said that other cities did the same. All the addresses of this kind make honorable mention of the large contributions which the anabaptists or Mennonites, had made for the suffering Waldenses in 1655.
The Rotterdam authorities entered into the argument with their Swiss brethren, with much feeling and affection; and they took much pains to show them the absurdity of all the reasonings which they and others had employed, to excite a prejudice against the victims of their sanguinary and needless laws.
The following selections will exhibit the spirit of the document:
“We, therefore, desire your honorable lordships, nay, we entreat your honors, for the sake of religion, and the faith in Christ which we hold in common with you, that it might please your lordships to repeal the aforesaid severe edicts and resolutions passed against the innocent, erring people; or, if your lordships should deem this incompatible with the circumstances of your government, of which your lordships are the judges, to grant, at least, that the poor people may sell their property, make the necessary preparations, and remove with their friends to where they expect to live in greater repose and security. As regards ourselves, honorable lords, we have been of the opinion, ever since the formation of this government, that this kind of men can be safely tolerated in the commonwealth without prejudice to the same.
“And for this judgment we have to thank William, Prince of Orange, of blessed memory, who, through his bravery, established for us liberty of conscience, and who never could be induced by the petitions and perverted zeal of some ill-disposed people, to deprive the Mennonites of citizenship. In truth, we have never repented of this, our experience having never informed us that the Mennonites, under the cloak of religion, have ever sought to excite a sedition in the commonwealth; but, on the contrary, that they have cheerfully and promptly paid their taxes, and performed every duty that a subject owes to his prince; nay, that they kindly afforded pecuniary aid to the Reformed, who were oppressed in other places for their faith, and not long since to the Waldenses, our brethren, who were treated with great cruelty by the Duke of Savoy. We are aware that some insane persons strive, through misguided zeal, to persuade your lordships that the toleration of the Mennonites is prejudicial to the commonwealth; but their reasons are so puerile as never to have induced us to oppress the Mennonites with any rigorous laws.
“Though some, through devotion or superstitious awe, abstain from magisterial offices, and the takin of oaths, yet, what can be said against them by those who, under the glorious name of the Reformed, under the excellent titles of Reformation and Purity of Faith, introduce tyranny; the remembrance of which, as often as we reflect upon its cruelties forerly practiced in this city, and especially against the Mennonites (the details of which are recorded in our register’s office), our minds are oppressed, our souls are terrified.
“But we indulge the hope that when this shall be properly considered by your excellencies, your lordships will either repeal the onerous decree against the Mennonites, or at least, after the example of those of Schaffhansen, a canton of Switzerland, and that of the Roman Catholic prince of Neuburg, grant to the poor wanderers sufficient them to make their preparations, and procure residences in other places. When this is effected, your lordships will have accomplished a measure well pleasing to God, advantageous to the name of the Reformed salutary to the wanderers, and gratifying to us, who are connected with your lordships by the close tie of religion, and will serve as an influential example to all those who strive under the glorious name of the meek Savior. We entreat Almighty God that he would shed the light of his truth upon your lordships, and upon the commonwealth, and grant you long prosperity.
“Your lordships’ humble friends,
“The Burgomasters and Regents of Rotterdam.
“Rotterdam, Feb. 14, 1660.”
All these benevolent efforts, however, had but little effect, so deeply were the principles of intolerance implanted int eh breasts of these merciless Reformers.
Eleven years after the event above described, was the great persecution in which many lost their lives, and about seven hundred, old and young were driven into exile.4
This is a mere epitome of the persecutions which were inflicted on the anabaptists or Mennonites in Switzerland, by that branch of the Protestants who took the name of the Reformed Church.5
I have given the naked facts, without note or comment, as I have felt such an ineffable horror and disgust at the conduct of a set of men who had lately abjured the Church of Rome, that I was afraid to give utterance to the almost irrepressible indignation which continually arose in my breast.6
This account, as before stated, embraces a period of about one hundred and fifty years, from the Reformation till about the close of the seventeenth century. At this time the Mennonites had become fully organized as a distinct denomination, and had become free from persecution, so far as the United Provinces were concerned. This event I shall describe in the language of Dr. Mosheim:
“The Mennonites, after having been long in an uncertain and precarious situation, 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 distinguished Prince began his efforts in favor of a full toleration for all the subjects of the rising Republic, about 1575, but it was nearly the close of the century before he could carry through his noble plan, so strong was the opposition made to it in some parts of his dominions.7
The cantons of Switzerland, and those of Zurich, and Berne, in particular, held an inglorious preeminence for Protestant intolerance and oppression. And it is a singular fact, that the places which were most fatal to the anabaptists under Catholic rule, in the sixteenth century, offered them a safe asylum in the succeeding one, with the Protestants, under the reign of the Illustrious Prince of Orange, and his successors, had gained the ascendancy.
A bloody drama was enacted near Antwerp. Three thousand men, under the lead of a young nobleman, wholly inexperienced, but who had left college to fight in behalf of religious liberty, were, on March 12th, 1567, wholly exterminated by the king’s troops. The fight, which had lasted from day-break till ten o’clock, had been witnessed by the citizens from the walls of Antwerp. In that city, there were forty thousand people opposed to the Church of Rome, of whom the greater portion were Calvinists. The scene that followed is thus described:
“A terrible tumult prevailed. Ten thousand men were already up and in arms. It was then that the Prince of Orange, who was sometimes described as timid and pusillanimous by nature, showed the mettle he was made of. His sense of duty no longer bade him defend the crown of Philip – but the vast population of the Antwerp, the women, the children, and the enormous wealth of the richest city in the world, had been confined to his care, and he had accepted the responsibility. Mounting his horse, he made his appearance instantly at the Red Gate, before as formidable a mob as man has ever faced. He came there almost alone, without guards. Hoogstraaten, (the acting Governor in the absence of the Prince,) arrived soon afterwards with the same intention. The Prince was received with howls of execration. A thousand hoarse voices called hi the Pope’s servant, minister of anti-Christ, and lavished upon him many more epithets of the same nature. His life was in imminent danger. A furious clothier leveled an arquebus full at his breast. ‘Die, treacherous villain!’ he cried, ‘thou who ar the cause that our brethren have perished thus miserably in yonder field.’ The loaded weapon was struck away by another hand in the crowd, while the Prince, neither daunted by the ferocious demonstrations against his life, nor enraged by the virulent abuse to which he was subjected, continued tranquilly, earnestly, imperatively, to address the crowd. William of Orange had that in his face and tongue ‘which men willingly call master – authority.’ With what other talisman could he, without violence and without soldiers, have quelled even for a moment, ten thousand furious Calvinists, armed, enraged against his person, and thirsting for vengeance on Catholics. The postern of the Red Gate had already been broken through before Orange and his colleague, Hoogstraaten, had arrived. The most excited of the Calvinists were preparing to rush forth upon the enemy. The Prince, after he had gained the ear of the multitude, urged that the battle was over, that the reformers were entirely cut to pieces, the enemy retiring, and that a disorderly and ill-armed mob would be unable to retrieve the fortunes of the day.”8
Passing by the intervening incidents, in which the enemy, not sufficiently strong to assault the gates, had taken his departure, and great tumult prevailed in the city, – fifteen thousand Calvinists, all armed and fighting men, having assembled upon the Mere, – we take up the narrative where the energy of the Prince is again called into action:
“A tremendous mischief was afoot. Threats of pillaging the churches and houses of the Catholics, of sacking the whole opulent city, were distinctly heard among this powerful mob, excited by religious enthusiasm, but containing within one heterogeneous mass the elements of every crime which humanity can commit. The alarm throughout the city was indescribable. The cries of women and children, as they remained in trembling expectation of what the next hour might bring forth, were, said one who heard them, ‘enough to soften the hardest hearts.’ Nevertheless, the diligence and courage of the Prince kept pace with the insurrection. * * * At the peril of his life he had again gone before the angry mob in the Mere, advancing against their cannon and their outcries, and compelling them to appoint eight deputies to treat with him and the magistrates at the town hall. This done, quickly but deliberately, he had drawn up six articles, to which the deputies gave assent, and in which the city government cordially united. * * * These arrangements, when laid before the assembly at the Mere, by their deputies, were not received with favor. The Calvinists demanded the keys of the city. They did not choose to be locked up at the mercy of any man. * * * It was not nightfall, and no definite arrangement had been concluded. Nevertheless, a temporary truce was made, by means of a concession as to the guard. * * * A night of dreadful expectation was passed. The army of fifteen thousand mutineers remained encamped and barricaded on the Mere, with guns loaded and artillery appointed. Fierce cries of * * * ‘Down with the Papists,’ and other significant watchwords, were heard all night long, but no serious outbreak occurred.
“During the whole of the following day the Calvinists remained within their encampment, the Catholics and the city guardsmen at their posts near the city hall. The Prince was occupied in the Council Chamber from morning till night with the municipal authorities, the deputies of the religion, and the guild officers, in framing a new treaty of peace. * * * During the night the Prince Labored incessantly to provide against the dangers of the morrow. The Calvinists had fiercely expressed the disinclination to any reasonable arrangement. They had threatened, without further pause, to plunder the religious houses and the mansions of all the wealthy Catholics, and to drive very Papist out of the town. They had summoned the Lutherans to join with them in their revolt, and menaced them in case of refusal, with the same fate which awaited the Catholics. The Prince, who was himself a Lutheran, not entirely free from the universal prejudice against the Calvinists, whose sect he afterwards embraced, was fully aware of the deplorable fact that the enmity at that day between Calvinists and Lutherans was as fierce as that between Reformers and Catholics. He now made use of this feeling, and of his influence with those of the Augsburg Confession, to save the city.”9
Through the advice of the Prince, the Lutherans, in the silence of the night, took arms and encamped, to the number of three or four thousand, and agreed to form an alliance with the Catholics and all the friends of order, against the army of outlaws who were threatening to burn and sack the city. All the foreign mercantile associations also entered into the alliance, and were ready to act at a moment’s warning. On the morning of the 15th of March, the city of Antwerp presented a fearful sight. Three distinct points within its walls – the Calvinists, fifteen thousand strong, the Lutherans, armed and eager for action, and the Catholics and the regulars of the city guard. The Calvinists had stormed the city jail and liberated the prisoners, all of whom, grateful and ferocious, came to swell their numbers. They had also broken into the arsenal and obtained many field-pieces, which were planted at the entrance of every street and by-way approaching the Mere.
“Between thirty-five and forty thousand men were up, according to the most moderate computation. All parties were excited, and eager for the fray. The fires of religious hatred burned fiercely in every breast. Many malefactors and outlaws, who had found refuge in the course of recent events at Antwerp, were in the ranks of the Calvinists, profaning a sacred cause, and inspiring a fanatical party with bloody resolution. ‘Let the men who had fed on the spoils of plundered christians be dealt with in like fashion.’ ‘Let their houses be sacked, their bodies given to the dogs,’ – such were the cries uttered by thousands of armed men.
“On the other hand, the Lutherans as angry and as rich as the Catholics, saw in every Calvinist a murderer and a robber. They thirsted after their blood; for the spirit of religious frenzy, the characteristic of the century, can with difficulty be comprehended in our colder and more skeptical age. There was every probability that a blood battle was to be fought that day in the streets of Antwerp – a general engagement, in the course of which, whoever might be victorious, the city was sure to be delivered over to fire, sack and outrage. Such would have been the result, according to the concurrent testimony of eye witnesses, and contemporary historians of every country and creed, but for the courage of one man. William of Orange knew what would be the consequence of a battle, pent up within the walls of Antwerp. He foresaw the horrible havoc which was to be expected, the desolation which would be brought to every hearth in the city. ‘Never were men so desparate and so willing to fight,’ said Sir Thomas Gresham, who had been expecting every hour his summons to share in the conflict. If the Prince was unable that morning to avert the impending calamity, no other power, under heaven, could save Antwerp from destruction.”10
But the Prince succeeded in gaining the approval of the Lutherans and Catholics to the articles prepared on the 14th, and proceeded to the camp of the Calvinists to obtain their assent also. H ewas accompanied only by Hoogstraaten and a hundred troopers, all wearing red scarfs over their armor, as symbols by which all those who had united to put down the insurrection were distinguished. The fifteen thousand Calvinists, fierce and disorderly as ever, maintained a threatening aspect. Nevertheless the Prince was allowed to ride into the midst of the square. The articles having been read aloud, he pointed out the justness of their conditions – one of which being the right of religious worship – and told them that a struggle on their part would be hopeless, for the Catholics and Lutherans, who were all agreed as to the justice of the treaty, outnumbered them by nearly two to one. He, therefore, most earnestly and affectionately adjured them to testify their acceptance of the peace offered by repeating the words with which he should conclude. Then, with a firm voice, the Prince exclaimed, “God save the king!” It was the last time that those words were ever heard from the lips of the man already proscribed by Philip. The crowd of Calvinists hesitated an instant, and then, unable to resist the tranquil influence, convinced by his reasonable language, they raised one tremendous shout of “Vive le Roi!”
“The deed was done, the peace accepted, the dreadful battled averted, Antwerp saved. The deputies of the Calvinists now formally signed the articles. Kind words were exchanged among the various classes of fellow citizens, who but an hour before had been thirsting for each other’s blood, and artillery and other weapons of war were restored to the arsenals. Calvinists, Lutherans, and Catholics, all laid down their arms, and the city, by three o’clock, was entirely quiet. Fifth thousand armed men had been up, according to some estimates, yet after three days of dreadful expectation, not a single person had been injured, and the tumult was now appeased.
“The Prince had, in truth, used the mutual animosity of the Protestant sects to a good purpose; averting bloodshed by the very weapons with which the battle was to have been waged.”11
Here we have an instructive example. The historian informs us that the Calvinists had determined upon the extermination of both Catholic and Lutherans, unless the latter came to their aid against the former, and that the Lutherans, on the other hand, thirsted after the blood of the Calvinists. But he apologized for both, on the ground that such a spirit of religious frenzy was characteristic of that country, and that such a condition of things can be comprehended with difficulty in our colder and more skeptical age.”
Thus wrote Mr. Motley, in his second volume, published in 1860; and thus he thought, doubtless, in 1861, when he set out as minister to a foreign court. But had he remained here, during ’62, ’63, and ‘64, he would have changed his opinion. He could have heard as bitter expressions of hatred and revenge, even from many professing Christians, previously the most calm and dignified inmates of our churches, as ever dropt from the lips of an excited Calvinist or Lutheran in Antwerp. He could have learned that now, as in the days of Philip, war has no Christian aspects, no Christian basis, but ever tends to engender suspicion, bitterness, cruelty, bloodshed.
At present we descend not to particulars. Enough has occurred, we would only remark, during our civil war, to demonstrate that blood-thirstiness is not limited to Catholicism, to Calvinism, to Lutheranism; is not inherent in any organization of Christians who accept the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel; but that it may be developed in all. The passions engendered by war belong not to the Gospel; they are the legitimate fruits of fallen human nature, unsanctified by the Holy Spirit; and must ever recur, as long as the Spirit of Christ is not the dominant element in the hearts of professions Christians. Hence the tremendous moral responsibility resting upon those who demand bloodshed as a means of eradicating moral evils.
I submit to you chapters 8 and 9 of Beebe's book entitled "The History of Protestant Priestcraft in America and Europe." I have included both chapters in this submission because chapter 8 was fairly small and chapter 9 is the conclusion of Part 1 of the book.
In chapter 9 there are some pretty extensive footnotes. In the document I am currently typing out these footnotes are located on the same page of the point in focus but unfortunately in this e-mail format they are located at the end of the document. Therefore I have included a pdf version of what is below so that the footnotes are easier to find and understand.
As always, I appreciate any comments! For example, is the font a good size in this email or should it be smaller or larger?
A Sinner in Hope,
Tom
===================================
THE HISTORY OF PROTESTANT PRIEST-CRAFT IN AMERICA AND EUROPE
Elder Gilbert Beebe
BANNER OF LIBERTY
1865
THE HISTORY OF PROTESTANT PRIEST-CRAFT IN AMERICA AND EUROPE
Elder Gilbert Beebe
BANNER OF LIBERTY
1865
CHAPTER VIII.
We have now traced the “Reformation” in its deeds in Europe down from the beginning, in the reign of Henry VIII., to the American Revolution.
We have now traced the “Reformation” in its deeds in Europe down from the beginning, in the reign of Henry VIII., to the American Revolution.
We have seen how cruelly the Catholics and other Dissenters were treated under the “good Queen Bess,” and James I.; we have seen how they were fined, mulcted, robbed, pillaged, and punished in body; but, though the penal code against them was then such as to make every just man shudder with horror, we think it then gentleness when we look at its subsequent ferocity. We have seen how they were fined, hunted, harassed, robbed, pillaged, in the reign of “good Bess.” We have seen the same in the reign of her immediate successor, with this addition, that Englishmen were then handed over to be pillaged by Scotchmen. We have seen that Charles I., for whom they afterwards fought against Cromwell, treated them as cruelly as the two former. We have seen Charles II., most ungratefully abandon them to the persecutions of the church by law established.
But it was after James II., was set aside that the penal code grew really horrible. And here it is of the greatest consequence to the cause of truth that we trace this code to its real authors; namely, the Clergy of the Established Church. This is evident enough through the whole of this Church’s history; but, until the reign of James II., the sovereign was of the Church religion; so that the persecutions appeared to come from him or her. But now, when the King was for softening the penal code; when the King was for toleration; now the world saw who were the real persecutors; and this is a matter to be fully explained and understood, before we come to a more minute account of the code, and to the causes which finally led to its, in great part, abolition.
James II., wished to put an end to the penal code; he wished for general toleration; he issued a proclamation, suspending all penal laws relating to religion, and granting a general liberty of conscience to all his subjects. This was his offence. For this he and his family were seta side for ever! No man can deny this. The clergy of the Church set themselves against him. Six of the bishops presented to him an insolent petition against the exercise of this, his prerogative, enjoyed and exercised by all his predecessors. They led the way in that opposition which produced the “glorious revolution,” and they were the most active and the most bitter of all the foes of that unfortunate king, whose only real offence was his wishing to give liberty of conscience to all his subjects.
Now, we are going to give a sketch of this terrible code. It went on increasing in bulk and in cruelty, from the coronation of Elizabeth, till nearly twenty years after that of George III., till events came, as we shall see, and broke it up. It consisted, at last, of more than a hundred Acts of Parliament, all made for the express purpose of punishing men because, and only because, they continued faithfully to adhere to their religion. The code differed, in some respects, in its application with regard to England and Ireland respectively.
In England, this code, I., stripped Non-conformist peers of their hereditary right to sit in Parliament; II., It stripped gentlemen of their right to be chosen Members of the Commons’ House; III., It took from all Non-conformists the right to vote at elections, and though Magna Charta says that no man shall be taxed without his own consent, it double-taxed every man who refused to abjure his religion, and thus become an apostate; IV., It shut them out from all offices of power and trust, even the most insignificant; V., It fined them at the rate of 20l., a month for keeping away from that Church, to go to which they deemed apostacy; VI., It disabled them from keeping arms in their houses for their defense, from maintaining suits at law, from being guardians or executors, from practicing in law or physic, from travelling five miles from their houses, and all these under heavy penalties in case of disobedience; VII., If a married woman kept away from Church, she forfeited two-thirds of her dower, she could not be executrix to her husband, and might, during her husband’s lifetime, be imprisoned, unless ransomed by him at 10l., a month; VIII., It enabled any four justices of the peace, in case a man had been convicted of not going to church, to call him before them, to compel him to abjure his religion, or, if he refused, to sentence him to banishment for life (without judge or jury), and, if he returned he was to suffer death; IX., It enabled any two justices of the peace to call before them, without any information, any man that they chose, above sixteen years of age, and if such man refused to abjure his religion, and continued in his refusal for six months, he was rendered incapable of possessing land, and any land, the possession of which might belong to him, came into the possession of the next law-church heir, who was not obliged to account for any profits; X., It made such man incapable of purchasing lands, and all contracts made by him, or for him, were null and void; XI., It imposed a fine of 10l., a month for employing a Catholic schoolmaster in a private family, and 2l., a day on the schoolmaster so employed; XII., It imposed 100l., fine for sending a child to a Catholic foreign school, and the child so sent was disabled from ever inheriting, purchasing, or enjoying lands or profits, goods, debts, legacies, or sums of money; XIII., It punished the saying of mass by a fine of 120l., and the hearing of mass with a fine of 60l.; XIV., Any Catholic priest who returned from beyond the seas, and did not abjure his religion in three days afterwards, and also any person who returned to a Catholic faith, or procured another to return to it, this merciless, this sanguinary code punished with hanging, ripping out of bowels, and quartering.
In Ireland the code was still more ferocious, more hideously bloody; for, in the first place, all the cruelties of the English code had, as the work of a few hours, a few strokes of the pen, in one single act, been inflicted on unhappy Ireland; and then, in addition, the Irish code contained, amongst many other violations of all the laws of justice and humanity, the following twenty most savage punishments. – I. A Catholic schoolmaster, private or public, or even usher to a Protestant, was punished with imprisonment, banishment, and finally as a felon. – II. The Catholic clergy were not allowed to be in the country, without being registered, and kept as a sort of prisoners at large, and rewards were given (out of the revenue raised in part on the Catholics) for discovering them, 50l., for an archbishop or bishop, 20l., for a priest, and 10l., for a schoolmaster or ushers. – III. Any two justices of the peace might call before them any Catholic, order him to declare, on oath, where and when he heard mass, who were present, and the name and residence of any priest or schoolmaster that he might know of; and, if he refused to obey this inhuman inquisition, they had power to condemn him (without judge or jury) to a year’s imprisonment in a felon’s gaol, or to pay 20l. – IV. No Catholic could purchase any manors, nor even hold under a lease for more than thirty-one years. – V. Any law-churchman, if he suspected any one of holding property in trust for a Catholic, or of being concerned in any sale, lease, mortgage, or other contract, for a Catholic; any law-churchman thus suspecting, might file a bill against the suspected trustee, and take the estate or property from him. – VI. Any law-churchman, seeing a Catholic tenant of a farm, the produce of which farm exceeded the amount of the rent by more than one-third, might dispossess the Catholic, and enter on the lease in his stead. – VII. Any law-churchman, seeing a Catholic with a horse worth more than five pounds, might take the horse away from him upon tendering him five pounds. – VIII. In order to prevent the smallest chance of justice in these and similar cases, none but known law-churchmen were to be jurymen in the trial of any such cases. – IX. Horses of Catholics might be seized for the use of militia; and besides this, Catholics were compelled to pay double towards the militia. – X. Merchants whose ships and goods might be taken by privateers, during a war with a Catholic prince, were to be compensated for their losses by a levy on the goods and lands of Catholics only, though, mind, Catholics were, at the same time, impressed, and obliged to shed their blood in the war against that same Catholic prince. – XI. Property of a Protestant, whose heirs at law were Catholics, was to go to the nearest Protestant relation, just the same as if the Catholic heirs had been dead, though the property might be entailed on them. – XII. If there were no Protestant heir, then, in order to break up all Catholic families, the entail and all heirship were set aside, and the property was divided, share and share, amongst all the Catholic heirs. – XIII. If a Protestant had an estate in Ireland, he was forbidden to marry a Catholic in or out of Ireland. – XIV. All marriages between Protestants and Catholics were annulled, though many children might have proceeded from them. – XV. Every priest who celebrated a marriage between a Catholic and a Protestant, or between two Protestants, was condemned to be hanged. – XVI. A Catholic father could not be guardian to, or have the custody of, his own child, if the child, however young, pretended to be a Protestant; but the child was taken from its own father, and put into the custody of a Protestant relation. – XVII. If any child of a Catholic became a Protestant, the parent was to be instantly summoned, and to be made to declare, upon oath, the full value of his or her property of all sorts, and then the Chancery was to make such distribution of the property as it though fit. – XVIII. “Wives, be obedient unto your own husband,” says the great Apostle. “Wives, be disobedient to them,” said this horrid code; for if the wife of a Catholic chose to turn Protestant, it set aside the will of the husband, and made her a participator in all his possessions, in spite of him, however immoral, however bad a wife, or bad a mother she might have been. – XIX. “Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” “Dishonor them,” said this savage code; for if any one of the sons of a Catholic father became a Protestant, this son was to possess all the father had, and the father could not sell, could not mortgage, could not leave legacies, or portions out of his estate, by whatever title he might hold it, even though it might have been the fruit of his own toil. – XX. Lastly (of this score, but this is only a part), “the Church, as by law established,” was in her great indulgence, pleased not only to open her doors, but to award (out of the taxes) thirty pounds a year for life to any Catholic priest who would abjure his religion, and declare his belief in hers!
As to the injustice, and to the barbarity, as to the flagrant immorality of the above code, they call for no comment, being condemned by the spontaneous voice of nature herself; but in this shocking assemblage, there are two things which impel us to ask, whether the love of truth, whether a desire to eradicate religious error, could have formed any part, however small, of the motives of these punishers? These two things are, the reward offered to Catholic priests to induce them to come over to the Church, and the terrible means made use of to prevent the inter-marriage of Catholics and Protestants. Could these measures ever have suggested themselves to the minds of men who sincerely believed that the law-church religion was supported by arguments more cogent then those by which the Catholic religion was supported? The Law-Church had all the powers, all the honors, all the emoluments, all the natural worldly allurements. These she continually held out to all who were disposed to the clerical order. And if, in addition to all these, she had felt strong in argument, would she have found it necessary to offer, in direct and barefaced words, a specific sum of money to any one who would join her – break his solemn vow in order to be entitled to the pay? And as the intermarriages, why not suffer them? why punish them so severely? why annul them if the Law-Church were sure that the arguments in her favor were the most cogent and convincing? Who has so much power over the mind of woman as her husband? who over man as his wife?
Talk of the “fires in Smithfield!” Fires, indeed, which had no justification, and which all Catholics of this day severely condemn: but what was the death of about two hundred and seventy-seven persons, however cruel and unmerited that death, to the torments above described, inflicted for more than two hundred years, on millions upon millions of people, to say nothing about the thousands upon thousands who were, during that period, racked to death, killed in prison, hanged, disemboweled, and quartered. And if these punishments were unjust and cruel, as all sane men agreed that they were, what shall we say of, how shall we express sufficient abhorrence of the above penal code, which was for the punishment, not of a few, but of millions of people? If we find no justification, and none, we all say there was, for the punishments of Mary’s reign, inflicted, as all men know they were, on very few persons – for the most part either notorious traitors or felons, and, at the very least, conspirators against the Queen; if we find no justification, and we all agree that there was none for these punishments, inflicted, as all men know they were, during a few months of furious and unreflecting zeal. If we find, even under such circumstances, no justification for these punishments, where are we to look for, not a justification, but for a ground of qualification of our abhorrence of the above-mentioned barbarities of more than two hundred years, inflicted upon millions upon millions of people: barbarities premeditated in the absence of all provocation; contrived and adopted in all the calmness of legislative deliberation; executed in cold blood, and persevered in for ages in defiance of the admonitions of conscience; barbarities inflicted, not on felons, conspirators, and rebels, but on innocent persons, on those who had, under all and every circumstance, even while feeling the cruel lash of persecution, been as faithful to their king as to their God; and as if we were never to come to the end of the atrocity, all this done, too, with regard to Ireland, in flagrant breach of a solemn treaty with the English king!
And is this the “tolerant, the mild, the meek Church as by law established?” Have we here the proofs of faith and good works?
But now all of a sudden, in 1778, the face of things began to change; the Church, as by law established, was all at once though capable of existing in safety with a great relaxation of the penal code! And we find the code suddenly softened by divers Acts of Parliament in both countries, and especially in Ireland! This humanity and generosity will surprise us; we shall wonder when it came; we shall be ready to believe the souls of the parties to have been softened by a sort of miracle until we see the real cause of this surprising humanity and generosity; – the Americans unfurling the standard of independence, and having been backed by France, pushing on towards success, and thereby setting an example to ever oppressed people, in every part of the world, unhappily, trodden down Ireland not excepted! There was, too, before the end of the war, danger of invasion on the part of France, who was soon joined in the war by Spain and Holland; so that, before the close of the contest, the Catholics and other Dissenters had obtained leave to breathe the air of their native county in safety. Thus was fear gratified, in a moment, at the very first demand, with a surrender of that which had, for ages, been refused to the incessant pleadings of justice and humanity; and thus the American revolution, as we have seen, grew immediately out of the “no-popery” or “glorious” revolution in England.
In former chapters we have followed the “Reformation,” and its fruits in Great Britain, down to the period of the American Revolution, in doing which we have copied almost altogether from Cobbett’s History of the Reformation. We shall now go back to the times of the German “Reformers,” Luther, Calvin and Zuinglius, and take a view of the fruits of their “Reformations.” Although we shall devote must less space to this branch of our History, we shall devote sufficient to show that the same infernal spirit of intolerance prevailed with these great “Reformers,” and their followers, leading to as cruel persecutions of dissenters as any that ever disgraced mankind or caused humanity to shudder. In fact it will be seen that there was a perfect accord in narrow-brained clerical tyranny between the German and British Puritans, from the beginning.
We shall commence with the following extract from Orchard’s History of Foreign Baptists:
“The tones of authority assumed by Luther, and his magisterial conduct towards those who differed from him, made it evident that he would be head of the reformers. He and his colleagues had now to dispute their way with hosts of Baptists all over Germany, Saxony, Thuringia, Switzerland, and other kingdoms, for several years. Conferences on baptism were held in different kingdoms, which continued from 1516 to 1527. The support which the Baptists had from Luther’s writings, made the reformer’s efforts of little effect. At Zurich, the Senate warned the people to desist from the practice of re-baptizing, but all their warnings were in vain. The efforts to check the increase of Baptists being ineffectual, carnal measures were selected. The first edict against anabaptism was published at Zurich, in 1525, in which there was a penalty of a silver mark set upon all such as should suffer themselves to be re-baptized, or should withhold baptism from their children. And it was further declared that those who openly opposed this order, should be yet severely treated. This being insufficient to check immersion, the Senate decreed, like Honorius, in 413, that all persons who professed anabaptism, or harbored the professors of the doctrine, should be punished with death by drowning. It had been death to refuse baptism, and now it was death to be baptized; such is the weather-cock-certainty of State religion. In defiance of this law, the Baptists preserved their regular discipline; and some ministers of learned celebrity realized the severity of the sentence. Many Baptists were drowned and burnt. These severe measures, which continued for years, had the consent of the reformers, which injured greatly the Lutheran cause. Wherever the Baptists settled, Luther played the part of universal bishop. He wrote to princes and Senates to engage them to expel such dangerous men; but it was their refusing to own his authority, and admit his exposition of the scriptures, which led him to preach and publish books against them, taxing them with disturbing the peace. We have recorded that the Baptists were the common objects of aversion to Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists, whose united zeal was directed to their destruction. So deeply were the prejudices interwoven with the state party, that the knights, on oath, were to declare their abhorrence of anabaptism. The sentiments of these people, and which were so disliked by statesmen, clergy and reformers, may be stated under five views, viz: A love of civil and religious liberty in opposition to magisterial dominion; and affirmation of the sufficiency and simplicity of revelation, in opposition to scholastic theology; a zeal for self-government, opposition to clerical authority; a requisition to clerical authority; a requisition of the reasonable service of a personal profession of christianity rising out of man’s own convictions, in opposition to the practice of force on infants – the whole of which they deemed superstition, or enthusiasm; and the indefensible necessity of virtue in every individual member of a christian church, in distinction from all speculative creeds, all rites and ceremonies, and parochial divisions. These views, to the statesman, were adverse to his line of policy with his peasants; to the clergy they were offensive, since it placed every man on a level with the priesthood, and sanctioned one to instruct another; to the reformers they were objectionable, since they broke the national tie, and allowed all persons equal liberty to think, choose, and act in the affairs of the soul; thus these sentiments were the aversion of all. An edict issued by Frederick, at a later period, shows how unpalatable these views were. His majesty expressed his astonishment at the number of anabaptists, and his horror at the principal error which they embraced, which was, that according to the express declaration of the holy scriptures, (1 Cor. vii. 23,) they were to submit to no human authority. He adds, that his conscience compelled him to proscribe them, and accordingly he banished them from his dominions on pain of death.
‘This maxim is the true source of the peculiarities of the Baptists,’ says Mosheim, ‘that the visible church was exempt from all those institutions which human prudence suggested;’ but this view of religion, the State and the reformed, could not receive.
Disputations on the subject of baptism continued through this year (1526) and the ensuing year; and the system of drowning those whom the reformers could not convert was still in prevalent use. The reformers’ influence and reflection on the Baptists, with the Catholic hatred, made the situation of our brethren very critical, independent of the iron bondage many endured under their lords.”
Although the old anabaptists had such high expectation from Luther’s reforming efforts in the beginning, and from his decided approbation of their mode of baptism, as being entirely conformable to the primitive pattern, yet the reformer so soon and so violently fell out with them on account of their desire to carry the reformation much further than his secular model had prescribed, that not much by the way of union was effected between the parties.
Calvin’s and Zuinglius’ community or the Presbyterian party – the German reformers – conducted their negotiations with the Waldenses and other oppressed and persecuted parties with consummate skill and with great success; they did not at first require of them full conformity to their standard, as Luther had done, but allowed them entire freedom to follow their own rules of discipline, and continue their old ecclesiastical organization. But one thing was laid down with great firmness and decision, they must not re-baptize any who had been admitted to that sacrament, in infancy, or in riper years. In a word, in the language of the times, anabaptism must be renounced by all who were admitted to their friendship and communion. The sad effects of this law against anabaptism we shall see fully exemplified in the history of the Mennonites.
Although these old anabaptist communities were permitted to confederate with the reformers in their present condition, yet being obliged by the terms of the compact to acknowledge the validity of infant baptism, and never more to to re-baptize any who united with their churches who had been baptized in infancy, whether by Protestants or Catholics, was, as legislators say, butting off the first section of the bill; open communion was established upon a broad scale, and in process of time the whole Baptists interest in Germany and all other parts of the continent was absorbed by the pædobaptist reformers, except that part of of it which adhered to the Mennonites.
Benedict, in his voluminous history of the Baptists, says:
“Historical veracity obliges me to record the following decrees of a Protestant legislature, which I will do in the language of Mr. Bracht:
Of a certain edict issued by the people of Zurich, against the Baptists, A. D. 1525. – This year, the Zuinglian Reformed, in Zurich, laid their hands upon the innocent and defenseless lambs of Christ; yet, as far as we know, they did not inflict any capital punishment upon them, or deprive them of their life by the executioner, but kept them in close confinement till death was the consequence, as may be supposed. But in order to give notice how they should conduct themselves for the present and the future, the magistrates of the city ordained the following:
‘We, therefore, ordain and require, that hereafter all men, women, boys and girls forsake re-baptism, and shall not make use of it hereafter; and they shall let infants be baptized; whosoever shall act contrary to this public edict, shall be find for every offence, one mark; and if any be disobedient and stubborn, they shall be treated with severity; for, the obedient we will protect; the disobedient we will punish according to his deserts, without fail; by this all are to conduct themselves. All this we confirm by this public document, stamped with the seal of our city, and given on St. Andrew’s day, A. D. 1525.’
When this edict was drawn up, the Zuinglian church had existed but five years, and where themselves the subjects of the hatred of the Papists; but they had already begun to persecute those who differed from them in faith. But it would have been well had it stopped with this edict, for when an infant was not permitted to be baptized, reparation could be made by a silver mark, &c., but it did not continue at this; for some years subsequently, and particularly A. D. 1530, having taking courage, they decreed that the anabaptists should be punished with death. This will be treated of in its place.”
The second edict issued at Zurich, threatening all the so-called Anabaptists with death, A. D. 1530. – “A certain writer says, that the Zuinglian church, from its beginning, had a particular hatred and antipathy against the anabaptists, as historians tell us; therefore, they commenced very early to tyranize over them, and according to our opinion, the Zuinglian church had not existed more than ten years when this abuse commenced.
“But they did not abide with this, but they went on with their tyranny till there was an edict issued, A. D. 1530, which equaled the bloody decrees of the Roman emperor. In it was written:
“ ‘We, therefore, determinately command all the citizens of this land, and all those who are any the least connected therewith, namely the chief and under officers, town councils, judges, church deacons and deaconesses, that if they meet with any anabaptists that they will report them to us, according to their oat, not to suffer them anywhere, nor let them increase, but to imprison them and deliver them to us; for we will, according to law, punish with death all the anabaptists and those that adhere to them; and we will also punish those without mercy who aid them, who will not report or disperse them, or do not surrender them to us to be imprisoned; we will punish them all according to their demerits, as such as have violated the oath which they swore to the magistracy.’ This is literally taken from the edict as Bullinger compiled it.”
We are now prepared to make selections proposed. Hans Koch and Leonhard Meister were put to death at Ausburg, A D. 1524, just in the opening scene of the Reformation. These men were reputed to have been descendants of the Bohemian and Moravian Waldenses. They are placed at the head of the long catalogue of martyrs, by this old anabaptist historian.”
“Balthazar Hubmor published a small book, in which he complains of Zuinglius and his Protestant followers, thus: ‘They have carried it so far as to imprison at one time, in a dark tower, twenty persons, consisting of men, pregnant women, widows and young girls; and to pass on them, the following sentence: That they shall never see the light of the sun, nor of the moon, and shall finish their lives on bread and water. For this purpose, they shall all remain in a dark tower, the living having to endure the noisome stench of the dead, till there be no more of them remaining.’
“Some ate nothing for three days, that the rest might have something to eat, &c. ‘O, God!” continues he, ‘what a severe and rigorous doom for pious christians, to whose charge no offence could be laid, only that they had received re-baptism, according to the commandments of Christ. O, distressing deformation we say,k of the re-formers so-called! The Lord forgive them, and be merciful to their souls, in their blind zeal.’”
We again quote from Benedict’s History: – The first decree of the Senate of Zurich, one of the cantons of Switzerland, then under the influence of the Reformers, in 1525, has already been given. But little is said by our author of the doings of any class of the Protestants for about half a century from this period. Martyrdom’s are occasionally reported, particularly in the city of Berne, but from the disposition everywhere shown towards the obnoxious opposers of infant baptism, and particularly by the followers of Zuinglius and Calvin, we have too much reason to believe that the number of victims were by no means small.
In 1577, a severe persecution broke out at Mittleberg, in Zealand, under the influence of the Calvinists, the effects of which were counteracted by the friendly efforts of the Prince of Orange, in favor of the oppressed anabaptists.
I will insert below the proclamation of this noble advocate for religious freedom, as it shows the good principles of the prince on one hand, and the unrighteous, vexations, and cruel policy of the continental Puritans on the other.
“1The Prince of Orange, Duke of Nassau, Lord and Baron of Breda, Diest, &c., to the noble, puissant, honorable, wise, &c.
“Whereas, certain lodgers, who reside there, and are Baptists, as it is said, have, in several complaints made known to us that you daily oppress them, and deprive them of an opportunity of making a living for themselves and family, in that you have prohibited them from opening their workshops under a pretext that they refuse to make oath in the form used by other citizens, all of which we have naturally considered; and whereas the aforementioned people offer to bear all burdens honestly along with other citizens, (yet, as regards the bearing of arms, which chiefly induces them so to act, they shall pay a fine according as you, or they who shall give orders in the matter, shall find expedient, according to the rules of justice and equity,) therefore it seems to us that you do very wrong in not permitting them to live in peace and quietness, according to the dictates of their mind and conscience, agreeably to the letter which we granted them on a former occasion, with the approval of the governor and council, and which they laid before you as they declare. As we perceive that you have been unwilling hitherto to regard it, and also our foregoing letter, therefore we are under the necessity, for the last time, to draw up this ordinance, in which we publicly declare to you that it does not pertain to you to oppress the conscience of any man when there is nothing done that would tend to the prejudice of any one; in which case we do not wish to respect and tolerate any man: Therefore, we command and expressly enjoin upon you, that you hereafter cease from oppressing the aforesaid people, namely the Baptists, or hinder them from pursuing their trades and business in order to make a living for wife and children; but that you permit them to open their shops and work at their trades as they formerly did, till such times, at least, as it shall be otherwise ordained by the States-general, to whom it appertains: – Therefore see that you undertake nothing contrary thereto, and contrary to the ordinance which we have granted them; and take no fines from them for the above-mentioned reasons, as long as they undertake nothing that tends to the prejudice of any man, and besides, bear all civil and lawful burdens, along with other citizens, &c. Nobles, puissant, honorable, wise, discreet, peculiar, we commend you to God.
“Written at Antwerp, July 16th, 1578.
“Copied by BAUDEMONT.
“The aforementioned copy was signed by the clerk Baudemont, and was found to agree with it by me. JACOB MASUREL.
“Subscribed, J. Masureel, Public Clerk.
“Remark. – Notwithstanding the prince, of blessed memory, so strictly commanded liberty of conscience in the worship of God, now the second time, yet the true fruit did not follow, though it was observed for some of the following years; for, after the decease of this good prince they commenced anew. However, it was prevented by his son, (as shall be related in the sequel,) by a third edict.”
This severe onset upon this defenseless people, was the more calamitous and destructive, as they were entirely off their guard, having reposed a full reliance on the safety which had lately been proclaimed to all religious parties in the new republic in which they resided, and under this impression, a large number of their members had collected her from other regions.
In the 17th century, the persecutions of the Reformers were pursued with increased severity, and so continued for a long course of years.
The brief account of the persecutions inflicted on the people under consideration, from 1600 and onward, is thus introduced by the author of the work now under review:
“This century’s account will be brief, not extending much beyond fifty years; the sufferings, moreover, are not so severe as in the preceding centuries. Decapitation, and death from hunger and prisons, are the severest punishments endured by the following witnesses of the lord. Moreover, though in this short period, the greatest mischief was occasioned by the departments of Zurich and Berne, by those who styled themselves Reformed; yet others of the same name, and especially the excellent regents of the United Netherlands, as friends of peace, and enemies to constraint of conscience, opposed such proceedings, and with paternal benevolence, exerted the utmost of their influence for the protection of the innocent objects of persecution. This work commences with Groeningen and Sneek, in Friesland, and terminates at Zurich and Berne, in Switzerland. This, therefore, must be the order of our arrangement.”
The edict of Groeningen, which was issued in 1601, was exceedingly severe on the anabaptists. The authorities of Aardenburg, Deventer, Berne, and Zurich, in the course of a few years, all came out with similar decrees. Some of their hard-bearing enactments were as follows:
1. That these people, at all hazards, nolens volens, willing or unwilling, must be converted to the creed of the dominant party, attend their churches, give up anabaptism, adopt the infant system, and conform in all things to their faith and forms. The prison, with bread and water, the lash, the stocks, fines of different graduations, and other light punishments, were provided for the first offence, banishment for the second, and death for the third.
2. An inventory of all their property, personal and real, must be rendered unto the ruling party, that they might know how to graduate their tariff on anabaptism and non-conformity, which was always extremely high, amounting literally to a prohibition.
3. No person was allowed to harbor the anabaptists, or afford them any comfort, or to suffer their meetings in their houses or on their estates.
4. All unbaptized children should be hindered from being heirs-at-law of property which would fall to them if they were under the seal of the covenant. And children whose parents had died, or fled the country, should be dealt with, so far as their property was concerned as to fines, confiscations, &c., in the same manner their parents would have been.
5. No teacher should exercise any of the functions of the ministry, especially should not administer any religious ordinances, without a license from the civil authority.
6. A refusal to participate in the business of war, or to take or administer oaths, was among the dangerous heresies of the times.
7. To close the whole, “We ordain that the exercise of all other religions but the Reformed is hereby prohibited.”
The following article exhibits the disposition of the church and authorities of Zurich more than two centuries ago. “On the 17th of March, the 17th of August, the 8th of September, and at the close of the year 1636, and finally in May 1637, nearly all the baptist brethren and sisters in Switzerland, and particularly in the department of Zurich, were summoned before a committee of the magistracy, composed of magistrates and ecclesiasticals. First at the castles Wadischwil, Kronav, and Groeningen, where they had to give in the names and families, which were recorded. Secondly, at the same castles, where they were required to conform to the general and public mode of worship, which they refused. Thirdly, at Zurich, in the Prebendary’s room, (not all, however, but a few) where a discussion was held with them respecting three articles of religion, namely, baptism, supper, and church discipline, or evangelical ex-communication; when, having explained themselves respecting these points, and the whole ground of their faith, and having asked their excellencies whether a person holding such a faith could be saved? they received this reply: yes, certainly, a person can be saved who holds such a faith. Nevertheless, the same evening that this occurred, they reviled and aspersed their faith, and menaced them; for as the proverb says: ‘when the fox skin is too short, they use the lion’s pelt.’
The fourth time, again, at the Prebendary’s room, it was proposed to them to give in an inventory of all their property, real and personal, with a promise that not a stiver should be taken from them, which they frankly complied with. Thus all their property was recorded, and afterwards seized. The fifth time, at the aforesaid castles, a pass being granted them. Here they were asked what they had determined to do with respect to the requisition of going to church; whereupon a letter from the high bailiff, by order of the authorities, was read out to them, stating that, if they would not go to church, and therein obey the authorities, they should be committed to prison in certain places, and have to look for no mercy. Meanwhile, the afore-said brethren and sisters asked permission several times to leave the country (taking their property with them), but it was not granted them; but two proposals were made them, either of which they might choose:
- To go with them to church, or
- To die in prison.
To the first they would not consent; therefore they had to expect the second.
Upward of twenty years after this, seven teachers and elders of the Mennonite church at Berne, whose names are all give, had the following choice of evils: – 1st, to go to the established church; or 2nd, to be perpetually consigned to the galleys; or, 3rd, to die by the hands of the executioners. This was in 1569. The result in regard to the prisoners, says our author, we were unable to ascertain; it is certain, however, that six years after, they were still in prison. The custom of sending these afflicted people to the galleys was by no means uncommon among the Reformers.
Most of the anabaptists were indeed poor, but a portion of them had more or less property, and the sacrifice of them by the intolerant oppressors, makes us shudder for the honor of the Protestant cause. A few instances of these unrighteous depredations we will now relate.
In 1637, a minister by the name of Hans Landfs, and two of his brethren were imprisoned, and their property was sold by the authorities for seven thousand florins, and applied to their own use. The minister was imprisoned full sixty weeks.
The same year, an anabaptist church was robbed of two thousand rix dollars in the following manner: the treasurer and his wife were both in prison; they brought the woman into the rack-room, brought in the executioner, and menaced her with severe torture, unless she would tell them where the money could be found. The poor woman, overwhelmed with terror, soon made the dangerous disclosure, and the church was suddenly stripped of all their supplies for the suffering poor. Another church was soon after deprived of nearly a thousand dollars in the same way.
In 1638, an old minister by the name of Hans Meyli, had all his property, both personal and real, taken from him, amounting to fourteen thousand florins. Two of the Reformed ministers are said to have assisted in this transaction.
The year after, Hans Arter and his wife, after being long harassed by these sanctimonious defenders of the church, by their prison discipline, in a wonderful manner escaped from their hands, leaving their children and property behind them. The authorities banished the innocent children, in conformity to their laws, from the country, sold their farm for four thousand florins, and left the family to wander in exile, in a state of destitution and want.
In 1639, Hans Jacob Hess died of a consumption in the prison of the old monastery of Otherback, near Zurich, which became a famous place in the hands of the Reformers for the incarceration of their victims, and his estate, amounting to four thousand florins, was confiscated. This man was also a minister.
Nine thousand six dollars were taken from Peter Bruback in 1640. Two large farms were taken from another of the members, the same year. And thus they went on in the work of imprisonment, banishment, and confiscation, now and then taking off their heads, or in other ways putting them to death, until they had driven most of these opposers of infant baptism and religious tyranny from the Swiss Cantons into the Netherlands and other countries, where they could enjoy tranquility and repose.
The loss of property was exceedingly severe; multitudes with valuable farms and other means of comfort and affluence, were suddenly robbed of all by a set of men who had promised them that not a stiver should be taken, if they would give them an honest list of all they possessed. But it soon turned out that the meaning was they must also attend their worship, and support it, and become converts to the Reformed religion, which condition was not appended at the time the inventory was given.
But the deprivation of all their earthly possessions was a light affair, compared with the vexatious excruciating and interminable sufferings to which they were every exposed. Not only the men, but the women and children were equally the victims of this Protestant intolerance. Females in all the trying conditions peculiar to their sex, after being chased like criminals and outlaws, were doomed to long confinement in gloomy and filthy abodes, and were often loaded with chains and made to suffer the tortures of the rack, as one of the means of grace in the process of their conversion to the religion of the Reformers.2
Parents who had long been driven in haste from the country, their houses and homes, when they came back to seek for their children, who had been scattered they knew not where, were often apprehended and doomed to suffer all the pains and penalties of their intolerant laws.
So intent were the Swiss Reformers in making all classes of people conform to their mode of worship, go to their church, and carry out their system of church building, that they often employed force to carry out their ways.3
After details of these shocking transactions are before me; some of the sufferers who had fled form the Swiss cantons, and settled in Germany, were still alive about two centuries ago; of some of the scenes described in this old book, the author was an eye witness; especially of the distresses which were endured by the refugees, when seven hundred, old and young, were driven out of the department of Berne, in 1671.
It is a singular fact, that while these Reformers were so wantonly sporting with the feelings of their defenseless neighbors and fellow beings, whom a mysterious providence had placed within their power, and making such awful havoc with their property and lives, at the same time, they made bitter complaints of the persecutions which were inflicted by the Catholics on the members of their own communion, in France, Hungary, and other places. Alas for the inconsistencies of fallible men, when hurried forward by the blindness of bigotry, and the rage of party zeal. References to a few public documents pertaining to the doings of these unhappy times, with some extracts from them, will carry out history from the Reformation to about the end of the seventeenth century.
In 1639, the lords of Zurich put forth an apology for their severe measures in defense of the Reformed religion, and against all who dissented from it.
The sum and substance of their impeachment against the anabaptists consisted in the two following things:
1. “That they had departed from the true principles of the Reformation, which they, the Reformers, had scrupulously maintained.
2. “That they, in continuing the practice of re-baptising, and in maintaining a separate church organization, ‘had withdrawn from the obedience which they owed to the christian church.’ ”
The manner in which they retorted on their accusers, will be related after the next document is noticed.
This effort on the part of the Reformers was loudly called for to wipe off the disgrace which had come upon them in the eyes of the world, in consequence of the maltreatment of the Baptists in Switzerland. “And as the city of Zurich had in a measure taken the lead in the ungodly work of persecution,” the rulers of the Church and State there were the first in the field in attempts to exculpate the whole party.
But twenty years after, the authorities of Berne, another stronghold of the Presbyterian party in Switzerland, came out in a very different style. They published, in 1659, an edict exceedingly severe against the anabaptists.
This article if a very lone one, and its syllogisms were much like those employed by the persecuting Puritans of this country, about the same time. In their way of reasoning, they made it out to a demonstration, that their victims deserved all the punishments they inflicted on them, for remaining so obstinate, and so very unaccommodating, as not to see the beauty of their church discipline, feel the force of their arguments, and become converted to their system.
The following passage is a fair specimen of the whole document:
“The anabaptists act contrary to necessary and beneficial regulations of the government, and transgress in the following ways:
“1. They preach with the calling and ratification of the magistracy.
“2. They baptize in their churches with the calling and command of the authorities.
“3. They pervert the church discipline, or have other church ordinances, contrary to the public ordinances or authorities.
“4. They attend no meetings of the church that are held on Sundays or fast days; therefore, as they will not submit as faithful subjects, to such ordinances and regulations as are in conformity to the word of God, but hold them in contempt, they are, therefore, not worthy of a residence in the country.
“For these multifarious and vitally important reasons, we have unanimously resolved, and it is our earnest wish, that all should reflect on this, that they constantly and without delay, practice said banishment and penalties thereunto pertaining, against all who belong to this corrupted and extremely dangerous thereunto pertaining, against all who belong to this corrupted and extremely dangerous and wicked sect, that they make no further progress, much less acquire increase; but that they much rather be expelled at once, by all possible means, and the country be freed from them – upon which in grace we rely.”
The rules were very minutely laid down how their officers should labor for the conversion of these wicked heretics; and how their preachers should address them after they had been admitted within the pale of their church. Whipping, branding with a red hot iron, perpetual banishment, confiscation of property, and other appliances of the kind, were very strongly recommended. But the work of conversion after all went but slowly on.
Various Remonstrances from Holland against the Persecutions of the Anabaptists in Switzerland. – The edict of Berne, to which we have lately referred, which operated with so much severity, and to such a wide extent against the people whom it was designed to exterminate from the country, was promulgated in August, 1659. As fugitives were soon flying in every direction into all the surrounding countries – the Protestant prisons were soon filled to overflowing with the victims of oppression, and the gloomy tidings of distress and misery were everywhere spread abroad, there was a general burst of sympathy in favor of these persecuted people, and six months after, by previous concert, a large delegation of their brethren from Dortrecht, Hærlen, Leyden, Amsterdam, Goude and Rotterdam, assembled at the Hague, and speedily prepared an humble petition to the court of Holland, then in session, in favor of their afflicted brethren. These noble advocates for religious freedom, took immediate cognizance of the matter, and interposed their friendly and paternal efforts in the case. They had no jurisdiction in the country where the persecutions prevailed, but as the church of Holland and Switzerland were of the same religious faith, and both of the Presbyterian order, they appealed to the persecutors as their own brethren, and besought them to cease from oppressing a community whom they could cordially recommend as good citizens and subjects; and whose religious peculiarities were in no way detrimental to the State. “Three letters were immediately written by order of their excellencies. The first to the lords of Berne for the liberation of the prisoners, &c. The second to those of Zurich, in reference to the restoration of the property of the imprisoned, deceased and exiled Baptists, which had been confiscated during the period from 1635, &c. The third was a passport for Adolf de Vrede, who was to go to Berne and Zurich, in Switzerland, in the name of the Baptists, or properly of those who had drawn up the aforesaid petition, and obtain the letter of intercession from their excellencies, and deliver the first two letters to the lords of those places for the purpose above mentioned. True copies of these letters have been forwarded to us; we will present them to the kind reader as far as regards the special circumstances of the case, and assign them a place in this book, in grateful remembrance of what the States-General of these happy United Netherlands did in this matter:
“The States-General, &c., to the City of Berne, in Switzerland – Noble, honorable, wise and provident lords, friends and neighbors: – We have learned from the complaint of several individuals, delegates from their church, called in this country Mennonites, citizens and residents of Dortrecht, Hærlen, Leyden, Amsterdam, Goude, and Rotterdam, cities of Holland, that their brethren, called anabaptists, suffer great persecution at Berne and its vicinity, by reason of rigorous edicts issued against them, wherein they are not only forbidden to reside in the country, but are not permitted to remove with their families and property, though they cannot be charged with any crime or misdemeanor; likewise, that some of the aforesaid denomination have been closely confined in said city; all which has moved us to christian compassion; wherefore we could not pass the matter by, but, on the contrary, have deemed it proper hereby, friendly, neighborly and earnestly to request you, that you would not only not practice, not suffer to be practiced, any improper treatment towards the petitioners’ associate members who are found in your department or dominion, under the name of anabaptists; but that much rather, after the good example of the lord regents of Schaffhausen, you grant the petitioners time to depart with their families and property wherever they choose. To this end we would request you duly to consider that, in the year 1655, when the Waldenses, our and your associate members, were so virulently chased and persecuted by the Romans, solely for the confession of their Reformed religion, that the necessities of the poor dispersed people cold not be relived otherwise than by large collections raised in England, this country, and other parts where the reformed religion prevailed, the churches of the Baptists, the aforesaid petitioners, upon the simple recommendations of their government, in obedience to the same, and in christian love and compassion, contributed with so much benevolence in their meetings to the aid of the dispersed and persecuted christians, that a remarkably large sum was raised, which the ministers of the aforesaid churches, by order of the said government, sent to the place appointed. We confidently hope and trust that you will receive our well-disposed and friendly petition as favorably as justice requires, and as we have reason to expect from your usual wisdom and prudence, and we assure you that we shall not fail to return this favor to you collectively and individually, and to your citizens, if an opportunity should present, and you should be pleased to make trial of us. Meantime, we pray Almighty God, &c.
At the Hague, Feb. 19, 1660. [A true copy.]
J. SPRONSSEEN.”
The States-General of the United Netherlands reasoned in the same manner with the authorities of Zurich, as they did to those of Berne. They also sent the Hon. Mr. De Vrede as a special messenger to intercede for the suffering anabaptists with the authorities in Switzerland, much in the same manner as Sir Samuel Morland was dispatched by Cromwell to the court of Savoy, in behalf of the Waldenses, but a short time before.
In addition to these governmental proceedings, the burgomasters and lords of Rotterdam addressed the commonwealth of Berne, in behalf of their city, on the same subject, and it is said that other cities did the same. All the addresses of this kind make honorable mention of the large contributions which the anabaptists or Mennonites, had made for the suffering Waldenses in 1655.
The Rotterdam authorities entered into the argument with their Swiss brethren, with much feeling and affection; and they took much pains to show them the absurdity of all the reasonings which they and others had employed, to excite a prejudice against the victims of their sanguinary and needless laws.
The following selections will exhibit the spirit of the document:
“We, therefore, desire your honorable lordships, nay, we entreat your honors, for the sake of religion, and the faith in Christ which we hold in common with you, that it might please your lordships to repeal the aforesaid severe edicts and resolutions passed against the innocent, erring people; or, if your lordships should deem this incompatible with the circumstances of your government, of which your lordships are the judges, to grant, at least, that the poor people may sell their property, make the necessary preparations, and remove with their friends to where they expect to live in greater repose and security. As regards ourselves, honorable lords, we have been of the opinion, ever since the formation of this government, that this kind of men can be safely tolerated in the commonwealth without prejudice to the same.
“And for this judgment we have to thank William, Prince of Orange, of blessed memory, who, through his bravery, established for us liberty of conscience, and who never could be induced by the petitions and perverted zeal of some ill-disposed people, to deprive the Mennonites of citizenship. In truth, we have never repented of this, our experience having never informed us that the Mennonites, under the cloak of religion, have ever sought to excite a sedition in the commonwealth; but, on the contrary, that they have cheerfully and promptly paid their taxes, and performed every duty that a subject owes to his prince; nay, that they kindly afforded pecuniary aid to the Reformed, who were oppressed in other places for their faith, and not long since to the Waldenses, our brethren, who were treated with great cruelty by the Duke of Savoy. We are aware that some insane persons strive, through misguided zeal, to persuade your lordships that the toleration of the Mennonites is prejudicial to the commonwealth; but their reasons are so puerile as never to have induced us to oppress the Mennonites with any rigorous laws.
“Though some, through devotion or superstitious awe, abstain from magisterial offices, and the takin of oaths, yet, what can be said against them by those who, under the glorious name of the Reformed, under the excellent titles of Reformation and Purity of Faith, introduce tyranny; the remembrance of which, as often as we reflect upon its cruelties forerly practiced in this city, and especially against the Mennonites (the details of which are recorded in our register’s office), our minds are oppressed, our souls are terrified.
“But we indulge the hope that when this shall be properly considered by your excellencies, your lordships will either repeal the onerous decree against the Mennonites, or at least, after the example of those of Schaffhansen, a canton of Switzerland, and that of the Roman Catholic prince of Neuburg, grant to the poor wanderers sufficient them to make their preparations, and procure residences in other places. When this is effected, your lordships will have accomplished a measure well pleasing to God, advantageous to the name of the Reformed salutary to the wanderers, and gratifying to us, who are connected with your lordships by the close tie of religion, and will serve as an influential example to all those who strive under the glorious name of the meek Savior. We entreat Almighty God that he would shed the light of his truth upon your lordships, and upon the commonwealth, and grant you long prosperity.
“Your lordships’ humble friends,
“The Burgomasters and Regents of Rotterdam.
“Rotterdam, Feb. 14, 1660.”
All these benevolent efforts, however, had but little effect, so deeply were the principles of intolerance implanted int eh breasts of these merciless Reformers.
Eleven years after the event above described, was the great persecution in which many lost their lives, and about seven hundred, old and young were driven into exile.4
This is a mere epitome of the persecutions which were inflicted on the anabaptists or Mennonites in Switzerland, by that branch of the Protestants who took the name of the Reformed Church.5
I have given the naked facts, without note or comment, as I have felt such an ineffable horror and disgust at the conduct of a set of men who had lately abjured the Church of Rome, that I was afraid to give utterance to the almost irrepressible indignation which continually arose in my breast.6
This account, as before stated, embraces a period of about one hundred and fifty years, from the Reformation till about the close of the seventeenth century. At this time the Mennonites had become fully organized as a distinct denomination, and had become free from persecution, so far as the United Provinces were concerned. This event I shall describe in the language of Dr. Mosheim:
“The Mennonites, after having been long in an uncertain and precarious situation, 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 distinguished Prince began his efforts in favor of a full toleration for all the subjects of the rising Republic, about 1575, but it was nearly the close of the century before he could carry through his noble plan, so strong was the opposition made to it in some parts of his dominions.7
The cantons of Switzerland, and those of Zurich, and Berne, in particular, held an inglorious preeminence for Protestant intolerance and oppression. And it is a singular fact, that the places which were most fatal to the anabaptists under Catholic rule, in the sixteenth century, offered them a safe asylum in the succeeding one, with the Protestants, under the reign of the Illustrious Prince of Orange, and his successors, had gained the ascendancy.
A bloody drama was enacted near Antwerp. Three thousand men, under the lead of a young nobleman, wholly inexperienced, but who had left college to fight in behalf of religious liberty, were, on March 12th, 1567, wholly exterminated by the king’s troops. The fight, which had lasted from day-break till ten o’clock, had been witnessed by the citizens from the walls of Antwerp. In that city, there were forty thousand people opposed to the Church of Rome, of whom the greater portion were Calvinists. The scene that followed is thus described:
“A terrible tumult prevailed. Ten thousand men were already up and in arms. It was then that the Prince of Orange, who was sometimes described as timid and pusillanimous by nature, showed the mettle he was made of. His sense of duty no longer bade him defend the crown of Philip – but the vast population of the Antwerp, the women, the children, and the enormous wealth of the richest city in the world, had been confined to his care, and he had accepted the responsibility. Mounting his horse, he made his appearance instantly at the Red Gate, before as formidable a mob as man has ever faced. He came there almost alone, without guards. Hoogstraaten, (the acting Governor in the absence of the Prince,) arrived soon afterwards with the same intention. The Prince was received with howls of execration. A thousand hoarse voices called hi the Pope’s servant, minister of anti-Christ, and lavished upon him many more epithets of the same nature. His life was in imminent danger. A furious clothier leveled an arquebus full at his breast. ‘Die, treacherous villain!’ he cried, ‘thou who ar the cause that our brethren have perished thus miserably in yonder field.’ The loaded weapon was struck away by another hand in the crowd, while the Prince, neither daunted by the ferocious demonstrations against his life, nor enraged by the virulent abuse to which he was subjected, continued tranquilly, earnestly, imperatively, to address the crowd. William of Orange had that in his face and tongue ‘which men willingly call master – authority.’ With what other talisman could he, without violence and without soldiers, have quelled even for a moment, ten thousand furious Calvinists, armed, enraged against his person, and thirsting for vengeance on Catholics. The postern of the Red Gate had already been broken through before Orange and his colleague, Hoogstraaten, had arrived. The most excited of the Calvinists were preparing to rush forth upon the enemy. The Prince, after he had gained the ear of the multitude, urged that the battle was over, that the reformers were entirely cut to pieces, the enemy retiring, and that a disorderly and ill-armed mob would be unable to retrieve the fortunes of the day.”8
Passing by the intervening incidents, in which the enemy, not sufficiently strong to assault the gates, had taken his departure, and great tumult prevailed in the city, – fifteen thousand Calvinists, all armed and fighting men, having assembled upon the Mere, – we take up the narrative where the energy of the Prince is again called into action:
“A tremendous mischief was afoot. Threats of pillaging the churches and houses of the Catholics, of sacking the whole opulent city, were distinctly heard among this powerful mob, excited by religious enthusiasm, but containing within one heterogeneous mass the elements of every crime which humanity can commit. The alarm throughout the city was indescribable. The cries of women and children, as they remained in trembling expectation of what the next hour might bring forth, were, said one who heard them, ‘enough to soften the hardest hearts.’ Nevertheless, the diligence and courage of the Prince kept pace with the insurrection. * * * At the peril of his life he had again gone before the angry mob in the Mere, advancing against their cannon and their outcries, and compelling them to appoint eight deputies to treat with him and the magistrates at the town hall. This done, quickly but deliberately, he had drawn up six articles, to which the deputies gave assent, and in which the city government cordially united. * * * These arrangements, when laid before the assembly at the Mere, by their deputies, were not received with favor. The Calvinists demanded the keys of the city. They did not choose to be locked up at the mercy of any man. * * * It was not nightfall, and no definite arrangement had been concluded. Nevertheless, a temporary truce was made, by means of a concession as to the guard. * * * A night of dreadful expectation was passed. The army of fifteen thousand mutineers remained encamped and barricaded on the Mere, with guns loaded and artillery appointed. Fierce cries of * * * ‘Down with the Papists,’ and other significant watchwords, were heard all night long, but no serious outbreak occurred.
“During the whole of the following day the Calvinists remained within their encampment, the Catholics and the city guardsmen at their posts near the city hall. The Prince was occupied in the Council Chamber from morning till night with the municipal authorities, the deputies of the religion, and the guild officers, in framing a new treaty of peace. * * * During the night the Prince Labored incessantly to provide against the dangers of the morrow. The Calvinists had fiercely expressed the disinclination to any reasonable arrangement. They had threatened, without further pause, to plunder the religious houses and the mansions of all the wealthy Catholics, and to drive very Papist out of the town. They had summoned the Lutherans to join with them in their revolt, and menaced them in case of refusal, with the same fate which awaited the Catholics. The Prince, who was himself a Lutheran, not entirely free from the universal prejudice against the Calvinists, whose sect he afterwards embraced, was fully aware of the deplorable fact that the enmity at that day between Calvinists and Lutherans was as fierce as that between Reformers and Catholics. He now made use of this feeling, and of his influence with those of the Augsburg Confession, to save the city.”9
Through the advice of the Prince, the Lutherans, in the silence of the night, took arms and encamped, to the number of three or four thousand, and agreed to form an alliance with the Catholics and all the friends of order, against the army of outlaws who were threatening to burn and sack the city. All the foreign mercantile associations also entered into the alliance, and were ready to act at a moment’s warning. On the morning of the 15th of March, the city of Antwerp presented a fearful sight. Three distinct points within its walls – the Calvinists, fifteen thousand strong, the Lutherans, armed and eager for action, and the Catholics and the regulars of the city guard. The Calvinists had stormed the city jail and liberated the prisoners, all of whom, grateful and ferocious, came to swell their numbers. They had also broken into the arsenal and obtained many field-pieces, which were planted at the entrance of every street and by-way approaching the Mere.
“Between thirty-five and forty thousand men were up, according to the most moderate computation. All parties were excited, and eager for the fray. The fires of religious hatred burned fiercely in every breast. Many malefactors and outlaws, who had found refuge in the course of recent events at Antwerp, were in the ranks of the Calvinists, profaning a sacred cause, and inspiring a fanatical party with bloody resolution. ‘Let the men who had fed on the spoils of plundered christians be dealt with in like fashion.’ ‘Let their houses be sacked, their bodies given to the dogs,’ – such were the cries uttered by thousands of armed men.
“On the other hand, the Lutherans as angry and as rich as the Catholics, saw in every Calvinist a murderer and a robber. They thirsted after their blood; for the spirit of religious frenzy, the characteristic of the century, can with difficulty be comprehended in our colder and more skeptical age. There was every probability that a blood battle was to be fought that day in the streets of Antwerp – a general engagement, in the course of which, whoever might be victorious, the city was sure to be delivered over to fire, sack and outrage. Such would have been the result, according to the concurrent testimony of eye witnesses, and contemporary historians of every country and creed, but for the courage of one man. William of Orange knew what would be the consequence of a battle, pent up within the walls of Antwerp. He foresaw the horrible havoc which was to be expected, the desolation which would be brought to every hearth in the city. ‘Never were men so desparate and so willing to fight,’ said Sir Thomas Gresham, who had been expecting every hour his summons to share in the conflict. If the Prince was unable that morning to avert the impending calamity, no other power, under heaven, could save Antwerp from destruction.”10
But the Prince succeeded in gaining the approval of the Lutherans and Catholics to the articles prepared on the 14th, and proceeded to the camp of the Calvinists to obtain their assent also. H ewas accompanied only by Hoogstraaten and a hundred troopers, all wearing red scarfs over their armor, as symbols by which all those who had united to put down the insurrection were distinguished. The fifteen thousand Calvinists, fierce and disorderly as ever, maintained a threatening aspect. Nevertheless the Prince was allowed to ride into the midst of the square. The articles having been read aloud, he pointed out the justness of their conditions – one of which being the right of religious worship – and told them that a struggle on their part would be hopeless, for the Catholics and Lutherans, who were all agreed as to the justice of the treaty, outnumbered them by nearly two to one. He, therefore, most earnestly and affectionately adjured them to testify their acceptance of the peace offered by repeating the words with which he should conclude. Then, with a firm voice, the Prince exclaimed, “God save the king!” It was the last time that those words were ever heard from the lips of the man already proscribed by Philip. The crowd of Calvinists hesitated an instant, and then, unable to resist the tranquil influence, convinced by his reasonable language, they raised one tremendous shout of “Vive le Roi!”
“The deed was done, the peace accepted, the dreadful battled averted, Antwerp saved. The deputies of the Calvinists now formally signed the articles. Kind words were exchanged among the various classes of fellow citizens, who but an hour before had been thirsting for each other’s blood, and artillery and other weapons of war were restored to the arsenals. Calvinists, Lutherans, and Catholics, all laid down their arms, and the city, by three o’clock, was entirely quiet. Fifth thousand armed men had been up, according to some estimates, yet after three days of dreadful expectation, not a single person had been injured, and the tumult was now appeased.
“The Prince had, in truth, used the mutual animosity of the Protestant sects to a good purpose; averting bloodshed by the very weapons with which the battle was to have been waged.”11
Here we have an instructive example. The historian informs us that the Calvinists had determined upon the extermination of both Catholic and Lutherans, unless the latter came to their aid against the former, and that the Lutherans, on the other hand, thirsted after the blood of the Calvinists. But he apologized for both, on the ground that such a spirit of religious frenzy was characteristic of that country, and that such a condition of things can be comprehended with difficulty in our colder and more skeptical age.”
Thus wrote Mr. Motley, in his second volume, published in 1860; and thus he thought, doubtless, in 1861, when he set out as minister to a foreign court. But had he remained here, during ’62, ’63, and ‘64, he would have changed his opinion. He could have heard as bitter expressions of hatred and revenge, even from many professing Christians, previously the most calm and dignified inmates of our churches, as ever dropt from the lips of an excited Calvinist or Lutheran in Antwerp. He could have learned that now, as in the days of Philip, war has no Christian aspects, no Christian basis, but ever tends to engender suspicion, bitterness, cruelty, bloodshed.
At present we descend not to particulars. Enough has occurred, we would only remark, during our civil war, to demonstrate that blood-thirstiness is not limited to Catholicism, to Calvinism, to Lutheranism; is not inherent in any organization of Christians who accept the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel; but that it may be developed in all. The passions engendered by war belong not to the Gospel; they are the legitimate fruits of fallen human nature, unsanctified by the Holy Spirit; and must ever recur, as long as the Spirit of Christ is not the dominant element in the hearts of professions Christians. Hence the tremendous moral responsibility resting upon those who demand bloodshed as a means of eradicating moral evils.
1In the original this Proclamation
was set as a footnote at the bottom of the page and took up a
quarter of the page in two columns. Because of that I moved it
to be included in the content of the page itself. - TRA
2Barbara Neff was driven from place
to place, while in a condition which calls for all kindness and
assiduity of human friendship; and three days after her
confinement, she was treacherously arrested, and conveyed four
miles to prison, in the coldest season of the year. She died
soon after her release. This was in 1643. These cases of female
suffering were by no means uncommon.
3In their church-going policy, a
most disgusting example is on record, about the middle of the
seventeenth century. Felix Landis, son of Hans Landis, who was
beheaded in Zurich, in 1614, in a state of extreme imbecility,
was carried to church in time of service and thrown under a
bench, where he immediately expired. He had been long in prison,
and was literally starved to death. The criminals with whom he
was confined, more compassionate than the heads of the church,
occasionally conveyed him food through an opening in the
partition. When they discovered this, they conveyed him to
another prison. Cases of prison starvation are often reported.
Is it strange that we should this the deformed instead of the Reformed religion?
4A number of letters which were
preserved in this old book, give gloomy accounts of the
condition of this afflicted people in 1671, and many touching
incidents are related of their punishments of various kinds, one
of which we will briefly relate. “They also whipped a minister
of the word, took him out into the country as far as Burgundy,
and there marked him with a branding iron, and let him go among
the French; but as he cold not speak their language, he had to
wander three days before he could get his wound dressed, and
obtain any refreshment; so that when they stripped him in order
to bind up his burn, the matter ran down over his back, as weas
related to me by a brother who assisted in dressing the wound.
Thus they act with great violence, and will not relinquish their
design till they have driven this harmless people entirely from
the country. It appears, moreover, that nothing can be effected
in favor of the oppressed brethren – for, not only the friends
of Amsterdam and elsewhere have labored for several years in
this cause, so that the petitions have been presented by the
lords of Holland, and particularly those of Amsterdam, and by
other respectable persons to the authorities here; but,
moreover, Adolf de Vrede, was sent here as an express in the
year 1660, but he accomplished but very little for the advantage
of our friends. Hence, I cannot see that we can effect anything
that would tend to the relief of our oppressed brethren. We will
have to wait in patience for the issue which the Lord our God
may grant them. – Martyr’s
Mirror p. 1022.
5These various accounts of the
Protestant persecutions are contained in the Dutch Martyrology,
pp. 1000-1030.
6One of the most specious pretexts
of these Reformers, for their unrighteous treatment of the
Mennonites, was a perverted view of their peculiar doctrine
relative to civil magistrates and civil officers in general.
Their opponents continually asserted that they set them aside
altogether. They, on the other hand, most explicitly denied the
charge, and maintained that they had respect only to their own
church members, whom they assiduously dissuaded from sustaining
offices in the State.
7All that is said by Mosheim on
this subject is fully corroborated by the details of his old
Dutch book, where we have the accounts of the long and continued
remonstrances of Prince William and his son and successor
Maurice, against the persecutions and oppressions which still
continued in some of the provinces. These documents are copied
from the public records and attested by the officers of state.
Would our limits permit, many very interesting accounts could be given of the struggles of the different governments then under the dominion of the Protestants among themselves, on the subject of toleration to the anabaptists and other Dissenters.
Would our limits permit, many very interesting accounts could be given of the struggles of the different governments then under the dominion of the Protestants among themselves, on the subject of toleration to the anabaptists and other Dissenters.
8Motley’s Rise of the Dutch
Republic, vol. 2, p. 64
9Motley’s Rise of the Dutch
Republic, p. 66-69.
10Motley’s Rise of the Dutch
Republic, p. 66-69.
11Motley’s Rise of the Dutch
Republic, p. 71, 72.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages