1

PURITANISM

An Article (published 1970AD)

by

Winthrop S. Hudson [recently deceased (Feb. 2001) American Baptist historian]

PURITANISM was the most dynamic form of Protestantism among Eng-

lish-speaking peoples during the 16th and 17th centuries. The age of Puritan-

ism in England may be roughly defined as the century following the Reforma-

tion. It extended from the first years of the reign of Elizabeth I to 1660, when

the restoration of the Stuarts brought to an end the attempt to fashion a Puritan

state. The Puritan age in New England dated from the first settlement in 1620

to Massachusetts loss of the old charter and the issuance of a new one in

1691, although there was to be a brief attempt to reconstitute the old order

upon a new basis during the 1730s under the leadership of Jonathan Edwards.

The term Puritan was coined as an epithet of contempt during the 1560s, and it

was applied to all those persons within the Church of England who sought a

more thoroughgoing reformation of the church than had been provided by the

Elizabethan religious settlement. It also came to be applied to those who broke

away from the Church of England in order to carry out the desired reforms

without further delay. The major body of Puritans were Anglicans and re-

mained so until the outbreak of the English Civil War in 1642. Most of them

were moderate episcopalians in sympathy, although presbyterian and congre-

gationalist sentiment was to be found among them. Even the early Congrega-

tionalists of the Massachusetts Bay colony in North America professed them-

selves to be loyal members of the Church of England. The small non-Anglican

wing of Puritanism was composed initially of separatist Congregationalists

and Baptists, but during the regime of Oliver Cromwell, when religious groups

multiplied in a vast profusion, the Society of Friends (Quakers), constituted

the extreme left of the Puritan movement.

In North America there was a varying degree of Puritan influence in all the

English colonies, but the term tended to be reserved to designate the separa-

tist and nonseparatist Congregationalists who established the Plymouth and

Massachusetts Bay colonies and spread out into the rest of what was to be-

come known as New England.

Nature of Puritanism.Puritanism arose out of a desire for liturgical reform,

being given classic definition at its earliest stage by G. M. Trevelyan: the re-

ligion of all those who wished either to purify the usage of the established

church from taint of popery or to worship separately by forms so purified

(England under the Stuarts, 16th ed., London, 1933). Questions of polity and

theology later were brought into the area of controversy, but the underlying

spirit of religious and moral earnestness that had given rise to the initial de-

mand for reform remained the most constant feature of Puritanism. As a con-

sequence, a Puritan became identified quite correctly in the popular mind as

2

one who followed a strict and closely regulated habit of life. Jonathan Ed-

wards gave expression to this aspect of Puritanism when he described the

Christians practice of religion in these words: It may be said, not only to

be his business at certain seasons, the business of Sabbath-days, or certain ex-

traordinary times, or the business of a month, or a year, or of seven years, or

his business under certain circumstances; but the business of his life (The

Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. i, p. 314, 10th ed., London, 1865). The Puri-

tan was a spiritual athlete, characterized by an intense zeal for reform, a zeal to

order everythingpersonal life, family life, worship, church, business affairs,

political views, even recreationin the light of Gods demand upon him.

The daily routine of the Puritan usually involved private devotions at the hour

of rising; family prayers with the reading of Scripture and the catechizing of

children and servants; and the keeping of a spiritual diary in which the events

of the day were closely scrutinized and an accounting made of moral successes

and failures, as well as note being taken of the signal evidences of divine grace

or displeasure that had been disclosed during the course of the day. The whole

thrust of Puritan preaching was designed to reinforce this systematic and care-

fully controlled pattern of life by sensitizing the conscience to the issues that

must be faced from day to day by earnest Christians. A non-Puritan clergy-

man, Anthony Gilbert, in 1566, put this aspect of Puritanism vividly when he

reported that his patron had said that he could never go to any of these

Genevan sermons that he came quiet home, . . . . there was ever something that

pricked his conscience; he always thought that they made their whole sermon

against him. But in the reading of Mattins and Evensong at St. Pauls, or in my

reading of my service in his chapel, he sayeth, he feeleth no such thing, for he

is never touched, but goeth merrily to his dinner.

These differing facets of the Puritans concern make it evident that Puritanism

was rooted in a vast sense of dissatisfaction with mediocre and half-hearted

endeavour. This dissatisfaction, in turn, was rooted in a deep religious experi-

ence of dramatic intensity. The whole object of the Puritan was to experience

the miracle of grace himself and to produce it in others. Thus Puritanism falls

within the category of a religious revival, and it is analogous in many ways to

earlier revivals that sprang from the preaching of the friars and to the later re-

vivals associated with the names of John Wesley, George Whitefield and Gil-

bert Tennent.

Tudor Puritanism.Under Henry VIII the authority of the Roman papacy

had been formally abolished by a series of parliamentary acts, culminating in

the Act of Supremacy of 1534, which declared the king to be the only su-

preme head in earth of the Church of England. The few limited reforms of the

Henrician period were followed by a rapid Protestant advance under the boy

king Edward VI (1549-53). This was followed, in turn, by a restoration of

Roman Catholicism under Queen Mary (1553-58). Many of the more promi-

nent Protestant leaders, including the archbishop of Canterbury, were burned

alive at the stake during the Marian regime; the revulsion occasioned by these

executions, it has been said, guaranteed that England was to be a Protestant

nation in the future. Of greater importance was the fact that the exile on the

continent, into which many younger men were forced, proved to be a school

3

for training of men upon whom Elizabeth of necessity was to depend for lead-

ership in the English Church. When Elizabeth I came to the throne late in

1558, she was hailed by the returning exiles as the English Deborah who

would restore the Church of England to what they regarded as its pristine pu-

rity. She was to frustrate rather than fulfil their hopes.

Elizabeth was committed to the Protestant cause for a variety of reasons, but

she detested anything that smacked of Geneva, having been alienated by John

Knoxs attack upon the right of women to rule and being convinced that the

Genevans were overbold with God Almighty, making too many subtle scan-

nings of his blessed will; as lawyers do with human testaments. It was, she

believed, dangerous to royal power to have private men citing Scripture

against the government. Elizabeth was determined to exercise power in both

state and church as her royal prerogative, and she was especially determined

that the religious settlement should follow a middle course. Under pressure

from the crown, parliament passed an Act of Uniformity which required sev-

eral observances that most Protestants regarded as popish superstitions. It was

at this point, however, that a division occurred.

Some remembered Peters word that one must obey God rather than men;

these were to be the Puritans. Others remembered Pauls counsel that due re-

gard must be given to constituted authority; these were to be the apologists for

the Elizabethan settlement who insisted that a godly prince, after the pattern of

Israel, must be obeyed in all matters not clearly proscribed in Scripture.

The initial controversy had been foreshadowed in the reign of Edward VI

when Knox objected to kneeling as a practice associated with the adoration of

the host and indicating a belief in transubstantiation, and when John Hooper

objected to a distinctive clerical garb as representing in symbolic form a denial

of the priesthood of believers. It was this latter issue that came to the front

with the publication of Matthew Parkers Advertisements in 1566 as part of the

effort to secure uniformity of clerical dress, and resulted in the label of Puri-

tan being attached to the dissident party. The Puritans, of course, were seek-

ing to reform the whole liturgy of the church that it might have greater theo-

logical integrity; and a rightly ordered worship, they believed, also involved

the recovery of gospel discipline within the church. Their program was made

explicit in 1572 in An Admonition to Parliament, which declared that we in

England are so far off from having a church rightly reformed according to the

prescript of Gods Word, that as yet we are not come to the outward face of

the same. The outward marks whereby a true Christian church is known, it

continued, are preaching of the Word purely, ministering of the sacraments

sincerely, and ecclesiastical discipline which consisteth in admonition and cor-

rection of faults severely; on all three counts the provisions of the Elizabe-

than settlement were deemed defective.

Puritan sentiment was strong enough in 1563 to come within one vote of

adopting a sweeping program of reform in the Convocation of Canterbury, the

legislative body for most of the Church of England. Defeated there, the Puri-

tans turned to parliament where they were able to command majority support

throughout Elizabeths reign, but Elizabeth always claimed her prerogative

4

and prevented parliament from dealing with the religious question. Edmund

Grindal, archbishop of Canterbury, encouraged the voluntary implementation

of a portion of the Puritan program, and this led to his being sequestered from

office. While official efforts at reform were rebuffed by the queen, and while

she was careful to prevent any widespread organization from being developed,

a great deal of latitude and freedom was permitted within the parishes; and it

was within the parishes, by virtue of effective preaching and pastoral example,

that Puritanism continued to gain strength throughout the Elizabethan period.

During this period also there were a few ardent and impetuous spirits who had

become impatient with delay and who, adopting as their slogan reformation

without tarrying for any, proceeded to organize separate congregations.

Ultimately most of these separatists were forced to take refuge in the Nether-

lands.

Stuart Puritanism.Puritan confidence in the rightness of their cause may

well have been the source of the optimism with which they greeted each new

monarch. They were especially hopeful when after Elizabeths death James I

came to the throne in 1603. A dozen years earlier, as James VI of Scotland, he

had consented to the establishment of Presbyterianism in his native land. The

Puritans believed, therefore, that he might be expected to show some favour to

Puritanism in England. With high expectations the Puritans presented the new

king with a moderate plea for church reform known as the Millenary petition

because it purported to represent the desires of more than 1,000 clergymen.

The king promised a conference at Hampton court on the matter. When he met

with them in Jan. 1604, he rejected the Puritan plea with scorn. James was an

ardent Calvinist, but he was no presbyterian; far from restricting the power of

the bishops, his dictum was No bishop, no king.

One consequence of Jamess attempted repression of Puritanism was to drive

additional Puritans into separatism and exile. Among these groups of exiles

was the Gainsborough-Scrooby congregation, one portion of which went to

Amsterdam under the leadership of John Smyth, where they became the earli-

est group of English Baptists. The Scrooby portion under the leadership of

John Robinson went to Leiden, from which in 1620 some of their number de-

parted to establish the colony of Plymouth in the new world. Other Puritans,

unwilling to renounce all bonds of fellowship with the Church of England,

adopted a middle position which has been called nonseparatist congregational-

ism. Chiefly under the guidance of Henry Jacob and William Ames, they de-

veloped the theory that the Church of England was in essence composed of

congregational churches; this fact had been obscured but it had not been oblit-

erated. Thus they were justified in forming independent congregations when

necessary and at the same time professing themselves to be loyal members of

the Church of England. Nonseparatists of this type established the Massachu-

setts Bay colony in 1629.

James I, however, was not an effective persecutor, and his policy was moder-

ated by the influence of Archbishop George Abbot, who was sympathetic to

the Puritan cause. By virtue of various expedients, many of the clergy were

able to retain a measure of freedom in their parishes, and a system of lecture-

ships was developed to provide for those who could not. The lectureships were

5

preaching stations set up voluntarily, and they permitted the occupants to es-

cape from the necessity of reading the required service. Serious trouble devel-

oped only after the accession of Charles I in 1625. Under the aegis of William

Laud, archbishop of Canterbury, rigorous measures were adopted to enforce

conformity, lectureships were suppressed and when parliament proved to be

refractory Charles embarked upon a period of personal rule that lasted through

the 1630s.

Puritan Revolution.As the result of an attempt to impose Lauds liturgy

on the Scottish Church, Scotland rose in revolt and in 1639 invaded England.

Charles was without adequate financial resources to carry on a war and was

forced to summon parliament in 1640. Parliament immediately took command

of the situation, refusing to grant necessary subsidies until the abuses of

Charless personal rule had been remedied. There was general agreement that

the evils of prelacy should be eliminated, but when parliament abolished epis-

copacy the king was able to rally support; civil war broke out in 1642. The

Westminster assembly of divines was summoned in 1643 to draft a new reli-

gious settlement for the nation, but its essentially presbyterian proposals were

unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons to a majority of the people. The more

erastian members of parliament did not look with favour upon the establish-

ment of an independent ecclesiastical system. Large segments of the popula-

tion remained strongly episcopalian in their sympathies. There had also been a

vast proliferation of smaller religious groups since the lifting of the restraints

of the Laudian regime. Furthermore, the Puritan preachers, who for three gen-

erations had been insisting upon the necessity for the Word of God to be freely

preached, had cultivated a climate of opinion among many of their followers

that was hostile to the placing of new restrictions upon the freedom to preach.

Most important of all, widespread sentiment for religious toleration had devel-

oped in the parliamentary army. This was the good old cause that held the

army together in its struggle with the king, and to the army the proposals of

the assembly represented the substitution of one repressive ecclesiastical sys-

tem for another. John Milton spoke for the army when he said: New presbyter

is but old priest writ large.

With parliament becoming increasingly divided and impotent, effective rule

shifted to the army under the leadership of Cromwell. The royalists were

brought under control in a series of battles, the king was executed and the reli-

gious problem was resolved in terms of a voluntary national establishment.

Cromwell was less successful in his efforts to shift authority from the army to

a stable parliamentary regime. The nation was too divided for any of the expe-

dients he devised to succeed. After his death and the removal of his strong

hand, the political situation rapidly deteriorated, and in 1660 the Puritan at-

tempt to fashion a holy commonwealth was brought to an end with the restora-

tion of the monarchy. The religious issue remained troublesome, however, un-

til the adoption of the Act of Toleration in 1689.

American Puritanism.The term Puritan has been given a much narrower

definition in the United States. There was a conspicuous Puritan influence in

early Virginia, and the blue laws of that colony have been said to have been

even more repressive than those of New England. Moreover a Puritan influ-

6

ence was represented to varying degrees in all the English colonies by Bap-

tists, Quakers and English Presbyterians. Puritanism in America, however, is

generally understood to mean the early Congregationalism of New England. .

Massachusetts Bay, the strongest of the New England colonies, was founded

by a group of nonseparatist Congregationalists who had become convinced

as a result of the dissolution of parliament in 1629 by Charles I and the adop-

tion of the rigorous repressive measures of Laudthat it was no longer possi-

ble to reform the Anglican Church in England. Through a defect in the charter

they were able to transfer the government of the colony to the new world, and

throughout the Laudian decade of the 1630s a large and well-organized migra-

tion into the new colony proceeded. No colony in the history of European

colonization ranked above Massachusetts Bay in wealth, station, education or

capacity. The colonists were a selected people (sifted grain) with strong

clerical leadership, and their purpose was to accomplish in the new world that

which they had been prevented from accomplishing at home. Their intention

was to create in the American wilderness a new Zion that would become a

city set on a hill and force by the power of its example the desired reforma-

tion in England.

The Massachusetts Bay Puritans established what they believed to be a bibli-

cal church order and with it a community that was regulated throughout by

divine and natural law. The whole program was outlined in the Cambridge

Platform of 1648. Church membership was restricted to the regenerate and

their children who should own the covenant, and only church members en-

joyed political rights. Religious uniformity was enforced, and dissenters were

informed that they had the right to stay away or to cross the river and take up

land of their own beyond the boundary of Massachusetts. The restrictions were

difficult to maintain; there were demands that the franchise be broadened and

religious dissent kept appearing. When Roger Williams was banished, the set-

tlement he established at Providence became a new source of dissidence. The

second generation saw a diminution of zeal. The clergy interpreted recurrent

misfortunes as signs of Gods wrath with the growing laxity, but the adoption

of the halfway covenant was evidence of clerical inability to halt the trend.

The replacement of the charter in 1691 put an end to any real hope they still

entertained of maintaining their holy commonwealth in its purity. The story

was much the same in the other Puritan colonies of New England. Edwards

briefly rallied the waning forces of Puritan zeal, and attenuated Congrega-

tional establishments lingered on in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New

Hampshire until the 19th century. The Puritan heritage, however, was stamped

deep in the character of the New Englanders, and with the great migration

westward it became a major factor in the shaping of the American spirit.

Puritan Contributions.One of the most conspicuous contributions of Puri-

tanism was the sturdiness of character it produced. The Puritan mind was one

of the toughest the world has ever had to deal with. It is inconceivable to con-

ceive of a disillusioned Puritan; no matter what misfortune befell him, no mat-

ter how often or how tragically his fellowmen failed him, he would have been

prepared for the worst, and would have expected no better (Perry Miller and

T. H. Johnson, The Puritans, pp. 59-60, New York, 1938). The Puritan knew

7

that the life of faith is an arduous struggle, that sin is a stubborn fact of human

existence and that affliction is frequently the lot of the saints; but he was

nerved and strengthened by a great devotion to God and by a great confidence

in Gods overruling Providence. Later generations were fed again and again

from the devotional works the Puritans produced.

Curiously, the Puritans, who began as firm believers in the necessity for reli-

gious uniformity, became the architects who fashioned the principles of reli-

gious freedom. This was partly the result of the fact that the religious diversity

they generated bred of necessity a spirit of toleration, but the necessity was

supported by theological convictions whose implications only gradually be-

came fully apparent. They had emphasized the necessity for the Word of God

to be freely preached, and they recognized that even the best of men and

churches were fallible. Who was to decide who might preach, when God

might speak through the humblest of the brethren? Thus the New England Pu-

ritans could pursue measures of repression only with a lurking sense of guilt,

elaborate apologetics and a tendency to make increasing concessions to dis-

sent. More typical of the logic of Puritanism was Williams Bloudy Tenent of

Persecution, which became one of the great Puritan manifestoes in the English

civil wars.

Many scholars have noted the contribution of Puritanism to the development

of democracy. The army debates, the gathered churches, the demand for lib-

erty and the denunciations of arbitrary power all helped create a climate of

opinion favourable to the development of self-government. Even more impor-

tant was the insistence upon the necessity for checks and balances if the abuse

of power was to be prevented. Said John Cotton: Let all the world learn to

give mortal man no greater power than they are content they shall use, for use

it they will . . . . It is necessary that all power that is on earth be limited,

church power or other . . . . It is counted a matter of danger to the state to limit

prerogatives, but it is a further danger not to have them limited (An Exposi-

tion of the Thirteenth Chapter of Revelation, p. 72). The relationship that has

been suggested between Puritanism and the rise of modern capitalism is more

debatable.

APPENDIX

The Character of an Old English Puritan,

or Non-Conformist

by

John Geree, M.A. & Preacher of the Word, sometime at Tewksbury,

but now at St. Albans.

Published according to order in London,

Printed by W. Wilson for Mr. Christopher Meredith,

8

at The Crane, St. Pauls Church-yard.

1646AD

first edited & published for the Internet

by

Michael Renihan,

Grace Chapel,

Spokane,

WA,1995,

USA.

The Old English Puritan was such an one that honoured God above all, and

under God gave every one his due. His first care was to serve God, and therein

he did what was good not in his own sight, but in Gods, making the Word of

God the rule of his worship. He highly esteemed order in the House of God,

but would not under colour of that order submit to superstitious rites, which

are superfluous, and perish in their use. He reverenced Authority keeping

within its sphere, but durst not under pretence of subjection to the higher pow-

ers, worship God after the traditions of men. He made conscience of all Gods

ordinances, though some he esteemed of more consequence. He was much in

prayer; with it he began and closed the day. [In devotions] he was much exer-

cised in his closet, family and public assembly. He esteemed that manner of

prayer best, whereby the gift of God, expressions were varied according to

present wants and occasions; yet did he not account set forms unlawful. There-

fore in that circumstance of the church he did not wholly reject the liturgy, but

the corruption of it.

He esteemed reading of the Word an ordinance of God both in private and

public but did not account reading to be preaching. The Word read he es-

teemed of more authority, but the word preached of more efficiency. He ac-

counted preaching as necessary now as in the Primitive Church, Gods pleas-

ure being still by the foolishness of preaching to save those that believe. He

esteemed the preaching best wherein was most of God, least of man, when

vain flourishes of wit and words were declined, and the demonstration of

Gods Spirit and power studied. Yet could he distinguish between studied

plainness and negligent rudeness. He accounted perspicuity the best grace of a

preacher. And that method best, which was most helpful to the understanding,

affection, and memory, to which ordinarily he esteemed none so conducible as

that by doctrine, reason and use. He esteemed those sermons best that came

closest to the conscience, yet he would have mens consciences awakened, not

their persons disgraced. He was a man of good spiritual appetite, and could not

be contented with one meal a day. An afternoon sermon did relish as well to

him as one in the morning. He was not satisfied with prayers without preach-

ing, which if it were wanting at home, he would seek abroad. Yet would he not

by absence discourage his minister, if faithful, though another might have

quicker gifts. A lecture he esteemed, though not necessary, yet a blessing, and

would read such an opportunity with some pains and loss.

9

The Lords Day he esteemed a divine ordinance, and rest on it necessary, so

far as it conduced to holiness. He was very conscientious in observance of that

day as the mart day of the soul. He was careful to remember it, to get house

and heart in order for it, and when it came, he was studious to improve it. He

redeems the morning from superfluous sleep, and watches the whole day over

his thoughts and words, not only to restrain them from wickedness, but world-

liness. All parts of the day were like holy to him, and his care was continued in

it in variety of holy duties. What he heard in public, he repeated in private, to

whet it upon himself and family. Lawful recreations he thought this day un-

seasonable, and unlawful ones much more abominable. Yet he knew the lib-

erty God gave him for needful refreshing, which he neither did refuse nor

abuse.

The sacrament of baptism he received in infancy, which he looked back to in

age to answer his engagements, and claim his privileges. The Lords Supper

he accounted part of his souls food, to which he laboured to keep an appetite.

He esteemed it an ordinance of nearest communion with Christ, and so requir-

ing most exact preparation. His first care was in the examination of himself,

yet as an act of office or charity, he had an eye on others. He endeavoured to

have the scandalous cast out of communion, but he cast not out himself be-

cause the scandalous were suffered by the negligence of others. He con-

demned that superstition and vanity of Popish mock-fasts; yet neglected not an

occasion to humble his soul by right fasting. He abhorred the popish doctrine

of opus operatum in the action. And in practice rested in no performance, but

what was done in spirit and truth.

He thought God had left a rule in his Word for discipline, and that rule was

aristocratical by elders, not monarchical by bishops, nor democratical by the

people. Right discipline he judged pertained not to the being, but to the

well-being of a church. Therefore he esteemed those churches most pure

where government is by elders, yet unchurched not those where it was other-

wise. Perfection in churches he thought a thing rather to be desired, than

hoped for. And so he expected not a church state without all defects. The cor-

ruptions that were in churches he thought his duty to bewail, with endeavours

of amendment. Yet he would not separate, where he might partake in the wor-

ship, and not in the corruption. He put not holiness in churches, as in the tem-

ple of the Jews; but counted them convenient like their synagogues. He would

have them kept decent, not magnificent, knowing that the gospel requires not

outward pomp. His chief music was singing of psalms wherein though he ne-

glected not the melody of the voice, yet he chiefly looked after that of the

heart. He disliked such church music as moved sensual delight, and was as

hindrance to spiritual enlargements.

He accounted subjection to the higher powers to be part of pure religion, as

well as to visit the fatherless and widows. Yet he distinguished between lawful

authority, to that he submitted, and the lusts of magistrates, but in these he

durst not be a servant of men, being bought with a price. Just laws and com-

mands he willingly obeyed not only for fear but for conscience also; but such

as were unjust he refused to observe, choosing rather to obey God than man,

10

yet his refusal was modest and with submission to penalties, unless he could

procure indulgence from authority.

He was careful in all relations to know, and to do his duty, and that with sin-

gleness of heart as unto Christ. He accounted religion an engagement to duty,

that the best Christians should be best husbands, best wives, best parents, best

children, best masters, best servants, best magistrates, best subjects, that the

doctrine of God might be adorned, not blasphemed. His family he endeavours

to make a church, both in regard of persons and exercises, admitting none into

it but such as feared God, and labouring that those that were borne in it, might

be born again unto God. He blessed his family morning and evening by the

word and prayer and took care to perform those ordinances in the best season.

He brought up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and

commanded his servants to keep the way of the Lord. He set up discipline in

his family, as he desired it in the church, not only reproving but restraining

vileness in his. He was conscientious of equity, as well as piety, knowing that

unrighteousness is an abomination as well as ungodliness.

He was cautious in promising, but careful in performing, counting his word no

less engagement than his bond. He was a man of tender heart, not only in re-

gard of his own sin, but others misery, not counting mercy arbitrary, but a

necessary duty wherein as he prayed for wisdom to direct him, so he studied

for cheerfulness and bounty to act. He was sober in the use of things of this

life, rather beating down the body than pampering it, yet he denied not himself

the use of Gods blessing, lest he should be unthankful, but avoided excess lest

he should be forgetful of the Donor.

In his habit he avoided costliness and vanity, neither exceeding his degree in

civility, nor declining what suited with Christianity, desiring in all things to

express gravity. He own life he accounted a warfare, wherein Christ was his

captain, his arms, prayers, and tears. The Cross his banner, and his word, he

conquers who suffers. He was immovable in all times and circumstances, so

that they who in the midst of many opinions have lost the view of true relig-

ion, may return to him and find it.

Reader, seeing a passage in Mr. Tombes book against paedobaptism, wherein

he compared the Nonconformists in England to the Anabaptists in Germany,

in regard of their miscarriages and ill success in their endeavours, I was moved

for the vindication of those faithful and reverend witnesses of Christ, to pub-

lish this Character; whereof if any shall desire proof in matter of fact, as in the

matter of right, the margin contains evidence, or let him either consult their

writings, or those who are fit witnesses by reason of age, fidelity and ac-

quaintance, having fully known their doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith,

long-suffering, love, patience, persecution and affliction, etc. II Timothy iii.10,

11. And I doubt not but full testimony will be given that their aim and general

course was according to [the above] rule [of life]. Some extravagance there be

in all professions, but we are to judge of a profession by the rule they hold

forth, and that carriage of the professors which is general and ordinary.