In the first edition of "Did They Dip?" the following statement was made: "The Rev. John Fox, the distinguished author of the Book of Martyrs, was born in England, A. D. 1517, and died April 15, 1587. The first complete English edition appeared in 1563. There is no doubt as to his testimony. He says: "There were some Anabaptists at this time in England, who came from Germany. Of these there were two sorts; the first only objected to the baptizing of children, and to the manner of it, by sprinkling instead of dipping. The other held many opinions, anciently condemned as heresies; they had raised a war in Germany, and had set up a new king at Munster; but all these were called Anabaptist, from their opposition to infant baptism, though it was one of the mildest opinions they held (Alden Edition, p. 338)."This quotation from Fox was called in question by Dr. Newman. It was admitted that my edition of the Book of Martyrs had in it the words as I had quoted them, but it was pointed out that they were omitted in some other editions. Pending an investigation I left this extract out of the second edition of "Did They Dip?," since it was not desired to place reliance upon any doubtful proof. After an extensive investigation a curious state of affairs was found to exist. The text in scarcely any two editions of the Book of Martyrs agree even in essential particulars. This is true of the earliest editions as well as of the later ones. I can say that the language of the above extract is very ancient, perhaps of Fox, and not the words of a modern compiler.
But as to the real opinions of John Fox, we are not left in doubt. A rare work lies before me with the title, "Reformatio Legvm Ecclesiasticarvm, ex Avthoritate Primvm
[p. 103]
Regis Henrici 8. inchoata: Deinde per Regem Edvoardum 6. &c." If King Edward VI. had lived, this book was to have been set forth with his authority, drawn up by A. B. Cranmer, B. May and other commissioners, and penned, as supposed, by Dr. Haddon. The book bears Dr. Haddon's coat of arms. But its publication was defeated by the death of the King. Afterwards, through the endeavors of A. B. Parker, it was set afoot again in the Parliament of the 13th Elizabeth, and by a leading member recommended to the consideration of the House of Commons. Care was taken to have the entire work published as we now see it by John Fox in the year 1571, and the conclusion of the preface plainly intimates the main design of the publication. It would therefore be impossible to find a book where we could more authoritatively get at the opinions of the Anabaptists, from the standpoint of the State, than from this work, if it should speak on the subject at all. Fortunately it does speak. First of all, this work is quoted on the subject of dipping and then upon the subject of dipping among the Anabaptists of 1571 and previously. I present the original Latin, and a translation follows, made by a distinguished professor in a State University. The following is said of dipping in general:"Dum autem in aquas demergimur, & rursus ex illis emergimus, Christi mors primum & sepultura commendatur, deinde, suscitatio quidem illius, & reditus ad vitam, ut istius mortis & vitae monumentis recordemur, & palam testificemur peccatum in nobis mortuum, & sepuitum jacere, sed novum & salutarum Dei spiritum reviviscere in nobis, & reflorescere; tinctoq; foras externis aquis corpore, nostras intus animas, abstersis peccatorum sordibus, puras & perpurgatas ad aeternas & coelestes oras se attollere".Translation: "But while we are plunged into
104]the waters and rise again out of them, the death of Christ first, and his burial is symbolized, and next his resuscitation, indeed, and his return to life, so that we may be reminded of that death and life by memorials, and may openly bear witness that sin in us lies dead and buried, but that a new and wholesome spirit of God awakes again to life in us and flourishes anew, and the body having been dipped outwardly in external waters, that our souls within lift themselves pure and thoroughly purged to the eternal and celestial shores, the filthiness of sins having been wiped away."
While it is probable that Fox thought that the sprinkling of "weak infants" was valid baptism, he undoubtedly here strongly advocates dipping. The following is said of the Anabaptists: "De Baptismo. Cap, 18. "Deinde crudelis illorum impietas in Baptismum irruit, quem infantibus impartiri nolunt, sed omnino nulla ratione. Nec enim minus ad Deum & Ecclesiam pertinent Christianorum infantes, quam liberi quondam Hebreorum pertinebant, quibus in infantia cum circumcisio adhiberetur, nostris etiam infantibus debet baptismus admoveri, quoniam ejusdem promissionis & foederis divini participes sunt, & a Christo sunt etiam summa cum humanitate suscepti. Plures item ab aliis cumulantur errores in baptismo, quem aliqui sic attoniti spectant, ut ab ipso illo externo credant elemento Spiritum sanctum emergere, vimque ejus, nomen, & virtutem ex qua recreamur, & gratiam, & reliqua ex eo proficiscentia dona in ipsis baptismi fonticulis innatare. In summa totam regenerationem nostram illi sacro puteo deberi volunt, qui in sensus nostros incurrit. Verum salus animarum, instauratio spiritus, & beneficium adoptionis, quo nos Deus pro filiis
[p. 105]
agnoscit, a misericordia divina per Christum ad nos dimanante, tum etiam ex promissione sacris Scripturis apparente proveniunt. Illorum etiam impia videri debet scrupolosa superstitio, qui Dei gratiam, & Spiritum sanctum tantopere cum Sacramentorum elementis colligant ut plane affirment nullum Christianorum infantem aeternam salutem esse consequuturum, qui prius a morte fuerit occupatus, quam ad Baptismus adduci potuerit: quodlonge secus habere judicamus. Salus enim illis solum adimitur, qui sacrum hunc Baptismi fontem contemnunt, aut superbia quadem ab eo, vel contumacia resiliunt: quaemi portunitas cum in puerorum aetatem non cadat, nihil contra salutem illorum author itate Scriptuarum decerni potest; immo contra, cum illos communis promissio pueros in se compraehendat, optima nobis spes de illorum salute concipienda est.""Afterwards the cruel ungodliness of them rushes headlong into baptism, which they are unwilling to bestow upon infants, but utterly without reason. For the infants of Christians belong to God and the Church no less than the children of the Hebrews formerly (belonged to God and the Church); since to them in infancy circumcision was allowed, even so ought baptism to be administered to our infants, because they are partakers of the same divine promise and covenant, and they were taken up by Christ also with supreme gentleness. Likewise more errors are heaped up by others in baptism, which some so amazed look at as if they believe that from that external element itself the Holy Spirit emerges, and that his power, his name, and his efficacy, out of which we are renewed, and his grace, and the remaining gifts proceeding out of it, swim in the very fonts of baptism. In a word, they wish our total regeneration to be due to that sacred pit, which inveighs against our senses. But the salvation of souls. the renewal of spirit and
[p. 106]the benefit of adoption, by which God owns us as sons, by divine mercy flowing through Christ to us, then, too, come forth out of the promise made good by sacred Scriptures. Also, wicked should seem the scrupulous superstition of those who bind together the grace of God and the Holy Spirit with the elements of the sacraments, to such a degree, that they, clearly affirm that no infant of Christians (Christian parents) will obtain salvation who has been seized by death before he could be brought to baptism: which we decide to hold far otherwise. For salvation is denied only to those who contemn this font of baptism, or from a sort of pride or contumacy recoil from it: since this insolence falls not into the age of children, nothing against their salvation can be decreed by authority of the Scriptures; indeed, to the contrary, since a common promise includes those children, we must conceive the best hope concerning their salvation."Four things are perfectly clear from the above extracts: 1. That immersion was baptism in 1571 in England. 2. That the Anabaptist denied infant baptism. 3. That the Anabaptist practiced dipping in England in 1571. Nothing else can be made out of the passage. 4. That the old charge of baptismal regeneration was charged against the Anabaptists of 1571 as it is made against the Baptists of 1898. Fox had every opportunity to know the truth. He had investigated the Anabaptists. There is a letter from him to the Queen, which has been preserved, in which he appeals for her clemency in the case of some condemned Anabaptists. With all of the facts before him he could speak assuredly, and his declaration that they practiced dipping is conclusive.
In the case of Leonard Busher we have a clear instance of immersion. He was a firm believer in and an advocate of immersion. It has been held that he was a member
[p. 107]
of the church with Helwys. But whether he was or not he "was an Anabaptist" (Lawne's Prophane Schisme, p. 56. A.D. 1612. B. M. 4139. bb. 12) and a believer in dipping. He was "a citizen of London," and wrote his book in 1614. Busher says: "And therefore Christ commanded his disciples to teach all nations, and baptize them; that is, to preach the word of salvation to every creature of all sorts of nations that are worthy and willing to receive it. And such as shall willingly and gladly receive, He has commanded to be baptized in the water; that is, dipped for dead in the water" (Plea for Liberty of Conscience, p. 50).
From this tract it is certain that Busher held three distinctive Baptist doctrines:
1. Liberty of conscience;
2. Immersion or dipping, and
3. Believers' baptism.
It is impossible to break the force of this testimony. Nobody but a Baptist would talk about dipping a believer for dead. Nobody denies that Busher was a Baptist. Here, then, is one Baptist who was a dipper 27 years before 1641, and not one proof exists that even one other Baptist differed from Busher on the subject of dipping.
It is probable that Busher was connected with the church of Helwys and Morton in London. We have already seen that he was pronounced in favor of dipping. The other members of this congregation were likewise dippers. Prof. Masson, who is perhaps the foremost authority in Great Britain on English affairs of the period of the Civil War, says: "Now, this Helwisse, returning to England shortly after 1611, drew around him, as we saw, the first congregation of General or Arminian Baptists in London; and this obscure Baptist congregation seems to have become the depository for all England of the absolute principle of Liberty of Conscience expressed in the Amsterdam Confession as distinct
[p. 108]
from the more stinted principle advocated by the general body of the Independents. Not only did Helwisse's folk differ from the Independents generally on the subject of Infant Baptism and Dipping; they differed also on the power of the magistrate in matters of belief and conscience" (Life of John Milton, Vol. II, p. 544).
Fortunately we have contemporaneous evidence which is as clear as could be desired. One I. H. in 1610 wrote a book against this very congregation, in which he declares: "For tell me, shall every one that is baptized in the right forme and manner (for that ye stand much on) upon the skinne be saved" (A Description of the Church of Christ, p. 27). Here, then, we have the direct statement of this antagonist that this church of Anabaptists not only differed from the Puritans around them on the subject of baptism, but on the "forme and manner" of it as well. The form of the Puritans was undoubtedly sprinkling, the form of the Baptists was immersion. John Robinson, in his reply to John Morton, declarers that he and his congregation practiced dipping. He says: "In the next place they come to baptism, in which they think themselves in their element, as filth in the water. And beginning with John's baptism" &c. (Defence of the Doctrine propounded by the Synod of Dort, p. 147. B. M. 3925. bb. 23) There is no other interpretation possible for this passage.
But Morton testifies himself to his belief. He declares that John baptized his disciples IN JORDAN, and then he adds "this indeed was the practice of the primitive churches, it cannot be destroyed" (A Description of What God hath Wrought, 1620, pp. 129, 130. B. M. 4255. aa).
Fortunately we have yet another witness, and this is I. G(raunt). He declares that Morton differed with some on free grace, but he
[p. 109]
agreed with the rest on immersion. The words are in the form of a conversation, and bear date 1645. He says:"Heres. But we have found a rule of truth in God's Word, plainly directing us to the making matter of the Church of Christ, none but such as are qualified by faith, are fit subjects of baptism, which faith is wrought by teaching, and then baptism of dipping admits and gives entrance unto such believers, to have communion in church fellowship with us in all holy ordinances of God; which church and ordinances are not understood, but neglected and contemned of all the Heretickes you have named and conferred with before, therefore we are the true church, for we professe but one Lord, one Faith, and one baptisme, Ephes. 4.5. Truth. Sir, I perceive you are an Anabaptist, and therefore I shall speedily make good my late promise, and indeed, some thirty years since, Mr. Morton, a Teacher of a Church of the Anabaptists, in Newgate, then his confession comprehended all the errors of the Arminians which now of late, many that go under your name, in and about London dissent from, as it seems you do" (Truths Victory, p. 19. B. M. E. 277. (7)).Now this carries John Morton back to about 1615, and declares in the plainest terms that he practiced dipping. Morton differed only from some of the Anabaptists of 1645 on the subject of Arminianism, but not at all on the subject of believers' baptism and dipping. Here is another very clear example before 1641 in favor of dipping.
In 1623 in London Edmond Jessop published "A Discovery of the Errors of the English Anabaptists." On page 62 of the book we find: "In whom also yee are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sinnes of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptisme, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of operation of God,
[p. 110]
who hath raised him up from the dead. In which word (I say) he settled downe expressly, that the baptisme which saveth, the baptisme whereby we put on Christ, the baptisme whereby our hearts are purged and sanctified, and the sinnes of our flesh done away, whereby we are buried with Christ and doe rise with him, even that which is through the faith and operation of the Spirit, is one and the same, with the circumcision of the heart, &c."In Daniel Featley we have a powerful witness of the existence of immersion among the Baptists from a date before 1625. He published his book, "The Dippers Dipt," in 1645, and he says that they had lived near his residence for more than twenty years, which would carry the date of their immersions back to a period prior to 1625. In his Epistle Dedicatory he says: "They preach, and print, and practise their Hereticall impieties openly, and hold thelr Conventicles weekly in chief Cities, and Suburbs thereof, and there prophesie by turnes; and (that I may use the phrase of Tertullian) aedificantur in ruinam, they build one another in the faith of their Sect, to the ruine of their souls; they flock in great multitudes to their Jordans, and both Sexes enter into the River, and are dipt after their manner, with a kind of spell containing the head of their erroneous Tenets, and their engageing themselves in their Scismaticall Covenants, and (if I may so speake) combination of separation. And as they defile our Rivers with their impure washings, and our Pulpits with their false Prophecies, and Phanatlcall Enthusiasmes, so the Presses sweat and groane under the load of their blasphemies. For they print not only Anabaptisme, from whence they take their name; but many other most damnable doctrines, tending to carnall liberty, Familisme, and a medley and hodge-podge of all Religions."
That passage is certainly clear enough on
[p. 111]
the subject of dipping among these Anabaptists. He then proceeds to tell us that he has known these "new upstart sectaries" for twenty years near his own home. His words are:"As Solinus writeth, that in Sardina where there is a venomous serpent called Solifuga (whose biting is present death) there is also at hand a fountain, in which they who wash themselves after they are bit, are presently cured. This venemous serpent (vere Solifuga) flying from, and shunning the light of God's Word, is the Anabaptist, who in these later times first shewed his shining head and speckled skin, and thrust out his sting near the place of my residence for more than twenty years."Here we have the explicit testimony of Featley that the Baptists were dippers as far back as 1620. Prof.Vedder very well said: "These words of Dr. Featley are specially significant. He professes to speak of Baptists from personal knowledge, and though he was bitterly prejudiced, there is no reason why he should exaggerate in such a particular. Since he wrote in 1644, his 'twenty years,' however carelessly he used the phrase, evidently carry the date of immersion far back of 1641."The Pedobaptist historian who replied to Crosby, John Lewis, saw the force of this testimony of Featley's, for he says: "Dr. Daniel Featley in 1645 assured the Lords and Commons in parliament, to whom he dedicated his book, that the Anabaptist in these later times first shewed his shining head near the place of his residence, Lambeth, for more than twenty years, or before 1625" (Rawl. C. 409).Great effort has been made to show that Featley was wrong in his statement of the existence of Baptist churches near his residence for twenty years. The following very extravagant claim has been made: "The Borough in those days may have contained as many as seven or ten thousand inhabitants. If anybody had been immersing at Lambeth, near Dr. Featley's residence, for more than twenty years, there is scarcely one chance in a million that the men of the Jessey Church would not have become aware of it. And there is scarcely one chance in ten millions that Dr. Featley, who was an outsider, should have heard of these immersions, while the men of the Jessey Church remained in ignorance of them" (A Question in Baptist History, p. 74).It is always hazardous to argue against a positive statement of an eye witness, when an author has nothing more than a mere conjecture. There is not "one chance in ten mi1lions" that such an author is right, and this time the facts all happen to be against him. The opinion of the Baptists were notorious in London. Barber was before Featley in 1639 for being a dipper (Tanner Ms. 67. 115. Bodleian Library. Acts High Court of Commission, vol. 434, fol. 81. b). Certain "Anabaptists" were before Parliament in January, 1640, and the case was a notorious one and recorded at length in the Journal of the House of Lords, vol. 4, p.133. B. M. Reading Room. Two of these signed the Confession of 1643, namely John Webb and Thomas Gunn. At the same date there is a long petition with the names of many noted Baptists on it presented to Parliament. Such names as those of Thomas Lamb and Mark Whitlock are on it (House of Lord's Manuscript). One who is at all familiar with the records of those times can find case after case in the courts referred to Dr. Featley. He was perfectly familiar with what he was saying, and therefore he declared that for more than twenty years the Anabaptists had been dipping near his residence in Southwark In fact, Fuller, speaking of this church in Southwark and its arrest, says: "This day happened the first fruits of Anabaptisticall insolence" (History, vol. 6, p. 180). That is, they preached before members of the House of Lords. All one needs to do is to relate the facts and down the 1641 theory. The effort to prove Featley ignorant about facts which came before him every day is amusing. Featley was prejudiced and bitter toward the Baptists but he was not ignorant, and when he says they dipped for more than twenty years before 1641 he knew what he was talking about.
Mr. Lewis, however, is wrong in one statement, and that is that these Anabaptists near Featley's residence were the first, in these later times. Featley directly traces these Anabaptists to the Continent and declares that they were all dippers. He mentions the Anabaptists of the time of Henry VIII, Elizabeth and James I, and declares they all practiced dipping. I again quote his words: "Of whom we may say, as Irenaes sometime spake of the Heretick Ebon, the Father of the Ebonites, his name in the Hebrew signifyeth silly, or simple, and such God wat was he: So we may say, the name of the father of the Anabaptists signifieth in English a senseless piece of wood or block, and a very blockhead was he; yet out of this block were cut those chips that kindled such a fire in Germany, Halsatia and Suevia that could not be fully quenched, no not with the bloud of 150,000 of them killed in war, or put to death in severall places by Magistrates."This fire in the reigns of Q. Elizabeth and K. James and our gracious Sovereign, till now, was covered in England under the ashes; or if it brake out at any time, by the care of the Ecclesiasticall and Civil Magistrate, it was soon put out. But of late since the unhappy distractions, which our sins have brought upon us, the Temporall Sword being other ways employed, and the Spirituall locked up fast in the scabberd, this sect, among others, hath so far presumed upon the patience of the State that it hath held weekly Conventicles, re-baptized hundreds of men and women together in the twilight in Rivilets, and some arms of the Thames and elsewhere, dipping them over head and ears. It hath printed divers pamphlets in defense of their Heresie, yea and challenged some of our Preachers to disputation. Now although my bent hath been hitherto against the most dangerous enemy of our Church and State, the Jesuit, to extinguish such balls of wildfire as they have cast in the bosome of our church, yet seeing this strange fire kindled in the neighbouring parishes, and many Nadabs and Abihu's offering it on God's Altar, I thought it my duty to cast the waters of Siloam upon it to extinguish it."
No argument is needed to enforce the words of Featley as given above in favor of dipping. A. R., a Baptist, wrote a book in 1642 on the Vanity of Infant Baptism. A. R. makes a clear and positive declaration on the subject of dipping. Featley replies to this book, but does not controvert the doctrine of dipping as advocated by A. R., but confirms it. He goes further and gives a history of the dipping Anabaptists. He says: "At Zurick after many disputations between Zuinglius and the Anabaptists, the Senate made an Act, that if any presumed to rebaptize those that were baptized before, they should be drowned."At Vienna many Anabaptists were so tyed together in chains, that one drew the other after him into the river, wherein they were all suffocated (Vide Supra, p. 61).
"Here you may see the hand of God in punishing these sectaries some way answerable to their sin according to the observation of the wise man (Gastius, p.18), quo quis peccat eo puniatur, they who drew others into the whirlpool of errour, by constraint draw one another into the river to be drowned; and they who prophaned baptisme by a second dipping, rue it by a third immersion. But the punishment of these Catabaptists we leave to them that have the Legislative power in their hands, who though by present connivence they may seem to give them line: yet, no doubt, it is that they more entangle themselves and more easily bee caught. For my part, I seek not the confusion of their persons, but the confusion of their errours, two whereof A. R. undertaketh strenuously to defend" (p. 73).
It will be remembered that I quoted the testimony of Fuller, the English Church Historian, to the effect that Baptists of 1638.who were burned in Smithfield were dippers. Featly makes the same statement. His words are: "Let the punishment bear upon it the print of the sin: for as these sectaries drew one another into their errors, so also into the gulfe; and as they drowned men spiritually by re-baptizing, and so prophaning the holy sacrament, so also they were drowned corporally. In the year of our Lord, 1539, two Anabaptists were burned beyond Southwark, in Newington; and a little before them, five Dutch Anabaptists were burned in Smithfield,"How a man could be more definite in his statements than Featley is difficult to see. He declares that one of the "peculiarities of this sect" is exclusive dipping. Think a moment of this testimony. Featley was born in l582 and died in l645. His life covered the whole period under discussion. He declares that the Anabaptists lived near him for twenty years, and I know from other sources that he caused great numbers of them to be apprehended, and many of them were sent to Dr. Featley for examination and instruction. It will be seen from these papers that Edward Barber was one of that number. When lie declares, therefore, that they practiced dipping, he was well acquainted with what he was saying. No amount of objection can overthrow this conclusive and unanswerable testimony. =========== [From pp. 102-116. - Transcribed by Jim Duvall]
Baptist History Vindicated By John T. Christian, D.D., LL.D., 1899
Chapter XI
We give now some Baptist testimony showing the practice of the immersion of believers in England before January, 1642, the date mentioned by the "Kiffin" Manuscript:
The Rev. John Canne, in April, 1641, was a "baptized man;" this is conceded to mean an immersed man. Dexter, in his Congregationalism as shown in its Literature, admits that Canne had long been a Baptist at this date, and that his troubles in Amsterdam some years previously was probably based on his being an Anabaptist. But we find in Stovel's Introduction to Canne's Necessity of Separation that Canne was an Anabaptist in Holland. The date was before January 16, 1621. There were, it is declared, many sects of the Anabaptists, and "Canne was pastor of one company" (Evans' Early English Baptists, vol. 2, pp. 107, 108). There is no proof of any change of sentiment on the part of Canne. He was a Baptist before 1621, he was a Baptist in 1641. He practiced dipping in 1641, and there is no reason that he was not in the practice of dipping as an Anabaptist in 1621. But the Broadmead Records in April, 1641, declare that Canne was a "baptized man," that is, an immersed man, and this is eight months before the alleged events described in the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript. No amount of ingenuity can explain away the fact that Canne, an immersed Anabaptist, was preaching in Bristol early in 1641. The statement is taken from the Broadmead Records, and the facts set forth cannot be denied. These Records say: "Anno, 1640. And thus the Lord led them by His Spirit in a way and path that they knew not, having called them out of darkness into his marvelous light by Jesus Christ our Lord. So that in the year of our ever blessed Redeemer, the Lord Jesus (1640), one thousand six hundred and forty, those five persons, namely, Goodman Atkins, of Stapleton, Goodman Cole, a butcher of Lawford's Gate, Richard Moone, a farrier in Wine street, and Mr. Bacon, a young minister, with Mrs. Hazzard, at Mrs. Hazzard's house, at the upper end of Broad street, in Bristol, they met together, and came to a holy resolution to separate from the worship of the world and times they lived in, and that they would go no more to it. And with godly purpose of heart (they) joined themselves in the Lord, only thus covenanting, that they would in the strength and assistance of the Lord come forth of the world, and worship the Lord more purely, persevering therein, to their end" (Broadmead Records, pp. 17, 18).The Records continue: "At this juncture of time the providence of God brought to this city one Mr. Canne, a baptized man; it was that Mr. Canne that made notes and references upon the Bible. He was a man very eminent in his day for godliness, and for reformation in religion, having great understanding in the way of the Lord."Mrs. Hazzard, who was the wife of the parish priest, found him and fetched him to her home. Then the Records say: Mr. Canne then attempted to preach in a suburb of the city and a wealthy woman placed some obstructions in his way. The Records say:"He taught the way of the Lord more perfectly, and settled them in church order, and showed them the difference betwixt the church of Christ and anti-Christ, and left with them a printed book treating of the same, and divers printed papers to that purpose. So that by this instrument Mr. Canne, the Lord did confirm and settle them; showing them how they should join together, and take in members" (pp. l8, 19). "The obstruction was by a very godly great woman, that dwelt in that place, who was somewhat severe in the profession of what she knew, hearing that he was a baptized man, by them called Anabaptists, which was to some sufficient cause of prejudice, because the truth of believers baptism had been for a long time buried, yea, for a long time by popish inventions, and their sprinkling brought in room thereof. And (this prejudice existed) by reason (that) persons in the practice of that truth by baptism were by some rendered very obnoxious; because, about one hundred years before, some beyond the sea, in Germany, that held that truth of believers baptism, did, as some say, did some very singular actions; of whom we can have no true account what they were but by their enemies; for none but such in any history have made any relation or narrative of them" (pp. 19, 20). A statement could not be more positive or more to the point. John Canne was a "baptized man" in April, 1641, and that is a considerable time before the "11 Mo. Janu," 1641, according" to modern reckoning Jan., 1642, when the" Kiffin" Ms. says immersion began.
With these facts before us, the following statements are very amusing: "Stovel says: '1641, Canne is at Bristol, April 25.' This would agree to a nicety with the fact that Blunt had begun the practice of immersion in Southwark, London, early in the year 1641, after his return from Holland, whither he had gone to obtain it in 1640. Mr. Canne, who was well acquainted in Southwark, appears to have submitted to the ordinance very promptly in 1641, and was in time to reach Bristol by the 25th of April, 1641" (A Question in Baptist History, pp. 77, 78).
The Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript makes Blunt's baptism in England to take place in January, 1641, old style, that is to say, January, 1642, and that is eight months after April, 1641. How a man who writes "Baptist History" could be ignorant of this fact, is beyond comprehension. I take it that no competent scholar would question for a moment that April, 1641 is eight months in advance of January, 1641, old style; new style it would be April, 1641, and January, 1642. Here is an absolute proof that one Baptist at least was immersed before Blunt is said to have exploited his performances in England. That is to say, if it could be proved that there was such a man as Blunt and the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript is correct, then this would follow. But no one knows anything of Blunt, and the "Kiffin" Manuscript is thoroughly discredited.
Edward Barber has been put forward as the "founder of immersion among Batptists." How Edward Barber could be the founder of immersion and the" Kiffin" Manuscript remain true, cannot be explained. If the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript is to be trusted, then Richard Blunt is the "founder of immersion among Baptists." Certainly both Edward Barber and Richard Blunt did not accomplish this remarkable feat. The fact is that neither of these gentlemen founded immersion among Baptists or among anybody else. One can but be struck by the one-sided statement of facts always put forward to sustain this amazing 1641 theory. Each particular instance is adjusted to fit the preconceived theory. One minute Richard Blunt "revived" immersion in England, and the next moment we are requested to believe that Edward Barber is "the founder of immersion among Baptists." I would like for the advocates of this theory to be just a little specific, and tell us just what they do intend to stand by. Now the following are some of the claims made for Edward Barber: "And this reminds us that our Baptist friends do not give sufficient honor to the man who deserves all their praise for having recovered to Protestants the apostolic rite of immersion. We do not remember to have seen a single reference in their current newspaper press, in the econiums that pass current at their anniversaries, to the man whose name ought to eclipse far that of Roger Williams - we mean Edward Barber, the father of modern immersion." - The Independent, July 29, 1880."Happily for us, however, the above assertion is confirmed by the authority of Edward Barber, the founder of the rite of immersion among the Baptists. In the preface to his 'Treatise of Baptism, or Dipping,' London, 1641, the earliest book in the English language to assert that immersion is essential to baptism, Mr. Barber praises God that he, 'a poore tradesman,' was raised up to restore this truth to the world. Zion's Advocate has incautiously permitted Ivimey, or some other Baptist historian, to mislead it about the cause of Barber's imprisonment in 1641. Crosby (I. 218) says it was for "denying the baptism of infants, and that to pay tithes to the clergy is God's ordinance under the Gospel." This agrees with Barber's own statement. He was not imprisoned "for publishing the 'Treatise of Baptism or Dipping.'" On the contrary, he tells us that he wrote this treatise while he was in prison for the cause above mentioned." - N. Y. Independent, Oct. 7, 1880.
"Immersion had been started by Barber in 1641." - The Independent, Oct. 21, 1880.
The New 'Cyclopaedia does not even mention the name of Edward Barber the founder of immersion among the Baptists. This looks like an act of ingratitude toward a man who has exerted a greater influence upon the Baptist denomination than any other." - The Independent, Feb. 24, 1881.
"When Edward Barber sent forth 'A Small Treatise of Baptisme or Dipping' a new note had been struck. The man was here asserting against the whole of Western Christendom that baptism is synonymous with dipping; that there is no other baptism but dipping. He aimed to show 'that the Lord Christ ordained Dipping' and not sprinkling or pouring. The claim that immersion is the only valid act of baptism had been a long while unknown in England.
"Mr. Barber also indicates the exact time when it was introduced again. His book bears the date of 1641, and in it he claims the distinguished honor 'to divulge this glorious Truth to the World's Censuring.' Nobody in recent times had divulged it in England. His book was the first in modern ages to make it known to the English public. The annals of English literature will be searched in vain for a volume that precedes it in date and yet maintains that nothing else is true baptism but immersion.
"Whatever quibbles may be raised about other questions, none can be raised about this one. The ordinance was extinct in England in 1641, if Barber's authority is worth anything at all, and if the plainest statements of fact are capable of being understood by the human mind" (A Question in Baptist History, pp. 90, 114, 115, 119).
I have been thus explicit in stating this case since so much has been claimed for the testimony of Edward Barber. For the life of me, I cannot guess what the testimony of Edward Barber has to do with the "Kiffin" Manuscript in the way of confirming it, because if Edward Barber founded immersion, Richard Blunt did not. Edward Barber was a General Baptist; this "Kiffin" Manuscript business had reference to the Particular Baptists. Any one in the least acquainted with the history of these two bodies, knows that they not only did not affiliate, but were hostile. If Richard Blunt had invented immersion, it would not have been a powerful reason for Barber to accept it, but rather a reason against his acceptance; and had Barber been the founder of immersion, it would not have appealed to Blunt. It has taken three hundred and fifty years to get these two bodies of Baptists to co-operate in their work, which was accomplished two or three years ago, and even now all friction and jealousies are not gone. There was no harmony between them at that period. The co-operation of these Baptist bodies in 1641 in reviving immersion is a myth and did not exist. The above quotations show ignorance of the fact of Edward Barber, and indicate a knowledge of only a few extracts from his book on Baptism
In 1641 Barber had long been a Baptist. The Dictionary of National Biography is a great work which is now appearing in England in many volumes. I find it unusually accurate. Each article is prepared by a specialist who goes into the original authorities. The article on Edward Barber was prepared by Thompson Cooper, F. S. A. He says of Barber: "Edward Barber, baptist minister, was originally a clergyman of the established church, but long before the beginning of the civil wars he adopted the principles of the Baptists" (Vol. 3, p. 330. B. M. 2008. d). And yet the view I am opposing rests itself entirely upon a misuse of the word "divulge," as used by Barber. It is claimed that Barber was the founder of immersion, that he was imprisoned in 1641, and at the close of this year he came out of prison, and in the closing months, later than October, of 1641, founded immersion (Independent, Jan. 19, 1882). Not one of these propositions is true. Edward Barber was not in prison in 1641. The facts are these: Edward Barber appeared before the King's Commission sitting at Lambeth on Wednesday 20 day of June, 1639. "This day the said Edward Barber appeared personally, and being required to take his corporal oath to answer articles, hee humbly desired to be allowed to be released concerning the same until the High Court day of Michaelmas term next, which humble request, the Court taking into their consideration, did grant the said Barber, for taking his oath untill the first Court day of the next term according as was decreed, and monished him in the meantime to confer with some learned divine concerning the lawfulness of taking the oath ex officio, touching which he was (as he allowed) not satisfied in conscience the Court ordered him to appear the first Court day of Michaelmas come next foresaid, to take his oath to answer articles, according to the stile of the Court, to wh in regard he refuse, he is decreed then to bee then pro confesso, touching all the matters concerning said articles against him, his refusal to take his oath notwithstanding" (Tanner MSS. 67. 115. Bodleian Library).The next entry is 1640. Edward Barber and Mark Whitlocke. The cause to be informed in; and inform them the Court if in prison (orders them) to be brought (Acts of the High Court of Commission, Vol. 434:, fol. 52. b. Jan. 23),
1640. Jan. 30. vol. 434. fol. 67. Edward Barber and Marke Whitlocke are ordered to be declared pro confesso if they take not oaths to answer the articles by this day. For next Court day.
1640. Feb. 6. vol. 434. fol. 81. b. Edward Barber. Appointed for next Court day.
1640. June 25. vol. 434. fol. 224. Edward Barber, prisoner in Newgate. Released at his wifes petition on giving bond to appear here the first Court day of Michaelmas term, and of his promise to confer with Featley and other divines touching the lawfulness of the oath ex officio in the meantime.
Now here is an abstract of the Court records of Edward Barber, taken from the public records preserved in the Record Office, London, and the Bodleian Library. Edward Barber was not in jail in 1641 at all, and all that about his getting out of jail and publishing immediately his book on Baptism is a fairy tale. He was out of jail a whole year and a half before his book was published. It is admitted that he held this view of immersion since he was in prison, therefore he had been an immersionist since June 25th, 1640.
But we can come closer to the date of his opinion on dipping than that. He distinctly says at the end of his Preface in his book on Baptism that be was a prisoner because he denied the lawfulness of the sprinkling of infants. His words are: "By Edward Barber, Citizen, and Merchant-Taylor of London; late Prisoner, for denying the sprinkling of Infants, and requiring tithes now under the Gospel to be Gods Ordinance." There can be no dodging of these words. They are very plain. Edward Barber declares that he was imprisoned for denying the sprinkling of infants. The date of his imprisonment was June 20, 1639. Edward Barber was therefore an immersionist two years and a half before the alleged time that immersion was introduced, in England. He was in 1639 already a Baptist, and was therefore an immersionist before that date. Therefore the statement of Edward Barber is fatal to the "Kiffin" Manuscript when that document declares that immersion had not been practiced previously.
When we come to look into the case of Edward Barber we find yet further evidence of his immersion views in 1639. One of the most prominent Baptists of the times of the Civil Wars was Dr. Peter Chamberlain. He was a whole-souled Baptist and rather aggressive. For some reason he had occasion to attack Dr. Gouge, who was a prominent Episcopalian scholar. Dr. Chamberlain was very bold in his statements, and so far from affirming that immersion began in 1641, he affirmed that sprinkling in England was of very recent date. His words are so interesting that I shall lay a few of them before the reader. He says: "Therefore the washing of the whole body, as was appointed by the book of Common Prayer, and was the COMMAND and PRACTICE OF CHRIST and his APOSTLES, and those learned men whom they commonly call FATHERS, is the right way of administering the Sacrament, and not a new invented way of SPRINKLING, which (though practised) was never commanded till of late" (Mr. Blakewells Sea of Absurditis concerning Sprinkling driven Back, p. 6. London, 1650. B. M. 702. d. 12 (10) ). This exactly corresponds with the statement of Wall that sprinkling did not begin to prevail till 1644 and must have begun in 1641. It is refreshing to hear this Baptist talk right out in meeting. It is quite certain that he did not think that immersion began in 1641. And Dr. Chamberlain continues: "To avoid the hardship of Winter, the Common-Prayer-Book will tell you in the preamble, that Easter and Whitsuntide were therefore appointed by the Antients for fit times of Baptisme. After the Winter-Baptizing of children in Wales, will sufficiently testify that you first in your own untruths, by the strength of your distorted imaginations" (p. 11). It is perfectly plain that the Welsh Pedobaptists in 1650 were still immersing infants.
What has all this to do with Barber? Much in every way. Edward Barber not only endorsed these statements but he lent a helping hand to his friend, Peter Chamberlain. He wrote a letter to Dr. Chamberlain giving him some facts. Of this letter Dr. Chamberlain says: "For I have been enformed by Mr. Edward Barber, and have it under his hand since you printed your letter, that at 2 severall times, both upon his being sent unto him by the Bishops, and one Marke Whitlocke, to be satisfied for taking the oath ex officio. Dr. Gouge did acknowledge (not onely sprinkling) but the baptizing of infants was a tradition of the church, and used it as one argument to take that oath: But to your arguments" (p.3). Here is a positive statement that Dr. Gouge, when arguing with Edward Barber, confessed that immersion was baptism, and tried to convince him not to make immersion a point against taking the oath. It is precisely the same thing which Barber himself stated that he was imprisoned for denying infant sprinkling. The date is likewise given. It was when he and one "Mark Whitlocke" were to be satisfied "for taking the oath ex officio," and that this occurred on two occasions. Turn to the Court record as given above, and the dates are apparent, viz.: June 20, 1639, and Jan. 30, 1640. Therefore Edward Barber was an immersionist in 1639. Edward Barber is therefore a positive witness against this 1641 theory, or more properly this 1642 theory. ============= [pp. 116-126.]
Baptist History Vindicated By John T. Christian, D.D., LL.D., 1899
Chapter XII
Edward Barber's testimony is decisive. Writing in 1641, he answers objections to the practice of immersing believers, and this proves the practice must have previously existed. For example, on page 2 Barber says: "Others affirming there was no plain text for the Dipping of any Woman, by the which they discover much ignorance of, or malice against the Truth, striving to uphold the traditions of men instead of the glorious Institutions of Jesus Christ: for the word saith, Acts 8.12, that when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were dipt, both men and women."
Of course , they must have been immersing the women before this objection could have arisen, and now in 1641 it not only had arisen, but had spread so far that Barber felt he must answer it. Certainly, then, they immersed women in England before 1641.
Again Barber says, p.40 (official ms. from British Museum): "Lastly, whereas the clothes, or vestments, are said to be holy, which they weare when they receive the Ordinance of Dipping, they being dipt into the death of Christ: for answer, hee might as well have said, the clothes are holy, preached unto, exhorted to repentance, faith, and other duties that men weare when they are in their Assemblies, but as is the man so is his strength Judges 8.21, and for setting our parts by Gods parts. Ezekiel 43.8."Here Barber is in 1641 answering the objection that his co-religionists regarded the very clothes in which they received "the ordinance of dipping"" as holy. Such an objection proves the previous existence of the dipping. The practice must have existed for some time in order for this objection to arise, and for it to become sufficiently general to make Barber think he must answer it.
Still again Barber says (p. 6): "In like manner lately, those who professe and practice the dipping of Jesus Christ, instituted in the Gospel, are called and reproached with the name of Anabaptists, although our practice be no other than what was instituted by Christ himselfe, &c."The reader will note that it is not the "practice of dipping" which has "lately" appeared; but the thing that has "lately" come to pass is that "those who professe and practice the dipping of Jesus Christ" are "called and reproached with the name of Anabaptists." The dipping, according to Barber, was older than the name Anabaptist. It is conceded that there had all along for over a century been those in England "called and reproached with the name of Anabaptists." Hence Barber believed "our practice" viz., "the dipping of Jesus Christ instituted in the Gospel," had been observed for a longer period than that. Certainly Edward Barber was not "the founder of the rite of immersion among the Baptists," nor had he ever heard of the recent introduction of immersion from Holland or from anywhere else. Remember Barber wrote this in 1641.
It has been claimed that Barber said that baptism was "destroyed and raced out" in England" (Question in Baptist History, p. 115). This is a complete mistake. Barber says no such thing. He is answering P. B.'s [PraiseGod Barebone - jrd] argument that Roman Catholic baptism was valid "despite the defection of Anti-Christ," and he shows that such baptism could not be valid because the Roman Catholics had destroyed and raced out baptism both as to the act and as to the subject. Speaking of the Romish departures from Bible teaching, Barber says, p. 39: "Thus it stands in truth for the Dipping of Christ, destroyed and raced out both for matter and form, as hath been formerly showed, the matter being a believer desiring it, the true form dipping them into Jesus Christ in the New Covenant, to be visible heiress, Romans 8.17, Galatians 4.5, Matthew 28.20, whereas the other is but the tradition of the Church."Barber nowhere intimates that immersion was a "lost art" in England, or that it needed any reintroduction. If this testimony of Barber be not decisive, will not some one explain what he could have said that would have been decisive?
An ounce of fact is worth a ton of fiction.
Thomas Lamb became a Baptist long before 1641, and was an ardent supporter of immersion. He was a General Baptist, and in no wise connected with the Calvinistic Baptists of England, so he could not have been connected with the Blunt story and baptizing in any way, even if that baptizing took place and there ever was a Blunt. Mr. Lamb joined the Baptists before the Civil Wars, and in the first years of Charles the First was active as a Baptist minister. Crosby says of Lamb: "Was a zealous and popular preacher among the Baptists, during the tyrany of Archbishop Laud" (History of the Baptists, vol. 3, p. 54).
He was arrested on the 6th of February, 1640, and committed to the Fleet prison "to restrain him from company, keeping of conventicles, and private exercises of religion" (Acts of High Court of Commission, vol. 434, fol. 88). He was released from the Fleet, June 25, 1640. He was released on bail on the petition of his wife who, with his family, had no means to maintain themselves. He was ordered "not to preach, baptize or frequent any conventicle" (Acts of High Court of Commission, vol. 434, fol. 221). That this baptism which this man was performing was immersion, there is no doubt. He was not well out of prison till he was sent for to go into Gloucestershire. I have an account of this visit into Gloucester from an Episcopalian rector. I give the account as he records it: There were nere my dwelling a company of the separation, who undertook to erect a Church by entering into a covenant, and these carried on their resolutions hand smooth, until they were grown into a great faction. And (as it is the property of that schisme to speak at randome) they began to let flie against the Church assemblies of England, as false, Antichristian, and out of Gods way. "Whereupon I began to enquire into the nature of their Covenant, and told them, that if it were a covenant of first entrance into the true visible Church of Christ, then of necessity the parties so entering must have the seale of first entrance imprinted upon them, which (under the Gospell) is Baptisme. For if the ministry they leave be false in the very constitution thereof, then the Sacraments by them administered, must needs be nullities; and so now they having a lawful ministry constituted and set in Christs way, they must begin all anew, Baptisme and all. Thus (by way of arguing) I spake unto diverse of them, which did so puzzle them, that not long after some of them fell upon this practice of sealing their covenant with baptisme, renouncing their baptisme in their infancy, as a nullity and an Idoll, and being demanded by the magistrates of the City of Gloucester (before whom they were convented) who was that advised them into this practise, they nominated mee to be the first that put them up to it: whereas I was so farre from it, that I held that the dangerous Covenant of the Separation would necessarily lead unto this. And moreover one Walter Coles of Painsewicke a Taylor (a man of good behaviour a long time, and well esteemed by the godly and best Christians). This man (I say) fell off first to the Separation, (where be bad his bane.) And God having given him another child,. he refused to have it baptized untill it co[u]ld answer for itself. This matter fell into debate in Mr. Wels his congregation at Whaddon, Pastor to the Separation there, where the said Coles was a member. Now Mr. Wels and the Church officers his division (foreseeing the ill consequence of this businesse) had resolved to determine against the said Walter: but this being perceived by the said Coles, he desired to go out of the said company, and happy had it been for him, if hee had returned to his former godly and profitable courses of doing good. But he goes further, and turns plain Anabaptist. And so making a journey to London hee brings down one Thomas Lambe a chandler (as is reported) and one Clem, Writer a Factor in Blackwell-hall London (both Anabaptists) into this country. And I being in London, these two travellors (by Walter Voles his directions) came on the Lords-day to Cranham (where I did and doe serve in the work of the ministry) and there the said Lamb (being in a grey-suit) offers to preach in publicke, but being disappointed by Gods good providence of his wicked purpose he retires to a private house in Cranham above said, and by Preaching there he subverted many. And shortly after in an extreame cold, and frosty time, in the night season, diverse men and women were rebaptized in the great riyer Severne in the City of Gloucester. And so at length returning from London, I found the face of things much altered, and many strangely leaning to the heresie of the Anabaptists. And they put on the businesse with such preemtory boldnesse, as if the world had beene unable to gainsay their practice, or refute their doctrine. Whereupon to clear myselfe, and to satisfie others, I undertooke the controversie at Cranham, where they had left their poyson. And when I undertook it, the Anabaptists from Gloucester, and Painswicke came to heare mee and set. upon mee in the open face of the Congregation, as soon as I came downe out of the Pulpit. I desired them to forbeare publique tumults, and to send in their exceptions against what I laid down for Paedobaptism. And at first they sent mee in a paper with no hand to it: but this I rejected, and delivered backe to them againe, because I knew no one of them would stand to it, when once the folly thereof was declared. At length I received about to sheetes of paper, and yet (though it came in the name of them all) there was but one hand unto the same,and this Champion doth so stoutly manage the matter, that surely if his cause were suitable to his stomacke, neither men nor angels could stand before him. It is high time then for us to bestirre ourselves, when condemned heresies shall find such bold abettours, and that in the Land of light and truth. The Lord put it into the hearts of our parliament to settle a Government with us with speed, that outfacing impudencie may be called to account, that truth and peace may dwell in our land" (The Covenants Plea for Infants. Oxford, 1642. B. M. E. 115. (17). Preface to the Reader).That this baptism in the Severn river took place in the Winter or late Fall of 1640 there can be no doubt. The season is well marked, for the narrative says it was "an extreme cold and frosty time." We can come very near setting the exact date. Mr. Wynell, in writing to these Baptists, says further: "And so Lamb your founder in his directions to you expounds the place. But aske that asse how he can make good his exposition. And his letter will answer you, that you must take it upon his word, or else he knowes not what to say to you. And I between you had this deep Divinity from that letter, for that letter beares date Feby 11. Anno 1641. And your paper bears date March 22. Anno 1641 so that allowing a considerable for the coming of his letter from London to you: you might have time enough to make use of your instructions" (p.40) Now we have a fixed date to work from. Lamb dated his letter in London, Feb. llth,..l641. This letter marked the time that the rector was replying to the Baptists, but the immersions had long before this taken place in the Severn. Let us for a moment watch the trend of affairs. This man, Walter Coles, became a Baptist, had a child born to him, refused to have it "baptized," went to London and brought Lamb and one other preacher to Gloucester, these preachers remained some time in Gloucester preaching, returned to London; after a while, the rector, who was in London, returned home, found a great change had taken place in the sentiment of the people, prepared a sermon and preached it, held a controversy with the Baptists, received propositions from them and returned these propositions to them because they were not satisfactory, and then the Baptists wrote to London to Lamb for a paper, which was prepared and returned to Gloucester by Feb, 1641. It is, therefore, perfectly plain, when we take these facts and the slowness of travel into consideration, that this baptism in the Seven took place in the Autumn or early Winter of 1640. If Feb. 11, 1641, is old style, then this immersion took place in 1639.
But the Autumn or early Winter of 1640 was more than a year before the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript places the date of the Blunt episode.
Another fact stands out most prominent. Thomas Lamb was known by the authorities as a baptizer, and was turned out of jail with the admonition that he should not "baptize," which could only mean that he should not immerse, for nothing was said about re-baptism or Anabaptism. When he went to Gloucester he was known as a dipper, since he was an "Anabaptist," and the rector expressed no surprise that this Anabaptist should dip his converts, but took this as a matter of course. This instance shows, therefore, that immersion was the custom of the Anabaptists before 1641. This of itself is sufficient to show that the Baptists were dippers in 1640, and that the "Kiffin" Manuscript is wholly unreliable.
But this is not all. Mr. John Goodwin, a Congregational preacher of London, had a prominent member, Mr. William Allen, to join the Baptists, and Mr. Allen became a very prominent minister among the Baptists. This made Goodwin furious, and he wrote his book, "Water Dipping." In that book he spoke of the "new mode of dipping" Allen relies to one of these attacks, and says "dipping' is not "new," but is the "old" baptism (An Answer to Mr. J. G., B. M. E. 713. 17. p. 34).
Thomas Lamb was indignant at this attack of Mr. Goodwin, and at once resented it. He knew that dipping among the Baptists was no new thing. Lamb's opinion of Goodwin's book is expressed in rather vigorous words. He says: "Sir, you say to Mr. Edwards that his Gangraena made great joy in hell: whatever his Gangraena did in hell I know not, but I believe, upon good grounds, that your water-dipping, especially this eighteenth consideration [which was on dipping], hath made more joy on earth, among the seekers, Ranters, and all sorts of non-churches, than even they had in all their lives before, by how much you excell the most, in parts, learning, wit, &c, by so much the more in their consolation, that you seem to feel weight in the arguments, HEAR HOW THEY CLAP THEIR HANDS AND SING" (Truth Prevailing, p. 78. London, 1655. B. M. 4323 b.) Mr. Goodwin became much ashamed of what he had done and in his Cata-Baptism apologized for this "Grasshopper expression," as he calls it, and declares that he "should not have appeared in print in these Baptismal controversies." But he nowhere stated that dipping began in 1641, and he declares that "the Nation hath had experience of these" Anabaptists "for many years."He says in his book, "Water Dipping no Firm Footing for Church Communion," London, 1653: "First we understand by books and writings of such authority and credit; that we have no ground at all to question their truth that that generation of men, whose judgments have gone wandering after Dipping and Re-baptising, have from the very first original and spring of them since the late Reformation, been very troublesome and turbulent in all places where they have encreased to any numbers considerable; and wiser men than I are not a little jealous over the peace of this nation, lest it should suffer, as other places formerly have done, from the tumultuous and domineering spirit of this sort of men so numerously prevailing as they do" (pp. 37, 38).And on p. 40-41 he declares that Nicholas Stork was "dipped," and that the first Anabaptists of "this nation," whoever they were, baptized others after "that exotique mode." Goodwin, however, fixes the date of the beginning of immersion among the Anabaptists in 1521. He says: "Whether since the first invention and practice of your way in later times, which according to Sculitus, who wrote the history of the Reformation of Christian Religion by Luther, and other his assistants (partakers of the same grace with him therein) was in the year 1521 men of your judgment, wherever (almost) they have come, have not obstructed the course and proceedings of the Gospel, opposed troubled, defamed, the most faithful and worthy instruments of Christ, in the work of Reformation, and upon this account been complained of by them" (pp. xv., xvi.).And yet this "Grasshopper expression," for which the Baptists made Goodwin apologize, is the one that is peddled around by some Baptists of our time, and we are asked to believe on the authority of Goodwin that dipping was a brand new thing in 1655, when Goodwin himself says dipping began among the Anabaptists in 1521. It is strange that there are those among us who not only seem anxious to rake up every old slander that they can find against the Baptists, but who likewise are exceedingly anxious to prove that the Baptists did sprinkle, and, moreover, who resent any instance that is pointed out where Baptists immersed. Thomas Lamb and William Allen would not let an instance of this kind go by without rebuke. They knew better. Long before 1641 Thomas Lamb dipped converts, and long before the times of Thomas Lamb our Baptist forefathers did the same thing. ========== [From Baptist History Vindicated, By John T. Christian, 1899. Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
Chapter 13-15
Baptist History Vindicated Index
Baptist History Homepage