It has been shown that the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript contradicts Crosby's citation from the Manuscript, and that both of these are contradicted by the Jessey Church Records and Doctument number 4, and that all of these documents are contradicted by facts that cannot be called in question or set aside. I am under no obligation to prove that the Anabaptists immersed. As Dr. E. T. Winkler declared in the Alabama Baptist in 1881, when he was combatting this 1641 theory: "We assume that every Anti-pedobaptist of those ages was immersed, unless the contrary is shown by contemporary records." All that is needed is to emphasize the fact that immersion was the universal practice of the Anabaptists in England and challenge proof that they ever had any other practice. Not one example has been cited to show that any one Anabaptist practiced sprinkling in England before or since 1641. A good deal of theorizing has been engaged in, but I demand the name of just one Anabaptist who ever sprinkled any candidate for baptism in England before 1641. Till this is done there is no ground for any demand for proof that they immersed. All admit that they immersed in 1643, and there is no proof that any of them sprinkled in 1641. The man who affirms it must prove it. The Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript is the citadel of the 1641 argument; since that falls the argument falls with it. Facts must be produced, and boasts of great learning are no substitute for facts. Facts, hard facts, nothing but facts, will weigh in this matter. I have shown beyond any doubt that the "Kiffin" Manuscript is a fraud, and that the much-relied-upon expression, "none having then so practiced to professed believers" in England before 1641 is utterly unworthy of credit. While not under the slightest obligation to do so, I shall present some decisive proof of the practice of immersion in England before 1641. I shall present the testimony of the Episcopalians, Catholics, Independents or Presbyterians, and of the Baptists themselves. The following declaration sets forth the claim I am refuting: "I have often declared it to be my opinion that the immersion of adult believers was a lost art in England, from the year 1509, the accession of Henry VIII., to the year 1641, following the imprisonment of Archbishop Laud" (WESTERN RECORDER, July 9, 1896).

We begin with the Episcopalians. The following remarkable statement occurs in Wall's History of Infant Baptism: "So (parallel to the rest of their reformations) they reformed the font into a basin. This learned Assembly could not remember that fonts to baptize in had been always used by the primitive Christians, long before the beginning of popery, and ever since churches were built; but that sprinkling as the common use of baptizing was really introduced (in France first, and then in other popish countries) in times of popery." (History of Infant Baptism, Vol. II., p. 403). And in another place he remarks: "And for sprinkling, properly called, it seems that it was in 1645 just then beginning, and used by very few. It must have begun in the disorderly times of 1641." (History of Infant Baptism, Vol. II., p. 403).

Now is Wall correct in that statement? Were the Presbyterians the ones who reformed the font into a bason, and was sprinkling just beginning in 1645, having begun in the disorderly times of 1641? My recent investigations thoroughly confirm these statements. It is not necessary in this discussion to go back further than the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Gough, a learned antiquarian of the last century, states the condition of things in England in the reign of this queen. He quotes the original authorities to make good his words. He says: "This [immersion] in England was custom, not law, for, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, the governors of the Episcopal church in effect expressly prohibited sprinkling, forbidding the use of basons in public baptism. 'Last of all (the church wardens) shall see, that in every church there be a holy fonte, not a bason, wherin baptism may be administered, and it be kept comely and cleane.' 'Item, that the font be not removed, nor that the curate do baptize in parish churches in any basons, nor in any other form than is already prescribed.' Sprinkling, therefore, was not allowed, except as in the church of Rome, in cases of necessity at home" (Archeology, vol. 10, pp. 207, 208).

Sprinkling was, therefore, prohibited in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and was only permitted in cases of necessity, and that at home. This was the state of affairs when James VI. of Scotland became James I. of England, on March 24, 1603. A font of gold had been presented for his baptism (Turner, vol. 4, p.86, note). Although James had been immersed, he was a Scotchman. Many of the Scotch divines had gone over to Geneva and returned at length to Scotland greatly impressed with the views of Calvin. "These Scotch exiles, who had renounced the authority of the pope, implicitly acknowledged the authority of Calvin; and, returning to their own country, with Knox at their head, in 1559, established sprinkling in Scotland" (Edinborough Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p.236). James was a thorough Scotchman, and some of the Court ladies had already been mightily taken with this custom. But the church of England not only did not receive sprinkling for baptism, but set itself officially against it. The Church of England legislated upon the question, and sprinkling never did prevail in England until the distractions of the Civil Wars following 1641. It was adopted by the Westminster Assembly, the Presbyterians, the party of Calvin, in 1643, but never was adopted by the Church of England. Immersion is now, theoretically at least, the normal form of baptism in the Church of England. So far from sprinkling being the ordinary custom in England in 1641 it only was just beginning.

Let the reader note the following confirmations of these statements. I have personally examined a vast number of the Articles of Visitations of the Bishops of England between 1600 and 1645, and these documents fully sustain Wall in his statements. The very year that James came to the throne the clergy seemed to fear the influence of the king, and passed a most significant canon in favor of dipping and against sprinkling. These men went so far as to get the king's approval, and it was published by "his Majesties authority." The Bishop of London was the President of the Convocation, as the Archbishop was dead, for the Province of Canterbury. In these "Constitvtions and Canons Ecclesiasticall" Canon LXXXI. provides: "A Font of Stone for Baptism in euer [sic] Church". According to a former constitution, too much neglected in many places, we appoint, that there shall be a Font of stone in every church, & Chappel, where Baptism is to be ministered: the same to be set in the ancient usual places. In which onely Font, the minister shall baptize publickly" (B. M. 698. h. 20 (17) ).

This is certainly a very strong immersion document, and, what is more to the point, it comes from the highest authority in the Church of England. This Convocation was determined that sprinkling should not prevail in England, and it did not prevail till the Presbyterians came "into the saddle." The reader will bear in mind that the font was for immersion and the "bason" for sprinkling.

The Prayer Book of James I, 1604, called the Hampton Court Book, was in accord with these Canons. We read: "Then the priest shall take the child in his hands, and naming the child shall dip it in the water, so it be discreetly and warily done; and if the child shall be weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it" (B. M. C. 25. m. 11).

The Bishops of the Church of England went to work at once to carry out the instructions of the Convocation. Their action proves that they were unalterably opposed to the introduction of sprinkling. At the risk of a little repetition I shall present these "Articles to be Enquired of," since they are very important in setting forth the views of the Episcopal church of those times, and I am not aware that any reference has been made to these Articles. It will be remembered that these Articles are the official orders of the Bishops to look into any violations of the Canon law of the church, and a direct order in case of such refraction to remedy it.

The Bishop of London had already anticipated the Canon quoted above, for we find as ear1y as 1601 he had taken steps in that direction. In his Articles of Enquiry concerning the Church, number 6, he says: "Whether your fonts or baptisteries be removed from the place where they were wont to stand or whether any persons, leaving the vse of them, do christen or baptize in basons or other. vessels, not accustomably vsed in the church, or do use any kind of lauor with a remouable bason, or haue taken downe the olde & vsuall font heretofore vsed in the parish" (B. M. 698. g. 31).

For some years this admonition appeared to be sufficient and there was no complaint. but in 1618 the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his articles concerning the Minister, is pleased to ask: "2. Doth he vse the sign of the cross in baptism, or baptize in any Bason or other vessel, and not m the usual font," &c. (B. M. 698. h. 20 (13) ).

The Bishop of Lincoln the same year followed with stringent instructions. In the fifth Article Touching the Church he enquires: "Whether haue you in your church a Font of stone set in the ancient Vsuall place," &c. Then in Article 4, Touching the Ministrie, he enquires: "Whether the minster leauing the vse of the Font, doe christen or baptize in any Basons . . . And whether your minister in the baptizing of children, obserue the orders, Rites and ceremonies appointed in the booke of Common Prayer, without addition, omission, or innovation" (B. M. 1368. d. 36). This is a significant statement, since the minister must follow the Prayer Book in the immersion, and there must be no "addition, omission, or innovation."

The Bishop of Norwich, 1619, has twelve enquiries touching the administration of the Sacraments. He is quite urgent that there shall be no departures in his Diocese. There follows the invariable enquiry concerning Ministers, "doth he euer baptize in any Bason or other thing but the vsuall Font" (B. M. 698. h. 20 (14) ).

The Bishop of London, 1621, in his Articles is not less urgent than the other Bishops, but he also gives a plain intimation that there were Baptists in his Diocese. So he adds an additional Article to his other enquires. Concerning the Clergy he enquires: "36. Whether your Minister Baptize any Children in any Bason or other vessell then in the ordinary Font, being placed in the Church or doth put any Bason into it?"

Concerning the Church he enquires: "4. Whether haue you in your Church or Chappell a Font of Stone set up in the ancient vsuall place?

"48. Whether any doe keepe their Children Vnbaptized longer then is conuent, unlesse that it be for the sicknesse of the Child, or other vrgent occasion?" (B. M. 5155. c. 9).

The Bishop of London in 1627 asked the very same questions in the same language (B. M. 700. g.17).

The Archbishop of York, 1633, in his Articles to be Enquired of Touching the Church says: "5. Whether have you in your Church, a font of stone for baptism set in the ancient usual place."

And on Touching the Ministry: "4. Whether any minister leauing the vse of the Font, doe in your Church or Chappell christen or baptize in any Basons, or other profane vessels; or whether your minister doe baptize or christen any out of the face of the Church & Congregation without speciall cause, or without Godfathers or Godmothers: And whether any person or persons be admitted to answere as Godfathers and Godmothers at the christening of any childe, except he or she haue before received the holy communion: And whether doth your minister in ye baptizing of children, observe ye orders, rites and ceremonies appointed and prescribed in the booke of common prayer, without addition, omission or other innovation" (B. M. 5155. c. 17). It is quite plain that the Archbishop of York intended that there should be no "innovations, additions or omissions" in the prescribed ceremonies of his See. Nothing less than immersion would satisfy him.

In 1636 the Archbishop of Canterbury speaks again. He enquires in his articles: "3. Whether have you a Font of Stone in your Church or Chappell, and the same set in the ancient vsuall place?

"15. Whether your minister doe publikely baptize in any sort of vessell, and not in the Font only" (B. M. 698. h. 20. (1) ).

The Bishop of Norwich enquired, l638, concerning the Church: "2. Have you a comely Font of Stone with a cover, set in the ancient usuall place of the Church, is it whole and clean," &c. (B. M. (698. h, 20. (20) ).

The Bishop of Exeter, 1638, enquired: "2. Whither. . . . a Font of Stone set in the ancient usuall place of your Church, with a comely timber covering, and a lock and key, thereunto," &c. (B. M. 698. h. 20. (19) ).

The Bishop of Winchester, 1639, enquired touching the Church: "6. Whether you, have in your Church a Font of Stone, set in the ancient usuall place" (B. M. 698. h. 20. (21) ).

The Bishop of London, 1640, enquired: "8. Have you in your Church or Chappell a font of stone, where baptism is to be ministered, decently made, and kept as it ought to be? Is the same set in the Ancient usuall place appointed for it, and doth your minister publikely baptize in the same font only?" (B.M. 5155. c.26).

The Bishop of Lincoln enquired concerning the Church: "1. Whether have you in your severall churches and chappells. . . . a Font of stone set up in the ancient usuall place" (B. M. E. 171 (24).

This activity on the part of the Bishops put fonts in nearly all of the Church houses of the Episcopalians in England, and vast numbers of these fonts and baptisteries may be seen in these churches to this day. Take, for an example, the little city of Canterbury. The Church of St. George the Martyr has an ancient octagonal font, the basin being upheld by eight small shafts and a thick center one. The Church of St. Mary Magdalene has a fine old Norman octangular font supported by a centre column. The Catholic church of St. Thomas has a very beautiful baptistery, and its carved oak canopy forms one of the most noticeable features in the building. St. Martin's church was the scene of the immersion of ten thousand Saxons at one time. It contains a font well preserved, of which the tradition is that in it King Ethelbert was baptized - three feet high surrounded with sculpture. St. John's Hospital has a singularly-shaped early font. An immense baptistery had been placed in the Cathedral, and the building remains to this day. It is a circular building with the roof in the form of a cupola; underneath is a vault raised on stone pillars, from the center of which proceed ribs to an outer circle of pillars. The Norman arch is beautifully ornamented.

But now remains a most striking fact. For some reason this baptistery was in ruins in 1636, and no font was found in the cathedral. There was a powerful interest taken in immersion at this moment, and it would never do for this noted Cathedral to be without a font or baptistery. Bishop Warner presented the Cathedral with a font in 1636, and it was placed in the Cathedral with great ceremony (The Antiquity of Canterbury, by William Sumner, London, 1640, B. M. 578, f, 17). In the strife which followed in the nation this font was destroyed in 1641, and was rebuilt by Bishop Warner in 1641. There is a notice which follows that several infants and the wives of two officers of the Cathedra1 were immersed in it from 1660 to 1663 (Archlaeology, vol. 11, pp. 146, 147. It is impossible to conceive that a font or baptistery would be placed in this Cathedral in 1636 and again in 1660 if immersion was not practiced, and yet we are compelled to believe this if this 1641 sprinkling theory is true.

On the use of these hundreds of fonts and baptisteries in England I shall let two of the most competent authorities speak. F. A. Paley says: "It is, however, well known that ancient fonts were made large enough for the complete immersion of infants. Exceptions to this all but universa1 practice are very rare; one or two instances are quoted in the Archaeology, vol. 11, p. 123. . . The violation of the same principle, arising from the unhappy custom of aspersion now prevalent in the English church, is one of the commonest faults of modern usage" (Illustrations of Baptismal Fonts, p. 31. B. M. 1265. c 7).

Samuel Carte, the Archaeologist, says of the Fonts of England: "Give me leave to observe, that antiently [sic] at least the font was large enough to admit of an adult person being dipped or immersed therein."

I am sure that the above facts sustain all that Wall claimed when he stated that sprinkling only began in 1641 in England, and made little headway till 1645. The Episcopalian authorities and divines were squarely against it, and did all in their power to prevent its practice in England. These facts cannot be controverted. They are taken from the original documents, and they contain the acts of the Bishops. Sprinkling prevailed only when the Presbyterians came into power in England. instead of immersion being out of practice in England from 1600 to 1641, it was well nigh the universal practice. It shows how utterly unfounded is the statement that there was any need for a "revival" of immersion, or a new "inventing" of immersion in England in 1641. No amount of words or evasions can overthrow these facts. These facts further show that the "Kiffin" Manuscript could not have been written in the atmosphere of the England of. 1641, and is therefore of much later date.

To this proposition we have witnesses who lived and thoroughly understood the history of the times of 1641, For example, Thomas Blake, writing in 1645, declares, "I have been an eye witnesse of many infants dipped and know it to have been the constant practise of many ministers in their places, for many years together" (Infants Baptisme Freed from Antichristianisme, pp. 1, 2. B. M. 279. (10) ).

Walter Craddock preached a sermon before the House of Commons at St. Margaret's, July 21,1646. Among other things he said: "There is now among good people a great deal of strife about baptism; as for divers things, so for the point of dipping, though in some places in England they dip altogether" (p, 100).

Daniel Featley is also a good witness. In his Clavis Mystica, which was published in 1638, he says: "Our font is always open, or ready to be opened, and the minister attends to receive the children of the faithful, and to dip them in that sacred laver."

William Walker, a Pedobaptist, who wrote in 1678, says: "And truly as the general custom now in England is to sprinkle, so in the fore end of this centurie the general custom was to dip" (The Doctrines of Baptisms, p.146).

Sir John Floyer, one oj the most careful writers, says: "That I may further convince all of my countrymen that Immersion in Baptism was very lately left off in England, I will assure them that there are yet Persons living who were so immersed; for I am so informed by Mr. Berisford, minister of Sutton in Derbyshire, that his parents Immersed not only him but the rest of his family at his Baptism (History of Cold Bathing p. 182. London, 1722).

Alexander Balfour says: "Baptizing infants by dipping them in fonts was practiced in the Church of England, (except in cases of sickness or weakness) until the Directory came out in the year 1644, which forbade the carrying of children to the font" (Anti Paedo-Baptism Unveiled, p. 240. London. 1827).
=========

[John T. Christian, Baptist History Vindicated, pp. 74-85.]

---

Baptist History Vindicated By John T. Christian, D.D., LL.D., 1899
Chapter VIII

We find the English divines between 1600 and 1641 speaking out in no uncertain words. The Bishops by their Articles of Visitation were actively opposing the innovations, as sprinkling was called, and the English scholars were sustaining them in their writings. In the light of these Visitation Articles and the facts of these times we can intelligently understand the writings of Rogers and the others who spoke out boldly. These men were heroically standing against the incoming innovation which was supported by a corrupt Court, and "the love of novelty, and the niceness of parents, and the pretense of modesty." With these facts in mind, read and interpret the authors which I now present, and the list call be largely added to.

The Greek lexicons used in England in the first half of the seventeenth century were Scapula, Stephens, Mincaeus and Leigh. These all define as dipping or submerging. I have been unable to find a single Greek lexicon before 1644 which gives sprinkle as a definition of baptizo, and the few that have given this definition since, as a remote definition appear to have been under the same influence that shaped the course of the Westminster divines.

Dr. Joseph Mede, 1586-1638, was a very learned English divine. He says: "There was no such thing as sprinkling or rantism used in baptism in the Apostles' days, nor many ages after them" (Diatribe on Titus iii.2).

Henry Greenwood in 1628 published "A Ioyfvl [Joyful] Tractate of the most blessed Baptisme that euer was solemnized." It is printed in black letter. When I first read it I was led to think that it was by an Anabaptist preacher, but after further examination I found that it was of the Episcopal church. He says of the baptism of Jesus: "The place where he baptized Christ was in the Riuer Iordan [Jordan]. * * * A duplicate Riuer, so-called, because it was composed of two Fountaines, the one called Ior, the other Dan, and therefore the river hath this name Iordan: In which Riuer Naaman was washed and cleansed from his Leprosie, 2 Kings, 5.14; which Riuer Eliah and Elisha diuided with their cloake, 2 Kings, 28.13. In this Iordan did Iohn baptize our Lord and Sauiour Iesvs [Jesus] Christ" (pp.7, 8).

Dr. John Mayer, pastor of tile church in Reydon, in Suffolk, says: "The Lord was baptized, not to get purity to himselfe, but to purge the waters for us, from the time he was dipped in the waters, the waters washed the sinnes of all men" (A Commentary on the Four Evangelists, Vol. 5, p. 76. B. M. 1010. e. 6. A.D. 1631). And on Matt. 28:19: "The order here is observed. First the Nations are taught, and then dipped in water" (p. 333).

Daniel Rogers, 1633, published A Treatise of the two Sacraments of the Gospell, Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord. He was an Episcopalian. He says:

"Touching what I have said of Sacramentall dipping to explaine myself a little about it; I would not be understood as if scismatically I would instill a distaste of the church into any weake minds, by the act of sprinkling water onely. But this (under correction) I say: That it ought to be the churches part to cleave to the Institution, especially it being not left arbitrary by our church to the discression of the minister, but required to dip or dive the Infant more or lesse (except in cases of weaknesse), for which al1owance in the church we have cause to be thankfull; and sutably to consider that he betrayes the church (whose officer hee is) to a disordered errour, if hee cleaves not to the institution; To dippe the infant in water. And this I do so averre, as thinking it exceeding materiall to the ordinance; and no slight thing: yea, which both Antiquity (though with some addition of a threefold dipping: for the preserving of the doctrine of the impugned Trinity entire) constantly and without exception of countlries hot or cold, witnesseth unto: and especially the constant word of the Holy Ghost, first and last, approveth: as a learned Cretique upou Matthew, chap. 3, verse 11, hath noted, that the Greeke tongue wants not words to expresse any other act as well as dipping, if the institution could beare it" (p. 77. London, 1633).

It is a very significant fact that Daniel Rogers was quoted by the Baptists of 1641 as having upheld their opinion. This could not have been in the Baptists of that period had been in the practice of sprinkling.

Stephen Denison, l634, says: "Bee Baptized. The word translated baptizing doth most properly signifie dipping over head and ears, and indeed this was the most usual manner of baptizing in the primitive church: especially in hotte countries, and after this manner was Christ himselfe baptized by Joh. Mat.3.16. For there is sayd of him, that when hee was baptized hee went out of the water. Which doth imply that in his baptizing hee went under the water, and thus all those that were baptized in rivers they were not sprinkled but dipped" (The Doctrine of Both Sacraments, pp. 39, 40. London, 1634).

Edward Elton, 1637, says: "First, in signe and sacrament only, for the dipping of the party baptized in the water, and abiding under the water for a time, doth represent and seale unto us the buriall of Christ, and his abiding in the grave; and of this all are partakers sacramentally" (An Exposition of the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Colossians, p. 293. London, 1637).

John Selden, 1584-1654, was regarded as the most learned Englishman of his time. He says: "The Jews took the baptism wherein the whole body was not baptized to be void" (De Jure Nat., c. 2).

Bishop Taylor, 1613-1677, says: "If you would attend to the proper signification of the word, baptism signifies plunging into water, or dipping with washing" (Rule of Conscience, I., 3, c. 4).

These citations show conclusively that the scholars of that period believed in immersion.

CATHOLICS

While we have not a great deal of evidence of the opinions of the Catholics of England in regard to dipping, what we have happens to be singularly clear and interesting. Thomas Hall, in a bitter attack which he makes on a Baptist preacher by the name of Collier, declares that Anabaptism is "a new invention not much above one hundred years old." And then (the date is 1652) he declares the Catholics are great dippers. His words are: "If dipping be true baptizing, then some amongst us that have been dipped by Popish Prelatical Priests, who are the greatest zealots for dipping, should be rightly baptlzed. The Papists and the Anabapilsts like Sampsons Foxes, their heads look and lie different ways, yet they are tied together by the tails of dipping" (The Collier in his Colours, p, 116).

PRESBYTERIANS

There had been brewing in England for a long time a revolution, and it came with the Civil Wars of 1641. The result of that war was not only the overthrow of the King, but it overthrew the Church of England as well. The Presbyterians took charge of the ecclesiastical affairs of the kingdom. They set out to reform everything. The Westminster Assembly convened and put forth the Confession of Faith and the form of Church Government which bears that name. One of the things they "reformed" was baptism, and they substituted sprinkling for immersion. They were the followers of Calvin, and Calvin must be their model. The Reformed Churches of Calvin practiced sprinkling and pouring, and so must the Reformed Church of England. They took hold of the matter with a bold hand, and at length they succeeded. Thus sprinkling, through the Westminster Assembly, triumphed in England. But with all the prestige of Calvin, even among the Presbyterians, it was not plain sailing. There was stubborn opposition, and when the vote was taken for the exclusion of dipping there was a tie vote, and the President of the Assembly was forced to cast the deciding vote. This, remember, occurred among the Presbyterians, who were the avowed party in England in favor of sprinkling for baptism. If the Presbyterians only carried this change by one vote, it would require no vivid imagination to portray the opposition to sprinkling among the Episcopalians, Baptists and others who were avowedly opposed to it. I boldly ask for any proof which goes to show that there was any particular sentiment for sprinkling in England outside of the Presbyterian church and those who sympathized with it in 1641-45. The Westminster Assembly is responsible for the introduction of sprinkling in England.

Perhaps I should here introduce the authority of Lightfoot, who was the President of the Westminster Assembly. He says:

"Then we fell upon the work of the day, which was about baptizing 'of the child, whether to dip him or to sprinkle.' And this proposition, 'It is lawful and sufficient to besprinkle the child,' had been canvassed before our adjourning, and was ready now to vote; but I spake against it, as being very unfit to vote; that it is lawful to sprinkle when everyone grants it. Whereupon it was fallen upon, sprinkling being granted, whether dipping should be tolerated with it. And here fell we upon a large and long discourse, whether dipping were essential, or used in the first institution, or in the Jews' custom. Mr. Coleman went about, in a large discourse, to prove that, to be dipping overhead. Which I answered at large. After a long dispute it was at last put to the question, whether the Directory should run thus, 'The minister shall take water, and sprinkle or pour it with his hand upon the face or forehead of the child;" and it was voted so indifferently, that we were glad to count names twice; for so many were so unwilling. to have dipping' excluded that the votes came to an equality within one; for the one side were 24, the other 25, the 24 for the reserving of dipping and the 25 against it; and there grew a great heat upon it, and when we had done all, we concluded upon nothing in it, but the business was recommitted.

"Aug. 8th. But as to the dispute itself about dipping, it was thought safe and most fit to let it alone, and to express it thus in our Directory: 'He is to baptize the child with water, which, for the manner of doing is not only lawful, but also sufficient and most expedient to be by pouring or sprinkling of Water on the face of the child, without any other ceremony.' But this lost a great deal of time about the wording of it" (Works, Vol,.XIIL, p. 209. London, 1824).

Sir David Brewster is regarded as high authority. He says:

"In the Assembly of Divines, held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly debated whether immersion or sprinkling shou1d be adopted: 25 voted for sprinkling, and 24 for immersion; and even that small majority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in that assembly" (Edinburg Encyclopedia, Vol. III, p. 236).

All this took place two years after the alleged "invention" of immersion by the Baptists. This action of the Westminster Assembly was followed by acts of Parliament which fully carries out the contention of Wall that sprinkling began in England "in the disorderly times of 1641," and that in 1645 it was "used by very few." The Presbyterians, when they came into power, determined to press sprinkling and overthrow immersion. They were not satisfied with passing an ecclesiastical law to govern the, church, but they followed it by acts of Parliament to control the state. These acts of Parliament were summed up by the Rev. J. F. Bliss in his work entitled, "Letters on Christian Baptism." He says: "The original law of l534 enforced immersion, and those who were not baptized were to be treated as outlaws. This law was passed when the Roman Catholic church was abandoned and the present Established church inaugurated in its stead. However, this law was repealed by an act of Parliament In 1644, at least so much of the old law as enforced immersion, and they passed an act enforcing sprinkling in its stead, and left tile original penalty annexed to sprinkling. After this those who were not sprinkled were to be treated as outlaws, being deprived of the inheritance of the state, the right of burial, and, in short, of all rights to other sprinkled citizens of the realm."

On another page the same writer says: "After 1648 immersion was prohibited and for many years made penal."

Prof. W. T. Moore, Dean of the Bible College of Missouri and editor of the Christian Review, who was for many years a citizen of London, called my attention to the above extract from Bliss, and then made the following remarks:

"It will be seen that from 1534 to 1644, one hundred years, immersion was enforced in England by law, and after 1644 sprinkling was enforced. It is rather remarkable that only one year before this repeal of immersion and enforcement of sprinkling by Parliament, the Westminster Assembly, 1643, by a vote of 25 to 24 -- a majority of one -- laid aside immersion and adopted sprinkling, and this was ratified by Parliament the succeeding year."

This act of 1644 enforcing sprinkling, was followed by one in 1645 that looked toward allowing no parent to escape sprinkling the new-born child. One provision of that act read:

"There shall be provided at the charge of every parish or chaperly in the realm of Eng- land and dominion of Wales, a fair register book of vellum, to be kept by the minister and officers of the church, and that the names of all children baptized, and of their parents and of the time of their birth and baptizing, shall be written and set down by the minister therein."

Thus were the Presbyterians carrying out the provisions of the Westminster Assembly with a high hand. The "fair register book of vellum" was a silent witness against every Baptist in the land, and was intended to overthrow the practice of immersion entirely. But it was not till May 2, 1648, that the gag law was finally passed. By that time those in the practice of sprinkling had complete control of the laws of the land. Hence this enactment was made by the Parliament: finally passed. By that time those in the practice of sprinkling had complete control of the laws of the land. Hence this enactment was made by the Parliament:

"Whosoever shall say that the baptism [sprinkling it had then become] of infants is unlawful and void, or that such persons ought to be baptized again, shall, upon conviction, by the oath of two witnesses, or by his own confession, be ORDERED to renounce his said error, in the public congregation of the parish where the offence was committed. And, in case of refusal, he shall be committed to prison, till he find surities that he shall not publish or maintain said error ant more."

That this law meant the suppression of the Baptists and immersion, there is no doubt, for soon after four hundred Baptists were crowded into Newgate prison. It was, therefore. only in 1648 that sprinkling became the exclusive law of the 1and, and immersion was prohibited. But the Episcopalians never altered their Prayer Book, and immersion is the law of the Episcopal church at this moment. It will, therefore, be seen that the Presbyterians were responsible for the introduction of sprinkling in England. Sprinkling was introduced by them on the return of Knox and his party from Geneva into Scotland; it was advocated later by the Presbyterians in England, but it made no headway till the overthrow of Episcopacy in England, and the Presbyterians had come into power. It became under them an ecclesiastical law in 1643, a civil law in 1644, and an exclusive command in 1648. Therefore, Wall was undoubtedly right when he said sprinkling owed its origin to the troublesome times of the civil war. A simple statement of these facts are enough to overthrow all the theories which have ever been "invented" on the practice. of sprinkling before 1641. Again we are reminded that an ounce of fact is worth a ton of fiction.

=======

[John T. Christian, Baptist History Vindicated, 1899.]

---

Baptist History Vindicated By John T. Christian, D.D., LL.D., 1899
Chapter IX

I cannot, therefore, believe that immersion was a "lost art" in England from 1509 to 1641. Here is an absolute demonstration that immersion prevailed in England till 1641, when sprinkling began to be practiced by a few, and under the authority of the Presbyterians it became the law of the church in 1643, and through their influence was ratified by Parliament in 1644. The case is made out.

As we all know, the Baptists had been terribly persecuted by the Episcopalians, and their sympathies would all naturally be with the Presbyterians as against the Episcopalians. If the Baptists in 1641 deliberately changed their minds, indorsing immersion views more radical than the Episcopalians and against their allies who had gradually come to substitute sprinkling for immersion, and at the very hour of triumph for their affusion views, then for perverseness and contrariness there is no body of people who ever lived that can equal the Baptists of 1641. It is also remarkable that not one Baptist remained who did not suddenly change his mind, and not one who offered a word of protest. The Presbyterians were equally divided on the subject of immersion, but we are asked to believe the Baptists were all in favor of sprinkling till 1641, then they all changed their minds, and in 1642 they all favored dipping, and all of them submitted to that rite! For my part, that is the most astounding proposition I was ever asked to believe. But that is precisely what a man must believe if he accepts as genuine the "Kiffin" Manuscript and the interpretations put upon it by these Baptist advocates.

As for the views of the Baptists on the subject of believers' immersion, we have an excellent landmark. The Confession of 1643 was undoubtedly .an immersion paper. I give the XL Article of the "Confession of Faith of those Churches which are commonly (though falsely) called Anabaptists:"

"That the way and manner of dispensing this ordinance is dipping or plunging the body under water; it being a signe, must answer the thing' signified, which is, that interest the Saints have in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ: and that as certainly as the body is buried under water, and rises again, so certainly shall the bodies of the Saints be raised by the power of Christ in the day of the resurrection, to reigne with Christ" (p. 20).

There is a note appended as follows: "The word Baptizo signifies to dip or plunge yet so as convenient garments be both upon the administrator and subject, with all modesty."

It would, perhaps, be impossible to state immersion views more clearly in a confession of faith. There is no hint of any change of views, but the document throughout presupposes that immersion had all along been their practice. There is no reference to a change of views, no evidence of any lack of agreement, as there certainly must have been had there been a change. Certainly there would have been something of the kind, for we know that with all the influence of Calvin, that when the vote came on the subject of immersion the Westminster Assembly was equally divided. The very fact that the Baptists were unanimous, and that none of them ever raised a question, unmistakably proves that immersion was previously their practice.

Let it be remembered that there were two sorts of Baptists in England. If one set had adopted immersion in advance of the other, they Would have been assailed for so doing. The absence of any such assailing requires those who hold the 1641 theory to believe that these two separate denominations simultaneously changed their practice from sprinkling to immersion. This is incredible. These bodies frequently had debates on various subjects and were not overly friendly, and that the priority of immersion or any reference to any change among them was never raised, is proof that no such a difference ever existed.

Not only is this Confession plain on the subject of dipping for baptism, but it is equally plain on the subject of the administrator of baptism. The makers of this Confession of 1643 did not affirm the doctrine of church succession or baptismal succession. The view of Spilsbury prevailed, and was put into this Confession. Spilsbury held that if baptism were lost, that any disciple could begin baptism by administering it himself, and quoting the example of John the Baptist as a Scripture in point. None of the signers of this Confession avow that immersion was lost, but they do affirm that it is no necessary to send anywhere for baptism. Baptism, they declare, may be begun at any moment, in any place where there are believers. Men who believed this and put it in their Confession of Faith could not have sent to Holland only one or two years before for a baptism according to church succession or any other kind of succession. It would have been a queer commentary on the Particular Baptists of England of 1643 that in 1641 they sent to Holland for immersion to be in line of church succession, introduced immersion in England in Jan., 1642, in that theory and in a little more than a year they declared in a Confession of Faith that they believed in nothing of the sort! If the XL. article, as quoted above is plain on dipping, the XLI as here given is equally plain on the administrator of baptism. That article says: "The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scriptures holds forth to be a disciple; it being nowhere tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission injoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples. being men able to preach the Gospel." This declaration of the Confession of Faith of 1643 is directly opposed to the statement of the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript. Which am I to believe? To ask the question is to answer it. The Confession of Faith is a Baptist document, genuine and an honor to the Baptists; the Gould Kiffin Manuscript is a fraud and absolutely untrustworthy. The Baptists of 1641-4 did not have an agent "EXTRAORDINARILY SENT" to Holland for immersion. They said they did not, and I believe them; the fraud known as the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript says they did have Blunt "extraordinarily sent," and hence it is not worthy of credence.

When we remember that the Baptists were imprisoned and had been burned at the stake in England, we should not expect much evidence concerning their dongs. Mr. Brewer, one of their preachers. was confined 14 years and only released in 1640, and almost everyone of their preachers had been in prison. They were maligned and traduced. They did not dare to keep records, for a discovery that they were Baptists was equivalent to imprisonment. There were so many informers they did1not know whom to trust, and yet in the face of all these difficulties I present a number of instances of immersion among them and facts which go to show that this was their practice. Some of this evidence has been cited before, but it is needful to repeat it in connection with the new evidence I have secured, which illustrates and confirms what was previously known.

Thomas Fuller, the old English church historian, born in 1609, published his history 1656, and consequently lived through the period we are investigating, tells us that the Baptists of 1524 were dippers. His words are:

"A match being now made up, by the Lord Cromwell's contrivance, betwixt King Henry and Lady Anne of Cleves, Dutchmen flocked faster than formerly into England. Many of them had active souls; so that, whilst their hands were busied about their manufactures, their heads were also beating about points of divinity. Hereof they had many rude notions, too ignorant to manage themselves and too proud to crave the direction of others. Their minds had a bye-stream of activity more than what sufficed to drive on their vocation; and this waste of their souls they employed in needless speculations, and soon after began to broach their strange opinions, being branded with the general name of Anabaptists. These Anabaptists, for the main, are but 'Donatists new dipped;' and this year their name first appears in our English Chronicles; for I read that four Anabaptists, three men and one woman, all Dutch, bare faggots at St. Paul's Cross, Nov. 24th, and three days after a man and a woman of their sect were burned in Smithfield" (Church History of Britain, Vol. II., p. 97).

We have been gravely informed, however, that where the Anabaptists are called "Donatists new dipped" it does not mean that the Anabaptists were dippers. What else it could mean I confess I cannot understand. But fortunately we have an English writer who lived only a short distance from Fuller, and his book, "The Anabaptists Routed," was published only one year before Fuller's History, 1655, and he uses much the same expression that Fuller did, and he undoubtedly understood the Anabaptists to be dippers. If the Anabaptists had been in the practice of sprinkling before 1641, Fuller was exceedingly unfortunate in his expression when he called them "Donatists new dipped." But reading the author mentioned above puts that at rest when he says:

"Anabaptists not only deny believers' children baptism, as the Pelagians and Donatists did of old, but affirm, That dipping the whole body under water is so necessary, that without it none are truly baptized (as hath been said)" (pp. 171, 172).

It would appear that the objections of the advocates of the 1641 theory are always unfortunate as there happens to be a contemporary author who always refutes their views. The trouble with the 1641 theory is its utter 1ack of facts for its support.

ln 1551 William Turner, "Doctor of Physick" "devysed" "A Preservative or triacle, agaynst the poyson of Pelagius, lately renued, & Styrred up agayn, by the furious secte of the Anabaptistes." This book undoubtedly settles the question that the Anabaptists of England practiced immersion. He repeatedly calls them Catabaptists (see pp. 19, 27, 28, 49) in his day. It is claimed that Catabaptist does not mean an immersionist, but an opposer of baptism. 'The fact is, it was used in both senses. These Baptists practiced immersion, and by immersing those who had been christened in infancy they were regarded as opposing and despising baptism. (See Liddell & Scott in loco). But my argument does not rest upon the meaning of this word, for Turner uses the word dip in reference to these Anabaptists. The Anabaptist in making his argument for believers' immersion is represented as saying:

"That such a lyke costome was once in our most holye relygyon, as was in colleges and in orders of relygyon, wher as none were admitted, before they had a year of probation, wher unto ye put this that they that came to be baptized, demanded, and desyred to be received to fellow ship of the Christians after dewe proofe of unfayned repentance, and thereby were called competentes. Yonge men, and wymen requyrynge baptysime: and then were taught the principles of the Christian faith and were fyrst called Catechumeni. And after those principles learned, were upon certayne solemne dayes at two tymes of the yeare approved, therefore baptysed: which was upon Easter even and Whit Sunday even: pronmysyng for themselves the observance of Gods law, with the renouncyng of the devell and the worlde in theys owne person, without God-father or God-mother, seven score yeares longe: tyll Ignius, Byshop of Rome ordered to baptyse an infante, a god-father and god-mother answeryng for hym.

"Where as ye say the lyke maner was in our most holy religion, as the scolers and religious men had: that none should be admitted, until they had been proved a yeare, and first called competentes, and then catechtumeni. I marvayl what religion ye meane of: whether ye meane of the Popes religion, or Christes religion, or of the Catabaptistes relygion, which is your religion indeed" (pp. 6, 7).

There are two very significant statements in these passages: (1) The Anabaptist quotes against his opponent the well-known practice of immersing on the two days of Easter and Whit Sunday (Schaff's History Christian Ohurch, Vol. II, p. 252). And (2) he says of the Anabaptist "of the Catabaptistes (dippers) religion, which is your religion indede." This shows that they were certainly dippers.

The following is conclusive: "And because baptism is a passive sacrament, & no man can baptise himselfe, but is baptised of another: & childes may be as wel dipped in to the water in ye name of Christ (which is the outward baptysm and as myche as one man can gyve another) even as olde folke: and when as they have the promise of salvation, as well as olde folkes & can receive the signe of the same as wel: there is no cause why that the baptyme of childes should be differed" (pp. 39, 40).

Here he says that the "olde folke" that the Anabaptist baptized are dipped. This is certainly sufficient.

The following are additional testimonies to the practice of Immersion among the Baptists of England before 1641:

The Rev. John Man, Merton College, Oxford, in 1578 published in English a translation and adaptation of the "Commonplace of the Chrlstian Religion," by Wolfganus Musculus.

Man says: "The word baptisme cometh of the Greek, and is as much as to say in English, or dipping or drowning in."

He knows no baptism but immersion. He never intimates that baptism could be performed in any other manner. Then he goes on to say that the Anabaptists had no excuse "to dippe" twice since the candidate had already been dipped. He argues that the re-baptism in Acts was no excuse for the Anabaptists to "dippe twice." He continues: "But some man will object. If the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ be all one, then the apostle had no reason to baptize the twelve disciples in the manner of our Lord Jesus, who were baptized before of John. For what purpose was it to dippe them twice in one baptisme? Did not some of the fathers, and the Anabaptists of our dayes, take the foundation of their baptizing of this" (p.678). Then he argues that the Anabaptists and the Donatists did wrong. In washing "them again which have been once washed in the same sacrament." A plainer account could not he given or words more direct. Here is an author writing 63 years before 1641 who declares that the Anabaptists were in the practice of dipping. The only blame he has for them is that they "dippe twice" instead of once: That is, the Anabaptists re-dipped those who had been dipped in infancy.

=========

[John T. Christian, Baptist History Vindicated, 1899. Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall.]

---

Go to Chapter 10-12
Baptist History Vindicated Index
Baptist History Homepage