ENGLISH BAPTIST

REFORMATION.

(From 1 609 to 16 4 1 A . D . )

VN BY

GEO . AfiOFTON,D . D

a n

Author of Bible Thoughts an d Themes , Character Sketches, Harp of

A Review of the Question , Review of Dr . Thomas on

theWhitsitt Question , etc.

J

“Succession 5"

is An tichrist’s Chief Hold.

Thomas H elwys.

Amsterdam William Piggot .

Thomas Seamer.

this 12th ofMarch /1609. John Morton .

”

LOUI SVI LLE , KY.

CHAS . T. DEARING,

1899

CONTENTS .

CHAPTER .

I . TH E ANCI ENT BR ITI SH CHR I STIANS

I I . ANABAPTI STS OF TH E XVI . CENTURY

I I I .

“

OR IGIN OF TH E GENERAL BAPTI STS

IV . ORIGIN OF THE GENERAL BAPTI STS— CONTINUED 41

v . ORIGIN OF THE PARTICU LAR BAPTI STS

VI . DI SUSE OF I MMERSION IN ENGLAND

VI I . RE STORATION OF IMMERSION IN ENGLAND

VI I I . THE SO-CALLED KI FFIN MANU SCRI PT

IX. THE OBJE CTIONS TO TH E SO-CALLED KI FFINMANU SCR I PT

X . WI LLI AM KI FFIN

X I . TH E BAMPF I E LD DOCUMENTXI I . CROSBY ’S WI TNE SSES

XI I I : CROSBY ’S WITNE SSES— CONTINUED

XIV . EDWARD BARBER AND PRAI SEGOD BAREBONE . 163

XV . SOME OTH ER BAPTI ST WITNE SSE S”

XVI . SOME OTH ER BAPTI ST WITNE SSE S— CONTINUED 187

XVI I . WHAT THE ENEMY SAID— DR . FEATLEY

XVI I I . WHAT TH E ENEMY SAID4 CONTINU ED

XI -X . WHAT THE ENEMY SAID- CONCLUDEDXX . S IGNI FI CANT. FACTSXXI . WERE THEY BAPTI STS ?

APPENDIX .

O

INDEXiii

O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PREFACE .

This work treats chiefly of that period Of En glish BaptistHistory in cluded between 1 609 an d 1 64 1 A . D . This was theformativeera Of the An glo-Sa_xon Baptists. The Baptist WritersOf the 1 7th cen tury distin ctlyclaim their movemen t as a “Beginn in g,

”or

“Reformation .

”From 1 609 to 1 64 1 an d for some

time afterward the An abaptists Of En glan d were organ ically as

well as in div idually Separatists upon the prin ciple Of believers’baptism; but it was n ot un til 1 64 1 that they fully reached Baptist practice by the adoption Of immersion . Theywere elemen t

allybased upo n the Old evan gelical prin ciples of Lollardism an d

Dutch An abaptismwhich had produced E n glish Con gregation alism. I n the early part Of the 1 7th cen tury Calv in istic A n abaptism seems to hav e been in div idually “in termixed” with Congregation alism; an d it was out Of this pure evan gelical elemen t

that the‘

work of Baptist Separation began ,in 1 633 , to reform.

The Gen eral or Armin ian Baptists of En glan d separated in 1 609an d began their reformation in Hollan d— return in g to En glan d

'

in 1 6 1 1 . Kiffin ,Kin g, Allen ,

Lamb,Jesseyan d Others followed

by Crosby, speak Of this movemen t as a“separation ,

“beginn in g,

”a

“reformation upon the same prin ciples on which all

other protestan ts built their reformation ,an d thesean d all other

writers Of the period who touch the subject , expressly or impliedIy, affirm that the E n glish Baptists separated an d reformed upona higher plan e Of truth than even the I n depen den ts who whilethey took high groun d an d advan ced position ,

n ever reached theultimate logic of Scriptural reform. They n ever got out Of

in fan t baptism or sprin klin g— compulsory religion ; an d hen cethe Baptists cla imed that they n ev er got out Of Rome, n or

reached the goal of a pure church or religious liberty— ev en I n

their I n depen den cy.

Hen ce the title Of this work . The two first chapters are

merely in troductory, treatin g Of the An cien t British Christian san d such of the Foreign An abaptists as fromtime to timepen etrated the Kin gdom,

an d who though migratory an d un settled,

laid the foun dation Of Co n gregation alism or In depen den cy inV

i PRE FACE .

E n glan d , an d who furn ished the evan gelical base an d theory of

Baptist organ ism an d reformation at a later date . Baptist historyin En glan d , accordin g to Gen eral an d Particular desIgn ation ,

begin s Within the period to which thiswork 18 con fin ed , an d sucha period for man y reason s made promin en t in the body Of thiswork

,deserves special an d elaborate treatmen t .

I t I S n eedless to say that this volume 15 the product Of the greatcon ten tion which has grown out of the “Whitsitt Question ;an d though it is a treatmen t differen t in form from that of Dr.

Whitsitt’s Question I n Baptist History, yet . I t Is primarilydepen den t upon Dr. Whitsitt’swork for its origin al suggestion s an d data.

This work adds n othin g to, n or takes an ythin g from,Dr. Whit

sitt’

s thesis Of I t on ly sustain s that thesis ; an d it is on lya question Of time when all

'

un biased scholarship will accept thefact that the Baptists Of En glan d restored immersion in 164 1 .

Others besides Dr. Whitsitt claim in depen den tly to hav e madethe same discovery about the same time . Such were Drs. New

man an dDexter,learn ed an d competen t in v estigators ; an dmore

recen tly it has tran spired that Prof. R auschen bush,an other

scholar,came to the same con clusion

,about the same time

,in

German y. SO Of Prof. de Hoop Scheffer an d others. Thomas

Crosby, 1738—40, in the first history Of Baptists, without givin gthe date

,1 64 1 , details all the facts Of that date which show the

revival Of immersion by the En glish Baptists ; an d but for this

mistake Of our first historian who had the so-called Kiffin Man !

us'

cript before him,we shouldhave escaped the presen t con tro

v ersy. The more recen t recovery of this man uscript by Dr.

Geo . Gould Of Lo n don,led Dr. Whitsitt to assert the discov ery

of the obscured date an d to proVeh is thesis by ample collateraltestimon y that the Baptists of En glan d recov ered,

immersion in164 1 .

The author of this volume has written con siderablyin defen seOf Dr . Whitsitt’s view— basin g his View upon Crosby

’s history;

but he determin ed to make a more thorough in v estigation of the

subject— visitin g the British Museum an d Dr. Williams’ Libraryin Lon don

,the Bodleian Library in Oxford an d the Libraries of

Edin burgh an d other places for the purpose . H e n ow‘

lays theresult of his research before his readers ; an d while much Of it

has been a v erification of the material on han d,he presen ts

In uch n ew an d addition al testimon y. More than fifty origin alauthorities

,Baptist an d Pedobaptist, are here cited as a part of

PRE FACE . vii

his collection an d v erification ; an dhe has been elaborate,though

n ot exhaustive, in detail an d quotation ,in order to give, as far

as practicable, the full settin g Of his authorities an d to show the

exact positio n an d history of the Baptists upon this question an d

upon related poin ts within the reformatory period un der discussion . The 1 64 1 thesis is n ot merelyin ciden tal to this discussion ,

but the author’s aim is to presen t that thesis as on ly related to a

larger history Of the Baptists which in volves that thesis an d,

a

correspon din g reformation which Is I n separable from that thesis.

This work I s n ot in ten ded to be simply con troversial but historical I n fact an d in spirit ; an d the author assures his readersthat his in vestigation has been in an un partisan search for the

truth as in the fear an d un der the guidan ce Of God. H e sol

emn ly determin ed to ren oun ce the 1 64 1 thesis, if the facts Of

historywere again st it ; but amon g the 1 7th cen tury authorities,

Baptist or Pedobaptist , he could fin d n othin g which did n ot con

firm the thesis. After all it is on ly a question of history, an d

should be treated as suchwith a historic spirit an dmethod whichdeal with facts an d n ot fiction s

,with origin al sources an d n ot

subsequen t tradition s, with established research an d n ot learn edOpin ion s which have foun d place in literature without data or

special in vestigation . On e good origin al authority isfworth a

hun dred curren t tradition s or Opin io n s in an y given historicalquestion . Position s in history are n ot always true

‘ because somescholarlyfman holds them ; an d it is Often too true, for this reason ,that certain posI tion s in history are taken for gran ted .

Besides the learn ed an d able worky

Of Dr. Wm. H . Whitsitt

(A Question in Baptist History) the author is in debted to the

great work Of Dr. A . H . Newman (Hist . An tipedobaptism) ,which reaches down to the date at which this work begin s, an dto Prof.“ Hen ryC . Vedder’s Short History of the Baptists, a v eryvaluable production lately rev ised an d en larged . H e also com~

men ds asmost able an d opportun e the Baptist History Of Prof.Rauschen busch, on ly the 1 7th chapter ofwhich he has seen , but

which squarely adopts the 1 64 1 thesis from Crosby. These lateBaptist publication s, bearin g upon the subject un der discussion ,

are written with scholarly ability an d un partisan courage , an d

should be readbyeveryimpartial Baptist. While the author feelsin debted to these later writers

,he has made an in vestigation of

his own ; an d he bases his con clusion s upon the origin al sourcesof the 1 7th cen tury an d upon the origin al history of the En glish

viii PRE FACE .

Baptists, based upon these same sources by Thomas Crosby,Evan s an d others.

The thesis Of thiswork.

’

I s n ot of the author’5 choosin g , but on e

to whichhe has been driv en by careful studycon trary to his former predilection s an d train in g. H e kn ows how to sympathize,therefore , with his brethren Of a con trary opin ion ; an d but for

such Opin ion the question would be of little mome n t apart fromthe facts of Baptist history. For

,

this reason however the author

feels that he has made a valuable con tributio n to his brethren ,

( I because he has con tributed to a better un derstan din g Of

Baptist historyan d position , (2) because he has reset the an cien t

Baptist lan dmark of con stan t reproducfz'

on in stead Of visible suc

cession,which was un kn own to the En glish Baptist churches.

To the peace an d fratern ityof the brethren these pages are therefore dedicated ; an d with a broader an d more en lighten ed view

Of Baptist history an d polityi‘ it is here devoutlywished that theBaptist den omin ation ,

foun ded by our An glo Saxon fathers in

tears an d blood , may rise to wider fields of usefuln ess an d progress an d gran der achievemen ts

,

'AS it stan ds upon the Word of

God for its sole authority, depen ds upon Christ for its sole head ,an d follows the HolyGhost for .its sole guide .

An extra chapter an d also an Appen dix has been added,dur

in g the prin tin g Of this work , in order to meet the publishedObjection s an d criticismswhich, up to date, hav e been offered tothe 1 64 1 thesis Of the Jessey Records an d Kiffin MS . The

Author begs a careful readin g of Chap ter IX. an d the Appen dixin an swe r to these objection s ; an dhe regrets that havin g to go to

press h e has n ot further time t o n otice further criticism-in this

work.

NASHVI LLE , TENN . ,

March 13, 1899 .

ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION .

(FROM‘

I 609 TO 1 64 1 A . D . )

THE ANCI ENT BR ITI SH C HR I STIANS .

There are several tradition s whichmake it probable that Christian itywas plan ted I n Great Britain early I n the first cen tury by

propagan dists from Asia an d n ot from Rome ; an d with the ex

ception Of 558 years, from the time Of Austin,600 A . D . ,

to the

time Of Hen ry I L ,1 1 58 A . D . , there seems to be scarcely a

period I n En glish An n als I n which we can n ot fin d some trace of

Baptist prin ciples. Down to the time Of Austin ’s I n vasron an d

massacre Of the-

WelshC hristian s,603A . D . it is main tain ed by

some Baptist historian s that those an cien t British Christian swereBaptists. The first En glishBaptistHistorian s, Crosbyan dI vimey,in clin eto this view; but Evan s, on e Of the latest an d best writerson earlyE n glish Baptist History, after a thorough in v estigationof the subject con cludes that the assumption is based on ly on

“probability.

” That they practiced trin e immersion is clear ;but the importan t question is . Did theypractice in fan t baptism?The data upon which han gs the question con sists in the n ature OfAustin ’

s deman ds Of the British bishops in 600 A . D .,which,

accordin g to Bede, were these :TO keep Easter at t/ze

‘

due time ,

"to admin ister baptism, by whichwe

are again tom to Goa’

,[that ye g z’

w C/zrzirten a’omt o c/zz

'

la’rm accord

in g to the custom of the H oly .Roman Apostolic Church ; an d join tlywithus preach the Word of God to the E n glish n atio n , &0.

But for Fabian ’s addition to Bede’s accoun t

,n amely, that

“ye

give Christen dom to children, the question

‘

of in fan t baptismwould n ot be in volved . With this addition

,in cludin g the form

of Austin ’s deman d , arises the doubt with referen ce to the prac

tice of an cien t Briton s. Wall,Baxter, Murdock, Calamy an d

o ther Pedobaptist writers affirm that Austin deman ded s implyun iformity with the Romish time o f keepin g Easter, with the

o ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATI ON .

Romish theory of sacramen tal baptism,an d with the Romish

man n er of baptizin g children in white garmen ts, with milk,‘

hon ey, etc . Again st this View I vimey, D’A n vers

,Davye an d

other Baptist writers co n ten d that the deman d pertain ed exclusively to baptism,

or the baptismof children ,without referen ce to

un iformity with Romish custom. Accordin g to Cathcart,the

eviden ce on the questio n furn ished by Bede (Eccles. Hist .

Lib. II ., .Cap 2) leaves the matter without positive determin a

tion . The fact that,at the time of Austi n ’

s deman d,in fan t bap

tismhad n ot then everywhere superceded adult b aptism,as in

succeedin g cen turies,is,accordin g to Evan s, an argumen t again st

the probability that the an cien t British Christian s practiced in ”fan t baptism; an d yet there is much plausibility in the View Of

Wall,Bax ter an d others in spite Of Evan s’ “probability.

”

The fact is that those British Christian s up to an d at the timeof Austin kept Easter accordin g, perhaps, to the Eastern Churchtime ; an d it is certain on this poin t that Austin was deman din gun iformity with the Paschal time Of Rome . H e was also deman din g con formity to the sacramen tal theoryOf baptism which

,

it would seem,these

“ British Christian s had n ot held ; an d if theywere practicin g in fan t baptism, which Is in questio n

,then he was

deman din g un iformity with the Romish custom of white garmen ts

,milk an d hon ey, etc. ,

as Wall an d others main tain . The

passage from Pelagius, -a British Christian of the fifth cen tury,

quoted by Dr . Wall,in Which he says :

“That men do slan derhim

,as if he den ied the sacramen t of baptism to in fan ts

,an d did

promise the kin gdom of heav en to an yp erson without the re

demption of Christ,which he hat ev er heard

,n o

,n ot even an y

Impious heretic or sectary say, in spite Of I v imey (Vol. I . , p . 5 2 )would seem to in dicate the presen ce of in fan t baptismamon g theBritish Christian s in the fifth cen tury. Pelagius

’statemen t is

almost con clusiv e of the fact . Although the system Of Pelagiusden ied the’

imputation of Adam’s Sin to in fan ts

,it n ever rejected

in fan t baptism ; an d while it held that in fan t baptism did n ot

bestow etern al life'

,it main tain ed that in fan ts

,in some sen se

,

were excluded from the kin gdom of heav en ( though n ot frometern al life) without baptism. (Mosheim

,Vol. I . p. 3 7 1 , N .

The passage cited from Pelagius fits the theory Of Pelagian ismprecisely an d it is possible that his View of in fan t baptism amon gthe British churches explain s the deman d Of Austin for con s

formity to the Romish idea of in fan t baptism.

THE ANC I ENT BR ITI SH ‘

CHR I STIANS . 1 I

‘

Whatever the n ature Of Austin ’s deman ds, however, theBritishChristian s rejected them

,because they were in depen den t of

Rome’s jurisdiction an d had n ever had an y con n ection with it.Nevertheless these British Christian s seem to have main tain ed

,

after theman n er Of earlyEpiscopacy,‘

some sort ofRomish polity.

I n rejectin g the deman ds of Austin ,accordin g to SirH . Spelman

(Cathcart’

s A n cien t British an d Irish Churches, p. the

Abbot Of Ban gor, Wales, in the n ame of the British bishops an dchurches declared “

that they were un der ‘ jurisdiction of the

Bishop of Caerleon upon U sk,who was

,un der God,

their spir

itual overseer an d director an d thus theyformallydeclin ed thejurisdiction of the Pope Of Rome . They Observed Len t

,Easter

,

an d other Romish ceremon ies accordin g to their own time an d;

way; their great schools were called “mon asteries” an d their

teachers “mon ks”; theyhad abbeys an d abbots an d though in

depen den t of Rome, theywere somewhat after the fashion Of

'

Rome . British bishops were at the Catholic coun cil of Nice in3 25 A . D .

,an d at the coun cil of Arles an d other con vocation s

of Catholic bishops before the time ofAustin I n En glan d . Likethe Novatian s an d Don atists

,who revolted from Rome an d still“

retain ed her polity an d in fan t baptism (2 50 these BritishChristian s

,though in depen den t Of Rome

,were

,at that time

,

v erymuch like Rome .

I n some of the essen tials of faith an d practice these an cien t

British churches— an d so Of the an cien t Scotch an d Irishchurches— were Baptistic . S t . Patrick

,Cathcart thin ks, was

“substautzally

”a Baptist ; but he was ordai n ed a bishop in Gaul

after the Gallican Catholic order of that day; an d SO he ordain edhun dreds of bishops I n the Irish churches overwhich he seemed.

to preside as bishop Of the whole . H e,too

,was eviden tly in de

pen den t Of Rome,as were the British churches

,whether he ever

practiced in fan t baptism or n ot ; an d it is possible that the Britishchurches did n ot practice in fan t baptism at first, 1101 un til it became prevalen t . Crosby seems to thin k that for the first 300years adult immersion alon e prevailed amon g them; an d if so

theywere at least Baptistic in the practice of baptism for that

period, whatever their polityor practice in other respects . Likethe Novatian s, Don atists an dGallican Christian s of the time, theywere very likely at an early day modeled after the Episcopa

‘r

order, though en tirely in depen den t Of Rome .

The Christian s of the Eastern type, who eviden tlyev an gelized‘

2 ENGLI SH 'BAPTI ST R EFORMATION .

Britain,lan din g first, it is said, at Glaston bury, n ear Bristol, were

probably of the same gen eral Stamp as Iren aeus,who labored I n

S outhern Fran ce durin g the latter half of the secon d cen tury.

S O far as kn own the an cIen t British Christian s,as appeared in

En glan d , Irelan d, Scotlan d, the Rhin e Valley, Thurin gia an d

other places, were n ever charged withAn tipedobaptism,an d this

fact is almost decisive that they n ever opposed in fan t baptisman d

must have practiced it so soon as it became prevalen t . WhetherS t. Patrick ever practiced it or n ot, though an immersion ist

,he

was n ot a Baptist. H e seems to have believed I n baptismal regen eration ; an d his method of evan gelization appears to have

been to in terest a Chieftain or a kin g I n Christian ity an d without

waitin g for much catechizin g, to baptize him an d his en tire followin g. H e baptized 1 2

,000 in o n e n ight , an d it is impossible

to suppose that theywere evan gelicallycon verted . I n fact theyseem as ferocious after as before baptism; an d such men as

Patrick,Columba an d the like did n ot hesitate to call on these

barbarian kin gs to fight their battles. I n this as I n most other

respects they resembled the . church Of Rome both in polity an d

policy.

Accordin g to Cathcart (An cien t British an d Irish Churches,pp. 27 7

—286) there remain ed in Corn wall“

,

‘Wales an d other re

mote section s Of En glan d some of the an cien t British Christian sor churches which n ever con formed to the polity of Rome un tilthe time of Hen ry I .

,1 1 09 A . D . when Wales has subjugated

by this prin ce ; an d it was n ot un til 1 282 A . D . ,when Llewellyn ,

the Prin ce of Wales,was con quered an d slain by Edward I I I .

an d when Wales lost her last vestige of liberty, that R ome at lastcompletely triumphed overWelshP rotestan tism an d utterlyext in guished what was left of it after the massacre by Austin ,

6 03 A . D . Down to 1 1 09 , an d on ward to 1 282 , there were hid

den ,here an d there in remote parts of the kin gdom,

fragmen tsof the old in depen den t British Protestan tism which con tin ued torefuse con formity to Rome, as in 600 A . an d possibly seedsof this an ti-Roman C hristian ity remain ed in Wales down to thesixteen th cen tury. Hen ce the fertility of that soil for earlyPuritan dissen t an d for Baptist prin ciplesa n d growth after the

Reformatio n . I t is claimed,with some degree of plausibility,

that traces of the Baptist elemen t are discern able very early, ifn ot all the way through the history of Welsh Christian ity, ,

but

without an y reliable historlcal data. Accordin g to joshuaThomas

THE ANCIENT BR ITISH CHR I STIANS .

the first Baptist Church ever kn own in Waleswas formed at Ilstonin 1649 A . D .

°

an d there is n o basis for the tradition of a Baptistchurch, at Olchon ,

1 633 . (Armitage, p. I t is”

said that theWelsh Bards afford the best historic an n als down to the four

teen t'

h cen tury, an d they trace n o lin e of Baptist “heretics”to

'

that period. I n fact down to the Sixteen th cen turyWales wasC completely un der the Shadow Of Roman ism; an d it is Said thatthere was n o Bible 111 the Welsh ton gue un til thirty years after

Elizabeth established Protestan tism in Wales by law. I t is

Claimed that in Chester coun tya Baptist church dates I ts origin

back to 142 2 . I f so this church was historicallyun kn own for

357-

years down to 1 649 when the first kn own Welsh Baptistchurch was est ablished at I -

;lston an d it seemsutterlyimpossiblein that small coun try

“

for such a church to hav e escaped the perScon tion an d destruction ofRome or the n otice of history. Suchtradition s are childish an dmislead-in g °

an d n othin g can be gain ed

by an ypeople who ad Cat‘

e them‘

in the face Of authen tic his

tory. I t is'

en ough to claimtradition al traces of Baptist footprin tsor prin ciples in Wales through all these cen turies of darkn ess an ddespotism; but it is absurd to

’

claim organ ization or succession

Which can n ot be established by history.

The first in stan ce,in the history of En gla

’

n d,of an ythin g like

an An abaptist movemen t occurred in 1 1 58 , durin g the reign of

Hen ry II . an d 558 years after the in vasion of Austin an d the.

establishmen t of ROI n an ism I n Britain . An accoun t ofit is given

by Dr. Hen ry (Hist . Great Britain ,vol. viii.

, p. 338) an d alsoby Rapin ,

Collier,Lyttleto n ,

Den n e,an d f others— also Evan s

(vol. i., p. ThirtyHollan dersat this time appeared in E n glan d, were afreSt

‘

ed an d tried before a coun cil Of the ClergyinOxford an d driven to extin ction by

’

perSecutiOn for opposin g thedogmas of Rome. They were

“

Charged with rejectin g baptisman d the Euc’

harist, without an y referen ce to in fan t baptism,al

though otherwise foun d to be Orthodox as to the essen tials of

Christian ity, such as the doctrin eOf the Trin ity, in carn atio n ,an d

the like . These people, though called Walden ses by Rome,were e

‘

vide‘

iitly Paulician s or CathariWho, like the Quakers, didn ot regard baptisman d the Lord’s Supper Of perpetual obligatioii

,an d of course We

'

re in ten sely averse to in fan t baptism.

This moyemen t was called the “first revolt” in En glan d fromRome

,an d it has been claimed as an An tipedobaptistmov emen t,

although these Hollan ders were An abaptists w'

ho n either bap

4 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

tiz ed n or kept the Lord’s Supper because of Rome’s-

perversionof the ordin an ces. Nevertheless it was a step in the direction of

Baptist Prin ciples , an d it is historically the first ev iden ce of the

Baptist elemen t I n En glan d sin ce the first three cen turies if then .

E ven this was foreign an d n ot n ative born ; but, as we shall see,Baptist elemen ts I n E n glan d were lon g imported before Baptistprin ciples or churches were ever restablished.

Accordin g to Roger H oveden,Hen ry II . ,

1 182 A . D .

,was

,

o n accoun t of State reason s,“v ery favorable to the Walden sian

Sect in En glan d”

; an d we thus become aware of the fact of theire xisten ce here at this period, just twen ty-four yearsafter the ex

termin ation of the Hollan ders by the same kin g, alreadymention ed. H oveden also shows that in the time of Richard I . an dof Kin g John there was n o opposition to the Walden ses becauseo f the wars which en grossed these kin gs. I t has been claimedthat these Walden ses were Dutch an d Fren ch weavers who fled

frompersecution an d were protected by the kin gs of this periodo n accoun t of their in dustries

,an d hen ce it is held that Baptist

prin ciples were thus early an d perman en tly plan ted I n En glan d .

Upon the authority of Archbishop Usher it is stated that I n the‘

time of Hen ry III . 1 235 A . D . , the orders of the Friers Min orites came from Fran ce in to En glan d to suppress the Walden sianheresy. Crosby an d I vimey declare that in the time of EdwardI I . 13 1 5 A . D .

,Walter Lollard

,a man of great ren own amon g

the Walden ses,came in to En glan d an d spread their doctrin es

“verymuch in these parts an d that afterwards these Walden

ses wen t by the n ame of Lollards, subsequen tly becomI n g con

foun ded with theWyckliffeites. I t is to be n oted here that Evan smakes n o men tio n of this history so far as it relates to the Wal

den ses; an d there seems to be n o historical details which givea n y clear idea of the character or exten t of Walden sian aggress

ion or in fluen ce upon En glan d at the periods men tion ed, exceptthat it possibly laid -the foun dation for Lollardism in the kin gdom. TheWalde n seswere at that time An abaptists an d through

themwe discover at this later period an other trace of Baptistprin ciples in En glan d before the evan gelical movemen t of the

L ollards an dWyckliffeites in the i4th Cen turyTakin g the Opin ion of Baptist historian s, I vimey seems to

thin k that Wyckliffe an d his followers were An tipedobaptists.

Crosby I S n ot satisfied that Wyckliffe clearlyopposed in fan t baptism,

but that some of his followers did. Evan s 15 satisfied that

TH E ANCI ENT BR ITI SH CHR I STIANS . 1 5

there is n o documen t which authorizes the con clusion that the

great reformer himself rejected in fan t baptism,but he thin ks the

Lollards an d the Wyckliffeites were opposed to in fan t baptism.

I n a sermon on baptism Wyckliffe said that it was immaterialwhether in fan tswere “dipped on ce, or thrice, orwater be pouredupon their heads

”

; an d in addition to his san ction here of the

in fan t rite he thus, accordin g to Dr. Whitsitt , made the first concession in En glan d to pourin g or sprin klin g for baptism. I t is

eviden t that while Wyckliffe was a Baptist in the essen tial ele~

men ts of Christian ity an d rejected the sacramen tal efficacy of

baptism,he n ever ren oun ced in fan t baptism as a legitimate rite ;

an d what was true of Wyckliffe was n o doubt true of his followers. Their opposition to the savin g efficacy of in fan t baptismwas con strued in to their opposition to the rite itself; an d hen ce

the charges of their en emies to this effect, from which howev er

theywere defen ded by others . Wyckliffe n ever left the Romishchurch

,an d hewas stron glydefen ded byman yof

“

its leadin gmen

an d min istry again st papal bulls an d efforts to con demn an d de

stroy him. Dr. Newman (History of An tipedobaptism, p . 34 2 )has well said

Dilige n t research has failed to discov er an y case of A n ti-pedobapt ism

amo n g E n glish ev an gelicals before the in comin g of A n ti-pedobaptists from

the Con tin en t ( I 530 on ward) .

Nothin g is said of the mode of baptism amon g the Lollards orWyckliffeites but if in this particular theyfollowed the great Teformer

,the mode of the ordin an ce must hav e been a matter of

in differen ce lon g before the adven t of the 1 6th Cen tury.

The E n glish n ation became widelyaffected with the evan gelical prin ciples of the Lollards orWyckliffeites by the en d of the

14th Cen tury. The same was true in Scotlan d an dWales ; an d

themovemen t projected itself in to Bohemia an d other Con tin en talcoun tries. By

- the year 1400 A . D .,durin g the reign of Hen ry

IV .,both Church an d S tate combin ed to crush out this growin g

an d widespread “heresy”as Rome saw it . Sawtry, the first

martyr burn ed in En glan d, was committed to the stake ; an d

Lord Cobham an d others met a like fate I n their devotion to theprin ciples of Wyckliffe. By 14 20 the Lollardswere driven s

fromthe open field an d although still n umerous an dpowerful in secret

for man y years, theywere hun ted an d persecuted un to death inlarge n umbers un til they were practically crushed though n ot

6 ENGLISH BAPTI ST REFORMATION.

extin c t by“

the 16th Cen tury. vigorous evan gelical party, theywere the forer eformation I n E n glan d of whichWyckliffe was the “morn in g star

”

; an d as Dr.

Newman says .

“The deeplyrooted prin ciples of Lollardism layat the base of the Puritan ism an d In depen den cy of the latertimes.

” What become of Walden sian ism I n thismovemen t doesn ot appear, but n o doubt I n En glan d as in Bohemia it mergedwith Lollardism or Wyckliffeism; an d although an ti-pedobapfistic at first it shaded off I I I this un ion in to in differen ce upon thispoin t, as in dicated by its later history.

Thus it will be seen that the old evan gelical life of the BritishChristian s fain tly projected in to the middle ages of En glishChristian ity, was fin ally crushed out ; an d

,about the same time

,

the old evan gelical life of the Con tin en t made its way in to E n glan d through the Walden ses

,developed in to Lollardism,

then

in to Wyckliffeism I n the 14th an d 1sth Cen turies, an d then rolledback upon the Con tin en t with fresh vigor an d ren ewed en thusi

asm. Lollardism un der the teachin g an d in spiration of Wyckliffe affected most profoun dly the E n glish min d with the fun damen tal doctrin es of Christian ity; an d, as Dr. Newman said

,

“was the forerun n er of all that was best in En glish Puritan ism,

fromwhich, in an importan t sen se, modern Baptists hav e derivedtheir origin .

“But,

says he ,“we have searched in vain for

an y satisfactory'

proof that it imbodied distin ctivelyBaptist principles or practices.

” Again he says :

Nothin g in Wyé kliffes publishedwritin gs— an d L echler claims to haveread through his ex tan t man u script wo rks without fi n din g an ythin g

— that

would warran t the in feren ce that he Iejected in fan t baptism. The n earest

approach to the Baptist position is his expression of opin ion that un hap

tiz ed in fan ts may be saved. But he did n ot ev en v en ture so far as to

express a decided co'

n v iction that theywould be . His rigid predestin a

rian i‘

sm in clin ed him to the opin io n that elect in fan ts would be saved

whether baptized or n o t t t he Was n ot quite sure whether elect in fan tsever fail to‘

receiv’

e baptism. The Lollards took a far more decided stan d

than Wyckliffe in favor of the salvation of u n baptized in fan ts ; but n o o n e

of them so far as we are aware den ied the propriety or utility of in fan t

baptism.

”(Hist A n ti-pedobaptism, pp. 55 ,

What was true of Wyckliffe an d the Lollardswas true of Tyndale an d his followers. Tyn dale was radically evan gelical ; he

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ENGL ISH BAPT IST REFORMATION .

(FROM 1609 TO 164 1 A . D . )

ANABAPTI STS OF TH E S IXTE ENTH CENTURY .

The real An abaptist movemen t in En glan d begin s with the

reign of Hen ryVIII . 1 534 A . D . ,at which time Crosby says :

“I fin d their prin ciples about baptismmore fairly stated . Dur

in g the reign s of Hen ry VIII .,Edward VI .

,Mary, Elizabeth

an d James I . on ward, we trace the history of a people in E n glan d stigmatized as

‘An abaptists an d persecuted in every con

ceivable form byImprIson men t ban ishmen t an d death forholdin gdoctrin es essen t ially Baptistic or in ten sely An ti-pedobaptistic.

There is n o mistakin g who they are in history. They are n ot

merely tradition al . Their v iews though varian t are well defin eda n d formulated ; an d you can track them all thewaythrough thiscen tury bytheir blood . Hen ryVIII . burn ed scores of them;two were burn ed by Edward VI .

,Queen Mary who burn ed

e very class of n on con formists, burn ed ten An abaptists in the

year 1 555 an d large n umbers at differen t times an d -places ; QueenElizabeth burn ed two ; an d James I . burn ed two an d otherwisecruelly persecuted them durin g his reign .

‘Amon g the martyrs

were Joan Boucher,1 550 , an d

-Bieters'

an d Terwoot,1 575 , who

left behin d them their declaration of faith un der the Sign an d

seal,of their own blood . These people main tain ed. believers’

b aptism as opposed to in fan t baptism; a con verted churchmemhership as opposed to the corrupt Establishmen ts of Rome an d

En glan d ; in depen den cy as Opposed to hierarchy; soul-libertyas opposed to magisterial in terferen ce an d force in matters offaith ; the word of God as Opposed to the tradition s an d comman dmen ts of men ; a volun tary as opposed to a compulsoryreligion —Lfor all of which an dmore theypleaded , lived an d diedwith heroic devotion to Baptist prin ciples.

Theywere sometimes Socin ian ,Pelagian , or at best Armin ian

in doctrin e . Most if n ot all of themmain tain ed that the human18

ANABAPTI STS OF THE S IXTE ENTH CENTU RY . 19

ity of Christ was n ot of the substan ce of Mary’s body. They

hadman y vagaries about oaths, war, majesty, an d the like ,but

they stood byBaptist prin ciplesan d peculiarities I n themain witha martyr zeal an d devotion which edicts of ban ishmen t an d firesof persecution could n ot quen ch.

These An abaptists of En glan d durin g the 1 6th Cen tury, withbut little exception ,

were foreign ers, chiefly from Hollan d,who

fled from persecution an d death I n their own coun try to meet a

like fate in En glan d— whether at the han ds of Papist or Pro

testan t. Accordin g to Dr. Newman (Hist . An tipedobaptism, pp.

345 , 346 , there was a large immigration of Dutch artisan s to

En glan d I n 1 528 ; in 1 560, there were in En glan d; an dI n1 568

—73 , the n umber reached 5o ,000 . I n Lon don

,Norwich

,

Dover,Romn ey, San dwich, Can terbury, Colchester, Hastin gs

an d Hythe, there was a large Dutch population ,most of whom

were Calvin ists ; “but,”says Dr. Newman

,

“a con siderable por

tion of them were certain ly An ti-pedobaptists, at first of the

H offman ite an d later of the Men n on ite type.

” Thomas Fullermakes 1 538 A . D .

,the date at which the n ame

“An abaptist”

first appears in the chron icles of En glan d ; but in 1 534 publicn otice was taken of foreign An abaptists in En glan d by a royalproclamation of Hen ryVIII . There was n o such thin g at thistime as an E n glishA n abaptist ; an d everyrecord of these peopledurin g this cen tury in dicates ~that they were foreign ers, chieflyDutch

,who made little if an y ImpressIon upon the E n glish who

were the last of an ypeople to adopt an ti-pedobaptist sen timen ts.

Where they departed from Roman ism or Episcopacy, they ad

hered to other forms of dissen t , such as Presbyterian ism an d

Con gregation alism; an d yet Puritan I n depen den cywhich was aSeparatist movemen t again st Presbyterial as well as the Papalan d Episcopal abomin ation ,

was probablyfirst learn ed byRobertBrown e an d Robert Harrison

,1 578

—80, from the Dutch A n a

baptists of Norwich. Nevertheless these Separatists could n ot

brook An abaptism in its Opposition to in fan t baptism,n or in its

‘

views of in carn ation ,oaths, majestyan d the like ; an d hen ce the

slow an d difficult growth of the En glish towards Baptist principles an d peculiarities. Though in 1 575 the An abaptists hadin creased “won derfully

” in the lan d yet accordin g to Thomas‘

Fuller (Ch. Hist . Cen t . xvi. , p.p I O4) ,“The En glish as yet were

free from the in fection .

”I n the same year John Fox (Letter to

Queen Elizabeth) pleadin g again st the burn in g of two

tists an d for toleration of their so called heresy, said

2o ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

We hav e great reason to than k God on this accoun t, that I hear n ot

of an E n glishman that is in clin ed to this madn ess.

Durin g the reign of Elizabeth these Dutch An abaptists con

tin ued to grow in n umbers an d in fluen ce,but towards the close

of her reign n otices of their existen ce in the kin gdom became“few an d in sign ifican t . Durin g the years 1 560 , 6 7 , 68, 73,75 ,the Act of Un iformitywas en forced with cruel severity again st

them,especiallyin 1 568 when large n umbers of the Dutch fled

before the cruel persecution s of the Duke of Alva to E n glan d,an dwhen ,

accordin g to Collier an d Strype , man y of,the Dutch

An abaptists were said t o be holdin g private con ven ticles in London an d pervertin g a large n umber of citizen s. I n 1 575 , thirtyDutch An abaptists were seized in on e Of these Lon don c on ven

ticles held in a private house . Some recan ted,most of them

were ban ished,the balan ce were committed to the dun geon in

chain s an d Pieters an d Terwoot were burn ed . Towards the

close of Elizabeth’s reign ,

“with the declin e of persecution on

the Con tin en t,

”says Prof. n umbers dwin dled

un til they disappeared .

”At least, a “ large proportion

”of the

An abaptists as of the n on -con formin g Puritan s an d Separatists

were driven from En glan d by these in quisitorial proceedin gs tothe Netherlan ds where at this time a larger measure of freedomwas en joyed . The predomin atin g partyof dissen t at the closeof Elizabeth’s reign was the Puritan an d in the earlier part ofthe 1 7th Cen tury down to 1633 , as shown by Crosby, there wereAn abaptists “ in termixed” with their Con gregation al brethrenfromwhom they separated I n order “

to form churches of those

Of their own persuasion .

” Down to that date, 1 633 , the in ter

mixture was person al an d n ot organ ic ; an d with the exception ofthe H elwys people, there were historically n o An abaptist organiz ation s in En glan d before 1 609

—1 1 un t‘

iL1633 when the “ in termixed” elemen ts began to separate an d orga n ize for themselves.

Private Du‘

tch con v en ticles, amon g the An abaptists, held inLon don are men tion ed by Collier an d Strype, at an earlier date;an d

,in 1 587 , Dr. Some speaks of “several An abaptistical cori

ven ticles in Lon don an d other places.

” Evan s adds to this t‘

eS

timon y that they were n ot“exclusively

” Dutchmen , an d that,accordin g to Dr. Some, there were

“Some person s of these sent imen ts who had been bred in our U n iversities.

”I n 1 589 Dr;

Some charged the Separatists with bein g “essen tially An abap

ANABAPTI STS OF THE S IXTEENTH CENTU RY . 21

tists, an d so John Payn e had warn ed En glishmen again st the“n ew En glish An abaptists. I t is possible n ow that people whowere regarded as Dutch-En glish An abaptists were con foun dedwith the followers of Green wood , Pen ry, an d Barrowe who, likeMilton at a later date, though merely Separatists, were chargedwith “An abaptistry

”

; an d hen ce it is difficult to tell at this time,who were mean t by the stigma of “An abaptistry. The A n a

baptist seed had been plan ted howev er in the heart of some of

the E n glish people by the close of Elizabeth’s reign ; an d n o

doubt there were n ow Dutch-En glish An abaptist con ven ticleswhich probably exten ded down to an d in to the 1 7th Cen tury,which byreason of a common persecution became “in termixed

”

with the Puritan s un til 1633 when they began to separate .

Amon g these who en tertain ed An abaptist “sen timen ts” were

somewho had been “bred at the un iversities”— as amon g the Puritan s with whom they became “in termixed” by sympathy an d

similarity; an d it was thus, at last, that t he foun datio n was laidupon which was subsequen tly erected the Baptist reformation of

the 1 7 th Cen tury.

Han serd Kn ollys (Moderate An swer un to Dr. Bastwick’s

Book, etc., pp. 24 , 2 5 , Lo n don ,

1 645) is cited as authority for

the probable existen ce, before 1 64 1 , of some such An abaptistchurches in Lon don . I t can n ot be possible, however, that theywere the Dutch-En glish con ven ticles

,whichhad succeeded from

the sixteen th cen tury, ofwhichKn ollys Speaks in 1645— ofwhose

“sain ts

”he had “

experien ce, with whom he “walked,

”a n d

who were min istered to by pastors“driv en out of other coun

tries” —an d to whose evan gelicaln ess in preachin g, gatherin gcon v erts an d baptizin g upon a profession of faith he testifies inhighly Baptistic terms, as the m_i_I_Iistry an d churches of God.

Kn ollyswas an En glish clergyman un til 1 636 , when he resign edhis min istry from An abaptist con viction s. I n the same year hewas arrested by order of the High Commission Court, but es

caped to Boston ,Mass. whichhe reached in 1 638 . H e became a

member of the Dover, N. H . , Con gregation al Church, where, in1640 , hisAn abaptist sen timen ts led to a con trov ersy; an d in 1 64 1

he removed to Lon g Islan d an d then ce, in the sameyear, to New

Jersey. Afterward he return ed to E n glan d , an d in 1 645 we fin d

himpastorofa Baptist church in Lon don . The‘ ‘churches ofGod

an d the min istrywith whomhe “walked an d had “experien ce

in Lon don, prior to 1 645 ,must have existed somewhere between

22 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

1 64 1 an d 1 645, if theywere publiclyan d privatelypreachin g an dbaptizin g “wz

’

flz wafer”as he describes.

~

H e could n ot have had

such fratern al relation swith them down to 1 636 , when he was an'

E n glish clergyman ; an d he could n ot have had such observationof their practice from 1 636 to 164 1 , when he was in America .

Hen ce,the period to which he alludes an d which in volved such

liberty, must have been after the abolition of the High Commission Court, an d o n ward.

”Gran tin g, however, that suchchurches an d their “min istry driven out of foreign coun tries

existed before 1 64 1 in Lon don ,an d that Kn ollys k n ew an d

walked with them, they could hav e been n o other than the A n a

baptist churches of 1 6 1 1—1 633 ; an d there is n o proof in either

case of immersion amon g them by the statemen t of Kn ollys thatthey baptized “wil/lawafer

’ — thepoin t sought to be proved bythe citation . (See Cathcart

’s Baptist Cyclopaedia, “Kn ollys

”

;

J . Newton Brown , “Han serd Kn ollys, Bap. Quarterly,Great an tiquity is claimed for some of the Baptist churches I n

En glan d, datin g back, it is said,in to an d beyon d the sixteen th

cen tury. Prof. Vedder well saysThe tradition s of a remo te origin

‘

cherished by a few Baptist churches

rest o n n o documen tary or archeological proofs, an d are probably of com

paratively recen t origin . No thin g is more common than a claim of vast

an tiquity for in stitutio n s that are demo n strably o n ly a few cen turies old.

The sole thin g that we are en titled to affirm withregard to the Baptists of

E n glan d is that traces of them appear in historical documen ts earlyin the

six teen th cen tury. (Short H ist . Baptists, pp.

Hill Cliffe, Eythorn e , BOckin gL ‘

Can terbury, the old Fren ch

churches I n Lon don an d Spittlefield, accordin g to tradition ,an te

date the historic origin Of the Gen eral an d Particular Baptists inEn glan d ; but such a claim is n ot set up by the writers of the

seven teen th cen tury, when the history of the E n glish Baptistsbegi n s. Some of those writers lived in the commun ities wherethose churches are located an d preached to their membership inthe latter half of the seven teen th cen tury, an d yet those v erywriters- claim the self-origin ated “begin n ln g of the En glish Baptists as belon gin g to the period n ow un der con sideration . I t

seems in credible that Baptist churches of such an cien t origin an d

lon g con tin uan ce,’

-as is claimed for these tradition ary bodies,should hav e escaped the record of their persecutors or the n otice

of the first Baptistwriterswho lived in their vicin ityan dpreached

ANABAPTI STS OF TH E S IXTEENTH CENTU RY .

to themif in existen ce an d such a claim, based upon subsequen ttradition s, must be exceedin gly un reliable. Doubtless in the

localities of these churches there were formerly Lollard or A n a

baptist con ven ticles as in man y other commun ities in En glan d .

I t is‘

possible‘

that Lollard or An abaptist elemen ts, as in Lon do n ,

remain ed in these commun ities,

“in termixed” with the Puritan s,an d formed the basis of Baptist organ ization s in the seven teen th

cen tury. I t is possible that these Baptist tradition s have their

foun dation back in old Lollard or An abaptist con ven ticles,or

people, on ce existen t in these commun ities ; but historically n o

Baptist church in En glan d can be traced beyon d 16 1 1—1 633 .

Even if you could trace the origin an d con tin uan ce of such

churches back to the an tiquityclaimed for their begin n in g, thereis n othin g in the facts of subsequen t history to prove their con

tin uan ce in the practice of immersion,which is also claimed for

them without an yproofwhatever.

This brin gs us to a con sideration of the mode of baptismamon g the An abaptists of En glan d in the sixteen th cen tury. At

the begin n in gof theirhistory, 1 538 ,Thomas Fuller (Stow’sChron . ,

p. 5 76) speaks of them as“D on atists n ew Accordin g to

Dr. Newman these Dutch An abaptistswere of the Hoffman n itefirst an d later of the Men n on ite type ; an dit is almost certain thatboth types practiced pourin g or sprin klin g. Hoffman n

,the

father of the Dutch An abaptists, so practiced at the earlier date ;an d of the Men n on ites or Doopsgez in den it is affirmed by Prof.Muller (Evan s, Vol. I . p. 2 23) that their usual mode was sprinklin g an d at n o time practiced immersion . So declares Prof.Scheffer (Quest . Bap. Hist

, p. SO also Dr. Newman with

referen ce to Men n o himself (Hist . An tipedobaptism, p. 302 ,

Note) . The Men n on ite Classic is the Martyr’s Mirror. I n the

first part, written byVan Braght, 1 660 , he says (on Sev en th cen

tury) that the word baptism mean s n ot on ly immerse , but alsowashin g or sprin klin g, whichgives the Men n on ite idea ofHis day.

SO Schyn ,1 72 9 . I n the light of all this testimon yit can on ly be

supposed that Fuller was Simplycharacterizin g these Dutch A n a

baptists, as Dr . Whitsitt says, un der a “n ew n ame

,

”that is, n ew

Christen ed , un der the alliteration of “Don atists n ew dipt .”H is

torically theywere n ot immersion ists.

Fox has been cited,1 563 , as sayin g that there were some

An abaptists at that time in En glan d who came ov er from Ger

man y

4 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATI ON .

H

“Of these there were two sects : The first o n lyobjected to the baptizin gof children , an d to the man n er of it, by sprin klin g in stead of dippin g.

”

30

The statemen t is foun d in Fox’s Book of Martyrs, Alden’s

p. 338 also in Worf/ez’

n gton’

s p . 338 ; but it hasn ever been traced to the origin al Fox’s Book of Martyrs, otherwise kn own as the Acts an dMon umen ts of the Christian Church

,

Lon don, 1 563 .

John Pen ry,ofWales,1 586 iscited as an An abaptist preacher

an d as possibly the first who preached believers’ baptism open lyan d publicly after the Reformation an d as probably “

the firstwho admin istered the ordin an ce

, by immersion upon a profes

sion of faith, in an d about Olchon . Pen rywas on e of the wellkn own martyrs of “

earlyCon gregation alism”

an d for a full accoun t of

‘

him I refer the reader to Dexter’s “Con gregation alisma s Seen in its Literature,” (pp. 246 Such a claim is a t e

p roach to Baptist learn in g an d history. Dr. Newman says :

“U n due stress is laid on the fact that Separatists like Pen ry were

“charged by their oppon en tswith A n abaptistery. All that theymean t was"

that the Separatist positio n ,if logically carried out, would lead to A n a

b aptistery which prov ed to be true a few years later. Feury was in

thoroughl

sympathywith Barrowe an d Green wood an d was n o t a Baptist.

There seems to be n o historical foun datio n for the statemen t that he was

an immersion ist .”(R eview of the Question , p .

I n the year 1 55 1 , William Turn er ( Preservative or triacle

again st the poyson of Pelagius, is cited as callin g the A n abaptists in En glan d, “Cataéaplz

'

sis”which

‘

is con strued to mean

immersion ists. Kaméapz‘z'

a’zo mean

\S

‘

t o dip, plun ge, or drown ;passiv e, to be drown ed (Liddell Scott) ; an d in the classicalsen se the word is gen erally if! n ot always employed in the bad

sen se of ov erwhelmin g or drown in g. I n the ecclesiastical use ofthe wond,

which is n ot foun d in the lexicon s, Catabaptist mean son e who is Opposed to baptism,

that is, to in fan t baptism,

an d a

prev en tive an d destroyer of it,a depriver an d depraver of it

by rebaptism. Zwin gle in his Elen chus Con tra Catabaptistas

(Opera III . , p. 392) clearly shows that this was the mean in g of

the word in the first part of the 1 6th Cen tury. H e calls the re

baptism of the An abaptists, the “baptismof heresy”

(éapz‘

zlvmuskaereseos) ,

“deservedlycalledpseudo or Catabaptism (pseudo sz’

ve

eataéapz‘zlrmm); an d then he defi n es rebaptism as con trabaptism

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

On page 240 he says again

“A n A n abaptist deprives children of baptisme, an d a Catabaptist d’e

praves baptisme . A,Catabaptist may sometimes be n o A n abaptist , such

as was Leo Copron ymous, who defiled the fon t at his baptisme, yet was n o t

christen ed again : but ev eryA n abaptist is n ecessarily a Cataéaptz’

st, for the

reiteratio n of that Sacramen t is an abuse an d”

pollution thereof.”

John Brin sley (The Doctrin e an d Practice of Paedobaptismeetc .

,Lon don

, on page 9 7 , says of the div ers sects of A n a

baptists“Amo n gst o thers, some Cataé aptzirts, o thers A n abaptists. The former

opposith the B aptz'

sme of l nfam‘s,as a thin g n o t meet an d lawful etc .

”

Thos. Bakewell (Con futation of A n abaptists, Lon don ,

speakin g on page 75 of An abaptists who are n ot pleased withthe baptism of in fan ts

,says

“Such [( afaé ezpz’zkts were in Calv in ’

s time , that did furiously cal upOn

them to be baptized again e .

For a complete refutation of the position that Catabaptismwasapplied to the A n abaptists because theywere immersion ists, Irefer the reader to a critique of Dr. A . H . Newman upo n the

citation from Geisler of Fuessli (III .

,2 29) (Eccles.

, Hist ., V.

,

pp. 355 , 356)— also from Ottius’ An n ales A n abaptistici

— of a

passage for the purpose . (Rev iew of the Question , pp . 2 2 7“The early an ti-Pedobaptists,

”says Dr. Newman

,

“were with

zeal again st in fan t baptism,declarin g it to,

be the in v en tion of the

Pope or the Devil . From thisppin t Of'

view theywere stigmatiz ed as Catabaptists. This is also the view of Dr. Whitsitt an dof all the authors I have foun d to Speak on

-the subject .I n this con n ection William Turn er (1 55 1 ) is cited again as

favorin g the view,at this time, that the An abaptists in E n glan d

practiced immersion from an expression in his book regardin gthe dippin g of “Old folke

,as well as “childes,” which is attrib

uted to the A n abaptists whom he is represen ted as an swerin g I n

their lan guage, but which is his own lan guage. H is book,which

was in cited by the polemics of Robert Cooke, an A n abaptist(who afterwards modified his opI n lon on Pelagian ism) , seems tobe in an swer to the An abaptist claim that on e of his sermon s, insome particulars, coin cided with the theory of believ ers’ baptism. H e is referred to the an cien t custom of

' baptizin g Cate

ANABAPTI STS OF THE S IXTE ENTH CENTU RY . 27

chumen , an d it is argued that “such a lyke

'

customwas on ce our

most holy religion ;”but Turn er retorted that “such a custom

was n ot of Christ but of the Pope an d the Catabaptists.

”

(pp.

14 , On pp. 96 , 9 7 , he argues again st the An abaptist position that baptism,

like the Lord’s Supper, Should be deferred un tilthe subject was old en ough to believe an d act for himself, uponthe groun d that baptism was a passiv e ordin an ce in which n o

on e could baptize himself an d n ot an active ordin an ce like the

Supper in which ev eryon e must participate for himself. Hen ce

he says

Childes may be as well dipped in to the water in ye n ame of Christ(which is the Outward baptism an d as much as an y o n eman giv e an o ther) ,even as O lde fo lke : an d when as they hav e the promise of salvatio n , as

well as O lde fo lke can receiv e the Sign of the same as well : there 15 n o .

cause why the baptisme of Childes should be differed.

Turn er was an En glish Church immersion ist an d he was usin ghis own lan guage as to the subject of baptism,

in ciden tally as to

mode an d polemically again st the theory of believ ers’ baptism.

The mode was n ot in con troversy, but the deferrin g of baptismun til , as in the Supper, the Subject Should be old en ough to,

act

for himself; an d Turn er, from his own stan dpoin t, as an En glishChurch immersion ist , takes the position that children have the

same rights as Old folks in the passive act of baptism as con tra

distin guished from the active participation in the Lord’s Supper.

There is here n o in ten tion whatever to refer to dippin g as the

mode of baptism amon g the An abaptists, or to reply to them as

urgin g the delay of baptism,as immersion

,un til children were

old en ough to believ e an d act for themselv es,as in the Supper.

At that time,1 55 1 , the mode had begun to chan ge from immer

sion to sprin klin g, but there were man y then who still clun g to

the an cien t ordin an ce— amon gwhomwasWilliamTurn er, ‘Doc

tor of Physick”

; an d_he is here in ciden tally alludin g to immer

sion as practiced still amon g some of his own churchwithout an yreferen ce to themode amon g the Dutch

“ An abaptists, which waslikely affusion after the Hoffman n type .

The above are about the on ly citation s so far of an y historicalimportan ce whichmight imply immersion amon g the 1 6 th Cen turyAn abaptists in En glan d . Theyare so few an d far betweens_o in defi n ite in particulars— that it would be impossible to drawan y legitimate in feren ce from them in favor of an y such view.

2 8 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

The most that could be con cluded from them, even if theywere

valid,is the probability that some of the An abaptists did an d

some did n ot dip, although all of them held to the prI n c1ple of

believ ers’ as opposed to in fan t baptisman d to all the other dogmasan d corruption s alike of Roman ism an d Protestan tism. I n the

course of this work we shall see allusion s to the An abaptists of“

this period which in dicate that theypracticed sprin klin g for baptism, but I shall n ot produce them here . I t is to be regrettedthat so little is kn own of their mode of baptism; but with whatwe do kn ow,

it is to be regretted also that an y of our old A n a

baptist brethren everypracticed an yothermode of baptism than

immersion . Theywere a heroic an d gloriouspeople an dworthyof our an cestry in their sacrificial devotion to Baptist prin ciples ;an d we can but devoutlywish that theyhad n ever varied I n an ydoctrin e or practice of the Scriptures. The matter n ow

,how

ever,is of n o greater importan ce than bein g faithful to the facts

of history; an d it would be but sheer n on sen se to main tain the

fiction that the S ixteen th cen tury Baptists were immersion ists,an y of them,

if theywere n ot . I should be far from den in gthem this claim if I thought theywere ; an d I shall hasten re

tract my error If my position is prov ed to be wron g. As will beseen un der the head of certain “Witn esses

,

” both Baptist an d

Pedobaptist , such as Kaye an dWatts,it is probable that the six

teen th cen tury An abaptists sprin kled— that it is almost certainthat those of the first half of the seven teen th cen tury so did, accordin g to a multitude of witn esses— an d I refer the reader n owto a careful perusal of the subsequen t pages of this vo lume, whichembraces the history of the En glish Baptists from 1 609 to 164 1

A . D . , an d which demon strates theTruth of a“reformation ” as

well as a“begin n in g

”in their organ ization ,

min istry an d bapt ism,

as claimed by their writers in the Seven teen th cen tury.

ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION .

(FROM 1 609 to 164 1 A . D . )

OR IGIN OF TH E GENERAL BAPTI STS .

Thomas Crosby, the first Baptist historian , (Vol. I . , pp. 265

gives an accoun t of the origin of the first Baptist churchin En glish history, organ ized 1 609 A D . I t origin ated withJohn Smyth an d his followers at Amsterdam,

Hollan d,whither

they fled I n 1 606 from persecution . They were a body of E n glish Separatists gathered by Smyth, who had left the EstablishedChurch

,in 1 60 2

,on accoun t of his in clin ation to Puritan ism an d

his opposition to the corruption s of the En glish Church. Smythan d his con gregation at Amsterdam were the secon d En glishchurch of Separatists in that city, whither also Robin son an d his

con gregation followed in 1 60 7 , an d where the older con gregationof John son an d Ain sworth was already well established— all of

the same faith an d order,an d in full fellowship with each other.

Smyth an d his people were still Pedobaptists an d in ten selyprejudiced again st the An abaptists up to the close of 1 608

,but in the

year 1 609 , havin g gradually developed alon g more Scripturallin es again st certain Con gregation al forms of ecclesiasticism an d

worship, he reached at last the con viction that in fan t baptismwas n ot in accord

‘

with person al obedien ce to Christ , an d that theSeparatists themselv es had n o other claim to the succession of a

true church than their in fan t baptism through the apostate

Church of E n glan d an d then ce through Rome .

H e separated , for these reason s, from the Separatists as he hadpreviously separated from the corrupt En glish Establishmen t ,dissolv ed his own church an d proceeded to reorgan ize an ew

upon the Baptist model , which is based upon a regen erate

church membership an d believers’ baptism. H e acted upon _thepresumption that the true church an d right baptismwere lost ;an d that with the Scriptures he had the right, with others Hicommun ion

,t o restore both. H e recogn ized that there could be

2 9

3 0 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATI ON .

"

n o succession of either through the apostate Church of En glan do r Rome

,or through the Separatists who had received their bap

“

tism in in fan cy from the Church of E n glan d ; the Men n on ites,or

A n abaptists, were so grossly affected with errors that they hadn either the true church n or baptism. Hen ce the church an d

baptismmust be self origin ated or an ew by recovery an d so

he baptized himself an d then H elwys an d Morton with the rest inc ommun ion

,accordin g to the un ited testimon yof himself an d

his con temporaries, as shown in his work,Character of the

Beast,an d the writin gs of ClyftOn ,

Robin son an d others. H is

thesis was that there must be first at least two person s in commun ion through whom to begin baptism an d organ ization an ew

an d that of the n umber o n e could baptize himself an d then baptiz e others in this commun ion in order to set up an ew Christ’schurch in order

,offices an d ordin an ces— all of which he claims

h e an d his followers did.

I n his Character of the Beast,in reply to Clyfton ,

his position

is fully set forth. Smyth in variably assumes that the true

c hurch an dbaptism had been lost un der the defection of A n tichrist

,an d that he an d his people had restored them accordin g

to the Scriptures. The Separation ,havin g n o other baptism than

that of Rome through En glan d, was equally apostate with its‘

mother an d gran dmother.

Therefor the Separation must either go back to E n glan d, or go forward to true baptism. (P .

Clyfton ,in his Plea for I n fan ts an d Elder People Con cern in g

their Baptisme , &c. (pp. 1 70 charges that the An abaptistsin rejectin g the baptism of the Separation rejected the baptismof Christ , which had been preserved pure un der the defection of

An tichrist— just as the golden vessels of the Lord’s house I n the

temple ofNebuchadn ezzarun der the captiv ity of Israel hadbeenpreserved an d restored without bein g n ew cast ; that the

An abaptists, in devisin g a n ew baptism,brought in a n ew

coven an t an d gospel ; that they “ baptized themselv es withoutwarran t from the Word ; that if in extraordin ary case baptismwere lost an d had to be restored , it would have to be don e in an

e xtraordin aryway, as by an other John the Baptist , or un der an ew commission they were apostate from the faith an d customof their forefathers the succession of baptism has been perfecta n d the gates of hell have n ever prevailed again st the church.

This in substan ce .

OR IG IN OF THE GENERAL BAPTI STS . 3 1

Smyth’s replies are clear an d con clusiv e . H e says

I f the gates of H el Shall n ev er prevail again st the church then ther

hath always been a true Church, A n tichrist could n ev er make the

Church false an d so you of the Separatio n hav e sin n ed most shame

fully in callin g the Church of A n tichrist false . I f my argumen t

be n o t good again st you of the Separation for erectin g a n ew Church,n o

more is yours good again st us for erectin g n ew baptism.

“ The

Cov en an t is said to be ev erlastin g n o t in respect of the visible real existe n ce in the world in an established Church,

but in respect of the stabilityfirmn ess of it in regard

"

of Sathan’s malice which should n ot so abolish

it,that it Should n ev er be recov ered again .

” There was n o true

Church in the depth of A n tichristian ism, so n o true baptism,for can

an ythin g be true in a false Church, but the Scriptures an d the truths co ntayn ed therein . I den y therefor, that the Cov en an t , Church, or baptism

was visible always : For it was in v isible when the Church wen t in to the

wildern ess : therefor as you when ther was n o t a true church in the

world, took upo n you to set up a n ew church, &c . : SO the A n abaptists

(as you call them) doe n ot set up a n ew Cov en an t Gospel , though theyset up a n ew or rather the old Apostolique baptism which A n tichrist had

overthrown whereas you say they[the A n abaptists] hav e n o warran t to

baptize themselv es, I say as much as you hav e to set up a true church,

yea fully as much : F or if a true church maybe erected -which is themost

n oble ordin an ce of the New Testamen t , then muchmore baptisme .

When all Christ ’s visible ordin an ces are lost , eyther men must recover

them agayn e, or let them alo n e : if they let them alon e til ex traordin arymen come an d ton gs [to n gues] , as the Apostles did, then men are familists(for that is their opin io n ) or if they must recov er them, men must é egr

'

n

so to doe then two men joyn in g together may make a church (as you

say) Whymay they n ot baptize seein g they can n o t con joyn e in to Christbut by baptisme, Mat . compared withMat . Gala .

Now for baptizin g a man s self ther is as good warran t , as for a man s

churchin g himself. (Character of the Beast , pp. 57

Smyth says again , (ibid, 6 2—64)The true Church is o n ly by a Spirituall L in e of Fayth, an d true bap

tisme by the Spirituall succession uppo n the‘

Spirituall Lyn e of Faythfull

men con fessin g the Fayth an d the sin n es,which was typed by the Carn al

Lin e of the Old Testamen t . I den y that ever the E n glish n a

tion , or an y o n e of our predecessors were of the Fayth of Christ. Shew

32“

ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

it if you can : but we came of a Pagan race til Rome the mo ther came& put upo n us the false baptisme : an d therefor although the R oman s

might plead this, yet E n glan d could n ot plead it : an d so your dissimilitude can n o t ho ld I n that thin g : an d our case is simply Pagan ish.

I do utterly den y that ev er our forefathers of the E n glish n ation be

lieved,an d you can n ev er prov e it . For that which you say seein gwe are

Apostates, therefore it followeth that sometyme we or our an cestors had

the truth, I won der at you for so sayin g : for we are departed from the

faith of the Scriptures, n ot from the faith of our an cestors, who n ev er a

o n e of them at an y time believ ed v z'

sz'

oly in a true co n stituted church.

”

Smyth squarely assumes that there had n ever been a true

church havin g the true min istryan d baptism in En glan d . H e

does n ot mean that there had n ever been an y true believers inEn glan d— n or that foreign An abaptists had n ever at times beenin the Kin gdom— but that the En glish people had n ever had thetruth of a visibly con stituted Gospel Church. This utterly pre!

eludes the existen ce of An abaptist churches in En glan d at the

time of Smyth, else he had n ot erected a n ew church an d baptism; an d as we have seen Smyth

.

con sidered that there was

n either gospel baptism n or church in the world,n ot even with

the Men n on ites, else he had adopted their baptism.

H elwys an d Morton were in exact lin e with Smyth on the

doctrin e that there had been n o succession of the true church,

baptism ormin istryan d that theyhad tobe recovered o'en ow . I n

the same way that Clyfton assails Smyth does Robin son attackH elwys. I n hisWorks (Vol. III . , p . 1 68) Robin son asks :

I f the church be gathered by\baptism then will Mr. H elwisse ’3

church appear to all men to be built upon the san d, con siderin g the bap

tism it hath, which as I hav e heard from themselv es, was o n thisman n er

Mr. Smyth, Mr. H elwisse, an d the rest , havin g utterly disso lv ed an d dis

claimed their former church state an d min istry, came together to erect a

n ew church by baptism ; un to which they al'

So ascribed so great virtue,as that theywould n ot so much as pray,

together before they had it . A n d

after some strain in g of courtesywho should begin , an d that of John Baptist , Matt , iii. , 14, misalleged, Mr . Smyth baptized first himself, an d n ext

Mr. H elwisse , an d so the rest makin g their particular co n fession s. Now

to let pass his n ot san ctifyin g a public actio n by prayer, i. Tim. iv . , 4, 5.

his takin g un to himself that hon or which was n ot given him, either im

mediately from Christ or by the church, H eb. 4 his baptizin g himself,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

34 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

Mr. Smyth. H e was n o t in spired an d he belo n ged xto n o church. The

question excited gre at in terest in Amsterdam bo th amon g the Men n on ites

an d the E n glish Separatists. Mr. U n derhill , the respected Secretary of

the H an serd K n ollys Society, in formed the editor that, when in H o llan d,he foun d amon g the archiv es of the Men n on ite Church in Amsterdam 3;

fi n al application from some of Mr. Smyth’s party to be admitted to the

fellowship of the Church, but were refused til ackn owledgmen t was made

Of their error, in main tain in g that baptism might be admin istered by in

dividuals, apart from con n exion with a church, or that a church might

admin ister it amon g themselves, in depen den tly of pastors or elders.

”

Morton in his. Description ,1 620

, pp. 1 54, 155 , replies to

Robin son ’s argumen t, as follows

“I n this thin g we are partly called upo n , an d therefore shall man ifest ,that an y Disciple of Christ , that hath received power an d comman dmen t

from God to Preach an d co n v ert , though n o Pastor, may also by the same

power an d comman dmen t baptize, which I will first prove by the Scriptures, an d then an swer the objection s particularly.

”

H e uses the same argumen ts of Smyth an d H elwys that the

true church an d baptism had been lost in Rome, an d that the

Separatists have n o other claim for their foun dation than theirbaptism received from Rome through the En glish Church.

“But ,”says be, p. 16 1 ,

“n ow I prove, the servan t of Christ n ot

yet bein g in the office ofP astor or Elder, may baptize, thus :

Whatsoever is written aforetime is written for our teachin g : but it is

written aforetime that Disciples of Clerzsz‘, though yet n o Pastors, did Baptiz e : therefore we are taught bein g

\disciples of Christ, although yet n o

pastors, to Baptizewhen just occasion is given .

”

H e in stan ces John the Baptist, the Commission of the Apostlesdisciples makin g other

“

disciples, an d n ot as Officials, whoshould to the en d of time teach an d baptize— poin tin g to the

time when An tichrist forbade it an d set up in fan t baptism,a bap

tism of its own . On pp. 162 , 1 63 , he says :

The Apostles have le ft their power an d doctrin e whollybehin d them,

n othin g is dead but their perso n s ; an d therefore the doctrin e of Paul,

bein g n ow in the person of a believer : the Comman dmen t iswritten forhisin struction , biddin g him go Preach the GOSpelI to every creature to all

n ation s (accordin g asGod en ableth him, for he requirith n ot what we have

ORI G IN OF THE GENERAL BAPTI STS . 35

n ot) Baptizin g them : this comman dmen t is n ow as powerful as it ever

was.

I have quoted freelyfrom Smyth— his frien ds an d oppon en tsin order to show clearly the origin of the first Gen eral BaptistChurch an d the prin ciple an dpractice upon which it was foun ded .

By a gradual process of developmen t thro’

perhaps eight or ten

years— separatin g first from the En glish Church an d then from

the Brown ists— Smyth evolved the ideal of a Baptist church in

the light of the Scriptures con trasted with the errors_both of the

Pedobaptists an dMen n on ites. As an E n glish churchman he sawRome the usurper of the “historic episcopate

”

in En glan d ; as aSeparatist he saw the En glish Church as a corrupt hierarchy;an d at last con v in ced of Baptist prin ciples, he saw the Separationas on ly the legitimate offsprin g

— the daughter of the En glishestablishmen t an d the gran ddaughter of the Romish apostate.

In fan t baptism was the “mark” or“character of the beast” in

violation of Christ’s fun damen tal law of church con stitution ;an d bein g a clear-headed

,hon est an d zealous man

,he imme

diately reached the logic of believers’ bapt ism an d a regen erate

membership as the sole basis of New Testamen t church organ iz ation . The An abaptists aroun d him held to this v iew

,but

Smyth seems to hav e worked out through gradual developmen tthe ideal of the gospel church in the light of the Scriptures ; an dhowever soon he discovered this prin ciple amon g the Men n on

ites, or whatever they con tributed to his kn owledge an d decisio n on the subject

,they, too, were apostate from deeper an d

larger doctrin al stan dpoin ts. I n En glan d n or on the Con tin en tcould he an d his followers fin d baptismal, organ ic or doctrin alsuccession

,even amon g the An abaptists, an d much less through

apostate Rome an d her Pedobaptist daughters whose un iversalcon stitution was in fan t baptism— “

the mark of the beast .

”H e

kn ew the begin n in g as well as the doctrin al depravation of the

Men n on ites— he kn ew the origin an d historyof in fan t baptisman d he well con cluded that there was then n ot a true Scripturalchurch on earth an d so declares himself in his Character of theBeast .Reachin g thiscon clusion he was n ot lon g in actin g. The logic

of the situation led him to dissolve his church an d sever all con

n exion with the Separatists. Regardin g baptism as the cere

mon ial co n stitution of the church,an d that bein g lost, he struck

6 ENGLI SH BAPTI STR EFORMATION,

upon the n ovel idea of baptizin g himself an d of then baptizin gthe rest of his compan y in commun ion

,after each had made his

con fession of faith I n Christ ; an d it was then through the act of

baptism that the church was con stituted . No public act,n ot

ev en prayer, was allowed in the body, un til baptism was performed an d the church thus con stituted . The work was don ethe true baptism an d church were recovered— an d thus was or

gan iz ed an d set up the first En glish church,after the Baptist

model,which has had an y succession to modern times . Beyon d

that En glish Baptist an n als can n ot historically go for baptismalor organ ic con n exion with the\An abaptist sects who proceededthe En glish An abaptists of the Sev en teen th cen tury. Dr. JosephAn gus (Baptist Han dbook

,1 898) well observes

“Theearliest Gen eral Baptist Churches of which an y history is kn ownwere foun ded about 16 1 1—14 byThomas H elwisse, in Lo n don , Tiv erton ,

Cov en try, &c. ; an d the earliest Particular Baptist Church by John Spilsbury, atWappin g, in 1633 . There are tradition s of earlier churches. The

Baptist Societyat Shrewsbury is said to hav e been formed in 1627 ; that at

Blacken hall (n ow at H atch) , n ear Taun ton ,in 1630 (Thompso n quoted by

Toulmin , Neal iii. , p. E ven in 1457 there is said to hav e been a

con gregation of this kin d at Chesterto n (R obin so n’s Claude, I I . , p .

The‘

earliest books in defen se of their views were written by John Smythin 1608—9 . More than sev en ty years earlier, howev er, literature suppliesus with eviden ce of the existen ce an d activity of Baptists in E n glan d. I n

1548 John Vern on tran slated an d published Bullin ger’s ‘H olesome A n ti

do te again st the Pestilen t Sect of the A n abaptists.

’ Three years laterWilliamTurn er, Doctor ofPhysick, devysed a ‘Triacle again st the poyso n

lately stirred up again by the furiofi S ecte of the An abaptists,’ Lon don ,

1551 . These are the earliest E n glish A n tibaptist books I kn ow.

Dr. A n gus goes on to give the usual historical citation s re

gardin g the An abaptists of En glan d as far back as 1 538 ,“for a

hun dred years,”he says,

“before we hear of Baptist churches”,but he fixes the dates 1 6 1 1—14 as the earliest at which an yauthen tic history of Baptist churches, as such

,begin s. Really

the first En glish Baptist church, so called, began its existen ce,

in 1 609 , in Hollan d,an d was tran splan ted to Lon don I n 1 6 1 1

aswe shall see— but it had n o con n ection with the Hollan d A n abaptists. Mosheim seemed to thin k that the En glish Baptistshad their origin from the German an d Dutch An abaptists ; but

OR I G IN OF TH E GENERAL BAPTS ITS . 37

as Taylor, in his historyof the Gen eral Baptists (Vol. II ., p .

an d as the plain est facts show,affirms that Mosheim was clearly

mistaken .

The great prin ciple upo n which Smytha n d his followers acted,as the quotation s from theirWritin gs Show,

was that true baptisman d the true church hav in g been lost , true disciples mov ed of

God an d hav in g Christ, the Scriptures an d the Spirit had the

right to recover them. This also implied that an y disciple em

powered to preach was empowered to baptize an d so begin a

church an ywhere an d at an y time circumstan ces required .

Hen ce their theory I n volv ed the settin g up of a n ewmin istry as

well as n ew bapt ism an d church order ; an d upon this,as upon

the other poin ts of their thesis, their position was hotlycon testedby Robin son ,

Clyfton ,John son

,Ain sworth

,Jessop an d others.

The position was carried to extremes by some of Smyth’s fol

lowers; an d hen ce in his last book , The Retraction of hisErrors,

Smyth in v eighed again st the theory when it was carried beyon dthe settin g up of the church which could then establish its own

min istry an d perpetuate the ordin an ces without the n eed of selforigin ation . H e still in his Retraction claimed that successionhad been lost an d properlyrestored , but that here the settin g upan ew of baptism,

church ormin istryought to en d; an d he fi n allysought membership amo n g the Men n on ites upon the groun d thattheywere orderly churches already existen t at the time he or

gan iz ed the first E n glish Baptist church. This was after furtheracquain tan ce with them an d after imbibin g their errors ; an d

H elwys, still retain in g Smyth’s origin al position ,

an tagon ized hisold leader an d

“ brought on a sev ere con troversy with him.

Smyth was correct as again st the logical extreme of his position

regardin g the right to restore the church,its min istry an d ordi

n an ces, after it was on ce accomplished ; an d he sought properlyto correct it by con ten din g that the right should n ot be claimedwhen On ce the church

,its min istry an d ordin an ces

,had been

established .

The prin ciple upon which the first En glish Baptist Churchwasfoun ded ,

were main tain ed n ot o n ly by the immediate followersof Smyth, but by all the Baptists, so far as I have read , in the

1 7th Cen tury. Theyall claimed that theyhad a n ew “Begin n in g”

or“reformation

”in En glan d— even down to Crosbywho wrote

their history in 1 738-

40 an d the right to self-origin ation ,upon

the groun d that the true baptism,church an d min istrywere lost

38 ENGLI SH BAPTIST RE FORMATION .

in the apostasy of Rome an d her offsprin g, was a cardin al doctrin e of all the writers of the 1 7th Cen turywhom I have examin ed . Smyth, H elwys, Morton

,Spilsbury, Tombes Lawren ce,

Barber,Kiffin ,

Kin g, Collin s, Kilc0p, Corn well , Allen ,Den n e

,

Oates, Patien t , Lamb an d others— all both Gen eral an d Particular Baptists- repudiated the doctrin e of organ ic or baptismalsuccession

,an d defen ded the right to restore baptism, the church

an d the min istry upon the prin ciple of self-origin ation . Fromthe start they called believ ers’ baptism “

n ew baptism” I ecovered

from the depths of the RomishApostasy ,an d from 1 640

—4 1 an d

o n ward theygive their baptism the additio n al title of bein g n ew

by reason of the restoration of the“an cien t practice of Immer

sion . They are n ot on ly called ‘n ew rebaptiz ers

”but “ n ew

dippers”after the latter date. There was but on e thin g I n John

Smyth which they rejected— his self-baptism ; an d in all else,

except (with the Particular Baptists) his Armin iamsm,he set the

pace for Baptist position in En glan d ; an d though he wen t overto the errors of the Men n o n ites his immediate successors Helwys

an d Morton reasserted an d con tin ued the foun dation upon which

he built .As already in timated, soon after the establishmen t of Smyth

’s

church,the mother of the Gen eral Baptists, sometime in the year

1 609 , upon further acquain tan ce with the Men n on ites an dhav in gbecome tain ted with their Pelagian ,

or Socin ian views,Smyth

became con vin ced that he an d his followers had erred in their

attempt to restore right baptism an d true church order ; an dwiththe majority of his con gregation he sought admission in to the

Men n on ite Church in Amsterdamwhich he n ow regarded as the

true church hav in g right baptism\ifl n ot regular succession . This

was his third separation ; an d he was n ow excluded from the

An abaptist organ ization which, with H elwys an d others at the

head, besought the Men n on ites to be cautious about receivin gSmyth an d his faction . H elwys an d his church, as alreadysaid ,rigidly adhered to the origin al prin c iples upon which theywerecon stituted an d den oun ced the “

succession”theory upon which

Smyth, in their view n ow,seemed to proceed, as a “Jewish Ordi

n an ce”an d the “

chief hold of An tichrist” ; an d it was n ot un tilafter Smyth

’

s death, in 1 6 1 2,that Smyth

’s faction

,in the year

1 6 1 5 , was fi n ally admitted in to the ‘membership of the Men n o n ite

Church,n o differen ce whatev er bein g foun d between the Dutch

an d the En glish either in the doctrin e of salvation or in the de

OR IG IN OF THE GENERAL BAPTI STS . 39

Sign an d mode of baptism. (Evan s, Vol. I . , .p I n the

providen ce of God,however

,Smyth, like Roger Williams, build

ed wiser than he afterwards thought ; an d un wisely, like RogerWilliams

,he aban don ed an d vain lyattempted to tear down God

’

s

buildin g.

Though still imperfect in doctrin e an d practice, the true ideaof Christ’s Church— based upon a regen erate churchmembership an d believers’ baptism— was n ow freshly an d purely re

stored ; an d the grosser errors of A n abaptism,as it then existed

,

were largely elimin ated . The foun dation in prin ciple, if n ot in

practice, was thus laid for the future Baptist Den omin ationamon g the En glish people . Although the evolution through

which we have passed to our presen t higher an d more perfect

position has been slow an d sometimes con vulsive, yet, in the

providen ce of God, the eccen tric an d erran t John Smyth wasthe humble in strumen t through whom God operated the schemeof restoration ; an d stran ge or mysterious as this begin n in gmayappear, it is but an other illustration of that all-wise Providen cewhich left Israel in captivity an d slavery, an d then raised upMoses to lead his people through the wildern ess to the promisedlan d which he truly saw

,but n ever en tered . Joshua led Israel

over Jordan ; an d so H elwys led the first En glish An abaptistchurch— the mother of the Gen eral Baptists— to Lon don an d

established it there, in 1 6 1 1,an d thus completed the first great

step in the Baptist reformation .

The very fact, as we shall see in the n ext chapter, that Smythaban don ed his n ewly erected church an d sought admissionamon g the Men n on ites, shows that he had come to agree with

them in every particular of doctrin e an d practice . H e n ow

regarded them as embodyin g the true church ; an d while he haderected baptism an d a church an ew upon theirmodel , he n ow

regarded it as an error that he an d his followers had n ot at firstjoin ed theMen n on ites

,an d thus established the E n glishorgan iza

tion un der the form of regularity, if n ot of succession ,

'

which he

still den ied as existen t,though charged to the con trary. Hen ce

it is clear that whatever form of baptism the Men n on ites main

tain ed, that was the form origin ally adopted by Smyth. H e

n ow agreed with them,n ot on ly in the mode of baptism,

but he

had adopted all the ir doctrin al v iews of salvation ,however heret

ical heretofore con sidered ; an d H elwys n ot on ly adhered to theorigin al idea of Smyth

’

s n ew baptism an d church,but he still

ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

main tain ed that the Men n on ites,or

“NewFryelers, ashe calledthem

,were heretics, an d vigorouslywrote again st them— an d so

again st Smyth. Morton likewise agreed with H elwys in the

origin al plan an d doctrin e of the n ewly erected church ; an d

these two level-headed An abaptists en gin eered this providen tialmovemen t to a successful con summation . Neither of them,

how

ever, an tagon ized Smyth’s mode or method of baptism; an d

n eitherdid theyan tagon ize theMen n on ites as regards theirmodeof baptism,

which,like Smyth

’s,as we shall see

,was affusion .

The sum of the chapter Is this

Smyth held that, at his time, the world was in the depthsof

I

An tichristian ism ; that the via ble church, with itsmin istryan dordin an ces

,was lost ; an d that the spiritual or in visible church

was still in the wildern ess, without order, office, or ordin an ce.

Neither in the Churches of Rome,En glan d , n or amon g

the Separatists or An abaptists could New Testamen t order,or

thodoxy or purI ty be foun d .

3 . By the dissolution of his Pedobaptist organ ization an d bya

self-origin ated baptism he an d his followers as true believers,re

covered the oz’

sz'

ole church,its min istryan d ordin an ces, accordin g

to the commission of the Scriptures.

4 . H e afterwards became in fected with the doctrin al heresiesof the Men n on ites ; an d while he did n ot recan t his doctrin e thatsuccession had been lost

,he adopted the view that amon g the

Men n o n ites true baptism an d church order already existed .

5 . H elwys, Morton an d the rest of their church retain ed an d

made perman en t‘

Smyth’s origin al position as to

7the truth of

Baptist position a n d history.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

42 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

records between the E n glishAn abaptists an d the DutchMen n on

ites at Amsterdam,there is but little defin ite history of the Gen

eral Baptist movemen t un til after 1 64 1 , when both bran ches of

the Baptist body bec’

ame promin en t in the religious an d politicalan n als of E n glan d .

From these early En glish Baptists eman ated a few documen tswhich immortalize them in history an d literature . Besides thepublished works of Smyth a n d H elwys they left several con fession s of faith which are the first statemen ts of the En glish Baptists in doctrin e an d practice ; an d though imperfect in some particulars they are soun dly Baptistic an d worthy Of our begin n in gas a den omin ation in En glan d . Batin g its modified Armin ianv iew of salvation ,

the con fession of 1 6 1 1 is a substan tially gooddocumen t . I have a man uscript copy of H elwys

’

publication ,

16 1 1,again st the “New Fryelers, or Men n on ites, in which, be

sides orthodox views upon the human ity of Christ, the Sabbathan d Majesty— con trary to the former teachin gs of the An abaptists —he ably disproves the claim of “succession

”to an y sect of

Christian s an d shows it to be Jewish an d A n tichristian .

‘

Fromthe year 1 6 14 an d o n ward we discov er published documen ts ofthese En glish brethren who disclaimed the n ame of “A n abaptists,

”in defen se of “religious liberty

”an d again st the corrup

tion s an d persecution s of the State Church which forev er distinguish them an d which gav e the key n ote to all the subsequen tcon tests of the Baptists for in depen den cy an d freedom. Such

are Busher’s “Religion’5 Peace, ’ 1 6 14

“Persecution for Religion Judged an d Co n demn ed ,” 1 6 1 5 ; A n Humble Supplication to Kin g James, 1 6 20 , etc. These d’

ocumen ts clearlydefi n ethe Baptist position upon almost a\n yquestion which differen tiatesthem from other people ; an d they con stitute a rich heritage in

the archives of Baptist literature .

These early En glish Baptists, however, did n ot altogether escape the errors of their An abaptist brethren ; an d some of themlaid the foun datio n s of heresywhichwell n ighwrecked the General Baptists in the followin g cen tury. An in timate relation

,

from the start,existed between the -En glish an d Dutch brethren .

Besides false views of majesty, oaths, warfare an d the like,the

En glish became tain ted with Men n on ite Soc1n 1an I smwhich hasn ev er been thoroughly eradicated from the Gen eral Baptist body.

Though H elwys an d Morton objected to man y features whichdistin guished the Dutch from the En glish, yet from 1 6 24 to 16 26

OR IG IN OF TH E GENERAL BAPTI STS .

these Men n on ite peculiarities regardin g the Deity of Christ,the

weeklyobservan ce of the Lord’

s Supper, the lawfuln ess ofoaths,warfare an dmajestyhad become question s in the En glish body,an d both parties to the con ten tion were appealin g to the Dutchbrethren for recogn ition an d un ity. Such was the harmon y between the two bodies that Elias Tookeywith fifteen others who

had been excluded Or alien ated from Morton’

s church in Lo n don(16 24) sought un ion with the Amsterdam Church ; an d in the

discussion of the differen ces between them,there appears

'

to be

n othin g which would bar them from fratern al fellowship. Afterthe death of John Morton ,

1 630 , his wife return ed to her fatherin Amsterdam; an d with several others who probably return ed_With her she was received in to the Mon n on ite ch urch on her for

mer baptism by John Smyth. (Evan s, Vol. I ., p.

This in timate relation ship n ot o n ly led the En glish in to someMen n on ite errorswhich perman en tlyin jured their origin al orthodoxy an d n arrowed their Spirit an d usefuln ess

, but it in dicatedtheir agreemen t ‘

on the mode of baptism which was affusion .

Prof. Scheffer affirms that this relation ship con tin ued un til 1 64 1 ,when it was sudden ly broken off on accoun t of the adoption of

immersion by the E n glish Baptists at that date ; an d this suggests

an in quiry in to the mode of baptism practiced alike by bothparties.

1 . I t is the testimon y of the best scholarship,of Smyth him

self an d of his con temporarIeS that he baptized himself an d thenbaptized H elwys, Morton an d the rest of his compan y. The

quotation from his Character of the Beast , etc., pp . 58, 59 , 1 609 ,

is con clusive an d reads as follows

Whereas, you say that they [we] have n o warran t to baptize them

selv es [ourselv es], I say, as much as you hav e to set up a true church, yea,

fully as much. For if a true church may be erected which is the most

n oble ordin an ce of the New Testamen t , then much more baptism ; an d if

a true church can n ot be erected without baptism you can n o t

den y that baptism may also be recov ered. I f theymust recov er

them, men must begin to do so,an d then two men join in g maymake a

church Why may they n ot baptize, seein g they can n ot co n joinin to Christ but by baptism ? Note/for oaptz

'

z z'

n g a man ’s segf Mere is as

goodwarran t as for a man ( hare/252g lzz'

77zse{f. For two men sin gly are n o

church, join tly they are a'

church,an d they both of them put a church

upo n themselv es, so may two men put baptism upo n themselv es. For as

44 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

bo th those perso n s un churched yet hav e power to assume the church each

of them for himself with o thers in commun io n ; so mole of Mem u n oaptz'

z ed

lzaMpower to assume oaptz'

smfor l n'

mself wit/z oMers z'

n commu n ion . A n d as

Abraham an d John Baptist , an d all proselytes after Abraham’s example

(Exod. did admin ister the sacramen t upo n themselves, so may

a n yman raised up after the apostasy of A n tichrist , in the recov erin g of

the church by baptism,aa

’mz’

n z’

sler it upon fiz’

mself z'

n commu n ion we'

M oMers

A n d as in the Old Testamen t,ev eryman that was un clean washed

himself ; ev ery priest goin g to sacrifice washed himself in the lav er at the

door ofi

the tabern acle of the con gregation ; which was a type of baptism,

the door of the church (Titus E verymaster of a familyadmin istered

the Passov er to himself an d all of his family. The priest daily sacrificedfor himselfan d o thers. A man can n ot baptize o thers in to the church

,him

self bein g out of the church. T/zerefore it is lawful for a man to oaptz'

z e

iz‘

z’

mse/f fogeMer we'

M oMers z'

n

‘

eommu n z'

on ,an a

’ Mz’

s warran t zs apleropfzeryfor

Me practice wn z'

e/z is don e éy us .

As D r. Newman (H‘ ist . An tipedobaptism, p. 386) says :

“Thusthe fact of se-baptism seems to be fully admitted by Smyth himself.” So con clude Drs. Armitage, Vedder, Whitsitt, Burragean d Evan s

,Baptists ; an d so Drs. Dexter, Muller

, Scheffer,Ashton ,

Barclay, Robin son , John son ,Ain sworth

,Jessop, Wall

an d others— some of whom were Smyth’

s con temporaries an d

o n the spot when an d where the selfbaptIsm was performed .

Crosby, who believed that Smyth restored Immersion in Hollan d,

but who had n ot seen Smyth’s writin gs, seems to doubt that the

above quotation ,which he foun d in Wall’s Baptism An atom

'

ized(p. was sufficien t proof\of Smyth

’s self-baptism; but

Crosby, in order to his argumen t (Vol. I .

, .pp 98 mutilatesa n d garbles the quotation without an y satisfactory con clusion tohimself. He drops the question an d says

I f hewere guilty of what they charge himwith,

’t is n o blemish o n the

E n glish Baptists ; who n either approv ed of an y such method, n or did

they receiv e their baptism from him. (Vol. I . , pp. , 99

There is n o doubt that Smyth baptized himself.2 . What was the mode of his self-baptism which he tran s

mitted to his followers ? I t seems clearly aj ust’

ou ; an d this fact,in the absen ce of Smyth

’

s writi n gs, explain s why Crosby, whobelieved that Smyth was immersed, does n ot solve the mystery

OR I G IN OF TH E GENERAL BAPT I STS . 45

that Smyth’s followers did n ot in troduce immersion in to E n g

lan d,1 6 1 1 an d hen ce he dropped summarily the matter of his

self-baptism by repudiatin g it as n ev er havin g succeeded to theE n glish Baptists. Crosby did n ot then kn ow the secret

'

sin ce

explain ed .

Robert Ashto n (1 85 1 ) in his edition of the Works of JohnRobin son (Vol. III . , p . 46 1 , Appen dix) says

I t is a rather sin gular fact that zealous as were Mr . Smyth an d his

frien ds for believ ers’ baptism,an d earn est as were their oppon en ts in be

half of in fan t baptism, the“question of the mode of baptism was n ev er

moo ted byeither party. Immersio n baptism does n o t appear to hav e been

practiced or pleaded for by either Smyth or H elwys, the alledged foun dersof the Ge n eral Baptist den omin ation in E n glan d. No thin g appears in

their con trov ersial writin gs to warran t the suppositio n that they regarded

immersion as the proper an d o n ly mode of admin isterin g that ordin an ce .

I n ciden tal allusion s there are, in their own works an d in the replies ofRobin so n , that the baptism which Mr . Smyth performed on himself must

have been rather byaffusion , or pourin g. Nor is this supposition improb

able, from the fact that the Dutch Baptists, bywhom theywere surroun d

ed un iformly admin istered baptism by affusion .

”

Prof. Rauschen busch positively affirms that Smyth practicedaffusion .

Dr. B . Evan s,1 864, in his History of the Early En glish Bap

tists,cites in proof Dr. Muller

,who “fully agrees

” with Ashton .

H e Shows from the records of the church at Amsterdam,that ,

Smyth, after bein g excluded from the En glish Church, with sometwen ty

-four of his faction sought membership in o n e of the

Men n on ite churches ofAmsterdam. I twasprobablya IWaterlan dchurch

,whose mode of baptismwas af usion or sprin klin g.

“The

said En glish were question ed about their doctrin e of Salvationan d the groun d an d the form (mode) of their baptism; an d n o.

differen ce was foun d between them an d us,

”said the Men n on ite

min isters appoin ted to examin e Smyth an d his party.

“Thisstatemen t is sin gular,

”says Evan s, “ as the members of this com

mun itywere n ot immersion ists an d to satisfy these Men n on ites,withwhom he sought un ion ,

Smyth an dhis frien ds ackn owledgedan d repen ted their error of self-oapiism as con trary to the orderof Christ . (Evan s, Vol. I . , pp. 208

,After Smyth

’s de~

cease,im_r6 1 2

,his faction was received in to full fellowship in

4 6 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

this Men n on ite church— the un baptized portion of it bein g admitted by an d

‘

n ot immersion,-accordin g to Muller.

(Evan s, Vol. I . p. 2 2 This is good in feren tial eviden ce thatSmyth an d

‘

the already baptized portion of his party had n ever

been immersed— n ot on ly because a portion of themwere sprin

kled,but

‘ because it is Impossible to con ceive that,if Smyth was

an immersion ist,seekin g the true church an d true baptism n ow

by“succession

,he would have gon e for the purpose to a

“sprin klin g

”church for membership. Especially is this prob

able if,as Evan s seems to thin k (for which he has n oproof) ,

there were some of the Men n on ites who at the time immersed .

Drs. Muller, Scheffer an d others affirm that the Men n on ites n ever

immersed . Accordin g to Muller (Evan s, Vol. I ., p.

“The

Waterlan ders[to whomSmythapplied], n oran yof theNetherlan dDoopsgez in den practiced at an y time baptism by immersion .

I n this con n ection he says : “This mode ofbaptizin g [sprin klin g]was from the days

'

of Men n o , the on ly usual mode amon g them,

a n d is s till amon gst us” — although pourin g was sometimes praoticed

,especially at first.

But it is objected that there I S a qualifyin g sen ten ce in the

paragraph, fromwhich Muller’s lan guage is quoted, which implies that the En glish alreadybaptized amon g the faction receiv edin to the Waterlan der church were immersed an d that therefore

Smyth’s baptismwas immersion . The sen ten ce reads thus :

“But they [the Waterlan ders] cared on ly for the very n ature of the

baptism, an d were therefore willin g to admit even those who were baptiz ed by a mode differin g from theirs just as we are won t to do n ow-a

days.

I t is replied that theWaterlan ders foun d n o differen ce betweenthemselves an d Smyth as to the “groun d an d the form (mode) ofbaptism.

”The Waterlan der mode was “

sprin klin g.

” Therefore Smyth

’s mode was sprin klin g. Hen ce the qualifyin g sen

ten ce can on lybe an expression of liberalitywhich in dicates thateven if the already baptized portion of Smyth

’s faction had been

immersed theywould have" been received— just as the Men n on ites

an d Pedobaptists do at this day. Dr. Muller wan ts to leave theimpression that there would have been

‘

n o n arrown ess with the

Men n o n ites about a differen ce - in the mode of baptism, the“groun d

”of baptismbein g the same ; but the con text shows that

OR IGIN OF TH E GENERAL BAPTI STS . 7

there was n o differen ce either in the groun d or n ature— n or the

form or“

mode , between them.

After ”

a thorough study of the matter, Evan s (Vol. IL , pp.

5 1 , 52) says of themode of baptismpracticed by Smyth'

an d his

followers '

We hav e to deal with it in the Spirit of history, n o t con troversy.

O n ly as an historic fact do we touch it . Again an d again has it been

asserted that at this period immersio n was n ot the mode adopted by these

heroic con fessors. The questio n is o n lyofmomen t in the light of history.

Beyon d this its in terest an d value do n ot go . Truth is more importan t to

us than theory. I n this spirit we shall en ter in to this in quiry.

”

H e then quotes Altute, who assumes that till the begin n in g ofj he seven teen th cen tury the En glish Baptists on ly rejected the

baptism of in fan ts, but did n ot in sist on immersion un til in troduced by John Smyth— a fiction alreadydisproved byEvan s an dhis authorities an d so con futed in his followin g thesis. H e cites

again Ashton , the editor of Robin son ’s works an d repeats the

expression“Nothin g (referrin g to Smyth an d H elwys) appears in their co n tro

v ercial writin gs to warran t the supposition that they regarded immersion

as the proper‘

an d on lymode of admin isterin g that ordin an ce, &c

an d who con cludes,as seen heretofore, that

-

Smyth baptizedhimself by “

affusion ,

”in whose “

opin ion , says Evan s, “Dr.

Muller fully agrees.

”

“But,”asks Dr. E van s,

“was it so We can n ot pron oun ce positively,but we are boun d to

‘

con fess that the probabilities are greatly in its favor.The harmo n y of opin io n , an d the an xiety for agreemen t, which their

Dutch brethren man ifested in the documen ts laid before our readers,

wouldmore than warran t this con clusion . Add to this the fact alreadystated by I vimey, that , on tfie formation of t/ze

'

first Particular Baptzst

C/zurcfz in E n glan d, an in dividual was sen t over to H ollan d to de immersed.

Now this could n ot arise from their bein g n o Baptists in the coun try. We

have seen that the very opposite was the fact . Other churches, too , as

will be seen presen tly, existed in the coun try. On ly from on e or two

causes could this con dition aris’

e : dislike to Armin ian doctrin esy or dissat

isfaction with the mode of baptism. Which of these operated, it is difficultto say. Probably both had an in fluen ce in determin in g this course.

”

48 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

I n all this Dr. Evan s clearly in clin es to the Opin ion that Smyth,H elwys an d their followers were af usion ists.

Dr. Evan s, however, does n ot stop here. H e poin ts us to thefact that, so late as 1 646 , at Chelmsford, there still existed amon gthe An abaptists this Men n on ite affusion as in dicated bythe presen ce of the OldAden ,

or Aspersi, as con tradistin guished from the

[Vow Men or a mersi (Vol. II . pp. 5 2 , 53) After commen tin gupon the in troduction of the Particular Baptist Churches an d thedeputation to Hollan d for 1mmersion ,

he con cludesMost will n ow see that the practice of the Men n on ite brethren [af

fusion ]

was common [amon g the A n abaptists] in this coun try[E n glan d] . These

New Men [lmmersi] soon cast them [the Old Men or Aspersi] in to the

shade, an d this practice speedilybecame obsolete . Immersion as themode

of baptism became the rule with both sectio n s of the Baptist commun ity.

I n deed from this time beyo n d the fact already given [at Chelmsford] we kn ow n ot of a solitary exception .

”(Vol. I I . , p.

Thus in the spirit of history an d n ot partisan in terest Evan scon cedes the stron g probability— “

the con clusion more than

warran ted — that Smyth an d his followers practiced Men n on ite

affusion down to the formation of the first Particular BaptistChurch an d to the time of Blun t’s deputation to Hollan d forimmersion ; an d he goes further in sayin g that, as late as 1 646,the A n abaptistS

'

were stil l divided between the practice of the ”

Old Men orAspersi an d the NewMen or [mmerszl—showin g thatimmersion amon g the An abaptistswas a ‘

n ew” thin g in E n glan dat that date . Dr. Evan s was an able an d accurate Bapt ist historian ; an dhe I S cited I n the in terests ofhistory, n ot con troversy,an d I n ev iden ce of a reformation which was gradual an d somewhat slow in developmen t .I n the Con fession s of Smyth an d H elwys the articles on bap

tism,separated from the facts of history, would n ot stron glyin di

cate that they did n ot regard immersion as the Scripture form of

Baptism. They n ever use the word immersion ,however

,in their

writin gs or con fession s; an d in the 14th article of the 16 1 I Con fes

sion which defi n es baptism,this lan guage is used : “Baptism,

or

wasn in g witn water, is the outward man ifestation of dyin g un to

sin an d walkin g in n ewn ess of life ; therefore I n n o Wise apper

tain eth to in fan ts.

”Smyth in his Latin Con fession (Art.

says :“That baptism is the extern al Sign of remission of sin s,

of dyin g an d bein gmade alive, an d therefore does n ot belon g to

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

50 ENGLI SH BAPTIST RE FORMAT I ON .

A Baptist believin g in immersion would defin e water as the elemen t in which

,but n ot the “in strumen t by which, a man is

baptiZed : an d “sprin klin g

”or

“washin g for baptism is n owutterly out of the question in an y sen se with Baptist defin ition .

H elwys in his Mystery of In iquity an d Morton I n his work en

titled, A Description , both repeatedly keep up Smyth’s use of

the word “washin g”as the defin ition of baptism; an d in all their

discussion with Robin son , Ain sworth, J .ohn son , ] essop an d otherswho practiced sprin klin g, they in variably used the word “washin g

”for baptism as their oppon en ts did. They spoke of the

folly of “washin g in fan ts”as a defin ition of in fan t baptism

just as they defin ed adult baptism ; an d it is clear that theymean tjust what their oppon en ts did by the mode of baptismwhichWasaffusion . Such was the usage of the sprin klin gMen n on ites withwhom

'

theywere associated an d who did n ot hesitate to use Rom.

Col. as expressive of the ideal effect of baptismin washin g away sin . Smyth, H elwys an d Morton use H eb. in

the sen se of baptiz o, both as to the baptism of the heart by the

sprin klin g of blood an d the washin g ( leloumen oi) of the body“

with pure water.

As Dr. Newman says

“The use of the Biblical lan guage about burial an d resurrectio n in con

n ection with baptism proves absolutely n othin g as to the practice of a

writer.

The oppon en ts of Smyth,H elwys an d Morton , though asper

sion ists, employed the same symbolism. Edmon d Jessop (AD iscovery of the Errors of the En glish An abaptists, &c . , p. 6 2 ,

says of Col.

I n which words (I say) he settled down e expressly, that the baptismewhich saveth, the baptisme whereby we put on Christ, the baptisme

whereby our hearts are purged an d san ctifiedfan d the sin n es of our fleshdon e away, whereby we are buried with Christ an d doe rise with him,

even that which is through the faith an d operatio n of the Spirit , is on e

an d the same, with the circumcision of the heart .”

jessop is speakin g of the sacramen tal effect of baptism as a

washin g away of sin , the effect ofwhich is to un ite uS‘

withChrist in his death an d resurrection an d which, with the Pedobaptists, is expressed just as well by affusion as immersion . H e

mean t n o more by his defin ition than the Puritan Catechism,

ORIG IN or THE GENERAL BAPTI STS . 5 1

To S ion s Virgin s, 1 644, when it asks the question :“ H ow

arewe ouried oy oaptismwit/z Citrist ? an d an swers it as follows :When he was buried by baptism, sweatin g water an d blood, he was

buried by baptisme, bein g - un der the wrath of the Father all his woes

were ov er him, then were the elect buried with him in his death, when

man y came aforehan d to bury him, in bein g man ifested _to believers whenthey are baptized by the Spirit dyin g un to sin an d risin g un to n ewn ess of

life .

This Catechism is defen din g sprin klin g as the mode of baptism again st immersion ; an d it has n o hesitation I n adoptin g theburial an d resurrection sign ifican ce of baptism as expresswe of

spiritual washin g which kills the soul to sin an d un ites it with’

Christ in his death an d resurrection . The Men n on ites,Smyth,

H elwys, Morton,aboun d in the expressron s,

“ believe an d be

baptized ,”

put on Christ in baptism,

” buried an d risen with

him in baptism,

”an d the like ; an d yet they in n o way differed

from the Sprin klin g Puritan s in usage or practice , except in the

application of such symbolism to un believin g in fan ts.

Hen ce the word immersion was'

n ev er put in to an En glishBaptist Con fession ,

un til 1 644 , for the reason,as we shall see,

that immersion was n ever adopted by the En glish Baptists un til1 640

—4 1 . I t was n ot put i n to the Con fession s of Smyth an d

H elwys, 1 6 1 1,because they practiced Men n on ite affusion an d

called it,as the Puritan s did,

a washin g with water.

”The

argumen t that they took immersion for gran ted because it wasthe n ormal or un iv ersal mode is purely gratuitous, Sin ce I n

,

1 609—1 1 sprin klin g or pourin g was the mode aroun d them; if

theywere immersion ists in con flict with the othermodes of baptism, their failure to employ the word, immersion ,

would beastoun din g. Certain ly they could have in curred n o dan gerfrom persecution in usin g the word

,immersion

,in their Con

fession s an d writin gs, if that was the prevailin g in ode ; an d the

omissio n to use it isprimafaeie eviden ce ihat they did n ot prae

tice it , aside from the fact of history that theywere affusion ists,The so-called “An cien t Records” of the Epworth, Crowle an d

West Butterwick church,1 558

—9 , published byDr. John Clifford

in 1879 , - have been thoroughly exposed as a forgery by Dr.

Dexter in his work en titled : True Story of John Smyth,the Se

Baptist ; an d it has n ow been repudiated by all true Baptistscholarship. The fraud was ev iden tly in ven ted to escape the

52 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

odium of Smyth’s self-haptism which

,after all, had it been ,

immersion,is n o worse than the self-origin ated baptism of Spils

bury or RogerWilliams begun without a baptized admin istratorto accomplish the same thin g that Srn yth purposed . Somebodyhad to begin the admin istration of the ordin an ce ; an d whetherselfbaptized or n ot, Smyth, in the providen ce of God

,was right

in prin ciple if n ot in method an d formofhis baptism. The great

won der I s that scholars like Drs. Clifford an d An gus, in the lightof history, should have been misled by such a forgery as the“An cien t Records. As already said

,Smyth an d his followers

were Separatists, in ten selyopposed to An abaptism,after reachin g

Hollan d,down to 1 608 ; an d I n the light of their own literature,

an d accordin g to Robin son an d Ashton (his editor) , Ain sworth,John son

,Jessop an d other con temporaries, to say n othin g of

Evan s,Muller

, de Hoop Scheffer an d Barclay in more recen t

times,it is utterlyimprobable to suppose that Smythwas already

a Baptist, immersed I n the river Don at midn ight, 1 606, by JohnMorton , or that he was ever immersed at all.

The tradition that Smyth was immersed un der the claim of

bein g the foun der of the Gen eral Baptist den omin ation , has

n aturallybeen followed bya n umber ofwriters of later date, suchas ThomasWall Giles Shute Dan iel Nealan d still later by Taylor, I vimey, Adshead, Pun chard, Blackburn

,Masson

,Price

,Wilson an d others who have been cited in

favor of the View that Smyth was immersed, or immersed himself. No testimon yhas been adduced by on e of these writers toprove Smyth

’s immersion ; an d it is prettyclear from the writin gs

of Smyth an d his con temporaries— especiallyby the later revelation s of Ashton

,Muller

,Scheffer\an d others— that he n ot on ly

baptized himself, but did it by “affusion .

”I f

,as claimed by

.Masson,Price an d others

,Smyth an dH elwys hadmade the issue

with the Puritan s on the mode as on the subject of lbaptism,the

fact would have appeared in theirwritin gs an d in the writin gs oftheir oppon en ts. Prof. David Masson ,

M .A . ,LL .D . (Life of

John Milton,Vol. IL , p . 540) represen ts Smyth I n his separation

as n ot on ly “rejectin g the baptism of in fan ts altogether, but as

“in sistin g on immersion as the proper Scriptural form of the

rite . On p. 544 , he assumes that the “H elwisse’5 folk” differed

from the In depen den ts “on the subject of In fan t Baptism an d‘

Dippin g. I n a recen t in terv iew Prof. Masson seems to implythat he drew his opin ion from the utteran ce of Leon ard Busher

OR IG IN or THE GENERAL BAPTI STS .

(16 14) an d from D r. Featley’s

“Dippers Dipt (1 644) an d

Edwards’Gan graen a (1646) as con clusive that Baptists had beenDippers from John Smyth on ward

,but it is eviden t that, in

his great work , Prof. Masson had on ly in ciden tally examin edBaptist history from 1 609 to 1 64 1 , an d was un acquain ted withthe documen ts an d writers which overthrow his thesis— asw e

shall see .

The on lyman of the time who in this reformatorymovemen tgave a sin gle utteran ce in favor of immersion was Leo n ardBusher who defin ed baptism as

“dipped for dead inwater.

”The isolation of that utteran ce in dicates the un iversal

prevalen ce of sprin klin g or pourin g ; an d it seems to have beenlost in the un iversal silen ce of the waterswhichwere un disturbedby adult dippin g. Crosby

’s explan ation ,

as will be seen'

in an

o ther chapter, that immersion prior to 1 640—4 1 had been “dis

used”

even as an in fan t rite, an d was “restored

”as an adult

ordin an ce about that date, gives the reaso n for the silen ce. H e

shows that the “an cien t custom of immersion ” had n ever been

“revived” in En glan d sin ce it was “disused” down to that time

,

an d sin ce it was n ot kn own if the An abaptists had oegun it ; an d

the fact is con firmed by the volumin ous testimo n yofwriterswhodiscuss the subject from 1 640

—4 1 , an d on ward . Busher’s utter

an ce is like a flash of lightn in g an d a clap of thun der on the

midn ight sky of believers’ baptism,which had lost its lustrous

symbolism; an d the sky did n ot relume from the lon g n ight of“disuse” un til Blun t caught the distan t echo an d flash of Busher’speal , an d proclaimed an d put in practice his plea for immersion .

Then the stormof con troversyarose again st the practice as some

thin g“n ew

”an d which n ullified all other forms of baptism; an d

the con test raged un til the en d of the seven teen th cen tury.

Busher’s defi n ition was certain ly apart from an y practice of his

day.

I t is probable that the H elwys-Morton people , in spite of per

secution,in creased in membership down to 1 640

—4 1 , by the

n umber of churches ascribed to them in 1644 ; but it is likelythat this in crease from 1 640 to 1 644 was far greater than from1 6 1 1 to

'

1 64 1 . I vimey’s assumption ,

based upon the testimon yof D r. Some, that as early as 1 589 there were man y churches of

this order in Lon don an d the coun try— or that such churches

dation . The early origin an d con tin uan ce of Baptist churches

54 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

I n En glan d seem to have a defin ite, however limited , history,

an d it is n ot likely that an y An abaptist churches before 164 1 in

E n glan d escaped the eye of history at the time. What Baptistsat that date did n ot gen erally kn ow of themselves, their en emiesdid

,an d it is improbable that an yAn abaptist con ven ticle, in an y

locality of En glan d , could have had an an cien t origin aiid lon gcon tin uan ce without some record of its persecutors. The claimof an tiquity for the existen ce “

of an y An abaptist church before16 1 1—1 64 1 , other than those recorded between those dates, issimply tradition al an d un reliable ; an d if such a claim could beestablished

,it does n ot den y the absen ce or

“disuse” of immersion amon g them applicable to the great body of Baptists, as Weshall see

,who restored immersion in En glan d , 1 640

—4 1 . Such

lon g an d un broken existen ce as is claimed for the churches of

Can terbury, Eythorn e, Hill Cliffe, Bookin g, an d others, in an

en emy’s coun try an d un der the perpetual surveillan ce an d in tol

eran ce of the ecclesiastical an d civil powers, seems improbablewithout an y authen tic record of the fact— as already said . The

Baptist an d other writers of the 1 7th Cen tury kn ow n othin g of

these or an yother immersion bodies before 1 640—4 1 ; an d if such

bodies in En glan d had come down to that date the in variablecharge an d defen se of self-origin ated baptism after that date wouldhave been absurd. So of the charge an d defen se of “Separa

tion”an d “

reformation .

” There is n o possible explan ation of

the terms of the 1 640—4 1 con troversy regardin g Baptist baptism,

except upon the theory of a “revival of immersion ” at the han dsof the whole Baptist body; an d a hun dred writers, bothBaptistan d Pedobaptist, con ten din g over the subject for Sixtyyearsfall over En glan d— ought .to havek n own if an y immersion bodyin the Kin gdom had come down to 1640

—4 1 , an d had n ot join ed

in the restoration of the ordin an ce claimed to be “lost.”

ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION .

(FROM 1609 To 1 64 1 A . D .)

OR IGIN OF TH E PARTI CULAR BAPTI STS .

Thomas Crosby, the first En glish Baptist historian (Vol. I .pp. 147

—149 ; «Vol. III . pp. 40 chron icles the origin of

what are called the first Particular or Calv in istic Baptist churchesin En glan d , as distin guished from the Gen eral or Armin ian Baptists. H e poin ts to the year, 1 633 , as the date at which theParticular Baptist movemen t began ,

as follows“ I n the year 1633 , the Baptists who had hitherto been in termixd

amo n g o ther Protestan t Dissen ters, without distin ction , an d so couse

quen tly shared with the Puritan s all the persecution s of those times, began

n ow to separate themselves, an d form distin ct societies of those of their

own persuasion .

”

H e seems to imply that this was the origin of the first Baptistchurches in En glan d ; but whatever his reason for thus expressin ghimself, the origin of the Particular Baptist churches was syn

chron ous with the movemen t of 1 633 H e gives n o data for theassertion that the Baptists were in div idually in termixed ” withthe Puritan s up to that date ; but if his assumption is correct

,

theymust have agreed with the Puritan s in doctrin e an d prao

tice, except in fan t baptism. I f there were such “ in termixed ”Baptists they were un organ ized an d had n o churches of theirown

,but were in fellowship an d co-operation with the Con grega

tion alists. They were differen t in kin d from the Gen era-1Baptists who retain ed till 164 1 the fellowship an d peculiarities of theMen n on ites ; an d as the Particular Baptists retain ed the mixedchurch or commun ion idea an d their Calv in ism in herited fromtheir an cestral relation ship with the Puritan s, so the Gen eralBaptists retain ed , for the same reason , the peculiarities of the

Men n on ites— especially their Pelagian , Socin ian ,or Armin ian

ten den cies. TheParticular Baptistswere free from theMen n on ite55

56 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

errors I n doctrin e an d practice but with theirotherwise Baptisticdoctrin es an d practices, they in herited. from their Puritan auces

tors the mixed church an d commun ion fallacy, of which the

Jessey churchwas the mother.

For his accoun t of the Particular Baptists Crosby cites the so

called Kiffin Man uscript, Or the Jessey Records, as his authority,fromwhich he collects the followin g facts . On the 1 2 th of September, 1 633 , there was a secession from the Jacob-Lathrop(In depen den t) church of the peoplehe calls Baptist,” hithertoin termixed , upon the groun d chiefly, accordin g to Crosby .

That baptism was n o t right ly admin istered to in fan ts, so they lookedupo n the baptism they had receiv ed at that age as I n valid : whereupo n

most or all of them received a n ew baptism.

”

Accordin g to the Records the 1633 secession was based rather

upon dissatisfaction with the churches own in g the En glishParishes to be true churches an d den yin g the truth of

‘

ye;Parish Churches an d havin g become so large that itmightbe prejudicial,

”they desired dismission that theymight become

an en tire church an d further ye commun ion of those churches in

Order amon gst themselves.

” This dissatisfaction with regard tothe Parish Churches arose I n 1 630 , accordin g to the JesseyRecords

,in the Jacob church because of those who had their

children baptized in the Parish Churches ; an d n otwithstan din gthe compromise Coven an t ” adopted in that year as a peace

measure, this dissatisfaction con tin ued un til the split in 1 633for the reason s expressed above . The secession of 1 633 wasmain ly an In depen den t movemen t which arose partly from n e

cessity an d which aimed at rebukin g affiliation with the ParishChurches an d which looked to the furtherin g of commun ionwlth o ther I n depen den t churches which were in order ” an d

did n ot so affiliate . There was an An abaptist elemen t amon gthe secession ists, such as Mr. Eaton an d some others

” whoreceived a further baptism,

”but the Records do n ot sustain

Crosby’s statemen t that most or all of them received a n ew

baptism.

” Hen ce this 1 633 secession could n ot have beenwholly a body of An abaptists, or

“ Baptists, at the time oftheir separation ,

though subsequen tly they became such,an d it

is proper to keep the Records in v iew sin ce Crosby bases hisv ersion upon them. On ly a few of the secession were A n abaptists, at the start

,who received a

“ further”

or a“n ew bap

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

58 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

an d so far as I have foun d,Green an d Spen cer were both

Brown ists an d the associates of Barebon e in Brown ist con venticles an d preachin g, about the year 1 64 1 . (New Preachers,New ; Brown ist Con ven ticles, &c . p. I vimey classes Greenan d Spen cer with the Baptists ; but so he does Barebon e

,with

whom they associated an d who himself was also a Brown ist.Green ,

the felt maker,

”is probably Hatmaker ” of the sé ces

sion of 1 633 , men tion ed in the Records ; an d Spen cer was

called the horse-rubber alon g with Barebon e who was calledthe “ leather-seller.

”

Accordin g to Crosby this en ds the origin of the"

ParticularBaptist Churches prior to 164 1

— except the 1 640 mov emen t forthe restoration of immersion which was in troduced by these people. I n 1 644 the Particular Baptists n umbered seven En glishan d on e Fren ch Church

,all in Lon don ,

of the same faith an d

order,accordin g to the Jessey Church Records.

The old Jacob Lathrop.

Church (I n depen den t) accordin g tothese Records

,foun ded in 1 6 16 , was n ot on ly the mother of

man y of the In depen den t but of the Particular Baptist Churcheswhich took their rise in Lon don . I f there was an An abaptistelemen t in termixed with this Old church at the time Of thesecession of 1633

—1 638 , then from 1 640 to 1 645, un der the pastorate of Mr. Jessey, it may be regarded as a Particular BaptistChurch in tran sition — if n ot such before that date . I t fin allybecame Baptist in 1 645 , pastor an d people ; an d, as alreadysaid

,it was from this church that the mixed church an d

tcom

mun ion practice istraced through the En glish Particular Churchesdown to the presen t time . As origin ally the An abaptists were“ in termixed ” an d in commun ion

\with the Puritan s, so the

Puritan shave thus remain edwith theParticularBaptists. Perhapsin embryo the Jacob-Lathrop Church was Baptist from 1633on ward— just as the Separatist Church of John Smyth was suchon goin g to Hollan d ; an d in the prov iden ce Of God these two

churches were the twin mothers of the Baptist den omin ation s— especially Gen eral an d Particular’

—in En glan d . Whatevermaybe true of in div idual Baptist elemen ts in E n glan d between1 600 an d 1 64 1 , the two origin al Baptist movemen ts, 16 1 1 an d

1 633 , took formativ e shape in the churches of Smyth an d Jessey,both of which became Baptist an d gave birth to the En glishBaptist den omin ation which un itedly had 47 churches in 1 644 .

Some Of the Con gregation al Churches, after 1 64 1 , as the -Broad

OR IGIN OF THE PARTI CU LAR BAPTI STS . 59

mead, Bristol, an d others, became Baptist ; an d if it is possible,which is historically un kn own

,that there were an y of the old

Lollard or An abaptist elemen ts or con v en ticles fromthe sixteen thcen tury laten t in En glan d before or after 1 64 1 which developedin to Baptist Churches, theywere absorbed by the gen eral movemen t of 1 640

—4 1 , at which date they adopted immersion alon g

with the en tire body, which together restored immersion at that

time an d completed the reformation .

The immersion movemen t of 1640—4 1 is a special feature of

Particular Baptist origin , although it became the movemen t of

both Baptist bodies about the same period alon g differen t lin esof restoration ; but as I shall give, in an other chapter, a fuller historyof thatmovemen t I shall here con fin e myself to the I n quiryDid the Particular Baptists sprin kle or immerse before 1 64 1 ?

The more than probable practice of the H elwy’

s An abaptists,after the customof the Men n on ites, was affusion down to the timeOf Blun t’s deputation to Hollan d in 1 640 ; an d we shall n ow discover that aspersion must hav e been the practice of the ParticularBaptists, accordin g to the customof their Puritan an cestors, from1 633 to 1 64 1 . They had n o other baptism than that of their I n

fan cywhile “in termixed” with the Puritan s ; an d it was n ot un til

their separation that theyadopted believ ers’ baptism eviden tlyby

the same mode. As in timated,there was n o con trov ersywith the

Puritan s about the mode before or after the separation ; an d

accordin g to “Si‘

on’

sVirgin s,”1 644 , the practice

'

of the Puritan s,

especially the Jacob-Lathrop Church, was sprin klin g; The

Jessey Records show that of the secession Of 1 633 ,“Mr. Eaton

with some others’receiv ed a

“further baptism,or as Crosby

puts it, a‘n ew baptism.

” This baptismwas after the un disputedmode of the Puritan s ; for if there had been a chan ge Of mode

,

as there was of subject un der the same con ten tion , then we

should hav e heard that these An abaptists adopted immersion in

1 633 , as Barclay (In n er Life, pp. 74 , 75) thin ks they did bymistake from n ot havin g seen x the date, 1 640-

4 1 , of the origin al J es‘

sey Church Records, when Blun t was sen t to Hollan d . I f there

had been an ydifferen ce between the Puritan s an d An abaptists‘

as

to the mode,we should hav e had some record of that fact, just as

we have a record of their differen ce an d separation based upon

the subject Of baptism in 1638; As between Smyth an d the

Brown ists, so between Spilsbury an d the In depen den ts, the differen cewaswell defin ed as to the subject, but n ot as to the mode

ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

of baptism; an d although An abaptism by an y mode was theOffen se down to 164 1 , Immersion n ever became the crime un tilafter

’

that date . Was it because it Was taken for gran ted on

accoun t of its prevalen ce before that date ? Exactly the reverse

was true amon g those from whom the An abaptists separated an dwith whom they were in con trov ersy; an d accordin g to un disputed authority immersion in the En glish Church had becomeextin ct by 1 600 A . D .

,an d was in “disuse in En glan d, accord

in g to Crosby, prior to the Blun t movemen t, 1 640—4 1 . I t wouldbe un accoun table that Smyth an d Spilsbury should Split with the

’

Puritan s on the mode of baptism,as o n the subject

,an d n either

of them, before 164 1 , should leave a sin gle sen ten ce of such con

trov ersy so v olumin ous about believers’ as opposed to in fan tbaptism in the literature Of the period .

This 13 stron g circumstan tial ev iden ce growin g out Of the facts

Of separation itself; but this eviden ce I S amply con firmed by thedirect testimon y of the Records Of the Particular Baptist Move

men t of a little later date an d by the testimon y of Hutchin son,

Crosby an d other writers Of the time . The Immersion agitation

amon g the Baptists, 1 640—4 1 , in dicates that n ot on ly the Gen eral,but the Particular Baptists did n ot practice immersion un til thatdate . I t Origin ated in the question of a “proper admin istrator

,

”

which resulted in the discussion an d adoption of a propermode ofbaptism at that time ; an d although the movemen t has beenascribed to the first Particular Baptist Church of En glan d, itseems to hav e origin ated , accordin g to the JesseyChurchRecords,in a join t in quiry between some of the members of both the

& nlsbury an d the Jessey churchet on e a n An abaptist churchan d the other an An abaptist church In tran sition . Perhaps theagitation had been goin g on for several years ; an d if so , it had

co n tin ued on down to 1 640 through 1 638 , an d it may be from16 33 , when b elievers

’ baptism was likely in troduced without a

baptized admin istrator. Possibly the Blun t partywere affectedby the succession views of their Pedobaptist an cestors an d in

con flict with the an ti-successio n prin ciples of the A n abaptists,foremost amon g whom was Spilsbury, who said : ‘Baptiz edn esseis n ot essen tial to the admin istrator of baptisme . At all even ts

the agitation which began about a“proper admin istrator” de

velOped in to the discovery of the propermode of baptism.

Accordin g to the so-called Kiffin Man uscript , or the JesseyChurch Records, the immersion movemen t came . to a head in .

OR I G IN OF TH E PART I CU LAR BAPTI STS . 6 1

1 640, apparen tly led by Richard Blun t with Mark Lucar,

Thomas Shepard an d others of the “foren amed of Spilsbury’s

church on the on e side an d Samuel Blacklock with others of

Jessey’s church o n the other, who became “

con vin ced,

”after

much con feren ce an d prayer, that dippin gwas baptism an d couldon ly be en joyed by sen din g to Hollan d for its admin istration .

The con clusion was based (1 ) Upo n R om. Col.,

2 : 12 an d

(2) upon the affirmation of the Man uscript :“N on e kavin g tko

‘

n so

practiced z n E n gla n d toprofessedkelievers , an d Richard Blun t wasdeputed to the Netherlan ds

,where he receiv ed immersion from

John Batten,of the Collegian ts, an dwho upon his return baptized

Blacklock,the two baptizin g the rest that “were so min ded” to

the n umber of 53 person s, whose n ames are giv en in the documen t

,Jan uary 9 , 1 64 1 . Hutchin son con firms this Man uscript

accoun t of sen din g to Hollan d for a “proper admin istrator

’an d

Crosby substan tially employs the Man uscript in his v ersion of‘

precisely the same facts. H e paraphrases the main sen ten ce“N on e then

”

havin g so practiced in En glan d to professed believers

,so as to read thus :

They could n o t be satisfied about”

an y admin istrator [proper or irregua

’

lar] in E n glan d to é egin this practice ; because though some in this n atio n

rejected baptism of in fan ts [A n abaptists] , yet theyhad n ot as they k n ewof rev ived the an cien t custom of immersion .

”(Vol . I . ,pp . 161 ,

Just before this, on page 97 Crosby affirms that “ immersion hadfor some time been disused

,in En glan d ; an d when his para

phrase an d this affirmation are put together he perfectly agrees

with the Records I n the main sen ten ce an dexpresseshis opin ion ,in so man ywords, that Immersion down to 1 640 had n ot been“revived

”by the An abaptists -

of En glan d an d that they were,therefore, practicin g sprin klin g an d pourin g. I f

,

immersion hadbeen ‘disused” in En glan d prior to Blun t

’s deputation to Hollan d

in 1640, an d if there were some kn own in En glan d as A n abaptists who “

rejected the baptism of in fan ts,

”but who were n ot

kn own to have “revived” the “disused” ordin an ce, then so far

as kn own theywere in the con tin uan ce of sprin klin g or pourin gan dhad n everkegan Immersion ,

which I s the logic of the case . I n

otherwords,accordin g to _Crosby, tlzeywere kn own to ac sprin klin g

orpourin g, kut tiley were n ot kn own to kave“revived

”tize “disused

”

custom. of immersion ; an d hen ce the declaration of the Jessey,

6 2 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

Records .

“Non e bavin g tkcn [up to that time,1 640] so practiced

in E n glan d toprofessed believers .

But could the fact have been k n own,if theyhad

“rev ived it ?

For,historically, it is implied that they had n ot con tin ued it

,n or

begun it, sin ce its“disuse

”in En glan d . Surely, if they had be

gun Or con tin ued it,Blun t an d his partywould have kn own it ;

for Crosby’S logic is that the An abaptists could n ot hav e been

practicin g immersion without revivin g or begin n in g it an ew. I t

was n ot a question of con ti,

n uan ce but revival; an d it is certain

that if Spilsbury an d his church,to which Blun t

,Lucar

,Shepard

an d the rest of the “ foren amed” belon ged , had begun or con

t in ued Immersion from 1 633 , theywould have kn own it . Someof the party, if such had been the case

,had probably been im

mersed ; but this, in the lightvof the Records

,is a reductio ad

.absurdum sin ce Blun t an d his party, in 1 640 , reached the con clus ion that dippin g on ly, accordin g to the Scriptures, was baptism;that up to that time it had n ot been practiced in En glan d to professed believ ers ; an d that to en joyit theymust go to Hollan d forit . Hen ce the co n clusion is that the Particular Baptists had n ot“rev ived” or con tin ued immersion

,an dwere

-

therefore sprin klin g,after the custom of the Puritan s. Amon g the n umber baptizedby Blun t an d Blacklock were such men as Lucar, Shepard ,G un n e

,Kilc0p, an d latterly, perhaps, Kiffin ,

three ofwhomweresign ers of the Con fession of 1 644 ; an d suchmen as these wouldhav e subsequen tly corrected the statemen ts of the Jessey ChurchRecords if theyhad been false. The writin gs of both Kiffin an d

Kilcop con firm the main sen ten ce of the so-called Kiffin MS .

But could Blun t an d his partyhave kn own if the Gen eralBaptists had “

reviv ed” immersion before 1 640 ; for Crosby an d the

R ecords both imply that they had _n ot begun its practice with

their origin ,an d of course had n ot con tin ued it down to 1 640 .

Theywere amon g the An abaptists of En glan d, of whom it wasn ot

“kn own ” that they had“revived in order to “begin the

an cien t but “disused” custom of immersion ; an d hen ce were

kn own to be sprin klin g or pourin g for baptism. Theywere inLon don an d the coun try an d I n correspon den ce with each other

a n d with the Men n on ites ; an d if some of themhad begun or re

stored the ordin an ce all of themwould have kn own it ; or if someof themhad “

rev ived I t, all. of them likely had don e so . The

fact,in Lon don ,

could n ot have well escaped Blun t an dhisparty,"who liv ed there an d if it had escaped them,

it could n ot have

OR IGIN OF THE PARTICU LAR BAPTI STS . 3

eluded the surveillan ce of their en emies for thirty years, from16 1 1 to 164 1 . Crosby, withall the records beforehimin 1 738

—40,

declared that immersion had been “disused” in E n glan d prior toBlun t’s deputation to Hollan d ; an d in his in terpretation of the

JesseyChurchRecords he affirms that itwashistoricallyun kn ownif the A n abaptists of En glan d had “

rev ived” the “disused” ordin an ce down to that time, which was 1 640 . I t was kn own that

as An abaptists theywere practicin g baptism by affusion , so lon gas theyhad n ot

“revived” or begun immersion ; an dwithout an y

record of revival , the in feren ce is that they con tin ued their affu

sion down to 1 640 . This is Crosby’s logic an d it is thoroughly

sustain ed bythe JesseyRecords an d by the silen ce of an yhistoryto the con trary. Not a sin gle in stan ce of believers’ immersionhas been poin ted to as occurrin g amon g the An abaptists of E n glan d prior to 164 1 an d with the fact of its “disuse” historicallyset up, this is presumptive ev iden ce that such a custom amon gBaptists did n ot exist un til 164 1 . I t is useless to argue the question ab ign oran tia ,

if the question is historically settled as to the

practice of the Gen eral an d Particular Baptists as den omin ation s.

There might have been sporadic cases of immersion in practice asin utteran ce ; but this in

“

n owayaffects the question at issue. As

a den omin ation of people the E n glish A n abaptists, if Crosby an d

the JesseyRecords are true— yea, if all the Baptist writers whotouch the subject in the sev en teen th cen turyare true— did n ot

practice immersion between 16 1 1 an d 1 64 1 ; an d in feren tiallytheypracticed sprin klin g an dpourin g as a fact well kn own ,

if it

was n ot kn own that they had “revive immersion .

I t“

has been affirmed that there were three Baptist churches,Hill Cliffe, Eythorn e an d Bookin g, which dipped before 1 641 ,an d three in div iduals, William Kiffin

,Han serd Kn ollys an d

John Can n e, with Paul Hobson thrown in for “good measure,

who were dipped before that date . As already shown , the an

tiquity of these three churches, as Baptist, is purely tradition al .Even if theyhad a con tin uan ce from the early Lollards, orA n a

baptists, an d an cien tly practiced immersion ,that practice had

lon g been “disused” before 1 64 1 . There is n ot the slightestev iden ce that theywere in the practice of immersion prior to

164 1 , when the En glish Baptists revive it ; an d if the so-called

Kiffin Man uscript, or Hutchin son ,Crosby, Spilsbury, Tombes,

Lawren ce, Barber, KilCOp an d other writers are authority, it is

clear, if these churches belon ged to the “En glish Baptists”of

{64 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

11 640—4 1 , that, like the rest of them,

theywere practicin g affusiondown to that dateAs to the three I n dividuals cited there is n ot a Shred of history

I n proof that they were Immersed before that date . WilliamKiffin

, as we shall see in an other chapter, un der the caption of

his own n ame,eviden tly n ever became a Baptist un til 164 1 , ac

cordin g to his own showin g (Sober -Discourse, p. 1) an d other

citation s which I Shall give. Kn ollys, though an An abaptist inprin ciple from 1 636 , was, as already seen , a member of the

Dover,N . H .

,Church [Puritan ] in 1 640 ; an d after his return

to En glan d he was eviden tly a member of the Jessey Church, inwhich

,in 1 643 , accordin g to the Jessey Records, he was in a

con troversy about the baptism of his child . H e could n ot have

been immersed un til after 1 64 1 ; an d it was n ot un til 164 5 thathe appears as a Baptist pastor in Lon don . R ev . Charles Stovel,who published the

‘

biography of John Can n e,says :

When in troduced to us in the Broadmead R ecords at E aster after

1640, that is, April 25, 164 1 , he appears to have been received as a man

well kn own,&c.

”

I t was at this date that he appears as a“baptized man ,

April2 5 , 1 64 1 , three mon ths an d a half after immersion had been introduced byBlun t at Southwark, where Can n ewaswell acquain ted, an d where he was probably immersed . (A Quest in Bapt .

H ist, p. The in feren ce that Paul Hobson was Immersed

before 1 64 1 , because he join ed a supposed An abaptist church in1 639, an d because Crosby erron eously calls it “Baptist,

”is in

the light of history, a gross logical n on sequitur.

‘

Thei

on ly remain in g question“

un der, this head arises : Whichwas the first immersion church in En glan d ? As we have seen

,

the Particular Baptists, some of them, took the in itiative in therestoration Of immersion ; an d, as we shall see, the whole Baptist commun ity, Gen eral an d Particular, join ed in the reformation about the year 1640

—4 1 . Crosby (Vol. III .

, p. 4 1 ) quotesNeal (Hist . of the Puritan s, Vol. IL , p. 400) as sayin g that Mr.

Jessey “ laid the foun dation of the first Baptist con gregation thathe hadmet with in En glan d ; but Crosby characterizes Neal’sstatemen t as a

“stran ge represen tation

”in View of the Kiffin

MS . before him,showin g that there were three Baptist churches,

1633 , 1 638, 1639 , in En glan d “before that of Mr. Jessey’s,

”

which n ever became Baptist un til'

1645 . Neal seems to have

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

66 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

mett an d did in ten d to meet after this an d the in dicationis that they en tered in to an un coven an ted but formal agreemen tbywhich they proceeded together,

”n ot o n ly in settin gapart

on e respectively to baptize each compan y, which was solemn lyperformed by Blun t an d Blacklock , but that theywere afterwardsa common body to which man ybein g added they

“ in creasedmuch.

”T his .was probably the church Of Blun t withwhomwere

associated Emmes an d Wrighters, in 1 646 , an d which Edwardsin his Gan graen a (Pt . III .

, p. 1 1 2) calls on e of the firs t an dprime churches of the An abaptists n ow in these latter times.

H e got his in formation con cern in g this from a woman whosometime was a Member of a Church of the An abaptists,

” J ‘

un e

fifth, 1 646. She says that “ the church broke in to pieces, an dsome wen t on e way, some an other

,divers fell off to n o Church

at all.”

(Ibid , Wrighters,—accordin g to Edwards (Gan

graen a, Pt . I .

,.pp 1 1 3 , became a Seeker

,an d what be

came of Emmes I am n ot in formed . I n what year, prior to1 646 , this Blun t Church broke up is n ot stated , n or is its locationgiven ; but if it were

“the two compan ies ” baptized by Blun t

an d it became extin ct before 1646 , an d the

regular baptism theory based upon sen din g to Hollan d for a

proper admin istrator died amon g the En glish Baptists. About16 76 Bampfield sought in Lon don to fin d the origin al ad

‘

min istratorof immersion ; but While he discovered several of the irregularmethods bywhich immersion had been restored in En glan d , hegiv es n o men tion of the Blun t method of goin g to Hollan d forits regular admin istration , Which ten ds to substan tiate the Edwards accoun t an d to lead to the<c0n clusion that his movemen t,rejected bythe great bodyof the E n glishBaptists as n eedless

,

was an in sign ifican t affair which wen t to“

pieces an d Was soonforgotten . I t was quite common at the time Edwards wrote forAn abaptists to seek an other dippin g, or what they called in someo f the literature of the time‘ a

“ fourth baptism ;“

an d some ofthem aban don ed their dippin g altogether an d turn ed Seekersun der the teachin g an d in fluen ce of the Familists. Hen ce I t is

n ot stran ge that the. Blun t movemen t un der such in fluen ce,an d

un der the gen eral ban p

of the Baptists, should hav e broken upan d been forgotten . The con troversial writin gs of the periodmake very slight in timation of the movemen t, if they refer to it

at all,an d it is certain that n either the Gen eral n or Particular

Baptists, subsequen t to, 16 41 , ever adopted or defen ded it .

OR IG IN OF THE PARTICU LAR BAPTI STS . 67

I t has been usual to ascribe this first immersion movemen t tothe first Particular Baptist Church in En glan d, as Evan s does ;an d if the immersed body return ed with Blun t, Shepard , MarkeLucar

,an d others who were on ce or already members of Spils

bury’

s Church, to that church, then themovemen t was absorbedan d as such lost in that church

,so that the

'

large secession fromJessey

’

s Church, 164 1 , wen t then to the first Particular Church,which, though an ti-succession ist in the main

,became immersion

ist by the Spilsbury method about the same time— possibly, asDr. Newman suggests, I n 1 640 . At all even ts

, this regularmovemen t Of Blun t seems to have been lost sight of in the greatan ti-succession movemen t Of the great body of the En glish Baptists

,as we shall see in the more fully detailed accoun t of the

movemen t in a subsequen t chapter. I t Is ev iden t,at least

, that

veryfew, if an y, of the En glish Baptists, Gen eral or Particular,ev er adopted the Blun t method, or took their baptism from himor his people, in the restoration of immersion as elaborately detailed by Crosby, who declares that “ the largest n umber an dthemore judicious of the En glish Baptists

”repudiated thismethod

an d adopted the an ti-siI ccession or irregularmethod of restora

tion .

This con cludes the origin of the Particular Baptists of En glan din cluded between the years 1 633 an d 1 64 1 . A full accoun t ofthe restoration of immersion

_in En glan d at the latter date will

occasion some repetition of a few items un der this head ; butthat even t deserves a more specific an d exten ded treatmen t sin ceCrosbydign ifies it as a Baptist reformation ”

or begin n in g

ENGL ISH BAPTIST REFORMATION .

(FROM 1609 To 164 1 A . D . )

CHAP TE R 7 1.

DI SUSE OF IMMERS ION IN ENGLAND .

I n his Preface to Vol. I .,Crosbytraces the historyof the An ti

pedobaptists from Luther’s time (sixteen th cen tury) backward to

primitiv e Christian ity— con fin in g his research almost exclusivelyto our Con tin en tal brethren fromp. xviii . on ward . H is purpose

was to refute the charge Of Pedobaptists an d Catholics that Baptists had their origin with the fan atics of Mun ster. I n the bodyof Vol. I . Crosby begin s what he claims as E n glish Baptist history with John Wyckliffe, 1 3 7 1 an d through the Lollards,Wyckliffeitesan dforeign An abaptistsof the fifteen than d Sixteen thcen turies

,he traces this irregular evan gelical lin e as a kin d of

Baptist succession without referen ce to the mode of baptism or

church organ ization an dwith referen ce simply to the practice of

believers’ baptism as opposed to in fan t baptism an d to their de

votion to certain other Baptist prin ciples an d peculiarities. H e

traces n o organ ization amon g the An abaptists Of En glan d till16 1 1—1 633 , an d he does n ot refer to immersion as a mode ofbe

lievers’ baptism un til I n “ later times” itwas restored bythe ‘

E n'

glish Baptists about 1 640—4 1 .

I n his Preface to the Secon d Vo lume he is remin ded that hehas n ot treated of En glish historyfrom the first to the fourteen thcen tury; an d with a n ew turn to his thoughts he goesback to thefirst cen tury in E n glan d, an d traces immersion from 100 A . D .

to 1 600 A . D . when he says it became “disused.

” H e refers to

the in troduction of immersion in the world by John the Baptist ;an d without tracin g its history through other coun tries he comesdirectly to En glan d. On page ii. of his Preface to Vol. II . hesays

The great prophet , John ,had an immediate commissio n from heav en

before he en tered upo n the actual admin istratio n of his office. An d as

the E n glish Baptists adhere [n ow] chiefly to this prin ciple, that John the

6 8

D I SU SE OF IMMER S ION IN ENGLAND . 69

Baptist was, by divin e comman d, the first commission ed to preach the

gospel , an d baptize by immersion , those that receiv ed it ; an d that this

practice has been ever sin ce main tain ed an d con tin uedin the world to thepresen t day[1738—40] an d it may n o t be improper to con sider tize state ofreligion in tkis kin gdom ; it bein g agreed, o n al l han ds, that the plan tatio nof the gospel here was v ery early, even in the Apostles days.

With this in troduction ,Crosby en ters upon an en quiry as to

the earlyplan tin g of Christian ity in Great Britain ,an d he shows

that probably, for the first 300 years, adult immersion was theon ly form of baptism kn own to the an cien t British Christian s.

For that period of time those Who -SO practiced, ,

he thin ks,were

Baptists— although Evan s thin ks it on ly probable. I n his BriefReply to John Lewis

’

s Brief History of the Rise an d Progress ofAn abaptism in En glan d , 810 . ( 1 738 , pp . 4 1 , Crosby refers

to this poin t in the Preface of his secon d volume then goin g to

press, on which he says :

“ I shall en deavor to Show, that Christian s in the I slan d were E n glis/z

Baptists, an d that they co n tin ued so for 300 years ; an d that,when ,

by a

gen eral Massacre of the Mon ks of Ban gor , the subject of Baptism was

chan ged, yet the Mode co n tin ued about 1200 Years afterward. But I shall

lay n o great S tress upon these Thin gs. For if it’

did appear, that-

the

Practice of the E n g lis/z Baptists was but Yesterday ; yet if it be foun dco n sen tan eous with the Word of God rev ealed in the Bible, all Customs,Decrees of Coun cils, Articles of Churches

,&c. ,would be to me of n o

effect .

Gran tin g that Crosby is right as to the first Christian s I n

Britain bein g “E n glishBaptists, he here forbids theirsuccessionan d admits their con tin uan ce for on ly 300 years from the firstcen tury; an d this, so far as Baptists were con cern ed

,is all that

his Preface to the secon d volume was in ten ded to Show. Fromthis period down to 1 189 A . D .

— especially from 603 A . D ;

accordin g to Crosby an d Evan s, n o trace of the Baptist elemen t

is discov erable in En glan d at all ; an d so far as immersion is con

cern ed , Crosbyon lytraces it after the first three hun dred yearsn ot through Baptists, who en ded with that period— but throughthe Romish an d Episcopal Churches, as an in fan t ri te, down to1 600 A . D .

,an d there he declares it was “disused” an d chan ged

to“sprin klin g. Not On ly does he den y the succession of Bap

tists from the first 300 years, but’

he breaks the succession of im

70 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

mersion at 1 600 , even as a perverted in fan t rite. Of course,

immersion un der some formhad “con tin ued” somewhere “in the

world” from John the Baptist till 1 738—40, an d at that time waspracticed by the “En glish Baptists ; but in En glan d n either

Baptists n or immersion had had an un broken succession after the

first 300 years of theChristian era.

But let us see what the Preface says. From pages xiv .

- xv iii.Of his Preface, Vol. IL ,

he shows,by the authority of such

writers as Fox ,Rapin ,

Fuller an d others, that the Saxon in va

sion, 469 A . D .

,drove the British Christian s in to Wales

,after

destroyin g their churches an d most of their people, an d that in596 A . D . ,

Austin ’

s in vasion an d subsequen t massacre either

completed their an n ihilation or subjected them to the Church of

Rome . About the year 600 A . D . , Crosby thin ks that in fan tbaptismwas in troduced byAustin ,

although it is almost certain

that it existed lon g before amon g the an cien t British Christian s,

an d on page xxxiii. , Preface, he says again

“The subject of baptism bein g n ow chan ged in E n glan d an d that by a

R omish emissary Yet the mode of baptism con tin ued about on e

t/zousan d years lon ger; an d baptism was performed by dippin g those who

were baptized [whether in fan ts or adults] in to the water.

Crosby goes on then to Show that adult immersio n alon g within fan t immersion con tin ued in the Romish Church in En glan dun til the adult population had been con v erted to Christian ity— so

called ; but as the cen turies rolled on , adult immersion graduallydecreased, an d in fan t immersion took its place ; the fon t takin gthe place of the baptistery an d the river.

On page xliii. of this Prefacefiffosby says again Thoughthe baptism of in fan ts seems n ow (1 0 1 6 to be prettywellestablished in this realm ; yet the practice of immersion con

tin uedman yyears lon ger an d he poin ts out subsequen tlythatthere were person s n ot wan tin g to Oppose in fan t baptismalludin g to certain Walden ses from Fran ce, German y an d H ol

lan d,who

,he says, had their frequen t recourse an d residen ce

in the kin gdom.

” This is Crosby’

s first men tion Of An abaptismin En glan d sin ce the con flict Of Austin with the Welch Christ ian s

,603 A . D . ,

a space-

of over four hun dred years, a fact

which Evan s an d later authorities do n ot men tion . I n the year

1158 A . D . about thirty other Walden ses came ov er to

En glan d who were supposed to reject in fan t baptism an d this is

D I SU SE OF IMMER S ION IN ENGLAND . 7 1

Crosby’s secon d men tion ofA n ti-pedobaptism in En glan d . The

people of the date at which Evan s asserts that history ClaIms thefirst revolt to Rome in En glan d . Crosby men tion s other A n a

baptists in En glan d in the reign of Hen ry II ,1 1 82 A . D .

,an d

in the time of Hen ry III . 1 235 A . D . also in 13 1 5 A . D .

when he n otices the in troduction of the Lollards, which brin gshim down to the time of Wyckliffe, 1 3 7 1 A . D .

,an d where he

begin s Baptist history, so-called,in his first volume, as already

men tion ed .

On page xlv i . , Preface, Crosby further Observ es

OfWyckliffe , his opin ion , an d his followerswho were called Lo llards,I have giv en are accoun t in chap. i. of the first v olume, I shall n ow o n lyfurther observ e, That the practice of immersion , or dippin g in baptism,

con tin ued in the church [of E n glan d] un till the reign of Kin g James I . ,

or about the year 1600 .

H e quotes on page xlvii: , Preface, Sir John Floyer, an En glishchurchman , who says

A n d I do here appeal to you, as person s well v ersed in an cien t his

tory, an d can n on s, an d ceremon ies of the Church of E n glan d an d

therefore are sufficien t witn esses of the matter of fact which I design to

prove, viz . ,That immersion con tin ued in the Church of E n glan d til l

about the year 1600 . A n d from then ce I shall in fer, that if God an d the

church thought that practice in n ocen t for 1600 years, it must be accoun ted

an u n reason able n icety in this presen t age , to scruple either immersion or

cold bathin g as a dan gerous practice.

”

On page 111. Crosby says again Though the practice of immersion was n ow gen erally disused in E n glan d, yet there were

some who were“

un willin g to part with this laudable an d an cien tpractice an d he Cites Sir John Floyer agaI n ,

who speaks ofsev eral person s who dipped their in fan ts about 1 640 (p. liii) .On the same page he speaks of the Welch who had “morelately left off immersion .

” Hen ry Den n e (A Con ten tion for

Truth, p. 1 658 , like Sir John Ployer, says “ Dippin g of

in fan ts was n ot on ly comman ded by the Church of En glan d, butalso gen erally practiced in the Church of En glan d til l the year1 600 yea in some places it was practiced un til the year 1 641

U n til the fashion altered .

”There was an occasion al exception ,

here an d there a sporadic practice of in fan t dippin g by the

72 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

En glish Church people ; an d n ow an d then there Was an exception al defen ce of the an cien t practice of in fan t Immersion as byJohn Wesley, SirJ ohn Floyer, Master Rogers, George Down ame,an d others ; but I n 1600 A . D . in fan t dippin ghad expired as an

ordin an ce in the Church of En glan d— still allowed as at the

presen t time, but‘

n ot practiced .

On page liv . (Preface, Vol. II . ) Crosby con cludes as follows

Thus I hav e traced the practice Of the B ritisk Ckurckes I n poin t of

baptism til l Sprin klin g took place . A n d to me it seems eviden t beyo n d

co n tradictio n , that about three hun dred years after the first plan tation of

the gospel in Britain ,n o o ther baptism was used but that Of adult person s,

by immersio n , or dippin g the body of the perso n ,upon the profession of

his faith an d that after the subject. was chan ged, an d in fan t baptism in

troduced by a massacre of almost all that refused to comply with thechan ge ; yet the mode of baptism by immersio n con tin ued about twelve“

hun dred years

that is down to 1600 A . D . from the first cen tury in clusive.

JeffreyWatts (Scribe, Pharisee, &cx, Lon don ,1 656) says

The Church of E n glan d hath been n ow a lo n g time , time out of‘

min d, min d of a n y man livin g ,in firmpossession of baptism,

an d practice of

it by sprin klin g, or pourin g -O n of water upo n the face an d forehead.

Wattswas a learn edEn glish clergyman ,rectorof Much Leighs,

an d kn ewwhat he was sayin g an d his‘

testimon y is proof that n oman livin g I n 1 6 56 could remember when immersion was practiced I n E n glan d un til the Baptists\restoredit .Crosby does n ot Show just when adult 1mmersion , practiced

alon g with in fan t Immersion ,ceased I n the British Churches ;

but it en ded when the fon t took the place of the baptistery an d

the river,an d when ,

as Bishop Burn et puts it, “ The wholeworld I n that age[the Reformation ]hadbeen baptized I n in fan cy

”

(Hist . R ef. , Vol. II ., part iI . p. 1 13 . There was perhaps n o

such thin g as adult Immersion in the Church of En glan d at the

begin n in g of the sixteen th cen tury; an d in fan t immersion had

begun to be substituted by affusion at that date . I n 1 528 Tyn

dale seemed to complain because the people man ifested a prefer

en ce for immersion over affusion as a mode of in fan t baptisman d in 1 570 , the Catechism of Noel

,which was adopted as sole

an thority in the Church of En glan d, at that time, prescribed

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

74 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

may have received the Ordin an ce from the Poles,an d the Poles

from the Swiss An abaptists an d the Swiss from the Walden ses,an d these last from those

‘

who con tin ued it from the apostles ;but Immersion as an adult act seems to have been lost I n E n glan d lo n g before the close of the sixteen th cen tury un der the

prevailin g mode of sprin klin g or pourin g, an d was on ly recov

ered by the Baptists I n 1 640—4 1 .

Now,if we take

‘

the '

accoun t of Crosby, the first Baptist historian

,we are irresistably driv en to the foregoin g con clusion

,

n amely, that the A n abaptists of the S ixteen th an d first fortyyears of the Sev en teen th cen tury did n ot immerse in E n glan d. I r can n ot be assumed in his accoun t that he took immer

sion for gran ted amon g the An abaptists of this period , an d

therefore did n ot trace its succession in En glan d through them.

On the co n trary, he distin ctlyclaims the British Christian s of thefirst 300 years as Baptists, an d asserts that they practiced Immersion . H e then losesthese first Baptists I n themassacre or usurpa

tion of the Romish Church, an d he traces Baptist elemen ts n ofurther I n En glan d for cen turies. When he fin ds them again ,

especially in the 1 6th cen tury, as foreign elemen ts,or when he

traces the origin of the En glish Baptist Churches to 1 6 1 1— 1 633 ,he says n ot a word about the immersion of the Baptists un til theyreviv ed it at a later date ; an d yet he goes on carefully to tracethe succession of Romish an d Episcopal immersion from 600 to

1 600 A . D . when it en ded in sprin klin g. Before the Baptistrevival of immersion Crosbypositively asserts that it had beenfor sometime disused —that 15

,from 1 600 A . D . to the time of

its rev Ival ; an d he thus clearly irnplies n ot on ly that Immersion

was in disuse amon g the Pedobaptists, but also amon g the Baptists. Therefore Baptists an d Baptist immersion from the firstcen turies had n o un broken succession in En glan d ; an d when

the foreign An abaptists came in to En glan d in the 1 6th cen tury,an d when the En glish An abaptists organ ized their churches in

1 6 1 1— 1 633 , they did n ot,accordi n g to C rosby, practice immer

sion . I f they had so practiced he would hav e men tion ed thefact in tracin g the history Of immersio n in En glan d for the first1 600 years through the R omish an d Episcopal Churches.

Nothin g could be more absurd than to suppose that Crosby,the first Baptist historian ,

would hav e traced a successio n of immersion for 1 600 years through a Pedobaptist lin e, an d left sucha succession out of the Baptist lin e , if it had existed . H e does

D I SU SE OF IMMER S ION IN ENGLAND . 75

n ot even trace it through the in terven in g gap of forty years from1 600 to 1 640, durin g which period he gives the origin of the

first En glish Baptist Churches ; an d surely for that period hewould have men tion ed the fact if immersion had been the prac

tice of the Baptists. On the con trary, he says, in his version of

theJessey Church Records, that it was not k n own If theyhad

revived the an cien t custom of immersion ’ ’ down to the dat e of

the man uscript , which was 1 640—4 1 . As a Baptist historian it

would hav e been his pride an d glory, to say n othin g of his duty,to trace the history of immersion even through this reformatorybegin n in g Of the En glish Baptists. H e was an earn est defen derof the Ordin an ce— he made a relen tless fight again st in fan t baptisman d sprin klin g— he was a thorough Baptist ; an dit would beun accoun table with the material before him,

an d after such a

volumin ous record of Baptist an d related history, that he shouldtrace the lin e of baptismal succession in En glan d , an d n ever fin d

it except in the Romish an d Episcopal Churches after the firstthree cen turies

,if there was the slightest discov ery of such a

succession amon g Baptists before 1 640—4 1 . H is history of the

En glish Baptists is a most un pardon able blun der,'

if the A n abaptists from 1 535_ to 1 64 1

— or from 1 6 1 1 to 1 64 1—practiced im

mersion an d if they did so practice he has recorded the most

palpable mistake in Baptist history, n amely, that between 1 600

an d 1 64 1 immersion was in disuse in En glan d, an d that the Baptists restored it about the latter date . Such a blun der can n ot be

predicated of such a Baptist as Crosby. H is Preface toVol . II .

was written for the express purpose of tracin g the history of immersion in En glan d ; an dhe did all that could be don e for Baptists in showin g their practice for the first 300 years, an d theirreturn to the lost practice in 1640

-

4 1 .

But n aturally it will be asked : Why does Crosby call theseAn abaptists

“Baptists, if immersion was lost ~

in En glan d an d

they restored it at a later date ? H ow can a people be calledBaptists by a Baptist historian when theydid n ot practice immersion ? I can on lysay that it was the custom amon g writers of hisday to so call all the A n abaptist sects who practiced believ ers

’

baptism an d rejected in fan t baptism,whatever the mode . Rob

in son (Hist. Baptism,1 790 , p . 547) says :

TheDutch B aptists reject in fan t baptism, an d admin ister the ordin an ce

o n lyto such as profess faith an d repen tan ce ; but theybaptize bypourin g .

”

ENGLISH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

Evan s (1 86 2) calls the En glish An abaptists by the n ame “Baprists

”at the v ery time he 15 con cedin g the more than probability

that they practiced Men n on ite affusion . Crosby called everybody “Baptists,

”from the~Lollardsan dWyckliffeitesdown , whom

he regarded as holdin g Baptist prin ciples, practicin g believers’

.baptism an d Opposin g in fan t baptism; an d the very people whorestored immersion ,

1 640—4 1— an d before they restored it— he

called “En glish Baptists who adopted'

differen t methods to

accomplish what he calls their “begin n in g,”or

“reformation ,

”

in baptism. Strictly speakin g, those An abaptists were n ot Baptists un til they adopted immersion ; but in other particulars of

doctrin e an d practice theywere Baptists— an d so called for thisreason . Crosby, speakin g of the origin of the “En glish Baptists

”

(Vol. I ., p. xviii. , says

They are gen erally co n demn ed ( 1738—40) as a n ew sect, whose opin ion

a n d practice with relation to baptism was n ot kn own in the Christian

Church tilla bout 200 years ago”

H e is here an d on ward speakin g of their “opin ion an d prac

t ice” regardin g believers’\baptism,

with n o referen ce to modebefore 1 640

—4 1 ; for he n eVer preten ds to Show that the practice

o f immersio n was adopted,; by the “En glish Baptists”un til that

date . H e n ev erthelessmalls them “En glish Baptists”for 200

years back ,an d so we are accustomed to speak of far more un

baptistic sects before them— such as Mon tan ists,Novatian s,

Don atists, Paulician s, an d the like, who would n ot n ow be fel

lowshiped, ecclesiastically speakmgn t n an y regular Baptist churchin America.

Accordin g, then ,to Crosby, our first Baptist historian ,

who is

thoroughly sustain ed by all modern research in Baptist history,there was n o un broken succession of Baptists or dippin g in E n glan d down to 1 640

—4 1 . There was an occasion al defen se an d

practice of in fan t dippin g (an d still is) amon g the E n glish Churchpeople after the year 1 600 but at that time sprin klin g or pour

in g became gen eral , if n ot un iversal , amon g En glish Churchmen ,

Presbyterian s an d Puritan s. What was true of these was true Of

t he An abaptists from“

1 538 to 1 64 1 in En glan d ; an d if amon gthem there were an y exception al or sporadic cases of believ ers’immersion , the fact is historically un kn own . I t is impossible tosuppose the case otherwise, else, as already seen

,Crosby, who

D I SU SE OF IMMER S ION I N ENGLAND . 7~

traces the on ly lin e of immersion ' in En glan d for the first 1600

years, would n ot have ign ored a Sin gle in stan ce of immersionamon g his Baptist brethren ,

n orwould he have otherwise recorded the fact that after the lapse of 1 241 years they restored immersion at a

“ later date T0 be sure , he on ly implies that theAn abaptists from 1 6 1 1 to 164 1 were pou

’

rin gor sprin klin g forbaptism ; but he clearly takes the fact for gran ted when he o n lytraces immersion through the British churches down to 1 600 ,

an d

then records its restoration bythe E n glishBaptists after its disuse.

H e perhaps did n ot desire to emphasize the fact as a matter ofBaptist history, but he certain ly implies the fact that the Baptistswere affusion ists before 1 640

—4 1 by showin g, at that date, that

they restored the “disused” ordin an ce,which they could n ot

hav e been practicin g.

T0 sum up, Baptist succession,accordin g to Crosby, was lost .

in En glan d after the first 300 years of Christian ity in the Islan d .

The first Baptists were lost by extermin ation or usurpation ,but

immersion con tin ued through the Romish Church to 1 53 5 , with

the subject chan ged from the adult to the in fan t , an d from I 535to 1 600 this in fan t immersion con tin ued through the EpiscopalChurch an d was lost— havin g gradually chan ged to sprin klin g.

Crosby fain tly discovers a trace of An tipedobaptist elemen ts I nEn glan d through the 1 3th, 14th an d 1 5th cen turies ; he discov

ers the lin e “more clearly” through the Dutch A n abaptIsts whocame in to En glan d durin g the 1 6th cen tury,

he fin ally traces theorigin of the En glish Baptists to their organ ization s, 1 6 1 1 , 1 633but he makes n o claim for them of an y sOrt of organ ic or baptismal succession from prior An abaptist sects or elemen ts . On

the con trary, he demon strates that theywere Separatists fromtheBrown ists or Con gregation alists, amon g whom,

as Crosby asserts,

the A n abaptists were elemen tally “in termixed ; an d then he

shows that at a later date— after their organ ization — theyadoptedimmersion . Crosby, with all the En glish Baptist writers I hav eread, repudiates the doctrin e of visible succession

,in an y form,

amon g Baptists. Den omin ation allyhe did n ot regard the Baptists as a “

n ew sect .

”H e claimed the An abaptist sects as Bap

tist people before his day. Like other Baptistwriters of his time,

an d before him,he traced the pedigree of Baptist people an d

prin ciples back-

to the New Testamen t Churches ; but with all

other Baptist writers of that period , he regarded an y succession

Of the visible order of those churches as .havin g been repeatedly

7 8 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

5broken . No doubt he would agree with Barclay (In n erLife,.pp. that “

the rise of the A n abaptists took lace lon gprior to the foun dation of the Church of En glan d

”— t at“Small

hidden societies’ holdin g An abaptist “Opin ion s

”existed on the

Con tin en t “from the times of the Apostles”— that I n the sen se of

the “direct tran smission of divin e truth an d the true n ature of

Spiritual religion ,

” Baptist Churches hav e “a lin '

eage or success

ion more an cien t than the Roman Church ;”but he takes the

same position with Barclay that “in En glan d , although tracesarefoun d in history of the existen ce of the opin ion s of the An abaptists from the earliest times, it is doubtful whether an y churches

o r societies Of purely En glish Baptists have a distin ct con secutiveexisten ce prior to 1 6 1 1 . Crosby kn ows of n o such “

con sec

utive ex isten ce an d in the’

origin of the En glish Baptistchurches which he repeatedly represen ts as hav in g had a

“be

gin n in g,”an d as hav in g set up a

“reformation ” of their own , he

distin ctly repudiates their visible succession , organ ically or baptismally, from precedin g An abaptists. H e distin ctly shows that

they organ ized 1 6 1 1— 1 633 upon the prin ciple of believers’bap

t ism,an d that afterwards they revived immersion ; an d if there

were an y An abaptist churches or societies which existed I n E n glan d prior to 1 6 1 1 , they were historically un kn own to Crosbyan d the Baptist writers of the 1 7th cen tury. Even if theyhadexisted

,Crosby traces n o succession of Immersion through them,

an d he shows that at a given date the En glish Baptists, withoutd istin ction , “rev ived the an cien t practice of Immersion .

’

ENGLISH BAPT IST REFORMATION .

(FROM 1 609 TO 1 6471 A . D . )

CHAP TE R VI ] .

RESTORATION OF IMME R S ION IN ENGLAND .

As Crosby is the on ly Baptist historian who has un dertakento trace the history of immersion in En glan d an d to show the

poin t at which it became “disused,in the year 1 600

,so he is

the on lyon e who details the facts an d the methods of its restoration at a later date by the “En glish Baptists, 1 640

-

4 1 . Thissection of En glish Baptist history has already been an ticipated ;but C rosby makes it so elaborate

, plain an d importan t that itn eeds a Special an d larger treatmen t . I t has been avoided

, or

else perverted , by most of_our Baptist historian s ; but Sin ce

Crosby had the can dor to ackn owledge an d in corporate it in hisHistory of the En glish Baptists (Vol. I . , pp . 95

— I o 7)— employin g twelve pages for the purpose— it is but the part of the un

partisan an d hon est reader to give it a Can did in vestigation an d afair place in the an n als of our den omin ation . I t has been sought

to Show that in this section of his history he is merely detailin gthe movemen t of a han dful of Pedobaptists who, upon the

abolition of the High Commission Court of En glan d, got toreadin g their Bibles, discov ered that immersion was Scripturalbaptism, adopted it, an d thus in a proper sen se restored it in1 64 1 but if there is an ythin g clear in this part o f Crosby

’s his

tory, it is that he details on e of the most importan t an d extraor

din ary movemen ts of Baptist an n als. it was in his ownlan guage, a Baptist “begin n in g,

” “reformation

,in baptism,

an d he shows us the startin g poin t at which modern,En glish

speakin g, Baptists strictly became such accordin g to the extern almarki zmmersz

'

on —é bywhich we are distin guished . But for theirration al an d un scriptural traditio n of “

succession - a Romishdogma which the great body of early E n glish Baptists, fromH elwys to Spilsbury, an d all the rest

,repudiated—we should

fin d n o difficulty in un derstan din g an d acceptin g Crosby’s ac

79

80 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

coun t of the restoration of immersion by the En glish Baptists ;an d to the en d of a right un derstan din g of facts in the case

,I

humbly dedicate this effort , in the in terests of true Baptist history an d to the hon or of our den omin ation

,which is built upon

the word of God, an d n ot upon tradition al fiction s.

This section in Crosby’s history is apparen tly a digression in

which he pauses to meet an objection , chiefly urged by Dr.

Wall,that the Baptists had n o

“proper admin istrator” of Immer

Sion,Sin ce it had been disused , an d Sin ce they had received it as

restored by John Smyth, who had baptized himself in Hollan d(Vol. I .

, p. I n order to meet this objectio n,an d to repudi

ate the succession of Smyth’s baptism to the En glish Baptists,

Crosby shows that the Baptists restored immersion in En glan d,accordin g to the Hutchin son Accoun t , the so-called Kiffin Man

uscript an d the writin gs of such men as Spilsbury, Tombes,Lawren ce

,an d others

,at a given time

,distin ct from the time of

Smyth an d his followers. This date is fixed'

by the Kiffin Man

uscript, which Crosby uses as valid historical testimon y, an d

which sets 1 633 , 1638 , 1 639 , 1 640 an d 1 64 1 as the respectiveperiods in which the first Particular Baptist Churches wereformed an d in which the baptismal restoration movemen t tookplace

‘

. Crosby does n ot"

retain the date 1 64 1 in his,for sub

stan ce,version of the Kiffin Man uscript, but, he does retain all

the other dates, in cludin g 1 640 , in his referen ce to what he callsthe Kiffin Man uscript ; an d he min utely details all the facts

which belon g to the 164 1 date, so that it is un equivocallyimpliedin Crosby

’s accoun t of the restoration movemen t . The facts

,as

he relates them (Vol. I . , pp. 96—r o7) , are as follows :

T iscertain (p. 96) that when some of the E n glish Protestan ts [“E n glish Baptists,” p. 9 7] were for rev iv in g the

—an tie n t practice of immersion

,

they had sev eral difficulties thrown in their way about a proper admI n is

trator, to begin that method of baptizin g.

“Those who rejected the baptism of in fan ts, at the begin n in g of the

reformation in E n glan d had the same objection made again st them;

as Bishop Burn et observ es :

‘On e thin g,’says he,

i

‘was observed, that the who le World in that age,

havin g been baptized in their in fan cy, if that baptism was n o thin g, then

there was n o n e truly baptized in bein g, but were all in a state of n ature,

Now it did n ot seem reason able, that men who were n o t baptized them

selv es, should go an d baptize others ; an d therefore thefirst fieaa’s of that

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

‘

82 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

in an ex traordin ary case but that whoev er saw such a_reformation n eces

sary, might from the a n ikoriiy of Scripture lawfullyoegin it .

”

No thin g is clearer here than that,accordin g to Crosby, this

was a B aptist movemen t . Non e but Baptists, already in t hepractice of believers’ baptism an d proposin g to chan ge fromaffusion to immersion ,

could hav e been “ div ided ” an d per

plexed ” SO as to avoid “ disorder or self-con tradiction inthe chan ge . They were in a difficulty about a previous or

proper admin istrator ; an d as they had the true theoryof church

organ ization based upon regen erate church membership an d be

lieveI S’ baptism,

they still wan ted to be con sisten t with Scripture , n ot on ly in adoptin g the right mode of baptism, but in

havin g a proper admin istrator. All this would n ever hav e Oc

curred to Pedobaptists desirin g to adopt Immersion . The veryfact that the div I SIOn of Opin ion is expressed by the suggestion

Of the three modes proposed for the restoration of immersion,

Shows it to have been a Baptist movemen t . 1 . There was theOld self-baptism theory of some of the Old H elwys Baptists whon ever chan ged from Smyth

’s idea ev en when be aban don ed it .

2 . There was the'

Puritan idea of regular baptism suggested bysome of the Particular Baptists who caught their View from the

Puritan s. 3 . There was the Spilsbury idea of some who tookthe position that when immersion was lost

,some on e had a right

un der the Scriptures to begin it without a baptized admin istrator— like John the Baptist . There is n o possible chan ce to ascribethis perplexity an d division of opin ion

— characterized by the

several shades of well kn own Baptist sen timen t— to Pedobaptistst ryin g to meet a Pedobaptist argumen t, which is an absurdity.

More than this,a resioratzon of immersion could n ot be_predi

cated of Pedobaptists, at all,if the Baptists were at the same

time practicin g immersion ali aroun d them.

Crosby con tin ues (p. 97) to say of the first, or self-baptism,

method prOposed : “ I do n ot fin d an y En glishman amon g thefirst restorers of immersion in this latter age accused of baptizin ghimself

,but o n ly the said John Smyth an d there is groun d to

question that also . On pages 9 7—99 , Crosby proceeds to an

swer the charges of Ain sworth,Jessop an d others that

Smyth baptized himself. H e did n ot have Smyth’

s writin gs ;but he argues from their quotation Of Smyth (Character Of theBeast

, pp. 58, 59) the probability that he did n ot baptiz e him

RE STORATION OF IMMER S ION IN ENGLAND . 83

self. U n fortun ately for so can did a historian as Crosby is, hemutilates an d garbles the quotation — that is

,if he had it en tire

an d his argumen t is wholly fallacious. However, he summarilydrops the subject an d thus (p. 99) con cludes

But en ough of this. I f he were guil ty ofwhat they charge him with’tis n o blemish upon the E n glish Baptists who n either approv ed Of an y

such method, n or did fliey receive tizeir vapiismfrom lzim.

I f this be true they did n ot receiv e their immersion fromH elwys, Morton or their church

,who were baptized by Smyth,

an d who“ join ed with him

,

” Crosby Says, in that reformationof baptism,

”whatever it was, which took place in Hollan d

,

1 609 . Crosby eviden tly‘ believed the “

tradition ”that Smyth

was immersed , t hough n ot satisfied about his self-baptism ; buthe emphatically repudiates his baptism as n ev er havin g suc

ceeded to the En glish Baptists. Hen ce,he could n ot hav e

believed that immersion from this source was ev er brought toE n glan d or if he did he must hav e believ ed it was lost in thesome time which precededits restoration ,

whichhe positivelyascribes to the “ En glish Baptists.

”Otherwise his opin ion

would be con tradictory of his restoration accoun t,which is im

possible. The true reason,however, which makes his restora

tion accoun t con sisten t with the facts in the case,is that Smyth

was affused an d n ever immersed,an d this is the baptism which

H elwys an d his church brought to En glan d .

After summarily dismissin g the self-baptism method as n ever

hav in g been adopted by the En glish Baptists,” whether from

Smyth or an y on e else,an d which absolutely precludes the idea

of receivin g it from H elwys, Morton or

'

an y of Smyth’s follow

ers,who had n ev er vegan or revived immersion before 1 640

—4 1 ,

Crosby proceeds (p. 100) to say

The rwo older met/zods I men tion ed, were ootla taken by the Baptists, at

their revival of immersion in E n glan d ; as I fin d it ackn owledged an djusti

fled in their writin gs.

This settles the question in a sin gle paragraph. I t was a

Baptist” movemen t by two othermethods” than the Smyth

method or succession of Self-baptism; an d it took place in

“ En glan d,”

n ot in Hollan d . Nor was it a matter of tradit ion

,

”but drawn from the writin gs Of En glish Baptists, who

84 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

both ackn owledged an d jusizfied the movemen t based upon the“ two methods

,

”of restoration . I t was a well-kn own movemen t

about which there was, at a giv en time,a sharp an d prolon gedcon trov ersy an d Crosby glean ed from it his clear an d accurate

accoun t“

an d han ded it down to us from suchwriters asHutchinson ,

Kiffin,Spilsbury, Tombes an d Lawren ce . I t was a mov e

men t of“ ENGLISH BAPTISTS

,as a oody,

without distin ction of Gen eral or Particular, or of section or locality; an d n o

sort of sophistry or casuistry can here frame an argumen t whichcan ascribe such a movemen t to a han dful Of Pedobaptists, orcharacterize it as an in sign ifican t or Obscure affair con fin ed to a

few. Nor was it just an impulse of liberty, in the year 1 64 1 ,when the Baptists came out of their holes to publish their

views’ which

,because un kn own before the Year of Jubilee

,

”

were con sidered “ n ew !” This was to some exten t true ; but

the half has n eVer been told . I n that year the Baptists made a

n ew departure. They had a n ew “begin n in g,” in stituted a

“reformation

,

”in which

,

“at in eir revival of immersion in E n g

lan d, they created a n ew era‘ackn owledged an d justified ”

by theirwriters at the time an d afterwards. But let us n ow ex

amin e the “two methods” bywhich the En glish Baptistswroughtthis importan t revolution .

. 77ie regular baptismmein od. Crosby says (p . 100)

The forin er of these [methods] was, to sen d over to the foreign A n a

baptists, who descen ded from the an tien t Walde n ses in Fran ce or Ger

man y that so on e or more receivin g baptism from them, might become

proper admin istrators Of it to o thers. Some thought this the”

best way

an d acted accordin gly,as appears fromMr. H utchin so n ’

s accoun t in the

epistle of his treatise of the Cov en an t an d Baptism

On pages 100 ,I O I

,Crosby quotes this Hutchin son accoun t in

full an d in con firmation of the restoration of immersion by thisfirstmethod Of sen din g to Hollan d for a “

proper admin istrator.

”

Hutchin son says

The great obj ection was, the wan t of a proper admin istrator which,

as I hav e heard, says he, was removed, by sen din g certain messen gers to

H ollan d when ce theywere supplied.

”

On pages I O I,102

,Crosby cites the 1640

—4 1 section of the

so-called Kiffin Man uscript in con firmation Of the adoption of

RE STORATION OF IMMER S ION IN ENGLAND . 85

this “formermetn od of restorin g'

immersion by the“Baptists

”of

E n glan d .

“This [Hutchin son’

s Accoun t] agrees, says be,with an accoun t given of the matter in an an tien t man uscript,

said to be written by Mr. William Kiffin,who liv ed in those

times, an d who was a leader amon g those Of tliat persuasion”

that is, perhaps of the regular baptism theory of those who sen t

to Hollan d for a“proper admin istrator” of immersion . This

man uscript , as Crosby quotes it, details the facts which led theseBaptists seekin g regular baptism to the con viction that baptismshould be admin istered by dippin g in resemblan ce of burial an dresurrection (Rom. Col. an d to sen d Richard Blun tto the Netherlan ds, where he received immersion from JohnBatte[n ] [of the Collegian ts an d successor to the Brothers Vander Codde,~accordin g to Barclay], an d who upon his return baptiz ed Samuel Blacklock, a min ister, these two in turn baptizin g“the rest of the compan y, whose n ames are in the man uscript , to

the n umber of fifty-three .

”

SO , says Crosby, “those who followed this scheme, did n o t derive

their baptism from the aforesaid Smyt/z , or his con gregation at Amsterdam,

it bein g [from] an an tien t co n gregation of foreign Baptists in the L ow

Coun tries to whom they sen t .

”

This is an other repudiation of the baptism of Smyth an d of

his “con gregation ,

”as n ever havin g succeeded to the “En glish

Baptists ; an d it is an un qualified statemen t of the fact,accord

in g to the authority of Hutchin son an d the Jessey Church R ec

ords that it was the first or“former method ” by which the .

“En glish Baptists, as such,restored immersion in En glan d

an d that,too

,in the year 1 64 1 , which is the date of the ev en t as

recorded in the man uscript from which Crosby substan tially butexplicitlyquotes. This is thefirst or “FORMER METHODbut this is o n ly a small part an d on ly the begin n in g of themovemen t . Further an d bIgger,

2 . l e An ti-succession Met/zod. On page 1 03 , Crosby con

tin ues to record what he calls the “last method of restorin g true

baptism by the “greatest n umber of the E n glish Baptists, an d

the morejudicious an d which he declares also did n ot succeedfrom Smyth. H e says

“But the greatest n umber of the E n glish Baptists, an d the more judicious

,looked upon all this [the

sen din g of Blun t to Hollan d for a proper admin istrator of im

_

6 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

mersion ] as n eedless trouble,an d what proceeded from the 9 1d

PopishDoctrin e of right to admin ister the sacramen ts by an uh

in terrupted succession , which n either the Church Of Rome,n or

the Church of E n glan d, much less themodern dissen ters, couldprov e to be with them. They [the largest n umber of the E n glish Baptists, an d the more judicious] afirmed therefore an d

practiced accordin gly,that after a gen eral corruption of baptism,

an

un baptiz ed perso n might warran tably baptize, an d so begin a

reformation . This was the an ti-succession or“LAST

METHOD of restorin g immersion by the “ largest an d“more judicious” of the “En glish Baptist bodywho “

afirmedthis theory n ot on ly in Opposition to the Smyth method of selfbaptism, but again st the Blun t method of succession

,as the great

body of Baptists con sidered it, an d who “practiced accordin gly

”

upon the adoption Of their method upon or after the sen din g of

Blun t to Hollan d .

3

I n con firmation of this “last method of restorin g Immersion,

Crosby (pp. 103 , 1 04) quotes Spilsbury, who took the positiorithat where there I s a begin n in g, some on e must be first ; an d

he assumed that “baptiz edn esse is n ot essen tial to the admin istrator

”of baptism thus begun .

“Now,

says Crosby, “it is n otpossible that this man [whomWall charged with goin g to Smyth,in Hollan d

,for baptism] should go Ov er sea to fin d an admin is

trator Of baptism,or receiv e it from the han ds of on e who bap

tiz ed himself.” Thus both the “former”an d the “ last”methods

of restorin g immersion are made to hav e n o con n ection withSmyth or his con gregation .

On pages 1 04 , 1 05 , Crosby quotes Tombes, also, I n con firmation of this “ last method” of restoration . H e says

“The

learn edMr. Tombes does very excellen tlydefen d this last met/zodof restorin g true baptism

’ — keepin g up, in the order of time, thepreceden ce ofwhat theycalled an d stigmatized as

'

the succession

method Of restorin g immersion before that Of the an ti-succession

method which followed upon or after the agitation of the fi rst .

On pages 105 , 1 06,Crosby quotes Lawren ce in defen se of

this “last method who takes the same position as Spilsburyan d Tombes that after an un iversal corruption

”of baptism,

an d

when ‘n o con tin uan ce of adult baptism can beproved,

”as was the

case at that time, the ordin an ce cOuld be restored by an un baptiz ed admin istrator, as was “John the Baptist .

” Crosby speaksof Lawren ce as

“an other learn ed Baptist, who has excellen tly

RE STORATION OF IMMER S ION IN ENGLAND . 87

defen ded the true baptism,an d the man n er of revivin g it in these

later times.

Crosby con cludes his history of the restoration of immersionby the

“E n glish 106,107) as follows :

Tho ’ these thin gs were publisbed at diferen t times, I have put them

together, to en d the mat'

ter at on ce . I t was a poin t mucli disputedfor some

years . The Baptists were n o t a little un easy about it at first ; "

an d the

P edobaptists thought to ren der all the baptizin gs amo n g them in valid, forwan t Of a proper admin istrator to begin that prac

‘

t I ce : But by the excellen t reason in gs of these an d o ther learn ed men , we see their [the Baptists

’

]begin n in g was well defen ded, upon tae same prin ciples on wlzicb all otlzer

P rotestan ts built tacir reformation .

To the poin t at issue, this fin al passage, like all the rest that

Crosbysays on the subject,speaks for

“

itself; but I wish to draw,

in con clusion ,the followin g argumen t from Crosby

’

s premises,which I thin k is un an swerable

1 . There was a “gen eral

”or un iversal corruption of bap

tism.

—“ Immersion had for some time been disused . NO

con tin uan ce of adult baptism could be prov ed ; an d the E n glish Baptists rev ived immersion at a period called then “later

times .

”

2 . The “En glish Baptists, in these “later times,had a

“be

gin n in g” which is called a

“reformation established “

upo n the

same prin ciples o n which all other Protestan ts built their refor'mation ”— that isby self-origin ated in troduction ‘begin n in g

”in

prin ciple with John Smyth an d en din g in practice in 1 640—4 1

3 . Accordin g to Crosby, the earliest organ ization s of Baptistsin En glan d were respectively 1 6 1 1

,1 633 ; an d he details the

restoration Of immersion by these“En glish Baptists, in E n g

lan d,without distin ction as a body at a giv en time,without an y

division as to date , at a later period .

4 . The Baptists of En glan d, accordin g to this first historian ,

who stan ds un con tradicted,could n ot hav e hadan yorgan ic co n

tin uan ce before 1 6 1 1,1633 , in En glan d ; an d whether organ ized

or un organ ized, they could n ot hav e had a con tin uan ce of immersion from the first cen tury if they had an immersion “begin

n in g,”

or“reformation ,

”in the“ later times” to which Crosby

refers. Crosbywholly proves that the Baptists of En glan d haven o organ ic succession before 16 1 1

,1 633 an d n o baptismal (im

88 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

mersion ) succession before a“later date

,

~

this side Of theirorgan ization .

5 . The question remain s : What 1S the date within the periodof the “ later times” when the “En glish Baptists

”restored im

mersion ,or had a baptismal “begin n in g, or

“reformation , as

“other Protestan ts” did an d upon the

“same prin ciples ? ” The

on ly an swer which can be given , accordin g”

to the history Of the

time, is 1 640—4 1 . Crosby left out the 1 64 1 date, an d hen ce

I vimey, who follows him,says that the date of this even t is un

certain ; but the JesseyChurchRecords, or theKiffin Man uscript ,which is Crosby

’s authority for the facts of that date, supplies

that date beyon d all question .

6 . Hen ce,Crosby

’s Preface, Vol. II .

, perfectly agrees withthis section of Vol. I . (pp. 95 I n the former he shows

that Immersion which con tin ued in the “British Churches” on lyfrom the I st to the en d of the 1 6th cen tury an d was “disused

,

even as an in fan t rite ; an d in the latter he Shows that after its

disuse in gen eral for forty-on e years

— an d when “the con

tin uan ce of adult immersion could n ot be proved ,” or was “un i

v ersally corrupted”— it was restored by the “En glish Baptists,

”

that is, in . 1640—4 1 , prior to which it “had for some time been

disused”— SO“ lon g disused,

”accordin g to the Bampfield Doc

umen t,

“that there was n o on e to be foun d who had been SO

baptized.

7 . The restoration of immersion in En glan d, 1 640—4 1 , was,

therefore , a Baptist movemen t— a Baptist “ begin n in g”

“reformation — an d n ot a Pedobaptist movemen t ; an d the most

absurd proposition recen tlystated Is that Such a movemen t couldhave been properly a restoration

\Of Immersion at the han ds Of

Pedobaptists, while the Baptists all aroun d them were practicin gimmersion !I vimey (Vol. I .

, pp. 139 , Hist . E n glish Baptists, says of

this movemen t :

I t must be admitted that there is some Obscurity respectin g the man

n er in which the an cien t immersio n of adul ts, which appears to hav e been

disco n tin ued, was restored, when ,after the lon g n ight of an ti-Christian

apostacy, perso n s'

were at first baptized o n a'

professio n of faith. The very

circumstan ce, howev er,'

of their bein g called An abaptists as early as the

period of the Reformatio n prov es that they did, in the Opin io n of the

Pedobaptists, , rebaptise , which is n ot likely theywould do , by pourin g or

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

90 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

Of course, I vimey did n ot have these facts before himwhen hewrote in 18 1 1 n or did he hav e the origin al Jessey Church R ec

ords before him,as Crosby had, which gave the date of the res

toration of immersion as 1 640—4 1 . Hen ce he says :

‘

f I t is n otkn own at what precise period this happen ed . (p. 145 , Vol. I . )Dr. Armitage had the iden tical so-called Kiffin Man uscript

before him but,like all the other Baptist historian s who

hav e dealt evasivelywith the restoration movemen t of the E n glish Baptists, he regards the attempt to Show that n on e of the

En glish Baptists practiced immersion prior to 1 64 1 as“ feeble

an d strain ed .

”H e cites the testimon y of Leon ard Busher,

1 6 14, with regard to the defin ition of baptism as bein g immersion

,an d also Dr. Featley

’

s tract,

The Dippers Dipt,”as prov

in g that immersion was practiced by some of the Baptists before164 1 but ev en he con cedes that some of them practiced affusionbefore that date, an d that John Smyth

’

s self-baptismwas affusion ,

though he is n ot certain of the fact . (Hist . Baptists, pp. 439 ;The case of Leon ard Busher furn ishes the on ly argumen t

that presen ts a difficulty in the way of the presen t thesis ; but inthe light of so much stron g testimon ywhich favors the v iew that

the E n glishAn abaptists did n ot immerse before 1 64 1 , it must becon ceded that Leon ard Bushermust have stood alon e in his view,

an d was but a shin in g star that fla'

Shed across the black sky to

light up the way to the great movemen t of Blun t,1 640

—4 1 , who

came to the same co n clusion that Busher did in 1 6 14, twen ty-six

years before , an d who put in practice amon g his brethren whatBusher could n ot or did n ot do . Thereis n o other con clusion

to which we can come,with the Light n ow Shed before us by the

great balan ce of testimon y presefifed by Hutchin son ,Kiffin

,

Spilsbury, Tombes, Lawren ce, Barber, Collin s, Crosby, Barclay,Muller

, Scheffer, Newman ,Whitsitt

,Vedder

,Dexter an d others ;

but Of the Kiffin Man uscript or JesseyRecords, which are in dis

pute by some,we shall treat as ev iden ce in the n ext chapter.

ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMAT ION.

(FROM 1609 to 1 641 A . D . )

CHAP TE R VI I ] .

THE SO-CALLED KI FFIN MANUSCRI PT.

The Kiffin Man uscript, so-called,is iden tical with that part of

the Jessey Records which in clude the origin of the ParticularBaptist Churches, the restoration of immersion an d a list Of thesign ers of the Co n fession of 1 644 . I n the collection of 1 7 1 2 it

is marked “Number 2 an d it is but part an d parcel of theJessey Church Records from 1 604 to 1 645 . Crosby quotes the1633 , 1 638 parts of the Jessey Records an d calls it the'

KiffinMan uscript ; an d if the 1 633 , 1 638 parts ascribed by Crosby tothe Kiffin Man uscript are the Jessey Records, the 1 639 , 1 640 ,

1 64 1 parts so ascribed by him are also the JesseyRecords, oranabstract from them. Possibly the documen t

,after Kifi

’

in’

s

death, was foun d by Adams, his colleague, amon g his papersan d so receiv ed by .Crosby as his man uscript from the collector

,

but it is ev iden t that Kiffin was n ot the origin al author of it byreason of its iden titywith the Jessey Records.

Upon this documen t Crosby partly fourids his history of the

restoration of immersion by the E n glish Baptists, so far as thefirst or “former method” is con cern ed . H e uses the Hutchinson

‘Accoun t before this man uscript as the basis Of his history,but he gets the details out of the documen t . I n fact , Crosby iswholly in debted to the Jessey Church Records for the origin of

the first ParticularBaptist Church foun ded in 1 633—38 an d it is

in viewu

of Crosby’s use of this documen t as a whole that I“

wish

to examin e it. I t has been charged that he used the 1 640—4 1

part in directly as if to discredit it ; but if so,he discredits the

whole Of it . I t has also been charged that the origin al documen t as discovered an d copied byR ev . Geo . Gould, of Lon donan d recen tly used by Dr. Whitsitt, is a forgery ; that Crosbyn ever saw it

,but on ly saw some such documen t

,the substan ce

Of which he gives in history, an d hen ce this particularmamb

9 2 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

script is a forgery of “recen t date , n ot more than forty years

O ld.

Now I wish to Show that this man uscript, in its origin al form,

ascribed to Kiffin byGould, who foun d it amon g the “E x . MSS .

o f Mr. Jessey, was before Crosby when he wrote his Historyof the Baptists ; an d I wish to say that if this documen t is a forgery then all the other documen ts discovered an d copied byGould are forgeries, sin ce they are all foun d together. Amon gthem is the Bampfield Documen t , No . 1 8

,which I hav e verified

by the work of the author; an d I am satisfied that I hav e foun dcon firmation sufficien t in the writin gs Of Jessey to iden tifyhimas the author Of this man uscript , or

,at least

,cogn izan t of the

facts it records. I shall here give a comparative collation of

what are design ated as the J essev ecords, theKiffin Man uscript

a n dCrosby’

s v ersion for substan ce of these two documen tswhichare iden tically the same

,with min or exception ,

un der their respectiv e dates.

1 . TH E JE S SEY RE CORD S .

“1633 . There havin g bee n much discuss

in g,these den yin g Truth of ye Parish Churches ye Church become n ow

so large yt it might be prejudicial , these followin g desired dismission that

they might become an E n tire Church further ye Commun io n of those

Churches in Order amo n gst themselv es, wch at last was gran ted to them

&‘

performed Sept . 12,1633 , v iz : Hen ry Parker 81 Wife , Widd F carn e .

H atmaker,Marke Luker

,Mr Wilso n Mary Wilson Thos Allen

J O : Milburn . To these join ed R ich. Blu n t , Thos H ubert,R ich : Tred

we ll his wife Kath John Trimber, Wm\J en n in gs 81 Sam E ato n , Mary

Green way, Mr E aton wita some otbers receiv in g a furtlzer baptism.

“Others joyn ed to them.

2 . TH E KI FFIN MANUSCR IPT .

“1633 .

,Sun dry of ye Church whereof

M r j acob an d M r j olz n Lat/irop had been pastors, bein g dissatisfyed with

ye Churches own in g of E n glish Parishes, to be true Churches desireddismission joyn ed together amo n g themse lv es, as Mr H en ry Parker, Mr

Tho Shepard, Mr. Sam E ato n,Marke Luker

,an d o thers, with whom

joyn edMr . Wm Kiffin .

”T

AS already Shown , this was an I n depen den t secession with a few An abaptists in it s membership . I t mayr be regarded at the time of the secession as a

mix ed church of An abaptists an d I n depen den ts , whatev er it afterwards came

t o be .

-This R ecord errs in placin g Kifiin with the secessio n of 1633 .

THE SO-CALLED K I FF IN MANU SCR I PT . 93,

3 . CROSBY ’S VE RS I ON FOR SUBSTANCE . (Vol. I .

, p. [163There was a Co n gregatio n of Pro testan t Dissen ters of the I n depen dan t

Persuasio n in Lo n don , gathered in the year 16 16, whereof [Mr H en ry

[acabwas the first pastor an d after him succeeded M rj olz n Lat/zrop, who

was their min ister at this time . I n this society sev eral perso n s, fi n din gthat the con gregation kept n ot to their first prin ciples Of separation ,

an d

bein g also co n vin ced that baptism was n ot to be admin istered to in fan ts,but such on ly as professed faith in Christ , desired that theymight be dis

missed from that commun io n , an d allowed to form a distin ct con gregation ,in such order as was most agreeable to their own sen timen t .

The church con siderin g that they were n ow grown very n umerous,

an d so more than could in these times Of persecution co n v en ien tlymeet

together, an d believmg also that these person s acted from a prin ciple of

con scien ce, an d n ot obstin acy, agreed to allow them the liberty they desired, an d that they should be con stituted a distin ct church ; which was

performed the 12tlz of Sept. , 1633 . A n d so theybelieved that baptismwasn ot rightly admin istered to infa n ts, as they looked upo n the baptismthey had receiv ed in that age as in v alid : whereupo n most or all of them

receiv ed a n ew baptismfi“ Theirmin ister was Mr. John Spilsbury.T fWhat

n umber theywere is un certain,because in the n umberin g of the n ames

Of about twen tymen an d women , it is added witli otlcers .

1 638 .

I . THE JE SSEY R ECORDS .

“ 1638 . These also bein g of the same judgm

men t with Sam E ato n an d desirin g to depart an d n ot be cen sured,our in

terest in them was remitted with prayer made in their behalfe Jun e18th 1638. They havin g first forsaken us 8: joyn ed with Mr Spils

bury,v iz Mr Peter Ferrer H en Pen Tho : Wilso n Wm Batty Mrs A llen .

(died 1639) MrsNorwood.

2 . THE KI FFIN MANUSCR IPT .

“1638. Mr ThomasWilson , Mr Pen 3

more bein g con vin ced taat B aptismwas n otfor infan ts, butprofessedB elievers,

joyn ed with Mr.f o Spilsbury, ye Churches favor bein g desired therein .

3. CROSBY ’S VE RS ION FOR SUBSTANCE . (Vol. I .

, p.

“I n

the year 1638, Mr.William Kiffin ,iMr. T/iomas Wilson,an d o thers, bein g

of the samejudgmen t, were upo n their request,dismissed to the said M r .

Spilsbury’s con gregatio n .

The Records of 1633/

say :“Mr . Eaton with some others receivin g a further

baptism.

! The Records of 1633make n o men tion of Mr . Spilsbury.

tKifiin is n ot men tion ed in the 1638 Records .

1 639 .

1 . THE K I FFI N MANUSCR IPT.

“1639 .

.

Mr. Green with Capt n Spen cerhad begun a Co n gregatio n in Crutched-Fryars, to whom Paul H obso n

joyn ed who was n ow with man y of that Church o n e of ye Sev en .

2 . CROSBY ’S ALMOST L ITERAL VER S ION . (Vol. I . , p.

“ I n the year 1639 , an other Co n gregation of Baptists‘i“was foun d, whose

place of meetin g was I n Crutched-Fryars ; the chief promo ters of which

were Mr. Green , Mr. Paul H obson , an d Captain Spen cer.

”

1 640—164 1 .

I . TH E KI FFI N MANUSCR I PT .

“1640 . 3rd MO . : Tu cum in became two

bymutual con sen tjust balf bein g wit/z Afr . P . Barebon e, &1 ’

ye otlzer balfewit/zM r . H j essey. Mr. Richard Blun t with him bein g con vin ced of Baptism

yt also it ought to be by dippin g in ye Body in to ye Water, resemblin g

Burial risin g again . 2 Col. Rom. had sober con feren ce about

it in ye Church, then with some of the foren amedwho also ware so con

v in ced. A n d after Prayer Cohferan ce about their so en joyin g it , n on elzavin g tlzen so practiced it in E n glan d to P rofessed Believers hearin g that

some in ye Netherlan ds had so practiced they agreed an d sen t ov er Mr.

Rich. Blu n t (who un derstood Dutch) with letters of Commen datio n , an d

who was kin dly accepted there , an d return ed with letters from them J oBatte a Teacher there an d from that Church to such as sen t him.

“164 1 . They proceed therein ,

viz Those Perso n s that ware persuaded

Baptism should be by dippin g ye Body had met in two Compan ies, an ddid in ten d so to meet -after this, all these agreed to proceed alike togeatherA n d then Man ifestin g (n ot by an y formal Words a Coven an t) wch wordwas scrupled by some of them, but bymutual desires an d agreemen t each

t estified“Those two Compan yss did set apart o n e to Baptize the rest so it was

s o lemn ly performed by them.

Mr. Blun t Baptized Mr. Blacklock yt was a Teacher amo n gst them

Mr. Blun t bein g baptized, he Mr. Blacklock Baptized ye rest of their

frien ds that ware SO min ded, man y bein g added to them they in creased

much.

The n ames of all 1 1 MO . Jan u : begin

I . R ichard Blun t Sam Blacklock2. Greg Fishburn Doro . Fishburn

3 . John Cadwell E liz . Cadwell

The word “Baptists is n ot in the origin al records an d is added by Crosby.

THE So-CALLED K I FF IN MANU SCR IPT. 95

Sam Eames

Thos. KilcopR obert LockerJohn Braun sonR ich. E llisWm CreakR obert CarrMartin Main prise

H en ryWoolmare

I 5 . H e n ry Creak16 . Mark Lukar1 7 . H en ry DarkerI 3 . RObert Kin g14 . ThomasWaters

E llis Jessop

John Cat topeNicho las Martin

A llie S tan fordNath Mattho n

MaryBirch

Thus 53 in all

2 . CROSBY ’S VE R SI ON FOR SUBSTANCE , I NCLUDI NG L ITE RAL QUOTA

TI ONS . [1640] (Vol. I I I . p.

“F or in tbe year 1640 t/zis clzurc'

b be

came two bymutual con sen t ; just lzalf, says tbcman uscript, bein g wit/z M r . P .

Barebon e,an d tire otber lzalf witb Afr . B’

en ry j essey.

” “This ” [man uscript] ,says Crosby (Vol. I . , p.

“relates

,that sev eral soberan d pious per

so n s belo n gin g to the co n gregatio n s of the dissen ters about L o n do n were

con vin ced that believers were the o n lyproper subjects of baptism, an d that

it ougltt to be admin istered by immersion ,or dippin g the whole bodyin water ,

in remembran ce of a burial dn d resurrection, accordin g to 2 Colos. an d

Tho , Mun den

WilliamWilliebyMary LockJohn BullMary Lan gride

Mary H aman

Sarah WilliamsJoan e)

)Du n ckle

A n n e)E liz . Woolmore

J udeth Man n in g

Mable LukarAhigal BowdenSarah Norman

I sabel Woolmore

MaryKreakSusan n a Kin g

4 1 in all

1 1 Jan uary 9 added

George Wen ham

Thomas Dav en an tRich. Colgrav e

Eliz . H utchin so n

John CrosonSybilla LeesJohn Woolmore

96 ENGL I SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

Rom. That they often met toget/zer to“

pray an d confer about this mat

ter, an d con sult what methods they Should take to en joy this ordin an ce in

its prImI tiv e purity : Tbut tlzey could n ot be satisfied about an y admin istrator

in E n glan d to begin tlzis practice because t/zo’ some in tlzis n ation rejected tbcbaptism of infan ts, yet tlzey liad n ot as tkey kn ew of REV IVED t/ze an cien t

custom of immersion But hearin g that some in the N et/zerlan ds practiced

it, they agreed to sen d ov er on e M r . R ickard B loun t,who u n derstood tize

D utclz La n guage That he wen t accordin gly, carryin g letters of recommen da

tion with him,an d was kin dly received by the church there,

'

an d Mr. j okn

Batte, their teacker .

‘ That upon his return he baptized M r . Samuel B lack

lock,a min ister, an d ibese two baptiz ed t/ze rest of tlzeir compan y, whose n ames

appear in the man uscript , to the n umber Offifzjx-t/zree.

The italics mark the almost literal quotation s of Crosby fromthe origin al Kiffin Man uscript, showin g that the documen t wasthen an d there I n existen ce as we n ow have it .

Now it is clear that the origin al MS . ,as ascribed to Jessey

an d that ascribed to Kiffin (1 633 , 1 640 ,

were before Crosbywhen he wrote his history. H e tookhis accoun t of the origin of the first ParticularBaptist Church an dthe restoration of Immersion directly from these documen ts

, as a

compariso n of his accoun t with these origin al records will Show.

1 . AS a rule Crosby took the liberty to quote substan tially,an d,

as he saw fit, to make correction s (which were mostly blunders) by addition

,substraction , or explicatio n . H e used the

JesseyRecords an d the Kiffin Man uscript as the same documen tin his v ersion of the secession of 1 633 ; an d in his margin aln ote (Vol. I . , p . 149) he refers the Kiffin MS . to the “Recordsof that church

,which were doubt less the Jessey MSS . On

page 4 1 (Vol. III . ) he brackets the exact words of the Kiifin

MS . [with whom join ed Mr. William Kiffin ]”as if to

correct the mistake, sin ce Kiffin n ever join ed the 1 633 secession ,

n or an y church at that time ; an d Crosby himself, bymistake,puts Kiffin with Spilsburyin 1 638 , con trary to the later accoun tsof I vimey an d Orme

,who place himwith Jessey at that date.

I n the 1 639 accoun t Crosby follows the Kiffin MS . almost literally, except in addin g the word “Baptist,

” which was an other

blun der. I n the 1 640—4 1 section of the Kiffin MS . , so

-called,

Crosby combin es the separate accoun ts of the two dates, whichalmo '

st literally correspon d with the documen t . H e omits thedate, 1 64 1 , but in corporates the date 1640 ; an d most of his

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

98 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATI ON .

rest of the compan y to the n umber of “fifty-three

,whose

n ames were “in the man uscript,” just as we n ow have them,

showin g that he quoted directly from the documen t ; an d the

stran ge part of it is that he did n ot put-down the date

,

“1 1 Mo .

J an u.,

for it was before his eyes ! What a blun der !Crosby

’s use here of the 1 640 an d the 164 1 paragraphs of the

MS . is iden tified by his literal quotation of the first sen ten ce of

the 1 640 paragraph (Vol. III . p . 4 1 ) ; an d this iden tificationwith the o ther iden tification of the

p1 640 paragraphwith the 1 633 ,

1 638 an d 1 639 paragraphs as belon gin g to the “sameman uscript”

(Vol. III ., pp. 4 1 , shows that the 164 1 paragraph is Simply

a part of the origin al documen t as a whole an d as on e an d the

same MS . (1 633, 1638 , 1639 , though men tion ed byCrosby I n separate section s an d I n differen t v olumes.

Crosby leaves out n othin g material to the 1 64 1 paragraph

except the date , 1 64 1 ; but sin ce he elsewhere uses the 1640

date,at which the Blun t movemen t began an d whichwas con

summated upon his return ,the omission of 1 64 1 is n ot essen tial

because he min utely details all the facts which follow 1 640 an d

iden tify 1 64 1 . H e is given to the n eglect of dates in man ydetails of his history; but here, fortun ately, his detail of factsaccordin g to the order of the MS . establishes the date

,1 64 1 , at

which,1by the first method

,the Baptists of En glan d restored

immersion . I f Crosbyomitted the date, 1 64 1 , he did n ot omitthe facts of 1 64 1 ; an d if the facts of this paragraph of the MS .

are valid history as he uses it , then the date 1 64 1 is a valid factin history

— con firmed byHutchin son an d by the larger body of

Baptists who at the same time Crosby says regarded Blun t’

s deputution to Hollan d as

“n eedless trouble.

”The Bampfield

Documen t I S an other con firmation of the same fact,the caption

of which reads thus : “A n Accoun t of ye methods taken by yeBaptists to Obtain a proper Admin istration of Baptism by Immersion when that practice had been so lon g disused , yt therewas n o o n e who had so been baptized to be foun d .

”H ow strik

in gly does the main sen ten ce of the Kiffin MS .,

No n e havin gthen so practiced I t I n En glan d to professed believers, correspon dwith the like declaration of the Bampfield Documen t !The expression :

“Said to be written by William Kiffin

(Crosby, I .,

.p 10 1 does n ot in dicate Crosby’s discredit of the ,

authen ticity whatever he may have thought of the authorshipof the MS . H e uses this part of it as valid history con firmed

‘

TH E So-CALLED K I FF IN MANU SCR I PT. 99

by Hutchin son an d others,just as he so regards elsewhere

the other parts of the documen t ; an d in Vol. I .

, p. 148 ,

where he quotes the 1 633 , 1 638, 1 639 parts he speaks of the

citation as an“accoun t collected from a man uscript of Mr.

WilliamKiffin ,just as here he speaks of this (1 649 —4 1) para

graph as“an accoun t given of the matter in an an cien t man u

script said to be written byMr. William Kiffin . The man uscript referred to is the “

same” ; an d so he calls it the “same

man uscript”in his literal referen ces to the 1 633 an d 1 640 para

graphs (Vol. III . , p. 4 1 ) an d to the 1 638 an d 1 639 paragraphs

on page 4 2 of the same v olume. H e mean s the same when hespeaks of the “man uscript of WilliamKiffin ,

tha'

t ‘he doeswhenhe speaks of the “

an cien t man uscript said to be written byWilliamKiffin . When he cites an y of the paragraphs,

”

he repre

sen ts them as foun d in this “sameman uscript”

; an d he does n otcite the 1 640

—4 1 section as a man uscript by itself— “

an other

man uscript said to be written byWilliamKiffin”— but as foun d

in the same “an cien t man uscript , elsewhere iden tified as such.

Discredit on e part an d you discredit the whole MS .

I t is objected that Crosby quotes the 1 640—4 1 paragraphs

without quotation poin ts— in directly— an d therefore implies hisdoubt or caution as to its validity; but he frequen tly so quotesauthen tic documen ts

has in Vol. IV .

, pp . 1 69 , 1 78 , 1 8 1,1 88

,

1 9 7 , 2 54 , an d in forty other places. H e cit'

esgthis section as

fully an d accurately as he does an y other part of the MS .

,an d

emphasizes an d con firms it as history. More than this,he sig

n aliz es its authen ticity by the fact that Kiffin ,said to be its

author,

“ lived in those times [1 640—4 1] an d was a leader amo n gthose of that persuasion ;

”an d he thus iden tifieS

‘

Kiffin,the al

leged author of the documen t,both with the date an d the mov e

men t of the MS . H e specifies that whether Kiffin was the

author of it or n ot,he was con n ected with its movemen t an d

times ; an d Crosby shows that he has n ot the slightest doubt ofits historical validity. H e makes n ot a sin gle qualification of its

authen ticityan d con firms it bycon temporan eous authority. The

1 64 1 date of theman uscript is thoroughlycon firmed byBarebon e ,in 1 643 , who dates Baptist dippin g back two or three yeares

to its begin n in g in En glan d . The same is true of Edwards, whoin 1 646 in cludes amon gman y other heresies Baptist dippin gas havin g origin ated in En glan d within the “ four years past .

So ofWatts,in 1656 who dates the begin n in g of Baptist dippers

in En glan d about I 3 or 14 yeare agoe .

’

oo ENGLI SH BAPTI ST “RE FORMATION .

I vimey, Evan s an d Gould agree With Crosby in the trustwor

thin ess of this man uscript . Dexter is cited as“givin g up the

man uscript,”but this is un true . H e suggests that its gen uin e

n ess might be open to questio n an d suspicious for its vaguen ess

but for Kiffin’s con n ection with it

,an d for the reason that Wil

son , Calamy, Brook an d Neal kn ow n othin g of Blun t an d Blacklock outside of the MS . but he cites Edwards as discoverin g on eBloun t (1646) at the head of a promin en t An abaptist Church, refers to Barclay (I n n er Life, p . 75) as havin g discov ered JohnBatten ,

who probably admin istered immersion to Blun t,an d re

gards Hutchin son as con firmin g Blun t’

s deputation to Hollan dfor a proper admin istrator” of baptism. Prof. Rauschenbusch

,in a book en titled Geschieden is der Rhyn sburgische Ver

garderin g, also discovers f an Bade,who was from the begin n in g

a promin en t teacher in the Rhyn sburger Con gregation ,an d he

has n o doubt ofhis havin g baptized Blun t . (1 7th ch. Hist . Baptists

,Baptist. ) Hutchin son

’

s accoun t has been den ied as show

in g that the deputation to Hollan d in volved the revival of dippin g ; but Crosby uses Hutchin son in con firmation of the MS .

for that verypurpose ; an d Hutchin son himself in his Treatise,pp . 2—4 , Epistle to the Reader, begin s the paragraph quoted byCrosby, thus : “Besides it [persecution ] has a con siderable ten

den ey to advan cemen t of divin e grace, if we con sider the wayan d man n er of R evivin g this costly truth

"”— that is,bapiz

'

sm for

the “proper admin istrator

”of which by immersion Blun t, 1 640 ,

was deputed to Hollan d . The revivin g”of this ordin an ce is

the very thin g about which,in this paragraph,

Hutchin son was

writin g.

An other stron g co n firmation of this Man uscript an d its date,by

.

con temporan eous authority, is by John Taylor (A Swarme of

Sectaries, &c . ,1 64 1 , Lon don ) , who con n ects Spilsbury an d

Eaton with the “n ew foun d Separation

”—,

who represen ts Spilsbury, “

of late, as risin g up to “rebaptize

” Eaton in “An abaptist fashion ” —an d who pictures Eaton as baptizing an

“impuredame

”at the ban kside of some stream. This was in 1 64 1 an d

it is distin ctly stated in the Man uscript that Eaton was in the

1 633 Secession from the Lathrop Church an d clearly impliedthat he was with Spilsbury in 1638 . I n 1 633

“Eaton with someothers receiv ed a further baptIsm,

that is, An abaptist aspersio nbut n ow “

of late, in 1 64 1 , he is rebaptized again bySpilsburyin“An abaptist fashion ,

”which was n ow immersion

,an d which

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ENGLI SH BAPTI ST -RE FORMATION .

he says ;“Say n ot in thin e heart

,

’Who shall goe in to Heaven,

or"

to sea,or beyon d the Sea for it ? but the word is n igh thee

(Rom. So we n eed n ot goe for admin istrators to other

Coun tries,n or stay[wait] for them : but looke to the word .

”On

page 80 , speakin g of some believers who had been “slack

,an d

some who had “ lon ged”to

“en joy

”the ordin an ce after its in tror

duction ,he says :

“Such Con sideration s as these I have had, Butyet , because I' would do n othin g msfiiy;

« I would n ot do that

which I . should‘

ren oun ce again e . I desired Con feren ce withsome Christian s differin g therein in opin ion fromme ; about whatis requisite to the restorin g of ordin an ces

,if lost ; Especially

what is Essen tiall in a Baptizer ? Thus I did forbeare an d in

quired abov e a yeares space .

”

Now in all this it seems clear that‘

jessey alludes to the Blun tidea of “

goin g‘ beyon d the sea

”-“to other coun tries

”— for a

“proper admin istrator of baptism,

which Jessey regarded as

n eedless. H is difficultywas with the method of “restorin g”

immersion as in volv ed in the essen tial qualification s of a“Bap

tizer,

”or

“proper admin istrator”; an d though con vin ced

,after

the agitation of 1640—4 1 , that immersion was Scriptural , he de

layed baptism for several years— fin ally acceptin g the Spilsburytheory of restorin g the ordin an ce in stead of the Blun t theory of

goin g“over sea

”for it. All this is in accord with the Kiffin

Man uscript or Jessey Records an d the history of the case an d

some of Jessey’s expressio n s

— such as the ordin an ce bein g “ lostan d goin g “beyon d the sea

”for “

admin istrators”— those who

lon ged to “en joy

”the ordin an ce an d did n ot

“tarry for it as he

did— what is ‘requisite to the restorin g

”of the ordin an ce

,espe

ciallywhat is essen tial in a Baptizer,”or proper admin istrator

”

-correspon dswith the substan ceEfthe Man uscript an d to someex ten t its phraseology. H is delay “

above a yeares space,”that

is,from 1 644 to 1 645 , after

“Con feren ce” with some who differedfrom him about the burn in g question of Pedo -baptism,

an d his

subsequen t immersion in 1 645 , isdistin ctlyreferred to in “No .

of the Jessey Records, which men tion the “Con feren ces” in the

Jessey church “about in fan t baptism bywhich Mr. Jessey an d

the greatest part of the Con gregation were proselyted to the

Opin ion of the An tipedobaptists.

”So does the historyof Jessey,

by .E . W. in volve this same even t an d con firm this No . 4 section

of the JesseyRecords as stated in the caption of the Collector,as he also con firms the 1 640 division of the church between

THE SO-CALLED K I FF IN MANU SCR I PT . 103

Jesseyan d Barebon e . Now,if jesseyhimself an dhis biographer

con firm the No . 4 section of the Jessey Records -in their detailof the substan ce of the so-called Kiffin Man uscript

—an d partlyin the use of its phraseology— they also con firm the documen t

itself. Jessey un question ably con firms the thesis of restorin gimmersion

,about 1 640

-

41 , by both methods, as detailed byCrosby; an d this for ever silen ces the charge that the KiffinMan uscript 01 the JesseyRecords are a forgery. Jesseywas on eof the Chief actors in the drama of 1 640

—1 645 .

For a full accoun t of “Documen t No . 4 , as foun d in the

Jessey Church Records, I refer the reader to Crosby (Vol. I .

pp . 3 1 0, H e thoroughly con firms, as far as Jessey Is con

cern ed,both the Kiffin documen t, “No . 2

,an d the documen t

“No . I n the Kiffin D6cun ien t Blun t is represen ted, as

bein g con v in ced with him,that is with Jessey last n amed in

the con n ection of the sen ten ce I n which the fact is men tion ed,

that “baptism ought to be by dippin g, accordin g to C 01.

an d R om. an d Crosby shows that by repeated secession s

from jessey’

s Church to the Baptists, especially the large seces

sion in 1 64 1 , jesseywas led to in v estigate the subjectfan d became con vin ced that immersion was baptism. I n 1 642 J essey

t

proclaimed n ot on ly his con victio n , but that“for the future

”he

would practice immersion ; an d so from that time on he dippedthe childre n . Crosby then refers to the Con feren ces of 1 644 in

which in fan t baptism became the question in con trov ersyalreadybegun in the church in 1 643

— an d to the fact that when

Jesseywas con vin ced that Pedobaptismwaswron ghe con cludedhe ought himself to be immersed an d was dipped in Jun e

,

1 645, by Han serd Kn ollys, who , with his wife,had been

i

so

con vin ced an d baptized a year before, when ,after the con tro

versy about baptizin g his own child had resulted in an other

secession from the jessey Church,he an d his wife withdrew,

accordin g to the No . 4 documen t . Here this documen t is thor

oughlycon firmed by Crosby, who clearly uses it, n ames an d all,

sofar as Jesseyis con cern ed ; See Appen dix : Documen t No . 4 .

ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION .

(FROM 1609 TO 164 1 , A . D . )

CHAP TE R 1X.

OBJECTIONS TO THE KI FFIN MANUSCR IPT.

Every effort has been made to discredit this documen t . I t

has been assailed as an“an on ymous paper, a

“ flyin g leaf,without a place of deposit

”an dwithout attestation — as am

biguous an d con tradictory— an d yet those who have made thiscriticism hav e sought to use the documen t , at the same tIme, aseviden ce fav orin g an other thesis . The most violen t Opposers ofthe 1 64 1 thesis seein g that this criticism could n ot stan d , haveadopted the theoryof “ forgery; an d the world of literature hasbeen ran sacked in search of proof to establish this theory. Ithin k I have

,beyon d the shadow of a doubt

,established the

authen ticityan d validityof this documen t, in the light of history,but I will here n otice some of the objection s made to prove it a“ forgery or a fraud .

”

John Lewis,1 738 an d o n ward

,is represen ted as repudiatin g

the Kiffin Man uscript an d ridiculin g Crosbyfor usin g it ; but beyon d his hypothetical con jectures an d Un sustain ed assertion s, he

gives n o con temporary or other data byWhich to in validate thecredibility of the documen t . Baptist history precedin g an d followin g 1 640

—4 1 , accordin g to co

\temporary authorities, thor

oughly con firm the man uscript .

Armitage , Cathcart , Burrage, Newman an d others have beenquoted as castin g a shadow upo n the gen uin en ess an d value of

this man uscript . Armitage simply says that the“authorship of

the documen t is on lyguessed at ; Cathcart says that “ this tran saction of Blun t may have happen ed but that he would n ot“ bear heavily upon it ; Burra

o

ge says that the“ testimon y of

the JesseyRecords maybe gen uin e , but the gen uin en ess has n otbeen established ; Newman speaks of the obscurity of some of

the statemen ts of the Kiffin Man uscript (in his History of the

Baptist Churches of the Un ited States) ; but n ot on e of these

104

6

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

6 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMAT ION .

tio n the n ames of Blun t an d Blacklock ; but they have don e a

thin g far more in credible in givin g creden ce to the EpworthCrowle fraud

,an d in tryin g to build Baptist history upon tradi

tio n s an d fiction swhich hav e n o historical foun dation . Dr. Clifford (The En glish Baptists, p. however

,refers to the Kiffin

accoun t of the origin of the first Particular Baptist Church, whichcan be taken on ly from the so-called Kiffin MS . ; an d if he can

take on e section of the documen t,he can take the whole .

I t is objected again that in 1 640 the Jessey Church was n otan

“an cien t con gregation ; that at that date man y of ye I n

depen den t Baptist Churches”had n ot

“taken their rise from

it ; that the title “Baptist Churches”was n ot then in use that

the word “an tipedobaptism

” was a later U sage ,&c therefore

the Jessey Records are a forgery ! As well shown by Dr. Newman

,the Collector of 1 7 1 0

— 1 2,an d n ot the man uscript writer,

was respon sible for the title an d headin g of these Records, an dtherefore the objection falls to the groun d .

I t has been objected also that “there is n othin g in the Kiffin

MS . to prove that there were n ot other Baptists in En glan d whohad n othin g to do with this tran saction ; an d Crosby (VOL I .

,

p. 103) is cited in proof of the fact that there were such Baptists

,as follows :

‘But the greatest n umber of the E n glish Baptists looked upo n all this as

n eedless trouble [se n din g Blun t to H o llan d] , an dwhat proceeded from the

old Popish Doctrin e of right to admin ister the sacramen t by an u n in ter

rupted‘

successio n ,&c.

The objector,however, did n ot explain

’

that this “largest n umber of Baptists, accordin g to Crosby, were on ly objectin g tothe succession method” of Blun t in restorin g immersio n

,at

that very time, an d the objector failed to con t in ue Crosby’s qu_o

tation asfollows

They[this largest n umber of Baptists] afihn ea’therefore

,an d prae

ticed accordin gly, that after a gen eral eorf n ption of baptism, an un baptizedperso n might warran tably baptize an d so é egin a reformation .

Crosby calls the Blun t method” of restorin g immersio n the“former

”an d the Spilsbury, or an ti

-succession,method adopted

by“the greatest n umber of the En glish Baptists,

”the “last

method ; an d so the whole quotation when put together is a

‘

OBJ ECTIONS TO TH E K I FF IN MANU SCR I PT , 0 7

complete con firmation of the man uscript in citin g a co n tem

poran eous an d con n ected even t which followed the Blun t move

men t an dwhich objected to it in express terms.

I t has been urged that the voice of Kiffin himself is again st.the so -called Kiffin Man uscript an d the in terpretation main tain edby this thesis. I n 1 645 , amo n g other queries

,Poole propoun ded

the followin g to Kiffin

By what Scripture warran t doe y0u'

take upo n you to erect n ew

framed Co n gregatio n s, separated to the disturban ce of the great Worke of

R eformation n ow in ba n d.

”

Kiffin (Briefe Remon stran ce, p. 6,1 645 , Lon don , ) replies :

“ I t is well kn own to man y an d especially to ourselves, that our co n gregation s as they n ow are, were erected an d framed

,accordin g to the rule of

Christ,before we heard of an y R eformatio n

,ev en at the time when

Episcopaciewvas at the height of its v an ishin g glory.

The allusio n here is to the Westmin ster Movemen t from 1 643,

to 1 649 , which was (1 645)“n ow in n an a

’ ”as a Presbyterial

reformation of the En glish Church ; an d this is shown byKiffin’

s.

retort upon Poole (p. 7) in which he says

“You tell us of a great Worke of R eformatio n,wee should en treat you

to Show us wherein the greatn esse of it do th co n sist , for as yet we see n o

greatn esse , u n less it be in the v ast expen se [by the Assembly] of Mo n ey

an dTime for what greate thin g is it to chan ge Episcopacie in to P resoyz‘

ery,

an d a Book of Common P rayer in to a Directory, &c.

Without an y co n trov ersy here as to the mode of baptism,

Kiffin simply affirms the organ ization of Baptist Churches, basedupon the prin ciples of in depen den cy an d believ ers’ baptism,

acl

cordin g to the rule of Christ,before this Presbyterian Move

men t began ; an d he fixes the date particularly : “even at the

time when Episcopacie was at the height of its oan isn in g glory,”

that is, at the time “of ye revival of An tipedobaptism towards ye

latter en d of ye Reign of Kin g Charles ye First,

”as the Col

lector of the Jessey an d other Records put it in his caption of

the “Hutchin son accoun t .

” This,accordin g to Kiffin , puts the

begin n in g of Baptist churches in the n eighborhood of 1 64 1 ;an d although Josiah R icraft

,in reply to Kiffin (A Lookin g

Glasse For An abaptists, &c ., pp. 6- 8

,1 645 , Lon don ) doubtful]

108 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

gran ts for the sake Of argumen t that Kiffin ’s own church

,

possibly, mayhav e been erected before he heard of thisReformatio n ,

it does n ot imply that his Church was organ ized before1 64 1 . Kiffin

,as I shall show,

became a Baptist in 1 64 1 ; an d

it is also clearly probable that he n ever was pastor Of a church

before 1 643 . For a further discussion Of the subject an d for acomplete refutation of the objection that Kiffin ’

s own writin gs in

an y way militate agai n st his so-called man uscript, I refer the

reader to my Chapter X . en titled WilliamKiffin .

The criticism which makes the “collector” Of 1 7 10

—1 2 the

forger”of the JesseyRecords or the Kiffin Man uscript o n ac

coun t Of his “spellin g, or on accoun t Of the more modern

phraseology of his “caption s,

”or on accoun t Of the errors in the

min or details Of the documen ts, is extremely absurd. The col

lector affirms that these Records, in cludin g the Kiffin Man u

script, were receiv ed by himfromRichard Adams, the colleaguean d survivor Of William Kiffin ; an d while he says Of his wholecollection that some Of his documen ts were “

origin al papers,”

o thers were “faithful extracts.

”The tran script of the Jessey

Records which he receiv ed from Richard Adams is called the“ E x-MSS . Of Mr. Hen ry Jessey, an d was eviden tly n ot the

origin al or exact draught Of church min utes ; an d it is possiblethat they had passed through more than o n e recen sion from the

Origin al . SO far as the spellin g was con cern ed , this was common to someman uscriptwritin gs down through the 1 7th cen tury;an d so far as the copyin g Of the “

collector goes, as Of the

Hutchin son Accoun t an d the Bampfield Documen t— if he was

the Copyist— he is exceedin gly “faithful

”,in his “

extracts,” with

the simple differen ce I n the spellin g H is more modern phraseology in the caption an d referen ce to Strypes Memorials (OfC ran mer) properly belon ged to 1 7 10 . H is use Of the wordan tien t

”

(1 7 10) with referen ce to the Jacob Church (1 6 1 6) I s inkeepin g with Crosby an d other writers Of the time who .speakOf

the early churches Of the 1 7 th cen tury as“an tien t ; an d his

application Of the n ame “Baptist”to the An abaptist Churches

prior to 1 64 1 is in keepin g with Crosby, Evan s, Robin son an d

Others . I t is a v icious perversion to charge the collector withsayin g that

“all the Baptist churches I n Lon don ,

”or

“the first

Baptist churches I n En glan d, took their rise from the Jacobchurch. The captio n of the Records o n ly speaks Of “many Of

ye I n depen den t 8: Baptist Churches in Lon don”which “

took

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 1 0 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMAT ION .

his purpose ! I t does seem that a forger would get the substan

tial facts wron g an d the min or details right— n ot oiee oersa .

The criticism that the 1 633 secession from the Jacob LathropC hurch could n ot have occurred in that year, sin ce all those

n amed in the secession were in jail from 1 63 2 to 1 634 , is withoutproof. On lyabout 30 of the church seem to have been arrestedo n this occasion in

’

1 63 2 , or remain ed in jail,an d some Of their

fellow-sufferers were con verted in prison an d added to the

church” durin g that time. The secession Of some 20 members

from the church,1 633 , were n ot n ecessarily I n jail

,an d if some

Of them were they could have been “added to the church.

”

This was as true of Sam Eaton as others if he was in jail from1 63 2 to 1 634 .

- I t is alleged that he was again in jail from 1 636

to 1 639 an d died in the latter year ; an d it is charged that theJ essey Church Records make him join Spilsbury an d receive“an other baptism

” in 1 638 . This is false,sin ce the Records

show that an other small secession from the Lathrop Church, in1 638, oein g of Me same opin ion zoiin Sam P al

’on

,

” join ed Spilsbury, then pastor Of the 1 633 secession

,to which Eaton ,

alreadyrebaptized in 1 633 , belon ged. I fEaton died in 1639 then there

is a con tradiction between the court records an d John Taylor,who in 1 64 1 represen ts Spilsbury as

“Of late ” risin g up to re

baptize Eaton by immersion an d Eaton himself practicin g the

same ordin an ce. This could n ot have been the rebaptism Of

1 633 , when ,with some others

,he received an other baptism

”

especially if he was in jail , n or could he at that time an d un dersuch con dition s hav e been so practicin g. Spilsburywas n ot in

“

the 1 633 secession ; an d if he had been he could n ot have, in

those days, immersed Eaton or-

Others in an En glish jail . I t was

n ot then the “An abaptist fashion”— ev en if it had been

“facil

itated or allowed in jail . I n v iew OfTaylor’

s historical testimon yin 1 64 1 , there must be some mistake about Eaton ’

s death in1 6 39 . H e speaks Of a late matter

,an d could n ot hav e been

satirizin g a dead man whom he join s with Spilsbury in termswhich in dicate a veryrecen t even t an dwhich classifyboth as be

lon gin g to the n ewfon n a’

separation ,

”that is, Baptist separation .

Eviden tly Taylor an d the Jessey Church Records agree in as

sociatin g Eaton with Spilsbury an d both with the Baptist movemen t Of 164 1 an d if Taylor was n ot guilty Ofmistaken iden tityEaton was alive at that time. I n the frequen t arrests Of so man yheretiques

”an d in their trials an d imprison men t it is just possi

OBJ ECTIONS TO TH E K I FF IN MANU SCR I PT . 1 1 1

ble that the court records were careless an d sometimes mistakenabout n ames an d it seems quite possible, too , that John Taylor,a bitter en emyOf the 7 ‘ sectaries,

”should be right in his Con firma

tion Of the JesseyChurch Records by his relation an d classifica

tion Of Spilsburyan d Eaton in the immersion mov emen t Of 1 64 1 .

Gran t,however, that Eaton died in 1 639 an d that Spilsbury

n either immersed him,n or that be immersed others. Then it is

a case Of mistaken iden tity as to Eaton,or else Taylor falsifies

the facts. We have n o reason to suppose Taylor false in fact ;an d we must con clude that in 1 64 1 Spilsbury, Of the n ew-foun d

separation ,

”rose up of late ” an d rebaptized somebodyby im

mersion an d set him to baptizin g others— whom Taylor con

foun ds with Eaton . Whether false in fact or mist aken -in person

Taylor properly design ates the n ew-foun d separation an d in

dicates the Baptist immersion mov emen t , 1 64 1 , in perfect accordwith the Jessey Church Records— Spilsbury, at least, bein ga promin en t an d in itial factor I n that mov emen t accordin g to thehistory of the time .

The court records wholly separate Eaton from the An abaptistmov emen t from 1 633 to 1 64 1 an d associate himwith the Lathroppeople down to the dayOf his alleged death. The JesseyChurchRecords are charged with an utter perv ersion Of his history inrelatin ghim to the secession Of 1 633 or to Spilsburyin 1 638 . Thisis the criticism Offered in view Of this supposed

“

fact,accordin g to

which he could n ot hav e been an An abaptist receiv in g “an other

baptism,

”n or hav e had an y co n n ection with the An abaptist

movemen t whatever ; but the join t testimon y Of Taylor with theJessey Church Records shows that there must be a mistake insuch a con clusion . Even

,howev er

,if we leav e Eaton wholly

out of the case,it in n o way affects the gen eral an d substan tial

record of facts con tain ed in the Jesseydocumen ts. Crosbydoesn ot fin d it n ecessary to use Eaton in his accoun t .The Objection that the secession Of 1 633 was n ot caused bydissatisfaction ” with the “Parish Churches” is based upon

ign oran ce Of the facts. I n the Con fession Of the Jacob Church,1 6 16 (Han bury

’s Memorials, Vol. I .

, p. the church n ever

declin ed,in some particulars, to withdraw fullyfrom the “Parish

Churches.

” They still recogn ized “the truth Of the Parish

Churches in preachin g an d commun ion ; an d this led some Of

them to hav e their children baptized in the “Parish Churches,

”

which was regarded by others as n ot keepin g their “first estate .

1 1 2 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

The Coven an t Of 1 630 was a compromise measure which stilldid n ot satisfy some who objected to the “

truth of the ParishChurches an d o n this accoun t theywithdrew,

1 633 , that theymight hav e commun ion with those In depen den t churches

‘

whichwere “in order” an d did n ot

“commun icate” with the “Parish

Churches.

” A part Of this 1 633 secession were An abaptists,which seems fin ally to have led it to Baptist position ,

or at leastin to mixed church membership an d commun ion

,un der Spils

bury, who was pastor in 1 638 . The fact Of this “dissatisfaction ”with the “Parish Churches

,as a cause of separation in 1633 , is

the basis Of Particular Baptist Church “begin n in g”in En glan d ;

an d n o fact established by the Jessey Church Records is a betterco n firmation Of their truthfuln ess.

The Objection that these Records are a“forgery because Of

the use Of the apostrophic’s is so microscopically absurd

that it scarcely n eeds to be n oticed . Williston Walker’s work(Creeds an d Platforms Of Con gregation alism, pp. 90, 1 55 , &c.

,

NewYork,1 893) gives i n stan ces Of its use from 1 6 1 7 to 1 647 .

I t has n ever been den ied that some min or errors hav e crept

in to these Records ; but the history Of the time shows that the

main facts are correctly stated . There can be n o doubt aboutthe 1 633, 1 638, 1 639 secession s the 1 640 div ision Of Jessey

’

s

Church ; the 1 640—4 1 mov emen t for immersion ; the 1 643 an d

1 644“Con feren ces the 1 644 list of sign ers to the Con fession ;

the fi n al tran sition Of the Jessey Church to the Baptists in 1 645 .

These Records are n ot all exact min utes Of the church as keptby a regular secretary, but they are made up Of fragmen ts an drecollectio n s by Jessey an d others as gathered in after years

— SO

in dicated by referen ce to past ah d‘

presen t even ts at the time Of

writin g down the facts in the Records. The min or discrepamcies between these an d other records regardin g datesmay Often

arise from the differen ce between the Puritan s an d others in the

chron ologies an d calen dars Of that period— Old Style an d New

Style.

'

Errors in exact dates,n ames an dplacesmaybe accoun ted

for upon the groun d that ev ery min or fact was n ot regularly or

accurately chron icled,or n ot precisely recalled by those in after

years who sought to gather up the facts Of Baptist historywhichbefore the close Of the 1 7th cen tury became a matter Of in terestto the Baptists. Again errors in detail maybe accoun ted for bytran scription an d tran smission . The collector Of 1 7 1 0

—1 2 gave

us these Jessey Church Records from 1 604 to 1645 justa s he

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION

a able to criticism ; an d,in con clusion

,their con firmation maybe

thus summarizedJohn Taylor, 164 1 , con n ects Spilsbury an d Eaton accord

in g

I

to their association in the Jessey—

Church Records,an d shows

their in troduction Of immersion in 1 64 1 .

2 . R . B . affirms that un til iaz‘eZy “there were n o bap

tiz ed persoris (immersion ists) I n the world .

”

3 . Spilsbury, 1 64 2 , characterized “dippin g as the “Old

,but

n ewfon n a’

,way.

4 . Barebon e, 1 643 , gives the age of the “totall dippers of

En glan d as“two or three yeares Old, or some such short time

5 . Corn well , 1 645 , claims that the Baptists un der the “dis

covery’ ’an d “

comman dmen t of Christ had resumed “dippin g.

”

6 . Hen ry Den n e, 1 645 , calls the deliv ery Of the doctrin e Of

baptism by the church a“n ew é orn 5aoe.

”

7 . Edwards, 1 646 , puts the origin Of “dippin g amon g the

E n glish Baptists within the “four years past .”

8 . Jessey, 1 650 , con firms the substan ce Of the Kiffin Man u

script, in its 1 640—4 1 paragraphs by an eviden t referen ce to

Blun t “goin g over the sea

”for baptism; an d he also con firms

the “NO. 4” documen t Of the Jessey Records.

9 . Kaye, 1 653 , asks an d an swers the question :“H OW comes

it to pass that this doctrin e Of baptism [dippin g] hath n ot been

before rev ealed?”1 0 . Watts

,1 656 , poin ts back “

1 3 or 14 yeare agoe as the

dat

I

e

I

at which the En glish Baptists began to immerse .

. The biographer of Jessey, 1 6 7 1 , distin ctly men tion s the

1 640 div ision Of Jessey’5 Church an d the facts embraced I n the

‘.No 4

”documen t

,both con tain ed in the Jessey Church

-

I

R ec

z

ords .

Hutchin son ,1 6 76 , directly poin ts out the deputation to

-Hollan d for a “proper admin istrator” in “revivin g the “

truth”

o f immersion first receiv ed fromHollan d .

1 3 .‘

The Bampfield Documen t, 1 68 1,an d the Kiffin Man u

script agree in the statemen t that immersion in En glan d had been“ disused” an d that up to the time Of its rev ival by the Baptiststhere “were n on e

”who had so practiced to be foun d— the date

1 64 1 bein g fixed by the Kiffin Man uscript .

14 . All the other writers Of the 1 7th cen tury, who touch the

subject,imply the recen t in troduction of immersion by the Bap

tists of E n glan d , about the year 164 1 .

OBJ ECT ION S TO TH E K I FF IN MANU SCR I PT . 1 1 5

1 5 . Crosby, 1 738, declares that before its restoration by theBaptists Of En glan d, “ immersion had for some time been disused”; an d he eviden tly adopted“

the statemen ts Of both the

Kiffin an d the Bampfield documen ts an d implied the 1 64 1 dateof the former, accordin g to the facts;

1 6 . I vimey, 18 1 1 , though n ot certain Of the date,an d disposed

to dodge the issue, Con firms the 1 64 1 restoration,accordin g to

the Jessey Church Records.

1 7 . Geo . Gould, 1 860 , (Open Commun ion ) recogn izes the

Kiffin MS . an d Jessey Records as we n ow have them as validdocumen ts.

18 . Evan s, 1 864 , clearly agrees with Crosby an d I vimey inthe credibility Of these documen ts an d the fact of restorin g immersion by the Baptists, 1 640—4 1 .

1 9 . Barclay, 1 87 1 , an d Rauschen busch, 189 9 , fully in den tifyJohn Batte as the “

teacher” who immersed Blun t .

20 . Dr. A . H . Newman,1 897 , a competen t an d thorough

a se/zoiarZy— in v estigator, declares that the Jessey Records (in

cludin g the Kiffin MS . )“bear everymark of gen uin en ess

”an d

“are thoroughlyCon sisten t with each other.

”

For further an swers to Objectio n s to the Jessey Records an d

Kiffin MS .

,see Appen dix at the close of this work .

Such a con firmation Of the Jessey Church Records ought tosuffice again st the captious Objection s which seem to be on the

still hun t for criticism in stead of true history; an d I claim that

this discussion ,from begin n in g to en d

,is con sisten t with the his

tory of the case . The writers cited,with the exception Of the

Baptist historian ,Crosby, an d those followin g down to the pres

en t time, all belon g to the 1 7th cen tury; an d these last base their‘

con clusion s upon the 1 7th cen tury documen ts. The JesseyChurchRecords are

,beyon d question ,

an Old 1 7th cen turydoc

umen t, perfectly con sisten t with an d thoroughly con firmed by

the 1 7th cen tury historyhere cited .

ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION.

(FROM 1 609 TO 1 64 1 A . D .)

CHAP TE R X .

W I LL IAM KI FF IN .

On accoun t of bein g the alleged author Of the SO-called KiffinMan uscript an d Of his reputed con n ection with the Blun t movemen t for the restoration Of immersion

,I 640

—4 1

—an d because ithas been con fiden tlyasserted that he was an immersion ist before1 64 1 , an d that hiswritin gs con tradict the thesis Of the restorationOf immersion at that date— I have thought it proper to devotethis chapter to William Kiffin . Crosby says (Vol. I .

, p . in

the use Of the Kiffin Man uscript, that he“ lived in those times

,

an d was a leader amon g those Of that persuasion’ — those I sup

pose, to whom the documen t refers,i. e . ,

Blun t an d others who

origin ated the regular baptisman d admin istrator theoryOf restoration . Kiffin gives n o accoun t Of himself becomin g a Baptist ;but from his own an d the writin gs of others

“

we may in fer how,

why an d when he became such— the in feren ce bei n g clear thathe reached Baptist con clusion at the time Blun t an d his party re

stored immersion in 164 1 , an d that he was Of the Particular,

close-commun ion,if n ot regular

i ‘

persuasion .

”

I t is said in the 1 633 date Of the documen t ascribed to Kiffinthat he wen t out with the first secession from the

“

Jacob LathropChurch

,but this is an un accoun table error which crept in to the

records an dwhichin dicates that Kiffin was n ot the author Of them.

Crosby, in his versio n Of the records, places Kiffin ,1 638 , with

Spilsbury— an other mistake

,in which I vimey at first followed

Crosby, an d so Of others repeatedly sin ce that time . Accordin gto Kiffin himself (I vimey, Vol. II . p . 29 7; Orme

’5 Life OfKiffin ,

p. he join ed,in 1 638 , when 2 2 years of age, an I n depen d

en t con gregation n ot Spilsbury’s as the sequel shows . Orme

1 1 5 , Note XXI . ) says Of Mr. Jessey : H e was pastor

Of the I n depen den t Church Of which Kiffin was a member, an dchan ged his sen timen ts some time after Kiffin left it.

” This set1 16

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 18 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

tookplace, it is sapposea’ Soon after 1640,when the church, which"

still assembles in Devon shire Square,was foun ded

,an d he be

came their p— astor. (I vimey, VOl. II . p. 2 9 7 . I vimey

’3 ac

coun t Of thismatter was eviden tlydrawn from Crosby (Vol.pp. 3 , in which he speaks Of Mr. WilliamKiffin

,min ister

to a Baptist con gregation in Devon shire Square, Lon don .

”H e

says'

H e was first of an I n depe n dan t con gregatio n ,an d called to themin

istry amo n g them ; was o n e of those who were co n cern ed in the co n fer

en ces held in the co n gregatio n OfMr. H en ry Jessey ; bywhich Mr. Jesseyan d the greatest part of the co n gregatio n became proselyted to the opin

io n Of the Baptists. H e join ed himself to the church of Mr. John Spilsbury ;

' b-u t a differen ce arisin g about permittin g perso n s to preach amo n gst

them,that had n ot been baptized by immersion

,they parted by co n sen t

,

yet kept a good correspo n den ce .

I t will be seen here that Crosby gives n o dates, an d while herepresen ts Kiffin as bein g pastor Of the Devon shire Square Baptist Church, in Lo n don ,

he says n othin g about the time whenKiffin became pastor, n or does he in timate that Kiffin foun dedit at an y date . More than this

,the in ciden t of Separation by

Kiffin from Spilsbu'

ry’

s church,on accoun t Of pulpit affiliatio n

with n n immersea7preachers, takesplace, accordin g to Crosby, afterthe men tion Of certain Con feren ces in the co n gregation Of Mr.

Jessey, in whichKiffin was “on e Of those who were con vin ced,

”

an d bywhich the greater part of Mr. Jessey’s con gregation with

himself were “proselyted to the Opin ion Of the Baptists.

Now the “Con feren ces” men tiorfi d by Crosby, an d whichwere

held I n Mr. Jessey’5 Church

,occurred early in 1 644 , accordin g

to an Old MS . ,supposed to have been written byMr. Jessey

himself (Gould, Open Commun ion , p. cxxx . ; Review Of the

Question ,Newman

, p. (See also Jessey Records. ) Pre

cedin g these Con feren ces, 01 amon g them,was the co n trov ersy

in the Jessey Church, 1 643 , con cern in g the baptism of Han serd

Kn ollys’child

,in which Kiffin was “

on e,of those con cern ed .

(Gould , Open Commun io n , p . cxx ix . ) Orme, as alreadyquoted,says that Kiffin was a member Of Mr. Jessey

’s Church

,an d that

Jessey “chan ged his sen timen t sometime after Kiffin left it ;

an d it is agreed on all han ds that Kiffin join ed Spilsbury for ashort time after leavin g Jessey. I f accordin g to Crosby

’S n otice 1

WI LLIAM K I FF IN . 1 19

of this fact he join ed Spilsbury after the above Con feren ces,in

which he was on e of those con cern ed, then he left Jessey latein 1 643 or early in 1 644 , an d n ot in 1638 , as I vimey first statedthe matter. Gould says

“ I t is worthy Of remark that C rosby does n o t give us an y accoun t of

the duration of Kiffin ’s membership in this [Spilsbury

’s] church ; an d his

words are clearly compatible with a v ery brief co n n ectio n . I am led to

the co n clusio n that such was the case . The ‘Co n fession Of FaithPrin ted in the yeare of our Lord, 1644

’

[an d published Oct . 16] was

sign ed byKiffin an d Patien ce as the represen tativ es of o n e of the seven

Con gregation s‘

in Lo n do n , which agreed in that Co n fessio n . Be tween the

mon ths of May an d October,therefore, in the year

-

1644 , Kiffin had

ceased to be a member of Mr . Jessey’s church, had also co n n ected himselfwith an d had then w ithdrawn from Mr. Spilsbury

’s Church, an d there

upo n in co n jun ction with Mr. Patien ce, had organ ized a n ew Co n gregation . (Gould, Open Commun io n , p. cxxxi. )

I t is n oteworthy also that_I vimey, at a later date,chan ged his

view Of‘

this subject . H e says (Life of Kiffin, p. 1 7)

“About the year 1653 , he [Kiffin ] left Mr . Spilsbury, an d became the

pastor Of a Baptist Church which for man y years met in Fisher’s Folly,n owD evon shire Square .

On this passage Gould says

“This is the latestformin which Mr. I vimey has stated his co n clusion sas to the date of the formation Of this Church. I n 18 14 , when he pub

lished Vol. I I . of his H istory of the E n glish Baptists, he ‘sn pposea

”that it

[the Devo n shire Square Church] was foun ded ‘Soo n

*-after 1640

’

(p. 29 7)Of course his supposition was in correct , as Kiffin was n ot a Baptist at that

date . The loss of the origin al Church Book of this con gregation forbids

the hope Of un rav ellin g its early history.

”(Open Commun io n , p. cxxxi. )

Gould further Observes

“ I f this statemen t is to be un derstood as mean in g that Kiffin , for the

first time, organ ized a Baptist Co n gregation ,

it is certain ly in correct , asthe Co n fessio n Of 1644 prov es : if it mean s that in 1653 Kiffin organ izeda n ew Con gregation ,

I thin k it may be true,because it would reco n cile

stateme n ts as to his history which, o therwise, are difficult to harmon ize ;but if it asserts that the church thus formed did, from that time forward

,

meet in Devon shire Square , I vimey is , as usual , n o t to be relied upo n .

1 20 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

I n the Lambeth Records (DCXXXIX.

,fo . 2 19 b . ) Gould dis

covers in the “return made to Archbishop Sheldon

, by the

Bishop Of Lon don ,in 1 669 , of the Con ven ticles I n the Diocese

Of Lon don ,

”that there is n o men tion of Fisher’s Folly, or

Devon shire Square ; an d that the on ly en try in the“return

”in

relatio n to Kiffin is that he was “preacher

”or

“teacher

”in

“Fin sbury’5 Court over again st the Artillery Groun d I n More

field”

-or Bun hill Field . (Open Commun ion , p. cxxxii. )I f accordin g to I vimey

’3 latest View

,Kiffin was n ot pastor of

Devon shire Square Baptist Church in 1 644 , n or foun ded it in1 640 as he “

supposed”

at first,he may be still mistaken as to

1 653 . Takin g the facts Of history as we fin d them,it isprob

able that Kiffin left Jessey late in 1 643 had a short co n n ection

with Spilsbury early I n 1 644 ; un ited with Patien t (whose n ameis join ed with Kiffin ’

s amo n g the sign ers of the Con fession as

from the same church) I n an other organ ization later in 1644 ;an d that afterwards, in 1 653 , or after 1 669 , he became pastor ofDevon shire Square Baptist Church. The early records Of the

church havin g been lost, Kiffin’s early con n ection with that

church is largelytraditio n al . At all even ts he did n ot leave Spilsbury in 1 638 , n or formed the Devon shire Square Baptist Church,“n ear as I vimey first “ supposed ; an d it is clear thathis con ten tion with Spilsburyabout pulpit affiliation with the umimme

‘

rsed happen ed , if it ever Occurred at all,after 164 1 . NO

such questio n was ever sprun g amon g Baptists in En glan d before 1 64 1 , so far as o n e can judge from the history Of the timesan d it may be on ly tradition al that it happen ed after 1 64 1

although it was possible with a man Of Kiffin ’

s v iews on pulpitaffiliation an d clo ! e commun ion

\at\a later date . H e was the

“patriarch Of S trict Commun ion Baptists,

”as Gould n oblystyles

him; but just when he became such can n ot be defin itely ascer—f

tain ed. H e must hav e reached that position after 1 643 , for it

seems impossible to separate him from the JesseyChurch, thougha Baptist, before that date . I n 1643 , accordin g to Orm-

e’s Life

OfKiffin (p. after a return from Hollan d,Kiffin retired from

his lucrative busin ess,for a time, an d devoted himself to the

“study of God’s word

,bein g “

greatlypressed , he says,“by

the people with whom I was a memoer to con tin ue -with themeviden tly mean in g the Jessey people with whom he had beenassociated sin ce 1 638 . H e was n ot a pastor at this time Of an ychurch, but on lya member

,

”though doubtless he ‘had been

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 2 2 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATI ON .

con tin ue our separatio n from you ,accordin g to the light we hav e re

ceiv ed.

I n reply to the charge Ofd isturbin g the Reformation n ow in

han d,

”he says (ibid, p.

I kn ow n ot what you mean e by this charge, un less it be to discov eryour prejudice agaI n st us, in R eformin g ourselves before you

that is,before the Presbyterian movemen t

,1 643

—49 , was fi n ished .

I n reply to Poole’s charge that he received from their con grega

tion s silly seduced servan ts, children or people,” Kiffin replies

(ibid, p. 1 0)

We an swer, it is well k n own to you ,we receiv e n o n e as memberswith

us,but such as hav e been members of your church at least six tee n ,

twen ty or thirtyyears .

I n reply to the charge Of Schism (i523, p. 1 3) Kiffin says

Now for our part , we desire all an d ev ery o n e of these amon gst you

to be true an d therefore do separafe from you ;f so the n when you hav e

made satisfactio n foryour n o torious schisme , an d re turn as dutiful so n n esto their Mother, or else hav e cast Off all your filthy Rubbish of her

abomin atio n s,which are foun d amo n g you ,

we will recurn to you , or show

our just groun ds to the co n trary.

Thus Kiffin ackn owledges that he an d his church were Sepa

ratists from the Pedobaptist reformers ; an d he promises to“return

” when they reli n quish the lthy abomin ation s Of theirseparation from Episcopacyor Roman ism. The truth is that the

whole body of the Baptists Of the 1 7th cen tury were practicallySeparatists. I n 1 64 1 an d at the time Kiffin wrote his Briefe R e

mon stran ce they were n othin g but Separatists from the Puritan san d Other Reformers— organ ically, to begin with, an d by i n div idual addition s

'

in their con tin uan ce an d growth, as Kiffin ac

kn owledges. There was n ot a Baptist preacher at that date , sofar as I have learn ed

,who was an origin al An abaptist ; an d there

were but few if an y such durin g the 1 7 th ce n tury. Smyth,H el

wys'

,Morton , Spilsbury, Hobson

,Kiffin ,Kn ollys, Barber, Kilc0p,

Ritor,R . B.

,Jessey, Tombes, Lamb, Oates, Collin s an dmost if

n ot all the rest down to 1 69 2 were sprin kled in in fan cy ; an d

this is a sign ifican t fact in proof Of the en tire Separatist origin‘

of

WI LLI AM K I FF IN . I 23 .

the En glish Baptists between 16 1 1 an d 1 64 1— an d for some time

afterward .

Dan iel Kin g, 1649 , wrote a book en titled , “A Way to Sion ,

in which he shows that,n otwithstan din g the succession of faith

an d of true believers, the v isible church,min istryan d ordin an ces

of Christ had been lost in the apostasy of Rome ; that believershad the right to recover the ordin an ces Of Christ at an y timewhen mov ed to Obedien ce ; an d that the true church

,min istry

an d ordin an ces of Christ had been recovered by the Baptists.

The Epistle Dedicatory to that book was written byThomas Patien t

,John Spilsbury, William R

'

zfiin an d John Pearson ,whose

n ames are sign ed to the documen t an d who most vigorouslyen dorse an d commen d the book to the Baptists an d the world.

H e occupies the same position as shown in Wall’s In fan t Baptism from Heav en

,

”1 69 2 (p . in which Kiffin takes the cur

ren t Baptist view Of his cen tury, n amely, “that the Apostles .

did n ot Baptize as Apostles, but as Common -

gifted Disciples,”

upon which groun d they repudiated the doctrin e of successio n,

an d claimed the right to restore the church,min istry an d ordi

n an ces by un baptized admi n istrators raised up to teach an d

therefore baptize . Wall arose to reply to Kiffin with the curren t :Pedobaptist argumen t of that cen tury, based upon succession ,

n amely, That the Commission,Matt . 2 8 . 2 0

,was given to men

in Office — when Kiffin,Keach an d others left the room !

From all these quotation s it is clear that Kiffin ,though he

may hav e been immersed,1 64 1 , by Blun t or Blacklock , yet like

Kilcop an d others then baptized, he disclaimed succession an d

did n ot regard the regular baptism from H ollan d‘

as in the lin eOf succession . H e held that baptismhadbeen “disused or

“a’is-s

con tin ue un der the Romish Apostasy an d that it had been re

stored by the Baptists ; he regarded the Baptists as Separatists

an dReformers upon a higher plan e than the Puritan s; he claimsthat all the membership Of his church

,down to 1 645 , had , been

receiv ed from the churches fromwhich the Baptists had sepa

rated ; he pledges that when the schism from Rome had cut off

the abomin ation s Of its Mother,the Baptists would “

return”to

the other Reformers ; he en dorses Kin g’5“Way to Si ,

on which

is the stron gest vin dication Of the Baptist right to restore baptisman dwhich admits the fact that the Baptists had recovered Christ

’s

church,min istry an d ordin an ces; an d he preached the curren t:

Baptist doctrin e of the n ecessity Of an un baptized admin istrator

1 24 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

in order to begin the Baptist reformation . All efforts to provethat Kiffin was a Baptist befOI e 1 64 1 , or that his writin gs den ythe statemen ts Of the so-called Kiffin Man uscript, is a failure ; an dso of an y other Baptists in En glan d— as claimed of Kn ollys,Can n e

,Hobson

,or Vavasor Powell— the latter Of whomwas an

I n depen den t preacher I n Wales an d En glan d from 1640 to 1 655 ,an dwho ,

accordin g toThurloe (Diction aryofNation al Biography,Vol. XLVI . , p. 2 50 , British Museum) , was, Jan uary 1

,1655 ,

“ lately baptized an d several others of his party.

” Kiffin has n ohesitation I n claimin g that the churches Of some of the Baptistswere erected an d framed , organ ized, as they were in 1645 , ac

cordin g to the rule of Christ before the Presbyterian Reformation“tn en in han d” when “Episcopacie was at the height of its

van ishin g glory —but he n owhere claims that immersion was inpractice before 1 64 1 . Believers’ baptism,

the basis Of A n abaptist organ ization ,

had existed from 16 1 1 to 1 64 1 ; but every im

plication fromKiffin’

swritin gs is that he agreed with the BaptistsOf his day, that immersion had been recen tly restored by the

Baptists Of En glan d .

O n e difficultyis to accoun t for Kiffin ’s con n ection with Jessey

down to 1 643 , when he probably withdrew to Spilsbury on

accoun t Of the co n troversy origin atin g out of the baptism of

Han serd Kn ollys’child

,an d when six teen others withdrew

,at

that time,from the Jessey Church. I t is probable, as already

suggested, that Kiffin’

s stricter v iews of commun ion an d pulpitaffiliation were n ever developed un til after this separation an d his

un ion with Spilbury, when ever that w ,as an dit is probable there

fore that although an immersed Baptist, he felt n o scruples I nremain in g from to 1 643 with Jessey. This had been the

custom Of Baptists I n prin ciple before the secessio n of 1633 an d

1 638 ; an d durin g this tran sition state from 1 640 to 1 645 it mayhave been the custom of Baptists in practice. Even when Kiffinbroke with Spilsbury

’s church

,it is said that they

“kept goodc orrespo n den ce ; an d perhaps this fratern al liberality, even at

that time, explain s whyKiffin ,before he grew in to stricter

v iews, remain ed with Jessey down to 1 643 . Crosby seems toregard Jessey

’

s church as a Baptist Church in tran sition when

(Vol. III . , p. 4 1 ) in his replyr

to Neal’s statemenmhe says“Thus it appears there were three Baptist churches in E n gian d which Mr. Neal met with before tn at Of Mr. Jessey

’s,

that is, in 1 638. There is also much early correspon de n ce ,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

- 1 2 6 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

As already seen,Kiffin an d Jessey, from 1 638 to 1643 , were

associated in the Same church,an d both had some con n ection

with the immersio n mov emen t of 1 640—4 1 . Accordin g to

C rosby, Kiffin “lived in those times an d was a leader amon gt hose of tn at persuasion ,

”an d it was in this con n ection that

‘Crosby seems to ascribe to him the documen t called the “KiffinMan uscript,

”or that part Of the Jessey Church

“ Records whichrelate to the even ts which , occurred between 1 633 an d 1 64 1 .

Kiffin,however

,n ever men tion s this documen t— n or does he

allude to his baptism,although he implies the year 1 64 1 as the

date at which he became a Baptist . Jessey comes n earer alludin g to this documen t in his work , Storehouse of Provision s

,&c. ,

1 656 (p. when speakin g Of those who had hesitated to eu

joy immersion ,he says :

“Such Con sideration s as these I had,

But yet , because I would do n othin g raslzly; I would n ot do

that which I would ren oun ce again e ; I desired Con feren ce with. some Christian s differin g therein in opin ion from me ; about

what is requisite to the restorin g Of ordin an ces,if lost ; Especiallywhat is Essen tiall in a Baptizer. Thus I did forbeare an d

in quired abov e“

a y‘

eares space .

”The use Of the word “Con fer

en ce”foun d in the MS .

,the referen ce to the “

restorin g”Of the

lost “

ordin an ce,an d the question Of an

“essen tiall Baptizer” —a

“proper admin istrator”— all savor of the Blun t movemen t an d

the so -called Kiffin Man uscript , or the 1 640—4 1 part of it ; an d

whether or n ot Jessey or Kiffin is the author of it, this passage

is a stron g con firmation Of the truth Of the documen t. Kiffinbecame a con vert to immersion in 1 64 1, an d although Jesseybecame con vin ced Of its scripturar

ln ess, he delayed it after‘

his

con viction for several years. I t is somewhat n atural for Crosby,by

i

reaso n Of Kiffin ’s con n ection with this movemen t— Of his

‘

havin g“ lived in those times” an d Of bein g Of that persua

sion” “

—to hav e in clin ed to the view,apparen tly, that Kiffin was

the author of the documen t ; but Jessey’

s lan guage in the aboveq uoted paragraph would in dicate that he was the author of the

documen t .

Jessey like Kiffin , however, n ever men tlon s these records inhis writin gs. Man y of the Baptist writers Of that day, un likeJessey, Kiffin ,

Hutchin son,Tombes

, Spilsbury, Lawren ce, Barber

,Kin g. an d man y others, do n ot allude to the restoration

Of baptism— the great movemen t of 1 64 1 ; but it must be re

membered t hat the Baptists Of that day were more con cern ed

WI LLI AM K I FF IN .

about their prin ciples than their history. The great questionamon g them was that Of believers’ baptism rather than the

mode— whether or n ot theywere Scriptural i n stead Of bein g tradition al ; an d the gradually developed pride Of den omin ation alan tiquity had n ot then begun to look back to see how Old it

was. Except as they were driven by co n troversy to touch

upon their origin ,or history, or their recen t in troduction of im

mersion, the Baptists said n othin g of con sequen ce o n those

subjects ; but they were zealously en gaged in defen din g theirposition from the Scriptures as the basis of their organ ization an d

practice an d as opposed to in fan t baptism an d other i n n ovatio n sOf the Pedobaptist churches. When called upon to an swer

,they

had n o hesitation in den oun cin g succession as a“ mark of the

beast ; an d they boasted of their separation an d reformationas based upon this restoration Of the true church,

min istryan d baptism of Christ . They called it n ew

,

”or rather a re

turn to the “old ; an d they than ked God that he had discov

ered or rev ealed the Old truth an d the right way to them in

those “ later times.

” Hen ce we hear of but little from Kif

fin ~on these lin es except his retort upon Poole that Baptist organ

iz ation had preceded the reformation,

-

1 645 ,“then in n an d

”

that Baptists were Separatists Of a higher order, basin g their constitution On believers’ baptism— an d that they were reformersupon this prin ciple before the Puritan revolution — all Of which

was true from John Smyth’

s movemen t, 1 609, to that date, irrespective of the mode of baptism.

ENGLI SH BAPTIST REFORMAT ION .

(FROM 1609 TO 1 64 1 A . D . )

THE BAMPF I ELD DOCUMENT.

This documen t throws a flood of light upon the period Of E n glish Baptist history n ow un der discussion . I have selected it asNO . 1 8, fromwhat is called : A Repositoryof DiversHistoricalMatters relatin g to En glish An tipedobaptists, collected fromorigin al Papers or Faithful Extracts. An n o . Thesepapers, amon g which are foun d the so-called Kiffin Man uscript

or JesseyRecords, were Copied byRev . George Gould , of London ; an d upon search for the origin al , I foun d Bampfield

’s book

,

en titled Shem Acher, or the Historical Declaration Of his Life,Lon don ,

1 68 1, pp. 38 , which con tain s the extract foun d in the

collection . Documen t,NO. 1 8

,reads as follows

An Accoun t ( I ) of ye Met/zods taken by

,

ye Baptists to oatain aproper

Admin istrator of B aptism oy Immersion, (2) taken in at

, practice n ad oeen so

lon g disused, yt tn ere was n o on e wlzo lzad ocen so é aptiz ed to é e fou n d. with

the Opin io n of H en ryLawren ce , Lord Presiden t , o n ye Case .

Mr. Fran cis Bampfield, in ye Historical Declaratio n Of his Life , tellsus (pp . 15 , 16, That after heg d been co n vin ced, yt ye True Baptism was by Immersio n ,

had resolv ed‘

to be so baptized him selfe, he wasa lo n g time in doubt about a fit admin istrator Of it . Whereupo n he set

himself to e n quire diligen tly after yefirst Admin istrator of B aptism by

Immersio n , (3) sin ceye revival ofytpractice in idese latter times, wt accoun t

he Obtain ed of this matter he giv es in the followin g words. Namely.

That bein g in L o n do n an d makin g E n quiry there , his dissatisfactio n grewo n ; for upon search bein g made co n cern in g either afirst, or after Admin

istrator of this Ordin an ce ; H e was in formed either by, (4) prin ted R ecords,

or by Credible Witn esses , That ye Admin istrator was

E ither a Selfe (5) Baptizer But he kn ew n o suckAdmin istrator to his

Satisfaction for if ye Historian hav e n o t wron ged some of ye first so baptiz ed in H ollan d

,wch is too usual ; (Ain sworth’

s Defen se of 3 ;

1 28

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

30 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

Or otherwise some such (f) who say theyware at first passin g un der

this Ordin an ce“

un der an un av oidable Necessity of doin g somewhat this

way beyo n d an d besides ye ordin ary stated Scripture R ule & '

way, wch

they h0pe ye Lord did accept of, they giv in g to him ye best? they had

accordin g to their then un derstan din g. Thus farr Mr. Bamfield H en/ry

L awran ce E sqre, in his E xcellen t Treatise in tituled Of Baptism discourses

in ye last Chapter of ye Min ister of Baptism wherein he shows, etc.

”

This documen t here con tin ues with’

the added testimon y of

Hen ry Lawren ce, whose theory of the admin istrator of baptismaccordin g to Bampfield

’s observation s

,is the same as recorded

by Crosby (Vol. I . , pp. 105 , an dreferred to in this volume,

p . 86 . Bampfield became a Baptist in Lon don about the year1 676 , an d his work here referred to in this documen t

,is cata

logued amon g his other writin gs by Crosby (Vol. I . p.

an d published , 1 68 1 , un der the title .

“A Name,A New On e ;

or A Historical Declaration of H is Life . The caption ,in tro

duction an d co n clusion of the documen t were written by someon e somewhere between 168 1 an d 17 10 , when the Collection of

1 7 1 2 was perhaps bein g gathered by Richard Adams, a Baptistmin ister who lived to a great age an d who was co-

pastor with

Kiffin,whom he survived . Who the author of this documen t

was is n ot men tion ed ; but he was eviden tlyacquain ted with thewritin gs of Bampfield, Lawren ce, Ain sworth, Clifton ,

Jessopa n d others of his day. The caption ,

in troduction an d con

e lusion of the documen t are therefore an on ymous but the workof Bampfield, the 1sth, 1 6th an d 1 7th pages, which he literallyq uotes, is n ot an on ymous, n or is his quotation from Lawren cean on ymous. The historical value of it con sists in its con firmatio n of Crosby

’s accoun t of restorin g immersion by the En glish

Baptists in the year 1 640—4 1 , an d also in con firmin g the main

sen ten ce in the Kiffin Man uscript :“Non e hav in g then so prae

ticed [immersion ] in En glan d to professed believers,”upon

which Crosby’s accoun t , as to the Blun t movemen t, is based.

The most peculiar case in the restoration mov emen t was thatof Bampfield. H e con ceived himself as the parallel of Paul inan extraordin ary con v ersion an d call to the min istry ,

an d as

Saul took the n ew n ame of Paul,so he took the n ew n ame of

Shem Acher. H e believed that the true church,its min istry

an d baptism had been lost, an d when con vin ced of Baptistprin ciples, about 1 6 76 , he was o n the poin t of bein g dipped in

THE BAMPF IELD DOCUMENT. 13 1

the Thames. For some reason he delayed the act, an d con

cluded to hun t for a proper admin istrator of immersion in London . H e had ev iden tly reached the con v iction of the Seekers,that if baptism were restored, it must be at the han ds of on eextraordin arily commission ed of God for the purpose . Such a

baptizer he n owhere foun d amon g the restorers of immersion inE n glan d— whether self-baptized or baptized by un baptized ad

min istrators ; an d he does n ot preten d to have somuch as heardof a claim to baptism by succession from the days of the Apostles, or from an y succeedin g sect . Hen ce it n eeded that someon e should “

perfect baptism”in order to restore it, an d in order

to meet the objection of the Seekers an d others that the Baptistshad n o proper admin istrator, or min istry, or church. Havin g an

extraordin ary con version an d call to the min istry, he claims thathe had an extraordin ary commission from God to “

perfect baptism

,an d so with an other he wen t to Saulisbury an d there

passed un der the waters of baptism in the river of that placee viden tly by self-baptism an d then baptized the man with him.

Thus he was prepared n ow to meet the objection of the Seekersan d to set up an ew the order of Christ— repudiatin g all the

methods of restorin g immersion by the Baptists upon the groun dthat theyhad n o proper admin istrator by extraordin ary commission from Christ , as he had, to rein troduce the lost ordin an ce l n

the latter age . (See Historical Declaration ,&c.

, pp. 18,

H e eviden tly did n ot hear of the little Blun t mov emen t an d o n lycon fin ed his search amon g the larger body of Baptists, who hadrepudiated the Blun t “method.” As we hav e seen

,the Blun t

movemen t had likely gon e to pieces .before 1 646 an d had fadedout of Baptist regard, or else Bampfield foun d n on e of the Blun tpersuasion . H e ev iden tly n ev er saw the Jessey Records or theKiffin Man uscript which Richard Adams collected together withthe Bampfield an d other documen ts of the time .

w I n order,however

,to get at the value of the Bampfield Docu

men t as historical testimon y in favorof the thesis set up by the

Kiffin Man uscript an d Crosby’s Accoun t of the revival of 1m

mersion by the Baptists of E n glan d, 1 640—4 1 , I shall here giv e

an an alysis of this paper, accordin g to the figures which n umberthe poin ts con sidered most importan t .

(1 ) The matter of “metn ods.

” Crosby speaks repeatedly of

the “methods” bywhich the “En glish Baptists”rev iv ed immer

sion,1640

—4 1 , both in his own text an d in h1s version of the

13 2 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

Kiffin Man uscrIpt an d the expression “ye jldetbods taken by ye

Baptists to obtain aproper Admin istrator of Baptismby Immersion”

in the caption of this documen t is almost iden tical with Crosby(Vol. I .

, p. 100,when he says

The two o ther metlzods that Imen tio n ed, were in deed both taken by tizeBaptists, at their revival of immersion in E n glan d.

I t appears almost certain that Crosby copied this lan guagefrom the Bampfield Documen t based upon the authority of

Bampfield himself.(2) The main paragraph in the Kiffin Man uscript : “Non e

bavin g tben so practiced [immersion ] in E n glan d to professed believers, has its parallel in the caption of this documen t , whichreads : Wben tbat practice [immersion ] izad been so lon g disused,

yt tbere was n o on e zobo bad been so baptiz ed to befoun d.

”On

page 97 , Vol. I .,Crosby uses a similar expression when he

speaks of “revivin g the practice of immersion which had for

sometime been disused ; an d the parallelism between the two

phrases“so longdisused an d “badfor some time been disused in

dicates that Crosbyhad this documen t beforehim. The liken essof the two sen ten ces foun d respectively in this an d the KiffinMS . in dicates that the writer of this caption was acquain tedwith the Kiffin documen t , whether Bampfield was or n ot ; an d

this documen t I S a complete corroboration of the Kiffin Man u

script with respect to its leadin g sen ten ce :“Non e hav in g then

so practiced , The similar sen ten ce in this documen t is a

little more explan atory in declarin g that “ there was n o o n e who

had been so baptized to be an d this expression mayhaveled Crosby to the still stron ger version of the Kiffin MS . when he

says :

They had n ot as t/zey kn e w of , REVIVED the an tien t custom of im

mersio n . (Vol. I . , p.

(3)‘Sin ce ye revival of yt practice in these latter times. This

clause follows the caption ,in the in troduction of this documen t

in which Bampfield is represen ted as en quirin g diligen tly for the“first admin istrator Of baptism by immersion

” when ? “Sin ce

the revival of that practice in tbese latter times — that is, sin ce

1 640—4 1 This expression is also foun d almost literallyin Crosby

(Vol. I . , p. 105) in which he speaks of the defen se of “the truebaptism, an d the man n er of revivin g it in tbese latter times, by

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

134 ENGLISH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

he seems to regard as scan dalized . H e foun d n o ev iden ce,in

his research, that there was an y succession of Smyth’s self-bap

tism to the E n glish Baptists ; an d this is in perfect accord with

Crosby (Vol. I . , pp . 99 , in which he repudiates Smyth’

s

baptism as n ever havin g succeeded to the En glish Baptistsan other ev iden ce that this documen t was before him

,when he

wrote his history of the Baptists. As we have seen,the immer

sion of John Smyth wasmerely a tradition al report, at the time,in E n glan d an d even in the day of Crosby, who was n ot in possession of Smyth

’

s writin gs ; an d as we have seen, Smyth

’

s selfbaptismwas doubtless affusion ,

an d therefore immersion could n othave succeeded from him or his followers to the En glish Baptists— all ofwhich this documen t fullycon firms, after Bampfield

’s

careful search for the “first admin istrator of baptism by immer

sion”in En glan d .

Bampfield’s observation s cov eredaheterogen eous mass of

methods” bywhich, in an irregular way, immersion was re

vived amon g the En glish Baptists at the time of its restoration,

accordin g to Spilsbury’s theory, that

“baptisedn esse I S n ot essen

tial to the admin istrator. This was the “ last method ,” accordin g to Crosby, as dlstin guished from the “former method” of

regular baptism adopted by Blun t an d his party. There seems

to have been a sort of chaos in the grossn ess an d irregularity of

the first or origin al admin istration of the ordin an ce upon its in

troduction by these “Baptists ;”

an d I will tryhere to giv e an

an alysis of these methods if it be possible to come at them.

(a) . Two men altogether un baptized, baptized each other at

first , an d afterwards baptized others, without an y extraordin arycall fromGod for the purpose . I t was thus that man y of th

immersion s in Lon don origin ated, although at first reported tohav e occurred in on e, if n ot in two in stan ces. This method of

origin atin g a“proper admin istrator” was based upon the theory

of Spilsbury, an d the on e common ly held as leg1timate amon gthe En glish Baptist writers on the subject . This was the prin

ciple of Smyth, who baptized himself first in order to baptizeothers who might tran smit baptism through the church thus or

gan iz ed an d begun ; an d this was the theory of H elwys, Morton ,

an d the rest who first followed Smyth an d then afterwards excluded him an dhis faction for ren oun cin g hismethod of baptism .

an d for seekin g the “true church

”through the Men n on ites, as

alreadyexisten t .

THE BAMPF I ELD DOCU MENT. 135

(b) . Next was the method of a private member of the church,

n ot lawfully called or ordain ed as a min ister, who hav in g beenbaptized himself by some on e perhaps accordin g to the abov emethod , “did baptize others.

”From this source of admin istra

tion ,in the “

esteem of several of the baptized on es in Lon do n ,

”

Bamp-field learn ed that there “were at the begin n in g some of

the choicest an d best baptiz in gs. Thismethod was based uponthe theory of laybaptism,

the ordin an ce n ot bein g depen den t forits validity on succession ,

n or on an y sort of official admin istration . This theory, I believ e, is common to the Campbellites ofour day. I t is also advocated in the Con fession of the Sev en

Churches of Lon don,1 644

— 1 646 . I t is apt to prevail in theearly years of

‘

all churches before they get time to develop sacra

men talism an d hierarchism.

(c) . Two person swho were livin g at the time Bampfield madehis in quiry, an d who were members of the “first Church of Baptiz ed Believers

,

”in Lon don

,

~

told*

him that their first admin istrator

“baptized himselfe, or else he an d an other baptized on e

an other an d so gathered a church. I t is added,howev er, that

this church “was so opposed in public an d private that theyweredisputed out of their church state an d con stitution

,

’an d their

min istry, I suppose,“out of their call to office ; that n ot bein g

able to justify their prin ciple an d practice by theWord[of God],they were broken an d scattered . This statemen t is m perfect

accord with Crosby (Vol. I .,

.p who says that , in the per

plexity of the Baptists, at the time theyreviv ed immersion ,about

what methods they should pursue in order n ot to be “guilty of

an y disorder or self-co n tradiction,

”there were “

some, in deed,[who] were of Opin ion ,

that the first admin istrator should baptizehimself, an d then proceed to the baptizin g of others ; an d it

looks as if Crosby drewhis in formation from this documen t . As

in dicated by both Crosby an d this documen t , the plan failed bythis method ; an d although it was attempted by those who gathered the first church of baptized b eliev ers in Lon don ,

at the time,they were

“broken an d scattered,

” “disputed out of their churchstate an d con stitution

,

”a n d “

out of their call to office,” because“un able to justify their prin ciple an d practice accordin g to the

Word .

”The oppositio n n ot o n ly came

,doubtless, from Pedo

baptists who taun ted afterwards the Baptists with this method

from john Smyth, but from the Baptists themselv es, at that time ,

who adopted an d perpetuated the “two other methods recorded

136 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION.

by Crosby. We can n ot tell what church this first bodyOf baptiz ed believers was, un less it was the origin al H elwys Churchitself which sought to apply Smyth

’s old self-baptism theory to

immersion in 1 64 1 . The idea was n ot dead amon g them; butat that period, the Baptists had taken higher groun d— on e partydeman din g regular immersion ,

an d the other bein g satisfied to

restore it by an un baptized admin istrator after the fashion of

John the Baptist an d accordin g to the Scriptures as quoted forthe purpose by Edward Barber an d others of the period .

~

Withbut the exception of the origin al church of H elwys, the Baptistbody adopted restoration by the regular an d an ti-succession

methods an d repudiated the self-baptismmethod ; an d, accord

in g to the in formation of Bampfield, the old first church of baptiz ed believers— or some such church— wen t to pieces upon the

old theory eviden tly in herited from Smyth an d his origin al followers.

An othermethod at the time was adopted by a compan yof believ ers, without an ordain ed min istry, who came together

an d with priv ate han ds laid upon o n e or more of their n umber,

set them apart to the min isterial office,an d “

sen t them forth to

preach an d to baptize — that is before theywere baptized themselves. This does n ot imply church organ ization or church au

thority, n ecessarily, in settin g apart these private brethren to

preach an d baptize; but it approaches the idea of hav in g somen ecessary recogn ition at the han ds of God’s people 1n order to

preach an d baptize, an d is in the n ature of church authority for

such a purpose, which is an idea n ow largely prevalen t amo n gBaptists.

(e) . Bampfield in stan ces an othermethod of rev ivin g immersion

at the time by a selfappoin ted preten der, claimin g to be “called

an d sen t forth bymen”—yet

“n ot gifted , graced an d qualified

accordin g to the requiremen ts of Christ in his word for such an

hon'

orable office an dmightywork . This accoun ts, perhaps, for

the irrespon sible an d disreputable admin istration of the ordin an cefrom 1 64 1 an d on ward charged by

’

Lamb,Featley, Richardson ,

Edwards, Allen ,Bakewell

,Hall

,Goodwin ,

Watts, Houghton ,

Baxter an d others from 1 643 to 16 75 . Ev iden tly, accordin g tothe history of the times

, the in troduction of immersion ,1 640

4 1 , was atten ded by some gross irregularities by reason of the

irregular methods adopted for its restoration ; an d '

it is probablefor this reason

,an d on accoun t of the charges of their en emies,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 38 ENGL I SH BAPTI ST R E FORMATIoN .

was n o on e who had been so baptized to be foun d . These twosen ten ces refer both these documen ts to the same ev en t in gen

eral an d to the same date I n particular .

The question arises : To what date does the even t described I n

the Bampfield Documen t refer? U n question ably to the samedate of the Kiffin Man uscript, 1 640

—4 1 . Both documen ts refer

to the “methods taken by the Baptists [of En glan d] to obtain a

proper admin istrator of baptism by 1mmerSIOn , wlzen that prae

tice had been so lon g disused , that there was n o on e who had

been so baptized to be foun d ” “n on e tben [at an d up to that

time] havin g so practiced in En glan d to professed believers ,an d the “ when

”an d the “

t/zen”of these two sen ten ces respect

ivelypoin t to the same date, 1 640—4 1 , giv en on ly by the Kiffin

Man uscript . These two sen ten ces iden tify the two documen ts ascommon to the same even t

,an d to the same date ; an d C I osby s

phraseology seems so eviden tly copied in some particulars fromthe Bampfield

'

Documen t that he iden tifies it with the same even tto which he applies the Kiffin Man uscript, an d therefore to thesame date . The restoration of immersion bythe Baptists of E n glan d

,a fact common to both documen ts, did n ot

,so far as the

historyof the En glish Baptists shows, occur but on ce ; an d 1640

4 1 is the o n ly date given in an y documen t . That even t, accordin g to an y kn own history, did n ot occur in 16 1 1 , 1 633 , 1 638 , or

1 639 , at which dates the origin of Baptist churches ismen tion ed;an d it is n ot un til 1640—4 1 , that such an even t is detailed byan ydocumen t . Hen ce if the Kiffin an d the Bampfield documen tspoin t to the same even t they poin t to the same date— althoughthat date is n ot specificallymen tion ed in the latter documen t .

I t has been urged that the Hutchi n son Accoun t an d the KiffinMan uscript based the deputation of Blun t to Hollan d simplyupon the groun d of“ legitimacy,

”that is, in securin g a proper

admin istrator,” the irregular practice of immersion bein g alreadyexisten t amon g the Gen eral Baptists of En glan d ; but the Bampfield Documen t is “an accoun t of the methods taken by the Baptists to obtain a proper admin istrator of baptism by immersio n ,

when that practice had been so lon g disused , that there was n oon e who had been so baptized to be foun d ; an d the documen tgoes in to detail of the sev eral irregular methods by which a :

“proper admin istrator” was obtain ed.

I n con cludin g this chapter I wish to cite the authorityof Prof.Hen ryC . Vedder in a n ote of April, 1 897 , in whichhe con firmed

THE BAMPF I ELD D OCU MENT. 139

the position of the writer in the use of the Bampfield Documen tin his work en titled : A Rev iew of the Question , pp . 232

—234 .

H e says :

A week ago precisely I mailed to the Cbmstian I n dex some commen ts

o n the Bampfield Documen t , in which I took exactly the groun d of your

main co n ten tio n ,n amely: That Crosby an d E v an s distin ctly fav or the

Opin ion that immersio n was in troduced in 164 1 , an d that Dr. Whitsitt hasrediscov eredwhat was o n ce the gen eral opin io n amo n g Baptists. The tra

ditio n that E n glish Baptists always immersed is really of late origin , an d

apparen tly of American origin ,

‘

sin ce n o reputable E n glish writer can be

quoted in its favor before the begin n in g of the presen t con trov ersy.

As alreadysaid, I have thoroughly examin ed Bampfield’s Shem

Acher an d fin d the extract here copied correct . H e regardedeither method of restorin g immersion correct

,whether by self

baptism or at the han ds of un baptized admin istrators ; but heclaimed like the Seekers, that there must be an ex traordin arycommission for such restoration , that is, in order to

“perfect

baptism.

”That commission he himself claimed to hav e ; an d,

un der that claim,he ev iden tly baptized himself about 1 676

after hav in g sought to fin d a satisfactory“first or after” admin

istrator of immersion . H e foun d a n umber ofmethods bywhichthe Baptists had restored immersion in En glan d ; but with hisv iew of perfectin g the ordin an ce in its restoration

,n on e of the

methods were satisfactory an d so baptized himself un der an ex

traordin ary claim. H e shows however that all the methods ofrestoration which he foun d had origin ated byun baptized administrators; an d hen ce the con clusion of

,the Bampfield Documen t

that those methods were of recen t date.

ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION .

(FROM 1609 TO 164 1 A. D . )

CROSBY ’S W ITNE SSES .

Crosby ran ks John Smyth amon g the first “restorers of im

mersion in this latter age;’ ’

but , as we have seen,it 1S almost cer

tain that Smyth was n ot an immersion ist an d that he baptizedhimself by affusion — a fact to which Crosby did n ot have access

in the day he wrote. Crosby is n evertheless right in assumin gthat Smythwrought a

“reformation in baptism

”an d that H é lwys

an d Morton“join ed with him”

in the movemen t, in Hollan d,in

1 609 . (Vol. I . , pp. 9 7 , Smyth is the author of the leadin g ,

E n glish Baptist idea of restorin g the true church an d right baptism

,wben lost

,by

“believers hav in g Christ, the Word an d the

Spirit;”

an d that even two believers can join together for

the purpose . H e claimed that the true church an d right baptism could n ot be foun d in Rome

,n or in the En glish Church,

n or'

amo n g the Separatistswhose succession could be traced on lythrough in fan t baptism ; an d he regarded the Men n on ite A n a

baptists as too heretical to claim to be the true church an d to

possess right baptism. Bothwere lost in the'lon g n ight of Romishapostasy, Protestan t variation an d\A~n abaptist heresy. Hen ce

Smyth began an ew with -

a self-origin ated church an d baptismupo n the prin ciple , howev er, that the

‘

first admin istrator maybaptize lzimself in order to begin H e differed on ly from the

subsequen t E n glish View in the method of self-baptism; buto therwise Smyth laid the foun dation of En glish Baptist position ,

when n ecessary to reform,of self-origin ated church an d baptism

by an un baptized admin istrator (but n ot self-baptized) after theman n er of John the Baptist . That view utterly repudiated thedoctrin e of succession as a Popish fiction from 1609 to 1 64 1 an d

o n ward from that day till this amon g En glish Baptists.

This was the View of H elwys, Morton an d their followers whobecame the Gen eral Baptists of E n glan d; an d was also ge n erally

140

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 42 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION

The argumen t at that time amon g Pedobaptists an d Men n on iteswas that while baptizo

‘ mean t “to dip,

”it also mean t “

to

wash,

”as in Mark an d theyhad n o hesitation in usin g the

symbolism of immersion in con n ection with the defin ition ,

“washin g withwater”byaffusion . This,as we have before said

,

was most probably the view of Smyth an d his followers; an d itcan on lybe con ceived that Leon ard Busher took an advan ce stepin his exclusive defi n ition of baptismwhich did n ot obtain amon gH elwys an d the rest of the An abaptists ofhis day. I t remain edfor 164 1 to Blun t an dhis followers to put in practice what Busherhad defin ed by the same Scriptures; an d upon which the wholeBaptist fratern ityfollowed n ot in the reformation of the prin ciplebut in the form of believ ers’ baptism. Smyth an d his followershad established the prin ciple of believers’ baptism an d the true

church based upon the Baptist model , restored from the chaos of

the Romish, Protestan t an d what he con ceived the An abaptistapostasy; but, in 164 1 , the En glish Baptists took a higher step

'

Of

progress in the restoration of the “an cien t practice

”of baptism

by immersion ,as exclusiv e of all other modes of admin isterin g

the ordin an ce .

This step, so far as it was con fi n ed to Blun t an dhisparty, wasa n ew departure from the Smyth idea, that is, by the method

“

of

a“proper admin istrator, already baptized ; an d hen ce it is

called by Crosby the “former method” as distin guished from the“ last method” in opposition to what the great body of E n glish

Baptists regarded as a“succession method of restorin g the

o rdin an ce . Aside from the Kiffin Man uscript, or JesseyRecords

,already treated , Crosby in trodiices

,as a witn ess

,

Edward Hutchin son (A Treatise\con cern in g the Coven an t an d

Baptism,1 676 , pp. 2—4 ; Crosby, Vol. I .

, pp. 100,

1 0 1) incon firmation of this documen t . I will quote here the first an dlast part of the passage in addition to Crosby

’s citation . Speak

in g of Pedobaptist Opposition to Baptists in their effort to restore

immersion Hutchin son says

A n d what our dissen tin g brethren hav e to an swer upon that accoun t

(who in stead of takin g up,have laid stumblin gblocks in the way of

R efofmatio n ) will appear an o ther day. Yet n o twithstan din g the stren

uous oppositio n of those learn ed on es, The mighty God ofl

Jacob hathtaken you [Baptists] by the han d an d said be stro n g.

Besides it has a con siderable ten den cy to advan cemen t of divin e

CROSBY ’S WITNESSES . 43

grace, if we con sider the way an d man n er of Revivin g this costly truth.

When the professors of these n atio n s had bee n a lon g time wearied with

the yoke of superstitious ceremo n ies,traditio n s of me n

,an d corrupt mix

tures in the worship an d serv ice of God : it pleased the Lord to breakthese yokes, an d by a v ery stro n g impulse of the Spirit upo n the hearts

o f the people , to co n v in ce them of the n ecessity of reformatio n . Div ers

pious an d v ery gracious people havin g often sought the Lord by fastin g

a n d prayer, that he would Show them'

the pattern of his home, the j goin gs

out an d the comin gs in thereof, &c. ,reso lved, by the grace of God, n o t

to receiv e or practice an y piece of positiv e worship, which had n ot pre

cept or example from the word of God. In fan t baptism,comin g of course

u n der con sideratio n , after lon g search an d man y debates, it was foun d to

hav e n o foo tin g l n the Scriptures, the o n ly rule an d stan dard to try doc

t rin es by but o n the co n trary a mere in n ovatio n , yea , the profan atio n of

a n ordin an ce of God. A n d though it was purposed to be laid aside, yet

what fears, tremblin gs, an d temptatio n s did atten d them lest , they shouldbe mistake n , con siderin g how man y learn ed an d godlymen were of an

opposite persuasion ? H ow gladlywould they hav e had the rest of their

brethren gon e alo n g with them ! But when there was n o hope, they co n

cluded, that as a Christian ’s faith must n o t stan d in the wisdom of men ;

a n d that ev ery o n e must give an accou n t of himself to God ; an d so

resolv ed to practice accordin g to their light . The great objectio n was the

wan t of an admin istrator'

n which as I hav e heard, says he, was remov ed by

sen din g certain messen gers to H o llan d, whe n ce they were supplied. So

that this lit tle cloud of witn esses [Baptists] bath the L ord byhis grace so

greatly in creased, that it hath Spread ov er our H orizo n , though opposed

a n d co n tradicted bymen of all sorts .

”

Hutchin son clearly takes for gran ted that immersion was lost ;an d he Speaks of “

the way an d man n er of revivin g this costlytruth

” —assumin g that it was restored un der the Blun t method of

a“proper admin istrator” which was supplied by sen din g to

Hollan d . This movemen t is eviden tly referred by him to the

Particular elemen t of Baptists which Crosby represen ts as bein gin termixed” with the Puritan s

,an d as separatin g, 1 633 an d

o n ward , an d “formin g churches of those of their own per

suasion . H is description of the movemen t 1 640—4 1 accords“

with the details of the Kiffin MS .,or Jessey Records, when he

speaks of their fasts, prayers, coun cils, debates an d the like

,

precedin g their fi n al con viction again st in fan t baptism an d in

144 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

favor of believers’ baptism ; their discussion about a proper

admin istrator’ —probably exten din g from 1 633 to 1640 ; an d

,

fin ally, when 1mmersion,as the proper an d on lymode of bap

tism, became the essen tial con v iction of these An abaptists,there bein g n o such practice ,

in E n glan d, their deputation of

Blun t to Hollan d for a proper admin istrator of the roper

ordin an ce. Hutchin son clearly con firms “the way an d rfihan n er

of revivin g immersmn I n the mov emen t detailed by the KiffinMS .

,or the Jessey Records.

With regard to the “last metbod of restorin g immersion — the

an ti-succession movemen t— Crosby employs three very stron gwitn esses. The first of these is John Spilsburywho wrote a

Treatise Con cern in g the Lawful Subjects ofBaptism,&c . 1 6 52 ,

in which (4) he shows how“wan tin g cburcb or ordin a n ce are to be

recovered; (5) the“Cov en an t

,n ot Baptism,

forms the Church;“There 15 n o succession un der the New Testamen t

,but such

as is spiritually by faith I n the Word of God.

”I n proof of the

restoration of immersion by the “ last method,

”arid by the

“greatest n umber of the En glish Baptists ,” Crosby cites Spilsbury

’s Treatise of Baptism (pp . 63 , 65 , 1644 , in which

(Crosby, pp. 1 03 , 104 , Vol. I . he says

Where the reis a begin n in g, some on e must befirst .“A n d be

cause,”says Spilsbury,

“some make it such an error, an d so far from an y

rule or example , for a man to baptize o thers,who is himself un baptized,

an d so thin k thereby to Shut up the ordin an ce of God in such a strait , that

n o n e can come to it , but thro ’ the authority of the Popedom of R ome ;

let the reader con sider who baptized John the Baptist befdre he baptizedo thers, if n o man did, an d then wheflTer he did n ot baptize o thers,

'

he him

self bein g un baptized. We are taught by thiswhat to do'

on like occasion s.

“Further, I fear men put more than is of right due to it that so prefer

it abov e the church,an d all o ther ordin an ces besides for they can assume

an d erect a church, take in an d cast out members, elect an d ordain

officers, an d admin ister the Supper, an d all an ew, without an y lookin gafter succession

”, an yfurther than the Scriptures But as for baptism, they

must hav e that successiv ely from the Apostles, tho ’ it come thro ’ the

han ds of Popej oan . What is the cause of this that men can do all from

the Word but o n ly baptism ? ”

This is in an swer .to the Pedobaptist position on succession at

that period .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

146 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

meets two other objection s ( I ) of those who hold a person al succession ,

an d (2 ) of those who main tain that baptism is the formof the church. Here follows Crosby

’s lon g quotation , to which

I refer the reader ; an d followin g the words quoted by Crosby,

Spilsbury adds“A n d for the co n tin uation of the Church from Christ ’s words, ‘The

gates of hell shall n o t prev ail again st it, &c. I Co n fesse the same with

this distin ction ; which Church I S to be Con sidered either with respect to

her in stituted S tate, as lies I n the Scripture , I n the rules of the foun datio n ,

or in her Co n stitutio n , or co n stituted form I n her visible o rder :Again st

the first hel l gates shall n ever prevail , the foun dation stands sure but

again st the last it hath often prevailed, for the Church itrfi

‘

hei' dn twardv isible order, hath been often scattered through persecutio n ,

an d“

the like,

in which sen se she is said to be prevailed again st as Dan . 7 , Rev .

“

12, Acts

Otherwise where was their Church [Puritan Reformers] before it

came from un der the defectio n .

Again , That which o n ce was in such a way of bein g, an d Ceaseth fora time, an d then comes to the same E state again , is, an d may be trulysaid,to have ev er a co n tin uan ce , as Matt . with Luke I n which

sen se the Church may truly be said ever to co n tin ue, for though she be

cast down at o n e time, yet God will raise her up at an other, so that she

shall n ever be prevailed again st, as to be utterly destroyed”

precisely the position of Smyth, H elwys, Morton ,Barber

,an d

all other Baptists before an d after him in the Seven teen th cen

tury.

On page 66 Spilsbury con cltndes the'

above position by. sayin g

“But we are to kn ow this, that truth depen ds n o t o n Churches, n or an y

mortal creature, but o n ely'

upo n the immortal God, who by his Word an d

Spirit rev eals the same, an dwhen an d to whom he pleases. A n d for sue

cession of truth, it comes n ow by the promise of God, an d faith of his“

people, whom he as aforesaid, hath taken out of the world un to himself,in the fellowship of the Gospel . to whom the ordin an ces o f Christ stan d

o n lyby succession ~

of faith, an d n ot of perso n s ; for the same power an d

authority the Apost les had in their time for direction in godlin esse, theS criptures havGn ow in the han d of Christ, as the head of the Church,which make up but

,

o n e body. 1 Cor . Ephes. I :22 ,23 ; Eph.

So that what the Church an d the Apostles together might dothen , the same may the head an d body, together with the Sci‘iptures,

CROSBY’S WITNE SSE S . 14 7

do n ow, the Scriptures havin g the same authority in the C/zuren n owas the

Apostles had then , the same Spirit bein g presen t n ow to rev eal them, as

then to write them, I Cor . 2 Tim.

Of course,by the words, “

the church,

as here employed ,Spilsbury is on lymean in g the spiritual, an d n ot the organ izedbody of Christ

,which with the Scriptures an d the Spirit can

n ow recover the ordin an ces when lost, just as theywere set upun der the apostles.

I n his Epistle to the Reader, pp. 2,3 , he den ies the charge of

rebaptization ,or a n ew way of baptizin g, as follows :

“A n d yet n o t ho ldin g ahy rebaptizin g, for he that is On ce baptized withthe Lord

’s true Baptism,

he n eeds n o more . Nor yet a n ew way of bap

tiz in g, as some to please themselv es, so call it ; but on ly that good old

way, which John the Baptist, Christ an d his Apost les walked in before us,

an d left the same as a Rule un der comman d in the ho lyScriptures for suchas wil l be followers of them to walk by.

H e then proceeds to Show that the mean in g of Baptz’

z o is to

dip,wash

,or plun ge on e in to the water

”— the “good old

Way? )

“Though some please to mock an d deride, by callin g it_a n ew foun d

way, an d what they please . I n deed it is a n ew foun d’

truth, in oppositio n

to an old-grow n error ; an d so it is a n ew thin g to such, as the ApostlesDoctrin e was to the A then ian s, Act . But this bein g n o part of the

followin g discourse, I shall leav e it,&c.

”

Here Spilsbury den ies that immersion is a “n ew way of bap

tiz in g, but he does n ot den y that it was a n ew foun d way.

On the con trary, he says :

“ I n deed, it is a n ew foun d truth, in oppositio n to an old-grow n error;

an d he implies that it was n ot on ly a n ew foun d truth to

the Baptists who had rev ived it, but that it was wholly a n ewt/zz

'

n g”to the Pedobaptists. So Hutchin son speaks of “

the wayan dma n n er of revz

'

vz’

n g this costly {rut of adult immersion herespoken of by Spilsbury as

“recovered

,an d which, of course, was

a“n ew foun d way —a

“n ew foun d truth”— to the Baptistswho

had restored it . Before the days of Blun t an d Spilsbury, “be

lievers’ baptism,

as restored by Smyth an d his people, wasspoken of as a

“n ew baptism

”without referen ce to mode, but

48 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

prin ciple ; but after 1 640—4 1 the

“way of baptizin g, that is, by

immersion,was also called “

n ew ;”

an d although the Baptistsden ied that it was a n ew! way or truth, they admitted that it wasa“n ewfoun dway,

”a “n ewfoun d truth, that is

,a“costly truth

rev ived .

”I t was in v iew of this admission

,or rather of the

facts in the case, that Praisegod Barebon e, in his reply to Spilsbury (A Defen se of the Lawfuln esse of Baptizin g In fan ts, &c . ,

Lon don,1 644 , p. charges that Spilsbury had overthrown

the baptisme of believers’ in fan ts” an d the “baptisme in defection of An tichrist — an d con cludes by sayin g

“So as like a workman in deedhe hath ov efihrown the outward Christian ity, an d relation to Christ in that way, priviliges of grace, an d sain t

ship aiidwhat n o t; allwhich are ofmuch co n cern men t everyway, un to men ;

a n dMal of all person s z n tfie world, on ly t/zesefew so of late oaptz'

z ed oy total!

Spilsbury had\himself admitted that believers’ immersion was

in deed a n ew foun d truth; an d Barebon e is perfectly right in

speakin g of the Baptists as “of late baptized by total] dippin g.

”

I n the whole of his reply to Spilsbury, Barebon e argues that

baptismun der the defection of An tichrist had succeeded to the

Reformed Churches,an d had n ot been lost , an d was Scriptural

as an in fan t rite ; that if lost as an adult rite,as claimed by the

Baptists, it could n ot be restored except in the orderlyway byextraordin ary commission ev iden ced bymiracle ; an dthat Spilsburyhavin g rejected his first baptism, an d assumed a secon d , hadseparated himself from the true church, an d ren oun ced the truebaptismwhich he had 1n in fan cy. H e holds stren uouslyto thedoctrin e of succession to the reformed churches through the

defection of An tichrist bymean s of in fan t baptism; an d whileSpilsbury admits such a succession as this to Pedobaptists, herepudiates it as a mark of the Beast, an d affirms that the on lysuccession kn own to Baptists is that of the Scriptures an d the

faith of true disciples. Upon this he bases his theory of re

covery of the ordin an ces of Christ , the true church an d its

min istry. H e holds preciselywith Smyth except that he putsthe church before baptism,

just as Lawren ce does, an d makesthe coven an t in stead of baptism the co n stitution of the church.

L ike Smyth an d his followers he is charged with setti n g up a

“n ew baptism

”as applied to believ ers versus in fan ts an d hen ce

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I 50 ENGLI SH BAPTI STR EFORMATION .

who den y a visible successmn of churches,m1n 1stry or ordi

n an ces.

Spilsburywas the foremost Baptist writer of the 164 1 period.

H e was scholarlyan d well in formed . H e became an A n abaptist after 1633 an dwas pastor of the first Particular Baptist Churchin 1 638 . H e was thoroughlycon versan t with the 164 1movemen tfor the restoration of immersion ,

an d was of the largest an dmost

judicious body of the Baptists who main tain ed the revival of theordin an ce by un baptized admin istrators. Accordin glywe fin dhim in 164 1 risin g up to rebaptize Sam Eaton who had been re

baptized in . 1633— then by aspersion ,

n ow by immersion ; an dthis was probably the first immersion ever performed by Spilsbury. Hen ce the clear

,c lean cut utteran ces of Spilsbury in his

writin gs again st the Popish doctrin e ofs uccession ; his can didadmission that the v isible order of Christ’s churches, min istryan d ordin an ces had been lost un der the reign of an ti-Christ; hisplan for their recovery accordin g to the Scriptures; his explan ation that the gates of hell had often prevailed again st the outwardor co n stituted state of the church

, though n eVer again st the in

ward or in stituted state; his un equivocal con fession that whileimmersion was the “

good old way”an d n ot a

“n ew way

”or a

“n ew truth

,

”

yet it was a“n ew foun d truth

”or a

“n ew foun d

way” in “

opposition to an old grown error” —all this takes for

gran ted the recen t erection of Baptist churches in En glan d uponthe prin ciple of believers’ baptism an d the still more recen t in

troduction of immersion about 1640—4 1 at which time he seemsto have been on e of the first admin istrators. There is n o differen ce between Spilsbury an d Smyth except as to the question re

gardin g baptismal mode. Thlh rever came up in Smyth’

s writ

in gs because he practiced the same mode that his oppon en ts did;but after 1 641 it was n ot o n ly charged that Baptists practiced a

n ew baptism,

”that is, believ ers’ as Opposed to in fan t baptism,

but that theypracticed a‘ “

n ew way”of baptism, that is, immer

sion as opposed to sprin klin g. Hen ce Spilsburyan d the Baptistwriters after 1 64 1 had often to combat this poin t in con trov ersy—a thin g un kn own before 1 64 1 , although Sprin klin gwas un iversallyin vogue in En glan d from 1600 to 164 1 , even amon g theAn abaptists— so far as kn own .

Spilsbury is in perfect accord with Smyth, H elwys, Morton ,

Barber, Kin g, Blackwood , Jesseyan d all the other Baptist writersof the period, so far as I kn ow,

upon the subject of Baptist suc

CROSBY ’S WITNESSES . I 5 1

cession . They all giv e the keyn ote to Baptist position on this

question . Every on e of them agrees that Matt. refers to

the in v isible or spiritual body of Christ, an d n ot to the visible or

local churches of Christ; an d theyprove their position i n variably( I ) by the past history of God’s people an d (2) by the con stan t

admission,either express or implied, that the En glish Baptists

began by the erection of the church an d baptism an ew— that theywere a separation or a reformation . They kn ow n othin g of an ycon n ection , organ ically or baptismally, with an y prior sect, soci

eties or churches precedin g their origin ,16 1 1—1 633 , an d if an y

such con n ection had existed in the 1 7th cen tury such men as

Spilsbury, Tombes, Kin g an d the like would have kn own an d

ackn owledged the fact . Hen ce the 1 7th cen turywriters settlethe question of Baptist succession . They utterly den y

’

it except

in the spiritual sen se; an d theyrepudiate it as a Popish or Pedobaptist fiction .

ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION

(FROM 1609 to 164 1 A . D . )

CROSBY ’S WITNESSE S— CONTI NUED .

Crosby (Vol. I . , pp. 104 , 105) cites “ the learn ed Mr. Tombeswho

,

”says he,

“does very excellen tly defen d this last met/20d ofrestorin g true . baptism.

” John Tombes (An Additio n to the

Apology For the Two Treatises Con cern in g In fan t Baptism,

1 65 2 Lon don ) in reply to Baillie’s charge that he main tain ed the

right of un baptized person s to baptize o thers, did n ot hesitate todefen d the proposition upon the groun d that baptism had beenlost an d that the Baptists had restored the ordin an ce at the han dsof un baptized admin istrators, amon g whom,

for a lon g time, hewas himself such. As quoted by Crosby (pp. 1 0

,1 1

, Section

IV . of his Addition ) he says, as follows :

I f n o con tin uan ce of adult baptism can ée proved an d baptism by such

perso n s is wan tin g, yet I co n ceiv e what man y pro testan t writersdo yield,when they are pressed by the Papists to shew the callin g of their first re

formers ; that after an u n iversal corruption the n ecessity of the thin g doth

justify the perso n s that reforme though wan tl n g an ordin ary regular callin g, will justify I n such a case both the lawfuln esse of a Min ister’s baptizin g, that hath n ot been rightlybaptized himself, an d the sufficien cyof thatbaptism to the perso n so baptized. A n d this v ery thin g that in case where

a baptized min ister can n o t be had, it is lawful for an un baptized perso n tobaptize, an d his baptism is v alid, is bo th the reso lutio n of Aquin as an d of

Zan chius, an d emin en t pro testan t . Quwritur an ispossit é aptiz are eos, guos

ad Ckristum con vertit,cum ipse n un guam fuerit laptiz atus laptismo agud ?

n on duoito gum possit, 69°vicisiim

,ut cpsc aé alio exillzs a se con versis baptiz e

tur. est: guiamin ister est veroi, a Citristo ex traordin em excitatus: eogue

u t talis min ister , protest cum E cclesiolae con sen su symistam con stitucre 69° ab eo

u t baptiz etur curare. [I t is asked whether a man may baptize those whomhe has con verted to Christ when he himse lf is un baptized? I doubt n ot

152

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

in En glan d . Surely if there had been such a co n tin uan ce— ifthere had been a Baptist or a Baptist church at that t ime hav in gsuch a claim— suchmen asTombes

, Spilsbury, Lawren ce , Kiffin ,

Barber, Hutchin son , Collin s an d the like would have foun d out

the fact an d have emphasized it . Tombes had;

n o hesitation in

retortin g upon Pedobaptist con troversialistsw - such as Cragge,Baxter

,Marshall an d others, who charged that Baptist immer

sion was a n ew thin g in En glan d— that in fan t baptism was an

in n ovation an d comparatively a n ew thin g as then advocated.

H e regarded believers’ baptism,

adult immersion,as the “

old

way” —just as all the Baptists of his time claimed ; but , like all

the rest,he admitted that it had been lost un der the reign of

An tichrist, that its con tin uan ce could n ot be proved , an d that itwas a “

n ew-foun d truth ; an d upon this fact,like all the rest

,

he based his argumen t from the“

Scriptures of the right of true

believers to restore it - an d he is so quoted by Crosby, whowrote the first history of the En glish Baptists who reviv ed the

an cien t practice of immersionI n his work (An tipedobaptism,

& c . ,Lon don

,1 65 2 , p. 260)

he writes an In troduction addressed to Lord Gen eral Cromwell ,Chan cellor of the Un iv ersity of Oxford

,of which he was

‘

an

alumn us ; an d, on page 2,says :

I t were too lo n g to tell your E xcellen cy what dev ices Satan hath used

to hin der the restorin g of the ordin an ce of Baptism,n o t o n ly by those who

are rigid asserters of I n fan t Baptism,but also of

“

o thers,who of their own

heads, without the least warran t from holy Scripture , do most presumptuously an d dan gerously evacuate , man y of them

'

co n temptuously de

ride the plain an d ho ly in stitutio n of\fhe Lord Jesus . The most emin en t

oppositio n to the work of restorin g the right use of water-baptismfl n eces

sary to an orderly formin g of_Christian Churches,

.

hath been by those

learn ed men,who main tain still

~by their arguin gs an d colorable preten sesthe corrupt in n ov atio n of I n fan t baptism.

Here is an example of Tombes’ stigma of “ in n ovatio n upon

in fan t baptism while at the same time he vin dicates the restorin gof believers’ immersion — that is, the goin g back to the “

old,

”

but “ n ew foun d,

” way which, though restored , was‘

n ot an in

n ovation as was in fan t baptism which he says to Baxter (Praecursor, Lon do n ,

1 652 , p. origin ated in the “third age ,

”

an d that“the con ceit of peculiar privilege ,to in fan ts of believ

ers. is a late in n ovation .

”

CROSBY’S WITNE SSE S . 55

‘ I n his Praecursor (pp. 48, 49) he replies to Baxter, whocharges

'

him with bein g a“Sect-Master

,

” where he says

“Nor have I baptized (save o n e n early related to. me) but _where I was

chosen a: preacher where I con ceiv edmyself boun d to baptize (byChrist ’sRule , Mat . those disciples to whom I preached

that is, durin g the period he was himself un baptized— an d thus

we see Tombes’ agreemen t with Spilsbury an d others who

claimed that,in restorin g immersion

, an un baptized admin istrator could baptize those to whom he preached accordin g to

Christ,Matt . the usual Scripture proof to which all the

Baptists of that day referred for their rightfto restore Christ’slost ordin an ce . Further on (p. 49) he refers to Mr. Jessey

’s de

termin ation (Storehouse of Prov ision,&c .

,Lon don

,16 50 , p .

1 0 1 ) to practice Open commun ion in order to procuremore favor

towards immersion as a restored ordin an ce , an d giv es the same

reason for the same practice as advocated by himself, n amely,“

“because men are so possessed with the restorin g of baptism,as

if it were an error, schisme, a practice accursed of God, that

con scien tious timorous men do of themselves shew us, an d

others furiously Oppose us .

”I n his Catechism (Lon don ,

1 6 59 ,

pp. 1 Tombes says“For a more facile u n derstan din g of the Truth than by readin g larger

Tracts is this Compen dium, in a man n er of Catechism composed an d pub

lished at this time Which I hav e thought n ecessary to be do n e, be

cause of the importan ce of restorin g rig/zt oaptism

that is, believers’ immersion .

h i s clear that Tombes takes for gran ted that immersion waslost in En glan d before its restoration in 1 640

—4 1— that he re

.garded it as havin g been restored after a “un iversal corruption ,

”

a n d when.

“n o con tin uan ce of adult baptism could be prov ed ,

an d if there was a man in En glan d who kn ew what he was talkin g about an d could have proved such a con tin uan ce if it had

existed,it was the great Dr. John Tombes whom Crosby selects

as a witn ess to the “last metlcod of restorin g true baptism.

”

_H e

lived in Bewdly, Oxford, Bristol an d Lon don — held con troverp

sies at Rosse, Abergaven n y, Hereford an d other places— trav

cled all over En glan d— from 1 64 1 to 1 6 76 wrote exten sivelyan d if an y Baptist author of the 1 7th cen tury could or should

1 56 E NGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

have kn own whether Or n ot adult Immersion was practiced inE n glan db efore 1 64 1 , it was the learn ed D r. Tombes.

The last great witn ess cited as such by Crosbywas Hen ryL awren ce, who is also

I

cited by the Bampfield Documen t inproof of the fact that the En glish Baptists restored “baptism byimmersion when that practice had been so lon g disused that

there was n o on ewho had been so baptized to be foun d .

”H e

is certain ly a good witn ess twice cited for the purpose n ow in

han d . Crosby (Vol. I . pp. 105 , 106) quotes him as“an other

learn ed Baptist , who has excellen tly defen ded the true baptisma n d the ma n n er of revivin g it in these later times .

” Lawren ce (OfBaptism,

&c .,Rotterdam

,1 646 , p . 40 7) says

I t can n ot'

be reason ably objected, that he that ~baptizeth shouldn ecessarily be himself a baptiz ed perso n , for though ordin arily it will beso

, yet it is n o t n ecessary to the ordin an ce , n o more than it is simply n ecessary to a church state, that the members be baptized, for n o t the person albaptism of him that admin isters, but the due commissio n he hath for baptiz in g, is alon e co n siderable to make him a true min ister of baptism ; an d

here that expressio n holds n o t, o n e can n o t giv e what he hath n o t , as a

man can n o t teach me that wan ts kn owledge himself, because n o man

giv es his own baptism,but co n veys as a public perso n that which is given

us by Christ . A poor man that hath n othin g of his own,may giv e me

go ld,that is, the mo n ey of an o ther man

,by v irtue of bein g sen t for that

purpose so if an yman can Show his commissio n, the writin g an d seal of

him that sen t him, it is en ough here,

else what would become of the

great Baptizer, John the Baptist, who had a fair commissio n to baptize ,bu t was n o t himself baptized that we\read of; or if he should be, whichcan n o t be affirmed, yet the first Baptiié r whoev er he was, must in the“

time of his first a dmin istratio n be u n baptized.

”

Lawren ce differed from Smyth an d the An abaptists gen erallyupon the poin t that baptism con stituted the church. On the

c on traryhe assumes”

that the church comes first an d that theministry or the ordin an ces are made or admin istered

'

by the church.

H is defi n ition of a church is this : “A n assembly of sain ts, kn ittogether to a fellowship with Christ their head

”

; an d his idea is,in the restoration of baptism where lost

, that believers shouldfirst be k n it together in fellowship an d then proceed to set

up a min istry an d admin ister the ordin an ces by church au

thority. This does n ot exclude the theory of an un baptized

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

‘

1 58 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

in En glan d had been well defen ded by able Baptist writers“upon the same prin ciples on which all other protestan ts built

their reformation . (Vol. I ., p. On p. 2 99 , Vol. IV .

,

he refers back to the subject when,in 1 69 1 , the Baptists un der

Keach were tryin g to restore the ordin an ce of “sin gin g

”in the

churches again st great opposition ,when he says :

I t must be con fessed, that reformation I s, an d ever was’

, an hard an d

difficul t work ; an d n o easy thin g to restore lost ordin an ces, especiallys uch as hav e heen for man y years n eglected, an d stran gely corrupted ;

which is man ifest with respect to the ordin an ce of baptism.

”

Crosby refers (VOl. IV . , pp. 2 9 2—2 94) to an other con troversy

amon g Baptists about 1 6 75 regardin g _ the“main tain an ce” of

min isters in which Keach took the affirmative again st others

o pposed to reformation on this poin t ; an d Crosby says

E v en from the v ery begin n in g of the Baptist churches in E n glan d

sev eral of their teachers had been tradesmen , an d con tin ued in their

secular employmen t , after theywere ordain ed to the min istry. The

pride an d luxury of the clergy, &c . says Crosby, “did n ot a little co n

atribute to their [the Baptist churches] ru n n in g in to this opin io n ,as it had

the Lo llards an d Wyckliffeites before them.

On pp . 2 90 an d 2 9 1 , Vol. IV . ,about the year 1 6 74, Crosby

alludes to an other co n troversy regardin g the “ layin g on of

han ds” in baptism,opposed byKeach

,in which he says :

These thin gs occasio n ed sev eral treatises to be wro te o n each side,

an d had been co n trov erted amon g B aptists ev en sin ce theirfirst formin gthemselv es in to distin ct churches.

On p . 20 7 , Vol. IV . ,Crosby claims to

“havin g traced theH istory of the E n glis/t B aptists from their origin

”

; an d he claimsin the above extracts that their churches had a

“begin n in g”in

2E n glan d after the “Lollards an dWyckliffeites before them,

”an d

{

that they wrought a“reformation ” in the restorin g of lost

ordin an ces such as baptism,main tain an ce of min isters, sin gin g

‘

in the churches an d the like . H e does n ot go beyon d theyear1 6 1 1— 1 633 to fin d

-the origin of Baptist churches ; an d all their~

reformation of ordin an ces whichwas gradual he refers to periodslater than their origin .

With the Jessey Records an d his witn esses, as the baS IS of

h is history, there can be n o doubt that C rosby establishes the

CROSBY’S WITNESSE S . 1 59

fact that the En glish Baptists origin ated their churches an d

min istry from 1 6 1 1 to 1 633 , an d that they reformed further inthe mode of baptism an d other thin gs from 1640

—4 1 on ward .

Vol. I ., pp . 95

—1 07 , Vol. I V., p . 207 , pp . 29 2

—294, with

Vol. II . ,Preface, pp . ii—liv . can n ot be otherwise in terpreted .

I vimey claims that the date~

Of restorin g immersion is un kn own .

H e seems to thin k the movemen t -did n ot applyto all the Baptists,especially the Gen eral Baptists. Nev ertheless he is co n fused

,

an d he does n ot chan ge the plain affirmation of Crosbyf that this

restoration of immersion did occur by“two” differen t “methods”

by the En glish Baptists without distin ction . Evan s eviden tlyagrees with Crosby. Armitage is on ly of Opin ion that all the

An abaptists did n ot practice affusion before 1 64 1 , an d that someof them immersed ; but he seems to base his proof on ly on

Leon ard Busher’s defi n ition an d Featley’s tract

,n either of

which sustain s his thesis as we shall more fully see . With the

Jessey Records, Hutchin son ,Spilsbury, Tombes, Lawren ce an d

Gran tham,Crosbymakes out his case ; an dwith the Bampfield

Documen t an d the other testimon ies already an d yet to be

examin ed the case seems established beyon d con tradition . I t

is hard to see how a more than probable case at least could bemore fully settled than by Crosby

’

s own witn esses an d his own

con clusion s.

Dr. Toulmin in his Supplemen t to Neal’s History of the Puri‘

tan s (Vol. III ., p. 543) says

I n our Supplemen tal pages to the reign of James I . we hav e said that

the first E n glish Baptists, on embracin g tacir discrimin atin g opin ion s, sen t

over Mr. Blun t to Amsterdam to“

receiv e baptism [immersion ] from the

Dutch Baptists. This step was, howev er, looked upo n by the more judicious, an d the greater n umber of the E n glis/z B aptists as a n eedless troublean d proceedin g from an Old popish doctrin e of a right to admin ister the

sacramen t by an un 1n terrupted successio n . For though thetrue practice

of baptism [by immersion ] was,in their opin io n ,

lost,they judged that it

might be revived, an d a reformation begun , by an un baptized perso n baptiz in g o thers. [Crosby, Vol. I . p. 148,

Toulmin ’s con struction of Crosby

’s lan guage is exactlycorrect.

Not on ly does the Kiffin Man uscript declare the fact that .Blun t

was sen t toHollan d for immersion because there were n on e who

so practiced in En glan d, but the “greatest n umber an d the

160 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

more judicious of the En glish Baptists restored baptism uponthis theory also— that is

, by an un baptized admin istrator— because it was “lost

,as Toulmin con strues Crosby who Bhimself

says that“immersion [in En glan d] had for some time been dis

used . This is an other historic opin ion in con firmation of thefact that the Spilsburymethod of restorin g immersion ,

1640—4 1 ,

was the “last metbod” as distin guished from the Blun t, or ‘

formermet/rod

,

” in the sequen ce of time.

Although Neal (Vol. III ., pp. 1 73 , 1 74) errs as to the date of

the first secession of the Baptists from the Puritan s,1633 , un der

Spilsburyan d assign s it to 1 638 un derJ essey, yet he con firms thefact of the Kiffin Man uscript to which he refers (MS . pen es me . )in the fol lowin g statemen t that these Baptists ren oun ced their former baptism an d adopted immersion accordin g ,

to the “formermethod” of restoration men tion ed by Crosby. Neal says of theParticular Baptists :

They separated from the in depen den t con gregatio n [the Jacob-La

throp] about the year 1638, an d set up for themselv es un der the pastoralcare of Mr. Jesse (as has been related) an d havin g ren oun ced their former

baptism,they, sen t ov er o n e of their n umber [Mr. Blun t] to be immefsed

by o n e of the Dutch an abaptists ofAmsterdam,that he might be qualified

to baptize his frien ds in E n glan d after t he same man n er .

_A stran ge an d

un accoun table con duct ! for u n less the Dutch an abaptists could derivetheir pedigree in an un in terrupted lin e from the apostles, the first reviver

of this usage must hav e been u n baptized, an d co n sequen tly, n ot capable ofcommun icatin g the ordin an ce to others.

”

Neal clearly implies that theP articular Baptists after ren oun cin g their sprin klin g received from their Puritan an cestors, sen t

Blun t to Hollan d for immersion which he says upon Blun t’s re

turn was commun icated to Blacklock who f ‘dipped the rest of

the society, to the n umber of fifty-three

”in “

1644— just six

years after their secession un der Jessey in 1 638 ! As we have

seen ,Neal terribly blun ders in his dates an d in some of his facts,

in his use of the Kiffin Man uscript; but he is clear in the maincon clusion that immersion amon g the Baptists of En glan d origin ated with thé Particular brethren in 1 640

—4 1 which he care.

lesslysubstitutes by the date 1 644 . Neal an d his editor Toulmintogether (1 8 1 7) properly relate the “

two methods” of restorin gimmersion by the “En glish Baptists, accordin g to Crosby; an d

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

16 2“ ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

E n glish Baptists, who restored it by the method of self-origin ation through

"

un baptized admin istrators.

So far as my in vestigation of Crosby’s witn esses

,an d ofman y

other corroboratin g witn esses n ot men tion ed by Crosby, goes; Ifin d him correcL H e seems to be thoroughly hon est an d un

partisan in his statemen ts of Baptist history. H e does n ot

always give dates. H e blun ders sometimes in min or poin ts.

H e deals summarily, if n ot evasiv ely, in a few matters of emharrassin g con troversy,

but upon the whole CrOsbyls thoroughlyreliable with the material he had in han d . A n article I n the

Diction ary of Nation al Biography (Vol. 1 3 , p. 2 1 2) regardsCrosby as

“trustworthy in matters of fact ; an d ‘

all the historian s

,such as Brooke

,Han bury, Barclay, Evan s, I vimey,

Toulmin ‘

an dman y others .who touch upo n Baptist history quoteCrosby as authority. H e was n ot a very learn ed man

,an d did

n ot have all the facts of earlyEn glishBaptist history n owin han d ;but he dealt hon estly with what he had ; an d in the matter ofrestorin g immersion by the E n glish Baptists, 1 640

—4 1 , he is

bein gmore an d-more thoroughly con firmed by every n ew in ves

tigation . We dor n ot n ow n eed Crosby to prov e this fact ; but Ihav e used Crosby at len gth because he is a Baptist historian.an d the first.

ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION .

( FROM 1 609 TO 1 64 1 , A . D . )

CHAP TE R X] V.

EDWARD BARBER AND PRAI SEGOD BAREBONE .

The earliest Baptist author who wrote defen siv ely on the sub

ject of Dippin g was Edward Barber,

1 64 1 (O . S . ) or 1 642

(N . H is tract , en titled : “A Small Treatise of Baptisme, orDippin g, is the first polemic of the kin d amon g Baptists; an dthis tract origin ated about the same time that the En glish Baptistsrestored immersion just at the . close of a lon g imprison men t ofthe author for his utteran ces at a little earlier date upon the sub

ject of “ in fan t baptism.

”The An abaptist co n ten tion before

1 640—4 1 was believ ers’ as Opposed to in fan t baptism— in veterate

an d con sisten t; an d the same determin ed con ten tion was maintain ed after that date with the n ew phase of dippin g added.

Nowhere, with the exception of occasion al utteran ces which

taught that immersion was baptism, do the An abaptists in troduce- an y discussion or defen se of immersion as the exclusive form of

baptism un til after 1640—4 1 . Smyth, H elwys, Morton , Spilsburyan d n on e of the rest— with the exception of the sin gle utteran ceof Leon ard Busher— con ten d for an ythin g but baptism as a be

lievers’ rite without referen ce to mode,before that date; an d it

was n ot un til Blun t restored dippin g that Barber an d suchwritersadded immersion to the con ten tion for believ ers’ baptism as op

posed to in fan t baptism. This fact could n ot hav e been sim

ply due to the“yeare of Jubilee

,

”1 64 1 , by the abolition of the

Star Chamber an d High Commission Court . To be sure this

even t gave an en larged liberty an d impulse to Baptist growthan d boldn ess of utteran ce, _as n ever before; but the defen se of

dippin g as the exclusive form of baptism amon g the An abaptists,before 1 64 1 , would have been kn own in their written an d oralutteran ces if the claimhad ever existed . Crosby shows that the

immersion issue was added 1 640—4 1 .

1 63

164 E NGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

The truth is that the day had passed sin ce 1 600 A . D . an d in

fact lon g before that date,when immersion

,even as an in fan t

rite, could hav e been taken for gran ted as the un iversal practiceof the E n glish Church; an d there is n o eviden ce of the existen ce

of adult immersion at all sin ce about the begin n in g of the 16 th

cen tury in the practice of an y religious body in En glan d . Pourin g or sprin klin g had almost completely supplan ted dippin g,

in

an y form; an d if immersion had ev er been an issue as the exclusive form of believers’ in opposition to in fan t baptism,

it wouldhave been as squarelymade an d as publiclykn own in the con tention before 1 640

—4 1 as after that date. The same records, whether

civic or ecclesiastic , before 1 64 1 , which so clearlymake kn ownthe teachin gs an d practices of the An abaptists in other respects

would have revealed their practice in this respect. All that therecords show is a lon g sustain ed con ten tion for believers’ baptismagain st in fan t baptism without regard _

to mode; an d it is solelyupon this groun d that persecution con tin uously raged again st the

An abaptists before 1 640—4 1 . I t I S n ot un til after 1 64 1 , in 1 644 ,

that the first case Of civ ic persecution occurs again st Baptists forthe practice of Immersion when Lauren ceClarkson was imprison edin the coun ty of Suffolk , En glan d , for that offen se (Crosby, Vol.

I . p. xv . ,Preface; I v imey, Vol. II . ,

.p The secon d case

was that ofHen ryDen n e for the same offen se,1 646 , at Spaldin g,

Lin coln shire, En glan d— so far as I kn ow. (Crosby, Vol: I . , p.

305H)en ce Edward Barber’s Treatise would seem within itself a

probable ev iden ce of the recen t restoration of Immersion amon gthe Baptists of En glan d, Tract does n ot primarilyclaim to have been written for the purpose of showin g this factg

t ’“

but it seems to imply that fact ( I ) from the date of its origin , (2)from some expression s in the treatmen t of the subject un der eonsideration an d (3) from what is distin ctly con fessed in reply toPraisegod Barebo n e, in the latter part of the Treatise, with re

gard to the very recen t adoption of immersion amon g the Baptists of En glan d as charged by P . B . I n the begin n in g of this

tract (The Preface) Barber speaks of the gen eral ign oran ce in themidst of the abun dan ce of the kn owledge of the gospel, espe

cially amon g the min istry,

“of that glorious prin ciple , True

Baptisme or D ippin g,”an d then he speaks of himself as hav in g

been raised up, amon gst others,“a poor Tradesman ,

to devulge

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

frien d of some of the An abaptists.

_H e was at the head of on e

of the division s of the Jessey Church when the separation of

1 640 took place un der the agitation of the Blun t movemen t withwhich he was well acquain ted . I n the spirit of frien dly remonstran ce, as his Epistle Dedicatory in timates, he seems to havewritten his pamphlet (A Discourse Ten din g to Prove the Baptisme in or un der the Defection of An tichrist to be the Ordin an ceof Jesus Christ, &c.

, Lon don ,an d bein g held in the very

highest historic esteem as a good an d able man , his reliability as

a writer can n ot be doubted . Addressin g himself to the n ickn amed An abaptists, as he calls them

,he says (p. 3)

“But the way of n ew Baptizin g, lately begun to be practiced by some,

supposin g themselv es, an d so o thers, n o t to hav e bin baptized with theBaptisme of Christ , hath n o grou n d for its practice , but the cessation of

the Church, an d Baptisme with it , as n o t remain in g in the world. That

they are utterly ceased where A n tichrist prevailed to exal t himselfe, their

practice do th fully declare ; an d that it is so they take for gran ted an d in

deed.

On page 5 he says again

“But n ow further Baptisme bein g lost an d fallen out of_the world an d

an I doll an d like n esse come in the roome of it , the Church bein g ceased,

to whom C/zrist gav e his power : person s n ot havin g their Baptisme of

Jesus Christ , bu t bein g un baptized, all which the opin ion an d practice of

New begin n in g Baptisme supporteth to be most true an d certain ,an d

therefore do groun d - their proceedin gs. I in fer hereupo n , that it is, an d

ev er shall be foun d un lawful an d with out warran t for an y person ,

-

or per

so n s whatev er, to at tempt , or goe about the raisin g, erectin g up of it

again e , u n less the said person s hav e speciall an d particular warran t from

heav en an d a Commission ,as John the Baptist had. The J ewes (though

blin d) could see this, that n on e but a Christ , a Moses, or E lias, or Prophetfrom heav en might do this ; so as there bein g n on e such to be fou n d to

restore an d n ewly erect this Ordin an ce fallen out of the world, for an y

o ther to-

goe about the raisin g of it (as some please to term it)

_

they shallbut raise it from the bo ttomlesse pit— Commission bein g wan tin g in the

actors of it , it shall be but o n ly earthly an d from ben eath. A n d it bein g

asked of these as_the J ewes askedofj oin t hisBaptisme, wicet/zer it werefrom

lzeaven or men ? I t must n eeds be an swered of Men,for n o commission

can an y shew to raise Baptisme thus fallen out of the world ; n or to Bap

tiz e themselv es or o thers, bein g themselv es un baptized.

”

EDWARD BARBER AND PRA I SEGOD BAREBONE . 1 67

Barebon e states precisely the posrtion of the A n abaptists of1642 an d he states precisely the objection of the Pedobaptistsof his day. I n prin ciple an d wi thout regard to mode this wasthe con troversy between Smyth, H elwys an d Morton on the on e

side, an d Robin son ,Clyfton an d others on the other side ; from

1 609—1 1 a n d on ward ; but n ow the con troversy, sin ce 1640

—4 1 ,

takes on an addition al phase— the way an dma n n er of n ew. baptiz in g, as men tion ed by Spilsbury. Hear Barebon e again . H e

says (ibid , pp. 1 2 , 1 3)

“But n ow very lately some are mightily taken , as havin g foun d out a

n ew defect in the baptisme,un der the defectio n , which maketh such a

n ullitie of Baptism,in their co n ceit

,that it is n o n e at all, an d it is co n

cern in g the ma n n er of baptizin g, wherein theyhav e espied such a default ,as it maketh an alsoln te n ullity of all perso n s

’baptisme, but such as have

been so baptized, accordin g to their n ewdiscovery,an d so partly as before in

regard of the sn éject, an d partly in regard of so great default in theman n er .

They n o t on ly con clude , as is before sayd, a n ullity of their presen t bap

tisme . A n d so , but addressin g themselv es to be baptized a tlzird time,after

the true way an d man n er they hav e foun d out, which they accoun t a

precious truth. The particular of their opin io n an d practice is to D ip :

an d that person s are to be clipped,all an d ev erypart to be u n der the water,

for if all the Who le person be n ot un der the water, then they hold they are

n o t Baptizedwith the Baptism of Christ . As for sprin klin g or pourin gwater

on the face it is n o thin g at all as they accou n t , an d so measurin g them

selves by their n ew t/zon gn ts as u n baptized they address themselv es to takeit up after the man n er of Dippin g ; but truly they wan t [lack] a Dipperthat hath authority from heav en , as had John whom they pleas; to call aDipper, of whom it is sayd that it might be man ifested his Baptisme was

from heav en . A man ca n receiv e n othin g, that is, lawful authority or

power to Baptize, un lesse it be given from n eaoen , which I desire they

would be pleased to min d, an d they will easily see their tn ird oaptisn ze is

from the earth an d n ot from heav en,as John ’

s was. A n d if this case be

further con sidered it will appeare at the most to be but a defect in the

man n er,an d a comin g short in the quan tity of the E lemen t . I t is a Won

derful thin g that a n ullitie should thereof‘ follow forthwith, ofwhich more

may be seen in the same case before . Again e that the substan ce of an

Ordin an ce of so high a n ature an d great con cern men t should be foun dedin the critickn esse of a word an d in the

i

gn an tity of an elemen t is n o lessmarvelous to say n o more . Oh but Baptisme is a Burial] as it is writ ten

,

1 68 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

We are buried with him in Baptisme, etc . , an d we are raised up also to

n ewn esse.

of life . This Buriall an d resurrection o n ly Dippin g can im

port an d ho ld forth.

On page 1 5 he adds

The Roman ists, some of them, an d some of the poore ign oran t Welshdo use dippin g [in their in fan t baptism] , I thin ke these will n ot say they

learn ed this n ew truth of them,n either do I thin k theywill hold their

Baptisme ev er the truer for their dippin g But in asmuch as this is a

v eryn ew way, an d the full growth/

of it , an d settin g is n ot yet kn own ,if it

be to themselves, yet n ot to me an d o thers: I will forbeare to say further

to it.”

Barebon e States precisely the fact, admitted by Spilsbury, thatamon g Baptists immersion was the “

n ew-foun d truth ; an d he

states precisely the fact that “very lately

”the Baptists had dis

cov ereda “n ew defect

”in their baptism un der the defection of

An tichrist . The former defect un der that defection was the subject of baptism as discovered by John Smyth an d hisfollowers,an d still urged as the prin ciple upon which Baptists reformed

,

irrespectiv e ofmode ; but the “n ew defect” un der this defection

was the mode of baptism which,was sprin klin g, an d which they

had recen tly chan ged to immersion — about “two or three

yeares,” Barebon e says, in 1 643 , in his

“Reply”to R . B . an dE . B .

(p. 1 8) which would properly fix the time at 1 640—4 1 . More

than this, Barebon e con firms the statemen t of Pedobaptist position by Crosby (Vol. I . , pp. 96 , n amely, that the adoptionof immersion by the Baptists of En glan d n ow n ullified other

forms of baptism as formerly the\adoption of believers’ baptism(without regard to mode) n ullified the subject of in fan t baptism.

Hen ce he calls it a “n ew discovery —“

partlyasoofore in regardof the subject an d partly[n ow] in regard of so great default inthe ma n n er .

”I t was a

“n ew discovery

”, ,oi the old prin ciple

as Smyth an d all the rest claimed “before” when they established

believers’ baptism byaffusion an d it was n ow a n ewer discoveryof the oldway bywhich they con tin ued believers’ baptisrrrbyimmersion . I t was a “

third baptism” with all the Baptists whohad chan ged to immersion — first

,,havin gbeen baptized in in fan cy

while in the embrace of An tichrist ; secon dly, hav in g beensprin kled again when they separated from the Separation an d

became A n abaptists ; thirdly, when in 1 640—4 1 they restored

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I 70 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

tism an ew when lost , without a baptized admin istrator, just’

as

was John ,who had God’s authority to begin the ordin an ce at

first .'

H e goes on to show that the apostasy of Israel n ev erraced the foun dation of the con stitution of the Jewish Churchbased upon the seed of Abraham an d circumcision so lon g as

they did this ; an d though circumcision was lost in the wildern essit was restored, as Kin g says, by Joshua in the Lan d of Can aan ,

(Joshua when the reproach of Egypt was rolled away.

Barber’s argumen t, however, is that “A n tichrist” n ot o n ly“chan ged all other ordin an ces both I n the Church an d Min istry,Worship an d Govern men t, but that he “destroyed tize true Apostolical in stitution

”of baptism both as to subject an d mode— as

seen in “the sprin klin g of in fan ts ; an d that Baptists would

n ev er have separated from the Church of Rome or En glan d , n or“removed this baptisme as false, ’

if they had pursued the properdesign an d form

,just as Kiffin holds.

Barbermen tion s an illustration of Barebon e’s in whichhe compares the ordin an ces of Christ in the han ds of An tichrist to thevessels of the Lord’s House in the han ds o f the Babylon ian s ;an d as the v essels were restored to Jerusalema n d used again in

the n ew Temple, so un der the defection of An tichrist these ordin an ces were receiv ed by the Reformers, an d were still pure goldan d silver

,an d n eeded n ot to be “

n ew cast.” Barber replies

that while this waS ‘

true of Babylon ,which had n ot

“destroyedthe Lord’s v essels,” n or made them

‘

of “Brass,Copper, Tin ,

or

Lead,

” Rome had so don e with the ordin an ces of Christ ; an d

his argumen t is, un der the figure, that , they n eeded to be “n ew

cast .

” “An d thus it “in truth for the I n atter

of Dippin g ofChrist, destroyed“

an d,raced out botkfor matter a n d

forme, as hath been formerly shewed,the matter bein g a believ er

desirin g it , the trueforme, dippin g them in to Christ,&c .

—pre

"

cisely the position of Smyth, except that he uses the word“washin g, as before 1 64 1 , while Barber uses the word “dip

pin g, the usage after 1 64 1 . Hen ce Barber’s prev ious assertion ,

in reply to Barebo n e, that the “ordin an ce bein g lost, be

lievers have the Commission of Christ to restore the lost ordin an ce, ,

n ot simply believ ers’ baptism as opposed to in fan t bap

tism, but n ow the mode of baptism,as charged an d n ot den ied .

What he held for the prin ciple revived in 1 609—1 1

,he n ow held

for the mode reviv ed in 1 640—4 1 , without the slightest repudia

tio n of Barebon e’s charge of recen t in troduction as con tradis

EDWARD BARBER AND PRA I SEGOD BAR EBONE . 7 r

tin guished from a former in troduction . H e gran ts that the ordin an ce which he defin es by dippin g had been “

raced out “

an d de

stroyed he defen ds the right of its restoration accordin g to theScriptures ; an d he tacitly admits its very late in troduction byr

‘

e

plyin g to the charge without den yin g it . Such a charge was too

serious an aspersion ,if it was false, n ot to repudiate ; .an d the

clear implication I S that Barber took it for gran ted .

I n his “Short Reply to the frivolous Exception s of E . B .

1643 , at the close of his “Reply”to R . B . ,

Barebon e charges

Barber with ackn owledgin g this fact . H e , says, (pp. 55 , 56)H is secon d exception isto what I propou n ded, .that if Baptism was

lost an d fallen out of the world n o n e bu t a Christ,a Moses, an E lias, or at

least a Prophet from heaven might restore , &c/

: To this he sayeth that he

gran teth that an ordin an ce lost an d fallen out of the world n o n e bu t a

Christ , a Moses, E lias or prophet from heav en can raise it . Baptism was

lost he ackn owledgeth, when did Christ , Moses, E lias or an y Prophet

from heav en , come to raise it again &c; But this hee thin keth may serv e

believers havin g Christ , the Word Spirit , so he sayth may do it , &c.

Ackn owledgin g this without den ial,ackn owledges Barebon e’s

in cluded charge of very late in troduction — just as R . B . did in

the same con trov ersy.

Barebon e charged that Christ was a ‘Widower upon Barber’

s

theory/

an d advised him to wait ’till Christ came again to restore

all thin gs, as some held , for a proper admin istrator of baptism.

“To which I an swer,

”says Barber, “if the wan t of visibility of

the church proveth Christ a Widower; then the state of the

church of which P . B . is a member,was un heard of within these

two hun dred yeares, an d so Christ a Widower, un lesse hee -holdthe church of Rome a true church

,which if he doe,how dare

they separate from her ? I f n ot,some of them

,bein g lovin g

frien ds,holdin g the same Prin ciple: how dare t/zey raise up a state

before Christ come , as they say, to restore all thin gs.

” Barebo n ein his “R eply

”to R . B . an d E . B .

, p. 6 1,retorts:

Well two-hun dred yeares is some A n tiquitie , more then two or t/zree

yeares, sucil as is tbc descen t of tbe totall dippers in tbis hee foolishlyco n cludeth so Christ a Widower till then .

To this statemen t in 1 643— made twice

,on ce to R

:B . an d

then to E . B.,without den ial from either or from an y on e else in

the great con troversywhich then prevailed, is a thorough con ~

1 7 2 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

firmation of the Jessey Records’ date of 1 640

—4 1 ; an d it goes

without sayin g that Barebon e was n ot on lya frien dlybut an honest an d capable witn esswho had everyopportun ity to kn owwhathe was talkin g about . I n searchin g for the character of Barebon e as a man an d as a writer amon g thecritical sketches of theBritish Museum

,I n ever foun d an in timation again st his ability

or reliability, but the con trary; an d with his bold an d un challen ged statemen t, 1 643 , con cern in g the recen t in troduction of

immersion,co n firmed by the Jessey Records an d the curren t

t eachin g of all the Baptist writers of that daywho touched the

subject,I am con strain ed to accept his statemen ts which are yet

to be more fully con firmed .

The referen ce of Barebon e to d pI n g amon g some of the R0man ists an d ign oran t Welsh does n ot imply adult immersio n amon g them in 1 642 , but their limited con tin uan ce of

in fan t immersion down to t hat time . At that time we kn owthat the Roman Catholics were n owhere practicin g adultimmersion ; an d on ly a few places, perhaps, like Milan_ Which has recen tly aban don ed it— con tin ued to practice infan t immersion

,sprinklin g havin g been almost un iversally

adopted by that church lon g before 1 642—3 . So of some of

the Welsh who accordin g to Sir John Ployer (Hist. Cold Bath~in g, 1 72 2 , p . 14)

“hadmore lately left off immersion“

; for,”says

he,

“some middle-aged person s have told me

,That they could

emember their dippin g I n baptism.

’Sir J ohn Floyer was dis

cussin g the disuse of in fan t immersion ,an d urgin g its restora

tion an d he shows that the disuse of in fan t immersion in _Wa1es

followed later than I n En glan d . At the /time Barebon e wrote in1 642

— though n ot at the time Sir J ohn Floyer wrote in 1 7 2 2“some of the Welsh still retain ed in fan t dippin g . I n 16 50

Peter Chamberlen ,I n reply to Thomas Bakewell

’s book “The

Dippers Plun ged in a Sea of Absurdities,&c . ,

says A n d

the Win ter Baptiz in g of Children in Wales, will sufficien tly testifie that you foist in your own un truths, by the stren gth of your

own distracted imagin ation .

” There was n o adult immersion inWales before 1 64 1 Sin ce the first cen turies ; an d Barebon e waseviden tly alludin g to the dippin g of children amon g some Catholicsan d the ign oran t Welsh. The very fact that Barebon e re

ferred to this co n tin ued practice amon g some of the Roman istsa n d poor ign oran t Welsh,

both Pedobaptists, as n ot likely to beesteemed by Baptists as an example to them,

implies that it was

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

.1 74 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

An iz ed usage, an d presumably a usage of lon g stan din g, as wellshown by Dr. Newman

, (Review of the Question , pp. 203There is n ot the slightest doubt that Barebon e, 1 642 , affirms thatthe Baptists of En glan d had “

very lately in troduced immersionin En glan d— within the last “t or three years

”accordin g to

Barebon e, 1 643— fixin g the tIme

,1 640

—4 1 an d Barber is

right alon g the lin e of all the rest of the Baptist writers of hisday in ackn owledgin g an d defen din g the fact . This seems to behis implied con viction in the begin n in g of his Treatise ; an d it isthe admitted con v iction in the close. Nobody un der the

most strain ed sophistry can read Barebon e’ 5 book an d Barber’s.reply, an d come to an y other con clusion . Especially is this

true in the light of so much con curren t testimon yto the same

effect at the same time from so man y other sources. Barber’sv ery boldn ess an d exuberan ce— his almost osten tatious use of

the word dippin g as baptism— in the first defen se of the mode,an d as a fresh divulgen ce, has the aspect of a “fresh con v IctIon ;

’

a n d he is in perfect lin e with Smyth, H elwys, Morton , Hutchin‘

son, the Jessey Records, Spilsbury, Kiffin ,

Kin g, Tombes,Lawren ce, Den n e, Collin s an d all the rest who have likewiset ouched the subject.

ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION .

(FROM 1 609 TO 164 1 A . D .)

CHAP TE R X V.

SOME OTHER BAPTI ST WITNESSES .

Hav in g placed before the reader the ev iden ce of Evan s,Crosby, Hutchin son , the Jessey Records, the Bampfield Documen t , Spilsbury, Tombes, Lawren ce, Gran tham,

Kiffin,Barber

an d Barebon e an d others, which prove that the En glish Baptistsrestored immersion about 1 640

-

4 1 , an d that prior to that timetheymust have practiced sprin klin g or pourin g, I n ow presen tsome other Baptist authoritiesWhose testimon yis quite as stron gan d valid .

I . The earliest of these Baptist witn esses is A . R[itor] in a

work, en titled : A Treatise of the Van ity Of Childish Baptisme ,

&c.,Lon don ,

1 642 . On page 29 , Part First , he says :

I f an y Shall—thin k it stran ge an d un likely that all the godliest Divin esan d best Churches should be deceiv ed in this poin t of baptisme, for SO

man y yeares together : L et them con sider that all Christen dom (excepthere an d there o n e , or some few, or n o co n siderable n umber) was swal

lowed up in grosse popery for SO man y hun dred yeares before Lu ther’s

timefi

which was n o t un til about 100 yeares ago n e . L et them also con

sider how lo n g the who le n atio n s of E n glan d an d Sco tlan d hav e himdeceiv ed in the poin t of the H ierarchy un till of late, an d yet they n ow for

the most part do see it to be A n tichristian an d abomin able , an d whymay they n o t likewise be deceiv ed in this poin t Of the Baptisme of in

fan ts, &c.

”

Referrin g to the Secon d Psalm (Part II . , p. he says :

This may likewise teach us, to see an d bewaile the great apostasie,

both in faith an d worship, that is brought in to the world by this ChildishBaptisme .

1 76ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

Part First (pp. 8 un der‘

the secon d head, is devoted to

the proof that dippin g on ly is baptism as opposed to Sprin klin g;an d that whoever is n ot dipped is n ot baptized— all this in 1 642 ,an d soon after the in troduction of immersion in En glan d by theBaptists. Accordin g to his Preface to the Reader, A . R , was a

recen t con vert from the Church OfEn glan d , havin g been sprin kledin infan cy,

an dmust hav e been immersed in 1 64 1—2 . H e writes

'

in the same strain that Barber does regardin g the ign oran ce of

divin es an d churches— even En glan d an d Scotlan d in the darkn ess of the Hierarchy— “

un till of late,

”an d still deceived un der

the apostasy; S . C . (A Christian Plea for In fan ts Baptisme,Lon don ,

1 643 , II . P ., p. 4) replies to A . R . in the same strain

that P . B . does to Barber,or Spilsbury, an d charges the A n a

baptists with hav in g taken up a“n ew baptism

”by un baptized

admin istrators— with thus holdin g to a church of un baptizedmembers— an d with claimin g that otherwise “

true baptism can

n ever be had. No doubt this was the View Of A . R .,

‘

as it was

Of all other Baptists of his day; an d his work is in lin e with all

the otherworks then amon g Baptists, which claimed that immersion was “ lost” in the apostasy

‘Swallowd up in grosse popery

”

— an d that it must be restored by un baptized admin istrators,

accordin g to the Scriptures.

2 . I n the n ext year, 1 643 , Praisegod Barebon e an swered a

work written by R . B . (A Reply t o the Frivolous an d Impertin en t An swer of R . B . [164 2] to the discourse of P . B . ,

Lon don,

an d although I sought in vain for R . B.

’s work

,I fin d

en ough Of it in P . B.

’s“Reply

”to make out the opin ion s Of R .

B.,an d to Show

,that he was in\the restoration movemen t . On

pages 2, 3 , P . B . represen ts R . B . as holdin g that the succession

of baptism depen ded upon the “con tin uedn esse Of the church ;

”

an d he says

I con fesse I kn ow n o n e, n or do I believ e that an y can Show7 an y such

con tin uan ce . (Quo ted by P . B. from R . B .

’s A n swer to his Treatise on

Baptisme , &c . )

R . B . is also represen ted as usmg the phrase :“perpetual in

terrupted succession”an d as den yin g an y perpetual un in terrupted

succession of the church.

“Baptism he saith (p. 15) may be obtain ed without an y such specialcommission as had John , if an un baptized perso n Shall doe it .”

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

more to ho ld all the churches, an d Christian s in the World to be un baptiz ed, but those two or three that hav e been thus totally dipped.

”

On page 30 ,he says again

“What should be the cause R . B. hath labored so much in this matterof dippin g an d taken n otice of ev ery particular, I leav e ev eryman free to

judge, for my part I take it to be as I said, I t is n ew an d the man is

mightily taken with it . ” There is o n e thin g in the en d of this mat

ter_Of dippI n g which he doth n ot declare himself about , Namelywhetherhe learn ed this n ew way of dippin g Of the R oman istsan dI gn oran t Welsh,an d whether he coun t their Baptisme the Baptisme Of Christ .

” “I

hav e Spoken for the ordin an ce of Christ which he hath peremptorily co ndemn ed, an d yet doth, den yin g the Baptisme Of all the reformedChurches

separed Churches , also of all o ther Christian s either R eformed or yet

in defection , o n ly those two or three excepted that hav e within these two

or three years or some such short time, bin to tally dipped for Baptisme,by perso n s at the begin n in g u n baptized themselv es.

”

I n eed n ot commen t on these passages to show the recen t in

troduction Of immersion by the En glish Baptists in 1 640—4 1 at

the han ds Of both a Baptist an d POdObaptist . This is but a speci

men Of the curren t con trov ersy between Baptists an d Pedobaptists from 1640

—4 1 an d on ward to the close of the 1 7th cen tury.

The on ly question of importan ce n ow is: Who was R . B. ?

Back on pages 3 , 4 , Preface to the Reader, P . B . characterizesR . B . as a man of “Often chan ges

” in baptism— on ce“con fiden t

of his first baptisme”an d “

certain lyofhis secon d;”an d he says

A man that had a min d to corfi ‘

toR . B . in his third Baptisme , beforea year or two Spen t in serious wayghin g of the mat ter, would fin d happilythat R . B . had left his third baptisme, an d by that time had taken a fourth,

&CH

I t is clear that R . B .,hav in g been baptized in in fan cy, had

come out of the Separation as an An abaptist bya secon d sprin klin g, an d had then adopted Immersion in the 1 640—4 1 movemen t .P . B . taun ts him with his “

Often chan ges’an d suggests that he

might chan ge to a fourth baptism,as man y Of the An abaptists,

still dissatisfied with their third baptism,did

,or else aban don ed

it altogether, accordin g to the con fusion of con flictin g sects, after1 64 1 . There is n o eviden ce here that R . B . had chan ged to a

“fourth baptism, though taun ted by R . B . with the probability;

SOME OTHER BAPTI ST WITNE SSE S . 1 79

but it is difficult to determin e who he was. I t has been supposedthat he was Richard Blun t; but this is improbable, un less Blun twho had sought regular baptism of the Dutch Collegian ts, hadchan ged to the Spilsbury theorythat “baptiz edn esse is n ot essential to the admin istrator Of baptisme. But n either P . B . ,

in thisdiscussion ,

n or R . B . ,makes an y allusion to the deputation to

Ho llan d for baptism,a fact P . B . well kn ew in Blun t’s case . P .

B . does suggest that the Hollan d Men n on ites had retain ed thedescen t Of baptism for a hun dred years, by affusion

,which some

of R . B .

’S brethren still regarded as baptism an d to whom the

Baptists might have gon e for succession,but of course R . B .

an d the n ew dippers rejected ev en An abaptist affusion ; an d the

in timation of P . B . is that some Of the En glish An abaptists hadn ot yet come Over to dippin g— alludin g, n o doubt, to some of

the Gen eral Baptists who had n ot broken from Men n on ite affu

sion an d relation ship . At all even ts R . B . does n ot seem to be

Richard Blun t ; an d he seems to have been a Gen eral Baptist“dissen ti n g from others of his judgmen t as to Men n o n ite baptismwhich Blun t an d the Particular Baptists would n ot have con

sidered at all.

There is an other publication (A Briefe An swer to R . H .,H is

Booke, E n titled, The True Guide &c. Lon don,1 646) written by

R . B . ; but there is n othin g in this work which in dicates the R .

B . abov e , or Richard Blun t . I t seems to be an an swer to a

Quaker again st the position that the “Baptisme Of Water”sign i

fies “by Scripture expression the Baptisme of the Spirit”an d

other proposition s which make it a clear cut Baptist book char

acteristic of the times. On page 23 , in an swer to the charge Of“schism

,

”he replies

When the church of God is restored again e from un der A n tichrist to

that primitiv e purity, an d first pat tern e of Truth,he that maketh use Of

this Scripture [2 Tim. cited by R . H .] is in a Church way, an swerin g

that pattern e , an d is in fallibly assured of it, then he mayin falliblymakeuse Of this place , to declare who they are that make divisio n s.

0

I n his Epistle to the Reader (pp. 1,2 ) after poin tin g to

'

the

collapsetof faith un der the Apostasy of An tichrist— an d to those

who thought restitution had come from Luther’s time,or from

Queen Elizabeth’s time— he says

“A n d yet we see much of that corrected of late ; an d must it n eeds be,

there are n o Truths left behin d still un discov ered, PrOphesyin gs/ in Sac

0 ENGLISH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION.

cloth ? God is n ot boun d to restore all Truth at o n ce , n or to a multitude,but even to a few

,an d _they

‘

perhaps despised o n es, I Cor. 28, ev en

like those Fisher-men which Christ chose .

H e goes on to assume that as the “decayof truthwas graduallfrom the Apostles times

,as may be sen se

,

”so the “

restitutzon

would likewise be graduall ; an d he looks,as man y Baptists

an d others did I n that day, for the comin g of Christ for the perfect “

restoration Of the truth from un der An tichrist . ” Like all

the Baptists ofhis day, he regarded the restoration movemen t asa“discovery

”from God Of the lost truth; an d he believed that

though much truth had been rediscovered— such as the true

church,min istry an d ordin an ces Of Christ— yet there were other

developmen ts of truth to follow un til the full -restitution at the

comin g of Christ , which in dicated him a Fifth-mon archyman .

H e has a little Of the ton e Of the Seekers ; an d after all he mayhave been Richard Blun t after the dissolution of his church

before 1 646 .

g

3 . Thomas KIICOp (A Short Treatise Of Baptisme, &c.

,Lon

don ,after meetin g Barebon e

’s argumen ts regardin gin fan t

baptism,he proceeds to an swer the charge co n cern in g the Bap

rist claim that baptism had been “ lost .

”H e says (pp. 8— 1 1 )

“You deride us’

in your booke about the rise,matter, an d man n er Of

baptisme, the two last are clearely prov ed by Scripture already, the use of

it bein g o n ce lost,is the o n ely thin g to clear ; of that therefore a few

words . Our baptisme received I n our in fan cy (bein g corrupt ed) is n o twithstan din g true or false . I f true, thoughcorrupted (as you hold) , thenn eeds must the o ther ordin an ces be true, the church also true, for n o thin g

(I co n ceive) 15 more corrupted (if SO much) as baptisme , as in the first use;an d then it followes that you doe ill in leavin g true ordin an ces, an d true

church state, an d should then return e again e . Ob . We shift off the cor.

ruption s o n ly. A n s. Then should you goe to the roo t an d strike at

the greatest corruption first , which'

I s I con ceive the subject . Your o n elycourse then would be to let your in fan ts remain e un baptized, an d then such

as you an d others (upo n triall) judge to be in coven an t , an d precious in

God’s accoun t , you might safely baptize by virtue of your baptisme, if

yours be true, though corrupted, as you ho ld it is ,an d n ot doin g so , yOu

go a wro n g way to work to root out corruption . But for my part, I be

lieve Christ will at n o rate own the baptizin g of in fan ts for his baptisme,

an d therefore n ot true . A n d then it followes that it bein g fals‘

e, is to be

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 82 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

clause,

if it be so tn at otlterwisewe ca n n otpartake of it but the

paren thetical clause “(AS IT ONCE WAS)”which follows

,settles

the question . Nothin g could be plain er than his admission that

baptism had been “ lost” as Barebon e charged that all Baptistsheld

,an d K ’

ilcop 5 whole argumen t here is a succin ct an d v igorous effort I n short to prove that Baptists had a right to restore

immersion an ew accordin g to John Smyth’s thesis. H e does n ot

preten d to con tradict Barebo n e’ 5 charge, but defen ds it ; an d hehere impliedly admits Barebon e’3 further charge that “

totall

dippin g I n the Kin gdome”was “

on ly two or three yeares Old,an d that the Baptists lacked an origin al admin istrator. Kilcop isexactlyin lin e with Barber, Spilsbury, Tombes, Lawren ce an d all

the rest ; an d though baptized byBlun t with the regular baptism .

from Hollan d,he here utterly excludes the slightest idea of suc

cessio n — plan tin g himself like a true Baptist upon the Bible as

his authority, an d n ot upo n history or tradition for the validityof his baptism. The Blun t mov emen t or “

persuasion”is well

represen ted by the n ames of Shepard, Gun n e , Kilcop an d pos

siblyKiffin ,as sign ers of the 1 644 Co n fession ; an d byKilcop,

if n ot Kiffin,in the literature Of the time

4 . From an A n abaptist Sermon (The Arraign men t , TryallCon v iction an d Con fession Of Fran cis Dean e

,&c .

,Lon don

,

1 643) I extract the followin g :Belov ed

,I am filled with much zealous joy to behold SO great an

A ssembly gathered together in this Chamber to hearme discov er un to you ,

n ew D octrin e upo n the receiv in g Of a n ew member in to our Assembly : whobefore had o n ly the bare rags of Adam,

an d baptized by the ceremo n y of

A n tichrist , &c .

After havin g do n e with the text the preacher proceeded to

baptize the n ew member,an d said

Bein g come to this ho ly place , I desITe all of you here prese n t to taken o tice

,that this our bro ther is receiv ed to the R iver Jordan called the Old

Foord n eare Bow, an d n owthe n ew Jordan or place of happin esse , for

un lesse all be thus rebaptized stark n aked,

an d dipped as well head as

tayle as you are,n o n e can be sav ed.

”

The preacher‘

called his sermon on baptism (“Wash an d be

Clean ”) “n ew doctrin e an d he called the place Of baptism

n ewj ordan .

”The title of the tract refers to the in ciden t as

the Rebaptizin g Of a Brother at the n ew boly j ordan , &c . ; to

SOME OTHER BAPTI ST WITNESSE S . 3

getherwith the man n er how they use to perform their “A n abaptisticatll ceremon ies”— referrin g n o doubt to the oft repeatedcharge Of n aked baptism here reported an d exaggerated as hav

in gbeen the custom of the Baptists. The n ew n olyj ordan ,as

they call it, n eare Bow,is applied to the same riv er in the same

vicin ity byMercurius AulicuS,1 643 , the same year as follows :

A n d the riv er L ee , which ru n s by Bow ,wherein the n ew elect rebap

tiz e themselv es, an d call it by the n ame of Jordan .

The preacher Of this sermon from which I quote,if properly

reported , was n ot a soun d Baptist , either in doctrin e or practice ;but he is an illustration Of the gross irregularities which,

accordin g to the history Of the times

,characterized the recen t in tro

duction Of immersion .

5 . The n ext witn ess is Fran cis Corn well (The New Testamen tR atified with the blood of the Lord Jesus &c .

,Lon don

,

I n his con troversy withWhittle (p . 1 9) he says°

H en ce it is that we poor despised belI ev ers in Jesus Christ dipt , own eJesus the Christ to be our etern al high Priest , that man ifested his lov e tous in the Cov en an t of Free-grace . This lov e discovered, caused us to

hearken to the voyce of Jesus our An oyn ted Prophet ; for his voice is

lov ely : A n dwhen he rev ealed to us, byhis word an d good Spirit, that n o n e

was the subject of baptism; but such as b‘

eliev e in the Lord Jesus theChrist an d repen t Of their dead works. When this truth was rev ealed, weharken ed to the v oice of Christ o n ely as his sheep ought to doe , John . 10 .

an d regarded n o more the voyce of a stran ger, the Pope , the Bishop,the

Priest . Naywhen Christ was discov ered to be our an d that we were

but as R ebells, u n till we did Obey his Comman d,when he by his good

Spirit discoveredwhat his comman dmen ts was, n amely, that we which be

liev e in Jesus Christ , must repen t an d be dipped in the n ame of JesusChrist , the lov e of Christ our Kin g co n strain ed us to arise an d be dipped

in the n ame Of Jesus Christ .

O n page 2 2,in the adden da toWhittle’s An swer

,Corn well says

The Nation all churches hav e trodden the ho ly citie of believ ers inJesus Christ dipt un der foo t , n eere 42 moen ths which recko n I n g a day for

a year, may amou n t to n eer 1260 years, R ev .

Corn well takes the curren t Baptist position Of his time,that the

churchOf dipt believers (Baptist) had been lost I n the Apostasyof Rome for “

n eer 1 260 years; that God Of his sov ereign pur

184 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

pose an d love rediscovered the visible order Of the church byimmersion to the En glish A n abaptists; an d that when they discovered God’s purpose an d heard the voice Of Christ , they ceasedto hear the voice Of An tichrist an d obeyed Christ. H e clearlycon firms the Immersion movemen t Of 1640

—4 1 in the veryterms

Of the ordin an ce restored; an d emphasizes the fact that it was adiscovery from God to his people— as all the rest so declare .

Corn well was on e Of the boldest an d bravest leaders amon g theBaptist min istry, sufferin g ImprIson men t for his utteran ces

,an d

he puts on record on e Of the clearest testimon ies to the recen t

in troduction Of immersIOn by the Baptists of E n glan d .

6 . Hen ry Den n e (A n tichrist U n masked in Two Treatises,

Lon don,1 645 , pp. 1

,2,

After an allusion to the Dragon Of

Rev elation stan din g before the Woman clothed with the Sun,

an d after a referen ce to the fact that in every in stan ce when the

church had travailed in birth with an y truth, the Ten -horn edBeast had ev er been ready to devour the child

,he says :

Our own e experien ce teacheth us in these our dayes, wherein the

shadows begin to v an ish, an d the n ight to passeaway, the Su n of Right

eousn esse to draw n eare u n to the Horison . H ow man y adv ersaries doe

n ow bestirre themselv es,with policy an d force to keep us (if it were possi

ble) in perpe tual darkn esse , an d to hin der the risin g of the Sun_in our

hearts. Amon g the rest the church is n ow ready to be deliv ered, an d tobrin g forth the Doctrin e Of the Baptisme Of Water, raked up heretofore

in an imitation of Paedobaptism. The truth of the Ordin an ce or I n stitu

tion of the Lord Jesus, lyin g cov ered with custome an d Practice, an d a

preten ded face of A n tiquity. The Lord hath been pleased at this day, to

pu t in to the hearts an d to n gues Of‘

Some,to stan d up in

‘

defen ce of his

truth (again st the darin g Face of E rror) who doe n ow labor,ready to be

deliv ered. But we see how man y Champio‘

n s'

ready armed,are _come

forth with rev ilin g speeches an d raylin g accusatio n s, to dash the coun te

n an ce of this n ew born B abe.

The clear implicatio n is that Den n e here refers to the Baptistmovemen t

,1 640

—4 1 an d on ward

,to restore believ ers’ immersion

— the Doctrin e Of the Baptisme OfWater; an d he calls this move

men t a“NEW BORN BABE ” just deliv ered amid the throes

an d agon ies of the church—r —an d still bein g threaten ed withdestruction . This ordin an ce had been cov ered up, lost, un derthe “

preten ded face of An tiquity”by

“Romish custom a n d

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

86 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

Clzurc/i,who o n ly makes the same belI eVI n g co n fession that Peter did

Again st these the gates of hell can n ot prev ail to -make them ren oun ce that

co n fession,which with heart or mouth, or bo th,

-they‘

hav e made .

This is the clear Baptist rin g of Blackwood’s day. H e I s,I n

perfect accord with Smyth, H elwys, Morton,Spilsbury, Kin g,

Barber an d others. H e admits the n ovelism”Of'dippin g at his

time . H e repudiates the Pedobaptist position that if the true

church an d baptism are lost they can n ot be restored except byextraordin ary commission ; an d he gives the an alysis Of the

method Of restoratio n accordin g to the Scriptures— just as Smythdid an d all the rest after him. H e also repudiates the Pedobaptist doctrin e Of visible succession to the church an d its ordI

n an ces; an d he takes the un iform Baptist groun d that while thegates of hell hav e n ev er prevailed to destroy Christ

’s in v isible

body Of believ ers an d con fessors, the gates of hell “in all ages”

have prevailed again st the v isible churches an d order of Christ .

I n all this Blackwood implies the recen t adoption of dippin g.

bythe En glish Baptists ; an d he also implies their prior reorgan ization Of the church an ew— their separation an d reformation after

the rule an d order of Christ .8 . Han dserdKn ollys

’

(The Shin in g Of a Flamin g fire &c . ,Lon

don,

‘ I n reply to Saltmarsh’s “Exception s again st theGroun ds Of New Baptisme (Smoke Of the Temple &c . ) Kn ollys(p. 1 ) says

Paul ’s Doctrin e was called N ew,although he preached Jesus an d the

R esurrectio n ,Acts 17, 19 . A lso when our Savior preached with Author

ity, an d con firmed hiS'

Doctrin e with Miracles, they questio n ed‘

amon g

themselv es, sayin g, What thin g is-t his ? What n ew Doctrin e is this ?

Mark. th I

Kn ollys goes on to an swer the “Exception s Of Saltmarsh,but

he n ever repudiates his charge Of n ovelty to Baptist baptism.

Like Spilsbury, Allen an d others,he on ly in ten ds to say that

while Baptist immersion was a n ew practice , at the time, it wasan Old truth; an d that while to Baptists, as Spilsbury puts it, itwas a n ew-foun d truth,” it was to Pedobaptists a “

n ew thin g,”

as was Paul’s doctrin e to the Athen ian s, or as Christ’s miracle tothe Jews . NO Baptist of that day ev er den ied that immersionwas a n ew practice amo n g B ;aptists but they always retortedupon the Pedobaptists that it was the Old truth the goodOld way

”an d the like, though it was “

n ew foun d.

ENGLISH BAPT IST REFORMATION .

(FROM 1 609 TO 1 64 1 A .

CHAP TE R X V] .

SOME OTH ER BAPTI ST WITNE SSE S— CONTINUED .

9 . Dan iel Kin g (A Wayto S ion Sought Out an d Foun d &c. ,

Lon don ,1 649) is on e of the most importan t an d elaborate wit

n esses to the fact that the Baptists Of En glan d restored immersionin the “ latter times.

”H is work of 238 pages is devoted largely

to the discussio n Of two prOposition s :

‘I .

‘ That God hath had a people on earth, ev er Sin ce the comin g of

Christ in the flesh,throughout the darkest ages Of Popery, which he hath

own ed as Sain ts an d as his Church.

“2 . That these Sain ts hav e power to reassume an d take up as their

right , an y ordin an ce of Christ,which they hav e been depriv ed of by the

violen ce an d tyran n y of the man of Sin .

Wherein it is cleared up by the Scriptures an d Argume n ts groun ded

upon the Scripture , who of right may admin ister Ordin an ces, an d amo n g

the rest the Ordin an ce of Baptism with Water .

”

The Epistle Dedicatory is written an d sign ed by ThomasPatien t , John Spilsbury, William Kiffin an d ° J ohn Pearson ,

in

which they fully en dorse an d earn estly urge the readin g Of the

book by the Baptist people ; an d this en dorsemen t fully covers

the un ited sen timen t Of the then leadin g Baptists Of E n glan d .

I n the preface“To the Reader

,

” Kin g in dicates that his work I Sa n apology for Baptist position in defen se Of the right to restore

believ ers’ baptism after it had been lost un der the apostasy Of

Rome. I t is an effort to allay the con fusion created by theSeekers, Quakers an d Pedobaptists, amon gBaptists an d others

with regard to recoverin g the church,its min istry an d the Ordin

an ces lost I n the apostasyOf Rome ; an d to Show that the Baptistshad restored the visible church of Christ . The Seekers took theposition that these had been lost an d could n ot be recov eredwithout an extraordin ary commission fromheaven ,

an other John187

1 88 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

the Baptist, or an an gel ; an d so theyopposed Baptistsan d den iedtheir poweror right to recover them. The Quakers claimed thatthe ordin an ces were shadows an d should n ot con tin ue in the

churches,an d so fought the

“n ew baptism”

of the Baptists, asSaltmarsh an d others. The Pedobaptistsheld that the ordin an ceshad succeeded to thempure through the defection of An tichristan dso con ten ded again st the restoration claimOf the Baptistsuponthe groun d Of the Seekers that if the church an d its min istry or

o rdin an ces lzad been lost they could n ot be recovered except in«an extraordin aryway. To meet these varied Objection s an d . to

rectify their con fusion Kin g wrote his book as en dorsed byPatien t

, Spilsbury, Kiffin an d‘ Pearson ; an d it is on e of the most

elaborate an d able defen ses Of the Baptist position that the

o rdin an ces had been lost an d that the Baptists had recoveredthem accordin g to the Scriptures.

I n the first division Of Part First Of this book Kin g establishesun der the N . T . ,

as un der the O . T .,a threefold sucession (1) of

Believers, (2) Of the Spirit, an d (3) Of the Word

,Without an y

referen ce to visible order, offices or ordin an ces, based upon the

Cov en an t of grace which in cludes God’

s people, J ew an d Gen

t iles, as. his Spiritual church again st which the gates of hell shouldn ever prevail— such bein g “

the church in the wildern ess.

”On

page 49 he says

“From the time of Christ ’s comin g inw the flesh an d revealin g the New

C o v e n an t , throughout all ages to the world’s en d ; there Shall be a succes

Sio n of Believ ers that .shall hav e the Spirit of Christ , an d the Gospel”

of

C hrist commun icated to them,an d they shall be en abled in a measure to

ho ld the faith an d publish it .”

This was the Church in the Wildern ess which Kin g did n ot

regard as hav in g the visible order,Offices or ordin an cesof Christ,

but as o n ly his Spiritual Kin gdom un der the gen eral title Of thechurch

,n o t the churches, in the wildern ess ; an d this was the

Baptist position of the 1 7th cen tury.

After havin g established this position he proceeds (p . 5) to say

Now the n ex t thin g I would prov e is, That this [spiritual] church, orthese believ ers hav e power to reassume or take up an y ordin an ce of God,

a n d practice it amo n g themselv es (I mean an y ordin an ce they see to be

held forth in the ScrIptureS , an d that they hav e beeh deprived of through

the corruptio n of the times) when ev er God revealet/i to be hisordin an ce .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

Precedin g this on the same page he says :

As soo n as Believers see the Baptisme of Believers, accordin g to thein stitution of Christ , to vbe their duty ; They may, they ought (upon pain

of n eglectin g their duty) take it up. I n deed when the ordin an ce is afoo t

to make use of those un der the Ordin an ce to Admin ister it ,’

is to goe o n

in an orderlyway: But this that I have spoken ,vin dicatethhim,

‘

whosoever

it were,thatfirst saw the Truth

,an d recovered this Truth from un der

A n tichrist, to leav e him out in doin g his duty, in~Baptiz in g those Believ

e rs that desire to so partake of the Ordin an ce .

”

Kin g’

s position is that it was the duty of those who “first sawthe truth

”to restore the ordin an ce of baptism,

lost un der An tichrist but when the ordin an ce is o n ce “afoot” an d the min istryre-established in the churches

,we are to

“make use of those

un der the ordin an ce” as admin istrators of it— an d so“go on in

an orderlyway.

” This was the position of the leadin g Baptistsof

’

the 1 7th cen tury; an d stren uous efforts we'

l‘e made to checkthe in discrimin ate application of the prin ciple adopted in firstin troducin g believers

’ baptism byun baptiz ed admin istrators,to

a con tin uan ce of that method after baptism had been restored .

On page 1 09 Kin g shows that baptismmean s dippin g ; an d

hen ce by the recov ery of the lost ordin an ces he in cludes therevival of immersion which followed the adoption of the prin cipleof believ ers’ baptism by the Baptists of En glan d, an d which hetakes for gran ted byall that he writes o n the subject . The ThirdPart ofhis book which, un der the title, SomeBeams ofLight, &c.

Lon do n,1 649 , was written in an swer to the “Thirteen Excep

tion s”of Saltmarsh again st the “New Baptisme

”of the Baptists ;

a n d which is a Quaker argumen t again st the co n tin I'

I an ce of the

visible ordin an ces in the church,upon the groun d that they are

shadows of Gospel truths. Kin g, without den yin g Saltmarsh’

s

charge of “ n ew baptism,

”ably an d efficien tly demolishes Salt

marsh an d prov es that the ordin an ces_of baptism an d the Lord’s

Supper were design ed by the Scriptures to be con tin ued visiblyin the church ; but this in n owaycon trav en es his position in thefirst an d secon d parts of his work that the ordin an ces had beenlost un derA n tichrist an d had been restored by the Baptists. He

o n ly argues here for the prin ciple of con tin uan ce, an d n ot for

the fact that theyfl

had always, or would always, con tin ue, whenlost or corrupted . See Appen dix (D) .

SOME OTHER BAPTI ST WITNE SSE S . 1 9 1

I have on ly fain tly gathered Kin g’s position frommy n otes ;

an d his book deserves a more elaborate presen tation . H e is_in

precise lin e with Smyth, H elwys, Morton,Spilsbury, Kiffin ,

Barber an d all the rest with regard to baptism as lost un der thedefection of An tichrist an d restored by the En glish Baptists.

Like all the rest , of his time, he den ies a oz'

sz'

ole succession of

Christ’s churches,min istry an d ordin an ces ; an d yet, like all the

rest,he main tain s a spiritual successio n of believ ers through all

the ages. The Baptist writers of t he 1 7th cen tury regarded thechurch in the wildern ess as Baptists an d as exten din g back to

fire apostles. They claimed the A n abaptist sects as their peoplean d traced their pedigree, as a people , back to the New Testamen t churches ; but, so far as I hav e read

,they all con fess to an

oft broken succession of visible churches,min istry an d ordi

n an ces. They all agree that ,A n tichrist had een often rev ealed

before their day by their An abaptist brethren who had risen an d

fallen ; but they regarded the reign of An tichrist for 1 2 60 years

a s reachin g down to their time an d that the spiritual church hadn ev er come successfully an d fin ally out of the wildern ess un tilthe En glish Baptists had recovered the visible church

,its min

istry an d the ordin an ces.

1 0 . Hen ry Jessey (Storehouse of Prov ision,&c .

,Lon do n

,

This book was partlywritten again st the Seekers an d

partly in the in terest of open commun ion an d again st the strict

commun ion ists of that day; but it tells the same story of immer

sion rev ival by the Baptists of En glan d . On pages 1 2, 76 Jessey

is v ery clear in the defi n itio n an d uses of baptism as a“clippin g

in water ;”

an d o n pages I 3— I 5 he squarelymeets the [Seekers’

argumen t, n amely, that baptism havin g been lost, could n ot be

restored except bya prophet or an an gel , or some extraordin arilycommission ed person . Jessey agrees with Smyth that “ two or

three person s gathered together in Christ’s n ame may appoin t

Some o n e,accordin g to Christ

’s commission

, to restore baptism;an d con trary to the Blun t method of goin g to Hollan d for immersion

,which was eviden tly in his min d , he says :

Say n o t in thin e heart, Who shall goe to Heav en, or to sea, or beyo n d

sea for it ? but the word is n igh thee . R om. 10 . So we may n o t goe for

a dmin istrators to o ther Coun tries, n or stay [wait] for them : but loo‘ke to

the word.

"

On page I 6 he asks

1 9 2 E'

NGL I SH

l

BAP ’I ‘ I ST RE FORMATION .

Nowmust we tarry[as the Seekers say] in this Babylo n ish Way, tillsuch a mighty A n gell come Or must we reforme as farre as we see I n all

these,an d all o ther thin gs ?

”

The Seekers an d others urged that the world was un der the

1 2 60 days of An tichrist’s reign ,that the church an d ordi

n an ces were in visible or lost an d that they could n ot be restoredun til Christ _came in the restitutlon

'

of all thin gs ; but Jessey, likeCorn well

,takes the position that the spiritual church must come

out of Babylon ,had already come out

,an d must n ot wait for a

“n ew commission

,

”but obey the Scriptures as God revealed them

to true believers (pp. 5 1 From page 5 7 to 76 he varioufiyan d elaborately discusses with his objector the quest10n of a

“proper admin istrator ’

of baptism,the fact of the ordin an ces

hav in g been lost un der An tichrist , their restoration an d the re

establishmen t of the min istry in n ewly erected churches,without

an y n ew commission but the Scriptures, just as Smyth, Spilsbury,Barber an d the rest do, except in a more varied an d v ersatileform ; an d it is clear that Jessey takes for gran ted the distise of

immersion in En glan d an d its recen t in troduction bythe Baptists,defen din g their right to restoration upon the prin ciple of “ refermaizon ” —~as we shall more fully see .

On page 80 Jessey in sists that the same n ecessity exists n ow,

as in the days of the apostles, to respect the ordin an ce of baptism

,though it had been Zesz

‘. After its restoration he says that

some had been ‘slack” towards its observan ce, while some lon ged

to“en joy

” it. “Why tarry? said An an ias to Paul ; while the

Eun uch wan ted to en joy the ordin an ce” —is Jessey’s argumen t

to those who hesitated , as he had don e , to receive the ordin an ceas restored

'

by un baptized believ ers H e represen ts himself ason e that had forrz

'

ed; an d he says

“ Such co n sideratio n s as these I had,But yet , because I would do

n othin g rashly; I would n o t do that which I should r‘

en oun ce again e : Idesired Co n feren ce with some Christian s differin g therein I n opin ion from

me ; about what is requisite to restorin g of ordin an ces, if lost ; E speciallywhat is essen tial l in a Baptizer Thus I did forbeare an d in quired abov e

ayeat e’s space .

I n other words, after tarrymg or forbearin g for a year’

s s'

pa’ce

subsequen t to the said “Co n feren ce ,” he received 1mmers10n

without regard to the “baptiz edn esse”of the “baptizer, accord

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

4 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

Jessey an swers

I f n o n e bu t baptized o n es are,own ed to be disciples ; then thefirst

R estorers of Baptisme were n o t own ed to be disciples. An d if the firstwere so own ed, an d o thers then an d n ow hav e commu n ion with or from

the first ; then disown e n o t o thers that wan t the same ; disown e n o t

commun io n with them.

Objection 28

Tn ere was a N ecessity for so R E S TGR IN G iz‘ atfirsi.‘ out n o n ecessity of

n avin g commu n ion wit/z sue/i n ow.

Jessey an swers

“Yet this n ecessity in frin geth n o t the former A n swers : But the same

groun ds ho ld firme .

”

This was substan tially. the argumen t of both“

the strict an d

open commun io n Baptists of Jessey’s day,

an d both admittedthat immersion had been restored “

of late by the Baptists ofEn glan d . On page I I I Jessey speaks to his objector thus

“I fyou must judge of your [Baptists’

] late Bapt isme, give leave to o thers

to judge of theirs ; an d bear as you would be born e with in love ; a n d he

speaks (p. 182) of all“

such in Queen Mary’s dayes, or other times

,that

“lov ed n ot their liv es un to death we should n o t suggest, that such

are n ot own ed (accordin g to the Scriptures) as Believ ers or saved Person s;for wan t of right K n owledge about Baptisme . Who are so much (if n o t

more) own ed in Scriptures for Believ ers, as those that are n ow Baptized, by

derivin g it from such a Baptizer,” that is, un baptized admin istrator .

I t is clear that he in cludes,\amon g those martyrs, the An a

.baptists of Queen Mary’s time as n ot havin g been baptized “

as’

.Baptists _were n ow baptized,”that is, n ow immersed

,at the

han ds, origin ally,‘

of un baptized admin istrators,an d who

,he

adds,were “

rejectin g Believers, differin g about an Ordin an ce,

”

from their commun ion . H is position on this poin t was that Con

gregation alists an d others who were n ot rightly baptized , butthought theywere— who would do better if they learn ed moreby affiliation an d commun ion with the Baptists— had as muchclaim to commun ion upon their baptism as Baptists did upo n

theirs in View of the fact that theywere o n ly Zaiely immersed ,an d that

,too ,

at the han ds of un baptized admin istrators forwhich, strictly speakin g, there was n o express precept in the

SOME OTHER BAPTI STWITNE SSES . 1 9 5

Scriptures, but on ly the gen eral prin ciple embraced in Christ’sCommission bywhich Baptists had restored immersion .

J essey is ev iden tlywron g I n his premises for open commun

ion,an d his strict commun ion objector is right that , immersion

havin g been restored , we must return to the New Testamen t

pattern in all thin gs ; but he is a valid historical wit n ess to the

fact that the Baptists'

of En glan d restored[

immersion aboutI 64O

—4 I . H is testimon y is s tated in un mistakable terms

,an d

'

he is ev iden tly on e of Crosby’s authorities By a differen t form

of statemen t he is in exact lin e with the Jessey ChurchRecordsa n d Hutchin son touchin g the first method of restoration ; an d

with Spilsbury, Tombes, Lawren ce, Barber, K in g, Corn wellan d others touchin g the secon d method .

I I . A n other stron g Baptist witn ess isWilliam Kaye (BaptismWithout Bason

,&c . ,

Lon don,

H e wrote again st In fan tBaptism in an swer to Baxter an d -Liden ham an d he discussesseveral question s an d an swers about baptizin g believers on ly.

Probably a Fifth Mon archyman he regarded the time as bein gfulfilled

’

for the return an d reign of Christ as Kin g ; an d I n his

in troductory address (pp . 4 , 5) he claims that the Baptists arethe “heirs apparen t to all the light which hath shin ed” at a timewhen the Law was “

overturn in g both Church an d State, be

cause his far prophesied time is n ow fulfilled,to have a New

heaven,or a reformed church

,&c. H e closes his in troductory

address (p. 6) with an appeal to “con ten d for the faith an d a

submission to baptism,as Christ had

,

“to fulfill all righteous

n ess,

an d with a ben ediction of grace“that calleth out of

Babylon .

” Un der the head of Question s an d An swers con

cern in g believers’ baptism,

we hav e the followin g:Quest . 9 . H ow comes it tfien topass tn at this doctrin e of laptism lzatn n ot

oeen oefore revealed?”

H is an swer is the usual Baptist reply, n amely, that it hadbeenperverted an d corrupted ,

”by An tichrist, “

till the Lamb’ssouldiers should procure the free course of the Gospel ; an d

although “An tichrist,before these times hath been revealed,

yet the Ordin an ces are but legin n zn g to be cleared I n discoverzn gwhereof the church oegzn s to be restored to the purity of the

primitive time of Christ an d his Apostles. On page 33 the

followin g question is also putW at is Me way of t/ce admin istration of oaptism?

”

6 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

The an swer is

The Christian disciple that is to be baptized, must , Christ like , upo nprofessio n of faith an d obedien ce , descen d to be cov ered or buried in

water

in the n ame of the Trin ity, an d then be received in to the churchby the right han d of fellowship. I n this discussion believersbaptism as opposed to in fan t baptism— immersion as opposed toSprin klin g— is what 1S mean t by the restored ordin an ce.

From page 34 to 3 7 Kaye asks an d an swers question s con

cern in g the provin ce of the magistry either to suppress or coun

ten an ce this doctrin e of baptism as established by the Baptistreformation

,in con flict with the practice of the En glish Church

an d he assumes; as a Fifth Mon archy Baptist, that as the

magistry had cut down the Episcopal tree, it would be hon orable still to con tin ue their good work un til Parochial sprin klin gorin fan t baptism should be uprooted . From page 3 7 to 4 2 he

appeals to the elect amo n g the Reformers, still un immersedan d practicin g in fan t Sprin klin g, to come completely out of

Babylon as the Baptists had don e . I n spite of the great

Reformation in which in fan t baptism past muster, an d has

been defen ded by great n ames“yet beho ld the L ordmakes the flock

,or commo n people , to see the truth,

when almost all public teachers were o‘

v erv ailed [Barber] un till atlast the Lord saw his time to trouble an d therebymake the discov ery of

his light u n to the public min istry, by callin g some of them [Barber] to

trim their lamps, that theymay shin e I n the discovery of the min d of Christin baptizin g believ ers o n ly.

AgainDid n o t the tru th alwaies when it was revealed

, an d thin k you it shalln o t n ow as well as ev er (if God in ten d mercy to E n glan d) marv elously 4

prev ail ?

On page 40 ,urgin g the elect Pedobaptists to come out of the

darkn ess an d ign oran ce of Pedobaptism,he says :

We kn ow,or may kn ow, that believers themselv es

,which were really

an d fully baptized (Acts 2, 3, 4) because they were

~

ign oran t at ’

that

time of the H oly Ghost , were upon that accoun t (all the fun damen talsbein g revealedwithout which baptism can n ot be warran table) rebaptized

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 98 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

Like all the rest,-he regards immersion as a special revelation

.to the Baptists whom he regards in their separation from the

Reformers as the true church of believers— the woman in thewildern ess— hav in g been called out from un der the shadow of

An tichrist an d reformed .

1 2 . William Allen,in two works (An

'

A n swer ~to Mr . J .

G[oodwin ], his/ XL . Queries, &c . ,Lon don

,1653 ; Some Bap

tismal Abuses,&c .

, Lon don ,I n reply to Goodwin ’

s

Querie III . (p. 34) he says :

“A n d if the first Church or Churches might n o t be co n stituted without

baptism, then n either may those that succeed them, because the same rea

so n that made baptism n ecessary hereu n to with them,makes it n ecessary

also un to us for Gospell Order, set tled by Apostolicall authority an d

direction,hath n o t lost an y Of its n ativ e worth

,efficacy, or obligin g vir

tue, by disuse or discon tin uan ce

,upon occasio n of Papal] defection , but

Ought to be the same n ow to those who are studious of a tn orougli reforma

tion as it was u n to them in thefirst oegin n in g of Church Order.

On page 7 2 he an swers Querie XXL , which calls immersionn ew baptisme, . in these words

Though it should be gran ted, that man y if n ot the gen erality of these

that hav e en tered in to the way of the n ew baptisme (as the Querist calls it ,it bein g the old way of Baptizin g) have receiv ed their precious faith an d

o ther graces, un der the dispen satio n of their I n fan t Baptisme, &c.

”

I n his secon d work (p. Allen,who

,like Jessey, was ad

vocatin gOpen Commun ion , says

N“I t is true (as I observed before upo n an o ther occasio n ) that it‘

may fallout , that in un dertakin g a reformation an d restitution of ordin an ces an d

worship from un der their corruption an d decayes, there may be an impossi

bility, precisely an d in all thin gs, to an swer the origin al usage, but thatthrough an in dispen sable n ecessity, there will be in these reformers somev ariatio n either in the Admin istrator , or in some co n ceivable circumstan ce

of the admin istration , in respect of which in dispen sable n ecessity, God

accepts men accordin g to what opportun ity they hav e, an d n ot accordin g

to what they hav e n ot .

Allen regarded “gospel order as hav in g been “disused or

discon tin ued”un der the defection of An tichrist ; an d that they

were restored un der the Baptist “reformation .

” This in cluded

SOME OTH ER BAPTI ST WITNESSES . 199

immersion revived by un baptized admin istrators,as he implies in

both works. H e does n ot den y that immersion was “ n ew baptism”

in practice , but calls it the “oldway of Baptizin g,

” just asSpilsbury

‘

did, who calls it the “old

,

”but the “

n ewfoun d, way.

”

Allen iswith Spilsbury an d Jessey on the commun ion question ;an d he is preciselywith them an d all the rest historicallyas to thedisuse of immersion

,an d its restoration by the E n glish Baptists;

13 . Thomas Lamb (Truth Prevailin g again st the fiercest Opposition ,

&c . ,Lon don

,This is

_a reply to Goodwin ’

s

“Water Dippin g,an d on page 44 he an swers especially

the charge of Schism preferred again st the Baptists who sepa

rated from the Puritan s. H e asks :“W hy should our separatin g from you be coun ted Schisme more than

your separatin g from the Parish Churches ? I s n ot our grou n d the very

self-same which yours tfien was ? A n d what can you say to Mr. Bax ter,

who chargeth you with schisme for withdrawin g from the Natio n alChurch

,which we can n ot an swer you with As the fatal Apostacile

from the pure Ordin an ces of Christ an d the example of the Primitive

Churches in worship, was graduall, so hath the recovery of primitiv e

purity been n ow a little an d there a litt le, as it hathpleased God to com

mun icate lzlglzt to his upright o n es that he hath used in the reformation , but

it hath been as it were by in ches, an d stil l been made costlyto the n ames

an d I n strumen ts, they all bear this burthen which n ow Mr . Goodwincharges us with schisme . The Pope crieth Schisme an d H eresie after the

Church of E n glan d The Bishops cry Schisme after some of the

Presbyterian s . The Presbyterian s cry Schisme after Mr . Goodwin an d all

the Separatists which withdrawin gs have been'

so man y steps

towards primitiv e purity. Now Mr. Goodwin crieth Schisme:

(pret ty lib

erally) after us who hav e go n e a few steps further in the same path (whichas yet his heart

/

serv eth him n ot to proceed in ) that we may reach the

thin gs we have heard from the begin n in g. 1 John Coloss.

Lamb squarely admits the charge of Baptist separation fromthe Separatists an d he argues their same right, at a later date,to separate from the Puritan s, that theyhad at a still earlier dateto separate from other Reformers.

“ I s n oto ur groun d[n ow] thevery same which yours tlzen was P This is precisely Kiffin

’

s

claim in his Briefe Remon stran ce ; an d it is what Barber an d all

who touch the question of Baptist separation admit . The E n glish Baptists were chiefly Separatists from the Separatists, claim

z oo ENGL I SHT

BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

I n g their reformation upon higher groun d— that is, the erection

o f their churches, after the rule of Christ,upon the prin ciple of

believers’ baptism— an d this is the con ten tion of bothLamb an dKiffin . This claim of separation an d reformation

,however

,

fixes the origin an dpedigree of the En glishBaptists,s o far as theyare organ ically con cern ed in their separation an d n ot in preexisten t

An abaptist sects ; an d this agrees precisely with the history of

the case . Lamb,as all the rest do ,

derives Baptist reformationfrom the “fatall apostacie but he locates this Baptist reformatio n as the last of a series of reformation s gradually recoverin g

primitiv e purity an d order as they had been gradually lost . H e

n owhere den ies Goodwin ’

s oft-repeated charge of “n ew bap

tisme,

”an d on ly says on page 6 1 in reply to the XVI . Con sider

ation of Water Dippin g :“You hav e n o n eed of Baptisme after R epen tan ce an d Faith (which

you call n ew Baptisme) because your old sprin klin g in in fan cy is effectualto all en ds an d n ew purposes of Baptisme which you reduce to three

heads &c.

Water dippin g was what Goodwm speciallycalled “n ew.

No Baptist of the 1 7 th cen tury ev'

er den ied that thepractice ofadult dippin g in En glan d was “

n ew.

”

14 . Hercules Collin s (Believers’ Baptisme fromHeaven

, &c. ,

Lon don,

I n reply to Thomas Wall’s Baptism An atomiz ed an d in an swer to the charge that the Baptists had receivedtheir baptism from John Smyth, who baptized himself, on page1 1 5 , Collin s says“Could n o t this Ordin an ce of Christ , which was lost in the Apostasy,

be rev iv ed (as the Feast ofTaber n acles‘

wa

'

s, tho’ lost a great while) un less

in such a fil thy way as you falsely assert , v iz . that the E n glish Baptistsre ceiveth their Baptism from Mr . John Smith ? I t is absolutely un true

,it

bein g well kn own,by some yet aliv e , how false this Assertion is ; an d if

J . W . will but giv e a meetin g to an y of us,an d brin g whom he pleaseth

with him,we shall sufficien tly shew the Falsity of what is affirmed byhim

in this Matter.

”

Collin s in dign an tly dgrees with Crosby that Smith’s baptismn ever succeeded to the En glishBaptists ; an d Collin san dCrosbyagree in the position that believers’ immersion “lost in \the apos

tasy” was “revived

”by the En glish Baptists— just as the Feast of

Tabern acles was restored after bein g lost for a great while. _ Not

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ENGL ISH BAPT IST REFORMATION .

(FROM 1 609 TO 164 1 A . D . )

WHAT TH E ENEMY SA I D— DR . FEATLEY .

So far I hav e con sidered,with the exception of Praisegod

Barebo n e,on ly the testimon y of Baptist documen ts an d writers

which establishes the clear probability that after the disuse of

immersion in En glan d, the En glish Baptists restored it in 1 64 1 .

Praisegod Barebon e seems to hav e written as a frien d to the

Baptists with whom he had been associated,some of them at

least,before they separated from the Puritan s, an d with whom

he must hav e been afterwards well acquain ted ; but ‘I n ow cometo n otice the writin gs of en emies an d to put them in eviden cefor what they are worth as corroborativ e of the testimon y of the

Baptists themselves . Our en emies do n ot always lie , n or do wealways tell the truth in history; an d the testimon yof our en emiesis at least valid when ,

un challen ged, it corroborates the facts ofour history,

“ackn owledged an d justified

,

”as Crosby says, by

Baptist writers themselves. I n the citation s fromBarebon e,an d

from those to whom I n ow refer,I see n o con flict with the testi

mon y of Baptists themselves. H en ce/ it is n ot un fair to estab

lish what seems to be clearly aTact that about 1 64 1 the Baptistsrestored immersion in En glan d— our en emies bein g in agreemen twith ourselv es.

The first witn ess here produced is Dr. Dan iel Featley, who ,

in 1 644 ,wrote his “Dippers Dipt

”

(Lo n don ed. I n his

Epistle Dedicatory, after a v ery bitter arraign men t of the En glish An abaptists as heretics an d schismatics

,he says .

“Theyflock in great multitudes to their Jordan s

,an d both sexes en ter

the riv er,an d are dipt after their man n er, with a kin d of spell ,

&c .

” This passage refers their practice to the time,in the presen t

'

ten se,when Featley wrote in 1 644 . I t is objected that un der

the third head an d at the close of this Epistle Dedicatory, Featley in dicates that the An abaptists had been so practicin g immer~

202

WHAT THE ENEMY SAI D— DR . FEATLEY . 2 03

sion “for more than twen tyyears”n ear the place of his residen ce.

He says

As So lin us writeth, that in Sardin ia where there is a v en omous serpen t

called Solifuga, &c. This v en omous Serpen t (acre & ilzfugo) flyin g from,

an d shun n in g the light of God’s W

'

ord, is the An abaptist who in diame ter

times first showed his shin in g head an d speckled skin an d thrust out his

stin g n ear the place ofmy residen ce for-more than twen ty years .

”

This passage occurs three pag es after the on e already quoted

,

an d after a discussion of An abaptist heresy with regard to

majistracy, &c . ; an d it iswritten in the past ten se with referen ce

simply to the twen ty or more years existen ce of the An abaptistsn ear his residen ce— n ot the n flockin g in great mul titudes to theirJordan s an d dippin g ov er head an d ears— but Solifuga-like ina state of con cealmen t . I t is thus Featleyproceeds to “

en ter

in to the lists of the en suin g Tractate”in the exposure of the

An abaptists, whom he here calls “n ew upstart sectan

'

es.

”

I n The Preface to t he Reader an d n ear the close,F eatley ln

dicates the later date of flockin g in great multitudes an d dippin gin the riv ers . After speakin g of the An abaptist fire n ot

“fullyquen ched” in German y an d “

soo n put out”in the reign of

Elizabeth an d James,he proceeds :

“But qf late, sin ce the un happy dis traction s which our sin n es hav e

brought upo n us, the Temporall sword bein g o th erways employed an d the

Spirituall locked up fast in the scabbard,this S ect amo n g o thers hath so

far presumed upon the patien ce of the S tate that it hath held weeklyCo n v en ticles, rebaptiz ed hun dreds ofmen an d women together in the twi

light , in Rivulets an d some arms of the Thames, an d elsewhere, dippin g

them ov er head an d ears . I t hath prin ted div ers pamphlet s in defen se of

their heresy, yea an d challen ged some of our preachers to disputation ,

&c .

The “un happydistraction s an d the otherwise employmen t of

the temporal an d spiritual sword, OP LATE ,

”

poin t to the rev o

lution of 1 64 1 , the“Yeare of Jubilee an d it is distin ctly here

sign ified by Featley that it was at this period that these A n abaptists were open ly an d with impun ity rebaptizin g hun dreds I n the

riv ers . Yea they were" flockin g in great multitudes

”to bap

rism— a thin g which could n ot hav e happen ed before 1 64 1 with

out the in terv en tion of civic an d ecclesiastical proceedin gs

2 04 ENGL I SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

which would have put o n record the arraign men t an d pun ishmen t of the An abaptists

.

for such a practice . Such proceedin gsagain st the practice of 1mmersion were bad after 1 64 1 , as wehav e seen

,when ,

in 1 644 , Lauren ce Clarkson was jailed 1n Suf

folk an d Hen ry Den n e at Spaldin g, 1 646 , for this offen se; an dwe may be sure that before 164 1 when the temporal an d spiritualswords were un sheathed again st the An abaptists, the baptismaldemon stration described by Featley abov e would have been impossible without pun ishmen t an d record . The twen ty or moreyears of An abaptist existen cemear Featley

’s residen ce do n ot in

c lude an y referen ce whatev er to An abaptist immersion in E n glan d before the period “

of late, alluded to by the author,after

1 64 1 . As Dr. Whitsitt has demon strated an d as Dr. Newmanwell says :

What F eatley says abou t the practice of immersion refers defi n itely tothepresen t ( 1644)

Nothin g is clearer than that Featley 1s speakin g of Baptist dip;pin g as they

“n ow practiced

”in 1644 , an d as they had n ot prac

ticed before that date , 1 64 1 .

Agai n on page 1 1 8 Featley discusses the 4oth Article of the

Baptist Con fession of 1 644 on Dippin g. H e says

This Article is wholly sowsed with the n ew [em/en of A n abaptisrn e .

_I say n ew [ear/en , for it can n o t be prov ed that an y of the an cien t A n abap

t ists main tain ed an y such positio n , there bein g three ways of baptizin g,

e ither by dippin g, or washin g, or sprin klin g, to which the Scriptures ai‘

ludeth in su n dry places: the Sacramen t is rightly admin istered by an y of

the three, an d whatsoev er is alleagaie here for dippin g, we approve of so

far as it excludeth n ot the o ther two . Dippin gmaybe a n d hath been used

in some places Zre'

n a z'

n z n zersz’

o,a threefold dippin g ; bu t there is n o meces

sity of it . I t 15 n o t essen tiall to baptisme, n either do the tex ts in the mar

gen t co n clude a n y such thin g. I t is true that John baptized Chrlst 1n'

J ordan ,an d Philip baptized the E u n uch in the riv er ; but the tex t saith

n ot, that either the E un uch or Christ himself, or an y baptized by John or

his Disciples, or an y of Christ ’s Disciples, were dipped, plu n ged or dowsed’

o v er head an d ears,as this Article implyeth,

an d our A n abaptists n ow prae

Observe here that Featley stigmatizes immersion as the n ewleav en ofAn abaptisme

” based o n the defin ition of the 4othArticle

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 06 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

mean that the “ n ew leaven of An abaptisme — n ow embedded inthe 4oth Article an d which he calls the “

n ow practice”of “our

[E n glish] An abaptists” —was 1 1 9 years old. The on lyiden tifica

t ion of the 1644 with the 1525 An abaptists, accordin g to Feat

ley, con sists specifically 1n rebaptizin g those baptiz ed in in fan cy,as well as all others, without an y referen ce tomode; but thepeculiarity of exclusive dippin g, “

the n ew leaven of A n abaptisme

,

”is con fin ed by him to

“our [En glish] An abaptists,

”the

“n ew upstart sectaries, whose “

n ew practice was immersion,

a n d who have n ow,in 1 644, for the first time in history, put

down dippin g as a defin ition of baptismm a Con fession of Faith.

Immersion ,in the min d of Featley, was the

“n ew

”added to

the old “leaven of An abaptism by an ymode, whether amon gE n glish or German A n abaptists; but immersion

,espeEially

exclusive immersion , was n ot then the leaven of Con tin en talA n abaptism as such men as Featley, Baillie an d Edwardswe llkn ew. The A n abaptists of 1 525 an d on ward

,as a rule

, prao

ticed sprin klin g an d pourin g as sufficien t an d regarded immersiona s i n differen t with the other modes of baptism. They sometimesin some places practiced immersion ; but as amatter of sufficien cy,e xpedien cy or n ecessity they seem to hav e had n o hesitan cy in

practicin g sprin klin g or pourin g. Accordin g to Dr. Featley the

Novatian s (250) an d the Don atists (380) practiced in fan t baptisman d did n ot exclusiv ely immerse , if they always immersed. Dr.

Newman con firms Featleywith regard to their in fan t baptism,

(Hist. A n tipedobaptism, pp. 1 7 an d he is likewise clearthat the An tipedobaptists of the 1 6th cen tury gen erally sprin kledan d that “ immersio n claimed a v ery small share of their atten

t ion , (Review of the Question s pp . 1 7 1”

Baillie (An abaptisme, &c . , p. 163) says of them :

As I take it,‘

they dip n o n e , but all whom they baptize they sprin kle

But it is objecte d that Beatley (Con futation of A . R . , p. 49)shows

_that the Sen ate of Zurich decreed the drown in g of the

1 5 2 5 Catabaptists‘

,because they immersed (qua guis peeeufeo

pun iaz‘ur) an d for the same reason wished the En glishAn abap

tists so pun ished “in some way an swerable to their sin . Some .

of the En glish An abaptists were burn ed , 1 539, for the offen se of

An abaptism. Therefore,it is argued, the E n glish An abaptists

were immersion ists, sin ce theywere pun ished for the same offen se

WHAT THE ENEMY SAID— DR . PRATLEY . 207

that those of Zurich were, an d sin ce Featley iden tifies the 1 644a n d the 1 5 25 An abaptists as the same by immersion . Accordin g to this logic, however, those En glish An abaptists, burn ed m1 539 , should have been drown ed if pun ished in a form “

an

swerable to the sin”

of immersion ; but drown in g was a usualpun ishmen t for certain crimes in Switzerlan d an d German y lon gbefore the Reformation ,

an d was specially applicable to womenas bein g the easiest mode of death I t was the doom of the old

Roman law to be sewed in a sack an d cast in to the sea for the

sin of Sacrilege . Margaret an d Agn es Wilson ,of Stirlin g, the

“virgin martyrs, 1 685 , were drown ed in the Solway for theirCov en an ter’s faith— this in Spri n klin g Scotlan d . Felix Man zan dotherAn abaptistswho sprin kled for rebaptismwere drown ed ,while H ubmair

,who poured , was burn ed an d his Wife drown ed

for the sain e offen se of Catabaptism. The words mergo, - z‘

uufen ,doopen r z oupz

‘

iz o, at that time, had attain ed the altered mean in g of

wash or sprin kle as well as dip ; an d hen ce the drown in g of

A n abaptists had n o more referen ce to immersion than'

to other

forms of baptism amon g the An abaptists or Catabaptists whosecrime was simply reoupz

‘ismwithout the slightest regard to mode .

At the close of on e of the public disputation s at Zurich, Miln er(Vol. p. 536) says that the A n abaptists wen t out an d “

re

oapz‘iz ed ln epeople in ifie streets

,

”that is by sprin klin g, as in the

case ofMan z,Grebel

,Blaurock an d others

,The Sen ate

of Zurich,at the close of the sev eral disputation s, 1 52 7 , passed

a decree that “whoever should rebaptiz e an yperson ,should him

self be drown ed” (ibid ., p . 5 accordin g to a usual mode of

pun ishmen t ; an d the celebrated words of Zwin gle : “Quiilerun z

mergiz‘

,mergulur, are ren dered byMiln er : “H e who rebaptizes

with wafer, let him be drown ed in water .

” These words had n omore application to immersion than to s sprin klin g, accordin g tothe altered usage of wergil

‘

an d merguz‘

ur ; an d D r. Featley

(p. 49) expresses the decree of Zurich in the same lan guagewhen he thus ren ders it

I f an y presumed to rebaptize those that were baptized before, theyshould be drown ed.

Whatever Featley’s n otion that those An abaptists of 1 525 Who

were drown ed immersed,he did n ot believe "

that they were

drown ed because theyhadimmersed , butbecause theyrebaptized ;an d he

“

on ly expresses the formal fitn ess of drown in g those who

208 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

rebaptized by immersion . H e does n ot in the slightest way ihten d here to iden tify the 1 644 an d the 1 5 25 An abaptists byimmersion

,or to imply that the En glish An abaptists had been

immersin g all the while,or that an y of them had ever been pun

ished for immersion m —tlie thin g he seemed n ow to advise for thefirst time in En glan d Sin ce they had added the n ew offen se of

exclusive dippin g to rebaptism,the “

n ew leaven ” of their “n ow

practice”

an d of their 1 644 Con fession ,the n ew sin of “

our

(En glish) An abaptists,”an d n ot of our “

an cien t” or 1 5 25 A n a

baptists, so far as exclusive immersion was co n cern ed . Featleyrightly expressed the sin an d pun ishmen t of the 1 5 25 A n abaptists

,accordin g to Gastin s’ Latin phrase above

,when he says

“Theywho drew others in to the whirlpool of error, by con !

strain t draw on e an other in to the river to be drown ed ; but he

does n ot mean that they were drown ed simply for dippin g whenhe says :

“A n d theywho profan ed baptism bya secon d dippin g,rue it by a third Immersion .

”H e really mean s n o more than

when he says of the An abaptists (p .

Thousan ds of that Sect who defiled their first baptism by the seco n d,

were baptized a third time in their own blood.

”

The truth is that in fan t dippin gwhichwould be the first tobe defiledby a secon d dippin g,

”was n ot in v ogue in Zurich; an d the

“secon d dippin g, with but little exception ,

was n ot in practice

by the A n abaptists. The “third Immersion ,

’ ’

or drown in g, wasas applicable to sprin klin g as to dippin g ;

an d A n abaptism or

Catabaptismmean t immersion in to “error

,

”rather than dippin g

in to water,bywhat Featley calls a

‘f

prophan ation of the holysacramen t . I f he believeeL the Zurich An abaptists, 15 2 5 ,immersed , he erron eously followed a tradition which stillpersists in spite of true history, an d which grew out of the sup

position that drown in g was decreed as a form of pun ishmen tan swerable to the sin of immersion . There were a large n umberof immersion s at St . Gall, 1 5 2 5 , where the pen alty was “ban ishmen t

”for rebaptism,

an dwhere the practice seems to have beencompletely broken up ; but at Zurich the pen altywas drown in g,where the practice of rebaptism was by sprin klin g ; an d the firstvictim of the ordin ary law was Felix Man z

,a sprin kler, 1 52 7 ,

un der the sen ten ce of Zwin gle himself: “Qui iterum mergzt

mergczz‘ur.

”

Zwin gle in his Elen chus an dFeatleyin his Dippers Dipt agree

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

0 E NGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMAT ION .

the A n abaptists of Switzerlan d, 1 5 25 , he must have kn own as

Baillie did that immersion was n ot exclusive or gen eral amon gthem,

an d that sprin klin g was theirusual practice ; an d hen ce hedid n ot call them “

n ew an d upstart ,”

n or iden tify them with“our [En glish] An abaptists of 1 644 upon the groun d of 1mm‘ersion which he could n ot have called “

n ew leaven,

1 1 9

years old. H e iden tified themon ly upon the groun d of rebaptism or Catabaptism; an d he must hav e kn own aswell as Barebon e an d others did that the practice of dippin g by the En glishAn abaptists was of recen t date . H e lived in Southwark

,an d

had kn own the An abaptist Solifuga for more than twen tyyearsan d what the so-called Kiffin Man uscript an d the BampfieldDocumen t

,Croshy an d his witn esses, say of the “disuse ,” of

believers’ immersion in En glan d an d its restoratiomby the E n glishBaptists, 1640

—4 1 , must have been k n own to Featley an d

here taken for gran ted in his Dippers Dipt . Even,however

, ifhe had iden tified the En glish A n abaptists of 1 644 with the

Swiss An abaptists of r5 2 5 _upon the groun d of immersio n

,he

would hav e kn own the gap of “disuse” which yawn ed in the

practice of immersion in En glan d an d upon the Con tin en t ; an dhis “n ew upstart ,

”or

“n ew leaven

,stigma would have still

b een applicable on ly to“our [En glish] An abaptists

”an d their

“n ow practice

”of exclusive

'

immersion as n ow implied by the4oth Article of their 1 644 Con fession an d “

of late”exemplified

in baptizin ghun dreds of men an d women over head an d ears

an d “n aked in their Jordan s .

Let me repeat that if“

such had been Anabaptist practiceb efore 164 1 in En glan d when the temporal an d Spiritual swordwas un sheathed, such men as\Fe atley an d Edwards would hav ebeen en gaged , n ot in con troversy, but in prosecution ,

again st

the An abaptists. The added offen se of exclusive immersiongreatly en raged the Pedobaptistsalready an tagon ized by rebaptism in other forms; an d if the En glishAn abaptists from to

1 64 1 had practiced an d pressed their n ew crotchet”— en dan

.gerin g the health an d virtue of the people by n aked baptism as

c laimed by Featley, Edwards, Baxter an d others— we shouldhave heard of it in the court records an d history of that periodwas was to some exten t true after 1 64 1 in spite of the en largedliberty of the Baptists. Featley does speak of the An abaptist“fire

” quen ched in the reign s of Elizabeth an d James, smotheredu n der ashes durin g the reign _of Charles I . down to 164 1 , n ow

WHAT TH E ENEMY SA ID— DR . FEATLEY.

ablaze “of late” sin ce the “

un happy distraction s” of the revolu

tion ; but amon g all the charges of heresy an d schism made incommon to the prior period of An abaptism in German y an d

E n glan d he does n ot stigmati'

ze an y as n ew upstart,”n or with

the “n ew leaven of An abaptisme, n or with the licen tiousn ess

of n aked baptism,except “our An abaptists in E n gla n d,

” “of lace

,

”

n or does he imply it .

H e compares“our

‘ A n abaptists in E n glan d to a

youn g lion ,

” who though n ot yet guilty, as might be claimed,

o f the crimes of their predecessors, yet he warn s that when heis “older” grown an d “kn ows his own stren gth, bein g hun gerbit

,

”he will run ‘

roarin g abroad seekin gwhomhe maydevour.

”

Un der the figure of the “Solifuga”

(p. 5 , E . D . ) he refers to

him as hav in g “first shewed his shin in g head,

” “ in these later

times,” “

n eer his place of residen ce formore than twen tyyeers;”

an d he here eviden tlypoin ts to the/organ ic origin of the A n abaptists, 1 633 , an d further back perhaps to 1 6 1 1

,as he kn ew them

in an d about Lon don . Organ ically they were a“youn g,

”

“n ew upstart , sect ; n ot yet arraign ed or pun ished for the

grosser crimes of former A n abaptistsh but n ot to be trusted toolder growth an d stren gth in the heresyan d schism of rebaptismto which theyhad n ow added the offen se of exclusive immersion— the “

n ew leaven of An abaptisme"— en dan gerin g the health

an d virtue of the people by n aked admin istration .

Featley regarded “our An abaptists of E n glan d n ot

“

on ly as a

youn g, a“n ew upstart

”sect, but , from the organ ic an d ex

elusive stan dpoin t, as a separate an d distin ct sect of An abaptists.

Upon the gen eral prin ciple of rebaptism an d in some other

respects he iden tifies them with the German A n abaptists an dwith the former A n abaptist elemen ts in En glan d but be dis

tin guishes them as suigen erzswith respect to their n ew leaven ”of exclusive immersion latelybegun to be practiced in the Kin gdom. Like Edwards (p. 1 33) he associates themwith Brown istsan d other sects of recen t orig1n whose errors were of recen t date.

To be sure,he poin ts back to the foreign elemen ts of An abap

tism as“chips

”hewn from the German block

,

“Stock” [Stork ,some of which flew to En glan d an d kin dled the Dutch An abaptist “fire

” in the reign s of Elizabeth an d James; but he shows

that this elemen tal flame was quen ched,although the elemen tal

embers lay un der ashes un til the fire broke out again un der theorgan ized form of “our An abaptists of En glan d

”-En glish A n a

2 1 2 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

baptists— at a later date un der the “n ew an d distin ctive pecu

liarity. of exclusive Immersion . Our An abaptists of En glan d”

were somethin g “n ew an d upstart

”un der the sun ; an d their

exclusive immersio n was the “n ew leav en of An abaptisme . n u

der the sun — n ot san ction ed by the teachin gs of Scripture n or bythe practice of the old An abaptists. Featley

’

S“Dippers Dipt

is an implication that Immersion in En glan d was of recen t in troduction by the Baptists —_a

“splin ter n ew practice

”as Dr. Whit

sitt puts it.For a differen t but con clusiv e argumen t , geographically an d

criticallycon sidered , I refer the reader to Dr. Whitsitt’5 book Onthis subject . (A Question I n Baptist History, pp. 70

—74 .

Featley I s in exact lin e with the Baptist docume n ts an dWritersof his day. Corn well

,in 1 645 , positively affirms that the Bap

tists had resumed Immersion un der the “discovery”an d “

comman d” of Christ ; an d Featley, in 1644 , affirms that immersionwas the “

n ew leaven of An abaptisme in the 4oth article of the

Baptist Con fession . Barebon e declares, in 1 643 , that Baptistdippin g was on ly “

two or three yeares old,”an d Edward Barber

does n ot den y the fact while he defen ds the right to restore the“ lost” ordin an ce. R . B. admits to P . B . that “un til some timelately there were n o baptized people in the world”— n o immersion ists; an d if the Baptists, before an d after Featley, make such

admission s,then we kn ow just what Featleymean t

,n amely, that

adult immersion was a “splin ter n ew practice

”in En glan d . H e

could n ot, with the Baptist lights before him,have mean t an y

thin g else ; an dhe I S on lyon e of fiftyor sixty e ters I n the 1 7th

cen tury, Baptist an d Pedobaptist, who con sisten tly con firm the

1 64 1 thesis of the restoration\ofithe “disused” practice of immer

sion by the En glish Baptists. An y other con clusion is utterlyimpossible.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

4 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

the old Jacob-Lathrop Church in 1 633 an d “with others, at the

time,

received a further baptism.

” Baptized I n in fan cy, he re

ceived an other baptismwhen he became an An abaptist I n 1 633 ,makin g two baptisme — both n o doubt by aspersion . I n 1 638

he I S eviden tlywith Spilsbury, who was pastor of the 1633 se

cession ; an d n ow “of late,” in 164 1 , he 1S rebaptized again by

his pastor, Spilsbury, in“An abaptist fashion ,

”which was n ow ,

immersion,this bei n g Eaton

’5 third baptism— a practice so often

charged to the Baptists after 1 64 1 . Eaton, a layman ,

as in

structed by Spilsbury, immediately proceeded to baptize others.

All this accords with the date an d detail of the Kiffin MS . an d

with Crosby’s accoun t . I n 1 64 1 Blun t by the “first method” of

revival in troduced regular baptism ; an d at the same time Spilsburybythe “last method of revival in troduced irregular baptism— that I S , by an un baptized admImstrator upon Spilsbury

’s

own theory that“baptiz edn esse is n ot essen tial to the admin

istrator of baptisme .

”See pp. 100

,10 1

,1 1 0

,1 1 1

,this volume .

2 . A Tract (The Book of our Common Prayer, & c.,Lon don

,

speakin g of the growth an d power of the sectaries,amon g

whom the An abaptists are men tion ed,

“swarmin gin everycity,

poin ts to the discovery of a“base sect of people called R ebap

tists l ately foun d out in Hackn ey Marsh n eere Lon do n . On

page 8, it is said :“About a Fort n ight sin ce a great multitude of people were met goin g

towards the riv er in H ackn eyMarsh, an d werefo llowed to the water side ,where theywere all Baptized again e, themselves doin g it o n e to an other

,

some of which perso n s were so feeble an d aged, that theywere fayn etoR ide o n H orsebacke thither this was well observ ed byman y of'the in hab

itan ts livin g thereabouts, an d aftfi vards o n e of them Christen edhis owh eChilde

,an d an o ther tobke upo n him to Church his own e Wife , an Abom

in able Act , an d full of grosse Impiety.

”

Although this does n ot favor An abaptism on the part of“on e

of these” who “Christen ed his own e Childe, yet upon the

whole it looksAn abaptistic an dwas characteristic of the disorderwhich immediately sprun g out of the n ew movemen t an d thisfact is characteristic of the irregularity of the movemen t at firstas poin ted out byBampfield an d as shown in the chapter on The

Bampfield Documen t, to which I refer the,

reader.

3 . S . C .,in reply to A . R .

,in two volumes un der the same

title (A Christian Plea for In fan t’s

WHAT TH E ENEMY SA ID . 2 1 5

says, in the secon d work , Preface to the Reader (p. of the

An abaptists that they“de n y an d disclaime the Ordin an ce of Baptism which they hav e received

in the Apostacie . Yea , they e n tan gle themselv es so in the bryars

an d thorn es of the wildern esse that they are‘

driv en n ow to hold a Churchall of un baptizEd perso n s ; an d that though n o n e of them be baptized, yetthe said Church may set apart o n e or more of her un baptized members,an d giv e them authority to baptize themselv es an d o thers an d yet they

gran t that baptisme may be where there is n o Church,an d so (castin g

away the baptisme which they formerly received) they are driv en (in

takin g up their n ew laptisrn e) to affirm that an un baptized perso n or per

so n s may an d must baptize themselv es, an d after that baptize o thers, elsetrue baptisme can {fev er be had.

This is precisely the position held by Baptists at the timeexcept

’

in all cases,selfbaptism— as shown by Baptist authorities

an d especially by Bampfield. Aga1n st A . R .

’s dippin gZ

S . C .

opposes“sprin klin g or washin g as the Scriptural mode ; an d

A . R . declares that the baptism of the Church of En glan d wassprin klin g, which he ren oun ced in 1 642 as havin g received it inin fan cy, showin g that lon g before 1 64 1 sprin klin g was .the Pedobaptist mode in En glan d .

4 . I n a co n troversy between I . E ., ,Pedobaptist an d T. L . ,

An abaptist , (The An abaptist Groun dwork forReformation , &c. ,

Lon don,

on page 23 , I . E . asks T . L this question

I askT . L . an d the rest of those Baptists or Dippers that wil l n o t becalled A n abaptists (t/zouglc tlzey oaptiz e some t/zat n ave leen twice laptiz ed

oefore) what rule they hav e byword or example in Scripture for goin gmen

an d women together u n to the water for their man n er of dippin g?”

Speakin g of Christ washin g the disciples’feet he asks why

(p. 23) Baptists do n ot obey this comman d .

“ I s it because ,says he,

“it makes n ot so well for your plan tin g of n ew clzurcn es

as the others Again he says (p. 24)

These [Baptists] an d all o ther such like gatherers of people together,

builders an d plan ters, which comes so n ear their strain in framin g an d

settlin g churches to themselv es in their in depen den t way, un der the pre

ten ce of castin g off all the abomin ation s of ' A n tichrist , an d practicin g to‘

the state of the churches of the Apostles’ times ; let them an d all o thers

wh o in o ther kin ds seem to en deav or a reformation take heed, &c .

2 16 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

The un challen ged charge of baptizin g those “twice baptized

before’ —made byP . B. an d others also— is proof that the A n abaptists before 1 64 1 were sprin kled (1 ) in in fan cy, (2) whenthey separated , an d (3) were dipped when immersion was

adopted by the Baptists. Hen ce I . E . calls Baptist churches“n ew churches ; an d he poin ts out the curren t Baptist posi

tion of “hav in g thrown off the abomin ation s ofAn tichrist,

”an d

of havin g in augurateda“reformation ” Of their own .

5 . William Cooke (A Learn ed an d Full An swer to a Treatisein titled The Van ity of Childish Baptisme [A . Lo n don

,

011 pages 2 2,he says

“Fourthly, will n ot this man n er of dippin g be foun d also again st the

Seven th Comman dmen t in‘

the Decalogue For I would kn ow with thesen ew dipper: whether the parties to be dowsed or dipped may be bap

tiz ed in a garmen t or n o ? I f theymay, then happilythe garmen t may

keep the water from some part of the body, an d then they are n ot rightlybaptized for the whole man , say they, must be dipped. Again e I wouldaskwhat warran t they hav e for dippin g or baptizin g garmen ts more than

the Papists hav e for baptizin g Bells ? Therefore belike the parties, mustbe n aked an d Multitudes presen t as at John ’

s baptisme,an d the parties

men

~

an d women of riper years, as bein g able to make a con fession of their

faith an d repen tan ce, etc.

”

The objection that Cooke more fully quoted would show hisign oran ce an d en mity regardin g Baptists— his view of dippin g,in the light of the oth an d 7th comman dme n ts

,as dan gerous

an d lascivious— in n o wayaffects his characterization of Baptistsas

‘n ewdipper

‘

s. Man y learn edmen of the time like Featley,Baillie

,Baxter

,Edwards

,Goodwin

,Cooke an d others regarded

dippin g as dan gerous to health,

an d often heard that it wasn aked an d in decen t l n its performan ce ; but their ign oran ce or

en mityin this respect did n ot argue their 1gn oran ce of the fact

that the Baptists had recen tly in troduced it in to En glan d or had

n ot practiced it in En glan d before 1 64 1 . The Baptists themselves admitted the fact an d defen ded theirright to restore ; an d

hen ce the Pedobaptists with their View of baptism,had n o hes

itation in callin g them “n ew clippers .

” Cooke was con ten din gwith A . R .

,an d kn ew all about the subject I n con troversy;

an d he is right in lin e with Featley, Barebon e, Baillie, Pagitt

an d the Baptists themselves as to their “n ewbaptisme

”-that is

,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

8 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

the time it was in troduced— con trary to the law of the En glishChurch which “

allowed” While it did n ot practice immersioneven as an altern ate form with sprin klin g. This I s the same position assumed by Barebon e, Featley, Baillie, Edwards an d all the

rest again st the exclusive form of Baptist Immersion which n ul

Zzfieo’sprin klin g an dpourin gasbaptism— the great offen se ofA n a

baptism Sin ce 164 1 , as rebaptism by an y mode was the greatoffen se before that date .

7 . josiah R icraft (A Lookin g Glasse For the A n abaptists, &c .

Lon don,1 645) whose work is an assault upon Kiffin

’s“Briefe

Remon stran ce ,” says ofKiffin (p. I, to the

“Courteous Reader)H e preten ds a n ew Zn /zt, an d takes upon him to set up a N ew fon n o

’

Ckn rek,an d by this mean s seduceth an d draweth awaymen s wiv es

, children an d serv an ts to be his prosylites.

He charged“

Kiffin with “erectin g n ew-framed churches

”to

which Kiffin replied aswe have seen heretofore an d upon which

an swer Ricraft (p. 6) thus retorts

For your A n swr to this mysecon Querie, in stead of showin g Scripture

warran t for such a priv ate man as you are , to erect a n ew framed Co n gregation ; you allege your own practice, that your Co n gregation was erected

an d framed ev en in time of Episcopacy, an d that before you heard of an y

R eformation ; I pray you what an swer doe you thin ke in your con .

scien ce,this is to the Querie propou n ded ; I put the question again e

more particularly, What Scripture warran t private person s hav e, to gather

of themselv es Churches, either un der Episcopacyor Presbytery That

can n o t help you that you say your preten ded Co n gregation s were erectedbefore you heard of an y R eformatio n ; A n dif it Should be gran ted your:possz

'

ole onzgf/zt oe, yet what Shall we say to those multitudes of Co n gregatio n s that hav e been erected sin ce they heard of R eformatio n

This is but an other con firmation of the fact that the En glishBaptists were Separatists from the Reformers, so con fessed byKiffin himself to Poole whose Queries were framed by R icraft.Their churcheswere “n ew foun d,” “

n ew framed” —that is, latelyself-organ ized un der a self origin ated baptism an d min istry,whether before or after the Puritan or Presbyterian Reformation .

Hen ce the Baptist min istry, in 1 645 , were called “private per

son s” because in the Pedobaptist View theyhad n o ecclesiastical

succession . an d n o official authority to preach,baptize or meet

WHAT THE ENEMY SAID . 1 9

churches. Therefore their separation was schismatical an d heretical an d hen ce R icraft presses the usual question of Scripturalwarran t for

'

self-origin ated baptism or the right to organ izechurches un der a baptism,

to begin with, which the Baptists hadheretofore origin ated at thehan ds ofmen n ot baptized themselves .

Kiffin does n ot preten d to den y this fact growin g out of the re

cen t in troduction of immersion by the Baptists; but he defen ds.

Baptist separation an d reformation from the charge of schisman d heresyupon the groun d that Presbyterywas still in the han dsofAn tichristian heresyan d corruption ,

an d that the Baptists haderected their churches upo n the prin ciple of believ ers’ baptismaccordin g to the rule of Christ an d had made a better reformation ,

e ven before the Presbyterian movemen t of 1 643—49 .

Kiffin agrees, as seen heretofore,that when Ricraft

’s R ef

ormation got rid of its abomin ation s,that the Baptists who had

separated from the Reformers,would “

return”to them. This set

tles the question of Baptist origin an d its late date in En glan dan d that too at the han ds of William Kiffin ,

than whom there is

n o better authorityamon g the writers of the 1 7th cen tury. H e

was con fessedly a Separatist, an d so ofhis en tire church, in 1 645an d he so speaks of Baptists I n gen eral as Separatists, an d as

havin g reformed upon the rule of Christ, an d “before”

the

Presbyterian Mov emen t , 1 643— 1 649 . Ev ery Baptist preacher

an d church down to 1 64 1 an d on ward,were Separatists. So

far as I can fin d there _were n o origin al Baptist-s, or Baptistpreachersk in En glan d un til towards the latter en d of the 1 7th

cen tury. Smyth, H elwys, Morton,Spilsbury, Blun t, Barber,

Kiffin,Jessey, Kn ollys, Tombes, Hobson

,LambkAllen ,

Kilcop,Keach,

Stewart , Owen — down to Collin s, 1 69 2— allcame out fromthe Pedobaptists; an d this is simplyon e of amultitude of proofs ofthe late Separatist origin of the En glish Baptists. Ev en the“in termixed” An abaptists, 1633

—38, who origin ated the Particu

lar Baptists, were Separatists from the Puritan s when theyorgan ized churches of their own persuasion .

8 . Author of the Loyall Co n v ert (The New Distemper, Oxford, The subject of this work is gov ern men t or dis

ciplin e, n ecessary in religion to the state . The Old Distemperwas Roman ism swept awayby Episcopacy an d Episcopacy sub

stituted by Presbytery. The “New Distemper”is Separatism

especially An abaptism. On page 14 , amon g other disorderlythin gs charged , it is said :

zz‘

z o ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

Hav e n ot professed An abaptists challen ’

ged our Min is‘ ters to disputewith them I n our churches ? Have they n o t after their disPutation S

retired in to their I n n es, an d private lodgin gs, accompan ied with man y oftheir Auditors an d all joyn ed together in their ex temporaryprayers for

blessin gs upo n their late exercise H ow often hath Bow River (whichthey lately have baptiz ed N ewj ora

'an ) been witn ess to their prophan a

t io n s.

An abaptismwas chiefly the “New Distemper as the latestS eparation of an y importan ce ,

an d a flin g is heremade at their

n ewn ess by a reflection upon the river Bowas their “New

j ot a’

an”

lately”so

“baptized .

9 . john Eachard (The Axe Again st Sin an d Error,&c . ,

Lon

don, on page 8 , says

“For he'

r'

e is‘

the cause of all the Sects an d divisio n s in Chfisten do n ie ;for when men hav e lost oaptism, then o n e sect will devise to get remissio no f sin s o n e way as by a Pope

’s pardo n ,

‘

by pilgrimage, o‘

r in -Purgatory.

The A n abaptists by a n ew oaptif n ze, an d by a n ew en tire/i way,n o t ap

poin ted byChrist, but in ven t/2a7 oy tlzen greloes, to make themmore righteous,

a n d holy, an d clean than o thers, that are n ot of their way, an d therefore

will n o t commu n icate with o thers, &c .

This I S the usual charge by the Pedobaptists of the 1 7th Cen

tury an d the charge I S admitted an d defen ded by the Baptistsxcept that their baptism an d church n ewly erected were sim

ply the old way“n ew-foun d,” an d discovered to them through

the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit .10 . Nathan ael Homes (A Vin dication of Baptizin g .

BelieversI n fan ts I n his Epistle to the Reader

, (p. 2) hesays

But the u n satisfactory callin g of the An abapt1st-Admin istrators of

their pre te n ded better baptisme , upo n a former worse”co n ceitedbaptisme; bein g n ot ex traordin arily called, or n o t havin g the first seale themselv es ; or bein g Sebaptists, that 15 , Self-baptizers; or baptizedwith the old

so rt of I n fan t baptisme (in either of which they are most un like to Johnthe Bapt ist) hath justly caused man y to ho ld off from them,

an dman y to

fall away from them. A n d man y that are with them,to be at a losswhere

t o rest . On e con gregatio n at first addin g to their I n fan t baptism, the

adul t baptisme of sprin klin g; then n o t restin g therein , e n deavoured to

adde to that , a dippin g, ev en to the breakin g to pieces of their Co n gre

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 2 2 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST R E FORMATION .

Thus English An abaptismWas itself called “n ew by this able

a n d learn ed Pedobaptist .

13 .

‘

Steven Marshall , B . D . (A Defen se of I n fan t Baptism,

Comparin g, on page 74 , the En glishA n a

baptist doctrin es an d disorders with those of German y, Marshallsays .

Verily o n e egge is n o t more like an o ther then this brood of n ew

o pin ion s (lately hatched in E n glan d an den tertain ed amo n g them who are

“

c alledA n abaptists) is like the Spawn e which so sudden ly grew up amon g

the A n abaptists of German y an d our: plead the same Argumen ts which

Meir: did ; an d if they flow n o t'

from the same Logicall an d Theological]pri1101ples,, it is yet their un happy fate to be led by the same Spirit .

”

“

On page 75 (to Tombes) .he says again :

“An d for what you alledge out of the Lo n do n A n abaptist Co n fessio n , I

a ckn owledge it the most Orthodox of an y A n abaptist Con fession that I

e ver read (al though there are sun dry H eterodox oplmon s in it) an d such

an o n e as I believ e thousan ds of our n ew A n abaptists will be farre fromo wn in g, &c.

”

Although Marshall charges similarity of doctrin e an d disorderamo n g the En glish an d German An abaptists, he does n ot organically or ceremon ially con n ect them. H e calls the En glishAn abaptists, ‘

on r n ewAn abaptists ,”

an d he says that theirbroodo f n ew opin ion s were

‘“lately n aten ea’in E n glan d. No writer of

the period , however he compares the En glish an d German A n abaptists with each other

,ever con n ects them by baptism or

organ ization .

14 . Robert Baillie (An abaptisme the True Foun tain e of In depen den cy, &c .

,Lon don

,On page 53 Baillie states the

Baptist positioriof his day accurately :“This is clear of baptism,

for they require in abaptizer n o t on ly n o

office , but n o t so much as baptism itself, all of them avowin g the lawfuln esse of a perso n n ot baptized to baptize an d

‘

as it seems,to celebrate the

L ord’s Supper.

”

O n page 1 53 , after statin g the Baptist argumen t for dippin g asagain st sprin klin g, he says

H owever we den y both the parts of the proof, Sprin klmg an d-Dippin g,are two forms of Baptisme , differin g.

n ot essen tially, but acciden tally/

airs

WHAT TH E ENEMY SA ID . 2 23

cumstan tially, or modally, so to speak, an d till very late the A n abaptists

[E n glish] themselv es did n o t speak o therwise .

”

w

On page 1 63 he Says

The pressin g,

of dippin g an d explodin g of Sprin klin g is but a yesterdaycon ceit of the E n glish A n abaptists.

‘Amo n g the n e win ven tion s ofthe lateA n aoaptzsts, there is n o n e withwhich

greater an imosity they set on foo t, then the n ecessity of dippin g ov er head

a n d ears, then the n ullity of affusio n an d sprin klin g in the admin istratio n

o f baptisme. Amo n g the olcl A n aoaptists, or those ov er sea to this day so

far as I can learn ,by their writs or an y relation that has yet come to my

ears, the question of dippin g an d sprin klin g came n ev er upo n the Table .

A s I take it titeydip n on e,but all whom they baptize, they sprin kle in the

same man n er as is our custome . The question about the n ecessity of dip

pin g seems to be taken up on ely tn e otlzer year by the A n abaptists in E n g

lan d, as a poin t which alo n e , as they co n ceiv e , is able to carry their desire

of ex termin atin g in fan t baptisme : for they kn ow that paren ts upon n o

co n sideratio n will be con ten t to hazard the life of their ten der in fan ts, by

p lun gin g them ov er head an d ears in a co ld riv er. L et uS therefore co n

sider if t/tis sparkle of n e w leg/it hav e an y deriv atio n from the lamp of the

S an ctuary, or the Sun of Righteousn esse , if it be accordin g to Scripturall

t ruth, or an y good reaso n .

On pages 1 78 , 1 79 , Baillie closes his discussIOn byassertin gthat the an cien t testimon ies in favor of dippin g did n ot hold the

. form “un chan geable

”or

“n ecessary ; an d he says :

Whe n an y. writer,either an cien t or modern

,except some few of the

l atest A n aoaptists [E n glish] , is brought to bear wit n esse of an y such asser

tio n,I Shall ackn owledge my in formatio n of that whereof hitherto I have

been altogether ign oran t .

Baillie is in perfect accord with the facts of history in the as

sertion that un til v ery lately the E n glish An abaptists n ever

adopted dippin g as the‘

exclusive form of baptism— makin g a

n ullity of sprin klin g an d pourin g— just as Barebon e an d others

declared an d just as Crosby affirms as charged by all Pedobaptists at the time immersion was restored . Baillie is right also inaffirmin g that such was n ever the position of the “

old A n abaptists

”of 1 5 25 , ov er sea— that the question of dippin g an d

sprin klin g n ev er came upon the table of con troversywith them

24 ENGLI SH BAPTI STRE FORMATION .

an d that at the time he wrote they dipped n on e, but sprin kled ,as the Pedobaptists un iversally did. Of course

, there was a

small exception ,at the time

,the Rhyn sburgers an d Polan d A n a

baptists who had adopted immersIOn ,respectively, in 1 620 an d

I 574 but the great body of Men n on ites an d others of the “oldAn abaptists

” were sprin klin g, an d had so don e from the first,

with,here an d there , some exception s, in which, however, im

mersion was n ot exclusive or a matter of con troversy.

'

FromBaillie’s stan dpoin t immersion was n ot on ly a matter of recen t

in troduction amo n g the“ late An abaptists” of E n glan d— “

takenup on ely the other year

’-bu_t it was a

“late in ven tion,

a“sparkle of n ew light ,

”an d in ten ded as a n ew an d effectual de

v ice again st in fan t baptism,by prejudicin g paren ts again st it, in

pressin g the fact that immersion was Scriptural . H e seems tohave forgotten that in fan t dippin g was on ce the custom in E n glan d ; but this I S an other eviden ce of the fact that, in 1 646 , I n

fan t immersion had lon g sin ce-fallen out of use .

On page 16 Baillie speaks of the “Men n on ist dippeOppose the human e n ature of Christ

,accordin g

p

to Clopen burgh

(Gan graen a Theologiae A n abaptistié ae, x lix. ,6 but Clo

pen burgh, in this passage , does n ot call the Men n on ites “dip

pers. I suppose Baillie was Simply callin g themby their n ame,“D oopsgez in den ,

”n otwithstan din g which they are

,an d were

then,sprin klers an d n ot dippers— an d always hav e been ,

accordin g to the best Doop

'

sgez in de authority. On page go’

he speaksof the “

n ew-

gathered Churches of rebaptized an d dippedsain ts

”amon g the German an d Swiss An abaptists at the “begin

n in g of their rebaptization ; an d while they actually began bysprin klin g, some of them did dip, as at St . Gall an d otherplaces.

No doubt Baillie here alludes to those who thuspracticed ,but he

in n o waycon tradicts himself I n the assertion that, at the time he

wrote,the “

old An abaptists, ov er sea,

”did n ot dip, but

spri n kled, asPedobaptists everywhere did, an das the ‘latest E n glish An abaptists

”had don e un til “tn e otn eryear 164 1 , when they

chan ged from affusion to immersion ; an d he claims it as ayesterday con ceit amon g the E n glishAn abaptists. H e does n otmen tionthe date, 1 64 1 , as the JesseyRecords actuallydo an d as Barebon epractically does, but he implies it. Baillie has been chargedwith prejudice an d slan der again st the Baptists an d therefore n ot

a competen t witn ess . So of Featley, Edwards, Baxter, an d

others who charge“n aked baptism

”an d other gross irregulari

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION.

(FROM 1609 TO 164 1 , A . D . )

CHAP TER XI X.

WHAT THE ENEMY SAID— CONCLUDED .

16 . Thomas”Edwards (Gan graen a, Lon don ,

Frombe

gin n in g to en d, Edwards takes for gran ted the recen t in troductionof immersion in En glan d by the Baptists. On page 1 , Pt . I . hesays

The first thin g I premI se, which I would have the R eader to take n o

tice is, that this Catalogue of E rrors, Blasphemies, Practices, Letters, isn ot of old errors, opin io n s, practices, of a former age, dead an d buried

man y years ago , an d n ow reviv ed by this Discourse ; but a catalogue n ow

in bein g, aliv e I n these presen t times, all of them ven ted an d broached

within these four years, yea most of themwithin these two last years, an dlesse .

After en umeratin g 1 76 errors, blasphemies, &c. ,he says on

page 36 , Pt . I . ,as follows

Now un to these man ymore might be added that I kn ow of, an d are

commo n lykn own to o thers, which have been preached an d prin ted within

these four last years in E n glan d (afi ffe n ecessity of dippin g an d buryin g n u

der water of all perso n s to be baptized,

Throughout his work he con stan tly assails “d pI n g as the

n ewmode of rebaptization an d the “Dippers”as

“n ew lights

”

such as Oates, Hobson ,Clarkson , _Kn owles, Patien ce, Den n e,

Kiffin an d n early all the rest kn own to the An abaptist history of

the time . On pages 138, 139 , Pt . III . ,he repudiates the compli

men t ‘harmlesse” paid to the An abaptists by Master Peters( 1646) an d calls it a “false epithete .

”For what sect or sort of

men'

sin ce the Reformation this hun dred years, he asks,

“have

been more harmfull?” After men t io n in g the tragedies, rapes,2 26

WHAT TH E ENEMY SA ID . 2 2 7

tumults, &c. ,charged again st the old An abaptists in severall

parts of Christen dome,”he says

I f we look upon our An aoaptists at liame, an d co n sider what man y

thin gs they hav e don e an d are doin g ; how can we call them harmlesse ?

Amon g other thin gs theywere doin g (in 1 646) he cites in the

followin g words: “Who kill ten der youn g person s an d an cien t

with dippin g themall over in Rivers, in depth ofWin ter;”an d so

he con tin ues the catalogue of evils ”

of which they were n ow

guilty. H e con cludes by sayin g: “A n d yet An abaptists of ourtimes are guilty of all these an dman ymore.

”

Edwards iden tifies the An abaptists of 1 646 with those of formertimes

,ev en a hun dred years before, upon the prin ciple of rebap

tism,schism

,violen ce, &c .

,but n ot by

“dippin g.

”The error of

dippin g belo n ged o n ly to‘oar An abaptists at lzome”— to the

“An abaptists of our time”— in En glan d; an d n owhere in the

Gan graen a are the Baptists of 1 64 1—46 organ ically or ceremo

n ially related with the An abaptists of 1 52 5 an d o n ward . Ed

wards (Pt . III . , p. 1 77) like Featley wishes for a public disputation in E n glan d, authorized byParliamen t

,between the A n abap

rists an d Pedobaptists, to settle the question of baptism— as hy_the

Sen ate of Zurich, 1 52 5— but the opin ion that the Zurich decree

in volved dippin g which is wholly erron eous,does n ot imply that

Edwards or Featley believed that the En glish An abaptists - had

been dippin g for 1 2 1 years, or that theywere con n ected by or

gan ism or dippin g with the An abaptists of I 5 2 5 . Edwards’ ideawas that the E n glishAn abaptists like the Swisswould be defeatedin debate an d suppressed by law; an d whatever Edwards’ or

Featley’s n otion about the pun ishmen t of drown in g at Zurich as

applicable to dippin g, both of them refer exclusive immersionsolely an d on ly to the En glish An abaptists after 1 64 1 . Featleycalls it the “

n ew leaven ” of the En glish An abaptists; an d Edwards con fin es it within “

fouryears” down to 1 646 , which would

reach back to about 164 1 . On pages 188,189 , Part III .

,he

says

There‘

is on e of thefirst Dinpers in E n glan d, o n e of the first tliat

brought it? tize trade, of whom I heard a m6dest good woman say that had

observ ed his filthy behav ior, &c . , that it was n o wo n der that he an dman y

had turn ed Dippers to dip youn g maids an d youn g women n aked, for itwas the fittest trade to serv e their turn s that could be, &c.

”

2 28’ ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

Here it is clear that he poin ts to on e of the origin ators of immersion in E n glan d as a matter of kn owledge on his own part,an d in perfect con sisten cywith his position that the dippin g of

the An abaptists origin ated I n the “four years past” back to 164 1 .

H e kn ew “on e of the first who brought up the trade” —“on e of

the first Dippers in En glan d .

”

However true or false Edwards’ n otion of the abuses of dippin g amon g the

'

A n abaptists, he is perfectly harmon iouswith thehistory of its

"

restoration by the Baptists of En glan d , 1 640—4 1 .

H e men tion s n o specific date except as comprehen ded in the ex

pression“four past years

” down to 1 646 , which is speakin g'

either in roun d n umbers, or accordin g to the Puritan reckon in gwhich would make 1 64 1 to be 1 64 2 . H e I S in lin e with Barebon e who claimed , 1643 , that the total dippin g of the Baptistswas “o n ely two or three years old

”an d with Baillie who fixes it

“orimthe other year.

” Watts in 1 6 56 put the date back as“13

or 14 yeare agoe,”an d so agrees .with Barebon e an d Edwards;

an d they all have substan tial agreemen t with the Jessey Recordswhich accuratelyfix the date at 1 64 1 .

1 7 . John Drew (A Serious Address to Samuel Oates, &c . ,Lon

don,

Samuel Oates wrote a book (A New Baptisme an d

Min istry, etc . ,1 648, 4to) , a Baptist production in con formity

with Baptist position of his day, but which I have n ot been ableto fin d. John Drew

,however

,so replies to it an d quotes it, that

we are able to un derstan d preciselyOates’

position as that the“Baptisme an d Min istry

’of the Baptist churches were “n ew”

an d based upon the curren t Baptist groun d for restoration byunbaptized admin istrators— all ofwhichDrew an tagon iz es upon thecurren t Pedobaptist groun d oLsuccession un der the defection of

An tichrist . From page 6 to 18 he makes the usual argumen tagain st restoration by an un baptized admin istrator, n amely, thatif the ordin an ces were lost theywould hav e to be rev ived in an

“

extraordin arywaybya n ew commission an d the like, an d on page14 , he says

Thus in goin g a few steps backward, you must n ecessarily han g all

the weight of your n ew Baptisme an d callin g either, (1) Upo n o n e who was

a Se-baptizer, Or (2) upo n o n e who rested co n ten t with his own e in fan t

baptisme [i. e . , an un baptized admin istrator] .

After.

tryin g to Show the illogical an d un scriptural position of

establishin g a n ew baptism an d min istry upon the admin istration

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

3o ENGLI SH , BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

to ren oun ce the old,an d take up a N ewBaptisme; to leav e the old

, an d to

joyn e themselv es to a N ew Church.

”

On page 2 , speakin g of Everard, his an tagon ist, he says

“A n d therefore to a man who maketh it o n e of his chief desIgn s to set

up a n ew c/z n rcn, to erect a n ewM n istry,

an d to cast all in to a n ew mouldwhat bet ter prin ciple can he hav e to begin withal than a N ew Baptisme.

From page 63 to 66 is an Appen dix The An swer of

William Swayn e, &c . , to Mr. Everard’s book, &c . Everard hadtaken the position that Swayn e, as all other Pedobaptists, wasto be regarded as a heathen ,

because un baptized, Matt .

I n reply (p. 65) Swayn e says

I f H eathen , because n ot baptized after theirman n er, an d co n sequen tlyn o church; then Mr . E verard an d those of his judgmen t , were n o church

before they receiv ed their n ew Baptisme ; but theywere Pagan s as well aso thers. I f theywere n o true church, their first Admin istrator was n o

true Admin istrator, because there was n o church to con ferre an officeupo n him. Therefore theymust say, he had his first Commission immediately from heav en ,

u n lesse they will affirme that H eathen s hav e power

to make an Admin istrator of Baptisme . Now this is co n trary to the

Scripture,’

which saith, they ordain ed E lders in ev ery church, Acts 14 , 23 .

Therefore in the ordin aryway the Church is before the E lders or Administrators. But if they Shall say there was an Admin istrator before a

church, as John Baptist; an d therefore in like man n er theymayhav e such

a o n e . I f they say this they must prov e from the Prophets that the

Gospel-Churches must hav e two Baptists, be twice plan ted : which sup

poseth n o Gospel Church in the wog ld before the Secon d Baptist to plan ta n ew church.

“Farther also theymust say that there is a Seco n d Christ before whom

the secon d Baptist must come as forerun n er : A n d so n ew in stitutio n s,

an d foun datio n s of Ordin an ces, Baptists, Apostles, Miracles; an dwhitherwill n ot this _con ceit come ? But if they say that the CommiSsion of

Matt . was their first Admin istrator’s rule , then he must be a Dis

ciple made by ordin ary preachin g an d teachin g, before he had an y

authority to Min ister their n ew Baptisme, who ever he was. A n d was

taught by some H eathen (thin k they) , or by a Disciple ? By a H eathen

theycan n ot say. A n d if by a preachin g Disciple, then Christ had a dis

ciple before their n ew Baptisme . Therefore they that wan t [n eed] this

New Baptisme, can n ot be stated H eathen s. An d how foule then was

WHAT TH E ENEMY SA ID . 23 1

their assertion at Withibrook, to call us H eathen s out of their order ? A n d

yet have n either comman d n or example in Scripture for their Baptisme,

in referen ce to their first Min ister’s Commission o r Authority.

This extract n eeds n o commen t as showin g the true positionofBaptistsan d of the con trov ersybetween theman d Pedobaptists.

The Baptists held to the restoration of a n ew church an d a n ew

min istry bya n ewbaptism,erected , after bein g lost , by the Scrip

tures; an d here we see a specimen of Pedobaptist logic basedupo n Pedobaptist premises— succession .

1 9 . John Goodwin (Water-Dippin g, & c .,1 6 53; Philadelphia,

&c . ,1 653; Catabaptism,

&c . ,1 6 55 , Lon don ) . I n the first work

Goodwin speaks, in the title , as follows“Co n sideration s provmg it n o t simply lawful , but n ecessary also (in

poin t of duty) for perso n s baptized after the n ew mode of‘

dippin g , to con

tin ue commun ion with those churches, or imbodied Societies of Sain ts, of

wltic/z tn ey werememoers oefore tn e saidD ippin g .

H e uses the expression s “New Baptism,an d “

the Brethrenof theNew Baptism; “Brethren of the Newbaptized churches,

”

“n ew Dippers of men an d. Dividers of churches

,

“n ew Bap

tists”

(pp. 8 repeatedly. On page 3 1 Goodwin says

“To plead that aperson u n baptized, may admin ister Baptism in case of

n ecessity, is a sufficien t plea in deed thus un derstood, v 12 1 . When Godhimself adjudgeth an d determin es the case to be a n ecessity; an d 2 .

Authoriz eth from heav en an y person , on e or more, for the work, ashe didJohn the Baptist . Otherwise Uzziah had as good or better reaso n to j udgethat case of n ecessity, in which he put forth his han d to stay the Ark

,

then ourfirst u n hallowed an d n n dipt dipper z n ti n s N ation had to call thata case of n ecessity, wherein the sad disturban ce of the affairs of the

Gospel , yea an d of civil peace also , n set up tn e D ippin g Trade.

. Ou page 36 , he affirms “by ,books an d writin gs that the

Baptists who “have gon e won derin g after dippin g an d R ebaptiz in g, hav e from the v ery first origin al an d sprin g of themsin ce the late R eformation , been very troublesome

,&c . On

page 39 , he poin ts out the fact that sin ce immersion was in troduced, there were

“sev eral edition s

,or man dev ised modes of

Dippin g”in ven ted

,each succeedin g edition ren derin g the

former in sufficien t or irregular, an d that some had been dippedthree or four times.

“For the mode of the latest an d n ewest

3 2 _ ENGLI SH BAPT IST RE FORMATION .

in ven tion ,he says, it is so con triv ed an d so man aged, that

the Baptist who dippeth accordin g to it,had n eed be a man of

stout H e ev iden tly refers here to our presen t modeof baptizin g a can didate backwards— the mode hitherto havin gbeen to press the head of the can didate forwards in to thewater.

The backwards mode was adopted about 1653— showin g the

gradual progress of the late in troduction of immersion .

Goodwin (p . 3 9) regards Nicholas Stork , or some on e of the

German An abaptists of 1 52 1 as the author of the practicew of

baptizin g others without himself bein g baptized , after that“exotiquemode in this n ation ,

”as~he terms it in En glan d . I n

other words it had been adopted lately in En glan d, an d was“n ew” an d n ot in digen ous to the soil; for he speaks of the“ first

un hallowed an d un dipt dipper I n this n ation ,

” who “set up the

Dippin g Trade,”an d he affirms the origin of the Dippers their

v ery first an d origin al sprin g Sin ce the late Reformation ,an d

the mode ‘exatign efi

I n his Philadelphia, Goodwin deals I n the same expression sabout the “New Baptisme,

” “the way of the New Baptism,

”

“the Brethren of the New Baptisme” an d the like; an d so he

does repeatedly in his Catabaptism,where he calls it the “

n ew

mode ofwater-dippin g. I n his replyto Allen’s complain t about

his oft-repeated use of the expression ,he says; (p. 8) Epistle to

the ReaderH eretofore I n discoursin g with a grav e min ister of Mr. A .

’s in the

poin t of rebaptizmg, an d tfie most a n cien t t/tat kn ow walkin g in that way,

fi n din g him n ot so well satisfied that his wayshouldbe stiledA n a-baptism,

I desired to kn ow of him what o ther termwould please him. His an swer

was, N ew B aptism.

On page 143 Goodwin an swers Allen ’s evasion of the

'

charge

of “n ew baptism,

”an d marv els that “Allen an d his partizan s

can falsifie themselv es touchin g the authen tiquen ess of their n ew

Baptism.

” “For,

”says he,

1 “all person s baptized in in fan cy,

bein g judged by them un baptized, an d there bein g n o other but

such I n the n ation , when their n ew Baptism was first admin istered here

,I t un den iably follows that the first admI n istration of it

was a mere n ullity. There is n o mistakin g Goodwin’s un der

stan din g of Baptist position an d the fact of the late in troductionof immersion by the Baptists of En glan d . H e n eeds n o commen t .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

234 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

Baptist n eighbor by the n ame of J ohn Wele, who wrote him

some very severe an d abusive “queries. The work is dividedi n to separate parts un der differen t titles ; an d in his address Tothe Reader, un der the head, “The Dipper Sprin kled , on page

3 , Watts says

Yea this I hav e don e , as for the co n vin pin g of the A n abaptists their

dippin g, or immergin g Baptism (so called) to be a Novelty.

”

Just above on the same page he charges“upon that Dippin g ;

that it was,an d is, as I hav e said

,a N ew B usin ess, an d a v ery

N ovelty.

”On pages 3 , 4 , lie

-says :

“I wo n der at

“

the I ro n -brow,an d Brazen -face of n ovel [Baptist] I n de

pen den cy, an d N ew lzgn t, that whereas it is ev ery Seven th day at least, inthe chimn ey-house Co n v en ticles pratin g again st the Old, Laudable, an dA n cien t Practices of this our, an d o ther reformed Churches, it dares preten d to A n tiquity (so co n tradictin g itself), an d glory of it

'

in this poin t , of

their immeisin g an d Dippin g (callin g it the Good old way) , &c.

”

U n der the head of the Narration of the Dippin g by a Baptistwhose n ame is n ot giv en , the said Baptist, on page 3 of the Nar

ration , says

I am sorry to hear you call it a New busin ess, for it is o lder than yoursprin klin g of I n fan ts, though in deed that hath been

,

so lon g practicedgen erally, that this Old Good Way seems n ow a n ew Thin g : A n d n o

wo n der, for we read that the son g the Sain ts sin g for their deliveran ceo n ce out of A n tichristian lsm, is turn ed to be, as it were, a n ew son g,

R ev . A n d n o won der thouglkthe old Practices of the Sain ts be, as

it were, a n ew thin g to the World, an dun to their L eaders.

”

I t is to this criticism that Watts n ow delivers himself un derthe head : “The Dipper Sprin kled whom he styles the Hypo!crite . On pages I

,2,he replies

“A n d you hav e as little cause to be sorry at my callin g your Dippin g"

a

n ew on sin ess (un less with H eraclitus you can weep at ev erythin g you hear) .

I called it so in deed,an d Shall here n ow make the Callin g true, as in

word, so in deed ; so far is it from bein g older then our sprin klin g of I n

fauts, that your self helpeth it forward, sayin g, That this hath been so

lon g practicedgen erally, that your good old way (of Dippin g) seems n ow

a n ew thin g. I t seems so to you, it is so to me . You make me in the

WHAT THE ENEMY SAID . 235

mean time n o whit sorry but glad, to see you mov ed somewhat upo n the

charge of a n ew thin g or on sin ess . Are n ot all your thin gs n ow n ew ? an d.

your whole busin ess, is it n o t n ew, or n o thin g ?”

On page 2,he con tin ues to say :

“Your Dippin g, a n ew Busin ess ;” “

your in glorious n ew Thin g an d

Busin ess, n amelyyour late Dippin g amon gst us“your n ew Dippin g.

”

I n the case of the Much-Leighs dippin g, g1ven in the n arrativeabovemen tion ed , Watts fin ds an addition al n oveltyin themethodof baptizin g two women which he n ow goes on to discuss un derseveral heads,

“

n amely : 1 . Was n ot the person dippin g a n ew

thin g? 2 . The Person s dipped, a n ew thin g 3 . The placewhere, a n ew thin g? 4 . The v ery dippin g itself, in its action an d

man n er,a n ew thin g ? (pp. 3 The person dippin g was

‘

a

Lay-Brother an d an un baptized admin istrator ; the partybaptized

was already baptized , accordin g to Watts; the man n er of dippin gwas in clotheswhichhe claimswas also n ew even amon g Baptists ;he holds that the clippin g of the person in a pon d, an d n ot in a

river or a baptistery, was n ew; an d he den ies that the action of

dippin g in itself is Scriptural or customary in En glan d . (p.

On page 40 he says :

Tfie Cln crcn of E n glan d fiat/z leen n ow of a lon g time, time out of min d,min d of an y man livin g , in firmpossession of oaptism, an d practice of it oysprin klin g , or pouringon of water upon tize face an dforenead, an d gen tly

was/Zin g an d,

r n ooin g t/ie same tlcerewitlcan dpron oun cin g tn ewordof I n stitution ,

in t/Ee n ame, 69 7 . I t is your part to brin g the lVrit of Ejection , a word, or'

the example of the word sufficien t to dispossess an d eject us out of our

baptism,an d to in v est yourself un to the same

,by shewin g your better title

an d plea of dippin g an d immergin g the whole body in or un der the

water”

Here Watts settles the question ,as an En glish churchman

,as

to the disuse of in fan t immersion an d its substitution by Sprin klin g by the close of the 1 6th cen tury; an d he clearly affirms thatthe dippin g of adults in E n glan d was on lya late in n ovation upon

the established rite of Sprin klin g in the Kin gdom.

On page 63 , Watts assumes that immersion had ceased for 500.

years in the purest an d perfectest Western churches ; but he

affirms the con tin en tal origin of “ n ewmen ” (as compared with

234 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION

Baptist n eighbor by the n ame of John Wele, who wrote him

some very severe an d abusiv e “queries. The work is dividedin to separate parts un der differen t titles ; an d in his address Tothe Reader, un der the head, “The Dipper Sprin kled , on page

3 , Watts says

“Yea this I have don e, as for the co n vinpin g of t he A n abaptists their

dippin g, or immergin g Baptism (so called) to be a N ovelty.

”

Just above on the same page he charges“upon that

“ Dippin g ;that it was, an d is, as I hav e said

,a N ew Busin ess

,a n d a v ery

N ovelty.

”On pages 3 , 4 , he says :

“I wo n der at

‘

the I ro n -brow,an d Brazen -face of

,n ovel [Baptist] I n de

pen den cy, an d N ew lzgn t, that whereas it is ev ery Seven th day at least, inthe chimn ey

-house Co n v en ticles pratin g again st the Old, Laudable, an dA n cien t Practices of this our, an d o ther re formed Churches, it dares preten d to A n tiquity (so con tradictin g itself) , an d glory of it

_in this poin t , of

their immersin g an d Dippin g (callin g it the Good old way) , &c.

”

Un der the head of the Narration of the Dippin g by a Baptistwhose n ame is n ot giv en , the said Baptist, on page 3 of the Nar

ration , says

I am sorry to hear you call it a New busin ess, for it is o lder than yourSprin klin g of I n fan ts, though in deed that hath been so lon g practicedgen erally, that this Old Good Way seems n ow a n ew Thin g : An d n o

wo n der, for we read that the son g the Sain ts sin g for their deliv eran ceo n ce out of A n tichristian I sm,

I s turn ed to be, as it were, a n ew son g,

Rev . 14 :3 . A n d n o won der though the old Practices of the Sain ts be, as

it were, a n ewthin g to the World, an d un to their L eaders .

”

I t is to this criticism that Watts n ow delivers himself un derthe head .

“The Dipper Sprin kled whom he styles the Hypocrite . On pages he replies

“A n d you hav e as little cause to be sorry at my callin g your DippI n g a

n ew on sin ess (u n less with H eraclitus you can weep at ev erythin g you hear) .

I called it so in deed, an d shall here n ow make the Callin g true, as inword, so in deed ; so far is it from bein g older then our sprin klin g of I n

fan ts, that your self helpeth it forward, sayI n g, That this hath been so

lon g practicedgen erally, that your good old way (of Dippin g) seems n owa n ew thin g. I t seems so to you, it is so to me . You make me in the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

an cien t) who were (in 1 524)“the progen itors an d predecessors

of the En glish A n abaptists an d who ,

“again st the con stan t an d

un iform custom of the Western church,were the first dippers

an d immersers in the West”— at which time

,13 2 years before,

he regards immersion a“n ovelty,

”that is, as he says,

“in com

parison of an tiquity.

” Then he adds

Nay, your Brother’s d pI n g an d immergI n g I s n o t so old as theirs, for

your A n cien t Fathers ‘Nicholas S tork, orS tock an dThomas Mun cer, did,

n o t dip in your man n er, [i. e . in clo thes an d pon ds] ; n or is it as old as

your elder Brothers, who. about 13 or I 4 year ago, ran about the Countrey for they did n ot dip in your man n er, in their cloathes

,but n aked,

n or in Po n ds but Riv ers ; n or is it elder than yourselv es were in the daythat you an d they practiced it an d bego t it in the Parish of Much L eighs

upon the bodies of the two Sistersyou dipt I n Jun e last past , an d so is but

a brat an d brood of yours an d theirs, n ot a twelve mon th old yet by a good

deal .”

I n all thisWatts regards the age of the dippers I n En glan d as

o n ly 1 3 or I 4 years which precedin g 1 656 would go back toabout 164 1—2 . The clothes an d pon d dippin g he regarded as n ot

twelve mon ths old.. Whatever be true or false with regard ton aked baptism «amon g the Gen eral Baptists

”

at first -a thin g the

Particular Baptists-repudiated— Watts fixes their begin n in g as

dippers accordin g to the history of the case ; an d he n ot on lycalls the dippin g of the two women , but the whole thin g, a

“n ov elty

”of but I 3 or 14 years stan din g in En glan d— a

“n ew

busin ess.

”So he calls the Immersion of 1 524 a n ovelty as com

pared to an tiquity, an d so likewi_s\e the clippers of that date “

n ew

men as compared with the an cien t . H e calls these dippers, ashe supposed they all were

,the Progen itors an d Predecessors of

the En glish Baptists ; but he does n ot imply their con n ectio n bythe succession of dippin g, but on lyby a Similar practice whichin En glan d was n ot simply a comparative

“n ovelty

”but whollya

“n ew busin ess.

”The practice of sprin klin g had beyon d the

memoryof .man been established by the En glish Church ; an dthe Baptistsmaybe regarded as latelycome in with Immersio n as .

a Writ of Ejectio n to dispossessthe En glish Church of its sprin klin g by a better title .

23 . Thomas Wall (In fan ts’ Baptism from Heaven , Lon don ,

Besides chargin g, o n page 2 2 , that the Baptists of E n g

WHAT TH E ENEMY SA ID . 23 7

lan d received theirBaptism fromJohn Smyth— in dign an tlyden iedby Crosby an d Collin s— he says

F or as Water Baptism is co n fessed by the A n abaptists to be a part of

God’s worship, see Mr . Keach’s Book , Gold R efin

’d, P . 47, in these words,

Water Baptism is a part of I n stitutedworship an d serv ice of God, with

out an express word drop’d from Christ or his Apostles, is Will-worship.

Therefore by their own Gran t , the way they come by their Baptism is

Will-worship, an d so I do latrous, un til they can prov e it lawful for a man

to Baptize himself, or that an u n baptized Person should Baptize an o ther,

an d then that Person so Baptized, should Baptize him from whom he rea

ceived his Baptism.

This Is,awaydown to 1 69 2 , still the con trov ersybetween Bap~

tists an d Pedobaptists ; an d the abov e I S the exact statemen t ofBaptist position which n o Baptist den ied, except as to JohnSmyth. Even withhim theydid n ot den ytheir organ ic begin n in g,but with him theyden ied their baptismal origin ,

an d hen ce put it:

somewhere this Side of Smyth. The JesseyRecords say 1 640—4 1

an d so practically say others.

I close the case With these witn esses amon g the en emy. Ihave more but these will suffice . I n all

,I have cited about

twen ty-eight Baptist an d twen ty-four Pedobaptist authorities, be

sides the JesseyRecords— fifty two in all -an d con sisten t with

each other an d with the facts I n the case, from begin n in g to en d.

There is n ot a discrepan cy, of an y value, an ywhere to explainan d I n all my search amon g the authorities of the 1 7th cen tury,origin al sources, I n ever foun d a sin gle con tradiction of the thesis

that the Baptists restored immersion in En glan d about 1 640—4 1 .

I have adopted Crosby’s first history of the En glish Baptists, as.

the basis of my position ; but I have n ot trusted him without anexamin ation of his

\‘

origin al sources of in formatio n . I fin d himcorrect ; an d I have on lymade this section of Baptist historymoree laborate than he did, without evadin g the issue at an ypoin t . I t

is possible that myPedobaptist authorities have been severe upon

Baptist practice an d have exaggerated the abuses of immersion inits irregular in troduction ; but in statin g the position of Baptistsan d the facts of their history durin g the 1 7th cen tury, they are

perfectly con sisten t with the Baptists themselves. Smyth, H el

wys, Morton,Hutchin son , Spilsbury, Tombes, Lawren ce , The

JesseyRecords, Kifi‘in

, Bampfield, Gran tham,A . R . ,

R . B . ,Kile

a38 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST R EFOIi‘

MATION .

cop, The An abaptist Sermon , Corn well, Den n e, BlackwoodKn ollys, Kin g, Jessey, Kaye, Allen , Lamb , Collin s, Barber,C rosby, Evan s— all agree with Barebon e, Featley, Taylor, TheTract on the Book of Common Prayer, S . C . , I . E . C, ooke, Pagitt,R icraft

,Author of Loyall COn vert, Eachard, Homes

,Saltmarsh,

Geree, Baillie, Ryves, Edwards, Drew, Stephen s, Goodwin , Parn e ll

,Readin g, Watts an d Wall. I t has been urged that the

writer of the so-called Kiffin Man uscript was too sweepin g in hismain sen ten ce that down to 1640

—4 1 n on e had been immersed in

E n glan d— that he did n ot kn ow what he was sayin g to be true ;but all these men ought to kn ow what theywere talkin gaboutI f there had been an ImmersIon church in En glan d prior to 1 64 1 ,these authorities would have kn own somethin g of the fact beforethe close of the 1 7th cen tury, an d we should

"

have’

heard of it .

Theywere all over the Kin gdom; an d their testimon y can n ot be

o ffset by subsequen t tradition s an d curren t opin ion s which havesin ce origin ated .

Theremay have been sporadic cases of adult immersion , as in

the case of in fan t immersion ,between 1 609 an d 164 1

— or be

tween 1 500 an d 1 600— but theyare historicallyun kn own . Evenif such cases existed

,they coun t n othin g in the great 1 64 1 move

men t,in which the whole bodyof Baptists— un con scious of such

eases— join ed in the rev ival of immersion an d claimed a selforigin ated “begin n in g

”or

“reformation .

”The tradition s of

An abaptist organ ism or immersion before 1 6 1 1—1 64 1 are utterlyexploded by the claim an d practice of the “En glish Baptists

”of

16 4 1 an d on ward ; an d even if they then kn ew of an y such tra

dition s—as we n ow have— they regarded themas havin g n o

succession value. an d made them n o factor in the rev ival or reformatorymov emen t which origin ated their church, min istryan dbaptism,

accordin g to the Scriptures, as n ewly “recovered”an d as

havin g been “lost. So speak these witn esses, Baptist an d Pedobaptist,, whom I have put on the stan d .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

4o ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

poin ts to the period prior to the rev ival of immersion by theBaptists as a time when the An abaptists sprin kled . H e says

“When WE were sprin kled great darkn ess, in compariso n of the light-

of

the Gospel'

[Baptist] reformatio n that n ow shin eth, was then as a cloudov er-v ailin g the Word.

”

H e refers to this former sprin klin g as believers’ baptisml ikethat of the twelve (Acts 1 9) in ign oran ce of the Holy Ghost,an d rebaptized by Paul. So the Baptists, sprin kled un der thecloud over-vailin g the word, had n ow rebaptized un der the lightof the immersion reformation .

2 . An other sign ifican t fact is that there is n o ev iden ce in1 646 ,

—4 1 that there was in En glan d a Sin gle _Baptist church, or

Baptist preacher, or Baptist church member,of origin al A n a

baptist origin apart from separation from the Puritan s or other

Pedobaptists. Suchmen as Kiffin,Lamb

,Allen an d othersdid

n ot hestitate to ackn owledge that the Baptists were separatists

an d reformers; an d we kn ow that the two origin al organ ization s,respectiv ely of the Gen eral an d Particularfi aptists, were sepa

ratist bodies. So of man y others kn own to history : SmythH elwys, Morton

,Spilsbury, Je ssey, Barber, Kilc0p, Ritor,

Blun t,Kiffin

,Kn ollys, Tombes, Hobson ,

Lamb,Keach,

D’A n vers

,Owen ,

Blackwood,Corn well

,Powell , Sten n ett ,

Collin s— all with but little exception of a later date down to theclose of the 1 7th cen tury, had been baptized in in fan cy, an d

had separated from the Pedobaptists. They lived all ov er the

Kin gdom, preached in every quarter, an d suchmen must havekn own if there were an y Baptist churches

, preachers or

people who an tedated 16 1 1 an d practiced immersion before1 64 1 . Corn well lived an d labored in Ken t; an d if Eythorn ean d Can terbury churches had been of the an cien t Baptist originan d con tin uan ce claimed for them

,an d had come down to 1 64 1

with a regular min istry an d baptism,he would have kn own the

fact, an d he would have been the last man o n earth to claim,

as

he does, that Baptists had but lately heard an d obeyed the

voice of Christ with regard to dippin g. So of Powell in Wales .

So ofKiffin,Tombes, Oates, Hobson , Lamb an d others preach

in g an d debatin g all over the Kin gdom. Such men n everwouldhave admitted that Baptists were separatists an d reformersthat theirchurches were n ewly erected un der a baptism origin ated by un baptized admin istrators— if there had been an y

S IGN I FICANT FACTS . 24 1

succession Baptist churches, min istryor immersion in En glan d .

There mayhave been old Lollard or An abaptist elemen ts inman y places, hav in g lon g retain ed some sort of con ven ticle ex

isten ce, which spran g in to Baptist churches an d adopted immersion after 1 64 1 , an d so con tin ued to claim their an cien t descen t;but there were n o Baptist churches in En glan d -before 1 6 1 1

,an d

there was n o Baptist immersion in En glan d before 164 1 . R .

B . in 164 2 (A Reply to the Frivolous an d Impertin en t An swerof R . B.

,&c . ,

said “that at some time lately there were

n o oaptiz edperson s in theworld”— that is

,n o Baptists so madeby

immersion . R . B . was a Baptist in con troversywith Barebon e,an d he spoke advisedly, n o doubt referrin g to the late in troduction of immersion in 1 64 1 to which Barebon e alludes in 1643when he declared that “totalldippin g

” in En glan d wason ly“ twoor three years old or some

’

such Short time .

”

3 . I t is a sign ifican t fact that the first commitmen t to jail,so

far as history Shows, for the practice of immersion in En glan dtook place after 1 64 1 , in the year 1 644 , in the coun ty of Suffolk ,when Lauren ce Clarkson was imprison ed for the specific offen se

of teachin g an d practicin g immersion as baptism. The secon dcase was that of Hen ry Den n e, who, in 1 646 , was imprison edat Spaldin g, in Lin col n shire, “for havin g baptized some person sin a river there. (Crosby, Vol. I . , p. Edwards (Gangraen a, Pt. III . , p. 1 1 7) in veighs again st Baptist dippin g an d

wishes.

for a public disputation ,like that of Zurich

,1 530, in

order that Baptists foun d in “error

”about immersion should be

pun ished for dippin g. I f after 1 64 1 such civic proceedin gsWere desired or had again st the simple practice of immersion

,

we may be sure that before 1 64 1 the spiritual an d temporalswords would hav e been employed with bloody severity if there

had s been an y such practice amon g the An abaptists. Therewere n o such proceedin gs before 1 64 1 in En glan d , because therewas n o such practice ; for if there had been such a practiceamon g the An abaptists the fact would have been kn own in

literature an d in the court fecords of the time . I t is objectedthat before 1 64 1 Baptists may hav e con cealed their practice on

accoun t of persecution ; but they are well kn own in other re

spects of their history durin g this period , aside from the fact

that such a supposition is improbable, if n ot impossible, forthirty years. I t is objected again that immersion was the n ormalmode in the En glish Church down to 1 64 1 , an d therefore n o

1 6

242 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION.

n otice was taken of Baptist immersion un til after 1 641 , whensprin klin g had begun to obtain in the E n glish Church; but history Shows that Sprin klin g became gen eral in the En glish Pedobaptist churches by the year 1 600

, an d therefore the same ob

jection to Baptist immersion would have obtain ed before as after1 64 1 , if such had been the practice . The offen se of Baptistdippin g was that it was exclusive an d n ullified every other formof

baptism; an d Crosby (Vol. I .

, pp . 96 , 9 7) shows that whileA n abaptism by an y mode which n ullified the in fan t rit e at the

begin n in g of the Reformation was the previous offen se of re

baptism,n ow (1 640

—4 1 ) the offen se was exclusiveimmersion which

n ullified every other mode of baptism.

This was the offen se charged by Barebon e, F eatley, Edwards,Baillie

,Goodwin ,

an d others ; an d hen ce they pron oun ced it avery n ovelty,

”the “

n ew leaven of An abaptisme ,”on ly “ two or

three years old, after but n ever before 1 64 1 . I f this offen se

which created such bitter con trov ersy after 164 1— resultin g in

several cases of persecution when liberty an d light had been eu

larged— had existed before 1 64 1 when the Star Chamber an d

High Commission Court were in power, such men as Featley,who had been watchin g the An abaptists for “

twen ty years;”

would hav e made the fact kn own both I n literature an d judicialproceedin gs, which would have multiplied by scores the case of

C larkson an d Den n e .

4 . The baptismal con troversywhich followed the year‘

1 64 1 is

a n other Sign ifican t fact which poi n ts to the in troduction of immersion at that date . Crosby shows (Vol. I . , pp. 96, 9 7) thatthis con troversy began in opposition to the rev ival of .the prao

tice of immersion as the exclusive form of baptism; an d on

page 106 he shows that the in troduction of this form of baptismat the han ds of un baptized admin istrators was the “

poin t muchdisputed for some years.

”H e says

The Baptists were n o t a little un easy about it at first ; an d the Bedo

oaptists thought to ren der all the baptiz in gs amo n g them in valid, forw an t of a proper admin istrator to begin that practice : But by the excellen t reaso n in gs of these an d o ther learn ed men [Spilsbury, Tombes, Law

r en ce an d o thers] , we see their [the Baptists’

] begin n in g was well defe n ded, upon the same prin ciples on which all o ther protestan ts builttheir reformation .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

244 ENgLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

tists,is absolutelycon trary to all the facts of history in the case.

Crosby declares that immersion en ded in the En glish Church in1 600— that prior to 1 640 4 1

“immersion had for sometime beendisused” -

. that the con troversyon the mode of baptism origin atedwith the “

reviv al of immersion”bythe

“En glishBaptists —an d

all the facts I n the history of the con troversy absolutely con firmCrosby

’

s position .

5 . An other fact Sign ifican t of the recen t in troduction of immersion by the En glish Baptists about 1 64 1 is that the A n abaptists were n ever called Baptists, in En glan d, un til after that date,as in 1 644 an d o n ward . The word “Baptist” grew out of the

usage which began with immersion when the A n abaptists werecalled baptized people, baptized churches an d hen ce

,fin ally,

“ Baptists,” Baptist churches, &c. The Baptists had always

protested again st the n ame ofAn abaptist which implied rebaptisman d which Baptists den ied upon the groun d

“

that those baptizedby them from other sects had n ever really been baptized at all ;but it was n ot un til after 1 64 1 that theycould themore effectiv elyget rid of the odious n ame ofAn abaptism byadoptin g immersionwhich “

n ullified every other form of baptism an d which gavethem the claim of bein g the on ly people who baptized at all

an dhen ce the o n lybaptized people,par excellen ce, Baptists. The

Pedobaptists, with but little exception ,still stigmatized them as

An abaptists because, in their v iew,they still rebaptized those

who had been baptized in in fan cy, an d they so con tin ued to

stigmatize them down through the 1 7th an d 18th cen turies ; but

the Baptists, still protestin g that theywere“false‘ly called An a

baptists,”

gradually came in to possession of the n ame “Baptist”

— though often,at first, they spoke an d wrot e of themselves

without an y design ation , or as the “people of God

,

”or as the

‘

gathered churches,”or as the “baptized churches .

”The word

Baptist” was greatly offen sive -to the Pedobaptists also because

it implied that n on e other than Baptists were baptized people ;an d hen ce theymalign an tlyfor this an d the reason alreadyspecified kept up the stigma of An abaptistry upon the Baptists after

164 1 .

The reason why the En glish An abaptists were n ot called Baptists before 164 1 is because they did n ot practice immersionbecause theypracticed sprin klin g or pourin g down to that date ;an d while they protested again st the stigma of An abaptism,

the

practice of the same mode with their oppon en tswas on lya repeti

S IGN I F ICANT FACTS . 245

n on of the same ordin an ce . Theymade the same argumen t before as after 1 64 1 , n amely, that believ ers

’ baptism was n ot a

repetition of in fan t baptism— an d that it utterly n ullified in fan tbaptism as n o baptism; but it was n ot un til 164 1 when theyadopted exclusive Immersion which n ullified ev ery other form of

baptism as n o baptism,that they could be called a baptized peo

ple— Baptists . I t is objected that the titles Taufer , Baptistae an d

D oopsgez in den had been applied to some of the Con tin en tal A n abaptists at an earlier date ; but this fact in n o way affects the his

tory of the E n glish A n abaptists who ,for the reason s already

specified, could n ot hav e assumed the title, “Baptist,” un til afterthe year 1 64 1 . So soon as they began to immerse theywere

called the “baptized ;”

an d almost simultan eouslywith the title“baptized came the design ation ,

“_Baptist

”— a n ame given byn o writer, Baptist or P edobaptist, as a historical claim to the

E n glis/cAn abaptists before 1 64 1 .

6 . I t is a sign ifican t fact that , n ot un til the year 1644 , Oct . 1 6 ,

(Thomason ) , baptismis defin ed as“dippin g or plun gin g the body

un der water” in an En glish Baptist Con fession of Faith (ArticleXL . ) —

prescribin g, in the edition of 1 646 , the man n er in whichthe ordin an ce was to be admin istered : “ (yet so as con ven ien t gar

men ts be both upon the admin istrator an d subject with all modesty) . I n n on e of the Co n fession s of Smyth,

n or in the Con

fessio n of 1 6 1 1 is the word oaptiz o ren dered to dip, for the

reason that the 1 609— 1 1 An abaptists did n ot practice immersion ;

an d this defin ition an d the subsequen t caution about clothin g hithe 1 644

—46 Con fessio n presuppose the recen t in troduction of

immersion an d the un settled man n er of its admin istration aboutthe year 1 64 1

— as in dicated by the documen ts an d writers of thetime who pron oun ced it a n ov elty

”an d who charged its ad

min istration with gross irregularities, such as n ude or semi n udebaptism.

I t has been variously objected that immersion was taken forgran ted by Smyth an d H elwys because of its un iv ersal prevalen ce amon g the Dutch An abaptists an d in the En glish Church,1 609

— 1 1 ; or that hitherto Baptists had “scrupled

”the use of

“formal words in order to evade persecution ; or that the E n glish Baptists were mov ed to in sert immersio n in their 1 644 Con

fession , by the rejection of dippin g on the part of the Westminister Assembly in 1 643 . These objection s are all in v alid ( I ) be~cause at the time of Smyth an d H elwys the Dutch An abaptists

246 ENGLI SH BAPTI STREFORMATION .

were practicin g affusion ,an d Immersion hadgradually en ded with

sprin klin g in the En glish Church by 1600 an d was “disused”1n

En glan d ; (2) if ImmersIon was the “n ormal mode” before 1 64 1

n

theo

An abaptists had n o n eed to fear persecution in the use of“formal words” bywhich to defin e baptism as immersion in theircreeds ; an d (3) I n the Preface to the 1 644 Con fession the S Ign erS

make n o referen ce to the Westmin ister Assembly an d they de

clare their object,at this time, to set forth their position accord

in g to the word of God an d to meet the miscon ception s an d misrepresen tation s of other people. Theywere still “falsely calledAn abaptists,

”as of old

,

”upon the theory that they repeated bap

tism; an d they n ow put a“n ew

” defi n ition of baptism in to their

Con fession,which n ot o n ly n ullified in fan t baptism as n o bap

tism,as ever before , but which n ow n ullified ev eryother form of

baptism,as n ever before. Hen ce Featleycalls this defin ition the

“n ew leav en of An abaptisme,” that is, exclusive immersion

,

”

which n on e of the old An abaptists ever main tain ed . Featleywas precisely right as to the n ewn ess of the defi n ition ; an d this .

XL Article of the Co n fession of 1 644— with its caution about

the man n er of baptism— in dicates the ~

recen t in troduction of immersion in 1 640

—4 1 . The first appearan ce of this defin itio n

,

after several Con fession s of the En glish.An abaptists, in the 1 644

Co n fession — especiallyin compan ywith the caution about clothin g

— is sign ifican t of its “ n ov elty”which had already repeatedly,

been charged an d defen ded with regard to immersion an d the

man n er of its admin istration sin ce 1 64 1— n ever before .

7 . The health an d decen cy questio n (claimed in violation of

the 6th an d 7th comman dmen ts) with regard to immersion after

1 64 1 is an other sign ifican t Q t which in dicates its recen t in troduction at that date. Before 1 64 1 there is n o record of an yan tagon ism to Baptists regardin g baptism as dan gerous to healthor morals. Between 1 64 1 an d 1 646 there was almost a pan ic

amon g the Pedobaptists about the fatality of dippin g peopleespecially in win ter; an d the charge was repeatedlymade thatthe Baptists— some of them dipped men an d women n aked.

Samuel Oates (Crosby, Vol. I . pp. 236 , 238) is cited as bein gtried for his life at Chelmsford because A n n ie Martin died withina few weeks after she had been “baptized by him.

” Baxteran d Cradock were promin en t in then opposition to imme rsiono n the groun d of health; an d Baxter Baillie , Cooke , Edwards,Featley an d man y other promin en t Pedobaptist writers con

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

248 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

obsolete” when immersIon became the rule of both section s ofthe BaptIst commun ity.

” N . Homes, (Vin dication of Baptizin g

Believers In fan ts, &c .,

.p 5 , 1 645) describes the state of Baptistdiv ision as seen at Chelmsford . H e says

“O n e Con gregatio n’

at first addin g to their I n fan t Baptisme the adult

baptisme of sprin klin g : then n o t restin g therein , e n deavorin g to adde to

that a dippin g, even to the breakin g to pieces of their co n gregation .

”

‘ Here are the Old Men or Aspersi in con flict with the NewMen or lmmersi; an d this revolution goin g on for several yearsafter 164 1 un der the distin ction of the Old an d New Men

,or

the Aspersi an d Immersi, in Baptist ran ks,is a clear in dication

of the recen t in troduction of immersion in 16 4 1 .

2 . As cited by Dr. Whitsitt, de HoopScheffer (De Brownisten , p . 1 56) poin ts to the fact that after 1 64 1 the relation be

tween the Men n on ites an d the followers of H elwys an d Morton

who were so closely allied that in 16 26 amovemen t (Evan s, Vol.II .

, pp . 24—30) was set on foot to secure an

“organ ic un ion of

the two parties,” was broken off. The fracture is traced on ly

to the adoption of immersion by the En glish Baptists in 1 64 1

the bon d of un io n between the two parties down to that datehavin g been sprin klin g as the mode of baptism practiced byboth. Hen ceforth the Men n on ites would be regarded by the

En glish brethren as un baptized , an d so the tie of fellowship wasbroken an d correspon den ce came to an en d in 1 64 1 . I t I S

objected that the an tagon ism between the Men n on ites an d the

Baptists regardin g footwashin g, civic oaths,war

,magistry, the

deityof Christ an d the like, but upon these question s, accordin gto Muller an d Evan s

,we trace\themost fratern al correspon den ce

without an y alien atin g differen ce down to 163 1 . Scheffer I S

probably right; an d if so this is an other fact Sign ifican t of thein troduction of immersion

,1 64 1 .

3 . Dr. Whitsitt’s seven th mon umen t is the classic use of the

word r/zan tiz e employed soon after 1 641 to an tithesize immerse,or to Show a strikin g distin ct io n between dippin g an d sprin klin g.

A . R . so employed the word in 1642 in his Treatise of the

Van ity of Childish Baptism, p. 1 1 . Also Christopher Blackwood (A n tichrist in his Stron gest Garriso n s, &c. ,

1 644) tran sferred the word to E n glish an d called it “

ran tiz ed.

” Han serdKn ollys (Edwards

’ Gan graen a, P t . III ., p . in 1 646 , speak

in g to the Pedobaptists by thewayof an tithesiz in g immerse, said

S IGN I F ICANT FACTS . 249

You were ran tiz ed but n ot oaptiz ed. Thomas Blake,1 645 ,

con trasts ran tizin g n ot o n ly with dippin g but with pourin g, thelatter mode bein g his practice . This usage Dr. Whitsitt Claimsas an other in dication of the recen t in troduction of immersion in164 1 ; an d

-

it is certain that n o such distin ction obtain ed amon gthe En glish An abaptists before that

’

date,although Sprin klin g

was the settled practice of the E n glish Pedobaptists from 1 600.

I t is objected that the word rlian tiz e is n ot broad en ough to

an tithesize immerse, an d that the in troduction of the wordpoin ted to a con flict between Pedobaptists, some of whom pre

ferred pourin g but “resen ted the chan ge to sprin klin g just thenin troduced”— that is, in 1 645 , accordin g to Blake , Wall an dothers. The n ew word

,

”says the objector; “was n ot derived

to decide the departure from immersion to pourin g [that is,amon g Pedobaptists], but frompourin g to sprin klin g.

”But the

word rn a n tiz e was first in troduced by the Baptists in 1 64 2 , in

order to distin guish classically an d perfectly— as n ev er beforeimmersion from aspersio n ,

an d it in dicates their n ew departuref rom aspersion to immersion .

There are other sign ifican t facts which , poin t to 1 64 1 as the

date at which the En glish Baptists restored immersion , but these

will suffice . Everythin g I hav e cited con firms Crosby’s history

of the revival of immersion at that date,an d con firms the writ

in gs of the various authors I hav e cited an d who con firm Crosby.

There is n o in con sisten cy at an ypoin t'

between these sign ifican tfacts an d the history of the case as established by Crosby,Evan s an d the writers I hav e quoted so elaborately. The truth

is that the case is so plain that it amoun ts n o lon ger to a probability, but to an established fact; an d I can n ot see how,

with all

this array of testimon y direct an d circumstan tial, an y on e Can

escape the con clusion set up by history,1 . That immersion en ded in the E n glish Church in 1 600 .

2 . That sprin klin g which had already supplan ted immersion‘

became gen eral, if n ot un iv ersal , from 1 600 on ward .

3 . That the An abaptists restored immersion in 1 64 1 .

4 . That these An abaptists must hav e practiced sprin klin g or

pourin g before they restored immersion,as their history goes to

show.

5 . That their subsequen t history, accordin g to the writers

of the 1 7th cen tury an d the facts in the case,all poin ts back to

1 64 1 as the date at which they began immersion .

' ENGLISH BAPT IST REFORMATION .

(FROM 1609 TO 1 64 1 A . D . )

WERE THEY BAPTI STS ?

Baptists preceded the baptismof Christ . The great forerun n er

of the Redeemer was a Baptist . John was an immersion ist an dan A n tipedobaptist . H e practiced believers

’ baptism on ly,an d

in his refusal to immerse the Scribes an d Pharisees without repen tan ce, or because they were the children of Abraham

,he

repudiated the doctrin e of federal holin ess as a groun d for

either in fan t or adult baptism. H e was also an an ti ritualistwho

,accordin g to the Scriptures an d Josephus, baptized with

referen ce to righteousn ess immediately wrought in the soulthrough repen tan ce an d faith

,an d n ot mediately procured

through sacramen tal efficacy whether with or without repen t

an ce an d faith. John was,in every sen se

,a Baptist in prin ciple

an d practice ; an d, ceremon ially, he made the Redeemer a

Baptist when he dipped him in the riv er Jordan . Christ madeBaptists of his twelve Apostles, who were immersed an d who

were con stituted an embryon ic‘church

,

”withauthorityto settle.

person al offen ses accordin g to Matt . 18 : 1 7 an d the first Churchat Jerusalem was a Baptist Church, in cludin g this apostolic col

lege, which by its sovereign suffrage chose Mathias to take theplace of Judas

,an d to which the Lord “

added byrepen tan ce

an d baptism3000 souls on the day of Pen tecost. This first Baptist Church subsequen tly elected its own deacon s an d elders accordin g to its co n gregation al sov ereign ty an d in depen den ce ;an d all the apostolic churches

,modeled after this first church

,

were Baptist Churches to whom the apostolic epistles were ad

dressed as sovereign an d in deperiden t bodies, with their bishopsan d deacon s. These New Testamen t Churches were all Immersion ist

,an ti-pedobaptist an d an ti-ritualistic bodies, separate an d

in depen den t of each other in polity; an d while they volun tarilyco—operated with each other in advice

,mission s, or ben ev olen ce ,

250

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

52 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST REFORMATION .

hav e proved an other failure ,an d in stead of the triumph of

1 6 1 1 -,

I 64 1 the church in the wildern ess had had to wait fora n other step in the progress of human liberty, before comin gout an d up to the Baptist den omin ation as established I n En glan dan d n ow domin an t I n the U n ited States an d other parts of the

world .

Now with referen ce to these En glish An abaptists, 1 6 1 1—1 64 1 ,accordin g to their own testImon y durin g the r I 7th cen tury an d

o n ward,the followin g facts have been shown

1 . Theyclaim to hav e been separatists from the Puritan s,an d

there were n o origin al Baptist churches,min isters or people ,

apart from separation ,down to

“1 64 1 an d later

,kn own to his

tory.

2 . They admit that they orIgI n ated their baptism an d erectedtheir churches an ew

,at the han ds of un baptized admin istrators.

3 . Theyclaimed to assume this prerogativ e un der ‘discovery”

from God an d accordin g to the Scriptures as authority\for restorin g Gospel order which they declared was lost ” in the apos

tasy.

4 . Theyadopted immersion ,1640

—4 1 , some thirty years after

their separation an d organ ization began .

5 . They den y organ ic, baptismal or min isterial con n ectionwith prior An abaptists ; an d while they all admit their origin byun baptized admin istrators

,they gen erally held that when the

o rdin an ce was restored , the n ecessity for restoration“

ceased,an d

that its admin istration should be regular, or go on in an“orderly

Way.

”

6 . The 1 260 years of An tichristian reign an d of the in visibilityo f the church were regarded by them as r

’

eachin g down to theirtime ; an d they held that they hE come vzsioly out of the wil

dern ess— all prior An abaptists hav in g failed to do more than re

v eal A n tichrist an d havin g sun k back un der the smoke in thet emple or in to the in v isibilityof the spiritual church in the wil

dern ess— havin g n o Gospel order or baptism.

7 . Theyall repudiated the doctrin e of visible succession as the

mark of the beast”— whether of church,min istry or baptism.

8 . Theywere divided as to whether the churchwas con stitutedby baptism or the coven an t ; as to close an d Open commun ion ;as to particular an d gen eral aton emen t ; but they seemed to

agree that baptism in troduced the believ er in to the gen eral bodyo f Christ, an d n ot in to a particular church.

WE R E THEY BAPTI STS ?

9 . I n fin e they claimed to have established a“Reformation

an d to have had a“Begin n in g

”of their own in En glan d— based

upon the prin ciple of believers’ baptism in 1 609— 1 633 an d upon

the restored practice of immersion in 1 640—4 1 , in cludin g a n ewly

erected church an d min istry; an d they claimed that their Refaormation origin ated in Separation from the Puritan s based upona return to New Testamen t prin ciples an d practices which theother Reformers had n ot reached— n ot even the Puritan s themselves whose reformation they commen ded as far as it wen t .

The question arises here : Were these people Baptists ? Ao

cordin g to historical usage the An abaptists of E n glan d werecalled “ Baptists

” before they restored immersion in 1 640—4 1 .

Crosby speaks of the “methods taken by the Baptists of E n g-Llan d

,at their rev ival of immersion an d he speaks of

"

the“difficultywhich did n ot a little perplex the En glish Baptists in

selectin g these methods. After treatin g of the Blun t method of

sen din g to Hollan d for immersion ,he speaks of the “

greatest

n umber of the En glish Baptists, an d the more judicious ” whoregarded the Blun t method as

“n eedless trouble an d of Popish

succession ; an d he says

They affirmed therefore, an d practiced accordin gly, that after a gen t

eral corruption of baptism, an un baptized perso n might warran tably bap.,

tiz e, an d so oegin a reformation .

Evan s likewise calls the An abaptists of E n glan d “ Baptists ”down to the deputation of Blun t to Hollan d for immersion an dat the same time represen ts the followers of Smyth an d H elwys

as practicin g the affusion of the Men n on ites— some of themdownto 1 646

— after. which he says“both section s of the Baptist com

mun ity adopted immersion as“the rule ” without a solitary

exceptio n .

”The Bampfield Documen t speaks of the “methods

taken by the B aptists to obtain a proper admin istrator of baptismbyimmersion ,

when that practice had been so lon g disused , thatthere was n o on e who had been so baptized to be foun d .

”R ob

in son speaks of “ the Dutch B aptists as pourin g.

” Here we

have a n umber of Baptist authorities who call An abaptists,Baptists,

”at the verytime they claim theydid n ot practice im

mersion . Even the D oopsgez in den , the Men n on ite D oopers of

to day, are so called , while they practice sprin klin g. Dr. Jesse.

B . Thomas in his review of Dr. Whitsitt (Both Sides, p. 47) usesthis expression mixed Baptist churches,

” which in dicates a.

a54 ENGL I SH BAPTI ST RE FORMAT ION .

greater loosen ess of usage than to speak of the An abaptists as‘Baptists

” before their adoption of immersion, Sin ce some of the

mixed churches in En glan d retain ed n ot on ly sprin kled butPedobaptist members.

Wherever the prin ciple of believers’ baptism has been main

tain ed byan ypeople, the earlierwriters have always called them“Baptists an d so we n aturally do at the presen t time . The

«cen tral peculiarityof the Baptists is believers’ baptismas Opposed

to in fan t baptism ; an d the n atural distin ction is made by n ameabetween Baptist an d Pedobaptist, without referen ce to mode .

“The An tipedobaptist is essen tially a Baptist, other thin gs bein gequal

, even when he practices affusion ,as the D oopsgez in den do

an d as most of the Con tin en tal A n abaptists of the 1 6th cen turyan d all of the En glish An abaptists in thefirst half of the 1 7th

cen tury, who were called “ Baptists,”did. Dr. Newman (R e

v iew of the Question, pp . 1 7 1 I 7 after showin g that Immer

sion comman ded a verysmall Share of the atten tion”of the Con

«tin en tal An abaptists of the 1 6th cen tury— an d after payin g their

martyr devotion to Baptist prin ciples the highest complimen tCloses by sayin g

T/zey were n ot regular B aptists, out tn ey were t/zorougn ly imoued wit/cB aptist prin ciples, an dwere, in a very importan t sen se, tn e forerun n ers of all

taat was aest in P uritan ism an d in tn egreat modern Baptist movemen t .”

All this was true of the En glish An tipedobaptists from 1 6 1 1 ,

to 164 1 .

“They were n ot regular Baptists, b t they were

thoroughly imbued with Baptist prin ciples. John Smythfoun ded a church upon the Baptist model, believers’ baptisman d a regen erate church membership; an d, organ icallyspeakin g,this was the “begin n in g

”of the

\presen t den omin ation of Bap

tists, though begun with an un scriptural formof baptism. The

prin ciple, however, was right, an d the form was corrected in1640

—4 1 . The same was true of ourParticular Baptist an cestors

in 1 633 who began upon the same prin ciple that Smyth an dhis

followers did; an d while they were n ot afflicted with the Men

n on ite errors of the Gen eral Baptists, they had errors of theirown which they inherited from their Puritan origin . So far as

the mode of baptism was con cern ed— which was on ly o n e of

their errors— they both aban don ed the wron g an d adopted theright; an d we should give them credit for their reformation inbecomin g strictly Baptistic an dcoun t them our brethren .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

z 56 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMAT ION .

11

men t; an dilI‘at production is the epitome an d symbolization ofBaptist history based upon the teachin gs of such men as Smyth,H elwys,Morton , Busher, Spilsbury an d others who laid theorgan ic

‘

foun datio n of the Baptist den omin ation of to day.

Blun t restored immersion to the Baptists; Keach restored min isterial support an d sin gin g in the churches; An drew Fullerrestored theology; Carey restored mission s; our fathers of 1 776restored liberty; somebodymust yet restore a plurality of eldersto the Baptist churches; but our organ ic foun dation s wererestored in 1 6 1 1 an d 1 633 in En glan d when the An abaptistelemen ts separated from the

“

Puritan s arid organ ized churches of

their own persuasion accordin g to the model of the New Testamen te —based upon a regen erate membership an d baptized upona profession of repen tan ce towards God an d

'

faith in our LordJesus Christ .That there mayhav e been a DutchAn abaptist elemen t in this

foun dation is possible. I t is also possible that, in this foun da

tion , there was a Lollard elemen t . Baptist churches after 1 64 1

sprun g up most Spon tan eously an d rapidly in sectio n s whereformerly these elemen ts had existed in the eastern coun ties of

E n glan d ;”

an d it is eviden t that in Lon don an d the section s in

dicated there was An abaptist seed in the soil . I f so,we have a

Spiritual vein of succession blood which con n ects us back withtheold En glish an d Con tin en tal An abaptists who can trace an

evan gelical succession back to primitive times. Of an y organ ic

or baptismal succession we have n o historical proof ; an d JohnSmyth an d all the Baptist writers of the 1 7th cen tury utterlyden y an y such a con n ection , especially as to the En glish. I t

would be a matter of den omiIQ ti‘

on al “in terest an d history to be

able to trace such a con n ection ; but we are on lyhistoricallycertain of our Puritan origin ,

that as a den omin ation we organ icallyspran g fromthe old

“En glish A n abaptists of 1 6 1 1— 1 633 , an d that

we became strictly Baptistic by immersion in 164 1 . We were

essen tiallythough n ot strictlyBaptists before that ; , an d it is with

gen uin e pride an d pleasure that we can poin t back to our heroican cestry, however regretful for their man y errors.

Neither circumcision n or un circumcision — baptism n or un

baptism— essen tiallymakes a Baptist. First of all, a regen erate

heart is essen tial to a Baptist ; an d immersion can n ot make a

Baptist without prev ious regen eration . Our chief doctrin alpeculiarity through all the ages is the spiritual as opposed to the

WER E THEY BAPTI STS ? 2 57

ritualistic or ration alistic idea of Christian ity : an d our chief

ceremon ial peculiarity through all the ages has been oeliev

ers’as opposed to infa n t baptism. I f our people have ev er

failed in the baptismal form which more perfectly symbolizesthe spiritual idea of Christian ity, they have n ever failed inthe essen ce of Christ’s religion ,

an d though they may have

sometimes erred in the form they n ev er erred in the prin

ciple or purpose of that form as a believers’rite. More than

this, whatever their variation in the practice of that form,as a

matter of expedien cy or sufficien cy, they n ev er den ied its symholism,

an d promptly return ed to it when light an d libertychan ged their en viron men t an d afforded the opportun ity. The

greatest error on baptism that an y An abaptist can be chargedwith I n history 15 that immersion was n ot the exclusive form of

baptism; an dthe Polish An abaptists ( I 5 the Collegian ts ( I 6 20)an d the En glish An abaptists ( 1 64 1) repudiated this error

,an d

return ed to the “an cien t practice”of Immersion as exclusive an d

essen tial to baptism. They thoroughly believed that Immersion

was a Scriptural form of baptism,an d n ever lost sight of its

burial an d resurrection sign ifican ce in their “washin g with

water”by the application of the _elemen t to the subject in stead

of the subject to the elemen t ; but their defi n ition of baptismn ever implied or in cluded Sprin klin g or pourin g except as an

altern ate form which might be used as a matter‘

o f expedien cyor sufficien cy. Hen ce in their zeal for the prin ciple of believers

’

baptism they fell un der the 1 6th cen tury spell of in differen cyasto mode— a spell from which the Pedobaptist world has n ev erawoke

,though on ce immersion ists.

On e of the great distin guishin g lan dmarks of these En glishBaptists of 1 6 1 1— 1 64 1 was their an ti-succession theory of the

visible church,min istry an d ordin an ces. They claimed a suc

cession of faith an d of God’s Spirit an d Word ; an d that when

God so revealed his truth an dmoved true believ ers to obedien ce,it was their duty an d right to

“restore Gospel order.

” Blun t ,1 640

—4 1 , made a departure from this theory, seekin g regular

baptism from Hollan d ; but the great body of Baptists, bothGen eral an d Particular, repudiated Blun t

’

s“method” as

“n eed

less” an d “Popish”— as a

“succession

” movemen t to restore immersion — an dmain tain ed that though baptismwas lost , “an un

baptized person might warran tably baptize an d so begin a

reformation .

” This was the doctrin e set up in prin ciple by1 7

2 58 ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION

John Smyth, H elwys,“Morton an d their followers

,1609

—1 I an dthis was specially the t heory, both in prin ciple an d practice, ofSpilsbury, Barber, Kilcop, an dall the rest

"

of the Baptists, Gen

eral an d Particular,with the exception of Blun t, 1640

—4 1

an d on ward . Blun t’s succession idea,if he en tertain ed it

,

was purely Pedobaptist an d utterly repudiated by everyother Baptist of the Seven teen th cen tury so far as I have seen ;an d as we have seen

, the Blun t church, with the Blun t idea,

probably became extin ct before 16 46 , accordin g to Edwards an dBampfield. Organ ic, min isterial or baptismal succession is n ota lan dmark of the Baptists of the 1 7th cen tury. Even if wecould trace our baptism to Blun t who received immersion frdmthe Collegian ts, who may have received it from the Socin ian

A n abaptists of Polan d, who mayhav e received it fromthe SwissA n abaptists, yet our foun dation I s in secure; for eviden tly theCon tin en tal An abapt ists of the 1 6th cen tury, whether theySprin kled or immersed

,origin ated their baptism by an un bap

tiz ed admin istrator, to begin with,as shown by their history.

Our American succession,however, is from the En glish A n a

baptists, or from RogerWilliams, or both; an d with but the

Blun t exception ,the En glish An abaptists origin ated immersion

by un baptized admin istrators. The v isible succession theoryn ever origin ated amon g Baptists un til about February, 1848,when it Sprun g up amon g our Southern (American ) Baptists I nopposition to the practice of receivin g Pedobaptist Immersion s.

Organ ic, min isterial or baptismal succession is purely a tra

dition al fiction of recen t origin ,an d the veryopposite of origin al

Baptist Lan dmarkism. The veryfirst regular Baptist Con fessiono f Faith, 1 644 , is an an ti-succession documen t ; an d it presup

poses by its very terms the restoration of immersion amon g the

E n glish Baptists b'

yun baptized admin istrators.

The great fun damen tal peculiarityof the An abaptists of 16 1 14 1 was that the Bible I S the sole rule of faith an d practice amon gChristian s. This I S on e of the Baptist lan dmarks of every age ;

a n d it was upo n the authorityof God’

sWord that the E n glisliBaptists based their commission to restore gospel order— erect

an ew the church,the min istry an d baptism as lost un der the de

fection ofAn tichrist . They regarded “the church I n the wildern ess

”as n ot a visible

,but on ly a spiritual body —that the 1 260

years of An tichristian reign reached down to their day— that the

prior An abaptist sects which successiv ely rose an d perished

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

6o ENGLI SH BAPTI ST RE FORMATION .

succeeded again by reproduction or resurrection . The devilkilled Christ on the cross

, in the body, but n ot in the spirit ; an d

as his body rose from the dead,so his visible churches, or bodies,

hav e risen from the dead a hun dred times. The presen t Baptistden omin ation would

,

n ot be here, to day, if An tichrist had n ot

lost his power to destroy us in the En glish n ation,as he did on

the Con tin en t ; an d if he had don e with us in En glan d what hedid with the An abaptists of German y an d Switzerlan d

,there

would have been the n ecessityfor an other reproduction in orderto con tin ue Baptist organ ism,

office an d ordin an ce. God alon erestores an d preserves Baptists ; an d this was the con stan t con

fession of the En glish Baptists of the 1 7th cen tury H is Spiritalo n e 13 our Guide an d the Bible alon e our authority an d upon

this platformwe stan d for doctrin e an d practice— for church con

stitution,min isterial fun ction an d Ceremon ial form an d order.

There is n o church authority apart from Scriptural warran t ; an dour baptism,

commun ion an d ordin ation are regular on ly in a

Scriptural church an d at the han ds of a Scriptural min istry,wherever set up, without regard to visible succession . The A n a

baptists of the 1 7th cen tury took the position that when the

church,its min istry an d its ordin an ces were o n ce restored

,then

regularity should be resumed in [an y gIven commun ity— that

when the n ecessityfor restoration ceased,then irregularityshould

cease— an d I agree with those orthodox Baptists who took thatposition . Hen ce I am a close-baptism,

close-commun ion an d

close-ordin ation Baptist— just as Kiffin an d those like himwere .

The Popish fiction of organ ic or visible succession foun dedon Matt. as already said

,was n ever adopted byBaptists

un til of recen t date; an d it has n ot on ly en gen dered a falseBaptist ideal an d spirit, but

\I t has from the begin n in g been a

source of strife an d con fusion amon g good brethren . No bodyof Baptists in the world, amofig themselves, has been more unhappy than where this fiction has prevailed, or sin ce this n otion

began to be pursued amon g them. Wehav e hadmore or less ofstrife for fifty years, based largelyupon this differen ce of opin ionamon g Southern Baptists; an d there appears to be little prospectof peace un til this Romish n ov eltyshall be surren dered . I canremember, when affected bythis ideal an d Spirit of high-church

Baptistism,I was led to believe that such men as Fuller,

Broadus, Boyce, Jeter an d o thers were n ot soun d Baptists; an dfor some years this fiction led me to feel that it was almost im

WERE THEY BAPTI STS ? 26 1

possible for a Pedobaptist to be saved . The object of this

volume is n ot o n ly to sustain a historical fact, but to set up the

old Baptist lan dmark of con stan t reproduction in stead of v isiblesuccession ; an d if I can help to un ite my brethren upon the

Bible as the sole rule of authority, an d the on ly basis of our

con tin uan ce— un der God— I Shall thin k myself happy. I n the

fear of God, an d I n the light of Scripture an d history; fI‘

_dedi

cate this work to the peace an dprosperity Of the Baptist den omin ation ; an d I affirm my solemn belief that God n ever in ten dedthat his people should hav e a v isible or organ ic succession

,the

claim of which has always en gen dered a tradition al pride an dpersecutin g spirit in those who have held it .

The charge will be made that the position of the En glishBaptists as Separatists an d Reformers makes them the offsprin gof Rome— a daughter of the “Mother Of‘Harlots . Such Is n ot

the case . I n every age God has cried : “Come out of hermypeople

”

; an d I n every age theyhave come out an d from un derthe shadow of the great Apostasy by separation or reformation .

Every An abaptist leader an d sect of history was Separatist or

Reformer ; but they threw Off the “mark of the beast,” infan toaptism,

an d other Romish heresies, an d hen ce were n ev er

daughters of the old harlot of Rome. NO Pedobaptist reformation or separation ever got out of Rome . The reten tion rof in

fan t baptism is “tizemarkof tize least,

”an d so O f Other Romish

heresies which make every Pedobaptist den omin ation I n somerespect akin to Rome an d like their mother or gran dmother.

An abaptist separation or reformation gen erallywen t to the otherextreme of Roman ism; an d hen Ce theIr coun ter errors which,in man y in stan ces, helped to div ide an d destroy them. The

on ly liken ess which an yBaptist has to Rome, is holdin g to visiole

succession,

“An tichrist’s chief hold.

CRITIC “NUMBER 4 .

“An Accoun t Of divers Con feran ces held in ye Con gregationof wch Mr.

‘Hen ry Jesseywas Pastor, about In fan t baptism bywchMr. H . Jessey 8: ye greatest part of that Con gregation wareproselyted to ye Opin ion an d Practice of ye An tipedobaptists.

bein g an Old M . S . S . weh I received ofMr. Adams, supposedto be written byMr. Jessey, or tran scribed fromhis Journ al .”

“1643 ABOUT BAPTI SME . QU : ANS

H an serd K n ollys our Brother n o t bein g satisfied for Baptizin g hischild, after it had been e n deavored by ye elder an d byon e or twomore:

him self referred to ye Church then that they might satisfye him, or he

rectifye them if amiss herein which was well accepted.

“H en ce meetin gs ware appoin ted for con feren ce about it at B J a z B.

K B.

‘ G . each was performed with prayer in much lov e asChristianmeetin gs (because he could n ot submit his judgmen t to depen d on with its

power— So yelded to )

“E lder The main e argumen t was from these fower co n clusio n sI . Those in Gospel I n stitutio n s are so set down to us.

—those n ot

cleare“2 . Whatever Priviledg God hath given to his Church as a Church is

stil l giv en to all Churches.

“3 . God hath o n ce given to his

‘ Church as a Church this privilege to

hav e their Children I n Gospel cov en an t , to have its token in I n fan cyGen .

Baptism seems to be I n ye rome of Circumcision .

“Co n clusio n : to be n ow to Churches I n fan ts.

H . K . A n s

“To ye third on wch ye weight lyes, that it wan ts groun d an d proof

from Scripture . That Gen . 17 prov es it n o more to be giv en to a Churchas a Church, for their I n fan ts to hav e this token of Coven an t in I n fan cy,than for the Churches Servan ts all bought with mon ey &c withou t excep

f

tio n of R eligio n to be Baptized : an d yt n ot o n lyye Chil : but Children sChildren to man y Gen eratio n s though n either Father n or Gran dfatherwere faithful must be Members ; for thus it waswith Abraham

’s posterity:

therefore this was n ot with it as a Church, but as Jewish or as peculiar to262

APPENDIX.

(A)

ON DOCUMENT

CAPTION .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

264 APPEND IX .

“1 . Not to Excommun icate, n o , n or admo n ish wch is On lyobstin ate.

“2 . To Coun t them still our Church pray love them.

3 . Desire co n versin g togeather so farr as their prin ciples permit them,

so waitin g till either some come in , or

'

(2 ) some grow giddy scan

dulous then proceed again st them, to this we agrees an d so parted.

“The n ames of some of our Dearly belov ed Frien ds yt scrupled about

ye Admin istration of Baptisme &c an d in ten dern ess forbore ware theseB) S . Kn o llys)Jackso n S . Ken eston

B. H en . Jon esS . PickfordS . DorrellE liza Phillips

S . Bayh S . R ev es

B. Berry B . Wade

B . W . HullsS . Phillis A tkin son

an d afterwards these

S . E liza A lport S .'wade

S . E liza MichaelS . Lydia S trachen

S . Kath BordageS . Co theldyS . Agn es Nadin amB ))Go ldin g

5 )S . Ken t (yt dyed)Some before H . Jessey an d the rest of ye church ware co n vin ced again st

Pedobaptism. A n dhen ce desired to en joy it where theymight , & J oyn edalso , some with Bro . K n ollys, some with Bro Kiffin , thus These

B. S . K n ollys B. FordB. S . Wade B. Po tshall

B . Couv er S . DormerS . Jan e Todderoy \

S .~ Pickford

S . E liza Phillips S . Reves

B. DarelB. Blun t

“After H . Jesseywas co n vin ced also , the n ex t morn in g early after that

wch had been a day of Solemn e seekin gye Lord in fastin g prayer (ThatI n fan t Baptism were un lawfull if we should be further bap-tiz ed &c, théL ord would n ot hide it from us, but cause us to kn ow it) First H Jesseywas co n vin ced again st Pedobaptisme then that himself should be baptiz ed ( n otwithstan din g man y con feren ces wth his hon ored Belov edBrethren Mr Nye,

‘Mr Tho : Goodwin ,Mr Burroughs, Mr Green hill , Mr

Cradock , Mr Carter“

&c &c. with Mr Jackso n , Mr Bolto n &c) . 1645 4 Mo

Vul Jun e 29 . A n d was baptized byMr K n o llys, an d then by degrees hebaptizedman y of ye Church, when co n vin ced they desired it .

“After some time all these in ye

2 n d R ow were satisfyed v ide in

their scruple an d judged supra yt

such disciples as are gifted to

teach evan gelise may alsobaptize &c &c an d ware baptiz ed

APPENDIX . 265

Then in time some of those before n amed return ed to commun ionwth this Church as

S . Ken asto n B S . Wade

B . H en . Jo n es S . DorrellS . Buckley *S . H uddel als. L evill

The hysteric effort of the critic to twist the Jessey Church R ecords in to

makin g Blun t a Baptist in 1644 an d in to fixin g his deputation to H ollan din the same year, is based upon a perv ersion of this documen t , No . 4 , an d

upon the blun ders of Neal . Crosby,who le n t theseMSS . to Neal , an d whouses this documen t freely, makes n o such referen ce to 1644 ; an d he

chargesNeal with misrepresen tin g these R ecords in o ther respects, for in

stan ce , when he represen ts Jessey’s church as becomin g Baptist in 1638

in stead of 1645 an d layin g the “foun dation for the first Baptist co n gregation

” in E n glan d, that is, in 1638 . The “Blu n t” men tion ed in this docu

men t , No . 4 , can n ot be shown to be R ichard Blun t of documen t No . 2

( 1640 Perhaps, accordin g to the Court R ecords, it would prove a

“forgery an d in stead of “B .[ro ther] Blun t” it was S .[ister] Blun t !But gran t for the sake of argumen t that it was R ichard Blun t . I t would

o n lyprov e, as Barebo n e charged upon“R . B . ,

”t hat , as man y BaptiStS I n

that day did, he would receive a“fourth baptism an d it would possibly

ide n tify R . B. with Richard Blu n t as Barebo n e’s an tago n ist , 1642—43 .

(See pages 178, E dwards, 1646 , says that the church of o n e

“Bloun t" (as Crosby spells R ichard’s n ame) had already gon e to pieces.

The regular or succession theory of Blun t ’s baptism had been repudiated

from the start by the great body of the E n glish Baptists. E v en Kilc0p,baptizedbyBlun t or Blacklock in 1641 , held to the an ti-successio n theory;an d so of Kiffin , who became a Baptist in 164 1 an d who was possiblybaptized by Blun t or Blacklock in that year . Now whether the “Bloun t”men tion ed by E dwards was Richard Blu n t , or n ot— whether or n o t Blun tan d his people were absorbed, in 164 1 , by Spilsbury

— orwhether or n o t he

himself remain ed, as Kiffin an d Kn o llys did, with Jessey— he likely at an

early date aban do n ed his successio n theory of baptism an d fell in , as

Kiffin,Kilcop an d all the rest , with the great an ti

-successio n party ; an d

it would n ot be surprisin g to fin d him,in 1644 , receiv in g a

“fourth baptism,

”as in timated by Barebo n e of R . B. I t was n ot o n ly commo n with

some of the A n abaptists at the time , but , as in Ken t , the Gen eral Baptists sometimes reimmersed the Particular Baptists. I n the co n trov ersywith Barebon e R . B. was a stron g an ti-succession ist , 1642—43 an d if R_.

B. was Richard Blu n t it would n o t be stran ge if by a“fourth baptism,

”

he was reimmersed I n 1644 .

I t will be.

observ ed, too , un der the date of 1644 , that after the with

drawal of six teen members from Jessey, documen t No . 4 says :“After

sometime all these I n ye 2 n d Row were satisfied (v ide I n their scruple an djudged supra) yt such disciples as are gifted to teach 8: evan gelize mayalso baptize &c &c, an d ware baptized, Some before H . Jessey an d the

rest of‘

ye Church ware con vin ced again st Pedobaptisme .

” The documen t

Speaks of the first list of withdrawals as those who “scrupled about ye

B . S . in~the abov e lists stan d for Brother 85 Sister .

66 APPEND IX.

Admin istration of Baptisme &c ; an d the documen t refers to those “in

ye z ud R ow” as some of those who thus “scrupled” about the admin istratio n of baptism by un baptized admin istrators asbein g

“satisfied.

”I f “ye

2 n d R ow” belon gs to the last list “Blun t” is foun d in it ; an d this wouldin dicate, if it was Richard, his con v ersion already to the an ti-s uccessio n

theory, an d that he had gon e with K n o llys or Kiffin , both of whom were

members of J‘essey’s Church an d had left it— Kiffin in 1643 an dK n ollysin 1644

'

as this documen t Shows in the last list as to“B. S . [Brother an d

Sister] K n ollys .

The criticism, un der this head, that Jesseywas n o t con vin ced that immersion was the mode of baptism u n til 1645, is simply desperate . As

already shown , in Ch. V I I I . , p . 103 , accordin g to the Kiffin MS . , Blun twas “co n vin ced” with Jessey, 1640, that baptism

“Ought to be by dip

pin g— an d further co n vin ced

,in 164 1 , when , as Crosby shows, a

“much

greater n umber”seceded from the Jessey Church to the Baptists. Crosby

(Vol. _I ., .pp 3 10, 3 1 1) affirms that Jessey’s respect for the pietyan d so lid

judgmen t Ofman yOf these seceders— the “frequen t debates in his church

on the subj ect an d by a“diligen t an d impartial examin ation ” of the

“Scriptures an d an tiquity”— led him to the “co n v ictio n ” that the “mode

of baptizin g” was immersion ; an d in the year _1642 he an n oun ced his

co n v ictio n publicly in his chiI rch an d declared that ,“for the future,

”

those who were baptized would be immersed— hen ceforth “dippin g” the

children u n til co n vin ced that in fan t baptism was un scriptural . Crosbycites the co n trov ersyof 1644 , as he foun d it in documen t No . 4 , which

fi n ally led Jessey an d the greater part of his church to ren oun ce in fan t

baptism ; an dwhen “co n vin ced also the n ex t morn in g early after a day of

solemn seekin g, fastin g an d prayer,”that that practice was wro n g an d

that he himself ought to be dipped, he was baptized, Jun e 29 , 1645, byH an serd K n ollys, who with his wife an d o thers withdrew from the JesseyChurch in 1644 an d were immersed at the same time “B[rother] Blun t” didlikewise . The con trov ersywhich primarilyled to this step began I II 1643

(Documen t NO . 4) when the questio n of baptizin g K n ollys’ child became

an issue an d all this prov es that K n ollys.

an d his wife were members ofJessey’s P edobaptist Church un til early in 1644, when , as the result ofthe co n trov ersy o v er their Own child,

\bo_thwithdrew an dwere immersed

more than twelv e mon ths before Jessey an d his church became Baptists.

I n the early part Of 1643 Kiffin , ev ide n tly, had withdrawn from Jesseyan d had become co-pastor of some church with Patien t ; but it was n o t

un til 1645 that K n ollys had gathered a church an d was pastor in L o n don .

Perhaps he immediately began this work in 1644 when with his wife an d

those who followedhimhewithdrew fromJessey’s church. Though Kiffm'

became a Baptist an d Was perhaps immersed in 164 1 , K n ollys delayedun til 1644 to follow his co n victio n ; an d so far as documen tary ev iden ce

shows, it is certain that n either of them were immersed before the year

1641 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

a68 APPEND IX .

“Gould Kiffin MS . , or its origin al , was before Crosby; an d “a wayfarin g

man , though a fool ,” n eed n o t err in the fact .

But suppose that the date,.

164 1 , could n o t be distin ctively established,o r that Crosby did n ot fin d it in the Kiffin MS . H e affirms that Immer

S ion ceased in E n glan d in 1600 ; that it“had been for some time dis

used that the “E n glish Baptists” restored it . When I t was either ator after their organ ization , 1609

—1633 but accordin g to Crosby’

s author

ities, H utchin so n an d the Kiffin MS . , it was after 1633—38 ; an d accordin g

to added authorities, such as Spilsbury,Tombes, Lawren ce an d o thers, the

revival of Immersio n took place by two distin ct methods, the“former”beihg the Blun t , an d “last” bein g the Spilsbury, method. Blun t eviden tlywen t to H ollan d for the “former

” method after 1633 38 ; an d there I S n o

way to escape the 1640—4 1 theorywithout overthrowin gCrosby— albeit hedoes n o t men tion 164 1 . The “E n glish Baptists,

”accordin g to Crosby,

reviv ed immersio n in the 17th cen tury, about 1640—4 1 ; an d if we couldfix n o particular date at all between 16 1 1 an d the fact of revival I S

the same . A ll the writers of the 17th cen tury, Baptist an d Pedobaptist ,either expressly or impliedly, declare this fact ; an d fo llowed by Crosbythey revolve aroun d the date 1640—4 1 , whether that date is men tio n ed or

n o t . These writers demon strate that the “E n glish Baptists,” as Crosbymain tain s, were Separatists

— that theyhad a“begin n in g

”of their own in

E n glan d— that theywrought a“reformatio n upo n the same prin ciples o n

which all other Pro testan ts built their reformation ”— all I n the 17th cen

tury. This I s the historyof the case ; an d n o thin g would be gain ed if the164 1 theorywas exploded in to atoms The critics of D r. Whitsitt ’S thesishav e go n e crazy about That date is n o doubt the true o n e ; but

that date 1S the most in sign ifican t con sideratio n in the co n ten tio n . The

great question is . Did the A n glo-Saxo n Baptists origin ate in the 17th

cen tury upo n the prin ciple of believ ers’ baptism an d in depen den cy-_did

they hav e a“begin n in g

”as Separatists

— did they in troduce a“reforma

tio n”of their own — did they afterwards restore immersio n an d so com

ple te their reformation Crosby an d the 17th cen turywriters, as cited in

this work , say they did ; an d the date at which they revived immersio n is

a small matter . The o n lyway to get rid of the facts in the case is to ex

plode Crosby ; an d in explodin g him,\the critics will have to explode fifty

Or Sixtywitn esses who sustain Crosby.

(C)

THE CRITIC ON TH E FONT .

‘ The critic cites Wall (H ist . I uft . Bapt . , Vol. I I ., p. 403) as,

follows“A n d for Sprin klin g,properly called

,it seems that it was at 1645 just then

é'

egin n in g , an d used by very few. I t must hav e begun in the disorderlyt imes of Wall is here referrin g to the chan ge frompourin g toSprin klin g I n the E n glish Church, in 1645 , o n the part of a

“very few,

”

an dWhich was resisted by,such men as Thomas Blake, who favored an d

practiced pourin g, an d who said (I n fan ts Baptism freed from A n ti

christian ism, 1645 , pp .

“ I hav e seen sev eral dipped ; I n ev er saw n or

heard of an y sprin kled. Blake uses the word “r/zan tiz e

”(which the

APPEND IX . 269

Baptists had used to an tithesize immersio n ) to an tithesize pourin g ; an d

Dr. Jesse B . Thomas (Bo th Sides, p . 3 1) says of the Pedobaptist use of

the word : “ I t poin ts rather to the ran corous oppositio n of the co n serv a

tiv es who reluctan tly yielded to the force of public opin io n so far as to

accept pourin g, but resen ted the further chan ge of sprin klin g, t/zen [1645]just é ein g in troduced.

” Affusion — a“washin g

”or rubbin g

“with water”

was an d had been the practice of the Pedobaptists reachin g back in to the16 th cen tury ; an d although affusio n wen t by the gen eral n ame of“sprin klin g, it was n o t till about 1645 that the E n glish Church began to

practice what Wall says was“properly called” sprin klin g— an d then o n ly

by a“v ery few.

” The Jacob church is represen ted by the tract ,“To

Sio n s Virgin s,”

as sprin klin g from its organ izatio n ; an d it is likely theI n depen den ts gen erally practiced sprin klin g in stead of pourin g

— an d so

perhaps of the Presbyterian s. From the time of Wycliffe an d Tyn dalepourin g had begun in the E n glish Church ; an d the Catechism of Noel ,I 570, of sole authority then in the E n glish Church, prescribed “

Sprin

klin g” as altern ate with Immersio n . I n Spite of Queen E lizabeth’s efforts

to resist the Calvin istic in n ov ation , she was n ot able to withstan d the affu

sio n mov emen t ; an d Wall says (H ist . I n ft . Bapt . , Vol. I I . , p. 40 1)“I n

the latter times of Queen E lizabeth, an d durin g the reign s of Kin g James

an d of Kin g Charles I . , veryfew clzildren were dipped in t/zefon t .” Affusion

was the mode an d “sprin klin g, properly called

,

”as Wall puts it , n ev er be

gan to be practiced by the E n glish Church un til about 1645, an d then by“veryfew.

”

I t is n eedless to fo llow the critic from Gough to, Balfour again st his

chief authority, Dr. Wall . The “S to n e Fon t ,” urged by the Bishops

again st the “profan e baso n ,

” did n ot imply dippin g between 1600 an d‘

1645 ; for in the use of the same terms they forbid baptizin g I N baso n s,which was by pourin g, just as they require baptism I N fo n ts, which was

in the same form. The Prayer Book of James I . , 1604 , mean t n o more as to

dippin g then than it mean s n ow, an dwith but lit tle exception the E n glishChurch practiced ,

then , just as it does n ow. The discov ery of fo n ts an d

baptisteries sufficien t to dip b abies or adul ts in prov es n o thin g for the

practice of baptism from 1600 to 164 1 . We fin d them all ov er E urope as

employed in earlier times for immersio n ; an d there is a baptisteryin a

Nashville Episcopal Church for the use of an y o n e who desires to be

dipped in a sprin klin g church.

Other witn esses employed by the critic are , like Wall, n ot touchin g the

question as he supposes. Sir John P loyer, already quo ted in Ch. V .,

positiv ely declares that immersion , with a few exception s, had ceased in

the E n glish Church from 1600 A . D . o n ward ; an d like Rogers, Down ame

an d o thers, he was pleadin g for its restoration . Wat ts, in 1656 , a learn edEpiscopalian , does n ot hesitate to say, at his time , that the

“memory of

man” did n ot ru n back to the period when the E n glish Church was n ot in

“firm possessio n”of sprin klin g or affusion as again st immersio n . Such

Baptist writers as H en ry Den n e an d Thomas Crosby thoroughly agree

with Sir John Floyer that immersion in E n glan d en dedwith the year 1600 .

So far as adult immersio n is co n cern ed, as far as I hav e read, all the

Baptist writers from 164 1 to 1700 are again st the critic at the fo n t . I n

1645 the learn ed Dr. Tombes defen ds the right to restore immersion by

APPEND Ix .

u n bapti'zed- admin istrators upon the sole groun d that the ordin an ce had

been “un iversally corrupted,

”an d that the “

con tin uan c’

e‘

of adult baptism could n o t be proved.

” Corn well, 1645, assumes that the Baptistshad resumed “dippin g.

” R . B. in 1642 declares that “un til lately there

were n o aaptiz edpeople.

” So expres'

slyor impliedly of over fiftywitn esses,Baptist an d Pedobaptist , who wro te in the 17th cen tury. Of what couse

q uen ce then is it that Thomas Blake, 1645, had seen man y (he says“several in fan ts dipped as exceptio n s to the rule of the E n glishChurchOf course, Dan iel Featley, like some Episcopalian s n ow, might truly say:“Our fo n t is always open — that is, if an ybodywan ts immersion . William_Walker, 1678, truly said : “The gen eral custom n ow in E n glan d is tosprin kle ;” but in the light Of Wall, Floyer, Den n e, Watts, Crosby an d

o thers, I den yhis o ther propositio n“So in the fore en d of this cen turie

the gen eral custom was to dip.

” Balfour (1827) says “Baptizin g in fan tsby dippin g thein in fo n ts was practiced in the Church of E n glan d (exceptin the cases of sickn ess or weakn ess) un til the Directory came out in the

year 1644 but he is on ly right as to‘

the few exceptiOn s which havebeenadmit ted byWall , P loyer, Crosby an d o thers. Affusio n was the gen eralmode of the E n glish Church from 1600 to 1645, when , as Wall s ays,“sprin klin g,properly called,

” began to be practiced, an d then on lybya

‘veryfew.

(D )

THE CRITIC s PERVERSION OF KING .

H e quotes the followin g sen ten ce from Kin g’s“Way to Zion , &c

“I . That God hath had a peOple o n earth, ev er sin ce the comin g of

Christ in the flesh, throughout the darkest times of Popery, which he hathfown ed as sain ts an d as his people .

” The Critic then adds from Kin g’sThird Part which :

“Proveth that OutwardOrdin an ces,an d ame n gst them

B aptism, is to con tin ue in the Church, &c.

” The Critic then addshiscommen t : “ I thin k

“

some people would have spasms if some promin en t Bapt ist author were to put forth an d prov e the abov e propositio n s. But these

words Of Dan iel Kin g did n ot disturb Willi/am Kiffin , an d those o ther

Baptist preachers.

” H e goes o n then to quote further from Kin g an d

Kiffin (who en dorsed Kin g’s book) to imply the idea that they taught a

visille succession of the church an d its ordin an ces throughout all the ages.

I f he read Kin g’s book, he is guilty of o n e of the grossest pieces of

garblin g ,an d suppression an ywriter ever perpetrated ; an d if he did n ot

read his book, an d o n ly picked these sen ten ces by scan n in g, then he is

guilty of the grossest ign oran ce . No stro n ger book was /ever written in

the 17th cen tury to prove that , while there had, in all ages, been a spirit

ual succession of “sain ts,” the visille succession of the church, itsmin istry

an d ordin an ces, had been lost un til restored by the Baptists ; an d whilehe main tain ed, as again st the Quakers an d Seekers, that the ordin an ces

(in cludin g baptism) should upo n prin ciple co n tin ue in the church, he un

equivocally declares the fact that theyhad n ot so co n tin ued un til restored.

Now that they have been restored he (en dorsed by Kiffin an d o thers)a ssumes again st the Pedobaptists, ‘

Quakers an d Seekers that the true

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 72 APPENDIX .

pen den t5°

an d it was this in n ovation which was vain ly fought by QueenE lizabeth an d some of the Bishops I n the latter part of the 16 th cen turyn ot simply as again st immersio n , but as again st pourin g, which was n otsurren dered un til about 1645 an d then o n lyby

“a v eryfew. Sin ce the

time of Wycliffe, Tyn dale an d Noel, pourin g had been in troduced in

the E n glish Church ; an d, so far as the E n glish Church was co n cern ed, it '

was pourin g which supplan ted immersio n by 1600 A . D .—sprin klin g,

“properly called, ’ ’ bein g the mode , in gen eral , amon g the Presbyterlan s

an d I n depen den ts.

(F)

TH E CRITIC ON'

IMMER S ION IN ENGLANDPRIOR To 1641.

U n der this head the critic’s commen t upon the 1644 7

Co n fessio n is Characteriz ed by the usual exaggerated in feren ces. an d ex élamation poin ts, but

he says o n e true thin g :“The makers of this. Con fessio n did n ot affirm the

doctrin e of church or baptismal successio n . They imply the co n trary,

for the reaso n that theyhad'

n o such successio n , as I hav e demon strated in

this work beyo n d co n trov ersy. Amon g o ther thin gs, howev er, the critic

affirms o n e thin g wholly un true “No n e of the sign ers of this Co n fessionavow that immersio n was lost .” Besides the admissio n s of Kilcop an d

Kiffin , Spilsburypositiv ely Shows that n ot on lybaptismwas lost‘

an d that

the visible successio n of the church had bee n repeatedlybroken , but he

shows that the Baptists had recov ered them— an d n ow. See Ch. XI I . ,pp.

144— 151 . But what of immersio n .before 164 1

1 . The oft-repeated citatio n of Thomas Fuller (Ch. H ist . of Britain ,Vol. VI I . p . 9 7) with regard to the expressio n .

“Don atists n ew dipt,applied, “for the main ,

” to the Dutch A n abaptists, 1524, I have alreadyn o ticed I n Ch. I I . p . 23 . Fuller wrote in 1656 , just 132 years after thisDutch immigration to E n glan d, an d so far as I can fin d he cites n o data

bywhich to show that they were dippers. H e eviden tly followed traditio n or took his idea from the custom of the A n abaptists of his day, 1656 ,as the basis of his dippin g phraseology ; or/ else, accordin g to the usage

of his day, he employed the word “dipped” in the sen se of clcristen ed, an d soalliteratively characterized the 1524

‘

A n abaptists as“Do n atists n ew dipt

”

un der a n ew n ame . They were ev iden tly of the H offman n ite type an d

their practice , at that date , was Sprin klin g. I n 1653 , Goodwin speaks ofthe “first un dipt dipper ” who origin ated immersio n amon g the Baptists

sin ce “the late [Puritan ] reformatio n .

” The A n abaptists of E n glan d,before 164 1 , did n ot dip. The quo tatio n from R eadin g (The A n abaptists R outed, 165 which says :

“A n abaptists n o t o n ly den y believ ers’children baptism, as the Pelagian s an d Don atists did of old, but affirm

,

That dippin g the whole body un der water is so n ecessary, that with

out it n o n e are baptized,” prov es n o thin g except that the A n abaptists

of 1655 were practicin g exclusive Immersio n , an d that, like the Don atistsan d Pelagian s of old they den ied

“believ ers’ childre n baptism.

” R ead

in g was o n e of the writers of the 17 th cen turywho charged Baptists with“n ew” or self-origin ated baptism. See Ch. XIX .

, p. 233 .

APPENDIX . 2 73

2 . The quo tatio n from Turn er ( 1551 ) I hav e cited also in Ch. I L , pp.

24—27 . The con trov ersy between Cooke an d Turn er regardin g the prae

tice Of “aaptysm”admin istered to the “Catechumen i” of the early church

o n“E aster an dWhit Sun day,

” in v o lv ed o n ly the suaject but n o t the modeof baptism ; an d Turn er, an E n glish Church immersio n ist , uses his own

lan guage I n replywhen , in sistin g that the passive act Of baptism, as co n

tradistin guished from the active form of the Lord’s Supper, Should n o t be

deferred with children , he says :“Childes may as well be dipped I n the

water in the n ame of Christ ev en as Olde folke.

” The mode was n o t inquestio n ,

an d as for the word “Catabaptist” which Turn er applies to theA n abaptists, it can n ot be shown , I n the ecclesiastical use of the word, thatit ev er mean s immersion ist, but on ly a

“prophan er

”of baptism by

“re

iteratin g that ordin an ce . Sophocles’ Greek L exicon of the Roman an d

Byzan tin e period, giv es as the ecclesiasticalmean in g of the word :“travesty

of aaptzsm

3 . The Critic cites John Man but there is fio thin g in the short

phrases of the fragmen tary quo tatio n to prove that the A n abaptists in

E n glan d dipped at all. Some of the Swiss an d German A n abaptists had

dipped about 1525, an d the Po lan dA n abaptists had resumed dippin g in

1574 . The tradition that the A n abaptists had gen erallydipped was common then as it is n ow ; but it can n ot be historically shown that the DutchA n abaptists, then in E n glan d an d becomin g ex tin ct , practiced dippin g.

Whether of the earlyH offman n ite , or laterMen n o n ite, type, theypracticed

sprin klin g ; an d it is certain that the E n glis/z A n abaptists from 1609 to

1641 did n ot immerse— as I have abun dan tly shown .

The citatio n from Man is the best the Critic has so far don e ; an d yet

like all his citation s, so few an d far between ,it is too in defi n ite as to o m

an d wlLere to prov e A n abaptist immersio n in E n glan d before 164 1— or

rather down to 1578— again st the testimon ies of so much historywhichkn ow n othin g of adult immersio n in E n glan d from the earliest times to

164 1 . The learn ed Baptist , D r. Tombes as cited o n page 152 of

this vo lume, shows that“n o con tin uan ce of adult é aptism[immersion ] can 5c

proved,”prior to 1641 , amon g A n abaptists.

(G) .

TH E CRITIC ON FOXE ,FEATLEY AND OTHERS .

The critic Cites us to a work of the time of H en ryVI I I . an d EdwardVI .

brought out by John Foxe about 157 1 , which refers to in fan t baptism as

immersion, the gen eral though n ot un iv ersal custom of that time

,an d

which also refers to the “cruel un godlin ess Of some,

’ ’ which (cruel ungodlin ess) rushes headlon g in to baptism which they

“without reaso n”

were “un willin g to bestow upo n in fan ts.

” Not on e word is here em

ployed to sign ify the A n abaptist mode of baptism; an d the charge of“baptismal regen eratio n ” in the passage does n ot refer to the A n abaptists

at all, but to I suppose the ex treme ritu’

alists, who imagin ed

that the “H oly Spirit” emerged from the ex tern al e lemen t of baptism,

an d that his “grace swam in the v ery fon t of baptism.

” Nev er was a

passage so misrepresen ted. The critic formerly quoted Fox ’s Book of

1 8

2 74 APPEND IX .

Martyrs for a similar purpose an d had to aban don his mistake ; an ditwould hav e been in fi n itely better for him to hav e steered clear of Foxealtogether .

The critic refers to L eo n ard Busher’s defi n ition of baptism as dippin gan d to Prof. Masson

’s Opin ion that the practice of the “H elwisse fo lk

was immersio n — for an an swer to which I cite the reader to my Ch. IV . ,

an d especially to pp. 53 . The H elwys people did n ot immerse, butthe critic cites us to “

co n temporan eous eviden ce” from I . H . , 16 10, as

proof that they did so practice , as fo llows: “For tell me, shall an y o n e

that is baptized in the right forme an d man n er (for that ye stan dmucho n ) upo n the skin n e be sav ed ?” H ow he gets immersion by a baptism“upon t/ze skin n e

” is hard to see . E viden tly the sprin klin g Puritan t e

ferred to the pourin g or washin g (often accompan ied by rubbin g) of the“H elwisse folk”who followed the custom of the Men n on ites, an d about

which t here was sometimes con trov ersy between the aspersio n ists an d

affusiOn ists. Immersio n gets the subject in to thev —vVater, but it was thewashin g of affusion that applied the water to or “upo n the skin n e.

”

The critic cites John Robin son as declarin g that John Morto n an d his

con gregatio n practiced dippin g, in the followin g words : “ I n the n ex t

place they come to baptism in which they thin k themselv es in their ele

men t , as fi lth in water. A n d begin n in g with John ’s baptism, &c .

” Mor

to n himself is quo ted as declarin g his belief that John himself baptized“in Jordan ,

”addin g that “ this in deed was the practice of the primitive

churches.

” R obin son eviden tly refers to the con ten tio n for believ ers’baptism by the A n abaptists

— always “begin n in g with J ohn ’s baptism—a in

which, without an y allusio n to their mode, he represen ts them“in their

e lemen t”of co n trov ersy

“as fi lth in water.

” Smyth, H elwys, Morton

an d o ther A n abaptists, before 164 1— yea, Men n on ites an d Pedobaptists-v

who practiced affusio n or aspersion , believ ed that John ‘

baptized in J ordan ,

an d they regarded immersion as a'

mode of baptism. H en ce in the

light of history these quotatio n s prove n o thin g as to the practice of A n a

baptists before 164 1 . I . G[raun t] is cited as showin g, in 1645, that Mor

ton , thirty years before, practiced dippin g ; but I -defy the most microscopic criticism to Show, in that quotation , that Morton ev er dipped

— bythe remo test in feren ce .

Edmon d Jessop (A Discovery OM B Errors of the E n glish A n abaptists,

1623 , p . 62) is cited as statin g an A n abaptist error in his v ersion of Col.

but his exegesis of that tex t is in perfect keepin g with the A n abaptist an d Pedobaptist view of the time, n amely, that the burial an d resur

rection symbolism of baptism, whatever the mode, was spirituallysyn o n ymous with the circumcision or washin g of the heart . See my Ch.

IV"pp'

The Critic; un der this head, cites D r . Featley’ s “Dippers D Ipped,”&c. ;

but for a complete an swer to all he says on this poin t , I refer the reader

to my Ch. XVI I ., pp . 202—2 12 . On ly o n e poin t here n eeds to be n o ticed.

H e cites as a fact (Tan n er MS . Acts H igh Court of Commission ,

Vol. 434, fol. 8 1 . b . , Bodleian Library) that“Barber was before Featley

in 1639 for bein g a dipper ,” but he gives n o quotation . This was very

close to 1640 —4 I , but there is n o historic eviden ce that Barber or an y of

the E n glish A n abaptists were dippers— even if theyhad been tradition

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I N D EX.

Act Of un iformity’ o o o o o o o o p

Adams, Richard ,

Adshead, Joseph A .

Afiusion , Practice of Gen eral Baptists , 1609 to 1641,

Ain sworth , H en ryAllen , William,

Allute , G . W . ,

A n abaptism , Without referen ce tomode, the crime beforeabaptists,E n glish

— n o organ ization before 1611,

First n otice of in E n glan d1534,

F oreign ers ,P osition at begin n in g of E n glish R eformation ,

Their Doctrin es ,A n cien t Records , Epworth

Crowle , 51

gus , -Dr . Joseph , 36, 52Dates origin of E n glish Baptist churches , 1611

—1633 , 36tipedobaptism, n ot charged to

t he A n cien t British Christ1an s , . 12A quin as , Thomas, 152A rmitage , Thomas , 13 , 44Ashton , Robert , 33, 45 , 47 52

Probability of Smyth’s affu

s1on ,

Smyth an d Robin son Con trov ers

y), 33 , 34

A spersion , ractice of. ParticularBaptists before 1641,

Austin , I n vasion of E n glan d (596,

Deman ds of British Christian s , 9 , 10

Massacre of British Christian s ,

Baillie , Robert , 17 41, 216 , 222Testimon y, 222

Bampfield, F ran cis, a S e-Baptist , .

66, 130, 131Documen t , 128—139Prof. Vedder ’s t estimon y on , 139

Baptisrrti of A n abaptists, 16th cen

ury,

F rom 1609 to 1641, Separation , 57After 1640—41, 79 , 80

Baptism of the Roman ists an d

Welsh , . 168, 172, 178

Baptist s , British Christian s, first300years ,

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O O O O O O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

Baptists, pAGEAn tiqui ty of churches before1611-41 tradition al, 22

Church of, in Chester Co . ,

Wales un kn own , 13Dutch poured for 75E n glish, difficulties in way ofrestorin g immersion , 80, 81,

Gen eral, Origin of, 29 54Growth of , to 1644, 41 , 58L iterature an d errors , 42, 43Mod

’

e‘

of baptism before44 49

Relation to theMen n o

n ites to 1641, 43No trace of their prin ciplesin E n lan d for 558

Particu ar , Origin of ,First church ,

G rowth from 1633 to1644, 41 , 58

Mfgfi

of bapt ism before

R eformation of , in En glan d,

foun ded in Puritan ism,

So-called, before restorationof baptism,

Sup osed traces of elemen tsin ales to l6th cen tury,

Wit n esses to restoration ofimmersion , 163—201

A po ish fiction , 260, 261A . R itor ] , 175 , 176A n abaptists sin ce called

“Baptists”_before

adoptin g immersion , . 255Baptists n ot the daught er of Rome , .

Baptists an tedate the

bap tismof Christ ,Barber an dBarebon e ,

.163-174Christopher Blackwood , 185 , 186

Dan iel Kin g , 187- 190F ran cis Corn well , 183 , 184

Fran cis Dean e , 182, 183Han serd Kn ollys, 186H ercules Collin s , 200, 201Hen ry Den n e , 184, 185H en ry Jessey . 191- 195R .B .

’s re lyto P . R , 176—180

Thomas loop’s reply

to P . B . , 180- 182Thomas Lamb , 199 , 200

William Allen , 198, 199

INDEX .

PAGEBaptists ,

WilliamKa e,

Separation egan ,

Succession a recen t doc

trin e amon gBaptl sts , 160Baptists,Were they? 250-261

Believ ers’baptism cen

tral peculiarity,

Summary of the 17th

cen tury Baptist pos1tion , 252,

Re roduction , n ot V1S1b e succession , 257

Bakewell , Thomas , Catabaptism, 26Barber , Edward , 38 , 63 , 126 , 150, 163—174

Tract an d Testimon y , . 163—174Barclay, Robert , 41 , 44, 59 , 78Bards ,Welsh , 13Barebon e , . 58, 97 166, 171, 176, 180

Brown ist an d n ot a Baptist , . 97His reply to Barber , 166 , 167His reply to R . . 176—180His reply t o Spilsbury, 148

Barrowe , Rober t , . 17 19

Bastwick , Dr . , 21Batt e, John , . 61, 100, 115Bax ter , Richard, 216Bede , Ven erable ,

Bishops, E arly British , at Coun cilNice , Ar les, etc . ,

Blackburn ,William,

Blacklock, Samuel ,Blackwood, Christopher ,

149 , 150, 185 , 186His t estimon y , 185 , 186

Blun t , Richard, 61, 62, 63 , 65Deputed to Hollan d , 1640, . 62, 63His church probably disban ded , 65 66

Boucher , Joan , burn ed, .

Bookin g , Church ,

Brin sley, John , Catabaptism ,

Burn et , Bishop ,

Burrage , Hen ry SBusher , L eon ard ,Defin ition of baptism ,

Caerleon on U sk, Bishop ofCalamy , Edmun d ,

Can n e , John , 63 , 64, 124Baptizedman , 1641,

Can terbury , Chur ch , 54Catabaptism, 24 27Cathcart , 10, 14Clarkson ,Lawren ce , in prison forimmersion ,

Clifford , Dr . John , .

Clifton , Richard ,

Co ham, L ord, Lollard Martyn .

Coll egian ts,Collier , Jeremy ,

Collin s , Hercules ,

His testimon y, .

Columba , S t . ,

Con fession s of Faith ,

Of John Smyth ,

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O O O O O O O O O O O

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

o o o o o o o oO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O

o o o o o o o o o o o

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O O O O O O O O O O

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O 0

O O O O O O

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Con fession s of Faith,

Of 1611 48Of 1644 245 , 246Of 1641, an an ti - succession

documen t ,Con ven ticles Dutch-E n glish , atclOse of l 6thcen tury ,

Cor n well , Fran cis ,His testimon ,

Crosby, Thomas , storian ,

9 , 14, 20, 41,55 , 62, 64, 67 , 69 , 72, 74,

His accoun t of the origin ofthe Gen eral Ba tists, 29

His accoun t of t e originthe Particular Baptist

gsy

His accoun t of the disuse ofimmersion , 68 78

His accoun t of the restoration of immersion , 79 90

HisWit n esses , 140-163Hutchin son , 142—144Spilsbury, 144—151Tombes, 152- 156L awren ce, 156G ran tham, 157Toulmin , 159Neal ,

Reliability as an author , 162D

’A n vers , H en ry , 10Dean , F ran cis , An abaptist S ermon ,

en n e , Hen ry,

Imprison ed for dippin g , 164Testimon y ,“ 184, 185Dex ter , H en ryM 44

Dippers U n dipt , 231Don atists , 11“New Dipt , 23 , 271

Doopsgez in den , 23 , 224, 245Down ame , G eorge , 73Drew , John , his t est1mon y 228E achard, John , Author , The Loyall Con v er t ,

E aster , Time of Keepin g by E arlyBritish Christian s, 9 11

Eaton , S amuel ,59 , 100, 111, 150, 213

Edwards , Thomas ,Gan graen a ,

216 , 236His Testimon y , 236

E lizabeth , Pers’

ecution of the An abaptists, 20

Emmes , 66emy , ,T

‘

n e What H e Said , 213—228Author of The Loyall Conv ert ,

Book of Common Prayer ,

_2 78 I NDEX.

E n emy ,

John Goodwin ,

J ames Parn ell ,

John Ta lor ,Jefire at ts ,Nathan ael H omes ,

Nathan ael S tephen s,R obert Baillie ,S . C .

’3 Reply to A . R .

S tephen Marshall,Thomas E dwards, .

Thomas Wall ,William Cooke ,

Episcopacy, of E arly British Chris1an s

F abian ,

Facts , Sign ifican t , . .239—249Balfgsmal con trov ersyafter

Health an d Decen cy ques

tion , 246Immersion n ot pun ished be

?

fore 1641,Immersion put in to the Confession of 1644,

Nev er called Baptists un tilafter 1641,

Olldéfitlen an d NewMen after

Relation between G en eralBaptists an d Men n on itesbroken oif , 1641,

Silen ce of Historyy ,

17th Cen tury Baptists Separatists,

U se of thewordrhan tiz eafter

Familists ,Featley, Dan iel” . 25, 216

Baptist Dippin g . 202-204Catabaptism, 209“Dippers Dipt , .202—212

N ew L eaven of An abaptisme , .204-206

“Our An abaptists ino

Enlan d,

Zurich Decree of Drown irzig,4-210QFloyer , Sir John , 71, 72

QFon t in P lace of Baptistery, 70

Fox e , John , 70, 273

Fuessli, J . 26Full er , Thomas,

G eree, John , Testimon y . 221

Gieseler , J . C . I .

Goodw m, John , Catabaptism . . 216Testimon y 213

Gould , G eorge” 117 118

Green ,

“Feltmaker , Brown ist ” 58

Gun n e, Thomas ,

H an bury’s Memorials ,

Harrison , Robert ,Hen ry, Dr . Robert , 7 .

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

o o o o o o o o o

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

o o o o o o o o o o o o o

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

PAGEHelwys, Thomas, 32, 38, 41, 42, 51, 83

140, 149 , 150, 163tagomz es Smyth an d theMen n omtes ,Defin ition of Ba tism, .

Main tain s Smyt’s Position ,

32, 33 , 37 , 39The Joshua of the First Baptists , 39

Hi h Commission Court , 79Hi Cliffe Chur ch , 22, 63obson , Paul, n ot a Baptist before1641, 63 64ollan ders , Persecuted at Oxford

First rev olt from Rome inE n glan d, 13

omes , Nathan ael , Testimon y 220ov eden , Roger , 14

Hutchin son , Edward, .60, 61, 63 , 84, 124Accoun t of Revival of Immers1on ,

ersion : Word n ev er ut in toan E n glish Baptis Con fession un til

.

1644,Accoun t of its Disuse in E n glan d , 68—70

A ccoun t of its Restoration , 79—90Adult fir st 300years , 11, 68

A gitation 1640, 60

An ti-succession Method, 85 86Armita e

’

s Admission s , 90

Called t e“n ew way

”after

1641,Con clusion from Crosby

’s

Accoun t ,Crime after 1641,Did n ot Succeed fromJohnSmyth ,

In Disuse prior to 1640,I ts restoration a ParticularBaptist 59

I vimey’s Accoun t , 88, 89

Not amon Baptists from 300

A . D . to 641, 74Purely a Baptist Movemen t , 82

Regular Method, 84

R eviv ed,. 61

Subject chan ged 400 A D‘

Crosby,

Successmn through the British churches from 300 to

1600,The Discussion , a digression

of Crosby,

Three Methods of Restoration roposed ,

Two ethods of Restorationadopted , 83

I n fan t Baptism : Probable ractice

of the early Briti Chris

G roun d of Separation 1638,Practice of the Nov atian s

an dDon atists,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

80 INDEX .

PAGERevival of Immersion , 61,

Ricraft , Josiah, An abaptist Lookin g G lasse,

Bitor , ATestimon y, 216

Robin son , John , 44

Assails Helwys’baptism,

Robin son , Robert , 108Ryves , B . , t estimony,Saltmarsh , John , t estimon ySawtry, first Lollard martyr ,Saxon I n vasion an dMassacre,

Scheffer , de Hoop , J. G . 52

Schyn , Herman , Catabaptism, . 23, 25eekers , 66S eparationShepard, Thomas, 67Shute , Giles , 52Smyth , John , 29 ,

60, 149Baptized byAffusion ,Death , 1612?D efin ition of Baptism,

Or an iz ation ofpfirst Baptist

R lur

ézh,

Clyft d1

.

1329 ,

e 0 on , repu a es

vlsfble succession , 31, 32

R etraction of his E rrors, . 37S elf -baptism“ . 29 , 31, 43, 44,S ep

taration fromthe Brown

1s s

Some, Dr .R. , 20,Sqan hemius, F redrick, Catabap1sm

Spen cer , Cgptain , Brown ist , . 58

Spilsbury

, ohn 38, 57 , 59, 60,63 , 67 , 124, 157 , 163, 213

On e of Crosby’s Wit n esses”

144—151from 1600 to

before197

S tephen s, Nathan iel, 229S tork, N1cholas,

64

S trype,

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

t t t t t t t t t t t

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

o o o o o o o o

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O O O O O O O O O O O O

o o o o o o o o o o o

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Q

Wilson ,W . ,

W righters , became a Seeker,“Wyckliffe , John n ev er left the R0

mish Church,

Baptist Prin ciples ,Zan chius , . 152

Zwin gle, Ulrich, Catabaptism, “ 24

PAGESuccession , V1s1ble an d Spiritual, .

31, 69 , 78Vis1ble succession repudiatedby the Baptists ,

31, 32, 146, 150, 185 , 189Taylor , Adam, Gen eral Baptist

‘

Historian , 37 52aylor , John , 100, 111, 114

Testimon y , 213Terwoot ,H en drik, burn ed, 20Thomas, Joshua, 12Tombes, Dr . John , 38, 63, 126 151

On e of Crosby’s

ookey, Elias,To Sion

’s Virgin s , defin ition -

ofbaptism,

Turn er ,Dr .William,Catabaptism,

SImén ersion , O

E24,

9 6 ppen

Tyn dale , J 16 17 72U sher , Archbishop ,

Vedder , Hen ry C . ,

Van Braght , Tileman , ,

Walden ses, 13, 14, 70, 73

Wales, un der the darkn ess of R0man ismdown to l6th Century , 13

First Baptist church in , 1649 13Walker ,Williston , 112

Wall , Thomas, 44, 52

Testimon y,

Waterlan ders, A spersion ists, 45 , 46John Smyth sought admission .38, 46

Wat ts, Jeffry, on Sprin klin g in

E n glan d , 72 225S tron g Wit n ess , Nov elty of

Immersion ,

Welsh Protestan tism in E n glafin ally destroyed, 1282,

Welsh lately left off immersion ,

Wesley, John , 72Whitsit t , Dr . Wm. H . ,

15 , 44 99 165 212, 23366