DEC 
 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST 
 HISTORY: 
 
 WHETHER THE ANABAPTISTS IN ENGLAND PRAC- 
 TICED IMMERSION BEFORE THE YEAR 1641? 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX 
 
 ON THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS, AT 
 PROVIDENCE, R. I., IN 1639. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM H. WHITSITT, 
 
 PRESIDENT OK THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 
 LOUISVILLE, KY. 
 
 LOUISVILLE, KY.: 
 
 CHAS. T. DEARING. 
 
Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1896, by 
 
 WM. H. WHITSITT. 
 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
 
TO F. W. W. 
 'AND SHE'S A' THE WORLD TO ME." 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 The question does not relate to the origin of im- 
 mersion. Immersion as a religions rite was prac- 
 ticed by John the Baptist about the year 30 of our 
 era, and was solemnl}^ enjoined by our Savior upon 
 all his ministers to the end of time. No other ob- 
 servance was in use for baptism in New Testament 
 times. The practice, though sometimes greatly 
 perverted, has yet been continued from the Apostolic 
 • age down to our own. As I understand the Scriptures 
 immersion is essential to Christian baptism. The 
 question as to the origin and essential character of im- 
 mersion is, therefore, not in issue. That is a closed 
 question; it does not admit of being opened among 
 Baptist people. 
 
 The issue before us is far different, namely: 
 Whether the immersion of adult believers was prac- 
 ticed in England by the Anabaptists before the year 
 1641? Whether these English people first adopted 
 immersion for baptism and thus became Baptists in 
 or about the year 1641? 
 
 This is purely a question of modern historical 
 research. It does not affect any items of Baptist 
 principle or practice. These are all established 
 upon the Bible. Our watchword for generations 
 has been, "The Bible, the Bible alone, the religion 
 
6 INTRODUCTORY. - 
 
 of Baptists ! " It is now too late in the day to alter 
 our views and set forth any new battle cry. Bap- 
 tists have always maintained that "the Scriptures of 
 the Old and New Testaments were given by inspir- 
 ation of God, and are the only sufficient, certain and 
 authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and 
 obedience." Other foundation can no man lay. 
 Whoever attempts it must inevitably fall into error. 
 Let us stand by the old landmarks; let us walk in 
 the old paths. 
 
 Several persons have undertaken original investi- 
 gation at the British Museum to decide where the 
 truth may lie in reference to this question. I had 
 the honor to be of this number. My researches 
 were prosecuted in the summer of 1880. The re- 
 sults of them are contained in a body of manuscript 
 notices and extracts derived from various volumes, 
 most of them found in that collection in the Museum 
 which goes under the name of the King's Pamphlets. 
 
 A brief account of King George's Pamphlets may 
 be recorded here. These were brought together by 
 the royalist bookseller, George Thomason. When 
 the Long Parliament assembled in the year 1640 
 there was a sensible relaxation of the authority both 
 of Church and State in England. By consequence 
 the public press was immediately employed by all 
 sorts of people to a much larger extent than had 
 been possible hitherto. Publications of every kind 
 came teeming from it. About the year 1641 Mr. 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 7 
 
 Thomason conceived the idea of preserving these 
 for the uses of history, and he began by collecting 
 as many as he could lay his hands on from the pre- 
 ceding year. His enterprise was continued un- 
 weariedly for more than twenty years, down to the 
 year 1662. Being himself a bookseller, and situated 
 at the center of London trade, he enjoyed facilities 
 that could scarcely be improved upon. Few publica- 
 tions of any sort escaped his attention. His mate- 
 rials were duly arranged in chronological order, and 
 he was careful in most instances to inscribe with ink 
 upon the title page the date on which the respective 
 works appeared, together with indications regarding 
 the authorship wherever the same might be known 
 to him, Tliey constitute a large library, and are 
 unrivaled sources for the history of that period. 
 
 Thomason's collection remained in a measure un- 
 protected from the ye'ar 1662, when the work ceased, 
 down to the year 1762, at which time it was pur- 
 chased by King George III, for three hundred 
 pounds and presented to the British Museum, and 
 therefore was named in his honor. It has been 
 accessible to scholars for 13i years. 
 
 Another investigator was Rev, Henry Martyn 
 Dexter, D.D., of Boston, Massachusetts, one of the 
 foremost authorities for original research in the de- 
 partment of church history that has yet appeared in 
 America. He spent "some days" at the Museum, 
 for this purpose in the winter of 1880-81, and gath- 
 ered the fruits of his labors into a volume entitled, 
 
8 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 "The True Story of John Smyth, the Se-Baptist, 
 told by Himself and his Contemporaries. " This work 
 which appeared in the month of December, 1881, is 
 of the highest importance. Though I had reached 
 the conclusion that immersion was introduced into 
 England in the year 1641, and publicly announced 
 the same in September, 1880, I cheerfully concede 
 the high merits of Dr. Dexter. He uniformly ex- 
 hibits the best kind of learning, great thoroughness 
 and patient accuracy. Moreover, at the time when 
 he gave himself to this particular labor, he had 
 enjoyed wide experience in the business of original 
 historical research, and his acquaintance with the 
 library of the British Museum was extensive and 
 valuable. 
 
 Numbers of the citations which I had sought out 
 in the year 1880, and which I still retain in manu- 
 script form, I found reproduc*ed in an independent 
 fashion by Dr. Dexter in 1881. Likewise he fell 
 upon a good many passages that I had not seen. 
 In setting forth the facts of the case at this time 
 I shall make use of the researches of this admirable 
 scholar as well as of my own. It is my purpose to 
 accord to him the fullest credit for all that he has 
 done; therefore, when citations shall be given, no 
 mention will be made of him in case they are de- 
 rived from my own manuscript collections. But in 
 every instance where they shall be taken from his 
 volume mentioned above, that fact will be delinitely 
 stated. 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 RECENT INVESTIGATIONS IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 THE earliest author of note in this department of 
 research is Thomas Crosby, who published a 
 Histor}^ of the English Baptists in four volumes, 
 London, 1738-40. It is a work of real merit in 
 ■many directions, and of the first importance to every 
 student of Baptist history. Mr. Crosby was fol- 
 lowed by Rev. Isaac Backus with a History of New 
 England, with particular Reference to the Denom- 
 ination of Christians called Baptists. Three vols., 
 Boston, 1777-1796. He is in every sense the equal 
 of his predecessor, and in some respects may be al- 
 lowed to have gone beyond him. Rev. Joseph 
 Ivimey next appears with a history of t\w> English 
 Baptists. Four vols., London, 1811-1830. The 
 first two volumes are largely dependent upon Cros- 
 by, who covers most of the period occupied by them; 
 nevertheless it is a praiseworthy performance, and 
 has always been received with favor. The next work 
 was by Rev. David Benedict, D.D., entitled A Gen- 
 •eral History of the Baptist Denomination in Amer- 
 ica and Other Parts of the World. Two vols., Bos- 
 
10 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 ton, 1813. Another edition, almost entirely rewrit- 
 ten, was issued at New York in 1848. Both of 
 these are indispensable for American Baptist his- 
 tory. 
 
 These authors one and all have rendered impor- 
 tant services, but owing to circumstances over which 
 they had no control, none of them had access to the 
 important documents illustrating the movement un- 
 der Smyth, Helwys and Murton, which are pre- 
 served in the archives of the Mennonite church at 
 Amsterdam, in Holland. They accomplished all 
 that was in their power, when one considers the sit- 
 uation they occupied. They deserve the heartiest 
 recognition and gratitude. It would be unreason- 
 able to expect them to achieve impossible things. 
 Subsequent generations, who enjoyed facilities and 
 information that were beyond the reach of these ex- 
 cellent students, made progress beyond the point 
 that had been attained by their researches; but that 
 progress would not have been possible without the 
 foundations which they had laid. 
 
 In 1851 the works of John Robinson, pastor of 
 the Pilgrim Fathers, with a memoir and annota- 
 tions by R. Ashton, in three volumes, were pub- 
 lished at London and Boston. The learned editor 
 (vol. 3, p. 461) gave utterance to the following state- 
 ment: ''It is rather a singular fact that zealous as- 
 were Mr. Smyth and his friends for believers' bap- 
 tism, and earnest as were their opponents in behalf 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 11' 
 
 of infant baptism, the question of the mode of bap- 
 tism was never mooted bj either party. Iimnersion \ 
 hajptism does not ajyjyeaT to have been practiced or 
 jpleaded for hy either Smyth or Helwys^ the alleged 
 founder of the General Baptist Denomination in 
 England. Nothing appears in these controversial / 
 writings to warrant the supposition that they regard- 
 ed immersion as tlie proper and only mode of ad- 
 ministering that ordinance. Incidental allusions 
 there are in their own works and in the replies of 
 Kobinson that the baptism which Mr. Smyth per- 
 formed on himself must have been rather by affusion 
 or pouring." (Evans, vol. 1, p. 203.) The result 
 obtained by Mr. Ashton was mainly of the negative 
 sort, but that a man of his ability and research 
 should suggest doubts that the baptism employed 
 by Smyth and Helwys could have been anything else 
 than immersion was matter for sober reflection. 
 
 Still no decided progress in this investigation 
 was possible without the co-operation and assist- 
 ance of Mennonite scholars. Smyth and Helwys 
 resided at Amsterdam at the time when their move- 
 ment was set on foot, and it was from that quarter 
 alone that reliable information could be procured 
 about their manner of conducting it. The Men- 
 nonite, church with which they both had intimate 
 relations was endowed with the historic sense, 
 and had preserved in her archives a number of 
 invaluable documents concerning this business^ 
 
12 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 For a long season Mennonite scholars had not dis- 
 played any lively curiosity on this topic, for the 
 reason that when immersion was adopted in Eng- 
 land in IGJrl the previous intimate connections with 
 their English brethren were entirely broken oft', and 
 had never been restored. 
 
 When Rev. B. Evans, D.D., was preparing his 
 work, entitled Early English Baptists, 2 vols. , London, 
 1862 and 1864, he first broke the ice and succeeded 
 in engaging the interest and assistance of Prof. S. 
 Muller, of the Mennonite College at Amsterdam, a 
 man of the highest character for learning and probity. 
 No person of the former generation appears to have 
 been more influential or honored among that excel- 
 lent body of Christians in Holland. A singular in- 
 cident is that Dr. Dexter (Congregationalism, p. 
 636, note 42), who is commonly so exact in his 
 statements, should confound him with Fred. Muller; 
 Frof. de Hoop Scheft'er, who knew him far more in- 
 timately, calls him "the professor S. Muller" (De 
 Brownisten, p. 128, note 2), an entirely different 
 and more important personage. 
 
 Frof. Muller entered into the archives of the. Men- 
 nonite church, and bringing forth a number of doc- 
 uments that had not been disturbed perhaps for two 
 hundred years, translated them and sent them to Dr. 
 Evans, who published them in the Early English 
 Baptists, vol. 1, pp. 209-224, and pp. 244-272; vol. 
 2, pp. 21-51. Here was indeed an inestimable 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 13- 
 
 treasure. Dr. Evans did not understand very well 
 what use to make of it; but lie placed the world un- 
 der lasting obligations by merely inserting it in his 
 book. It was impossible to put off for any consid- 
 erable period a better knowledge of the facts after 
 that great light had appeared. 
 
 That Prof. Muller, whose name sounded well 
 among scholars in every part of the continent, 
 should give his splendid authority to the statement 
 (Evans, vol. 1, p. 223) that neither "the Waterland- 
 ers, nor any other of the various parties of the Neth- 
 erland Doopsgezinden practiced at any time baptism 
 by immersion," was likewise a revelation to many 
 students. Moreover, the dazed and uncertain con- 
 dition in which the mind of Dr. Evans was thrown 
 was much remarked upon. He could take no 
 definite position, but sometimes was inclined to the 
 notion that immersion was introduced into England 
 long after the time of Smyth, and then "speedily 
 became the rule with both sections of the Baptist 
 community." (Yol. 2, p. 79.) 
 
 With all his manifest defects, it was Evans 
 who laid the foundations of the new learning in Bap- 
 tist history by procuring access to the archives of 
 the Mennonite church. After that had occurred, it 
 was only a question of time when additional study 
 of these sources of information should diffuse addi- 
 tional light. 
 
 The Quaker author, Robert Barclay, next appeared 
 
14 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 with the well-known work entitled The Inner Life 
 of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth, 
 London, 1876, in which he founded upon the docu- 
 ments published by Evans, and leaned upon the arm 
 -of Prof. J. G. de Hoop Scheffer, the distinguished 
 successor of Prof, S. Muller, who had been the co- 
 laborer of Dr. Evans. The chief advance made by 
 Barclay consisted in fixing a precise date for the in- 
 troduction of immersion into England. He says, 
 Inner Life, p. 73: "The practice of immersion ap- 
 pears to have been introduced in England on the 
 12th of September, 1633." The work of Dr. Dex- 
 ter, Congregationalism as Seen in its Literature, 
 New York, 1S80, pp. 318 f., note 108, occupies the 
 same position as Barclay, citing and approving his 
 statement to the effect that immersion "seems to 
 have been introduced into England, 12 September, 
 1633." 
 
 The information""that immersion had been intro- 
 duced into England on the 12th of September, 1633, 
 was derived from Prof, de Hoop Scheffer. This po- 
 sition was called in question by the late Dr. Under- 
 bill, of London, and the Dutch scholar was there- 
 upon compelled to defend himself, a task in which 
 lie so far succeeded that Barclay allowed the state- 
 ment to appear in his volume as cited above, whence 
 it was carried over almost in the same words by 
 Dexter, whose work appeared in the summer of 
 1880. 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 15 
 
 In September, 1880, I moved up the figures just 
 «iglit years, announcing, and proving, in tlie New 
 York Independent for September 2 and 9, that im- 
 mersion was introduced into England, not in the year 
 1633, but in the year 1641. Many builders are re- 
 quired to construct a house, and the work can be per- 
 formed only by slow degrees. This period of eight 
 years is my personal contribution to the recent ad- 
 vance in a more accurate knowledge of Baptist history. 
 
 It was an English Baptist historian who laid the 
 foundations of the new learning in Baptist history, 
 but English Baptist scholars have kept holiday in 
 this department ever since his volumes left the press. 
 With such ample collections as the British Museum, 
 the Bodleian and other libraries lying just under 
 their noses, it has seemed a sad hardship that in all 
 these years they did not lift a finger to aid in the 
 labor of investigating original sources. The quiet 
 composure with which they have rested in tradition- 
 al views that had been exploded and discredited by 
 Evans would be amusing if it were not lamentable. 
 A generation has passed away since 1862, and yet the 
 only English production in Baptist history that has 
 come to the attention of the general public has been the 
 fraud at Epworth, Crowle and West Butterwick, 
 that brings blushes to the cheeks of intelligent Bap- 
 tist people in all parts of the world. 
 
 The conclusion that immersion was first intro- 
 duced into England in 1641 was conveyed to Prof, 
 
16 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 de Hoop Sclieft'er in a private letter dated Septem- 
 ber 21, 1879. In a reply that lie sent me on the 
 28th of November, he assured me that after much 
 patient investigation he had accepted my view of the 
 subject. Moreover, in the early portion of 1881, a 
 few months after I had returned from London and 
 publicly announced the results of my researches, 
 this incomparable scholar forwarded the first work 
 that appeared in print giving distinct support to my 
 thesis. It was entitled, De Brownisten te Am- 
 sterdam, Gedurende den Eersten Tijd na Hunne 
 Yestiging, in Yerband met het Ontstaan van de 
 Broederschap der Baptisten.^ Bijdrage van J. G. 
 de Hoop Schefi'er. Overgedrukt uit de Yerslagen 
 en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van 
 Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, 2de Reeks, 
 Deel X. Amsterdam, Johannes Mueller, 1881. 
 
 (^The Brownists at Amsterdam, During the First 
 Period After Their Settlement, in Connection with 
 the Origin of the Brotherhood of the Baptists. Con- 
 tribution by J. G. de Hoop Scheffer. Printed from 
 the Memoirs and Communications of the Royal 
 Academy of Sciences, Department of Literature, 
 Second Series, Part X. Amsterdam, Johannes 
 Mueller, 1881.) 
 
 To find that my researches had been brought to 
 the attention of the Royal Academy of Sciences at 
 Amsterdam and endorsed in a work of ample and 
 exact learning by one of the first masters of history 
 
A QUEST[ON IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 17 
 
 in Europe was an encouragement for an humble pro- 
 fessor across tlie ocean. It offends my modesty to 
 refer to the generous recognition which the peerless 
 Dutch professor accorded to my labors wherever my 
 name is mentioned in his pages; but my present 
 circumstances are so painful and unfortunate that I 
 believe I shall be excused for citing what he says 
 on page 5, note 1: "My attention was directed to 
 them (the company of Smyth and Helwys) in 1862, 
 when I made investigations regarding some of them 
 who united with the Waterland Mennonites in 1615, 
 for the benefit of B. Evans in his Early English Bap- 
 tists; and I was fortunate enough to recover the 
 Dutch translation of a Confession of Faith, the Eng- 
 lish original of which had been lost as early as the 
 year 1738, until in 1871 it was at last discovered by 
 H. M. Dexter in the Library of York Minster. I 
 found occasion for renewed investigations in a cor- 
 respondence I carried on with R. Barclay from 1871 
 to 1876; and above all in consequence of various in- 
 quiries directed to me since August, 1879, by W. 
 H. Whitsitt, Professor at the Baptist Seminary, 
 Louisville, Kentucky — a man whose breadth of view, 
 acute understanding and exceptional skill in historic 
 studies lead me to hope that, vigorously supported 
 by his brethren in the faith, he shall one day ex- 
 ecute a task which, up to this time, has never been 
 satisfactorily performed, and which apparently could 
 
 2 
 
18 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 be better entrusted to no other person — the writing 
 of a history of the Baptists." 
 
 With such endorsement as tliat of de Hoop Scheffer, 
 who is well described as"an antiquary, a Dutchman, a 
 Mennonite; who has spent his life in the Low coun- 
 tries; who has the official custody of the manuscript 
 remains of this very controversy, and who has for 
 many years been a diligent and intelligent student 
 of the history of the Separatists in Holland," 
 (Dexter, True Story, p. 33,) I felt that my conclu- 
 sion was entirely secure. In addition to manuscript 
 remains, he also had access to a library which for 
 the subject in hand can hardly be excelled anywhere. 
 Almost from the beginning the Mennonite church in 
 Amsterdam adopted the enlightened custom of col- 
 lecting printed books. A catalogue of their vast 
 aggregation has been issued in two folio volumes as 
 follows: Catalogus van de Bibliotheek der Ver- 
 eenigde Doopsgezinde Gemeente te Amsterdam, Am- 
 sterdam, 1888. In this work the titles of volumes 
 relating to the Mennonites and kindred denomina- 
 tions occupy 336 pages. With such a body of print- 
 ed literature at command, in addition to so many 
 priceless manuscripts, and with his admirable indus- 
 try and insight, it must be conceded that Prof. 
 Scheffer is entitled to speak with authority. 
 
 The last month of the year 1881 also brought a 
 work from a Congregational author in support of 
 the position that immersion was introduced into 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 19 
 
 England in the year 1641. It is entitled: "The 
 True Story of John Smyth, the Se-Baptist, as Told 
 by Himself and his Contemporaries; with an Inquiry 
 Whether Dipping were a New Mode of Baptism, in 
 England, in or about 1G41; and Some Consideration 
 of the Historical Value of Certain Extracts from the 
 Alleged 'Ancient Records' of the Baptist Church of 
 Epworth, Crowle and Butterwick (Eng.), Lately Pub- 
 lished and Claimed to Suggest Important Modifica- 
 tions of the History of the 17th Century, With Collec- 
 tions Towards a Bibliography of the First Two Gen- 
 erations of the Baptist Controversy. By Henry Mar- 
 tyn Dexter, Boston, 1881." Though Dr. Dexter was 
 pre-eminently an antiquarian, he was likewise a mas- 
 ter of historical research. This work of his covers 
 substantially the same ground as that traversed by 
 de Hoop Scheffer in De Brownisten te Amsterdam, 
 which it cites on more than one occasion (p. 2 and 
 p. 33). In the first chapter he shows that Smyth 
 and Helwys did not practice immersion, in the sec- 
 ond he brings forward proofs that it was only intro- 
 duced in 1641, and in the last chapter he exposes at 
 considerable length and with admirable learning the 
 clumsy fraud that has become such a grief and pain 
 in connection with the alleged immersion of Smyth. 
 Another confirmation of so much weight and au- 
 thority was more than could have been expected in 
 a single year. My thesis was now supported by two 
 of the most distinguished historians of Europe and 
 
20 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 America. The learning which had been brought to 
 bear in the works they produced upon it was as 
 broad and select as has been displayed on any ques- 
 tion in recent times. The production of de Hoop 
 Scheft'er remained entirely unknown in America, but 
 that of Dr. Dexter was received with candid in- 
 terest. Among the Baptists some were found who 
 spoke words of recognition. Frof. A. H. J^ewman 
 said, "Let no Baptist henceforth risk his reputation 
 for scholarship and fair dealing by denying that 
 John Smyth was a Se-Baptist, or that his baptism 
 was, as regards its form, mi affusion.'''' He also ac- 
 cepted the year 1641 as the proper date for the 
 introduction of immersion into England, and styles 
 the Crowle fraud a "festering carcass." 
 
 One obstacle in the way of these researches was 
 found in the obscurity that rested upon the history 
 of immersion. On this account it has sometimes 
 been easy to lose the way, and fall into confusion of 
 thought. To remedy that defect Prof, de Hoop 
 Scheffer found it desirable to prepare his Overzicht 
 der Geschiedenis van den Doop bij Onderdompeling. 
 Bijdrage van J. G. de Hoop Scheffer. Overgedrukt 
 nit de Yerslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke 
 Akademie van Wetenschappen. Afdeeling Letter- 
 kunde, 2de Reeks, Deel XII. Amsterdam, Johan- 
 nes Mueller, 1882. (Sketch of the History of Bap- 
 tism by Immersion. Contribution by J. G. de Hoop 
 Scheffer. Printed from the Memoirs and Communi- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 21 
 
 cations of the Koyal Academy of Sciences. De- 
 partment Literature, Second Series, Part XII. Am- 
 sterdam, Johannes Mueller, 1882.) 
 
 In this work is set forth an account of immersion 
 as the act of baptism during the early Christian cen- 
 turies, in which is shown how it declined since the 
 thirteenth century until it had become uncommon 
 on the continent at the period of the Reformation, 
 though it lingered somewhat later in England. The 
 facts regarding immersion among the Anabaptists 
 are carefully discussed, the author claiming that very 
 few of them adopted it, and showing the extent to 
 which it was practiced in Poland and adjacent coun- 
 tries, the manner in which it was introduced into 
 Holland in 1620, and in England in 1641. This is 
 an important addition to the literature of the sub- 
 ject and serves an admirable purpose in several di- 
 rections. 
 
 In the United States an epoch was introduced in 
 Baptist historiography by the appearance in 1891 of 
 "A Short History of the Baptists," Philadelphia, by 
 Henry C. Yedder, which was marlj;ed by strict in- 
 vestigation and exactness of thought and statement. 
 That circumstance, made it a notable performance. 
 The spirit of the work is admirable. Dr. Yedder is 
 in substantial accord with the positions set forth by 
 me, and of late has kindly embraced more than one 
 opportunity to declare that fact anew in the public 
 prints. 
 
22 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 Tlie latest work in this field appeared in the 
 American Church History Series, and is entitled, 
 "A History of the Baptist Churches in tlie United 
 States. By A. H. Newman, D.D., LL.D., Professor 
 of Church History, McMaster University, Toronto, 
 Canada." New York, 1894. It is likewise in entire 
 harmony with the results of the recent investigations; 
 the author expresses his adhesion to the view that 
 immersion was introduced into England in IG-il. 
 (History, p. 80.) 
 
 It must be apparent from the above review that 
 the advance in Baptist history is not any sudden 
 development. It has proceeded by slow degrees for 
 five and forty years. The foundations have been 
 securely laid in wide research among original 
 documents. Clear light has dawned at last on this 
 phase of Baptist history. 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 23 
 
 II. 
 
 BAPTISM IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 IN the earliest times immersion prevailed in Eng- 
 land as elsewhere. Apostolic teaching and 
 practice had as yet experienced no marked corrup- 
 tion, in this direction at least. Baptism was fre- 
 quently performed in rivers; beautiful stories are 
 told by the Venerable Bede concerning the labors 
 of Paulinus in the River Glen and the River Swale 
 during the earlier portion of the seventh century. 
 
 The era of baptisteries had not yet arrived, but in 
 due season a generation appeared who forsook the 
 river and adopted this new convenience. Baptister- 
 ies were not so numerous nor so artistic in England 
 as in Italy; yet they were in use there, and remains 
 of some of them are claimed to be worthy of atten- 
 tion. (Robinson, History of Baptism, Boston, 1817, 
 pp. 133-4). 
 
 To the age of the baptistery succeeded that of 
 the font. The former was situated outside of the 
 church, and sometimes a building was erected for 
 its accommodation. Fonts were constructed inside 
 the churches. Their dimensions were sufficient for 
 the immersion of children, and the use of fonts 
 instead of baptisteries would appear to indicate that 
 
24 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 the immersion of adults was gradually becoming an 
 unusual observance. Infant baptism was apparently 
 gaining ground against adult baptism, a tendency 
 which it would be more difficult to resist as the 
 years went on. 
 
 At first these fonts were fairly roomy structures, 
 (Robinson, pp. 128-9). In the course of time they 
 became more contracted, but throughout the Middle 
 Ages they must have been always large enough for 
 the immersion of newborn infants. At length, in 
 the latter portion of the 13th century, there occur- 
 red In France a decided change of sentiment regard- 
 ing the act of baptism. Both Thomas Aquinas and 
 Bonaventura, a number of years before their death 
 in 1274, made concessions in favor of affusion and 
 aspersion. (De Hoop Scheffer, Overzicht der Ge- 
 schiedenis van den Doop bij Onderdompeling. Am- 
 sterdam, 1882, pp. 11, 12.) 
 
 The result of an expression of that kind on the 
 part of the foremost leaders of theological thought 
 became shortly apparent. There was wavering in 
 various quarters. The Synod of Cologne in 1280 
 decreed that pouring would suffice where newborn 
 children were in peril of immediate death; the Synod 
 of Nismes in 1284 went a step farther in the same 
 direction ; a synod in the Netherlands in 1287 opened 
 the gate still wider, directing the officiating priest 
 not to immerse the head of the child, at any time, 
 but to avoid danger by pouring water three times 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 25 
 
 upon the crown of his head; and in 1293 a like de- 
 cree was passed by the Synod of Utrecht, (Burrage, 
 Act of Baptism, Philadelphia, pp. 116-119). Here 
 was perhaps the earliest instance where it was re- 
 quired to pour water on the head while the body 
 was immersed. 
 
 This notable defection was followed in 1311 by 
 the Council of Ravenna, which decreed that "baptism 
 is to be administered by trine aspersion or immer- 
 sion," giving preference to aspersion. The foun- 
 dations were gradually breaking up. France, Ger- 
 many, Holland and Italy were all more or less 
 affected, and all more or less helpless in the current 
 that had set against the primitive form of baptism. 
 But England in her isolation was as yet practically 
 untouched. Throughout the fourteenth century there 
 is but one sign that she was sensible of the change 
 that had been going forward on the other side of the 
 channel. Wyclif, who died in 1384, remarked in a 
 discourse on baptism: "Nor is it material whether 
 they be dipped once or thrice, or water be poured 
 on their heads: but it must be done according to the 
 custom of the place where one dwells." Dr. Wall, 
 (History of Infant Baptism. Oxford, 1848. Vol. 
 2, p. 397,) endeavors to break the force of that 
 statement, but without success. It is somewhat 
 singular that only- this one concession towards pour- 
 ing or sprinkling has yet been found in the Church 
 of England during so long a period of time. It has 
 
26 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 commonly been supposed that the coldest countries 
 surrendered immersion the soonest, but exactly the 
 opposite is the real state of the case. 
 
 Wyclif gave the first note of wavering in the 
 England of the later Middle Ages, Since he was 
 not in the odor of orthodoxy, his opinion was not 
 taken up by a chorus of councils like that which 
 greeted the utterances of Aquinas and Bonaventura 
 in the thirteenth century, but the common sort of 
 people must have received his words with some de- 
 gree of sympathy. The work of Lyndewode, Dean 
 of the Arches, in 1422, describing the English Con- 
 stitutions, declares that the manner of baptizing 
 infants is by dipping, and yet he adds a note to say 
 that "This is not to be accounted to be of the es- 
 sence of baptism: but it may be given also by pour- 
 ing or sprinkling. And this holds especially where 
 the custom of the church allows it." (Wall, Vol. 2, 
 p. 396). Evidently some churches upon their own 
 responsibility without the authority of any council 
 or liturgy must have already undertaken to practice 
 pouring or sprinkling for baptism. 
 
 After the time of Lyndewode innovations began 
 to spring up more rapidly, especially on the conti- 
 nent. In 1482 the Wurzburg Liturgy gave the 
 priest a choice of thrice immersing or thrice wash- 
 ing the infant with water: in 1491 the Bamberg 
 Liturgy prescribed pouring alone, and there had 
 been even earlier instances in France where imraer- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 27 
 
 sion was wholly left out of the account. Yet in the 
 following century Erasmus in his remarks on Cyp- 
 rian's Letter 76 to Magnus, declares not without a 
 touch of contempt: "Infants are poured upon in our 
 country; they are immersed in England." (Scheffer, 
 Overzicht, p. 18). In 1533 Henry VIII. caused 
 his infant daughter Elizabeth to be immersed at 
 Greenwich, and in 1537 his infant son Edward was 
 immersed at Hampton Court Chapel. Such a cere- 
 mony would have been possible at that time perhaps 
 in few other royal households of Western Christen- 
 dom. 
 
 However, outside pressure was becoming percept- 
 ible in England. The Reformers, Luther, Zwingli 
 and Calvin, while dispensing with many customs 
 that had grown up in connection with baptism in the 
 Catholic Church, yet made no change in the rite 
 itself, as the same was practiced in the regions where 
 they lived. Possibly Luther was the most conserv- 
 ative of the three, and would have been well pleased 
 to restore immersion. In his Sermon on Baptism 
 published in 1518 he expresses himself to that effect, 
 and likewise in the work styled "The Babylonish 
 Captivity," which appeared in 1520. The same is 
 true of his Larger Catechism and of the baptismal 
 formulas issued in 1523 and 1526. 
 
 But he found that the current was too strong, and 
 in a small work entitled "How One Should Proper- 
 ly Baptize," etc., published in 1523, he prescribed. 
 
■28 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 that the administrator shall "pour water upon the 
 candidate, and say I baptize thee," etc. Nearly all 
 the liturgies of the Lutheran Church indicate that 
 this form prevailed. (Scheffer, Overzicht, pp. 19,20). 
 
 The Reformed or Presbyterian Church, with which 
 the Church of England was for a season somewhat 
 more closely allied, was less inclined to regard the 
 demands of conservatism, and therefore was more 
 inclined to favor pouring or sprinkling. The Stras- 
 burg Order of Baptism, issued in 1525, required 
 pouring and ignored immersion; Zwingli in his book, 
 T^on dem Touff, vom Widertouff uund vom Kinder- 
 touflf, Zurich, 1525, referred to pouring or dipping 
 as the general custom in 1525, (Burrage, pp. 133-1:); 
 and Zurich issued an Order of Baptism in 1535 en- 
 joining the minister merely to pour water thrice 
 upon the child, (Burrage, pp. 138-9). A few years 
 later the same city was formally to forbid immersion 
 and require that children should only be sprinkled 
 thrice, (Robinson, History, p. 484). 
 
 Tyndale, in his Doctrinal Treatises, 1528, Parker 
 Society, Cambridge, 1848, p. 277, indicates that it 
 was not unheard of even in England for the priest to 
 pour water upon the child's head, and that he him- 
 self approved this innovation. His words are as 
 follows: "Behold how narrowly the people look on 
 the ceremony. If aught be left out, or if the child 
 be not altogether dipt in the water; or if, because 
 the child is sick, the priest dare not plunge him into 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 2» 
 
 the water, but pour water on his head, how tremble 
 they! how quake they! 'How say ye, Sir John,' 
 (say they) 'is this child christened enough? Hath it 
 his full Christendom V They verily believe that the 
 
 child is not christened Now this is false 
 
 doctrine, verily." 
 
 But Henry YIII. had an iron hand, and there was 
 apparently no official retrograde movement as long 
 as he lived. Wall says of the period before Edward 
 YI. (History, Vol. 2, p. 397), "The offices or litur- 
 gies for public baptism in the Church of England 
 did all along, so far as I can learn, enjoin dipping 
 without any mention of pouring or sprinkling." 
 Yet the time of change had come, and two years 
 after the death of Henry, tlie Book of Common 
 Prayer for the year 1549 required indeed the ancient 
 usage of trine immersion, but allowed that if the 
 child were weak it should suffice to pour water upon 
 it. This is understood to have been the earliest 
 official recognition of a practice that had been gain- 
 ing headway for a long season. 
 
 Other changes followed more rapidly. In 1552" 
 a new Prayer Book appeared in which only a single 
 immersion was enjoined, and pouring was again 
 made optional in case of weakness. In the sad days 
 of Queen Mary the ecclesiastical leaders of the 
 country were scattered on the continent, and so 
 were brought into closer contact with the sentiment 
 and practices that prevailed there. Numbers of 
 
30 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 them were in touch with Calvin at Geneva who prac- 
 ticed pouring exclusively since 1536 and had openly 
 published his Form of Administering the Sacra- 
 ments in 1545, in which immersion was omitted. 
 (Wall, vol. 2, p. 400.) By that means, and influenced 
 through the atmosphere which existed almost every- 
 where beyond the Channel, these men were rendered 
 impatient of the slower pace at which things were 
 moving in their native country. To one who sur- 
 veys the whole situation it seems a marvel that the 
 Church of England should have held out so long 
 and so stoutly. Still the limits of her power to resist 
 had now been reached. At the accession of Eliza- 
 beth in 1558 the exiles returned and began the labor 
 of innovation. The queen who had not traveled 
 abroad naturally used her endeavors to resist them. 
 In 1571 a book was issued under her auspices in 
 which church wardens were instructed to see "that 
 in every church there be a holy founte, not a hason, 
 wherein baptism may be ministered, and it be kept 
 comely and clean." In 1584 another book appeared 
 in which a similar item is found to the effect that 
 "the font be not removed, nor that the curate do 
 baptize in parish churches in any hasons, nor in any 
 other form than is already prescribed," etc. (Kob- 
 inson, pp. 114,115.) 
 
 The queen had an imperious will, but she could 
 not stand against the movement that was now going 
 forward. It had been started by Wyclif as early as 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 31 
 
 ISSi, and was practically completed after two cen- 
 turies of struggle and delay. The fonts were re- 
 moved from the churches in spite of Elizabeth's au- 
 thority. Dr. Wall, History, vol. 2, p. 401, says 
 that "in the latter times of Queen Elizabeth, and 
 during the reigns of King James and of King Charles 
 I., very few children were dipped in the font." 
 
 Thomas Blake, of Tamworth, indeed, writing in 
 1645 (Infants Freed from Anti-Christianism, p. 1), 
 says: "I have been an eye-witness of many infants 
 dipped." Here he seems to talk like an adept at 
 special pleading, especially as on page 4 of the 
 same work he declares in more moderate terms, "I 
 have seen several dipped." (Wall, vol. 2, p. 402.) 
 Perhaps the truth is stated by Dean Stanley, as cited 
 by Dr. Armitage (History of the Baptists. New 
 York, 1887, p. 434), who says that according to the 
 annals of the English Church the last recorded in- 
 stances of immersion before the Restoration were 
 the dipping of three infant sons of Sir Robert Shir- 
 ley, in the reign of Charles I. 
 
 The baptism of infants in the Church of England 
 had long since crowded out the baptism of adult be- 
 lievers. The immersion of a grown-up person as a 
 religious observance seems to liave become to all 
 intents a lost art. For a long time no provision ap- 
 peared in the Prayer Book for the "Public Baptism 
 of Such as are of Riper Years," until the year 1661. 
 Two reasons are given for its introduction at that 
 
32 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 time; one that it hud become necessary "by ye 
 growth of Anabaptism, through ye Licentiousness of 
 ye late Times crept in amongst us," and the other 
 that it would "be allwaies usefull for ye baptizing 
 of Natives in our Plantations, and others converted 
 to ye Faith." (^Dexter. True Story of John Smyth. 
 Boston, 1881, p. 23. Cf. Wall, vol. 2, pp. 321-2.) 
 Baptists were about that time making their influence 
 felt; moreover, England had now become, what she 
 had not been before, a commercial and colonizing 
 nation. 
 
 Generally speaking, the Keformed or Presby- 
 terian Church was indifferent, if not opposed, to im- 
 mersion. It has been shown above how Strasburg 
 decided against it in 1525, Zurich in 1535 and Gen- 
 eva in 1545. When the Westminster Divines, who 
 were preparing the Directory for Public Worship of 
 God, came to discuss this subject on the seventh of 
 August, 1644, it was now their turn to reject im- 
 mersion as their continental predecessors had done. 
 This rite had long been disused among Presby- 
 terians, and every member of the Assembly was 
 agreed that sprinkling was the best mode of bap- 
 tism. The question at issue before them was wheth- 
 er immersion should be tolerated as an alternate 
 form of baptism and allowed to stand by the side of 
 sprinkling. Nambers felt unwilling to go on record 
 as rejecting a New Testament usage by formal ac- 
 tion, and hence the vote was close. If they had 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 33 
 
 allowed immersion to stand, it is likely that nobody 
 in their communion would have employed it. But 
 their sentiments were too decided even to allow it to 
 stand. Twenty-five went against it, while only 
 twenty-four were willing to concede that it was one 
 of the modes by which baptism might be adminis- 
 tered. (John Lightfoot's Works, London, 1824, 
 Yol. 13, p. 300.) This was the most radical action 
 against immersion which up to that time had ever 
 been taken by one of the larger denominations of 
 Christendom. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that though England moved 
 at some distance in the rear, she moved neverthe- 
 less. The immersion of infants was practically ex- 
 tinct in the Church of England by the year 1600. 
 By the year 1644 the Presbyterians of England and 
 Scotland had even traveled far enough to decide by 
 a formal vote in the Assembly at Westminster that 
 immersion was not a proper form in which to ad- 
 minister baptism, an extreme to which the Church 
 of England has not yet advanced. The immersion 
 of adults had become so far unknown that it could 
 be stated without reservation in the Jessey Church 
 Records for the year 1640 that "none had then so 
 practiced in England to professed believers." 
 
34 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 IV. 
 
 BAPTISM AMONG THE ANABAPTISTS OP THE SIX- 
 TEENTH AISID EARLY PORTION OP THE SEVEN- 
 TEENTH CENTURY IN ENGLAND. 
 
 ANABAPTISTS first appeared in England in the 
 earlier portion of the sixteenth century. On 
 the 25th of May, 1535, 19 men and 6 women, all of 
 them from Holland, were arrested on the charge of 
 being Anabaptists. (Stowe, Chronicle, p, 571.) 
 The city of Mnenster was at that moment under 
 siege, and was captured a month later. In 1538 
 six others were taken, who were also from Holland. 
 (Stowe, p. 576. ) Fuller, in his (Uiurch History, in- 
 timates that they had come over in the hope of find- 
 ing protection on account of the prospective marriage 
 of Henry YIII. to Anne of Cleves. (Crosby. History 
 of the English Baptists. London, 1738-10. Vol. 
 1, p. 39.) In 1539 16 men and 15 women, Ana- 
 baptists, were banished from England and went to 
 Delft, Holland, where they were seized by the au- 
 thorities and executed, the men being beheaded and 
 the women drowned. (Crosby, vol. 1, p. 42.) 
 
 The Anabaptists of England in the sixteenth cen- 
 tury were nearly all from Holland. Joan Boucher, 
 of Kent, an English woman, was an exception, but 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 35 
 
 there were very few others. The celebrated Mr. 
 Fox, in a letter to Queen Elizalieth, in 1575, says: 
 "I understand there are sonic (Anabaptists) here in 
 England, tho' not English, but come hither from 
 Holland, "■'' * * and we li;ivc great reason to 
 give God thanks on this account, rliat I hear not of 
 any Englishman that is iiK-liti'Ml to this madness." 
 (Crosby, vol. 1, p. 71.) 
 
 But none of the Anabaptists o-' Holland or of the 
 adjacent sections of Germ;iuy were immersionists. 
 So far as any account of tncni has come to light, 
 they were uniformly in the piacrice of pouring or 
 sprinkling for baptism, exccptmu- the Collegiants, 
 who, at B.hynsburg, began to itmncrse in 1620. 
 
 In fact, few Anabaptists anywhere were immer- 
 sionists. The Reformers. Lntiicj-, Zwingli and 
 Calvin, as we have seen, qn • -"ptcd the usage 
 
 of the Catholic Church an lo contenrion at 
 
 all about the act of baptism. 'vcr custom was 
 
 current regarding this point ic pcoph- wliere 
 
 they labored, was embrace . <). Poui-itiii- and 
 
 sprinkling were current aim aMhm'c, <"! rliey 
 
 were accordingly adopted \^ - in pic 
 
 The same remark applies i il);ipti> who 
 
 insisted upon baptism o' , <> ,1 rely 
 
 made any contention abon c. ;.;" most 
 
 always practiced pouring oi' spMM! Dr.'- ii;izar 
 
 Hubmeier, one of their lU' - mu i . -iitial 
 
 leaders, describes the act -\i\ > lows: 
 
36 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 *'To baptize in water is to pour outiDCwd water over 
 the confessor of his sins, in accordance with the 
 divine command, and to inscribe him in the number 
 of sinners upon his own confession and acknowledge- 
 ment. So has John baptized." (Von dem Christen- 
 lichen Tauff der gUiubigen durch Balthasarn Hiib- 
 mor, 1525, p. 5.) "In April, 1525, it being Easter, 
 the customary season for baptism, Hubmeier called 
 his followers together and having sent for a pail of 
 water solemnly baptized three hundred persons at 
 one time." (Burrage, p. 131.) 
 
 Felix Mantz, another leader, also practiced pour- 
 ing. Under date of February 7, 1525, George 
 Schad, of Zollikon, near Zurich, testified, "that he 
 had passed all his days in sin and blasphemy; that 
 he had been greatly distressed on this account, and 
 that he had prayed to God for grace and for convic- 
 tion of sin, and God manifested his grace to him so 
 that he was convicted of sin. Then God promised 
 him if he should depart from sin that He would also 
 forgive his sin. That promise moved him greatly, 
 and he asked for the token of brotherly love, that 
 he might do to his neighbor all the good that he did 
 to himself. Then he submitted to have water jjoured 
 upon him., and Felix Mantz was the person who bap- 
 tized him," (Egli, Actensammlung zur Geschichte 
 der Zuercher Reformation, Zurich, 1879, p. 283.) 
 Another instance may be cited: "Hans Bruggbach, 
 of Zumikon, stood up and cried out how great a sin- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 3T 
 
 ner he was, and desired that they should pray to 
 God for him. Then George Blaurock asked him 
 whether he desired the grace of God, He replied, 
 yes. Then Mantz stood up and said, Who shall hin- 
 der me from baptizing him? Then Blaurock an- 
 swered, 'Nobody.' Thereupon Mantz took a dipper 
 of water and haj)tized him in the name of God the 
 Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost." 
 (Egli, p. 284. Cf. Burrage, p. 130.) 
 
 It used to be said that the word Katabaptist, so 
 often applied to Anabaptists, by their opponents 
 during the Reformation period, contained indisput- 
 able proof that they were immersionists. The prep- 
 osition Jcata, ill its ])rimary or local usage, means 
 do'wn^ and so, it was argued, Katabaptist must have 
 been one who baptized downwards, that is, im- 
 mersed. But just as aiia,, meaning primarily up^ 
 came to be used in the sense of again^ so hata^ in 
 several technical terms, means against^ and Prof. 
 Scheffer has fully shown that in the usage of con 
 temporary authors this was its meaning in the word 
 under consideration, and that Zwingli and others in 
 styling tliem Katabaptists meant only that they were 
 "against" the commonly accepted baptism. (Over- 
 zicht, pp. 24-26.) Thus the same persons were 
 called Anabaptists, or Rebaptizers, because they 
 baptized on profession of faith those who had been 
 christened in infancy, and Katabaptists, or opponents 
 of infant baptism. While the great body of Ana- 
 
38 A QUESTION [N BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 baptist believers practiced pouring or sprinkling for 
 baptism, there were a few exceptions in favor of 
 immersion. John Kessler, in his Chronicle of the 
 Reformation in St. Gall, called Sabbata (vol. 1, p. 
 262), says: "Wolfgang Uolman encountered Con- 
 rad Grebel on the journey to Schaffhausen, and 
 while with him was so highly impressed with Ana- 
 baptism that he would not simply be poured upon 
 with water out of a dish, but, being entirely naked, 
 he was pressed down and covered over in the 
 Rhine." (Scheffer, Overzicht, p. 23.) 
 
 Frof. Scheffer allows himself to assert in this con- 
 nection that the example of Uolman was followed 
 by no other person, but that is perhaps an extreme 
 position. The people of St. Gall whom Grebel bap- 
 tized in the Sitter River on Palm Sunday of 1525 it 
 is likely were immersed. Scheffer's reason for call- 
 ing this in question (Overzicht, p. 23) is that Grebel, 
 with his associates and successors in the Anabaptist 
 faith, from that day to the present, have always 
 baptized by a handful of water merely, and, there- 
 fore, that he could not have employed immersion on 
 this occasion. One naturally hesitates to challenge 
 the conclusions of a Mennonite scholar of so much 
 ability and distinction: but it is admitted that Grebel 
 immersed Uolman in the Rhine, and it is possible 
 that he also immersed numbers of people who fol- 
 lowed him from St. Gall to the Sitter River. Frof. 
 Scheffer replies to this by pointing out that immer- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 39 
 
 sion is expressly described where Uolman was bap- 
 tized in the Rhine, and that it cannot be conceded 
 on the banks of the Sitter River without a like 
 definite statement. Yet it is not easy to discover 
 any other reason why Grebel and his friends should 
 journey as far as the river over a difficult road and 
 hold their worship in tiie open air upon its banks. 
 
 The Benedictine monk Clement Sender, an eye- 
 witness, describes the usage of the Anabaptists of 
 Augsburg in this regard, and Dr. Theodore Keim, 
 in his paper on Ludwig Hetzer (Jahrbuecher fiir 
 Deutsche Theologie, Stuttgart, 1856, p. 278), repro- 
 duces the substance of his testimony. "The act of 
 baptism," he says, "was administered in the River 
 Lech, the men being naked and the women wearing 
 bathing-trousers; or in times of persecution it was 
 administered simply by sprinkling the forehead in 
 cellars and barnyards." In this connection he men- 
 tions the wife of a stonemason, Adolf Duclier, "who 
 during the absence of her husband at Vienna three 
 days in the Holy Week of 1527 opened her house, 
 which was favorably situated on the River Lech, for 
 the purpose of baptizing." 
 
 No sufficient reason appears for calling in question 
 the authority of Sender. If it be allowed to stand 
 then we must conclude that the Anabaptists of Augs- 
 burg at the most flourishing moment of their exist- 
 ence, when their church numbered 1100 members, 
 practiced immersion as well as sprinkling. Prof. 
 
40 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 Scheffer is not able to understand why Sebastian 
 Franck, who lived not far away at Ulm, and de- 
 scribed in his Chronicles (1536) with the greatest 
 detail a number of Anabaptist sects should not have 
 heard of such an unusual occurrence as immersion 
 at Augsburg (Overzicht, p. 27). The argument from 
 silence is not always conclusive. The testimony of 
 Sender must be allowed to stand until some better 
 reasons shall be advanced to overthrow it. If my 
 view is sustained it must follow that immersion was 
 practiced at two points at least by the Anabaptists of 
 the Reformation period, namely, at St. Gall, in 
 Switzerland, and Augsburg, in Bavaria. The ques- 
 tion has been mooted as to what proportion of the 
 whole number of Anabaptist believers were immer- 
 sionists, but the data for a correct conclusion are 
 not satisfactory. Some would say that possibly one 
 in twenty of them may have been immersionists, 
 whilst others would establish the proportion as no 
 greater than one in a hundred. 
 
 There were immersing Anabaptists in Poland, 
 Silesia, Lithuania and Pomerania (Scheffer, Over- 
 zicht, p. 32). The common impression is that these 
 were derived from St. Gall, in Switzerland. Scat- 
 tered by persecution the Swiss Anabaptists were 
 forced to travel into many countries, and it is con- 
 ceivable that some of them found their way to th6 
 countries mentioned. But Scheffer in the work al- 
 ready cited has assumed a new position on that sub- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 41 
 
 ject, declaring that baptism of no kind was practiced 
 among the Polish believers until they introduced 
 immersion in 1575. In the previous year a cate- 
 chism, the first on record in Poland that required 
 this rite for professed believers, was published at 
 Cracow. Martin Czechowitz, pastor at Wilna and 
 later at Lublin, he represents to have been responsi- 
 ble for this change. (Overzicht, p. 31.) He likewise 
 affirms that Czechowitz was induced to prefer im- 
 mersion as the act of baptism solely for the reason 
 that the immersion of infants was still customary 
 among Catholics and Protestants alike, because the 
 countries in question were in the neighborhood of 
 the Greek Church, where it was the only form of 
 administering the ordinance. (Overzicht, p. 33.) 
 The Unitarians of Poland, who had discontinued the 
 use of baptism, were also influenced by these condi- 
 tions so far as to come out in favor of immersion in 
 their catechism of 1609, which was reprinted in 1659' 
 and 1680. (Overzicht, p. 37.) 
 
 Several of these statements have not yet been 
 completely established by proofs. It is just possible 
 that immersionists may have existed in Poland be- 
 fore the appearance of the Catechism at Cracow in 
 1574, and that they may have obtained their prac- 
 tice from Switzerland rather than from the Greek 
 Church. This view appears to have about as firm 
 historical support as the one set forth above. 
 
 In general, then, it may be declared that the very 
 
42 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 small number of immersing Anabaptists on the con- 
 tinent of Europe were confined to regions remote 
 from Holland whence it has been shown that the 
 Anabaptists of England during the sixteenth cen- 
 tury were derived. 
 
 The Anabaptists of Holland appear to have been, 
 without exception, engaged in the practice of pour- 
 ing and sprinkling. Melchior Hoffman was under- 
 stood and represented among them as their "Father." 
 It was due to his activity that anabaptism was trans- 
 planted from Southern to Northern Germany, (Kel- 
 ler, Geschichte der Wiedertaufer,etc. , Muenster, 1880, 
 p. 121), and Hoffman practiced pouring. Cornelius 
 (Geschichte des Muensterischen Aufruhr's, Leipzig, 
 1855, vol. 2, p. 222,) says that "in the sacristy of the 
 Great Church at Emden Hoffman could venture 
 ■openly to administer baptism in the year 1530." 
 Hast (Geschichte der Wiedertaeufer, Muenster, 1836, 
 p. 255, ) asserts upon the authority of the anabaptist 
 Ubbo Philipps that 300 persons were baptized by 
 Hoffman out of a large bucket on this occasion. 
 The act of baptism could not have been immersion, 
 in this case. 
 
 The "Confession of the Two Sacraments" that 
 was composed by Bernard Rothmann and issued at 
 Muenster on the 8th of October, 1537, is in some 
 respects a singular performance. It seems to par- 
 take of the indecision that was the bane of Roth- 
 inann's character, and which probably more than 
 .anything else was the cause of the disaster at Muen- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 43 
 
 ■ster. He talks as bravely as could be desired about 
 "plunging into the water," "plunging under the 
 water," "thrusting into the water," and yet he turns 
 about and disappoints every expectation as follows: 
 "to baptise signifies to plunge into the water, to im- 
 merse in water, and baptism signifies an immersion 
 •or sprinkling xoith i.vater.'''' (De Hoop Scheti'er, 
 Overzicht, pp. 26-7). Baptizing and sprinkling 
 were in his view synonymous terms. Scheffer 
 (Overzicht, p. 27,) also directs attention to the cir- 
 cumstance that he describes as a "thrusting into the 
 water" the baptism of the Evangelicals, who through- 
 out Lower Germany employed no other rite than 
 Bprinkling and pouring. 
 
 No baptisms were performed at Muenster or else- 
 where under the "Confession of the Two Sacra- 
 ments" and hence it is of no special consequence in 
 this history. Before Rothmann could make up his 
 mind to go forward and begin the work of rebaptiz- 
 ing the reins had slipped from his hands and Jan 
 Mathys, of Holland, the Prophet, had obtained con- 
 trol of the Anabaptist movement at Muenster. Two 
 of his emissaries appeared there on the 5th of January, 
 1534, and baptized Rothmann himself together with 
 the rest of the preachers. As the work was begun 
 and prosecuted in Rothmann 's house, (Cornelius, 
 vol. 2, p. 234,) the rite was probably administered 
 by pouring; at least that was the case in all later in- 
 stances where one can obtain any distinct view of 
 the ceremony. 
 
44 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 For example, on Friday the 2Ttli of February, 
 1535, all who remained in the city were required to 
 submit to baptism, and an eyewitness describes the 
 proceedings as follows: "There stood upon the mar- 
 ket place three or more preachers and baptized the 
 people. The preachers said to the people whom 
 they baptized that they should turn from their sins 
 and work righteousness; and they had a pail of water 
 standing before them, and the people went upon 
 their knees before the preachers, and the preachers 
 haptized the people with three handfulls of water in 
 the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy 
 Ghost." (Cornelius, Berichte der Augenzeugen 
 ueber das Muensterische Wiedertaeuferreich. Muen- 
 ster, 1853, p. 20). 
 
 Let the following suffice as instances of the man- 
 ner in which baptism in private houses was later 
 performed at Muenster: "Frau Yan der Recke was 
 first in Rothmann's house, where the gospel wa& 
 proclaimed to herself and her daughters. Then one 
 of the daughters fell upon her knees and received 
 baptism, afterwards the other, and last of all the 
 mother." (Cornelius, Berichte, p. 409). 
 
 No other act of baptism appears to have been 
 practiced by Anabaptists anywhere in this portion 
 of the country. We have exact descriptions of the 
 baptism of a number in the year 1534 and 1535 at 
 Maastricht, Holland, where there was a considerable 
 body of them in close touch with the authorities at 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 45 
 
 Muenster. Some of these may be cited as specimens. 
 Bartholomeus van den Berge, "being asked in what 
 manner he was rebaptized replied that the baptizer 
 took water out of a small dish and spoke thus: I bap- 
 tize thee in the name of the Father, the Son and the 
 Holy Cxhost." (Jos. Habets, De Wederdoopers Te 
 Maastricht. Roermond, 1877, p. 136). 
 
 Mente Jan Heynen, stepdaughter of the preced- 
 ing, "being asked in what manner she was rebap- 
 tized, replied: The baptizer took spring water and 
 baptized her in the name of the Father and the Son 
 and the Holy Ghost." (Habets, p. 138). 
 
 Mathys Spangemecker, testifies "that he was re- 
 baptized at the house of Jan van Ginke, the younger, 
 
 in the garret of the house, and that Herr 
 
 Henrich baptized him with water upon his head in 
 the name of the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost." 
 (Habets, pp. 143-4). 
 
 Heynrik Tymmerman "says that when he was 
 baptized, Jan the Landlord of the house was present, 
 and his brother Michael; that Jan the Land- 
 lord brought him there. Furthermore he says that 
 while he was being baptized he was kneeling down 
 upon his knees." (Habets, p. 152). 
 
 Bouterwek, Zur Literatur und Geschichte der 
 Wiedertaufer, Bonn, 1864, pp. 83-87, gives the tes- 
 timony of a number of Anabaptists of Wesel, Hol- 
 land, during the period in question which shows 
 that in this city also the rite was regularly adminis- 
 tered by sprinkling and pouring. 
 
46 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 An incorrect impression regarding the act of bap- 
 tism as administered by Menno Simons was long- 
 current in our country, but that excellent his- 
 torian, Dr. Burrage, finally corrected a blunder in 
 the translation upon which it was established. He 
 says, Act of Baptism, p. 140: "It has been supposed 
 that in a passage in his Explanation of Christian Bap- 
 tism in the folio edition of his works, p. 419, Menno 
 expressed his own view of the act of baptism, and his 
 words have been translated by Morgan Edwards and 
 others as follows: 'After we have searched ever so 
 diligently, we shall find no other baptism besides 
 dipping in water which is acceptable to God and 
 maintained in his word.' 
 
 " 'But,' adds Dr. Burrage, 'the passage is not 
 thus correctly rendered. What Menno has in view 
 is the representation that Christ and the Apostles 
 taught two kinds of baptism, that of believers and 
 that of infants;' and (with respect to that point) he 
 says: 'However diligently we seek, night and day, 
 yet we find no more than one baptism in water that 
 is pleasing to God, expressed and contained in his 
 ■word — namely, this baptism on faith.'" The last 
 clause, which is so essential to the meaning, is not 
 found in the passage translated by Morgan Edwards, 
 who also made a mistake in regard to the word doop- 
 sel as employed by Menno. (Materials Towards a 
 History of the Baptists in Pennsylvania. Philadel- 
 phia, 1770, p. 93, note.) 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 4T 
 
 Menno's most definite expression touching the 
 act of baptism is found in the folio edition of his 
 works (1681), p. 22, where he says: "I certainly 
 think that these and similar commands (to love one's 
 enemies, to crucify the flesh and the lusts thereof) 
 are more painful and burdensome to perverted flesh, 
 which is everywhere so prone to walk in its own 
 way, than it is to receive a hcmdful of water.'''' After 
 citing the above passage, Scheffer says: "A hand- 
 ful of water, that is to say, simple pouring with 
 water, was in use among the Anabaptists during the 
 first half of the sixteenth century, both in Switzer- 
 land, where they first arose, and also in the coun- 
 tries whither they had extended themselves, such as 
 Upper Germany (with the single exception of Augs- 
 burg), and the western portions of the Empire, as 
 Belgium and the Netherlands." (Overzicht, p. 28.) 
 It has been intimated that his position may be ex- 
 treme, regarding the small extent to which immer- 
 sion was adopted among the Anabaptists of Switzer- 
 land, but there can be no question of the correctness 
 of the contention that among the Mennonites or 
 other Anabaptists of Holland and adjacent countries 
 there never existed at any period such a custom as 
 immersion. 
 
 As was indicated above, historical records show 
 that the Anabaptists of England during the sixteenth 
 and the first half of the seventeenth century came 
 from Holland. These being in the practice of pour- 
 ing, it follows conclusively that none of the Ana- 
 
48 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 baptists of En^^land during the period mentioned 
 were immersionists. That incontestable deliverance 
 of history has now and then been called in question 
 because Thomas Fuller, in his Church History of 
 Britain, published in 1655, when treating of certain 
 Hollanders who were brought to trial in 1538 adds 
 that "these Anabaptists for the main were but Do- 
 natists new dipt." (Crosby, vol, 1, p. 39.) The 
 times had passed by in England when everybody 
 who was christened had to be dipped, but this 
 learned and witty author was well aware of that old 
 usage and of the fact that it was no longer in vogue. 
 Tet "dipped" was still in use as a synonym for 
 "christened." Mr. Fuller was fond of the allitera- 
 tion "Donatists new dipt," and employed the ex- 
 pression for no other purpose than to indicate that 
 the Anabaptists were but Donatists with a new name. 
 He intended to pronounce no opinion whatever on 
 the question whether these men, who lived more 
 than a hundred years before the time at which he 
 wrote, employed pouring or immersion for baptism. 
 In conclusion, the general result may be stated 
 that few Anabaptists of any country were immer- 
 sionists, and that none of the Anabaptists of Eng- 
 land in the sixteenth and first half of the seven- 
 teenth centuries were immersionists. Therefore the 
 ■Jessey Church Records were entirely in the right, as 
 far as English Anabaptists were concerned, when 
 they declared in 1640 that "none had then so prac- 
 ticed in England to professed believers," 
 
A QUESTION TN BAPTIST HISTORY. 49 
 
 V. 
 
 BAPTISM AMONG THE FOLLOWERS OF JOHN SMYTH 
 AND THOMAS HELWYS. 
 
 JOHN SMYTH opened his public career as a 
 preacher in the Established Church at Lincoln. 
 Most authorities represent that he continued there 
 until the year 1602, when he laid down his office and 
 left the State Church. (Scheffer, De Brownisten te 
 Amsterdam, etc., Amsterdam, 1881, p. 80.) But I 
 am inclined to fix the date in 1603, for the reason 
 that I '^discovered in the Library of Emmanuel Col- 
 lege at Cambridge, in the summer of 1880, a small 
 volume of which he seems to have been the author. 
 Following is the title: The bright morning starre, or 
 the resolution and exposition of the 22 Psalme, 
 preached publickely in foure sermons at Lincoln, by 
 John Smyth, preacher of the citie. Printed 1603. 
 Scheffer himself (p. 80, note 5) is somewhat inclined 
 to the opinion, based on the existence of this book, 
 that Smyth remained in the Establishment at least 
 during a portion of the year 1603. 
 
 He next became pastor of a Brownist or Inde- 
 pendent Church, collected perhaps by his own ex- 
 
 ■■="My friend. Prof. Whitsitt, found a volume of his sermons in the Library of 
 Emmanuel College, C'aiuhridge, under the title: The briglit morning starre," 
 &c. Schetter, De Brownisten, p. 7'J, note 3. 
 
50 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 ertions, at Gainsborough on the Trent (Scheffer, De 
 Brownisten, pp. 80-1), where he was very active 
 and successful for several years. The representa- 
 tion that he was at one time vicar of Gainsborough 
 appears to lack support. The church of John E.ob- 
 inson which went over to Holland in 1608, and sent 
 a portion of its members to New England in 1620 
 was an outgrowth of Smyth's labors at Gains- 
 borough (Dexter, Congregationalism as Seen in its 
 
 f Literature, New York, 1880, p. 316. Scheffer, p. 
 
 ' 84, note 6). Surely he builded wiser than he knew. 
 It was indirectly due to the labors of Smyth that the 
 
 \ Pilgrim Fathers later became established at Plymouth 
 \ in New England. 
 
 Possibly it was in October or November, 1606, 
 that Smyth got away from England to Amsterdam 
 with a company of his brethren, leaving those who 
 remained behind under the pastoral care of Mr. Rob- 
 inson and their teacher Richard Clyfton. (Scheffer, 
 pp, 8-4-5 ). Smyth and his followers did not unite 
 themselves to the church of Johnson and Ainsworth 
 which had been established already a number of 
 years in Amsterdam, but organized a church of their 
 own that was known as the Second English Church, 
 the other being commonly designated as the Ancient 
 Church. (Smyth, Differences of the Churches of 
 V the Separation, 1608, title page.) 
 \- Falling under the influence of the Waterland Men- 
 nonites Mr. Smyth soon altered his opinions and, 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 51 
 
 perhaps iu October, 1608, became an Anabaptist. 
 Being a man of singular power in many directions, 
 it seems likely that he was able to carry with him 
 the entire membership of the Second English Church 
 (Scheffer, p. 104); it is not known that a single 
 one of them refused to join him in the new venture. 
 The whole number was about forty (Scheffer, p. 104). 
 
 Here is the earliest Anabaptist church, that was\ 
 composed exclusively of English people, and yet it \ 
 did not exist on English soil. Not many days after 
 the work had been accomplished, Mr. Smyth con- 
 cluded that he had acted hastily. Coming into 
 ■closer intercourse with the Mennonites he was in- 
 <luced to believe that the baptism which he had 
 administered to himself and his people was not quite 
 orderly, and to regret the course which he had pur- 
 sued. His reflections must have been made known 
 to his people as early as January or February, 1609, 
 and possibly efforts were already on foot to induce 
 them in turn to enter the Mennonite communion. 
 (Scheffer, p. 127). 
 
 The church was apparently of one mind in becom- 
 ing Anabaptists and receiving adult baptism, but 
 when this new proposition was advanced differences 
 appeared that could not be allayed. Yet his power 
 was so great that 17 women and 14 men united with 
 him in the purpose to join the Mennonites. These 
 required the English brethren to subscribe a peti- 
 tion expressing sorrow for the disorderly baptism. 
 
52 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 and requesting to be received into their fellowsliip. 
 A copy of this petition somewhat incorrectly printed 
 is given by Evans, Early English Baptists, London, 
 1862, vol. 1, pp. 244-5; an English translation of 
 the same appears p. 209. The original in the hand- 
 writing of Smyth exists in the archives of the Men- 
 nonite Church at Amsterdam (Scheffer, p. 128.) 
 
 In addition the Mennonites required a Confession 
 of Faith, in order to satisfy themselves that the the- 
 ological opinions of the English were the same as 
 their own. This Confession is published in English 
 by Evans, vol. 1, p. 253. The original in Latin, 
 also in the handwriting of Smyth, is found in the 
 Archives of the Amsterdam Church, and has been 
 published by SchejBfer, p. 169. 
 
 Thirty-two people had set their hands to the peti- 
 tion desiring admission to the Mennonite commun- 
 ion. The others, eight or ten in number, refused to 
 take such a step. They regarded the movement to- 
 wards the Mennonites in the light of a sin against 
 the Holy Spirit. It was their intention to remain 
 where they were and walk in the light whereunto 
 they had attained. That small company by bravely 
 standing their ground at a critical period became the 
 founders of the body of Christian people which sub- 
 sequently acquired the title of General Baptists in 
 England. Richard Clyfton, an eye witness, in "A 
 plea for infants and elder people concerning their 
 baptisme, or a processe of the passages between Mr. 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 53 
 
 John Smyth and Richard Clyfton, Amst., IGIO, says, 
 according to Scheffer, p. 129 (note), that '''■not above 
 ten j)&t"S07is'''' were of the party. The male members 
 were Thomas Helwys, Wm, Piggott, Thos. Seamer 
 and John Murton (Evans, vol. 1, p. 210), the others 
 being, as is supposed, females. 
 
 As soon as Helwys heard of the petition of Smyth 
 and his friends requesting to be admitted to the Men- 
 nonite church they entered a protest written in Latin, 
 and published by Scheffer, De Brownisten, p. 172, 
 announcing that they had already excluded the of- 
 fenders for their sin and desiring the Mennonites to 
 beware of them. The Mennonites, possibly hoping 
 that they might make peace between the warring 
 elements also requested Helwys and his friends to 
 submit a Synopsis of their Faith, which was given 
 in the same hand and language as the protest and is 
 published in the above mentioned work by Scheffer, 
 p. 173. Not content with the protest which they 
 had made in Latin, Helwys and his brethren tried it 
 over again, perhaps with superior effect, in English, 
 under date of March 12, 1609. (Evans, vol. 1, pp. 
 209-11. The date, 1610, given at the bottom of 
 page 210, is wrong by one year. Scheffer, p. 135). 
 
 These protests, one in Latin and the other in 
 English, had the effect of putting off the day when 
 the Mennonites should receive Smyth and his peo- 
 ple into their communion. Helwys and his party of 
 nine, who did not hesitate, after excommunicating 
 
54 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 Smyth and his followers, to the number of thirty- 
 one, to denominate themselves the '•'•Tnie Christian 
 English Church at Amsterdam'''' (Scheffer, p. 173), 
 were eager to preserve the closest relations with their 
 Mennonite fellow-Christians, and to prevent these 
 from drawing nigh to their adversaries. 
 
 Before the middle of the year 1611 (Scheffer, p. 
 I'lS), the brave little party of ten issued another con- 
 fession, not simply for the benefit of the Mennon- 
 ites, but also for the instruction of the general pub- 
 lic, which they styled "A Declaration of Faith of 
 English People, remaining at Amsterdam in Hol- 
 land." (Crosby, vol. 2, Appendix I.) They did 
 not "remain"" much longer at Amsterdam; almost as 
 soon as the Declaration had left the press, they also 
 appear to have left Holland for England. (Scheffer, 
 p. 152.) 
 
 Something more than a year afterwards Mr. Smyth 
 fell into his last illness; he was buried at the Nieuwe 
 Kerk, at Amsterdam (Scheffer, p. 142), on the first 
 of September, 1612. After his death his followers 
 remained with the Mennonites and continued to 
 knock at the door of their church for admission. 
 With a purpose to further this interest they sent 
 forth "The Last Booke of John Smyth, called the 
 Retractation of His Errors and the Confirmation of 
 the Truth." At the close of it were added "Propo- 
 sitions and Conclusions Concerning the True Chris- 
 tian Religion, Containing a Confession of Faith of 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 55 
 
 Certain English People Living at Amsterdam." 
 (The above was discovered in 1871 by Dr. Dexter, 
 in the Library of York Minster, and is published in 
 full between pp. 117 and 118 in Barclay, Inner Life 
 of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth, 
 London, 1876.) 
 
 Here, then, are four several Confessions of Faith, 
 two by the party of Mr. Smyth, who were struggling 
 for a place among the Mennonites of Amsterdam, 
 and two by Helwys and his nine followers, who were 
 struggling to maintain a separate and independent 
 existence. We can perhaps find out what was the 
 act of baptism among them by considering these 
 documents in their historical setting. An impor- 
 tant item of that historical setting is the fact already 
 referred to that the Mennonites, with whom both par-, 
 ties were dealing, have never at any time or place 
 been immersionists. They are unanimous in that 
 contention, the most learned authorities as well as 
 the common people. S. Muller, formerly one of 
 the Professors at the Mennonite College in Amster- 
 dam, and author of many learned works, says: 
 "This mode of baptizing (sprinkling) was from the 
 days of Menno the only usual mode amongst them, 
 and it is still amongst us. The Waterlanders nor any 
 other of the various parties of the Netherland 
 Doopsgezinden j^T^^c^ice^ at any time haptism hy im- 
 mersion.^'' (Evans, vol. 1, p. 223.) Sprinkling was 
 "the only usual mode," though pouring was some- 
 
56 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 times employed; immersion was never resorted to 
 at any time. Tlie testimony of Prof. Scheffer has 
 already been given. He asserts without qualifica- 
 tion that immersion was never in use among the 
 Mennonites. (Overzicht, p. 28.) 
 
 Another important item is that the baptism of 
 Smyth and his followers was the same as that of the 
 Mennonites, namely, sprinkling or pouring. A 
 body of Mennonite ministers after strict examina- 
 tion on the spot declared as follows on that point: 
 "Therefore first of all we ministers have according 
 to the desire of our brethren, summoned these Eng- 
 lish before us, and again most perfectly examined 
 them as regards the doctrine of salvation and the 
 government of the church, and also inquired for the 
 ■foundation and form, of their l)aptis7n^ and xoe have 
 not found that there teas any difference at all neither 
 in the one nor the other thing.'''' (Evans, vol. 1, p. 
 212.) 
 
 A third important item is that there was no 
 immersion practiced anywhere in Holland until the 
 year 1620, one year after the rise of the Collegiants 
 at Rhynsburg, and that it was then introduced by 
 John Geesteranus, who was the first of the Collegiants 
 to submit to it. (Scheffer, Overzicht, p. 39.) 
 
 The oldest confession of John Smyth, Art. 15, 
 says: "Baptism is the external sign of the remis- 
 sion of sins, of dying and of being made alive, and 
 therefore does not belong to infants," Evans, vol. 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 57 
 
 1, p. 254. Cf. the Latin original, Sclieflfer, pp. 
 170-1. 
 
 The oldest confession of Thomas Helwys and liis 
 church, Art. 10, says: "Baptism is tlie external 
 sign of the remission of sins, of dying and renova- 
 tion of life, and therefore does not pertain to in- 
 fants." (Scheffer, p. 174, where the Latin original 
 may be seen.) 
 
 The second confession of Thomas Helwys and his 
 church, Art. 14, says: "That baptism, or ivashing 
 ivitfi watei\ is the outward manifestation of dying 
 unto sin and walking in newness of life; and there- 
 fore in no wise appertaineth to infants." (Crosby, 
 vol. 2, Appendix I.) 
 
 The second confession of John Smyth, Art. 70, 
 says: "That the outward baptism of water is to be 
 administered only upon such penitent and faithful 
 persons as are (aforesaid), and not upon innocent in- 
 fants or wicked persons. (Matt, iii., 2, 3, com- 
 pared with Matt, xxviii., 19, 20, and John iv., 1.)" 
 
 Art. 71: "That in baptism to the penitent person 
 and believer there is presented and figured, the spir- 
 itual baptism of Christ (that is) the baptism of the 
 Holy Ghost and fire; the baptism into the death and 
 resurrection of Christ; even the promise of the 
 Spirit wliich he shall assuredly be made partaker of, 
 if he continue to the end. Gal. iii., 14; Matt, iii., 
 11; 1 Cor. xii., 13; Rom. vi., 3, 6; Col. ii., 10." 
 (Barclay, between pp. 117 and 118.) 
 
58 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 None of these confessions prescribes immersion. 
 When that form of administering the ordinance was 
 once restored there was no difficulty in making it 
 known by words like dip and plunge and immerse. 
 These words do not occur here for the reason that 
 no such custom was then contemplated. The article 
 on baptism in the first confession of Helwys seems 
 to have been borrowed from the same article in the 
 first confession of Smyth. The article on baptism 
 in the second confession of Helwys lays emphasis 
 on the idea of purification and resembles in that 
 point many Reformed or Presbyterian creeds that 
 were at the time in common use. 
 
 The two articles in the second confession of John 
 Smyth, who at the moment when it was produced 
 was trying to gain admission to the Mennonite body, 
 show most resemblance to the Creed of Lubbert 
 Gerrits and Hans de Ries, that was subscribed by 
 Smyth and his followers while they were waiting 
 upon the convenience of the Mennonites. (Evans, 
 vol. 1, pp. 245-252; consult Arts. 29, 30.) Of the 
 four Confessions cited the last by Smyth appears to 
 contain more expressions that could be interpreted 
 in favor of immersion than either of the others, and 
 yet if Smyth or his people had declared in favor of 
 that rite they could never have expected to be re- 
 ceived into the church upon which their hopes were 
 set. 
 
 After the death of Smyth his party continued ta 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 59^ 
 
 appeal for admission to the Meniionite community, 
 a favor which was at hist bestowed on the 2l8t of 
 January, 1615, without repeating the haptism^ which 
 they had previously received, it having been declared 
 to be identical with that of the Mennonites. 
 
 The relations between the Mennonites of Amster- 
 dam and the Helwys church, after the latter had 
 returned to England, were particularly intimate. In 
 1624 Elias Tookey and his party of fifteen adherents 
 who had been excluded from the church of John 
 Murton in London endeavored to unite with the 
 Amsterdam church. The points of difference be- 
 tween them were duly discussed (Evans, vol. 2, pp. 
 21-24 and pp. 32-40), but not a word was said re- 
 garding the act of baptism, for the reason that no 
 differences existed on that score, both parties being 
 in the practice of sprinkling or pouring. 
 
 By the year 1626 John Murton had succeeded in 
 organizing five churches of his persuasion in Eng- 
 land, one each at London, Lincoln, Sarum, Coventry 
 and Tiverton. (Evans, vol. 2, p. 26.) These were 
 very small and all of them together only "counted 
 a number in England of undoubtedly 150 persons." 
 (Evans, vol. 2, p. 25.) Barclay, .Inner Life, p. 95, 
 committed the blunder of asserting that the 150 
 belonged to Murton's church at Newgate and that 
 there were four other churches besides these. The 
 other authorities have followed him industriously. 
 (Dexter, Congregationalism, p. 323; Scheffer, De- 
 Brownisten, p. 155.) 
 
■60 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 For some reason Murton's associates became 
 solicitous to join the Mennonites and sent two com- 
 missioners to Holland for the purpose of carrying 
 out that enterprise. (Evans, vol. 2, pp. 24, 25.) 
 These commissioners bore a letter setting forth the 
 items of difference between the followers of Helwys 
 and the Mennonites, of which there were only five, 
 namely, about the humanity of Jesus, about the law- 
 fulness of an oath, about the necessity of celebrating 
 the Lord's Supper every Sunday, whether the ordi- 
 nances should be administered by lay members, and 
 whether it is admissible for Christian men to hold 
 civil office, and to bear the sword. (Evans, vol. 2, 
 pp. 26-30.) In this letter the English expressly 
 assert that "these are all the differences which we 
 think to exist." (Evans, vol. 2, p. 30.) There was 
 no difference whatever regarding the act of baptism, 
 since both parties still practiced sprinkling and 
 pouring. 
 
 After the decease of Helwys, John Murton stood 
 at the head of the movement. He in turn passed 
 away in 1630. At any rate his wife Jane, who was 
 a daughter of Alexander Hogdkin (Scheffer, De 
 Brownisten, p. 81), then went back to Amsterdam to 
 live with her father and mother, these being still 
 alive and members of theMennonite church. (Evans, 
 vol. 2, p. 50.) On the 26th of September, 1630, she 
 was received into that church with four others, who 
 possibly had returned with her, "because they were 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 61 
 
 baptized formerly by Mr. Smyth." (Evans, vol. 1, 
 p. 222.) Such an incident presupposes closer re- 
 lations than could have existed had there been 
 already a controversy as to the act of baptism be- 
 tween the Mennonites and the disciples of Helwys. 
 
 Prof. Scheffer affirms that this intimate union con- 
 tinued until the year 164:1 when Richard Blunt went 
 to Rhynsburg, and receiving immersion at the hands 
 of John Batten, returned to England and imparted it 
 to the members of his church. "By that act," he 
 adds, "the bond of fellowship with the Netherland 
 Mennonites was first broken off, because from that 
 moment forward tlie Mennonites were regarded as 
 unbaptized people." (De Brownisten te Amster- 
 dam, p. 156. ) 
 
 After surveying these facts Dr. Evans, by all 
 means the best equipped of English Baptist his- 
 torians, is much staggered regarding the point in 
 question. He cites the statement of the editor 
 of Robinson's works, who declares that "nothing 
 appears in the controversial writings of Smyth 
 and Helwys to warrant the supposition that they 
 regarded immersion as the proper and only mode 
 of administering the ordinance," and adds, "in this 
 opinion Dr. Muller fully agrees. But was it so? 
 We cannot pronounce positively, but are bound 
 to confess that the probabilities are greatly in its 
 favor." (Evans, vol. 2, p. 52.) On another page 
 he says: "Upon the cause of the deputation to Hoi- 
 
-62 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 land (sending of Richard Blunt) we have commented 
 already. Most will now see that the practice of the 
 Mennonite brethren (sprinkling) was common in this 
 -country. These 'new men' soon cast them into the 
 -shade and their practice speedily became obsolete. 
 Immersion as the mode of baptism became the rule 
 with botli sections of the Baptist community." 
 (Evans, vol. 2, p. 79.) 
 
 It will now be appropriate to consider certain ob- 
 jections that have been urged against the conclusion 
 that the people later known as General Baptists in 
 England employed only sprinkling or pouring for 
 baptism prior to the year 1641. 
 
 The first of these is found in a fabulous statement 
 under the pretended date of March 21, 1606, as fol- 
 lows: "This niglit at midnight Elder John Murton 
 baptized John Smith, vicar of Gainsborough in the 
 river Don. It was so dark wee were obliged to liave 
 torch-lights. Elder Brewster prayed and Mr. Smith 
 made a good confession. Walked to Epworth in his 
 cold clothes, but received no harm. The distance 
 was over two miles. All our friends were present. 
 A strong wind, but faire above-liead. To ye triune 
 ■<Tod be all ye praise." Dexter, True Story, p. 66. 
 
 This fabrication originated among the General 
 Baptists of Lincolnshire, England, and purports to 
 be a transcript from the "Ancient Records" of the 
 'Church of Christ, meeting at Epworth, Crowle and 
 ^est Butterwick. No sadder humiliation has ever 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 63 
 
 been inflicted upon our Baptist name and cause. 
 The fact that it could be put forth under tlie auspices 
 of Rev. John Clifford, M.A,,LL.B., reflects a pain- 
 ful light upon the condition of studies in Baptist 
 liistory among the Baptists of England. Copious 
 extracts from it appeared first in the General Bap- 
 tist Magazine, London, 1879, p. 327 and p. 438, of 
 which Mr. Clifford was editor. As if that' were not 
 sufficient to fill up the cup of our mortification, a 
 volume was subsequently issued to set it forth anew 
 under the title of "The English Baptists, Who thej 
 Are and What they have Done. Edited by John 
 Clifford, M.A., LL.B., London, E. Marlborough & 
 Co., 1881." 
 
 This fable has been sufficiently exposed by Dr. 
 H. M. Dexter, (True Story of John Smyth the Se- 
 Baptist, Boston, 1881, pp. 63-86,) and the justice 
 of his representations is acknowledged by scholars 
 everywhere. Brof. Scheft'er declares, (Overzicht, 
 p. 42, note 3,) that "he has demonstrated beyond 
 refutation that the so-called 'Ancient Records' are 
 notliing else than an unworthy instance of decep- 
 tion." It would carry us too far to enter into all 
 the details of this fraud, and we must be content in 
 this place merely to show that its authority cannot 
 stand against the well established authority of con- 
 temporary history. 
 
 The assertion that John Murton baptized John 
 Smyth, vicar of Gainsborough, in the river Don on 
 
64 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 the 24111 of March, 1606, is contradicted by the tes- 
 timony of John Smyth himself. In his work en- 
 titled. Parables, Censures, Observations, Aperteyn- 
 ing, etc., printed in 1609, and written certainly after 
 March 21, 1606, Mr. Smyth denounces the Anabap- 
 tists in a way to demonstrate that he could not yet 
 have been one of them. On pp. 13 and 11 he says: 
 "I demaund of you: do you think that God accepteth 
 the prayers and Religious Exercises of the Papists, 
 the Arrians, the AnoJjaptints^ the Familists or any 
 other heretiques or Antichristians ? if not what is the 
 true cause that God accepteth them not '. is it not 
 that there is not that true communion of the Saynts 
 there, the true Spouse of Christ, the Spiritual Tem- 
 ple where God hath provided his presence?" If 
 Smyth had joined tlie Anabaptist party in 1606, he 
 could not have classed them with "Papists, Arrians, 
 Familists and otlier heretiques or Antichristians" in 
 a work written more than a year later. 
 
 Furthermore this deception can not outweigh the 
 authority of Mr. Smyth himself when he confesses 
 that he baptized himself. It has been shown above 
 that this step was performed in October, 1608, and 
 that before the month of March, 1609, he had re- 
 pented the act and was knocking at the door of tlie 
 Mennonite Church in Amsterdam for admission. 
 In the archives of that church is still preserved a 
 confession of sorrow for their disorderly conduct in 
 baptizing themselves, which is composed in the Latin 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 65 
 
 language, in. the handwriting of Smyth (Sclieffer, 
 De Browiiisteii, p. 128, note 2), and subscribed by 
 himself and thirty-one of his followers. Tliis is 
 found printed somewhat incorrectly in Evans, vol. 
 1, pp. 2-14-5, and an English translation is also 
 given, Evans, vol. 1, p. 209. A correct copy is 
 published by Scheft'er, De Brownisten te Amster- 
 dam, p. 128. Dr. Dexter has inserted it in a note 
 at the foot of page 31 of the True Story of John 
 Smyth, including one of the blunders made by 
 Evans. It may be translated as follows: "Names 
 of the English people who acknowledge this their 
 error and repent of the same, namely, that tJiey un- 
 dertooh to haptize themselves contrary to the order 
 established by Christ, and who now desire to unite 
 with this true Church of Christ with all possible ex- 
 pedition." Here Mr. Smyth concedes that he bap- 
 tized himself. 
 
 In the Character of the Beast, printed in 1609, p. 
 58, he also concedes this point: "If all the com- 
 mandments of God must be obeyed, then this of 
 baptism, and this warrant is sufficient for assuming 
 baptism. Now, for hajptizing a man''s self there is 
 as good warrant as for a ')nan\s churching himself^ 
 for two men singly are no church, jointly they are a 
 church, and they both of them put a church upon 
 themselves; for as both these persons unchurched, 
 yet have power to assume the church, each of them 
 for himself and others in communion, so each of 
 
 5 
 
66 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 them unbaptized hath power to assume hajytism for 
 himself with others in communion." (Hanburv, 
 Historical Memorials Relating to the Independents, 
 London, 1839, vol. 1, p. 267, note.) 
 
 Again, in the Last Booke of John Smyth as print- 
 ed in Barclay's Inner Life of the Religious Societies 
 of the Commonwealth, as an appendix to chapter YI. 
 the following statements are found on page Y. : 
 "Thirdly, Master Helwys said that although there 
 be churches already established, ministers ordained 
 and sacraments administered orderly, yet men are 
 not bound to join those former churches, but may, 
 being as yet unbaptized, haptize themselves (as we 
 did) and proceed to build churches of themselves. 
 
 Only this is it which I held, that seeing 
 
 there was no church to whom we could join with a 
 good conscience to have baptism from them, there- 
 fore we might haptize ourselves. ' ' 
 
 In view of these three confessions by Mr. Smyth 
 that he baptized himself it is vain to appeal to the 
 fraud that has been foisted upon our Denomination 
 by the English General Baptists. This is tlie first 
 instance in our history where resort has been had to 
 such unworthy means to support our cause. Let us 
 trust in God that it shall also be the last. 
 
 The Mennonite ministers whose church he was 
 trying to join also admit that Mr. Smyth baptized 
 himself. They desired their brethren with whom 
 they corresponded on the subject of receiving Smyth 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 67 
 
 and his followers: "to take into consideration and 
 distinguish the baptism of those that are baptized by 
 their minister himself, for we ourselves do distin- 
 guish the act of baptizing hy which he has baptized 
 himself-, this is an affair quite different." (Evans, 
 vol. 1, p. 213). 
 
 If Mr. Smyth and his friends both unite in the ad- 
 mission that he baptized himself the case will become 
 only so much stronger when his opponents join their 
 testimony to the volume of proof. Witnesses from 
 that side are too numerous and circumstantial to be 
 cited in this place, and it must suftice to refer to 
 such men as John Robinson who was present in 
 Amsterdam when the occurrence took place. Relig- 
 ious Communion, 1614, Ashton's ed., p. 168; 
 Henry Ainsworth, also present, in his Defence of 
 the Holy Scriptures, Worship, etc., 1609, p. 69 and 
 p. 82; R. Clyfton, also present, in his Flea for In- 
 fants, 1610, Answer to Epistle, and divers other 
 writers. 
 
 The second objection is drawn from the case of Mr, 
 Leonard Busher, who in his work entitled Religion's 
 Peace or a Plea for Liberty of Conscience, published 
 by the Hanserd Knollys Society, Tracts on Liberty of 
 Conscience, London, 1846, p. 59, says: "And such 
 as shall willingly and gladly receive it (the Word), 
 He hath commanded to be baptized in the water, 
 that is dipped for dead in the water." It is some- 
 times too confidently assumed that this passage 
 
68 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 proves Mr. Buslier to have been an immersionist 
 in practice as well as in principle, but we know 
 too little regarding him to venture distinct as- 
 sertions on that point. He was a citizen of Lon- 
 don, as appears from the title of his book, and 
 'A faithful and loving subject of the king of England 
 (Religion's Peace, p. 26), whose ancestors may have 
 come from Holland (Evans, vol. 1, p. 229, jiote) 
 and who himself had connections there. He was also 
 an Anabaptist, and, with his followers, resided in 
 Amsterdam. Dr. Dexter (Congregationalism as 
 Seen in its Literature, New York, 1880, p. 322, note 
 117) says: "Matthew Saunders and Cuthbert Hut- 
 ton, in their letter to Johnson's church (Lawne's 
 Profane Schisme, etc., p. 56), under date of 8 July, 
 1611, speak of three kinds of English Anabaptists 
 then in Amsterdam, viz: 'Master Smyth, an Ana- 
 baptist of one sort, and Master Helwise of another, 
 and Master Busher of another.' " He also was re- 
 siding in the Netherlands while engaged in writing 
 his book, which it will be remembered was first pub- 
 lished in 1614. On page 77 of that work he says: 
 "I read that in the Netherlands above a hundred 
 thousand persons have been put to death for relig- 
 ion. But now, praised be God, we have no such 
 woful tidings preached among us (in Holland). The 
 Lord work as much in our land (England) I beseech 
 him! that so you may no longer burn and banish the 
 servants of Christ." He was glad to lead a peace- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 69 
 
 able and quiet life in the Low countries, but he de- 
 plored the fact that his majesty's faithful subjects 
 could not do this even in their own nation (pp. 
 79-80). 
 
 Was the first edition of his book in 1614 pub- 
 lished at London or at Amsterdam? Hitherto it has 
 been impossible to discover an edition earlier than 
 that of 1646, and hence this question can not be an- 
 swered. Did he ever return from Holland to Eng- 
 land? That inquiry must also be left unsolved. If 
 he failed to return to England at all he does not come 
 within the range of the present inquiry, which refers 
 only to that country. The act of baptism observed by 
 him would in that case become a question for Dutch 
 archaeologists. But either Dutch or English archae- 
 ologists, founding on the mere fact that he was an 
 immersionist in principle, must jump a long dis- 
 tance to the conclusion that he was also an immer- 
 sionist in practice. It is clear that he had small re- 
 spect for the labors of Helwys at Newgate in Lon- 
 don, not being willing to recognize Helwys' church 
 as a "right visible congregation" (Religion's Peace, 
 p. 25), but that opposition might have resulted, not 
 from the circumstance that they practiced sprinkling 
 while he practiced immersion, but possibly because 
 they were Arminians and he was a Calvin ist. In brief 
 words, Mr. Busher is a shadowy figure, and it is en- 
 tirely uncertain whether he spent his last years in 
 England or Holland. Therefore, we are not enti- 
 
70 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 tied, for the present at least, to establish any definite 
 conclusions regarding liirn or his people, except that 
 if he had practiced immersion at Amsterdam in 1611 
 we should have been likely to hear a good deal more 
 about him than has been brought to light hitherto. 
 
 I have already shown in Chapter III. that none of 
 the Anabaptists of Holland were in the practice of 
 immersion prior to the year 1620 at which time the 
 rite was introduced again into that country by John 
 Geesteranus at Rhynsburg. The most that can be 
 safely claimed for Mr. Busher is that he was an ad- 
 vance herald of genuine Baptist principles in Hol- 
 land, that were shortly to be reduced to practice in 
 England. His Calvinistic views would in due time 
 naturally commend his views regarding immersion 
 to the favorable attention of the Jessey church, when 
 they in their turn should set about considering that 
 subject. 
 
 The last objection is drawn singularly enough 
 from Dr. Featley's Dippers Dipt, which stands 
 among the books of the period that are most distinct 
 in asserting that immersion was a splinter new prac- 
 tice in England in the year 1644, when it first came 
 from the press. The argument is given on page 44 1 of 
 the History of the Baptists by Dr. Armitage, New 
 York, 1887, and is mended and improved on p. 458. 
 A passage is there chosen from page 3 of the Epistle 
 Dedicatory where Featley is describing the practices 
 of the Anabaptists at the time when he wrote, namely 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 71 
 
 in 1644, the book having issued from the press on 
 the 10th of January of that year. (Crosby, 1, 304.) 
 He relates as follows: "They flock in great mul- 
 titudes to their Jordans and both sexes enter into 
 
 the Rivers and are dipt after their manner 
 
 And as they defile our Rivers with their impure 
 washings and our pulpits with their false Proph- 
 ecies and Plianaticall Enthusiasmes, so the press- 
 es sweat and groane under the load of their blas- 
 phemies." Then passing over nearly three pages 
 and coming to a connection where nothing is said 
 about immersion he selects the following passage 
 
 "This venomous Serpent (vere Solifuga) 
 
 is the Anabaptist who in these later times first 
 showed his shining head and speckled skin and 
 thrust out his sting near the place of my resi- 
 dence, for more than twenty years." Dr. Feat- 
 ley in the last sentence undertakes to declare that 
 the Anabaptists who were at that period in the prac- 
 tice of sprinkling had showed themselves near the 
 place of his residence more than twenty years pre- 
 viously, while in the first two sentences he describes 
 the practice that they had only recently introduced, 
 ^^since the waters were troubled'''' and the nation had 
 been thrown into confusion. The argument of Dr. 
 Armitage to the effect that the Anabaptists, according 
 to Dr. Featley, had been engaged in dipping for more 
 than twenty years near the place of his residence is 
 therefore inadmissible. The authority to which he 
 
72 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 refers intends to convey no such impression. On the 
 contrary, in another place, Preface to tlie Reader 
 (near tlie close), he gives a distinct note of time indi- 
 cating the exact period at which dipping commenced. 
 ' 'But of late, " he says, ' '■si7ice the unhaj)2>y distractions 
 which our sins have hrought upon us, the Temporall 
 Sword heing other ways employed and the Spiritucdl 
 lodged up fast in the Scahhard, this sect among others 
 hath so far presumed upon the patience of the State 
 that it hath held weekly Conventicles, rebaptized 
 hundreds of men and women together in the twilight, 
 in Rivelets and some arms of the Thames and Else- 
 where, dipping them over head and ears." The un- 
 happy distractions here mentioned began in Eng- 
 land in 1640. It was only after that time that 
 the "Temporall Sword was other ways employed 
 and the Spirituall was locked up fast in the Scab- 
 bard." When Dr. Arraitage cites this last passage 
 in page 458 of his History, the note of time is 
 omitted and he. charges that Featley "contradicts 
 himself several times." The facts will not sustain 
 this charge; Dr. Featley does not contradict him- 
 self. Everything that he utters anywhere in his 
 volume conforms strictly with the statement made, 
 Dippers Dipt, London, 1644, p. 187, where he is 
 discussing the Fortieth Article of the Baptist Con- 
 fession of Faith, that prescribes "dipping or plung- 
 ing as the way and manner of administering the 
 ordinance of baptism." In that place he declares: 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 73 
 
 •"This Article is wholly sowsed with the new leaven 
 of Anabaptisme. 1 saj the new leaven^ for it can 
 not he proved that any of the ancient Anahaptists 
 
 maintained any s^ich position It is not es- 
 
 sentiall to Baptisme, neither doe the texts in the 
 margent conclude any such thing. It is true John 
 baptized Christ in the River, but the Text saith not 
 that either the Eunuch or Christ himself, or any 
 baptized by John or his Disciples, or any of Christ's 
 Disciples were dipped, plunged or dowsed over head 
 and ears, as this Article implyeth and our Anabap- 
 tists noio practice." 
 
 Once more; Dr. Featley resided in Southwark, 
 just south of the Thames, in London, where he had 
 two livings, one the rectory of Lambeth and the 
 other of Acton. (Neal, History of the Puritans, Bos- 
 ton, 1817, vol. 3, p. 320. ) But the Jessey Church 
 was also situated in Southwark, and it was there that 
 Featley held the famous debate with the Anabap- 
 tists in 1642 which became the foundation of the 
 work known as the Dippers Dipt. The Jessey Church 
 was therefore in the immediate vicinity of the Doctor's 
 residence, and some of them may have known him 
 very well. Mr. Kiffin, one of his opponents in the 
 debate, had been a member of the Jessey Church 
 down to the year 1641, at which time he joined the 
 Baptists. (Gould, Open Communion and the Baptists 
 of Norwich, Introduction, p. cxxviii. ) 
 
 The statement of the Jessey Church Records is 
 
74 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 positive and unqualified — "none having then so 
 practiced in Enghmd to professed believers." It 
 embraces the whole of England in general, and in 
 particular every foot of the Borough of Southwark, 
 where Dr. Featley and they lived as neighbors to- 
 gether and seems to exclude the notion that anybody 
 could have been practicing immersion in the Borough 
 for more than twenty years. On the other hand, the 
 declaration by Featley is not positive and uncondi- 
 tional: it is a mere inference drawn by putting to- 
 gether certain statements that he has made in dif- 
 ferent portions of his volume. 
 
 The Borough in those days may have contained as 
 many as seven or ten thousand inhabitants. If any- 
 body had been immersing at Lambeth, near Dr. 
 Featley's residence, for more than twenty years 
 there is scarcely one chance- in a million that the 
 men of the Jessey Church would not have become 
 aware of it. And there is scarcely one chance in 
 ten millions that Dr. Featley, who was an outsider, 
 should have heard of these immersions, while the 
 men of the Jessey Church remained in ignorance of 
 them. 
 
 In view of all these considerations I am not able 
 to attach any importance to the claim that Dr. 
 Featley teaches that the Anabaptists had been im- 
 mersing near the place of his residence for more 
 than twenty years. In fact I cannot perceive that 
 he has made such an assertion: I prefer to stand 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 75- 
 
 by the positive unconditional assertion of his imme- 
 diate neighbors in the Borough of Southwark when, 
 in 1640, they assert — "none having then so prac- 
 ticed in England to professed believers." 
 
 The facts above set forth are all in harmony with 
 the representations contained in the Records of a 
 Church of Christ, meeting in Broadmead, Bristol, 
 1640-1687, Hanserd Knollys Society, London, 1847. 
 These Records were composed by Mr. Edward Terrill, 
 an honored Ruling Elder, who was born in 1634 or 
 1635 (Records, p. 63, note) and joined the church in 
 1658 (Records, p. 57). He began the labor of writ- 
 ing down the Records in the year 1672 (Underhill's 
 Introduction to Records, p. xciv; cf. Records, p. 47). 
 As he was only five or six years of age in 1640, when 
 the events he describes began to take place, he was 
 not an eyewitness of them. It was thirty-two years 
 after the earliest of them occurred before he set pen 
 to paper. Nevertheless his account may be accepted 
 as, perhaps, substantially accurate. 
 
 He says "that in the year of our forever blessed 
 Redeemer, the Lord Jesus (1640), one thousand six 
 hundred and forty, those five persons, namely Good- 
 man Atkins of Stapleton, Goodman Cole, a butcher 
 of Lawford's Gate, Richard Moone, a farrier in Wine 
 Street, and Mr. Bacon, a young minister, with Mrs. 
 Hazzard, at Mrs. Hazzard's house at the upper end 
 of Broad Street, in Bristol, they met together and 
 came to a holy resolution to separate from the wor- 
 
■76 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 .ship of the world and times they lived in 
 
 "Shortly after this on a time called Easter, be- 
 cause Mr. Hazzard could not in conscience give the 
 Sacrament to the people of the parish, he went out 
 -of town and took that season to visit his kindred at 
 Lyme. And at that juncture of time the providence 
 of God brought to this city one Mr. Canne, a baptized 
 man. It was that Mr. Canne that made notes and 
 references upon the Bible. He was a man very 
 eminent in his day for godliness and for reformation 
 in religion, having great understanding in the way of 
 the Lord." (Broadmead Records, pp. 17,18.) 
 
 "And on the Lord's day following he preached at 
 a place called Westerleigh, about seven miles from 
 this city; and many of the professors from hence 
 went thither to hear him, with Mrs. Hazzard, willing 
 to enjoy such a light as long as they could; where 
 he had liberty to preach in the public place called a 
 church in the morning, but in the afternoon could 
 not have entrance. The obstruction was by a very 
 godly, great woman that dwelt in that place, who 
 was somewhat severe in the profession of what she 
 knew, liearing that he was a baptized man, by them 
 called an anabaptist, wliich was to some sufficient 
 cause of prejudice; because the truth of believer's 
 baptism had been for a long time buried, yea for a 
 long time by popish inventions, and their sprinkling 
 brought in the room thereof. '' (Broadmead Records, 
 p. 19.) 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. IT 
 
 Rev. Charles Stovel has published an excellent 
 biography of Mr. Canne in the volume entitled, A 
 Necessity of Separation from the Church of England 
 Proved by the Nonconformists Principles. By John 
 Canne, Pastor of the Ancient English Church in 
 Amsterdam. Hanserd Knollys Society, London, 
 1849. This learned author is an adept in Puritan 
 chronology as the same is employed by Mr. Terrill 
 in the Broadmead Records. Referring to the pas- 
 sages I have given above, Mr. Stovel says: "When 
 introduced to us in the Broadmead Records at 
 Easter, after 1640, that is April the 25th, 1641, he 
 [Mr. Canne] appears to have been received as a man 
 
 who was well known, and eminently respected 
 
 When he could gain access to the public place of 
 worship he used it; and when driven out because he 
 was 'a baptist' — 'a baptized man' — he retired to the 
 Green, — meeting the opponents by reasonings not 
 to be refuted, and, everywhere, speaking with fer- 
 vor and effect to an awakened empire." (Introduc- 
 tory Notice, pp. x,xi.) In a chronological arrange- 
 ment of his life (Introductory Notice, p. xxviii) Mr. 
 Stovel says: "1641, Canne is at Bristol, April 25." 
 This would agree to a nicety with the fact tiiat Blunt 
 had begun the practice of immersion in Southwark, 
 London, early in the year 1641, after his return from 
 Holland, whither he had gone to obtain it in 1640. 
 Mr. Canne, who was well acquainted in Southwark, 
 appears to have submitted to the ordinance very 
 
78 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 promptly in 16il, and was in time to reach Bristol 
 by the 25th of April, 16il. 
 
 In the year 164:3 are found traces of immersed 
 believers in Bristol (Records, pp.' 30, 31), and in 1652 
 there is evidence of the existence of a church ( Pithay) 
 of which all the members were immersed (Rec- 
 ords, p. 41); and in the year 1653 some baptisms 
 are mentioned as administered in a river (Records, 
 p. 42). The following quotation from the Records, 
 p. 92, will show that at the date mentioned there 
 was a regular place in Frome River for the rite of 
 immersion: "These ten men and four women were 
 all fourteen baptized together one after another, the 
 sixth day of the first month 1666 [1667], in the 
 evening, at Baptist Mills, in the river by Mr. Thomas, 
 minister." It will be observed that the title "Baptist 
 Mills" is first employed in the Records twenty-five 
 years after the introduction of immersion into Eng- 
 land in 1641. 
 
 Prof. Masson, in his Life and Times of Milton, 
 London, 1873, vol. 3, p. 104, says that "Helwys' folk 
 differed from the Independents not only on the sub- 
 ject of infant baptism and dipping, but also on the 
 power of the magistrate.*' It is true that Helwys 
 and his people differed from the Independents on the 
 subject of infant baptism, but as was shown above, 
 they did not differ on the subject of dipping. On 
 the contrary, they were in accord with the Independ- 
 -ents in practicing sprinkling and pouring for bap- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 79 
 
 tism. The work of Massori was issued tliree years 
 before that of Barclay on the Inner Life of the Re- 
 ligious Societies of the Commonwealth, which marks 
 a distinct advance in Baptist history. Masson had 
 great learning, but he had given no special attention 
 to this department, and his views were entirely those 
 of traditional writers on the subject. They do not 
 require to be considered in this place. His blunder 
 is due to nothing else than the circumstance that he 
 had not become aware of the progress that has been 
 made in recent years in this line of research. 
 
80 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 VI. 
 
 GENUINE ANCIENT RECORDS. 
 
 AN instrument of writing designated as the Kiffin 
 manuscript has played a large role in our Bap- 
 tist history. The name of the author is entirely un- 
 known. It has been traditionally ascribed to Wm. 
 Kiffin, who was a prominent character among Eng- 
 lish Baptists, and left behind a manuscript account 
 of his life, selections from which have been pub- 
 lished by Ivimey, (History of the English Baptists, 
 London, 1814, vol. 2, pp. 297-322). No writer on 
 Baptist history has ever rejected the authority of this 
 manuscript, and down to a comparatively recent 
 period none of its statements were subjected to 
 criticism. 
 
 I recently und<3rtook some researches in this 
 field which were rewarded by finding a still earlier 
 manuscript on the same subject. It was rescued by 
 Rev. George Crould from amongst the manuscripts 
 of Mr. H. Jessey, who in 1637 became pastor of the 
 Ancient Independent Church that had been founded 
 at London in 1616 by Mr. Henry Jacobs, and bears 
 the following title: "The Records of an Ancient 
 Congregation of Dissenters, from wch many of ye 
 Independent and Baptist Churches in London took 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 81 
 
 their first rise." (Gould, Open Communion and the 
 Baptists of Norwich, Introduction, pp. cxxi and 
 cxxii.) These singularly valuable records, which 
 must be still in existence since Gould had them in 
 his possession in 1860 (Open Communion, Intro- 
 duction, p. cxxiii), ought by all means to be published 
 in faC'simile, and whoever accomplishes that task 
 will render an important service to Baptist history. 
 Mr. Gould prints only "certain entries" found in 
 them (Introduction, p. cxxii), and these do not quite 
 cover all the ground occupied by the so-called Kiffin 
 manuscript. To facilitate comparison both docu- 
 ments will be found printed in parallel columns be- 
 low, the one under the title of Jessey Church Records 
 and the other as the so-called KiiEn manuscript. 
 
 JESSEY CHURCH RECORDS. SO-CALLED KIFFIN MANUSCRIPT. 
 
 There was a congregation of Protest- 
 ant Dissenters of the independant Per- 
 suasion in London, gathered in the 
 year 1616, whereof Mr. Henry Jacob 
 was the first pastor; and after him suc- 
 ceeded Mr. John Lathorp, who was 
 their minister at this time. In this 
 society several persons finding that the 
 congregations kept not to their first 
 principles of separation, and being also 
 convinced that (1) baptism was not to 
 be administered to infants, but such 
 only as professed faith in Christ, de- 
 sired that they miglit be dismissed from 
 that communion, and allowed to form 
 a distinct congregation in such order as 
 was most agreeable to their own Senti- 
 ments. 
 
 The church considering that they 
 were now grown very numerous, and so 
 more than could in these times of per- 
 secution conveniently meet together, 
 and believing also tliat those persons 
 acted from a principle of conscience, 
 and notobstinacy, agreed to allow them 
 the liberty they 'desired, and that they 
 
 1633. There haveing been much dis- 
 cussing. These denying Truth of ye 
 Parish Churches, and ye Church being 
 now become so large yt it might be 
 prejudicial. These following desired 
 dismission, that they might become an 
 Entire Church, and (2) further ye Com- 
 munion of those Churches in Order 
 amongst themselves, wch at last was 
 granted to them, and performed Sept. 
 12, 1683, viz. 
 
 Henry Parker & wife. Jo. Milburn. 
 Widd. Fearne. Arnold. 
 
 [Green] Hatmaker. Mr. Wilson. 
 Mark Luker. Tho. Allen. 
 
 Mary Milburn. 
 
 To These .Joyned Rich. Blunt, Tho. 
 Hubert, Rich. Tredwell, and his Wife 
 
82 
 
 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 Kath., John Triiuber, Wm. Jennings 
 and Sam Eaton, Mary Green way, (3) 
 Mr. Eaton wth some others receiving a 
 further Baptism. 
 Others Joyned to them. 
 
 1638. These also being of ye same 
 Judgment wth Sam Eaton, and desir- 
 ing to depart and not be censured, our 
 intrest in them was remitted, wth 
 Prayer made in their behalf, June 8, 
 1638. They haveiug tirst forsaken Us, 
 and .Toyned wth Mr. Spilsbury, viz. 
 Mr. Peti Ferrer. Wm. Batty. 
 Hen. Pen. Mrs. Allen (died 163'.>). 
 
 Tho. Wilson. Mr. Norwood. 
 
 Gould Open Communion and the 
 Baptists of Norwich, Intro, p. cxxii. 
 
 1640. 3d Mo [May]. The Church 
 [whereof Mr. Jacob and Mr. John La- 
 thorp had been Pastors], became two 
 by mutual consent, ju-^t half being with 
 Mr.P.Barebone, and ye other halfe wth 
 Mr. H. Jessey. (8) Mr. Richd Blunt 
 •wth him, being convinced of Baptism, 
 yt also it ought to be by diping ye 
 Body into ye Water, resembling Burial 
 and riseing again, Col. II., 12; Rom. 
 VI., 4: had sober Conferance about it 
 in ye Church, and and then wth some 
 of the forenamed, who also were so con- 
 vinced: And after Prayer and Confer- 
 ance about their so enjoying it, none 
 having then so practiced in England 
 to professed Believers, and hearing 
 that some in the Nether Lands had so 
 practiced, they agreed and sent over 
 Mr. Rich'd Blunt (who understood 
 Dutch) wth Letters of Comendation, 
 who was kindly accepted there, and 
 Returned wth Letters from them, Jo. 
 Batten a Teacher there, and from that 
 Church to such as sent him. 
 
 1641. They proceed on therein, viz. 
 Those persons yt ware perswaded Bap- 
 tism should be by dipping ye Body, had 
 mett in (9) two Companies, and did in- 
 tend so to meet after this: all these 
 agreed to proceed alike togeather : and 
 then Manifesting (not by any formal 
 Words^ a Covenant (wch Word was 
 Scrupled by some of them) but by mu- 
 tual desires and agreement each testi- 
 fied: These two Companyes did set 
 apart one to Baptize the rest, so it was 
 Solemnly performed by them. 
 
 Mr. Blunt baptized Mr. Blacklock, 
 yt was a Teacher amongst them, and 
 Mr. Blunt being baptized, he and Mr. 
 Blacklock Baptized ye rest of their 
 
 should be constituted a distinct church; 
 which was performed the r2th of Sept. 
 1633. And as they believed that bap- 
 tism was not rightly administered to 
 infants, so they looked upon the bap- 
 tism they had received in that age as 
 invalid : whereupon most or all of them 
 received a new baptism. (5) Their 
 minister was Mr. John Spilsbury. 
 What number they were is uncertain, 
 because in the mentioning of the 
 names of about twenty men and wo- 
 men it is added, with divers others. 
 
 Intheyearl638Mr.William((;)Kiffin, 
 Mr. Thomas Wilson, and others being 
 of the same judgment, were upon their 
 request, dismissed to the said Mr. Spils- 
 bury's congregation. 
 
 (7) In the year 1639 another congre- 
 gation of Baptists was formed, wliose 
 place of meeting was in Crutched — 
 Fryars; the chief promoters of which 
 were Mr. Green, Mr. Paul Hobson and 
 Captain Spencer. 
 Crosby, vol. 1, pp. 148-9. 
 For in the year 1640, this church be- 
 came two by consent; just half, says 
 the manuscript, being with Mr. P. 
 Barebone, and the other half with Mr, 
 Henry Jessey. 
 Crosby, vol. 3, p. 41. 
 Several sober and pious persons be- 
 longing to the congregations of the dis- 
 senters about London were convinced 
 that believers were the only proper 
 subjects of baptism and that it ought 
 to be administered by immersion or 
 dipping the whole body into the water, 
 in resemblance of a burial and resur- 
 rection according to Colos. II., 12 and 
 Rom. VI., 4. That they often met to- 
 gether to pray and confer about this 
 matter and to consult what methods 
 they should take to enjoy this ordin- 
 ance in its primitive purity : That they 
 could not be satisfyed about any ad- 
 ministrator in England, to begin this 
 practice ; because tho' some in this na- 
 tion rejected the baptism of infants, 
 yet they had not as they knew of re- 
 vived the ancient custom of immersion: 
 But hearing that some in the Nether- 
 lands practiced it, they agreed to send 
 over one Mr. Richard Blunt, who un- 
 derstood the Dutch language: That he 
 went accordingly carrying letters of 
 recommendation with him and was 
 kindly received both by the church 
 there and Mr. John Batten their 
 teacher. 
 
 That upon liis return he baptized 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 83 
 
 friends yt ware so minded, and many Mr. Samuel Blacklock, a minister and 
 
 being added to tliem they increased these two baptized the rest of their 
 
 much." company, [whose names are in the 
 
 Gould, Open Communion and the manuscript to the number of fifty- 
 
 Baptists of Norwich, Intro, pp. cxxiii, three]. 
 
 cxxiv. Crosby, vol. 1, pp. 101-2. 
 
 It will be apparent even upon casual observation 
 that the second of the above papers is either derived 
 from the first or from independent tradition of the 
 facts set forth in the first. It is, therefore, confess- 
 edly inferior to the contemporary record, but it is 
 still not unworthy of the confidence that has always 
 been bestowed upon it. 
 
 It may be entertaining to observe the items in 
 which the later account varies from the earlier. 
 These items will be indicated by figures set down in 
 the text above to which like figures will correspond 
 in this place. In describing the events of the year 
 1633 the later account lays greater emphasis upon 
 (1) opposition to infant baptism which is twice defi- 
 nitely alluded to, whereas the earlier merely speaks 
 of "much discussing, these denying Truth of ye 
 Parish Churches," presumably in divers other points 
 .as well as regarding infant baptism. 
 
 (2) The seceding church demanded that they should 
 be retained by the Congregationalists in "ye Com- 
 munion of those Churches in Order amongst them- 
 selves," whether the same were situated in Eng- 
 land or Holland or America; but that has very nat- 
 urally faded out of the later account entirely. 
 (3j The earlier account says, "Mr. Eaton wth some 
 
84 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 others receiving a further baptism" ; the later account 
 makes somewhat elaborate explanations to the effect 
 that "as they believed that baptism was not rightly 
 administered to infants, so they looked upon the 
 baptism they had received in that age as invalid : 
 whereupon most or all of them received a new bap- 
 tism." In point of fact only a small proportion 
 of them appear to have received a further baptism. 
 This constitutes an instance of exaggeration, but it is 
 hardly of sufficient consequence to invalidate the 
 authority of the later account. 
 
 (4) Mr. Samuel Eaton, the leader in procuring a 
 further baptism in 1633 was also prominent in that 
 regard in 1638, according to the earlier account. Is 
 it possible that he is the same Samuel Eaton who 
 became pastor of the Congregational Church at New 
 Haven, Conn., when it was established on the 22d 
 of August, 1639, (Dexter, Congregationalism, p. 
 413, note; cf. p. 587, note) and returning to England 
 in 1640 founded the Congregational Church at Duck- 
 ingfield (Dexter, p. 635, note). 
 
 (5) The later account has blundered in asserting 
 that John Spilsbury was minister of the church at 
 the time of its secession in 1633, but the earlier ren- 
 ders it clear that he was acting in that character in 
 1638. (6) It has also blundered in asserting that 
 William Kiffin joined Spilsbury's church in 1638. 
 That was the year in which he "united with an In- 
 dependent congregation" (Ivimey,2,304)which must 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 85 
 
 have been Mr. Jessey's church. The earlier account 
 shows that he did not join Spilbury's church at this 
 time, and I have found no contemporary evidence 
 that he ever at any time belonged to it. 
 
 (7) What the later account says about the forma- 
 tion of a church in Crutched-Fryars in 1639 may 
 be correct or it may not. Nothing in the earlier 
 gives support to it, and Dr. Dexter (Congregation- 
 ism, pp. 649-50) appears to claim Mr. Green (who 
 is set down among the members of Crutched-Fryars 
 Church) as a Brownist. The omission of many names 
 and dates in the later account is a striking feature. 
 It is here that the earlier everywhere vindicates its 
 superiority. Let it be observed that the term Bap- 
 tist as applied in this connection to a religious De- 
 nomination occurs in the later and not in the earlier 
 account. 
 
 The second division of the Jessey Church Records, 
 beginning with the disruption of Jessey's church in 
 1640, is perhaps the most important. That disrup- 
 tion would appear to have been occasioned by the 
 circumstance that one section of the church were in- 
 clined to move more rapidly in the direction of re- 
 form than the other. Those who desired to remain 
 upon the strictly Independent foundation hitherto 
 occupied by the church rallied to Mr. P. Barebone, 
 while those who were willing to travel beyond that 
 position gathered about the regular pastor, Mr. 
 Jessey. 
 
86 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 (8) Mr. Richard Blunt who had gone forth with 
 the secession in 1633, had meanwhile returned to 
 Mr. Jessey's church and in 1640 sided with the 
 party of the pastor. In addition he had become 
 "convinced of baptism yt also it ought to be by dip- 
 ing ye Body into ye Water, resembling Burial 
 and riseing again. Col. 11, , 12 and Rom. YI., 4." 
 Why should he have been inclined to lay stress upon 
 this particular argument, among so many others, in 
 favor of immersion ? That was the argument and 
 those were the passages of Scripture urged in sup- 
 port of immersion by Leonard Buslier (H. K. Soc. 
 Tracts on Liberty of Conscience, pp. 59, 60). Were 
 these brethren acquainted with Busher's Treatise on 
 Religion's Peace, and did they know anything about 
 the author of it ? If they knew him they were aware 
 that he had not introduced immersion into England, 
 for they expressly declare that '•'-none had then so 
 practiced in England to professed helievers. ' ' If he 
 had spent his last days in Holland as was intimated 
 above, they perhaps knew also that he had not intro- 
 duced immersion there, for they sent to the Colle- 
 giants and not to Busher or his followers to obtain 
 it. The apparent connection between Blunt and 
 Busher at this point may be thought to lessen the 
 possibility that Busher had ever been an immersion- 
 ist in practice. 
 
 (9) There were, according to the earlier records, 
 "two companies" who introduced immersion into 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 87 
 
 England. Richard Blunt and his friends in the Jes- 
 sey Church on the one part first "had sober confer- 
 ance about it in ye Church.'''' After that they also 
 had conference '■''wth some of the forenamed.,'''' v^ho 
 were all members of Mr. Spilsburj's church. In 
 1641 these two parties "had mett in two companies 
 and did intend so to meet after this,'-' and these 
 "two companies" did each set apart one to baptize 
 the rest, Mr. Blunt baptizing those from the Jessey 
 Church, and Mr. Blacklock those from the Spilsbury 
 Church, after Mr. Blacklock had first received bap- 
 tism from Blunt, who in his turn had received it in 
 Holland. 
 
 The general result of our investigation is that these 
 two documents complement and mutually support 
 each other. The earlier demonstrates that the later 
 is not far astray, while the later casts a better light 
 upon the earlier and imparts additional force and 
 certainty to its statements. 
 
 Certain items rise above others in importance in 
 these documents. The first of these is the positive 
 statement under the year 1640 found in the Jessey 
 Church Records regarding immersion: '- '■none having 
 then so practiced in England to professed believers.'''' 
 In the other manuscript that point is less definitely ex- 
 pressed as follows: '•''they could not he satisfy ed about 
 any administrator in England tohegin this practice,' 
 hecause though some in this nation rejected the bap- 
 tism of infants.^ yet they had not as they knew of re- 
 
88 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 vived the antient custom of immersion j'''' but even 
 that is sufficiently definite to express a clear idea. 
 
 In the earlier account we have the unqualified asser- 
 tion of the most important document in the history 
 of Particular Baptists that prior to the year 1640 
 nobody at all had practiced in England the immer- 
 sion of professed believers. The Anabaptists had 
 not practiced it, who came over from Holland in 
 the sixteenth century. The followers of Hel- 
 wys and Murton had not practiced it. fcjpilsbury and 
 his people, who seceded in 1633, had not practiced it. 
 Nobody else had practiced it. That is not the word 
 of an adversary. It expresses the understanding 
 which the people themselves who introduced immer- 
 sion into England had of the situation under which 
 they acted. There is a possibility that they may 
 have been mistaken in the'^r claim; but after two 
 hundred and fifty-five years of careful investigation 
 no scholar has been found to rise up and show that 
 they were in error, and until somebody shall have 
 accomplished that feat their word must be allowed 
 to stand. They were men of intelligence; their in- 
 terests were much concerned; they must have made 
 careful inquiry; they understood whereof they af- 
 firmed, and their testimony applies first of all to the 
 Borough of Southwark which they inhabited in com- 
 pany with their immediate neighbor, Dr. Daniel 
 Featley. 
 
 The other leading item is that Mr. Blunt was sent 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 89 
 
 to Holland in 1640 to obtain immersion; that he 
 went to John Batten, well known as a teacher among 
 the Collegiants, and, receiving the rite at his hands, 
 retm-ned to England. Here he was instrumental in 
 reviving immersion by procuring the ordinance to 
 be administered to "two companies," one of which 
 had been derived from the church of Mr. Spilsbury 
 and the other from the church of Mr. Henry Jessey. 
 In my opinion these facts thus clearly established 
 by the two most important and valuable documents, all 
 things considered, that are connected with our his- 
 tory, constitute irrefragable proofs that immersion 
 was introduced into England in the year 1641. 
 Here is an unquestionable account of a complete 
 change. Prior to 1641 the followers of Helwys and 
 Murton on the one hand and the followers, of Spils" 
 bury on the other were in the practice of sprinkling 
 or pouring for baptism; in the year 1641 immersion 
 was fetched out of Holland and a new epoch was in- 
 troduced. There is no chance anywhere to evade 
 that plain conclusion. If it may not stand secure, 
 then the study of history is a delusion; no fact of 
 history can ever be established. 
 
90 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 VII. 
 
 EIGHT MONUMENTS OF THE INTRODUCTION OF IM- 
 MERSION INTO ENGLAND IN THE YEAR 1641. 
 
 THE Jessey Church Records prove that immersion 
 was introduced into England in the year 1641. 
 That was an important change. In all cases where 
 important changes occur it is to be anticipated that 
 historical monuments of some kind will be left behind 
 to indicate that they took place. One of the most 
 prominent monuments of this change is the Fortieth 
 Article of the Confession of Faith of the Seven Con- 
 gregations or Churches of Christ in London^ 16Jf.Ji,^ 
 prescribing immersion as follows: "That the way 
 and manner of the dispensing of this ordinance is 
 dipping or plunging the hody under water; it being 
 a sign must answer the things signified, which is 
 that interest the saints have in the death, burial and 
 resurrection of Christ; and that as certainly as the 
 body is buried under water and risen again; so cer- 
 tainly shall the bodies of the saints be raised by the 
 power of Christ in the day of the resurrection to 
 reign with Christ." 
 
 The dipjnng or plunging the hody under loater 
 as applied to believers is here for the first time pre- 
 scribed by an English Confession of Faith, and the 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 91' 
 
 year 1644 agrees with the Jessey Church Records, 
 which represent that immersion was first introduced 
 in 1641. If immersion had previously been in use, 
 it is very hard to understand why it should not have 
 been required in any of the previous Confessions. 
 The reason why it was first prescribed in 1644 is tO' 
 be found in the fact that it was not in use in England 
 until 1641. The Confession of 1644 is an enduring- 
 monument to the change that was made in 1641. 
 
 The Confession above mentioned, which for the 
 first time prescribes dipping, also carefully specifies 
 the manner in which it shall be performed, as fol- 
 lows: "The word baptizo signifies to dip or plunge 
 (yet so as convenient garments be both upon the 
 administrator and subject with all modesty)." Mani- 
 festly this direction about clothing was added because 
 it was to be apprehended that some might administer 
 the ordinance without having convenient garments 
 upon the administrator and subject. That circum- 
 stance indicates that the rite was still so new to them* 
 that the manner of performing it was as yet unset- 
 tled. Such precautions are not appended to Baptist 
 confessions in our day, because at present the way 
 and manner of dispensing the ordinance of baptism' 
 are so well understood that it can not be anticipated 
 that either the subject or the administrator shall be 
 without suitable garments. But they must have 
 been necessary on this occasion. This provision 
 likewise accords with the Jessey Church Records,. 
 
-92 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 •which show that immersion was first introduced into 
 England in 1641, and it is a monument of the re- 
 cent change from sprinkling to immersion. 
 
 That the name Baptist first came into use shortly 
 after 1641, is another evidence of the fact in ques- 
 tion. The name Anabaptist had long been re- 
 sented. The brethren frequently designated them- 
 selves as those who were "unjustly called Anabap- 
 tists" (Crosby, vol. 2, Appendix, p. 51). But so 
 long as their contention related merely to the sub- 
 jects of baptism they could never shake off the 
 name Anabaptists. Their act of baptism being the 
 same as that employed by other Christians, namely, 
 pouring and sprinkling, it was always described as 
 a mere repetition of baptism — as Anabaptism. But 
 when another act was introduced, namely, immersion, 
 it then became possible for the brethren to obtain a 
 new designation. Henceforth they were called "bap- 
 tized Christians" j!?a/' excellence^ and in due time Bap- 
 tists. The earliest instance in which this name occurs 
 as a denominational designation, so far as my infor- 
 mation goes, befell in the year 1644, three years after 
 immersion had been introduced. The Anabaptists 
 Groundwork for Reformation, 1644, p. 23, says: "I 
 ask T[homas] L[amb] and the rest of those Baptists, 
 or Dippers, that will not be called Anabaptists 
 (though they baptize some that have been twice bap- 
 tized before) what rule they have by word or exam- 
 ple in Scripture, for their going men and women to- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 93 
 
 gether into the water and for their manner of dip- 
 ping, and every circumstance and action they per- 
 form concerning the same." (Dexter, True Story, 
 p. 56). Baillie, in "Anabaptism the True Founda- 
 tion of Independency, etc.," London, 1646, p. 30, 
 says: "Many more of their women do venture to 
 preach among the Baptists than among the Brown- 
 ists in England." (Barclay, p. 157.) 
 
 Another instance in which the name occurs, be- 
 longs to the year 1654, when Mr. William Brit- 
 ten published a work entitled The Moderate Bap- 
 tist; briefly showing the Scripture-way for that initia- 
 tory sacrament of baptism, together with divers 
 queries, considerations, errors and mistakes, in and 
 about the work of religion. Wherein may appear that 
 the Baptists of our times held not those strange opin- 
 ions as many heretofore have done, etc, (Crosby, vol. 
 1, p. 254.) In the same year R. Farnsworth issued an 
 address: "To you that are called by the name of 
 Baptists or Baptized people, etc." (Dexter, True 
 Story, p. 97.) Cotton Mather in the Magnalia, Hart- 
 ford, 1820, vol. 2, p. 459, represents what seems to 
 have been the true state of the case when he says, 
 "Now they declared our infant baptism to be a mere 
 nullity and they arrogate unto themselves the title of 
 -Baptists, as if none were Jjciptized hut themselves.'''' 
 The name Baptist was in 1644 first claimed by our 
 people. They have claimed it ever since. 
 
 Another monument is the baptismal controversy. 
 
-94 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 It began shortly after 1641. Hitherto the Christian 
 world had moved almost together in reference to the 
 act of baptism so that there had been small occasion 
 for a baptismal controversy. For twelve centuries 
 they had stood so unitedly in favor of immersion that 
 the act of baptism was little discussed. For four 
 centuries later Western Christendom had moved so 
 uniformly in the direction of pouring and sprinkling 
 that men seldom contended for the original usage. 
 But now that a body of Christian people had risen 
 up to stem the tide of innovation and sail against the 
 current, there was serious business on hand. When 
 Edward Barber sent forth "A Small Treatise of 
 Baptisme or Dippincf a new note had been struck. 
 The man was here asserting against the whole of 
 Western Christendom that baptism is synonymous 
 with dipping; that there is no other baptism but 
 dij)pi7ig. He aimed to show "that the Lord Christ 
 ordained Dipping" and not sprinkling or pouring. 
 The claim that immersion is the only valid act of 
 baptism had been a long while unknown in England. 
 A. R. expressed the idea still more distinctly 
 on the title page of his "Treatise of the Yanity 
 
 of Childishe Baptism wherein is also proved 
 
 that Baptizing is Dipping and Dipping is Baptiz- 
 ing.'''' In other words he contended that immersion 
 is the exclusive act of baptism. For ages before this 
 time that contention had not been urged in England. 
 Here began the earliest notes of that baptismal con- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 95 
 
 troversy which is still with us. This controversy 
 opening at least as early as 1642 is a monument of 
 the introduction of immersion, an event, which ac- 
 cording to the Jessey Church Records took place in 
 1641. Prior to that date no English books have 
 been instanced which were written for the special 
 purpose of proving that imimersion alone is baptism; 
 after that date such works abound in England. No- 
 body wrote in favor of immersion as the exclusive 
 act ofhaptism prior to 1641, for the reason that no- 
 body in England at that period practiced immersion 
 alone for baptism: divers wrote in favor of it after 
 1641, for the reason that people began to practice it 
 there in 1641. The case of Leonard Busher does 
 not furnish an exception since it cannot be proven 
 that his work was published in England. Besides 
 it is devoted to another subject, and contains only a 
 brief reference to dipping. 
 
 Another evidence of the introduction of immer- 
 sion 1641 is contained in the fact that before that 
 time no instances are found where churches were 
 divided on this issue. They divided on other issues 
 but not upon this one. After 1641 it was not un- 
 usual for churches to divide about immersion.' B. 
 Ryves in Mercurius Rusticus, Oxford, 1646, p. 22, 
 gives a description of the condition of affairs at 
 Chelmsford in Essex, and informs us that: "Since 
 this Magnified Reformation was set on foot this 
 towne (as indeed most Corporations, as we find by 
 
96 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 experience are Nurceries of Faction and Rebellion) 
 is so filled with Sectaries, especially Brownists and 
 Anabaptists that a third part of the people refuse to 
 communicate in the Church-Lyturgie, and halfe re- 
 fuse to receive the blessed Sacrament, unlesse they 
 may receive it in vphat posture they please to take 
 it. They have amongst them two sorts of Anabap- 
 tists ; the one they call the Old Men or Aspersi, be- 
 cause they were but sprinkled : the other they call 
 the New Men or the Immersi because they were 
 overwhelmed in their Rebaptization." 
 
 N. Homes in his Vindication of Baptizing Believ- 
 ers' Infants, etc., 164:5, p. v. says: "One congre- 
 gation at first adding to their Infant Baptisme the 
 adult baptisme of sprinkling : then not resting there- 
 in, endeavoring to adde to that a dipping, even to 
 the breaking to pieces of their congregation." (Dex- 
 ter, True Story, pp. 47-8, note.) These divisions 
 are indications of the fact that immersion had been 
 introduced as asserted by the Jessey Church Records 
 in 1641. Many of the brethren would refuse to sub- 
 mit to the innovation and these drew away to them- 
 selves, leaving the immersion party in control of the 
 ground. Reasons are not wanting to support the 
 conclusion that the separation between the simple 
 Anabaptists and the Dippers was not completed un- 
 til about the year 1660 (Crosby, 3, 77). In some 
 cases it "broke to pieces the congregation," while 
 in others it resulted in the formation of "Open Bap- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 97 
 
 tist" churches, some of which still remain in Eng- 
 land as a monument of the introduction of immersion. 
 
 Prior to 1641 the followers of Murton and Helwvs 
 were in close relations with the Mennonites, and in 
 1626 a movement was set on foot looking to the 
 organic union of the two parties (Evans, vol. 2, pp. 
 24-30). After the year 1641 those relations were 
 entirely broken off, and it is claimed by the best 
 Mennonite scholarship that this alienation was 
 caused by the introduction of immersion. The 
 Mennonites being henceforward recognized as un- 
 baptized people were not disposed to continue the 
 fellowship and friendship that had hitherto prevailed. 
 (Scheffer, De Brownisten, p. 156). That separation 
 was one of the striking monuments of the rejection 
 of pouring and sprinkling, which had always been 
 practiced by Mennonites, and of the adoption of 
 immersion. 
 
 Another monument of the fact that immersion 
 was introduced into England in 1641 is found in the 
 alarm that was occasioned shortly afterwards re- 
 specting the effect of the ordinance upon the health 
 of the people who should submit to it. No records 
 have been produced of the existence of any such 
 feeling prior to the year 1641, for the reason that no 
 such custom as immersion then existed in England; 
 but after 1641 the apprehension was very sincere, even 
 though it was not very just. It was experienced by 
 such men as Richard Baxter and Walter Cradock, 
 
 7 
 
98 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 and was also considerably prevalent among the com- 
 mon people, who sometimes supposed that the Bap- 
 tists were a cruel and murderous sect merely because 
 they used immersion. In the year 1646 Mr. Samuel 
 Gates was tried for his life at Chelmsford because 
 Anne Martin died within a few weeks after she had 
 been baptized by him. (Crosby, vol. 1, pp. 236-8.) 
 This was the result of a wild and senseless panic, 
 but it was a panic that occurred because the ordi- 
 nance was so very new and as yet the public was but 
 little accustomed to it. A panic of that kind never 
 occurred at any other period in English history. 
 After a few years it would liave been found impos- 
 sible to produce an excitement of this sort, since the 
 people had then become better acquainted with the 
 practice of dipping and the effects of dipping upon 
 the health of those baptized. 
 
 An eighth monument of the change from sprin- 
 kling and pouring to immersion, is found in the 
 word "rhantise" which appears then to have first 
 come into use in English. When it first began to 
 be denied that sprinkling was baptizing, it became 
 necessary to declare in learned speech just what it 
 might be. The brethren were put upon distinctions; 
 they were compelled to find a name for sprinkling, 
 and since "baptize" was transferred from the Greek 
 language it was natural to look in that direction. 
 Accordingly the word "rhantize" was chosen. The 
 beginning of this movement in philology appears to 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 99 
 
 have been made by A. R[itor] in his "Treatise of the 
 Vanity of Childish-Baptisme," London, 1642, p. 11, 
 where he makes use of the original Greek word as 
 follows: "For a learned and approved Author has 
 noted the Greeke wants not words to express any 
 other act as well as dipping: If the institution could 
 beare it, upon Matt, 3,11, for the Greek to sprinkle 
 is pavTiZuf. Much humane authority, both ancient 
 and moderne, might be produced herein, all which 
 would be needlesse, seeing the Scripture itself is so 
 cleere in the point," etc. 
 
 Rev. Christopher Blackwood in his "Storming of 
 Antichrist in his strongest Garrisons, of compulsion 
 of conscience and Infants Baptisme," London, 1644, 
 appears to have improved upon the suggestion of 
 A. R. by transferring the Greek word to English. 
 Thereupon an anonymous author speedily issues a 
 work entitled "Mock Majesty, or the Siege of Muen- 
 ster, " London, 1644, and begins the preface as fol- 
 lows : "To the intelligent Reader, Baptized or lian- 
 tized : Thou must excuse me for this pretty new- 
 stamped word. It is pitty but it should signify 
 something in English. Whether it do so or no, it 
 is not a week since I first met with it, and that in a 
 way of scorn and contempt of the Baptism of our 
 Church (See Christopher Blackwood in his book en- 
 titled the Storming of Antichrist in his two strongest 
 holds, etc., very lately published)." There are other 
 indications in literature that the word was then first 
 
100 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 minted. Thomas Blake, who favored and practiced 
 the rite of pouring, says in his "Infants Baptism freed 
 from Antichristianism," London, 164:5, p. i: "I have 
 seen several dipped ; I never saw nor heard of any 
 sprinkled (or as some of you use to speak rantized.'''' 
 (Wall, History, vol. 2, 402). The word "rhantize" 
 is a monument of the change from sprinkling to 
 immersion, tliat, like the name Baptist, abides with 
 us still. 
 
 There are yet other monuments of that great 
 change ; but the eight that I have instanced above 
 will suffice to show that it produced an impression. 
 This impression was not confined to the age in which 
 the change occurred, but marks of it still are apparent 
 in our own age and every one of them is in harmony 
 with the Jessey Church Kecords which represent that 
 immersion was introduced again into England in the 
 year 1641. In particular, as long as the name Bap- 
 tist shall be uttered anywhere in the world it will 
 point back with unerring certainty to that famous 
 event in that famous "yeare of jubilee," as Edward 
 Barber phrases it. The name was not in use before 
 that period; it has been constantly applied as a de- 
 nominational designation to our people ever since 
 that date. 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 101 
 
 VIII. 
 MR. PRAISEGOD BAREBONE. 
 
 THIS excellent person was a contemporary and 
 an eyewitness of the event here under discus- 
 sion, and he confirms the testimony of the Jessey 
 Church Records in every particular. 
 
 Mr. Barebone was a famous and worthy man. 
 Few rise to such heights of influence and usefulness. 
 Born in London in 1596 he became one of the fore- 
 most notables of the Puritan party. Mr. Carlyle 
 says: "Braisegod, though he deals in leather, and 
 has a name which can be misspelt, one discerns to be 
 the son of Pious parents : to be himself a man of 
 piety, of understanding and weight — and even of 
 considerable private capital, my witty flunky friends. " 
 (Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, New York, 1847, 
 p. 196). He had a spacious private dwelling in 
 Fleet Street where he preached the gospel to a 
 church that was much devoted to the special friend 
 of Cromwell, and in many other ways he made a 
 distinguished figure in the England of his genera- 
 tion. 
 
 Some have claimed that he was a Baptist preach- 
 er ; but Ivimey is not certain on this point (History, 
 vol. 1, p. 157). The Baptist Encyclopaedia on the 
 
102 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 contrary has no doubt of the correctness of it. In 
 its biography of him as set forth under his name it 
 styles him a "Baptist minister," "our worthy bro- 
 ther" who was "unquestionably a godly and a great 
 man." High praise from competent Baptist author- 
 ity. 
 
 This great man gave his name to one of the Par- 
 liaments of England — that convened by Oliver Crom- 
 well on the fourth of July, 1653, Whether that 
 was done as a tribute to his authority in the Parlia- 
 ment, as the Baptist Encyclopaedia has intimated, or 
 merely as an expression of the popular wit, it was a 
 more important achievement than many men have 
 been able to perform. To be called by Cromwell to 
 sit in the Parliament, was a worthy distinction ; to 
 get the Parliament called in his honor was a much 
 higher distinction. 
 
 It is true that the Baptist Encyclopaedia has blun- 
 dered in claiming Mr. Barebone as a Baptist minis- 
 ter, yet it was not a very great blunder. There was 
 some reason for this conclusion, for he was closely 
 connected with the Baptists, having been a member 
 of the Jessey Church prior to the year 1640. When 
 Mr. Jessey began to lean towards the Anabaptists, 
 Barebone resisted him, for the reason that he desired 
 to stand upon the Independent foundation which 
 the Church had occupied from the beginning. He 
 was able to give effect to his resistance by dividing 
 the ancient church and taking just half of it away 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY 103 
 
 from Mr. Jessey in the month of May, 1640, as the 
 Jessey Church Records affirm, leaving the other half 
 to follow Mr. Jessey in due season into the Baptist 
 fold. 
 
 It is likely that Barebone knew personally every 
 member of Jessey 's Church and had canvassed them 
 over and over again during the schism which he pro- 
 duced in May, 1640. There can be little question 
 that he knew Mr. Richard Blunt by heart. He may 
 indeed have heard something of the project to send 
 him into Holland that he might fetch immersion 
 over seas. At any rate when that practice was in- 
 troduced among them in the year 1641 — "the yeare 
 of jubilee" — Mr. Barebone got upon the track of it 
 almost as soon as anybody else in England. This 
 marked change struck him very forcibly, since adult 
 immersion was unknown in England in 1640. The 
 Jessey Church Records declared with perfect truth 
 and decision "none having then so practiced in Eng- 
 land to professed believers," and he knew that 
 every word of it was true. Therefore Barebone con- 
 firmed every word of the Jessey Records. 
 
 And he was an unexceptionable witness. He had 
 much ability, combined with high station and high 
 character. His information was adequate; nobody 
 outside of the Jessey Church itself was likely to 
 know as much as he knew regarding the transaction. 
 Moreover his friendship for the Baptists was so con- 
 spicuous that eminent Baptist writers, still affirm, 
 
104 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 though incorrectly, that he was a Baptist minister. 
 Such a witness must command attention and respect 
 when he testifies of the great change that took place 
 just under his eyes. He sat down immediately and 
 wrote the first treatise that appeared against immer- 
 sion in the baptismal controversy. The full title of 
 his pamphlet is: A Discourse Tending to prove the 
 Baptisme in or under tlie Defection of Antichrist to 
 be the Ordinance of Jesus Christ, as also That the 
 Baptisme of Infants or Children is Warrantable and 
 Agreeable to the Word of God, Where the per- 
 petuity of the estate of Christ's Church in the 
 world, and the Everlastingnesse of the Covenant of 
 Almighty God to Abraham are set forth as Maine 
 Grounds, and sundry other particular things are 
 controverted and discussed. By P. B. [Leather- 
 seller in Fleet Street]. London. Printed by R. 
 Oulton and G. Dexter, and are to be sold by Benja- 
 min Allen over against the signe of the Angell in 
 Pope's Head Alley, 1642. 
 
 In the copy that was handed me at the Library of 
 the British Museum in the summer of 1880, the 
 words ''''Leather-seller in Meet Street,'''' which I have 
 inclosed in brackets above, were written with ink 
 upon the title page in the hand of Mr. Thomason, 
 the bookseller who collected the King's Pamphlets. 
 This shows that P. B. stands for Praisegod Bare- 
 bone, who was famous everywhere in that character. 
 The opinion of Thomason on this point may not be 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 105 
 
 infallible, but no reason has ever been suggested for 
 •calling it in question. 
 
 Mr. Barebone's contention is that the baptism 
 which both the Independents and the Anabaptists 
 had received in or under the defection of Antichrist 
 — a baptism by pouring or sprinkling — was the or- 
 dinance of Jesus Christ; that it was good enough 
 for all uses, and that there was no kind of propriety 
 in introducing this new baptism by dipping. My 
 citation from the above work as contained in a man- 
 uscript copy taken on the spot in July, 1880, is as 
 follows: 
 
 "But now very lately some are mightily taken 
 as having found out a new defect in the Baptisme 
 .under the defection, which maketh such a nullitie of 
 Baptisme in their conceit that it is none at all, and 
 it is concerning the manner of Baptizing wherein 
 they have espyed such default as it maketh an abso- 
 lute nullity of all person's Baptisme but such as 
 have been so Baptized according to their new dis- 
 covery; and so partly as before in regard of the sub- 
 ject and partly in regard of so great default in the 
 manner: They not only conclude as is before sayd 
 a nullity of their present Baptisme, And so but ad- 
 •dresse themselves to be Baptized a third time after 
 the true way and manner they have found out, which 
 they account a precious truth. The particular of 
 their opinion and practice is to Dip, and that persons 
 .are to be Dipped, all and every part to be under the 
 
106 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 water, for if all the whole person be not under the 
 water then thej hold they are not Baptized with the 
 Baptisme of Christ. As for sprinkling or pouring 
 water on the face it is nothing at all as they account, 
 and so measuring themselves by these new thoughts 
 as unbaptized they addresse themselves to take it up 
 after the manner of Dipping: but truly they want 
 [lack] a Dipper that hath authority from heaven, as 
 had John whom they please to call a Dipper, of 
 whom it is sayd that it might be manifested his Bap- 
 tisme was from heaven. A man can receive noth- 
 ing, that is, lawful authority or power to Baptize,, 
 unlesse it be given from heaven, which I desire they 
 would be pleased to mind and they will easily see 
 their third baptism is from the earth and not from 
 heaven as John's was. And if this case be further 
 considered it will appeare at the most to be but a 
 defect in the manner and a coming short in the 
 quantity of the Element. It is a wonderful thing 
 that a nullity should thereof follow forthwith, of 
 which more may be seen in the same case before. 
 Againe that the substance of an Ordinance of so 
 high a nature and great concernment should be 
 founded in the criticknesse of a word and in the 
 quantity of an element is no lesse marveilous, to say 
 no more. Oh but Baptisme is a Buriall as it is 
 written, We are buried with him in Baptisme, etc., 
 and we are raised up also to newnesse of life. This 
 Buriall and resurrection only Dipping can import 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. lOT 
 
 and hold forth But inasmuch as this is a 
 
 very new way, and'the full growth of it and settling 
 is not yet known, if it be to themselves, yet not to 
 me and others: I will forbeare to say further to it." 
 (pp. 12, 13, 15.) 
 
 Let it be remembered that in the year 1640 the 
 Jessey Church Records declare that there was no- 
 immersion of adults in England — "none having then 
 so practiced in England to professed believers." 
 They also affirm that in 1641 immersion was intro- 
 duced from Holland. 
 
 This work of Mr. Barebone, written in the year 
 1642, agrees exactly with those declarations. The 
 above extracts show conclusively that a '-'•neio bajy- 
 tism'''' had been '-'•very lately'''' introduced, that it was 
 not the old rebaptism, but involved a '''-new dis- 
 cove'nf which related to the '-Hrue way and 'manner''' 
 of baptizing, and that this '■Hrue way and mangier''' 
 was '-''to Dip^ and that persons are to he Dipjxid^ oM 
 and every part to he under the Water.'''' In order to 
 avail themselves of this new baptism the parties 
 were compelled to renounce two former baptisms, 
 one administered when they were infants in the 
 Church of England, and the other when they became 
 Anabaptists and joined Mr. Spilsbury's church dur- 
 ing or after the year 1633. The reason for renounc- 
 ing that second baptism is asserted to be that they 
 now accounted '■'■sjjriiiMiiuj or pouring water on the 
 face to he nothing at all.,'''' and hence regarded them- 
 
108 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 selves "«s unhajptizedy It was on this account 
 alone that they "addressed themselves to take it up 
 after the manner of Dipping." 
 
 If these citations do not demonstrate that up to a 
 period immediately preceding the year 1642, the 
 parties concerned were in the practice of sprinkling 
 or pouring for baptism; that they then made a "new 
 discovery" of the "true way and manner" of bap- 
 tizing; that this "true way and manner" was by 
 "dipping all and every part of the body under 
 water," and that in order to obtain this "new Dip- 
 ping" they had to renounce two former baptisms, 
 then human speech is worthless as a vehicle of ex- 
 pression; it will be impossible for anybody to set 
 forth definite ideas by that means. Taken in con- 
 nection with all the facts about the history of bap- 
 tism in England and the declarations of the Jessey 
 Church Records, this testimony of Mr. Barebone 
 •constitutes an irrefragable proof. No ingenuity of 
 the mind of man can overthrow it. 
 
 The above treatise of Mr. Barebone apparently met a 
 speedy reply from the very man who of all others we 
 .should expect to enter the list against him. Richard 
 Blunt, who had gone to Holland to obtain immer- 
 sion took up his pen and probably before the close 
 of the year 1642 issued a printed work which up to 
 this moment, so far as I know, has not been recov- 
 -ered. It might throw a desirable light on these dis- 
 cussions if it could be produced, and it is worthy of 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 109' 
 
 diligent search in manj libraries. Its exact title can 
 not be given : all that we know of it is found in the 
 following work by P. B[arebone] : A Reply to the 
 Frivolous and impertinent Answer of R. B. to the 
 Discourse of P. B.^ in which Discourse is shewed 
 that the Baptisme in the Defection of Antichrist is 
 the ordinance of God, notwithstanding the corrup- 
 tions that attend the same, and that the Baptisme of 
 Infants is lawful, both of which are vindicated from 
 the exceptions of R. B., and further cleared by the 
 same author [i. e., P. B.]. There is also a reply in 
 way of Answer to some exceptions of E[dward] 
 B[arber] against the same. London, 1643. (Dex- 
 ter, True Story, p. 88.) 
 
 Dr. Dexter supplies a citation from this book, as 
 follows, pp. 19, 30, 31, 61: ^'-New things are very 
 pleasant, and many are much taken with them, as is 
 R. B. with d'qyping; about which he taketh great 
 
 paines, produceth many scriptures, etc What 
 
 should be the cause R. B. hath laboured so much in 
 this matter of dipping, and taken notice of every 
 particular, I leave every man free to judge: for my 
 part, I take it to be, as I said before: It is neio and 
 the man is mightily taken with it. [He goes on to 
 charge R. B. with] denying the Baptisme of all 
 the Reformed Churches and separed [separated] 
 Churches, and also of all other Christians, Either 
 Reformed or yet in defection, only those ttao or three 
 [Churches] excepted that have within these two or 
 
110 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 three yeeres or some such time hin totally dipped for 
 Baptisine by persons at the beginning unbaptized 
 themselves." [Further in referring to Barber's book 
 he cites his taunt: "the Church P. B. is a member 
 of was uniieard of till within these 200 yeeres," and 
 replied] : "Well; 200 yeeres is some antiquitie, more 
 than tivo or three yeeres^ such as is the descent of the 
 totall dippers in this Icing dome.'''' (True Story, p. 49.) 
 
 This passage confirms and clinches what Mr. Bare- 
 bone had reported in the previous book. Dipping 
 was never taken for granted by him. It was always 
 for him a "new thing." The "descent of the totall 
 dippers in this kingdome" of England according to 
 his most accurate information was no longer than 
 "two or three yeeres, or some such short time." 
 
 All this harmonizes to a nicety with the Jessey 
 Church Records. That official testimony is confirm- 
 ed by an authority in this instance that no man can 
 gainsay ; distinguished alike for ability, position, 
 opportunities, information and friendly temper to- 
 wards the Baptists ; so friendly that the Baptist 
 Encyclopaedia claims him for a Baptist minister, 
 while it justly honors him as "unquestionably a 
 godly and a great man." 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. Ill 
 
 IX. 
 
 SEVEN BAPTIST WITNESSES. 
 
 ^^ TV TONE having then so practiced in England 
 IN to professed believers." All the Baptist 
 witnesses brought forward here agree with the Jes- 
 sey Church Kecords that there was a time in Eng- 
 land when the immersion of adult believers had be- 
 come extinct, while one or two of them will be 
 found to indicate the date when it was introduced 
 again, 
 
 Edward Barber was a well-known Baptist minis- 
 ter, who in 1641 published a work with the follow- 
 ing title: A Small Treatise of Baptisme or Dipping, 
 Wherein is Cleerly showed that the Lord Christ Or- 
 •dained Dipping for those only that prof esse Repent- 
 ance and Faith. 1. Proved by Scriptures. 2. By 
 Arguments. 3. A Parallel Betwixt Circumcision 
 and Dipping. 4. An Answere to some Objections 
 by P. B. Psal. 119, 130. By Edward Barber. 
 Printed in the Yeere 1641. 
 
 In this treatise Mr. Barber handles two several 
 propositions, first that the Lord Christ ordained dip- 
 ping and not sprinkling or pouring as the act of 
 baptism, and second that he ordained dipping for 
 those only that profess faith in Christ and not for 
 
112 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 immature infants. Both bis positions are duly argued 
 and the discussion is worthy of respect, notwith- 
 standing the fact that the first question had not pre- 
 viously been discussed by any author in England, at 
 least for a very long period of time. The author de- 
 votes more space to the discussion of infant baptism, 
 apparently for the reason that to his mind the proofs- 
 in favor of immersion were so clear that they did 
 not require to be specially elaborated. 
 
 I have a manuscript copy of the material portions 
 of this pamphlet, all that I use in this discussion, 
 but unfortunately it omits to set down the paging 
 of the original, and therefore I shall be compelled 
 to indicate by other means the places whence my 
 citations are drawn. The first of these falls at the 
 beginning of TheTreface. The words are as follows: 
 "Beloved Keader, it may seem strange that in these 
 times when such abundance of Knowledge of the 
 Gospell is professed in the World, that there should 
 notwithstanding be generally such ignorance, espe- 
 cially in and amongst those that professe themselves-. 
 Ministers thereof, of that glorious principle True 
 Baptuine or Dipj^ing^ Ephe. 4, 5, Instituted by the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, which all that look for life and 
 salvation by him ought to be partakers of; it being 
 that onely which was received by the Apostles and 
 Primitive Churches, and for a long time unviolably 
 kept and practiced by the Ministerie of the Gospel 
 in the planting of the first Churches, and that the 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 113 
 
 Lord should raise up mee a poore Tradesman to de- 
 vulge this glorious Truth, to the World's Censur- 
 ing." 
 
 The author here represents that though abundance 
 of knowledge of the gospel was claitned, yet in the 
 year 1641 there was general ignorance of true bap- 
 tism or dipping, not only among the laity, but espe- 
 cially among the ministry of the gospel. If there 
 was such general ignorance of the dipping of be- 
 lievers, even among the clergy, the practice could 
 not have been employed in England at that time. 
 Manifestly it had become extinct before tliat time. 
 That this is his meaning is rendered apparent by the 
 last section of the pamphlet, which is devoted to "An 
 Answere to some Objections by F. B." It has been 
 shown that Barebone had charged that: "truly they 
 want [lack] a Dipper that hath authority from heaven 
 as had John, whom they please to call a Dipper. " His 
 objection was that if baptism was extinct, as it was 
 asserted to be, nobody had authority to restore it 
 except one who had received a divine commission 
 for that purpose. To that contention Mr. Barber 
 replied in his "Answere to Some Objections by P. 
 B." as follows: "2, We grant the Ordinance being 
 lost, none but a Christ, a Moses, Elias or a Prophet 
 from heaven can raise it; but beleevers having 
 Christ, the Word and Spirit have this," etc. 
 
 Here it is conceded by Mr. Barber that the ordi- 
 nance was lost, but that believers having Christ, the 
 
114 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 Word and Spirit had received a divine commission to 
 introduce it again just as truly as Moses or John the 
 Baptist had received commissions from the Lord. 
 
 A little farther on he states the matter with yet 
 more distinctness: "But put the case the Babilon- 
 ians had destroyed the Lord's Vessels and instead 
 had made them of Brase, Copper, Tin or Lead, 
 whereas they were to be of pure Gold and Silver ; 
 had they beene then the Lord's Vessels, or would 
 his people have used them in his service and wor- 
 ship, or brought them backe, Ezra 1. 11, or would 
 the Lord have accepted them for his own Vessels? 
 And thus it stands in truth for the Dipping of Christ, 
 destroyed and raced out hoth for matter and forme^ 
 as hath been formerly shewed, the matter being a 
 believer desiring it, the true forme dipping them 
 into Jesus Christ,'' etc. 
 
 Whatever else may be said of Edward Barber, it 
 can never be claimed that in this Small Treatise he 
 takes immersion for granted. That is the very 
 thing that he does not do. On the contrary, he de- 
 clares in terms that the world was ignorant of it, for 
 the reason that it had been '•'- destroyed and raced out 
 hoth for matter and forme.'''' 
 
 Mr. Barber also indicates the exact time when it 
 was introduced again. His book bears the date of 
 1641, and in it he claims the distinguished honor "to 
 devulge this glorious Truth to the World's Censur- 
 ing." Nobody in recent times had divulged it in 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 115 
 
 England. His book was the first in modern ages to 
 make it known to the English public. The annals 
 of English literature will be searched in vain for a 
 volume that precedes it in date and yet maintains 
 that nothing else is true baptism but immersion. 
 That view was familiar enough in apostolic days ; but 
 it had long since been ^''destroyed and raced ouf in 
 England. Therefore when Mr. Barber employed the 
 word "divulge" he meant precisely what he said ; it 
 suited to a nicety the facts of the situation. It has 
 been claimed that Mr. Barber did not know all the 
 circumstances and that there might have been some 
 instances of immersion upon profession of faith in 
 various portions of the country that he was not aware 
 of ; but nobody has anywhere brought forward one 
 of these instances, and until that point is clearly 
 demonstrated it may give us no concern. 
 
 At the close of his Preface, Mr. Barber begins his 
 "Small Treatise of Dipping ; Wherein is clearly 
 shewed that the Lord Christ ordained Dipping for 
 those onely that profest Faith and Repentance : 
 1, Proved by Scripture from the Commission of 
 Christ and practice of the Apostles and Primitive 
 Churches." The author's discussion as presented 
 in this the main body of his tract confirms at every 
 point the position I have taken. 
 
 His earnest care is to demonstrate at the outset 
 the truth of the first proposition, namely, that the 
 Lord Christ ordained dipping. He accomplished 
 
116 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 that design by citing the Saviour's commission as 
 set forth in Matthew and Mark and bj translating 
 the Greek word baptize which occurs there instead 
 of transferring it into English. He says: "The 
 Lord Jesus Christ in that great Charter of the Holy 
 Gospel, Mt. 28.18.19.20, having received all power 
 in Heaven and Earth, saith, Goe, and make Dis- 
 ciples, all Nations, dipping them in the Name of the 
 Father, and of the Sonne, and of the Holy Spirit, 
 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
 have commanded you. And lo I am with you alway, 
 even to the end of the world. 
 
 "And Marke 16.15, he saith : Goe yee into all the 
 world and preach the Gospel to every creature, he 
 that shall beleeve and bee dipped shall be saved: but 
 he that will not beleeve shall be damned." 
 
 This was an excellent argument in favor of im- 
 mersion as the exclusive mode of baptism. The 
 correct translation of the word baptize in the great 
 commission and other passages of Scripture should 
 always settle the question without further discussion, 
 
 Mr. Barber next proceeds to a summing up in which 
 he sets forth both the propositions of his contention 
 as follows: "Thus it is cleare that the Lord Christ 
 commanded his Apostles, and servants of the Gospel, 
 first of all to teach and thereby to gather Disciples : 
 And afterwards to dip those that were taught and 
 instructed in the mysteries of the Gospell, upon the 
 manifestation of their faith : which practice ought to 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 117 
 
 continue to the end of the world, Matth. 28. 20. 
 Ephs. 4. 5. Heb. 13. 8." 
 
 Mr. Barber next presents other proofs drawn from 
 the practice of the Apostles, that dipping is the 
 only mode of baptism as follows: "Secondly, that 
 the Apostles according to this commission of Christ 
 did alwayes practise, Acts 2. 36. 37. 38. Peter lift 
 up his voice and said to the Jewes, Let all the house 
 of Israel know for a certainty, that God hath made 
 this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and 
 Christ ; now when they heard this they were pricked 
 in their hearts, and said unto Peter and the rest of 
 the Apostles, men and bretheren, whatt shall we doe; 
 Then Peter said unto them, Kepent and be dipt 
 every one of you." 
 
 Still other passages are brought forward by Mr. 
 Barber to prove that dipping exclusively is true bap- 
 tism and likewise that it should be administered to 
 believers alone. As the earliest effort made in the 
 England of modern times to show that immersion is 
 essential to Christian baptism it must be conceded 
 that his argument is both direct and effective. A 
 simple translation of the Greek word into the corre- 
 sponding English ought to be sufiicient to convince 
 any mind. 
 
 Barber himself was so much pleased with his 
 achievement in this connection and so well persuad- 
 ed that he had carried his point and convinced all 
 opponents that in the balance of his treatise, which 
 
118 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 he devotes to an argument against infant baptism, he 
 almost uniformly takes leave to speak of baptism as 
 dipping and of infant baptism as infant dipping, 
 although he is sensible of the fact that infant dip- 
 ping was not then customary in the Church of Eng- 
 land ; for only a few lines below the quotation about 
 "the Dipping of Christ being destroyed and raced 
 out," he adds, "Therefore though in words you 
 denie traditions, yet for the sprinkling of Infants 
 you have no better Arguments." 
 
 More extended experience was calculated to teach 
 him that his position could not be carried by storm 
 in this fashion. He opened his fight very bravely; 
 but it was destined to be a longer and a harder fight 
 than he apprehended. Believers' baptism and dip- 
 ping had both been too long extinct in England to 
 be restored on the spur of the moment : on the con- 
 trary it would require ages of patience and exertion 
 to restore them. But the matter of special concern 
 in connection with his pamphlet is that he confesses 
 and declares without any qualification whatsoever 
 that "the Dipping of Christ was destroyed and raced 
 out hoth for matter and forme^ as hath beene for- 
 merly shewed, the matter being a beleever desiring 
 it, the forme dipping them into Jesus Christ." 
 Whatever quibbles may be raised about other ques- 
 tions none can be raised about this one. The or- 
 dinance was extinct in England in 1641, if Barber's 
 authority is worth anything at all, and if the plain- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 119 
 
 est statements of fact are capable of bein^ under- 
 stood by the human mind. 
 
 As was intimated above, A. R., was the second 
 Baptist author who appeared in defense of immer- 
 sion in the baptismal controversy of modern ages. 
 To the first edition of the Dippers Dipt, Dr. Feat- 
 ley has prefixed a letter "To my Reverend and much 
 esteemed Friend, Mr. John Downam," in which he 
 sets down the name of A. R. as A. Ritor. I have 
 no further acquaintance with A. Ritor; but this in- 
 formation, derived from a contemporary, is worthy 
 of more attention than has been bestowed upon it 
 hitherto. The work of A. R. which comes under 
 notice in this place is entitled : The Second Part of 
 the Yanity and Childishness of Infants Baptisme. 
 London, 1642. On page 29 of this Second PaH^ 
 Dr. Dexter has found the following quotation which 
 demonstrates that A. R. did not take immersion for 
 granted: "If any shall thinke it strange and unlikely 
 that all the godliest Divines and best Churches 
 should be thus deceived on this point of Baptisme 
 for so many yeares together [i. e., as never before 
 to know that true baptism is dipping and dipping 
 alone true baptism]: let them consider that all Chris- 
 tendome (except here and there one, or some few, 
 or no considerable number) was swallowed up in 
 grosse Popery for many hundred y.eares before 
 Luther's time, which was not until about 100 yeares 
 agone." (Dexter, True Story, p. 49.) 
 
120 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 Apparently he had reference to the general ig- 
 norance both among the ministry and laity "of that 
 glorious principle True Baptisme or Dipping" which 
 Edward Barber had remarked upon. That ignorance 
 is conceded; they were "deceived on this point of 
 Baptisme" for the reason that immersion had now 
 become extinct, and sprinkling had been substituted 
 in the place of it. A. R. merely endeavors to ex- 
 plain the process by which such an unhappy change 
 had been brought about. He does not, like Edward 
 Barber, specify the exact time when immersion was 
 again introduced, but we know from other sources that 
 this had occurred before he came forth with his 
 book in the year 1642. 
 
 Thomas Kilcop, one of the brethren who sub- 
 scribed the Confession of faith in the year 1644, 
 published A Short Treatise of Baptisme, Wherein 
 is declared that only Christ's disciples or believers 
 are to be baptized, etc., London, 1642. The ar- 
 gument of Praisegod Barebone to the effect that 
 they lacked a Dipper that hath authority from heaven 
 as had John the Baptist, arrested the attention of 
 Mr. Kilcop and he proceeded to answer it by an ex- 
 cellent argumentum ad hominem as follows: "Every 
 Scripture that gives you warrant, or any of your 
 judgement, to erect a Church state, gives us the same 
 warrant to erect baptisme, sith the one can not be 
 done without the other, for none can put on Christ 
 (that is visibly by outward profession) but such as 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 121 
 
 :are baptized into Christ," etc, (Dexter, True Story, 
 p. 48). 
 
 One of our moderns would have denied out of 
 hand that adult immersion had ever become extinct 
 in England; but Mr. Kilcop knew more about the 
 matter. He conceded that point without any ques- 
 tion, and argued that even though immersion had 
 become extinct the Baptists had as much right "to 
 erect baptisme" as the Independents had "to erect 
 a Church state," It would be impossible for a man 
 to urge an argument like this, who took immersion 
 for granted; on the contrary, that was the very 
 thing he did not take for granted. Mr. Kilcop is in 
 exact agreement with the Jessey Church Records in 
 allowing that immersion on profession of faith had 
 become extinct in England. 
 
 Rev. Henry Denne was a Baptist minister of much 
 learning and worship — our pulpit has rarely enjoyed 
 a more worthy ornament. This excellent brother 
 wrote an able reply to Dr. Featley and Mr. Marshall 
 under the following title : Antichrist Unmasked in 
 two Treatises. The First An Answer unto two Baedo- 
 baptists, Dan. Featley, D.D., and Stephen Mar- 
 shall, B.D. The Arguments for Children's Bap- 
 tisme opened and answered. The Second, The man 
 of Sinne discovered in Doctrine: The root and 
 foundation of Antichrist laid open. By Hen. Denne. 
 Printed for the Edification of the Church and Infor- 
 mation of the world. London, 1645. (April 1st.) 
 
122 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 Mr. Denne's testimony is as follows: "When the 
 Woman cloathed with the Sun having the Moon un- 
 der her feet and a Crowne of twelve Stars upon her 
 head, crjed travailing in birth ready to be delivered, 
 Behold a wonder in Heaven, A great red Dragon 
 having seven heads and ten homes, and seven 
 crownes upon his heads; And his Tayle drew the 
 third part of the stars of heaven and cast them to 
 the Earth: And the Dragon stood before the woman 
 which was ready to be delivered to devour her childe 
 when she had brought it forth Our own ex- 
 perience teacheth us in these our dayes, wherein the 
 shadowes begin to vanish and the night to passe 
 away, and the Sun of Righteousness to draw neare 
 unto our Horizon, How Many adversaries doe now 
 bestirre themselves, with policy and force, etc, 
 Among the rest the Church is now travail- 
 ing ready to be delivered and to bring forth the 
 Doctrine of the Bajytisme of Water, raked up here- 
 tofore in an imitation of Pedobaptisme: The truth 
 of the Ordinance and Institution of the Lord Jesus, 
 lying covered with Custome and Practice and a pre- 
 tended Face of Antiquity" pp. 1, 2. 
 
 This statement made in April 164:5 "that the Church 
 was travailing ready to bring forth the doctrine of the- 
 Baptisme of Water " agrees admirably with the dec- 
 laration of the Jessey Church Records that immersion 
 was restored to England first in 1641. That Water 
 Baptisme had been "raked up heretofore in an im- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 125- 
 
 itation of Fedobaptisme" amounts to a concession 
 that the baptism employed hitherto by Mr. Denne's 
 associates had been an imitation of the rite that then 
 prevailed among the Pedo baptists, which rite was 
 pouring and sprinkling. 
 
 Mr. John Mabbatt, also one of the parties who sub- 
 scribed the Confession of Faith in 1644, undertook 
 to reply to the pamphlet of Mr. I. Knutton, entitled: 
 Seven Questions about the Controversie betweene- 
 the Church of England and the Separatists and Ana- 
 baptists, etc., London, 1644. (Dexter, True Story, 
 p. 89.) In that place (p. 23) Mr. Knutton had said 
 "this opinion [of rebaptizing by dipping] being but 
 7iew and upstart^ there is good reason they should 
 disclairae it and be humbled for it." Dexter, True 
 Story, p. 50.) No finer opportunity was ever pre- 
 sented to deny a charge with indignation if it had 
 been untrue. Mr. Mabbatt wrote "A Brief e or Gen- 
 erall Reply unto Mr. Knutton's Answers unto the 
 YII. Questions," etc., London, 1645 (Dexter, True 
 Story, p. 90), in which, on p. 22, he not only fails- 
 to deny, but actually concedes the correctness of the 
 allegation, and defends himself by saying: "The 
 Apostles were in their time charged for 'new and 
 upstart' Doctrine by some; should they by good rea- 
 son therefore disclayme it, and be humbled for it, 
 and so have denyed Christ's doctrine and Truth, "^ 
 etc. (Dexter, True Story, p. 50.) Mr. Mabbatt is 
 here in agreement with the Jessey Church Records- 
 
124 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 to the effect that none had practiced immersion be- 
 fore 1641, It would have been impossible for him 
 to offer this reply if he had known that believers' 
 immersion had never become extinct in England. 
 He concedes that point without discussion. 
 
 When the great change from pouring and sprin- 
 kling to immersion was about to be introduced three 
 parties were formed in England. Crosby says one 
 of these believed "that the first administrator should 
 baptize himself and then proceed to the baptizing of 
 others. Others were for sending to those foreign 
 Protestants that had used immersion for some time, 
 that so they might receive it from them. And others 
 again thought it not necessary to baptism that the 
 administrator be himself baptized at least in an ex- 
 traordinary case; but that whoever saw such a refor- 
 mation necessary, might from the authority of Scrip- 
 ture lawfully begin it." (Crosby, vol. 1, p. 97.) 
 This latter party is claimed to have comprised the 
 greatest number and the more judicious of the peo- 
 ple concerned. (Crosby, vol. 1, p. 103.) 
 
 That sort of party alignment would be inexplicable 
 except upon the ground that immersion, which had 
 been in disuse in England was brought forward again 
 about 1641. It consitutes one of the numerous 
 monuments of the change from pouring to dipping. 
 Mr. John Spilsbury stood at the head of this third 
 and largest party. His judgment as set forth in the 
 title of one of his books (Dexter, True Story, p. 95) 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 125 
 
 was tliat "the Covenant, not Baptism, forms the 
 Church," namely, that persons who have entered 
 into a church covenant acquire ijMo facto a right to 
 perform and enjoy every ordinance; or that when 
 the ordinances are kicking they may always be re- 
 stored by the mere process of setting up a church 
 covenant, since "God's ordinance is the saint's privi- 
 lege." 
 
 Mr. Praisegod Barebone delivered an assault 
 against that position in a pamphlet styled A De- 
 fense of the Lawfulnesse of Baptizing Infants, in 
 answer to Something by John Spilsberie against the 
 same. By P. B. London, 1644 (Gould, Introduc- 
 tion, p. cxviii). In that place he says of Mr. Spils- 
 bury: "He holds that a church maybe Christ's with- 
 out Baptism, as in his Book may be seen," and de- 
 sires him to prove "that ever any unbaptized person 
 after Baptisme was afoot in the world baptized or 
 
 was authorized for to do it And lastly whether 
 
 his practice of raising and beginning the Church of 
 unbaptized persons, do agree with the primitive 
 practice of our Lord and his Apostles that began the 
 church of baptized matter as before." (Gould, pp. 
 cxviii-cxix.) 
 
 If immersion had always been in vogue in Eng- 
 land Spilsbury could have resented these charges; but 
 he takes no such position. He tacitly concedes the 
 point that he himself, who was now one of the foremost 
 leaders of English Baptists, was unbaptized and 
 
126 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 makes an argument to prove "that baptizednesse is 
 not essential to an Administrator." (Gould, p. cxix.) 
 That position would have been out of the question 
 for a man who was all the while taking immersion for 
 granted. On the contrary he knew that immersion 
 was only recently adopted in England ; and that he 
 himself had never received it, though he was daily 
 immersing other people. 
 
 Mr. John Tombes, the most learned and able 
 Baptist scholar of that generation, was one of the 
 leading defenders of the position assumed by Spils- 
 bury and his followers, to the effect that it was not 
 necessary to fetch immersion from Holland but that 
 "whoever saw such a reformation necessary, might 
 from the authority of Scripture lawfully begin it." 
 He says in An Addition to the Apology for two 
 Treatises, 1652, p. 10 : "If no continuance of adult 
 baptism can be proved, and baptism by such persons 
 is wanting, yet I conceive what many Protestant 
 writers do yield when they are pressed by the Papists 
 to show the calling of the first reformers ; that after 
 an universal corruption^ the necessity of the thing 
 doth justify the persons that reform, though wanting 
 an ordinary regular calling ; will justify in such a 
 case both the lawfulness of the minister's baptizing 
 that hath not been rightly baptized himself, and the 
 sufficiency of that baptism to the person so bap- 
 tized." (Crosby, vol. 1, pp. 104-5). Mr. Tombes 
 •does not take immersion for granted. He concedes 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 127 
 
 an universal corruption such as existed before 1641, 
 when adult immersion was not yet restored in Eng- 
 land, and is in agreement with the facts as set forth 
 on that point by the Jessey Church Records. 
 
 The above citations constitute a sevenfold cord of 
 Baptist testimony to the fact that the immersion of 
 believers had become extinct in England before the 
 year 1640, and that it was introduced again in the 
 year 1641. It is not the testimony of enemies but 
 the witness of friends who were on the spot, and 
 doing what they could to promote the Baptist inter- 
 est. Some of them had great learning, and all had 
 •exact information. If we cannot trust them about a 
 matter of contemporary fact it is useless to prosecute 
 historical investigations of any sort. We may as 
 well close the books, and proceed to evolve our his- 
 torical conclusions entirely from our own concious- 
 ness without any reference to the events that have 
 taken place in the world. 
 
128 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 X. 
 
 SOME OUTSIDE WITNESSES. 
 
 TO MY thinking the argument is now complete 
 and conclusive without the addition of another 
 word. But there are certain witnesses standing out- 
 side of Baptist circles who are entitled to be heard. 
 It is conceded that they have their prejudices and 
 limitations; but they were eyewitnesses, men of 
 ability and learning, and very capable of confirming 
 truth that has been abundantly established by other 
 testimony. One of these is Dr. Daniel Featley, 
 whose testimony has already been sufficiently dis- 
 cussed in a previous chapter to which the reader is 
 respectfully referred. His book entitled The Dip- 
 pers Dipt clearly shows that adult immersion was a 
 new practice in England when it was published in 
 
 164:4:. 
 
 Another author is Robert Baillie, the full title of 
 whose work is as follows: Anabaptism the True 
 Fountaine of Independency, Brownisme, Antinomy 
 Familisme. And most of the other Errors which 
 for the time doe trouble the Church of England Un- 
 sealed. Also the Questions of Pedobaptisme or 
 Dipping Handled from Scripture. In a Second Fart 
 of The Dissuasive from the Errors of the Time. 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 129 
 
 By Robert Baillie, Minister at Glasgow. London, 
 January 4, 1646. On page 163 of the above work 
 Mr. Baillie says : "The pressing of dipping and the 
 exploding of sprinkling is but an yesterday conceit oi 
 the .English Anabaptists. Among the new inven- 
 tions of the late Anabaptists there is none which 
 with greater animosity they set on foot then the ne- 
 cessity of dipping over head and ears ; then the nul- 
 lity of aft'usion and sprinkling in the administration 
 of baptisme. Among the old Anabaptists, or those 
 over sea, to this day so far as I can learn by their 
 writings, or any relation that yet has come to my 
 Ears, the question of dipping and sprinkling never 
 came upon the Table. As I take it they dip none, 
 but all whom they baptize they sprinkle in the same 
 Manner as is our custome. The question about the 
 necessity of dipping seems to be taken up onely the 
 other year by the Anabaptists of England, as a point 
 which alone as they conceive is able to carry their 
 desire of exterminating infant baptisme: for they 
 know that parents upon no consideration will be con- 
 tent to hazard the life of their tender infants by 
 plunging them over head and ears into a cold river. 
 Let us therefore consider if this sparkle of new light 
 have any derivation from the lamp of the Sanctuary, 
 or the Sun of righteousnesse; if it be according to 
 Scripturall truth or any good reason." 
 
 Baillie in the above passage expressly declares 
 that dipping was "a new invention of the late Ana- 
 
130 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 'baptists,'''' '•'•an yesterday conceit of tlie Eriglish 
 Anabaptists,^'' ^ '•taken up onely the other year,'''' 
 '•^a sparkle of new light.'''' He does not indicate 
 the precise year in which it was introduced, but 
 these expressions agree to a nicety with the po- 
 sition that this event took place only about five years 
 before he published his book. Every word of his 
 testimony confirms the deliverance of the Jessey 
 Church Records to the effect that prior to the year 
 IGIO "none had so practiced in England to pro- 
 fessed believers," while in the year 1641 the change 
 from pouring and sprinkling to immersion was duly 
 inaugurated. 
 
 Attention is once again cited to the fact that Prof. 
 Scheffer, the latest and most eminent authority in 
 this department, is very largely on the side of Baillie 
 when he affirms that the ancient Anabaptists laid no 
 stress npon immersion, while those over sea at the 
 time when he wrote did not use dipping, but sprin- 
 kled all whom they baptized. Of course, it is to be 
 expected that efforts will be made to discredit the 
 testimony of Baillie, but they can not avail. He 
 will always stand as a clear and consistent witness 
 on this point. 
 
 The work of Ephraim Pagitt may be cited next, 
 viz., Heresiography, or a description of the Here- 
 ticks and Sectaries of these latter times, London, 
 1645. After describing many other kinds of Ana- 
 baptists, Pagitt comes at length to speak of the new- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 131 
 
 est sort, namely, the "Plunged Anabaptists." He 
 says: "Yea at this day they have a neiv crochet 
 come into their heads, that all that have not been 
 plunged nor dipt under water, are not truly bap- 
 tized, and these also they rebaptize: And this their 
 error ariseth from ignorance of the Greek word 
 Baptize which signifieth no more then washing or 
 ablution, as Hesychus, Stephanus, Scapulae, Budeus, 
 great masters of the Greek tongue, make good by 
 many instances and allegations out of many au- 
 thors, "(p. 30). 
 
 Certainly it is not possible to affirm of Pagittthat 
 he had never heard of the change from sprinkling 
 to immersion, for he represents the "Plunged Ana- 
 baptists" as being a new sort of Anabaptists, and 
 refers in unmistakable language to the '"'•new crocliet^ 
 come into their heads, that all that have not been 
 plunged nor dipt under water are not truly bap- 
 tized." If this language does not convey the idea 
 that immersion had been only recently introduced 
 when his book appeared in 1645, it would appear to 
 be impossible to convey an idea of that kind by 
 means of human speech. 
 
 The last witness to be presented here is William 
 Cooke, and the title of his book is "A Learned and 
 Full Answer to a Treatise intitled The Yanity of 
 Childish Baptisme. Wherein the severall Argu- 
 ments brought to overthrow the lawful nesse of In- 
 fants' Baptisme, together with the Answers to those 
 
132 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 Arguments maintaining its unlawfulnesse are duly 
 examined. As also The question concerning the ne- 
 cessitie of dipping in Baptisme is fully discussed. 
 By William Cooke, Minister of the Word of God at 
 Wroxall in Warwickshire, London, 1644. In this 
 work the author says: "Fourthly, will not this their 
 manner of dipping be found also against the Sev- 
 enth Commandment in the Decalogue? For I would 
 know with these new dippers whether the parties to 
 be dowsed and dipped may be baptized in a garment 
 or no? If they may then happily the garment may 
 keep the water from some part of the body, and 
 then they are not rightly baptized; for the whole 
 man, say they, must be dipped. Againe, I would 
 aske what warrant they have for dipping or baptiz- 
 ing garments, more than the Papists have for bap- 
 tizing Bells? Therefore belike the parties must be 
 naked and Multitudes present as at John's baptisme, 
 and the parties men and women of -ripe yeares, as 
 being able to make a confession of their faith and 
 repentance," etc., (pp. 21 and 22). 
 
 There can be no kind of question that Mr. Cooke 
 had heard of the recent change from sprinkling to 
 immersion. Everything that he brings forward 
 only serves to indicate that it was still new and un- 
 settled. In the year 1644, when he wrote his book, 
 questions about the clothing required in immersion, 
 had to be debated and disposed of, which have never 
 been mooted among our people at a later time. Mr. 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 133 
 
 Cooke not only refers to some of these, but he ex- 
 pressly calls the parties "nei/; dippers.''^ 
 
 In view of the foregoing body of materials, I can- 
 didly consider that my proofs are sufficient. This 
 opinion has been confirmed and strengthened by the 
 renewed investigations which I have lately under- 
 taken in order to set forth these proofs. Whatever 
 else may be true in history, I believe it is beyond 
 question that the practice of adult immersion was in- 
 troduced anew into England in the year 1641. That 
 conclusion must be recognized more and more by 
 scholars who will take pains to weigh the facts pre- 
 sented in the above discussion. It is sure to be- 
 come one of the commonplaces of our Baptist teach- 
 ing, and in the course of time men will be found to 
 wonder how any could ever have opposed it. Few 
 other facts of history are capable of more convinc- 
 ing demonstration. Doubts have been cast upon 
 the historical existence of the Emperor Napoleon I. 
 Doubts may be cast upon any event that ever oc- 
 curred among men; but the vast majority of people 
 will disregard these doubts and accept the deliver- 
 ances of history when they are once sufficiently 
 proven. 
 
134 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 XI. 
 
 FOR GOOD MEASURE. 
 
 THE merits of Dr. H. M. Dexter in promoting the 
 recent progress in church history have already 
 been acknowledged. As an antiquarian our country 
 has produced few scholars who could surpass him. 
 His industry was commendable, and wide experience 
 had conferred extraordinary skill. Whoever shall 
 be at pains to follow him to his sources will find that 
 he is also a careful and painstaking workman. 
 
 Dr. Dexter was engaged in the labor of investiga- 
 tion at the British Museum and other libraries dur- 
 ing a portion of the winter of 1880-1, and was 
 enabled to find a number of authorities which no 
 previous student had brought to light. Those which 
 he has the sole credit of discovering will be thrown to- 
 gether at this place to swell the volume of proof that 
 immersion was introduced into England about the 
 year 1611. 
 
 The first of these belongs to the year 1641 and is 
 entitled The New Distemper, written by the Au- 
 thor of the Loyal 1 Convert. Dr. Dexter, who 
 appears to be the only person that has examined this 
 pamphlet, reports that "the whole book takes its 
 name as an attack upon the 'prophanations' of these 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 135 
 
 dippers." (True Story, p. 50, with note.) Dipping 
 being for the author a '•''new distemper'^'' it is manifest 
 that he did not take it for granted, but was perfectly 
 aware of the change from pouring or sprinkling to 
 immersion which took place in the year 1641. 
 
 The quotations from I. Knutton and John Mabbatt 
 found on the same page were instanced in another 
 place and set down to the credit of Dr. Dexter. It 
 will be remembered that Mr. Mabbatt was a Baptist 
 witness. The same remark applies to R. J., the 
 author of Nineteen Arguments proving Circum- 
 cision no Seal of the Covenant of Grace The 
 
 Unlawfullnesse of Infant Baptisme, etc., London, 
 1645. On page 4 of that pamplilet this Baptist 
 writer speaks of "the new Ordinance of Dipping," 
 (True Story, p. 50), showing that he did not take 
 immersion for granted, and that he was perfectly 
 aware of the change that had occurred in the year 
 1641. 
 
 Dr. Dexter also brings forward the performance of 
 J. Saltmarsh entitled The Smoke in the Temple. 
 Wherein is a Design for Peace and Reconciliation of 
 Believers of the several Opinions of these Times 
 about Ordinances, to a Forbearance of each other in 
 Love and Meeknesse and Humility, etc. London, 
 1645. Mr. Saltmarsh here, pp. 15, 16, speaks of 
 
 "the dipping them in the water as the new 
 
 baptism," (True Story, p. 50), showing that he was 
 entirely aware of the recent change from pouring 
 and sprinkling to immersion. 
 
136 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 The above work received two replies from Baptist 
 authors, one of which has not been mentioned by 
 Dexter in this connection. It was written by Rev. 
 'Daniel King, "Preacher of the Word near Cov- 
 entry," and bears the following title: A Way in 
 Zion, sought out and found, for Beleevers to walk 
 in. Or a Treatise consisting of Three Parts. In the 
 first is proved, 1. That God hath had a people on 
 the Earth, ever since the coming of Christ in the 
 flesh, throughout the darkest times of Popery, which 
 he hath owned as Saints and as his Church. 2. That 
 these Saints have power to reassume and take up as 
 their right atiy ordinance of Christ, which they have 
 heen deprived of hy the violence and tyranny of the 
 man of Sin. Wherein is cleared up by Scripture 
 and arguments grounded upon Scripture, who of 
 right may administer Ordinances, and amongst the 
 rest the Ordinance of Baptism with water. The II. 
 Part containeth a full and large Answer to 13 Ex- 
 ceptions against the practice of baptizing believers, 
 wherein the former particulars are more fully cleared 
 up, etc. London, 1650. (Ivimey, History 2, 577.) 
 
 The power of the Saints "to reassume and take up 
 as their right any ordinance of Christ which they 
 have been deprived of by the violence and tyranny 
 of the man of Sin," points very naturally to the in- 
 troduction of immersion after the long season dur- 
 ing which that rite had fallen into desuetude in 
 England. 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 137 
 
 The other work in reply to Mr. Saltmarsh was by 
 Hev, H. Knollys, the title of which, according to 
 -Crosby, History, 1, 343, is as follows : The Shining 
 of a flaming fire in Zion ; an Answer to Mr, Saltmarsh 
 his thirteen exceptions against the grounds of the 
 ■Qiew hajptism in his book entitled the Smoke of the 
 Temple, 1646. On page 1 of this volume Mr. 
 Knollys comes to speak of the new baptism and in- 
 stead of denying the allegation he merely retorts 
 that "Paul's doctrine was called 'new,' although he 
 preached Jesus and the Resurrection" (True Story, 
 p. 50), by which he appears to concede that immer- 
 sion was new as charged by Saltmarsh, and yet 
 though it liad been extinct for a long while in Eng- 
 land it had nevertheless been a command and prac- 
 tice of the apostles in the beginning of the Christian 
 era. In that sense at any rate it was not new — an 
 -eminently true and proper conclusion. 
 
 The next witness is J. Eachard in The Axe 
 .against Sin and Error and the Truth conquering, 
 etc., London, 1645, where on page 8 he says : "the 
 
 Anabaptistes by a new baptisme will not 
 
 communicate with others for they think they are 
 more holy than others, by strictnesse of their order," 
 etc. (True Story, p. 50.) This '-^new haptisme''' 
 •could not have been believers' baptism for the sprin- 
 kling of believers was among the Anabaptists already 
 XI very old baptism ; it could have been nothing but im- 
 mersion which so many authorities combine to assert 
 
138 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 was introduced again in 1641, and in the year 1645 
 was still a new affair. Mr. Eachard was almost be- 
 yond question aware of the change from sprinkling 
 to dipping. 
 
 N. Stephens supplies the next citation from his 
 pamphlet entitled A Precept for the Baptisme of 
 Infants out of the New Testament, etc., London, 
 1650, where on p. 65 he argues : "If they (the Ana- 
 baptists) say that the Commission, Matt. xxviii:19, 
 was their first Administrator's rule, then he must be 
 a Disciple made by ordinary preaching and teaching 
 before he had authority to minister their new Bap- 
 tisme." (True Story, p. 51.) Here is a distinct ref- 
 erence to the change which has been pointed out and 
 emphasized as having occurred in the year 1641. 
 
 Rev. John Goodwin is a voluminous and circum- 
 stantial witness. The first work in which he treats 
 this subject is Philadelphia : or XL Queries for the 
 discovery of truth in this question ; Whether per- 
 sons baptized after a profession of faith may hold 
 communion with churches baptized in in- 
 fancy? London, 1653. In this performance occur 
 the following expressions: "the brethren of new 
 Baptisme;" "the way of ^i^et^ Baptisme ;" "surprised 
 with a religious conceit of the necessity of new Bap- 
 tisme ;" "the children of nev:! Baptisme." Pp. 13, 
 24, 25, 28. (True Story, p. 51.) 
 
 The connection of history indicates pretty clearly 
 that this new hajptism could have been nothing else 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY 139 
 
 than immersion ; but in his next volume the author 
 expresses himself in terms that it is almost impos- 
 sible to misapprehend. That volume is entitled 
 Water Dipping no Firm Footing for Church Com- 
 munion, London, 1653, from which Dr. Dexter 
 has drawn such quotations as these: "not simply 
 lawful, but necessary also (in point of duty) for per- 
 sons baptized after the new mode of Dipping^ to con- 
 tinue communion with those churches of 
 
 which they were members before the said Dipping;" 
 "the neio mode of Dipping ;" being actually baptized 
 after the manner of brethren of new Baptism \ "the 
 main Pillar upon which the house of our new Dip- 
 pers of men and dividers of Churches is built ;" "I 
 heartily wish for some of them, whom I know, that 
 their new Baptism doth not help to diminish their 
 old grace;" and "for the Mode of the latest and 
 
 newest Invention" "it is, as far as we are able 
 
 to conceive by the representation of it made unto 
 some of us, so contrived and so managed that the 
 Baptist who dippeth according to it had need to be 
 a man of stout limbs, and of a very able and active 
 body: otherwise the person to be baptized, especially 
 if in any degree corpulent, or unwieldy, runs a great 
 hazard of meeting with Christ's latter Baptism, in- 
 stead of his former;" "persons baptized after the new 
 mode of dipping." Pp. 1, 5, 11, 26, 39, 89. (True 
 Story, p. 51.) 
 
 It would be a difficult task to explain away several. 
 
140 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 ■of these statements and represent them as meaning 
 something else than what plainly appears on the 
 face of them. They declare in unmistakable lan- 
 guage that in the year 1653 dipping was still re- 
 garded as a new mode of administering baptism, 
 and human ingenuity will be as much taxed to find 
 out some other meaning, as in the case of the ex- 
 tracts from Mr. Fraisegod Barebone. These as well 
 as those, however, will continue to convey the mean- 
 ing which is obvious on the face of them. 
 
 Mr. Goodwin refers to the subject once more in 
 '■'-Cata- Baptism or New Baptism waxing old, an 
 Answer to W. A.," etc., London, 1655, where he 
 speaks of "your new baptism;" '•'-after the neio mode 
 of dipping-^'' "Mr. W. A. himself in his' Answer' 
 maketh it matter of exception and complaint, that I 
 sometimes stile his way of Rebaptizing New Bap- 
 tism. And yet heretofore in discussing with a grave 
 Minister of Mr. A. 's judgement in the point of Re- 
 baptizing, and the most ancient that I know walking 
 in that way, finding him not so well satisfied that 
 his way should be stiled Anabaptism, I desired to 
 know of him what other term would please him? 
 His answer was ^New Baptism f'' Pp. vi, xxx, 
 xxxii. (True Story, p. 51.) 
 
 The thing that was unusual about this baptism 
 was the ^'•new mode hy dipping.'''' That is so mani- 
 fest as to require no further explanation. Goodwin 
 -can by no possibility be claimed as teaching any- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. Ul>. 
 
 thing else than the plain facts that a change had 
 occurred but recently in the mode of baptism, and 
 that the new mode was by dipping. Nowhere does 
 he take immersion for granted; he is quite as defi- 
 nite as Mr. Praisegod Barebone in his assertion that 
 dipping was the new mode. 
 
 J. Parnell is another witness, who in The 
 "Watcher; or the Stone cut out of the Mountain, 
 etc., London, 1655, p. 16, testifies: "now within 
 
 these late yeares they (the Anabaptists) say 
 
 they must be dipped in the water, and that 
 
 they call baptizing." (True Story, p. 51.) 
 
 It would be a marvelous feat to represent that 
 Parnell in this work, published fourteen years after 
 the introduction of immersion, had never heard of 
 the change from pouring and sprinkling. Only 
 "within these late yeares" had that change occurred, 
 and it was perfectly fresh in the memory of all who 
 lived in those times and had ever been conversant 
 with the facts in question. 
 
 The next man is J. Watts, whose work is enti- 
 tled: A Scribe, Pharisee, Hypocrite and his Let- 
 ter answered. Separates churched. Dippers Sprin- 
 kled, or a Vindication of the Church and universities 
 of England, etc whereunto is added A nar- 
 ration of a publick dipping, June 26, 1656, in a 
 pond, etc. London, 1657. On page iii of the 
 preface he says: "Dipping was, and is, as I have 
 said, a JVew business, and a very JVovelty.'''' (True- 
 Story, p. 51.) 
 
142 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 By the year 1690 a new generation bad appeared 
 on the scene; most of the eye witnesses of the events 
 of 1641 had now passed away. Mr. Thomas Wall 
 then came forward with a work entitled Baptism 
 Anatomized: being Propounded in five Queries, 
 viz.: (1) What Water Baptism is ? (2) What is the 
 end for which it is instituted ? (3) What giveth 
 right to it? (1) Who are the true administrators of 
 it ? (5) Whether it be lawful for a man to baptize 
 himself '( London, 1690. As a child of the second 
 generation, Wall fell into certain grotesque blunders, 
 and "mentions a rumor which he had heard some 
 years before in London that Spilsbury visited Hol- 
 land to be baptized of Smyth." This ignorant as- 
 sertion was very distasteful to the Baptists of that 
 period who knew that Mr. Spilsbury did not care 
 enough for succession in immersion to turn on his 
 heel to obtain it, to say nothing of making a jour- 
 ney to Holland; that Smyth was not an immersion- 
 ist and hence could not have bestowed what he did 
 not possess ; and that he died in August, 1612, 
 which was at least twenty-three years before Spils- 
 bury comes upon the scene. 
 
 Accordingly Mr. Hercules Collins, one of the 
 foremost Baptist pastors of the day, wrote a. work 
 entitled Believers-Baptism from Heaven, and of 
 Divine institution; Infants-Baptism from earth and 
 human invention. Proved from the Commission of 
 Christ, etc., with a Brief yet sufficient Answer to 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 143 
 
 T. Wall's book called "Baptism Anatomized," Lon- 
 dan, 1690, On page 115 of thi^ volume Mr. Collins 
 says: "Could not the Ordinance of Christ vjhichwas 
 
 lost in the apostasy he revived unless in such 
 
 a filthy way as you falsly assert, viz:, that the Eng- 
 lish Baptists received their Baptism from Mr. John 
 Smyth ? It is absolutely untrue, it being well known 
 by some yet alive how false this assertion is." (True 
 Story, p. 44, note.) 
 
 This Baptist minister here concedes that the ordi- 
 nance of Christ had been "lost in the apostasy" and 
 that it had been "revived." His position is in sub- 
 stance the same as that of Edward Barber, who in 
 1611 declared that the ordinance had been "de- 
 stroyed and raced out both for matter and forme" 
 and tliat he had been raised up to "devulge" it "to 
 the world's Censuring." Mr. Collins stood at the 
 turn of the seventeenth century, having passed away 
 in the year 1702, sixty-one years after the introduc- 
 tion of immersion among his people, and yet the 
 facts were still well known to him and he without 
 embarrassment conceded the loss of immersion and 
 its revival in England. 
 
 Throughout this discussion it must have become 
 apparent to all how the testimony of Baptist authors 
 who were eyewitnesses of the events coincides with 
 that of authors of other Denominations regarding 
 the point in- question. They have no hesitation in 
 confessing the facts of the case ; they make no efforts 
 
144 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 to conceal or misrepresent them. It would be an in- 
 teresting item in the'further progress of this discus- 
 sion if a competent scholar should find out the ear- 
 liest date when Baptist writers began to be dubious 
 of this notable transaction, and should bring forward 
 the details of the process by which it gradually be- 
 came customary to ignore, and at last to deny the 
 great event that occurred among our people in the 
 "yeare of jubilee." 
 
 I believe that I may now safely leave my cause in 
 the hands of candid readers. Every fact is in har- 
 mony with the position that believers' immersion, 
 after it had been sometime disused, was introduced 
 into England again in 1641, Immersion had not been 
 practiced for a lengthy season in the Church of Eng- 
 land; it was unknown among the Anabaptists of Eng- 
 land, who had all come over from Holland in the six- 
 teenth century ; it was not practiced by the Men- 
 nonites or by the followers of John Smyth, Thomas 
 Helwys and John Murton ; it was introduced, ac- 
 cording to the Jessey Church Records, in 161:1 by 
 two companies, one of which belonged to the Jessey 
 Church and the other to the Church of Mr. Spils- 
 bury ; the monuments of the change from sprinkling 
 and pouring to immersion are very numerous, and 
 some of them (as for instance the name Baptist) are 
 very well known ; it was testified to almost imme- 
 diately by Mr. Praisegod Barebone, a highly compe- 
 tent witness, who stood so close to the Baptists that 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 145 
 
 he is claimed as a Baptist minister by so good an 
 authority as the Baptist Encyclopaedia ; the fact is 
 likewise aflSrmed by the Baptist Edward Barber, 
 who glories that it was given to him "to devulge 
 this glorious truth" to a world that lay in ignorance, 
 and divers other Baptist writers have just as little 
 hesitation in conceding the point ; it is also defi- 
 nitely asserted by some very prominent and worthy 
 men of other religious Denominations who were con- 
 versant with the circumstances and possibly as capable 
 of telling the truth about them as were their Baptist 
 fellow christians. 
 
 What more needs to be said? The testimony of 
 Baptists and Fedobaptists alike conspires to this one 
 end, and it is consistent in every particular. There 
 is a great cloud of witnesses, and yet not a dis- 
 cordant note has been uttered. Among contempo- 
 rary writers not one has been found who could re- 
 port an indubitable instance of the immersion of a 
 believer prior to the year 1641 among the Anabap- 
 tists of England. These points comprise a cumula- 
 tive argument which impresses my own mind with 
 much force, and in my opinion entitle me to declare 
 that the proofs to show that immersion of believers 
 was introduced into England in 1641 are irrefrag- 
 able proofs. 
 
 The men who performed this great service deserve 
 to be held in everlasting remembrance. They res- 
 cued from destruction, at least in the English speak- 
 
 10 
 
U6 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 ing world, one of the most significant and solemn or- 
 dinances of the apostolic age. Thej preserved to suc- 
 ceeding ages a knowledge of the baptism of Jesus 
 Christ. Their courage and faithfulness should receive 
 unstinted acknowledgment. We cannot be grateful 
 enough for the patience and strength with which 
 they stood in their lot and served their generation 
 by the will of God. Let us endeavor to imitate their 
 virtues and follow them as they followed Christ. 
 The names of John Spilsbury, Edward Barber and 
 Hichard Blunt should be inscribed upon our tablets, 
 and everywhere crowned with distinction. They 
 were faithful to apostolic truth. They resisted the 
 tide of innovation. They restored an ancient land- 
 mark. Surely these noble men have been neglected 
 too long. They merit more generous treatment at 
 the hands of the great and widely extended Denom- 
 ination of Christian people who for so long a period 
 have enjoyed the benefits of their labors. They 
 dared to stand against a nation that had fallen away 
 from the truth of God in this particular. They saw 
 the truth and had the courage to proclaim it in the 
 face of a gainsaying generation. They have set an 
 example of faithfulness to God's Word that has since 
 been imitated by multitudes of men and women, 
 some of whom have gladly gone to prison because 
 they held Baptist principles to be Bible teaching. 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 147 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS. 
 
 MOST men, even the greatest, will be children 
 of the age and country in which they are 
 born and reared. The Reformers, Luther, Zwingli 
 and Calvin, though their names stand among the 
 foremost in the annals of Protestantism, were no ex- 
 ceptions to this rule. It has been shown, for exam- 
 ple, that each of them accepted the act of baptism 
 that prevailed in his own time and country. Luther's 
 preferences, it is conceded, turned in favor of im- 
 mersion, but he yielded to circumstances that he was 
 powerless to control. 
 
 Roger Williams was likewise a very important 
 personage; but he was not great enough to stand 
 above the common lot of humanity. Like Calvin, 
 Zwingli and Luther, he was a child of the age and 
 country in which he lived; and his age was a hun- 
 dred years later than the age of the Protestant Re- 
 formers. Sprinkling and pouring for baptism, which 
 already in the generation of the Reformers were too 
 well established to be overthrown, had now become 
 still more firmly fixed in the customs and preferences 
 of Western Christendom. 
 
 Moreover the religious people with whom Mr. 
 
148 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 Williams in the earlier portion of his life was most 
 intimately connected have not distinguished them- 
 selves by any special inclinations towards the rite of 
 immersion. It has been a peculiarity of the Re- 
 formed or Presbyterian Church ever since the time 
 of Calvin to exhibit comparatively little concern 
 whether immersion should be retained or not. The 
 divines at Westminster in the year 1644, five years 
 after Mr. Williams had severed his connection with 
 the men of that school, refused to permit immersion 
 to stand in the Directory for Public Worship by the 
 side of sprinkling even as an alternate form of ad- 
 ministering the ordinance. The question before the 
 body was "Whether sprinkling being granted, dip- 
 ping should be tolerated with it," (Whole works of 
 John Lightfoot, D.D., London, 1824, vol. xiii, p. 
 299), and this question was decided in the negative, 
 an act which amounted to the abolition of immersion 
 for baptism as far as that particular communion was 
 concerned. 
 
 There is no conclusive evidence to show that the 
 opinions of Mr. Williams on this point were dif- 
 ferent from those of the men with whom he had 
 hitherto been in sympathy. Attention has been 
 called to the case of Rev. Charles Chauncey^ who 
 arrived at Plymouth in May, 1638, bringing with 
 him sentiments that were quite extraordinary among 
 persons of the Puritan school. Gov. Winthrop 
 says: "Our neighbors of Plimouth had procured 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 149 
 
 from hence (England) this year, one Mr. Chauncej, 
 a great scholar and a godly man, intending to call 
 him to the office of a teacher; hut before the fit time 
 came he discovered his judgment about baptism, 
 that the children ought to be dipped and not sprin- 
 kled, and he being an active man and very vehe- 
 ment, there arose much trouble about it. The mag- 
 istrates and other elders there, and the most of the 
 people, withstood the receiving of that practice. 
 (Winthrop, History of New England from 1630 to 
 1649. Boston, 1825, vol. 1, p. 330.) 
 
 But nobody has shown that Mr. Williams regard- 
 ed the view of Chauncey with any sort of favor at 
 the time when it was advanced. For aught we 
 know to the contrary he may have felt a prejudice 
 both against the man and his contention. The 
 record also declares that Chauncey's judgment was 
 "that the children ought to be dipped and not sprin- 
 kled." The immersion of adults was practically a 
 lost art in England and America at this time, and it 
 is conceivable that Mr. Chauncey did not contem- 
 plate the immersion of adults. Possibly it would 
 have been difficult to find a single white person of 
 adult age in New England who had not received 
 baptism in infancy. If the record can be depended 
 upon, his contention related to the dipping of in- 
 fants exclusively, and not to the dipping of adults. 
 The baptism of adults for which Mr. Williams be- 
 gan to contend in the spring of 1639 was so widely 
 
150 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 different from the baptism of infants, for which 
 Chaiincey was striving, that the act of immersion in 
 the one case need not to have suggested tlie act of 
 immersion in the other. 
 
 Moreover the Anabaptists with whom Mr. Williams 
 was uniting his fortunes in the year 1639 had not 
 yet begun the practice of immersion in England. 
 They were still spoken of everywhere, both in Eng- 
 land and America, as Anabaptists, and nowhere at 
 all as Baptists. Is there any a j^Tiori reason for 
 supposing that he was in advance of them in this re- 
 gard? It has been suggested that he was a person 
 of unusual independence of mind, but has any proof 
 ever been given to show that his independence was 
 employed in this particular direction? 
 
 The earliest contemporary record of the baptism 
 of Williams is furnished by Winthrop under date of 
 March 16, 1639. He says : "At Providence things 
 grew still worse ; for a sister of Mrs. Hutchinson, 
 the wife of one Scott, being infected with Anabap- 
 tistry, and going last year to live at Providence, 
 Mr. Williams was taken (or rather emboldened) by 
 her to make open profession thereof, and accord- 
 ingly was rebaptized by one Holyman, a poor man 
 late of Salem. Then Mr. Williams rebaptized him 
 and some ten more." (Winthrop, vol. 1, p. 293.) 
 Another contemporary account was given to Dor- 
 chester Church by Rev. Hugh Peters, pastor of 
 Salem Church, under date of July 1, 1639, in which 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 151 
 
 he acquaints them with the fact that their "great 
 censure was past upon Roger Williams and his wife, 
 Thomas Olney and his wife, John Thrograorton and 
 his wife, Stukely Westcot and his wife, Mary Holli- 
 man and the widow Keves, and that all but two of 
 these were rebaptized." (Backus, History 1, 107.) 
 The above statements do not contain a distinct asser- 
 tion that Mr. Williams was sprinkled. The word 
 "rebaptized" may not positively settle the question 
 regarding the act employed ; but in the mouth of 
 Governor Winthrop and of Hugh Peters that word 
 could hardly point to anything else than to the act 
 of sprinkling or pouring. If immersion had been 
 employed in the spring of 1639 it seems likely that 
 definite allusion would have been made to what was 
 at the time an entirely unusual method of adminis- 
 tering ^the ordinance in England or America. The 
 unusual course of Mr. Chauncey in advising the dip- 
 ping of infants was plainly indicated ; it is difiicult 
 to understand why the still more unusual course of 
 Williams in practicing the dipping of adults should 
 not have been likewise plainly described by the same 
 author. The best explanation of this silence on the 
 part of Winthrop seems to be found in the fact that 
 Mr. Williams did not employ immersion. 
 
 Six years after the baptism of Williams had taken 
 place at Providence he published a tract entitled 
 Christenings make not Christians, or A Briefs 
 Discourse concerning that name Heathen, commonly 
 
152 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 given to the Indians. As also concerning that great 
 point of their Conversion. Published according to 
 order. London, Printed by lane Cox, for I. H., 
 1645. This work was recovered by Dr. Dexter at 
 the British Museum in March, 1881, and has been 
 reprinted as Number XIV. of the Rhode Island His- 
 torical Pamphlets. 
 
 When he comes to discuss the conversion of the 
 Indians Mr. Williams first describes the wrong 
 way to go about it and afterwards the right way. 
 The way of the Catholic Church is duly set forth as 
 the wrong way. Another wrong way is indicated as 
 follows: "Thirdly, for our New England parts, 
 I can speake uprightly and confidently, I know 
 it to have been easie for my selfe, long ere 
 this, to have brought many thousands of these Na- 
 tives, yea the whole country to a far greater Anti- 
 christian conversion than ever was heard of in 
 America. I have reported something in the Chap- 
 ter of their Religion, how readily I could have 
 brought the whole Country to have observed one day 
 in seven ; I adde to have received a Baptisme (or 
 washing) though it were in Rivers (as the first Chris- 
 tians and the Lord Jesus himselfe did) to have come 
 to a stated Church, meeting^ maintained priests and 
 formes of prayer and a whole forme of Antichris- 
 tian worship in life and death, (p. 11.)" 
 
 The expression "Baptisme (or washing) though it 
 were in Rivers'''' indicates that this form of the ordi- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 153 
 
 nance was unusual in 1645. In the year 1643 Mr. 
 Williams made a visit to England to procure a 
 charter for Rhode Island. Here he had found oc- 
 casion to become acquainted with immersion that had 
 been brought in in 1641. It is evident that he re- 
 gards it as something unusual — "though it were in 
 Rivers" — yet he concedes that it was what "the 
 :first Christians and the Lord Jesus himself did." 
 But the question before us is whether it was what 
 Mr. Williams himself did ? Had he submitted to 
 that act in 1639 when he was rebaptized at Provi- 
 dence ? Even after he had been enlightened and 
 persuaded that the first Christians and the Lord 
 Jesus himself were immersed would he then have 
 been willing to be immersed himself ? Multitudes 
 have no scruples whatever in conceding that immer- 
 sion was the primitive act of baptism who will not 
 recognize the slightest obligation to submit to the 
 rite themselves. Tliat is the position of almost the 
 entire body of Pedobaptist scholars in European 
 countries. These persuade themselves that the 
 mode, as they phrase it, is a concern of no conse- 
 quence, and hence they claim liberty to alter it if 
 they choose. 
 
 After having set forth the wrong method to con- 
 vert the Indians Mr. Williams next undertakes to 
 describe the right method. He says: "Secondly, 
 affirmatively : I answer in generall, A true Conver- 
 sion whether of Americans or Europeans must be 
 
154 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 such as those Conversions were of the first pattern 
 either of the Jewes or the Heathens ; That rule is 
 the golden Mace toaiid in the hand of the Angell or 
 Messenger, rev. 11.1, beside which all others are 
 leaden and crooked. 
 
 In particular: First, it must be by the free pro- 
 claiming or preaching of Repentance and forgive- 
 nesse of sins, Luke 24, by such as can prove their 
 lawfull sending and commission from the Lord Jesus 
 to make Disciples out of all nations: and so to bap- 
 tize or wash them, £!\- -u ovoaa, into the name or pro- 
 fession of the holy Trinity, Mat. 28.19; Rom. 10.14, 
 15." 
 
 In the first citation above Mr. Williams had con- 
 ceded that immersion was practiced by the first 
 Christians and our Lord, and yet in this place, where 
 he is laying down the proper method of converting 
 the Indians he ignores immersion entirely. It is 
 sufficient to "wash them into the name or profession 
 of the holy Trinity" and is not necessary to "wash 
 them in rivers" as was indicated above. This sec- 
 ond citation appears to prove that Mr. Williams did 
 not regard immersion as essential to Christian bap- 
 tism. In brief words, he had heard of immersion 
 during his visit to England, and possibly had wit- 
 nessed the ordinance performed, but he here decides 
 against it. He ignored it as decidedly as if no such 
 practice had been there introduced anew in the year 
 1641. In view of this circumstance it is not easy to- 
 believe that he had submitted to it in 1639. 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 155- 
 
 If it sliould be objected that the phrase "wash 
 them into the name or profession of the holy Trin- 
 ity" points to immersion, we may reply that this 
 would be a just contention if Mr. Williams had added, 
 as in the first instance, some allusion to rivers in 
 which the ordinance should take place. He has here 
 omitted that specification, apparently of set pur- 
 pose. 
 
 The word "wash" that is here made use of is the 
 same word as is employed for baptism by the West- 
 minster divines in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms 
 published in 1648, where it indisputably points to 
 sprinkling or pouring. The Larger Catechism reads 
 as follows: "What is Baptism? Baptism is a sacra- 
 ment of the New Testament wherein Christ hath or- 
 dained the washing with water in the name of the 
 Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," etc. 
 The Shorter Catechism says: "Baptism is a sacra- 
 ment wherein the washing with water in the name 
 of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, 
 doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ," 
 etc. Both of these passages are parallel to the one 
 before us, and it provides for sprinkling or pouring 
 just as certainly as they do. It would hardly be nat- 
 ural to suppose that a man who wrote thus in 1645 
 had been immersed in 1639. 
 
 If any should urge that Mr. Williams employs the 
 expression "wash them, siV rd o'^o/ia, into the name or 
 profession of the holy Trinity, " laying emphasis upon 
 
156 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 the preposition "into," as indicating that the wash- 
 ing was to be done by immersion, that would be an 
 unwarranted inference. Mr. Richard Cljfton, the 
 well-known Brownist, who always employed sprin- 
 kling for baptism, makes use of the same expression 
 in his Plea for Infants and Elder People concerning 
 their Baptisme (p. 173), as follows: "Without this 
 washing with water into the name of the Father, 
 etc., it can not be baptisme." (Dexter, True Story, 
 p. 25.) Indeed this author also says. Plea for In- 
 fants, p. 159: "Concerning the forme of baptism, I 
 confess it is the sprinkling of a fit subject with water 
 into the name of the Father," etc. (Dexter, True 
 Story, p. 25.) The circumstance that the preposi- 
 tion "into" is employed in the same way after the 
 word "sprinkling" as after the word "washing" 
 renders it clear that in neither case is immersion the 
 necessary or natural meaning. Consequently when 
 Mr. Williams declares that to baptize is the same as 
 to "wash them into the name or profession of the 
 holy Trinity," it appears almost certain that pour- 
 ing or sprinkling was the act of baptism which he 
 recommends. If he had favored immersion, he 
 would most likely have specified that the washing 
 should be done in rivers, as he concedes that "the 
 first Christians and the Lord himself did." 
 
 The letter to Gov. Winthrop under date of No- 
 vember 10, 1649, also suggests that the baptism of 
 Williams in 1639 was not administered by immer- 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 157 
 
 sion. He says: ^".At Seekonk a great many have 
 lately concurred with Mr. John Clarke and our 
 Providence men about the point of a new Baptism 
 and the manner by dipping, and Mr. John Clarke 
 hath been there lately (and Mr.Lucar) and hath dipped 
 them. I believe their practice comes nearer the prac- 
 tice of our great Founder, Christ Jesus, than other 
 practices of religion do, and yet I have not satisfac- 
 tion neither in the authority by which it is done, nor 
 in the manner." (Publication of the Narragansett 
 Club, vol. vi., p. 188, Providence, 1874.) 
 
 Providence Church under the direction of Will- 
 iams had submitted to a baptism in 1639. Newport 
 appears to have taken like action under Mr. Clarke 
 in 1641, at which time the Congregational Church 
 over which he had for several years presided, went to 
 pieces, and Winthrop reports that divers on the Island 
 "turned professed Anabaptists." Before 1649 both 
 Mr. John Clarke and the Providence men had "con- 
 curred about the point of a new baptism." The man- 
 ner of that new baptism he states was by the uncom- 
 mon method of dipping^ which suggests pretty 
 clearly that the manner of the other baptism had not 
 been by dipping. Mr. Williams had no part in the 
 new baptism by dipping, for he expressly describes 
 it as "their practice" and not as his own practice, 
 which must have been something very different. 
 
 Mr. Lucar, who had been immersed in 1641 when 
 Blunt brought back the rite from Holland (Gould, 
 
158 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 Introduction, p. cxxiv.), and who may have come to 
 Rhode Island when Williams returned with the char- 
 ter in 1644, supplies the best solution of all ques- 
 tions here involved. Mr. Lucar is supposed in turn 
 to have brought immersion to America. In the 
 year 1648, according to Hubbard's manuscript he 
 was one of fifteen members of Newport Church. 
 Prof Newman (History, p. 50) has also called atten- 
 tion to Mr. Lucar as a link between the earliest Par- 
 ticular Baptist Church in England and the Church 
 at Newport. If Mr. Williams had introduced im- 
 mersion into New England in 1639, his language 
 as cited above is inexplicable. He tacitly yields 
 that honor to others by declaring that it was 
 a "new Baptism" and that it was ^Hheir practice''' 
 and not his own. The honor of being the first gen- 
 uine Baptist on the continent of America appears to 
 belong to Mr. Lucar. The men of Providence had 
 thought of sending Thomas Olney, the successor of 
 Williams in the pastoral ofiice, as far as Hungary to 
 obtain the ordinance from immersing Anabaptists in 
 that country (Backus, 1,112), but they finally con- 
 curred with Mr. John Clarke and they were all im- 
 mersed, as is supposed, by Lucar. This may have 
 been accomplished in 1644. The manuscript of 
 Samuel Hubbard, who joined Newport Church in 
 1648, says that the church was formed about 1644 
 .(Backus 1, pp. 149-50, note). 
 
 Let it be observed that even though he allows 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 159 
 
 that "their practice came nearer the practice of our 
 great Founder Christ Jesus than other practices in 
 religion do, yet lie had no "satisfaction neither in the 
 authority by which it is done, nor in the manner." 
 Mr. Williams remained only four months with Provi- 
 dence Church and then retired because he had 
 become a Seeker, or one who looked and sought for 
 a prophet divinely commissioned to introduce the 
 ordinances anew after the long defection of Anti- 
 christ. For that reason he could not be satisfied 
 with the authority by which immersion had been 
 adopted at Providence and Newport. It is possible 
 on the other hand that he could not find satisfaction 
 in the manner, for the reason that while he admitted 
 that immersion was scriptural and apostolical he 
 could not convince himself that it was essential to 
 baptism. At any rate that was the position he occu- 
 pied in 1645 when writing his tract entitled Christen- 
 ings make not Christians. 
 
 To recapitulate : here are four important contem- 
 porary utterances. One of these by Winthrop and 
 another by Hugh Peters occurred in the same year in 
 which the occurrence took place. Both of these ap- 
 pear to testify against immersion, since they used 
 no other term but "rebaptized." A short while after- 
 wards when Gov. Winthrop was describing the prac- 
 tice of Rev. Charles Chauncey he employs the phrase 
 "dipped and not sprinkled," and there can be little 
 question that he would have employed it here if Mr. 
 
160 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 Williams had practiced immersion. The two other 
 contemporary utterances are by Mr. Williams him- 
 self. That of the year 1645, found in Christen- 
 ings make not Christians, appears to show that 
 while he conceded immersion was the practice 
 of our Lord and the first Christians he did not con- 
 sider it essential to baptism. The form of his 
 expression also suggests that it was a new and unusual 
 custom. It does not seem at all likely that he had sub- 
 mitted to it in person in 1639. That conclusion is still 
 more apparent from the statement found in the letter to 
 Gov. Wiuthrop in 16'19, since he there speaks of a ' 'new 
 baptism and the manner by dipping," and seems to 
 represent that it was the practice in which Mr. John 
 Clarke and the Providence men had concurred, but 
 in which he in person had taken no part. All of 
 these contemporary utterances are further supported 
 by the circumstance that the religious affiliation of 
 Mr. Williams prior to 1639 was with a people whose 
 sympathy for immersion was notably defective, and 
 who at the Westminster Assembly in August, 1644, 
 did all that lay in their power to abolish the rite alto- 
 gether. He had contentions with his brethren in 
 Massachusetts on divers other points, but there is no 
 account of his ever contending with their position on 
 this point. And finally, the Anabaptists with whom 
 he united his fortunes for a period of four months 
 had not then adopted immersion in England, and 
 there is no reason to suppose that Mr. Williams 
 travelled in»advance of them in this regard. 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 161 
 
 Over against all this has been set the testimony of 
 William Coddington. A man of many changes, 
 Mr. Coddington at last turned Quaker, and had be- 
 come offended with Mr. Williams for his opposition 
 to the advocates of that faith. In 1677, thirty-eight 
 years after the event in question, he wrote a choleric 
 epistle to George Fox in which he asserts that Wil- 
 liams was "one time for water baptism, men and 
 women must be plunged into the water; and then 
 throw it all down again." (Backus, vol. 1, p. 445.) 
 
 Coddington was not an eyewitness any more than 
 were Winthrop and Peters. Newport is almost as 
 far from Providence as Boston or Salem. The testi- 
 mony of Coddington is not, properly speaking, con- 
 temporary testimony as was that of Winthrop and 
 Peters. One's memory is capable of becoming con- 
 fused in thirty-eight years, and Mr, Coddington's 
 memory may have become confused. He may have 
 supposed that the immersion of believers was prac- 
 ticed in Rhode Island in 1639, because it had been 
 practiced since 1644; but that was a violent suppo- 
 sition. Robert Burns somewhere says that "six lines 
 set down upon the spot are worth a cart load of 
 reminiscences." The few lines set down upon the 
 spot by Winthrop and Peters are worth a cartload of 
 Coddington's confused reminiscences. 
 
 It is to be observed, moreover, that Coddington does 
 
 not distinctly say that Williams was himself immersed, 
 
 but that at one time he favored it. Nor does Cod- 
 u 
 
J62 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 dington say at wliat period of Williams' life he held 
 to immersion. We have seen that in 1645 (Christ- 
 enings make not Christians), which was after his re- 
 turn from England, he did have knowledge of immer- 
 sion. In 1649 he was not satisfied about the "man- 
 ner by dipping.'' Hence it can not be proven from 
 Coddington's statement that the period referred to 
 by him was 1639, which is the only date in Mr. 
 Williams' life here under discussion. 
 
 The most reliable tradition on this subject has fol- 
 lowed the lead of Winthrop and Peters-, rather than 
 that of Coddington. William Hubbard in his Gen- 
 eral History of New England from the Discovery to 
 1680, employs the word "rebaptized" and does not 
 speak of immersion. (Backus, vol. 1, p. 106.) 
 Cotton Mather in the Magnalia, 1702, mentions the 
 "first baptism" and the "last baptism," but he 
 knows nothing of dipping in either case (Magnalia, 
 vol. 2, p. 432). Rev. John Callender in his His- 
 torical Discourse, Boston, 1739, could well afford to 
 dodge the question, since at the time when his book 
 was published he could not make up his mind 
 whether Mr. Williams had ever been connected with 
 the Baptists or not. Isaac Backus in his History of 
 New England, etc., Boston, 1777, pp. 106-7, fol- 
 lows Winthrop, Peters and Hubbard, laying no em- 
 phasis upon immersion. The same position is held 
 in his later and smaller work published in 1804. 
 (Publication Society's ed., Phil., 1844, p. 50.) 
 
A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 163 
 
 Kev. John Stanford in the records of the First Bap- 
 tist Church of Providence, which were prepared in 
 1775, does not mention immersion. At any rate, 
 Benedict, who claims to have followed these records 
 closely (History, New York, 1856, p. 457), employs 
 the word baptize, and says nothing about immersion. 
 (History, Boston, 1813, vol. 1, p. 475; cf. History, 
 New York, 1856, p. 450.) Prof. J. D. Knowles 
 (Memoir of Koger Williams, Boston, 1834, p. 165) 
 follows the tradition in using the word baptize, but 
 expressions found in other portions of his volume 
 show that he understood the word to mean immerse. 
 Eev. William Hague in his Historical Discourse, 
 Boston, 1839, p. 30, occupies the position of the 
 Providence Church Kecords, making no allusion to 
 immersion, and the same is true of Kev. J. M. 
 Cramp, Baptist History, Phil., 1868, p. 461. Kev. 
 H. M. Dexter, As to Koger Williams, Boston, 1876, 
 p. 107; Prof. H. C. Yedder, Short History of the 
 Baptists, Phil., 1892, p. 154; Mr. Oscar S. Straus, 
 Koger Williams, the Pioneer of Keligious Liberty, 
 New York, 1894, p. 107, and Kev. H. S. Burrage, 
 History of the Baptists in New England, Phil., 1895, 
 p. 23, are all in accord with this tradition, since each 
 uses the word baptize, and avoids the words dip or 
 immerse. 
 
 On the other hand Dr. Armitage, (History of the 
 Baptists, New York, 1887, pp. 659-60, boldly ar- 
 gues for immersion, and Prof. A. H. Newman of 
 
164 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 
 
 McMaster University (History, New York, 1894, p. 
 80, note) declares that "contemporary testimony is 
 uunanimos in favor of the view that immersion was 
 practiced by Williams." The work of Dr. Newman 
 is the most scientific and satisfactory that has yet 
 ,»been devoted to the history of American Baptists, 
 but the language here cited is stronger than the 
 facts of the case seem to justify. The only really 
 contemporary testimony appears to favor the other 
 side. 
 
 In the present state of information it would be 
 unwise to pronounce with certainty any conclusion 
 regarding this question. However, within the lim- 
 its of the uncertainty which is freely acknowledged, 
 the weight of evidence appears to incline very 
 clearly towards the view that Roger Williams was 
 sprinkled and not immersed at Providence in 1639. 
 
Date Due 
 
 Fp«f-rT^ 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 *-mn0S^ 
 
 .^- - 
 
 
 1 
 
 4tr*'^^ 
 
 
 
 
 .--w.«-f*<^r-"*'* 
 
 
 
 
 -o r 1 1 1 1 II 1 ntiii 
 
 St 
 
 
 
 3^^*^ 
 
 pp 
 
 
 
 r^T^^^^^^^^^^^^K 
 
 *p^- 
 
 
 
 JJiiilLiJ-Wi !"'■ "•* 
 
 N 
 
 
 
 w^^ 
 
 
 
 
 ""^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 IN U. S. A.