PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 _1L_ 
 
 Shelf. 
 
 BV 811.5 .C45 1896X 
 Christian, John T. 185A- 
 
 1925. 
 Did they dip? 
 
 I 
 
BOOKS BY DR. CHRISTIAN. 
 
 Did They Dip? or, An Examination into the Act 
 of Baptism as Practiced by the English and Amer- 
 ican Baptists before the Year 1641. Cloth, 75 
 cents ; paper 35 cents. 
 
 Rev. T. T. Eaton, D. D., LL. D., editor IVesfern 
 Recorder, says : 
 
 Dr. Christian has shown a remarkable talent for gath- 
 ering and arraying authorities. For more than twenty years 
 he has been studying the history of immersion, and has 
 spared no time nor expense to supply himself with original 
 documents. I do not suppose there is a Baptist in the land 
 who has anything like such an array of original ziocuments 
 on this subject as has Dr. Christian. In many cases he has 
 the original editions, while in others he has official copies 
 made at the British Museumi and elsewhere. He has exam- 
 ined more than forty books which Dr. Dexter does not 
 mention in his bibliography of the subject, and which, it is 
 reasonable to believe. Dr. Dexter never saw. Dr. Christian 
 is also singularly accurate in his use of authorities. I have 
 read this book through and have not detected a single inac- 
 curacy. Many of the quotations I have personally verified 
 and have found them correct, and though I have not verified 
 them all, yet I have no doubt of the absolute correctness of 
 every one. He courts investigation, however, and he will 
 gladly welcome the detection of any mistake in the book. 
 (The Introduction.) 
 
 Immersion, The Act of Christian Baptism. 12th 
 edition. Morocco ^1.50; cloth $1.00; paper 35 
 cents. 
 
 Prof. Wm. H. Whitsitt, D. D., LL. D., president 
 Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says : 
 
 I have read over with much satisfaction the volume of 
 Rev. Dr. Christian, entitled ' Immersion, the Act of Christ- 
 
 2 
 
ian Baptism.' His treatment of the subject is industrious, 
 sprightly, pointed and entertaining. I believe that the work 
 will be of real service; it is concise, yet clear and convinc- 
 ing. Many people will read and appreciate it who would 
 never undertake one of the more ponderous treatises. I 
 trust that the blessing of God will rest upon this and every 
 effort to promote a knowledge of the truth. 
 
 Rev. John A. Broadus, late president of the 
 Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says : 
 
 This book treats every department of the subject with 
 practical point and force; with good sense and with a good 
 spirit. It is remarkably rich in testimonies of scholars, in- 
 cluding the concessions of very many learned Pedobaptists, 
 Romanists, etc. Every minister would do well to procure 
 it, and many other devout men and women, both for per- 
 sonal reading and for use with those who maybe convinced. 
 
 Dr. Maclaren, the great preacher, Manchester, 
 England, says : 
 
 This volume on immersion is carefully and industri- 
 ously prepared, and its fullness and comprehensiveness 
 leaves nothing to be desired. I hope its circulation may 
 be large. It will be if it is commensurate with its com- 
 pleteness-. 
 
 Dr. Joseph Angus, president Regents Park Col- 
 lege, London, England, says : 
 
 I am glad to have a copy of Dr. Christian's book on 
 Baptism. Its thoroughness and clearness, and force and 
 spirit, are all admirable; and the general circulation of it 
 among the English speaking people could not fail to pro- 
 mote the interests of truth and love. 
 
 Close Communion; or. Baptism as a Prerequisite 
 to the Lord's Supper. 5th edition. Morocco 
 $1.50; cloth Si.oo; paper 35 cents. 
 
 Prof. A. T. Robertson, D. D., Southern Baptist 
 Theological Seminary, says : 
 
 I have enjoyed reading it and it grew upon me to 
 the end. It shows the same patient investigation and 
 masterly marshaling of irresistible arguments that char- 
 acterized the author's work on ' Immersion.* The two 
 will form an impregnable bulwark for our doctrines on 
 those questions. I regard it as equal to the one on 
 * Immersion.' 
 
 3 
 
Prof. W. C. Wilkinson, D. D., professor in Chi- 
 cago University, says : 
 
 'Close Communion,' by J. T. Christian, can hardly fail to 
 carry conviction of the truth to any candid reader. It is 
 clearly written, kind in spirit, and is well adapted to the 
 average, Christian reader, which is exactly what a popular 
 treatise on the subject should aim to be. 
 
 Americanism or Romanism, Which? 8th edition. 
 Cloth $i.oo; paper 25 cents. 
 
 Wesley a7i Methodist, Syracuse, N. Y., says : 
 There is a general expression of a noble patriotism in 
 this book. The fearful arraignment of Romanism is chiefly 
 upon evidence of the accredited authors and authorities 
 of the Roman Catholic Church. The book is of great 
 value. 
 
 Heathen and Infidel Testimonies to Jesus Christ. 
 
 3d thousand. Paper 5 cents. 
 
 Four Theories of Church Government. 5 cents. 
 
 Address, Baptist Book Concern, 
 
 Louisville. Ky. 
 
DID THEY DIP? 
 
 ..OR 
 
 AN EXAMINATION INTO THE ACT OF BAPTISM 
 
 AS PRACTICED BY THE ENGLISH AND 
 
 AMERICAN BAPTISTS BEFORE 
 
 THE YEAR 1641. 
 
 BY 
 
 John T. Christian, M. A., D. D., 
 
 Pastor East Baptist Church, 
 LOUISVILLE, KY., 
 
 And Author of "Immersion, the Act of Baptism," "Close Com- 
 munion; or, Baptism as a Prerequisite to the Lord's Supper," "Ameri- 
 canism or Romanism, Which?" "Four Theories of Church Govern- 
 ment," " Heathen and Infidel Testimonies to Jesus Christ," etc. 
 
 WITH AN 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 BY 
 
 T. T. EATON, D. D., LL. D 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 BAPTIST BOOK CONCERN. 
 
 LOUISVILLE, KY. 
 
Entered according to an Act of Congress, in the year 1896, by 
 
 John T. Christian, 
 
 In the Office of the Librarian, Washington, D. C. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 pvR. CHRISTIAN has shown a remarkable 
 ^^ talent for gathering and arraying authori- 
 ties. For more than twenty years he has been 
 studying the history of immersion and has spared 
 no time nor expense to supply himself with orig- 
 inal documents. I do not suppose there is a 
 Baptist in the land who has anything like such an 
 array of original documents on this subject as has 
 Dr. Christian. In many cases he has the original 
 editions, while in others he has official copies 
 made at the British museum and elsewhere. He 
 has examined more than forty books which Dr. 
 Dexter does not mention in his bibliography of 
 the subject, and which, it is reasonable to believe, 
 Dr. Dexter never saw. 
 
 Dr. Christian is also singularly accurate in his 
 use of authorities. I have read this book through 
 and have not detected a single inaccuracy. Many 
 of the quotations I have personally verified and 
 have found them correct, and though I have not 
 verified them all, yet I have no doubt of the abso- 
 lute correctness of every one. He courts investi- 
 gation, however, and he will gladly welcome the 
 detection of any mistake in the book. The most 
 unpleasant thing in connection with replying to 
 Dr. Whitsitt's " Question in Baptist History" is 
 calling attention to his unauthorized use of docu- 
 ments, owing largely to his misplaced confidence 
 
 7 
 
8 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 in Dr. Dexter. And yet whoever replies to any- 
 book must needs call attention to its misuse of 
 authorities where such misuse exists. When, for 
 example, such great stress is laid on the sup- 
 posed testimony of the "Jessey Church Rec- 
 ords," it is needful in replying to point out that 
 what is quoted as ** Jessey Church Records" really 
 belongs to an " ancient manuscript said to have 
 been written by Mr. William Kiffin." In all this 
 Dr. Christian has not gone beyond the limits of 
 honorable controversy. Indeed he is not so severe 
 on Dr. Whitsitt as the latter is on Dr. Clifford. 
 When a man enters the lists of controversy he 
 must expect his statements to be challenged. 
 
 It should be constantly borne in mind that not 
 till the year 1641 were the Baptists in England 
 free to speak and write their views. It was on 
 August I, 1641, that the Court of High Commis- 
 sion and the Court of Star Chamber went out of 
 existence. Then, and not till then, could Bap- 
 tists come from their hiding places and preach 
 openly. Of course their doctrines and practices 
 were new to a great many people. To find in- 
 stances, therefore, after 1641, where Baptists were 
 called " new " does not at all prove that they 
 began to exist in 1641. Indeed the fact that they 
 were then heard from so vigorously, and spread so 
 rapidly, itself proves they were in existence, 
 though in hiding, before. Just so soon as it was 
 safe for them to show themselves they are seen 
 here, there and everywhere, to the great annoy- 
 ance of the state clergy, who call them ** new, 
 upstart sectaries," etc. The fact that in 1644 im- 
 
INTRODUCTION, 9 
 
 mersion had such a strong hold on the divines 
 composing the Westminster Assembly that after 
 a long and bitter debate they voted it down by 
 only one majority is decisive proof that immer- 
 sion did not begin in England in 164 1. 
 
 Then Dr. Joseph Angus, our great British 
 scholar, has called attention to a number of Bap- 
 tist Churches in England which trace their history 
 to times long before 1641, e. g., Braintree, Ey- 
 thorne, Sutton, Warrington, Bridgewater, Oxford 
 and Sadmore. All the Baptists of England, so far 
 as I know, believe that their fathers practiced im- 
 mersion before 1641. 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt's contention is that from 1509 to 
 1641 the Anabaptists of England practiced affu- 
 sion, and in that year they began to practice 
 immersion. And yet he has not cited a single in- 
 stance where any Anabaptists in England prac- 
 ticed affusion, nor a single case where any Ana- 
 baptist Church adopted immersion. The "Jessey 
 Church" was not an Anabaptist Church, and an 
 anonymous manuscript which has been lost, and 
 whose date nobody knows, is the only evidence 
 that this church began to practice immersion. 
 Richard Blount is said to have gone over to 
 Holland to get baptism in the true succession, 
 and to have returned and baptized Blacklock, yet 
 neither Blount nor Blacklock show themselves 
 afterwards. When in 1644 the Baptists of London 
 put forth their Confession of Faith, the names of 
 Blount and Blacklock are significantly absent 
 from the list of signatures. 
 
 While before 1641 in England Baptists were 
 
10 DID THEY DIP? 
 
 obliged to hide and to speak with bated breath, 
 yet we are not left in the dark concerning them. 
 Occasionally we hear directly from them, as when 
 Leonard Busher speaks, in 1614, and Helwiss' 
 Church declares, in 1610 or 1611, that baptism is 
 a symbol *' of death and of resurrection " {inortifi- 
 cationis et vitce renovationis) ;■ but it is chiefly from 
 what their enemies say of them that we get our 
 information. Dr. Christian gives a good deal of 
 this, and if any of it at all be valid, Dr. Whitsitt's 
 thesis is overthrown. For example, Sam. Hieron 
 (Works, p. 307, London, 1614,) says of baptism: 
 
 ' ' The going down into the water signifieth mortifi- 
 catio or fellowship with Christ's death, the staying un- 
 der the water the buriall of sinne, the coming out the 
 rising from sin to newnesse of life." 
 
 In Commonplaces of Christian Religion, by Wolf- 
 gang Musculus, written in Latin, translated by 
 John Man, of Merton College, Oxford, and pub- 
 Hshed in London, in 1578, I find on page 672 : 
 
 "The word baptisme cometh of the Greek, and it 
 is as much to say in English, as dipping or drowning 
 in. But forasmuch as it is not meante of every man- 
 ner of dipping, but such a manner, whereas there is 
 one thing done outwardly and another inwardly," &c. 
 
 Again, on page 6'jZ of the same book, the au- 
 thor, speaking of the baptism of the disciples in 
 Ephesus, says : 
 
 '' For to what purpose was it to dippe them twice in 
 one baptisme ? Did not some of the fathers, and Ana- 
 baptists of our dayes, take the foundation of their bap- 
 tizing upon this ?" 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 I take these quotations directly from the original 
 documents themselves and not from copies. Could 
 testimony be more decisive ? But these are only 
 samples of many, all of which must be set aside 
 entirely in order for Dr. Whitsitt's thesis to stand. 
 
 Let it be remembered with emphasis, that not 
 an atom of evidence, or any pretense thereof, has 
 been offered to show that any Anabaptist church 
 in England practiced sprinkling or pouring before 
 1641, or that any such church ever changed their 
 practice in regard to baptism. The whole case of 
 Dr. Whitsitt now rests on the negative testimony 
 of a document (the so-called Kiffin MS.) written 
 nobody knows when or where, or by whom, and 
 first mentioned by Crosby in 1738, nearly a hun- 
 dred years after 1641. Moreover, the oldest ex- 
 tant copy of that manuscript is less than forty years 
 old, and there is no certainty that the much quoted 
 phrase, "none having then so practiced in En- 
 gland to professed behevers," was in the document 
 Crosby had before him. But even if that docu- 
 ment and that passage be genuine, the argument 
 would be only that the writer did not himself know 
 of any immersions of behevers in England before 
 1641 ; but it would not prove there were no such 
 immersions. Elijah was certainly a better witness 
 as to Israel than was this unknown writer as to En- 
 gland ; and Elijah said there were no true worship- 
 pers in Israel, while God said there were ** seven 
 thousand." Elijah said ''none having then so 
 practiced in Israel," but God said seven thousand 
 
12 DID THEY DIP? 
 
 SO practiced. I Kings, xix., lo and i8. The fact 
 is, no amount of negative testimony can set aside 
 any positive testimony. If five hundred men 
 should walk over a field of clover and solemnly 
 declare there were no four-leaf clovers in that field, 
 one man's finding one four-leaf clover there, would 
 overthrow the negative testimony of the whole five 
 hundred. 
 
 One great good to come from this discussion is 
 that Baptists will be better informed in regard to 
 their history than ever before ; and it must be ad- 
 mitted that Dr. Whitsitt has stirred the denomina- 
 tion in this regard as nobody else has ever done, 
 and as nobody else is likely ever to do. Of all 
 people, the Baptists are the last to be afraid of the 
 truth on any subject. 
 
 T. T. Eaton. 
 
 Louisville, Ky., Feb. 17th, W 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 A STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 
 
 Dr. William H. Whitsitt wrote the following 
 article, which appeared as an editorial in The 
 Ifidepe?ide?it, New York, September 2, 1880: 
 
 The Congregationalist speaks of " the well-known im- 
 mersion of Roger Williams by the unimmersed Ezekiel 
 Holliman." We are somewhat surprised that our greatly 
 learned contemporary should be betrayed into the assertion 
 that Roger Williams was immersed by Ezekiel Holliman. 
 To be sure all the Baptists of America' so assume, but the 
 editor of The Congregatiojialist is more accurately 
 acquainted with the origines of Baptist history than any of 
 the Baptists themselves, and we expected that its state- 
 ments would be more accurate. As we understand it, 
 Roger Williams never was a Baptist in the modern sense — 
 that is, never was immersed, and the ceremony referred to 
 was anabaptism, rebaptism by sprinkling, and not "cata- 
 baptism," or baptism by immersion. The baptism of Roger 
 Williams is affirmed by Governor Winthrop to have taken 
 place in March, 1639. This, however, was at least two years 
 prior to the introduction of the practice of immersion 
 among the Baptists. Up to the year 1641 all Baptists 
 employed sprinkling and pouring as the mode of baptism. 
 Now, is it reasonable to suppose that Mr. Williams, in join- 
 ing the Baptists, should have made use of a form of baptism 
 which they had never practiced or thought of ? To us it 
 seems an historical anachronism. We admit that there are 
 no positive historical statements as yet discovered concern- 
 ing the mode of Mr. Williams' baptism ; but as it took place 
 in the year 1689, we assume, as a matter of course, that 
 sprinkling or pouring was the method, since no other was at 
 that time in use among the Baptists. The burden of proof 
 rests entirely upon those who assert that Williams was im- 
 mersed. Has The Congregatiotialist any positive testimony 
 to that effect ? If so, we shall be glad to receive it. We are 
 inclined to believe that no case of immersion took place 
 among the American Baptists before the year 1644. It 
 seems likely that Roger Williams, on his return from Eng- 
 land in that year, brought the first reliable news concerning 
 the change which had taken place in the practice of the 
 English Baptists, three years before, and that it was then 
 that the American Baptists first resolved to accept the in- 
 
 13 
 
14 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 novation. At any rate, our reading has not yet furnished 
 us with anything that looks like an authenticated instance 
 of immersion earlier than the year 1644. But The Congre- 
 gationalist is far better instructed on these topics than our- 
 selves, and we shall be grateful for some further "light and 
 leading " with regard to the point at issue from it, or from 
 Zion's Advocate, which is the only Baptist paper we know 
 of that seems to have any knowledge of Baptist history. 
 
 This was followed by another editorial from 
 him on September 9, 1880, as follows: 
 
 The proofs which are demanded by Zion's Advocate of 
 our recent assertion that immersion was not practiced in 
 England before a period as late as 1641 are so abundant 
 that one is embarrassed to know where to begin, We shall 
 mention, in the first instance, the silence of history. This is 
 absolute and unbroken. Tho' a number of works were 
 written by Smyth, Helwys, Merton and other Baptists prior 
 to 1641, and tho' these were replied to by opponents such 
 as Clifton, Robinson, Ainsworth and Johnson, it is nowhere 
 intimated that the Baptists were then in the practice of 
 immersion. Nay, more, the earliest Baptist Confessions of 
 Faith all contemplate sprinkling or pouring as the act of 
 baptism. We refer, in proof of this, to the Confession of 
 Faith, in twenty articles, which is subscribed by John Smyth, 
 and may be found in the Appendix to Volume I of Evans' 
 "Early English Baptists." We refer also to the Helwys 
 Confession, entitled "A Declaration of Faith of English 
 People Remaining at Amsterdam, Holland," printed 1611. 
 We also refer to the " Propositions and Conclusions Con- 
 cerning the Christian Religion," which were published after 
 his death, by "the remainders of Mr. Smyth's company." 
 
 It was not until the year 1644, three years after the m- 
 vention of immersion, that any Baptist confession prescribes 
 " dipping or plunging the body in water as the way and 
 manner of dispensing this ordinance " (" London Confession 
 of 1644," Article 40). 
 
 He then quotes some authors in support of his 
 position. Of Edward Barber he says: 
 
 Happily for us, however, the above assertion is confirmed 
 by the authority of Edward Barber, the founder of the rite 
 of immersion among the Baptists. In the preface to his 
 " Treatise of Baptism, or Dipping," London, 1641, the earli- 
 est book in the English language, to assert that immersion 
 is essential to baptism, Mr. Barber praises God that he, "a 
 poore tradesman," was raised up to restore this truth to the 
 world. 
 
A STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 15 
 
 He then concludes the editorial as follows: 
 Here is the highest Baptist testimony to the effect that 
 there were no immersionists in England, and that the rite 
 was first fetched from Holland by Mr. Richard Blount. The 
 John Batten who administered immersion to Mr. Blount 
 was a collegiant minister, the successor of the Brothers 
 Van der Codde, This community was founded and immer- 
 sion was introduced by them into Holland in the year 1619. 
 It is not known whence they obtained the practice. 
 
 These editorials naturally caused a good deal of 
 comment in Baptist circles. It was taken for 
 granted they were written by some Pedobaptist 
 writer, and a number of persons wrote The hide- 
 pendent iox the name of the author. The Independ- 
 ent kept well its own secret. It was only after 
 Dr, Whitsitt's articles appeared in Johnson's New 
 Encyclopaedia that he revealed that he was also 
 the author of these Ijidepe?ident ^ditovisXs. Among 
 other things the Encyclopaedia article says: 
 
 Some have fancied that the new title was claimed and 
 maintained because of the change in the form of adminis- 
 tering baptism, which is alleged was substituted in the 
 place of sprinkling and pouring. If these had been retained 
 it would have been as impossible for them to shake off the 
 name of Anabaptists as it was in the case of the Anabaptists 
 in Germany. After the adoption of immersion it was easy 
 to insist that those who practiced it were alone "baptized 
 people," emphasis being laid not only on the subjects as 
 formerly, but also on the mode of baptism. This latter 
 emphasis was indicated by the name Baptist. * * * xhe 
 earliest organized Baptist Church belongs to the year 1610 
 or 1611. * * * Ezekiel Holliman baptized Williams 
 and the rest of the company. The ceremony was most 
 likely performed by sprinkling; the Baptists of England 
 had not adopted immersion, and there is no reason which 
 renders it probable that Williams was in advance of them. 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt wrote three articles for the papers 
 
 to defend this position: One in The Exami?ier, 
 
 April 23, 1896; one in the Religious Herald, May 7, 
 
 and the last a Statement, which was publishedJn 
 
 several papers. His book, ** A Question in Baptist 
 
16 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 History," was published September 17, 1896. He 
 
 re-affirms the foregoing position on p. 133: 
 
 In view of the foregoing body of materials, I candidly 
 consider that my proofs are sufficient. This opinion has 
 been confirmed and strengthened by the renewed investi- 
 gations which I have lately undertaken 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 introduced 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 become one 
 of the commonplaces of our Baptist teaching, 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 convincing demonstration. 
 
 THE DISCOVERY. 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt appears to have frequently changed 
 his mind as to how much he discovered. In 
 The Exami7ier he makes a wide claim, but in his 
 book it sinks to almost nothing at all. In The 
 Examiner he claims Dr. Dexter as " his learned 
 and distinguished convert," but in the book Sept. 
 17, 1895, Dr. Dexter plays an entirely different 
 part. 
 
 THE TWO VIEWS. 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt in The Dr. Whitsitt in his 
 
 Examiner K'^x\\2'i^, 1896: book, Sept. 17, 1896: 
 
 During the autumn of Another investigator was 
 
 1877, shortly after I had been Rev. Henry Martyn Dexter, 
 
 put in charge of the School D. D., of Boston, Mass., one 
 
 to Church History at the of the foremost authorities 
 
 Southern Baptist Theologi- for original research in the 
 
 cal Seminary, in preparing department of church his- 
 
 my lectures on Baptist His- tory that has yet appeared in 
 
 tory, I made the discovery America. He spent " some 
 
 that, prior to the year 1641, days " at the Museum for 
 
 our Baptist people in Eng- this purpose in the winter of 
 
 land were in the practice of 1880-81, and gathered the 
 
 sprinkling and pouring for fruits of his labors into a 
 
A STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 
 
 17 
 
 baptism. I kept it to myself 
 until the year 1880, when I 
 had the happiness to spend 
 my summer vacation at the 
 British Museum. There I 
 assured ^yself, largely by 
 researches among the King 
 George's pamphlets, that my 
 discovery was genuine, and 
 established it by many irref- 
 ragable proofs from con- 
 temporary documents. 
 
 * * * * Apparently 
 Dr. Dexter was interested by 
 my explanations and proofs, 
 for he shortly found his way 
 to the British Museum, 
 where he also convinced 
 himself that my view was 
 correct and my citations au- 
 thentic. As a fruit of these 
 researches he issued, near 
 the close of 1881, more than 
 a twelve month after my 
 discovery had been declared 
 in The Independent, the well- 
 known volume entitled 
 "John Smyth the Se-Bap- 
 tist," wherein he adopted my . 
 thesis, defended it by many 
 citations, and entirely ig- 
 nored my discovery as set 
 forth in The Independent. 
 
 Naturally I was glad to 
 gain such a learned and dis- 
 tinguished convert, and took 
 little or no care of my rights 
 in my discovery. * * * 
 This discovery is my own 
 contribution to Baptist his- 
 tory, and when my brethren 
 heap reproaches upon me it 
 is nothing but right that I 
 should defend my property. 
 Nobody can relish being 
 sneered at as a copyist, when 
 it is beyond any question 
 that he is himself the origi- 
 nal authority and the first 
 
 2 
 
 volume entitled, " 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 public- 
 ly announced the same in. 
 September, 1880, 1 cheerfully 
 concede the high merits of 
 Dr. Dexter. He uniformly 
 exhibits the best kind of 
 learning, great thoroughness 
 and patient accuracy. More- 
 over, at the time when he 
 gave himself to this partic- 
 ular labor, he had enjoyed 
 wide experience in the busi- 
 ness of original historical re- 
 search, and his acquaintance 
 with the library of the Brit- 
 ish Museum was extensive 
 and valuable. 
 
 Numbers of the citations 
 which I had sought out ia 
 the year 1880, and which I 
 still retain in manuscript 
 form, I found reproduced in 
 an independent fashion by 
 Dr. Dexter in 1881. Like- 
 wise he fell upon a good 
 many passages that I had 
 not seen. 
 
18 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 discoverer. My heart is wae 
 to be compelled to make 
 these claims on my own be- 
 half, but I remember that 
 the blessed Paul, when 
 
 sneers were heaped on him , 
 
 at Corinth, did not hesitate 
 to boast that he " was not a 
 whit behind the very chief- 
 est apostles," and I make 
 bold, under the existing 
 stress, to imitate his ex- 
 ample. 
 
 More than two months, that is in July, 1880, 
 before Dr. Whitsitt wrote his articles in The Inde- 
 pendent Dr. Dexter had written for his paper, The 
 Congregatiojialist, an editorial on "Affused Bap- 
 tists," in which he quoted many atithorities; and 
 fully took the position that was afterwards held 
 in his book on John Smyth, viz.: that Baptists 
 practiced affusion in England in the early part of 
 the 17th century. The book, " The True Story of 
 John Smyth, the Se-Baptist," was published in 
 December, 1881. 
 
 But neither Dr. Dexter nor Dr. Whitsitt was 
 the *' discoverer" of this theory. So far as I am 
 able to judge that position belongs to Robert 
 Barclay, an English Quaker. His book, " Inner 
 Life of the Religious Societies of the Common- 
 wealth," was published in 1876, and it contains 
 almost all that has so far been advanced on the 
 .subject. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE ANABAPTISTS OF ENGLAND. 
 
 At the dawn of the Reformation there were 
 those in England who held Baptist views. This 
 statement can be abundantly proved from many 
 writers. 
 
 Some trace the Anabaptists to the Lollards. 
 W. Carlos Martyn, an eminent Pedobaptist his- 
 torian, says: "The Anabaptists are an innocent 
 and an evangelical sect, had long been the most 
 hunted and hated of reformers. Not a nation in 
 Europe but that had anathematized them. Their 
 distinctive tenet was the denial of baptism to 
 infants. They were indeed often charged with 
 holding various dangerous doctrines, but their 
 peculiar idea of baptism was of itself sufficient to 
 bring upon them grievous punishment. The Ana- 
 baptists were among the earliest dissenters. The 
 disciples of their creed were found among the 
 Lollards as well as among the martyrs of the 
 English Reformation." (A History of the Eng- 
 lish Puritans, p. i66. New York, 1867). 
 
 I shall content myself with giving the words 
 of a few writers. 
 
 Barclay, a very strong writer and not a Baptist, 
 says: " As we shall afterwards show, the rise of the 
 * Anabaptists' took place long prior to the foun- 
 dation of the Church of England, and there are 
 also reasons for believing that on the Continent 
 of Europe, small hidden societies, who have held 
 many of the opinions of the Anabaptists, have 
 
 19 
 
20 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 existed from the times of the Apostles. In the 
 sense of the direct transmission of divine truth 
 and the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems 
 probable that these churches have a lineage or 
 succession more ancient than the Roman Church." 
 (Barclay's Inner Life of Religious Societies^ 
 p. 12). 
 
 W. J. E. Bennett, of Frome, a ritualistic Episco- 
 palian, says: "The historian Lingard tells us there 
 was a sect of fanatics who infested the north of 
 Germany, called Puritans; Usher calls them 
 Waldenses; Spelman, Paulicians (the same as 
 Waldenses). They gained ground and spread 
 over all England. They rejected all Romish 
 ceremonies, denied the authority of the Pope, 
 and more particularly refused to baptize infants. 
 Thirty of them were put to death for their hereti- 
 cal doctrines near Oxford, but the remainder still 
 held on to their opinions in private until the time 
 of Henry II. (1158), and the historian. Col- 
 lier, tells us that wherever the heresy prevailed, 
 the churches were either scandalously neglected 
 or pulled down a7id infants left unbaptized!' (The 
 Unity of the Church Broken, Vol. II., p. 15). 
 
 Robinson, who has long been a standard, says: 
 "I have seen enough to convince me that the 
 present English Dissenters, contending for the 
 sufficiency of Scripture, and for primitive Chris- 
 tian liberty to judge of its meaning, may be 
 traced back in authentic manuscripts to the Non- 
 conformists, to the Puritans, to the Lollards, to 
 the Vallenses, to the Albigenses, and, I suspect, 
 through the Paulicians and others to the Apos- 
 tles." (Robinson's Claude, Vol. II., p. 53). 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF ENGLAND. 21 
 
 Evans, who is a very careful writer, says: 
 '* Dissidents from the popular church in the early 
 ages, compelled to leave it from the growing cor- 
 ruption of its doctrines and morals, were found 
 everywhere. Men of apostolic life and doctrine 
 contended for the simplicity of the church and 
 the liberty of Christ's flock, in the midst of great 
 danger. What the pen failed to do, the sword of 
 the magistrate effected. The Novatians and 
 Donatists, and others that followed them, are ex- 
 amples. They contended for the independence 
 of the church; they exalted the Divine Word as 
 the only standard of faith; they maintained the 
 essential purity of the church, and the necessity 
 of a holy life springing from a renewed heart. 
 Extinguished by the sword, not of the Spirit — 
 their churches broken and scattered — after years 
 of patient suffering from the dominant sect, the 
 seed which they had scattered sprang up in other 
 lands. Truth never dies. Its vitality is imperish- 
 able. In the wild waste and fastnesses of Europe 
 and Africa it grew. A succession of able and in- 
 trepid men taught the same great principles, in 
 opposition to a corrupt and affluent State church, 
 which distinguish modern English Nonconform- 
 ists; and many of them taught those peculiar 
 views of Christian ordinances which are special to 
 us Baptists." (History Early Eng. Baptists, Vol. 
 I., pp. I, 2). 
 
 The learned President Edwards says: 
 ** In every age of this dark time there appeared 
 particular persons in all parts of Christendom 
 who bore a testimony against the corruptions and 
 
22 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 tyranny of the Church of Rome. There is no one 
 age of Anti-Christ, even in the darkest times of 
 all, but ecclesiastical historians mention a great 
 many by name who manifested an abhorrence to 
 the Pope and his idolatrous worship, and pleaded 
 for the ancient purity of doctrine and worship. 
 God was pleased to maintain an uninterrupted 
 succession of witnesses through the whole time, in 
 Germany, France, Britain and other countries; as 
 historians demonstrate and mention them by 
 name, and give an account of the testimony which 
 they held. Many of them were private persons, 
 and some magistrates, and persons of great dis- 
 tinction. And there were numbers in every age 
 who were persecuted and put to death for this 
 testimony." (Edward's Works, Vol. I., p. 460.) 
 
 The claim is distinctly made by the above 
 writers that there has been a succession of wit- 
 nesses from the days of the Apostles to the pres- 
 ent day. I have, however, not undertaken to 
 trace such a succession, but in the space at my 
 command, to set forth one of our peculiar princi- 
 ples as held by persons or churches in England 
 since the Reformation. Oftentimes we have only 
 scant information furnished from persecuting 
 edicts, and now and then from other sources. 
 
 Thus before the time of the Reformation in 
 England Baptist principles were held by many 
 people, and in many parts of the country. At 
 the very dawn of the Reformation Baptist princi- 
 ples began to stir the wrath of Henry VIII. In 
 151 1 several persons were tried by Archbishop 
 Warham for holding Anabaptist opinions. These 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF ENGLAND. 23 
 
 men held, so it was charged, " that the sacrament 
 of baptism and confirmation is not necessary nor 
 profitable for a man's soul." (Collier's Eccl. 
 Hist. Vol. IV., p. 4). 
 
 In 1 529-1 534 the Anabaptists are distinctly 
 traceable in England. John Henry Blount, an 
 Episcopalian, says: *' In England the Anabap- 
 tists are not distinctly traceable before the year 
 1534, although much similarity is to be observed 
 between their principles and those of sectarians 
 spoken of by the bishops in 1529 as 'certain 
 apostates, friars, monks, lewd priests, bankrupt 
 merchants, vagabonds and lewd idle fellows of 
 corrupt intent,' who * have embraced the abomi- 
 nable and erroneous opinions lately sprung in Ger- 
 many.' " (Froude's Hist, of England, Vol. I., p. 
 211. Dictionary of Sects, p. 26). 
 
 Blount further says: 
 
 " In A. D. 1534, however, a royal proclamation 
 was issued, in which it was said that many 
 strangers are come into this realm, who, though 
 they were baptized in their infancy, yet have, in 
 contempt of the holy sacrament of baptism, re- 
 baptized themselves. They are ordered to depart 
 out of the realm in twelve days, under pain of 
 death." (Wilkins' Concil. III., 779. Dictionary 
 of Sects, p. 26. London, 1874). 
 
 It is certain that they did not return to the 
 Continent and did remain in England. Cromwell 
 left this memorandum in his pocket: ** First, 
 touching the Anabaptists and what the king will 
 do with them." (Ellis' Orig. Let. II., 120). 
 
24 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 The old chronicler Stowe, 1535, gives the fol- 
 lowing details: 
 
 " The 25th day of May were — in St. Paul's 
 Church, London — examined nineteen men and six 
 women, born in Holland, whose opinions were: 
 First, that in Christ is not two natures, God and 
 man; secondly, that Christ took neither flesh nor 
 blood of the Virgin Mary; thirdly, that children 
 born of infidels may be saved; fourthly, that 
 baptism of children is of none effect; fifthly, that 
 the sacrament of Christ's body is but bread only; 
 sixthly, that he who after baptism sinneth wit- 
 tingly, sinneth deadly, and cannot be saved. 
 Fourteen of them were condemned; a man and a 
 woman were burnt in Smithfield; the other twelve 
 of them were sent to other towns, there to be 
 burnt." 
 
 Froude says of them: 
 
 ** The details are gone, their names are gone. 
 Poor Hollanders they were, and that is all. 
 Scarcely the fact seemed worth the mention, so 
 shortly is it told in a passing paragraph. For 
 them no Europe was agitated, no courts were or- 
 dered into mourning, no Papal hearts trembled 
 with indignation. At their death the world looked 
 on complacent, indifferent or exulting. Yet here, 
 too, out of twenty-five poor men and women were 
 found fourteen who by no terror of stake or tort- 
 ure could be tempted to say they believed what 
 they did not believe. History has for them no 
 word of praise; yet they, too, were not giving 
 their blood in vain. Their lives might have been 
 as useless as the lives of the most of us. In their 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF ENGLAND. 
 
 25 
 
 deaths they assisted to pay the purchase-money 
 for England's freedom." (Froude's History of 
 England, Vol. II., p. 365). 
 
 In some articles put forth in 1536 it is declared: 
 *' That the opinions of the Anabaptists and Pela- 
 gians are to be held for detestable heresies." 
 (Strype's Memorials of Archbishop Cranmer, Vol. 
 I., p. 85. Oxford Ed. 1848). 
 The Penny Encyclopaedia says: 
 " Little is known of the Baptists of England 
 before the sixteenth century. Their name then 
 appears among the various sects which were 
 struggling for civil and religious freedom. Their 
 opinions at this early period were sufficiently pop- 
 ular to attract the notice of the national estab- 
 lishment, as is evident from the fact that at a con- 
 vocation held in 1536, they were denounced as de- 
 testable heretics, to be utterly condemned. Proc- 
 lamations to banish the Baptists from the kingdom 
 were allowed, their books were burnt, and several 
 individuals suffered at the stake. The last per- 
 son who was burnt in England was a Baptist." 
 (Penny Ency., Vol. III., pp. 416, 417). 
 
 Goadby thus speaks of the reign of Henry VIII. 
 and his persecutions of the Baptists: 
 
 '• Bitterly as he hated the Papist party, after he 
 had broken with Rome it was not long before he 
 revealed a still more bitter hatred of all Baptists, 
 English and Continental." "But neither threats 
 nor cajolery prevented the spread of Baptist 
 opinions. Like the Israelites in Egypt, ' the more 
 they were afflicted, the more they multiplied 
 and grew.' " (Goadby's Bye-Paths of Baptist His- 
 tory, pp. 72-74). 
 
26 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 Strype, 1538, says of the king: 
 
 ** The sect of the Anabaptists did now begin ta 
 pester this church; and would openly dispute 
 their principles in taverns and public places; and 
 some of them were taken up. Many also of their 
 books were brought in and printed here also; 
 which w^as the cause that the king now sent out a 
 severe proclamation against them and their books. 
 To which he joined the Sacramentarians, as lately 
 with the others come into the land, declaring, 
 ' that he abhorred and detested their errors; and 
 those that were apprehended he would make ex- 
 amples.' Ordering that they should be detected 
 and brought before the king or his council; and 
 that all that were not should in eight or ten days 
 depart the kingdom." (Strype's Memorials, Vol. 
 I., p. 155). 
 
 After condemning their books the king decreed : 
 
 " The king declares concerning Anabaptists and 
 other Sacramentarians lately come into the realm, 
 that he abhorred and detested their errors, 
 and intended to proceed against them that were 
 already apprehended, according to their merits; 
 to the intent his subjects should take example by 
 their punishments not to adhere to such false and 
 detestable opinions, but utterly to forsake and 
 relinquish them. And that wheresoever any of 
 them be known, they be detected, and his majesty 
 and council be informed with all convenient speed, 
 with all manner abettors and printers of the same 
 opinions. And his majesty charged the same 
 Anabaptists and Sacramentarians not apprehended 
 and known, that they within eight or ten days 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF ENGLAND. 2T 
 
 depart out of the realm, upon pain of the loss of 
 their life and forfeiture of their goods." (Strype's 
 Memorials, Vol. I., pp. 410-412. Collier's Eccl. 
 Hist., Vol. IX., pp. 161, 162). 
 
 A few months later also an act of Parliament 
 was passed (32 Henry VHL, cap. 49), granting a. 
 general pardon to all the king's subjects except- 
 ing those who said: " That infants ought not to 
 be baptized, and if they were baptized that they 
 ought to be rebaptized when they came of lawful 
 age." 
 
 A Declaration of Faith was then drawn up en- 
 dorsing the action of the king in his persecutions 
 of the Anabaptists. One section reads: 
 
 ** Englishmen detest the Anabaptists, ' Sacra- 
 mentaries,' and all other heresies and errors, and 
 with great reverence do solemnize holy baptisme, 
 the sacrament of the blessed body and blood of 
 Christ, and other sacraments and sacramentalls,. 
 as they have done in tymes past, with all the 
 laudable ceremonies and dayly masses; and do the 
 other service of God in their churches, as honor- 
 able and devoutly, paye their tythes and offerings 
 truely as ever they did, and as any men do in any 
 part of Christendome," etc. (Collier's Eccl. Hist., 
 Vol. IX., p. 163). 
 
 Some of these were burned. (Stowe's Chronicle, 
 
 P- 579)- 
 
 Latimer says: "The Anabaptists that were 
 burnt here in divers towns in England (as I have 
 heard of credible men, I saw them not myself),, 
 went to their death, even intrepide, as ye will say^ 
 without any fear in the world, cheerfully. WelL 
 
28 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 let them go." (Sermons of Hugh Latimer, Vol. 
 L, pp. 143. 144). 
 
 Latimer says again; 
 
 "I should have told you here of a certain sect 
 of heretics that spake against their order and 
 doctrine; they will have no magistrates nor judges 
 on the earth. Here I have to tell you what I 
 have heard of late, by the relations of a credible 
 person and a worshipful man, of a town of this 
 realm of England that hath about 500 of heretics 
 of this erroneous opinion in it." The margin 
 says they were Anabaptists. (Sermons, p. 151. 
 Parker Society, Vol. v.). 
 
 Collier says: "Some few days before, four 
 Dutch Anabaptists, three men and a woman, had 
 faggots tied to their backs at Paul's Cross, and 
 one man and a woman, of the same sect and 
 country, were burnt in Smithfield. Cranmer, 
 upon the first of October, with some others, had a 
 commission from the king to try some Anabap- 
 tists, which, by comparing the dates of the com- 
 mission with that of the execution, we may con- 
 clude the trial passed upon the persons above 
 mentioned." (Eccl. Hist. Vol. IV,, p. 429). 
 
 Bishop Burnet, 1547, informs us: 
 
 " There were many Baptists in several parts of 
 England." (Neal's Hist. Puritans, Vol. H., pp. 
 
 354, 355)- 
 
 Of the Baptists of the reign of Edward VL, 
 1547-1553, Goadby says: 
 
 " In the first year of Edward's reign, Ridley and 
 Gardiner united together in a commission to deal 
 with two Baptists in Kent. A Protestant Inquisi- 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF ENGLAND. 29= 
 
 tion was established, with Cranmer at its head. 
 They were to pull up ' the noxious weeds of her- 
 esy4 Their work was to be done with the forms 
 of justice and in secret. They might fine, im- 
 prison, torture, and, in all cases of obstinate here- 
 tics, hand them over to the civil power to be 
 burnt. Four years later this commission was 
 renewed, and in the same year Baptists were a sec- 
 ond time excluded from a general pardon. It 
 was this inquisition that condemned Joan Bucher 
 and scattered, or tried to scatter, the congrega- 
 tions of Baptists gathered in Kent. Still their 
 numbers increased. Strype tells us that their 
 opinions were believed by many honest meaning 
 people; and another writer affirms that the arti- 
 cles of religion, issued just before the king's 
 death, ' were principally designed to vindicate the 
 English Reformation from that slur and disgrace 
 which Anabaptists' tenets had brought upon it,' 
 a clear proof that Baptists were, at that period, 
 neither few nor unimportant." (Goadby's Bye- 
 Paths of Baptist History, pp. 74, 75). 
 
 1549 an act was passed against the Anabaptists 
 by the Parliament of Edward VI. (3 Edward 
 VI., C.24). 
 
 London, June 25, 1549, Bishop John Hooper in. 
 a letter to Henry Bullinger says: 
 
 " The Anabaptists flock to the place and give 
 me much trouble." (Original Letters Relative to 
 the English Reformation, Vol. I., p. 65. Cambridge 
 Ed. 1846). 
 
 Bishop Vowler Short says: "Complaints had 
 been brought to the council of the prevalence of 
 
"30 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 Anabaptists. * * * * To check the prog- 
 ress of these opinions a commission was ap- 
 pointed." (Short's Hist. Church of England, Vol. 
 
 VI., p. 543). 
 
 Dr. Hase says: 
 
 "In general, Anabaptism required that those who 
 came over to it should be possessed of the strict 
 heroic morals of the early Christians, the same con- 
 tempt for the world and its pleasures and pains, 
 and even its outward forms. By baptism a renun- 
 ciation was made of the devil, the world and the 
 flesh; and a vow taken to do nothing but the will 
 of God. Any willful sin of an Anabaptist would 
 not be pardoned, and entailed on its perpetrator 
 hopeless expulsion from the commtmity, and a 
 loss of the grace of God. It was exactly on this 
 account that the heresy was so dangerous, for the 
 greater part of its adherents could appeal to the 
 sanctity of their mode of life." (Dr. Hase's Neue 
 Propheten. Apud Madden, Phantasmata, Vol. II., 
 pp. 439, 440). 
 
 " An ecclesiastical Commission in the begin- 
 ning of this year was issued out for the examina- 
 tion of the Anabaptists and Arians, that began 
 now to spring up apace and show themselves more 
 openly." (Strype's Life of Sir Thomas Smith, 
 
 P- 37). 
 
 London, June 29, 1550, Bishop John Hooper 
 writing to Henry BuUinger in regard to Essex 
 and Kent says: "That district is troubled with 
 the frenzy of the Anabaptists more than any other 
 part of the kingdom." (Original Letters, Vol. I., 
 
 p- 87). 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF ENGLAND. 31 
 
 Strypesays: 
 
 " There were such assemblies in Kent." (Memo- 
 rials, Vol. IL, p. 266). 
 
 Bishop Ridley's Visitation Articles required: 
 
 " Whether any of the Anabaptists' sect, or 
 other, use notoriously any unlawful or private 
 conventicles, wherein they do use doctrine or ad- 
 ministration of sacraments, separating themselves 
 from the rest of the parish? 
 
 "Whether any speak against infant baptism?" 
 (Cardwell's Documentary Annals of the Reformed 
 Church of England, Vol. I., p. 91). 
 
 Strype gives us additional information: 
 
 " In January 27th a number of persons, a sort of 
 Anabaptists, about sixty, met in a house on a Sun- 
 day in the parish of Bocking, in Essex, where arose 
 among them a great dispute, * Whether it were 
 necessary to stand or kneel, bare-headed or cov- 
 ered, at prayers? And they concluded the cere- 
 mony not to be material, but that the heart before 
 God was required, and nothing else.' Such other 
 like warm disputes there were about Scripture. 
 There were, likewise, such assemblies now in 
 Kent. These were looked upon as dangerous to 
 church and state, and two of the company were 
 thereof committed to the Marshallsea, and orders 
 were sent to apprehend the rest." (Memorials of 
 Cranmer, Vol. I., p. 337). 
 
 The Parliament of 1551 exempted the Anabap- 
 tists from the pardon which was granted to those 
 who took part in the late rebellion. 
 
 During the reign of Elizabeth, 1558-1603, Eng- 
 land was full of Anabaptists. 
 
32 DID THEY DIP i 
 
 Marsden, one of the calmest of the Puritan 
 historians, says: 
 
 " But the Anabaptists were the most numerous, 
 and for some time by far the most formidable op- 
 ponents of the church. They are said to have 
 existed in England since the days of the Lollards, 
 but their chief strength was more abroad," etc. 
 (Marsden, p. 144). 
 
 Marsden, further says: 
 
 •' In the judgment of the church party, and not 
 a few of the Puritans, Anabaptists were heretics 
 of the worst kind, and those who denied the 
 necessity or validity of infant baptism, however 
 orthodox on other points, are constantly classed 
 by writers of that period with Donatists, infidels, 
 and atheists." (Marsden, p. 65). 
 
 Bishop Cox writing to Gaulter, says: 
 
 ** You must not grieve, my Gaulter, that secta- 
 ries are showing themselves to be mischievous and 
 wicked interpreters of your most just opinion. 
 For it cannot be otherwise but that tares must 
 grow in the Lord's field, and that in no small 
 quantity. Of this kind are the Anabaptists, 
 Donatists, Arians, Papists, and all other good for 
 nothing tribes of sectaries." (Bishop Cox to 
 Gaulter, Zurich Letters, 285). 
 
 Bishop Aylmer: 
 
 " The Anabaptists, with infinite other swarms of 
 Satanistes, do you think that every pulpit may 
 wyll be hable to aunswer them? I pray God there 
 may be many that can." (Bishop Aylmer's Har- 
 borough for Faithful Subjects. Maitland, p. 216). 
 
 "And in these latter dales, the old festered sores 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF ENGLAND. 33 
 
 newly broke out, as the Anabaptists, the free- 
 willers, with infinite other swarms of God's ene- 
 mies. These * vgglie monsters,' * brodes of the 
 devvil's brotherhood.' " (p. 205). 
 
 Dr. Barker, in declining the Archbishopric 
 of Canterbury, says in his letter: 
 
 *• They say that the realm is full of Anabaptists, 
 Arians, libertines, free-will men, etc., against whom 
 I only thought ministers should have need to fight 
 in unity of doctrine." (Burnet's Reformation, 
 Vol. II., p. 359). 
 
 Jewel, in his correspondence with the Swiss 
 divines, complains: 
 
 " We found, at the beginning of the reign 
 of Elizabeth, a large and inauspicious crop 
 of Arians, Anabaptists, and other pests, which, 
 I know not how, but as mushrooms spring up 
 in the night and in darkness, so these sprung 
 up in that darkness and unhappy night of the 
 Marian times. These, I am informed, and hope 
 it is the fact, have retreated before the light 
 of pure doctrines, like owls at the light of the 
 sun, and are nowhere to be found." (Works 
 of Bishop Jewel, Vol. IV., p. 1240). 
 
 Greenwood says: 
 
 " I am not an Anabaptist, thank God." 
 
 A letter was addressed to the " Dutch Church," 
 in London, 1 573, rebuking them for sowing discord 
 among English people. (Strype's Annals Ref., 
 Vol. IV., p. 520). 
 
 On Easter day a private conventicle was dis- 
 covered near Aldersgate Bar, and twenty-seven 
 were apprehended. Four recanted; but "eleven 
 3 
 
34 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 of them were condemned in the Consistory of the 
 St. Paul's to be burnt, nine of them were banished, 
 and two suffered the extremity of the fire in 
 Smithfield, July 22, 1575." (Neal's Hist. Puritans, 
 Vol. I., p. 340. Ed. 1732. Strype's Annals Ref., 
 Vol. III., p. 564. Ed. 1824). 
 
 Collier says: ** To go back a little: On Easter 
 day this spring a conventicle of Dutch Baptists 
 was discovered at a house without the bars at 
 Aldgate." (Collier's Eccl. Hist., Vol. VI., p. 543). 
 
 Fuller says: 
 
 " Now began the Anabaptists wonderfully to 
 increase in the land; and as we are sorry that 
 any countryman should be seduced with that 
 opinion, so we are glad that (the) English as yet 
 were free from that infection. For on Easter day, 
 April 3, was disclosed a congregation of Dutch 
 Anabaptists without Aldgate in London, whereof 
 seven and twenty were taken and imprisoned; and 
 four, bearing faggots, at Paul's-Cross solemnly 
 recanted their dangerous opinions." (Fuller's 
 Church Hist. Britain, Vol. II., p. 506). 
 
 Collier, 1589, says: "This provision was no 
 more than necessary; for the Dutch Anabaptists 
 held private conventicles in London and perverted 
 a great many." (Collier's Eccl. Hist., Vol. VI., 
 
 p. 452). 
 
 Dr. Some admits the same fact in his reply to 
 Barrowe. He affirms that "there were several 
 Anabaptisticale conventicles in London and other 
 places." They were not all Dutchmen, for he 
 further says: *' Some persons of these sentiments 
 have been bred at our universities." 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF ENGLAND. 35 
 
 The Baptists of England from this date to 1641 
 underwent severe persecutions, but they increased 
 in numbers. After the abolition of the Court of 
 High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber 
 in 1641, when they were able to assert themselves, 
 there were a surprising number of them in London 
 and throughout England. Dexter himself gives 
 the names of eleven churches in England as early 
 as 1626. (The True Story of John Smyth, p. 42). 
 
 Herbert S. Skeats, a Pedobaptist, says: 
 
 " It has been asserted that a Baptist Church 
 existed in England in A. D. 1417. (Robinson's 
 Claude, Vol. II., p. 54). There were certainly 
 Baptist Churches in England as early as the year 
 1589 (Dr. Some's reply to Barrowe, quoted in 
 Guiney's Hist., Vol. I,, p. 109); and there could 
 scarcely have been several organized communities 
 without the corresponding opinions having been 
 held by individuals, and some churches estab- 
 lished for years previous to this date." (Hist. 
 Dissenting Churches of England, p. 22). 
 
 Neal says that in 1644 there were 54 Baptist 
 Churches in England. (Neal's Hist. Puritans, Vol. 
 
 III., P, 175). 
 
 Baillie said in 1646: 
 
 " Hence it was that the Anabaptists made little 
 noyse in Englaiid, till of late the Independents 
 have corrupted and made worse the principles of 
 the old Separatists, proclaiming for errours a 
 liberty both in Church and State; under this 
 shelter the Anabaptists have lift up their head 
 and increased their numbers much above all other 
 sects of the land. (Anabaptism the True Foun- 
 taine, ch. i.) 
 
DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 There is no proof whatever that these churches 
 came from Smyth's or Blount's, or that they ever 
 practiced sprinkling for baptism. They evidently 
 were Baptist Churches. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 IMMERSION IN ENGLAND. 
 
 I have not space, nor has the busy reader time 
 to read, a complete history of immersion in Eng- 
 land. It began with Christianity in England, con- 
 tinued as the general practice till the seventeenth 
 century and is even now the theory of the Estab- 
 lished Church. France was the first country that 
 tolerated sprinkling for baptism in the fourteenth 
 century. Although the climate in England was 
 cold, immersion did not give place to sprinkling 
 till long after. Scotland under the influence of 
 Calvin and Knox, soon after the Reformation, be- 
 gan to practice sprinkling and pouring, but it had 
 but little effect upon England. These facts are 
 fully set forth by the historians, but I shall take 
 space for the words of but a few of them. 
 
 Dr. Wall, an Episcopalian, says: 
 
 '•One would have thought that the cold countries 
 should have been the first that should have changed 
 the custom from dipping to affusion, because in 
 cold climates the bathing of the body in water may 
 seem much more unnatural and dangerous to the 
 health than in the hot ones (and it is to be noted, 
 by the way, that all of those countries of whose 
 rites of baptism, and immersion used in it, we have 
 any account in the Scriptures or other ancient his- 
 tory, are in hot climates, where frequent and com- 
 mon bathing both of infants and grown persons is 
 natural, and even necessary to the health). But 
 by history it appears that the cold climates held 
 37 
 
38 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 the custom of dipping as long as any; for Eng- 
 land, which is one of the coldest, was one of the 
 latest that admitted this alteration of the ordinary- 
 way." (Wall's Hist., Vol. I., p. 575). 
 
 I will let Dr. Schaff tell something of the uni- 
 versality of immersion in England: 
 
 King Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth were immersed. 
 The first Prayer Book of Edward VI. (1549) followed the 
 Office of Sarum, directs the priest to dip the child in water 
 thrice: " first, dypping the right side; secondly, the left side; 
 the third time, dypping the face toward the fonte." In the 
 second Prayer Book (1552) the priest is simply directed to 
 dip the child discreetly and warily; and permission is given, 
 for the first time in Great Britain, to substitute pouring if 
 the godfathers and godmothers certify that the child is 
 weak. " During the reign of Elizabeth," says Dr. Wall, 
 " many fond ladies and gentlewomen first, and then by 
 degrees the common people, would obtain the favor of the 
 priests to have their children pass for weak children too 
 tender to endure dipping in the water." The same writer 
 traces the practice of sprinkling to the period of the Long 
 Parliament and the Westminster Assembly. This change 
 in England and other Protestant countries from immersion 
 to pouring, and from pouring to sprinkling, was encouraged 
 by the authority of Calvin, who declared the mode to be a 
 matter of no importance; and by the Westminster Assem- 
 bly of Divines (1643-1652), which decided that pouring and 
 sprinkling are " not only lawful, but also sufficient." The 
 Westminster Confession declares: "Dipping of the person 
 into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly 
 administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the per- 
 son." (Teach., pp. 51, 52). 
 
 Sir David Brewster says: 
 
 During the persecution of Mary, many persons, most of 
 whom were Scotchmen, fled from England to Geneva, and 
 there greedily imbibed the opinions of that church. In 1556 
 a book was published in that place containing "The Form 
 of Prayer and Ministration of the Sacraments, approved by 
 the famous and godly learned man, John Calvin," in which 
 the administrator is enjoined to take water in his hand and 
 lay it upon the child's forehead. These Scotch exiles, who 
 had renounced the authority of the Pope, implicitly 
 acknowledged the authority of Calvin; and returning to 
 their own country, with Knox at their head, in 1559, estab- 
 lished sprinkling in Scotland. From Scotland this practice 
 
IMMERSION IN ENGLAND. 39 
 
 made its way into England in the reign cf Elizabeth, but 
 was not authorized by the Established Church. In the As- 
 sembly of Divines, held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly 
 debated whether immersion or sprinkling should be 
 adopted: 25 voted for sprinkling and '24 for immersion; and 
 even this small majority was obtained at the earnest request 
 of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in that 
 assembly. Sprinkling is therefore the general practice of 
 this country. Many Christians, however, especially the 
 Baptists, reject it. The Greek Church universally adheres 
 to immersion. (Edin. Ency., Vol. III., p. 236). 
 
 I shall give but one other authority in this con- 
 nection and that is the scholarly Dean Stanley. 
 He says: 
 
 We now pass to the changes in the form itself. For 
 the first thirteen centuries the almost universal practice of 
 baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, 
 and which is the very meaning of the word baptize; that 
 those who were baptized were plunged, submerged, im- 
 mersed into the water. That practice is still, as we have 
 seen, continued in Eastern Churches. In the Western 
 Church it still lingers among Roman Catholics in the 
 solitary instance of the Cathedral of Milan; amongst Prot- 
 estants in the numerous sect of the Baptists. It lasted long 
 into the Middle Ages. Even the Icelanders, who at first 
 shrank from the water of their freezing lakes, were recon- 
 ciled when they found that they could use the warm water 
 of the geysers. And the cold climate of Russia has not 
 been found an obstacle to its continuance throughout that 
 vast empire. Even in the Church of England it is still ob- 
 served in theory. The Rubric in the public baptism for 
 infants enjoins that, unless for special causes, they are to be 
 dipped not sprinkled. Edward VI. and Elizabeth were 
 both immersed. But since the beginning of the seventeenth 
 century the practice has become exceedingly rare. With 
 the few exceptions just mentioned, the whole of the Western 
 Churches have now substituted for the ancient bath the 
 ceremony of letting fall a few drops of water on the face. 
 (Christian Institutions, pp. 17, 18). 
 
 Many events of English history show how 
 deeply imbedded in the English mind was the 
 idea of immersion. In the year 429 the Britons 
 won a great battle over the Saxons. The follow- 
 ing events then occurred : 
 
40 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 "The holy days of Lent were also at hand and 
 were rendered more religious by the presence of 
 the priests, insomuch that the people being in- 
 structed by daily sermons, resorted in crowds to 
 be baptized; for most of the army desired ad- 
 mission to the saving water; a church was pre- 
 pared with boughs for the feast of the resurrec- 
 tion of our Lord, and so fitted up in that martial 
 camp as it were in a city. The army advanced, 
 still wet with the baptismal water; the faith of the 
 people was strengthened, and whereas human 
 power had before been despaired of, the Divine 
 assistance was now relied upon. The enemy 
 received advice of the state of the army, and not 
 questioning their success against an unarmed 
 multitude, hastened forward, but their approach 
 was, by the scouts, made known to the Britons, 
 the greater part of whose forces being just come 
 from the font, after the celebration of Easter, 
 and preparing to arm and carry on the war, 
 Germanus declared he would be their leader." 
 (Bede's Eccl. Hist., B. L c. XX.). 
 
 One of the most notable events of English 
 history was the baptism, A. D. 596, of ten thousand 
 Saxons in the river Swale. Fabyan, the old 
 chronicler, thus speaks of the success of the 
 work of Augustine: 
 
 "He had in one day christened xm. of Saxons or 
 Anglis in ye west ryur, yt is called Swale." 
 (Fabyan's Chronicle, Vol. L, p. 96). 
 
 Pope Gregory in a letter to Eulogius, Patriarch 
 of Alexandria, informs him of this great success 
 of Augustine's. He says: 
 
IMMERSION IN ENGLAND. 41 
 
 " More than ten thousand English, they tell us, 
 were baptized by the same brother, our fellow 
 bishop, which I communicate to you to announce 
 to the people of Alexandria, and that you may do 
 something in prayer for the dwellers at the ends 
 of the earth." (Patrol. Lat., Vol. LXXVII., p. 
 
 951)- 
 
 Gregory understood this baptism to be an im- 
 mersion. He said: 
 
 "We baptize by trine immersion." (Patrol. Lat., 
 Vol. LXXVII., p. 498). 
 
 Gocelyn, in his life of Augustine, says: 
 
 " He secured on all sides large numbers for 
 Christ, so that on the birthday of the Lord, cele- 
 brated by the melodious anthems of all heaven, 
 more than ten thousand of the English were born 
 again in the laver of holy baptism, with an infi- 
 nite number of women and children, in a river 
 which the English call Sirarios, the Swale, as if at 
 one birth of the church from the womb. These 
 persons, at the command of the divine teacher, 
 as if he were an angel from heaven, calling upon 
 them, all entered the dangerous depths of the 
 river, two and two together, as if it had been a 
 solid plain; and in true faith, confessing the 
 exalted Trinity, they were baptized one by the 
 other in turns, the apostolic leader blessing the 
 water. * * * So great a prodigy from heaven 
 born out of the deep whirlpool." (Patrol. Lat., 
 Vol. LXXX., p. 79). 
 
 It is also reported that Paulinus, A. D. 629, 
 baptized ten thousand in the same river. Cam- 
 den says the Swale was accounted sacred by the 
 
42 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 ancient Saxons, above the ten thousand persons, 
 besides ' women and children, having received 
 baptism in it in one day from Paulinus, Arch- 
 bishop of York, on the first conversion of the 
 Saxons to Christianity. (Britannia, Vol. III., p. 
 
 257). 
 
 Alcuin says of King Edwin and his Northum- 
 brians: 
 
 "Easter having come when the king had de- 
 cided to be baptized with his people under the 
 lofty walls of York, in which by his orders, a 
 little house was quickly erected for God, that 
 under its roof he might receive the sacred water 
 of baptism. During the sunshine of that festive 
 and holy day he was dedicated to Christ in the 
 saving fountain, with his family and nobles, and 
 with the common people following. York re- 
 mained illustrious, distinguished with great honor, 
 because in that sacred place King Edwin was 
 washed in the water." (Patrol. Lat., Vol. CI., p. 
 818). 
 
 Bede, referring to a period shortly following 
 the baptism of the king, says: 
 
 " So great was there the fervor of the faith, as is 
 reported, and the desire of the washing of salva- 
 tion among the nations of the Northumbrians, 
 that Paulinus at a certain time coming with the 
 king and queen to the royal country seat, which 
 is called Adgefrin, stayed with them thirty-six 
 days, fully occupied in catechising and baptizing; 
 during which days, from morning till night, he 
 did nothing else but instruct the people, resorting 
 from villages and places, in Christ's saving word; 
 
IMMERSION IN ENGLAND. 43 
 
 and when instructed, he washed them with the 
 water of absolution in the river Glen, which is 
 close by." (Bede's Eccl. Hist., B. II. c. xiv.). 
 
 Bede also tells us of the baptism of the Deiri: 
 
 •' In that of the Deiri also, when he [Paulinus] 
 was wont often to be with the king, he baptized 
 in the river Swale, which runs by the village Cat- 
 eract; for as yet oratories, or fonts, could not be 
 made in the early infancy of the church in these 
 parts." (B. II. c. xiv.). 
 
 Bede says that a priest, A. D. 628, by the name 
 of Deda told him that one of the oldest persons 
 had informed him, that he himself had been bap- 
 tized at noonday, by the Bishop Paulinus, in the 
 presence of King Edwin, with a great number of 
 people, in the river Trent, near the city, which is 
 called in the English tongue Tiovulfingacestir. 
 (B. II. c.xvi.). 
 
 Alcuin states that after the death of Penda, Os- 
 way the king of the Mercians caused them to be 
 washed in the consecrated river of baptism. (Pa- 
 trol. Lat., Vol. CI., p. 824). 
 
 The Venerable Bede, A. D., 674-735, gives this 
 testimony : 
 
 " For he truly who is baptized is seen to descend 
 into the fountain — he is seen to be dipped into 
 the waters; but that which makes the font to re- 
 generate him can by no means be seen. The 
 piety of the faithful alone perceives that a sinner 
 descends into the font, and a cleansed man as- 
 cends; a son of death descends, but a son of the 
 resurrection ascends; a son of treachery descends^ 
 but a son of reconciliation ascends; a son of wrath 
 
44 DID THEY DIP? 
 
 descends, but a son of compassion ascends; a son 
 of the devil descends, but a son of God ascends." 
 (In John Evan. Ex. 3:5. Patrol. Lat., Vol. XCII., 
 pp. 668, 669). 
 
 Alcuin tells of the baptism of Caedwalla, the 
 king of the West Saxons, at Rome. He says: 
 
 " Whilst the happy king was deemed worthy to 
 be immersed in the whirlpool of baptism." (Patrol. 
 Lat., Vol. CI., p. 1310). 
 
 The Council of Cealchythe, held under Wul- 
 fred, A. D. 816, says: 
 
 ** Let presbyters also know, that when they ad- 
 minister baptism they ought not to pour the con- 
 secrated water upon the infants' heads, but let 
 them always be immersed in the font; as the Son 
 of God himself afforded as example unto all 
 believers, when he was three times immersed in 
 the river Jordan." (Hart's Eccl. Records, p. 197. 
 Cambridge, 1846). 
 
 Collier, the English Church historian, says of 
 this canon: 
 
 " By enjoining the priests not to sprinkle the 
 infants in baptism shows the great regard they 
 had for the primitive usage; that they did not 
 look upon this as a dangerous rite, or at all 
 impracticable in those northern climates; not that 
 they thought this circumstance essential to the 
 sacrament, but because it was the general prac- 
 tice of the primitive church, because it was a 
 lively instructive emblem of the death, burial and 
 resurrection of our Saviour; for this reason they 
 preferred it to sprinkling." (Collier's Eccl. Hist., 
 Vol. I., p. 354). 
 
IMMERSION IN ENGLAND. 45 
 
 Hastine, the Dane, A. D. 893, gave his two sons 
 as hostages to Alfred, king of England, with the 
 understanding if " he wished he might imbue them 
 with the sacraments of faith and baptism," and 
 the boys soon afterwards were *' regenerated in 
 the sacred font." (Roger de Wendover's Flowers 
 of History, p. 228). 
 
 Fridegod, a monk of Canterbury, about A. D. 
 900, says in his life of Wilfred: 
 
 " He showed that those to be saved should be 
 immersed in the clear waters." 
 
 And elsewhere he says: 
 
 " Common people seeking holy baptism are im- 
 mersed." (Patrol. Lat., Vol. CXXXHI., pp. 993, 
 1003). 
 
 The Constitution of the Synod of Amesbury, 
 977, was drawn up by Oswald and required: 
 
 "All children to be baptized in nine days after 
 their birth." 
 
 Collier remarks upon this canon: 
 
 "^It is plain, as will be shown further, by and by, 
 that the English Church used the rite of immer- 
 sion. It seems that they were not at all discour- 
 aged by the coldness of the climate, nor thought 
 the primitive custom impracticable in the northern 
 regions; and if an infant could be plunged into 
 the water at nine days old without receiving any 
 harm, how unreasonable must their scruples be 
 who decline bringing their children to public bap- 
 tism for fear of danger? How unreasonable, I say, 
 must this scruple be when immersion is altered to 
 sprinkling?" (Eccl. Hist., Vol. L, p. 474). 
 
46 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 William Malmesbury, A. D. 979-1009, says of 
 the baptism of king Ethelred: 
 
 ** When the little boy was immersed in the font 
 of baptism, the bishops standing round, the sac- 
 rament was marred by a sad accident which made 
 St. Dunstan utter an unfavorable prophecy." 
 (Patrol. Lat., Vol. CLXXIX., p. 1131). 
 
 Roger Wendover gives an account of Sweyn, 
 king of the Danes, and Anlaf, king of the Nor- 
 wegians, coming against London in 994. They 
 were repulsed but over-ran the provinces so that 
 king Ethelred had to pay them a bounty. Wen- 
 dover continues: 
 
 " King Ethelred dispatched at this time Elfege, 
 Bishop of Winchester, and Duke Athelwold to 
 King Anlaf, whom they brought in peace to the 
 royal vill where King Ethelred was, and at his 
 request dipped him in the sacred font, after which 
 he was confirmed by the bishop, the king adopt- 
 ing him as his son and honoring him with royal 
 presents; and the following summer he returned 
 to his own country in peace." (Flowers of His- 
 tory, p. 272). 
 
 Lanfranc, the thirty-fourth archbishop of Can- 
 terbury, 1005-1089, was born in Italy and came to 
 England by way of Normandy. Commenting on 
 Phillipians iii:20 he says: 
 
 •' For as Christ lay three days in the sepulcher, 
 so in baptism let there be a trine immersion." 
 (Patrol. Lat., Vol. CL., p. 315). 
 
 Cardinal Pullus, 1 144, was born in England, 
 became a professor in Paris, and was highly hon- 
 
IMMERSION IN ENGLAND. 47 
 
 ored of the Pope. In his book on Divinity he 
 says: 
 
 " Whilst the candidate for baptism in water is 
 immersed, the death of Christ is suggested; whilst 
 immersed and covered with water, the burial of 
 Christ is shown forth; whilst he is raised from the 
 waters, the resurrection of Christ is proclaimed. 
 The immersion is repeated three times, out of 
 reverence for the Trinity and on account of the 
 three days' burial of Christ. In the burial of the 
 Lord the day follows the night three times; in 
 baptism also trine emersion accompanies immer- 
 sion." (Patrol. Lat., Vol. CLXXXVL, p. 843). 
 
 The Synod of Cashel, A. D. 11 72, was held 
 under Henry II.: 
 
 "It was ordained that children should be brought 
 to the church and baptized in clear water, being 
 thrice dipped therein, in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Roger 
 de Wendover's Annals, p. 352). 
 
 We have an account of the baptism of Arthur, 
 the oldest son of Henry VII. He married 
 Catherine of Aragon, who after his death became 
 the wife of Henry VIII. Leland says of the 
 baptism of Arthur: 
 
 "The body of all the cathedral church of 
 Westminster was hung with cloth of arras, and in 
 the middle, beside the font of the said church, 
 was ordained and prepared a solemn font in 
 manner and form of a stage of seven steps, 
 square or round like, an high cross covered with 
 red worsted, and up in the midst a post made of 
 iron to bear the font of silver gilt, which within 
 
48 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 side was well dressed with fine linen cloth, and 
 near the same on the west side was a step, 
 like a block, for the bishop to stand on, 
 covered also with red saye; and over the font, of 
 a good height, a rich canopy with a great gilt 
 ball, lined and fringed without curtains. On the 
 north side was ordained a travers hung with cloth 
 of arras, and upon the one side thereof, within 
 side, another travers of red scarsnet. There was 
 fire without fumigations, ready against the 
 prince's coming. And without, the steps of the 
 said font were railed with good timber. * * * 
 And Queen Elizabeth was in the church abiding 
 the coming of the prince. * * * Incontinent 
 after the prince was put into the font the officers- 
 at-large put on their coats, and all their torches 
 were lighted." (Lelandi Collectanea, Vol. IV., pp. 
 204-206. London, 1774)- 
 
 Leland also gives a description at great length 
 of the baptism of Margaret, the sister of Arthur, 
 1490, and of Queen Elizabeth, 1533. The royalty 
 were all immersed. 
 
 Walker says of baptism during the reign of 
 Edward VI., I537-I553- 
 
 " Dipping was at this time the more usual, but 
 sprinkling was sometimes used." (Doctrine of 
 Baptism, Ch. X., p. 147. London, 1678). 
 
 The prayer book of Edward VI. provides: 
 
 "Then the priest shall take the childe in his 
 handes and aske the name; and namyng the 
 childe, shall dyppe it in the water thrice. Fyrst 
 dypping the right syde; second, the left syde; the 
 thirde time dypping the face toward the font; so 
 
IMMERSION IN ENGLAND. 49 
 
 it be wisely and discretely done; saying, I baptize, 
 &c. And if the childe be weake, it shall suffice 
 to pour upon it, saying the foresade wordes." 
 (Collier's Eccl. Hist., Vol. II., p. 256). 
 
 The Sarum or Saulsbury Liturgy, 1541, accord- 
 ing to Collier, provides: 
 
 "Upon Saturday, Easter-even, is hallowed the 
 font, which as it were vestigumi, or a remem- 
 brance of baptism, that was used in the primitive 
 church; at which time, and Pentecost, there was 
 used in the church two solemn baptizings, and 
 much concourse of people came into the same. 
 
 "The first was at Easter, because the mystery of 
 baptism agrees well to the time. For like as 
 Christ died and was buried, and rose again the 
 third day, so by putting into the water is signi- 
 fied our death to sin, and the immersion betokens 
 our burial and mortification to the same; and the 
 rising again out of the water declares us to be 
 risen to a new life, according to the doctrine of 
 St. Paul. (Rom. vi.) 
 
 " And the second solemn baptizing, i. e., at 
 Pentecost, was because there is celebrated the 
 feast of the Holy Ghost, which is the worker of 
 that spiritual regeneration we have in baptism. 
 And therefore the churches used to hallow the 
 font also at that time." (Eccl. Hist., Vol. II., p. 
 196). 
 
 We select a part of the ceremony omitting the 
 explanations: 
 
 " Then follow the questions to the godfathers 
 and godmothers, as representatives of the child. 
 Forsakest thou the devil? A71S. I forsake him. 
 
50 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 All his works? Ans. I forsake them. And all his 
 pomps and vanities? Ans. I forsake them. Satis- 
 fied with these, the minister then annoints the 
 child with holy oil upon breast and betwixt the 
 shoulders. Questions to ascertain the orthodoxy 
 of the child are propounded. Then follows 
 another series: For example, to the child the 
 minister says: What asketh thou? Ans. Baptism. 
 Wilt thou be baptized? Ans. I will. Satisfied 
 with these replies the minister calling the child 
 by name, baptizes it in the name of the Father, 
 Son and Holy Ghost (putting it into the water of 
 the font and taking it out again, or else pouring 
 water upon it.)" (Eccl. Hist., Vol. H., pp. 192, 193. 
 Note A.). 
 
 In 1553 instructions were given to the arch- 
 deacons as follows: 
 
 "Whether there be any who will not suffer the 
 priest to dip the child three times in the font, 
 being yet strong and able to abide and suffer it in 
 the judgment and opinion of discreet and expert 
 persons, but will needs have the child in the 
 clothes, and only be sprinkled with a few drops of 
 water." (Hart's Eccl. Records, p. 87). 
 
 Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, 1558, says: 
 
 *' Though the old and ancient tradition of the 
 Church hath from the beginning to dip the child 
 three times, etc., yet that is not such necessity; 
 but if he be once dipped in the water, it is suffi- 
 cient. Yea, and in times of great peril and neces- 
 sity, if the water be poured on his head, it will 
 suffice." (Holsome and Catholyke Doctryne 
 Concernynge the Seven-Sacraments, pp. 22, 23. 
 London, 1558). 
 
IMMERSION IN ENGLAND. 51 
 
 The baptism of James I., King of England was 
 by immersion. He was born in the Castle of 
 Edinburgh, 1556. Of his baptism it is said: 
 
 "At convenient time you are to present her the 
 font of gold, which we send with you. You may 
 pleasantly say that it was made as soon as we 
 heard of the prince's birth, and then it was big 
 enough for him; but now he being grown, he is 
 too big for it. Therefore it may be better used 
 for the next child, provided it be christened be- 
 fore it outgrow the font." (Turner, Vol. IV., p. 
 86, note). 
 
 James refers to " the font wherein I was chris- 
 tened." (Works, London, 1616). 
 
 Bishop Horn, of England, in writing to Henry 
 BuUinger, of Zurich, in 1575, says of baptism in 
 England: 
 
 '* The minister examines them concerning their 
 faith, and afterwards dips the infant in the water." 
 (Zurich Letters, Second Series, Parker Society, 
 
 p. 356). 
 
 The Greek lexicons used in England in the 
 first half of the seventeenth century were Scapula, 
 Stephens, Mincaeus, Pasor and Leigh. These all 
 define baptizo as dipping or submerging. 
 
 Dr. Joseph Mede, 1 586-1638, was a very learned 
 English divine. He says: 
 
 "There was no such thing as sprinkling or 
 rantism used in baptism in the Apostles' days, nor 
 many ages after them." (Diatribe on Titus iii.2). 
 
 Henry Greenwood in 1628 published " A loy- 
 fvl Tractate of the most blessed Baptisme that 
 euer was solemnized." It is printed in black 
 
52 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 letter. When I first read it I was led to think 
 that it was by an Anabaptist preacher, but after 
 further examination I found that he was of the 
 Episcopal Church. He says of the baptism of 
 Jesus : 
 
 " The place where he baptized Christ was in the 
 Riuer Jordan. * * * A duplicate Riuer, so-called, 
 because it was composed of two Fountaines, the one 
 called lor, the other Dan, and therefore the river 
 hath this name Jordan: In which Riuer Naaman 
 was washed and cleansed from his Leprosie, 2 
 Kings, 5.14; which Riuer Eliah and Elisha diuided 
 with their cloake, 2 Kings, 28.13. In this lordan 
 did lohn baptize our Lord and Sauiour lesvs 
 Christ." (Pp. 7, 8.) 
 
 Daniel Rogers, 1633, published A Treatise of the 
 two Sacraments of the Gospell Baptisme and the 
 Supper of the Lord. He was an Episcopalian. 
 He says: 
 
 ** Touching what I have said of Sacramentall 
 dipping to explaine myself a little about it; I 
 would not be understood as if scismatically I 
 would instill a distaste of the Church into any 
 weake minds, by the act of sprinkling water 
 onely. But this (under correction) I say: That 
 it ought to be the churches part to cleave to the 
 Institution, especially it being not left arbitrary 
 by our Church to the discression of the minister, 
 but required to dip or dive the Infant more or 
 lesse (except in cases of weaknesse), for which 
 allowance in the church we have cause to be 
 thankfull; and sutably to consider that he betrayes 
 the Church (whose officer hee is) to a disordered 
 
IMMERSION IN ENGLAND. 53 
 
 errour, if hee cleaves not to the institution; To 
 dippe the infant in water. And this I do so averre, 
 as thinking it exceeding materiall to the ordi- 
 nance, and no slight thing: yea, which both An- 
 tiquity (though with some addition of a threefold 
 dipping: for the preserving of the doctrine of the 
 impugned Trinity entire) constantly and without 
 exception of countries hot or cold, witnesseth 
 unto: and especially the constant word of the 
 Holy Ghost, first and last, approveth: as a learned 
 Cretique upon Matthew, chap. 3, verse 11, hath 
 noted, that the Greeke tongue wants not words to 
 expresse any other act as well as dipping, if the 
 institution could beare it." (P. 'j'j. London, 1633). 
 
 It is a very significant fact that Daniel Rogers 
 was quoted by the Baptists of 164 1 as having up- 
 held their opinion. This could not have been if 
 the Baptists of that period had been in the prac- 
 tice of sprinkling. 
 
 Stephen Denson, 1634, says: 
 
 " Bee Baptized. The word translated baptizing 
 doth most properly signifie dipping over head and 
 eares, and indeed this was the most usual manner 
 of baptizing in the primitive Church: especially 
 in hotte countries, and after this manner was 
 Christ himselfe baptized by Joh. Mat. 3.16. For 
 there is sayd of him, that when hee was baptized hee 
 went out of the water; Which doth imply that in his 
 baptizing hee went under the water, and thus all 
 those that were baptized in rivers they were not 
 sprinkled but dipped." (The Doctrine of Both 
 Sacraments, pp. 39, 40. London, 1634). 
 
 Edward Elton, 1637, says: 
 
54 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 " First, in signe and sacrament only, for the dip- 
 ping of the party baptized in the water, and abid- 
 ing under the water for a time, doth represent 
 and seale unto us the buriall of Christ, and his 
 abiding in the grave; and of this all are partakers 
 sacramentally." (An Exposition of the Epistle 
 of Saint Paul to the Colossians, p. 293. London, 
 1637)- 
 
 John Selden, 1 584-1654, was regarded as the 
 most learned Englishman of his time. He says: 
 
 " The Jews took the baptism wherein the whole 
 body was not baptized to be void." (De Jure Nat., 
 c. 2). 
 
 Bishop Taylor, 161 3-1677 says: 
 
 " If you would attend to the proper signification 
 of the word, baptism signifies plunging into water, 
 or dipping with washing." (Rule of Conscience, 
 I., 3» c. 4). 
 
 The Rev. Thomas Blake, who lived in Tam- 
 worth, Staffordshire, A. D. 1644, says: 
 
 ** I have been an eye witness of many infants 
 dipped, and I know it to have been the constant 
 practice of many ministers in their places for 
 many years together." (The Birth Privilige, p. 
 33. London, 1644). 
 
 Alexander Balfour says: 
 
 " Baptizing infants by dipping them in fonts 
 was practiced in the Church of England (except 
 in cases of sickness or weakness) until the Direc- 
 tory came out in the year 1644, which forbade the 
 carrying of children to the font." (Anti-Paedo- 
 Baptism Unveiled, p. 240. London, 1827). 
 
IMMERSION IN ENGLAND. 55 
 
 Wall is even more definite. He says of the 
 Westminster Assembly of Divines: 
 
 "So (parallel to the rest of their reformations) 
 they reformed the font into a basin. This learned 
 Assembly could not remember that fonts to bap- 
 tize in had been always used by the primitive 
 Christians, long before the beginning of popery, 
 and ever since churches were built; but that 
 sprinkling as the common use of baptizing was 
 really introduced (in France first, and then in 
 other popish countries) in times of popery." 
 (Hist. Inft. Bapt., Vol. H., p. 403). And in an- 
 other place he remarks: "And for sprinkling, 
 properly called, it seems that it was at 1645 J^^^ 
 then beginning, and used by very few. It must 
 have begun in the disorderly times of 1641." (Hist. 
 Inft. Bapt., Vol. II., p. 403)- 
 
 Sir John Floyer, one of the most careful 
 writers, says: 
 
 *' I have now given what testimony I could find 
 in our English authors, to prove the practice of 
 immersion from the time the Britons and Saxons 
 were baptized till King James' days; when the 
 people grew peevish with all ancient ceremonies 
 •and through the love of novelty and the niceness 
 of parents, and the pretense of modesty, they laid 
 aside immersion, which never was abrogated by 
 any canon, but is still recommended by the pres- 
 ent rubric of our church, which orders the child to 
 be dipped discreetly and warily." (History of 
 Cold Bathing, p. 61). 
 
 But dipping was not then left off, for Floyer 
 further says: 
 
56 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 " That I may further convince all of my country- 
 men that Immersion in Baptism was very lately left 
 off in E7igla?id, I will assure them that there are 
 yet Persons living who were so immersed ; for I 
 am so informed by Mr. Berisford, minister of Stut- 
 ton in Derbyshire, that his parents Immersed not 
 only him but the rest of his family at his Baptism!' 
 (P. 182. London, 1722). 
 
 Walter Craddock preached a sermon before the 
 House of Commons at St. Margaret's, July 21, 
 1646. Among other things he said: 
 
 " There is now among good people a great deal 
 of strife about baptism; as for divers things, so 
 for the point of dipping, though in some places 
 in England they dip altogether." (P. 100). 
 
 From the testimony introduced above we reach 
 the conclusion from the introduction of Chris- 
 tianity in Britain to 1650 immersion was common 
 in England, and was the prevailing practice 
 among all Christian denominations. It is mani- 
 fest that dipping was the prescribed order of 
 
 1. The Catholics. The Catholic ritual in use 
 in England in 1641 was not opposed to immersion. 
 In fact, the Roman Church never has been opposed 
 to immersion. 
 
 2. The Episcopalians. The Episcopal prayer 
 book and ritual prescribed immersion as the 
 ordinary act of baptism then as now. But 
 there was the difference that immersion was often 
 administered in the Episcopal Church of that day, 
 as is not the case now. 
 
 3. The Presbyterians. We have already seen 
 that sprinkling, or rather pouring, was introduced 
 
IMMERSION IN ENGLAND. 57 
 
 in Scotland by John Knox and his followers from 
 Calvin. But it did not prevail in England among 
 Presbyterians until the Westminster Assembly 
 excluded immersion by a vote of 25 to 24, Dr. 
 Lightfoot, the president, casting the deciding 
 vote. This was only done after the most heated 
 debate. Dr. Lightfoot himself gives this ac- 
 count: 
 
 Then we fell upon the work of the day, which was 
 about baptizing "of the child, whether to dip him or to 
 sprinkle." And this proposition, " It is lawful and sufficient 
 to besprinkle the child," had been canvassed before our 
 adjourning, and was ready now to vote; but I spake against 
 it, as being very unfit to vote; that it is lawful to sprinkle 
 when every one grants it. Whereupon it was fallen upon, 
 sprinkling being granted, whether dipping should be 
 tolerated with it. And here fell we upon a large and long 
 discourse, whether dipping were essential, or used in the 
 first institution, or in the Jews' custom. Mr. Coleman went 
 about, in a large discourse, to prove tbilh to be dipping 
 overhead. Which I answered at large. After a long dis- 
 pute it was at last put to the question, whether the 
 Directory should run thus, "The minister shall take water, 
 and sprinkle or pour it with his hand upon the face or fore- 
 head of the child;" and it was voted so indifferently, that we 
 were glad to count names twice; for so many were so un- 
 willing to have dipping excluded that the votes came to an 
 equality within one; for the one side were 24, the other 25, 
 the 24 for the reserving of dipping and the 25 against it; 
 and there grew a great heat upon it, and when we had done 
 all, we concluded upon nothing in it, but the business was 
 recommitted. 
 
 Aug. 8th. But as to the dispute itself about dipping, it 
 was thought safe and most fit to let it alone, and to express 
 it thus m our Directory: " He is to baptize the child with 
 water, which, for the manner of doing is not only lawful, but 
 also sufficient, and most expedient to be by pouring or 
 sprinkling of water on the face of the child, witl^out any 
 other ceremony." But this lost a great deal of time about 
 the wording of it. (Works, Vol. XIIL, p. 299. London 1824). 
 
 Sir David Brewster is regarded as high author- 
 ity. He says: " In the Assembly of Divines, 
 held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly de- 
 
58 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 bated whether immersion or sprinkling should be 
 adopted: 25 voted for sprinkling, and 24 for im- 
 mersion; and even that small majority was 
 obtained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, 
 who had acquired great influence in that assem- 
 bly." (Edinburgh Ency., Vol. III., p. 236). 
 
 All this took place three years after the alleged 
 *' invention " of immersion by the Baptists. 
 
 4. The Baptists. In this connection I only 
 wish to say that if the Baptists between 1509 and 
 1641, in England, were not in the practice of im- 
 mersion, they hold the world's record for dissent. 
 Here are all denominations who recognize and 
 practice immersion and the Baptists alone stand- 
 ing out against them all. As soon as the other 
 denominations adopt sprinkling as their custom, 
 all of a sudden, the Baptists changetheir practice 
 from sprinkling to immersion. There is no reason 
 for all of this. For my part I do not believe any 
 such charge, and, I think, the following pages will 
 demonstrate, that they did no such thing. 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF THE CONTINENT. 59- 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE ANABAPTISTS OF THE CONTINENT. 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt makes the broadest claims that 
 all of the Anabaptists of Germany and Holland 
 practiced sprinkling. His words are: 
 
 " But none of the Anabaptists of Holland, 
 or of the adjacent sections of Germany, were 
 immersionists. So far as any account of them 
 has come to light, they were uniformly in the 
 practice of pouring or sprinkling for baptism, 
 excepting the CoUegiants, who, at Rhynsburg, 
 began to immerse in 1620." (Page 35). 
 
 Again: 
 
 " The Anabaptists of Holland appear to have 
 been, without exception, engaged in the practice 
 of pouring and sprinkling." (Page 42). 
 
 Here is the affirmation of a universal negative, 
 which would require omniscience to prove. He 
 would be compelled to know every circumstance 
 of every baptism which took place among many 
 thousands of persons scattered over many coun- 
 tries for more than one hundred years. If just 
 one Anabaptist was immersed, his thesis falls 
 to the ground. Beyond the impossibility of sus- 
 taining such a position, two considerations will 
 answer all that Dr. Whitsitt has said in regard 
 to the Anabaptists of Holland and Germany prac- 
 ticing sprinkling: 
 
 I. All who were called Anabaptists were not 
 Anabaptists. It was a general name for many 
 
■60 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 classes of people, and the true Anabaptists had 
 to suffer much for the sins of others. Many who 
 went under this name were Lutherans and other 
 Pedobaptists, who had embraced certain fanatical 
 opinions, and were denounced as Anabaptists. 
 In reality they never embraced the Anabaptist 
 faith at all. Fiislin very properly remarks: 
 
 " There was a great difference between Ana- 
 baptists and Anabaptists. There were those 
 among them who held strange doctrines; but 
 this cannot be said of the whole sect. If we 
 should attribute to every sect whatever senseless 
 doctrines two or three fanciful fellows have taught, 
 there is not one in the world to which we could not 
 ascribe the most abominable errors." (Beytrage, 
 Vol. II). 
 
 It is certain, that many persons who were 
 called Anabaptists were never such in reality; 
 and it is also certain that many such practiced 
 sprinkling. 
 
 2. It must be remembered that this was a time 
 of revolution. Men were constantly changing 
 their minds. The opinion of a man yesterday 
 would not be the opinion of the same man to-day. 
 On no point was this more true than on the sub- 
 ject of baptism. The ranks of the Anabaptists 
 were constantly augmented from the ranks of the 
 Catholic and Reformed Churches. The investi- 
 gation of the word of God was a new thing, and 
 some arrived at the truth slowly. This was emi- 
 nently true of the act of baptism. Men came out 
 of the Reformed Churches and for a time held on 
 to sprinkling and pouring, and they were termed 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF THE CONTINENT. 61 
 
 Anabaptists, but this was not Anabaptist doctrine, 
 any more than it is Baptist doctrine to-day. This 
 may be illustrated by Grebel, one of the most 
 noted Anabaptist preachers of his day. It is said 
 of Mantz, to whom Dr. Whitsitt refers that **he 
 fell upon his knees, and Grebel baptized him.'^ 
 (Cornelius, Geschichte des Miinsterischen Auf- 
 rouhrs, Leipsig, i860. Vol. II., s. 26, 27). And yet 
 shortly after that Grebel became a full Anabaptist 
 and only practiced immersion. This will explain 
 some apparent cases where sprinkling seemed to 
 be practiced among the Anabaptists. The normal 
 mode of baptism among the early Anabaptists 
 was immersion, and I shall point out an abundance 
 of testimony to confirm this proposition. 
 
 Dr. Henry S. Burrage, very beautifully says on 
 this point: 
 
 "The Bible was read, its divine lessons were 
 earnestly and tenderly unfolded, and sinners were 
 urged to flee from the wrath to come. It was a 
 new gospel to thousands, and multitudes with 
 tears of repentance asked the privilege of con- 
 fessing faith in Christ, retiring to some mountain 
 stream to exclaim with the Eunuch, ' See here is 
 water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? ' The 
 solemn ordinance was administered, and coming 
 forth from the water both the convert and the 
 bearer of the glad tidings * went on their way 
 rejoicing.'" (The Anabaptists of Switzerland, p. 
 108. Philadelphia, 1882). 
 
 We are not at all shut up to a negative view of 
 this question. Fortunately we have much posi- 
 tive evidence that the Anabaptists did practice 
 
^62 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 dipping. Luther was a firm believer in dipping, 
 and understood the Anabaptists to be dippers. 
 Indeed some charge that the Anabaptists took 
 the cue for their immersions from Luther him- 
 self. Robinson says: 
 
 "Luther bore the Zuinglians dogmatizing; but 
 he could not brook a further reformation in the 
 hands of the dippers. What renders the great 
 man's conduct the more surprising is, that he had 
 himself, seven years before, taught the doctrine of 
 dipping. * * * The Catholics tax Luther as be- 
 ing the father of the German dippers, some of the 
 first expressly declare, they received their first 
 ideas from him, and the fact seems undeniable, 
 but the article of reforming without him he could 
 not bear. This is the crime objected against them, 
 as it had been against Carolostadt. This exasper- 
 ated him to the last degree, and he became their 
 enemy, and notwithstanding all he had said in 
 favor of dipping, persecuted them under the title 
 of re-dippers, re-baptizers, or Anabaptists. It is 
 not an improbable conjecture, that Luther at first 
 conformed to his own principles, and dipped 
 infants in baptism." (Ecclesiastical Researches, 
 pp. 542, 543. Cambridge, 1792). 
 
 The translator of Luther's Controversial Works, 
 speaking of Luther's sermon on baptism says: 
 "The sermon and letters are directed principally 
 against the Anabaptists, a fanatical sect of re- 
 formers who contended that baptism should be 
 administered to adults only, not by sprinkling, 
 but by dipping." 
 
 Zuingle, 1527, entitles his great work against 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF THE CONTINENT. 63 
 
 the Anabaptists, Elenchus contra Catabaptistas. 
 (Zuinglii Operum, Vol. II., pp. 1-42. Ed. 1580). He 
 gives an early Confession of Faith of the Ana- 
 baptists. He upbraids his opponents as having 
 published these articles, but declares that there 
 is scarcely any one of them that has not a written 
 copy of these laws which have been so well con- 
 cealed. The articles are in all seven. In reality 
 it is the Schleitham Confession of Faith. The 
 first, which we give in full, relates to baptism: 
 
 " Baptism ought to be given to all who have 
 been taught repentance and change of life, and 
 who in truth believe that through Christ their sins 
 are blotted out, and the sins of all who are will- 
 ing to walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 
 and who are willing to be buried with him into 
 death, that they may rise again with him. To all, 
 therefore, who in this manner seek baptism, and 
 of themselves ask us, we will give it. By this 
 rule are excluded all baptism of infants, the great 
 abomination of the Roman pontiff. For this 
 article we have the strength and testimony of 
 Scripture ; we have also the practice of the 
 apostles; which things we simply and also stead- 
 fastly will observe, for we are assured of them." 
 
 Zuingle makes all manner of fun of the Ana- 
 baptists, calling them " immersionists, dying 
 people, re-dying them, plunging them into the 
 darkness of water to unite them to a church of 
 darkness, they mersed," etc. 
 
 In 1525 Zuingle calls the Anabaptists " bath (I 
 should have said) Baptist, companions." (Zuin- 
 gle's Works, Vol. II., s. 240). 
 
64 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 It will be seen from the above that not only- 
 does Zuingle declare the Anabaptists to be dip- 
 pers, but he calls them Catabaptists. This term 
 will be found in many places in this book, and so 
 I wish to have a definition of the term. My first 
 witness as to the meaning of the word Catabap- 
 tist shall be Dr. Whitsitt. When Dr. Whitsitt is 
 writing under constraint and trying to establish a 
 case, Catabaptist means " against baptism," but 
 when he was writing without constraint the word 
 meant " a dipper." 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt in The Dr. Whitsitt in his 
 hidependent, 1880: book, 1896: 
 
 The ceremony referred It used to be said that the 
 
 to was anabaptism, rebap- word Kata baptist, so often 
 tism by sprinkhng, and not applied to Anabaptists by 
 "catabaptism," or baptism their opponents during the 
 by immersion. Reformation period, con- 
 
 tained indisputable proof 
 that they were immersion- 
 ists. The preposition katay 
 in its primary or local usage, 
 means down, and so, it was 
 argued, Katabaptist must 
 have been one who baptized 
 downwards, that is, im- 
 mersed. But just as ana, 
 meaning primarily ?<:/, came 
 to be used in the sense of 
 again, so kata, in several 
 technical terms, means 
 against. 
 
 Which statement of Dr. Whitsitt shall we be- 
 lieve? The first of course, for that is in accord 
 with all scholarship. Liddell and Scott, the 
 great Greek lexicographers, in their seventh edi- 
 tion, say: 
 
 Katabaptizo, to dip under water, to drown. 
 
 Katabaptistas, one who drowns. 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF THE CONTINENT. 65 
 
 Dr. K. R. Hagenbach says of the Anabaptists: 
 " ' Since,' says Bullinger, * kindness was of no 
 avail with them, they were put into the high tower 
 in the lower town, the one called the Witches' or 
 New Tower. There were fourteen men and seven 
 women of them. There they were fed on bread 
 and water, to see whether it was possible to turn 
 them from their error.' The threat of drowning 
 was even administered in barbarous irony, for *he 
 who dips,' it was declared, 'shall himself be 
 dipped.'" (History of the Reformation in Ger- 
 many and Switzerland, Vol. II., p. 33). 
 
 That the Anabaptists, or Mennonites, of Hol- 
 land immersed we have many proofs. One of Dr. 
 Whitsitt's principal witnesses is Baillie, and I 
 show, in the chapter on English Baptists, that he 
 admits that the Mennonites were dippers. Another 
 one of Dr. Whitsitt's witnesses is Robinson. He 
 is clear enough on this point. Robinson says: 
 
 " Menno, the father of the Dutch Baptists, says, 
 ' after we have searched ever so diligently, we 
 shall find no other baptism beside dipping in 
 water {doopsel inder water) which is acceptable to 
 God and maintained in his word.' (Mennonis 
 Simonis, Opera, J539»page 24). Menno was dipped 
 himself, and he baptized others by dipping; but 
 some of his followers introduced pouring, as they 
 imagined through necessity, in prison, and now 
 the practice generally prevails." (History of 
 Baptism, pp. 694, 695. Nashville, i860). 
 
 I now introduce an authoritative witness. It 
 is Gerard Brandt, the brilliant historian of the 
 5 
 
66 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 Low Countries. This work was first published 
 in 1671. He says: 
 
 "The Reformation exclusive of Infant-baptism, 
 was set on foot in Switzerland about the year 
 1522, by the zeal of Conrad Grebel and Felix 
 Mans, both men of learning, who fell out with 
 Zuinglius, about the said opinion. Upon account 
 of this difference was the first Edict against Ana- 
 baptists published at Zurich; in which there was a 
 Penalty of a Silver Park (or two Guilders, Dutch 
 money) set upon all such as should suffer them- 
 selves to be Re-baptized, or should withhold Bap- 
 tism from their Children. And it was further de- 
 clared, That those who openly opposed this Order, 
 should be yet more severely treated. Accord- 
 ingly the said Felix was drowned in Zurich upon 
 the sentence pronounced by Zuinglius, in these 
 four words: *Qui iterum mergit, mergatur; that 
 is, he that rebaptizes with water, let him be 
 drowned in the water. This happened in the year 
 1526; but about the same time, and since, there 
 were more of them put to death: A procedure 
 which appeared very strange to some: The Zuin- 
 glians, they said, were scarce got out of the reach 
 of Persecution themselves, and saw those fires in 
 which their fellow-believers were burnt, still daily 
 smooking most of them condemned the putting 
 hereticks to death, where it came home to them- 
 selves, where they were uppermost. Thus doing 
 to others what they would not have done to them. 
 Others abused fire, they water. Those who knew 
 better things ought to have done better. Neither 
 
 *Those who immerse again, shall be immersed. 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF THE CONTINENT. 67 
 
 were they acted by a good spirit, they could lead 
 the Wanaerer into the ditch, instead of setting 
 him in the right way; they could drown the in- 
 fected instead of washing and cleansing him; or 
 burn the Blind instead of restoring him to the 
 light. 
 
 •* The first Anabaptists so far as I can gather from 
 their own Writings, that were put to death for 
 their perswasions in Holland, during the reign of 
 Popery, were John Wadon, and two of his fra- 
 ternity of Waterlandt; and all of these three 
 were, with a slow fire, rather roasted than burnt to 
 death in the Hague, in the year 1527. At Brus- 
 sels the Dean of Louvain, Inquisitor of Brabrant, 
 Holland, and the neighboring Counties, con- 
 demned partly and partly received as Penitents, 
 about sixty persons. At the same time the Pro- 
 vost of the Regular Canons of Typres was Inquis- 
 itor in Flanders, and the parts adjacent, and the 
 Provost of the Scholars of Mons in Hainault, was 
 Inquisitor in that district." (The History of the 
 Reformation in the Low Countries, Vol. I., p. 57. 
 London, 1720). 
 
 Two things are evident from the above quota- 
 tion from Brandt: First, the Anabaptists were 
 dippers, and secondly the Anabaptists were of the 
 same "perswasion in Holland." 
 
 On November 19, 1526, the Council of Zurich 
 confirmed the edict of March 7, that Anabaptism 
 should be punished by drowning, and that the 
 man should be delivered to the executioner, who 
 should bind his hands, place him in a boat and 
 throw him bound into the water, there to die. 
 
68 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 (Fusslin, Beytrage, I., s. 271. Engli, Acten- 
 sammlung, 514, Nr. 107). Mantz, who had become 
 an immersionist, received this sentence January 
 5, 1527. It was carried into execution. Bullinger 
 says: "As he came down from the Wellenberg to 
 the fish market and was led through the shambles 
 to the boat, he praised God that he was about to 
 die for his truth; for Anabaptism was right and 
 founded upon the word of God, and Christ had 
 foretold that his followers would suffer for the 
 truth's sake. And the like discourse he urged 
 much, discussing with the preacher who attended 
 him. On the way his mother and brother came 
 to him and exhorted him to be steadfast, and he 
 persevered in his folly even to the end. When he 
 was bound upon the hurdle and was about to be 
 thrown into the stream by the executioner, he 
 sang with a loud voice: In manus tuas, 
 Domine, commendo spiritum meum. * Into thy 
 hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit; ' and here- 
 with was drawn into the water by the executioner 
 and drowned." (Reformationsgeschchte, II., s. 
 382. Frauenfeld, 1838). 
 
 The reason for this punishment by drowning 
 was that the penalty might be according to the 
 offense. This is fully explained by many writers. 
 The Anabaptists were immersionists therefore they 
 should be drowned. 
 
 The senate of Zurich decreed that any one 
 immersing a candidate in baptism — qui merserit 
 baptismo — should be drowned is a significant hint. 
 (Zuingli, Opera, III., s. 364). 
 
 John Stumpf, who during the period under 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF THE CONTINENT. 69 
 
 survey, lived in the vicinity of Zurich and was 
 familiar with the Anabaptist movement, says that 
 generally the early Anabaptists of Switzerland 
 were " rebaptized in rivers and streams." (Gemei- 
 ner Loblicher Eydgenossenschaft). 
 
 Gastins, sarcastically, used to say, as he ordered 
 the Anabaptists drowned: " They like immersion 
 so much let us immerse them." 
 
 In Appenzell, 1525, the Anabaptists had three 
 places where meetings were held. The largest 
 was Teufen, with a second at Herrisau, and the 
 third at Brunnen. In all of these places the 
 services were under the open sky, while the con- 
 verts were baptized in the neighboring brooks 
 and streams. (Burrage, p. 119). 
 
 Sender, an old historian of Augsburg, says of 
 the Anabaptists of 1525-30: 
 
 ** The hated sect in 1527 met in the gardens of 
 houses, men and women, rich and poor, more than 
 1,100 in all, who were rebaptized. They put on 
 peculiar clothes in which to be baptized, for in 
 their houses where their baptisteries were, there 
 were a number of garments always prepared." 
 
 Wagenseil, a later historian of Augsburg, says: 
 
 "In 1527 the Anabaptists baptized none who 
 did not believe with them; and the candidates 
 were not merely sprinkled with water but wholly 
 submerged." 
 
 In the Bekenntniss von beiden Sacramenten, 
 which at Miinster, October 22, 1533, was subscribed 
 by Rothman, Klopriss, Staprade, Vienne, and 
 Stralen, and was made public on the 8th of No- 
 vember following, occurs this statement: " Bap- 
 
70 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 tism is an immersion in water, which the candidate 
 requests and receives as a true sign that, dead to 
 sin, buried with Christ, he rises to a new life, 
 henceforth to walk, not in the lusts of the flesh, 
 but obedient to the will of God." 
 
 We have many instances of immersion at St, 
 Gall's. It is said that Kessler, the pastor of the 
 church in St. Gall, in 1523, was expounding the 
 book of Romans. When he reached the sixth 
 chapter, and was considering the significance of 
 theordinance of baptism, Hochriitiner interrupted 
 him, saying, " I infer from your words that you 
 are of the opinion that children may be bap- 
 tized." " Why not?" asked Kessler. Hochriitiner 
 appealed to Mark 16:16, " He that believeth and 
 is baptized shall be saved," and added that to 
 baptize a child was the same as dipping in water 
 any irrational creature. (Burrage, pp. 116, 117. 
 Kessler, Sabbata, s. 264.) 
 
 In March, 1525, Grebel baptized Ulimann by 
 immersion. The account of the baptism is taken 
 from Kessler, who says: 
 
 "Wolfgang Ulimann, on the journey to Schaff- 
 hausen, met Conrad Grebel, who instructed him 
 so highly in the knowledge of Anabaptism that 
 he would not be sprinkled out of a dish, but was 
 drawn under and covered over with the waters of 
 the Rhine." (Sabbata, Vol. I., s. 266). It is plain 
 that immersion is here declared to be a distinctive 
 view of the Anabaptists. He was " instructed " 
 in Anabaptism, therefore he would not be 
 sprinkled but was dipped. 
 
 "Wolfgang Ulimann, on his return to St. Gall, 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF THE CONTINENT. 71 
 
 after his baptism at Shaffhausen by Grebel, gave a 
 new impulse to the Anabaptist movement. Grebel 
 soon followed — probably late in March, 1525 — 
 and on Palm Sunday, April 9, he baptized a large 
 number in the Sitter river. The St. Gall Anabap- 
 tists now withdrew from the churches, leaving 
 them almost empty, and holding religious services 
 in private houses, and in open fields. In a short 
 time the Anabaptist Church numbered eight 
 hundred members." (Burrage, pp. 117, 118. Kess- 
 ler, Sabbata, s. 267). 
 
 Dr. Howard Osgood, who was at St. Gall in 
 1867, says: 
 
 "A mountain stream, sufficient for all sprink- 
 ling purposes, flows through the city; but in no 
 place is it deep enough for the immersion of a 
 person, while the Sitter river is between two and 
 three miles away, and is gained by a difficult 
 road. The only solution of this choice was, that 
 Grebel sought the river, in order to immerse can- 
 didates." 
 
 Kessler tells us that at St. Gall's the Anabap- 
 tists had a (Taufhaus), or baptistery. (Sabbata, 
 I., s. 270). 
 
 Sicher, a Roman Catholic eye-witness, says: 
 "The number of the converted (at St. Gall) in- 
 creased so that the baptistery could not contain 
 the crowd, and they were compelled to use the 
 streams and the Sitter River." (Arx, Geschichte 
 d. Stadt, St. Gallen, II., s. 501). 
 
 August Naef, secretary of the Council of St. 
 Gall, in a work published in 1850, on p. 1021 says, 
 speaking of the Anabaptists of 1525: 
 
72 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 " They baptized those who believed with them 
 in rivers and lakes, and in a great wooden cask 
 in the butchers' square before a great crowd." 
 
 Dr. Burrage gives a resume of the subject in 
 these words: 
 
 " Now we know that immersion was practiced 
 among the Swiss Anabaptists two years before. 
 How do we know? Not from the controversial 
 writings of the period, but from the diary of John 
 Kessler, the Zwinglian pastor at St. Gall, who, 
 fortunately, one day recorded the immersion of 
 Wolfgang Uliman by Conrad Grebel in the Rhine, 
 at Schaffhausen, in April, 1525, and of others a 
 little later, in the Sitter River, near St. Gall. And 
 so the fact has come to us. Were it not for that 
 diary, inasmuch as Zwingle did not publish his 
 ' Contra-Catabaptists ' until 1527, and inasmuch 
 as the decree of the Council of Zurich against 
 the Anabaptists, in which occur the words qui 
 iterum mergat mergatiir, was not issued until 1527, 
 the hidependent might claim that the Baptists 
 of Switzerland did not practice immersion before 
 1627." (Early English and American Baptists, 
 by Henry S. Burrage, Independent, October 21, 
 1880). 
 
 It was claimed by the Baptists of the sixteenth 
 century in most all of their controversies that the 
 Dutch translation of the New Testament rendered 
 the word baptizo by doop, which meant to dip. 
 Many instances were given of the use of this 
 word doop. I could well nigh fill a book with 
 citations from Baptist authors on this point. I 
 shall give a letter written to Dr. William Russell 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF THE CONTINENT. 73 
 
 to this effect. He had made this statement in a 
 public debate, and he presents this letter in con- 
 firmation of his statement. The letter reads: 
 
 '* Sir, I have read your narrative of the Ports- 
 mouth Disputation with some ministers of the 
 Presbyterians, and have also seen another book 
 published by your adversaries intitled A?i Impar- 
 tial Account of the Ports7noutJi Disputation by Samuel 
 Chandler, William Leigh, Benj amine Robinson, 
 wherein I find such unchristian reflections and 
 wrong done you that suites not with the Profes- 
 sion they make of true Religion, but greatly dem- 
 onstrates the badness of their cause. And I won- 
 der at their Impudence in putting so plain a cheat 
 upon the World as I find in pag. 79, in these words, 
 viz., whether he might not have spared all his 
 Dutch? Seeing Doop in that language signifies 
 only to wash, and is used when they only pour on 
 water. That this account of the word Doop is 
 notoriously false appears from the common use 
 of the word, and the account of it which is given 
 in their Dictionaries. One I have by me, which I 
 believe is the largest and best in that Tongue, it 
 being a double Dictionary of Dutch and Eiiglish, 
 and English and Dutch, with Grammars to each of 
 them: by He?idrick Hexham and Da?nel Mafily and 
 printed at Rotterdam, 1675 and 1678, wherein the 
 English word Dip is render'd Doop: as, to dip in 
 a sauce, Doopen in een sausse; to dip to the bot- 
 tom, Doopentotden grondt toe : Dipped Gedoopt; a 
 dipping, eeii doopinge ; and Doop, Doopfel Baptism; 
 Doopen to baptize, Dooper, baptizer, Doop Dagh the 
 day of Baptism; Doopen onder her water, to duck 
 
74 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 or dive under water. I also find that to wash or 
 rinse is in Dutch, wasschen ofte sprolen; to sprinkle, 
 stroyen spreydeji sprenchen; and also Bespre?igen is 
 to sprinkle, besprinkle or to strow: to pour is in 
 Dutch Gieten or spocten; poured upon, Opgegoten 
 ofte op Gestort. Now seeing that there is nothing 
 of truth in Vv^hat thae say in contradiction to you 
 of the word Doop, but that it undeniably appears 
 from the Dutch Dictionary to signify to dip, to 
 duck or dive, and that it has nothing in its sig- 
 nification on either to sprinkle or wash by pour- 
 ing water, which things are render'd by other 
 Dutch words: I know not how they can clear 
 themselves from the guilt of a wilful Lie to cheat 
 the People of the true form of gospel Baptism 
 which, in my opinion, is a greater sin than to 
 cheat them of their money, and its greatly to be 
 lamented that any professing Godliness should so 
 grossly stain their Religion for the sake of Infant- 
 sprinkling, a meer human Tradition, which has 
 neither Command nor Example for it in the holy 
 Scriptures. Sir, I was willing to communicate 
 this unto you, that if you need the Evidence of 
 this Dictionary and have not already met with it, 
 you may have recourse unto it, and so heartily 
 wishing you the increase of true wisdom and 
 Christian courage for the defence of the truth 
 of Christ, which you are engaged in, I rest your 
 loving Christian Friend and Brother. 
 Leominster, Nov. 17, 1699. 
 
 "Isaac Marlow." 
 This claim was urged as late as early in the 
 eighteenth century. Thomas Davye says: 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF THE CONTINENT. 75 
 
 " And the Dutch Translators almost everywhere 
 translate the Words Baptize and Baptism, to dip or 
 dipping. Mat. 3.1. * John the dipper.' And v. 6. 
 ' Dip f din Jordan.' And z^. 16. 'Jesus being dipfd 
 (climb'd or) came up out of the Water! And Mat. 
 28.19. ' Instruct all People, dippiiig them i7i the Name 
 of the Father, etc. And Acts 8:36. * What hinders 
 me to be dipped?' Andz/. 38. ' A?td he dipp'd him! 
 And z^. 12. • They were dipp'd both Men and 
 Women.' And Rom. 6.3. 'Know ye ?iot that so 
 many of us as were dipp'd i?ito Christ Jesus were 
 dipp'd into His death. ' (The Baptism of Adult 
 Believers, p. 113. London, 1719). 
 
 If the Anabaptists of Holland sprinkled it is 
 strange that the Baptists of England knew noth- 
 ing of it. Joseph Hooke, who wrote an able book 
 on baptism, says: 
 
 "What Mr. Erratt hath placed in the margin 
 concerning the Anabaptists so-called in Holland, 
 I cannot credit; I never heard that they only pour 
 water upon, or dip the head as he affirms, yet I was 
 well acquainted with a Baptist Preacher that lived 
 some years there, who never gave me an account of 
 any such thing. Besides a credible author signifies 
 that some tender persons of his acquaintance, 
 being desirous to be rightly Baptized, have had 
 water warmed for that use in the Netherlands." 
 (A Necessary Apology for the Baptized Believ- 
 ers, pp. 112, 113. London, 1701). 
 
 I shall now introduce some general historians 
 and v/riters who have examined the subject, and 
 they are unanimous in their opinion that the true 
 Anabaptists were dippers. 
 
76 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 Blackburn says: 
 
 "The Anabaptists (rebaptizers, generally by 
 immersion) were of almost every sort, from the 
 wildest fanatics to the later and more sober 
 Christians, who came to be called Baptists, the 
 Mennonites from the second race of Anabap- 
 tists." (History of the Christian Church, p. 
 416). 
 
 Gieseler says: 
 
 " They naturally disowned the name of Ana- 
 baptists, as they declared infant baptism invalid, 
 they rather called themselves Catabaptists. 
 (Fiissli III., 229)." (A Compendium of Eccl. 
 Hist., Vol. v., pp. 355, 356). 
 
 William Robertson, Principal of the University 
 of Edinburgh, says: 
 
 "The most remarkable of their religious 
 tenets related to the sacrament of baptism, 
 which, as they contended, ought to be admin- 
 istered only to persons grown up to years of 
 understanding, and should be performed not by 
 sprinkling them with water, but by dipping them 
 in it; for this reason they condemned the baptism 
 of infants and rebaptizing all whom they ad- 
 mitted into their society, the sect came to be 
 distinguished by the name of Anabaptists. To this 
 peculiar notion concerning baptism, which has 
 the appearance of being founded on the practice 
 of the church in the apostolic age, and contains 
 nothing inconsistent with the peace and order of 
 human society, they added other principles of a 
 most enthusiastic as well as dangerous nature." 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF THE CONTINENT. 77 
 
 (The History of the Reign of the Emperor 
 Charles V., p. 246. New York, 1829). 
 
 Gregory and Ruter say: 
 
 " They first made their appearance in the 
 provinces of upper Germany where the severity 
 of the magistrates kept them under control. But 
 in the Netherlands and Westphalia they obtained 
 admittance into several towns, and spread their 
 principles. The most remarkable of their 
 religious tenets related to the sacrament of 
 baptism, which, as they contended, ought to be 
 administered only to persons grown up to years 
 of understanding, and should be performed, not 
 by sprinkling them with water, but by dipping 
 them in it. For this reason they condemned the 
 baptism of Infants, and rebaptizing all whom they 
 admitted into their society, the sect came to be 
 distinguished by the name of Anabaptists." (A 
 Concise History of the Christian Church, p. 345. 
 New York, 1834). 
 
 Schaff very fully discusses the act of baptism 
 among the Anabaptists. He says: 
 
 " The Anabaptist leaders, Hiibmaier, Denck, 
 Hatzer, Hut, likewise appeared in Augsburg and 
 gathered a congregation of eleven hundred mem- 
 bers. They held a general synod in 1527. They 
 baptized by immersion." 
 
 Schaff makes it very clear that these Anabap- 
 tists, or Catabaptists, or dippers, were the same 
 in Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, and were 
 gathered by the same leaders. He says: 
 
 " All the Reformers retained the custom of 
 infant-baptism, and opposed rebaptism ( Wieder- 
 
78 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 taufe) as a heresy. So far they agreed with the 
 Catholics against the Anabaptists, or Catabaptists, 
 as they were called, although they rejected the 
 name, because in their view the baptism of infants 
 was no baptism at all. 
 
 "The Anabaptists, or Baptists (as distinct from 
 Pedobaptists), sprang up in Germany, Holland, 
 Switzerland, and organized independent congre- 
 gations. Their leaders were Hiibmaier, Denck, 
 Hatzer, and Grebel. They thought that the Re- 
 formers stopped half way, and did not go to the 
 root of the evil. They broke with the historical 
 tradition, and constructed a new church of believ- 
 ers on the voluntary principle. Their fundamental 
 doctrine was, that baptism is a voluntary act, and 
 requires personal repentance and faith in Christ. 
 They rejected infant baptism as an anti-scriptural 
 invention. They could find no trace of it in the 
 New Testament, the only authority in matters of 
 faith. They were cruelly persecuted in Protestant 
 as well as Roman Catholic countries. We must 
 carefully distinguish the better class of Baptists 
 and the Mennonites from the restless revolution- 
 ary radicals and fanatics, like Carlstadt, Miinzer, 
 and the leaders of the Miinster tragedy. 
 
 " The mode of baptism was not an article of con- 
 troversy at that time; for the Reformers either 
 preferred immersion (Luther), or held the mode 
 to be a matter of indifference (Calvin). 
 
 " Luther agreed substantially with the Roman 
 Catholic doctrine of baptism. His Taiifb'uchlein 
 of 1523 is a translation of the Latin Baptismal 
 service, including the formula of exorcism, the 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF THE CONTINENT. 79 
 
 sign of the cross and the dipping." (History of 
 the Christian Church, Vol. VI., pp. 578, 607, 608). 
 
 Dr. William R. Williams, one of our very best 
 Baptist historians, very closely connects the Bap- 
 tists of the Continent, and especially those of 
 Holland, with the Baptists of England. He had 
 no doubt that the Anabaptists of Holland and the 
 Baptists of England practiced immersion. He 
 says: 
 
 "But there were Anabaptists and Anabaptist 
 martyrs in Holland before Menno himself had yet 
 left the Roman communion. That some of these 
 professed and practiced immersion, we infer from 
 the fact that their persecutors, who delighted in 
 fitting the penalty, as they cruelly judged it, to 
 the fault, put many of them to death by full im- 
 mersion, swathing the sufferers in large sacks with 
 'confined arms and feet, and then huddling the 
 sacks with their living contents into huge punch- 
 eons, where the victims were drowned. So the 
 Swiss Anabaptists, some of them at least, im- 
 mersed in rivers. This appears from the work 
 Sabbata of Knertz, a contemporary Lutheran. 
 The Dunkers, too, on our shores, who were driven 
 from a Swiss or a German source, are immersion- 
 ists in their own fashion. 
 
 " A small, but in its day a very distinguished, 
 branch of the Mennonites, too, were on principle 
 immersionists. These were the Collegiants, or 
 Rhynsburgers. * * * 
 
 *' In times later than these, in the following 
 century, this same community of Holland immer- 
 sionists received the accession of Wagenaar, one 
 
80 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 of the historians of Holland, whose work, in 
 numerous volumes, is still consulted. The body- 
 has nearly ceased to exist. Some funds for 
 orphans that it possesses are still applied by the 
 other branch of the Mennonites to youths, who 
 have the choice of baptism by the method of the 
 Collegiants or that of the Mennonites. 
 
 "Thus in people so distinct in some periods of 
 their history, and so clearly allied at other eras, 
 as the nations of Holland and Britain, it has been 
 seen that God's free Bible, in the hands of a free 
 church, has not been without its approximating 
 effects in the judgments to which it has led its 
 students." (Lectures on Baptist History, pp. 
 246-248). 
 
 Dr. J. B. Thomas, Newton Theological Semi- 
 nary, says: 
 
 "Usually they insisted upon immersion as the 
 only baptism." 
 
 In a recent and very ably written book, Will- 
 iam E. Griffis, says: 
 
 "The Nederlanders who first claimed the right 
 of free reading and interpretation of the Bible 
 demanded the separation of the church and state, 
 and filled their country full of ideas hostile to all 
 state churches, were called the Anabaptists, or 
 rebaptizers, because they believed in the baptism 
 of adults only, and usually by immersion." (Brave 
 Little Holland, p. 135. Boston, 1894). 
 
 This question, however, only incidentally con- 
 cerns the Baptists of England. It has never been 
 shown that all of the English Baptists received 
 their baptism from Holland. It is absolutely 
 
THE ANABAPTISTS OF THE CONTINENT. 81 
 
 certain that the English Baptists did not all 
 originate with John Smyth, and according to Dr. 
 Whitsitt's theory John Smyth baptized himself. 
 His baptism was not therefore from Holland. 
 And his contention is that Richard Blount's bap- 
 tism was by immersion. Neither has it been 
 shown that all of the English Baptists of the six- 
 teenth century came from Holland, for we know 
 from many sources that many of them were 
 natives of England. And there is not a line of 
 proof that the Dutch Baptists who did come prac- 
 ticed sprinkling. Dr. Whitsitt is not only under 
 obligation to prove that some Dutch Baptists 
 were sprinkled, but that every one who came to 
 England had been sprinkled. He has assumed a 
 universal negative, and the best he has attempted 
 is to show that some persons who were called 
 Anabaptists, were sprinkled, and I have shown 
 that some of these afterwards became immer- 
 sionists. 
 
DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 JOHN SMYTH. 
 
 I can but feel that entirely too much impor- 
 tance has been given to the so-called se-baptism 
 of John Smyth. It is a matter of little moment 
 whether he dipped himself or was baptized by 
 another. Crosby says that his baptism did not 
 affect the baptism of the Baptist Churches of 
 Fngland. His words are: 
 
 "If he were guilty of what they charge him 
 with, 'tis no blemish on the English Baptists; 
 who neither approved of any such method, nor 
 did they receive their baptism from him." (Hist. 
 English Baptists, Vol. I., pp. 99, 100). 
 
 It is sufficient to say of the personal history of 
 John Smyth that he was a clergyman of the Epis- 
 copal Church, that he was born some time in the 
 sixteenth century and died in 161 1. There are 
 two theories of his baptism, i. Dr. Dexter's 
 theory, the one followed by Dr. Whitsitt, and the 
 one generally followed by Pedobaptists, is that 
 he was baptized in 1608. (The true story of John 
 Smyth, p. 10). After a long dissertation, in which 
 Dr. Dexter tries to prove that sprinkling was the 
 general form of baptism apparently from the 
 earliest days of the church, he says of Smyth: 
 
 "Thus gathered together, after quietly waiting 
 until all with one consent had laid the duty of 
 beginning upon himself, I conceive of Mr. Smyth 
 — disrobed sufficiently to allow of the easy wash- 
 
JOHN SMYTH. 83 
 
 ing of the upper portion of his body by himself 
 — as walking into the stream, lifting handsful of 
 water and pouring them liberally upon his own 
 head, shoulders and chest, until clean and white 
 they glistened under the purifying streams, sol- 
 emnly repeating as he did so that formula which 
 the Saviour bequeathed to his people to the end 
 of time. Then turning, I imagine as receiving his 
 associates, Helwys, Murton, Pygott, Seamer, Over- 
 ton, Bromhead, Jessop, Hodgkins, Bywater, Grin- 
 dal, Halton, and the others, not forgetting Mary 
 Smyth, Ann Bromhead, Ursula Bywater, the Dick- 
 ens sisters, and the rest, and, one by one, after the 
 same manner, reinitiated each into the earthly 
 kingdom of God. And I have ventured here to 
 introduce, as possibly with considerable exacti- 
 tude pictorially representing the service per- 
 formed by Mr. Smyth upon himself, a tracing 
 from an ancient engraving representing the self- 
 baptism in earlier days of a ' Hermobaptist.'" 
 (Pp. 30, 31). 
 
 This description is manifestly absurd. Nobody 
 but an enemy of the Baptists ever presented a 
 baptism in this manner. If the nude picture 
 given by Dr. Dexter teaches anything, it is that 
 John Smyth was immersed. And there is not one 
 whit of testimony presented by Dr. Dexter him- 
 self to prove that Smyth was sprinkled. It is 
 purely '* from fancy which may be truth" (p. 31), 
 from which he draws his conclusions. The fact 
 is that the whole account as given by Dr. Dexter 
 is full of guesses, uncertainties, and nowhere is 
 there a definite statement that John Smyth did 
 
84 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 actually baptize himself. Every one of his wit- 
 nesses may be explained away without difficulty. 
 No one who was an eye-witness has described the 
 baptism according to this account, and we are 
 left to conjecture as to whether it was by Smyth 
 baptizing himself or by some one else baptizing 
 him. Dr. Whitsitt gives no authorities which are 
 not found in Dexter, and not one of them inti- 
 mates that Smyth was sprinkled. 
 
 Barclay, who holds to the affusion view, was 
 compelled to admit that ** the question of the 
 manner oi baptism does not come up." (Inner 
 Life of the Religious Societies, p. 70). 
 
 Thomas Price, D. D., one of the very best 
 writers on this subject, gives us some very im- 
 portant data. We must remember that Smyth's 
 enemies are responsible for this history, and that 
 is not always trustworthy. Dr. Price says: 
 
 " Much has been said about Mr. Smith having 
 baptized himself. Ainsworth, Jessop, and some 
 others of his opponents charge him with having 
 done so, and make use of the alleged fact to 
 awaken the ridicule of their readers, or to invali- 
 date his administration of the ordinance. I con- 
 fess that the matter does not appear to me to be 
 of so much importance as some Baptist authors 
 deem it; nor do I think it so easy to determine 
 the truth or falsity of the statement as the writers 
 on both sides conclude it to be. The mere fact 
 that such a statement was made by the contem- 
 poraries of Smith, and that no direct denial of it 
 has come down to us, gives it some appearance of 
 truth. But, on the other hand, it must be remem- 
 
JOHN SMYTH. 85 
 
 bered that the parties making the statement were 
 angry controversialists, who spared no invective 
 or abuse, but seemed to think that every epithet 
 appropriate, and every assertion lawful, by which 
 they could injure the reputation, or render ridicu- 
 lous the proceedings of their opponent. Mr. 
 Smith's defenses of himself are not known. His 
 enemies adduce long quotations from his writings, 
 but no one of them admits the fact with which 
 he was charged, or attempts to justify it. He 
 doubtless must have referred to it, and had he, in 
 doing so, made the slightest admission, they 
 would readily have retailed his language. It is a 
 further confirmation of this view of the case that 
 contemporaneous writers, referring to the bap- 
 tismal controversy amongst the Brownists, and 
 that with no friendly design, make no reference to 
 such a fact." (The History of Protestant Non- 
 conformity, Vol. I., p. 497). 
 
 It will be worth while to note that Jessop, a 
 backslider and renegade, and Ainsworth both 
 wrote books to sustain infant baptism and to 
 overthrow the position of believers — baptism, 
 as held by Smyth. A close reading of these 
 books would easily convince any one that they 
 had no love for Smyth nor the doctrines that he 
 held. 
 
 Wilson says: 
 
 " His principles and conduct soon drew upon 
 him an host of opponents, the chief of whom 
 were Johnson, Ainsworth, Robinson, Jessop and 
 Clifton. The controversy began in 1606, about 
 the time Smyth settled in Amsterdam. Soon 
 
86 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 afterwards he removed with his followers to Ley- 
 den, where he continued to publish various books 
 in defence of his opinions, till his death in the 
 year 1610." (The History and Antiquities of 
 Dissenting Churches, Vol. I., p. 30). 
 
 I will further refresh the memory of the reader 
 by reminding him that this company which perse- 
 cuted Smyth were those who settled in New Eng- 
 land. They fled from persecution in England and 
 Holland, and were hardly settled in New England 
 until they were burning witches and whipping 
 Anabaptists. I do not think that Smyth and his 
 opinions met with much justice at their hands. 
 
 2. There is another account given in certain 
 church records of the Baptist Churches of Epworth 
 and Crowle in the Isle of Axholme, Lincolnshire, 
 England. The church Covenant, dated January 
 4, 1599, is recorded in these words: 
 
 We, this church of Christ, meeting at Epworth, Crowle 
 and West Butterwick, in the county of Lincolnshire, whose 
 names are underwritten, give up ourselves to the Lord and 
 one to another according to the will of God. We do prom- 
 ise and covenant in the presence of Christ, to walk together 
 in the laws and ordinances of baptized believers according 
 to the rules of the Gospel through Jesus Christ, so helping 
 us. James Rayner, John Morton, Henry Helwise, William 
 Brewster, William Bradford, elders of ye church. 
 
 There are appended thirty-two names, some 
 with the X. It is further stated that William 
 Bradford was " baptized inthe old river Don below 
 Epworth town at midnight, 1595." There is also 
 a record that the church desired to leave for Hol- 
 land, " where we hear there is freedom for all men." 
 
 It is further recorded: 
 
 4. It affirms that John Smith, vicar of Gainsborough, 
 enquired about baptism in February 4, 1604, was convinced 
 
JOHN SMYTH. 87 
 
 of its truth May7th, and" at midnight on the 24th of March, 
 1606, he was baptized by Elder John Morton in the river 
 Don, and walked to Epworth, a distance of two miles, in 
 his wet clothes." 
 
 And the document also records that "John 
 Smith, John Morton (who immersed him), Henry 
 Helwise and others held a meeting in regard to 
 removing the church to Holland." This was the 
 4th of April, 1609. 
 
 The authenticity of these records has been vio- 
 lently assailed by Dr. Whitsitt He says: 
 
 A g-eneration 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 Baptist people in all parts of the 
 world. (P. 15). 
 
 On pp. 62, 63, Dr. Whitsitt uses many words of 
 censure on these documents. He calls them " a 
 fabulous statement," " fabrication," " no sadder 
 humiliation has ever been inflicted upon our Bap- 
 tist name and cause," " fill up the cup of our mor- 
 tification," etc. Dr. Whitsitt is very severe 
 against Dr. Clifford who published these records. 
 Dr, Whitsitt always praises those who praise him. 
 He cannot say enough of Prof. Hoop Scheffer, of 
 Amsterdam, who complimented him and agrees 
 with him (p. 17). But Dr. Clifford and the Eng- 
 lish Baptist historians generally, who ought to 
 know something of this subject, all differ with Dr. 
 Whitsitt, and so their investigations reflect ** a 
 painful light upon the condition of studies among 
 Baptists in England." (P. 63). 
 
 My position holds good that John Smyth was 
 immersed irrespective of these records, but it 
 
88 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 is absolutely essential for Dr. Whitsitt to prove 
 that these records are false. 
 
 I would also suggest that both of these theories 
 might be true. It might be true that Smyth was 
 baptized in the Don river and afterwards baptized 
 himself. The Baptists of that generation were 
 much disturbed on the subject of a proper admin- 
 istrator of baptism, and were often rebaptized. If 
 Smyth was the visionary man that Dexter de- 
 clares him to be, nothing would be more probable 
 than that he should do this very thing. 
 
 It is a strong fact that cannot be overcome 
 that the historians declare that Smyth was im- 
 mersed. The array of writers who affirm this is a 
 very formidable one. I shall give some of them. 
 
 Joseph A. Adshead, Manchester, says: 
 
 •* Mr. Smyth (who had been a Brownist) and his 
 followers settled in Amsterdam in 1608. He was 
 led to RENOUNCE INFANT SPRINKLING and Came to 
 the conclusion that immersion was the true and 
 proper manner of baptism; and that it should be 
 administered only to those who are capable of 
 PROFESSING FAITH IN CHRIST." (The Progress of 
 Religious Sentiment, p. xix. London, 1852). 
 
 George Punchard says: 
 
 *' Mr. Smyth proceeded first to rebaptize him- 
 self, by immersion, and then to immerse Mr. 
 Helwise, his associate, and several others, his 
 followers." (The History of Congregationalism, 
 p. 319. Salem, 1841). 
 
 W. M. Blackburn, D. D., Methodist, says: 
 
 "Among the English Separatists in Holland 
 was Rev. John Smyth, who, probably immersed 
 
JOHN SMYTH. 89 
 
 himself, felt so adverse to liturgies that he thought 
 that the Bible ought not to be read publicly in 
 churches, nor psalms sung from a printed page, 
 gave an Arminian shape to his vague theology, 
 and at Amsterdam (1608-9) gathered a flock of 
 English Baptists, who began to be more clearly 
 distinguished from the Anabaptists." (History of 
 the Christian Church, p. 553. Cincinnati, 1879). 
 Ivimey, the Baptist historian, says: 
 "Upon a further consideration of the subject, 
 he saw reason to conclude that immersion was 
 the true and proper meaning of the word baptism 
 and that it should be administered to those only 
 who were capable of professing faith in Christ." 
 (A History of the English Baptists,Vol. I., p. 114). 
 David Masson, M. A., LL. D., Professor of 
 English Literature in the University of Edin- 
 burgh, spent a great deal of time in the British 
 Museum gathering material for his great life of 
 Milton. He gives an interesting account of his 
 work. He says: 
 
 Of the multiplicity and extent of the researches that 
 were required, any general account would be tedious. 
 Perhaps, however, I may allude specially to my obliga- 
 tions to the State Paper Office in London, where there 
 were printed calendars of the State papers; the task of con- 
 sulting them is easy. Unfortunately, when I began my read- 
 ings m the great national repository, the domestic papers 
 of the period of most interest to me — from 1640 to 1643 — 
 were utterly uncalendared. They had, therefore, to be 
 brought to me in bundles and inspected carefully, lest 
 anything useful should be skipped. In this way I had 
 to persevere at a slow rate in my readings and note papers; 
 but I believe I can now say for much the greatest part of the 
 time embraced in the present volume (III) — 1640 to 1643 — 
 there is not a single domestic document extant of those that 
 used to be in the " State Paper Office," which has not passed 
 through my hands and been scrutinized. (Prefaceto Vol. III.). 
 
90 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 Masson said: 
 
 " Now Smyth, adhering to the tenet, had pushed 
 it to a logical consequence not ventured on by 
 the Separatists before him. If the ordination 
 of the Church of England were rejected, so that 
 her ministers had to be reordained when they 
 became pastors and teachers of Separatist con- 
 gregations, why was the baptism of the Church 
 of England accounted valid; why were not mem- 
 bers of the Church rebaptized when they became 
 Separatists? Through the prosecution of this 
 query, aided by other investigations, Smyth had 
 developed his Separatism into the form known 
 as Anabaptism, not only requiring the rebaptism 
 of members of the Church of England, but reject- 
 ing the baptism of infants altogether, and insist- 
 ing on immersion as the proper Scriptural form 
 of the rite." (The Life of John Milton, Vol. II., 
 p. 540. London, 1871). 
 
 Daniel Neal, M. A., the standard Puritan histo- 
 rian, says: 
 
 " He was for refining upon the Brownist scheme, 
 and at last declared for the Principles of the Bap- 
 tists; upon this he left Amsterdam, and settled 
 with his disciples at Leydeji, where, being at a loss 
 for a proper administrator of the Ordinance of Bap- 
 tism, he plunged himself, and then performed the 
 ceremony upon others, which gained him the name 
 of Se-Baptist." (The History of the Puritans, 
 Vol. IL, p. 29. London, 1732). 
 
 Thomas Price says: 
 
 " But his views on the subject of baptism were 
 still more obnoxious, and awakened an angry and 
 
JOHN SMYTH. 91 
 
 fierce controversy, in which the sacredness of char- 
 acter and the charity of the gospel were alike 
 disregarded. His sentiments on this latter point 
 were substantially as those now held by the Eng- 
 lish Baptists; and the mode in which he arrived 
 at them was as follows, etc." (The History 
 of Protestant Nonconformity in England, Vol. I., 
 
 p. 495). 
 
 Taylor, the historian of the General Baptists of 
 
 England, says; 
 
 " In reviewing the subject of separation, Mr. 
 Smyth discovered that he and his friends acted 
 inconsistently in rejecting the ordination received 
 from the Church of England, because they 
 esteemed her a false church, and yet retained her 
 baptism as true baptism. This led him to exam- 
 ine the nature and ground of baptism; and he 
 perceived, that neither infant baptism nor sprink- 
 ling had any foundation in Scripture. With his 
 usual frankness he was no sooner convinced of 
 this important truth than he openly professed 
 and defended his sentiments. He urged the in- 
 consistency of their practice on his former asso- 
 ciates so clearly that the bishop before mentioned 
 tells Mr. Robinson, 'There is no remedy; you 
 must go forward to anabaptism or come back to 
 us; all of your Rabbins cannot answer the charge 
 of your rebaptized brother (Mr. Smyth). If we 
 be a true church, you must return; if we be not 
 (as a false church is no church of God), you must 
 rebaptize. If our baptism be good, then is our 
 ordination good. He tells you true: your station 
 is unsafe; either you must forward to him or 
 
'92 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 back to us.' " ( Hall's Works, Vol. IX., pp. 384, 400. 
 The History of the English General Bapti&ts, 
 Vol. I., p. 68). 
 
 Walter Wilson, who is one of the best of the 
 Puritan historians, says: 
 
 *' Upon a further consideration of the subject he 
 saw grounds to consider immersion as the true 
 and only meaning of the word baptism, and that 
 it should be administered to those alone who were 
 capable of professing their faith in Christ." (The 
 History and Antiquities of Dissenting Churches, 
 Vol. I., p. 29). 
 
 Thomas Wall, 1691, was a very bitter opponent 
 of the Baptists. In explaining the immersion of 
 John Smyth he says: 
 
 •* A third Devise these People have found to 
 Deprive Infants of their Rights to Water Baptism, 
 perswading People of years they were not Bap- 
 tized at all, if not Dip'd or Plung'd in Water." 
 (Baptism Anatomized, p. 107. London, 1691). 
 
 Giles Shute, in writing against the Baptists in 
 1696, was very bitter. He says: 
 
 "Now let the wise judge in what abominable 
 disorder they retain their Baptisme ever since 
 from Mr. Smyth; and whether it stinketh not in 
 the nostrils of the Lord ever since as the ministry 
 of Corah and his company did. In his Table of 
 particulars, wherein this passage is directed to it, 
 is querqed, who began Baptisme by way of Dip- 
 ping among English People that call themselves 
 Baptists? The answer is, John Smith, who Bap- 
 tized himself. Thus you may see upon what a 
 rotten foundation the Principles of the Anabap- 
 
JOHN SMYTH. 93^^ 
 
 tists is built and at what Door that Anticovenant 
 Doctrine came in among us in England; therefore 
 it is of the Earth, and but a Human Innovation, 
 and ought to be abhor'd and detested by all 
 Christian People." (A General Challenge to all 
 Antipedobaptists). 
 
 I think that we may easily reach the conclu- 
 sion, which ever of these two theories we hold, that 
 John Smyth was immersed. I know not a line of 
 original testimony which teaches the contrary. 
 The very best in favor of sprinkling is some 
 strained inferences. The historians are unanimous 
 in favor of immersion, and as I have shown from 
 Pedobaptist writers of the seventeenth century, it 
 was the concurrent opinion of that century. 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt makes a labored argument to prove 
 that John Smyth baptized himself (p. 64) but he 
 does not produce a line of proof that the baptism 
 was performed by sprinkling. He only infers that 
 the Mennonites practiced sprinkling, therefore 
 Smyth was sprinkled. But Smyth's baptism was 
 in no wise connected with the Mennonites. It is 
 possible that Smyth received his views in regard to 
 immersion from the New Testament. I am sure 
 there is no proof that Smyth was an affusionist. 
 
 Smyth appears to have remained pastor of this 
 congregation till his death in 161 1, "when he was 
 succeeded by a Thomas Helwisse, one of the old- 
 est members, a plain man, of pragmatic notions, 
 and quite self taught." (Masson's Life of Milton, 
 Vol. II., p. 540). But Masson does not leave us in 
 doubt as to the views of this new pastor. He 
 says: 
 
^4 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 " Now, this Helwisse, returning to England 
 shortly after 1611, drew around him, as we saw, 
 the first congregation of General or Arminian 
 Baptists in London; and this obscure Baptist con- 
 gregation seems to have become the depositary 
 for all England of the absolute principle of Lib- 
 erty of Conscience expressed in the Amsterdam 
 Confession as distinct from the more stinted prin- 
 ciple advocated by the general body of the Inde- 
 pendents. Not only did Helwisse's folk differ 
 from the Independents generally on the subject of 
 Infant Baptism and Dipping; they differed also on 
 the power of the magistrate in matters of belief 
 and conscience," (Life of John Milton, Vol. II., 
 
 P- 544). 
 
 Leonard Busher appears to have been a noted 
 member of this congregation of Helwise's. **It 
 was," says Masson, " in short, from their little 
 dingy meeting house, somewhere in Old London, 
 that there flashed out, first in England, the abso- 
 lute doctrine of religious liberty. ' Religions 
 Peace: or, a Plea for Liberty of Conscience^ is the 
 title of a little tract first printed in 1614, and pre- 
 sented to King James and the English Parliament, 
 by * Leonard Busher, citizen of London.' This 
 Leonard Busher, there is reason to believe, was a 
 member of Helwisse's congregation and we learn 
 from the tract itself that he was a poor man, 
 laboring for his subsistence, who had his share of 
 persecution. He had probably been one of 
 Smyth's Amsterdam flock who had returned with 
 Helwisse. The tract is certainly the earliest 
 known English publication in which full liberty 
 
JOHN SMYTH. 95 
 
 of conscience is openly advocated. It cannot be 
 read now without a throb. The style is simple 
 and rather helpless, but one comes on some touch- 
 ing passages." (Masson's Life of Milton,Vol. III., 
 p. 102). His testimony on the subject of dipping 
 is clear and concisive. Busher says: 
 
 "And therefore Christ commanded his disci- 
 ples to teach all nations, and baptize them; that 
 is, to preach the word of salvation to every creat- 
 ure of all sorts of nations that are worthy and 
 willing to receive it. And such as shall willingly 
 and gladly receive. He has commanded to be 
 baptized in the water; that is, dipped for dead in 
 the water." (Plea for Liberty of Conscience, 
 p. 50). 
 
 From this tract it is certain that Busher held 
 
 three distinctive Baptist doctrines : I. Liberty 
 
 of conscience; 2. Immersion or dipping, and 3. 
 
 Believers' baptism. In order to break the force 
 
 of this clear and unequivocal testimony Dr. Whit- 
 
 sitt makes the surprising declaration that there is 
 
 no proof that Busher was a Baptist. 
 
 Mr. Leonard Busher, a citizen of London, published in 
 1614 the well Known " Plea for Liberty of Conscience." He 
 may have been a Baptist, but there is no proof of it. He 
 believed in immersion, which the Baptists had not then re- 
 vived, and describes it as "being dipped for dead in the 
 water;" but it has not been shown that he ever put this tenet 
 into practice. If he did the Baptists of 1641 had never 
 been informed of it. {^Religious Herald, May 7, 1896). 
 
 But in his book (pp. 69, 70) Dr. Whitsitt 
 changes his mind and Busher is declared to be an 
 Anabaptist. But with the declaration of Busher 
 before him that dipping was baptism Dr. Whit- 
 sitt says: 
 
96 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 It is sometimes too confidently assumed that this, pas- 
 sage proves Mr. Busher to have been an immersionist in 
 practice as well as in principle, but we know too little 
 regarding him to venture distinct assertions on that point. 
 * * * The act of baptism observed by him would in that 
 case become a question for Dutch archaeologists. But 
 either Dutch or English archaeologists, founding on the 
 mere fact that he was an immersionist in principle, must 
 jump a long distance to the conclusion that he was also an 
 immersionist in practice. * * * i^ brief words, Mr. 
 Busher is a shadowy figure, and it is entirely uncertain 
 whether be spent his last years in England or Holland. 
 Therefore we are not entitled, for the present at least, to 
 establish any definite conclusions regarding him or his 
 people, except that if he had practiced immersion at Am- 
 sterdam in 1611 we should have been likely to hear a good 
 deal more about him than has been brought to light hither- 
 to. * * * The most that can be safely claimed for Mr. 
 Busher is that he was an advance herald of genuine Bap- 
 tist principles in Holland, that were shortly to be reduced 
 to practice in England. 
 
 We have the surprising declarations that Busher 
 was an Anabaptist, was a believer in, and advocate 
 of immersion, and yet that he did not practice it. 
 This is only on a line with much of the rest of this 
 remarkable book. Every effort is made to dis- 
 credit all who practice immersion and to explain 
 away the facts, and a like effort is made to exalt 
 all who practice sprinkling and to magnify the 
 number of such examples among Anabaptists. 
 
 I know of no Pedobaptist author who denies 
 that Busher was a Baptist; and with the excep- 
 tion of Dr. Whitsitt, there is no difference of 
 opinion on this subject among Baptist authors. 
 I give the testimony of a few Pedobaptist writers: 
 
 Barclay says: 
 
 " In 1614, Leonard Busher, who is believed to 
 have been a member of Helwys' and Morton's 
 church, presented to King James and the Parlia- 
 ment his petition for liberty of conscience, which 
 
JOHN SMYTH. 97 
 
 was published in 1614." (The Inner Life of Re- 
 ligious Societies, p. 98). 
 
 Rev. A. H. Drysdale, M. A., a Presbyterian his- 
 torian, says: 
 
 " Unquestionably it was the Baptists who first 
 repudiated, clearly and strongly, all coercive 
 power whatever in religion (see especially Leon- 
 ard Busher's Religious Peace ; or, a Pie a for Liberty of 
 Conscierice, 1614); and they were constant to this 
 principle throughout." (History of the Presby- 
 terians in England, p. 353, note). 
 
 John Stoughton says: 
 
 "The Baptists w^ere foremost in the advocacy of 
 religious freedom, and perhaps to one of them, 
 Leonard Busher, citizen of London, belongs the 
 honor of presenting in this country the first dis- 
 tinct and broad plea for liberty of conscience. It 
 is dated 1614, and is prefaced by an epistle to the 
 Presbyterian reader; and a very remarkable epis- 
 tle it is, deserving a renown which it has never 
 acquired." (Ecclesiastical History of England, 
 p. 231). 
 
 Hanbury says: 
 
 "'Religious Peace; or, a Plea for Liberty of 
 Conscience,' by Leonard Busher, a citizen of 
 London, and a Baptist, 1614." (Memorials, Vol. 
 I., p. 224, note). 
 
 The Baptists have been equally as explicit as 
 the Pedobaptists in declaring that Leonard Busher 
 was a Baptist. B. Evans, (Early English Baptists, 
 Vol. I., pp. 229-231); Richard B. Cook, (The Story 
 of the Baptists, pp. 86, 87); George B. Taylor, 
 (Religious Freedom, p. 32); and Armitage, (His- 
 7 
 
98 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 tory of the Baptists, pp. 440, 441), all so affirm. 
 I shall quote some words from Prof. Vedder, of 
 Crozer Seminary, whom Dr. Whitsitt claims sus- 
 tains his position. He has made two declarations 
 on the subject. The first (Baptists and Liberty 
 of Conscience, p. 18. Cincinnati, 1884) was be- 
 fore this controversy began, and the second in 
 The Examiner, May 21, 1896. I quote from the 
 latter. Prof. Vedder says: 
 
 "That honor belongs, as far as known, to 
 Leonard Busher, who wrote a tract in favor of 
 liberty of conscience in 1614, called Religions 
 Peace. Dr. Whitsitt indeed says that there is no 
 proof that he was a Baptist. / can ofily mildly 
 express m,y surprise that it takes so much proof to con- 
 vince the good doctor of some tlmigs, and so little to 
 convince him of others. It seems to me that no- 
 body who reads the book of Busher can be in any 
 real doubt as to who and what he was. If Ed- 
 ward Barber was a Baptist, Leonard Busher was 
 a Baptist; and the latter wrote: 'And such as 
 gladly receive it [the Gospel] he hath commanded 
 to be baptized in water; that is, dipped for dead 
 in the water.' We do not find such a sentiment, 
 outside Baptist literature, in the first half of the 
 seventeenth century." 
 
 It does not seem to me that anything could be 
 clearer than that Busher was a Baptist. No man 
 save a Baptist, in the early part of the seven- 
 teenth century, held such views on liberty of 
 conscience and baptism. If we had no other 
 authority, this statement of Busher's alone ought 
 to settle the question of dipping among the Eng- 
 lish Baptists. 
 
THE BAPTISTS OF 164I. 99 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE BAPTISTS OF 164I. 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt says: 
 
 I have often declared it to be my opinion that the im- 
 mersion of adult believers was a lost art in England, from 
 the year 1509, the accession of Henry VIII., to the year 
 1641, following the imprisonment of Archbishop Laud. 
 ( Western Recorder, July 9, 1896). 
 
 This statement is neither true in reference to 
 the Episcopalians nor the Baptists. In regard to 
 the Episcopalians we have direct testimony. The 
 Catechism of Edward VI., A. D. 1553, has: 
 
 ^'Master: Tell me (my son) how these two 
 sacraments be ministered: baptism, and that 
 which Paul calleth the supper of the Lord. 
 
 ''Scholar: Him that believeth in Christ; pro- 
 fesseth the articles of the Christian Religion; and 
 mindeth to be baptized (I speak now of them 
 that be grown to ripe years of discression, sith for 
 young babes their parents' or the Church's pro- 
 fession sufificeth), the minister dippeth in or 
 washeth with pure and clear water only, in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost; and then commendeth him by prayer to 
 God, into whose Church he is now openly as it 
 were enrolled that it may please God to grant 
 him his grace whereby he may answer in belief 
 and life agreeably to his profession." (P. 516, 
 The Two Liturgies, 1549 and 1552. Parker So- 
 ciety, Cambridge, 1844). 
 
 I shall give a more extended statement of the 
 Baptists. The Baptists of this period had been 
 
100 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 greatly persecuted. They seldom dared to write 
 anything, and to keep church records would only 
 endanger their lives. They were banished, im- 
 prisoned and burned. For an account of the 
 Anabaptists we must for the most part look to 
 their enemies, and we must remember the bitter 
 malignity of these enemies. The persecutions 
 of Laud were scarcely more severe than those 
 which went before. Laud had almost abso- 
 lute authority. He was suspected of trying to 
 restore Romanism, and there is no doubt that 
 he possessed the Roman Catholic spirit of 
 persecution. In order to carry out his designs he 
 was compelled to silence all opposers. William 
 Lee says of him: 
 
 "The fact now referred to is of itself sufficient; 
 and it is hardly necessary to go into the question, 
 how, under Laud's rule, the repression of the non- 
 conformists was carried out. He is said to have 
 preferred persuasion to force; but it is not denied 
 that, when necessary, the most horrible severities 
 were employed under his sanction to enforce con- 
 formity. The cases of Leighton, Prynnes, Bost- 
 wick and Burton are well known, with hundreds 
 of cases of dissenters, who, if not shockingly 
 mutilated and condemned to perpetual imprison- 
 ment, were silenced and compelled to seek 
 liberty of conscience beyond seas, or, worse than 
 all, to violate their own sense of duty, and lose 
 their spiritual, in seeking to save their bodily, life 
 and well-being. Nor is it disputed that of the 
 Star Chamber and Court of High Commission, by 
 which these men were condemned. Laud was the 
 
THE BAPTISTS OF 164I. 101 
 
 moving spirit; nay, that if, in these courts, any 
 voice was for more than ordinarily severe measures, 
 it was sure to be his. (Gardiner: Personal 
 History, I., 6). But perhaps the worst charge 
 against Laud in this connection is the alleged 
 fact, that to gain the power of suppressing the 
 nonconformists and otherwise securing the 
 restoration of a pure and catholic church accord- 
 ing to his own ideal, Laud did not hesitate to 
 encourage in the king those absolute principles, 
 which, if he had prevailed, instead of the Parlia- 
 ment, would have been fatal to the liberties of 
 the English people." (Schaff-Herzog Encyclo- 
 paedia, Vol. IL, pp. 1284, 1285). 
 
 Under such conditions the Baptists, the most 
 despised of all the people of England, could not 
 be expected to preserve records. 
 
 Their doctrines were misrepresented and ma- 
 ligned. Here is a sample: 
 
 " To these doctrines you may join their prac- 
 tice. The seditious pamphlets, the tumultuous 
 rising of rude multitudes threatening blood and 
 destruction; the preaching of the cobblers, felt- 
 makers, tailors, grooms and women; the choosing 
 of any place for God's service but the church; the 
 night-meetings of naked men and women; the 
 licentiousness of spiritual marriages without legal 
 form; these things if they be not looked into will 
 bring us in time to community of wives, commu- 
 nity of goods, and destruction of all." (A Short 
 History of the Anabaptists of High and Low Ger- 
 many, pp. 55, 56. London, 1642). 
 
 It is to be observed, however, that very soon 
 
102 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 after there was liberty of conscience, or rather 
 toleration, some Calvinistie Baptist Churches of 
 London adopted one of the most famous Confes- 
 sions of Faith in the world. It stands only second 
 to the Westminster Confession in importance 
 among the Dissenting Churches of England. For- 
 mulas of doctrines like those contained in this 
 confession are matters of growth. The presump- 
 tion is that these doctrines had long lived in the 
 hearts of these people before they were expressed 
 in this formal manner. There is no indication 
 from this confession and its history of any change 
 of mind on the subject of baptism. There is not 
 a trace of information, from friend or foe, that 
 during the adoption of this confession there 
 was any discussion on the subject of dipping. We 
 know that the Presbyterians, in their assembly, 
 were badly divided on the subject of dipping. 
 But if there were such dissensions among the 
 Baptists it is passing strange that we have no inti- 
 mation of them, nor were there any protests. 
 These seven churches presented this as their unan- 
 imous opinion to Parliament, and published it 
 broadcast to the world. The presumption is alto- 
 gether in favor of the supposition that the Bap- 
 tists had long been immersionists, and that this 
 was the honest expression of their sentiments, and 
 it will take powerful arguments, which have not 
 been presented, to set aside these convictions. 
 
 I give the XL. Article of the "Confession of 
 Faith of those Churches which are commonly 
 (though falsely) called Anabaptists:" 
 
 ** That the way and manner of dispensing this 
 
THE BAPTISTS OF 164I. 103 
 
 ordinance is dipping or plunging the body under 
 water; it being a signe, must answer the thing 
 signified, which is, that interest the Saints have in 
 the death, burial and resurrection of Christ: and 
 that as certainly as the body is buried under 
 water, and rises again, so certainly shall the bodies 
 of the Saints be raised by the power of Christ in 
 the day of the resurrection, to reigne with Christ." 
 
 (P. 20). 
 
 There is a note appended, as follows: 
 " The word Baptizo signifies to dip or plunge 
 yet so as convenient garments be both upon the 
 administrator and subject, with all modesty." 
 
 It is necessary for Dr. Whitsitt to prove that 
 these eight Baptist Churches of London that 
 signed the confession of 1644 and the 54 Baptist 
 Churches in England that Neal and other authors 
 mention all originated with John Smyth or with 
 the Jessey Church. This has never been proved, 
 and Dr. Whitsitt attempts no proof. If the Jessey 
 records are a forgery, as I think, and if John 
 Smyth was immersed, there is absolutely no foun- 
 dation for this theory. If I should admit the 
 authenticity of the Jessey Church records, which 
 1 do not, and that John Smyth was sprinkled, 
 of which there is not a line of proof, even then Dr. 
 Whitsitt's case is in no wise made out. He must 
 prove that every one of these churches originated 
 from one or the other of these sources. The one 
 which did not so originate might have practiced 
 immersion, and as Dr. Whitsitt has affirmed a uni- 
 versal negative this would be fatal to his argu- 
 ment. As a matter of fact, he has not proved that 
 
104 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 even one of the London churches had such an 
 origin, much less any of the other churches of 
 England. 
 
 But we have positive testimony against this 
 theory. William Kififin, who certainly knew de- 
 clared: " It is well known to many, and especi- 
 ally TO OURSELVES, THAT OUR CONGREGATIONS 
 WERE ERECTED AND FRAMED ACCORDING TO THE 
 
 RULE OF Christ, before we heard of any 
 REFORMATION." As this was Written in 1645, ^^ 
 one can doubt that Kififin was an immersionist, 
 and this statement puts the question forever at 
 rest. 
 
 As far back as 1589 Some, who wrote at that 
 date, declares there were Anabaptist Churches in 
 London. They doubtless had existed long before 
 this. The words of Some are: 
 
 **To preach without an external calling, is Ana- 
 baptisticall. The consequents of such preaching 
 are the deprauing of the holy scriptures, abusing 
 of the Auditors, disturbing both of Church and 
 commonwealth. The Anabaptisticall conuenticles 
 in London, and other places, are sufficient proof 
 of this." (Chapter 7). 
 
 These Anabaptists of whom Some was writing 
 were not Dutch or Germans, but native born. 
 Some says: 
 
 " If any shall reply, that many Papists, Ana- 
 baptists, etc., haue bene bredde in our Vniuersi- 
 ties: my answere is, that the goodliest gardens 
 haue some weedes in them. Cham was in Noahs 
 arke, as well as Sem; Ismael in Abrahams house, 
 as wel as Isaac: Judas in Christes companye as 
 
THE BAPTISTS OF 164I. 105 
 
 well as Peter: and yet Noahs arke, Abrahams 
 house, and Christes companie were singularlie to 
 bee accounted of. The wheate field may not be 
 destroyed, because of the tares: Nor the vine, be- 
 cause of a few wilde grapes; nor the garden, be- 
 cause of the weedes. The tares, wilde grapes, and 
 weedes, are wisely to be remoued by the husband- 
 man and gardener," etc. 
 
 But I have still other testimony as to the 
 origin of these churches. Hanserd Knollys knew 
 all about the origin of these London churches. 
 He was intimately connected with the Baptists, or 
 Anabaptists. 
 
 I have before me a book, which seems to have 
 escaped the eye of all other writers on this sub- 
 ject. It knows nothing about Blount nor Black- 
 lock, nor the trip to Holland, nor the introduction 
 of immersion. It tells in simple language the 
 story of the planting of these London Baptist 
 Churches in the days of persecution before 1641. 
 The title of this book is: * A Moderate Answer 
 Unto Dr. Bastwick's Book Called * Independency 
 Not God's Ordinance.' Wherein is declared the 
 manner how some Churches in this city were 
 gathered, and upon what tearmes their members 
 were admitted; that so both the Dr. and the 
 Reader may judge how near some Believers who 
 walk together in the Fellowship of the Gospell 
 do come in their practice to the Apostolicall rules 
 which are propounded by the Dr. as God's 
 Method in gathering Churches and Admitting 
 Members. By Hanserd Knollys. London, 1645." 
 Of course, such a book is authoritative and worth 
 a thousand guesses. Knollys says: 
 
106 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 " I shall now take the liberty to declare, what 
 I know by mine own experience to be the prac- 
 tice of some Churches of God in this City. That 
 so far both the Dr. and the Reader may judge 
 how near the Saints, who walk in the fellowship 
 of the Gospell, do come to their practice, to these 
 Apostolicall rules and practice propounded by the 
 Dr. as God's method in gathering churches, 
 and admitting Members, I say that I know by 
 mine own experience (having walked with them), 
 that they were thus gathered, viz.: Some godly 
 and learned men of approved gifts and abilities 
 for the Ministrie, being driven out of the Coun- 
 tries where they lived by the persecution of the 
 Prelates, came to sojourn in this great City, and 
 preached the word of God both publikely and 
 from house to house, and daily in the Temple, 
 and in every house they ceased not to teach and 
 preach Jesus Christ: and some of them have 
 dwelt in their own hired houses, and received 
 all that came in unto them, preaching the King- 
 dom of God, and teaching those things which 
 concern the Lord Jesus Christ. And when many 
 sinners were converted by their preaching of the 
 Gospell, some of them believers, consorted with 
 them, and of professors a great many, and of the 
 chief women not a few. And the condition which 
 those Preachers, both publikely and privately pro- 
 pounded to the people, unto whom they preached, 
 upon which they were to be admitted into the 
 Church was Faith, Repentance, and Baptism, and 
 none other. And whosoever (poor as well as 
 rich, bond as well as free, servants as well as 
 
THE BAPTISTS OF 164I. lOT 
 
 Masters), did make a profession of their Faith 
 in Christ Jesus, and would be baptized with water,, 
 in the Name of the Father, Sonne, and Holy- 
 Spirit, were admitted Members of the Church; 
 but such as did not believe, and would not be 
 baptized, they would not admit into Church com- 
 munion. This hath been the practice of some 
 Churches of God in this City, without urging or 
 making any particular covenant with Members 
 upon admittance, which I desire may be examined 
 by the Scripture cited in the Margent, and then 
 compared with the Doctor's three conclusions 
 from the same Scriptures, whereby it may appear 
 to the judicious Reader, how near the Churches 
 some of them come to the practice of the Apostles 
 rule, and practice of the primitive churches, both in 
 gathering and admitting members." (Pp. 24, 25). 
 
 Nothing can be plainer than that these London 
 churches were not organized on the plan indi- 
 cated by Dr. Whitsitt. 
 
 As to the practice of dipping among the Ana- 
 baptists of England there has been no difference 
 of opinion among historians, till of late, a few con- 
 troversial writers have affirmed that they practiced 
 sprinkling. I will let the historians speak for 
 themselves. 
 
 Neal, in whose hands the Baptists placed their 
 gathered material for a history, says: 
 
 " Their confession consisted of 52 articles and 
 is strictly Calvinistical in the doctrinal part, and 
 according to the independent discipline, it con- 
 fines the subjects of baptism to grown Christians 
 and the mode to immersion. The advocates of 
 
108 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 this doctrine were for the most part of the 
 rrieanest of the people; their preachers were 
 generally illiterate and went about the country 
 making proselytes of all who would submit to 
 immersion. * * * The people of this per- 
 suasion were most exposed to the public resent- 
 ments, because they would hold communion with 
 none but such as had been dipped. All must 
 pass under the cloud before they could be 
 received into their churches; and the same 
 narrow spirit prevails too generally among them 
 to this day." (History of the Puritans, Vol. III., 
 pp. 174-176). 
 
 Prof. Vedder says: 
 
 "Furthermore, though this Confession is the 
 first to define baptism in explicit terms as immer- 
 sion, this was not a novel idea among the Bap- 
 tists. Indeed the practice of immersion had not 
 yet died out of the English Church, though it 
 was rapidly becoming uncommon." (Short His- 
 tory of the Baptists, p. 116). 
 
 And again he says: 
 
 " Dr. Whitsitt, as I pointed out in my article in 
 the Examiner some weeks ago, seemed to me to 
 make a broader inference than his facts warranted 
 when he said in effect that no English Baptists 
 immersed before 1641. I think he will see that 
 he must modify that statement." ( Western Recorder, 
 Sept. 24, 1896). 
 
 The Rev. W. H. Pinnock, LL. D,, an Episco- 
 palian, in speaking of the English Anabaptists of 
 this whole period, says: 
 
 " They rebaptized their disciples, whence their 
 
THE BAPTISTS OF 164I. 109 
 
 name; and taught that the baptism of infants was 
 invalid; they also rejected aspersion, holding im- 
 mersion to be the only valid form of baptism. 
 From these sprang shortly after the sect of the 
 Baptists." (History of the Reformation of the 
 English Church, p. 153. London, 1857). 
 
 Henry M. Mason, M. A., says: 
 
 "The Baptists of England were derived from, 
 and originally adopted the doctrine of, the Ger- 
 man and Dutch Anabaptists. They declined, 
 however, in process of time, from the principles 
 of their ancestors, and hold, in common with 
 them, only the administration of baptism by im- 
 mersion and the refusal of that rite to any but 
 adults," (A Compend of Ecclesiastical History, 
 
 P- 337)- 
 
 J. B. Marsden, M. A., says: 
 
 "Baptists, or Anabaptists, so called (from Gr:.a?ia, 
 again, and baptizo, to wash or plunge) because 
 they again baptize those adults who, in their in- 
 fancy, have once received baptism. But they 
 deny the validity of infant baptism (on which ac- 
 count they are also termed, sometimes, Anti- 
 paedo-Baptists), and, therefore, reject the charge 
 of anabaptism, and consider the word itself re- 
 proachful. By the older writers they are occa- 
 sionally designated Cata-Baptists, an epithet of 
 nearly similar import. They themselves adopt 
 the name of Baptists. 
 
 "They differ from other Christian Churches upon 
 two points: First, as to the mode in which bap- 
 tism ought to be administered; and, secondly, as 
 to the persons who are qualified for the reception 
 
110 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 of the rite. Of these, however, the second is by 
 far the most important question." ( History of the 
 Christian Churches and Sects from the Earliest 
 Ages of Christianity, Vol. I., p. 'j'j). 
 
 Robert Howard, M. A., says: 
 
 "In point of church polity, the Baptists re- 
 mained Independents. But they held that they 
 were justified in forming themselves into a sepa- 
 rate communion on these grounds: First, for the 
 stricter maintenance of Calvinistic doctrines; 
 secondly, for the exercise of a stricter discipline; 
 and, thirdly, for the practice of a mode of baptism 
 in stricter accordance with the words of Script- 
 ure and the practice of the Apostolic age." (The 
 Church of England and Other Religious Com- 
 munions, p. 42). 
 
 David Bogue, D. D., and James Bennett, D. D., 
 say: 
 
 *' It is sufficiently manifest by their name, that 
 this denomination of Dissenters differ from others 
 on the subject of baptism. They believe, that the 
 original word, which the New Testament employs 
 to express this rite, conveys the idea of immer- 
 sion, or plunging the whole body under water: 
 hence they conclude that sprinkling, affusion, or 
 pouring of water, is not baptizing. To this distin- 
 guishing sentiment and practice concerning the 
 mode, they add one which relates to the proper 
 subjects of baptism." (The History of Dissenters, 
 Vol. I., p. 183). 
 
 W. J. E. Bennett, vicar of Froome-Selwood, 
 says : 
 
 "Wherein then, proceeding from this, do the 
 
THE BAPTISTS OF 164I. Ill 
 
 Anabaptists raise their cry of objection to the 
 Church, and separate from her? They raise it 
 upon this ground, that it is not lawful in any case 
 to baptize otherwise than by immersion. The 
 Anabaptists say, all persons ought to be im- 
 mersed. The Church says the same; but the 
 Church goes on to say, but in case of children 
 being weak, it shall suffice to pour the water. No, 
 rejoin the Anabaptists; it does not suffice. Both 
 agree upon the principle. But the one separates 
 from the other on the ground of permitting a cer- 
 tain exception. The whole question then narrows 
 itself into this: Is it permissible to baptize by 
 pouring water, or does such an act invalidate 
 baptism altogether? In other words, is it as much 
 the essence of the baptism, that it should be per- 
 formed by immersion, as it is that the water 
 should be used at all?" (The Church's Broken 
 Unity. Anabaptism, Vol. II., p. 63). 
 
 Mr. Bennett devotes large space to a general 
 discussion of the Anabaptists, going very fully 
 into their history and doctrines, but he nowhere 
 intimates that any of them ever practiced sprink- 
 ling. 
 
 Masson says: 
 
 " In spite of much persecution, continued even 
 after the Long Parliament met, the Baptists of 
 these congregations propagated their opinions 
 with such zeal that by 1644 the sect had attained 
 considerably larger dimensions. In that year 
 they counted seven leading congregations in 
 London, and forty-seven in the rest of England, 
 besides which they had many adherents in the 
 
112 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 army. Although all sorts of impieties were 
 attributed to them on hearsay, they differed in 
 reality from the Independents mainly on the sub- 
 ject of baptism. They objected to the baptism 
 of infants, and they thought immersion or dipping 
 under water the proper mode of baptism; except 
 in these points and what they might involve they 
 were substantially at one with the Congregation- 
 alists. This they made clear by the publication, 
 in 1644, of a Confession of their Faith in 52 
 Articles, a document which, by its orthodoxy in 
 all essential matters, seems to have shamed the 
 more candid of their opponents." (Life of John 
 Milton, Vol. II., p. 585). 
 
 W. M. Blackburne, D. D., Methodist, says: 
 
 " The Baptists were differentiated from the 
 Dissenters early in the seventeenth century by 
 holding that immersion is essential to baptism, 
 and that believers and not infants are the proper 
 subjects of it. They rebaptized believers who had 
 not been immersed." (History of the Christian 
 Church, p. 622). 
 
 Alexander Balfour, Edinburgh, gives a very full 
 account of the Baptists and Anabaptists of Eng- 
 land. He says: 
 
 "The Particular Baptists are those who enter- 
 tain no more of the tenets of the ancient Anabap- 
 tists than the administration of the ordinance of 
 baptism by immersion and the refusal of it to in- 
 fants; in everything else they resemble the relig- 
 ion of other Calvinists." (Anti-Paedobaptism 
 Unveiled; or, An Inquiry into the Origin and 
 Progress of the Baptists, p. 87). 
 
THE BAPTISTS OF 164I. 113 
 
 Dr. W. PI. King, London, who has made a very 
 extensive investigation of the pamphlets in the 
 King George collection, says: 
 
 "In connection with this controversy I have 
 carefully examined the titles of the pamphlets in 
 the first three volumes of this catalogue, more than 
 7,000 in number, and have read every pamphlet 
 which has seemed by its title to refer to the sub- 
 ject of baptism, or the opinions and practices of 
 Baptists, with this result: that I can affirm, with 
 the most unhesitating confidence, that in these 
 volumes there is not a sejiteiice or a hi?it from which 
 it can be inferred that the Baptists generally, or any 
 section of them, or even any individual Baptist, held 
 any other opinio?i than that immersion is the only trne 
 and Scriptural method of baptism, either before the 
 year 1641 or after it. It must be remembered that 
 these are the earliest pamphlets, and cover the 
 period from the year 1640 to 1646." {The West- 
 ern Recorder, June 4, 1896). 
 
 Dr. Schaff says: 
 
 "The mode of baptism was no point of dispute 
 between Anabaptists and Pedobaptists in the six- 
 teenth century. The Roman Church provides 
 for immersion and pouring as equally valid. Lu- 
 ther preferred immersion and prescribed it in his 
 baptismal service. In England immersion was 
 the 7iormal mode down to the middle of the seven- 
 teenth century. It w^as adopted by the English 
 and American Baptists as the 07ily mode." ( His- 
 tory of the Christian Church, Vol. VII., p. 79). 
 
 He then goes on to discuss the Anabaptists of 
 the Continent, to which we refer in another place. 
 
 8 
 
114 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 J. Rawson Lumby says: 
 
 "The first notice of the Anabaptists (after- 
 wards known as Baptists) as a distinct commun- 
 ion is about the time of Luther. The sect had 
 its origin in Germany, and, as its name implies, 
 differed from the other reformed churches in the 
 opinions held by its members on the subject of 
 baptism. The Anabaptists maintained that only 
 those who personally professed their faith in 
 Christ were proper recipients of that sacrament, 
 and they also considered that baptism should be 
 administered not by sprinkling, but by immersion. 
 In most of the other points of their teaching the 
 Anabaptists were exactly at one with the Inde- 
 pendents, but they did not make Independency 
 the most prominent feature of their doctrines." 
 (Compendium of English Church History, p. 16). 
 
 Mosheim, one of the oldest and most reliable 
 historians, has much to say of the Anabaptists. 
 He says: 
 
 " The origin of the sect, which, from their repeti- 
 tion of the baptism received in other communities, 
 are called Anabaptists but who are also denominat- 
 ed Me?i7W7iites, from the celebrated man to whom 
 they owe a large share of their present pros- 
 perity, is involved in much obscurity." He calls 
 them " Catabaptists " or " iiicurable heretics^ 
 He then goes on to say of the English Baptists: 
 *' They have almost nothing in common with the 
 other Anabaptists except they baptize only adults 
 and immerse totally in the water whenever they 
 administer the ordinance." (Institutes of Eccle- 
 siastical History, Vol. HI., pp. 198-221). 
 
THE BAPTISTS OF 164I. 115 
 
 E. T. Hiscox, D. D,, the scholarly Baptist 
 author, says: 
 
 ** It is precisely as I had supposed and had 
 said and publicly stated, namely, that Dr. Whit- 
 sitt was mistaken as to his sources of information 
 in the famous pamphlets. It is no sin to be mis- 
 taken; but this mistake will doubtless somewhat 
 shake public confidence in Dr. Whitsitt's reliabil- 
 ity as a student of history. And the peculiar and 
 unaccountable way in which the Doctor has 
 reached this point through an Encyclopaedia and 
 a Pedobaptist journal, rather than through Baptist 
 channels, and without conference with Baptist 
 brethren, makes his friends marvel, and is yet to 
 be explained." ( Western Recorder, June i8, 1896). 
 
 Prof. T. Harwood Pattison, Rochester Theolog- 
 ical Seminary, says: "There is in the article a 
 good deal more of this conjectural history. Dr. 
 Whitsitt seems sometimes to be indebted to his 
 imagination for his facts." (The London Freeman, 
 April 17, 1896). 
 
 Dr. George C. Lorimer, who has given much 
 
 attention to Baptist history, said in an address 
 
 Sept. 14, 1896, before the students of Newton 
 
 Theological Institution: 
 
 I insist that it is due our Baptist Churches that their 
 action on the world's progress should not be ignored. As a 
 rule, they do not receive the recognition they deserve. Dr. 
 Dexter in his "True Story of John Smythe " has, let us 
 believe unintentionally, put them in an entirely false hght; 
 and his representation that Edward Barber originated the 
 practice of immersion in England, and that before the 
 publication of his book (1641) the Baptists poured and 
 sprinkled, is, to put it mildly, incorrect. I have just 
 returned from the British Museum, where I went over the 
 documents which are supposed to substantiate such a view, 
 and I solemnly declare that no such evidence exists. It 
 
116 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 cannot be made out from the pamphlets of Edward Barber, 
 Praise-God Barebones, Dr. Featly, or of those signed A. R., 
 or by Thomas Killcops. In the title page of the first we 
 have the design of the treatise thus announced: "Of 
 Baptism, or dipping, wherein is clearly shewed that the 
 Lord Christ ordained dipping for those only that profess 
 repentance and faith." Here is the key to the whole con- 
 troversy, and to the misapprehensions that exist. These 
 writers were either assailing or defending infant baptism, 
 and the newness of the ordinance to Englishmen was not 
 the mode but the subject; though Dexter observes this by 
 introducing into one of the citations the word " dipping " 
 which is not in the original. Dr. Featly, in his rancorous 
 pamphlet in which he reports a controversy with the Ana- 
 baptists held at Southwark in 1642, admits that they im- 
 merse, and writes about it not as something new, and 
 declares that they have been showing their " shining head 
 and speckled skin " near his residence for more than twenty 
 years. 
 
 I accuse no man of misrepresentation, but I am sure 
 many rush to a conclusion and pain multitudes of good peo- 
 ple by their garbled quotations. I, at least, may be allowed 
 to express my dissent: The Baptists of Engla7id did im- 
 merse before 1641, even as they did 011 the Continent. This 
 I claim on the authority of the George III. pamphlets in the 
 British Museum, and from the fact that even the Church of 
 England, in young King Edward's time, directed that babes 
 should be dipped. These humble people deserve to be 
 faithfully dealt with, for they have been history makers of 
 no mean importance. They dared the face of kings and 
 taught the world the right of men to worship God according 
 to the dictates of conscience; they turned their face against 
 oppression of every kind, and were the harbingers of this 
 age. 
 
 Dr. Joseph Angus, President of Regents Park 
 College, London, England, a very scholarly Bap- 
 tist, says: 
 
 During this period, it is objected, very little is said about 
 immersion, and the silence of the writers on the mode is said 
 to be deeply significant. But it is overlooked that in that 
 age immersion was the generally accepted mode of baptism 
 in England. The Prayer Book has all along ordered the 
 child " to be dipped warily " in the water. The practice of 
 dipping was familiar in the days of Henry VIII., and both 
 Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth were dipped in their 
 childhood. In that century it was not necessary to lecture 
 on the meaning of the word, or to insist on the mode of bap- 
 
THE BAPTISTS OF 164I. 117 
 
 tizing, which is still described in the English service as 
 " dipping." I remember a clergyman who resolved to carry 
 out the instructions of the Rubric. The child was stripped 
 and dipped. " I did it once," he reported, " but I resolved 
 never to do it again!" Once change a positive institution in 
 one particular, and the whole may be robbed of its force and 
 beauty. 
 
 That there was no such delay in forming Baptist Churches 
 as our American friends have supposed, is proved by the 
 dates of the formation of a number of them. Churches were 
 formed, chapels built and doctrines defined long before 
 1641, and others, down to the end of that century, owed 
 nothing probably to the discussions of that year. 
 
 The following churches formed in the years mentioned 
 still remain: Braintree, Eythorne, Sutton, all in 1550; War- 
 rington, 1522; Crowle and Ep worth, both 1597; Bridgewater, 
 Oxford, and Sadmore, 1600;Bristol (Broadmead), 1640; King, 
 Stanley, Newcastle, Kilmington (Devon), Bedford, Sutton, 
 Cirencester, Commercial-street (London), Lincoln, Dorches- 
 ter, and Hamsterley, 1633; Lyme Regis, Chipping Sodbury, 
 Upottery, Boston, etc., 1650 to 1658. 
 
 Many others that belong to similar dates have since 
 become extinct through change of population and other 
 causes. Most of these churches hold the common faith, and 
 most of them have received it without special reference to 
 the creed of 1641. Dates and particulars of more churches 
 may be seen in any recent number of the Baptist Handbook^ 
 published by the Baptist Union. 
 
 But there is another kind of evidence even more deci- 
 sive, showing that "the immersion of believers" was the 
 common faith and practice of our fathers. I refer to the 
 books published by them and against them in the century 
 to which 1641 belongs. 
 
 The unanimous testimony of these historians is 
 a powerful argument for dipping. Commencing 
 with the earlier portion of the seventeenth cent- 
 ury, and to some extent during the sixteenth 
 century, a great controversy sprung up in Eng- 
 land on the subject of baptism. For the most 
 part, infant baptism was the question involved. 
 Beginning with 1641 to the end of the century, I 
 suppose fifty times more was written on the sub- 
 ject of infant baptism than there was on the sub- 
 ject of dipping. Frequently whole books were 
 
118 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 written on baptism, and dipping was not men- 
 tioned, and often in these books on infant baptism 
 dipping was taken for granted. Usually when the 
 act of baptism was discussed it had reference to 
 infant sprinkling as an innovation. Waiving at 
 present, for special discussion, some of the strong- 
 est statements in favor of immersion, I shall refer 
 to certain writers who lived in those times, in 
 proof that dipping was received among the Bap- 
 tists as the act of baptism. This will appear from 
 the writings of both Baptists and Pedobaptists. 
 
 The first book I quote is " An Anabaptist Ser- 
 mon which was preached at the Re-baptizing of a 
 Brother at the new or holy Jordan, as they call it, 
 near Bow, or Hackney River; together with the 
 manner how they used to perform their Anabap- 
 tisticall Ceremonies. London, 1643." It is worth 
 while to note that this report was written by an 
 enemy, who refers to the Anabaptists as " they." 
 It will also be noted that it describes a past event, 
 and that the baptism was at some considerable 
 time before 1643, for the writer says that it was 
 "the manner they use to perform their Anabap- 
 tisticall ceremonies." This baptism by dipping 
 was not a new thing, according to this enemy, for 
 it was their "manner" or custom. Indeed, he 
 mentions former persecutions which undoubtedly 
 took place before 1641. The account says: 
 
 " Some say our Religion is cleane contrary to 
 the Protestant profession, but such are cleane out 
 of the way, but if we should be persecuted againe 
 by bishops as formerly we have bin, and would 
 run cleane out of England unto Amsterdam, but 
 
THE BAPTISTS OF 164I. 119 
 
 we are all cleane people, full of purity of the 
 Spirit; our sins are but motes in God's eyes, but 
 our brothers sinnes are beams that have so put 
 out the sight of his Divine Justice, that He can- 
 not or will not see our small iniquities." 
 
 He takes dipping as a matter of course. He 
 says: 
 
 " For it is impossible to wash them white or 
 cleane; but wee that are brethren of the elect; 
 we may wash ourselves in a River from the spots 
 of our Carnality in every River, as Bow River, 
 Hackney River, and other Rivers are to us a cleane 
 Jordan, wherein we may baptize one another as 
 we meane to do this day our late lost brother." 
 
 (P. 2). 
 
 We have a book before us, "The Summe of a 
 Conference at Terling in Essex. Januarie ii. 1643," 
 which was held between three "ministers " and 
 two " Catabaptists." This book is edited by John 
 Stalham, one of the ministers. He says of the 
 Anabaptists: 
 
 ** The Catabaptists excuses, that the chiefe Re- 
 spondent was too weake, for such an encounter. 
 * * * Secondly then, my request is: That 
 the practice of Antiquitie may fully be cleared, 
 and laid before them: what it was, touching this 
 subject of Baptisme, and what therein was agree- 
 able to the rule of the Scripture, what not, for 
 they have boasted much; as if they had all An- 
 tiquitie on their side." (Pp. 4-7). 
 
 The Baptists were called in this one-sided dis- 
 cussion Catabaptists, or dippers; and it is clear 
 that this dipping was not regarded as a novelty. 
 
120 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 because it is nowhere so designated, and the Ana- 
 baptists "boasted" that "they had all Antiquitie 
 on their side." 
 
 John OUyffe, Rector of Aimer, 1644, says: 
 " Thus I hope I have made out that there is no 
 necessity of baptizing by Dipping to be proved 
 by Scripture. And nobody pretends, as I know, 
 the Necessity of any particular determinate." 
 (A Brief Defence of Infant Baptism, with an Ap- 
 pendix, wherein is shewed that it is not necessary 
 that Baptism should be administered by Dipping. 
 
 p. 67). 
 
 Then he gives a number of "inferences" why 
 he thinks sprinkling may be sustained against 
 the Anabaptists, but not one to the effect that 
 dipping is " a new invention." 
 
 Ch. Blackwood, 1644, was a Baptist. He says: 
 
 "I prove the proposition that the Baptisme of 
 Christ is dipping, three waies: 
 
 " I. From the Greek lexicon. 
 
 " 2. From the difference twixt Baptizing and 
 Sprinkling in Scripture. 
 
 "3. That Baptisme signifies no other thing than 
 Dipping, appeares from the proportion and lively 
 resemblance twixt dipping into the water and 
 rising up again; Dipping signifieth death, and 
 Buriall with Christ, and rising up above the water, 
 Resurrection with Christ. Rom. vi. 3, 4." (The 
 Storming of Antichrist, pp. i, 2). 
 
 Blackwood had never heard of dipping as a 
 new thing. 
 
 Thomas Edwards, 1645, published some very 
 •scandalous books against the Baptists. They are 
 
THE BAPTISTS OF 1641. 121 
 
 full of bitterness. While some of the statements 
 are infamous they demonstrate that the Baptists 
 were dippers. I could quote many places from 
 his books in proof of this declaration, but one is 
 sufficient. Edwards says: 
 
 " I here declare myself, that I could wish with 
 all my heart there were a publike Disputation, 
 even in the point of Paedobaptism and of Dipping, 
 between some of the Anabaptists and some of 
 our Ministers; and had I an interest in the Houses 
 to prevaile to obtaine it (which I speak not as to 
 presume of any such power, being so meane and 
 weak a man), it should be one of the first Petitions 
 I would put up to the Honorable Houses for a 
 publike Disputation, as was at Zurich, namely, 
 that both Houses would give leave to the Ana- 
 baptists to chuse for themselves such a number 
 of their ablest men, and the Assembly leave to 
 chuse an equall number for them, and that by 
 Authority of Parliament publike Notaries sworne, 
 might be appointed to write down all, some mem- 
 bers of both Houses present to see to the Peace 
 kept, and to be Judges of the faire play and 
 liberty given the Anabaptists, and that there 
 might be severall dayes of Disputation leave 
 to the utmost given the Anabaptists to say 
 what they could, and upon such faire and free de- 
 bates it should be found the Anabaptists to be in 
 the Truth, then the Parliament not only to Toler- 
 ate them, but to Establish and settle their way 
 throughout the whole Kingdome, but if upon Dis- 
 putation and debate, the Anabaptists should be 
 found in an Error (as I am confident they would) 
 
122 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 that then the Parliament should forbid all Dip- 
 ping, and take some severe course with all Dip- 
 pers, as the Senate of Zurich did after the ten 
 severall Disputations allowed the Anabaptists." 
 (The Third Part of Gangraena, p. 177). 
 
 Here is the double admission that the Anabap- 
 tists of Zurich and of England were dippers. 
 
 John- Brinsley, 1645, violently opposed "that 
 spreading Gangrene of Anabaptism, which, unless 
 timely preuented, may prove fatall to the whole 
 body both of the Church and State." (The Doc- 
 trine and Practice of Paedobaptism, Asserted and 
 Vindicated, preface). Their dipping was a mat- 
 ter of course. He says of them: 
 
 "The maine businesse we have to deale with, 
 and that which I chiefly aimed at, when I fell up- 
 on this subject, is touching the Baptisme of Infaiits ; 
 whether they, or any of them, may be baptized. 
 Here the Aiiabaptists and we are at variance. We 
 allow it to some; they deny it to all. Whence it 
 is that they are called by the name both of Ana- 
 baptists and Catabaptists ; because they oppose the 
 Baptisme of all Infants, as a thing not onely incon- 
 venient, but unlawful!; and in case any of them 
 bee baptized in their infancie, they looke upon 
 that Baptisme as a nullity, and so impose upon 
 them a Rebaptization when they come to yeares 
 of discression." (P. 9). 
 
 Fredericke Spanhenius, 1646, wrote a history of 
 the Anabaptists from 1521 to the date of his book. 
 It was written in English for the English people. 
 His testimony on dipping is conclusive. He 
 says: 
 
THE BAPTISTS OF 164I. 123 
 
 "And I shall consider this division, not their 
 opinions alone, which all the Anabaptists or Cata- 
 baptists have anciently maintained, or which all of 
 them doe maintaine at this day; but those also 
 which many of them, or at least some of them, 
 have anciently, or do at present defend; that so 
 the partition may be the more perfect, and that 
 I may present the Reader with the whole body 
 of their Errors, which they have also erred, and 
 yet do erre." (P. 27). 
 
 Mr. Richardson, 1647, i^ ^is reply to Featley, 
 says: 
 
 " We confess that when any one is to be rebap- 
 tized at the water's side the administrator goeth to 
 prayer suitable to the occasion, and after both go 
 into the water and useth the words. Matt. 28, part 
 of the 19th verse; and coming forth again they go 
 to prayer, and also return thanks to God." (Some 
 Brief Considerations, p. 4). 
 
 John Tombes, B. D., one of the best posted 
 men of his day, says: 
 
 '* But now instead of it [believer's baptism], 
 there is used the corrupt innovation of infant 
 sprinkling, a fruitless or rather pernicious rite 
 to the souls of many who are hardened in deadly 
 presumption, as thereby sufficiently made Chris- 
 tians, and of all influence on the Church of God, 
 by taking ignorant and unclean persons, even the 
 dregs of a nation, to be church members. * * * 
 The most eminent opposition to the work of restor- 
 ing the right use of water baptism, necessary 
 to the orderly forming of Christian Churches, 
 hath been by their learned men, who maintain 
 
124 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 still by their agency, and colabored pretenses, 
 the corrupt innovations of infant baptism." ( Anti- 
 Paidobaptism, The Introduction). 
 
 Richard Baxter wrote a great number of con- 
 troversial books. After having looked over the 
 most that he has written on the subject of bap- 
 tism, I find that he was violently opposed to the 
 Anabaptists; that he opposed their dipping in 
 many ways; that he declared that it was a breach 
 of the commandments; but he does not say that 
 it was a new thing. He says: 
 
 •' My sixth argument shall be against the usual 
 Tnanner of their baptizing, as it is by dipping over 
 head in a river or other cold water. This is known 
 to be the ordinary way of the Anabaptists." 
 (Plain Scripture Proofs, pp. 134-137). 
 
 Richard Carpenter, 1653, wrote " The Anabap- 
 tist Washt and Washt, and Shrunk in the Wash- 
 ing," in which he says: 
 
 *' Because God looked upon the End in every 
 practicall touch of his Power, which End is the 
 cJiiefe in all the course, and the first ifitentiofially, 
 though executively the last: and Grace, the Gift 
 of God, is an attendant upon the 71ii?ig signified. 
 And therefore. Baptism given with a threefold 
 Emmersion, doth not more justify, than Baptism 
 conferred by one Immersion or Inspersion: and 
 yet the first is more expresse and visible signe 
 of Sacramentall Grace ; because it washeth more 
 perfectly; and furthermore, adumbrates the most 
 blessed Trinity, in whose most blessed Name the 
 Baptisme is given." (Page 80). 
 
 He not only does not say that baptism by dip- 
 
THE BAPTISTS OF 164I. 125 
 
 ping was a new thing, that the former Anabaptists 
 were sprinklers, but he goes so far as to admit 
 their baptism to be most impressive. 
 
 John Reading, B. D., 1655, in his book "Ana- 
 baptism Routed," says: 
 
 *' A?iabaptists not only deny believers' children 
 baptism, as the Pelagians and Donatists did of 
 old, but affirm, That dipping the whole body under 
 water is so necessary, that without it none are 
 truly baptized (as hath been said)." (Pp. 171, 
 172). 
 
 John Cragge, 1656, gives an account of a discus- 
 sion between Henry Vaughn, M. A., and John 
 Tombes. Tombes boldly claimed sprinkling an 
 innovation and this was admitted by his oppo- 
 nent. I read: 
 
 " T. Here Mr. Tombes interrupted me^ a?id de- 
 sired the people to take iiotice of my ingenious confes- 
 sion, that baptism zvas then practiced by plunging. He 
 read also a passage out of Casaubons Annot. 07i the 
 New Test, where he saith that baptizehi denoteth 
 a plunging of the whole body, etc. Had he read out 
 the passage he might have found hozv that great 
 scholar affirmes this to be a slender Argument agai?ist 
 such as only sprinkle at Baptisme : for, saith he, the 
 vertue and efficacie of Baptisme co?isistes 7iot in that, 
 meaning the mariner of washing. 
 
 "V. I shall satisfie the audetours herein anon ; in 
 the meantime I desire Answer to my Argument, the 
 Analogie between circumcision and baptism being 
 so evident in this place; but receiving none, I ad- 
 dressed myself to the people, according to prom- 
 ise, saying, that indeed it seemed to me that for 
 
126 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 some centuries of years that baptism was practiced 
 by plunging. For sprinkling was first brought in 
 use by occasion of the Clinicks (as Cyprian Epist. 
 a Magnum states), being men which deferred their 
 baptism till some extremitieof sickness, who then 
 in such case were only sprinkled with water lest 
 the plunging of their bodies might over offend 
 them in that feeble desperate condition. 
 
 "T. Here take notice that sprinkling took its rise 
 from a corrupt custom. 
 
 "V. Though plunging be confessed the most 
 ancient way, yet is this no ground for this over- 
 uncharitable speech of yours, in your sermon 
 yesterday: That our baptism, meaning of infants, 
 and by sprinkling, was but a nullitie, and mock- 
 ery, which concludes ourselves, and all our An- 
 cestours, even all in the Western Church for 1,500 
 years, under damnation, 
 
 " For the Church hath power upon the sight of 
 any inconvenience, and for order and decencies 
 sake, to alter the circumstances and externalls of 
 any ordinance." (The Arraignment and Convic- 
 tion of Anabaptism, pp. 5, 6). 
 
 If immersion had been so recent a novelty such 
 a discussion could hardly have taken place with- 
 out some mention of it. 
 
 Denne said in a discussion in 1656, with Mr. 
 Gunning: 
 
 "Dipping of infants was not only commanded 
 by the Church of England, but also generally 
 practiced in the Church of England till the year 
 1600; yea, in some places it was practiced until 
 the year 1641 until the fashion altered, * * * 
 
THE BAPTISTS OF 1641. 127 
 
 I can show Mr. Baxter an old man in London 
 who has labored in the Lord's pool many years; 
 converted by his ministry more men and women 
 than Mr. Baxter hath in his parish; yea, when he 
 hath labored a great part of the day in preaching 
 and reasoning, his reflection hath been (not a 
 sackporrit or a candle), but to go into the water 
 and baptize converts." (A Contention for Truth, 
 p. 40). 
 
 Here are fourteen writers who were all alive in 
 164 1, and for many years before, who wrote in 
 fifteen years and less of that date, some of them 
 only a year or two away, all of them engaged in 
 the controversy and wrote books or tracts. Some 
 of them were friends and some of them were ene- 
 mies. They were thoroughly posted on the sub- 
 ject and several of them engaged in public 
 debates on the subject. It is certain that if 
 immersion had been an invention of recent date 
 some of those men would have made a powerful 
 point against their opponents on this subject. 
 And it is equally certain that we would have 
 found some defense in the writings of these Bap- 
 tists. These opponents did bring serious charges 
 against dipping; they said it was opposed to the 
 sixth and seventh commandments, but never that 
 it was a new invention. This is a strong argument 
 when we remember that these men were eye wit- 
 nesses and participants in the discussion of bap- 
 tism. 
 
 There is not a line, which I have discovered in 
 English literature, written before 164 1, which will 
 go to prove that the English Anabaptists ever 
 
128 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 practiced sprinkling. The literature is not very 
 abundant, but what there is of it is all on one side. 
 I will present the testimony at hand and the reader 
 may judge for himself. This will be the subject 
 of the next chapter. 
 
THE ENGLISH BAPTISTS BEFORE 164I. 129 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE ENGLISH BAPTISTS BEFORE 164I. 
 
 We have already seen that the Baptists before 
 1641, while numerous, suffered greatly from per- 
 secutions. They did not leave much literature, 
 and so we must largely depend upon their ene- 
 mies for references to them. We have enough 
 proof, however, to show that they practiced dip- 
 ping. 
 
 A book was published in 1523 by the Anabap- 
 tists in Holland, and translated and widely circu- 
 lated in England, called the Sum of the Holy 
 Scriptures. On baptism the author says: 
 
 "So we are dipped under as a sign that we are, 
 as it were, dead and buried, as Paul writes, Rom. 
 6 and Col. 2. The life of man is a battle upon the 
 earth, and in baptism we promise to strive like 
 men. The pledge is given when we are plunged 
 under the water. It is the same to God whether 
 you are eighty years old when you are baptized, 
 or twenty; for God does not consider how old you 
 are, but with what purpose you receive baptism. 
 He does not mind whether you are Jew or 
 heathen, man or woman, nobleman or citizen, 
 bishop or layman, but only he who with perfect 
 faith and confidence comes to God, and struggles 
 for eternal life, attains it as God has promised in 
 the Gospel." (Armitage's History of the Baptists, 
 p. 409). 
 
 The old English Church Historian Fuller, tell- 
 
130 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 ing of November 24, 1538, declares the Anabap- 
 tists to be dippers. He says: 
 
 "A match being now made up, by the Lord 
 Cromwell's contrivance, betwixt King Henry and 
 Lady Anne of Cleves, Dutchmen flocked faster 
 than formerly into England. Many of them had 
 active souls ; so that, whilst their hands were 
 busied about their manufactures, their heads were 
 also beating about points of divinity. Hereof 
 they had many rude notions, too ignorant to 
 manage themselves and too proud to crave the 
 direction of others. Their minds had a bye- 
 stream of activity more than what sufificed to 
 drive on their vocation ; and this waste of their 
 souls they employed in needless speculations, and 
 soon after began to broach their strange opinions, 
 being branded with the general name of Anabap- 
 tists. These Anabaptists, for the main, are but 
 * Donatists new dipped'; and this year their name 
 first appears in our English Chronicles; for I read 
 that four Anabaptists, three men and one woman, 
 all Dutch, bare faggots at St. Paul's Cross, Nov. 
 24th, and three days after a man and a woman of 
 their sect were burned in Smithfield." (Church 
 History of Britain, Vol. H., p. 97). 
 
 In 1551 William Turner, "Doctor of Physick," 
 *' devysed" "A Preservative or triacle, agaynst the 
 poyson of Pelagius, lately renued, & Styrred up 
 agayn, by the furious secte of the Anabaptistes." 
 This book undoubtedly settles the question that 
 the Anabaptists of England practiced immersion. 
 He repeatedly calls them Catabaptists. (See pp. 
 19, 27, 28, 49). The Anabaptist in making his 
 
THE ENGLISH BAPTISTS BEFORE 164I. 131 
 
 argument for believers' immersion is represented 
 as saying: 
 
 *'That such a lyke costome was once in our most 
 holye relygyon, as was in colleges and in orders of 
 relygyon, wher as none were admitted, before they 
 had a year of probation, wher unto ye put this that 
 they that came to be baptized, demanded, and 
 desyred to be received to fellow ship of the 
 Christians after dewe proofe of unfayned repent- 
 ance, and thereby were called competentes. 
 Yonge men, and wymen requyrynge baptysme: 
 and then were taught the principles of the 
 Christian faith and were fyrst called Catechumeni. 
 And after those principles learned, were upon 
 certayne solemne dayes, at two tymesof theyeare 
 approved, therefore baptysed: which was upon 
 Easter even, and Whit Sunday even: promysyng 
 for themselves the observance of Gods law, with 
 the renouncyng of the devell and the worlde in 
 theys owne person without God-father or God- 
 mother, seven score yeares longer tyll Igriius, 
 Byshop of Rome ordered to baptyse an infante, 
 a god-father and god-mother answeryngfor hym. 
 
 "Where as ye say the lyke maner was in our 
 most holy religion, as the scolers and religious 
 men had: that none should be admitted, until 
 they had been proved a yeare, and first called 
 competentes, and then catechumeni. I marvayl 
 what religion ye meane of: whether ye meane of 
 the Popes religion, or Christes religion, or of the 
 Catabaptistes relygion, which is your religion 
 indede." (Pp. 6, 7). 
 
 There are two very significant statements in 
 
132 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 these passages; (i) The Anabaptist quotes against 
 his opponent the well known practice of immers- 
 ing on the two days of Easter and Whit Sunday. 
 (Schaff's Hist. Christian Church, Vol. II., p. 252). 
 And (2) he says of the Anabaptist "of the Cata- 
 baptistes [dippers] religion, which is your religion 
 indede." This shows that they were certainly 
 dippers. 
 
 The following is conclusive: 
 
 "And because baptism is a passive sacrament, 
 & no man can baptise himselfe, but is baptised of 
 another: & childes may be as wel dipped in to 
 the water in ye name of Christ (which is the out- 
 ward baptysm and as myche as one man can gyve 
 another) even as olde folke: and when as they have 
 the promise of salvation, as well as olde folkes & 
 can receive the signe of the same as wel: there is 
 no cause why that the baptyme of childes should 
 be differed." (Pp. 39, 40). 
 
 Here he says that the "olde folke" that the 
 Anabaptist baptized are dipped. This is certainly 
 sufficient. 
 
 The Rev. John Man, Merton College, Oxford, 
 in 1578, published in English a translation and 
 adaptation of the '* Commonplaces of the Chris- 
 tian Religion," by Wolfganus Musculus. Man 
 says: 
 
 ' ' The word baptisme cometh of the Greek, and is 
 as much as to say in EngUsh, or dipping or drowning 
 in." 
 
 Of the Anabaptists he says : 
 
 '' But some man will object. If the baptism of John 
 and the baptism of Christ be all one, then the aposde 
 
THE ENGLISH BAPTISTS BEFORE 164I. 133 
 
 had no reason to baptize the twelve disciples in the 
 manner of our Lord Jesus, who were baptized before 
 of John. For what purpose was it to dippe them twice 
 in one baptisme ? Did not some of the fathers, and the 
 Anabaptists of our dayes, take the foundation of their 
 baptizing of this." (p. 678.) 
 
 John Penry, who was well known in England, 
 became a Baptist preacher, in 1586, and had been 
 a very acceptable preacher before this in both of 
 the Colleges, at Cambridge and Oxford. The 
 Welsh historian says of him: 
 
 " He was noted for piety, ministerial gifts, and 
 zeal for the welfare of his countrymen. He was 
 a native of Brecknockshire, and the first v^ho pub- 
 licly preached the gospel among the Baptists in 
 Wales, after the reformation; which implied \\i-dX 
 the gospel was, more or less privately preached 
 among the Baptists, on the Welsh mountains, 
 during the whole reign of popery. He also wrote 
 and published two books. Mr. Anthony Wood, 
 an Episcopalian Minister, says that John Penry 
 was the worst enemy the Church of England had 
 through the whole reign of Queen Elizabeth." 
 (J. Davis' History of the Welsh Baptists, pp. 25, 
 26). 
 
 David Davies makes this statement: 
 
 " The religious condition of Wales at this time 
 was deplorable. The light which John Penry, 
 the young Apostle of Wales in the sixteenth cent- 
 ury, also a Baptist, who had been hanged like a 
 criminal at Thomas-a- Watering, old Kent Road, 
 on May 29th, 1593, at the early age of thirty- 
 four, twenty-four years before the birth of Powell, 
 had been almost extinguished, although tradi- 
 
134 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 tions of his heroism lived on, as indeed they da 
 to this day." (Vavasor Powell, The Baptist Evan- 
 gelist of Wales in the seventeenth century, by 
 David Davies, p. 14. London, 1896). 
 
 Davies continues in a foot note: 
 
 "Of John Penry the Rev. Joshua Thomas 
 writes : * Possibly he was the first that preached be- 
 lievers' baptism openly and publicly to his coun- 
 trymen since the Reformation. I am strongly 
 inclined to think that he was the first that admin- 
 istered that ordinance by immersion upon a pro- 
 fession of faith in and about Olchon.' He also 
 adds: 'A word in Ath. Oxon. * * * speaks out 
 plainly that Penry was a notorious Anabaptist, of 
 which party he was the Corypheus. * * * 
 Strype owns that Mr. Penry expressed a great 
 concern for his native country, and yet charged 
 him with Anabaptistry.' " (History of the Baptist 
 Churches in Wales, p. 43, MS. copy in the Li- 
 brary of the Baptist College at Bristol). 
 
 But this is not all the information we have in 
 regard to Penry, though this would be sufficient 
 for our purposes. Robert Some, 1589, says of 
 him: 
 
 " Master Penry, jumpeth with the Anabaptis- 
 tical recusants in this Argument; his words are 
 these. Where there is no true Christ whereunto 
 men can be engraffed by Baptisme, there true 
 Baptisme as touching the substance, cannot be 
 gotten: for what baptisme is that, which is not 
 ingraffing into the true Christ? but in Poperie 
 there is no true Christ, whereunto men may be 
 ingraffed, &c. I haue answered this and such 
 
THE ENGLISH BAPTISTS BEFORE 164I. 135 
 
 like Arguments of Master Penries, Chap. 23 of my 
 last Treatise: I rest in those answeres." (Chap- 
 ter 12). 
 
 Some goes on with details of the Anabaptists, 
 of their churches in London, and of their con- 
 nection with the universities. 
 
 When we consider together this testimony it is 
 strong and striking. There were in 1589 Anabap- 
 tist English speaking churches, with graduates 
 from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 
 with many members, in London and elsewhere. 
 All of these details are associated with John 
 Penry, who was an immersionist, and there is noth- 
 ing to indicate any difference of opinion on this 
 subject between the churches and Penry; indeed, 
 the proof all points to their practicing immersion. 
 
 John Smyth was associated with John Norcott 
 on the subject of baptism on March 24th, 
 1609. This baptism was certainly by immersion, 
 for we find Norcott writing a book to substanti- 
 ate dipping. This book of Norcott was edited 
 and reprinted by Chas. H. Spurgeon. I give a 
 portion of Chapter IV.: 
 
 '* I. The Greek word Baptizo means to plunge, 
 to overwhelm. Thus Christ was plunged in water, 
 Matt. 3. 16. Thus he was plunged or overwhelmed 
 in his sufferings, Uike 12.50. ' I have a baptism 
 to be baptized with; and how am I straightened till it 
 be accomplished! 
 
 •• 2. The Dutch Translation reads. In those days 
 came John the Dipper, Matt. 3. i. And in John 3. 
 23, that version reads, John was dipphig in ^non 
 
136 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 because there was much water there. What need 
 much water were it not for dippifig f 
 
 " 3. They did baptize in rivers. They came to 
 John, and were baptized i?i Jorda?iy Matt. 3, 6. Joh?i 
 was baptizing ifi ^?io?i because there was much water 
 there, John 3. 23. Why need it be in a river, and 
 where there was much water? Would not a little 
 water in a Bason serve to Sprinkle the Face? 
 
 " 4. Baptism signifies the Burial of Christ. 
 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into 
 death, Rom. 6. 4. Buried with him in Baptism, Col. 
 2. 12. Now we do not recon a man buried when 
 a little earth is sprinkled on his Face, but he is 
 buried when covered; thus you are buried hi Bap- 
 tism. 
 
 ** 5. Christ's sufferings are called a Baptism, 
 Luke 12. 50. I have a Baptism to be baptized with; 
 and how afn I straightened till it be accomplished/ 
 When Christ suffered he was plunged into pains. 
 Did his sufferings lie only on his Head or on his 
 Forehead? No, no; there was not one part free; 
 he was from head to foot in pain; his head was 
 crowned with piercing Thorns, his hands and feet 
 were nailed to the Cross; and his whole person 
 was so stretched out on the Cross that a man might 
 hdiWQ told all his bones, Ps. 22. 17. There was not 
 one part free. Man hath sinned. Body, Soul and 
 Spirit, and therefore the whole Christ must suffer 
 for sin. Christ was baptized into pain, plunged 
 into sorrow*^ not any part free: this he called his 
 Baptism. Thus one baptized is plunged under 
 water, to show how Christ was plunged into sor- 
 row for our sakes. 
 
THE ENGLISH BAPTISTS BEFORE 164I. 137 
 
 •' 6. Baptism is a putting on Christ. As many of 
 you as have bee?t baptised into Christ have put on 
 Christ, Gal. 3. 27. The text means that as a serv- 
 ant wears his Lord's Livery, a Garment which 
 demonstrates him to be a Servant to such a great 
 Personage, so in Baptism we put on our Lord's 
 Livery, and he himself clothes us from head to 
 foot. It is thus that by Baptism we put on Christ. 
 
 "7. Whe?i Christ was baptized, he came ttp out of 
 the Water, Matt. 3. 16. Was his baptism per- 
 formed by having a little Water thrown on his 
 Face? Then he had not been in the Water, and 
 could not have come out of it; but because he 
 was baptized in the Water, therefore being bap- 
 tized he came up out of the Water. Philip and 
 the Eunuch we7it down both into the Water, (and 
 being there in the Water) Philip baptized the. Eu- 
 nuch. Both of them came up out of the Water, 
 Acts 8. 39; but to what End had they gone 
 down if Philip did merely Sprinkle the Eunuch, 
 or Pour water upon his head? 
 
 " Thus you see the place where these various per- 
 sons were baptized was a River, or a certain 
 water; their Action was on this wise — they went 
 down into the Water, the?i, being in the Water, 
 they were baptized. This was done in places 
 where there was much water. The end was to 
 show forth Christ's Burial; now if there be not a 
 Burial under water to show Christ's Burial, the 
 great end of the Ordinance is lost: but Burial is 
 well set forth by Dipping under Water." (Bap- 
 tism Discovered Plainly and Faithfully, according 
 to the Word of God. Pp. 28-31. London, 1885). 
 
138 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 Then there follow some questions and answers 
 to show that sprinkling is " strange fire " on the 
 altar of God. 
 
 Edmond Jessop had been an Anabaptist, and 
 had departed from the faith. In 1623 he pub- 
 lished "A Discovery of the Errors of the English 
 Anabaptists." This book was on infant baptism, 
 but in referring to the position of the Anabaptists 
 he mentions their use of Rom. 6. While dipping 
 is not mentioned it is plain that Jessop assumes 
 it in relation to the Anabaptists. Jessop says: 
 
 "In which words (I say) he setteth downe ex- 
 presly that the baptisme which saueth, the bap- 
 tisme whereby we put on Christ, the baptisme 
 whereby our hearts are purged and sanctified, 
 and the sinnes- of our flesh done away, whereby 
 we are buried with Christ, and doe rise with him, 
 euen that which is through the faith and operation 
 of the Spirit, is one and the same, with the circum- 
 cision of the heart, which he therefore calleth, 
 the circumcision made zvithout hands, the circumcision 
 of Christ, whereby also it appeareth clearly, and 
 beyond all contradiction, that the circumcision, 
 or the cutting of the foreskin of the flesh, was a 
 signe and a true representation of the doing away 
 of their sinnes, of the cleansing of the heart by 
 faith (as the now doing away of the filth of the 
 flesh with the baptism of water is); for which vse 
 and end, it was also given to Abrahain at the first, 
 as this Apostle also declareth in another place," 
 etc. (P. 62). 
 
 Vavasor Powell is a brilliant instance of a man 
 baptized by immersion upon a profession of his 
 faith before 1641. Davis says of him: 
 
THE ENGLISH BAPTISTS BEFORE 164I. 13& 
 
 " He was inclined to suffer affliction with the 
 people of God rather than to proceed in the ways 
 of sin and folly. Soon afterwards he was baptized 
 on a profession of his faith, and became a very 
 popular preacher among the Baptists in Wales 
 in the year of our Lord in 1636. He was one of 
 the most zealous and useful preachers in the Prin- 
 cipality. He often preached throughout Wales 
 and in many parts of England. Being a man of 
 liberal education, he was remarkably fluent in 
 both languages." (History of the Welsh Baptists, 
 p. 28. Pittsburg, 1835). 
 
 Powell himself is very clear upon the act of 
 baptism. He says: 
 
 " Water baptism is a solemn, significant dipping 
 into, or washing with water the body in (or into) 
 the name of the Father, &c. (Matt. 28, 19). It 
 signifies the death, the burial and resurrection of 
 Christ, also the spiritual cleansing and washing 
 of justification and regeneration or sanctification." 
 (Life, pp. 35-41). 
 
 Edward Barber refers to the Independents in 
 these words: 
 
 " Again, others who pretend to come neerestin 
 that way in separating, yet hold the baptisme 
 they there received though on no ground; for if 
 they were truly baptised into that Church I con- 
 ceive with submission to better judgments, they 
 ought to continue, and to separate for corrup- 
 tions, as is clearly proved by B. Hall, in his 
 Apology against the Brownists, shewing that 
 either they must goe forward to baptisme, or 
 come backe again to the Bishops and Church." 
 
140 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 (A Small Treatise of Baptisme, Preface, sec. 6, 
 London, 1641). 
 
 The work of Bishop Hall to which reference is 
 here made is called: "A common apologie of 
 the Church of England against the unjust chal- 
 lenges of the over just sect commonly called 
 Brownists." The title page shows that this book 
 was written in 1610. Barber always understood 
 baptism to be an immersion, and quotes Bishop 
 Hall in support of his position that the Brown- 
 ists must go back to Episcopacy or forward to 
 baptism. Barber would not have quoted Hall as 
 sustaining his immersion views unless he had 
 strong reasons for so doing. This reference will 
 carry the practice of immersion back among Bap- 
 tists till 1610, at any rate. Indeed, there is no 
 doubt about the concession of Bishop Hall, for I 
 find in the work of A. R., 1642, the first part of 
 "The Vanity of Childish Baptism," p. 34, a very 
 striking passage from Bishop Hall. The Bishop 
 called the Anabaptists Catabaptists, or dippers. 
 I quote from A. R. : 
 
 " Yea and much lesse in the judgment of Bishop 
 Hall, who in this point expresses himselfe in these 
 words (viz) I am for my heart so confident of the 
 Divine Institution of the majority of Bishops 
 above Presbyters, that I dare boldly say, that 
 there are weighty points of faith which have not 
 so strong evidence in holy Scripture, (and there 
 be instanceth in two particulars). The power by 
 sacred orders given to the ministers alone for the 
 Consecration and distribution of the holy Eucha- 
 rist, and the receiving of Infants to holy Bap- 
 
THE ENGLISH BAPTISTS BEFORE 1641. 141 
 
 tisme, which (saith he) is a matter of so high 
 consequence, that we justly brand the Catabap- 
 tists with heresie for denying it, yet let me with 
 good assurance, say, that the evidences of this 
 truth come farre short of that which the Script- 
 ures have afforded us for the superiority of some 
 Church Governor even those who otherwise in- 
 deed, in a sole respect of their Ministerial Func- 
 tion, are equall ; and then he shuts up the point 
 in these very words (viz) He therefore that 
 would upon pretence of want of Scripture quar- 
 rell at the Divine institution of Bishops might 
 with much better colour cavill at these blessed 
 Ordinances of God." (P. 35). 
 
 Here is undoubted contemporaneous evidence 
 in 1610 that the Baptists were immersionists. 
 
142 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE KIFFIN MS. AND THE JESSEY CHURCH RECORDS. 
 
 The foundation upon which Dr. Whitsitt builds 
 his entire superstructure is the so-called Kiffin 
 manuscript. The authority, authenticity and 
 clearness of the application of this document to 
 the Baptists must be put beyond question. He 
 must have " irrefragable proofs " to sustain this 
 manuscript. There must be no mistake or doubt 
 on a vital point like this. It is upon this manu- 
 script that he gets his date of 1641. It is from 
 this manuscript that he establishes immersion 
 from the Dutch through Blount. It is from this 
 manuscript that he traces his line of succession, 
 and indeed it is from this manuscript that he gets 
 all the details of his theory. It is the only Bap- 
 tist document that he quotes that is at all vital to 
 his position. What we demand of Dr. Whitsitt 
 just here is clear, certain and unequivocal proof. 
 At this vital point he fails and the testimony is 
 against him. 
 
 After quoting from Hutchinson, Crosby says: 
 " This agrees with an account given of the 
 matter in an ancient manuscript, said to be 
 written by Mr. William Kiffin, who lived in those 
 times, and was a leader among those of that per- 
 suasion: 
 
 "This relates that several sober and pious persons be- 
 longing to the Congregations of dissenters about London 
 were convinced that believers were the only proper subjects 
 of baptism and that it ought only to be administered by 
 immersion or dipping the whole body into water in resem- 
 
THE KIFFIN MS. AND JESSEY CHURCH RECORDS. 143 
 
 blance of burial and resurrection according to 2 Colos. ii. 12, 
 and Rom. vi. 4. That they often met together to pray and 
 confer about this matter and consult what methods they 
 should take to enjoy the ordinance in its primitive purity. 
 That they could not be satisfied about any administrator in 
 Englafid to begin this practice, because though some in 
 this nation rejected the baptism of infants yet they had not 
 as they knew of revived the ancient custom of irmnersion. 
 But hearing that some in the Netherlaiids practiced it, they 
 sent over one Mr. Richard Blount, who understood the 
 Dutch language; That he went accordingly, carrying let- 
 ters of recommendation with him, and was kindly received 
 both by the church there and by Mr. John Batte, their 
 teacher; That on his return he baptized Mr, Samuel Black- 
 lock, a minister; and those two baptized the rest of the 
 company, whose names are in the manuscript, to the num- 
 ber of fifty-three." (Crosby I., 101-2) . 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt was led to see that this testimony 
 (rom the so-called Kiffin manuscript was not con- 
 clusive, so he cast around to find something to 
 sustain it. He virtually confesses that the Kiffin 
 manuscript is not authoritative (p. 83). He 
 thinks he finds this confirmation in the Rev, 
 George Gould's account of the Norwich Chapel 
 case in England. The book is entitled " Open 
 Communion and the Baptists of Norwich," by 
 Rev. George Gould, and was published in i860. 
 This new evidence that Dr. Whitsitt discovers 
 is called the " Jessey Church Records." He 
 says of them: 
 
 These singularly valuable records, which must be still in 
 existence since Gould had them in his possession in 1860 
 (Open Communion, Introduction, p. cxxiii), ought by all 
 means to be published in facsimile, and whoever accom- 
 plishes that task will render an important service to Bap- 
 tist 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 documents will be found 
 printed in parallel columns below, the one under the title of 
 "Jessey Church Records "and the other as the so-called 
 Kiffin manuscript. (P. 81). 
 
144 
 
 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 He devotes a whole chapter to these '* Genuine 
 Ancient Records." And throughout the remain- 
 der of the book he makes the greatest use of 
 them, referring to them no less than 28 times. 
 He quotes them on all important occasions, and 
 indeed without the "Jessey Church Records" his 
 case goes to the wall. They are the keystone in 
 the arch. Here is where he gets his 1641, and 
 this is the extent of his discovery. Here are Dr. 
 Whitsitt's parallel columns: 
 
 JESSEY CHURCH RECORDS. 
 
 1633. There haveing been 
 much discussing, These de- 
 nying Truth of ye Parish 
 Churches, and ye Church be 
 ing now become so large yt 
 it might be pre3udicial,These 
 following desired dismission, 
 that they might become an 
 Entire Church, and (2) fur- 
 ther ye Communion of those 
 Churches in Order amongst 
 themselves, wch at last was 
 granted to them, and per- 
 formed Sept. 12, 1633, 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 
 Kath., John Trimber, Wm. 
 Jennings and Sam Eaton, 
 Mary Greenway, (3) Mr. 
 Eaton with some others 
 receiving a further baptism. 
 
 Others Joyned to them. 
 
 1638. These also being of 
 
 SO-CALLED KIFFIN MANU- 
 SCRIPT. 
 
 There was a congregation 
 of Protestant Dissenters of 
 the independent Persuasion 
 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, 
 desired that they might be 
 dismissed from that com- 
 munion, and allowed to form 
 a distinct congregation in 
 such order as was most 
 agreeable to their own Sen- 
 timents. 
 
 The church considering 
 that they were now grown 
 very numerous, and so more 
 than could in these times of 
 persecution conveniently 
 meet together, and believ- 
 ing also that those persons 
 
THE KIFFIN MS. AND JESSEY CHURCH RECORDS. 145 
 
 ye same Judgment with Sam 
 Eaton, and desiring to depart 
 and not be censured, our in- 
 trest in them was remitted, 
 with Prayer made in their 
 behalf, June 8, 1638. They 
 haveing first forsaken Us, 
 and Joyned with Mr. Spils- 
 bury, viz. 
 
 Mr. Peti Ferrer, 
 
 Wm. Batty, 
 
 Hen. Pen, 
 
 Mrs. Allen (died 1639), 
 
 Tho. Wilson, 
 
 Mr. Norwood. 
 
 Gould, Open Co?mnunion 
 and the Baptists of Norwich, 
 Intro., p. cxxii. 
 
 1640. 3d Mo. [May]. The 
 Church [whereof Mr. Jacob 
 and Mr. John Lathorp had 
 been Pastors], became two 
 by mutual consent, just half 
 being with Mr. P. Barebone, 
 and ye other halfe with Mr. 
 H. Jessey. (8.) Mr. Richd. 
 Blunt wth him, being con- 
 vinced of Baptism, yt also it 
 ought to be by diping ye 
 Body into ye Water, re- 
 sembling Burial and riseing 
 again. (Col. ii., 12; Rom. 
 vi., 4): had sober Confer- 
 ance about it in ye Church, 
 and and then with sojne of 
 theforenamed, who also were 
 so convificed : And after 
 Prayer and Conf erance about 
 their so enjoying it, none 
 having then so practiced in 
 Engla7id to professed Believ- 
 ers, and hearing that some 
 in the Nether Lands had so 
 practiced, they agreed and 
 sent over Mr. Rich'd Blunt 
 (who understood Dutch), 
 with Letters of Comenda- 
 tion, who was kindly accept- 
 ed there, and Returned with 
 10 
 
 acted from a principle of 
 conscience, and not obstin- 
 acy, agreed to allow them 
 the liberty they desired, and 
 that they should be consti- 
 tuted a distinct church, which 
 was performed the I2th of 
 September, 1638. And as 
 they believed that baptism 
 was not rightly administer- 
 ed to infants, so they looked 
 upon the baptism they had 
 received in that age as in- 
 valid; 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 
 women it is added, with 
 divers others. 
 
 In the year 1638 Mr. Wil- 
 liam (6) Kiffin, Mr. Thomas 
 Wilson, and others being of 
 the same judgment, were 
 upon their request, dismissed 
 to the said Mr. Spilsbury's 
 congregation. 
 
 (7) In the year 1639 an- 
 other congregation of Bap- 
 tists was formed, whose place 
 of meeting was in Crutched 
 — Fryars; the chief pro- 
 moters of which were Mr.. 
 Green, Mr. Paul Hobson 
 and Captain Spencer. 
 
 Crosby, Vol. I., pp. 148-9. 
 
 For in the year 1640, this 
 church became two by con- 
 sent; just half, says the man- 
 uscript, being with Mr. P. 
 Barebone, and the other half 
 with Mr. Henry Jessey. 
 
 Crosby, Vol. Ill, p. 41. 
 
 Several sober and pious 
 persons belonging to the 
 Congregations of the dis- 
 
146 
 
 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 senters about London were 
 convinced that believers 
 were the only proper sub- 
 jects 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 resurrection according 
 to Colos. II., 12, and Rom. 
 VI., 4. That they often met 
 together to pray and confer 
 about this matter, and to con- 
 sult what methods they 
 should take to enjoy this 
 ordinance 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 nation re- 
 jected the baptism of in- 
 fants, yet they had not as 
 they knew of revived the an- 
 cient custo7n of immersion : 
 But hearing that some in 
 the Netherlands practiced 
 it, they agreed to send over 
 one Mr. Richard Blunt, who 
 understood the Dutch lan- 
 guage; that he went accord- 
 ingly, carrying letters of re- 
 commendation with him and 
 was kindly received both by 
 the church there and Mr. 
 John Batten, their teacher. 
 
 That upon his return he 
 baptized Mr. Samuel Black- 
 lock, a minister, and these 
 two baptized the rest of 
 their company [whose names 
 are in the manuscript to 
 the number of fifty-three.] 
 
 Crosby, Vol. I., pp. 101-2. 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt divides these " Jessey Church Rec- 
 ords " into two parts. The first part contains the 
 two paragraphs under "Jessey Church Records," 
 
 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 Baptism 
 should be by dipping ye 
 Body, had mett in (9) two 
 Companies, and did intend 
 so to meet after this: all 
 these agreed to proceed 
 alike together: and then 
 Manifesting (not by any for- 
 mal Words) a Covenant 
 (wch Word was Scrupled by 
 some of them), but by mutual 
 desires and agreement each 
 testified: These two Com- 
 panyes 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 friends yt ware so 
 minded, and many being 
 added to them they increas- 
 ed much. 
 
 Gould, 0/>en Communion 
 and the Baptists of Norwich, 
 Intro., pp. cxxiii, cxxiv. 
 
THE KIFFIN MS. AND JESSEY CHURCH RECORDS. 147 
 
 under the dates of 1633 and 1638. These two 
 paragraphs contain nothing on the subject of 
 baptism and are of no importance in this discus- 
 sion. These "Jessey Church Records" are intro- 
 duced by Gould with these words: 
 
 " Amongst the MSS. of H. Jessey, who in 1637 
 became pastor of the Church from which these 
 persons had seceded, are ' The Records of an 
 Antient Congregation of Dissenters from wch 
 many of y^ Independent and Baptist Churches in 
 London took their rise,' and there I find these 
 entries:" 
 
 Then follows all that is found above under 
 the dates of 1633 and 1638. 
 
 The second part is under the dates of 1640 and 
 
 1641. Of this second division Dr. Whitsitt says: 
 
 The second division of the Jessey Church Records, be- 
 ginning with the disruption of Jessey's church in 1640, is 
 perhaps the most important. (P. 85). 
 
 This contains all that is said on the subject of 
 baptism. In it is found the quotation he has 
 made so many times in the body of the book, 
 *' none having then so practiced in England to 
 professed believers." If this is overthrown all is 
 gone. His book is gone, for this is the keystone 
 of the whole superstructure. I now assert on the 
 authority of Gould himself, from whom Dr. Whit- 
 sitt quotes, that there is nothing of this sort in 
 the "Jessey Church Records" at all. The records 
 make no such reference to the years 1640 and 
 1641. No such words are found in them. How 
 Dr. Whitsitt came to place these two paragraphs 
 in the " Jessey Church Records " I cannot attempt 
 
148 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 to explain. It is sufficient to say that they are 
 not there. And Gould, from whom he quotes, 
 does not place them there. So all of this 
 ado about the " Jessey Church Records " goes 
 into thin air. 
 
 From whence, then, did Dr. Whitsitt get these 
 two paragraphs? They have no connection with 
 the Jessey Church Records whatever, but are an- 
 other version of the Kiffin Manuscript, and Gould 
 so quotes them. Gould widely separates these 
 paragraphs from the Jessey Records and distinctly 
 says that these paragraphs are from the Kiffin 
 Manuscript. His words are: 
 
 " Crosby appeals for confirmation of Hutchin- 
 son's account to * an antient manuscript by Mr. 
 William Kiffin,' and of which he proceeds to give 
 the substance. As I have the same document 
 lying before me, I shall allow the writer to tell his 
 own tale." (Open Communion and the Baptists 
 of Norwich, p. cxxiii). And then he proceeds to 
 give the words Dr. Whitsitt put under the " Jes- 
 sey Church Records" dated 1640 and 1641. Here, 
 then. Dr. Whitsitt has placed in the Jessey Church 
 Records things which are contained in the Kiffin 
 Manuscript. This not only destroys all reference 
 to the Jessey Church Records as authority, but 
 likewise weakens the Kiffin Manuscript. Which 
 one of these versions are we to believe? 
 Crosby gives one and Gould gives another. If Dr. 
 Whitsitt had read even Armitage he would have 
 found that Armitage gives this exact quotation 
 and properly ascribes it to Kiffin. (Armitage's 
 History of the Baptists, p. 441). 
 
THE KIFFIN MS. AND JESSEY CHURCH RECORDS. 149 
 
 But in order that I may be perfectly clear on 
 this point, at the risk of repeating somewhat, 
 I give the entire statement of Gould. A com- 
 parison of Gould with the statement of Dr. 
 Whitsitt is all that is necessary to prove that 
 Dr. Whitsitt has placed words in the Jessey 
 Church Records which belong to the Kiffin 
 Manuscript. Gould says: 
 
 AMONG THE MSS. OF MR. H. JESSEY, WHO IN 
 1637 BECAME PASTOR OF THE CHURCH FROM 
 WHICH THESE PERSONS HAD SECEDED, ARE 
 "THE RECORDS OF AN ANTIENT CONGREGA- 
 TION OF DISSENTERS, FROM WCH MANY OF 
 YE INDEPENDENT AND BAPTIST CHURCHES IN 
 LONDON TOOK THEIR FIRST RISE," AND THERE 
 I FIND THESE ENTRIES:* 
 
 1633. There having been much discussing. These de- 
 nying Truth of ye Parish Churches, and ye Church being 
 now become so large yt it might be prejudicial. These fol- 
 lowing desired dismission, that they might become an En- 
 tire Church, and further ye Communion of those Churches 
 in Order amongst themselves, wch at last was granted to 
 them, and performed Sept. 12, 1633, viz.: 
 Henry Parker and wife, Jo. Milburn, 
 
 Widd. Fearne, Arnold, 
 
 (Green) Hatmaker, Mr. Wilson, 
 
 Mark Luker, Tho. Allen, 
 
 Mary Milburn. 
 
 To These Joyned Rich. Blunt, Tho. Hubert, Rich. Tred- 
 well, and his wife Kath., John Timber, Wm. Jennings and 
 Sam Eaton, Mary Greenway. Mr. Eaton with some others 
 receiving a further baptism. 
 
 Others Joyned to them. 
 
 1638. These also being of ye same judgment with Sam 
 Eaton, and desiring to depart and not be censured, our in- 
 terest in them was remitted, with Prayer made in their be- 
 half, June 8, 1638. They having first forsaken Us, and 
 Joyned with Mr. Spilsbury, viz.: 
 Mr. Peti Ferrer, Wm. Batty, 
 
 Hen Pen, Mrs. Allen (died 1639), 
 
 Tho. Wilson, Mr. Norwood. 
 
 From these minutes I infer that Mr. Spilsbury, believ- 
 ing " that baptizedness is not essential to the administrator," 
 
 * Capitals mine.— C. 
 
150 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 felt no difficultie in administering the rite of baptism to 
 " Sam Eaton with some others." This would account for 
 his vindication of such a course in the following terms as 
 quoted by Crosby: 
 
 " And because some make it such an error, and so far 
 from any rule or example for a man to baptize others, who 
 is himself unbaptized, and so think thereby to shut up the 
 ordinance of God in such a strait, that none can come by it 
 but thro' the authority of the Popedom of Rome ; let the reader 
 consider who baptized John the Baptist, before he baptized 
 others, and if no man did, then whether he did not baptize 
 others, he being himself unbaptized. We are taught by this 
 what to do upon like occasions. 
 
 " Further, says he, I fear that men put more than is of 
 right due to it, that so prefer it above the church, and all 
 other ordinances besides; take in and cast out members, elect 
 and ordain officers, and administer the supper, and all 
 anew, without any looking after succession, any further 
 than the Scriptures. But as for baptism, they must have 
 that successfully from the Apostles, though it comes thro' 
 the hands of Pope Joan. What is the cause of this, that 
 men can do all from the Word but only baptism?" 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that some persons scrupled the 
 correctness of Mr. Spilsbury's conduct. Edward Hutchin- 
 son, in his "Treatise concerning the Covenant and Bap- 
 tism," incidentally confirms this conclusion, for he says 
 that, when several persons resolved to practice the baptism 
 of believers according to their light: 
 
 " The great objection was the want of an administrator, 
 which, as I have heard, was removed by sending certam 
 messengers io Holland, whence they were supplied." 
 
 Crosby applies for confirmation of Hutchinson's account 
 to "an ancient manuscript, said to have been written by 
 Mr. William Kiffin," of which he proceeds to give the sub- 
 stance. AS I HAVE THE SAME DOCUMENT NOW 
 LYING BEFORE ME. I SHALL ALLOW THE 
 WRITER TO TELL HIS OWN TALE:* 
 
 " 1640, 8d Mo. (May). The Church [whereof Mr. Jacob 
 and Mr. John Lathrop had been Pastors], became two by 
 mutual consent, just half being with Mr. P. Barebone and 
 ye other halfe with Mr. H. Jessey. Mr. Rich'd Blunt 
 with him being convinced of Baptism, yt also it ought to be 
 by dipping ye Body into ye Water, resembling Burial and 
 riseing again. Col. II., 12; Rom. VL, 4; had sober Confer- 
 ence about it in ye Church, and, then with so7?ie of the fore- 
 named, who also were so convinced: And after Prayer and 
 Conference about their so enjoying it, none having then so 
 practiced in England to professed Believers, and hearing 
 
 * Capitals mine.— C. 
 
THE KIFFIN MS. AND JESSEY CHURCH RECORDS. 151 
 
 that some in the Nether Lands had so practiced, they 
 agreed and sent over Mr. Rich'd Blunt (who understood 
 Dutch) with Letters of Commendation, who was kindly ac- 
 cepted there, and returned with Letters from them, Jo Bat- 
 ten a Teacher there, and from that Church to such as sent 
 him. 
 
 " 1641. They proceed on therein, viz.: Those persons yt 
 ware perswaded Baptism should be by dipping ye Body, 
 had mett in two Companies, and did intend so to meet after 
 this; all these agreed to proceed alike together; and then 
 Manifesting (not by any formal words) a Covenant (Word 
 wch was Scrupled by some of them) but by mutual desires 
 and agreement each testified: These two Companyes did 
 set apart one to Baptize the rest, so it was Solemnly per- 
 formed by them. 
 
 " Mr. Blunt baptized Mr. Blacklock, yt was a Teacher 
 among them, and Mr. Blunt being baptized, he and Mr. 
 Blacklock baptized ye rest of their friends yt ware so 
 minded, and many being added to them they increased 
 much." 
 
 But there is another consideration which I 
 have not as yet mentioned. Are the Jessey 
 Church Records a forgery? Dr. Henry S. Bur- 
 rage is constrained to admit: 
 
 " It will be noticed that in our reference above 
 to the Jessey Church Records, we say ' if they 
 are authentic' We have not forgotten the 
 'Crowle and Epworth' records. These made 
 their appearance about the same time as the Jes- 
 sey Church Records, and it is now known that 
 they are clumsy forgeries. The Jessey Church 
 Records may be genuine, but their genuineness 
 has not yet been established." {Ziotis Advocate, 
 Sept. 30, 1896). 
 
 We have no external proof of the genuineness 
 of these Records. They stand wholly unauthen- 
 ticated. Before we accept them we must have 
 undoubted proof of their genuineness. Outside 
 of the fact that we have not one iota of external 
 
152 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 evidence that these Records are genuine, the in- 
 ternal evidence is all against them. Examine the 
 title " The Records of an antient Congregation of 
 Dissenters from wch many of ye Independent 
 and Baptist Churches took their rise." This title 
 is enough to forever condemn these Records as a 
 forgery. Allow me to point out a few considera- 
 tions: 
 
 1. This was not, in 1640, an ancient congrega- 
 tion. At that time this church had been organ- 
 ized less than twenty-five years, and in that land 
 of ancient churches no man would have called 
 this Jessey Church an ** antient Congregation." 
 
 2. In 1640 "many of ye Independent Church- 
 es" had not taken "their rise" from it. 
 
 3. In 1640 it was not the Mother of " many " 
 Baptist Churches. 
 
 4. The name " Baptist Churches " was not then 
 in use, and conclusively proves these Records a 
 fraud. The term " Baptist " was not used till 
 some years after this period. 
 
 Thus Dr. Whitsitt's principal authority has no 
 existence in fact. His whole book is founded upon 
 this error. As much has been said about the so- 
 called Kiffin Manuscript, I will now proceed to 
 review it. It is scarcely worth while, after this 
 remarkable exploit with the Jessey Church Rec- 
 ords, but I desire to give a complete review of 
 the subject. 
 
 This theory, as presented from the so-called 
 Kiffin Manuscript, presents insuperable difficul- 
 ties: 
 
 I. Dr. Whitsitt presents no proof, and none has 
 
THE KIFFIN MS. AND JESSEY CHURCH RECORDS. 153 
 
 been found, that Kiffin wrote this Manuscript. 
 Crosby, who wrote his history about one hundred 
 years after this event, is said to have happened, 
 ventured to say: 
 
 " This agrees with an account of the matter in 
 an ancient manuscript said to have been written 
 by Mr. Wm. Kiffin, who lived in those times." 
 (Crosby, Vol. I., p. lOO). 
 
 Cathcart, a Baptist writer, says this transaction 
 of Blount's may have happened, but he further 
 remarks: 
 
 " We would not bear heavily on the testimony 
 adduced by these good men." (Baptist Encyclo- 
 paedia, Vol. I., p. 572). 
 
 2. There is no proof that the Manuscript was 
 written by any one near the year 1641. Dexter, 
 upon whom Dr. Whitsitt has constantly relied, 
 gives up this Manuscript. He says: 
 
 " Crosby says he derived his information from 
 an 'antient manuscript said to be written by Mr. 
 William Kiffin, who lived in those times, and was 
 a leader among those of that persuasion.' Con- 
 ceding the genuineness of this manuscript, and 
 its value in testimony — both of which might 
 be open to question — let us note its exact words 
 as to the point before us." (The True Story of 
 John Smyth, p. 43). 
 
 Again: 
 
 " On the other hand, had not Kiffin — as it is 
 supposed — made the statement, it would be 
 suspicious for its vagueness, and for the fact that 
 none of the historians, not even Wilson, Calamy, 
 Brook, or Neal, know anything about either 
 
154 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 Blount or Blacklock, beyond what is here stated." 
 
 (P. 54). 
 Armitage says of the entire transaction: 
 " A feeble but strained attempt has been made 
 to show that none of the English Baptists prac- 
 ticed immersion prior to 1641, from the document 
 mentioned by Crosby in 1738, of which he re- 
 marks that it was * said to be written by Mr. 
 William Kiffin.' Although this manuscript is 
 signed by fifty-three persons, it is evident that its 
 authorship was only guessed at from the begin- 
 ning, it may or may not hav-e been written by 
 Kiffin." (History of the Baptists, p. 440). 
 
 3. No authoritative copy of this manuscript is 
 known to be in existence and no Baptist historian, 
 unless we may call Gould such, appears to have 
 ever seen it. Crosby does not quote it, nor does 
 he say he ever saw it, but he only makes general 
 statements from it without quoting the exact 
 words. Dr. Whitsitt makes no claim of having 
 seen this manuscript. His reference is to Crosby. 
 
 4. The statements in the quotation are vague 
 and uncertain. It only speaks of " several sober 
 and pious persons belonging to the Congregations 
 of the dissenters about London." There is noth- 
 ing to prove that these persons ever organized a 
 Baptist Church. There is no proof that Blount 
 or Blacklock were Baptist preachers. Their 
 names are not appended to the Confession of 
 Faith of 1644, which almost certainly would have 
 been the case had they organized the first Baptist 
 Church of England and introduced immersion 
 among them. No record of such an event was 
 
THE KIFFIN MS. AND JESSEY CHURCH RECORDS. 15& 
 
 kept, and the only reference I have found in the 
 century to it is in the words of Hutchinson, 1676, 
 or thirty-one years later, who reports on hearsay 
 that " certain messengers went to Holland." The 
 dates are as conflicting as the so-called facts., 
 Barclay, who was the first to discover the " inven- 
 tion " of immersion among the Baptists, says 
 Blount went to Holland in 1633. Newman puts 
 the date 1640 and Dr. Whitsitt 1641. 
 
 Evans says : 
 
 " This statement is vague. We have no date 
 and cannot tell whether the fact refers to the 
 Separatists under Mr. Spilsbury or to others." 
 (History Early English Baptists, Vol. H., p. 78). 
 
 Dr. A. H. Newman, who has been so industri- 
 ously quoted, says: 
 
 " A few remarks seem called for by the obscu- 
 rity of some of the statements quoted above. It 
 is not possible out of the material that has thus 
 far come to the light to trace in detail the evolu- 
 tion of the seven churches that signed the con- 
 fession of 1644. The statement quoted from the 
 so-called * Kiffin Manuscript ' with reference to 
 the division of 1640 involves a number of difficul- 
 ties. P. Barebone, with whom half of the church 
 withdrew, has commonly been regarded by Bap- 
 tist writers as a Baptist. Yet in 1642 he pub- 
 lished ' A Discourse tending to prove the Baptism 
 in, or under, the Defection of Antichrist to be the 
 Ordinance of Jesus Christ, as also that the Bap- 
 tism of Infants or Children is Warrantable and 
 Agreeable to the Word of God,' and in 1643 and 
 1644 he published other polemical tracts against 
 
156 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 Antipedobaptism. If in 1641 he was the leader 
 of the Antipedobaptists and immersionist half of 
 the divided congregation he must soon after have 
 abandoned his position. This is, of course, pos- 
 sible. From the construction of the sentence 
 Jessey might be taken to be the leader of the 
 Baptist half, but it appears that Jessey did not 
 become a Baptist till five years later. This diffi- 
 culty seems inexplicable without further mate- 
 rial." (A History of the Baptist Churches in the 
 United States, pp. 52, 53). 
 
 It is altogether possible that these " dissent- 
 ers " may not have known that there were im- 
 mersionists in London, and that such persons 
 may have lived on the same square with them. 
 Under the persecutions of the Court of High 
 Commission and the Court of Star Chamber it 
 was not safe for one to announce himself a 
 Baptist. 
 
 6. The account that Hutchinson gives is very 
 different from the so-called Kiffin Manuscript. 
 He makes no mention of dipping, but declares 
 that the trouble was in regard to an administrator. 
 The edition of Hutchinson from which I quote 
 bears date, London, 1676. He says: 
 
 " When the professors of these nations had been a long 
 time wearied with the yoke of superstitions, cere- 
 monies, traditions of men, and corrupt mixtures 
 in the worship and service of God, it pleased the 
 Lord to break these yokes ^ and by a very stro?ig im- 
 pulse of his Spirit upon the hearts of his people, to con- 
 vince them of the necessity of Reformation. Divers 
 pious, and very gracious people ^ having often sought 
 
THE KIFFIN MS. AND JESSEY CHURCH RECORDS. 157 
 
 the Lord by fasting and prayer, that he would show 
 them the pattern of his house, the goi?igs-out and 
 comings-in thereof &c. Resolved {by the grace of 
 God), not to receive or practice any piece of 
 positive worship which had not precept or exam- 
 ple from the word of God. Infant-baptism comi?ig 
 of course under consideration, after long search and 
 many debates, it was fou?id to have 710 footing in the 
 Scriptures (the only rule and standard to try doc- 
 trines by); but on the contrary a mere innovation, 
 yea, the profanation of an ordinance of God. And 
 though it was proposed to be laid aside, yet what fears, 
 tremblings, and temptations did attend them, lest they 
 should be mistaken, considering how many learned 
 and godly me7i were of an opposite persuasion. How 
 gladly would they have had the rest of their brethren 
 gone along with them. But when there was no hopes, 
 they concluded that a Christian's faith must not 
 stand in the wisdom of men; and that every one 
 must give an account of himself to God; and so 
 resolved to practice according to their light. The great 
 objection was, the want ofa?i administrator; which, as 
 I have heard, was removd by sending certain mes- 
 sengers to Hollafid, whence they were supplied." (A 
 Treatise Concerning the Covenant and Baptism 
 Dialogue-wise. Epistle to the Reader. London, 
 1676). 
 
 There is no question about the authenticity of 
 this work of Hutchinson and the question of 
 "dipping does not come upon the boards." The 
 whole question hinged upon the lawfulness of 
 infant baptism and a proper administrator. 
 
 7. There is nothing in this manuscript to 
 
158 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 prove that there were not other Baptists in Eng- 
 land who had nothing to do with this transaction. 
 We have shown that'-nhere were many such 
 churches. Crosby says: 
 
 " But the greatest number of English Baptists 
 looked upon all of this as needless trouble, and 
 what proceeded from the old Popish Doctrine of 
 right to administer sacraments by an uninterrupt- 
 ed succession which neither the Church of Rome, 
 nor the Church of England, much less the mod- 
 ern Dissenters, could prove to be with them." 
 (Vol. I., p. 103). 
 
 The voice of Kiffin himself is against any such 
 interpretation of this manuscript, for he would 
 not have contradicted himself. Kiffin certainly 
 said: "It is well knonw to many, especially 
 
 TO OURSELVES, THAT OUR CONGREGATIONS WERE 
 ERECTED AND FRAMED ACCORDING TO THE RULE 
 
 OF Christ, before we heard of any Reforma- 
 tion." (A Brief Remonstrance, p. 11). 
 
 I do not think it possible with an unauthenti- 
 cated, vague statement like the one contained in 
 this manuscript to revolutionize Baptist history. 
 Neither is there anything new in all this, for it 
 was recorded long ago by Crosby, and has been 
 before the Baptists more than two hundred years. 
 Dr. Whitsitt is the only man who has drawn from 
 it such startling conclusions. 
 
SOME WITNESSES. 159 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 SOME WITNESSES. 
 
 Of Mr. Praise -God Barebones. Dr. Whitsitt 
 makes great use. He wrote, if indeed he is the 
 author, two books, under the initials P. B., which 
 appeared in 1642-3. Dr. Whitsitt claims that 
 while he was not a Baptist, as some other 
 writers supposed, he was very friendly to them. 
 He says: 
 
 It is true that The Baptist EncyclopcEdia has blundered 
 in claiming Mr. Barebone as a Baptist minister, 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. (P. 102). 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt further says that he was answered 
 by R. B., whom he claims to be Richard Blunt, 
 of which, however, there is no proof. After read- 
 ing this eulogy of P. B., I turned to his book called 
 " A Reply to the Frivolous and impertinent 
 Answer of R. B., to the discourse of P. B.," 
 and I did not find it friendly to the Baptists. 
 It was altogether hostile. I can only give a few 
 of his phrases: " Boaster," " liar," " bray a fool," 
 " evil dealing," " willing to deceive," " he deals 
 as the Divell dealt with the Lord, keeps back 
 a mayne part, and so the shewing the mind 
 to smother the truth and keep it in unrighteous- 
 ness," etc., etc. These are only samples that are 
 found all through this abusive writer. And yet 
 this enemy is one of Dr. Whitsitt's principal 
 witnesses. 
 
160 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 I charged, through The Western Recorder, that 
 Dr. Whitsitt copied from Dexter his quotation 
 from P. B., as found in The Religious Herald, 
 May 7, 1896. This is admitted, for in the book 
 he uses an entirely different form of the quota- 
 tion, 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 absolute 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 subject and 
 partly in regard of so great default in the manner: They 
 not only conclude as is before sayd a nullity of their pres- 
 ent Baptisme, And so but addresse themselves to be Bap- 
 tized a third time after the true way and manner they have 
 found out, which they account a precious truth. The par- 
 ticular of their opinion and practice is to Dip, and that per- 
 sons are to be Dipped, all and every part to be under the 
 water, for if all the whole person be not under the water 
 then they 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 them- 
 selves 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 Baptisme was from 
 heaven. A man can receive nothing, 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 consid- 
 ered 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 be- 
 fore. 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 newness of life. This 
 Buriall and resurrection only Dipping can import and hold 
 
SOME WITNESSES. 161 
 
 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). 
 
 The extract taken from Dexter had been terri- 
 bly garbled. Sentences had been taken from dif- 
 ferent parts of the book and pieced together, and 
 sometimes the sentences did not even stop with a 
 comma. The exact form of the quotation as given 
 above may be found in The I?idepende?it, Oct. 7, 
 1880. The article appeared as an editorial, and 
 the author's name does not appear ; but Dr. 
 Whitsitt very closely follows the line of proof and 
 quotations in that editorial and some dozen others 
 which may be found in The Indepe7ident from June 
 24, 1880, to Dec. 13, 1883. But this quotation does 
 not sustain Dr. Whitsitt's contention, for P. B. 
 was not discussing the newness of dipping, but a 
 proper administrator and rebaptism. And he 
 taunts his opponent in "A Reply, To the 
 Reader," London, 1643, with: 
 
 "A man that had a minde to come to R. B. in 
 his third Baptisme, before a yeare or two spent 
 in the serious weighing of the matter, would find 
 happily that R. B. had left his third Baptisme, 
 and taken up a church." 
 
 But P. B. did not think dipping was a new 
 thing. In the quotation as given are found some 
 dots. Those dots indicate the omission of a sig- 
 nificant statement. P. B. there declares that dip- 
 ping was not a new thing. He says: 
 
 "The Romanists, some of them, and some of 
 the poor ignorant Welsh do use dipping." 
 11 
 
162 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 And in A Reply he asks whether they learned 
 dipping from the Romanists or the Welsh? 
 
 1. I do not regard this anonymous author, P. 
 B., as of any weight. One of the officials of the 
 British Museum wrote me: "The book is not 
 considered here as of any particular value, only 
 an ordinary controversial pamphlet." His name, 
 Praise-God Barebones, is enough to condemn 
 him. It is said his two brothers assumed the 
 names, respectively, of " Christ came into the 
 World to save Barebones" and " If Christ had 
 not Died Thou hadst been Damned Barebones." 
 I am surprised that any one would quote such an 
 author as decisive on any point. Yet this man is 
 one of Dr. Whitsitt's chief witnesses. 
 
 2. It is perfectly apparent that the words of 
 P. B. have been wofully misused. It leads us to 
 suspect that all the authors that Dr. Whitsitt has 
 quoted need further light thrown on them. Even 
 as quoted by Dexter, P. B. does not sustain Dr. 
 Whitsitt's theory; and the original is certainly 
 against him. 
 
 3. "Praise-God Barebones" defended sprink- 
 ling, but he nowhere says dipping was a new 
 thing. That it was practiced in the days of the 
 apostles, that it was used in hot countries, that 
 "the Romanists, some of them, and some of the 
 poor ignorant Welsh do use dipping." He was a 
 Pedobaptist, and believed in sprinkling, and so 
 tried to refute the opinion of the Anabaptists on 
 dipping; but he does not declare that dipping or 
 a denial of infant baptism to be a new thing. 
 "The new way of Baptizing," or as it is called 
 
SOME WITNESSES. 163 
 
 here " the new dipping," because the act had 
 been repeated, over and over again, in his book 
 he declares to be rebaptizing, or denying the per- 
 petuity of the Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 Thomas Kilcop, a Baptist, 1642, who wrote a book 
 called " A Short Treatise on Baptisme," does not 
 think so highly of '* Praise-God Barebones " as Dr. 
 Whitsitt does. He says he spoke " evil of us," 
 and his " sin was open." Dr. Dexter is surprised 
 that Kilcop in replying to P. B. " makes no allu- 
 sion whatever to Barbon's charge of the newness 
 of the dipping way." (True Story of John Smyth, 
 p. 48). To me there is nothing strange in this, for 
 the simple reason " Barbon," or P. B., had made 
 no such charge. This position of Kilcop's is in 
 full confirmation of the position that I took in re- 
 gard to P. B., that the discussion was in regard 
 to the authority of the baptism of Rome. But Dr. 
 Whitsitt is very brave and says: 
 
 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 question, 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. (P. 121). 
 
 The only reference that Dr. Whitsitt gives is 
 
 out of Dexter, and after reading this statement of 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt I have not only examined Dexter 
 
 but have read Kilcop's book through, and I find 
 
 nothing like such conclusions. As a matter of 
 
 fact, the first thing Kilcop does after announcing 
 
 his text is to declare that " Baptisme is a Greek 
 
164 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 word and most properly signifies dipping in Eng- 
 lish; and therefore the parties baptised are said to 
 be baptised not at, but in, Jordan. Then note, that 
 the baptizing or dipping in water belongs to 
 Christ's disciples and none else." (P. i). 
 
 And there is not another word that I have found 
 about dipping in the book. Certainly this is tak- 
 ing dipping for granted, and certainly there is 
 nothing that would intimate that dipping was a 
 new thing. 
 
 The testimony of Edward Barber, 1641, to im- 
 mersion is clear and decisive. Throughout this 
 discussion Barber takes dipping for granted and 
 gives reasons why infant baptism should not pre- 
 vail. The full title of his book is: *" A small 
 treatise of baptisme, or dipping, wherein is cleere- 
 ly shewed that the Lord Christ ordained dipping 
 for those only that profess repentance and faith. 
 I. Proved by scriptures. 2. By arguments. 3. 
 A paralell betwixt circumcision and dipping. 4. 
 An answere to some objections by P. B. Psal. 
 119, 130. By Edward Barber. Printed in the 
 yeare 1641." 
 
 I give a few extracts from Barber, and many 
 more might be added: 
 
 " The thesis that ' Christ ordained dipping for 
 those only that profess repentance and faith' is 
 mentioned under four heads, viz.: 'i. Proved by 
 Scriptures. 2. By Arguments. 3. A Parallel be- 
 twixt circumcision and Dipping. 4. An Answere 
 to some objections by P. B. Psal. 119. 130.' " 
 
 * I quote from the original, but a reprint may be had from the 
 Baptist Book Concern, Louisville. Ky., for 10 cents. 
 
SOME WITNESSES. 165 
 
 " But the dipping of beleevers is that good old 
 way of Christ, and infants is not." (P. 14). 
 
 *• But for infants' dipping there is no expresse 
 description of the persons, condition, time, where- 
 as true dipping, which is that one dipping Ephes. 
 4. 5., which is the dipping of repentance for remis- 
 sion of sinnes, Mark I. 4. it is most evidently 
 and faithfully set down for persons, conditions 
 and times, viz.," etc. (P. 15). 
 
 "Thus for true dipping there is a certain time 
 appointed as was for circumcision. Acts 8. 37. yea 
 commanded, Acts 10. 48." (P. 16). 
 
 " So that this covenant standeth between God 
 and man, manifested by Holy Writ is: That as 
 there is but one Lord; one Faith; and one Dip- 
 ping, Eph. 4. 5. which is the Dipping of Repent- 
 ance for Remission of sinnes, Mark i. 4. so there 
 is but one way of entrance into the Covenant 
 under the Gospel," etc. (P. 18). 
 
 " Quest. 5. But what is the true ordinance of 
 the dipping of Christ, and wherein doth it differ 
 from childrens Dipping, which is the best way to 
 show the truth; and what benefit doth Beleevers 
 receive by it." (P. 19). 
 
 " Eighthly, that the Beleever may in that day 
 roll away all the reproach of Egypt, or Antichris- 
 tianisme, renouncing the marke of the Beast in 
 our right hands, by holding or fighting for him, or 
 in our forehead. Revel. 13. 14. by dipping of 
 Infants, that false Constitution of Rome to beget 
 grece, thus it is cleere: who are the true subjects 
 of Dipping, And who are not." (P. 21). 
 
 " In shcwt, all these holy ends that God aimed 
 
166 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 at in true dipping, are wholly made voide, and of 
 no effect in the dipping of Infants, which the 
 Lord ^y^m/ commanded not. Jere. 7.3. i. Revel. 
 22. 18. Matth. 28. 19. 20. nor came into hisheart." 
 (P. 22). 
 
 " 6. If the dipping of Infants be God's Ordi- 
 nance, Christ was not so faithful! over his House 
 a Sonne, as Moses a servant was; For Moses made 
 and set out all things, according to the patterne, 
 Heb. 8. 5. but if Christ received any patterne for 
 dipping infants, he hath left no rule for it, by 
 precept, or example." (P. 23). 
 
 " But the dipping of Infants was never heard of 
 in all the Institutions of Christ, or preachings of 
 the Apostles," etc. (P. 30). 
 
 The book nowhere intimates that there were 
 
 ever any Baptists who practiced sprinkling, or 
 
 that the immersion of believers was a new thing. 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt makes the following quotation from 
 
 Barber: 
 
 Beloved Reader, 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, especially in and amongst those 
 that professe themselves Ministers thereof, of that glorious 
 principle True Baptis7ne or Dipping, 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 prac- 
 ticed by the Ministerie of the Gospel in the planting of the 
 first Churches, and that the Lord should raise up mee a 
 poore Tradesman to devulge this glorious Truth, to the 
 World's Censuring. (Pp. 112, 113). 
 
 Even if Barber had said that believers' immer- 
 sion was a new thing in England that would not 
 have made it so. Prof. Vedder makes answer to 
 this point: 
 
SOME WITNESSES. 167 
 
 " But a thing is not necessarily true because 
 Barber says it; he was — as he frankly confesses, 
 and his treatise attests it — an unlearned man, and 
 was not acquainted with the history or literature 
 of his own people. We positively know that he 
 was not the first to ' devulge this glorious truth.'" 
 
 But I can reply more directly in two ways: 
 
 1. The word devulge does not mean to make 
 known a thing for the first time. It does not 
 mean that Barber was a discoverer. The word 
 means only to publish a thing, according to Web- 
 ster, and it may or may not have been known be- 
 fore. Henry Denne, who was baptized in 1643, 
 and had been since that date a preacher, was sent 
 on a special mission, by the Baptist Church at 
 Fenstanton, October 28, 1653, and it is said of 
 him: 
 
 ** On that day he was chosen and ordained, by 
 imposition of hands, a messenger to divulge the 
 Gospel of Jesus Christ." (Adam Taylor's His- 
 tory General Baptists, Vol. i., p. 150). 
 
 No one would fail to know that the word 
 meant in this passage simply to proclaim. 
 
 2. The thing that Barber was to divulge, and 
 his whole treaty shows it, was not dipping, but 
 believers' baptism. He had been imprisoned for 
 denying infant baptism and his release gave him 
 an opportunity for affirming believers' baptism. 
 His words are: 
 
 ''By Edward Yy^^xh^x .Citizen, and Merchant-Taylor 
 of London; late Priso?ier,' for denying the spri?ikli?ig 
 of hifaiits, and requiriftg tithes ?iow under the Gospel 
 to be Gods Ordinance T 
 
168 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 There is not a word in this entire book which 
 could by any possible construction be forced to 
 mean that immersion was a new thing. Indeed, 
 in the very passage that Dr. Whitsitt quotes 
 Barber claims: 
 
 " 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 re- 
 ceived 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." 
 
 But what about Barber himself? Crosby de- 
 clares that he was baptized long before 1641, and 
 thus we have another witness to immersion before 
 164 1. Crosby says: 
 
 " Mr. Edward Barber, a gentleman of great 
 learning, was first a minister in the established 
 church, and embraced the principles of the Bap- 
 tists, long before the breaking out of the civil 
 wars. He was the means of convincing many 
 that infant baptism had no foundation in Script- 
 ure, and soon gathered a numerous congrega- 
 tion." (Vol. III., p. 3). 
 
 A very scholarly Baptist of those times was A. 
 R., 1642, who wrote two books on the Vanity and 
 Childishness of Infants Baptisme. The first book 
 was against infant baptism as held in the Episco- 
 pal Church and the second as held by Dissenters. 
 A. R. readily refers to the Greek language. In 
 the first part, in the beginning, there is a discus- 
 sion of dipping. There is no intimation that it is 
 a new thing. Indeed, every argument presented 
 
SOME WITNESSES. 169 
 
 by A. R. might be profitably used by a Baptist 
 author of today. But Dr. Whitsitt makes a char- 
 acteristic mistake. He says: 
 
 The work of A. R., which comes under notice in this 
 place, is entitled: The Second Part of the Vanity and 
 Childishness of Infants Baptisme, London, 1642. On 
 page 29 of this Second Part Dr. Dexter has found the fol- 
 lowing quotation, which demonstrates that A. R. did not 
 take immersion for granted. (P. 119). 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt here copies Dexter, mistake and 
 all, and without any apparent effort to verify the 
 passage. There is no such quotation in "the sec- 
 ond part" of A. R.'s book. This so-called quota- 
 tion is found in the first part. This goes to show 
 that Drs. Dexter and Whitsitt are not accurate, 
 and that they cannot be depended upon But as 
 a matter of fact words have been placed in this 
 quotation which change the meaning of the 
 author. 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt's ver- A. R.'s Words, 1642: 
 sion, 1896: And if any shall think it 
 
 If any shall thinke it strange and unlikely that all 
 strange and unlikely that Jhe godliest Divines and 
 all the godliest Divines and best churches should be 
 best churches should be thus thus deceived on this point 
 deceived on this point of of baptism for so m a n y 
 baptisme for so many y.eares together, let him con- 
 yeares together [i. e.. as f^^er that all Chnstendome 
 hever before to know that (except here and there one, 
 true baptism is dipping and or som^ few or no con- 
 dipping alone true baptism]; fiderable number) was swal- 
 let them consider that all l^^ed up m grosse Popery 
 Cristendome (except here Jor many hundred yeares 
 and there one. or some few. before Luther s time, which 
 or no considerable number) was not until about 100 
 was swallowed up in grosse yeares agone. 
 Popery for many hundred 
 yeares before Luther's time, 
 which was not until about 
 100 yeares agone. (Dexter. 
 True Story, p. 49). 
 
170 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 You will notice that the words have been 
 added: ["i. e., as never before to know that true 
 baptism is dipping and dipping alone true bap- 
 tism."] There is not a word about dipping in this 
 quotation from A. R. nor for pages near it. The 
 author has been made to say things he did not 
 say. A. R. is singularly clear on dipping, but he 
 did not have dipping under discussion at this time. 
 This is manufactured testimony. 
 
 A. R. met with a very bitter opponent by the 
 name of William Cooke. Although he called his 
 book a "Learned and Full Answer to a Treatise 
 Intitled; the Vanity of Childish Baptisme" it is 
 very certain he knew little of the Baptists and 
 that he was a very bitter enemy. I give in full 
 his third and fourth reasons against dipping as 
 practiced by the Baptists: 
 
 "Thirdly, this dousing over head, and under 
 water that A. R. pleads for, as essential to bap- 
 tisme, seems directly against the Sixth Com- 
 mandment, and exposeth the person baptized to 
 the danger of death. For first, suppose the party 
 be fit for baptism (as they account) in the sharpe 
 Winter as now beleeving, professing, &c. He 
 must immediately be taken to the 'river (as his 
 tenet seems to hold) and there plunged in over 
 head and eares, though he came forth covered 
 with yce. But if he escaped perishing with cold; 
 how can he escape being choaked and stifified 
 with the water, to signifie his buriall: and, thirdly, 
 be taken up, as this Disputer seems to reason? 
 But whatsoever be the danger of freezing, or suf- 
 focation; it seems this he holds the onely bap- 
 
SOME WITNESSES. 
 
 171 
 
 tisme, and must not therefore be swerved from.'* 
 Then follows the fourth reason which Dr. Whit- 
 sitt partly quotes; but he omits matters which are 
 necessary to a complete understanding of this 
 fourth reason. I will place side by side the origi- 
 nal and Dr. Whitsitt's version. 
 
 William Cooke's 
 words, 1644 : 
 
 Fourthly, will not this their 
 new manner of dipping be 
 found also against the Sev- 
 enth Commandment in the 
 Decalogue? For I would 
 know with these new dip- 
 pers, whether the parties to 
 be dowsed and dipped, may 
 be baptized in a garment or 
 no? If they may, then hap- 
 pily 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 baptizing 
 garments, more than the 
 Papists have for baptizing 
 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 confession of their 
 faith and repentance: yet 
 though they both sinne 
 against the Sixth Com- 
 mandment, indangering life, 
 and against all common 
 honestie and civilitie, and 
 Christian modestie required 
 in the Seventh Command- 
 ment, they must have this 
 way observed, because they 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt's ver- 
 sion, 1896: 
 
 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 dip- 
 pers whether the parties to 
 be dowsed and dipped may 
 be baptized in a garment or 
 no? If they may then hap- 
 pily 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 bap- 
 tizing garments, more than 
 the Paptists have for bap- 
 tizing Bells? Therefore be- 
 like the parties must be 
 naked and multitudes pres- 
 ent as at John's baptisme, 
 and the parties men and 
 women of ripe yeares, as 
 being able to make a con- 
 fession of their faith and re- 
 pentance," etc. (Pp. 21, 22). 
 
172 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 fancie it the onely bap- 
 tisme. Shall we thinke this 
 way the baptisme of John, 
 Christ and his Apostles?" 
 <Pp. 21,22). 
 
 And this is the witness? An enemy, a man 
 who must sustain his position by slander, and 
 manifestly betrays ignorance. If his information 
 had been equal to his knowledge his testimony 
 would have been conclusive. Any one would 
 know that these slanderous statements are justi- 
 fied by no facts. And even this witness does not 
 sustain Dr. Whitsitt. He says nothing about 1641, 
 and while he calls dipping new he likewise makes 
 the assertion that the Scriptures teach sprinkling. 
 This is the only date he mentions. Does he 
 mean that dipping is "new," since it was not 
 taught in the Scriptures? And then dipping 
 might have been "new" to him, and with his 
 knowledge of the Baptists it may have been prac- 
 ticed among them for a long time. He manifestly 
 was ignorant of their rites and ceremonies. 
 
 The Baptists in 1641 had a resolute and violent 
 opponent in the person of Daniel Featley. He 
 was born in 1582, and died in 1645. He was long 
 the determined opponent of the Baptists. In 1642 
 he held a discussion with four Baptists in South- 
 wark. His account of the discussion is to be 
 found in "The Dippers Dipt; or, the Anabaptists 
 Duckt and Plunged Over Head and Ears at a Dis- 
 putation at Southwark." I have examined the 
 first three and the sixth editions of this work. 
 He was so bitter that he declared: " I could hardly 
 dip my pen in any thing but gall." He nowhere 
 
SOME WITNESSES. 173 
 
 intimates that the Baptists or dipping were novel- 
 ties. In the Epistle Dedicatory, Featley says: 
 
 " Now, of all Hereticks and Schismaticks, tlie Ana- 
 baptist in three regards ought to bee most careftdly 
 looked into, and severely ptmished, if not utterly 
 exterminated aiid banished out of the Church and 
 Kingdom!' 
 
 His reasons are as follows: 
 
 ** First, hi regard of their affinity with many other 
 damnable Heretiques, both Aficient afid Later, for they 
 are ally^d unto, a?id may claim kindred with." 
 
 And then he gives a catalogue of all manner 
 of heretics: 
 
 " Secondly. In regard of their audacious attempts 
 upon Church and State, and their i?isolent acts com- 
 mitted in the face of the Sun, and in the eye of the 
 high Court of Parliament!' 
 
 Under this second heading Featley says: 
 
 " They preach, and print, and practise their He- 
 reticall impieties openly, and hold their Co?ive?iticles 
 weekly i?i our chief Cities, and Suburbs thereof, and 
 there prophesie by turnes ; and {that I may use the 
 phrase ^/ Tertullian) aedificantur in ruinam, they 
 build one another in the faith of their Sect, to the 
 mine of their souls; they flock in great multitudes 
 to their Jordans, a7id both Sexes enter into the River,^ 
 and are dipt after their manner, with a kind 
 of spell containing the head of their erroneous Tenets, 
 and thAr engageing themselves in their Scismaticall 
 Covena?its, and {if I 7nay so speake) combination 
 of separation. A?id as they defile our Rivers with 
 their impure washhigs, and our Pulpits with their 
 false Prophecies, atid Phanaticall Enthusiasmes, so the 
 
174 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 Presses sweat and groane imder the load of their 
 blasphemies. For they print not only Anabaptisme , 
 from whence they take their name ; but many other 
 most da^nnable doctrineSy tendiiig to carnall liberty, 
 Familisme, and a medley a7id hodge-podge of all 
 Religions!' 
 
 " Thirdly. In regard to the peculiar 7nalig?iity this 
 heresie hath to magistracy,'' etc. 
 
 He then proceeds to say that " with these 
 Hereticks I enter into Lists in the ensuing 
 Tractate." He then proceeds to tell us that he 
 has known these '' new upstart sectaries " for 
 twenty years near his own home. His words 
 are : 
 
 " As Solinus writeth, that in Sardinia where there 
 is a venemous serpent called Solifuga, {whose biti?ig 
 is present death) there is also at hand a fountain, i?t 
 which they who wash themselves after they are 
 bit, are presently cured. This venemous serpent {vere 
 Solifuga) flying from, and shunning the light of God' s 
 Word, is the Anabaptist, who in these later times first 
 shewed his shini7ig head ajid speckled ski?i, a?id thrust 
 ■out his sting near the place of my residence for 7nore 
 tha7i twe7ity yeers." 
 
 Here we have the explicit testimony of Featley 
 that the Baptists were dippers as far back as 
 1620 Prof. Vedder very truthfully says: 
 
 " These words of Dr. Featley are specially 
 significant. He professes to speak of Baptists 
 from personal knowlege, and though he was 
 bitterly prejudiced, there is no reason why he 
 should exaggerate in such a particular. Since he 
 wrote in 1644, his 'twenty years/ however care- 
 
SOME WITNESSES. 175 
 
 lessly he used the phrase, evidently carry the 
 date of immersion far back of 164 1." 
 
 There is also a conclusive passage in The Pref- 
 ace to the Reader. By leaving off some sentences 
 Dr. Whitsitt makes Featley give a date to the in- 
 troduction of immersion in England which Feat- 
 ley does not give. Featley begins with the Ana- 
 baptists in Germany in the time of Stock; that he 
 was a blockhead and kindled a fire out of the 
 chips from this block, that this fire was in Eng- 
 land in the time of Elizabeth and other sov- 
 ereigns, and that lately it has burned very 
 brightly. This is a very different thing from what 
 Dr. Whitsitt makes Featley say. I give the two 
 versions in parallel columns. 
 
 Featley's words, 1644 : Dr. Whitsitt's version. 
 
 Of whom we 77iay say, 1896: 
 as Irenaeus sometime spake 
 of the Heretick Ebon, the 
 Father of the Ebonites, his 
 name in the Hebrew signi- 
 fyeth silly, or simple, and 
 such God wat was he: So 
 we may say, the name of the 
 father of the Anabaptists 
 signifieth in English a sense- 
 lesse piece of wood <?;- block, 
 a7id a very blockhead was 
 he: yet out of this block were 
 cut those chips that kindled 
 such a fire in Germany, Hal- 
 satia, and Suevia that could 
 7iot be fully gue7tched, no ?iot 
 with the b loud of 1^0,000. of 
 thein killed in war, or put to 
 death i7i severall places by 
 Magistrates. 
 
 This fire in the reigns of 
 Q. Elizabeth and K. James 
 and our gracious Sovereign, 
 till now, was covered in Eng- 
 
176 
 
 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 But of late, he says, 
 since the unhappy distrac- 
 tions which our sins have 
 brought upon us, the Tempo- 
 rail Sword being other ways 
 employed a7id the Spirituall 
 locked up fast in the Scab- 
 bard, this sect among others 
 hath so far presumed upon 
 the patience of the State that 
 it hath held weekly Con- 
 venticles, rebaptized hun- 
 dreds of men and women to- 
 gether in the twilight, in 
 Rivelets and some arms of 
 the Thames and Elsewhere, 
 dipping them over head and 
 ears. 
 
 land under the ashes ; or if 
 it brake out at any time, by 
 the care of the Ecclesiasticall 
 and Civil Magistrate, it was 
 S0071 put out. But of late 
 since the tmhappy distrac- 
 tions which our sins have 
 brought upon us, the Tempo- 
 rail Sword being other ways 
 employed, attd the Spirituall 
 locked up fast in the scab- 
 berd, this sect, among others, 
 hath so far prestimed upon 
 the patietice of the State that 
 it hath held weekly Co7iven- 
 ticles, re-baptized hundreds 
 of men and women together 
 in the twilight in Rivilets, 
 and some arms of the Thames 
 and elseiv here, dipping the?n 
 over head and ears. It hath 
 Printed divers pamphlets in 
 defense of their Heresie, yea 
 and chcLllenged sojne of our 
 Preachers to disputation. 
 Now although my bent hath 
 been hitherto against the 
 most dangerous enemy of our 
 Church and State, the fe suit, 
 to extinguish such balls of 
 wildfire as they have cast in 
 the bosome of our Church, 
 yet seeijig this strange fire 
 kindled in the neighbouring 
 parishes, and many Nadabs 
 and Abihu's offering it on 
 God's Altar, / thought it my 
 duty to cast the waters of 
 Siloam upon it to extinguish 
 it. 
 
 There is still another proof from Featley that 
 the Baptists dipped and that dipping was the 
 practice of the Anabaptists on the Continent and 
 in England from the time of Henry VIII. Feat- 
 ley was answering a tract, which we quote in an- 
 other place, written by A. R. The title of this 
 
SOME WITNESSES. 177 
 
 book was the Vanity of Childrens Baptisme, in 
 which the author declares dipping to be the only 
 act of baptism. Featley does not deny that this 
 was the way the Anabaptists performed this act 
 nor does he say that it was a new thing, but rather 
 affirms what the author says and goes on to de- 
 clare that the Anabaptists always dipped. You 
 will remember that A. R. wrote in the year 1642, 
 and here is the answer that Featley makes to this 
 English Baptist: 
 
 " At Ziirick after many disputations between 
 Zuinglius and the y^w^baptists, the Senate made 
 an Act, that if any presumed to rebaptize those 
 that were baptized before, they should be 
 drowned. 
 
 " At Vienjia many A?iabaptists were so tyed to- 
 gether in chains, that one drew the other after 
 him into the river, wherein they were all suffo- 
 cated. {Vide Stipra, p. 61). 
 
 '* Here you may see the hand of God in pun- 
 ishing these sectaries some way answerable to 
 their sin according to the observation of the wise 
 man (Gastius, p. 18), quo qiiis peccat eo puniatiir, 
 they who drew others into the whirl-pool of 
 errour, by constraint draw one another into the 
 river to be drowned; and they who prophaned 
 baptisme by a second dipping, rue it by a third 
 immersion. But the punishment of these Cata- 
 haptists we leave to them that have the Legislative 
 power in their hands, who though by present 
 connivence they may seem to give them line: yet, 
 no doubt, it is that they more entangle themselves 
 and more easily bee caught. For my part, I seek 
 12 
 
178 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 not the confusion of their persons, but the co?ifusio?i 
 of their errours, two whereof A. R. undertaketh 
 strenuously to defend." (P. 73). 
 
 The two "errours" which A. R. " strenuously 
 defended" were immersion and believers' baptism. 
 Featley declares that these were the common 
 errors of the Anabaptists in England and else- 
 where. Featley in another place, after quoting 
 the law as given above, says: 
 
 '' Let the punishment bear upon it the print of the 
 sin: for as these sectaries drew one another into 
 their errors, so also into the gulfe; and as they 
 drowned men spiritually by re-baptizing, and so 
 prophaning the holy sacrament, so also they were 
 drowned corporally. In the year of our Lord, 
 1539, two Anabaptists were burned beyond South- 
 wark, in Newi?igton; and a little before them, five 
 Dutch Anabaptists were burned in Smithfield." 
 
 (P. 57). 
 
 Here is a direct admission that the Anabaptists 
 of England, as early as 1539, were dippers. 
 
 Dr. Featley quotes the article on dipping, which 
 is given elsewhere, from the Confession of 1644 
 and then says: 
 
 " This Article is wholly sowred with the new 
 leaven of Anabaptisme: I say 7iew leaven, for it 
 cannot be proved that any of the antient Anabap- 
 tists maintained any such position, there being 
 three wayes of baptizing, either by dipping, or 
 washing, or sprinkling, to which the Scriptures 
 alludeth in sundry places: the Sacrament is right- 
 ly administered by any of the three; and whatso- 
 ever is here alleged for dipping, we approve of, 
 
SOME WITNESSES. 179 
 
 SO farre as it excludeth not the other two." (P. 
 182). 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt quotes this passage with evident 
 delight. 
 
 Unhappily for Dr.Whitsitt, and " happily for us," 
 the passage is perfectly clear when we consult 
 Featley, and know exactly what he did say. It 
 is very evident from this passage that there were 
 two classes of Anabaptists, the " antient" and the 
 "new." Featley divided the Anabaptists into 
 three classes, two ancient and one " new." He 
 says: 
 
 "The first broached their Doctrine about the 
 year 250, which was this: That all those who had 
 been baptized by Novatus, or any other Hereticks, 
 ought to be rebaptized by the orthodox Pastors of the 
 Church. 
 
 "The second broached theirs about the year 
 380, which was this: That none were rightly bap- 
 tized bnt those that held with Donatus, a7id conse- 
 quently, that all others who had received Baptisme in 
 the Catholic Church, by any other save those of his 
 party, ought to be rebaptized. 
 
 "The third broached theirs in the year 1525, 
 which was this: That Baptisme ought to be admin- 
 istered by none, but such as can give a good accoimt 
 of their Faith; and in case any have been baptized in 
 their Infancy, that they ought to be rebaptized after 
 they come to years of discression, before they are to 
 be admitted to the Church of Christ y (P. 28). 
 
 Now it is clear that Featley regards the " new" 
 as dating back to 1525, or 126 years before 1641. 
 And in giving an account of the tenets of these 
 
180 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 Anabaptists since the Reformation he says the 
 first tenet, which is ^'peculiar to their sect!' is " that 
 none are rightly baptized but those who are 
 dipped." (P. 36). 
 
OTHER WITNESSES. 181 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 OTHER WITNESSES. 
 
 In 1644 an anonymous author wrote a tract 
 
 called the Loyall Convert. Of this tract Dr. 
 
 Whitsitt says: 
 
 The first of these belongs to the year 1644 and is 
 entitled "The New Distemper,' written by the author of 
 the " Loyal 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 dippers." ("True Story," page 
 50, with note). Dipping being for the author a " new dis- 
 temper," 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. 
 (Pp. 134, 135). 
 
 I did not have this tract in hand, so I wrote to 
 the British Museum in regard to it. The reply 
 was: ''There is nothing in this tract, either on 
 dipping or infant baptism or rebaptism. It is 
 simply on the subject of church government and 
 reforming the Liturgie." 
 
 I. Knutton wrote a book, 1644, against the Bap- 
 tists called Seven Qvestions abovt the Controver- 
 sie betweene the Chvrch of England and the 
 Separatists and Anabaptists. Dr. Whitsitt thus 
 refers to him: 
 
 " In that place (p. 23) Mr. Knutton had said, 
 'this opinion [of rebaptizing by dipping] being 
 but new and upstart, there is good reason they 
 should disclaim it and be humbled for it.' (Dexter, 
 True Story, p. 50). No finer opportunity was ever 
 presented to deny a charge with indignation if it 
 had been untrue." (P. 123). 
 
182 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 Knutton said no such thing. Here are his words 
 in answer to query 5.: "Whether it is lawful to 
 be baptized or no? When they heard this they 
 were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and 
 when Paul laid his hands upon them the Holy 
 Ghost came on them and they spake with tongues 
 and prophesied. So that there is no ground for 
 rebaptization. Wherefore Separatist does very ill 
 opposing our baptizing of infants, as proved be- 
 fore Lydia with all her household were baptized; 
 likewise we find no negative precept against pae- 
 dobaptism. Then such as oppose it do ill; for 
 they follow those pestilent heretics called Ana- 
 baptists in Germany, who sprang up there (when 
 the light of the gospel began to shine) not very 
 long since, being but new and upstart, there is 
 good reason they should disclaim it and be hum- 
 bled for it." 
 
 There is not a word in regard to dipping in this 
 quotation. And the words "new and upstart" 
 have reference to ** Luther's time," and not to 
 1641. 
 
 Ephraim Pagett, 1645, is Dr. Whitsitt's next 
 witness. He declares there were fourteen kinds 
 of Anabaptists, and following his method of 
 enumeration he could have numbered a thousand 
 kinds just as well. John Stoughton in his 
 Ecclesiastical History of England, From the 
 opening of the Long Parliament to the death of 
 Oliver Cromwell, says of Pagett: 
 
 " Certain parties under the Commonwealth had 
 the habit, and the fashion still exists, of exagera- 
 ting the number of religious denominations. 
 
OTHER WITNESSES. 183 
 
 Ephraim Pagitt in his ' Heresiography,' published 
 in 1654, gives a list of between forty and fifty 
 sects, the historical worth of which enumeration 
 we may estimate, when we observe that he dis- 
 tinguishes between Anabaptists and plunged 
 Anabaptists, between Separatists and Semi- 
 Separatists, between Brownists and Barrowists 
 and then proceeds to specify three orders of 
 Familists." (P. 365). 
 
 It is very certain that Stoughton has no very 
 high regard for the authority of " Old Ephraim," 
 as Pagett was contemptuously called. 
 
 Masson's description of ** Old Father Ephraim " 
 is rich. He says: 
 
 "A well-known personage in London, of hum- 
 bler pretensions than Featley was a certain 
 Ephraim Pagett (or Pagit), commonly called 
 ' Old Father Ephraim,' who had been parson of 
 the church of St. Edmund, in Lombard Street, 
 since 1601, and might therefore have seen and 
 been seen by Shakespeare. Besides other trifles, 
 he had published in 1635 a book called ' Christian- 
 ographia,' or a descriptive enumeration of the 
 various sorts of Christians in the world out of the 
 pale of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps 
 because he had thus acquired a fondness for the 
 statistics of religious denominations, it occurred 
 to him to write, by way of sequel, a * Heresiog- 
 raphy; or a Description of the Heretics and Sectaries 
 of these later times.* Jt was published In 1645, 
 soon after Featley's book, from which it borrows 
 hints and phrases. There is an Epistle Dedica- 
 tory to the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the city 
 
184 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 of London very similar in its syntax and punc- 
 tuation, and containing this touching appeal: * I 
 have lived among you almost a jubilee, and seen 
 your great care and provision to keep the city 
 free from infection, in the shutting up of the sick 
 and in carrying them to your pest houses, in 
 setting warders to keep the whole from the sick, 
 in making of fires and in perfuming the streets, 
 in resorting to your churches, in pouring out your 
 prayers to Almighty God, with fasting and alms, 
 to be propitious to you. The plague of heresy is 
 greater, and you are now in more danger than 
 when you buried five thousand a week.' Then 
 after an epistle to the reader, signed ' Old Ephraim 
 Pagit,' there follows the body of the treatise in 
 about i6o pages. The Anabaptists are taken first 
 and occupy 55 pages; but a great many other 
 sects are subsequently described, some in a few 
 pages, some in a single paragraph. There is an 
 engraved title page to the volume, containing 
 small caricatures of six of the chief sort of sec- 
 taries, Anabaptism being represented by one 
 plump, naked fellow dipping another, much 
 plumper, who is reluctantly stooping down on all- 
 fours. The book, like Featley's, seems to have 
 sold rapidly. In the third edition, published in 
 1646, there is a postscript in which the poor old 
 man tells us that it had cost him much trouble. 
 The Sectaries among his own parishoners had 
 quarreled with him on account of it, and refused 
 to pay him his tithes; nay, as he walked in the 
 streets he was hooted at and reviled, and some- 
 body had actually affirmed ' Doctor Featley's 
 
OTHER WITNESSES. 185 
 
 devil to be transmitted into Old Ephraim Paget ' 
 This seems to have cut him to the quick, though 
 he avows his sense of inferiority in learning to 
 the great Doctor. In short, we can see Father 
 Ephraim as a good old silly body, of whom people 
 make fun." (Life of John Milton, Vol. III., p. 139). 
 
 This picture is not overdrawn. My edition, 
 1647, i^ the Postscript, tells plainly that the 
 *' Sectaries," even of his own congregation, would 
 not pay tithes because, they said, he had slan- 
 dered them. Here is a book confessedly repudi- 
 ated by the Anabaptists, and yet this very book 
 is one of Dr. Whitsitt's principal testimonies. 
 Surely we are not to believe the enemies of the 
 Anabaptists when they directly say that they are 
 slandered. Certainly we would not expect this 
 from a Baptist! 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt makes this quotation under Pagett: 
 
 Yea at this day they have a new crochet come into their 
 heads, that all that have not been plunged nor dipt under 
 water, are not truly baptized, 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 authors. (P. 30). 
 
 But this quotation, as it stands, out of its con- 
 nection, does not properly reflect the mind 
 of Pagett. He had been discussing fourteen 
 kinds of Anabaptists, and declared they were 
 constantly changing their minds. He now comes 
 to the Anabaptists who originated in the times of 
 Luther, and these Anabaptists had taken up this 
 " new crotchet." He then proceeded to argue 
 that sprinkling was permitted in the Scriptures 
 
186 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 and sometimes it had been permitted in practice. 
 But he declares that both dipping and sprinkling 
 were allowed in his church. His words are: 
 
 "And both are allowed by our church; and 
 sprinkling hath been rather used among us, by 
 reason of the coldness of our climate, and the ten- 
 derness of our infants." (P. 31). 
 
 He emphatically declares that dipping was then 
 in practice, and that it was not a new thing. The 
 trouble with the Anabaptists is that they would 
 not recognize sprinkling. That was the conten- 
 tion of Pagett. He mentions no date and says 
 nothing about 1641. He contends that "true 
 baptism to be as well by sprinkling as by dip- 
 ping." (P. 31). But the Anabaptists did not 
 think so, and so Pagett proceeds to say: 
 
 " Of their manner of rebaptizing, and other 
 rites. They flock in great multitudes to their 
 jfordans, and both Sexes enter into the River and 
 are dipt after their manner with a kind of spell, 
 containing the heads of their erroneous Tenets, 
 and their ingaging themselves schismaticall Cov- 
 enants and combination of separation. In the 
 Thames and Rivers, the Baptizer and the party 
 baptized goe both into the Rivers, and the parties 
 to be baptized are dipt or plunged under water." 
 (Pp. 32, 33). 
 
 The careful reader will at once recognize these 
 as the words of Dr. Featley. Such was Ephraim 
 Pagett. 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt introduces as a witness Robert 
 Baillie, 1646, a violently prejudiced Scotchman. 
 He had some opportunities for observation, and 
 
OTHER WITNESSES. 187 
 
 had he been less prejudiced and more honest his 
 testimony would have some weight. He says in 
 the margin: "The pressing of dipping and the 
 exploding of sprinkling is but an yesterday con- 
 ceit of the English Anabaptists." 
 
 And his statement in the body of the book is: 
 " Among the new inventions of the late Ana- 
 baptists, there is none which with greater animos- 
 ity they set on foot, then the necessity of dipping 
 over head and ears, then the nullity of affusion 
 and sprinkling in the administration of baptisme. 
 Among the old Anabaptists, or those over the sea 
 to this day so farre as I can learn, by their writs 
 or any relation that yet has come to my ears, the 
 question of dipping and sprinkling came never 
 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 only 
 the other year by the Anabaptists in England, as 
 a point which alone they conceive is able to carry 
 their desire of exterminating infant baptisme; for 
 they know that parents upon no consideration will 
 be content to hazard the life of their tender in- 
 fants by plunging them over head and ears in 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 righteous- 
 nesse, if it be according to Scripturall truth or any 
 good reason." ( Anabaptism, the True Fountaine 
 of Independency, &c., p. 163. London, 1646). 
 
 Upon these words Dr. Whitsitt puts forward 
 this argument: 
 
188 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 Baillie in the above passage expressly declares that dip- 
 ping was ** a new mveiition of the late Anabaptists,'' " an 
 yesterday conceit of the English 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 position 
 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 1640 "none had so practiced in Eng- 
 land to professed believers," while in the year 1641 the 
 change from pouring and sprinkling to immersion was duly 
 inaugurated. 
 
 But Baillie's testimony and Dr. Whitsitt's 
 claims are open to several very serious draw- 
 backs, viz.: 
 
 1. Baillie nowhere says the Baptists began 
 dipping in 1641. It might have been an hundred 
 years before this, for the word " new," as we have 
 seen, is a very flexible one on the pen of this 
 class of controversialists. 
 
 2. Baillie is very guarded in his language. He 
 does not speak positively, for he only says that 
 " seems to be taken up," ** so far as I can learn," 
 ■" that has come to my ears," " as I take it," etc. 
 He does not say that dipping is a new thing, but 
 the pressing of dipping and the exploding of 
 sprinkling is a yesterday conceit. Yet it is upon 
 these evasive statements that Dr. Whitsitt founds 
 one of his principal arguments. 
 
 3. Baillie distinctly holds and maintains with 
 the same process of guarded words that infant 
 sprinkling is taught in the Word of God. Indeed* 
 this very passage says that dipping is not recent 
 " but a sparkle of new light," because it is not 
 Scriptural. Baillie says: 
 
 " Consider farther, that we doe not oppose the 
 
OTHER WITNESSES. 18^ 
 
 lawfulnesse of dipping in some cases, but the ne- 
 cessity of it in all cases: Neither do they impugn 
 the expediency of sprinkling in some cases, but the 
 lawfulnesse of it in any case. So both their doc- 
 trine and practice makes the state of the question 
 to be this; Whether in Baptisme it be necessary 
 to put the whole baptized person over head and 
 ears in the water or if it be lawfuU and sufficient, at 
 least in some cases, to poure or sprinkle the 
 water upon the head of the person baptized? For 
 the lawfulnesse of the sprinkling and against the 
 necessity of dipping. I reason thus. First, that 
 action which the Spirit of God in divers Script- 
 ures expresses formally by the name of baptisme 
 is lawfull and expedient to be used in baptism. 
 But sprinkling and pouring out of water upon thq^ 
 party baptized without any dipping is by the 
 Spirit of God in divers Scriptures formally ex- 
 pressed by the name of baptisme." (P. 164). 
 
 4. Baillie on this very point of dipping among 
 the Anabaptists contradicts himself. Baillie here 
 says that it is " a yesterday conceit," and that 
 it is the " new invention of the late Anabaptists." 
 But elsewhere in this book he declares that the 
 Anabaptists practiced dipping. In Chapter I. he 
 says: 
 
 *' Who are pleased to read the late little accu- 
 sate and learned treatise of Clopenburgh may per- 
 ceive that the Men?ionist dippers do oppose the 
 truth of Christ's human nature." 
 
 Here is a direct refutation, from Dr. Whitsitt's 
 principal witness, of the position that he has taken 
 that Mennonites practiced sprinkling. 
 
190 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 In Chapter II. Baillie says : 
 
 " For the stricter ingagement of the Saints and 
 godly party their adherents, and for the clearer 
 distinction of them from the prophane multitude 
 of all other congregations they thought meet to 
 put upon them the mark and character of a new 
 Baptisme, making them renounce their old as 
 null, because received in their infancy, and in a 
 false church. At the beginning this rebaptization 
 was but a secondary and less principall doctrine 
 .among them, for Muncer himself was never re- 
 b)aptized, neither in his own person did he re-bap- 
 tize any, yet, thereafter it became a more essen- 
 tial note of a member of their church, and the 
 crying down of infants baptism came to be a most 
 principall and distinctive doctrine of all in their 
 way. Unto their new gathered churches of re- 
 baptized and dipped saints they did ascribe very 
 ample privileges," etc. (P. 32). 
 
 In Chapter IV. Baillie says of the Anabaptists: 
 
 " Sixthly, they esteem sprinkling no baptism 
 at all ; they will have the whole body to be plunged 
 over head and ears in the water; this circumstance 
 of plunging they account so necessary and essen- 
 tial to baptism, that the change thereof into 
 sprinkling makes the baptism to be null." (P. 91). 
 
 And in Chapter V. he says: 
 
 "Although many of the Tenets mentioned in 
 the former chapter may be dissembled and denied 
 by divers of this sect, yet all of them will acknowl- 
 edge as their own, whatever almost is practiced 
 either by the Independents or Brownists, and 
 besides, two Tenets more, Antipedobaptism and 
 
OTHER WITNESSES. 191 
 
 Dipping. All who carry the name of Anabap- 
 tisme, though, through ignorance, they know not; 
 or through better instruction they dissent from 
 many positions of their brethren, yet will avowedly, 
 and oft with passion, professe their mind against 
 the sprinkling of infants, pedorantisme, to all 
 of them I ever heard of is an abomination." 
 (Page 137). 
 
 Here in the same book, by the same author, 
 are found a passage which declared the Anabap- 
 tists practiced sprinkling and four which say they 
 practiced dipping. I am not responsible for this 
 contradiction. Yet this is Dr. Whitsitt's witness, 
 
 5. We can prove by the Baptist Confession 
 of Faith of 1644 that Baillie was guilty of slan- 
 der. That Confession declared: 
 
 " The word baptizo signifies to dip or plunge 
 (yet so as convenient garments be both upon 
 the Administrator and subject, with all modesty)." 
 
 This same declaration was made by other Bap- 
 tists. Mr. Richardson, a very able Baptist, whom 
 Baillie quotes in his book, is pleased to say 
 of nude baptism, as charged by Dr. Featley: 
 
 ** But saith the Doctor, they goe men and 
 women together stark naked into their Jordans 
 (pp. 36 and 203). Wee answer, wee abhor it, and 
 deny that ever any of us did so, and challenge 
 him to prove it, against us, if he can; and if he 
 cannot, it is fit, he should be known for a slan- 
 derer, if he deserve no punishment for it." 
 (Some Brief Considerations, p. 11. London, 
 Feby. 25, 1645). 
 
 In the face of these denials Baillie affirms: 
 
192 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 " As for chastity, must it not be a great scan- 
 dall, in the face of all the Congregation where 
 alone, Sacraments can be duly celebrated, for men 
 and women to stand up naked, as they were born; 
 and naked men to go into the water with naked 
 women, holding them in their arms till they have 
 plunged them into the water? " (Ch. VII). 
 
 Here Baillie manifestly bore false witness 
 against the Anabaptists. If we do not believe 
 Baillie in this matter, why should we in the 
 other? 
 
 6. Baillie attacked the motives of the Anabap- 
 tists, and called them liars. In the margin of the 
 chapter from which Dr. Whitsitt takes his quota- 
 tion are these words: "The lying spirit of Ana- 
 baptisme." (Page 163). If you will notice the 
 extract which Dr. Whitsitt gives, you will see 
 that Baillie attacks the motives of the Anabaptists. 
 He says: 
 
 "The question about the necessity of dipping 
 seems to be taken up only the other year by the 
 Anabaptists in England, as a point which alone, 
 as they conceive, is able to carry their desire 
 of exterminating infant baptism; 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 in a cold river." 
 
 How did Baillie know that the Anabaptists 
 were not honest in the belief that they were 
 following the Scriptures, and that their only motive 
 in dipping was to " exterminate infant baptism?" 
 
 Baillie goes further, and charges the Baptists 
 with hypocrisy, and that they did not believe the 
 
OTHER WITNESSES. 193 
 
 Confession of 1644, and that it was only put forth 
 to mislead. His words are: 
 
 "Their ways as yet are not well known; but 
 a little time it seems will discover them, for their 
 singular zeal to propagate their way will not per- 
 mit them long to lurk ; only the Confession of faith, 
 which the other year seven of their Congregations 
 did put forth, and late again in a second corrected 
 Edition, have set out with a bold preface to both 
 the Houses of Pari.; may no more be taken for 
 the measure of this faith, then that Confession, 
 which the Elder brethren in Holland did not long 
 ago in the name of all their company." 
 
 Surely no one will endorse this prejudiced on- 
 slaught and slander of Baillie's; and yet this is 
 the man whom we are asked to follow. 
 
 7. Baillie was the bitter enemy of the Anabap- 
 tists and desired their destruction. The passages 
 which I have taken from his writings to this effect 
 are so numerous that I cannot give them all. A 
 few selections must suffice. He says: 
 
 " We have ended our directorie for baptism. 
 Thomas Goodwin one day was exceedinglie con- 
 founded. He has undertaken a publicke lecture 
 against the Anabaptists ; it was said, under pretence 
 of refuting them, he betrayed our cause to them; 
 that if the Corinthians, our chief ground for the 
 baptisme of infants, ' Your children are holy,' he 
 expounded of reall holiness, and preached down 
 our ordinarie and necessare distinction of reall 
 and foederall holiness. Being passed hereupon 
 he could no wayes cleare himselfe, and no man 
 took his part. God permits these gracious men 
 
 13 
 
194 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 to be many wayes unhappie instruments; as yet 
 their pride continues; but we are hopeful! the 
 Parliament will not own their way so much as to 
 tolerate it, if once they found themselves masters. 
 For the time they are loath to cast them off, and 
 to put their partie, lest they desert them." (The 
 Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, 1637-1662, 
 Vol. II., p. 218). 
 
 " Our next worke, to give our advyce what to 
 doe for the suppressing of the Anabaptists, Anti- 
 nomians, and other sectaries. This will be a hard 
 work; yet so much as concerns us will be quicklie 
 dispatched, I hope in one session." (P. 224). 
 
 " We spent a number of sessions on some prop- 
 ositions of advyce to the Parliament, for sup- 
 pressing Antinomians, Anabaptists, and these who 
 preaches a libertie for all religions. Even in 
 these our good Independents found in great dif- 
 ficultie; and, when we had carried our advyces 
 against their minds, they offered to give in con- 
 trare reasons to the Parliament." (P. 228). 
 
 " Many of them preach and some print, a liber- 
 tie of conscience, at least the great equitie of a 
 toleration for all religions; that every man should 
 be permitted, without any feare so much as of 
 discountenance from the magistrate, to professe 
 publicklie his conscience, were he ever so errone- 
 ous, and also live according thereunto, if he trou- 
 ble not the public peace by any seditious or 
 wicked practice." (P. 254). 
 
 Professor Vedder, after giving a number of 
 quotations to this effect from Baillie, remarks: 
 
 '• But enough, and more than enough, of quota- 
 
OTHER WITNESSES. 195 
 
 tions like these. Surely, no scholar who has an 
 atom of reputation to lose will venture to deny, 
 in the face of the proofs that have been produced, 
 that the Scotch Presbyterians, at least, advocated 
 persecuting principles of the plainest kind. 
 Were it worth the while equally satisfactory 
 proofs might be produced that these principles 
 were carried out into appropriate action." (Bap- 
 tist Quarterly Review, January-July, 1884). 
 
 A man who would not tolerate free speech and 
 liberty of conscience among the Anabaptists, and 
 worked for severe legislative enactments against 
 them, could not be expected to be impartial in 
 his statements about them. Such a man was 
 Robert Baillie. 
 
 8. Baillie was a Scotchman, and he thought that 
 Anabaptism would be contrary to the peace of 
 Scotland, and therefore he did all in his power to 
 cast reproach upon them. Hanbury, one of the 
 foremost writers on Congregational matters, after 
 referring to this book on " Anabaptism," feels 
 called upon to apologize for it. His words are: 
 
 " The object of the author being to deal par- 
 ticularly with the Baptists, so called, we feel it 
 difficult, or invidious rather, to set out his positions 
 in any way which shall not involve the present 
 representatives of that denomination in some of 
 the odium which he shows attaches to it. That 
 the descendants have rolled away the reproach 
 thus laid on their forefathers, is the shortest and 
 most efficient answer to Baillie's representation, 
 where he writes, ' The errors of the Anabaptists, 
 and their divisions among themselves, are so 
 
196 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 many that to set them down distinctly and in 
 good order, is a task which I dare not undertake; 
 much less can I give assurance what is common to 
 them all, and what proper to their several sects.' 
 (P. 29). It will help to expose the political 
 ground of his hostility by his nationality, thus: 
 ' This immoderate love of licentiousness * * * 
 puts them upon a high degree of hatred and 
 indignation against the Solemn League and 
 Covenant, against the Scottish nation whence it 
 came; as two great impediments to their quiet 
 enjoying of that self-destroying and God-provok- 
 ing liberty which, so passionately, they lust after. 
 Though for fear and other base respects, many of 
 them have swallowed down the Covenant in such 
 equivocal senses as are evidently contrary both to 
 the express words and known intentions of the 
 States which enjoin it; yet since the time their 
 strength and hopes are increased, these of them 
 who pretend to ingenuity and courage do not 
 only with bitterness reject it, but it is now become 
 the object of their public invectives as the most 
 unhappy plague that did ever come to England. 
 (P. 57).'" (Historical Memorials, Vol. III., p. 223). 
 
 Thus Hanbury continues at some length. 
 When we consider this mixture of political hatred 
 and religious intolerance I do not think from the 
 writings of Robert Baillie that we would be justi- 
 fied in reaching the conclusion that dipping was 
 an " invention " among the Baptists about 1641. 
 
 Another authority quoted by Dr. Whitsitt 
 is J. Saltmarsh. He was a Quaker, and opposed 
 to all baptism. Dr. Whitsitt says: 
 
OTHER WITNESSES. 
 
 197 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt's 
 sion, 1896: 
 
 ver- 
 
 Dr. Dexter also brings forward the performance of J. Salt- 
 marsh, entitled, " The Smoke in the Temple, Wherein is a De- 
 sign 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. (Page 135). 
 
 I am amazed at this quotation. I give parallel 
 columns: 
 
 John Saltmarsh, 1646: 
 
 6. That the form by 
 which they baptize, viz.: 
 I baptize thee in the name 
 of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, is a for7?i of man's 
 devising — a tradition -of 
 man, a new conseguefice 
 drawn from suppositio7i and 
 probability — and not a form 
 left by Christ, to say over 
 them at the dipping them 
 in the water : If Christ had 
 said, when you baptize them, 
 say this over them, I baptize 
 thee in the name of the Fath- 
 er, Son, and Holy Ghost ^ 
 and unless Jesus Christ had 
 left this form thus made up 
 to their hands, they practice 
 a thing made up by them- 
 selves, and drawn or forced 
 out of Jesus Christ's words, 
 in Matt. 28, 18. (Pp. 15, 16). 
 
 One-half of the sentence used by Dr. Whitsitt 
 from Saltmarsh I was able to find; but I read dil- 
 igently for the phrase, " as the new baptism." If 
 it is in Saltmarsh's book, it is certainly nowhere 
 near the other words, "the dipping them in the 
 water." This is marvelous in my eyes. • 
 
 I have been somewhat more successful with the 
 
 " the dipping them in the 
 
 water, as the new 
 
 baptism." 
 
198 
 
 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt's ver- 
 sion, 1896: 
 
 " Now within these late 
 yeares 
 
 next authority of Dr. Whitsitt, viz.: J. Parnell, 
 1655. I parallel Dr. Whitsitt's quotation with the 
 author's words: 
 
 The words of J. Par- 
 nell, 1655: 
 
 Now within these late 
 yeers the Light of Christ, 
 beginning to stir peoples 
 hearts, so that they come to 
 see themselves in much 
 darkness and ignorance of 
 these things which they read 
 of in the scripture, and also 
 the corrupted of the Priests 
 and Teachers, and what 
 Reprobates they were con- 
 cerning the faith, and that 
 they profited not the people 
 at all, but they had heard 
 them so long, and still minds 
 not being directed to the 
 light, which showed them 
 this, and should have led 
 them out of this condition, 
 upon which they should have 
 waited for direction to have 
 found the way of truth, but 
 they run without to the Let- 
 ter in their own wils and 
 wisdome, and so would find 
 out a way by their own wis- 
 dome and imagination, and 
 so went out to search the 
 scripture, but with a wrong 
 eye, giving their own mean- 
 ings and interpretations 
 upon the scripture, and one 
 cries this is my judgment, 
 and thus they are confound- 
 ed and divided into their 
 several Judgments and opin- 
 ions, yet all still in one life 
 and one nature, but onely 
 confounded and divided in 
 their Judgments of what the 
 Prophets meant, and Christ 
 meant, and which the Apos- 
 
OTHER WITNESSES. 199 
 
 ties meant, but it is as a 
 Book sealed, both to the 
 learned and the unlearned, 
 and none is found worthy to 
 open the seals, who is the 
 light wherein lies the minis- 
 trie; as this is the cause why 
 they whose mindes are from 
 the light, are so divided and 
 scattered in their judgments 
 and opinions, and one sets 
 up a forme in his imagina- 
 tion, and another sets up a 
 forme in his imagination 
 and one runs abroad into 
 the world with his wisdome, 
 and he will go preach up his 
 form and Judgment to be 
 the truth, and another he 
 will cry down that form for 
 delusion, and preach up his 
 form for a truth, and so 
 many deceivers and false 
 spirits, are entered into the 
 world, and one cries, lo here 
 is Christ if you can believe 
 and be baptized you shall 
 be saved; so they that can 
 say that is the way, and that 
 
 they believe Christ dyed for they (the Anabaptists) say 
 them, then they must be . . . . . they must be 
 dipped in the water, and that dipped in the water, and 
 they call baptizing of them, that they call baptizing." 
 and then they are of their (True Story, p. 51). 
 church, and they call them- 
 selves Saints, though they 
 are still in the old nature. 
 (Pp.16, 17). 
 
 From the above it will appear that I have been 
 able to find the first phrase ** now within these late 
 yeers," and the last phrase "they must be dipped 
 in the water, and that they call baptizing," but 
 the middle phrase "they (the Anabaptists) say " 
 does not appear. Did anyone ever see such 
 garbling? And when we really find what the 
 
200 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 author did say there is nothing about 1641 or 
 dipping being a new thing. This garbling was 
 done by Dr. Dexter from whom Dr. Whitsitt took 
 the quotation, without ever reading the original. 
 These are but samples of many other cases that 
 could be cited. 
 
A CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. 201 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 A CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. 
 
 The challenge has been put forth to name three 
 individual believers who were dipped before 1641. 
 I accept the challenge and answer it in three 
 ways: 
 
 I. There existed in England whole churches 
 of baptized believers before 1641. I refer to 
 another chapter for the existence and number of 
 Baptist churches in England before 1641. In 
 this connection I mention the names of only three 
 churches. Goadby, who has written an able Bap- 
 tist history, and the facts of which, so far as I 
 know, have never been disputed, says: 
 
 " But the three churches we have mentioned — 
 Hill Cliffe, Eythorne and Bocking— deservedly 
 rank as the most ancient Baptist churches in Eng- 
 land." (Goadby's Bye-Paths in Baptist History, 
 p. 28. London, 1871). 
 
 In regard to the Hill Cliffe Church, Rev. D. O. 
 Davies, Rochdale, England, who attended the 
 sessions of the Southern Baptist Convention, at 
 Birmingham, gives an interesting account. He 
 says: 
 
 " The oldest Baptist church in the country is 
 Hill Cliffe, in Cheshire, but on the borders of 
 Lancashire. The old church was built in a secluded 
 spot, far removed from public roads and enclosed 
 by a thick wood. Tradition declares that the 
 church is five hundred years old. A tombstone 
 
202 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 was recently discovered in the burial ground of 
 the place, bearing date 1357. In digging the foun- 
 dation to enlarge the old chapel, a large baptistery 
 was discovered which was made of stone and well 
 cemented. The baptistery must have belonged 
 to a previous chapel. Oliver Cromwell worshipped 
 at this church, and one of his officers occupied 
 the pulpit. It is one of the pre-historic churches, 
 and a regular Baptist church." (Shackelford's 
 Compendium of Baptist History, p. 274, Louisville, 
 1892). 
 
 Here are some of the statements that I take 
 from Goadby in reference to this church: 
 
 " We have reliable evidence that a Separatist, 
 and probably a Baptist church, has existed for 
 several centuries in a secluded spot of Cheshire, 
 on the borders of Lancashire, about a mile and a 
 half from Warrington. No spot could be better 
 chosen for concealment than the site on which 
 this ancient chapel stood. Removed from all 
 public roads, enclosed by a dense wood, affording 
 ready access into two counties. Hill Cliffe was 
 admirably suited for the erection of a ' co?ive?itic- 
 ula illicita,' an illegal conventicle. The ancient 
 chapel built on this spot was so constructed that 
 the surprised worshippers had half a dozen secret 
 ways of escaping from it, and long proved a 
 meeting place suited to the varying fortunes of a 
 hated and hunted people. Owing to the many 
 changes inseparable from the eventful history of 
 the church at Hill Cliffe, the earliest records 
 have been lost. But two or three facts point to 
 the very early existence of the community itself. 
 
A CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. 203 
 
 In 1841 the then old chapel was enlarged and 
 modernized; and in digging for the foundation, a 
 large baptistery of stone, well cemented, was dis- 
 covered. How long this had been covered up, 
 and at what period it was erected, it is impossible 
 to state; but as some of the tombstones in the 
 graveyard adjoining the chapel were erected in 
 the early part of the sixteenth century, there is 
 some probability for the tradition that the chapel 
 itself was built by the Lollards who held Baptist 
 opinions. One of the dates on the tombstones is 
 1357, the time when Wickliffe was still a fellow 
 at Merton College, Oxford; but the dates most 
 numerous begin at the period when Europe had 
 just been startled by Luther's valiant onslaught 
 upon the papacy. * * * * Many of these 
 tombstones, and especially the oldest, as we can 
 testify from a personal examination, look as clear 
 and as fresh as if they were engraved only a cen- 
 tury ago. * * * * Hill Cliffe is undoubtedly 
 one of the oldest Baptist churches in England. * 
 * * * -phe earliest deeds of the property have 
 been irrecoverably lost, but the extant deeds, 
 which go back considerably over two hundred 
 years, described the property as being ' for the 
 Anabaptists.'" (Goadby's Bye-Paths, pp. 21-23). 
 
 These facts are also confirmed by Cramp. 
 
 To show how deep seated is the conviction 
 among English Baptists that this Church reaches 
 into great antiquity I give an extract from TJie 
 Baptist, London, June 5, 1896. The writer says: 
 
 '* One fact, however, and one of some impor- 
 tance, seems to stand out with sufificient clearness. 
 
204 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 viz.: that so far as E7igla?td is coiicerned the Church 
 at Hill Cliffe is the link — not, of course that there 
 are no others, for these there are, as Mr. Compton's 
 article shows, but this is a material and tangible 
 link — of historic continuity between the Baptist 
 Churches of the present and those of the Pre-Ref- 
 ormation period. Here, at any rate, we get away 
 from the miserable and truculent negatives, 
 ' Nonconformity' and ' Dissent,' and reach an al- 
 titude where our position is not weighed and 
 measured by its relation to a * Church' which, 
 however imposing politically and socially, is one 
 to which we owe no kind of allegiance whatever, 
 and with which we have nothing to do." 
 
 I will now turn to the Church at Eythorne, 
 Kent. If the reader will turn to a former chapter 
 he will find much in regard to the Baptists in 
 Kent. Without repeating these statements I 
 shall relate some additional facts as given by 
 Goad by. He says: 
 
 '* The Church at Eythorne, Kent, owes its origin 
 to some Dutch Baptists, who settled in this 
 country in the time of Henry the Eighth. They 
 were, doubtless, tempted to make England their 
 home by the brisk trade that sprang up between 
 this country and Holland, soon after the marriage 
 of Henry with Anne of Cleves (1540). * * * 
 In the Calendar of State Papers (Domestic 
 Series, 1 547-1 580), under the date of October 
 28th, 1552, we have this entry: * Northumberland, 
 to Sir William Cecill. Wishes the King would 
 appoint Mr. Knox to the Bishopric of Rochester, 
 He would be a whetstone to the Archbishop of 
 
A CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. 205 
 
 Canterbury, and a confounder of the Anabaptists 
 lately sprung up in Kent.' * * * One singu- 
 lar fact, perhaps without a parallel, in the history 
 of this ancient General Baptist Church at Ey- 
 thorne, deserves to be mentioned; the names of 
 the pastors, from the close of the Sixteenth Cen- 
 tury to the last quarter of the Seventeenth Cen- 
 tury, were John Knott. The first John Knott be- 
 came the pastor of Eythorne somewhere between 
 1590 and 1600, and the last John Knott removed 
 to Chatham in 1780." (Bye-Paths in Baptist His- 
 tory, pp. 23-26). 
 
 Dr. Howard Osgood, the eminent Baptist 
 scholar, makes this comment: 
 
 " If we would make the first Baptist church to 
 appear under Helwise, in 1614, then we must deny 
 the historical evidence of the conventicles of 
 Baptists in the previous century. If we make 
 the church founded in London in 1633 the first 
 Calvinistic Baptist Church in England, we assume 
 that all the Baptists and Baptist churches of the 
 sixteenth century were Arminian in their views, 
 which has never been shown, and is contrary to 
 all probability. Baptists were found in the north 
 and west but principally in the east of England. 
 Under the dreadful persecution of the Tudors, 
 the churches knew little of each other, unless 
 they were situated near together. We hear more 
 of the Calvinistic church formed in 1633, because 
 it was situated in London and performed an im- 
 portant work in the following years. Joan 
 Bucher, who was a member of the Baptist church 
 in Eythorne, Kent, burned by order of Henry 
 
^06 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 VI., held this doctrine." {The Standard, 1875, 
 Chicago). 
 
 Goadby is equally confident of the history of 
 the church at Bocking and Braintree, Essex. He 
 says : 
 
 "In Strype's Ecclesiastical Memorials we find 
 these words, under date 1550: * Sectaries ap- 
 peared now in Essex and Kent, sheltering them- 
 selves under the profession of the Gospel, of 
 whom complaint was made to the Council. These 
 were the first that made separation from the 
 Church of England, having gathered congrega- 
 tions of their own.' They were the first, that is, 
 of which Strype had heard. The congregation in 
 Essex was mentioned to be at Bocking; that at 
 Kent was at Faversham, as I learnt from an old 
 register. From whence I also collect that they 
 held the opinions of the Anabaptists and the 
 Pelagians; that there were contributions among 
 them for the better maintaining of their congre- 
 .gations; that the members of the congregation 
 in Kent went over with the congregation in Essex, 
 to instruct and join with them; and that they had 
 their meetings in Kent, and in divers places be- 
 sides Faversham.' In other words, the Kent 
 churches at Eythorne, Faversham, Sandwich, 
 Canterbury, perhaps, and other places, helped to 
 build up, if they did not actually originate, the 
 church at Bocking.' 
 
 " Bocking and Braintree are two parishes di- 
 vided by the main road, and the whole is now 
 known as Braintree. The ' complaints ' by whom- 
 soever made, against the Baptists at Bocking, led 
 
A CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. 207 
 
 to their being watched, and about sixty persons 
 were in the house when the sheriff interrupted 
 their assembly. They confessed to the Council 
 that they had met to talk the Scriptures, and that 
 they had not communed at the parish church for 
 two years. Some were fined and set at liberty, 
 others were imprisoned, and remained until 
 Queen Mary came to the throne, when they were 
 released, only to betaken into custody, "and by- 
 and-by to the stake. * * * 
 
 " The Bocking-Braintree church-book, still in 
 existence, carries back the authentic records of 
 the church for more than two hundred years; but 
 there is no question that the origin of the church 
 itself dates back to the days of Edward the Sixth." 
 (Bye-Paths in Baptist History, pp. 26-28). 
 
 Here is an answer that is sufficient, if we had 
 no other. We present not three believers but 
 three Baptist churches which had existed long 
 before 1641. 
 
 2. I mention as three believers who were im- 
 mersed before 1641, William Kiffin, Hanserd 
 Knollys, and John Canne. 
 
 William Kiffin seceded from the Independents 
 in 1638. Of this Goadby says: 
 
 ** Five years after the above date (1638), a fur- 
 ther secession from the original church strength- 
 ened their hands. Among the seceders were 
 William Kiffin and Thomas Wilson. Kiffin, to 
 whose pen we are indebted for the account of the 
 origin of the first Calvinistic Baptist church in 
 England, thus speaks of the reasons which led 
 him to join Mr. Spilsbury: — 'I used all of my en- 
 
208 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 deavours, by converse with such as were able, 
 also by diligently searching the Scriptures, with 
 earnest desires to God that I might be directed 
 in a right way of worship; and, after some time, 
 concluded that the safest way was to follow the 
 footsteps of the flock, namely, that order laid 
 down by Christ and his Apostles, and practiced 
 by the primitive Christians in their time, which 
 I found to be, after conversion they were bap- 
 tized, added to the church, and continued in the 
 Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and breaking 
 of bread, and prayers.'" (Bye-Paths in Baptist 
 History, p. 351). 
 
 This Independent church to which Mr. Kififin 
 belonged was organized in 1616. Mr. Henry 
 Jacob was its first pastor and Mr. John Lathrop 
 was the second. In 1633, during the pastorate of 
 Mr. Lathrop, there was a division on the subject 
 of immersion and a Baptist church was organized 
 under the leadership of Mr. Spilsbury. Lathrop 
 in 1634 removed to America with part of his 
 church, where he still had trouble with his church 
 on the subject of immersion. Dean, who was a 
 very able historian and editor of a number of the 
 works of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 
 says: "Controversy respecting the mode of 
 baptism had been agitated in Mr. Lathrop's 
 church before he left England, and a part had 
 separated from him and established the first 
 Baptist (Calvinistic) church in England in 1633. 
 Those that came seem not all to have been 
 settled on this point, and they found others in 
 Scituate ready to sympathize with them." 
 
A CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. 209 
 
 It was to this church that Kiffin united. Indeed 
 so greatly was Kiffin in favor of immersion that 
 he soon left Spilsbury's church because they 
 occasionally admitted ministers to preach for 
 them who had not been immersed. Crosby says: 
 
 '* He w^as first of an Indeperidejit congregation, 
 and called to the ministry among them; was one 
 of them who were concerned in the conferences 
 held in the congregation of Mr. Hejiry Jessey ; by 
 which Mr. Jessey and the greatest part of the 
 congregation became proselyted to the opinion of 
 the Baptists. He joined himself to the church of 
 Mr. John Spilsbury, but a difference arising about 
 permitting persons to preach amongst them that 
 had not been baptized by immersion, they parted 
 by consent." (History of the Baptists, Vol. III., 
 
 p. 3-4). 
 
 All of this took place before 1641. (Ivimey's 
 "History of the Baptists, Vol. II., p. 297). This 
 settles the fact Kiffin was baptized before 1641. 
 
 I now refer to Hanserd Knollys. M'Clintock 
 and Strong say: "A few years before (1635)^ 
 though unknown to Williams, a Baptist preacher 
 of England, Hanserd Knollys, had settled in New 
 Hampshire and taken charge of a church in Dover; 
 but he resigned in 1639 and returned to England." 
 (Encyclopaedia Biblical Theology and Ecclesias- 
 tical Literature, Vol. I., p. 654). To confirm this 
 statement we have contemporaneous evidence. 
 Cotton Mather mentions a number of Baptists 
 among the first planters of New England, and 
 that some ministers of that persuasion came over. 
 He says of Hanserd Knollys: 
 
 14 
 
210 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 " Of them there were some godly Anabaptists; 
 as namely, Mr. Hanserd Knollys (whom one of 
 his adversaries called absurd K?iowles), of Dover, 
 who afterwards moved back to London, lately 
 died there, a good man, in a good old age." 
 (Magnalia Christi Americana, Vol. I., p. 243. 
 Hartford, 1855). 
 
 He wrote an autobiography of himself, which 
 was edited and completed by William Kiffin. 
 Knollys died September 19, 1691, and from the 
 words of Kiffin it is probable that he became a 
 Baptist as early as 163 1. Kiffin's words are: 
 
 "The author of these ensuing experiences was 
 that ancient and faithful servant of God, Mr. 
 Hanserd Knollys, who departed this life in the 
 ninety-third year of his age, having been employed 
 in the works and service of Christ, as a faithful 
 minister, for above sixty years; in which time he 
 labored without fainting under all the discourage- 
 ment that attended him, being contented in all 
 conditions, though never so poor in this world; 
 under all persecutions and sufferings, so that he 
 might therein serve his blessed Lord and Saviour. 
 I have myself known him for above fifty-four years, 
 and can witness to the truth of many things left 
 by him under his own hand." (Life and Death of 
 Hanserd Knollys, p. 47. London, 1812). 
 
 The Rev. George P. Gould, M. A., a learned 
 Baptist scholar of England, is now editing and 
 bringing out a series of Baptist Manuals, histori- 
 cal and biographical. In 1895 he published one on 
 Hanserd Knollys by James Culross, M. A., D. D., 
 president of Bristol Baptist College. After stat- 
 
A CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. 211 
 
 ing that Hanserd Knollys became a sectary, pro- 
 bably in 163 1, he declares: 
 
 " Had Baptists thought anything depended on 
 it, they might have traced their pedigree back to 
 New Testament times, and claimed apostolic suc- 
 cession. The channel of succession was certainly 
 purer, if humbler, than through the apostate 
 church of Rome. But they were content to rest 
 on Scripture alone, and, as they found only believ- 
 ers' baptism there, they adhered to that." (P. 39, 
 note). 
 
 The Rev. John Canne, author of the mar- 
 ginal references of the Bible was an eminent min- 
 ister of those times. When he became a Baptist 
 is uncertain but it was certainly before 1640. 
 He was found in Bristol in 1640, preach- 
 ing in •' public places" and was declared to 
 be a " baptized man," or an immersed man as 
 that phrase was used. I give a conclusive state- 
 ment from the Broadmead Records. These Rec- 
 ords say: 
 
 " Anno, 1640. And thus the Lord led them by 
 His Spirit in a way and path that they knew not, 
 having called them out of darkness into his marvel- 
 ous light by Jesus Christ our Lord. So that in the 
 year of our ever blessed Redeemer, the Lord 
 Jesus (1640), one thousand six hundred and forty, 
 those five persons, namely, Goodman Atkins, of 
 Stapleton, Goodman Cole, a butcher of Lawford's 
 Gate, Richard Moone, a farrier in Wine street, 
 and Mr. Bacon, a young minister, with Mrs. Haz- 
 zard, at Mrs. Hazzard's house, at the upper end 
 of Broad street, in Bristol, they met together, 
 
212 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 and came to a holy resolution to separate from 
 the worship of the world and times they lived in, 
 and that they would go no more to it. And with 
 godly purpose of heart (they) joined themselves 
 in the Lord, only thus covenanting, that they 
 would in the strength and assistance of the Lord 
 come forth of the world, and worship the Lord 
 more purely, persevering therein, to their end." 
 (Broadmead Records, pp., 17, 18). 
 
 The Records continue: 
 
 "At this juncture of time the providence of 
 God brought to this city one Mr. Canne, a bap- 
 tized 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 understand- 
 ing in the way of the Lord." 
 
 Mrs. Hazzard, who was the wife of the parish 
 priest, found him and fetched him to her home. 
 Then the Records say: 
 
 " He taught the way of the Lord more per- 
 fectly, and settled them in church order, and 
 showed them the difference betwixt the church of 
 Christ and anti-Christ, and left with them a 
 printed book treating of the same, and divers 
 printed papers to that purpose. So that by this 
 instrument Mr. Canne, the Lord did confirm and 
 settle them; showing them how they should join 
 together, and take in members." (Pp. 18, 19). 
 
 Mr. Canne then attempted to preach in a sub- 
 urb of the city and a wealthy woman placed some 
 obstructions in his way. The Records say: 
 
 " The obstruction was by a very godly great 
 
A CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. 213 
 
 woman, that dwelt in that place, who was some- 
 what severe in the profession of what she knew, 
 hearing that he was a baptized man, by them 
 called Anabaptists, which was to some sufficient 
 cause of prejudice, because the truth of believers 
 baptism had been for a long time buried, yea, for 
 a long time by popish inventions, and their 
 sprinkling brought in room thereof. And (this 
 prejudice existed) by reason (that) persons in 
 the practice of that truth by baptism were by some 
 rendered very obnoxious; because, about one 
 hundred years before, some beyond the sea, in 
 Germany, that held that truth of believers bap- 
 tism, did, as some say, did some very singular ac- 
 tions; of whom we can have no true account what 
 they were but by their enemies; for none but 
 such in any history have made any relation or 
 narrative of them." (P. 19,20). 
 
 " For good measure " I will also mention Paul 
 Hobson. Ivimey says of him: 
 
 ** He is mentioned among the rejected minis- 
 ters. Dr. Calamy supposes that he was chaplain 
 of Eaton College, and that he had a place of 
 command in the army; but observes, that if he 
 had conformed afterwards it would have made 
 some atonement, as was the case in other in- 
 stances. In addition to these circumstances, we 
 find that he was engaged as early as 1639, as one 
 of the chief promoters of founding a Baptist 
 church in London. He was one of the pastors 
 who signed the Confession of faith of the seven 
 churches in London in 1644." (History of the 
 English Baptists, Vol. L, p. 88). 
 
214 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 This statement of Ivimey that Paul Hobson was 
 a preacher is confirmed by Edwards. Edwards 
 who was a contemporary says that he had been 
 an Anabaptist preacher " a long time." This was 
 written in 1645, ^^^ an Anabaptist in the mouth 
 of Edwards was always a " dipper." Edwards' 
 words are: 
 
 " There is one Paid Hobson a Taylor, who comes 
 out of Bucki7ighamshire and is now a Captain, hav- 
 ing been in the Armies, who hath been a Preacher 
 a great while. This man when he was in the 
 Army, where ever he came he would Preach pub- 
 likely in the Churches, where he could get pul- 
 pits, and privately to the Souldiers; the subject 
 matter of his Sermons was much against Duties, 
 and of Revelations, what God had revealed to 
 him; he was a means to corrupt some precious 
 hopeful young men who went out of London; and 
 preaching one time against Holy Duties (as an 
 understanding man who heard him, related to me 
 and other company), he spake thus." Then this 
 further statement is volunteered: "This Paul 
 Hobson is one of those whose hand is subscribed 
 to the Confessiofi of Faith of the Anabaptists, set 
 forth last Winter." (Gangraena, p. 33. London, 
 
 1645). 
 
 Here is positive contemporaneous proof that 
 Paul Hobson was an immersionist in 1639, for he 
 was engaged in forming a Baptist church, and the 
 inference is that he had been a Baptist many years 
 before this. 
 
 The Reader will also call to mind that in the 
 chapter " On the Baptists before 1641 " I give an 
 
A CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. 215 
 
 account of a number of persons who were dipped 
 before 1641 in England. 
 
 3. The proof is positive that noted Baptists 
 after 1641, who were certainly dippers, positively 
 state that Baptist Churches, as they were then 
 organized, had long existed in England. 
 
 The first witness is William Kiffin. He makes 
 this declaration in a book called "A Briefe Re- 
 monstrance of the Reasons and Grounds of those 
 people commonly called Anabaptists, for their 
 separation," etc. A Mr. Poole had addressed to 
 him certain Queries for an answer. The second 
 Query was: 
 
 " By what Scripture Warrant doe you take 
 upon you to erect new framed congregations, 
 separated to the disturbance of the great Worke 
 of Reformation now in hand?" 
 
 To this Kiffin replied: 
 
 " Ans. This querie hath in it these two parts. 
 
 I. That we erect new framed separate congrega- 
 tions. 2. Wee do by this disturbe the great 
 Worke of Reformation now in hand." 
 
 He then says: 
 
 "To the first, it is well knowne to many, espe- 
 cially to ourselves; that our congregations were 
 erected and framed according to the rule of 
 Christ, before wee heard of any Reformation, 
 even at that time when Episcopacie was in the 
 height of its vanishing glory." 
 
 He further states: 
 
 "And for the second part of your querie That 
 we disturb the great Worke of Reformation now in 
 hand ; I know not what you meane by this charge, 
 
216 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 unless it be to discover your prejudice against us, 
 in Reforming ourselves before you, for as yet we 
 have not in our understanding, neither can we 
 conceive anything of that we shall see reformed 
 by you according to truth, but that through 
 mercie wee enjoy the practice of the same already; 
 tis strange this should be a disturbance to the in- 
 genious faithful Reformer; it should bee (one 
 would think) a furtherance rather than a disturb- 
 ance, and whereas you tell us of the work of 
 Reformation now in hand, no reasonable men will 
 force us to desist from the practice of that which 
 we are perswaded is according to Truth, and 
 waite for that which we knowe not what it will 
 be; and in the meantime practice that which you 
 yourselves say must be reformed." (Pp. 12-14. 
 London, 1645). 
 
 Here is a declaration by one of the most intelli- 
 gent Baptists of the times, whose sources of in- 
 formation were of the best, who declares inside 
 of four years of 1641 "that our congregations 
 were erected and framed according to the rule of 
 Christ, before we heard of any Reformation;" 
 and then he goes on to defend at length that these 
 congregations possessed the whole Truth. I do not 
 see how a statement could be more conclusive. 
 
 We are not shut up to this statement. Daniel 
 King, 1650, only nine years after 1641, wrote a 
 treatise called '' A Way to Zion, Sought Out, and 
 Found, for Believers to Walk In." This startling 
 proposition in the first part is proved, 
 
 " I. That God hath had a people on earth, ever 
 since the coming of Christ in the flesh, throughout 
 
A CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. 217 
 
 the darkest times of Popery, which he hath owned 
 as Saints and as his people.'" 
 
 The third part 
 
 " Proveth that Outward Ordinances, and 
 amongst the rest the Ordinance of Baptism, is to 
 contiime in the Church, and this Truth cleared up 
 from intricate turnings and windings, clouds and 
 mists that make the way doubtful and dark." 
 
 Certainly that would be a very arrogant claim 
 if the Baptists of England only began in 1641. 
 And what is more, this book of King's is indorsed 
 by Thomas Patient, John Spilsbury, William 
 Kiffin, and John Pearson. These men declared 
 that the assertion that " there are no true churches 
 in the world " and " no true ministers " has been 
 of '* singular use in hands of the devil." I quote 
 a portion of their words: 
 
 " The devil hath mustered up all his forces of 
 late to blind and pester the minds of good people, 
 to keep them from the clear knowledge and prac- 
 tice of the way of God, either in possessing peo- 
 ple still with old corrupt principles; or if they 
 have been taken of them, then to perswade with 
 them that there are no Churches in the world, and 
 that persons cannot come to the practice of Or- 
 dinances, there being no true ministry in the 
 world; and others they run in another desperate 
 extreme, holding Christ to be a shadow, and all 
 his Gospel and Ordinances like himself, fleshy 
 and carnall. This generation of people have 
 been of singular use in the hand of the Devil to 
 advance his kingdom, and to make war against 
 the kingdom of our Lord Jesus. Now none have 
 
218 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 been more painfull than these have been of late, 
 to poison the City, the Country, the Army, so far 
 as they could; inasmuch as it lay upon some of 
 our spirits as a duty to put out our weak ability 
 for the discovering of these grosse errors and mis- 
 takes; but it hath pleased God to stir up the spirit 
 of our Brother, Daiiiel Ki?ig, whom we judge a 
 faithfull and painfull minister of Jesus Christ, to 
 take this work in hand before us; and we judge 
 he hath been much assisted of God in the work in 
 which he hath been very painfull. We shall not 
 need to say much of the Treatise; only in brief, 
 it is his method to follow the Apostles' rule, prove 
 everything by the evidence of Scripture light, ex- 
 pounding Scripture by Scripture, and God hath 
 helped him in this discourse, we judge beyond any 
 who hath dealt upon this subject that is extant, in 
 proving the truth of Churches, against all such 
 that have gone under the name of Seekers, and 
 hath very well, and with great evidence of Scrip- 
 ture light answered to all, or most of their Objec- 
 tions of might, as also those above, or beyond 
 Ordinances." 
 
 Henry D'Anvers was one of the most influen- 
 tial and best informed Baptists of the seventeenth 
 century. He was a distinguished colonel in the 
 Parliamentary army and Governor of Stafford. 
 He wrote the most powerful book of the century 
 on baptism. He makes the most positive claims 
 of the long continuance of Baptists in England, 
 and that the Baptists had continued in " the good 
 old way." I quote two paragraphs: 
 
 " In the sixteenth year of King James, i6i8^ 
 
A CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. 219^ 
 
 that excellent Dutch piece, called A very plain and 
 well-growided Treatise concerning Baptism, that 
 with so much authority both from Scripture and 
 Antiquity, proves the baptizing of Believers and 
 disproves that of Infants, was printed in E?iglish. 
 •• Since when (especially in the last thirty or 
 forty years) many have been the conferences that 
 have past, and many the Treatises that have been 
 written pro and con upon the subject, and many 
 have been the sufferings both in old and new 
 England, that people of that perswasion have 
 undergone, whereby such light hath broken forth 
 therein that not only very many learned men 
 have been convinced thereof, but very many con- 
 gregations of Baptists have been, and are daily 
 gathered in that good old way of the Lord that 
 hath so long lain under so much obloquy and 
 reproach, and been buried under so much Anti- 
 christian rubbish in these nations." (A Treatise 
 on Baptism, p. 308. London, 1674). 
 
 Thomas Grantham was one of the greatest 
 Baptist writers of the seventeenth century. 
 Under date of 1678 he wrote: 
 
 " That many of the learned have much abused 
 this age, in telling them that the Anabaptists (i. e. 
 the Baptized Churches) are of a late edition, a 
 - new sect, etc., when from their own writings the 
 clean contrary is so evident." (Christianismus 
 Primitivus, pp. 92, 93. London, 1678). 
 
 I shall give the words of a Baptist, who closed 
 the century with a book on baptism. He speaks 
 with no uncertain sound. Joseph Hooke had read 
 largely on the subject, and his book shows that 
 
220 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 he was scholarly. He claims a succession from 
 the days of the apostles. Mr. Hooke says: 
 
 "Thus having shewed negatively, when this 
 sect called Ana-Baptists did not begin: we shall 
 shew in the next place affirmatively, when it did 
 begin; for a beginning it had, and it concerns 
 us to enquire for the Fountain Head of this Sect; 
 for if I was sure that it were no older than the 
 Mujister- Fight that Mr. Erratt puts in mind 
 of, I would Resolve to forsake it, and would 
 persuade others to do so too. 
 
 " That religion that is 7iot as old as Christ and 
 his apostles^ is too new for 7ne. 
 
 " But secondly, affirmatively, we are fully per- 
 swaded, and therefore do boldly, tho' humbly, 
 assert, that this Sect is the very same sort of People 
 that were first called Christians mAntioch, Acts 1 1 , 26. 
 But sometimes called Nazare?ies, Acts 24, 5. And 
 as they are every where spoken against now, even 
 so they were in the Primitive Times. Acts 28, 22." 
 (A Necessary Apology for the Baptists, Lon- 
 don, 1701, p. 19). 
 
ROGER WILLIAMS. 221 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 ROGER WILLIAMS. 
 
 I have read, and re-read, Dr. Whitsitt's chapter 
 upon " The Baptism of Roger Williams " with in- 
 creasing surprise. He argues at great length in 
 favor of sprinkling and then ends the chapter 
 with this remarkable concession: 
 
 In the present state of information it would be unwise to 
 pronounce with certainty any conclusion regarding this 
 question. However, within the limits of the uncertainty 
 which is freely acknowledged, the weight of evidence ap- 
 pears to incline very clearly towards the viev/ that Roger 
 Williams was sprinkled and not immersed at Providence 
 in 1639. (P. 164). 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt nowhere intimates that there is an 
 author who states that Williams was sprinkled. 
 His argument rests wholly upon inferences and 
 those inferences are not well grounded. His in- 
 ferences are: I. That the Baptists of England 
 were in the practice of sprinkling, and therefore 
 Roger Williams was sprinkled. His words are: 
 
 Is {here a.ny a priori reason for supposing that he was 
 in advance of them in this regard? 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 independ- 
 ence was employed in this particular direction? (P. 150). 
 We demand proof for the very thing he takes 
 for granted. I have already sfiown that this in- 
 ference is false, and that the Baptists of England 
 were not in the practice of sprinkling. And 2. 
 Williams was not dominated by the English Bap- 
 tists. Williams was an independent man, and ap- 
 pears to have been controlled by his own impres- 
 sions of the teachings of the New Testament. 
 
222 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 Dr. Whitsitt has declared that it was " proba- 
 ble " that Williams was sprinkled. All the world 
 has believed, and still believes, that he was im- 
 mersed. The burden of proof rests upon Dr. Whit- 
 sitt. He must present proof to establish his po- 
 sition. This he has utterly failed to do. All that 
 he has attempted is to explain away the force of 
 certain authors, and to quibble over the meaning 
 of the word wash. Then he admits that he does 
 '' no^. positively settle the question regarding the 
 act employed." (P. i^i). 
 
 I invite attention to some of the evidence in 
 favor of immersion. Every contemporary who 
 mentions his baptism, Williams himself included, 
 and all the later writers, declare that the act was 
 an immersion. 
 
 I shall first give some side lights on the sub- 
 ject. Dr. Whitsitt dismisses the fact of Mr. 
 Chauncy practicing immersion with this remark: 
 
 But nobody has shown that Mr. Williams regarded 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 conten- 
 tion. (P. 149). 
 
 But Mr. Chauncy cannot be dismissed so 
 lightly. There is a clear connection between the 
 immersions of Mr. Chauncy and the Providence 
 men. I shall give the explicit testimony of Gov- 
 ernor Bradford, then governor of Plymouth 
 Colony. He shows not only that Chauncy was 
 an immersionist but that the whole of New Eng- 
 land was agitated on the subject of immersion. 
 He says: 
 
 I had forgotten to inserte in its place how ye church 
 here had invited and sent for Mr. Charles Chansey, a rev- 
 
ROGER WILLIAMS. 223 
 
 erend, godly and very larned man, intending upon triall to 
 chose him pastor of ye church hear, for ye more comfort- 
 able performance of ye ministrie with Mr. John Reinor, the 
 teacher of ye same. But ther fell out some difference aboute 
 baptising, he holding that it ought only to be by dipping, 
 and putting ye whole body under water, and that sprink- 
 ling was unlawfull. The church yeelded that immersion, 
 or dipping, was lawfull, but in this could countrie not so 
 conveniente. But they could not nor durst not yeeld to him 
 in this, that sprinkling (which all ye churches of Christ doe 
 for ye most parte at this day) was unlawfull & an humane 
 invention, as ye same was prest; but they were willing to 
 yeeld to him as far as yey could, & to ye utmost; and were 
 contented to suffer him to practise as he was perswaded; 
 and when he came to minister that ordnance he might so 
 doe it to any yt did desire it in yt way, provided he could 
 peacably suffer Mr. Reinor, and such as desired to have 
 theirs otherwise baptized by him, by sprinkling or power- 
 ing on of water upon them; so as ther might be no disturb- 
 ance in ye church hereaboute. But he said he could not 
 yeeld hereunto. Upon which the church procured some 
 other ministers to dispute ye pointe with him publikly; as 
 Mr. Ralfe Patrick, of Duxberie, allso some other ministers 
 within this governmente. But he was not satisfied; so ye 
 church sent to many other churches to crave their help and 
 advise in this m.atter, and, with his will & consente, sent 
 them his arguments written under his owne hand. They 
 sente them to ye church at Boston in ye Bay of Massachu- 
 setts, to be communicated with other churches ther. Also 
 they sent the same to ye churches of Conightecutt and 
 New-Haven, with sundrie others; and received very able & 
 sufficient answers, as they conceived, from them and their 
 larned ministers, who all concluded against him. But him 
 selfe was not satisfied thervvth. Their answers are too 
 large hear to relate. They conceived ye church had done 
 what was meete in ye things, so Mr. Chansey having been 
 ye most parte of 3 years here, removed himself to Sityate, 
 wher he now remaines a minister to ye church ther. (Of 
 Plimoth Plantation by William Bradford, pp. 382, 384). 
 
 These extracts show that the whole of New 
 England was agitated on the subject of immersion 
 before the baptism of Roger Williams. The 
 churches took action on the matter. We learn 
 from Keyne's MS. that the Boston Church re- 
 turned answer to the Plymouth Church, June 21, 
 to " whether it be lawful to use sprinkling in bap- 
 
224 • DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 tism, or rather dipping; Mr. Chauncy being of the 
 
 mind, that it is a violation of an ordinance to use 
 
 sprinkling instead of dipping." ( Bradford's Hist. 
 
 N. E., Vol. I., p. 331, note). But as much as 
 
 Chauncy was admired at Plymouth the church did 
 
 not employ him, on account of his views on the 
 
 subject of immersion. This is set forth by Hooker 
 
 in a letter to his son-in-law. Shepherd, November 
 
 2, 1640. He says: 
 
 I have of late had intelligence from Plymouth. Mr. 
 Chauncy and the church are to part, he to provide for him- 
 self, and they for themselves. At the day of fast, when a 
 full conclusion of the business should have been made, he 
 openly professed he did as verily believe the truth of his 
 opinion as that there was a God in heaven, and that he was 
 as settled in it as that the earth was upon the center. If 
 ever such confidence find success I miss my mark. Mr. 
 Humphrey, I hear, invites him to Providence, and the coast 
 is most meet for his opinions and practice. (Felt's Eccl. 
 Hist., Vol. I., p. 448). 
 
 It will be seen from this letter of Hooker that 
 Mr. Chauncy was invited on his leaving Plym- 
 outh to go to Providence, for ** that coast is most 
 meet for his opinions and practice." That is to 
 say, they believed in immersion at Providence. It 
 cannot mean anything else, for Chauncy still 
 held to infant baptism. This is perfectly plain, 
 for Felt says of Chauncy, July 7, 1642: 
 
 Chauncy at Scituate still adheres to his practice of im- 
 mersion. He had baptized two of his own children in this 
 way. A woman of his congregation who had a child of 
 three years old, and wished it to receive such an ordinance, 
 was fearful that it might be too much frightened by being 
 dipped as some had been. She desired a letter from him, 
 recommending her to the Boston Church, so that she might 
 have the child sprinkled. He complied and the rite was 
 accordingly administered. (Felt's Eccl. Hist., Vol. I., p. 
 497). 
 
 So there is no difference between Chauncy and 
 
 the Providence men on the act of baptism. 
 
ROGER WILLIAMS. 225 
 
 This will also turn light on the banishment of 
 Roger Williams in 1633 from Plymouth. He held 
 Anabaptist opinions, which meant that he re- 
 jected infant baptism and believed in immersion. 
 The more you look into this the more probable it 
 becomes. I can only briefly present the facts. 
 In 1633 he was "already inclined to the opinions 
 of the Anabaptists." (Pablications of the Narra- 
 gansett Club, Vol. I., p. 14). For on requesting 
 his dismissal back to Salem in the autumn of 
 1633, we find the elder, Mr. Brewster, persuading 
 the Plymouth Church to relinquish communion 
 with him, lest he should " run the same course of 
 rigid Separation and Anabaptistery which Mr. 
 John Smith, the Se-Baptist of Amstersdam had 
 done." (Pub. Nar. Club, Vol. I., p. 17). 
 
 Wm. Gammel, after stating that Williams was 
 immersed, says very truthfully: 
 
 The very mention of the name of Anabaptism called up 
 a train of phantoms, that never failed to excite the appre- 
 hensions of the early Puritans. Hence it was when Mr. 
 Brewster suggested even the remotest association of Roger 
 Wilhams with this heresy, the church at Plymouth were 
 easily induced to grant his dismission which "he requested. 
 A considerable number of its members, however, who had 
 become attached to his ministry, were also dismissed at the 
 same time and removed with him to Salem. (Gammel's 
 Life of Roger Williams, p. 27). 
 
 Thus we are duly prepared for the statement of 
 
 Governor Winthrop, March 16, 1639: 
 
 At Providence things grew worse; for a sister of Mrs. 
 Hutchinson, the wife of one Scott, being infected with Ana- 
 baptistery, and going last year to live at Providence, Mr. 
 WilliamiS was taken (or rather emboldened) by her to make 
 open profession thereof, and accordingly was rebaptized by 
 one Holliman, a poor man late of Salem. Then Mr. Will- 
 iams rebaptized hmi and some ten more. They also 
 denied the baptizing of infants, and would have no magis- 
 trates. (Winthrop's Hist. N. E., Vol. I., p. 293). 
 
226 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 Putting all of these facts and side lights together, 
 it would prove that the Providence men practiced 
 immersion and that Roger Williams was im- 
 mersed. 
 
 We are not shut up to side lights but we have 
 positive testimony. We have just given the state- 
 ment of Governor Winthrop. 
 
 The argument of Dr. Guild, the learned Libra- 
 rian of Brown University, upon this statement of 
 Winthrop's is conclusive. He says: 
 
 " Perhaps Prof. Whitsitt makes the point that 
 re-baptism was not immersion. It has always 
 been so regarded in these parts from the begin- 
 ning. Williams himself has placed himself on 
 record as a believer in dipping." This argument 
 cannot be overturned by mere suppositions, and 
 nothing has yet been offered to upset it. 
 
 Coddington, who appears to have been an eye 
 witness, is conclusive. Coddington was governor 
 of Rhode Island and had an opportunity to know 
 what he was stating. He says: 
 
 "I have known him about fifty years; a mere 
 weather cock, constant only in inconsistency. 
 * * * One time for water baptism, men and 
 women must be plunged into the water, and then 
 threw it all down again." (Letter to Scott, 1677). 
 
 Prof. A. H. Newman, D. D., LL. D., says of 
 Coddington's testimony: 
 
 " It seems highly probable that Roger Williams 
 was immersed, though I once was of the contrary 
 opinion; Coddington, who seems to have wit- 
 nessed the ceremony, described it some time 
 afterward as immersion." 
 
ROGER WILLIAMS. 227 
 
 Prof. Vedder after giving the testimony of 
 Williams and Coddington remarks: 
 
 " I quite agree with my friend, Dr. Newman, 
 that this cannot be explained as other than a 
 reference to the baptism of Williams and others 
 by Ezekiel HoUiman, nor do I see how Codding- 
 ton's knowledge of the facts can be successfully 
 questioned. Taken in connection with the 
 negative testimony of silence — that we have, in 
 all the contemporary literature, not the slightest 
 hint of any change of method among American 
 Baptists — this seems to me virtually to settle the 
 question in favor of immersion in the case of 
 Roger Williams. While I would not affirm posi- 
 tively that he was immersed, I feel that the 
 balance of probability is decidedly on that side. 
 In fine, anybody who asserts that anything but 
 immersion has been practiced from the beginning 
 among American Baptists assumes the burden of 
 proof; and ingeiiious guesses about Mark Lukar and 
 things of that sort are not proofs. They may satisfy 
 the guesser, but he cannot fairly ask that a?iybody else 
 shotdd be satisfied with them!' {The Examiner, 
 May 21, 1896). 
 
 Richard Scott, who appears to have been an 
 eye witness of this baptism, for a time a Baptist 
 himself, and afterwards a Quaker, writing against 
 Williams thirty-eight years afterwards, says: 
 
 *• I walked with him in the Baptists' way about 
 three or four months * * * in which time he 
 broke from his society and declared at large the 
 ground and reason for it; that their baptism 
 could not be right because it was not administered 
 
228 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 by an apostle. After that he set upon a way of 
 seeking, with two or three of them that had dis- 
 sented with him, by way of preaching and pray- 
 ing; and then he continued a year or two till two 
 of them left him. * * * After his society and 
 he in a church way had parted he went to Eng- 
 land." (Appendix to Fox's Firebrand Quenched, 
 
 p. 247). 
 
 Scott makes no mention of a change of opinion 
 of the Baptists on the subject of dipping, for it is 
 very certain that the Baptists at the time Scott 
 wrote this practiced dipping. 
 
 Williams' own opinion on the subject of bap- 
 tism was always singularly clear. He declares 
 that it is immersion. In a tract which was sup- 
 posed for a long time to be lost, but which is now 
 in the British Museum, called " Christenings Make 
 not Christians," 1645, l"*^ says: 
 
 " Thirdly, for our New-England parts, I can 
 speake uprightly and confidently, 1 know it to 
 have been easie for my selfe, long ere this, to 
 have brought many thousands of these Nations, 
 yea the whole country, to a far greater Antichris- 
 tian conversion then was ever yet heard of in 
 America. I have reported something in their 
 Chapter 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 Bap- 
 tisme (or washing) though it were in Rivers (as 
 the first Christians and the Lord lesus himself 
 did) to have come to 2^ stated Church 7neeting, &c." 
 
 (P. II). 
 
 In a letter which we find among the Winthrop 
 
ROGER WILLIAMS. 229 
 
 papers, dated Narragansett, 9, 10, 1649, Williams 
 says: 
 
 ** At Seekonk a great many have lately con- 
 curred with Mr. John Clarke and our Providence 
 men about the point of a new baptisme, 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 
 first practice of our great founder Christ Jesus 
 than any other practices of religion do." (Mas- 
 sachusetts Historical Collections, Fourth Series, 
 Vol. VI., p. 274). 
 
 There is absolutely no proof that Williams 
 thought anything but immersion was baptism. 
 
 All writers and authorities, till recently, have 
 taken the ground that Williams was immersed. I 
 shall add a few of these witnesses. 
 
 John Callender, 1 706-1 738, says: 
 
 "But to take things in their order, Mr. R.Will- 
 iams is said, in a few years after his sitting in 
 Providence, to have embraced the opinions of the 
 people called (by way of reproach) Anabaptists 
 in respect to the subject and mode of baptism; 
 and to have formed a church there, in that way, 
 with the help of one Ezekiel Holliman." (Histor- 
 ical Discourse on Rhode Island, pp. 109, no). 
 
 Felt says: 
 
 " Williams as stated by Winthrop, was lately 
 immersed." (Eccl. Hist., Vol. I., p. 402). 
 
 Dr. A. H. Newman says: 
 
 " Contemporary testimony is unanimous in 
 favor of the view that immersion was practiced 
 by Williams. As this fact is generally conceded 
 
230 DID THEY DIP ? 
 
 it does not seem worth while to quote the evi- 
 dence." 
 
 Dr. George P. Fisher, Professor of Church His- 
 tory, Yale University, says: 
 
 " Roger Williams was baptized by immersion." 
 (History of the Christian Church, p. 472). 
 
 Bishop John F. Hurst, Methodist, says: 
 
 *' Williams was immersed." (Short History of 
 Christian Church, p. 516). 
 
 The Watchman, Boston, May 14, 1896, says: 
 
 " When he afKirms that the re-baptism of Roger 
 Williams was by sprinkling, he states what has 
 not been proved by historical evidence, and the 
 presumptions are altogether against such a state- 
 ment." 
 
 Dr. Newman says of Dr. Dexter: 
 
 '• Knowing that Dr. Dexter was master of the 
 literature pertaining to Roger Williams, and sup- 
 posing that his inclination would be wholly in 
 favor of the non-immersion view, I sought his 
 opinion on the question. His answer was entirely 
 in accord with my own conclusion. He expressed 
 the opinion that, in the absence of contemporary 
 evidence against immersion, Coddington's state- 
 ment must be accepted as probably correct. In 
 matters of this kind an ounce of fact is worth a 
 ton of conjecture." {^The Exami?ier, May 21, 
 1896). 
 
 Schaff says: 
 
 "In 1638 he became a Baptist; he was im- 
 mersed by Ezekiel HoUiman and in turn im- 
 mersed HoUiman and ten others." (Creeds of 
 Christendom, Vol. I., p. 851). 
 
ROGER WILLIAMS. 231 
 
 Against the inferences of Dr. Whitsitt that Will- 
 iams was sprinkled, I put the solid facts that 
 he was immersed. "An ounce of fact is worth a 
 ton of conjecture." Thus goes to pieces the last 
 proof of Dr. Whitsitt's theory. 
 
DATE DUE 1 
 
 n^^Ttiftk 
 
 
 
 
 T.-ijfca 
 
 
 
 '" ■' 1 
 
 \m 
 
 
 
 "C C ^'^ '-^ 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .DEC 
 
 8 mj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CAYLORD