CHAPTER II.

IMMERSION IN ENGLAND (Continued).—PERSECUTION.

ET us now look at the practice of the people commonly known amongst the

the inference would be warranted, that their administration of the rite corresponded to that which they saw in the State Church; for their chief controversy with their brethren at that time did not relate to the mode,' but to the subject of baptism. Their important word was not how,' but to whom' should baptism be administered? Their foes called them 'Anabaptists,' those who baptize again. Their offense, as a general thing, was not that they administered this ordinance in a different way from other Christians, but that they baptized on a confession of faith those who had been 'baptized' in infancy. There was no sharp controversy in the earliest literature of the 'Anabaptists' on the method of baptism, although we have some clear definitions of baptism and some cases of immersion. But, as a rule, in the maintenance of baptism on personal trust in Christ, they said little of immersion until they saw it vanishing away before human authority, even in England, where it had maintained itself so long. Step by step, the Reformation in England was feeling its way first to the naked and radical question: Who shall compose the Church of Christ? The Roman yoke was broken, but in their efforts to rid the nation of superstition the Protestants were divided. The Puritans were still in the State Church, and many of them wished to stay there; but the Baptists took the ground that the pale of the Gospel Church could never be measured by the boundaries of the nation. The Church must be made up only of Christians, and the settlement of that question must radically change the British Constitution. The consequence was that they threw themselves first into the recovery of a purely spiritual Church, and then into the restoration of apostolic immersion. That the struggle was hard and hot is seen in the fact that about two hundred works, pro and con, were issued in the seventeenth century on the questions of infant baptism and dipping. Many of these are preserved amongst the King's pamphlets' in the British Museum, and others are lost. Public oral disputation on these subjects was rife also, in the hands of noted champions. One platform dispute was held in Southwark, 1642, between Dr. Featley and Mr. Kiffin; another in London, 1643, in which Knollys, Kiffin and Jessey took a part. T. Lamb and others held a third debate at Turling, in Essex, 1643; and a fourth was had in 1647, at Newport Pagnall, by J. Gibbs and R. Carpenter. S. Fisher and several clergymen held a fifth at Ashford, in

438

THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY ON DIPPING.

1649; and in the same year another took place at Bewdley, between Richard Baxter and John Tombes. Similar contests occurred between Dr. Chamberlain and Mr. Bakewell, in London, 1650; H. Vaughan, J. Craig and J. Tombes, at Abergavenny, in 1653; and still another at Portsmouth, in 1698, between Dr. Russell and Samuel Chandler, with his majesty's license.'

At the very time of these public disputations the Westminster Assembly met, by order of Parliament, and was in session from 1643 to 1649, and its discussions were sorely disturbed on this question of 'dipping.' Yet, according to Neal, there was not one Baptist in that body. Dr. Lightfoot,1 one of its leading members, kept a journal of its proceedings, and his entry for August 7, 1644, tells us of a great heat' in the debate of that day, when they were framing the 'Directory' for baptism, as to whether dipping should be reserved or excluded, or whether it was lawful and sufficient to besprinkle.' Coleman, called Rabbi Coleman' because of his great Hebrew learning, contended with Lightfoot that tauveleh, the Hebrew word for dipping, demanded immersion over head;' and Marshall, a famous pulpit orator, stood firmly by him in the debate, both contending that dipping was essential 'in the first institution.' Lightfoot says that when they came to the vote, ‘So many were unwilling to have dipping excluded that the vote came to an equality within one, for the one side was twenty-four, the other twenty-five; the twenty-four for the reserving of dipping, and the twenty-five against it.' 'The business was recommitted,' and the next day, after another warm dispute, it was voted that 'pouring or sprinkling water on the face' was sufficient and most expedient. How did this Presbyterian body, without a Baptist in it, come to such a great heat' on dipping if it were a novelty and an innovation amongst them in England?

It is a significant fact also that S. Fisher, in his Anti-Rantism,' complains that at Ashford and elsewhere the clergy would discuss only the subjects,' carefully avoiding all discussion of the method of baptism, a thing which they would have been slow to do if they had known that the 'so-called' new baptisin or immersion was, as such, an innovation in England. This they were careful never to charge. Dr. Funk, Catholic professor at Tübingen, dates the rise of sprinkling and its first prevalence thus: Throughout the fifteenth century, in decrees of synods, immersion is referred to as the general and orderly form of baptism.' Of sprinkling he says: The first sure evidence of its practice is met with at the Synod of Florence, when the Archbishop of Ephesus made it a subject of complaint against the Western Church' (1439). When it was introduced immersion long resisted it as a new form, and this scholar says that when water was poured upon the head the rest of the body was still immersed. On the general subject, he quotes from the Synod of Passau, 1470; of Wurzburg, 1482; of Besancon, 1571; of Aix, 1585; and Caen, 1614.

These discussions had produced such a growing distrust in the public mind on the subject of infant baptism, as early as 1661, that for the first time a form of service was introduced into the Prayer-Book for the public baptism of those of

·

IMMERSION NO NEW THING.

439

riper years. The preface honestly states the reason: 'By the growth of Anabaptism through the licentiousness of the late times, crept in amongst us, is now become necessary, and may be always useful, for the baptizing of natives in our plantations and others, converted to the faith.' The Baptists were assailed for attempting to restore the ancient state of things as if they had committed an unheard-of crime, and but for the history and literature of many centuries the clamor might lead to the supposition that immersion had never been heard of until they sought to restore the normal English baptism. They were called a 'New-washed company,' were charged with bringing in a 'new dipping,' a 'novelty' and an 'invention,' with being led away of the devil,' with murdering the souls of babes,' and a few other things of the same gracious sort. Bigotry and hate could not have raised a greater howl if immersion had then been practiced on English soil for the first time. And yet even Dr. Featley is compelled to say in his 'Clavis Mystrica,' 1636: 'Our font is always open, or ready to be opened, and the minister attends to receive the children of the faithful, and to dip them in the sacred laver.' Even in our day an attempt has been made to leave the onus of invention upon the English Baptists, in the matter of immersion, because simple-hearted Barbour happened to say, in 1642, that the Lord had raised him up to 'divulge the true doctrine of dipping.' Yet, his entire treatise discusses the question, What is the true ordinance of the dipping of Christ, and wherein does it differ from children's dipping?' In the very sentence which speaks of divulging the doctrine he says that it was received by the apostles and primitive churches, and for a long time unavoidably kept and practiced by the ministry of the Gospel in the planting of the first churches.' The word 'divulge' was not confined at that time to the sense of disclosing or discovering a thing, as now, but it meant primarily to 'publish.' Henry Denne was immersed in 1643, and preached the Gospel from that time on ward; and yet, in sending him forth on a special mission, the Baptist Church at Fenstanton, October 28, 1653, says that, 'On that day' he was chosen and ordained, by imposition of hands, a messenger to divulge the Gospel of Jesus Christ;' surely not to make it public, as a new thing. Barbour speaks of the dipping of infants' more than a score of times, as a thing with which all were familiar, but he says: That dipping whereof we speak is burying or plunging a believer in water, he desiring of this ordinance.'

6

6

There is less clear and decisive evidence of the practice of immersion amongst the English Baptists from 1600 to 1641 than might be desired, but the passage cited from Leonard Busher, and other proofs, render it certain that they did not first practice it in 1641. It is quite clear that some of them practiced affusion up to that time, while some immersed, but after that date affusion seems to have ceased amongst them and only immersion obtained. The case of John Smyth, who baptized himself in 1608, may be conceded to have been an affusion, and yet this is by no means certain, neither has his immersion been proved. After all that Dr. Hoop Scheffer and others have said on the subject, passages from Smyth's three

440

LEONARD BUSHER'S CASE.

Confessions of Faith are strangely in conflict with the thought that he practiced aspersion upon himself for baptism. Article XIV in his Latin Confession describes baptism as the external symbol of remission of sins, of death and resurrection.' Article XXX in his English Confession says: 'The whole dealing in the outward visible baptism of water setteth before the eyes, witnesseth and signifieth, the Lord Jesus doth inwardly baptize the repentant, faithful man in the laver of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Ghost, washing the soul from all pollution and sin, by the virtue and merit of his bloodshed.' The confession of himself and friends, published after his death, Article XXXVIII, says: That all men, in truth died, are also with Christ buried by baptism into death (Rom. vi, 4; Col. ii, 12), holding their Sabbath in the grave with Christ.' And Article XL, That those who have been planted with Christ together in the likeness of his death and burial shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. These utterances savor more of immersion than affusion, and yet they were probably written after his Se-Baptism, so that its form is left in doubt, with the probability that it was a dipping.

A feeble but strained attempt has been made to show that none of the English Baptists practiced immersion prior to 1641, from the document mentioned by Crosby in 1738, of which he remarks, 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 beginning, it may or may not have been written by Kiffin. The church referred to was that of which Messrs. Jacob and Lathrop had been pastors, but the fact that a part of this congregation did not know that the immersion of believers had been practiced in England cannot be accepted as decisive proof that all the Baptists were strangers to that practice, still less that it had never been known in England before 1641. It can scarcely be supposed that Leonard Busher should have written in 1614 that Christ commanded' those who 'willingly and gladly' received the word of salvation to be baptized in the water, that is, dipped for dead in the water,' and that he neglected to obey that command himself. He calls himself a citizen of London,' and his style as an English writer, though somewhat unpolished, was equal to the average of his times; he appears to have been acquainted with the Greek Text of the New Testament; he addressed the king (James) and the High Court of Parliament' as a man who had the right to address them as a 'citizen,' and with a full knowledge of English affairs. He speaks of himself and his brethren as: We that have most truth are most persecuted, and therefore most poor,' and his work bears internal evidence that at some time he had been exiled from his native land for his religion. The Address to the Presbyterian Reader,' which forms the Introduction of his Treatise, is signed H. B., supposed to be Henry Burton, and it says of Busher that he was an honest and godly man.' What the Treatise itself says of Robinson and the Brownists, with these circumstances, all point to the supposition that he was a member of the Baptist Church, formed in London by Helwys in 1612-14. But, in any case, the fair inference from his own

words is, that he was an immersed believer nearly thirty years before the MS. to which Crosby refers was written. The following is the text of that paper:

1640. 3d mo. 3d mo. The church became two by mutual consent, first half being wth. Mr. P. Barebone and ye. other half wth. Mr. H. Jessey. Mr. Richd. Blunt wth. him being convinced of Baptism yt. also it ought to be by diping ye Body into ye. Water, resembling Burial and riseing again, Col. ii: 12; Rom. vi; 4: had Sober Conference about it in ye. Church, and then wth. some of the forenamed, who also were so convinced. And after Prayer and Conference about their so enjoying it, none having so practiced in England to professed believers, and hearing that some in the Nether Lands had so practiced, they agreed and sent over Mr. Richd. Blunt (who understood Dutch) wth. Letters of Commendation, who was kindly accepted there, and Returned wth. Letters from them; Jo. Batte 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 diping 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 (wch. Word 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 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 increased much.

Dr. Featley, author of The Dippers Dipt,' born 1582, died 1645, bears direct testimony to the practice of believer's immersion amongst the Baptists at a much earlier period than 1641. In that year he held a dispute with four Baptists at Southwark; and, as he says, in his dedication to the reader, Jan. 10, 1644, 'I could hardly dip my pen in any thing but gall,' we may not suspect him as stating facts within his knowledge to their special advantage. Yet on this subject he says of them: They flock in great multitudes to their Jordans, and both sexes enter into the river, and are dipt after their manner. And as they defile our rivers with their impure washings, and our pulpits with their false prophecies and fanatical enthusiasms, so the presses sweat and groan under the load of their blasphemies. . . . This venomous serpent (verè Solifuga) is the Anabaptist, who, in these latter times, first showed his shining head, and speckled skin, and thrust out his sting near the place of my residence, for more than twenty years.' He conveys the idea that they had defiled the 'rivers with their impure washings,' in being 'dipt after their manner,' quite as long as they had defiled our pulpits' and 'presses,' and that near his own residence 'for more than TWENTY years.' To his knowledge, then, they had 'dipt' both sexes,' in the English 'rivers' from before A. D. 1624; his whole work treats of them as 'Dippers,' who in baptism always dipt,' and had he known that they had ever done any thing else, he would have been very happy to have charged them with now throwing aside the right method and with taking up the wrong.

When P. Barbour speaks of the way of 'new baptizing,' he also speaks of baptism having been 'in captivity in Babylon;' which indicates, not that the Baptists had now originated dipping in England, but that they had restored the historical