Did they dip? or, An examination into the act of baptism as practiced by the English and American Baptists before the year 1641

Front matter

f CCfi*jCC <'

ccc <

LIBRARY. OF CONGRESS.

Introduction

B

T. T. Eaton, baptist book concern,

LOUISVILLE. KY.

Entered according to an Act of Congress, in the year 1896, by

JOHN T. CHRISTIAN, ^A^^^^J^^^, ^ ^ .

In the Office of the Librarian, Washingtott, D. C. ^ \\V/

Vi

U-j

LC Control Number

INTRODUCTION.

"pvR. CHRISTIAN has shown a remarkable "*-^ talent for gathering 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 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 absolute correctness of every one. He courts investigation, 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 documents, owing largely to his misplaced confidence 7

8 DID THEY DTP?

ill Dr. DexLer. And yet whoever replies to anybook must needs call attention to its misuse of authorities where such misuse exists. When, for example, such great stress is laid on the supposed testimony of the "Jessey Church Records," 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 Commission and the Court of Star Chamber went out of existence. Then, and not till then, could Baptists come from their hiding places and preach openly. Of course their doctrines and practices were new to a great many people. To find instances, therefore, after 164 1, 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 annoyance of the state clergy, who call them " new, upstart sectaries/' etc. The fact that in 1644 ^^-

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 immersion did not begin in England in 1641.

Then Dr. Joseph Angus, our great British scholar, has called attention to a number of Baptist Churches in England which trace their history to times long before 1641, e. g., Braintree, Eythorne, Sutton, Warrington, Bridgewater, Oxford and Sadmore. All the Baptists of England, so far as I know, believe that their fathers practiced immersion before 1641.

Dr. Whitsitt's contention is that from 1509 to 1641 the Anabaptists of England practiced affusion, and in that year they began to practice immersion. And yet he has not cited a single instance where any Anabaptists in England practiced affusion, nor a single case where any Anabaptist 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 obliged to hide and to speak with bated breath, yet we are not left in the dark concerning their practices. Outsiders told of them, and so we have direct testimony concerning them. Dr. Christian gives a good deal of this, and if any of it at all be valid Dr. Whitsitt's thesis is overthrown. Take for example John Fox's testimony in his Book of Martyrs, published in 1562:

There are some Anabaptists at this time in England who came from Germany. Of these there were two sorts; the first only objected to the baptising of children and to the manner of it by sprinkling instead of dipping. The other held many opinions anciently condemned as heresies; they had raised a war in Germany, and had set up a new king in Munster; but all these were called Anabaptists, from their opposition to infant baptism, though it was one of the mildest opinions they held.— Fox's Book of Martyrs, Alden ed., p. 338.

Thus it appears that both sorts of Anabaptists opposed infant baptism and sprinkling, but the first class " only objected to " these things, while the second class in addition to that " held many opinions anciently condemned as heresies." Fox's Book of Martyrs has long been an English classic; and no one has impeached its truthfulness. What motive could Fox have had for misrepresentation; and what possible reason exists for impeaching his testimony? And yet his testimony has got to be entirely set aside, or else Dr. Whitsitt's thesis fails. Ten thousand men saying after 164 1 that immersion was " new " to them would not offset John Fox's testimony that he knew of immersion in England in 1562. But Fox is only one of many.

One great good to come from this discussion is that Baptists will be better informed in regard to their history than ever before. Whatever may be the final outcome of the controversy, it must be

INTRODUCTION. II

admitted that Dr. Whitsitt has stirred up the Baptists in regard to their history 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., October 22, 1896.

Chapter I. A Statement Of The Case

Dr. William H. Whitsitt wrote the following article, which appeared as an editorial in The Indepe?ident, New York, September 2, 1880:

The Congregationalist speaks of " the well-known immersion 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 Co7igregationalist is more accurately acquainted with the origines of Baptist history than any of the Baptists themselves, and we expected that its statements would be more accurate. As we understand it, Roger Whhams 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 "catabaptlsm," or baptism by immersion. The baptism of Roger Williams is affirmed by Governor M-'inthrop 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 joining 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 concerning the mode of Mr. Williams' baptism ; but as it took place in the year 1689, we assume, as a matter of course, that sfjrinkling 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 immersed. Has The Congregationalist 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 England 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 innovation. 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 Co7igregatioiialist is far better instructed on these topics than ourselves, and we shall be grateful for some further " light and leading " with regard to the point at issue from it, or from Zions 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 Zions 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 Evan's "Early English Baptists." We refer a^so 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 Concerning the Christian Religion,"' which were published afier his death, by "the remainders of Mr. Smyth's company."

It was not until the year 1644, three years after the mvention 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 earliest 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 resttrc 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 coUegiant minister, the successor of the Brothers Van der Codde. This community was founded and immersion 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 Tlie Independent iox the name of the author. The Independent 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 Independent ^^MX-Oxi-dX^. 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 administering baptism, which is alleged was substituted m 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 "baptised 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. * * * The 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 Examiner, April 23, 1896; one in the Religious Herald, May 7, and the last a Statement, which was published in several papers. His book, " A Question in Baptist

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 investigations 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 presented 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 Examiner 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 Tlic Dr. Whitsitt in his

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 m

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.

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 myself, largely by researches among the King George's pamphlets, that my discovery was genuine, and established it by many irrefragable proofs from contemporary documents.

* * * H< 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 authentic. 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-Baptist," wherein he adopted my thesis, defended it by many citations, and entirely ignored my discovery as set forth in The Independent.

Naturally I was glad to gain such a learned and distinguished convert, and took little or no care of my rights in my discovery. =5: * * This discovery is my own contribution to Baptist history, 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 original authority and the first 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 publicly 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. Moreover, at the time when he gave himself to this particular labor, he had enjoyed wide experience in the business of origmal historical research, and his' acquaintance with the library of the British Museum was extensive and valuable.

Numbers of the citations which I had sought out in the year 1880, and which I still retain in manuscript form, I found reproduced in an independent fashion by Dr. Dexter in 1881. Likewise he fell upon a good many passages that I had not seen.

discoverer. My heart is wae to be compelled t» make these claims on my own behalf, 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 chiefest apostles," and I make bold, under the existing stress, to imitate his example.

More than two months, that is in July, i88o, before Dr. Whitsitt wrote his articles in The hidependeiit Dr. Dexter had written for his paper, The Congregatioiialist, an editorial on "Affused Baptists," in which he quoted many authorities; 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 Commonwealth," 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 historian, says: "The Anabaptists are an innocent and an ev^angelical 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 Anabaptists 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 English 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 foundation 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 existed from the times of the Apoetles. 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 Episcopalian, 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 heretical doctrines near Oxford, but the remainder still held on to their opinions in private until the time of Henry II. (1558), and the historian. Collier, tells us that wherever the heresy prevailed, the churches were either scandalously neglected or pulled down ^//^ ^'/z/^/z/^ left u?ibapticedy (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 Christian liberty to judge of its meaning, may be traced back in authentic manuscripts to the Nonconformists, to the Puritans, to the Lollards, to the Vallenses, to the Albigenses, and, I suspect, through the Paulicians and others to the Apostles." (Robinson's Claude, Vol. II., p. 53).

Evans, who is a very careful writer, says: "Dissidents from the popular church in the early ages, compelled to leave it from the growing corruption 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 foUow^ed them, are examples. They contended for the independence of the church; they exalted the Divine Word as the only star^dard' 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 imperishable. In the wild waste and fastnesses of Europe and Africa it grew. A succession of able and intrepid men taught the same great principles, in opposition to a corrupt and affluent State church, which distinguish modern English Nonconformists; and many of them taught those peculiar views of Christian ordinances which are special to us Baptists." (Hiitory Early Eng. Baptists, Vol. L, pp. 1,2).

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 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 distinction. 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 witnesses from the days of the Apostles to the present 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 principles 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 principles began to stir the wrath of Henry VIII. In 151 1 several persons were tried by Archbishop Warham for holding Anabaptist opinions. These 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 Anabaptists 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 abominable and erroneous opinions lately sprung in Germany.' " (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, rebaptized 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).

The old chronicler Stowe, 1535, gives the following 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 wittingly, 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 ordered 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 torture 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 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 Pelagians are to be held for detestable heresies." (Strype's Memorials of Archbishop Cramner, 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 popular to attract the notice of the national establishment, as is evident from the fact that at a convocation held in 1536, they were denounced as detestable heretics, to be utterly condemned. Proclamations to banish the Baptists from the kingdom were allowed, their books were burnt, and several individuals suffered at the stake. The last person 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 History, pp. 72-;4).