Newspaper Page Text
2
DR WHITSITT VS BAPTIST HIS
TORY.
BY W. A. JARKEL, D D , AUTHOR OF
BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY
NO. 6.
Dr. Whitsitt estimates “Evans’
Early English Baptista” very highly.
On this question he was unable to de
cide. But his work contains some
conclusive evidence that immersion
was the practice of the Baptists of
the sixteenth century. “But since the
magnified Reformation was set on
foot this town (as. indeed, most cor
porations, as we find by experience,
are nurseries of faction and rebellion)
is so filled With sectaries, especially
Brownists and Anabaptists, that the
third part of the people refuse to
communicate in the church liturgy,
anti half refused to receive the com
rnunlon of the blessed sacrament, un
less they may receive it in what post
tion they please to take it. They
have amongst them two sorts of Ana
baptists: the one they call the old
men, or aspersl. because they were
but sprinkled; the other they call the
new men, or tne immersi, because
they were overwhelmed in their rebap
tization.”—Evans' Early English
Baptists, vol. 2, pp. 52, 53. Those
who were just reforming out of pedo
baptist churches ami who had repudi
ated infant baptism but. had not yet.
gone so far as to repudiate affusion
were, from the custom of falsely stig
matizing Baptists as a new sect, call
ed the "Old Men.” But from their
custom of stigmatizing Baptists as a
new sect they called them the
"New Men,” or "the immersi,”
those who practiced only im
mersion. Commenting on this, Dr.
Esans well says: “This fact is Im
portant on more accounts than one;
Wo..st it can leave no doubt upon the
mind of the reader that, at this time,
both modes were practiced.” Idem,
p. 53. Remembering that this was at
the beginning of the seventeenth cen
tury and the close of the sixteenth,
it is worth more than the whole of
the falded “Jessey Church Records”
and all of the other strained and per
verted negative testimony put to
gether, produced by Dr. Dexter, Dr.
Whitsitt & Co. In truth, with all
unprejudiced minds, it should settle
the question in the language of Dr.
Whitsitt's witness, “it can leave no
doubt upon the mind of the reader
that at this time both modes were
practiced” one class of Baptists then
practiced only immersion. This is all
we claim and what Dr. Whitsitt has
denied.
We have seen that Fox testified to
the Baptists of tills time practicing
only immersion. Os Fox Dr. Evans
says: “Early in his career Fox had
frequent collisions with the Baptists.
The complacency with which he
records bis triumph is amusing.
* * * They * * * spoke of
their baptism in water. * * * We
asked them who baptized .John the
Baptist, and who baptized Peter and
John and the rest of the apostles?
and put them to proof by Scripture
that they were baptized in water; but
they were silent.” idem, pp. 327. 326.
Who can believe, if the Baptists were
at that time a “new sect” and recent
affusionists. that, instead of replying
as Fox and others did, they would not
have replied: Who baptized John
Smyth? Who baptized the men from
whom you recently got your immer
sion? What, right have you who orig
inated by beginning a new baptism
among yourselves to lie saying to us,
you are not baptized? A sect origi
nating as you did should hang their
heads }n shame when it thinks of
stigmatizing other people as being un
baptized.
Dr. Evans quotes the following
'rom Van Uulen, which in his exami
nation, about the middle of the six
teenth century, he said: “Every
man may baptize in water as welt as
a priest.” Idem, vol. 1, p. 81. To
baptize in water is so much a stereo
typed phrase, meaning only immer
sion. that no Baptist needs argument
to show that this citation points clear
ly to di piling. The persecution ami
examination of Van Bulen agree with,
something better than the fabled
“Jessey Church Records" they agree
with such a well settled history that
even Dr. Whitsitt dare not deny that
there were Anabaptists far back in
the sixteenth century; and it shows
that they immersed.
In his examination, by the notorious
persecutor, Bonner, about 1555. Rob
er> Smith, an Anabaptist inarytr, used
the expression, "So now if baptism
preach to me the washing in the
blood.”- Idem, p. 104. Being washed
“in the blood." the whole soul instead
of only a part of it being washed
only the whole man being baptized in
stead of only a part of him, was then
regarded baptism—“the washing in
the blood:' the washing in the water
Again, says Evans: "Not only the
existence, but the wide spread of
Baptist principles, during the reign
of the ’royal Tudor lioness,' is ac
knowledged on all hands. One of the
latest, and we are bound to say one
of the calmest anil most candid writ
ers on the I’uritanie history, says:
“But the Anabaptists were the most
numerous, and for some time by far
the most formidable, opponents of the
church. They are said to have existed
in England since the early days of the
Lollards, but their chief strength was
more abroad.”—ldem. p. 147. This
was spoken of the Baptists of about
the middle of the sixteenth century.
Wickliffe may never have united with
the Baptist churches of his day. But
he so fully taught near all their teach
ing that his followers did join them.
Thomas Fuller says: "By Lollards
all know the Wickliffeites are meant;
so that from Walter Lollardus, one
of their teachers in Germany, * *
* and flourishing many years be
fore Wickliffe and much consenting
with him in aggreement." -Church
Perpetuity, p. 320. The Lollards or
Baptists having been immersionists.
with no evidence of their apostacy
from the faith, we are driven to the
conclusion that instead of them hav
ing “invented” immersion in 1641—0 r
at any other time, they continued in
its practice.
My next proof that Baptist churches
instead of “inventing” immersion in
1641—0 r in any other time—always
practiced it, in the time under consid
eration, is the well-known existence
of Baptist churches long before 1641.
Says Dr. Evans: "The present pas
tor says: ‘We have no doubt that the
Baptist church at Tiverton existed
very early in 1600, or even before,
but we have no positive evidence.
Our second book begins with 1678. and
at that time the church consisted of
120 members, nearly sixty of them
men. The following is the heading
of the second church book: “A rec
ord or register of the church of Christ
in Tiverton, and of the affairs and
proceedings thereof, since by the
mercy and providence of God, we
have the enjoyment of liberty and
peace, in the year 1687. Our former
book containing matters of this na
ture being lost in the time of
trouble.’ ’’—ldem, p. 26. Says Goad-
by: "Tiverton church is said to have
existed since the last days of Queen
Elizabeth.”—Goadby's Bye Paths to
Baptist History, pp. 22-24. This proves
the Tiverton church was a Baptist
church as early as 1603, at the latest.
Says Neal: “Dr. Wall ♦ * *
seems anxious to persuade his read
ers there were no Baptists in Eng
land when Henry the VIII. ascended
the throne at the commencement of
the sixteenth century, A. I). 1511. But
upon that supposition it. is not easy
to account for tne sanguinary statutes
which in the early part of this reign
were put forth against the Baptist.
* * * If the country did not
abound with Baptists at that time,
why were those severe measures en
forced against them? * * * In
1536 the sect of the Anabaptists is
specified and condemned. In fact, it
is easy to trace the Baptists at least
a hundred years prior to the time
mentioned by Fuller"- “at least" to
1438. * * * In 1589 the same fact
is admitted by Dr. Some in his reply
to Barrow, etc. He affirms that there
were several Anabaptist conventicles
in London and other places. They
were not Dutchmen, certainly not ex
clusively so, for he says: “Some per
sons of these sentiments have been
bred in our universities." Neal’s His
tory of the Puritans, vol. 2, pp. 354-355,
166. “Conventicles” were, at the
time under consideration, often used
to designate churches. Os conventi
cles being then another name for
churches, see the most ample proof in
Church Perpetuity, pp. 342-344. Says
Ivimey: “It seems that the Baptists
had. at this early period, formed dis
tinct churches of persons of their own
sentiments, both in London and in
different parts of the country.” Ivi
mey's Historical Baptists, vol. 1. p.
108. Again, says Ivimey: “The
cnurches of Kent can boast of a. great
antiquity. * * * It has been al
ready mentioned (bat. there is tradi
tionary evidence that the Baptist
church of Canterbury has existed
250 years; and that the church of
Eyethorn is nearly of as early an
origin. In a letter from the present
pastor of that church I am informed
that more than 220 years ago persons
of the General Baptist, denomination
met for the worship of God at Eye
thorn.” Idem, pp. 286-217. The vol
ume whence I quote this having been
written in 1814. this puts the Can
teroury Baptist church, at least, as
far back as 1564, and the Eyethorn
to 1591. Here, then, existing in Kent,
is one church in “1552,” the Canter
bury in 1564, the Eyethorn in 1591.
Goadby says: "One singular fact,
perhaps without a parallel in the his
tory of the General Baptist church at
Eyei..orn, deserves to me mentioned:
the names of the pastors from the
close of the sixteenth to the last
quarter of the seventeenth century,
were John Knott. The first John
Knott became pastor of the Eye
thorn church somewhere between
1590 and 1600 and the last John Knott
removed to Chatham in 1780.” Os the
church at Chatham Goadby says: “It
is worthy of record that the church
of Christ in this little village con
tinued more than three hundred years
without a single unfriendly division
and with a steadfast adherence to the
faith and practice of the Primitive
church." Goadby’s Bye Paths to Bap
tist History, pp. 24-26. This dearly
dales the Chatham church as far back
as 15i6, with a certain previous exist
ence of many years. Instead of leav
ing immersion to be “invented" in
1641, as Dr. Whitsitt's wonderful "dis
covery” says it was. the unquestion
able record of this church shows that
since, nt least), as far 'back as 1576 it
has continued “with a steadfast ad
herence to the faith and practice of
the primitive church,” having pre
served even the names of its pastors
as far back as 1600. at least.
Says Goadby: “We have reliable
evidence that a Separatist, and prob
aldy a Baptist church, lias existed in
a secluded spot of Cheshire, on the
borders of Lancashire, about a half
mile from Warrington, for several
centuries. No spot could be better
chosen for concealment than the spot
on which the chapel stood. Removed
from all public roads, enclosed by a
dense wood, affording ready access
into two counties, Hill Cliffe was ad
mirably situated for the erection of a
‘conventieula illicita,’ an illegal con
venticle. The ancient chapel built, on
this spot was so constructed that the
surprised worshipers had half a dozen
secret ways of escaping f m 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 commu
nity itself. In 1841 the then old
chapel was enlarged and modified;
and in digging for the foundation, a
large baptistry of stone, well ce
mented. was discovered. How long
this bad been covered up and at what
period it had been erected, it is im
possible to state; but as some of the
tombstones in the graveyard adjoin
ing the chapel were erected in the
sixteenth century, there is some prob
ability for the tradition that the
chapel itself was built by the Lol
lards who held Baptist opinions. One
of the dates on the tombstone 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 was startled
by Luther's valiant onslaught on the
papacy. * ♦ » Many of these
tombstones, and especially the oldest,
as we can testify from a personal ex
amination. look as clear and as fresh
as if they were engraved only a cen
tury ago. * * * Hill Cliffe is un
doubtedly one of the oldest Baptist
churches in England. * * * The
earliest deeds of the property have
been irrevocably lost, but the extant
deeds, which go back considerably
over 200 years, described the property
as being for the Anabaptists.”—Goad
by's Bye Paths of Baptist History,
pp. 22-23. Rev. D. O. Davis, of Rock
dale. England, who visited the South
ern Baptist Convention in 1891, says:
“The oldest Baptist church in this
country is Hill Cliffe. * * * Tra
dition declares that church is 500
years old."—Church Perpetuity, p.
339. Here tradition and very strong
circumstantial evidence point to the
Hill Cliffe Baptist church as being in
existence, at least, as far back as the
middle of the fourteenth century. (1)
Its graveyard being unquestionably in
existence in 1357. We know the cus
tom from time immemorial to begin
a graveyard near a church. (2) The
deed of the latter part of the sev
enteenth century stating that it was
Baptist property. (3) The fact that
the Lollards were Baptists and that
tradition states the chapel was a Lol
lard chapel. (4) The baptistry, as
Dr. Davis says, “must have belonged
to a previous chapel." (5) There is
not a scrap of tradition or any kind
of evidence that this church ever be
longed to other than a Baptist
church. (6) The baptistry having be
longed to a chapel previous to the
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX: THURSDAY. NOVEMBER 12. 18H6.
one rebuilt in 1841, Indicates that dip
ping has been the practice of this
church from forgotten and unrecord
ed times. Had the position of Dr.
Whitsitt been sustained by a Baptist
church with a font of a size only for
sprinkling he would have crowed and
crowed over it as settling the point
in his favor, whatever is the evidence
to the contrary. But there Is all this
eviaence, uncontradietcd by a scrap of
evidence, clearly contradicting Dr.
Whitsitt & Co.
Writing to the Watchman from
England, In 1894, Dr. Lorimer says:
"The Baptist church of Oxford was
organized 150 years ago; and it grew
out of the remains of a pre-existing
congregation; and I am assured by
Mr. Dan that from reliable records,
and traditions not quite so reliable,
there have been Baptists in this neigl -
borhood reaching back to a time an
terior to that of Wickliffe. * * * I
am sure, could I take the time and
follow out such lines as the worthy
pastor here has suggested, that the
result would be fruitful in memorials
of our people going back to the days
of the early British church that was
supplanted and overshadowed by
the incoming of Augustine and his
monks. While I have no sympathy
with the doctrine of apostolic succes
sion, I am sure that companies of the
faithful have been found in various
portions of Europe from ti.e earliest
times to the present, and that num
bers of them can be found in various
parts of dear old England. To be a
Baptist in this community in former
times required considerable convic
tion of conscience."
Says Collier: “On Easter day * *
* a conventicle of Dutch Baptists
was discovered at a house without
the bars of Oldgate. Twenty-seven of
them were seized and committed.”
Collier's Ecclesiastical History of
Great Britain, vol. 6, p. 543.
Bishop Thomas Fowler Short says
that in 1549, "Complaints had been
brought to the council of the preva
lence of Anabaptists. * * * To
check the progress of their opinions a
commission was appointed.”- Bi.-hop
Fowler nnort’s History of England, p.
92. There are few facts on which his
torians, both Baptist and pedobap
tist, are more agreed than that there
were Baptist churches in England
from the earliest times In my I'iinri b
Perpetuity the reader may find this
most convincing proof continued as
it is in no other work. As Mosheim
so well says of Baptists: "Before the
rise of Luther and Calvin" they “lay
concealed in almost all the countries
of Europe.”—Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist.
Cent. 16, sec. 3.
Os the Baptists existing long before
the Reformation “Religions of the
World, by Fifteen Eminent Scholars,"
says: “Their claim to this high an
tiquity, it would seem, is well found
ed, for historians, not Baptists, anti
who could have no motive except fidel
ity to facts concede it.”- pp. 405, 406.
The only evasion that can be made
of these facts is to deny they were
Baptists, or that they did immerse.
But, in the absence of any respectable
contradictory evid< nee, that they wer".
and with the evidence so clear that
they were, to leave that desperate
evasion to Baptist enemies is much
more becoming Baptists. Pedobaptist
historians of those early, as well as
of later, times have not hesitated to
set them down not only under the
name Anabaptists, but under the
name Baptists. Some try to evade the
force of all this evidence by saying,
"the Anabaptists and Baptists are not
identical. ’ But Professor Lyon, of
Harvard University, in a letter from
Germany, incidentally shows tAat the
scholarship of Germany regards them
the same people. In a letter from
Leipsic, January 4, 1881, he says:
“Baptists are regarded the lineal de
scendants of the Anabaptists of Lu
ther’s time." The late Dr. Philip
Schaff said: “The Mennonites and
Regular Baptists of America are the
true successors of the Anabaptists of
the sixteenth century and help to un
derstand and appreciate the latter."
Baptist Quarterly Rev., vol. 12. 9. 43.
Bancroft says: "The principles of
the Anabaptists, safe in their immor
tality, escaped to Providence." Hist.
U. S., vol. 1. p. 358 (old ed).
In the early days New England Bap
tists were known under the name
“Anabaptists.” Why ask that we
prove these Bap..st churches always
immersed? How, in the name of all
Baptist orthodoxy, could they have
been Baptists without always having
been immersionists? Words must
have some well settled meaning. The
term Baptist has always designated
those who rejected infant baptism
and were exclusive dippers. To ask
me to prove that the people of the
United States of America, who have
always been called Baptists, have al
ways practiced immersion would be
no more unreasonable than to ask me
to prove that the English Baptists al
ways dipped. There are some things
so well established and self-evident
that to deny or call them in question
is bin to trifle with truth. That Bap
tists always immersed is so clear that
calling it in question is but trifling
with truth and with the sacred repu
tation of those who, through flames
and dungeons, handed down to us the
precious truth and practice of the
Gospel. In this trifling with well set
tled and certain Baptist history we
have the trifling so-called “higher
criticism" adopted into church his
tory. Notwithstanding that its
strength is in only preversion of well
settled facts and documents and that
there is, to say the least, as much
scholarship arrayed against it as is for
it, it aims to run roughly over well
settled truth and conviction, by stig
matizing its opponents as “ignorant,”
as "not up with the latest discov
eries,” as “followers of tradition," and
because they have firm and intelligent
convictions on this subject, as "illib
eral” and “uncharitable,” its adher
ents claiming that only themselves
possess the facts of history. Never
were the spirit and the methods more
alike in anything than are the spirit
and the methods of the assailants of
the Bible and of Baptist history alike.
As the names of Professors Briggs and
Harper make up for all lack of truth
in their absurd "discoveries” against
the Bible so one or two names are
sufficient to down all facts and expos
ures and pass off as gold the assaults
on Baptist history. Though other
people welcome truth, to say the
least, as well as they, they both
taunt us with, “it is truth we want,
wherever it may lead, and not tradi
tion; only ourselves are open to con
viction,” thus fulfilling the Scripture,
“Ever learning and never able to come
to the knowledge of the truth.”
Instead of all their boasting twad
dle let the assailants of Baptist his
tory give attention to the well estab
lished fact that from time Immemorial
to the present there have been Bap
tist churches in England and that they
have never been known to practice
other than dipping for baptism.
These assailants of Baptist history
seem to shut their eyes to all the
Baptist churches that have ever been
in England, except those of modern
times, and of the seventeenth century
in and about London.
Here is their chief and, to all truth
in this matter, their fatal and strange
blunder, though, even from this start
ing point, they cannot sustain their
position. To this blunder the words
of Dr. Howard Osgood (many years
professor of church history) are a
conclusive reply, even were we to
leave out the vast amount of proof
just given as to the existence of other
Baptist churches than these assail
ants consider: “If we make the first
Baptist church to appear under Hel
wise, 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 Lon
don in 1633 the first Calvinistic Bap
tist church in England, we assume
that all the Baptists and Baptist
churches of the sixteenth century were
Arminlan in their views, which has
never been shown, ami is contrary
to all probability. Baptists were
found in the north and west, but
principally on the east of Eengland.
Under the dreadful persecution of ine
Tudors, the churches knew little of
each other, unless they were situated
near together. We hear more of the
Calvinistic church formed in 1633, be
cause it was situated in London and
performed an important work in the
following years. Joan Bucher, who
was a member of the Baptist
church In Eyethorn, Kent, was
burned by order of Henry VI ,
held this doctrine.” —Baptist Church
Perpetuity, p. 345. Says Professor
Wedder: "We are entitled to with
regard to Baptists in England * * *
tnat traces of them appear in histor
ical documents early in the sixteenth
century.”—A Short History of the
Baptists, p. 108. To the possible
evasion that persecution may have
rid England of these Baptist churches
by “1641,” I will reply in the lan
guage of Dr. Osgood: “No persecu
tion was severe enough to extirpate
the Baptists from England, though it
caused them to kbep their meetings
and their views very quiet. Banish
ment, whipping or death at the stake
awaited any puldie exhibition of their
‘conventicles.’ Before hand was laid
to the reformation of the established
churches in England, Baptists were
numerous in the kingdom, anil the
regins of Henry VIII., Edward VI.,
Mary and Elizabeth are blotted with
the blood of martyred Baptists.”—
Idem. p. 346. If history can prove
anything and Baptist churches are
conclusive monuments to dipping,
nothing is more certain that that Im
rnersion was not "invented,” but that
dipping among English Baptists be
gan with the dipping by John the
Baptist. Any one who disputes this
is cnallenged not to spend his time
praising the foul slanderer of Bap
tists, Dexter, and the obscure pedo
baptist quibbier, Scheffer, and citing
their perversions of authors and
branding the Baptist scholars' of
England as dishonest, but to show
when those old English Baptist
churches ceased to immerse and how
it comes that there is not so much as
a hint in the’ records of the sixteenth
century Baptist churches of their
ever having laid aside affusion tor
baptism.
My next proof that the Baptists of
England did not "invent” immersion
in 1641 is the improbability of their
doing so and generally adopting the
“invention” in less than three years!!
That the Baptists were united on
dipping when they adopted their Con
fession in 1643 no one calls in ques
tion. If immersion can be adopted by
affusionist churches in so short a time
as th See yeiA'tl suggest that Dr.
Whitsitt can render Baptists greater
satisfaction as a missionary in con
verting present affusionist churches to
dipping than he can in converting
Baptists to believe that the Baptist
martyrs were a set of renegades
from the faith, in being affusionists.
My next proof that the English
Baptists did not "invent” immersion
in 1641 is that it involves a self-evi
dent absurdity. Dr. Whitsitt ad
mits that immersion was practiced in
the Episcopal church to “the year
1600.” —See his book, p. 33. But be
denies that any English Baptists at
that time practiced immersion.—Seo
his book. pp. 40, 48. On page 34 lie
concedes there were Anabaptists in
England “in the early portion of the
sixteenth century." Here he seems
to have been in doubt whether there
were Anabaptists there after this
time. But the groat discoverer seems
to have discovered by the time he had
got to the end of the chapter, in
which he makes this statement, that
there were "Anabaptists of England
in the sixteenth,” and also “in the
first halt of the seventeenth century."
But Dr. Whitsitt is not correct in
his dating the cessation of immersion
in the Episcopal church in 1600. Says
Dr. Cutting, ex-professor of church
history in Rochester: “Simpson in
his excellent work on Baptismal
Fonts, says: ‘Not one of the rituals
which we have examined contains any
permission to use pouring or sprink
ling when the child is brought to
the church. * * * In the prayer
book of Edward VI. the exceptional
allusion was first put into the rubrick.
* * * This was the first instance
of pouring being allowed in public
baptism.”—Cutting’s Historical Vindi
cations, pp. 78, 79. In about 1640 an
English writer says: “That I may
convince all my countrymen that im
mersion in baptism was very lately
left off in England. I will affirm that
there are yet persons living who were
so immersed, for 1 was informed by
Mr. Berisford that his parents im
mersed not only him, but the rest
of his family at his baptism."—Cros
by’s History of Baptists, vol. 2. pp.
46. 54. Dr. Wall (1645-1727) wrote:
“All other Christians in the world,
who never owned the pope’? usurped
power, do. and ever did. dip their in
fants in the ordinary use." Os the
West Minster assembly (met 1643)
Wall says: “So they reformed the
font into a basin. * * * All those
countries in which the usurped power
of the pope is or has formerly been
owned, have left off dipping of chil
dren in the font, but all other coun
tries in the world do still use it.”
Hist. Inf. Bap., vol. 2, pp. 368. etc
According to Wall dipping held its
place till the Westminster assembly
which met in 1643.—See the foregoing
argument in the first part of the pre
ceding article, from the testimony of
the Westminster assembly. This
agrees with the fact that the first
change, tolerating pouring, made in
the rubrick. was not ratified by par
liament till 1652. It also agrees with
tne statement of the “Prayer Book
Interleaved. London and Oxford.
1873 ” p. 185. cited by Schaff in Teach
ing of the Twelve Apostles, note to p.
52: “Trine immersion was ordered
in the rubrick of 1549, following the
Sarum office. In 1552 single immer
sion was enjoined. The indulgence of
affusion for weak children was grant
ed in 1549 and continued in 1552.
In 1662 dipping remained the rule.”
All this being well established, he
who affirms that the Baptists in
vented immersion in 1641” must swal-
low the absurdity that the Baptists
who follow only the Bible practiced
affusion the most of the sixteenth and
the first half of the seventeenth cen
tury, while the Episcopal church,
which got its practice from the pope,
did not fully authorize affusion till
in the latter part of the seventeenth
century! Additional to this, he
must face the curious ecclesiastical
somersault, in the Baptists instanta
neously becoming affusionists while
pedobaptists abandon dipping and turn
over onto the affusionist Baptist
ground. What a pity, for the sake
of union, that Bapusts did not get
pedobaptists to remain on the dipping
platform till they could get turned
over with them!
FOR GOOD MEASURE.
Edward Elton, 1637: “First in sign
and sacrament only for the dipping
of the party baptized in water and
abiding under the water for a time,
doth represent and seal unto us the
burial of Christ.”—Ep. of Paul, on
Col., p. 293.
Sir Walter Craddock, before the
House of Commons, 1646: "In some
places of England they dip alto
gether.”—Armitage Baptist History,
p. 43.
Dr. Whitaker, 1624, regius professor
in Cambridge: “Though in case of
grown persons that are in health, 1
think dipping be better; yet in case
of infants and sickly people, I think
sprinkling sufficient.” —In Wall, vol.
2, p. 401. This shows that not only
is Dr. Whitsitt in error in stating
that believers’ baptism had, at this
time, become wholly a thing of the
past, but that dipping was a usual
thing. It fully agrees with the point,
proved in my last argument, that im
mersion did not cease to be practiced
in the Episcopal church in 1600—as
Dr. Whitsitt asserts as one of his
main premises.
The Book of Common Prayer, re
vised and settled at the Savoy Con
ference, 1662, reads: “The priest
shall take the child in his hands, ♦
* * he shall dip it in the water, *
♦ * but if the child be weak it
shall suffice to pour water upon it."—
Baptizein, p. 139. Instead of dipping
having ever become a thing of the
past, even in the Episcopal church,
in 1736 John Wesley “refused to
baptize otherwise than by dipping."
unless he was satisfied the child "was
weak and unable to bear dipping.
Life and Times of Wesley, by Tyer
man. pp. 156, 157.
Thomas Blake, 1644, says: “I have
been an eye-witness of many infants
dipped, and 1 know it to have been
the constant practice of many min
isters in their places for many years
together.”—Armitage’s Baptist His
tory, p. 429.
I come now to the testimony of
Leonard Busher. He wrote and pub
lished in 1611: “And such as shall
gladly receive the Word he hath com
manded to be baptized in the water,
that is dipped for dead in the water."
To get rid of this witness Dr. Whit
sitt gives two pages of his book to
quibbling that is equal to the best
pedobaptist quibbier vs. immersion.
He says: “Was the first edition of
his book in 1614 published at London
or at Amsterdam? Hitherto it has
been impossible to discover an edi
tion earlier than that of 1646, and
hence this question cannot be an
swered. Did he ever return from Hol
land to England? That inquiry must
also be leu unsolved.” —p. 69. The
argument that because there is no
known edition of Bnsher's work as
published in England in 1614 in exist
ence not then published is of
■ the same kiml as the infidel argu
ment, viz.: there being no known edi
tion of the New Testament MSS. that
were made in the first or the second
century, therefore, there were none
in existence that early! Thus Dr.
Whitsitt endeavors, after his usual
way of treating Baptist history, to
throw skepticism on the testimony of
Busher to reach the conclusion. “In
brief words. Mr. Busher is a shadowy
figure, and it is uncertain whether he
spent his last years in England or in
Holland.” —p. 69. Having, as he
thinks, thrown skepticism all over the
testimony of Busher, he endeavors to
impress the conclusion that Busher
was not a resident in England and
that his book was not published there
and is, tnerefore. no evidence of im
mersion in England. Admit that Mr.
Busher was a citizen of Holland, and
what becomes of our doctor's discov
ery that “none of the Anabaptists of
Holland were immersionists"? p. 35.
As some one has said in reply to the
doctor, “Surely, Mr. Busher must be
allowed to have lived somewhere'"
His own witness (Mr. Evans) says:
“In 1614 there resided in London a
humble citizen. * * * He had been
in exile, and probably had mingled
with his brethren in Holland. * *
* Leonard Busher. a name that will
never perish, issued his work * * *
presented to King James and the
high court parliament then sitting, by
Leonard Busher. a citizen of London,
and printed in the year 1614." —Evans'
Early English Baptists, vol. 1. p. 229.
Masson, Presbyterian, and one of
the latest and most critical scholars
of the period, says: “Busher’s tract
was presented to the kitlg and parlia
ment in 1614, by him as a citizen of
London, that there is reason to believe
he was a member of Helwise’s con
gregation.”—Masson's History of Mil
ton and His Times, vol. 3, p. 102.
How, in the name of all candor, did
Busher present the book to the "king"
and “parliament then sitting.” .and
present it as a “citizen of London"
while he was a citizen of Holland and
when it was not written till 1646? How
long must our people be afflicted by
such efforts to support an utterly
groundless slander on Baptists, that is
creating a jubilee in the Philistine
camp? Now comes an illustration of
the truth of Solomon's saying, “the
legs of the lame are not equal.” Dr.
Whitsitt, in his article in the Religious
Herald, in trying to defend his won
derful discovery, said: “Mr. Leonard
Busher, a citizen of London, publish
er in 1614," etc. Now, whom are we
to believe, Dr. Whitsitt in the Re
ligious Herald, or Dr. Whitsitt of the
book that “startles the natives"? As
the longer the good doctor struggles
in the quicksands of Dexterism the
deeper he sinks, and as the Dr. Whit
sitt in the Herald agrees with the
truth, I suggest that we believe the
latter.
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
But, for lack of argument, we are
met by the continued boast: “But
the scholarship is all in favor of Dex
ter & Co.” This is as utterly false as
the sinking fancy for which it is al
leged as a support. Masson, an emi
nent Presbyterian scholar of the pe
riod under consideration, says (of the
Baptists): . neir enemies (Featly,
Paget, Edwards, Bailie, etc., Dr. Whit
sitt’s helpers) were fond of tracing
them to the anarchical German Ana
baptists of the Reformation; but they
claimed a higher origin. They main
tained, as Baptists do still, that in
the primitive or apostolic church the
only baptism practiced or heard of
was that of adult believers, and that
the form of the rite for such was im
mersion in water; and they main
tained further that the baptism of
infants was one of those corruptions
of Christianity against which there
had been a continued protest by pure
and forward spirits in different coun
tries, in ages prior to Luther's Refor
mation, including some of the Wyc
liffltes, although the protest may
have been repeated in a louder man
ner, and w’lth wild admixtures by the
German Baptists who gave Luther so
much trouble. Without going back,
however, upon the Wycliffites, or even
upon the Anabaptists that were scat
' tered through England in the reigns
of Henry VIII., Edward VI.
Mary and Elizabeth, one may date
the Baptists, as we now have to do
with them, from the reign of James.
* * * We hear of a Baptist con
gregation in Wapping formed in 1633,
* * * * of another formed in
1639. * * * In spite of much perse
cution, continued after the long par
liament met, the Baptists of these con
gregations propagated their opinions
with such zeal that by 1644 the sect
had attained considerably large di
mensions. In that year they counted
seven leading congregations in Ix>n
don and forty-seven in the rest of
England; besides that, they had many
adherents in the army. Although all
sorts of opinions were attributed to
them on hearsay, they differed in
reality from the Independents mainly
on the subject of baptism. '1 hey ob
jected to the baptism of infants and
thought immersion or dipping un
der water the proper mode of bap
tism; except in these points and what
they might involve, they were sub
stantially at one with the Congrega
tionalists. This they made clear by
the publication in 1644 of a Confes
sion of their faith in fifty-two articles
—a document which, by its orthodoxy
in all essential matters, seems to
have shamed the more candid of their
opponents.” —Masson's Life of Milton
in connection with the History of His
Times, vol. 3, pp. 146-147, cited by Dr.
Ford. Masson also says: ‘‘Helwys’
folk differed from the Independents
not only on the subjects of Infant bap
tism and dipping, but also on the
power of the magistrate.”—Masson's
Life and Times of Milton, vol. 3, p.
104. What must the reader think of
Dr. Whitsitt’s attempt to get rid of the
force of Masson’s testimony by say
ing: “Masson had great learning,
but he had given no special attention
to this department, and his views were
entirely those of traditional writers
on the subject,” when we remember
that Masson’s work covers the very
period under consideration, that it re
quired a very critical examination of
tne position of the Baptists, that his
work makes six good sized volumes,
that he says: "Os the multiplicity and
extent of the researches required,
any general account would be tedious.
Perhaps, however, I may allude to
my obligations to the State Paper Of
fice in London, where there were
printed calendars of the State papers;
the task of consulting them is easy.
I nfortun; tely, when 1 began my read
ings in the great national repository,
the domestic papers of that 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
pajiers, 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 sin
gle document extant of those that used
to be’in the State Paper Office’which
has not passed through my hands and
been scrutinized.” These State Pa
pers are additional to “King George’s
pamphlets.”
Joseph Angus, D.D., many years
president of Regent's Park College.
London, the most prominent English
Baptist scholar, in making the late
Anglo-American revision of King
James' Version, whose scholarship is
acknowledged throughout the Eng
lish speaking world, has made Baptist
history his study for many years. Os
English Baptists and their history
Dr. Angus undoubtedly has a knowl
edge exceeding that of any other man.
unless we may possibly except that
of Dr. Gotch. With this discussion
before him and with his great famil
iarity with the "old and musty docu
ments" of the age under considera
tion. he says: “But it is overlooked
that in that age immersion was the
generally accepted mode of baptism
in England. * * * 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, chap
els were built, and doctrines defined
long before 1641, and others, down
to the end of that century, owed noth
ing probably to the discussions of
that year. The following churches,
formed in the years mentioned, still
remain: Baintree. Eyethorn. Sut
ton, all in 1550; Warrington, 1552;
Crowle and Epworth, both in 1597;
Bridgewater, Oxford, and Sadmore,
1600: Bristol (Broadmead), 1640; King
Stanley. Newcastle, Kilmington (De
von), Bedford, Sutton, Cirencester,
Commercial Street (London), Lincoln,
Dorchester and Hamsterley, 1633;
Lyme Regis, Chipping Sodbury, Upot
tery, 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 refer
ence to the creed of 1644. Dates and
particulars may be seen in any recent
number of the Baptist Hand Book,
published by the Baptist Union. But
tuere is another kind of evidence even
more decisive, showing that the im
mersion 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. I mention a few
of the more important, giving the
names in the briefest possible form.
Most of them show clearly what the
writers or their opponents, the Bap
tists, were supposed to hold.” Here
follows a lengthy list of documents,
many of which Drs. Dexter, Whitsitt
& Co. probably never heard or read of.
But, as Dr. Whitsitt, in his despera
tion, routs all this great English
scholarship with the insinuation that
it is not sufficiently honest to give or
see the facts, and that American
scnolarship is all with him —I now
touch him up a little with American
scholarship, at the same time remind
ing the reader that American scholar
ship is no such authority on English
history as is English scholarship—no
more so than an American lawyer can
be conceded to be the equal of an
English lawyer on English law.
Professor J. B. Thomas, D.D., who
is professor of ecclesiastical history in
Newton Theological Seminary, one of
the first American historical scholars,
with Dexter before him (remember
that in the main Dr. Whitsitt’s book
is but a rehash of Dexter's), says:
"Usually they insisted on immersion
as the only baptism.”—Lecture to his
( lasses, cited in Cnurch Perpetuity, p.
196. Os the 16th century in England
Dr. Thomas said: “The practice of
immersion was yet so general that
there was little or no occasion for
controversy on the matter.” —In the
Watchman.
The late great American church his
torian, Presbyterian, Dr. Schaff, with
Dexter in his reach, said: "The con
troversy between the Anabaptists and
the Reformers referred only to the
subject of baptism. * * * The
mode of baptism was no topic of con
troversy, because immersion was still
extensively in use, and decidedly pre
ferred by Luther and the other re
formers as the most expressive and
primitive, though not the only mode.”
—Church Perpetuity, p. 195, from the
Baptist Quarterly Review, July, 1889.
Should this not be sufficient from Dr.
Schaff. he says of the Anabaptist
leaders' gathering at Augsburg: "Tney
held a general synod in 1527. They
baptized by immersion.” —Schaff’s
Hist. Chr. Church, vol. 6, p. 578.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.
1. I have shown that the genuine
German and the genuine Swiss Bap
tists were generally and always exclu
sively immersionists..
2. That their close fellowship with
the English Baptists, in the absence
of positive contradictory evidence,
proves the English Baptists were im
mersionists.
3. That the “Jessey Church Rec
ords,” which Dr. Whitsitt mainly
builds on, are not the Jessey Church
Records at all.
4. That were we to concede they are
the “Jessey Church Records.” inas
much as they are the records of a
pedobaptist church as to the existence
of Baptist churches which, to save
themselves from persecution, were
often unknown to even the spies and
officers of the law and as the record
may nevdi* have been adopted by that
church in conference, but only writ
ten out by some one member of it,
they are not even weighty negative
proof. By the most conclusive proof
of the existence of Baptist churches
in the sixteenth century, which have
continued to the present, we have seen
that the "Jessey Church Records” are
not of so much as a shadow of proof
that the Baptists “invented” immer
sion in 1641. or at any other time.
5. We have seen that Dr. Whitsitt
has. under the leading of Dexter,
partly filled his book with garbled
quotations, has grossly misconstrued
the quotations that are reliable (re
member Dr. Whitsitt has relied large
ly on "second-hand” quotations from
the tricky slanderer, Dexter), and that
they are of no help to his cause.
6. I have showed that while Dr.
Whitsitt’s witnesses are never conclu
sively in his favor (except his Dutch
man. Scheffer, whom, to save his
cause, he has rescued from obscurity,
except also Dexter), so far as they
have given expression on the question
at issue, they are against him.
7. Were wo to concede that his wit
nesses do say that they knew of no
dipping Baptists before 1641. this tes
timony would be like the plea of the
Irishman who. in refutation of the
positive testimony of two good wit
nesses who swore that they saw him
steal the horse, offered to bring twen
ty witnesses ’“to court who would
swear they did not see him steal the
horse. We have seen that the most
positive testimony proves the Bap
tists. of the time under consideration,
did immerse
8. Replying to Dr. Whitsitt’s argu
ment from “silence,,” (1) by his own
testimony we have seen that Baptists
had but little opportunity to speak
out—persecution preventing.—See his
book. p. 6. (2) We have seen that
there is, in the very face of great per
secution, not a little testimony of
Baptists for immersion—so strong
that they were often drowned under
the name “Dippers.”
9. We have seen that reliable schol
ars, such as Masson, Angus, King,
who have had the most ample oppor
tunity and who have well used it.
most positively declare that there is
nothing in the early documents to
sustain Dexter & Co. in their attempt
to besmirch the blessed Bride of
Christ with the symbolical testimony
to the truth of the Gospel (the death
and the resurrection .if Christ. 1 Cor.
15.1-4) a Romish ceremony which de
nies it, by symbolizing it as a mere
touch or sprinkling of suffering.—See
Luke 12:50.
10. Why do some throw aside this most
conclusive testimony for the wild
guesses of one who has had but a few
weeks’ glance into the British Mu
seum —so brief a glance that he has
relied mainly on the obscure pedobap
tist quibbier, Scheffer, and the pedo
baptist slanderer. Dexter, for the main
part of his material?
11. We have seen that Dr. Whitsitt
can as easily copy from Dexter testi
mony to prove that the Baptists once
were licentious, baptizing men and
’ women without any clothing on their
persons, as he can prove they were
affusionists. To do so would be fully
as excusable as to do what he has
done. Pedobaptist pulpits and press
and pedobaptist book agents are as
ready to welcome, laud and sell the
book in which he may do this as they
have the one which stigmatizes Bap
tists as having “invented” immer
sion. The one will be “as much in the
interest of history” and as true as the
other, and can reflect no more on the
Baptists and produce no greater jubi
lee in the Philistine camp than can
the other.
12. We have seen that Dr. Whitsitt’s
“discovery” is universally condemned
by the latest English Baptist scholar
ship, and that, to weaken the force of
this. Dr. Whitsitt has boldly insinu
ated that English Baptist scholars are
not sincere—that they are dishonest!
13. We have seen that much of the
best and latest scholarship of our
own country, such as that of Dr. Arm
itage, Dr. William R. Williams, Dr.
Lorimer, Dr. Ford, Dr. Thomas, who
(Continued on Eighth Page.)
8100 d... |
Bubbles.
t ,j
» Those pimples or blotches
: that disfigure your skin, are
>1 blood bubbles. They mark i
f the unhealthy condition of the $
>) blood-current that throws them (i
(’ up. Vou must get down to $
) the blood, before you can be «
C rid of them. Local treatment J
»' is useless. It suppresses, but '
{ does not heal. The best rem- i
r edy for eruptions, scrofula, '!
> sores, and all blood diseases, is .<
k Ayer’s
I Sarsaparilla. 5