Did They Dip?

CHAPTER X.
OTHER WITNESSES.

In 1644 an anonymous author wrote a tract called the Loyall Convert. Of this tract Dr. Whitsitt says:

The first of these belongs to the year 1644 and is entitled "The New Distemper,' written by the author of the "Loyal Convert." Dr. Dexter, who appears to be the only person that has examined this pamphlet, reports that the whole book takes its name as an attack upon the 'prophanations' of these dippers." ("True Story," page 50, with note). Dipping being for the author a "new distemper,' it is manifest that he did not take it for granted, but was perfectly aware of the change from pouring or sprinkling to immersion, which took place in the year 1641. (Pp. 134, 135).

I did not have this tract in hand, so I wrote to the British Museum in regard to it. The reply was: "There is nothing in this tract, either on dipping or infant baptism or rebaptism. It is simply on the subject of church government and reforming the Liturgie."

1. Knutton wrote a book, 1644, against the Baptists called Seven Qvestions abovt the Controversie betweene the Chvrch of England and the Separatists and Anabaptists. Dr. Whitsitt thus refers to him:

"In that place (p. 23) Mr. Knutton had said, 'this opinion [of rebaptizing by dipping] being but new and upstart, there is good reason they should disclaim it and be humbled for it.' (Dexter, True Story, p. 50). No finer opportunity was ever presented to deny a charge with indignation if it had been untrue." (P. 123).

Knutton said no such thing. Here are his words in answer to query 5.: "Whether it is lawful to be baptized or no? When they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and when Paul laid his hands upon them the Holy Ghost came on them and they spake with tongues and prophesied. So that there is no ground for rebaptization. Wherefore Separatist does very ill opposing our baptizing of infants, as, proved before Lydia with all her household were baptized; likewise we find no negative precept against paedobaptism. Then such as oppose it do ill; for they follow those pestilent heretics called Anabaptists in Germany, who sprang up there (when the light of the gospel began to shine) not very long since, being but new and upstart, there is good reason they should disclaim it and be humbled for it."

There is not a word in regard to dipping in this quotation. And the words "new and upstart" have reference to "Luther's time," and not to 1641.

Ephraim Pagett, 1645, is Dr. Whitsitt's next witness. He declares there were fourteen kinds of Anabaptists, and following his method of enumeration he could have numbered a thousand kinds just as well. John Stoughton in his Ecclesiastical History of England, From the opening of the Long Parliament to the death of Oliver Cromwell, says of Pagett:

"Certain parties under the Commonwealth had the habit, and the fashion still exists, of exagger-ating the number of religious denominations. Ephraim Pagitt in his 'Heresiography,' published in 1654, gives a list of between forty and fifty the historical worth of which enumeration we may estimate, when we observe that he distinguishes between Anabaptists and plunged Anabaptists, between Separatists and Semi-Separatists, between Brownists and Barrowists and then proceeds to specify three orders of Familists." (P. 365).

It is very certain that Stoughton has no very high regard for the authority of "Old Ephraim," as Pagett was contemptuously called.

Masson's description of "Old Father Ephraim" is rich. He says:

"A well-known personage in London, of humbler pretensions than Featley was a certain Ephraim Pagett (or Pagit), commonly called 'Old Father Ephraim,' who had been parson of the church of St. Edmund, in Lombard Street, since 1601, and might therefore have seen and been seen by Shakespeare. Besides other trifles, he had published in 1635 a book called 'Christianographia,' or a descriptive enumeration of the various sorts of Christians in the world out of the pale of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps because he had thus acquired a fondness for the statistics of religious denominations, it occurred to him to write, by way of sequel, a 'Heresiography; or a Description of the Heretics and Sectaries of these later times.' It was published in 1645, soon after Featley's book, from which it borrows hints and phrases. There is an Epistle Dedicatory to the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the city of London very similar in its syntax and punctuation, and containing this touching appeal: 'I have lived among you almost a jubilee, and seen your great care and provision to keep the city free from infection, in the shutting up of the sick and in carrying them to your pest houses, in setting warders to keep the whole from the sick, in making of fires and in perfuming the streets, in resorting to your churches, in pouring out your prayers to Almighty God, with fasting and alms, to be propitious to you. The plague of heresy is greater, and you are now in more danger than when you buried five thousand a week.' Then after an epistle to the reader, signed 'Old Ephraim Pagit,' there follows the body of the treatise in about 160 pages. The Anabaptists are taken first and occupy 55 pages; but a great many other sects are subsequently described, some in a few pages, some in a single paragraph. There is an engraved title page to the volume, containing small caricatures of six of the chief sort of sectaries, Anabaptism being represented by one plump, naked fellow dipping another, much plumper, who is reluctantly stooping down on all-fours. The book, like Featley's, seems to have sold rapidly. In the third edition, published in 1646, there is a postscript in which the poor old man tells us that it had cost him much trouble. The Sectaries among his own parishioners had quarreled with him on account of it, and refused to pay him his tithes; nay, as he walked in the streets he was hooted at and reviled, and somebody had actually affirmed 'Doctor Featley's devil to be transmitted into Old Ephraim Paqet.' This seems to have cut him to the quick, though he avows his sense of inferiority in learning to the great Doctor. In short, we can see Father Ephraim as a good old silly body, of whom people make fun." (Life of John Milton, Vol. III., p. 139).

This picture is not overdrawn. My edition, 1647, in the Postscript, tells plainly that the "Sectaries," even of his own congregation, would not pay tithes because, they said, he had slandered them. Here is a book confessedly repudiated by the Anabaptists, and yet this very book is one of Dr. Whitsitt's principal testimonies. Surely we are not to believe the enemies of the Anabaptists when they directly say that they are slandered. Certainly we would not expect this from a Baptist!

Dr. Whitsitt makes this quotation under Pagett:

Yea at this day they have a new crochet come into their heads, that all that have not been plunged nor dipt under water, are not truly baptized, and these also they rebaptize: And this their error ariseth from ignorance of the Greek word Baptize, which signifieth no more then washing or ablution, as Hesychus, Stephanus, Scapulae, Budeus, great masters of the Greek tongue, make good by many instances and allegations out of many authors. (P. 30).

But this quotation, as it stands, out of its connection, does not properly reflect the mind of Pagett. He had been discussing fourteen kinds of Anabaptists, and declared they were constantly changing their minds. He now comes to the Anabaptists who originated in the times of Luther, and these Anabaptists had taken up this "new crotchet." He then proceeded to argue that sprinkling was permitted in the Scriptures and sometimes it had been permitted in practice. But he declares that both dipping and sprinkling were allowed in his church. His words are:

"And both are allowed by our church; and sprinkling hath been rather used among us, by reason of the coldness of our climate, and the tenderness of our infants." (P. 31).

He emphatically declares that dipping was then in practice, and that it was not a new thing. The trouble with the Anabaptists is that they would not recognize sprinkling. That was the contention of Pagett. He mentions no date and says nothing about 1641. He contends that "true baptism to be as well by sprinkling as by dipping." (P. 31). But the Anabaptists did not think,: so, and so Pagett proceeds to say:

Of their manner of rebaptizing, and other rites. They flock in great multitudes to their Jordans, and both Sexes enter into the River and are dipt after their manner with a kind of spell, containing the heads of their erroneous Tenets, and their ingaging themselves schismaticall Covenants and combination of separation. In the Thames and Rivers, the Baptizer and the party baptized goe both into the Rivers, and the parties to be baptized are dipt or plunged under water." (Pp. 32, 33).

The careful reader will at once recognize these as the words of Dr. Featley. Such was Ephraim Pagett.

Dr. Whitsitt introduces as a witness Robert Baillie, 1646, a violently prejudiced Scotchman. He had some opportunities for observation, and had he been less prejudiced and more honest his testimony would have some weight. He says in the margin: "The pressing of dipping and the exploding of sprinkling is but an yesterday conceit of the English Anabaptists."

And his statement in the body of the book is:

Among the new inventions of the late Anabaptists, there is none which with greater animosity they set on foot, then the necessity of dipping over head and cars, then the nullity of affusion and sprinkling in the administration of baptisme. Among the old Anabaptists, or those over the sea to this day so farre as I can learn, by their writs or any relation that yet has come to my ears, the question of dipping and sprinkling came never upon the table. As I take it, they dip none, but all whom they baptize they sprinkle in the same manner as is our custome. The question about the necessity of dipping seems to be taken up only the other year by the Anabaptists in England, as a point which alone they conceive is able to carry their desire of exterminating infant baptisme; for they know that parents upon no consideration will be content to hazard the life of their tender infants by plunging them over headand ears in a cold river. Let us, therefore, consider if this sparkle of new light have any derivation from the lamp of the Sanctuary, or the Sun of righteousnesse, if it be according to Scripturall truth or any good reason." (Anabaptism, the True Fountaine of Independency, &c., p. 163. London, 1646).

Upon these words Dr. Whitsitt puts forward this argument:

Baillie in the above passage expressly declares that dipping was "a new invention of the late Anabaptists," "an yesterday conceit of the English Anabaptists,' "taken up onely the other year," 'a sparkle of new light." He does not indicate the precise year in which it was introduced, but these expressions agree to a nicety with the position that this event took place only about five years before he published his book. Every word of his testimony confirms the deliverance of the Jessey Church Records to the effect that prior to the year 1640 "none had so practiced in England to professed believers," while he in the year 1641 the change from pouring and sprinkling to immersion was duly inaugurated.

But Baillie's testimony and Dr. Whitsitt's claims are open to several very serious drawbacks, viz.:

1. Baillie nowhere says the Baptists began dipping in 1641. It might have been an hundred years before this, for the word "new," as we have seen, is a very flexible one on the pen of this class of controversialists.

2. Baillie is very guarded in his language. He does not speak positively, for he only says that seems to be taken up," "so far as I can learn," that has come to my ears," "as I take it," etc. He does not say that dipping is a new thing, but the pressing of dipping and the exploding of sprinkling is a yesterday conceit. Yet it is upon these evasive statements that Dr. Whitsitt founds one of his principal arguments.

3. Baillie distinctly holds and maintains with the same process of guarded words that infant sprinkling is taught in the Word of God. Indeed, this very passage says that dipping is not recent "but a sparkle of new light," because it is not Scriptural. Baillie says:

Consider farther, that we doe not oppose the lawfulnesse of dipping in some cases, but the necessity of it in all cases: Neither do they impugn the expediency of sprinkling in some cases, but the lawfulnesse, of it in any case. So both their doctrine and practice makes the state of the question to be this; Whether in Baptisme it be necessary to put the whole baptized person over head and ears in the water or if it be lawfull and sufficient, at least in some cases, to poure o r sprinkle the water upon the head of the person baptized? For the lawfulnesse of the sprinkling and against the necessity of dipping. I reason thus. First, that action which the Spirit of God in divers Scriptures expresses formally by the name of baptisme is lawfull and expedient to be used in baptism. But sprinkling and pouring out of water upon the party baptized without any dipping is by the Spirit of God in divers Scriptures formally expressed by the name of baptisme." (P. 164).

4. Baillie on this very point of dipping among the Anabaptists contradicts himself. Baillie here says that it is "a yesterday conceit," and that it is the "new invention of the late Anabaptists." But elsewhere in this book he declares that the Anabaptists practiced dipping. In Chapter I. he says:

"Who are pleased to read the late little accusate and learned treatise of Clopenburgh may perceive that the Mennonist dippers do oppose the truth of Christ's human nature."

Here is a direct refutation, from Dr. Whitsitt's principal witness, of the position that he has taken that Mennonites practiced sprinkling.

In Chapter II. Baillie says:

"For the stricter ingagement of the Saints and godly party their adherents, and for the clearer distinction of them from the prophane multitude of all other congregations they thought meet to put upon them the mark and character of a new Baptisme, making them renounce their old as null, because received in their infancy, and in a false church. At the beginning this rebaptization was but a secondary and less principall doctrine among them, for Muncer himself was never rebaptized, neither in his own person did he re-baptize any, yet, thereafter it became a more essential note of a member of their church, and the crying down of infants baptism came to be a most principall and distinctive doctrine of all in their way. Unto their new gathered churches of rebaptized and dipped saints they did ascribe very ample privileges," etc. (P. 32).

In Chapter IV. Baillie says of the Anabaptists:

"Sixthly, they esteem sprinkling no baptism at all; they will have the whole body to be plunged over head and ears in the water; this circumstance of plunging they account so necessary and essential to baptism, that the change thereof into sprinkling makes the baptism to be null." (P. 91).

And in Chapter V. he says:

"Although many of the Tenets mentioned in the former chapter may be dissembled and denied by divers of this sect, yet all of them will acknowledge as their own, whatever almost is practiced either by the Independents or Brownists, and besides, two Tenets more, Antipedobaptism and Dipping. All who carry the name of Anabaptisme, though, through ignorance, they know not; or through better instruction they dissent from many positions of their brethren, yet will avowedly, and oft with passion, professe their mind against the sprinkling of infants, pedorantisme, to all of them I ever heard of is an abomination." (Page 137)

Here in the same book, by the same author, are found a passage which declared the Anabaptists practiced sprinkling and four which say they practiced dipping. I am not responsible for this contradiction. Yet this is Dr. Whitsitt's witness.

5. We can prove by the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1644 that Baillie was guilty of slander. That Confession declared:

"The word baptizo signifies to dip or plunge (yet so as convenient garments be both upon the Administrator and subject, with all modesty)."

This same declaration was made by other Baptists. Mr. Richardson, a very able Baptist, whom Baillie quotes in his book, is pleased to say of nude baptism, as charged by Dr. Featley:

"But saith the Doctor, they goe men and women together stark naked into their Jordans (Pp. 36 and 203). Wee answer, wee abhor it, and deny that ever any of us did so, and challenge him to prove it, against us, if he can; and if he cannot, it is fit, he should be known for a slanderer, if he deserve no punishment for it." (Some Brief Considerations, p. 11. London, Feby. 25, 1645).

In the face of these denials Baillie affirms:

"As for chastity, must it not be a great scandall, in the face of all the Congregation where alone, Sacraments can be duly celebrated, for men and women to stand up naked, as they were born; and naked men to go into the water with naked women, holding them in their arms till they have plunged them into the water? " (Ch. VII).

Here Baillie manifestly bore false witness against the Anabaptists. If we do not believe Baillie in this matter, why should we in the other?

6. Baillie attacked the motives of the Anabaptists, and called them liars. In the margin of the chapter from which Dr. Whitsitt takes his quotation are these words: "The lying spirit of Anabaptisme." (Page 163). If you will notice the extract which Dr. Whitsitt gives, you will see that Baillie attacks the motives of the Anabaptists. He says:

"The question about the necessity of dipping seems to be taken up only the other year by the Anabaptists in England, as a point which alone, as they conceive, is able to carry their desire of exterminating infant baptism; for they know that parents, upon no consideration, will be content to hazard the life of their tender infants by plunging them over head and ears in a cold river." How did Baillie know, that the Anabaptists were not honest in the belief that they were following the Scriptures, and that their only motive in dipping was to "exterminate infant baptism? "

Baillie goes further, and charges the Baptists with hypocrisy, and that they did not believe the Confession of 1644, and that it was only put forth to mislead. His words are:

"Their ways as yet are not well known; but a little time it seems will discover them, for their singular zeal to propagate their way will not permit them long to lurk; only the Confession of faith, which the other year seven of their Congregations did put forth, and late again in a second corrected Edition, have set out with a bold preface to both the Houses, of Parl.; may no more be taken for the measure of this faith, then that Confession, which the Elder brethren in Holland did not long ago in the name of all their company."

Surely no one will endorse this prejudiced onslaught and slander of Baillie's; and yet this is the man whom we are asked to follow.

7. Baillie was the bitter enemy of the Anabaptists and desired their destruction. The passages which I have taken from his writings to this effect are so numerous that I cannot give them all. A few selections must suffice. He says:

"We have ended our directorie for baptism. Thomas Goodwin one day was exceedinglie confounded. He, has undertaken a publicke lecture against the Anabaptists; it was said, under pretence of refuting them, he betrayed our cause to them; that if the Corinthians, our chief ground for the baptisme of infants, 'Your children are holy,' he expounded of reall holiness, and preached down our ordinarie and necessare distinction of reall and foederall holiness. Being passed hereupon he could no wayes cleare himselfe, and no man took his part. God permits these gracious men to be many wayes unhappie instruments; as yet their pride continues; but we are hopefull the Parliament will not own their way so much as to tolerate it, if once they found themselves masters. For the time they are loath to cast them off, and to put their partie, lest they desert them." (The Letters and journals of Robert Baillie. 1637-1662, Vol. II., p. 218).

"Our next worke, to give our advyce what to doe for the suppressing of the Anabaptists, Antinomians, and other sectaries. This will be a hard work; yet so much as concerns us will be quicklie dispatched, I hope in one sessioheir divisions among themselves, are so many that to set them down distinctly and in good order, is a task which I dare not undertake; much less can I give assurance what is common to them all, and what proper to their several sects.' (P. 29). It will help to expose the political ground of his hostility by his nationality, thus: 'This immoderate love of licentiousness * * * puts them upon a high degree of hatred and indignation against the Solemn League and Covenant, against the Scottish nation whence it came; as two great impediments to their quiet enjoying of that self-destroying and God-provoking liberty which, so passionately, they lust after. Though for fear and other base respects, many of them have swallowed down the Covenant in such equivocal senses as are evidently contrary both to the express words and known intentions of the States which enjoin it; yet since the time their strength and hopes are increased, these of them who pretend to ingenuity and courage do not only with bitterness reject it, but it is now become the object of their public invectives as the most unhappy plague that did ever come to England. (P. 57).'" (Historical Memorials, Vol. III., p. 223).

Thus Hanbury continues at some length. When we consider this mixture of political hatred and religious intolerance I do not think from the writings of Robert Baillie that we would be justified in reaching the conclusion that dipping was an "invention" among the Baptists about 1641.

Another authority quoted by Dr. Whitsitt is J. Saltmarsh. He was a Quaker, and opposed to all baptism. Dr. Whitsitt says:

Dr. Dexter also brings forward the performance of J. SaItmarsh, entitled, "The Smoke in the Temple, Wherein is a Design for Peace and Reconciliation of Believers of the several Opinions of these Times about Ordinances, to a Forbearance each other in Love, and Meeknesse, and Humility," etc. London, 1645. Mr. Saltmarsh here pp. 15,16, speaks of "the dipping them in the water . . . . as the new baptism." (True Story, p. 50), showing that he was entirely aware of the recent change, from pouring and sprinkling, to immersion. (Page 135).

I am amazed at this quotation. I give parallel columns:

One-half ofnd. (P. 57).'" (Historical Memorials, Vol. III., p. 223).

Thus Hanbury continues at some length. When we consider this mixture of political hatred and religious intolerance I do not think from the writings of Robert Baillie that we would be justified in reaching the conclusion that dipping was an "invention" among the Baptists about 1641.

Another authority quoted by Dr. Whitsitt is J. Saltmarsh. He was a Quaker, and opposed to all baptism. Dr. Whitsitt says:

Dr. Dexter also brings forward the performance of J. SaItmarsh, entitled, "The Smoke in the Temple, Wherein is a Design for Peace and Reconciliation of Believers of the several Opinions of these Times about Ordinances, to a Forbearance each other in Love, and Meeknesse, and Humility," etc. London, 1645. Mr. Saltmarsh here pp. 15,16, speaks of "the dipping them in the water . . . . as the new baptism." (True Story, p. 50), showing that he was entirely aware of the recent change, from pouring and sprinkling, to immersion. (Page 135).

I am amazed at this quotation. I give parallel columns:

One-half of the sentence used by Dr. Whitsitt from Saltmarsh I was able to find; but I read diligently for the phrase, "as the new baptism." If it is in Saltmarsh's book, it is certainly nowhere near the other words, "the dipping them in the water." This is marvelous in my eyes.

I have been somewhat more successful with the next authority of Dr. Whitsitt, viz.: J. Parnell, 1655. I parallel Dr. Whitsitt's quotation with the author's words:

From the above it will appear that I have been able to find the first phrase now within these late yeers," and the last phrase they must be dipped in the water, and that they call baptizing," but the middle phrase "they (the Anabaptists) say" does not appear. Did anyone ever see such garbling? And when we really find what the author did say there is nothing about 1641 or dipping being a new thing. This garbling was done by Dr. Dexter from whom Dr. Whitsitt took the quotation, without ever reading the original. These are but samples of many other cases that could be cited.

The Reformed Reader Home Page  Copyright 1999, The Reformed Reader, All Rights Reserved