We find the English divines between 1600 and 1641 speaking out in no uncertain words. The Bishops by their Articles of Visitation were actively opposing the innovations, as sprinkling was called, and the English scholars were sustaining them in their writings. In the light of these Visitation Articles and the facts of these times we can intelligently understand the writings of Rogers and the others who spoke out boldly. These men were heroically standing against the incoming innovation which was supported by a corrupt Court, and "the love of novelty, and the niceness of parents, and the pretense of modesty." With these facts in mind, read and interpret the authors which I now present, and the list call be largely added to.
The Greek lexicons used in England in the first half of the seventeenth century were Scapula, Stephens, Mincaeus and Leigh. These all define as dipping or submerging. I have been unable to find a single Greek lexicon before 1644 which gives sprinkle as a definition of baptizo, and the few that have given this definition since, as a remote definition appear to have been under the same influence that shaped the course of the Westminster divines.
Dr. Joseph Mede, 1586-1638, was a very learned English divine. He says: "There was no such thing as sprinkling or rantism used in baptism in the Apostles' days, nor many ages after them" (Diatribe on Titus iii.2).
Henry Greenwood in 1628 published "A Ioyfvl [Joyful] Tractate of the most
blessed Baptisme that euer was solemnized." It is printed in black letter. When I first read it I was led to think that it was by an Anabaptist preacher, but after further examination I found that it was of the Episcopal church. He says of the baptism of Jesus: "The place where he baptized Christ was in the Riuer Iordan [Jordan]. * * * A duplicate Riuer, so-called, because it was composed of two Fountaines, the one called Ior, the other Dan, and therefore the river hath this name Iordan: In which Riuer Naaman was washed and cleansed from his Leprosie, 2 Kings, 5.14; which Riuer Eliah and Elisha diuided with their cloake, 2 Kings, 28.13. In this Iordan did Iohn baptize our Lord and Sauiour Iesvs [Jesus] Christ" (pp.7, 8).
Dr. John Mayer, pastor of tile church in Reydon, in Suffolk, says: "The Lord was baptized, not to get purity to himselfe, but to purge the waters for us, from the time he was dipped in the waters, the waters washed the sinnes of all men" (A Commentary on the Four Evangelists, Vol. 5, p. 76. B. M. 1010. e. 6. A.D. 1631). And on Matt. 28:19: "The order here is observed. First the Nations are taught, and then dipped in water" (p. 333).
Daniel Rogers, 1633, published A Treatise of the two Sacraments of the Gospell, Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord. He was an Episcopalian. He says:
"Touching what I have said of Sacramentall dipping to explaine myself a little about it; I would not be understood as if scismatically I would instill a distaste of the church into any weake minds, by the act of sprinkling water onely. But this (under correction) I say: That it ought to be the churches part to cleave to the Institution, especially it being not left arbitrary by our church to the discression of the minister, but required to dip or dive the Infant more or lesse (except in cases of weaknesse), for which al1owance in the church we have cause to be thankfull; and sutably to consider that he betrayes the church (whose officer hee is) to a disordered errour, if hee cleaves not to the institution; To dippe the infant in water. And this I do so averre, as thinking it exceeding materiall to the ordinance; and no slight thing: yea, which both Antiquity (though with some addition of a threefold dipping: for the preserving of the doctrine of the impugned Trinity entire) constantly and without exception of countlries hot or cold, witnesseth unto: and especially the constant word of the Holy Ghost, first and last, approveth: as a learned Cretique upou Matthew, chap. 3, verse 11, hath noted, that the Greeke tongue wants not words to expresse any other act as well as dipping, if the institution could beare it" (p. 77. London, 1633).
It is a very significant fact that Daniel Rogers was quoted by the Baptists of 1641 as having upheld their opinion. This could not have been in the Baptists of that period had been in the practice of sprinkling.
Stephen Denison, l634, says: "Bee Baptized. The word translated baptizing doth most properly signifie dipping over head and ears, and indeed this was the most usual manner of baptizing in the primitive church: especially in hotte countries, and after this manner was Christ himselfe baptized by Joh. Mat.3.16. For there is sayd of him, that when hee was baptized hee went out of the water. Which doth imply that in his baptizing hee went under the water, and thus all those that were baptized in rivers they were not sprinkled but dipped" (The Doctrine of Both Sacraments, pp. 39, 40. London, 1634).
Edward Elton, 1637, says: "First, in signe and sacrament only, for the dipping of the party baptized in the water, and abiding under the water for a time, doth represent and seale unto us the buriall of Christ, and his abiding in the grave; and of this all are partakers sacramentally" (An Exposition of the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Colossians, p. 293. London, 1637).
John Selden, 1584-1654, was regarded as the most learned Englishman of his time. He says: "The Jews took the baptism wherein the whole body was not baptized to be void" (De Jure Nat., c. 2).
Bishop Taylor, 1613-1677, says: "If you would attend to the proper signification of the word, baptism signifies plunging into water, or dipping with washing" (Rule of Conscience, I., 3, c. 4).
These citations show conclusively that the scholars of that period believed in immersion.
CATHOLICS
While we have not a great deal of evidence of the opinions of the Catholics of England in regard to dipping, what we have happens to be singularly clear and interesting. Thomas Hall, in a bitter attack which he makes on a Baptist preacher by the name of Collier, declares that Anabaptism is "a new invention not much above one hundred years old." And then (the date is 1652) he declares the Catholics are great dippers. His words are: "If dipping be true baptizing, then some amongst us that have been dipped by Popish Prelatical Priests, who are the greatest zealots for dipping, should be rightly baptlzed. The Papists and the Anabapilsts like Sampsons Foxes, their heads look and lie different ways, yet they are tied together by the tails of dipping" (The Collier in his Colours, p, 116).
PRESBYTERIANS
There had been brewing in England for a long time a revolution, and it came with the Civil Wars of 1641. The result of that war was not only the overthrow of the King, but it overthrew the Church of England as well. The Presbyterians took charge of the ecclesiastical affairs of the kingdom. They set out to reform everything. The Westminster Assembly convened and put forth the Confession of Faith and the form of Church Government which bears that name. One of the things they "reformed" was baptism, and they substituted sprinkling for immersion. They were the followers of Calvin, and Calvin must be their model. The Reformed Churches of Calvin practiced sprinkling and pouring, and so must the Reformed Church of England. They took hold of the matter with a bold hand, and at length they succeeded. Thus sprinkling, through the Westminster Assembly, triumphed in England. But with all the prestige of Calvin, even among the Presbyterians, it was not plain sailing. There was stubborn opposition, and when the vote was taken for the exclusion of dipping there was a tie vote, and the President of the Assembly was forced to cast the deciding vote. This, remember, occurred among the Presbyterians, who were the avowed party in England in favor of sprinkling for baptism. If the Presbyterians only carried this change by one vote, it would require no vivid imagination to portray the opposition to sprinkling among the Episcopalians, Baptists and others who were avowedly opposed to it. I boldly ask for any proof which goes to show that there was any particular sentiment for sprinkling in England outside of the Presbyterian church and those who sympathized with it in 1641-45. The Westminster Assembly is responsible for the introduction of sprinkling in England.
Perhaps I should here introduce the authority of Lightfoot, who was the President of the Westminster Assembly. He says:
"Then we fell upon the work of the day, which was about baptizing 'of the child, whether to dip him or to sprinkle.' And this proposition, 'It is lawful and sufficient to besprinkle the child,' had been canvassed before our adjourning, and was ready now to vote; but I spake against it, as being very unfit to vote; that it is lawful to sprinkle when everyone grants it. Whereupon it was fallen upon, sprinkling being granted, whether dipping should be tolerated with it. And here fell we upon a large and long discourse, whether dipping were essential, or used in the first institution, or in the Jews' custom. Mr. Coleman went about, in a large discourse, to prove tbith, to be dipping overhead. Which I answered at large. After a long dispute it was at last put to the question, whether the Directory should run thus, 'The minister shall take water, and sprinkle or pour it with his hand upon the face or forehead of the child;" and it was voted so indifferently, that we were glad to count names twice; for so many were so unwilling. to have dipping' excluded that the votes came to an equality within one; for the one side were 24, the other 25, the 24 for the reserving of dipping and the 25 against it; and there grew a great heat upon it, and when we had done all, we concluded upon nothing in it, but the business was recommitted.
"Aug. 8th. But as to the dispute itself about dipping, it was thought safe and most fit to let it alone, and to express it thus in our Directory: 'He is to baptize the child with water, which, for the manner of doing is not only lawful, but also sufficient and most expedient to be by pouring or sprinkling of Water on the face of the child, without any other ceremony.' But this lost a great deal of time about the wording of it" (Works, Vol,.XIIL, p. 209. London, 1824).
Sir David Brewster is regarded as high authority. He says:
"In the Assembly of Divines, held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly debated whether immersion or sprinkling shou1d be adopted: 25voted for sprinkling, and 24 for immersion; and even that small majority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in that assembly" (Edinburg Encyclopedia, Vol. III, p. 236).
All this took place two years after the alleged "invention" of immersion by the Baptists. This action of the Westminster Assembly was followed by acts of Parliament which fully carries out the contention of Wall that sprinkling began in England "in the disorderly times of 1641," and that in 1645 it was "used by very few." The Presbyterians, when they came into power, determined to press sprinkling and overthrow immersion. They were not satisfied with passing an ecclesiastical law to govern the, church, but they followed it by acts of Parliament to control the state. These acts of Parliament were summed up by the Rev. J. F. Bliss in his work entitled, "Letters on Christian Baptism." He says: "The original law of l534 enforced immersion, and those who were not baptized were to be treated as outlaws. This law was passed when the Roman Catholic church was abandoned and the present Established church inaugurated in its stead. However, this law was repealed by an act of Parliament In 1644, at least so much of the old law as enforced immersion, and they passed an act enforcing sprinkling in its stead, and left tile original penalty annexed to sprinkling. After this those who were not sprinkled were to be treated as outlaws, being deprived of the inheritance of the state, the right of burial, and, in short, of all rights to other sprinkled citizens of the realm."
On another page the same writer says: "After 1648 immersion was prohibited and for many years made penal."
Prof. W. T. Moore, Dean of the Bible College of Missouri and editor of the Christian Review, who was for many years a citizen of London, called my attention to the above extract from Bliss, and then made the following remarks:
"It will be seen that from 1534 to 1644, one hundred years, immersion was enforced in England by law, and after 1644 sprinkling was enforced. It is rather remarkable that only one year before this repeal of immersion and enforcement of sprinkling by Parliament, the Westminster Assembly, 1643, by a vote of 25 to 24 — a majority of one — laid aside immersion and adopted sprinkling, and this was ratified by Parliament the succeeding year."
This act of 1644 enforcing sprinkling, was followed by one in 1645 that looked toward allowing no parent to escape sprinkling the new-born child. One provision of that act read:
"There shall be provided at the charge of every parish or chaperly in the realm of Eng- land and dominion of Wales, a fair register book of vellum, to be kept by the minister and officers of the church, and that the names of all children baptized, and of their parents and of the time of their birth and baptizing, shall be written and set down by the minister therein."
Thus were the Presbyterians carrying out the provisions of the Westminster Assembly with a high hand. The "fair register book of vellum" was a silent witness against every Baptist in the land, and was intended to overthrow the practice of immersion entirely. But it was not till May 2, 1648, that the gag law was finally passed. By that time those in the practice of sprinkling had complete control of the laws of the land. Hence this enactment was made by the Parliament: finally passed. By that time those in the practice of sprinkling had complete control of the laws of the land. Hence this enactment was made by the Parliament:
"Whosoever shall say that the baptism [sprinkling it had then become] of infants is unlawful and void, or that such persons ought to be baptized again, shall, upon conviction, by the oath of two witnesses, or by his own confession, be ORDERED to renounce his said error, in the public congregation of the parish where the offence was committed. And, in case of refusal, he shall be committed to prison, till he find surities that he shall not publish or maintain said error ant more."
That this law meant the suppression of the Baptists and immersion, there is no doubt, for soon after four hundred Baptists were crowded into Newgate prison. It was, therefore. only in 1648 that sprinkling became the exclusive law of the 1and, and immersion was prohibited. But the Episcopalians never altered their Prayer Book, and immersion is the law of the Episcopal church at this moment. It will, therefore, be seen that the Presbyterians were responsible for the introduction of sprinkling in England. Sprinkling was introduced by them on the return of Knox and his party from Geneva into Scotland; it was advocated later by the Presbyterians in England, but it made no headway till the overthrow of Episcopacy in England, and the Presbyterians had come into power. It became under them an ecclesiastical law in 1643, a civil law in 1644, and an exclusive command in 1648. Therefore, Wall was undoubtedly right when he said sprinkling owed its origin to the troublesome times of the civil war. A simple statement of these facts are enough to overthrow all the theories which have ever been "invented" on the practice. of sprinkling before 1641. Again we are reminded that an ounce of fact is worth a ton of fiction.
=======
[John T. Christian, Baptist History Vindicated, 1899, pp. 85-93. — jrd]
Chapter 9
Baptist History Vindicated Index
Baptist History Homepage