It has been shown that the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript contradicts Crosby's citation from the Manuscript, and that both of these are contradicted by the Jessey Church Records and Doctument number 4, and that all of these documents are contradicted by facts that cannot be called in question or set aside. I am under no obligation to prove that the Anabaptists immersed. As Dr. E. T. Winkler declared in the Alabama Baptist in 1881, when he was combatting this 1641 theory: "We assume that every Anti-pedobaptist of those ages was immersed, unless the contrary is shown by contemporary records." All that is needed is to emphasize the fact that immersion was the universal practice of the Anabaptists in England and challenge proof that they ever had any other practice. Not one example has been cited to show that any one Anabaptist practiced sprinkling in England before or since 1641. A good deal of theorizing has been engaged in, but I demand the name of just one Anabaptist who ever sprinkled any candidate for baptism in England before 1641. Till this is done there is no ground for any demand for proof that they immersed. All admit that they immersed in 1643, and there is no proof that any of them sprinkled in 1641. The man who affirms it must prove it. The Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript is the citadel of the 1641 argument; since that falls the argument falls with it. Facts must be produced, and boasts of great learning are no substitute for facts. Facts, hard facts, nothing but facts, will weigh in this matter. I have shown beyond any doubt that the "Kiffin" Manuscript is a fraud, and that the much-relied-upon expression, "none having then so practiced to professed believers" in England before 1641 is utterly unworthy of credit. While not under the slightest obligation to do so, I shall present some decisive proof of the practice of immersion in England before 1641. I shall present the testimony of the Episcopalians, Catholics, Independents or Presbyterians, and of the Baptists themselves. The following declaration sets forth the claim I am refuting: "I have often declared it to be my opinion that the immersion of adult believers was a lost art in England, from the year 1509, the accession of Henry VIII., to the year 1641, following the imprisonment of Archbishop Laud" (WESTERN RECORDER, July 9, 1896).
We begin with the Episcopalians. The following remarkable statement occurs in Wall's History of Infant Baptism: "So (parallel to the rest of their reformations) they reformed the font into a basin. This learned Assembly could not remember that fonts to baptize in had been always used by the primitive Christians, long before the beginning of popery, and ever since churches were built; but that sprinkling as the common use of baptizing was really introduced (in France first, and then in other popish countries) in times of popery." (History of Infant Baptism, Vol. II., p. 403). And in another place he remarks: "And for sprinkling, properly called, it seems that it was in 1645 just then beginning, and used by very few. It must have begun in the disorderly times of 1641." (History of Infant Baptism, Vol. II., p. 403).
Now is Wall correct in that statement? Were the Presbyterians the ones who reformed the font into a bason, and was sprinkling just beginning in 1645, having begun in the disorderly times of 1641? My recent investigations thoroughly confirm these statements. It is not necessary in this discussion to go back further than the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Gough, a learned antiquarian of the last century, states the condition of things in England in the reign of this queen. He quotes the original authorities to make good his words. He says: "This [immersion] in England was custom, not law, for, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, the governors of the Episcopal church in effect expressly prohibited sprinkling, forbidding the use of basons in public baptism. 'Last of all (the church wardens) shall see, that in every church there be a holy fonte, not a bason, wherin baptism may be administered, and it be kept comely and cleane.' 'Item, that the font be not removed, nor that the curate do baptize in parish churches in any basons, nor in any other form than is already prescribed.' Sprinkling, therefore, was not allowed, except as in the church of Rome, in cases of necessity at home" (Archeology, vol. 10, pp. 207, 208).
Sprinkling was, therefore, prohibited in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and was only permitted in cases of necessity, and that at home. This was the state of affairs when James VI. of Scotland became James I. of England, on March 24, 1603. A font of gold had been presented for his baptism (Turner, vol. 4, p.86, note). Although James had been immersed, he was a Scotchman. Many of the Scotch divines had gone over to Geneva and returned at length to Scotland greatly impressed with the views of Calvin. "These Scotch exiles, who had renounced the authority of the pope, implicitly acknowledged the authority of Calvin; and, returning to their own country, with Knox at their head, in 1559, established sprinkling in Scotland" (Edinborough Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p.236). James was a thorough Scotchman, and some of the Court ladies had already been mightily taken with this custom. But the church of England not only did not receive sprinkling for baptism, but set itself officially against it. The Church of England legislated upon the question, and sprinkling never did prevail in England until the distractions of the Civil Wars following 1641. It was adopted by the Westminster Assembly, the Presbyterians, the party of Calvin, in 1643, but never was adopted by the Church of England. Immersion is now, theoretically at least, the normal form of baptism in the Church of England. So far from sprinkling being the ordinary custom in England in 1641 it only was just beginning.
Let the reader note the following confirmations of these statements. I have personally examined a vast number of the Articles of Visitations of the Bishops of England between 1600 and 1645, and these documents fully sustain Wall in his statements. The very year that James came to the throne the clergy seemed to fear the influence of the king, and passed a most significant canon in favor of dipping and against sprinkling. These men went so far as to get the king's approval, and it was published by "his Majesties authority." The Bishop of London was the President of the Convocation, as the Archbishop was dead, for the Province of Canterbury. In these "Constitvtions and Canons Ecclesiasticall" Canon LXXXI. provides: "A Font of Stone for Baptism in euer [sic] Church". According to a former constitution, too much neglected in many places, we appoint, that there shall be a Font of stone in every church, & Chappel, where Baptism is to be ministered: the same to be set in the ancient usual places. In which onely Font, the minister shall baptize publickly" (B. M. 698. h. 20 (17) ).
This is certainly a very strong immersion document, and, what is more to the point, it comes from the highest authority in the Church of England. This Convocation was determined that sprinkling should not prevail in England, and it did not prevail till the Presbyterians came "into the saddle." The reader will bear in mind that the font was for immersion and the "bason" for sprinkling.
The Prayer Book of James I, 1604, called the Hampton Court Book, was in accord with these Canons. We read: "Then the priest shall take the child in his hands, and naming the child shall dip it in the water, so it be discreetly and warily done; and if the child shall be weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it" (B. M. C. 25. m. 11).
The Bishops of the Church of England went to work at once to carry out the instructions of the Convocation. Their action proves that they were unalterably opposed to the introduction of sprinkling. At the risk of a little repetition I shall present these "Articles to be Enquired of," since they are very important in setting forth the views of the Episcopal church of those times, and I am not aware that any reference has been made to these Articles. It will be remembered that these Articles are the official orders of the Bishops to look into any violations of the Canon law of the church, and a direct order in case of such refraction to remedy it.
The Bishop of London had already anticipated the Canon quoted above, for we find as ear1y as 1601 he had taken steps in that direction. In his Articles of Enquiry concerning the Church, number 6, he says: "Whether your fonts or baptisteries be removed from the place where they were wont to stand or whether any persons, leaving the vse of them, do christen or baptize in basons or other. vessels, not accustomably vsed in the church, or do use any kind of lauor with a remouable bason, or haue taken downe the olde & vsuall font heretofore vsed in the parish" (B. M. 698. g. 31).
For some years this admonition appeared to be sufficient and there was no complaint. but in 1618 the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his articles concerning the Minister, is pleased to ask: "2. Doth he vse the sign of the cross in baptism, or baptize in any Bason or other vessel, and not m the usual font," &c. (B. M. 698. h. 20 (13) ).
The Bishop of Lincoln the same year followed with stringent instructions. In the fifth Article Touching the Church he enquires: "Whether haue you in your church a Font of stone set in the ancient Vsuall place," &c. Then in Article 4, Touching the Ministrie, he enquires: "Whether the minster leauing the vse of the Font, doe christen or baptize in any Basons . . . And whether your minister in the baptizing of children, obserue the orders, Rites and ceremonies appointed in the booke of Common Prayer, without addition, omission, or innovation" (B. M. 1368. d. 36). This is a significant statement, since the minister must follow the Prayer Book in the immersion, and there must be no "addition, omission, or innovation."
The Bishop of Norwich, 1619, has twelve enquiries touching the administration of the Sacraments. He is quite urgent that there shall be no departures in his Diocese. There follows the invariable enquiry concerning Ministers, "doth he euer baptize in any Bason or other thing but the vsuall Font" (B. M. 698. h. 20 (14) ).
The Bishop of London, 1621, in his Articles is not less urgent than the other Bishops, but he also gives a plain intimation that there were Baptists in his Diocese. So he adds an additional Article to his other enquires. Concerning the Clergy he enquires: "36. Whether your Minister Baptize any Children in any Bason or other vessell then in the ordinary Font, being placed in the Church or doth put any Bason into it?"
Concerning the Church he enquires: "4. Whether haue you in your Church or Chappell a Font of Stone set up in the ancient vsuall place?
"48. Whether any doe keepe their Children Vnbaptized longer then is conuent, unlesse that it be for the sicknesse of the Child, or other vrgent occasion?" (B. M. 5155. c. 9).
The Bishop of London in 1627 asked the very same questions in the same language (B. M. 700. g.17).
The Archbishop of York, 1633, in his Articles to be Enquired of Touching the Church says: "5. Whether have you in your Church, a font of stone for baptism set in the ancient usual place."
And on Touching the Ministry: "4. Whether any minister leauing the vse of the Font, doe in your Church or Chappell christen or baptize in any Basons, or other profane vessels; or whether your minister doe baptize or christen any out of the face of the Church & Congregation without speciall cause, or without Godfathers or Godmothers: And whether any person or persons be admitted to answere as Godfathers and Godmothers at the christening of any childe, except he or she haue before received the holy communion: And whether doth your minister in ye baptizing of children, observe ye orders, rites and ceremonies appointed and prescribed in the booke of common prayer, without addition, omission or other innovation" (B. M. 5155. c. 17). It is quite plain that the Archbishop of York intended that there should be no "innovations, additions or omissions" in the prescribed ceremonies of his See. Nothing less than immersion would satisfy him.
In 1636 the Archbishop of Canterbury speaks again. He enquires in his articles: "3. Whether have you a Font of Stone in your Church or Chappell, and the same set in the ancient vsuall place?
"15. Whether your minister doe publikely baptize in any sort of vessell, and not in the Font only" (B. M. 698. h. 20. (1) ).
The Bishop of Norwich enquired, l638, concerning the Church: "2. Have you a comely Font of Stone with a cover, set in the ancient usuall place of the Church, is it whole and clean," &c. (B. M. (698. h, 20. (20) ).
The Bishop of Exeter, 1638, enquired: "2. Whither. . . . a Font of Stone set in the ancient usuall place of your Church, with a comely timber covering, and a lock and key, thereunto," &c. (B. M. 698. h. 20. (19) ).
The Bishop of Winchester, 1639, enquired touching the Church: "6. Whether you, have in your Church a Font of Stone, set in the ancient usuall place" (B. M. 698. h. 20. (21) ).
The Bishop of London, 1640, enquired: "8. Have you in your Church or Chappell a font of stone, where baptism is to be ministered, decently made, and kept as it ought to be? Is the same set in the Ancient usuall place appointed for it, and doth your minister publikely baptize in the same font only?" (B.M. 5155. c.26).
The Bishop of Lincoln enquired concerning the Church: "1. Whether have you in your severall churches and chappells. . . . a Font of stone set up in the ancient usuall place" (B. M. E. 171 (24).
This activity on the part of the Bishops put fonts in nearly all of the Church houses of the Episcopalians in England, and vast numbers of these fonts and baptisteries may be seen in these churches to this day. Take, for an example, the little city of Canterbury. The Church of St. George the Martyr has an ancient octagonal font, the basin being upheld by eight small shafts and a thick center one. The Church of St. Mary Magdalene has a fine old Norman octangular font supported by a centre column. The Catholic church of St. Thomas has a very beautiful baptistery, and its carved oak canopy forms one of the most noticeable features in the building. St. Martin's church was the scene of the immersion of ten thousand Saxons at one time. It contains a font well preserved, of which the tradition is that in it King Ethelbert was baptized -– three feet high surrounded with sculpture. St. John's Hospital has a singularly-shaped early font. An immense baptistery had been placed in the Cathedral, and the building remains to this day. It is a circular building with the roof in the form of a cupola; underneath is a vault raised on stone pillars, from the center of which proceed ribs to an outer circle of pillars. The Norman arch is beautifully ornamented.
But now remains a most striking fact. For some reason this baptistery was in ruins in 1636, and no font was found in the cathedral. There was a powerful interest taken in immersion at this moment, and it would never do for this noted Cathedral to be without a font or baptistery. Bishop Warner presented the Cathedral with a font in 1636, and it was placed in the Cathedral with great ceremony (The Antiquity of Canterbury, by William Sumner, London, 1640, B. M. 578, f, 17). In the strife which followed in the nation this font was destroyed in 1641, and was rebuilt by Bishop Warner in 1641. There is a notice which follows that several infants and the wives of two officers of the Cathedra1 were immersed in it from 1660 to 1663 (Archlaeology, vol. 11, pp. 146, 147. It is impossible to conceive that a font or baptistery would be placed in this Cathedral in 1636 and again in 1660 if immersion was not practiced, and yet we are compelled to believe this if this 1641 sprinkling theory is true.
On the use of these hundreds of fonts and baptisteries in England I shall let two of the most competent authorities speak. F. A. Paley says: "It is, however, well known that ancient fonts were made large enough for the complete immersion of infants. Exceptions to this all but universa1 practice are very rare; one or two instances are quoted in the Archaeology, vol. 11, p. 123. . . The violation of the same principle, arising from the unhappy custom of aspersion now prevalent in the English church, is one of the commonest faults of modern usage" (Illustrations of Baptismal Fonts, p. 31. B. M. 1265. c 7).
Samuel Carte, the Archaeologist, says of the Fonts of England: "Give me leave to observe, that antiently [sic] at least the font was large enough to admit of an adult person being dipped or immersed therein."
I am sure that the above facts sustain all that Wall claimed when he stated that sprinkling only began in 1641 in England, and made little headway till 1645. The Episcopalian authorities and divines were squarely against it, and did all in their power to prevent its practice in England. These facts cannot be controverted. They are taken from the original documents, and they contain the acts of the Bishops. Sprinkling prevailed only when the Presbyterians came into power in England. instead of immersion being out of practice in England from 1600 to 1641, it was well nigh the universal practice. It shows how utterly unfounded is the statement that there was any need for a "revival" of immersion, or a new "inventing" of immersion in England in 1641. No amount of words or evasions can overthrow these facts. These facts further show that the "Kiffin" Manuscript could not have been written in the atmosphere of the England of. 1641, and is therefore of much later date.
To this proposition we have witnesses who lived and thoroughly understood the history of the times of 1641, For example, Thomas Blake, writing in 1645, declares, "I have been an eye witnesse of many infants dipped and know it to have been the constant practise of many ministers in their places, for many years together" (Infants Baptisme Freed from Antichristianisme, pp. 1, 2. B. M. 279. (10) ).
Walter Craddock preached a sermon before the House of Commons at St. Margaret's, July 21,1646. Among other things he said: "There is now among good people a great deal of strife about baptism; as for divers things, so for the point of dipping, though in some places in England they dip altogether" (p, 100).
Daniel Featley is also a good witness. In his Clavis Mystica, which was published in 1638, he says: "Our font is always open, or ready to be opened, and the minister attends to receive the children of the faithful, and to dip them in that sacred laver."
William Walker, a Pedobaptist, who wrote in 1678, says: "And truly as the general custom now in England is to sprinkle, so in the fore end of this centurie the general custom was to dip" (The Doctrines of Baptisms, p.146).
Sir John Floyer, one oj the most careful writers, says: "That I may further convince all of my countrymen that Immersion in Baptism was very lately left off in England, I will assure them that there are yet Persons living who were so immersed; for I am so informed by Mr. Berisford, minister of Sutton in Derbyshire, that his parents Immersed not only him but the rest of his family at his Baptism (History of Cold Bathing p. 182. London, 1722).
Alexander Balfour says: "Baptizing infants by dipping them in fonts was practiced in the Church of England, (except in cases of sickness or weakness) until the Directory came out in the year 1644, which forbade the carrying of children to the font" (Anti Paedo-Baptism Unveiled, p. 240. London. 1827). ========= [John T. Christian, Baptist History Vindicated, pp. 74-85. - jrd]
Chapter 8
Baptist History Vindicated Index
Baptist History Homepage