from the Reformed rather than the Lutheran party, held professorships in the English universities. During the reign of Mary many Englishmen, having to flee for their lives, sought refuge in France, Holland, and Switzerland. When these returned they brought back Continental notions with them. How far this was the case we may gather when we remember that this was the period of the rise of the great Puritan or Presbyterian party, of John Knox and the Reformation in Scotland. What effect did this close connection with the Reformed Churches have on the mode of baptism in England? What did the Reformed Church teach in reference to it? No man in Europe probably had more influence on English ecclesiastical matters than Henry Bullinger, the successor of Zwingle at Zurich. Describing baptism, he says: "It is an institution of God, and consisteth of the Word of God and the holy rite or ceremony whereby the people of God are dipped in the water in the name of the Lord."* But after this formal definition of the rite, he says that it is "free either to sprinkle or to dip," and that "sprinkling doth as much as dipping." Calvin also taught that the mode of baptism "is not of the least consequence, and that Churches should be at liberty to adopt either immersion or sprinkling, according to the diversity of climate." The influence of all the Reformed Symbols is in the same direction. In theory the mode was regarded as of no consequence; in practice the Continental Churches almost exclusively sprinkled or poured. Before this time the English Church, owing to her insulated position, had been largely unaffected by the changes going on in the rest of Europe. But now, coming into closer contact with the Reformed Churches, the tendency was that she should assimilate her practice to theirs. This tendency was quickened by pecul iar circumstances. The English Church, true to her conservative character, had retained certain ancient ceremonies. in her office for baptism, such as the blessing of the font, * Decades, Vol. IV, page 352. signing with the cross, etc. The whole Puritan party, and many among the Episcopalians, regarded these as popish and idolatrous. Because they were associated with fonts, they removed the fonts from churches and substituted basins for them. This practice was so frequent as to call forth special laws against it. Many who would not go so far to avoid the hated ceremonies would keep away from the font and have their children baptized by ministers of their own way of thinking; that is, by ministers who were specially under Continental influences. We think there can be no doubt that the example and teaching of the Continental Churches and the favoring conditions in England furnish a sufficient explanation of the change of the font to a basin, and of dipping to pouring in the English Church. We have no means of determining the extent of this change in the beginning of the seventeenth century. We are safe in saying that the more conservative part of the Episcopalians still clung to the old custom. When the child could endure it they still discreetly and warily dipped it; when it was weak, they poured the water upon it. The English Church has never sanctioned sprinkling. As to the Presbyterian element in England we can speak with more definiteness, and yet not with absolute accuracy. It is likely that among the Puritans sprinkling or pouring was almost universal. This must be said with caution, for we can not, in those times of rapid change, judge of what was done at one time by what was done at a subsequent time. We know what the Westminster Assembly of Divines did in 1644. On Wednesday, the seventh day of August, of that year, they decided by a vote of twenty-five to twenty-four that "the minister shall take water and sprinkle or pour it with his hand upon the face or forehead of the child." The next day, Thursday, the eighth day of August, 1644, it was further debated "about dipping in baptism." The day before there had been "a large and long discourse whether dipping were essential or used in *See "An. Book of Common Prayer," page 226. the first institution." Now the question is whether it might have a place in the Directory. It was decided to exclude it, and, "as for the dispute itself about dipping, it was thought fit and most safe to let it alone."* This is what the Assembly of Divines did on Thursday, the 8th of August, 1644, annulling what Christ commanded sixteen hundred years before. But it is not certain that that Assembly would have ventured so far if its meetings had taken place forty years earlier; and it is almost certain that their decision now was largely influenced by the discussions with Baptists on the mode of baptism, which discussions were then first beginning to arise in the Church, both among the Episcopalians and the Dissenters. There were Baptists in England during the sixteenth century. We now and then read of obscure and hunted congregations of them. They are usually spoken of as foreigners fleeing from persecution in Germany or Holland; but occasionally natives of England are mentioned as holding Anabaptist views, and as "meeting together to talk about the Bible." The controversial literature of the time furnishes proof that anti-Pedobaptist views were beginning to excite serious attention, and to call forth labored arguments in favor of infant baptism. There may have been Baptist churches hidden away and eluding the search of bishop and magistrate; but of them we have no knowledge. The history of the English Baptists does not begin until the beginning of the seventeenth century, since which time there have been organized Baptist churches in England. These churches were few and weak, and their history is obscure up to the time of the meeting of the Long Parliament and the beginning of the struggle between the king and the people. Then they suddenly burst into prominence. In 1646 there were no less than forty-six Baptist churches in and about London alone; and Baptists are numbered by thousands. From that time they have never ceased to be * See Lightfoot's Works, xiii, pp. 298–301. †St. Mary's Norwich Chapel Case, page 114. an important factor in the religious and civil history of England and America. Were these English Baptists immersionists before 1641? Did they, in the beginning of their existence have peculiar views as to the mode of baptism? We must frankly say that although we have found somewhat frequent allusions to them in the sixteenth century we have nowhere found any intimation that they did not baptize just as other people baptized. There is no allusion to their mode of baptism. It is proper to say that while our search has been extensive it has not been completely exhaustive; and it may possibly be ascertained hereafter that at least some of the English Anabaptists of the sixteenth century were professedly and exclusively immersionists. It is also proper to say that the silence of their opponents on the subject may be ac. counted for by the fact that immersion was so common at that time as not to excite attention; or by the other fact that the mode of baptism, owing to the influence of the Continental Reformers, had early begun to be looked upon as a matter of supreme indifference. But again it must be noticed, that if Baptists regarded a particular mode essential, while all others regarded all modes equally allowable, this of itself would constitute a peculiarity which could hardly fail to attract attention. The fact that it did not attract attention must be taken as negative proof that it did not exist. When we come to the beginning of the seventeenth century, although Baptists themselves come out into a clearer light, we have still difficulty in deciding what was their mode of baptism. We have already noticed the indefinite way in which baptism is spoken of by the refugees at Amsterdam. It, like the mode of John Smyth's baptism, is a difficult problem, and Dr. Dexter has labored very faithfully on it. He came to his work with advantages not enjoyed by former investigators. He had the privilege of examining certain contemporaneous, or nearly contemporaneous tracts in the British Museum, which have not here tofore been so thoroughly looked into. Unfortunately these They are all in But the point tracts do not go back quite far enough. cluded between the years 1641 and 1662. that Dr. Dexter makes is that, while these tracts do not cover the exact time in dispute, they speak of dipping as a new mode of baptism, and as something but recently introduced by the Baptists. They use such expressions as 'these new dippers," "the new ordinance of dipping,' "the new mode of dipping," "the new inventions of the late Anabaptists," and many more. We repeat what we have already said, that it does not make a particle of difference to us whether the English Baptists first began to immerse in 1641, or had always done So. We cheerfully admit the force of Dr. Dexter's quotations. We do not wonder that they should seem to him perfectly conclusive. But before we decide that the question is closed, we must take into the account two things. The first is the ambiguity of the word new; the second is the animus of those who use it. In some cases the newness of the thing consists in the fact that it is exclusive of every thing else. Thus Baillie says: "Among the new inventions of the late [recent] Anabaptists, there is none which, with greater animosity, they set on foot than the necessity of dipping over head and ears, than the nullity of affusion and sprinkling in the administration of baptism. To the same end Pagitt says: "At this day they have a new crotchet come into their heads, that all that have not been plunged nor dipped under water are not truly baptized, and these also they rebaptize." In some cases the new baptism seems to be spoken of in contrast with the old or first baptism. In other cases, however, the newness is certainly referred to the mode. One writer says, emphatically, "Dipping was and is, as I have said, a new business, and a very novelty." Mr. Praise-God Barbon, who has by many been considered an excellent Baptist, writing in 1643, allows to the "total dippers" an antiquity of only "two or three years, or some such short time." With Mr. Barbon |