Britain – Supplement Pt. 1 Establishment Writings against the Anabaptists & Baptists in the Westminster Era ~ Historical Backdrop While the proper mode of baptism had already been a matter of discussion and some disagreement in Britain for more than a century, the issue reached a resounding crescendo in the 1640’s. It seems safe to say the primary reason for this upsurge was the rise of various English Anabaptist and Baptist groups during this period. It is also evident that a general failure to recognize, or in some cases the refusal to acknowledge appropriate and important differences within this broader grouping also shaped official reactions. Thus, in order to properly understand the content and tone of the myriad writings on baptism that arose at this time, it is necessary to realize the intense degree to which Anabaptists (as typically any and all of the various groups in question were singularly denominated) were greatly disliked and distrusted by other religious classes. Even though they were severely persecuted, various Anabaptist groups had widely existed, and in a few cases even flourished on the European continent from the very earliest days of the Protestant Reformation. However, while present, the movement had remained relatively small and obscure in the British Isles. Then, as had similarly happened on the Continent, an unprecedented and increasingly effective opposition to the centuries-old and monolithic establishment state-church began to transpire. In England’s case, such confrontation was primarily led by presbyterian, along with some episcopal and congregationalist Puritans. This mainstream challenge to the existing power structure, particularly as conceived within the polity of Independency (congregationalism), helped create considerable turmoil, even to the extent of contributing to eventual civil war. This opposition then seems to have materially, if inadvertently helped open the door for the concurrent and remarkably rapid rise of various other non-conformist groups in England, especially the Anabaptists and Baptists. After an eleven-year absence at the hands of Charles I, the English parliament was finally reconvened in 1640 (the second iteration of which, lasting for 20 years, became known as the Long Parliament). A substantial majority of its representatives were for the first time of a Puritan and non-conformist persuasion. For a variety of reasons, one of Parliament’s priorities became the reconstruction of the establishment church, with the task being entrusted to a select group of learned and godly divines. This august conclave, constituted mostly of presbyterian-minded churchmen, of course became known as the Westminster Assembly. To lay some groundwork for better understanding the prevailing environment in which the Assembly then deliberated the issue of baptism, inclusive of mode, we will examine in some detail two notable writings by two of its participants. While both were published slightly after the Assembly undertook their deliberations on the mode of baptism (mid-1644), they are generally reflective of issues and attitudes seen in the pithier minutes and various journals from the Assembly. ~ The Dippers Dipt…, by Daniel Featley The first work to be considered was written by the episcopal royalist Daniel Featly (1582–1645). Only a mildly reform-minded high-Anglican, Featley seems to have been invited to join the Westminster Assembly by virtue of his impressive theological knowledge and scholastic brilliance—and, perhaps, initial good standing within the old-establishment. Featley was also well-known for his always lively and, shall we say, often colorful writing. In terms of the Assembly, this propensity of prose seems to have backfired, as Featley chose to employ his piercing faculty as a weapon in opposition to a foundational item of the new reforms. This defiant and abrasive stance was most likely the main impetus behind Featley’s relatively quick eviction from the Assembly (1643), and subsequent imprisonment. [1] Nonetheless, Featley held common cause with the Assembly when it came to resolutely opposing the Anabaptists (and all those so-called), although he chaffed at what he perceived to be the establishment’s unwillingness to move decisively on the matter. So, while still imprisoned, Featley determined to wield a most poisonous pen against the despised Sectaries. The telling title of this jolting treatise was, Katabaptistai kataptustoi: The dippers dipt, or, The anabaptists duck'd and plung'd over head and eares [etc.], (1645). [2] To be sure, Featley’s highly invective writing was on an extreme end of the spectrum of English anti-Anabaptist literature. Yet The Dippers Dipt was in fact a best-seller of sorts, undergoing five editions in just two years, and seven altogether. That fact—along with accounts that the volume was sometimes chained to church reading desks [3]—objectively attests to its wide reception, and innate bearing on both public and executive opinion. As such, it can scarcely be ignored when surveying this small but fascinating part of English church history. Featley’s target audience and reason for having put forth his piquant polemic, was statedly as follows: To the Most Noble Lords, with the Honorable Knights, Citizens and Burgesses now Assembled in Parliament: ...But why doe I trouble my selfe with these new upstart Sectaries? There is a learned and reverend Assembly of Divines attending on you, who will take care nequid Ecclessia detrimenti capiat [that the Church suffer no harm]. Who prest me for this service? My Answer hereunto is as ready as true, That though I were not pressed, yet I was challenged to it. And if I had declined this Combat, as others did, the Adversary would have growne most insolent, and all the City and Borough rung of their vaunting brags, and confidence in their cause, and our diffidence in ours. ...As Solinus writeth, that in Sardinia where there is a venemous Serpent called Solifuga [4], (whose biting is present death) there is also at hand a Fountaine, in which they who wash themselves after they are bit, are presently cured. This venemous Serpent (verè Solifuga) flying from, and shunning the light of Gods Word, is the Anabaptist, who in these later times first shewed his shining head, and speckled skin, and thrust out his sting neere the place of my residence, for more then twenty yeeres: And if these Disputations and Writings of mine may prove like the Waters of the Fountaine in Sardinia, soveraigne against the sting and teeth of this Serpent, I shall account my paines well spent. [5] With his general premise concerning the Anabaptists laid down, and having asserted his own pious heroism in the matter, Featley went on to make sure his true sentiments were known... Apart from the work’s pithy title, it is also here that Featley’s first derogatory addressal of the Anabaptists’ practice of immersion occurs—along with a few more digs at the extant authorities. Now of all Heretiques and Schismatiques the Anabaptist in three regards ought to be most carefully looked unto, and severely punished, if not utterly exterminated and banished out of the Church and Kingdome. ...They preach, and print, and practise their Hereticall impieties openly; they hold their Conventicles weekly in our chiefe Cities, and Suburbs thereof, and there prophesie by turnes; and (that I may use the phrase of Tertullian) aedificantur in ruinam [6]; they build one another in the faith of their Sect, to the ruine of their soules; …They flock in great multitudes to their Iordans, 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 as they defile our Rivers with their impure washings, and our Pulpits with their false prophecies and phanaticall enthusiasmes, so the Presses sweat and groane under the load of their blasphemies. ...This fire, which in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James, and our gracious sovereign till now [Charles I], was covered in England under the ashes; or if it brake out at any time, by the care of the ecclesiastical and civil magistrates it was soon put out. But of late, since the unhappy distractions which our sins have brought upon us, the temporal sword being otherways employed, and the spiritual locked up fast in the scabbard, this sect, among others, has so far presumed upon the patience of the state that it hath held weekly conventicles, rebaptized hundreds of men and women together in the twilight in rivulets and some arms of the Thames, and elsewhere, dipping them over head and ears. [7] As part of his overall call to action, Featly made some remarks approving of the actions that some “wise” Continental and earlier English authorities had undertaken in their attempts to suppress Anabaptism. At Vienna the Anabaptists are tyed together with ropes, and one draweth the other into the river to be drowned: as it should seem, the wise Magistrates of that place had an eye to that old maxime of justice, Quo quis peccat, co puniatur; let the punishment beare upon it the print of the sinne: for as these drew one another into their errour, so also into the gulfe; and as they drowned men spiritually by re-baptizing and so prophaning the holy sacramenct, so also they were drowned [8]. In the year of our Lord, 1539, two Anabaptists were burned beyond Southwark, in the way to Newington; and a little before them, five Dutch Anabaptists were burned in Smithfield [9]. [10] Featley devoted the final section of his book to conducting a point-by-point “censure” of a new Confession of Faith, which seven recently gathered Particular Baptist churches (i.e. those holding to the classic Reformed Doctines of Grace) had released. Yet despite the Confession’s stated purpose of distinguishing and distancing its adherants from various contemperaty anabaptistic heretics and charlatins that they were frequently lumped together with, Featly would have none of it. [A Censure of a Book printed Anno 1644. Intituled, The confession of faith of those Churches which are commonly (though falsely) called Anabaptists.] Pliny writeth [11], that if the black humour [bile-ink] of the Cuttell-fish be mingled with oyl in a Lampe, the visages of all in the room, though never so faire and beautifull, will seem ugly, and of the hieu of Blackamores [dark-black Africans]: so the Proctors for our Anabaptists would beare us in hand, that all who of late have preached, and written against that Sect, through the black humor of malice, tanquã Sepia atramento [with dark brown ink], make it appear much more deformed, and odious then it is. For if we give credit to this confession and the preface thereof, those who among us are branded with that title, are neither Hereticks, nor Scismaticks, but tender hearted Christians: upon whom through false suggestions, the hand of Authority fell heavy whilest the Hierarchie stood. [12] …Of which I may truely say as Saint Hilarie [13] doth of that of the Arrians, they offer to the unlearned their faire cup full of venome, annointing the brim with the honey of sweet and holy words, they thrust in store of true positions, that together with them they may juggle in the venome of their falshood: they cover a little ratsbane [rat poison] in a great quantity of sugar that it may not be discerned. [14] With regard to the topic Featley had chosen as the namesake of his ranting treatise, and despite his earlier disparaging generalizations on the matter, Featley went on to make known he was not oppossed to dipping per se, but only to it being made essential. Fourthly, I except against the fortieth Article [of the Baptist Confession], viz. The way and manner of dispensing of this Ordinance, the Scripture holds out to be dipping or plunging the whole body under water; it being a signe, must answer the things signified, which are these, 1. The washing of the whole soul in the blood of Christ: 2. That interest the Saints have in the death, buriall, and resurrection of Christ: 3. Together with a confirmation of our Faith, that as certainly as the body is buried under water, and riseth again, so certainly shall the bodies of the Saints be raised by the power of Christ in the day of the resurrection to reigne with Christ. This Article is wholly sowred with the new leaven of Anabaptisme, I say the new leaven, for it cannot be proved that any of the ancient Anabaptists maintained any such position, there being three wayes of baptizing, either by dipping, or washing, or sprinkling, to which the Scripture alludeth in sundry places: the Sacrament is rightly administred by any of the three, and whatsoever is here alleadged for dipping, we approve of so far as it excludeth not the other two. Dipping may be, and hath been used in some places [15], trina immersio, a threefold dipping; but there is no necessity of it: it is not essentiall to Baptisme. ...It is true, Iohn baptized Christ in Iordan, and Philip baptized the Eunuch in the river: but the Text saith not that either the Eunuch, or Christ himselfe, or any baptized by Iohn, or his Disciples, or any of Christs Disciples, were dipped, plunged or drowned over head and eares [16], as this Article implyeth, and our Anabaptists now practise. Againe, the bare example of Christ and his Apostles without a precept doth not bind the Church, and precept there is none for dipping…and therefore dato & non concesso [supposing only for the sake of argument], that Christ and Saint Iohn or their Disciples, used dipping in Baptisme; it will not follow that we ought to baptize in the like and no other manner. [17] Finally, with respect to the spiritual symbolism in baptism that the Anabaptists and Baptists were known to consistently emphasize, Featley proposed a rather curious fulfillment-by-proxy in cases where sprinkling was used. As for the representation of the death and resurrection, that is not properly the inward grace signified by baptisme, but the washing the soul in the laver of regeneration, and cleansing us from our sins. However, in the manner of baptisme, as it is administred in the church of England, there is a resemblance of death and the resurrection. For, though the child be not alwayes dipped into the water (as the rubrick prescribeth, save only in case of necessitie) which would be dangerous in cold weather, especially if the child be weak and sickly: yet the Minister dippeth his hand into the water [18], and plucketh it out when he baptizeth the infant. [19] ~ Some briefe considerations on Dr. Featley’s Dippers Dipt.., by Samuel Richardson One of the original signers of the Baptist Confession, Samuel Richardson (fl. 1643-58), wrote a quick response to Featley’s book. One of his main complaints concerned the all-too-common convention of their opponents categorical attribution of many supposed practices and detestable beliefs to every baptistic person and group, one-and-alike. But, saith the Doctor, they goe men and women together stark naked into their Jordans...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; & if he cannot, it is fit he should be known for a slanderer, if he deserve no punishment for it. Wee know error is ancient, and spreading; but truth was before error, and baptizing by dipping was before baptizing by sprinkling; he may name to us as many men as he pleaseth, but hee must tell us where it is so written in the Scriptures, so as we may reade it, before we shall believe them. ...But the Doctor chargeth us in his book, with many things that we hold: That no malefactor ought to be put to death, That it is lawfull to have more wives then one at once, That a man may put away his wife if shee differ from him in point of religion, That we are to goe naked, and not be ashamed, That we hold it lawfull to slay wicked Magistrates, That no Christian may goe to law, but right himselfe by violent means, That wicked men have no propriety in their goods, but all things ought to be held in common, That we maintain pretended Revelations, That Christ took not flesh of the virgin Mary, That there is no originall sinne, That men have free will in spirituall actions, That election is for foreseen faith and repentance, That God gives all men sufficient grace to be saved, That a man hath free will of himself to accept or refuse grace, That Christ died indifferently alike for all, That a true beleever may fall away from grace totally and finally, And that wee hold Libertinisme [i.e. antinomianism] & Familisme [19], and such like stuffe which we utterly abhorre and detest; And if God permit, wee shall in the next impression of the Confession of our Faith, more fully declare jointly what we believe, and therefore I will not answer his exceptions, which he makes at some of the Articles, but leave it to them to answer for themselves, which will be ere long, if God permit; but sure I am, all this poyson (which he chargeth upon us) is drawn out of the impure fountaine of divers Heretikes, in which he laboureth to drown us in; and I wonder how his conscience would permit him to heave so many untruths into the Presse. …But, oh me thinkes I heare the Presse grone, if not sweat under the burden of so many heavie charges; and sure his grones will be much greater when God opens his eyes, and shews him what he hath done, which the Lord in mercy doe, if it be his will. I hope I may say as Christ did, Father forgive him, for he knowes not what he hath done. [20] As for Featley’s insinuation that it may not be a bad idea to physically expell or even “exterminate” the English Anabaptists and Baptists, Richardson pled: Suppose infants sprinkling to be sufficient [as] dipping, and some were not so perswaded, because they cannot find the place in the Scripture where they may read it (that it is sufficient). ...Is this so great an evill, that for this a man shall be more hated, and suffer more from some men, then the basest livers where they dwell; because they went into the river to be (ducked) dipt, and that but once more then they needed? Is this so heynous an offence as to turne a beleever into an heretick, and sufficient to deprive them of all hope of salvation, and of breathing in the aire of their native countrey? [21] As Richardson had also alluded to, in order to clarify certain points within the Confession a second, revised edition was issued, in 1646. The article on baptismal mode was slightly amended to read: [Article XL] That the way and manner of the dispensing this ordinance, is dipping or plunging the body under water; it being a signe, must answer the things signified, which is, that interest the Saints have in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ: And that as certainly as the body is buried under water, and risen again, so certainly shall the bodies of the Saints bee raised by the power of Christ, in the day of the resurrection, to reigne with Christ. …[marginal note] The word Baptizo signifies to dip or plunge, yet so as convenient garments be both upon the Administrator and subject with all modesty. [22] ~ Anabaptism, the true Fountaine of Independency.., by Robert Baillie Other period polemics against Anabaptism, which thus inherently dealt with the topics of baptism subjects and mode, were generally more dignified and measured than Featley’s. Nonetheless, they always shared many of the same concerns that Featley had so stridently propounded. A good example of this more temperate character is seen in a treatise by the Scottish divine Robert Baillie (1602–62), entitled, Anabaptism, the true Fountaine of Independency (1647). A highly respected minister and Professor of Divinity in Glasgow, Baillie was selected to be one of five Scottish Commissioners to serve in an advisory role at the Westminster Assembly. As the title of his book conveys, and such was actually its broader purpose, Baillie took the position that English Independency (a.k.a. congregationalism) arose out of the precedent of separatism set by the Continental Anabaptists as they had contended for ecclesial sovereignty. Their rise had, so it was understood, in turn resulted in the English Anabaptists then taking courage in asserting their own autonomy. We will say no more of the Anabaptists over Sea, their number in England till of late was not great; and the most of these were not English but Dutch strangers: for beside the hand of the State that ever lay heavy upon them, the labours of their children the Separatists were always great for their reclaiming. …Hence it was that the Anabaptists made little noyse in England, till of late the Independents have corrupted and made worse the principles of the old Separatists, proclaiming for errours a liberty both in Church and State; under this shelter the Anabaptists have lift up their head, and increased their numbers, much above all other sects of the Land. 17 [23] While somewhat secondary to the work’s stated purpose, various particular baptistic beliefs were also addressed throughout the book. As a preliminary basis in the matter, Baillie indicating he was quite suspicious of the effectiveness and veracity of even the second edition of the Baptist Confession. 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 [1644], and of late again in a second corrected Edition [1646] have set out with a bold preface to both the Houses of Parl. may no more be taken for the measure of their faith [collectively], then that Confession which their elder Brethren in Holland did print not long ago in the name of all their company [1632; Dordrecht Confession of Faith (Mennonite)]. …Moreover these seven congregations cannot prescribe, and are no ways Leaders to a great number of Anabaptistick Churches over all the Land. 17f. […] How ever the tenets which the most of them are likely to acknowledge, be these which seven of their best Churches did offer in print to the Parliament, as their common sense: We wish that all these who go under the name of Anabaptists in England, were resolved to stand to the articles of that confession without any further progresse in errour: but how farre the very prime Subscribers are from any such resolution, it will appear anon. As for the Members whether of these seven, or of their other thirty nine Congregations (for before the penning of that Confession, this sect was said to be grown unto no lesse then forty sixe Churches, and that as I take it within and about London) the most of them are exceeding farre from making these Articles the rule of their belief. [24] Baillie did, however, express a much more objective and charitable approach than some of his contemporaries in terms of trying to fairly understand the various anabaptistic groups and the particular beliefs held amongst them. They are a people very zealous of Liberty, and most unwilling to be under the bondage of the judgement of any other: This selfish singularity makes them much to differ, not only from others, but among themselves also: It is hard therefore to fasten any tenets upon them more then they please to accept […] But in this, my dealing with them shall be fair, what I ascribe to them I shall bring along my authority for it; if I know the unwillingnesse of any of them to concurre with my Author, I shall be loth to dissemble it, and if through unacquaintance with the minde of the most I shall happen to make the particular Tenets of some to be generall to all, whensoever any of them shall declare against the Tenet of their fellows, for my part I shall wish all such true and ingenuous declarations whether from few or more, to be accepted with thankfulnesse: for I professe my gladnesse to see any who are supposed erroneous to clear themselves, were it but in some part from any of the faults which usually are charged upon them. [25] On the other hand, Baillie was not so unprejudiced in asserting a supposed motivation as to why the Anabaptists and Baptists were so insistent on using immersion—indeed, he rather pointedly claimed a reason not found or ever alluded to in any of his opponents’ writings. The question about the necessity of dipping seems to be taken up onely 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-baptisme: 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. [26] Baillie also went into considerable depth exploring the biblical grounds actually given by the baptistic parties in defense of their use of immersion. His exposition is also valuable for understanding some counter-views typically held among the non-immersionist Presbyterians, who held the levers of ecclesial power at this time. The distinction of affusion from sprinkling in this matter, seems to be but a needlesse curiosity; By dipping they understand an application of the whole person to the water, a putting of the whole person in the water, not a pouring of the water upon the person; an intinction not of one member, but of the whole body, a ducking, an immersion of the whole body under the water. Consider farther, that we doe not oppose the lawfulnesse of dipping in some cases, but the necessity of it in all cases: Neither doe they impugne the expediency of sprinkling in some cases, but the lawfulnesse of it in any case. […] For the lawfulnesse of sprinkling and against the necessity of dipping, I reason thus: …The chief end of applying water to any body, whether by dipping of it in the water, or sprinkling the water upon it, is to purge it from soile; that the use of water in baptisme is to remove and wash away, albeit not the defilement of the body, yet the guilt of sin from the soul; we read in the 1 Pet. 3.21. ...This being the onely end why water in baptisme is used, that way of using of it must be lawfull which is fit for that end; now common experiences teaches, that pouring and sprinkling is as meet for purifying, as dipping can be. […] As for Vossius [27], suppose his criticisme were well founded, that baptizein did signifie principally to dip, which may very well be questioned; (for why may we not make the first signification of the word to be washing, and the second dipping the first being the end, and the other but the mean, as well as to make dipping the first signification, and washing the second, because the one is the cause, and the other the effect?) yet all this is for no purpose, for though the word did signifie first to dip, yet if in the second, third, fourth, fifth, or any place it signified to sprinkle, it is enough for all that we affirm. […] Their second objection they take from these Scriptures, where the baptized seem to have been dipped, Matth. 3.13.16. …Iohn 3.23. …Act. 8.38, 39. …First, suppose that in all these places dipping had been used, it follows not that it was so universally. ...Secondly, although dipping had been universall in the Primitive times, yet this practise would not inferre any necessity of its continuance, unlesse two things were made good; first, that practice and example alone is a sufficient ground for the institution of a Sacramentall rite; again, that every circumstance of a Sacrament generally practised in Scripturall times, must be of an unchangeable and unvariable nature, and so necessary, that without sin it may not in any case be altered. [28] Baillie’s views on the representation of a burial and resurrection in water baptism is also notable. While he admitted such was an intended symbolism in the rite, he contended there is no reason to suppose there is any sensible relation to the action of immersion. He did, however, seem to give at least a tacit nod to a view expressed by Calvin, that sprinkling can still convey the concept sensibly enough. …The third objection, Immersion is necessarily to be practised, because it signifies our buriall with Christ, according to Rom. 6.3, 4...also Col. 2.12. ...First, it is a presumption in any man to put a divine institution upon any rite, which in its own nature is onely indifferent; But it is a presumption in the highest degree to affixe a signification to any such rite. We grant Baptisme for its signification has the death of Christ and all the fruits thereof, also that it seals to us our fellowship not onely in Christs death, but in his buriall, his resurrection, his ascension, his sitting at the right hand of God; but what divers Scriptures, and particularly the places in hand do ascribe to Baptisme, we have no warrant to apply it unto immersion. ...It makes nothing against this, that by sprinkling, a little quantity of water is applyed onely to the head, and much water by dipping is applyed to the whole body, for in Sacraments the quantity of the element, the shortnesse of the outward action is not attended. ...Even so the sprinkling of a little water may signifie and seal up unto us our participation in Christs life, death, buriall, resurrection, and every thing else of his wherein we have interest, as well as a totall immersion in the whole Ocean for so long a time as Jonah lay under the billows of the great deep. [29] Baillie quite ruthlessly denounced the various Sectaries (as Independents and Anabaptists were jointly denominated) that were on the rise in England in 1646, and rued what he perceived to be the gross degradation of righteous civil and religious society at their hands. Nonetheless, in great contrast to the likes of Featley, he took a decidedly non-violent and even considerate position in terms of how he thought they should be dealt with. This is almost all I have to say of the second caution also, That in the greatest pangs of our zeal we never forget charity. It’s true, in this dead age, where zeal against error or vice is so rare, and where it is found, of so low a degree, that we need not draw it down by the mixture of any allaying adjunct; yet because in some it has, and in more it may exceed, that charity which the Lord will have joyned with it, we shall be loth to separate. When ever we have to doe, not only with them in whom we evidently see some rayes of the image of God, but with very hypocrites, whom we have but too good ground to suspect of counterfaiting; yet, for charities sake, let us give them (so far as evident verity will admit) a good construction: leaving the full account and certain search of them to the Lords further discovery, whether here or in his own day. In the mean time, for the sake of that grace and truth they carry in their face and mouth, let us deal so gently with them as may be; yea, when we have to do with the grossest sinners, let us never put off the bowels of pity and humanity to the worst of them. Who hath made us of a better metall? What sometimes have we been? What before all our tryals be over, may yet escape us, or our children, or our dearest friends? Who knoweth how soon these wicked persons may receive mercy, and be rescued out of Satans bands? […] What ever indignation we are obliged to carry against the sin, yet we must pity the man; and if any censure spirituall or temporall, be inflicted upon him, this justice must flow from the fountain of love and desire, by that ordinary means to recover the person, or else the execution will be no lesse heavy to the inflicter, then to him on whom it is inflicted. [30] ~ Englands warning by Germanies woe… We find another work against the Anabaptists that also appeared in 1646, which took a similar approach to Baillie when it came to dealing with the Anabaptists. In actuality, it was an English translation of a Latin work by the German Reformed theologian Frederick Spanheim (1600-49), who taught at the universities in Geneva, and later Leiden (Holland). The most significant factor in our immediate context is that while the treatise specifically dealt with the Continental Anabaptists, this English version was “Published according to Order,” meaning by authority of Parliament—and as a religious book, typically upon the advice or approval of a pertinant committee of the Westminster Assembly. While peceiving and denouncing a great danger in many anabaptistic views, and noting and expressing some empathy with the harsh treatment of some of the earliest Anabaptists, Spanheim ultimately took a more charitable approach. But as men are apt to strive for what is forbidden them, and desire the more that which is denyed them; so could not all this restraine the rude multitude, but that they secretly favoured the opinions of these fanaticke men, which were with much art and eloquence commended unto them by the Teachers of the Anabaptists. …Insomuch as the Senate of Zurich was at last constrained, to indeavour to prevent the same, by a severe edict in the yeare of our Lord 1530 [corr. 1526], decreeing capitall punishment upon the Teachers of the Anabaptists, and heavy fines upon any that should receive them. […] Out of all that hath been said, it is evident, how needfull it is both for the Church and Common-Wealth [Reipublicae], to joyne the labour of the Universities, with that of the Church for the confutation of the Anabaptists; and with united hearts and hands, indeavour to hinder this doctrine, which brings so certaine destruction to Church, Common-Wealth [Rebuspublicis], and our own souls. […] How many horrible and pernicious Tenets, and how hurtfull both to publique and private quietnesse, lye hidden as it were behinde a curtaine, under this simple name of Anabaptists. To whom we wish from the Lord with all our hearts, the knowledge, love, and practice of that truth which by the speciall grace of God is preserved in the Orthodox Churches; and therewithall both present and perpetuall happinesse. Neither doe we go about to stir up the Magistrate against those men; nor would we have any force offered to their consciences; but thinke those meanes onely ought to be used, which may conduce to the information of those that erre, the reproving of their errors, and confirmation of the truth, so farre as it may stand with Christian prudence and charity. [Nec vel Magistratum in istud hominum genus armatum, vel vim ullam conscientiis illatam volumus, sed ea duntaxat media adhibenda censemus, quae ad errantium institutionem, erroris έλεγχον, & veritatis, salvo, prudentiae & charitatis moderamine, confirmationem facere possunt.] [31] *********************** [1] The official reason Parliament expelled Featley from the Assembly was for being “an espy and intelligencer,” in league with other episcopal royalists at Oxford. This was supposedly evinced by his smuggling of a letter to Archbishop James Ussher. However, there are credible reasons to believe the underlying motivation was actually, as Featly himself insisted, his outspoken opposition to The Solemn League and Covenant. Featley’s position on the treaty between the England and Scotland was plainly stated in the opening proposition of a 1643 essay: Whether is this Covenant so grounded upon holy Scripture, and so conformable to the Laws of the Land yet in force, as so consonant to former Oaths and Protestations, that a Religious Christian and Loyall Subject may without scruple of Conscience, and danger of ensnaring his Soul, enter into it? I answer Negatively. [The league illegal, wherein the late Solemn league and covenant is seriously examined; …D.F. his speech before the Assembly of divines; Dr. Featley's sixteen reasons for episcopal government, (London: [s.n.], 1660), 13.] A brief outline of Parliament’s proceedings on the matter are recorded in: Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 3, 1643-1644, (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1802), 259. Featley detailed his version of events, complete with his typical rhetorical flourishes, in: Sacra nemesis, the Levites scourge, or, Mercurius Britan. disciplin'd, [Mercurius] civicus [disciplin'd;] also deverse remarkable disputes and resolvs in the Assembly of Divines related, episcopacy asserted, truth righted, innocency vindicated against detraction, (Oxford: Leonard Lichfield, 1644). [2] The expression, the Anabaptists duck'd and plung'd over head and eares, in sentiment and context, would seem akin to in modern times saying something like, the Anabaptists slam- dunked... The two-word Greek epithet headlining Featley’s work, Καταβαπτισται καταπτυστοι, is even more insultive, as it literally means, the re-baptizers spat upon. (“κατάπτυστος; to be spat upon...”— H. Liddell, R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940], in loc. sit.) [3] John Briscoe, Chapters of Nottinghamshire History, (Nottingham: Derry & Sons, 1908), 158f.] [4] Featley was apparently using serpent in the broader archaic sense of any noxious creature that creeps or stings. The reference if from Polyhistor, by the Roman grammarian and geographer Gaius Julius Solinus (fl. early 3rd century). Sardinia is in fact without serpents. But what attracts serpents in other places, brings the solifuga to the Sardinian fields. This is a rather small creature similar in shape to spiders, and is called solifuga because it flees the light of day. ...It crawls stealthily, and brings pestilence to those who sit upon it unawares. ...The waters [of Sardinia] have various benefits. ...Hot and healthful springs percolate in many places, which offer a cure for broken bones, and for the dispelling of poison injected by the solifugae. [Pomponii Melae de Orbis situ Libri III. & C. Iulii Solini, Polyhistor, (Basileae: Sebastianum Henricpetri, 1595), 192f.] [5] Καταβαπτισται καταπτυστοι [Katabaptistai kataptustoi]: The dippers dipt, or, The anabaptists duck'd and plung'd over head and eares, at a disputation in Southwark: together with a large and full discourse of their 1. Original. 2. Severall sorts. 3. Peculiar errours. 4. High attempts against the state. 5. Capitall punishments, with an application to these times, (London: Printed for Nicholas Bourne and Richard Royston, 1645); dedicatory letter. [6] Tertullian (160–220) was a North African church father, with the given citation coming from his De praescriptione haereticorum (3): It is often the case that weak-minded admirers are built up by certain people caught up in heresy, only to fall into ruin themselves. (Solent quidem isti miriones etiam de quibusdam personis ab haeresi captis aedificari in ruinam.) [PL 2:44] [7] D. Featley, The Dippers dipt; dedicatory letter. [8] As was noted by the Swiss chronicler and Protestant clergyman from St. Gallen, Johann Gast (d.1572): [March, 1528] At Vienna of Pannonia (as was disclosed by a man of great faith), in a single day many were drowned because of their anabaptism, and other erroneous beliefs. They were tied together with ropes in such a way that one dragged the other behind him, until all of the condemned were pulled in and suffocated. But this is to be regretted, that not even one of them was persuaded by admonitions and arguments from Scripture. (Vienna Pannonae (à viro magnae fidei id indicatum) uno die multos ob catabaptismum, & alios erroneos articulos submersos esse. Funibus enim ita ligati, ut alter alterum post se traheret, donec omnes paecipites ruerent, suffocarentur. Sed hoc dolendum quod ne unus quidem ex illis palinodiam cecine rit & siuaris argumentis Scripturaru admonerentur & conuinceretur.) [Johann Gast, De anabaptismi exordio erroribus historiis abominandis confutationibus adiectis, (Basileae: Robertus Winter, 1544), 178.] [9] Such was related in the invaluable work of the English chronicler John Stow (1525–1605): [1538] The five and twentith daye of Maye was in Saint Paules Churche at London examined nineteene men and sixe women borne in Holland, whose opinions were...that baptisme of Children is to none effecte...that the Sacrament of Christes bodye is but breade only...Fourteene of them were condemned, a man and a woman of them were burned in Smithfielde, the other twelve were sent to other townes there to be brent [burned]. [...] The xxiiij. of November...Anabaptistes, three men, and one woman, all Dutch, bare faggots [i.e., the wood used for burning persons at the stake] at Paules Crosse the same day. The xxix. of November, a man and a woman Dutch Anabaptistes, were brent in Smithfielde. […] The 29. of April [1539] one named Maundeveld, another: named Colens, and one other were examined in St. Margarets Church, and were condemned for Anabaptists, and were on the third of May brent in the high-way beyond Southwarke towards Newington. [Annales, or a general Chronicle of England, begun by John Stow, (London: A. M., 1632), 571, 576, 579.] Historically, rebaptizing had incurred the death penalty as early as 413 AD. That Holy Baptism not be repeated: […] The Emperors Honorius and Theodosius [II] to Anthemius, Praetorian Prefect - When anyone belonging to the ministry of the Catholic sect is found to have rebaptized a person, they, along with the one complicit in the offence (provided they are of such an age as to be responsible), shall be executed. - Given on the twelfth of the Month of April, during the Consulate of Lucius, 413. (Ne Sanctum Baptisma Iterutur. […] Impp. Honor. & Theod. A.A. Anthemio P.P. Si quis rebaptizare quempiam de ministris Catholicae sectae fuerit detectus, una cum eo, qui piaculare crimen commisit, (si tamen criminis per aetatem capax sit) & hic cui persuasum sit, ultimo supplicio percellatur. Dat. Xii Kalend Aptilis, Constant Lucio V. C. Cons. 413.) [Codicis D Justinian I Sacratissimi Principis Pp A Repetita Pralectionis Constitutionum Imperialium, Codicis Lib. I. Tit. VI.ii; Denis Godefroy, Simon van Leeuwen, eds., Corpus juris civilis, Pandectis ad florentinum archetypum expressis, institutionibus, codice et novellis, addito textu graeco..., (Amstelodami: Joannem Blaeu, Ludovicum, & Danielem Elzevirios, 1663), 2:35.] [10] D. Featley, The Dippers dipt, 55. [11] Pliny the Elder (c.23–79; Roman philosopher and naturalist); Historia naturalis, 1.32.52: The sepia ink is extremley potent, so that if added to a lamp the previous lighting will be changed, making those present appear as the Ethiopians… (Sepiae atramento tanta vis est, ut in lucernam addito Aethiopas videri ablato priore lumine…) [Caii Plinii Secundi Historia naturalis ex recensione I. Harduni, (Torino: J. Pomba, 1832), 8:532.] [12] There were certainly some obnoxious characters, and even quacks within the wider Anabaptist movement, as some of their own writings evince. The presence of suchlike definitely contributed to the overall negative caricature the Anabaptists collectively suffered from. On the other hand, it is worth noting that there are also various testimonies from outsiders complimenting the good disposition of many Anabaptists. For example, John Rogers (1627– c.1670), an English Presbyterian (later turned Independent) preacher, who also served as an army chaplain in Ireland, wrote: [The Anabaptists] may be set for eminent examples (both to them at Dublin, and us here [London]) of sweetnesse, patience, humility, obedience, self-denial, and love, even to all Saints; and indeed such in whom my soule much rejoyces, and hath been much refreshed; but I do not finde what lawfull call they have, that do administer this Ordinance of Baptisme (anew) to any. [John Rogers, Ohel or Beth-shemesh A tabernacle for the sun, or, Irenicum evangelicum: an idea of church-discipline in the theorick and practick parts…, (London: [s.n.], 1653), 299.] Walter Cradock (1606–59), a Welsh Anglican minister, who was once described as having an especially “sweet spirit,” published a book of sermons, including one in which he commented: There is now among good people a great deale of strife about baptisme, as for divers things, so for the point of dipping (though in some places in England, they dipp altogether); How shall we end the controversie with those godly people? (as many of them are). [Gospel-libertie: in the extensions, limitations of it. Wherein is laid down an exact way to end the present dissentions, and to preserve future peace among the Saints. Whereunto is added good newes from heaven; to the worst of sinners on earth…by Walter Cradock late preacher at All-Hallows Great in London, (London: Matthew Simmons, 1648), 100.] [13] Featley somewhat confused his source here. The given quotation is actually from an English Roman Catholic controversialist name Thomas Harding (1516–72), made during the course of a written debate over transubstantiation with the Anglican bishop and early Protestant apologist John Jewel (1522–71). As can be seen, after making the statement in question, Harding then cited a like-themed but clearly distinct quotation (for which he even provided a translation of the pertinent part), from the renowned Trinitarian apologist Hilary of Poitiers (c.310–c.367). Now it is to be noted, how this Defender [Jewel] in this long sentence affecteth a certaine holy (as it were) and solemne eloquence, and useth a religious amplification of Woordes, to set foorth the sacrament, as though he had a reverent and a godly opinion of it: whereas in dede he taketh it but for a poore signe or token, as their Doctoure Zvinglius dothe. But suche is their crafte, to purchase them credite among the people. Thus offer they to the unlearned their faire cuppes ful of venym, anointinge the brimmes with Honye of sweete and Holy woordes, the rather to poison them. Suche complainte maketh the grave Father S. Hilarie againste the Arians of his time, Ingerunt nobis primū nomina Veritaùs, ut virus falsitatis introeat. Bonum in Ore est, ut de corde malum subeat [De Trinitate, 6.7; PL 10:161]: ‘Firste (saithe he) they thrust me foorthe woordes of truthe, that the venym of falsehed mate enter in. Good is in their mouthe, that out from the harte maie evil proceede. And among al these woordes (hee meaneth the Arians confession of their faithe) I heare no where by them saide, Deum dei filium: God the sonne of God.’ [A defence of the Apologie of the Churche of Englande conteininge an answeare to a certaine booke lately set foorthe by M. Hardinge, and entituled, A confutation of &c.; by Iohn Iewel Bishop of Sarisburie, (London: Henry Wykes, 1567), 207.] To comlete the inquiry, a honey-rimmed cup of poison was a poular metaphor in ancient Greek and Roman writings, and was in turn borrowed by a number of early church fathers in their writings against heretics, as for example, Augustine: Would he bring forward Manichaeus as a witness to Christ? The opposite of this is what the Manichaeans do. They take advantage of the widespread fragrance of the name of Christ to gain acceptance for Manichaeus, that the edge of their poisoned cup may be sweetened with this honey. [Contra Faustum Manichaeum; 13.17 (400 AD); NPNF 4:206; PL 42:292] [14] D. Featley, The Dippers dipt, 220. [15] Concerning this particular matter, Featley had earlier written: Our Font is alwayes open, or ready to bee opened, and the Minister attends to receive the children of the faithfull, and dip them in that sacred Laver. [Daniel Featley, Clavis Mystica; A key opening divers difficult and mysterious texts of Holy Scripture..., (London: R.Y., 1636), 209.] [16] Concerning this particular matter, Featley had earlier written: This ΊΧΘΥΣ [Ichthus], or mystical Fish [i.e. Christ] is taken by John in the river Jordan, and that head before which the Cherubins and Seraphins, and all Principalities in heaven bow, is bowed by John on earth, and dipped under the water in the river Jordan; this the particle είς [eis] intimateth, 'εβαπτίσθη είς Ίορδάνην [ebaptisthē eis Iordanēn], that is word for word, Hee was baptized into the river Jordan. […] What himselfe [Christ] spake of the children of Zebedee, appertaines to us all, Ye shall drink of my cup, and be baptized with the baptisme wherewith I am baptized withall [Matt. 20:23]. By baptisme he meaneth not to be dipped only in the waters of Marah, but to be plunged in them over head and eares, as the ancient manner of baptisme was. [D. Featley, Clavis Mystica, 213, 688f.] [17] D. Featley, The Dippers dipt, 223f. [18] This eccentric notion can’t help but bring to mind a rather wry quip made by the English polymath and auxiliary member of the Westminster Assembly, John Selden (1584–1654): In England, of late years, I ever thought the Parson baptiz’d his own Fingers, rather than the Child. [R. Milward, Table-talk: Being the Discourses of John Selden, Esq; Or His Sense of Various Matters of Weight and High Consequence, Relating especially to Religion and State, (London: E. Smith, 1689), 2.] [19] Familists were followers, or otherwise emulators of the German mystic Henry Nicholis (d. c.1580), whose theology was exclusivist (hence, “familistic”), deistic, anabaptistic, and anti- Trinitarian. [20] D. Featley, The Dippers dipt, 72. [21] Samuel Richardson, Some briefe considerations on Doctor Featley his book, intituled, The dipper dipt, wherein in some measure is discovered his many great and false accusations of divers persons, commonly called Anabaptists..., (London: [s.n],1645), 6. [22] S. Richardson, Some briefe considerations, 9. [22] A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly (but unjustly) called Anabaptists. Published for the vindication of the truth, and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off of those aspersions which are frequently both in pulpit and print unjustly cast upon them. The second impression corrected and enlarged. (London: Math. Simmons, 1646). [23] Robert Baillie, Anabaptism, the true fountaine of Independency, Brownisme, Antinomy, Familisme, and the most of the other errours, which for the time doe trouble the Church of England, unsealed. Also the questions of paedobaptisme and dipping handled from Scripture, (London: M.F., 1647), 23.] Baillie had previously written a similar treatise primarily directed against the Independents. [A dissuasive from the errours of the time wherein the tenets of the principall sects, especially of the Independents, are drawn together in one map, for the most part in the words of their own authours, and their maine principles are examined by the touch-stone of the Holy Scriptures, by Robert Baylie. (London: [s.n.], 1645)]. [24] R. Baillie, Anabaptism, the true fountaine of Independency, 48f. [25] R. Baillie, Anabaptism, the true fountaine of Independency, 50. [26] R. Baillie, Anabaptism, the true fountaine of Independency, 163. [27] Gerardus Johannes Vossius (1577–1649) was a Dutch Protestant theologian, and Professor of Greek at the University of Leiden, who was suspected of having a sympathetic view towards the Dutch Remonstrants (Arminians). Nonetheless, Baillie obviously held much of Vossius’ scholarship in high regard, and he made repeated attempts to hurry along and access a work of his on Anabaptism. The following extracts are from various letters Baillie wrote (in late 1645 and early 1646) to his cousin, William Spang (1607–64), a minister who pastored a church of Scottish expatriates in Campveere, Holland. Yow would doe weell to sett Dr. Forbes* on a Supplement, wherein he may handle Anabaptisme, Antinomianisme, the Erastian, and the rest of the modern sects. Will yow intreat him to press his friend Vossius to print that he told me he had readie against the Anabaptists, the greatest and most prevalent sect here. […] I wrote to yow to cause some press for Vossius to print what he told me he had beside him against the Anabaptists. When Spanheim is free of Ameraut, I wish he went on with his Collegium Anabaptisticum. These are the sectaries who most encrease amongst us. Tombes, a London minister, has printed a large book for them, wherein he dares us all. […] I wrote to yow in my former letters anent sundrie things, as the printing of the Targum, the Masora, and of other such books, in a small volume, with the poynts and exposition. Also to stirre up Vossius to print his treatises, especiallie of Anabaptisme, albeit in his Theses he be too much for dipping. [D. Laing, ed., The letters and journals of Robert Baillie, (Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club, 1841), 2:327, 342, 371.] *John Forbes (1593–1648) was a Scottish Presbyterian minister, who, as a royalist, was nonetheless deposed for refusing to subscribe to the National Covenant, and later the Solemn League and Covenant. As a result he self-exiled to Holland, where for a time he was a member of Spang’s church. Relative to the various points on mode explicated in Baillie’s treatise, Vossius wrote the following (the first topic being the one Baillie specifically complained about): Baptizein denotes immersion, as is demonstrated in the glosses of the older manuscripts. ...Yet because most anything is immersed so as to be dyed, it also came about that it [baptizein] is commonly used for being washed and cleansed, just as it is with the Hebrews: tabal [dip] in the Septuagint is rendered baptizō, as is rahas, which is to wash. [βαπτίζειν notat mergere; quomodo explicatur in Glossis vett. …Sed quia ferè aliquid mergi, ac tingi, solet, ut lavetur, atque abluatur: hincsa factum est, ut quemadmodum apud Hebraeos, ָטַבל, quod LXX vertunt βαπτίζω, etiam accipitur pro ָרַחץ, quod est lavare.] […] That John the Baptist and the Apostles immersed those whom they baptized, there is no doubt. For so we read in Matt. 3:6: and they were baptized in Jordan. Also verse 16: And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water. So in John 3:23, which reads, John baptized at Aenon, near to Salim, because there was much water there. And in Acts 8:38 it is said, they both went down into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch. That the early church then followed these examples is clearly evinced by innumerable testimonies of the Fathers. [Ad prius quod attinet, quin Ioannes baptista, & Apostoli, immerserint, dubium non est. Nam Matth. 111. 6. legimus: Et baptizabantur in Jordane. Nec non vers.16: Et baptizatus Jesus adscendit statim de aqua. Item loa. 111.23. scriptum est, Joannem baptizasse in Aenon juxta Salim, quia aquae multae erant illic. Etiam Act. V111.38. dicitur uterque descendisse in aquam, & Philippus, & Eunuchus. Horum etiam exemplum Ecclesiam veterem secutam esse, innumeris Patrum testimoniis clarissimee evincitur.] […] In addition, baptism signifies the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. And his resurrection is the pledge of our own glorious resurrection. Thus we may know from our baptism that as we rise up, as though we had been buried in the water, so on the last day we shall be raised from our graves to glory and eternal life. [Adde quod cum baptismo significetur mors, sepultura, ac resurrectio Christi: ejus autem resurrectio gloriofae nostrae resurretionis sit pignus: ex baptismo nostro cognoscere licet, quod uti aquis quasi sepulti mox exsurgimus; ita die ultimo e sepulcris suscitabimur ad gloriam, vitamque aeternam.] […] Everything we have said so far about the meaning of baptism shines forth very clearly in the rite of immersion and dipping, more so than if only sprinkling is used. It is not to be thought, however, that all analogy is erased with it, since cleansing is also done by the sprinkling of water. As such, by an external sprinkling and cleansing, the inner sprinkling and cleansing is clearly portrayed, which is done by the blood of Christ, and the water of the Holy Spirit. [ Qaecunque vero hactenus diximus de significatione baptismatos, satis clare elucent in ritu immersionis, & tinctionis: non aeque si adspersio sola fiat. Nec tamen putandum, omnem ea aboleri; quandoquidem adspersione aquae etiam fit ablutio: coque per exteriorem illam adspersionem, & mundationem, aperte indicatur adspersio, ac mundatio interior, quae fit sanguine Christi, & aqua Spiritus Sancti.) [Gerardi Joannis Vossii, De Baptismo disputationes XX, & una de Sacramentorum vi, atque efficacia, (Amstelodami: Ludovicum Elzevirium, 1648), 25ff.] [28] R. Baillie, Anabaptism, the true fountaine of Independency, 164, 175. [29] R. Baillie, Anabaptism, the true fountaine of Independency, 176f. [30] R. Baillie, Anabaptism, the true fountaine of Independency, dedicatory preface (For the Right Honourable the Earl of Lauderdail, Viscount Metellan, Lord Thirleston and Bolton.) [31] Englands warning by Germanies woe: or, An historicall narration, of the originall, progresse, tenets, names, and severall sects of the Anabaptists, in Germany, and the Low Countries…by Frederick Spanhemius, Doctor, and Professor of Divinity, in the University of Leyden in Holland. Published according to Order, (London: John Dever & Robert Ibbitson, 1646), 9f., 49f. The Latin work was entitled, De Origine, Progressu, Sectis, Nominibus & Dogmatibus Anabaptistarum (Amsterdam: 1643). This book was later incorporated as the first section in a larger collection of Spanheim’s writings, published under the umbrella title, Disputationum anti- Anabaptisticarum (Leiden: Bonaventurae & Abrahami Elsevir, 1648).
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-