"DIPPED HEAD OVER EARS"
Dr. Daniel Featley responded against the 1644 London Baptist Confession, writing a year later in 1645 by trying to identify the London Baptists with German radical Munster type Anabaptists.
However, in spite of intentional perversion of their views in this manner, the very title of his book ("“The Dippers dipt.or The Anabaptists Duck’d and Plung’d over Head and Ears, at Disputation in Southwark”) and his repeated description of their mode of baptism ("dipped head over ears") and his own personal confirmation that they had been administering baptism "for over twenty years" near his own personal residence demonstrates the mode of immersion was not "new."
“This venomous serpent vere’ Solifuga flying from, and shunning the light of God’s word, is the Anabaptist, who in these later times first shewed his shining head, and speckled skin, and thrust out his sting near the place of my residence, for more than twenty years” – The Epistle Dedicatory
This is his own personal eye witness testimony. Therefore, he admits that the Anabaptists not only existed prior to 1641 but practiced immersion prior to 1625. This is a very significant admission as the enemies of Baptists writing much later, looking back on this period constantly make the argument that "immersion" is not mentioned in references quoted prior to 1641 or even in 1633 and therefore based upon silence they argue Anabaptists practiced sprinkling/pouring.
Also,his admission that the Greek term baptizo could mean precisely what the Baptists defended and that this was the traditional mode used by the Church of England demonstrates our enemies argument based on silence is false:
"Though Dipping may be used in Baptism, and if the child be strong, and the weather and climate temperate, is very fit to be used, and the Church of England both alloweth it, and practiceth it" - Dr. Daniel Featley, The Dippers Dipt or, The Anabaptists Duck'd and Plung'd over Head and Ears, at a Disputation in Southwark, (London: 1645) pp.36-37
As previously shown in the previous post, the Common Prayer book was practiced by the Church of England during the 16th century and the only mode for infant baptism listed in that book was dipping. Queen Elizabeth passed the "Act of Uniformity" at the very beginning of her reign with severe penalties against anyone who deviated from the Common Prayer book.
The argument of our enemies is based on silence, but that silence is due to the fact that the evidence demonstrates the mode was never an issue as all practiced immersion and so there was nothing to condemn the Anabaptists about on that issue and that is why there was silence.
The only thing "new" was that previously their administration of immersion to believers only was done in secret because of severe laws against them, but for the first time all of England was now for the first time since fifth century made publicly aware through the Printing presses of England. Hence, it was "new" to the public at large. Moreover, it was "new" as opposed to the "old" baptism that preceded it at infancy which they rejected as baptism and therefore rejected the name "Anabaptists." They did not reject the historic identity or beleifs with previous English Anabaptism but only the name as did the evangelical Anabaptists on the mainland. Rolland Bainton says of the continental Anabaptists in the 16th century:
"To call these people Anabaptists,that is re-baptizers, was to malign them, because they denied that baptism was repeated, inasmuch as infant baptism is no baptism at all. They called themselves simply Baptists, not re-Baptists." - Rolland Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century; (Beacon Press, Boston, 1956) p. 99
Dr. Daniel Featley responded against the 1644 London Baptist Confession, writing a year later in 1645 by trying to identify the London Baptists with German radical Munster type Anabaptists.
However, in spite of intentional perversion of their views in this manner, the very title of his book ("“The Dippers dipt.or The Anabaptists Duck’d and Plung’d over Head and Ears, at Disputation in Southwark”) and his repeated description of their mode of baptism ("dipped head over ears") and his own personal confirmation that they had been administering baptism "for over twenty years" near his own personal residence demonstrates the mode of immersion was not "new."
“This venomous serpent vere’ Solifuga flying from, and shunning the light of God’s word, is the Anabaptist, who in these later times first shewed his shining head, and speckled skin, and thrust out his sting near the place of my residence, for more than twenty years” – The Epistle Dedicatory
This is his own personal eye witness testimony. Therefore, he admits that the Anabaptists not only existed prior to 1641 but practiced immersion prior to 1625. This is a very significant admission as the enemies of Baptists writing much later, looking back on this period constantly make the argument that "immersion" is not mentioned in references quoted prior to 1641 or even in 1633 and therefore based upon silence they argue Anabaptists practiced sprinkling/pouring.
Also,his admission that the Greek term baptizo could mean precisely what the Baptists defended and that this was the traditional mode used by the Church of England demonstrates our enemies argument based on silence is false:
"Though Dipping may be used in Baptism, and if the child be strong, and the weather and climate temperate, is very fit to be used, and the Church of England both alloweth it, and practiceth it" - Dr. Daniel Featley, The Dippers Dipt or, The Anabaptists Duck'd and Plung'd over Head and Ears, at a Disputation in Southwark, (London: 1645) pp.36-37
As previously shown in the previous post, the Common Prayer book was practiced by the Church of England during the 16th century and the only mode for infant baptism listed in that book was dipping. Queen Elizabeth passed the "Act of Uniformity" at the very beginning of her reign with severe penalties against anyone who deviated from the Common Prayer book.
The argument of our enemies is based on silence, but that silence is due to the fact that the evidence demonstrates the mode was never an issue as all practiced immersion and so there was nothing to condemn the Anabaptists about on that issue and that is why there was silence.
The only thing "new" was that previously their administration of immersion to believers only was done in secret because of severe laws against them, but for the first time all of England was now for the first time since fifth century made publicly aware through the Printing presses of England. Hence, it was "new" to the public at large. Moreover, it was "new" as opposed to the "old" baptism that preceded it at infancy which they rejected as baptism and therefore rejected the name "Anabaptists." They did not reject the historic identity or beleifs with previous English Anabaptism but only the name as did the evangelical Anabaptists on the mainland. Rolland Bainton says of the continental Anabaptists in the 16th century:
"To call these people Anabaptists,that is re-baptizers, was to malign them, because they denied that baptism was repeated, inasmuch as infant baptism is no baptism at all. They called themselves simply Baptists, not re-Baptists." - Rolland Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century; (Beacon Press, Boston, 1956) p. 99
