Featured The term "Reformed"

"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

 

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND DIPPED INFANTS IN 16th CENTURY

The 1549 Common Prayer book of the Church of England says concerning the mode of baptism of infants:

"¶ Then the prieste shall take the childe in his handes, and aske the name. And naming the childe, shall dyppe it in the water thryse. First dypping the ryght syde: Seconde the left syde: The thryd tyme dippyng the face towards the fonte: So it be diseretly and warely done, saying."

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/…/1549/Baptism_1549.htm

The 1559 Common Prayer book of the Church of England under Queen Elizabeth says:

"¶ Then the Prie al take the childe in his hands, and aſke the name; and naming the childe, all dip it in the water, ſo it bee diſcreetly and warily done, ſaying,N. I baptize the in the Name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost. Amen."

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/…/1559/Baptism_1559.pdf

It was during this same period of time the Church of England historian, Dr. John Lewis admits there were Anabaptists in England that were doctrinally divergent from the radical Anabaptists but these are called “the gentle” Anbaptists by Lewis who simply rejected baptizing of infants.

“In 1549, we are told, there were many Anabaptists in several parts of England….of these there were two sorts most remarkable: The one was of those who only thought that baptism ought not to be given but to those who were baptized in their fancy, ought to be baptized again when they were adults; from whence they had the general name of Anabaptists; these were called the gentle or moderate Anabaptists…The next year, 1551…That for the Sort of Anabaptists, who only denied infant baptism…no severeities are to be found used to them: But several books were written to convince them, to which they returned some answers….” John Lewis, A Brief History of the Rise and progress of Anabaptism in England (London; 1738) – pp.47-48, 50, 51

You will notice that the dates given by Lewis coincide with the Common Prayer book of the Church of England where dipping is the ONLY prescribed mode for baptizing infants.

It is the Reformation of England by Presbyterians in 1625-1645 that practiced sprinkling and thus accused the Baptists of a “new” baptism which to them was “new” as the Baptists baptized adults only and only by immersion in private up to 1641.


The 1549 Book of Common Prayer: Baptism
It appeareth by auncient wryters, that the Sacramente of Baptisme in the olde tyme was not commonly mimstred, but at two tymes in the yeare, at Easter…
JUSTUS.ANGLICAN.ORG

 

Here is the crux of you misunderstanding! No, we deny the church is salvational! We demand the church is ADDITIONAL to salvation but that which is ADDITIONAL must be consistent with salvation its VISIBLE ORDER. The ordinances, membership and order as to its OUTWARD FORM must be consistent with the gospel or else it is no "gospel" church at all. Church discipline is the means for not allowing the visible gospel order to corrupted.

Paedobaptist "churches" are gospel oxymoronic as they are inconsistent with the true VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER and therefore, are not true "gospel" churches and yet may contain true gospel believers who are not existing in true visible GOSPEL ORDER! The Great Commission demands a true visible gospel ORDER which is void in paedbaptist assemblies.

 

Interestingly, Dr. John Lewis writing his history of the English Anabaptists in 1738 even though he quotes the articles of the 1644 London Confession, and had access to the 1689 London Confession, still spends the greater part of his book intentionally attempting to identify them with the radical anabaptist at Munster, in spite of the fact, that he admits in this book that his collegue, Thomas Fuller admitted that the more simple Anabaptists of Germany were unfairly charged with the radicalism at Munster. Yet, Lewis does precisely the very same thing to the English Anabaptists.

Dr. Daniel Featley, writing from his jail cell, and year after the 1644 London Baptist Confession of Faith (which he quotes in this same book) intentionally attempts to malign and present them as one and the same with the radical munster German radical Anabaptists. Not to be satisfied with that intentional misidentification, he goes on to list ten other radical types.

The London Baptists did not reject their historical relationship with the evangelical Anabaptists as they sent Richard Blount to such Anabaptists for baptism and they identified with early English Anabaptists as their earliest historians affirm over and over again. What they repudiated was the NAME "Anabaptist" as did all evangelical Anabaptists on the continent and in England, as they did not believe they rebaptized anyone. They also repudiated the relationship with the munster type Anabaptists which was the primary use of the term by Feately, Lewis and all their opponents.

 

HANSERD KNOLLY'S TESTIMONY

In 1633 the Anabaptist congregation that was meeting with the separatist congregation separated from them and some of the members of the separatist congregation were won over to the Anabaptists and left with them and received their "new" baptism. Among those paedobaptized separatists was Hanserd Knolly.

A few years later when Dr. Bostwich questioned Knolly as to precisely how their Anabaptist congregation was formed, he made this response:

"I say, that I know by mine own experience (having walked with them) that they were gathered; viz. Some godly and learned men of approved gifts and abilities for the ministry, being driven out of the countries, where they lived by the persecution of the Prelates, came to sojourn in this great city, and preached the Word of God both publcly, and from house to house, and daily in the Temples and in every house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ; and some of them have dwelt in their own hired houses, and received all that came in unto them, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things, which concern the Lord Jesus Christ. And when many sinners were converted by their preaching of the Gospel, some of them that believed, consorted with them, and of professors a great many, and of the chief women not a few. And the condition which those Preachers both publicly and privately propounded to the people, unto whom they preached, upon which they were to be admitted into the church was faith, repentance and baptism and none other. And whosoever (poor as well as rich, bond as well as free, servants as well as masters) did make a profession of their faith in Christ Jesus, and would be baptized with water into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were admitted members of the church; but as such as did not believe, and would not be baptized they would not admit into Church-communion." - Hanserd Knollys, A Moderate Answer unto Dr. Bastwicks...., (London, 1645).

Significantly he claims that these churches were organized by qualified ministers driven out of the country into the city due to persecution rather than paedbaptist ministers as our enemies style John Spilsbury.

Many believe simply because John Spilsbury defended the renewing of the rite of Baptism after the John The Baptist style, that Spilsbury must have baptized others as an unbaptized man and then was baptized by one he baptized. However, not only is there no record of such an event but Knolly denies this is the origin of Baptists.

Furthermore, John Spilsbury was attempting to defend the lack of
a history for the succession of Baptism and churches. In a book written by Daniel King, of which John Spilsbury endorsed with his signuture, King explains that the John the Baptist argument made by Spilsbury and others that baptism once "lost" could be reinstituted by an unbaptized John the Baptist type of believer was merely an argument by concession only rather than what they actually believed or practiced. That is, their opponents challenged them to bring forth any history of their succession, since they clearly denied that scriptural baptism could be administered by Rome or Reformed Rome (which they called the Great Whore and her harlot daughters) and in addition they preached that the church and its ordinances as they believed and practiced never ceased since John the Baptist. Having no such written history to silence this objection, they made an argument by way of concession, that is, the for the sake of argument they conceded it could not be proved historically and that "IF" baptism as they practiced had been "lost" but claimed "IF" that were the case (which they denied) God could restart it just as he had instituted it. Here are King's own words:

"Some carp and cavil at this word lost, but I would have it noted, I mean, as to the purity of practice in respect of the subject, not in respect of the rule: and I speak in the notionist's sense, granting it by way of concession only" - Daniel King, A Way to Sion, (London, 1656).

As soon as the Baptists produced a secular history demonstrating reasonably their position of church succession they dropped this argument by way of concession altogether and backed up their Biblical argument of church succession with the history provided by their own Baptist authors.

Therefore, John Spilsbury was not defending se-baptism as he explicitly condemns se-baptism (self-baptism) as much as he condemns baptism by unbaptized, unchurched administrators:

"No place for Schism or Self-Baptism...is as far from any rule in the Gospel of Christ, as for a man to baptize himself. Neither of which do I approve of." - John Spilsbury, A Treatise concerning the Lawful Subject of Baptism, (London, 1652).

Spilsbury argued where there is no true church there can be true baptism. Whenever he spoke of baptism being "lost" and how to restore it, he always conditioned it upon "IF" it were ever to be lost,but then denied that ever happened.

Dr. R.E. Pound argues that formerly Spilsbury had been driven out of the country side by persecution and ended up in jail in London with Sam Eaton,whom he later baptized and all this occurred before assembling his Anabaptist congregation with the Separatist congregation secretly. However, when the Separatist congregation forsook their principles of separation, this endangered the Anabaptist congregation meeting with them and that is one reason they separated from them in 1633. Another reason was that the separatist congregation was losing members to the Anabaptist congregation as some of them were coming over to the Anabaptist position. Hence, those who chose to go with the Anabaptists asked permission to leave their own Separatist congregation so they could be baptized into the departing Anabaptists who would meet separately from that point forward. This was the peaceful and orderly way to depart at that time.

 

THE NT CHURCH IS THE VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER

The gospel church is about the VISIBLE FORM OF THE GOSPEL. The gospel church is not about obtaining salvation but about the VISIBLE PROFESSION OF SALVATION ACCORDING TO VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER.

The New Testament church IS the VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER in its membership requirements,its ordinances, its message, its discipline and its mission. New Testament Baptist churches require GOSPEL CONSISTENCY in their VISIBLE ORDER as churches. The visible profession must be consistent with the gospel. The professing membership must be consistent with the visible gospel order. Their ordinances must be visibly consistent with the visible gospel order. Their preaching must be consistent with the visible gospel order and church discipline is designed to remove all VISIBLE INCONSISTENCY with the true visible gospel order. The N.T. church IS the VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER.

Paedbaptist congregations are APOSTATE in their VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER. They are apostate in their VISIBLE requirements for membership.They are apostate in their VISIBLE application of the ordinances. They are apostate in their VISIBLE administration of the commission. The paedbaptist assemlby IS NOT the VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER and therefore not true NT. churches.

 

Purely FYI. http://www.archbishopofyork.org/pages/baptism.html
Giving this link does not mean that I endorse Archbishop Sentanu, or the Church of England as a whole. or the ecumenical organization that sponsors this annual event. I do none of these things. I merely thought it might be of interest. I will reply to your posts as I have time.

 

You still don't understand what I am saying. I am not vilifying any true child of God regardless what denomination they may or may not associate with. I am simply defining what is the Biblical criteria to define a true NT congregation from false ones without repudiating the salvation of any individuals within those institutions.

The NT church is designed to express the VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER. Everything about a NT congregation has that end in view. It's membership requirements must express a VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER. It's ordinances must express a VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER. It's preaching and teaching must express a VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER. Its commission IS A VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER (Mt 28:19-20). It's discipline is designed to remove everything not consistent with a VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER.

All false churches ERR from this VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER.

 

I guess you are referring to me when you say "hurricane" came through. Be that as it may, I respectfully disagree with your analysis for several reasons. First, it is Feately's personal eye witness of dipping he is attesting to that he actually observed for over twenty years. There is no logical reason for him to offer that as a concession or lie about it. However, with regard to demeaning the moral and doctrinal character of the Anabaptists there is plenty of reasons for him doing that and it is not that difficult to see as he hated them and his hated is so obvious by his metaphors and language used to describe them. Moreover, why would Featley lie about the normal practice of immersion by his own church with regard to healthy children????

Moreover, immersion was the ONLY mode prescribed in the Church of England Prayer book since 1549 and the Act of Uniformity demanded exact conformation or else suffer the penalties. So there is no reason to have anything stated about the mode, as it was not an issue before the Presbyterian reformation near the close of the reign of Charles 1.

Spilsbury does explicilty state where there is no church there can be no true baptism and where there is no true baptism there can be no true church:

"In the first sense baptism is one branch of the Covenant, as a truth to be revealed, and by faith to be received, as an essential truth, together with other truths, for the constituting of the Church, and no Church according to the order of Christ's New Testament, either without it, or before it." - John Spilsbury A Treatise Concerning the Lawful Subject of Baptism (London; 1652)

The John the Baptist argument was indeed precisely as Daniel King described it. You will have to take that issue up with him. Spilsbury signed his book.

"Brethren in the faith and fellowship of the Gospel,
Thomas Patient, William Kiffen,
John Spilsbery, John Pearson." - A Way to Sion

The fact is, they all unitedly denied the church and its ordinances ceased from the days of the apostles and when the first history of Baptists was produced among them just a few years later you NEVER hear this John the Baptist argument ever used among them again.

 

So basically you are a peadobaptist with regard to ecclesiolgy as they include immersion and you exclude pouring/sprinkling as criteria for defining a true church. So you could easily join John Bunyan's church of open communionists without batting an eyelid. Right? And in reverse you could as easily join a reformed paedobaptist church that administered immersion since sprinkling and pouring, church government, etc. does not define what a true versus a false church is! Correct?

 

Featly distinctly says that Anabaptists were immersing in the 1620's and he was an eyewitness. Hanserd Knolly explicitly told Dr. Bostwich that their churches were established after gospel order "as they are now" prior to the present Reformation and even before the episcopacy was in its "height of glory. The present reformation was the Presbyterian attempt to establish a Presbyterian form of government in 1645. The episcopal form of Government was at is height in the reign of Queen Elizebeth when it was reinforced by the Act of Uniformity with penalties attached. Both Dr. Thomas Fuller and Dr. Johnn Lewis (church of England historians) admit that peaceful relative doctrinally sound Anabaptists existed at the precise time Knolly refers to who were not persecuted by the state, but books were written to convert them and they responded in kind with books to defend their position. Both of these historians admit that Anabaptism increased all over the kingdom at this time in so much that in one town there was over 500 Anabaptists. In 1575 a doctrinal sound group of Anabaptists can be found which did not deny Christ came in the flesh, who do believe in the Trinity and quote the many of the aspects of the apostles creed. There are documented accounts of Anabaptists from the 1530's every few years all the way up to 1600.

The Common Book of Prayer from 1649 has NO OTHER MODE BUT IMMERSION stated as their common practice and Featly confirms it was still their (Church of England, not Presbyterian) common practice at 1645. Hence, therefore silence on the mode of baptism is NORMAL since it was not an issue.

However, re-immersing those who had been immersed in infancy was something done secretly up to 1641 out of fear of the penalties perscribed by the Book of Common Prayer under the act of uniformity law.

 

As I have written previously, I was 'christened' into the Church of England as a baby. Being Scripturally baptized was something I made a decision to do in my middle years when my reading of the Bible persuaded me that it was the right thing to do. It would be easy and convenient to join the nearest Bible-believing Anglican church, but I have not done so. On the contrary, this very day I wrote on a British website urging Bible-believing Anglicans to come out of the Church of England.

I could not be a member of a church where 'baptism' was administered to infants. I am not certain whether Bunyan's church did this. If not, what a privilege to sit under the ministry of such a fine man!

The Gospel determines what a true verses a false church is, and nothing else. Certain errors do not make a false church otherwise Paul would not have written 1 Corinthians 1:1-9. However, the errors of the Galatians did amount to another gospel and Paul reacted accordingly (Galatians 1:1-10). The Galatians were being taught that certain ordinances were necessary for a true church rather than faith alone.

 

You still have not grasped it. The church is the VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER irregardless of false professions. There are multitudes of sound NT churches witnessing, sending missionaries, and great worship services, sound teaching. You are either looking in the wrong places or you area simply is void of such.

 

You have expressed your opinion but you opinion is not Biblical as the Bible is extremely clear that the church is not merely the gospel but rather the VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER as expressed in Matthew 28:19-20 and paedobaptist congregations do not express the VISIBLE GOSPEL ORDER but repudiate the gospel by their VISIBLE ORDER - their visible membership, their visible application of the ordinances, their visible "covenant" teaching and preaching. As a visible order they are reprobates even though many are truly saved and godly individuals.

 

They were an "open communion" in two senses. They freely admitted paedbaptist as sprinkled and poured persons as members. In addition, and they were open communion with regard to the Lord's Supper.

 

My church likewise practises open communion which I'm sure is correct. I think though that this is a matter for each individual church to decide upon.