I Likewise Confess that I Reject all Textual Criticism that Denies or Ignores God’s Own Promises about His Providential Work in Preserving His Word.

[Alan Dale Gross]

From:
Syllabus for Bible Texts and Versions,
Manuscript Evidence, and God’s Promises of Preservation.
by Thomas Ross.

“A Declaration of My Faith in the Inspiration
and Preservation of Holy Scripture,” by Thomas Ross
(all material below without another author listed is by Thomas Ross
my comments are in Bold Blue)​

"I likewise confess that I reject all textual criticism that denies or ignores God’s Own Promises about His Providential Work in Preserving His Word, and that approaches the Holy Scriptures in an atheistic and naturalistic way as if God’s Word were to be evaluated as if it were any common, uninspired and unpreserved book,

"instead of joyfully receiving, with love, Holy Reverence, awe, and fear (Psalm 119:97; 119:120; Isaiah 66:2), that very Received Text that has been in use by true churches and the people of God from the time that God Gave the Autographs until this day.

"I confess with such true churches and saints that the Scriptures I can with Reverent Delight hold in my hands, “being immediately Inspired by God, and by His Singular Care and Providence Kept Pure in all Ages*, are therefore Authentical,” and likewise join such churches to confess that, while there is plentiful external evidence for the Inspiration and Preservation of Scripture, nonetheless our Lord in “full persuasion, and assurance of the Infallible Truth, and Divine Authority thereof, is from the Inward Work of the Holy Spirit, Bearing Witness by and with the our hearts.”1.

"In relation to the English translation of the Authorized Version, I confess that I receive it with veneration, believing that the God Who Providentially Works in all of History would certainly Providentially Work in relation to the Translation of His Word that would be in use by Baptist churches for over 400 years in the language that God Ordained would become the first truly world-wide language since the tower of Babel. I confess that I do not believe that modern Baptist churches should use any other English translation than the Authorized Version*, nor do I see any necessity for revising the KJV at any time during my lifetime.2

"However, I also confess that the Promises of Preservation are specifically made for Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words, not English words (Matthew 5:18), and that there are no specific Promises that state that Scripture would be Translated without error. Since no verses of the Bible Promise a Perfect English Translation*, I respect the views of brethren who, while receiving the Promises of God concerning the Preservation of His Perfect* Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words, believe that there are places where the English of the King James Version would be better rendered otherwise.3 Furthermore, I recognize that there can be more than one accurate way to Translate a verse from the Original Language into the vernacular.4**

"Nevertheless, because the people of God who do not know the Original Languages should have (a justified) confidence that when they hold the King James Bible** in their hands, they have God’s very Word in their own language, and because I respect the high confidence that the Head of the church*** has Led His congregations to place in the English of the Authorized Version, and because I have found in my own language study that, time and again, there are excellent reasons for the Translation choices in the Authorized Version,**

"and because I am not aware of any single place where I can, with a certain confidence and definitiveness, affirm that the English of the King James Version cannot possibly be justified as a Translation but is indubitably in error,5

"I refrain from criticizing the English of the King James Bible, and when it is appropriate in Preaching and Teaching to mention a different way the text can be Translated, I choose to say, “this word (or verse, etc.) could also be translated as” rather than “this word (or verse, etc.) would be better translated as.”

"This is the faith that I confess in relation to the Translation of the Bible into my mother tongue.

"All of the above is the Faith in the Inspiration and Preservation of Scripture* I believe and confess with my whole mind and heart.

"Unless convinced otherwise by the Scriptures, I will continue to believe and confess this faith, by the Enabling Grace of God, until Christ’s Return or my death."

Very important notes and references con't in note post.



​

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

"1. 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689.

"2. In the unlikely event that the Lord were not to Return for some hundreds of years into the future, and the English language changed in such a manner that the early modern or Elizabethan English of the Authorized Version were to have the comprehensibility of the Old English of Beowulf, it would certainly be right to update Biblical language.

"However, I believe that the Holy Spirit would Lead Biblical Baptist churches to have general agreement that such a revision of the English Bible is needed. Without such clear Divine Leadership, any revision would be inferior to the Authorized Version (as such versions as the NKJV most certainly are), and detrimental to the Cause of Christ.

"3. That is, for example, baptize rather than immerse more clearly communicates the character of the Baptismal Ceremony as a Religious Ordinance, immerse does not specifically indicate that the person who receives baptism is not only to be plunged under the water but also to arise out of it, and the verb to immerse was not commonly used in the English language in 1611 (and thus appears nowhere at all in the KJV; cf. the Oxford English Dictionary).

"Furthermore, the argument sometimes advanced that men like King James were seeking to cover up the fact that baptism was properly performed by dipping is highly questionable in light of the fact that King James, Queen Elizabeth, and other English monarchs actually were dipped as infants, not sprinkled or poured upon, following the dominant Anglican liturgical practice of their day.

"4. E. g., someone who affirmed that baptize would be better rendered as immerse.

"5. E. g., rendering peripateo as “walks” instead of “walketh” in a text such as 1 Peter 5:8 would not make such a translation inaccurate or erroneous."

*THE AUTHERIZED KING JAMES VERSION is one example of a Translation that is infinitesimally more Perfect than any Human Effort to Produce a Product made exclusively by men could possibly be. Just look at the glaring deficiencies of the so-called 'modern bibles', starting with cutting out +/-20% of the Divine Revelation extant in the known manuscript evidence available, in the New Testament. (And if they were cutting out +/-20% of God's Inspired Word in the New Testament, what is their explanation for not altering 20% of the Old Testament and cutting out +/-20% of it, too????)

The Authorized King James Version is Perfect in that sense above and that, for all the practical Purposes of God and the Cause of Christ, there is nothing Crucial/Critical, Compulsory, 'Obligatory', or Mandatory and of the utmost Divine Importance required for the Specific, Inevitable and Unavoidable Outcomes that God Finds Indispensable to Take Place that He would Authoritatively Require to be added in other or more Words, or to for Words to be taken away.

"The Law of the Lord is Perfect, Converting the soul:
the Testimony of the LORD is Sure, Making Wise the simple," PALSM 19:7.

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY of a BIBLE is as GOOD and TRUSTWORTHY as its INTEGRETY,
WHICH SHOULD BE SEEN as BEING MORE PERFECT, in the SENSE WE HAVE GONE OVER, THAN ANY HUMAN EFFORT.​

**Inspiration doesn't always follow in the same set of tracks.

God's Example of this is to examine the Inspired Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament
and compare them to the quotes made associated with them in the Inspired New Testament.

Are there any differences?

The only answer to that is that God has Inspired both of them, despite their degree of 'variance which then sets the Standard where 'variants' are both, or all, Inspired, regarded they are determined to be spurious in their self-contradictions.

They really are 'different' from our standpoint, but how 'different' are they from the Viewpoint of their Author Who Inspired them both?

*** JESUS. Has God Led you to use the Bible Jesus Uses? Which Bible would that be, among all those 300+/- now available?

Jesus knows His Bible and He Knows Bibles. We should at least ask Jesus which Bible(s) we should be using, shouldn't we?

How far off am I on that one?

 

[Logos1560]

These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:20-22, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 23:35, Ezek. 22:28, Isa. 8:20, 1 Thess. 5:21, 1 John 4:1). Does following these instructions or this guidance minister doubts concerning God’s words? Would words that go beyond those words that God actually gave to the prophets and apostles be considered the inspired, pure words of God (Num. 22:18)? Was God ministering doubts and questions about His words or was God advocating the practice of textual criticism when He gave His instructions (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Eccl. 3:14, Rev. 22:18-19)?

Was God exalting textual criticism by giving his instructions and guidance concerning how to know the words which God has or has not spoken? According to the Scriptures themselves, there is such a thing as the possible adding of words in copies or in Bible translations just as there is the possible omitting of words in copies or in Bible translations. There is also the possibility that words can be diminished or changed by copiers or by translators, introducing possible errors into a copy or into a translation. It can be properly and legitimately concluded from the Scriptures that God has not directly spoken or breathed out words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). According to clear scriptural truth, words added by men cannot soundly be considered words given by inspiration of God. Does obeying God’s instructions by removing added words, restoring omitted words, and correcting diminished or changed words actually destroy the authority of the preserved Scriptures?

Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since by definition perfection would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect or inaccurate renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the absolutely perfect words of God given directly by inspiration to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4), since the words of the LORD are pure (Ps. 12:6. Ps. 119:140), and since the words of God are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160, Dan. 10:21), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken or given by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words, perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not the pure words of God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2). Maintaining that errors introduced by men or words added by men are not the pure inspired words of God would be soundly distinguishing between what is holy and pure and what is not, and it is not accusing the word of God given by inspiration of corruption, of impurity, or of error.

Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy; likewise, the words in the preserved original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). Do the Scriptures themselves provide examples that would show that original-language words would be the authority, source, and standard for translated words that translate, interpret, or give the meaning in another language (Matt. 1:23, Mark 5:41, Mark 15:22, Mark 15:34, John 1:41, Acts 4:36)? Appeals to what was written by a prophet or by the prophets would be an acknowledgement of the authority and standard of the original-language words of Scripture (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31, John 5:47).

 

[Logos1560]

​

"instead of joyfully receiving, with love, Holy Reverence, awe, and fear (Psalm 119:97; 119:120; Isaiah 66:2), that very Received Text that has been in use by true churches and the people of God from the time that God Gave the Autographs until this day.

​

Where is the sound verifiable evidence that the new reading introduced into the Textus Receptus by Theodore Beza at Revelation 16:5 has been in use by true churches and the people of God from the time that God gave the autographs until this day?

In his article entitled “New Testament Conjectural Emendation: Folly or Duty,”Jan Krans wrote: “At Rev. 16:5, probably through a misunderstanding, Beza printed o esomenos instead of o hosios from his 1582 edition onwards” (Wallace, Pen, p. 173, footnote 21). In notes under correspondence from Francis Huyshe in the March, 1834, issue of The British Magazine, this is stated concerning Revelation 16:5: “But having discovered in the book of collations, the reading, …, (which is ever used on similar occasions), as he [Beza] says, ‘ex vetusto bonae fidei MS. Cod.,’ he restores it” (Vol. V, p. 287). Did Theodore Beza possibly assume that the new reading he introduced at Revelation 16:5 was found in an old manuscript because it was in an imperfect, recent book of collations where a young collator could have looked at the wrong place in a manuscript that did not have verse divisions?

Do the known facts indicate that Henri Stephanus’ imperfect book of collations may possibly have misled Beza in some cases including this one? Isn’t it amazing that the claimed reading of one supposedly missing or lost NT manuscript can be advocated over the reading of all known accessible and preserved Greek NT manuscripts? Is it being suggested that the Greek NT text has not been preserved at Revelation 16:5 in the vast majority of NT manuscripts? Ron Minton asserted: “One should never base a reading on the evidence of only one Greek manuscript” (Making and Preservation, p. 37). Wilbur Pickering wrote: “It should also be evident that a variant in a single MS, of whatever age, is irrelevant – it is a false witness to its family archetype, at that point, nothing more” (God Has Preserved, p. 245). Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger wrote: “Sometimes a certain reading exists in only one Greek manuscript and no other. Such singular readings—and there are thousands of them—have little claim to be the original text and therefore are irrelevant in assessing the reliability of the manuscript tradition” (Heresy, p. 216). Edward F. Hills asked: “Has the special providence of God over the New Testament Text done no more than to preserve the true readings somewhere, that is to say in some one or other of the great variety of New Testament manuscripts now existing in the world?” (KJV Defended, p. 109; Text, p. 195).

Is this Beza reading at Revelation 16:5 found in multiple reliable Greek NT manuscripts and in a preserved line of continuity of transmission? Is there any clear, sound historical evidence that this new Beza reading at Revelation 16:5 was handed down and widely accessible to each generation of believers and was in the texts and translations commonly and continually used by churches in every generation during the 1500 years from A. D. 100 until A. D. 1600? Are we to believe that part of the NT text was lost to most congregations and believers for over 1000 years until discovered and restored by Beza? Jonathan Arnold asserted: “We may conclude that to assert that any portion of Scripture as having been lost is effectively to deny access to the whole counsel of God” (Hooper, It Is Written, p. 313).

Generations of English-speaking believers did not have this Beza reading in their English Bible translations from Wycliffe’s Bible until the Bishop’s Bible [1380’s to 1610]. According to KJV-only advocates, are we to believe that until almost A. D. 1600 God left His church with a reading at Revelation 16:5 that was wrong? Did German-speaking believers have this Beza reading in Luther’s German Bible for its first 100 years? Did Spanish-speaking believers have this Beza reading in their early Spanish Bibles? Does this Beza reading at Revelation 16:5 clearly measure up to John William Burgon’s consistently Christian principles or methods of NT textual criticism? Is the inconsistent KJV-only defense of the Beza reading at Revelation 16:5 consistent with the KJV-only view’s doctrine of preservation? According to KJV-only reasoning, did God promise that the correct reading at Revelation 16:5 would disappear or be lost for a long period of time and finally reappear and be restored hundreds of years later? Is faith being placed in textual critic Theodore Beza to restore the correct text at Revelation 16:5?

 

[Logos1560]

"Furthermore, the argument sometimes advanced that men like King James were seeking to cover up the fact that baptism was properly performed by dipping is highly questionable in light of the fact that King James, Queen Elizabeth, and other English monarchs actually were dipped as infants, not sprinkled or poured upon, following the dominant Anglican liturgical practice of their day.

​

This claim that suggests that King James I was baptized as an infant according to the dominant Anglican liturgical practice of their day is not true. The mother of King James I of England [James VI of Scotland] was a Roman Catholic queen of Scotland.

As an infant, James was baptized with a Roman Catholic baptism, not an Anglican baptism (Scott, James I, p. 33; Guy, Queen of Scots, pp. 272-273).

John Spottiswood confirmed that “the archbishop did administer the baptism with all ceremonies accustomed in the Roman church” (History of the Church of Scotland, Volume II, p. 42).

KJV-only author Doug Stauffer acknowledged that “James was baptized ‘Charles James’ in a Catholic ceremony” (One Book One Authority, p. 361). Did James I ever renounce his Roman Catholic baptism and have a believer's baptism?

Daniel Featley, who is listed as a KJV translator according to some sources and who was at least associated with them, asserted: “Sprinkling may be done, and is usually, without any dipping at all” (Dippers Dipt, p. 26). Daniel Featley wrote: “Though dipping may be used in baptism; and if the child be strong, and the weather and climate temperate, it is fit to be used, and the Church of England both alloweth it and practiseth it; yet it is no way necessary or essential to baptism” (p. 25).

John L. Dagg quoted a source that maintained that “during the reigns of King James and King Charles I, there were but very few children dipped” (Manual of Church Order, p. 312).

 

[Deacon]

Confirmation bias: Supporting a pre-existing belief by misinterpreting isolated biblical passages and at the same time, ignoring information that might challenge that belief.

 

[Logos1560]

Jesus knows His Bible and He Knows Bibles. We should at least ask Jesus which Bible(s) we should be using, shouldn't we?

How far off am I on that one?

Your seeming appeal to subjective, mystical personal experience instead of to a consistent application of scriptural truths may be way off.

Are you repeating or parroting KJV-only author Jack McElroy's question Which Bible Would Jesus Use?

Jack McElroy claimed: “All the King James Bible is given by inspiration of God” (Bible Version Secrets, p. 399).

Jack McElroy asked” “What kind of Bible do you think God wants you to have? One that mixes his words with men’s words or a Bible that contains only his holy words—only his words of truth? (Which Bible, p. 84). Jack McElroy asserted: “This book must contain all of God’s words and only God’s words. It can’t be a mixture of men’s words and God’s words” (p. 11). Jack McElroy declared: “The true Bible cannot be adulterated with men’s words. It cannot contain errors” (p. 84).

The 1611 edition of the KJV contained errors introduced by men which remained in KJV editions for years. The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV contained errors introduced by men, including one that remained in most Oxford and Cambridge KJV editions for over 100 years.
Do many KJV-only advocates avoid the fact that the KJV translators in effect acknowledged that they added words for which they had no original-language words of Scripture and the fact that they translated from multiple, mixed texts that have some conjectures and words added by textual critics which are not found in the majority of preserved Greek NT manuscripts or sometimes not found in any known preserved Greek NT manuscript?

 

[Logos1560]

"3. That is, for example, baptize rather than immerse more clearly communicates the character of the Baptismal Ceremony as a Religious Ordinance, immerse does not specifically indicate that the person who receives baptism is not only to be plunged under the water but also to arise out of it, and the verb to immerse was not commonly used in the English language in 1611 (and thus appears nowhere at all in the KJV; cf. the Oxford English Dictionary).

​

Baptists in their Standard Confession of Faith of 1660 seemed to think it necessary to give an English definition for the word “baptize.” This 1660 Baptist Confession has this explanation after the word baptize: “that is in English to dip” (McGlothin, Baptist Confessions, p. 115).

In his 1649 book, Henry Lawrence (1600-1664) explained “baptize them” as “or dip them” (Some Considerations, p. 56).
In 1641, Edward Barber referred to “some words left untranslated, as in Matthew 28:19, where the word may as well be dipping, as in Luke 16:24” (Small Treatise, p. iv).
In 1642, Thomas Killcop wrote: “Baptism is a Greek word, and most properly signifies dipping in English” (Short Treatise, p. 1).
Thus, some valid evidence conflicts with the claim of some that “baptize” was a common English word in the 1600’s with the commonly understood meaning “to immerse” or “to dip.”


Baptists David Bernard and Samuel Aaron noted: "Let it be remembered that we contend for a translation, irrespective of our own belief as to
the meaning of the word baptizo. If that word means sprinkle, let it be so translated. If its meaning can only be expressed by a phrase of
several words, let it be so translated. If it requires different words in different places, let it be suitably translated. It is, in our apprehension, the imperative duty of those who understand the word of God to 'make it plain upon tables'" (The Faithful Translation, p. 20).

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Thus, some valid evidence conflicts with the claim of some that “baptize” was a common English word in the 1600’s with the commonly understood meaning “to immerse” or “to dip.”

What a typical example of some "Specific" exceptions of the perceptions by a few men to the "General" universally acknowledged meaning and usage, Historically.​

​

New Testament Greek Lexicon - NASB95;​

bap-tid'-zo​

"Baptizo"​

Definition:​

1. "to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2. "to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3. "to overwhelm

"Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution."
...

The History of Baptism is a monumental 1790 historical work written by English Baptist minister, preacher, and antiquarian Robert Robinson (1735–1790), best known for penning the classic hymn "Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing". [1, 2, 3]

Overview of the Book:

• Author: Robert Robinson, who pastored a congregation in Cambridge and spent years researching ecclesiastical records in the British Museum. [1]
• Publication Date: First published in London in 1790 (shortly before his death) and later reprinted in editions such as Boston in 1817 and Nashville. [1, 2]
• Core Thesis: Robinson argues that New Testament baptism was strictly administered to professing, conscious believers by immersion (dipping), rather than infants or young children via sprinkling. [1, 2]
• Scope: The book is a sweeping, exhaustive study tracing baptism from John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostolic church through early Christian writers, ancient baptisteries, monastic institutions, the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and state-enforced religious practices. [1, 2, 3]

Key Arguments and Themes

• Original Practice vs. Later Corruption: Robinson attempts to show how the original practice of adult immersion gradually shifted over the centuries to instructed children, then to newborn infants, and how immersion was eventually replaced by pouring and sprinkling (aspersion). [1, 2, 3]
• Political and Ecclesiastical Power: He critiques how infant baptism and state-mandated religion were weaponized by rulers—such as Emperor Charlemagne forcing baptism on the Saxons—to turn a religious ordinance into a tool of political control. [1]
• Antiquarian Depth: The text relies heavily on Church Fathers, Ancient Canons, Councils, and Historical Linguistic Analysis of the Greek word for baptism. [1, 2]

There is a Google Books digitized volume of this book here.

"Let it be remembered that we contend for a translation, irrespective of our own belief as to
the meaning of the word baptizo. If that word means sprinkle, let it be so translated.

And it doesn't, nor ever did hint at meaning "sprinkle", until men decided they felt like changing God's Word, to accommodate their invention of "Infant baptism", where they incorrectly assumed that "baptism" might have some association with Salvation and, therefore, nonetheless, followed through with their and their wives Eternally Fatal notion to "make sure their kids don't go to Hell".

Baptists in their Standard Confession of Faith of 1660 seemed to think it necessary to give an English definition for the word “baptize.” This 1660 Baptist Confession has this explanation after the word baptize: “that is in English to dip” (McGlothin, Baptist Confessions, p. 115).

They simply discerned from the inevitable wiles of Satan and the weakness of men's minds that had previously contaminated a clear understanding of the word "baptize", to state the intention of their position clearly, which was what they were in the business of doing.

Matthew, as one example, which some would have us believe was "only written to the Hebrews" makes a little reiteration and clarification of its own, to make things clear for clarity's sake, in Matthew 1:23; were it says, "Behold, a Virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call His Name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

 

[Logos1560]

What a typical example of some "Specific" exceptions of the perceptions by a few men to the "General" universally acknowledged meaning and usage, Historically.​

You had brought up the matter of baptism as practiced in the Church of England while now you try to divert and change the subject to the historical view of Baptists. The view of Baptists is not the same thing as the view of the Church of England in the 1500's and early 1600's. Presenting the historical Baptist view is not presenting the view of the state Church of England. My comments were not addressing the historical view of Baptists since that was not what you had posted in your post to which I replied.

You failed to correct your bogus, false claim that King James I was baptized as an infant according to the dominant Anglican liturgical practice of his day. The mother of King James I of England [James VI of Scotland] was a Roman Catholic queen of Scotland, and she had her infant son baptized according to her religion.

As an infant, James was baptized with a Roman Catholic baptism, not an Anglican baptism (Scott, James I, p. 33; Guy, Queen of Scots, pp. 272-273).

John Spottiswood confirmed that “the archbishop did administer the baptism with all ceremonies accustomed in the Roman church” (History of the Church of Scotland, Volume II, p. 42).

KJV-only author Doug Stauffer acknowledged that “James was baptized ‘Charles James’ in a Catholic ceremony” (One Book One Authority, p. 361). Did James I ever renounce his Roman Catholic baptism and have a believer's baptism?

Daniel Featley, who is listed as a KJV translator according to some sources and who was at least associated with them, asserted: “Sprinkling may be done, and is usually, without any dipping at all” (Dippers Dipt, p. 26). Daniel Featley wrote: “Though dipping may be used in baptism; and if the child be strong, and the weather and climate temperate, it is fit to be used, and the Church of England both alloweth it and practiseth it; yet it is no way necessary or essential to baptism” (p. 25).

John L. Dagg quoted a source that maintained that “during the reigns of King James and King Charles I, there were but very few children dipped” (Manual of Church Order, p. 312).