Armitage, (p. 443) quotes Henry Denne as saying, "Dipping of infants was not only commanded by the Church of England. but also generally practiced in the Church of England till the year 1606; yea, in some places it was practiced until the year 1641, until the fashion altered..."
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Whitsitt controversy
- Thread starter rlvaughn
- Start date
Technically, immersion was prescribed by the first Book of Common Prayer (probably written or edited by Cranmer) in 1549 under Edward VI, although pouring was allowed for "weak" children. That was continued in the 1662 version, which is the last authorized revision. There is no instruction for baptizing adults.
The 1662 book also contained instructions for baptizing those of "riper" years, authorizing indifferently dipping or pouring. I suspect that the instructions for adults arose from England's imperialistic affairs, which resulted in adults being candidates for baptism. (It's also not unlikely that, after more than a century of religious strife, there were many adults who had not been baptized as children at all.)
The 1662 book also contained instructions for baptizing those of "riper" years, authorizing indifferently dipping or pouring. I suspect that the instructions for adults arose from England's imperialistic affairs, which resulted in adults being candidates for baptism. (It's also not unlikely that, after more than a century of religious strife, there were many adults who had not been baptized as children at all.)
"And such as shall willingly and gladly receive it [the Gospel], he [Jesus Christ] has commanded to be baptized in the water; that is, dipped for dead in the water".
I think Whitsitt denied or dismissed this,* but one Leonard Busher argued in favor of immersion in his plea for Religion's Peace, or a Plea for Liberty of Conscience in 1614. He was a citizen of London and was described in 1612 by Christopher Lawne as a leader of a congregation of "English Anabaptists". (Revolution, Estep, p. 55)
* Of this denial Henry Clay Vedder wrote, "I can only mildly express my surprise that it takes so much proof to convince the good doctor of some things, and so little to convince him of others."
I think Whitsitt denied or dismissed this,* but one Leonard Busher argued in favor of immersion in his plea for Religion's Peace, or a Plea for Liberty of Conscience in 1614. He was a citizen of London and was described in 1612 by Christopher Lawne as a leader of a congregation of "English Anabaptists". (Revolution, Estep, p. 55)
* Of this denial Henry Clay Vedder wrote, "I can only mildly express my surprise that it takes so much proof to convince the good doctor of some things, and so little to convince him of others."
Busher is a wild card in this story. Was he a Baptist? (Christian thought so; Vedder thought it incontrovertible.) Did he actually baptize by immersion or did he just advocate it?
W.T. Whitley, a Baptist minister who once held that English Baptists were a result of the cross-pollination of Separatism and Anabaptism (not an unreasonable conclusion, I think) said that Busher had "nothing at all to do with Helwys and Murton."
This would not matter except that Christian tries to tie Busher to Smyth and Helwys (apparently wanting to maintain the connection with Anabaptists on the Continent to keep with his successionist beliefs).
Christian also maintains that Smyth was baptized by immersion in 1604. H.M. Dexter (admittedly a Congregationalist and a supporter of infant baptism) subjected Christian's evidence to a far more scathing scrutiny than Christian did of the Jessey documents and finds so many discrepancies as to render it worthless.
Christian buttresses his case with quotes from other scholars that Smyth baptized himself by immersion, without any proof.
W.T. Whitley, a Baptist minister who once held that English Baptists were a result of the cross-pollination of Separatism and Anabaptism (not an unreasonable conclusion, I think) said that Busher had "nothing at all to do with Helwys and Murton."
This would not matter except that Christian tries to tie Busher to Smyth and Helwys (apparently wanting to maintain the connection with Anabaptists on the Continent to keep with his successionist beliefs).
Christian also maintains that Smyth was baptized by immersion in 1604. H.M. Dexter (admittedly a Congregationalist and a supporter of infant baptism) subjected Christian's evidence to a far more scathing scrutiny than Christian did of the Jessey documents and finds so many discrepancies as to render it worthless.
Christian buttresses his case with quotes from other scholars that Smyth baptized himself by immersion, without any proof.
Last edited:
"The Ministration of Publick Baptism of Infants" - Book of Common Prayer, 1662.
"Then the Priest shall take the Child into his hands, and shall say to the Godfathers and Godmothers, Name this Child. And then naming it after them (if they shall certify him that the Child may well endure it) he shall dip it in the Water discreetly and warily, saying,
I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
But if they certify that the Child is weak, it shall suffice to pour Water upon it, saying the foresaid words, I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."
In 1689 this was changed to "And then naming it after them, he shall pour or sprinkle Water upon it, or (if they shall certify him that the Child may well endure it) he shall dip it in the Water discreetly and warily, saying, I baptize thee In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."
"Then the Priest shall take the Child into his hands, and shall say to the Godfathers and Godmothers, Name this Child. And then naming it after them (if they shall certify him that the Child may well endure it) he shall dip it in the Water discreetly and warily, saying,
I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
But if they certify that the Child is weak, it shall suffice to pour Water upon it, saying the foresaid words, I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."
In 1689 this was changed to "And then naming it after them, he shall pour or sprinkle Water upon it, or (if they shall certify him that the Child may well endure it) he shall dip it in the Water discreetly and warily, saying, I baptize thee In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."
The Dexter book is available on Google Books, as is Christian's and Whitsitt's:
The True Story of John Smyth, the Se-baptist
Did They Dip?
A Question in Baptist History
The True Story of John Smyth, the Se-baptist
Did They Dip?
A Question in Baptist History
Kiffin's pamphlet is at http://particularbaptistlibrary.org/LIBRARY/Ecclesiology/A Brief remonstrance Wm Kiffin.pdf.
George A. Lofton's defense of Whitsitt (which has been mentioned in passing, I believe, though it may not be on this thread) is at https://books.google.com/books?id=4...SzFBJM4ChDoAQg1MAc#v=onepage&q=busher&f=false
George A. Lofton's defense of Whitsitt (which has been mentioned in passing, I believe, though it may not be on this thread) is at https://books.google.com/books?id=4...SzFBJM4ChDoAQg1MAc#v=onepage&q=busher&f=false
Last edited:
West Kentucky Baptist
Member
I think there are two things to keep in mind.
1. Leonard Busher is important because it shows an example of someone advocating immersion before 1641. This is just one of many evidences I know of from this time period. Yet Whitsitt would have us to believe no one baptized by immersion until 1641.
2. I have not read Henry Dexter's book. It is a rare find. However several years ago I did read a number of reviews of it from Baptist newspapers during that time. Several Baptists gave it scathing reviews. Keep in mind Dexter was a pedobaptist apologist. It is unfair to say Christian is bias because of his beliefs, but Dexter was not.
1. Leonard Busher is important because it shows an example of someone advocating immersion before 1641. This is just one of many evidences I know of from this time period. Yet Whitsitt would have us to believe no one baptized by immersion until 1641.
2. I have not read Henry Dexter's book. It is a rare find. However several years ago I did read a number of reviews of it from Baptist newspapers during that time. Several Baptists gave it scathing reviews. Keep in mind Dexter was a pedobaptist apologist. It is unfair to say Christian is bias because of his beliefs, but Dexter was not.
There are a lot of dark shadows in the study of English Baptists in the early 1600s -- and the dark shadows belong to Whitsitt as well as any of the others. Because Whitsitt's view "won the war" a lot of people don't look askance at his findings as they do some of the others. It is what it is!
Busher may have dark shadows surrounding his person and his ministry, but it is clear as daylight that he was advocating immersion baptism in 1614 -- 27 years before 1641. Without finding a historical record that Busher actually immersed, we are left with what he advocated. In most cases we would likely believe that folks practiced what they advocated, although it is always possible they did not. It seems unlikely to me that even if he were only so clearly advocating immersion that 27 years transpired before anyone actually acted on it. What I believe about this is not proof of anything, but it is what I believe -- highly likely Busher practiced what he preached if he was willing to put it in writing before the king.
Busher may have dark shadows surrounding his person and his ministry, but it is clear as daylight that he was advocating immersion baptism in 1614 -- 27 years before 1641. Without finding a historical record that Busher actually immersed, we are left with what he advocated. In most cases we would likely believe that folks practiced what they advocated, although it is always possible they did not. It seems unlikely to me that even if he were only so clearly advocating immersion that 27 years transpired before anyone actually acted on it. What I believe about this is not proof of anything, but it is what I believe -- highly likely Busher practiced what he preached if he was willing to put it in writing before the king.
What little we know of Busher provides no help in determining whether he ever baptized anyone by immersion — or that he baptized anyone at all. It may have been a purely intellectual (or spiritual) exercise. Luther advocated immersion, but he never put it into practice.
Was Busher a Baptist? The standard answer is that he was — because he advocated immersion. We're talking in circles here; we're assuming that holding to immersion is the single distinguishing characteristic of Baptists to the exclusion of everything else (although Busher does hold to another Baptist basic principle, absolute freedom of conscience in religion.) Was Alexander Campbell a Baptist because he practiced immersion in spite of his other disagreements with the Baptists?
We have an extensive record of other early Baptists (such as Murton) who repeatedly rail against paedobaptism yet never mention the proper mode of credobaptism. It seems to me that advocating credobaptism over paedobaptism was much more subservice to the established order than was immersion, so why would they fail to mention the mode?
There were laws on the books against Anabaptists in the mid-1500's and the issue could not have been the mode of baptism because it has been proven that immersion was a common mode even among pedobaptists in England long before 1633 and long before Busher. There is archeological evidence for fonts in pedobaptist churches for immersion of infants.The only reasonable offence is the rejection of infant immersion, thus "re-baptizing" or "Anabaptists" because they immersed believers only, rejecting infant immersion. Thus, the offence that angered the church of England and Catholics in England was the rejection of infant immersion, thus, the anger manifested in laws against "Anabaptists."
Christian made this point clear and I don't see any reasonable responses by either George Lofton or A.H. Newman that will overthrow that point and that is the point on which this whole debate hinges.