Benjamin Beddome and the 18th Century Baptism Debate Part 2

We began last time to describe a book or collection of books found in the personal library of the eighteenth century Baptist pastor Benjamin Beddome (1717-1795) currently housed in the Angus Library of Regents Park College, Oxford. The library catalogue has recently been digitalised and can be accessed online through the Oxford University Solo website (http://solo.bodleian. ox.ac.uk – all books begin with the prefix bed).

In our first article we sought to briefly describe the five books or pamphlets bound together on the subject of baptism. These are

1. David Rees (Credobaptist) Infant-baptism no Institution of Christ.

2. Samuel Hebden (Paedobaptist) A treatise on the subjects and mode of baptism.

3. Anonymous (Credobaptist) An Answer to a late anonymous Pamphlet entitled, A treatise on the subjects and mode of baptism. (We suggested that this work is probably the work of Portsea minister John Lacy, giving the impression that the Beddome book confirms this but a further inspection reveals it does not.)

4. Caleb Fleming (Paedobaptist) The Challenge, Occasioned by an Answer to a Late Treatise on the Subject and Mode of Baptism.

5. Anonymous (Paedobaptist) A review, and vindication, of a late Treatise, on the Subject and Mode of baptism, By Way of Reply, to a Zealous, Angry Answerer. Closer inspection of this item conforms this to be the work of Samuel Hebden who defends his own work, the second item in this collection.

In our previous article we also sought to give a fuller description of the first and most substantial work in the collection, David Rees's 290 page work opposing infant baptism and answering a previous work by Congregationalist Fowler Walker (d 1753).

We want to proceed by more closely describing the other four shorter works bound with the Rees volume.

The arguments in the books (continued)

Samuel Hebden's A treatise on the subjects and mode of baptism.

This 60 page book looks first at subjects (1-37) then at mode (37-60). Hebden begins by saying that the topic is too often debated with “anger and intemperate zeal, especially on the one side” (ie the Credobaptist side). He calls his opponents Baptists, Anabaptists (re-baptisers) or (his preference) Anti-paedobaptists. Despite his aspersions, they are “these friends of ours”.

He begins to look at the proper subjects of baptism by asserting that he does not oppose baptism of adult proselytes nor advocate baptising adults with no profession of faith. He certainly does not think baptism is essential to salvation. Further, he is not advocating indiscriminate infant baptism. Children of Heathen, Pagans or Papists should not be baptised nor those whose parents have not themselves been properly baptised.

He argues, he says, not from ancient practice but from Scripture. He announces five lines of argument he wants to pursue. Firstly and most importantly, from the perpetuity of God's covenant with Abraham, a covenant of grace, baptism being appointed to succeed circumcision as the initial sign and seal.

His also argues from various texts, including some that are often used against paedobaptism. His final argument is from the absurd consequences of failing to baptise htose infants he wants to see baptised.

He begins by asserting that the covenant in Genesis 17 was the covenant of grace. He argues this chiefly from its title – everlasting. “Nothing but inveterate prejudice can hinder man's inferring from hence and the foregoing discourse … that God's covenant with Abraham and his seed, could be no other than the covenant of grace” (p 9).

He then argues from several practical Scriptures that he feels speak plainly on the issue. These include Matthew 19:14, Romans 11:16 (where he argues that the children of believers are federally holy and so should be baptised), 1 Corinthians 7:14 (where he takes holy to mean “in covenant with God”), Acts 2:39 and Ephesians 2:12, and moving on to focus on Matthew 28:19 and Matthew 3:6, 11.

He concludes that despite “all the noise they make” Credobaptists cannot produce “a hint of God's casting the children of his people out of his covenant” and all these texts favour Paedobaptists. At various points Beddome has written in the margins of the text. On page 25, where Hebden looks at Matthew 28:19, he has typically written “See manifest inconsistency between this and the next page”. He again argues with him in the margin of page 29 over baptism replacing circumcision and at several other points.

On page 30, Hebden lists five ends of baptism. It is a token of God's taking persons into covenant; a sign of the blessing of regeneration; a seal of remission of sins to true believers; a means of distinguishing disciple from non-disciple, showing who is in the visible church; a means of putting God's professing people under covenant bonds and engagements.

This leads to the question of whether children should take communion. Here he opposes Essay in favour of the ancient practice of giving the eucharist to children by nonconformist minister James Peirce (1673-1726). Hebden finds the historical part defective and the argumentative part just as bad. Beddome here sees another contradiction in Hebden when he says that “arguments that overdo are good for nothing at all”.

As for mode, Hebden says there are three views - dipping is essential, dipping is more regular or that we may and ought to sprinkle. He argues for this last view.

He does not deny that dipping is the ancient method. However, according to him, then candidates were naked and were dipped three times over. Further, sprinkling (clinical baptisms) were always known.

He claims that some idolise dipping and others speak too highly of it, when in fact this is not warranted by linguistic arguments from the Scriptures. He knows that John Gale (1680-1721) has piled up quotations to support the Baptist view but he finds him at fault in his understanding. He goes on to examine several Scriptures seeking to get at the real meaning of the baptising and washing words. He claims that the dipping mode is not warranted by any one precept or example in the Bible and is not even unwilling to grant that John the Baptist dipped. He also brings up the old argument about how impracticable it would be to dip 3000 in one day as some claim was the case in Acts 2.

Having exhausted his main arguments, he comes to more controversial ground. He claims that dipping is unsafe and may be dangerous (in the case of infants, whom most dippers have no wish to baptise, and the sick). He also claims that it is indecent and will incite lust (!). He then has a bizarre argument about extreme bodily strength being necessary to do the thing properly and mocking because candidates partly baptise themselves once they step into the water. It is somehow against the sixth and seventh commandments and contrary to the principle that mercy is greater than sacrifice. He finally turns to Romans 6, which he sees as being certainly about Spirit baptism.

In closing he speaks warmly of Particular Baptists like Henry Jessey (1603-1633) and John Bunyan (1628-1688) but feels that General Baptists such as Henry Danvers (d 1683), Dr Gale and his protégé James Foster (1697-1753), are zealous party men who should be ashamed of themselves.

Lacy's An Answer to a late anonymous Pamphlet entitled, A treatise on the subjects and mode of baptism.

This is a reply to Hebden and is more or less the same length. The writer is clearly upset by Hebden's “violence and effrontery” and argues that despite his irenic pretensions he must have expected such a reaction as a footnote to his contents page refers to people being upset by his remarks. Hebden's book, he says, put him in mind of Fundamentals without a foundation a 1703 Paedobaptist work by David Russen.

For this writer, mode is the main issue. He has read Hebden but complains of his ambiguity, inconsistency, frequent shuffling and wriggling and frivolous distinctions, calling the work a “loose, groundless harangue”.

He objects against the grounds for baptism being your parents' faith not your own. He cannot see how this would exclude Papists and raises the matter of baptised parents who belong to no visible church and do not take communion.

He feels that a lot of time could have been saved with some of Hebden's covenantal arguments with their absurdities and inconsistencies.

He says clearly, “We maintain that there is no warrantable connection between circumcising infants of old, in the Jewish church and baptising of them in the Christian church”. He adds “and they with all their skill have never yet been able to prove it”.

As to the matter of when the transition comes our Baptist writer is quite happy to tie it to the coming of John the Baptist, who clearly rejected circumcision as a covenant marker. There is nothing about infant baptism in the story of John the Baptist he maintains. John says nothing about infants - “an irreparable loss and prejudice to the business of infant baptism”.

As for Romans 6 he cannot see how Abraham can in any sense be called the father of the infants of believers. He does not deny that in God's secret providence infants may be saved but that is not something known to us. His final point in the first part of his book is that there is no greta regard to be paid to Hebden's claim that baptism is an initial and initiating seal. This “though he has dinned his readers with the repetition of it above sixty times in” almost as many pages, and no less than six times on one page! Circumcision is called a seal but not baptism.

From page 26 the author begins to argue from specific Scriptures. Again he has a lot to complain of in Hebden. He accuses him of innuendo, of being “vague and trifling” and of “impatient repetition and obvious absurdities”.

As for mode, Hebden may be a hero to his own and one who has cut the Gordian knot but for this writer that is far from being the case. To suggest that dipping was an innovation in the second or third century without blushing is amazing. Hebden's arguments appear to be that mode is not dictated by the Scripture's use of the word baptise and dipping is inconsistent with the way that the baptism of the Spirit is spoken of. He is particularly offended by Hebden's idea that Naaman washed himself rather than being immersed. Hebden's “very magisterial air” and “forced interpretation” are roundly criticised. Our Baptist writer concludes by noting how strange it is “that it should come into any man's head to write so many pages, and to so little purpose” and then to publish these irreconcilable things.

This article was in In Writing. The third and final article never appeared.

Benjamin Beddome and the 18th Century Baptism Debate Part 1

In recent years Martin Salter, a Baptist, and David Gibson, a Presbyterian, have publicly debated the credo- and paedo-baptist positions. They have done this both in print (in Themelios) and in person (at the John Owen Centre). The debate is not, of course, a new one. It was one that quietly simmered away throughout the eighteenth century and beyond.

Though never entering into public debate, one of the many with an interest in the subject was the Baptist minister, Benjamin Beddome (1717-1795). The bulk of Beddome's personal library still exists. It was in the early fifties that Ernest Payne (1902-1980) rescued it from the attic of the descendant of one of the members of Beddome's Gloucestershire church and brought it, on permanent loan, to Regents Park College, Oxford, where it can still be found in the Angus Library, where it is currently being catalogued in digital form. It has been described as “a gold mine waiting to be discovered”.

Beddome was clearly interested in the baptism question as one of the books in his library is a single binding of five different titles covering both sides of the question. The decision to have the works bound together was presumably his.

Benjamin Beddome

Beddome (pronounced Beddam) was born in Henley-in-Arden, Warwickshire, and was a son of the manse, his father being John Beddome (1674-1757). Initially apprenticed to a surgeon in Bristol, Beddome Junior began to train for the ministry and in 1739 was baptised in London, where he became a member of the Little Prescott Street church, Goodman's Fields, under Pastor Samuel Wilson (1702-1750). In 1740 he began to preach at Bourton-on-the-Water, Gloucestershire, where he eventually became the minister. There was something of a revival at the commencement of his ministry. He remained there for the rest of his long life being very active in the life of the Baptist community. His fame travelled far and in 1770, he was honoured with an MA from Providence College, Rhode Island.

In 1752, Beddome published A Scriptural Exposition of the Baptist Catechism, by Way of Question and Answer. He is best remembered today as a hymn writer. His hymns were regularly sung following his sermons. Some 13 of them appeared in the Bristol Baptist Collection of Ash and Evans, and 36 in the later Selection made by John Rippon (1751-1836). In 1817, a posthumous collection of 830 pieces was published. It contains some 39 hymns on baptism. Several volumes of sermons were also published posthumously.

The books and pamphlets Beddome gathered together have by now become quite obscure and forgotten, as have their authors, but no doubt they had their day and were praised or decried by those who read them as they appreciated or failed to appreciate the arguments they contain. The five books or pamphlets are as follows.

The five books or pamphlets

David Rees (Credobaptist)

Infant-baptism no Institution of Christ. The title page adds The rejection of it justified from Scripture and antiquity in answer to Mr Fowler Walker's Book entituled A Defence of infant-baptism, etc.

The first of the five is quite substantial and is itself a reply to a previous work. Fowler Walker (d 1753) was a Congregationalist minister based in Abergavenny whose own book, A defence of infant baptism appeared in Welsh in 1732 as well as in English in 1734. Walker's birth date is unknown but he died in 1753 and was the father of an eminent London barrister of the same name.

Abergavenny is where the first public debates in Wales on this vexed subject had taken place. In 1653, the Baptist John Tombes (c 1603-1676), who had debated Richard Baxter (1615-1691) in Bewdley in 1650, along with local Baptist John Abbott, debated the subject with Henry Vaughan (1621-1695) and John Cragge. Both sides claimed victory.

Things had gone fairly quiet by the time that Walker published. He wrote, he himself tells us, because of the scarcity of the work in Welsh by the Independent James Owen (1654-1706), Bedydd Plant o'r Nefoedd (Infant baptism from heaven, his treatise in favour of infant baptism) of 1693 and his reply to the Baptist Benjamin Keach (1640-1704) of 1701. Keach, who had published Gold refined or baptism in its primitive purity in 1689 had also written, at the request of fellow Baptists in Wales, in 1692, The rector rectified or corrected; infant baptism unlawful against William Burkitt (1650-1703) and, four years later, Light broke forth in Wales expelling darkness; or the Englishman's love to the antient Britons (Goleuni wedi torri allan yng Nghymru, etc) Both had been translated into Welsh by Keach's friend Robert Morgan of Swansea, it seems. Morgan had also translated Owen into English for Keach's perusal.

Geraint H Jenkins has called the Baptist rejoinder to Fowler Walker by David Rees a magisterial synthesis. It was first published in 1736. David Rees (c 1688-1748) was associated with the Baptist cause in Hengoed and, like James Owen, educated under Samuel Jones (1628-1697) at Brynllywarch. He appears to have been baptised and to have been induced to preach in the early 1700’s during the early years of the ministry of Morgan Griffiths (1699-1748). He went on to minister in London, eventually becoming the well respected minister of Lime-house in 1709. He was ordained by Joseph Stennett Sr (1663-1713) and John Piggott (d 1713) and remained there until his death, while maintaining his contacts with his native Wales, where he was held in high regard.

Best known for his work on baptism, he authored several other volumes on parts of the shorter catechism, psalm singing, ministerial remuneration and providence. His funeral sermon was preached by Joseph Stennett Jr (1692-1758).

The book has a supplement, Animadversions on the Rev Dr Thomas Ridgley's Discourse of infant baptism. Thomas Ridgley (1667-1734) was the author of several volumes including a two volume body of divinity that appeared between 1731 and 1733 and follows the pattern of the Westminster Larger Catechism.

Samuel Hebden (Paedobaptist)

A treatise on the subjects and mode of baptism is the second book or pamphlet in the collection. It is much briefer than the Rees volume and is the work of the Independent minister Samuel Hebden (c 1692-1747), It takes the opposite view to that of Rees (and Beddome, of course). It was published in 1742. Hebden was at Canterbury from 1714-1724, where he was apparently not very successful. He went on to Wrentham in Suffolk where he married in 1729, being widowed the year before his death. The Congregationalist historian John Browne (1823-1886) calls him a man of considerable learning with a remarkably strong memory. He wrote many books besides this one, looking at original sin, baptismal regeneration, the Lord's prayer, written prayers, old age and death. He seems to have had a taste for controversy.

John Lacy (Credobaptist)

This third item is entitled An Answer to a late anonymous Pamphlet entitled, A treatise on the subjects and mode of baptism. Wherein the author's pretended arguments ... are fairly examined, and refuted. Published in 1741, it is again in favour of the Baptist position and seeks to refute the previous volume. Beddome would have known the Baptist publisher Aaron Ward, who was active between 1726 and 1747, from his London days. Although published anonymously, the work appears to be that of John Lac(e)y (1700-1781) who grew up in Portsea, Portsmouth, in Hampshire, and successfully ministered 50 years in the Baptist cause there. Lacy also produced two other works. Beddome's copy of his work on baptism was previously owned by an Isaac Keene and he has written in the book that the author is Lacy of Portsmouth. It is worth noting that Lacy was very sympathetic to Methodism and even helped Paedobaptist Methodists to finance meeting houses.

Caleb Fleming (Paedobaptist)

This particular item is The Challenge, Occasioned by an Answer to a Late Treatise on the Subject and Mode of Baptism and it appeared in 1743. It seeks to answer Lacy. The author of this fourth writing is the Independent Caleb Fleming (1698-1779). Fleming, who came late to the ministry, has been called an “unwearied writer of argumentative and combative pamphlets, the greater part of them being anonymous”.

Fleming also wrote at least five other tracts on the subject, namely, Plunging, a subject of bigotry, when made essential to baptism; A plea for infants, or the scripture-doctrine of water-baptism stated; An appendix to the plea for infants, in which their right to baptism is vindicated against the reverend Mr Joseph Burrough's attempt to exclude them ….; A farther defence of infant-baptism, occasioned by a pamphlet, called, the plea for infants impleaded, published at Canterbury, 1742. signed, Dan. Dobel and A defence of infant-baptism, or a vindication of the appendix, &c. against the reverend Mr. Joseph Burrough's defence of his two discourses (Daniel Dobel d 1774 and Joseph Burroughs 1685-1761 were General Baptists. Dobel, from Kent emigrated to South Carolina and Burroughs was based in London. He appears to have later fallen into unorthodoxy).

Anonymous (Paedobaptist)

The title of the last of the five items is Like the Hebden volume, it was published by the bookseller John Oswald, who worked from several London addresses between 1712 and 1764. This volume also first appeared in 1743. The author is anonymous and it is written again from the Paedobaptist standpoint, reviewing and seeking to vindicate the work of Samuel Hebden.

Summary

So, in summary, we have five works, published between 1736 and 1743, two by Credobaptists, David Rees and (anonymously) John Lacy, and three advocating the Paedobaptist position. These latter are by Samuel Hebden, Caleb Fleming and a third writer who remains anonymous.

The arguments in the books

David Rees's Infant-baptism no Institution of Christ (Credobaptist)

Rees's substantial and scholarly work is in eight chapters with a preface. Rees is happy to talk of adult rather than believer's baptism. He marshals quotations in support of his view early on from Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and his fellow Remonstrants Stephanus Curcellaeus (Etienne de Courcelles, 1586-1659) and Johannes Casparus Suicerus (Johann Kaspar Schweitzer, 1620-1684) and the historian Gerard Brandt (1626-1685). He also quotes the statement of John Calvin (1509-1564) that “it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church”. Rees contends for baptism of believers by immersion, which even the prayer book recommends he says, and expresses his belief that the practice of infant baptism leads to disorder in churches.

Walker had used a threefold argument – Scripture precepts, precedent or example and good consequence. Rees tackles him along these lines, quoting Walker all the way. He begins with Matthew 28:19, picking up Walker for saying that Jesus says to go and baptise all nations. The command is to go and teach all nations and then baptise. The text is Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Walker, like those he alludes to in his work as agreeing with him (Henry Hammond 1605-1660, Daniel Whitby 1638-1726, Cuthbert Sydenham 1622-1654 and Joseph Hall 1574-1656) wants to put baptism before teaching. They only do this, Rees suggests, because they believe in infant baptism, where teaching is necessarily subsequent. He points out that Hammond, whatever he argues elsewhere, gives the order teach then baptise in his paraphrases. He does not think Whitby, whom he quotes, gives Walker any support at all. Rees also has fun with the fact that the Book of Common Prayer insists that in the case of baptism for those “of riper years” it is required that they are properly instructed. He tries to do something similar with the first part of the answer to Question 95 in the Shorter Catechism (“Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him”).

Rees also thinks Walker on shaky ground to want “all the inhabitants of a nation embracing Christianity” to be baptised as even at that time this would include Jews and other adults not professing Christian faith at all, some of them most dissolute individuals. Having dismissed some further arguments, Rees adds a few more counter arguments before closing the chapter with a rather demanding section, containing several footnotes, refuting the idea that infant baptism was common practice among first century Jews. This tedious section is prompted by the fact that Walker and others laid store by such arguments.

In Chapter 2, Rees continues with Walker's arguments from Scripture. He looks at Acts 2:38, 39 and points out that this is not an exhortation to baptism but to repentance and baptism. He also notes that, unlike Walker, Hammond and Whitby do not attempt to argue the case from these verses.

Walker's second category of argument is precedent or good example. This brings us to the loci classici of Acts 16:14, 15, 18:8 and 1 Corinthians 16:33, all of which refer to household baptisms. The Baptist arguments to show there were no infants in these households are well known and are duly rehearsed here. The chapter closes with an attack on Walker's distinctive idea that if the head of a Jewish or pagan household is converted and the rest of the family are willing to be baptised, this should be done.

Chapter 3 comes to necessary consequence and deals with the more solid arguments for infant baptism grounded on the covenant of grace. Rees seeks to answer six questions. What is the covenant of grace? Were all children considered to be in it? Are all children of believers infallibly in it? Are the children of unbelievers not sometimes in it? Was the covenant with Abraham the same covenant? Are Old Testament circumcision or New Testament baptism ever said to be seals of the covenant of grace to those to whom they are applied?

He bases his definition of the covenant on Hebrews 8:9 and excludes infants from it, which he says is in the Reformed tradition. As for the next three questions, references to Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, etc, and Rahab and Ruth, etc, quickly satisfy him on these questions. He denies that the covenant with Abraham can simply be equated with the covenant of grace, being a mixed covenant and a peculiar one at that. In order to answer his last question to his own satisfaction, he distinguishes between sign and seal, asserting that neither circumcision or baptism are spoken of in Scripture as seals. In the course of dealing with this matter he quotes from the Hebrew and mentions the church father Gregory of Nazianzus (329-c 390) and John Tombes, from whom he quotes. Rees is unimpressed by the claim that Baptists make their children like those of Jews or heathen by not baptising them.

The fourth chapter takes up other of Walker's arguments from necessary consequence, returning firstly to Acts 2:38, 39 but, if anything, with even less sympathy than the first time. He complains that Walker is “so ready to catch at every twig” that wherever he sees a reference to children he “thinks their baptism must be nigh at hand, how far soever this may be from the design of the holy pen man”. He is no better impressed with arguments from the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea or the fact that our Lord held infants in his arms and blessed them or any other of Walker's ingenious arguments.

In Chapter 5 we come to differences between Christian baptism and John's baptism among other things and again Rees and Walker are at loggerheads. Rees's scholarship is again in evidence as he quotes more church fathers - this time Cyprian (c 200-258) and Tertullian (160-220). He also quotes the Dutch annotations of Theodore Haak (1605-1690) and the Swiss theologian Johannes Wollebius (1689-1729). In common with many Baptists, Rees believed that

if the translators of our Bible had done justice, as they in some other countries have done, in rendering the words Baptist and Baptism in plain English dipper and dipping, I am of opinion, it would have prevented many tedious disputes, and that this ordinance of Christ, would have been better understood, and better treated than it is, by many well meaning people in this nation, who either through ignorance, or rather the prejudice of education now trample upon it.

The chapter also raises the issue of why infants are allowed baptism but not communion and then broaches the whole vexed matter of mode. He is disappointed at Walker's apparent unwillingness to examine the very thorough linguistic work of continentally educated scholar John Gale (1680-1721) in his Reflections on the work of Mr Wall's History of Infant Baptism of 1711. He brings forward some of Gale's references to Homer, Plutarch, Strabo, etc, in order to establish that baptism is by immersion or dipping not by sprinkling or pouring. Gale was responding to the Anglican William Wall (1647-1728) who had published his very popular History of Infant Baptism in 1705, expanding it in 1707 and again in 1720. He received an Oxford doctorate for his trouble. This work was itself a response to Joseph Stennett Jr's answer to a David Russen, who had written Fundamentals without foundation in 1703.

Rees's linguistic arguments continue in Chapter 6 as further loci classici much beloved of Baptists, namely John 3:23, Matthew 3:16 and Acts 8:36-39, are re-examined. Rees is again unimpressed with Walker, especially when he says that anyway “John's baptism is not to be the Christian pattern, as to the mode of it”! Rees continues to oppose Walker at length bringing in many scholarly references. He quotes Sir Norton Knatchbull (1602-1685) the baronet, MP and Bible scholar and church fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch (35-108), Justin Martyr (c 100-165), Basil of Caesarea (329 or 330-379), John Chrysostom (c 348-407) as well as Anselm of Canterbury (c 1033-1109), Thomas Aquinas (1224-1279) and the Reformers Calvin and Girolamo Zanchi (Hieronymous Zanchius, 1516-1590). The chapter closes with extensive quotations from Cyprian in order to deny that Cyprian ever equated sprinkling and baptism by immersion.

Chapter 7 replies to Walker's insinuations about health and modesty and continues to object to his understanding of early church history. Rees is happy that Walker has used Wall, Hammond, William Cave (1637-1713) author of Primitive Christianity and the then anonymous work on the same subject now known to be by the Lord Chancellor Sir Peter King (1669-1734). However, he feels Walker has missed the point and his arguments in favour of sprinkling and against dipping appear to him “frivolous and uncharitable”. He feels the same way about Walker's use of Cyprian, Origen (182-254) and Augustine of Hippo (354-430). Rees quotes from Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in favour of a Baptist understanding and calls in the Amyraldian Jean Leclerc (1657-1736) for support. Walker's conclusions from history hold no weight for Rees or are denied. For Rees the evidence from first two centuries unquestionably supports the Baptist view. The chapter closes with renewed appeals to Justin Martyr and Tertullian and a placing of blame for the advance of infant baptism at the doors of Cyprian and Augustine.

The final chapter of the book takes up Walker's claim that the Baptist position only came in after 1522. Referring to the French Protestant Pierre Allix (1641-1717) and his work on Ambrose of Milan (c 340-397) he asserts that Ambrose was in the habit of dipping. This leads on to a discussion of the architecture of ancient baptisteries, the authority this time being Joseph Bingham (1668-1723) with a passing reference to the medical doctor Sir John Floyer (1649-1734). Again Rees is insistent that the pattern was always immersion. We then get into some Reformation history with evidence to show that the Baptists were no slower off the mark in most places than Presbyterians and Independents and were sorely persecuted by Luther and the other magisterial Reformers.

Leaning on Allix and Brandt, Rees claims that many of the Waldensians opposed infant baptism, even as far back as Gundulphus in 1025. He also suggests that Berengar of Tours (c 999–1088) and Arnold of Brescia (c 1090-1155) rejected infant baptism.

As Baptists often do, he then turns to all sorts of heretical groups such as the Cathars and Albigensians (drawing partly on Stennett's work mentioned above), claiming them as possible brother Baptists. At the same time he wants to carefully distance the Baptists from the Munster commune of 1534, 1535, while unable to resist giving several examples of anabaptists put to death for their faith.

By this point he has clearly had enough of Walker's book and signs off fairly abruptly.

A perusal of Beddome's published work on the catechism would suggest that he was in substantial agreement with David Rees and some of the arguments in this book do come out there.

To be continued

This article first appeared in In Writing