committed to historic Baptist & Reformed beliefs

biographies

Dr. Christian has certainly rendered valuable service in bringing to light many facts bearing on the history of the English Baptists in the 16th and 17th centuries. He has shown a wonderful gift for unearthing facts. As if by instinct he knows which way to turn and where to go to get valuable information. Who but he, for example, would ever have thought of overhauling the wills recorded in the old Somerset House, London. Yet there he found the will of Henry Jacob, probated in April, 1624, showing that his death occurred before that date. This fact contradicted the statements of the Gould documents -- the so-called "Kiffin" manuscript, the "Jessey Records," &c.

Dr. Christian has not only examined the material in the British Museum, and in the leading libraries, but he has gone into the civil and ecclesiastical court records; he has visited some of the oldest Baptist churches, founded long before 1641, and has brought to light many interesting and valuable facts. Even in his examination of the libraries he has uncovered what was before unknown. For example, he found the book of "R. B." to which writers of the 17th century referred, and which was claimed by those who hold the "1641 theory" to have been written by Richard Blunt. It turns out that "R. B." was not Richard Blunt at all, but "R. Barrow." His finding the testimony of Fox, which had been disputed, was a case of special interest. But there is no need to enumerate in detail the various interesting "finds" of Dr. Christian. The question is, what do they prove?

The claim has been made that the Anabaptists of England were in the uniform practice of pouring and sprinkling for baptism for nearly all the 16th century and up to 1641 in the 17th. In 1641, it is said, one Richard Blunt was sent over to Holland to be immersed, and returning to London he immersed Samuel Blacklock, and these two immersed others. This is claimed as the first immersion of a believer in England for more than a century. It is claimed that about this time others began to practice immersion without reference to being in any sort of succession, and without regard to any baptized administrator. Such is the charge against our Baptist fathers in England, from which Dr. Christian has furnished a complete vindication.

What is the evidence brought forward in proof of this charge? One would suppose that the evidence would be clear and decisive; that cases would be cited of the practice of affusion by the Anabaptists of England, and records would be produced of the change from sprinkling to immersion by the Anabaptist churches. But we find nothing of the sort. Not a single instance has been cited where any Anabaptist in England practiced sprinkling or pouring, or where any Anabaptist church changed its practice. The remarkable claim is made that a practice was universal among a people, when not one of them has been shown to have observed any such practice!!! What sort of history is that?

But because certain parties on the Continent of Europe are said to have practiced affusion for baptism, it is inferred that these Anabaptists of England must have done the same. This strained inference is the first part of the alleged evidence that the immersion of believers was unknown in England for more than a century before 1641.

The second part of this evidence is a statement found in an anonymous document, the so-called "Kiffin" manuscript. The oldest extant copy of this document dates back only so far as 1860, less than 40 years ago. In this copy, now at Regents Park College, London, is an account of Richard Blunt's going to Holland to be immersed, of his return and of his immersing Samuel Blacklock, and of their immersing others. Along with this account occur the words, "none having then so practiced in England to professed believers." Even if it were conceded that this document were authentic and authoritative -- which I by no means concede -- all that could be claimed as proved by it, is that, so far as the writer knew, there had been no practice of immersing believers in England at that time. But this is a very 1ong way from proving that there was no such practice in England. In 1850 Charles H. Spurgeon did not know that anybody practiced immersion in England. It was a surprise and a joy to him to find that there were people in England, whose existence he had not suspected, who observed the New Testament teaching in regard to baptism. He proceeded to become one of them, and soon he filled the world with his fame. He says of himself in this regard: "I had thought myself to have been baptized as an infant; and so, when I was confronted with the question, 'What is required of persons to be baptized?' and I found that repentance and faith were required, I said to myself, 'Then I have not been baptized; that infant sprinkling of mine was a mistake; and please God that I ever have repentance and faith, I will be properly baptized.' I did not, know that there was one other person in the world who held the same opinion; for so little do Baptists make any show, or so little did they do so then, that I did not know of their existence" (Sermon on God's Pupil. Ps. 71.17). If, then, a certain unknown man's not knowing of the practice of believer's immersion in England in 1640, proves there was no such practice there at that time, how much more does Charles H. Spurgeon's not knowing of the practice of believer's immersion in England in 1850, proves there was no such practice there at that time. They had facilities of information in 1850 far beyond what they had in 1640.

Thomas Crosby, who wrote a history of the Baptists of England, 1738-40, mentions a manuscript "said to have been written by Mr. William Kiffin," which corresponds in many respects to the document in Regent's Park College, and no doubt the latter is a version of the document Crosby saw, but of which he gives the substance, with some quotations. It is remarkable that Crosby does not mention or refer to the words, "none having, then so practiced in England to professed believers," and it is questionable whether those words were in the manuscript Crosby had before him. That document, however, mentioned the story of Richard Blunt. But there is no other evidence of the story except this sole document, which is anonymous. The only witness in the case is unknown, both as to his name and his date. We find no trace of him till Crosby speaks of him a century after the alleged occurrence. Neale also speaks of Blunt, but does so solely on the authority of this same document. Indeed, outside that document there is no evidence that there was such a performance as Blunt's going to Holland to be immersed and of his immersing Blacklock and others. No writer of the period, or for nearly a century later, makes any reference to any such proceeding. The book written by "R. B." was supposed to furnish proof in regard to Blunt, but, as has been said, that book has been found, and turns out to have been written by "R. Barrow."

In 1643, only two years after 1641, the Baptist churches of London put forth their famous confession of faith, which was signed by the leading Baptists of the city. It is significant that neither the name of Richard Blunt nor that of Samuel Blacklock appears. If they did what the "Kiffin" document says they did, their names should have headed the list. Dr. Joseph Angus knows more about English Baptist history than any other living man, and in ransacking that whole period be finds no evidence of the existence of Richard Blunt or of Samuel Blacklock, so that in his list of Baptist worthies their names are omitted. Dr. Cathcart, in this country, in the Baptist Encyclopedia gives no hint of the existence of such a man as Richard Blunt. The only evidence of existence I have been able to hear of comes from a lady, whose name I am not at liberty to mention, who has relatives by the name of Blunt in England. She says that Richard Blunt was a Baptist, that he left the o out of his name so as to distinguish himself from the Roman Catholic Blounts, and that he died in 1620. She gives as authorities for these statements, Alexander Cooke's History of the Blunts and Maj. Gen. Blunt of the British army. I have had no opportunity to examine this evidence. If it shall prove to be valid, while it will show that such a man as Richard Blunt really did live, it will not help the 1641 theory, since a man who died in 1620, cannot be depended on to have introduced immersion into England in 1641.

But Dr. Christian has clearly proved that these documents, the "Kiffin" ms., "Jessey Records," &c., are thoroughly unreliable. They abound in the grossest and most glaring mistakes. They get names wrong, titles of books wrong, and dates wrong. They represent women as being men, men as operating long after they were dead, or as actively engaged over the country when the court records show they were in prison. If such errors do not prove a document to be unreliable, in the name of reason, what errors would prove it? The documents were evidently written long after the events, by parties who did not even dare to give their names, and who were in gross ignorance of the facts. The Epworth-Crowle document has been rejected on far less evidence than is produced against these Gould documents -- so-called because the extant copies were made in 1860, under the direction of the Rev. George Gould. According to all the recognized principles of evidence, these Gould documents are utterly unworthy of credit. Yet in them is found the only direct testimony (?) to the "1641 theory." On such evidence (?) we are asked to rest our historic faith.

The third part of the alleged evidence, that the immersion of believers was unknown in England for a long period before 1641, consists of certain expressions of writers after 1641, who speak of the Anabaptists as "new," "upstart," &c. These expressions are arrayed and paraphrased so as to conform to the "1641 theory," and interpreted as confirming the "Kiffin" manuscript. Even were these expressions all that is claimed for them, they would prove nothing except that the practices of the Baptists were new to those who were writing. There are millions of people in the United States to-day to whom the practices of the Baptists are unknown. It was not until after the war between the States that Gen. Robert E. Lee knew that there were any Christians in this country who rejected infant baptism. Does that prove that before 1861 the Baptists of our land practiced infant baptism? Prof. George F, Holmes, of the University of Virginia, who recently died, wrote: "The Baptists are a religious laity whose main belief is in the necessity of the Hindoo practice of purification by bathing" (University of Virginia Bulletin for August, 1898). Dr. Holmes was one of the greatest scholars of the world. These are but samples from men who surely had abundant opportunity to know about the Baptists, but who had not taken the trouble to inform themselves. If, then, such men, who are not chargeable with hostility to the Baptists, and living in our own land and time, so utterly misunderstand our denominational beliefs and practices, shall we be surprised to find bitter enemies of the Baptists in the 17th century in England charging them with being "new" and "upstart?"

Let it be remembered that the persecuting courts of High Commission and Star Chamber went out of existence August lst, 1641, and that then the Baptists, who had been obliged to conceal themselves, came out of their hiding places and preached their doctrine boldly, and broadly, as they could not do before. This, of course, made a stir, and it was all new to many of the people of that day. What wonder, then, that these Baptists should be pronounced "new" and "upstart?" But it is grotesque to claim such expressions as proving that Baptists began their practices in England at that time. The very fact that they showed themselves so vigorously and preached their doctrines so boldly in 1641, as is conceded on all hands, just so soon as they could do so safely, proves that they did not then invent or adopt these practices. They came from their hiding places and advocated openly what they had been believing and practicing in secret all the time.

Now, so far, I have assumed that the expressions "new," "upstart," &c., in the writings of the 17th century meant all that is claimed for them, viz.: that the writers thought the people and the practices mentioned were "new" and "upstart." But an examination of the writings shows this not to be true. What these writers denounce as "new" and "upstart," is not the practice of immersion. Not at all; for that was, up to the decree of the Westminster Assembly in 1643, regarded as the normal form of baptism. The "new" thing was the absolute refusal to admit that anything but immersion was valid baptism. These writers were used to the idea that while immersion was all right, affusion, especially in cases of sickness, was equally valid. It was the denial of the validity of affusion that gave offense, and which was denounced as "new" and "upstart." Those who had been sprinkled in infancy were now required to be immersed, and nothing but immersion would be accepted by these horrid Anabaptists. Dr. Featley In 1644 entered the lists against these "new upstart sectaries," and in his "Dippers Dipt or the Anabaptists Ducked and Plunged," &c., he served them up to the great satisfaction of their enemies. Dr. Featley clearly states the case when he says, p. 182: "Whatsoever is here alleged for dipping we approve of, so farre as it excludeth not the other two," that is, "washing" and "sprinkling." Dr. Featley made no objection to the practice of immersion, but only to the rejection of affusion. The same may be said of others who denounce the Baptists of that day as "new," "upstart," &c.

Great reliance has been placed on a statement of the anonymous writer, Mercurius Rusticus, and so it may be well in passing to quote his language in full, which those who throw him at us have carefully avoided doing. On pages 21 and 22, of "Mercurius Rusticus or the Countrie's Complaint of the Barbarous Outrages," &c., A. D. 1646, we find:

"Essex is a deep country, and therefore we have travelled almost two weeks in it, yet we cannot get out; we are now at Chelmerford which is the Shire towne, and hath in it two thousand communicants; all of one and the same church, for there is but one church in this great towne, whereof at this time Dr. Michelson is parson, an able and godly man. Before this parliament was called, of this numerous congregation, there was not one to be named, man or woman, who boggled at the Common prayers, or refused to receive the sacrament kneeling, the posture which the church of England (walking in the foot-steps of venerable antiquity) hath by Act of Parliament injoined all of those which account it their happinesse to be called her children. But since this magnified Reformation was set this towne (as indeed most corporations, as we finde by experience, are Nurceries of Faction and Rebellion) is so filled with Sectaries, especially Brownists and Anabaptists, that a third part of the people refuse to communicate in the Church Lyturgie, and half refuse to receive the blessed sacrament, unless they may receive it in what posture they may please to take it. They have amongst them two sorts of Anabaptists: the one they call Old men, or Aspersi, because they have been but sprinkled; the other they call the New men, or the Immersi, because they were overwhelmed in their rebaptization."

It is to be noted: 1. That this comes from an anonymous and a bitter royalist. The chief reliance of the advocates of the "1641 theory" is on anonymous documents. 2. He constantly confounded Anabaptists with Brownists and others, and denounced them all indiscriminately. Yet even here he does not claim that any who had been sprinkled in infancy were resprinkled, which must have been the case had the Anabaptists practiced sprinkling. The reasonable conclusion, even if this unknown writer be regarded as reliable, is that those who were converted from the state church and were immersed were the "Immersi," while those who broke from the state church without being immersed were the "Aspersi." But such a venomous writer was not apt to get things straight, and his utterance gives only his opinion at best. Yet even be says nothing of Blunt's introducing immersion in 1641 or at any other time.

Another writer greatly relied on is Robert Baillie, and it may be deemed worth while to consider what he says. He was a Scotch Presbyterian minister in Glasgow, and of course he knew all about what the Anabaptists all over England were doing. He says in his "Anabaptisme," p. 163:

"Among the new inventions of the late Anabaptists, there is none which with greater animosity they set on foot, than the necessity of dipping over head and ears, than the nullity of affusion and sprinkling in the administration of Baptisme. Among the old Anabaptists, or those over sea to this day, so far as I can learn by their writs or any relation that has come to my ears, the question of dipping and sprinkling came never upon the Table. As I take it, they dip none, but all whom they baptize they sprinkle in the same manner as is our custom. The question about the necessity of dipping seems to be taken up onely the other year by the Anabaptists in England, as a point which alone, as they conceive, is able to carry their desire of exterminating infant-baptisme," &c.

It is to be noted that his special objection is not to the practice of immersion but to the advocacy of "the nullity of affusion and sprinkling." But how much Baillie knew of the people he was writing about, may be seen by reading further what he has to say of them. He tells of the origin of these Anabaptists, "unhappy men, Stock and Muncer, did begin to breathe out a pestiferous vapor, for to over-cloud that golden candlestick" (p. 3). He says further: The spirit of Mahomet was not more hellish in setting foot most grosse errors and countenancing abominable lusts, nor was it anything so much hellish in making an open trade of bloodshed, robbery, confusion and Catholick oppression through the whole earth as the spirit of Anabaptisme. This great and severe sentence will be made good in the following narrative by such abundance of satisfactory testimonies as may convince the greatest favourers of these men among us" (p.3). He says of these Anabaptists "that whosoever refused to enter into their society to be rebaptized and to become members of their churches were without all pity to be killed" (p.5). He goes yet farther: "So great is the despight of divers Anabaptists at the person of Jesus Christ that they rail most abominably against His holy name, they not only spoil Him of His godhead, but will have His manhood defiled with sin, yea, they come to renounce Him and His Cross, though some of them, with a great deal of confidence, avow themselves to be the very Christ" (p. 98).

Once more he says that among these Anabaptists "the Scripture is denied to be the Word of God, and is avowed to be full of lies and errors, men are sent from the Word to seek revelations above and contrary to it" (p. 99).

In all fairness let it be asked what reliance can be placed in the statements about the Anabaptists of a man who writes this way about them? Yet these are probably the main citations relied upon to confirm the statement of the so-called "Kiffin" manuscript. It is only fair, though painful, to add, that many of the authors cited in favor of the "l641 theory" have been grossly misrepresented. For example, Ephraim Pagitt is represented as saying in his Heresiography that the "plunged Anabaptists" are the newest sort. He wrote in 1645, and this is urged as confirming the theory that immersion had then been lately introduced. But the fact is, Pagitt says no such thing. I secured a copy of his book and read it through carefully twice (and others have read it), and the expression "plunged Anabaptists" does not occur in the book at all, and he draws no distinction whatever between the "plunged Anabaptists" and any other sort, nor does he intimate that immersion was new among them.

It is claimed that Thomas Crosby, the Baptist historian who wrote in 1738-40, favored the theory that immersion had ceased to be practiced in England, and was started afresh in 1641. But the claim is without valid warrant. Crosby does unhesitatingly speak of restoring immersion, but that does not mean to convey the idea that immersion had ceased to be practiced, is manifest by his point blank declaration to the contrary. A practice can be restored without having entirely ceased to exist. When the abolition of the persecuting courts (High Commission and Star Chamber) in 1641, left Baptists free to publicly preach their doctrines and observe their practices, there was, as a matter of course, a revival of both. There was a decided Baptist movement, largely among Pedobaptists, and the mistake is made of thinking that these Pedobaptists who adopted Baptist views were the first in England, for over a century, to hold those views. Crosby, however, does not put the revival or restoring of immersion in 1641, but back at the beginning of the century, for he speaks of John Smyth as one of those who restored the ordinance in England, and Smyth died in 1609 or 1610. Crosby believed that the immersion of believers had been practiced in England from the earliest times, and that it had been kept up in the world since the days of John the Baptist. Hear him:

"The English Baptists adhere closely to this principle, that John the Baptist was by divine command, the first commissioned to preach the Gospel and baptize by immersion those that received it, and that this practice has been ever since maintained and continued in the world to this present day (Preface, Vol. II, page ii.)

Crosby gives a sketch of the preservation of immersion from the days of Christ to the beginning of the 17th century. He nowhere intimates that any Anabaptist church in England ever changed their practice from sprinkling to immersion. He assumes throughout that the Anabaptists from whom the Baptists largely sprang, had all along practiced immersion. He is at pains to point out how the Anabaptists in continental Europe practiced immersion from the beginning of the Reformation. He tells of the decree at Zurich in the year 1530, "making it death for any to baptize by immersion; upon which law some called Anabaptists were ty'd back to back, and thrown into the sea, others were burned alive, and many starved to death in prison." He reminds his readers how Pomeranius, a companion of Luther, explained that "plunging was restored in Hamburg" in 1529. Speaking of Arnoldus Meshovius and others about 1522, as opposed to infant baptism, Crosby says (Vol. I., p. 21, Preface): "'Tis still more evident that these first reformers looked upon sprinkling as a corruption of baptism." This historian believed that immersion had been continuously practiced in England since the time "the Gospel was preached in Great Britain soon after our Saviour's death" (Vol. II., p. ix). He says (Id. p. xlvi.), in speaking of Wickliffe's opinions: "I shall now only further observe that the practice of immersion of dipping in baptism, continued in the church until the reign of King James I, or about the year 1600." By "the church" he evidently means the Church of England, for on the very next page he says: "That immersion continued in the Church of England till about the year 1600."

The reign of James I. was the turning point, so far as the Church of England was concerned. James came from Scotland, where the Protestant divines on returning from their stay in Geneva, when Elizabeth ascending the throne made their return safe, had established sprinkling. Hence James began to introduce sprinkling and to root out immersion from the Church of England.

These Protestant divines had fled from the persecution of Bloody Mary, and had gone to Geneva. There, under the tuition of John Calvin, they adopted sprinkling as the normal act for baptism; and when on the accession of Elizabeth they returned (as the Edinburgh Encyclopedia tells us), they thought they could not do their church a greater service than by introducing a practice suited to their Northern clime and sanctioned by the great name of Calvin. Thus sprinkling was established in Scotland, and James, coming from Scotland, believed in sprinkling and sought to make it the general practice. And just here Dr. Christian has rendered valuable service in enabling us to trace the growth of sprinkling in England. He has personally examined copies of the Articles of Visitation sent out to the clergy by the Archbishops, every year from the beginning of James' reign to the triumph of sprinkling in 1643. The high functionaries of the Church of England resisted the efforts of the Court to substitute the "bason" for sprinkling, instead of the "font" for immersion. In these Articles exhortations abound to keep the "font" in its place and to keep out the "bason." Thus the struggle went on until when the Westminster Assembly met the Presbyterian view prevailed, and that body in 1643 voted immersion down by a majority of one.

So far from immersion's beginning in England in 1641, it was not far from that time that sprinkling began. And the very fact that immersion was voted down in this Assembly by a majority of only one in 1643, is positive proof that immersion did not begin in England only two years before. It is incredible that a religious rite, introduced anew by poor and obscure people, and opposed to the practice and prejudice of those in power (as immersion must have been, according to the "1641 theory"), should in two years have taken such hold of the members of that Assembly as that the rite could be voted down by only one majority. Yet without an atom of positive evidence, we are asked to believe that just that took place.

During the times of persecution before 1641 (the year the persecuting courts were abolished), the Baptists could not safely keep records. To have done so would have been to furnish their enemies with facilities for identifying them and imprisoning and killing them. The persecutors sought for records that they might learn the names and locations of these "pestilent heretics;" and the existence of records would have been a constant peril. The Baptists were too wise to furnish their adversities with such easy means of identification. Necessarily, therefore, the evidence of the existence and practices of the Baptists of those times, consists of what the court records tell us, of what writers chose to say of them, and of occasional utterances of the persecuted ones themselves, when they could safely write. It could not be expected that their enemies would do them justice. In certain obscure places, where they could safely meet, they might venture to build a house for worship. Such a house is found at Hill Cliff, where there is now a Baptist church which traces its existence back to 1522; and it is believed there has been a church there since the earliest times. Dr. Christian saw there a tombstone, lately exhumed, with the epitaph of a pastor of that very church, and bearing date l357. The ruins of an old baptistery have also been lately uncovered. This obscure and inaccessible place was a safe retreat in times of persecution. How many such there were in the land, there are no means of determining.

There are to-day 27 Baptist churches in England which antedate 1641. No one denies that these churches have been in existence during the time they claim; but it is coolly assumed, in the absence of any evidence, that prior to 1641 these churches practiced sprinkling. The reason for assuming this is that the exigencies of the "1641 theory" demand it.

From 1641 on, the material is abundant, just as we would expect. And if the Anabaptist churches of England did really change their practice in 1641 from sprinkling to immersion, there is no reason there should not be records of such a change. From 1641 on, it was safe to keep records, save during a brief space, when persecution was renewed to some extent after the restoration of Charles II. So while we see abundant reason for the absence of records before 1641, we can see no reason why there should be no record at all of any of the Anabaptist churches adopting immersion in 1641 and after, if they did adopt it.

Still we are not without positive evidence of the existence of believer's immersion in England before 1641. Dr. Christian gives a good supply of such evidence, much of which is new to the public. We note a very few of these.

The quotation from John Fox (Book of Martyrs, Alden Ed.) had been called in question. It was admitted that it was decisive, if genuine; but its genuineness was denied, and so Dr. Christian omitted it in the second edition of "Did They Dip?" because he could not verify the passage in the old editions of Fox's "Acts and Monuments." But when in England last summer he found the book of Fox, whence that quotation, changed somewhat, was no doubt originally derived. The title of the book is Reformatio Legun Ecclesiastuarum, &c., A. D. 1517. In this book Fox says (in Latin which is given in full by Dr. Christian): "But while we are plunged into the waters and rise again out of them, the death of Christ first, and his burial is symbolized, and next his resuscitation, indeed and his return to life, &c."

This language does not tell of an ancient custom, long disused, but of a present practice which the writer and his readers observed -- "while we are plunged into the waters," &c, Moreover, Fox speaks of the Anabaptists of his day in a way which clearly shows that they practiced immersion. The quotation is given in full in the body of the book, and need not be repeated here.

Coming on down, we are furnished with numerous testimonies (Jewell, 1609; Busher, 1614; Hieron, 1614; Rogers, 1638, and others), both as to the practice of immersion in general, and as to its practice by the Baptists particularly, until we come to Edward Barber, who in 1641 was answering objections to the immersion of believers; which proves the practice to have existed before. Barber in this same "treatise," declares that the practice of immersing believers was older than the name Anabaptist, which name no one denies was current in the reign of Henry VIII., over a hundred years before.

"In like manner lately, those that professe and practice the dipping of Christ, instituted in the Gospel, are called and reproached with the name of Anabaptists," &c. The late thing is the name Anabaptist, which was applied as a reproach to those who all along had been professing and practicing "the dipping of Christ." This does not prove that the practice was really older than the name, but that Edward Barber believed it to be so. That he wrote this in 1641, proves that the practice of immersing believers did not begin at that time in England, since it ran back beyond his recollection, certainly. Had immersion been a "splinter new" thing in 1641, he could not then have believed that it was older than the name Anabaptist.

Similarly, the account given by John Taylor in 1641 of the immersion of Samuel Eaton, by John Spilsbury, shows the practice of immersion in England previous to 1641. For the court records show that Sam Eaton (and there can be no question about his being the same man) died Aug. 25th, 1639, and that he was constantly in prison from May 5th, 1636, till his death. Hence his immersion and his immersing others must have taken place before May 5th, 1636.

The testimonies of Fuller, Busher, Featley and others are given fully by Dr. Christian, and need not be repeated here.

1st. It is admitted that there were Anabaptists in England before 1641, who were very strict in their belief and interpretation of the Bible, and were ready to die for their faith. But it is denied that any of them ever saw their duty in the Bible in regard to baptism till 1641, and then they all saw it at once and began to practice it.

2nd. It is admitted that these Anabaptists were constantly reminded of immersion by the rubric of the state church and by the writings of the commentators and scholars of the period. Yet it is denied that any of them took the hint till 1641, and then they all took it and adopted immersion.

3d. There is no account of any Anabaptist church's [sic] having practiced sprinkling and changing to immersion, and the absence of any such account cannot be explained on the "1641 theory."

4th. The only direct evidence offered in favor of the "1641 theory" is the statement of an anonymous document, the oldest extant copy of which is less than 40 years old, which is not, confirmed by any writer of the period, and which has been proved to be full of gross mistakes -- names wrong, dates wrong, titles wrong and facts wrong.

5th. The other evidence offered is circumstantial, and is, moreover, not to the point. The other testimonies cited to prove the "1641 theory" say nothing about 1641, but speak of these Anabaptists as "new and upstart," &c., which we would naturally expect when we remember that in 1641 the abolition of the persecuting courts left them free to publicly preach and practice their beliefs as they could not do before.

6th. We have actual documentary and monumental evidence of the practice of believers' immersion in England before 1641.

7th. It is claimed that "distinguished historians" have adopted the "1641 theory." Four names have been mentioned, but qualifications should be used in citing these names. On the other hand, it were easy to cite scores of names of eminent historians who reject the "1641 theory." Not a single man in England has adopted it, so far as known, and many of them have distinctly rejected it. Surely historians in England can be supposed to know the facts of the history of England better than those in other lands. And, moreover, equally distinguished historians, and more of them, too, in this country distinctly reject the theory.

The reader, by examining the evidence produced, can judge for himself whether immersion was "splinter new" in England in 1641.

In presenting this subject I shall be very careful to give the exact sources of my information. I am particularly indebted to the Rev. J. H. Delles, D.D. and his admirable assistant, the Rev. W. C. Ulyat, the librarian of Princeton Theological Seminary. Two very large collections, one on the subject of baptism and the other on Puritanism, aggregating some ten thousand volumes, are to be found in that library, to say nothing of the important books in the general library. Unusual opportunities were granted me for the examination of these works. The British Museum, London, and the Bodleian Library, Oxford, are rich in works which treat of early English Baptists. The Rev. Joseph Angus, D.D., kindly opened up his large collection of tracts to my use, and through the courtesy of the Rev. George P. Gould, President of Regents Park College, where Dr. Angus' library is located, I was able to examine this important collection. I am also indebted to President Gould for an examination of the Gould edition of the "Kiffin" Manuscript and of the Jessey Church Records. The library at York Minster also contains some important works not found elsewhere. The Record Office, London, where the State Papers are kept, and the Somerset House where wills, births and marriages are recorded contain invaluable information. Besides these, I am indebted to a number of libraries and individuals for information which I can acknowledge here only in the most general way. I have made full use of all these sources of information in addition to a careful examination of the works I have gathered in my own library during the last twenty years. I have no theory to serve, and have tried to weigh all the facts which have come before me. I have furthermore put myself to much trouble to find all the facts in the case, and while not able to fully accomplish this important consideration, the reader will find much important material that has not been presented before. The subject certainly needed investigation, and I am glad to be instrumental in throwing any light upon it.

Most extraordinary and exaggerated claims have been put forth as to the historic value of the "Kiffin" Manuscript. Its history is no less remarkable. It has been strangely confounded with other documents by more than one author, and has been made to serve a purpose on more than one occasion. It has been used to prove the most preposterous propositions, when these contradicted all known history. It has been asserted in the most positive manner that the manuscript is authentic and wholly reliable, although not one contemporaneous author mentions the document or ever refers to the most prominent persons named in it. The interpretations put upon its language are no less strained than the statements found in its pages. It has been the fruitful source for visions and extravagant vagaries, while the historians who have adopted it have given us instead of history confusion worse confounded.

As if one such manuscript is not enough we have two, which do not agree with each other, indeed they differ so widely that they both cannot be the same document, and yet they are both called the Kiffin Manuscript.

1. The Crosby edition. The historian, Crosby, who wrote his Baptist History in the year 1738ff., quotes a document which he declares was "said" to have been written by Mr. William Kiffin. Where Crosby got this document, and what became of it, are questions which at this time no one can answer. Crosby quoted the document with evident caution, and it is manifest that he was never fully convinced that it was written by William Kiffin. In his first volume he appears to have felt that some of the statements contained in it were worthy to be recorded, and he may have accepted some of its theories; but it is equally certain that in the second volume, upon maturer consideration, he rejected this document, at least he modified his previous statements. So far from Crosby believing that the Baptists of England began in 1641, he was a believer in church succession. Nor is there a word in all of his writings to indicate that he believed that the Baptists of England began to dip in 1641. He nowhere indicates that the words in regard to dipping, "none having so practiced in England to professed believers," were in the manuscript before him, which he would undoubtedly have done had the words been in there. His words on succession are plain and unmistakable. He says: "It may be expected, and I did intend, that this volume should have contained all I at first proposed to the publick. But since my publication of the former volume, I have had such materials communicated to me that I could not in justice to the communicators omit them, without incurring the just censure of a partial historian. Besides it having been objected to me that a more early account of the English Baptists might be obtained: it gave a new turn to my thoughts, and put me upon considering the state and condition of the Christian Religion, from the first plantation of the Gospel in England. Now in this inquiry, so much has occurred to me as carries with it more than a probability that the first English Christians were Baptists. I could not therefore pass over so material a fact in their favor; and now because it cannot now be placed where it properly belongs, I have fixed it by way of preface to this Second Volume."

"This great prophet John had an immediate commission from heaven, before he entered upon the actual administration of his office. And as the English Baptists adhere closely to this principle, that John the Baptist was by divine command, the first commissioned to preach the gospel, and baptize by immersion, those that received it; and that this practice has been ever since maintained and continued in the world to this present day; so it may not be improper to consider the state of religion in this Kingdom: it being agreed on all hands that the plantation of the gospel here was very early, even in the Apostles' days."

That this manuscript was not written by Kiffin, will be abundantly proved in these articles. Two or three points are clear: Crosby did not believe the manuscript was written by Kiffin; he did believe that he Baptists began in England upon the first planting of Christianity and had continued there since, and he did not affirm that dipping was a new thing in England.

2. The Gould edition. In 1860 Rev. George Gould, D.D., the father of President George P. Gould, of Regents Park College, had an unsuccessful lawsuit in regard to certain chapel property. Mr. Gould maintained a system of lax church order and open communion. After the suit was lost Mr. Gould presented his side of the question to the public in a volume entitled, "Open Communion and the Baptists of Norwich." In this book was a quotation from the "Kiffin Manuscript," but it at once appeared that it was not the document quoted by Crosby, since the quotations made by Crosby and Gould upon the same subject did not at all agree. This entire Gould document, with three others from the same source, were printed in the WESTERN RECORDER under date of Dec. 31, 1896.

Recently I had the privilege of examining these Gould documents. Instead of consisting of one or even four documents, there are no less than thirty of these papers numbered consecutively, besides several miscellaneous papers. These are copied into a very large book under the general title, "Notices of the Early Baptists." If printed this material would make quite a large volume, and undoubtedly was compiled by the same person. From whence Dr. Gould obtained this material is a profound mystery, and what became of the papers he copied is a mystery. Prof. Gould only remembers that his father had these papers, but beyond this he knows nothing of the documents whatever. The first page is in Dr. Gould's handwriting, the remaining pages were copied by an old usher, or schoolmaster, who was in his employ. This was in 1860, two hundred and twenty years after the events occurred which are described. That is to say, for a period of two hundred and twenty years no one ever heard tell of this document, and it is not authenticated by a single contemporaneous document. It will also be borne in mind that this is not the original, neither is it a copy of the original. At the very best it is only a copy of a copy, but even that proximity of the original is not apparent. We are not even favored with the name of the "compiler." He is quite as indefinite as anything connected with this very indefinite manuscript. The book is itself equally indefinite. The following is the introduction to the thirty documents:

"A Repository of Divers Historical Matters relating to the English Antipedobaptists. Collected from Original papers or Faithful Extracts. Anno 1712.

One could hardly conceive how an author could hide his personality more completely. Who is "I?" At any rate, we have a date given, 1712, but this is 71 years after 1641. Where were these manuscripts from A. D. 1641 to 1711? where were they from 1711 to 1860? and where were they from 1860 to 1898? The sub-introduction placed before the so-called "Kiffin" Manuscript is scarcely more definite. It reads: "An old Mss, giveing some Accott of those Baptists who first formed themselves into distinct Congregations or Churches in London, found among certain Paper given me by Mr. Adams."

Who was the "me" to whom these papers were given? Who was Mr. Adams? Of course if a man desires to write conjectural history no documents would serve his purpose better; but if he wishes to state facts no documents could serve his purpose less.

I was quite certain when, on reading the Gould Kiffin Manuscript in its present form, that it was not a seventeenth century document. If the work was copied, as it is claimed, in 1712, the copyist did not follow the original, but introduced the form and spelling of his own time. That these compilations could not have been made before the date indicated, is absolutely certain, from the fact that late books like Wall on Infant Baptism, and Stripes' Memorials are quoted, which would stamp the entire work as of late date.

We have also another absolute proof that the Kiffin Manuscript is not authentic. The author writes an article of his own, Number 17, which he inserts in the work. That portrays fully the form and style of his writing, and the so-called Kiffin Manuscript and Jessey Records are in exactly that style in construction of sentences, in spelling and in all the peculiarities of language. Whatever may have been the basis for these various documents, one thing is certain: in their present form these thirty articles are all from one man, and that man did not live anywhere near 1641. It is also a fact that the documents have been so changed in this compilation that no dependence can be put upon them.

When the author of these articles professed to quote literally he did not quote correctly. A striking example of this will be presented later, and it could be illustrated at great length. I shall put in parallel columns the original extract from Hutchinson and this collator's quotation from Hutchinson. Two things will be apparent: the first is that the collator does not follow the form of the original, though this is one of the instances where he attempted to literally present the very words of his author. It will be seen also that the form of spelling and the peculiarities of style of the collator are the form of spelling and the peculiarities of style of the "Kiffin" Manuscript and of the Jessey Records. But before I present the parallel columns, I desire to present two short paragraphs with which the author introduces his quotation from Hutchinson. He says: "Mr. Hutchinson Account of ye Revival of Antipedobaptism towards ye latter end of ye Reign of King Charles ye First.

Mr. Edward Hutchinson, a learned & Ingenious defender of ye Practice of Baptizing Believers only, in his Epistle Dedicatory to those of ye Baptized Congregations, put at ye beginning of his Treatise concerning ye Covenant & baptism, gives ye following account of ye beginning & increase of ye People in these latter times."

There is no doubt these two paragraphs are from the collator, and yet any person who is at all familiar with the Jessey Records and the "Kiffin" Manuscript as given by Gould would not hesitate to declare that the style of this author and of those documents is precisely the same. That is true in reference to the use of the "&," the "ye," "Mr.", which is very uncommon in 1641, the use of the capitals, and indeed in every particular. The peculiar doctrines and words of the Kiffin Manuscript and Jessey Records are all held by this collator, or perhaps I might more properly say that this collator put into the Kiffin Manuscript and the Jessey Records all of his peculiar views. The collator and these documents held precisely the same views, expressed in the same style of language, and spelled in the same way. The word "Antipaedobaptism," in this quotation corresponds with "Antipaedobaptist" in document number 4 where this statement occurs:

"An account of divers Conferances, held in ye Congregation of wch Mr. Henry Jessey was Pastor, about Infant baptism by wch Mr. H. Jessey & ye greatest part of that Congregation were proselited to ye Opinion and Practice of ye Antipaedobaptists."

It is manifest that this term was familiar to this collator, and it is quite certain that in 1638 (the alleged date) it was not in use, and therefore it stands to reason that it was read into these "genuine records" (?) by the collator. Crosby claims that the word "Antipaedobaptist" originated with Wall, who wrote his book, "A History of Infant Baptism," in 1705 (Crosby, vol. 1, p. viii). An editorial in the Independent, in refuting the authority of another manuscript, declares: "It employs also, in one instance, the word Pedobaptistery, which, to say the least, is quite suspicious for a paper claiming to belong to the Puritan period. So far as our reading goes, the Baptists never used that word prior to the year 1660; but always said in the place of it, 'Infants baptism, Childish Baptism or Baby Baptism.'" -- The Independent, July 29, 1880. The earliest use I have found of the word is in Bailey's "Anabaptism," but that is some years later than 1638.

The collator talks of "the revival" of "the practice of immersion," "of those of ye Believers," and in Document 4 the collator says: "An Account of ye Methods taken by ye Baptists to obtain a proper Administrator of Baptism by immersion, when that practice had been so long disused, yt then was no one, who had been so baptized to be found." This is almost a word for word statement of the case as we find it in the "Kiffin" Manuscript. These persons were called Baptists in the Jessey Church Records, a name which was not in use in 1641, and we all remember the celebrated words from the "Kiffin" Manuscript which have been so often used by some when speaking of immersion in England, "none having so practiced it in England to professed Believers," The collator must have added these words to the "Kiffin" Manuscript. This opinion is powerfully strengthened when we recollect that Crosby gives the passage from which these words occur, but he never mentioned these words. If Crosby intentionally omitted these words from the Manuscript, then he was not an honest man, but no one has ever suspected his honesty. We have shown that these are the very words of the collator, and since they are inserted here and ommitted by Crosby, this collator is responsible for them.

But fortunately we have point blank proof that the words, "none having so practiced it in England to professed believers," are those of the compiler. If one will turn to Number 18 of this Gould collection, the words of this compiler are found as follows: "An account of ye Methods taken by ye Baptists to obtain a proper Administrator of Baptism by Immersion, when that practice had been so long disused, yt then was no one who had been so baptized to be found." There is absolutely no excuse for these words in the quotation which follows. This compiler had a theory of his own and a set form of words, and he read these words into any narrative that happened to suit his convenience. He put them in the "Kiffin" Manuscript. It is thus demonstrated beyond a doubt that this compiler has manipulated the "Kiffin" Manuscript to suit his own purposes. Whether this "compiler" wrote in the 19th or the 18th century is of little moment. He either wrote a "Kiffin" Manuscript, or he "doctored" a "Kiffin" Manuscript to suit his purposes. One is as bad as the other. The fact remains that the "Kiffin" Manuscript is a fraud and of no value.

Here are the parallel columns from Hutchinson. The first column contains Hutchinson's own words as he wrote them, the second contains the collator's quotation from Hutchinson:

"When the professsors of these nations have been "When ye Professors of these Nations have been

a long tme wearied with the yoke of superstitions, a long time wearied with ye Yoke of Superstitious

ceremonies, traditions of men, and corrupt mixtures Ceremonies, Traditions of Men, & corrupt mixtures

in the worship and service of God,it pleased the Lord in ye Worship & Service of God, it pleased ye Lord

to break these yokes, and by a very strong impulse to break these Yokes. & by a very strong impulse

of his Spirit upon the hearts of his people, to convince/of his Spirit upon ye hearts of his People, to convince

them of the necessity of Reformation. Divers pious, them of ye Necessity of Reformation. Divers Pious

and very gracious people, having often sought the & very gracious People haveing often Sought ye

Lord by fasting and prayer, that he would show them Lord by fasting and prayer, yt he would show them

the pattern of his house, the going-out and coming-in ye pattern of his house, ye goings out & ye comings in

thereof, &c. Resolved (by the grace of God), not to thereof, &c. Resolved (by ye grace of God) not to

receive ot practice any piece of positive worship which receive or practice any piece of positive worship wch

had not precept or example from the word of God. had not Precept or Example from ye word of God.

Infant-baptism coming of course under consideration Infant baptism coming of course under consideration

after long search and many debates, it was found long Search & many debates it was found

to have no footing in the Scriptures (the only rule to have no footing in ye Scriptures (ye only rule

and standard to try doctrines by); but on the contrary & standard to try Doctrines by) but on ye Contrary

a mere innovation, yea, the profanation of an ordinance a meer innovation, yea ye prophanation of an Ordinance

of God. And though it was proposed to be laid aside, of God. And tho' it was proposed to be laid aside,

yet what fears, tremblings, and temptations did attend yet wt fears, trembling & temptations did attend

them, lest they should be mistaken, considering how them least they should be mistaken, considering how

many learned and godly men were of an opposite many & Godly men ware of an opposite

persuasion. How gladly would they have had the rest perswasion. How gladly would yhey have had ye rest

of their brethren gone along with them. But when there of their Brethren gone along with them. But when there

was no hopes, they concluded that a Christian's faith was no hopes, they concluded that a Christian's faith

must not stand in the wisdom of men; and that every must not Stand in ye wisdom of men, & yt every

one must give an account of himself to God; and so one must give an account of himselfe to God, & so

resolved to practice according to their light.The great resolved to practice according to their light; The Great

objection was, the want of an administrator; which, as Objection was ye want of an Administrator, wch (as

I have heard was remov'd by sending certain I have heard) was removed by sending certain

messengers to Holland, whence they were supplied." to Holland, whence they were supplyed.

A comparison of this quotation with the original carries out fully my contention that the collator does not accurately follow the original, and that the form of words and spelling of the "Kiffin" Manuscript are after the collator rather than the original. In this passage he evidently tried to follow the original, although he met with indifferent success. But in the "Kiffin" Manuscript it is certain that he has added matter. I have already pointed that out, but this could be made out in any number of instances. The four superscriptions to the documents are all of that class. Take Document number one, the "Jessey Church Records." The following superscription occurs: "The Records of an Antient Congregation," &c. To call this church an "antient congregation" at that time was absurd. But that is not only in the superscription but it is in the main body of the "Jessey Records" at an alleged period when the church was not over 16 years old.

After a careful examination of the thirty articles which go to make up this book, with the miscellaneous matter thrown in, I cannot regard it as of any historical value. It is evident that an irresponsible collator has gathered a lot of miscellaneous material, never exactly following the original, and frequently only giving a paraphrase, and sometimes he makes the author say what the collator thinks, rather than what the author thinks. But I have even more grave objections to the "genuine (?) records" than these. These will be given in the next article.

It is very interesting to note the opinions of the historians on the "Kiffin" Manuscript, and as to the Jessey Church Records no notice whatever has been taken of their existence. Not one historian has been willing to risk his reputation by declaring that the "Kiffin" Manuscript is authentic and authoritative. There is not one line that any historian has been able to find concerning the chief events or the principal persons mentioned in its pages. Whoever heard of Blunt or Blacklock outside of these "Kiffin" Manuscripts? Neal and others who refer to them do so wholly on the authority of these documents. It is incredible that all the things which the "Kiffin" Manuscript affirm of Blunt and of Blacklock, of the trip to Holland, of their introduction of immersion among Baptists, and the rest of the miraculous things recorded could have taken place, and yet the hundreds of contemporaneous pamphlets and books published on the subject of baptism never even mention or in the remotest manner refer to the exploits of either of these gentlemen. One could come as near believing the tales of Baron Munchausen as the tales of the "Kiffin" Manuscript. But the use that the historians have made of the "Kiffin" Manuscript is a very interesting one.

The first was Neal. He wrote in 1732-38, or 97 years after 1641. Crosby loaned the "Kiffin" Manuscript, along with other documents, to Neal. Nobody in those days mentioned a Manuscript corresponding with the Gould edition. The "Kiffin" Manuscript was so confusing and contradictory that Neal, like every one else who has tried to follow this document, got mixed in his facts. The result was that Crosby was disgusted and wrote a history himself.

Although Crosby had criticized Neal for his blunders in the use of the "Kiffin" Manuscript, he was scarcely more successful. Crosby, however, did not believe that the document had been written by Kiffin, for the very best he could say of it was: "This agrees with all account of the matter in an ancient manuscript said to have been written by Mr. Wm. Kiffin, who lived in those times" (Crosby, Vol. I., 100).

Who "said" that the manuscript was written by William Kiffin, Crosby fails to state. It is quite evident from the second volume of Crosby that he does not believe the "Kiffin" Manuscript to be authoritative, for he constantly maintains positions which contravene its statements. Crosby had great trouble in quoting from his copy of the "Kiffin" Manuscript, but his difficulties would have been multiplied ten-fold had he attempted to quote the Gould edition of that document.

We come now to some very interesting statements from one John Lewis. After Crosby had published his history, John Lewis, an Episcopalian, of Kent, replied to it in a little volume entitled, "A Brief History of the English Anabaptists." After the publication of this book Mr. Lewis appears to have spent the remainder of his life in writing books against the Baptists. He was very violent and venomous, but he gathered a great many statements concerning the Baptists. These works were never published, but they are preserved in many volumes in manuscript form in the Bodliean Library, where I consulted them. He utterly repudiates the "Kiffin" Manuscript, and makes all manner of fun of Crosby for quoting such a document. After quoting the story of Blunt and Blacklock as given by Crosby, taken from the "Kiffin" Manuscript, he says: "This is a very blind account. I can't find the least mention made anywhere else of these three names of Batte, Blunt and Blacklock, nor is it said in what town, city or parish of the Netherlands those Anabaptists lived who practiced this manner of baptizing by dipping or plunging the whole body under water" (Rawlinson Mss. C. 409).

Mr. Lewis quotes the comment of Crosby where he says, "an antient Ms. said to be written by Mr. WIlliam Kiffin," and then adds: "How ignorant!" (Rawlinson Ms. C. 409).

"But it is pretty odd, that nobody should know in what place this antient congregation (a congregation much about the same antiquity with the antient Ms.) was and, that John Batte, their teacher, should never be heard of before or since" (Rawl. C. 409).

This sarcastic remark that a supposed contemporaneous manuscript should refer to a church of the same date as an "antient congregation," does not miss its mark. Of course, a contemporaneous document would not make any such statement.

"In the year 1633 the Baptists, who had hitherto been intermixed among the Protestant Dissenters without distinction, began now to separate themselves, & form distinct societies" -- and then makes this comment: "Here seems to me to be two mistakes -- I. That the Anabaptists till 1633 were intermixed among the protestant dissenters viz: the puritans, Brownists, Barrowists and Independents. Since they all disclaimed them. 2. That the English Anabaptists began in 1633 to separate themselves. The writer of this ignorant and partial history owns," &c. (Rawl. C.409).

Again he says: "Others say it was first brought here by one Richard Blount, but who and what he was I don't know" (Rawl. C. 410).

Once more: "But we have no authority for this account but a manuscript said to have been written by William Kiffin" (Rawl. C. 110, p. 200).

It is refreshing to read the words of this historian, who had no good words for the Baptists, but the statements of this "Kiffin" Manuscript were too unauthentic for him to believe. This is the more remarkable because being hostile to the Baptists, it would have suited him exactly to have believed the statement of the Manuscript. With all his bitterness towards the Baptists, he was too honest to use against them unauthentic documents.

It is, therefore, perfectly clear that John Lewis rejects the "Kiffin" Manuscript as not authentic. But he goes further and declares and argues out an elaborate supposition that if this document is true, then the Anabaptists of that period in England were in the practice of sprinkling, which he did not believe. This proposition he regarded as absurd. He further goes on to elaborate that the Dutch Baptists were in the practice of sprinkling. Indeed, this supposition of his covered the entire statements of those Baptists of our day who hold the 1641 theory. This statement throws a curious light upon "the new discovery." Dr. Dexter borrowed his theory from Robert Barclay, a Quaker who wrote his "Inner Life" in 1860, and Barclay borrowed his theory from John Lewis, a bitter Episcopalian, who wrote about 1740. The difference, however, is startling. Lewis rejected the sprinkling theory, and put it forth as involving his opponent, Thomas Crosby, in an absurdity; but Barclay, writing a hundred and twenty years later, accepted this absurd supposition as a fact and elaborated it into a theory. It is amusing to see how these writers have followed each other, using the same quotations, theories, arguments and sometimes words, and how all of them have boasted of superior learning and the ignorance of Baptist historians, and each one boasted that he had made the only original and "new discovery." The case stands: Lewis invented the theory to overthrow his Baptist opponent, Crosby; Barclay accepted this invention as a fact; Dexter accepted the 1641 theory but rejected the "Kiffin " Manuscript, and the few Baptists who have gone off with this "invention" of Lewis' swallowed the "Kiffin" Manuscript and all.

Evans, the Baptist historian, regards the statements in this Manuscript as vague and uncertain. He says: "This statement is vague. We have no date and cannot tell whether the fact refers to the Separatists under Mr. Spilsbury or to others" (History Early English Baptists, Vol. II., p. 78).

Cathcart says this transaction of Blunt's may have happened, but he further remarks: "We would not bear heavily on the testimony adduced by these good men" (Baptist Encyclopaedia, Vol. I., p. 572).

"A feeble but strained attempt has been made to show that none of the English Baptists practiced immersion prior to 1641, from the document mentioned by Crosby in 1738, of which he remarks that it was 'said to be written by Mr. William Kiffin.' Although this manuscript is signed by fifty-three persons, it is evident that its authorship was only guessed at from the beginning, it may or may not have been written by Kiffin" (History of the Baptists, p. 440).

Dr. Henry S. Burrage, who has given much time and attention to this subject, after a somewhat lengthy discussion of the Jessey Church Records and the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript, is constrained to say:

"It will be noticed that in our reference above to the Jessey Church Records, we say 'if they are authentic.' We have not forgotten the 'Crowle and Epworth' records. These made their appearance about the same time as the Jessey Church Records, and it is now known that they are clumsy forgeries. The Jessey Church Records may be genuine, but their genuineness has not yet been established" (Zion's Advocate, September, 1896).

Prof. A. H. Newman, who, if he has not accepted this Manuscript as genuine, has at least been an apologist, confesses that by following this manuscript he has been led into insuperable difficulties. After making some obscure statements about the Baptists of England, he makes the following remarkable apology:

"A few remarks seem called for by the obscurity of some of the statements quoted above. It is not possible out of the material that has thus far come to the light to trace in detail the evolution of the seven churches that signed the confession of 1644. The statement quoted from the so-called 'Kiffin' Manuscript, with reference to the division of 1640 involves a number of difficulties. P. Barebone, with whom half of the church withdrew, has commonly been regarded by Baptist writers as a Baptist. Yet in 1642 he published 'A Discourse tending to prove the Baptism in, or under, the Defection of Antichrist to be the Ordinance of Jesus Christ, as also that the Baptism of Infants or Children is Warrantable or Agreeable to the Word of God, and in 1643 and 1644 he published other polemical tracts against Antipedobaptism. If in 1641 he was the leader of the Antipedobaptists and immersionist half the divided congregation, he must soon after have abandoned his position. This is, of course, possible. From the construction of the sentence Jessey might be taken to be the leader of the Baptist half, but it appears that Jessey did not become a Baptist till five years later. This difficulty seems inexplicable without further material" (A History of the Baptist Churches in the United States, pp. 52, 53).

Dr. Newman is a very clear and convincing writer usually, but in this instance he has been betrayed into the use of material that would lead a man into all manner of errors. We hope that Dr. Newman will in the next edition of his otherwise admirable history leave out all of these statements which are given upon the authority of the "Kiffin" Manuscript alone.

The "Kiffin" Manuscript was so bad that even Dr. Dexter would not accept it. Anything that Dexter would not have used against the Baptists must have been very unreliable, but the "Kiffin" Manuscript, even in the Crosby form, was too much for him. His repudiation of the document was clear and explicit. He says:

"Crosby says he derived his information from 'an antient manuscript said to be written by Mr. William Kiffin, who lived in those times, and was a leader among those of that persuasion.' Conceding the genuineness of this manuscript, and its value in testimony -- both of which might be open to question -- let us note its exact words as to the point before us" (The True Story of John Smyth, p. 43).

Again: "On the other hand, had not Kiffin -- as it is supposed -- made the statement, it would be suspicious for its vagueness, and for the fact that none of the historians, not even Wilson, Calamy, Brook, or Neal, know anything about either Blount or Blacklock, beyond what is here stated" ( p. 54).

We may, therefore, divide the historians into three classes -- 1. Those who reject the "Kiffin" Manuscript, and do not think it worthy of mention at all. This class is perhaps the largest and contains many of the foremost writers of these times. 2. Those writers who have seen fit to mention it but reject it as unworthy of credence, or call in question the statements which it makes. 3. A very small number of writers who attempt to quote the statements and reconcile them with known facts. These writers generally apologize for and do not endorse the manuscript in so many words. I can, therefore, make the claim that scholars, as far as they have expressed themselves on the subject, are almost unanimous against the authenticity and value of the "Kiffin" Manuscript.

One of my principal objections to the "Kiffin" Manuscript is that it contradicts Kiffin himself. The "Kiffin" Manuscript declares that immersion in 1641 was unknown in England, as "none having then so practiced it in England to professed believers." Now Kiffin in 1645 said in a document which is undoubtedly genuine: "It is well-known to many, and especially to ourselves, that our congregations as they now are, were erected and framed, according to the rule of Christ before we heard of any Reformation, even at that time when Episcopacie was at the height of its vanishing glory."

It has been contended that the "Reformation" here mentioned had reference to the Presbyterian Reformation in England. That is a very strained interpretation to put on this language and this explanation can only be prompted by a desperate desire to sustain a sinking cause; but even if this explanation were true it would carry us to a date much earlier than 1641. But fortunately we are not left in doubt as to what was meant by Kiffin. Mr. Josiah Richart, who says he wrote the queries to which Kiffin replied, understood that Kiffin referred to the Episcopal and not the Presbyterian Reformation. "You allege," he says, "your own practise, that your congregation was erected and framed in the time of episcopacie, and that before you heard of any Reformation." Richart admits that this might be true. (A Looking Glass for the Anabaptists, London, 1645, pp. 6, 7). Here, then, is a Baptist church organized and framed, immersion and all, "as they now are," long before 1641. This example is strictly to the point, and settles the existence of immersion in at least one Baptist church before 1641.

Further on Kiffin distinctly makes the claim that the Baptists outdated the Presbyterians. He says:

"And for the second part of your querie That we disturb the great Worke of Reformation now in hand; I know not what you meane by this charge, unless it be to discover your prejudice against us in Reforming ourselves before you, for as yet we have not in our understanding, neither can we conceive anything of that we shall see reformed by you according to truth, but that through mercie wee enjoy the practice of the same already; tis strange this should be a disturbance to the ingenious faithful Reformer; it should bee (one would think) a furtherance rather than a disturbance, and whereas you tell us of the work of Reformation now in hand, no reasonable men will force us to desist from the practice of that which we are perswaded is according to truth, and waite for that which we knowe not what it will be; and in the meantime practice that which you yourselves say must be reformed" (pp. 12-14. London, 1645).

William Kiffin, Thomas Patient, John Spilsbury and John Pearson, four of the most prominent Baptists of those times, wrote an introduction to a book written by Daniel King, which was published in 1650, entitled," A Way to Zion, Sought Out, and Found, for Believers to Walk In." This startling proposition in the first part is proved, "1. That God hath had a people on earth, ever since the coming of Christ in the flesh, throughout the darkest times of Popery, which he hath owned as Saints and as his people."

The third part "Proveth that Outward Ordinances, and amongst the rest the Ordinance of Baptism, is to continue in the Church, and this Truth cleared up from intricate turnings and windings, clouds and mists that make the way doubtful and dark."

I think some people would have spasms if some prominent Baptist author were to put forth and "prove" the above propositions. But these words of Daniel King did not disturb William Kiffin, and these other Baptist preachers. These men declared that the assertion that "there are no churches in the world" and "no true ministers" has been of "singular use in the hands of the devil." I quote a portion of the words in the introduction:

"The devil hath mustered up all his forces of late to blind and pester the minds of good people, to keep them from the clear knowledge and practice of the way of God, either in possessing people still with old corrupt principles; or if they have been taken of them, then to perswade with them that there are no churches in the world, and that persons cannot come to the practice of Ordinances, there being no true ministry in the world; and others they run in another desperate extreme, holding Christ to be a shadow, and all his Gospel and Ordinances like himself, fleshy and carnall. This generation of people have been of singular use in the hand of the Devil to advance his kingdom, and to make war against the kingdom of our Lord Jesus. Now none have been more painfull than these have been of late, to poison the City, the Country, the Army, so far as they could; inasmuch as it lay upon some of our spirits as a duty to put out our weak ability for the discovering of these grosse errors and mistakes; but it hath pleased God to stir up the spirit of our Brother, Daniel King, whom we judge a faithfull and painfull minister of Jesus Christ, to take this work in hand before us; and we judge he hath been much assisted of God in the work in which he hath been very painfull. We shall not need to say much of the Treatise; only in brief, it is his method to follow the Apostles' rule, prove everything by the evidence of Scripture light expounding Scripture by Scripture, and God hath helped him in this discourse, we judge, beyond any who hath dealt upon this subject that is extant, in proving the truth of Churches, against all such that have gone under the name of Seekers, and hath very well, and with great evidence of Scripture light answered to all or most of their Objections of might, as also those above, or beyond Ordinances."

Nor was William Kiffin alone in this opinion. Thomas Grantham was one of the greatest Baptist writers of that century, and he said: "That many of the learned have much abused this age, in telling them that the Anabaptists (i. e., the Baptized Churches) are of a late edition, a new sect, etc., when from their own writing's the clean contrary is so evident" (Christianismus Primitivus, pp. 92, 93).

Joseph Hooke, another Baptist writer of the same century, put forth the same claim for the long continuance of the Baptists in England. He says:

"Thus having shewed negatively, when this sect called Ana-Baptists did not begin, we shall show in the next place affirmatively, when it did begin; for a beginning it had, and it concerns us to enquire for the Fountain Head of this Sect; for if I were sure that it were no older than the Munster-Fight that Mr. Erratt puts in mind of, I would Resolve to forsake it, and would persuade others to do so too.

"But secondly, affirmatively, we are fully perswaded, and therefore do boldly, tho' humbly, assert, that this Sect is the very same sort of People that were first called Christians in Antioch, Acts 11, 26. But sometimes called Nazarenes, Acts 24, 6. And as they are everywhere spoken against now, even so they were in the Primitive Times. Acts 28, 22" (A Necessary Apology for the Baptists, p. 19).

Nor is that an antiquated idea among the Baptists of England. Many of the most intelligent Baptist of England believe that the Baptists date back to the very days of the Apostles. The Rev. George P. Gould, to whom I have before referred, is now editing and bringing out a series of Baptist Manuals, historical and biographical. In 1895 he published one on Hanserd Knollys, by James Culross, M. A., D. D., ex-president of Bristol Baptist College. After stating that Hanserd Knollys became a sectary, probably in 1631, he declares

"Had Baptists thought anything depended on it, they might have traced their pedigree back to New Testament times, and claimed apostolic succession. The channel of succession was certainly purer if humbler, than through the apostate church of Rome. But they were content to rest on Scripture alone, and, as they found only believers' baptism there, they adhered to that" (p. 39, note).

I mention these facts, not for the purpose of proving Baptist succession, for that topic is not under discussion in this paper, but for a two-fold purpose. The first is that William Kiffin could have had no connection with this so-called "Kiffin" Manuscript, and the second is that the Baptists of that century knew nothing of the alleged "facts" as given in this document.

[Taken from John T. Christian, Baptist History Vindicated, 1899, pp. 17-28. jrd]

It has been claimed that our people were called Anabaptists before 1641, and that they practiced believers' sprinkling, while after 1641, when they adopted immersion, they were on that account called Baptists. The following is the claim:

"But so long as their contention related merely to the subjects of baptism they could never shake off the name Anabaptists. Their act of baptism being the same as that employed by other Christians, namely, pouring and sprinkling, it was always described as mere repetition of baptism -- as Anabaptism. But when another act was introduced, namely, immersion, it then became possible for the brethren to obtain a new designation. Henceforth they were called 'baptized Christians,' par excellence, and in due time Baptists. The earliest instance in which this name occurs as a denominational designation, so far as any information goes, befell in the year 1644, three years after immersion had been introduced" (Question in Baptist History).

1. Sprinkling was just now only coming into use in England in 16411, and the Baptists, since all denominations practiced immersion in England, did not have to protest against it before this time. The Baptists always stood against living errors. The earliest charges against them in England after the Reformation was that they denied the popish doctrine of transubstantiation, and so they were burned to death on that account. Later the point of their contention was that infant baptism was not according to the Word of God, so they were put to death on that account. And when sprinkling began to prevail, at the end of the Civil Wars, they vigorously protested against that. There had been no occasion to protest against sprinkling previously. This is a complete and full answer to the above claim, and the objection is based upon a misunderstanding of the history of those times, and at best is a begging of the whole question at issue.

2. The name Anabaptists was always repudiated by the Baptists before and after 1641. It never did describe them and never was accepted by them; and the name Anabaptist was applied to them no less after 1641 than before. Even to this day the name is applied to them. There was no change in the Baptist opinion on the subject before and after 1641. Thomas Collie was a Baptist long before 1641. Indeed, he was a Baptist before 1635, for he was in prison at that date for being a Baptist (Calendar of State Papers, vol. 282, fol. 82). He linked the word Anabaptist with "baptized Christians," which was always understood to mean immersed Christians in those days. His words are: "They (these persecutors) would say as much of the Anabaptists, or rather of the baptized Christians of this Nation." He further says that these persons are "malitiously mistaken," and show their ignorance "in calling them Anabaptists, for the practising Baptism, according to the Scripture, that grieves you it seems; but you have learned a new way, both for matter and manner: for matter, Babies instead of believers: for manner, sprinkling at the holy Font, instead of baptizing in a River: you are loth to go in with your long gowns, you have found a better way than was ever prescribed or practiced; who now Sir are the Ignoramuses?" Here, then, a Baptist who lived in 1641, writing ten years later, says that the word Anabaptist meant a denial of infant baptism, and included immersion as opposed to sprinkling. The objection to the name Anabaptist among the Baptists of 1641 was precisely the objection of the Baptists of 1898, viz.: it carried with it the idea of the repetition of baptism, which Baptists have always repudiated. I would not give the testimony of this Baptist, who lived and suffered in those days, for all the croaking objections of these days.

If the above objection, that the Baptists of 1641 changed their minds on immersion, that the word Anabaptists describes those who practiced sprinkling, and the word Baptist afterwards described the same people who had become dippers, then the writers of the Baptist Confession of Faith deliberately attempted to falsify the facts. These fifteen men put forth an article declaring that dipping was baptism, and that they were falsely though commonly known by the name of Anabaptists. They admitted that the name Anabaptist was the common name which was applied to them, and there was no denying that they were the people who had long been in England under that name. But they could not have used the word falsely if they had been sprinklers before. What they would have said before was, we have changed our mind, and we shall practice immersion after this, and so are no longer Anabaptists, but Baptists.

3. The Pedobaptists continued to call them Anabaptists. It is safe to say where they were called Baptists once by their opponents in that century, they were called Anabaptists twenty times. In a book which now lies before me entitled "An axe laid at the root of the Tree: or, a Discourse wherein the Anabaptist Mission & Ministry are Examin'd and Disprov'd," and bearing date London, 1715, written 74 years after 1641, these Baptists are called Anabaptists. Baptists in England are now not unfrequently called Anabaptists. The author of 1715 and the authors of this day could not possibly mean to say that the Baptists of these dates were sprinklers, and yet that must be the meaning if this objection has any weight. To state the objection is to refute it.

Furthermore, the same author would call them both Baptists and Anabaptists, which could not be true if the objection that Anabaptists meant those who practiced sprinkling, and Baptists those who dipped. For example, I. E., in his "The Anabaptist Groundwork for Reformation," says: "I ask T. L. and the rest of those Baptists, or Dippers, that will not be called Anabaptists (though they baptize some that have been twice baptized before) what rule they have by word or example in Scripture, for their going men and women together into the water and for their manner of dipping, and every circumstance and action they perform concerning the same" (p. 23. B. M. E. 50. [2]). Now this work, which was written in 1644, demonstrates that the same people were called, by the same author Baptists and Anabaptists, and that the Baptists repudiated the name Anabaptist. The author called them Baptists because they dipped "men and women together into the water," and he called them Anabaptists because "they baptize some that have been twice baptized before," I do not see how a clearer distinction could be drawn.

I have already quoted the caption to the "Kiffin" Manuscript and of the Jessey Church Records, and shown that instead of giving light on the authors of these documents, they conceal the truth, but I desire now to point out that the statements themselves are false and contradictory. The Jessey Records say:

"The Records of an Antient Congregation of Dissenters from wch many of ye Independant & Baptist Churches in London took their first rise: ex MSS of Mr. H Jessey, wch I received of Mr. Rich Adams." The "Kiffin" Manuscript says: "An old Mss, giveing some Accott of those Baptists who first formed themselves into distinct congregations, or Churches in London, found among certain Paper given me by Mr. Adams."

The claims set forth in the above statements are false in almost every particular:

1. These are the words of the compiler, who did not write before 1710-11. The spelling and words are all his. It is known positively that he added the title to everyone of the thirty papers of this compilation, and that these two documents constitute two of the thirty papers in his motley collection. It therefore follows that the very first thing found in both of these manuscripts was added by a later hand, and yet added in such a way as to leave the impression that the words of this compiler were the words of the original manuscript.

2. The Jessey church was declared to be an "antient congregation" at this time, which is false. It was only organized in 1616, and was therefore in 1641 not a quarter of a century old.

3. The two accounts contradict each other. The Jessey Records say that "many" of "the Baptist churches took their first rise" from this church leaving the plain alternative that other Baptist churches of London had another origin; but the "Kiffin" Manuscript makes the distinct statement that the first Baptist churches of London originated in this Jessey church. These statements are, therefore, contradictory and hence unreliable.

4. Both of these documents call these congregations "Baptist churches." The word "Baptist" was not in use at that time to designate our people, and the phrase "Baptist churches" was not in use in England till long afterwards. These documents are therefore a false record and cannot be depended upon.

5. The statement that "many" or "all" Baptist churches of London came out of the Jessey church is false. Furthermore, there is no proof that even one Baptist church ever came out of this Jessey church. I demand the proof. Neither do the Jessey Church Records nor the "Kiffin" Manuscript, outside of these superscriptions, which we are now examining, contain any such suggestion. Indeed some of the members of this Jessey church "joyned" Mr. Spilsbury's church in l638. It would be very difficult to explain how these seceders could join an organization which had no existence. The Crosby "Kiffin" Manuscript declares (vol. 1, pp. 148, 150) that this entire transaction occurred in 1633, and not in 1638, and thus contradicts both the Jessey Records and the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript. The statement that "many" or "all" the churches of London had their rise in this Jessey church, therefore, is false.

6. The statement that the "Baptist churches" of London or of England in 1638 "first formed themselves into distinct congregations" is false. Nothing can be further from the truth. Any one who is at all familiar with the history of the Baptists of England from the reign of Henry the Eighth till the close of the Civil Wars will be solemnly convinced that all the Baptists were not only not associated with the "Dissenters" and "Independents," but that the Baptists had no more hostile enemies than these, and that the Independents took every opportunity to denounce them and declare that there was no connection between them. John Lewis, the bigoted Episcopalian, denounces this statement that they then began to separate from the Independents as a "mistake," since, says he, "They all disclaimed them" (Rawl. C. 409). The constant persecutions of the Baptists under the name of Anabaptists is sufficient refutation of the silly assertion that they only began to separate from the Independents in 1638.

The proof that Baptist churches existed in England before 1638 is so adequate and so often confessed that one does not know how to account for a denial of it. The simple question at this moment is not what was the act of baptism among them, but were there such churches. I would not argue the question a moment were it not that this Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript and this Jessey Church Record make this astounding assertion, and I crave the pardon of the reader while I point out how thoroughly unreliable these "genuine Records" (?) are. With all his trimming and "waiving the enquiry whether there had been, at some time previous to 1600, Baptist churches" in England, Dr. Dexter is constrained to admit:

"It seems to me to be conceded upon all hands that when Helwys and Murton re-crossed the German Ocean from Holland, in or about 1612, the church which they founded in Newgate was the first Baptist church, and the only one then in England in that century. By 1626 we can trace possibly ten others, making eleven in all, viz., those in London, Lincoln, Tiverton, Salisbury, Coventry, Stoney Stratford, Ashford, Biddenden and Eyethorne in Kent, Canterbury, and Anersham in Buckinghamshile" (True Story of John Smyth, pp. 41, 42).

While I do not at all agree with the date assigned to some of these churches, and that this church of Helwys' "was the first Baptist church, and the only one then in England," I present this statement of Dexter's to show how utterly worthless is the statement of the "Kiffin" Manuscript and the Jessey Records when they assert that the first Baptist churches were organized out of the Jessey church in 1638.

Perhaps Dr. Angus has given more attention to English Baptist churches than any other Englishman, and he says:

"That there was no such delay in forming Baptist churches as our American friends have supposed, is proved by the dates of the formation of a number of them. Churches were formed, chapels built and doctrines defined long before 1641, and others, down to the end of that century owed nothing probably to the discussions of that year.

"The following churches, were formed in the years mentioned, still remain: Braintree, Eyethorne, Sutton, all in 1550; Warrington, 1522; Crowle and Epworth, both l597; Bridgewater, Oxford, and Sadmore, 1600; Bristol (Broadmead),1640; King, Stanley, Newcastle, Kilmington (Devon), Bedford, Sutton, Cirencester, Commercial-street (London), Lincoln, Dorchester, and Hamsterley, in l633; Lyme Regis, Chipping Sodbury, Upottery, Boston, etc., 1650-1658.

Many others that belong to similar dates have since become extinct through change of population and other causes. Most of these churches hold the common faith, and most of them have received it without special reference to the creed of 1641. Dates and particulars of more churches may be seen in any recent number of the Baptist Handbook, published by the Baptist Union."

The original authorities for the opinions expressed by these authors, that there were Baptist churches in England before 1641, could be given at great length.

The testimony to this position is so ample, and the admissions of competent Pedobaptist historians so direct that I am embarrassed by the amount of material at hand. I shall, however, mention three Pedobaptist scholars. Herbert S. Skeats, the historian of the Free chuches, says: "It has been asserted that Baptist church existed in England in A. D. 1417 (Robinson's Claude, Vol. II., p. 54). There were certainly Baptis churches in England as early as the year 1589 (Dr. Some's reply to Barrowe, quoted in Guiney's Hist., Vol. 1., p. 109); and there could scarcely have been several organized communities without the corresponding opinions having been held by individuals, and some churches established for years previous to this date" (Hist. Dissenting Churches of England, p. 22).

The Baptists had so wonderfully prospered that Neal says that in 1644 they had 54 churches (Neal's Hist. Puritans, Vol. 3, p. 175). And it will be remembered that in the opinion of Neal a Baptist was always an immersionist. All of Crosby's material for a Baptist history was in his hands, but he never suspected that any Baptist ever sprinkled. His words are decisive:

"Their confession consisted of 52 articles and is strictly Calvinistical in the doctrinal part, and according to the independent discipline, it confines the subjects of baptism to grown Christians and the mode to immersion. The advocates of this doctrine were for the most part of the meanest of the people; their preachers were generally illiterate and went about the country making proselytes of all who would submit to immersion. * * * The people of this persuasion were most exposed to the public resentments, because they would hold communion with none but such as had been dipped. All must pass under the cloud before they could be received into their churches; and the same narrow spirit prevails too generally among them to this day" (History of the Puritans, Vol. III., pp. 174-176).

The original authorities for the opinions expressed by these authors could be given at length, but I apprehend that this is not necessary at this moment. I do wish, however, to present the testimony of a Baptist who lived and was one of the principal actors in those times. He tells in simple language the story of the planting of those London Baptist churches in the days of persecution before 1641. The title of this book is: "A Moderate Answer Unto Dr. Bastwick's Book Called 'Independency Not God's Ordinance.' Wherein is declared the manner how some churches in this city were gathered, and upon what tearmes their members were admitted; that so both the Dr. and the Reader may judge how near some Believers who walk together in the Fellowship of the Gospell do come in their practice to the Apostolicall rules which are propounded by the Dr. as God's Method in gathering Churches and Admitting Members. By Hanserd Knollys, London, 1646." Of course, such a book is authoritative and worth a thousand guesses. Knollys says:

"I shall now take the liberty to declare, what I know by mine own experience to be the practice of some Churches of God in this City. That so far both the Dr. and the Reader may judge how near the Saints, who walk in the fellowship of the Gospell, do come to their practice, to these Apostolicall rules and practice propounded by the Dr. as God's method in gathering churches, and admitting Members, I say that I know by mine own experience (having walked with them), that they were thus gathered, viz,: Some godly and learned men of approved gifts and abilities for the Ministrie, 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 publikely and from house to house, and daily in the Temple, 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 Gospell, some of them believers, consorted with them, and of professors a great many, and of the chief women not a few. And the condition which those Preachers, both publikely aud 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, in the Name of the Father, Sonne, and Holy Spirit, were admitted Members of the Church; but such as did not believe, and would not be baptized, they would not admit into Church communion. This hath been the practice of some Churches of God in this City, without urging or making any particular covenant with Members upon admittance, which I desire may be examined by the Scripture cited in the Margent, and then compared with the Doctor's three conclusions from the same Scriptures, whereby it may appear to the judicious Reader, how near the Churches some of them come to the practice of the Apostles rules, and practice of the primitive churches, both in gathering and admitting members" (pp. 24, 25).

We may note in passing that no one denies that in 1645, when this was written, Knollys was an immersionist, so when speaking of the practice of baptizing "with water" by the Baptist churches of London he must have meant immersion. And since he not even hints at any change of the ordinance by these churches, such must have been their practice from their organization, so far as his knowledge went.

I would not exchange the testimony of this Baptist preacher, who was pastor of one of the very churches in question, and writing at the very time, for all the "Kiffin" Manuscripts in existence, and the other variations of that famous document, which may be discovered when some Baptist may have a vagary to exploit. That Knollys knew all about the organization of these Calvinistic Baptist churches, there can be no question. And it is equally certain that he gives not the least hint about these churches all coming out of the Jessey church. The reason is perfectly plain; nothing of the sort ever happened. It did split all to pieces on the subject of immersion, but the "first" Baptist churches of England had no such origin. Therefore the "Kiffin" Manuscript and the Jessey Church Records are not authoritative nor of any value. Let the reader bear in mind that this "Kiffin" Manuscript is the sole foundation for the "1641 theory." With the foundation destroyed, the theory tumbles into chaos.

There is a record that in 1635-6, Feb. 20. Lambeth. 34. complaint was made that the Anabaptists "refuse on Sundays and other festival" days to come to their parish churches, but do meet together m great numbers on such days, and at other times, in private houses and places, and there keep conventicles and exercises of religion, by the laws of the realm prohibited."

We have in the same year, Jan. 11, in the Acts of the High Court of Commissioners, vol. cclxi. fo1. 307. b., charges preferred against Francis Jones, of Ratcliff, Middlesex, basketmaker.

"Being charged that he is a schismatic recussant, and that he has long fore-borne to come to his parish church to hear divine service said and to receive the holy communion, and that he useth to keep private conventicles and exercises of religion, and that he is an Anabaptist, and for that he confesseth he hath been rebaptized, he was committed to Newgate." Note he was "rebaptized."

I do not care to pursue this line of investigation at this time to any great length. Barclay, who cannot be regarded as very partial to the Baptists, and who has been quoted largely by those who believe in "1641," is pleased to say:

"As we shall afterwards show, the rise of the Anabaptists took place long prior to the foundation of the Church of England, and there are also reasons for believing that on the Continent of Europe, small hidden societies, who have held many of the opinions of the Anabaptists, have existed from the times of the Apostles. In the sense of the direct transmission of divine truth and the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems probable that these churches have a lineage or succession more ancient than the Roman Church? (Barclay's Inner Life of Religious Societies, p. 12).

All this shows that the statements of the "Kiffin" (?) Manuscript are not true. The first English Baptists did not begin in 1641, nor in 1633, not at any date near these.

The "Jessey Church Records" open with an elaborate account of the books Written by Mr. Jacob. Of course, if this were a minute of the church, the "Records" or minutes should set down a correct account of the first pastor of the church. This the document attempts to do, and yet it misses the facts in the case in almost every particular. They give a list of the books written by Mr. Jabob, and the dates at which they were written. Yet it is a remarkable fact that the author of the records did not know the titles of Mr. Jacob's books nor the dates when they were written. The document gives the following title and date to one of Mr. Jacob's books: "The Divine Beginning & Institution of a Visible Church, proving [sic] ye same by many Arguments opening Matth: xviii. 15, wth a declaration and fuller evidence of some things therein: "and the date is set down at 1612. The following is the correct title: "The Divine Beginning and Institution of Christs true Visible or Ministeriall Church. Also the Unchangeableness of the same by men: viz. in the forme & essentiall constitution thereof. Written by Henry Jacob. Imprinted at Leyden by Henry Hastings. 1610." (British Museum, 4103. b). It will therefore be seen that neither the date nor the title corresponds with the facts in the case. The book was printed two years before the "genuine records" (?) say it was. It will not only be seen that the author of the "Jessey Records" was ignorant of the title of Mr. Jacob's book and the time when it was written, but that the spelling and forms of expression are those of the person who began to "make this collection in Jan. 1710-11." The words "wch" and "proveing" are a clear give-away. It is hard for the "Collector" to cover up this tracks in his "Faithful Extracts," Fraud is written upon almost every line of these "genuine (?) church records."

The ignorance of the author of the document is further shown by reference to another work written by Mr. Jacob. This document gives the name of the book as follows: "An Attestation of ye most famious and approved Authors witnessing wth one mouth ye each Church of Christ should be independent as it should have ye full Power of all ye Church affairs entire within itsefe:" and the date of this book put down at 1610. The correct title is: "An Attestation of many Learned, Godly, and famous Divines, Lighters of Religion, and pillars of the Gospell, justifying this doctrine, viz. That the Church-government ought to bee alwayes with the peoples free consent," &c., and the date is 1613. The preface of the book is signed "July, 18. Anno 1612" (British Museum, 698, a, 35). The author of these "Records" in the former instance gives a date two years too late, and in this instance three years too early. Any one who will take the trouble to compare the title as given by the anonymous author of the "Records" with the true title as given above, will see how little he really knew about what he was discoursing. The reader will note here again that the spelling and expressions of the "Jessey Records" all belong to the man of "1710-11," and not to Mr. Jacob. The repeated use of "ye," the "wth" and the "famious" all say fraud, and that the "Jessey Records" are not genuine, to say nothing of their being not contemporaneous.

The "Jessey Church Records" make the following statements in reference to Mr. Jacob:

1624 -- "About eight years H. Jacob was Pastor of ye said Church & when upon his importunity to go to Virginia, to wch he had been engaged before by their consent, he was remitted from his said office, & dismissed ye Congregation to go thither, wherein after Years he ended his dayes. In the time of his Service much trouble attended that State and People within and without."

Without stopping to note that the "&" and the "ye" and other words all point to the man who made this "collection in 1710-11," I desire to show that every statement in the above extract is contrary to the facts in the case. Mr. Jacob did not serve this church eight years, but only six years; he did not go to Virginia in 1624, but in 1622; and he did not in "after years" end "his dayes" in Virginia, but he returned to England in 1624, and died there in April or May of that year, and was buried from St. Andrew Hubbard's Parish, Burrough of Canterbury (National Biography, Art. Jacob). That is to say, every statement in the above extract is false. How do I know all this? In the simplest way possible. There lies before me the last will and testament of Henry Jacob, "Extracted from the Principal Registry of the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury," 1624. 38 -- Byrde, and may be consulted at Somerset House, London. This copy is taken from the records and duly signed. The will was probated "5th May 1624," and his estate was administered upon by his wife, "Sara Jacob." He declares that on "the fifth day of October, in the yeare of our Lord a thowsand six hundred and twenty and two," he was "now goeing thither" to Virginia. Why he returned to England I know not, but it is certain he died in London before the 5th day of May, 1624, since no man's will is probated till he is dead. Here is evidence that no man can doubt. The so-called "Jessey Church Records" are thus wrong in every statement concerning this pastor of that church.

It is a significant and certainly a fatal objection to these Records that they follow the ordinarily received statements in regard to Jacob rather than the original authorities. I mean this: the ordinary statements in the histories correspond with the "Jessey Records." If they are a fraud they would follow supposed historical facts as closely as possible. This the "Records" do. The facts set forth in this will until now have been unknown to historians, because they did not know this will was in existence. But the "Jessey Records" fall also into the mistakes of modern historians. It is incredible that the clerk of the Jacob church in London could have been ignorant of the return and death of Mr. Jacob, and should not even know the year in which Mr. Jacob severed his connection with the church. It is also incredible that the clerk of the church did not know that the wife of Mr. Jacob did not go with him to Virginia, but remained in London as a member of the church there. Mr. Jacob expressly says in his will that his wife and part of his children were to remain behind, and if providence permitted to come to Virginia the "ensewing May;" but instead of the good wife going to him, he came back to her. More than that, Sara Jacob was arrested, along with this church, on the 29th of April, 1632, and along with the other members of the church was tried and imprisoned May 3, 1632 (Records of the High Court of Commission and Star Chamber). The author of the "Jessey Records" not only did not know these facts, but calls this good pastor's wife "Mr. Jacob." The records of the Court are perfectly clear on this point. If there ever was a more stupidly blundering document than this so-called "Jessey Records," unless it be the Gould "Kiffin Manuscript," which comes from the same quarter, I yet have to see it. The author of the "Jessey Records" knows scarcely one fact concerning Mr. Jacob and his family, but on the other hand, has made assertions and given dates which are proved incorrect. If these Records were the actual minutes of the church, not one of these blunders could have occurred. But these are the very blunders that a man writing long afterwards without the original records before him and with the statements of modern historians as his guide, would fall into.

"After his Departure hence ye Congregation remained a year or two edifying one another in ye best manner they could according to their Gifts given to them from above. And then at length John Lathrop sometimes a Preacher in Kent, joyned to ye said Congregation; And was afterwards chosen and Ordained a Pastor to them, a Man of tender heart and a humble and meek Spirit serving the Lord in the ministry about 9 years to their great comfort."

The statement that the church was without a pastor "a year or two" cannot possibly be true. If Mr. Lathrop served the church about 9 years, he became pastor the latter portion of 1625. But we have already seen that Mr. Jacob left the church as pastor in 1622. At the very least calculation the church was more than three years without a pastor. And any one who is familiar with church records knows that "genuine" (?) church records would not be so indefinite about important matters as is this document. It would have been quite natural for church records to say that Pastor Jacob resigned upon a certain day named, and Pastor Lathrop became pastor upon a certain date. But even this effort to be indefinite is fatal to these records, for at any calculation "a year or two" is not three or four years.

In these alleged "Records," the most elaborate account is given of the arrest, trial and imprisonment of members of this church. The account is very specific and enters into minute details. Of course, if these were truly records of this church they would be accurate. Their glaring mistakes prove them to be forgeries. After much searching I have been able to secure a copy of the original court proceedings in the Court of High Commission and Star Chamber. These minutes were supposed to be lost, as they were not to be found in the Calendar of State Papers nor in the collection of original State Papers preserved in the Record Office in Chancery Lane, London. At length I located them, however, in the Rawlinson Manuscripts, Vol. 128, Bodeleian Library, Oxford. The subsequent proceedings in this celebrated case, as they are presented, may be found in the original papers in the Record Office. I give not theories nor "ingenious" guesses, but the actual facts in the case. But these facts contradict the "Jessey Records" in almost every particular, and show how utterly unreliable they are.

"1632. The 2nd month (called Aprill) ye 29th Day, the Church was seized upon by Tomlinson, ye Bps. Pursevant, that ware mett in ye house of Hump: Barnet, Brewer's Clark in Black: Fryers, he being no member or hearing abroad, at wch time 18 were not committed but scaped, or ware not then present. About 42 ware all taken & their names given up," &c.

It appears from this account that Humphrey Barnett was not arrested and committed to prison. And yet this is directly contradicted by the Court Records. He was the very first man to appear before the court. The court record reads that "therefore the 1nan of the howse wherein they were taken was first called: who was asked when he was at his parish church?"

The "Jessey Records" affirm that those arrested were put in various prisons, whereas as a matter of fact they were all confined in one prison. The "Records" say: "Several were committed to the Bps Prison, called the New Prison in _____ Crow a merchants house again) & thence some to the Clink, some to ye Gathouse & some that thought to have escaped he joyned to them, being in prison together," &c. It is singular that the writer of this document did not know the Location of the New Prison, and was compelled to leave a blank space. This is a very suspicious circumstance. It will be noticed that the "Jessey Records" mention at least three prisons where these persons were confined: The Bishops Prison, the Clink and the Gathouse. The evidence is that they were all confined in the New Prison, and none of them in the Clink or the Gathouse. We learn this from another trial where some other heretics taken in another conventicle were tried on the 14th of June, 1632. The Bishop of London directed that this company be "sent two and two to other prisons, and none to the New Prison, because the Keeper hath let some of the principall of the other companie to escape." The conclusion of the Archbishop of Canterbury was that since the keeper of New Prison was not careful enough, these prisoners should be scattered into various prisons. His words are: "Therefore let these men be put 2. and 2. in severall prisons." Here, then, we find that the "Jessey Records" are wrong again. I have official copies of the entire court proceedings in these cases, and it is manifest that the "other company" were the Jessey company.

These same "Jessey Records," say of Humphrey Bernard and Some others, that they were converted and added to the church in prison. "In this very time of their restraint ye word was so farr from bound, & ye Salnts so farr from being scared from the Ways of God, that even then many ware in prison added to ye church." Bernard was of this number. But the facts, as given in the records of the court, throw a very different light on the matter. He is there represented as a member of this conventicle, and his name immediately follows that of "John Latroppe the minister." He was imprisoned because he was a member of this church. It seems a pity to spoil this very pretty story, but the facts are against it.

Of the persons in prison the "Jessey Church Records" say: "Henry Dod, deceased in prison." Unfortunately for the records, that was not the fact. Henry Dod, did not die in prison, at any rate he did not die at this time. He was tried on the "3 Maij [March], 1632," and found guilty and imprisoned. He was probably one of those of whose escape the Bishop of London complained, for we find that on the 25th of November, 1633, he was out of prison. Bishop Lindsell, of Peterborough, writes to Sir John Lambe, Dean of the Marshes, and says that he hopes he has conferred with the Archbishop of Canterbury about Mr. Dod and his preaching heresy, and has received directions what is to be done with him about it (Vol. ccli. Domestic -- Charles I. Calendar State Papers). So it is plain that the "Jessey Records" are wrong about Henry Dod's dying in prison.

Mr. Jacob is announced in these records as one of the men who was arrested. But "Mr. Jacob" was not a man at all. The person arrested and tried, as I find from the Court Records, was a woman, and her name was Sara Jacob, the widow of the late pastor of the church, Henry Jacob. The writer of these "faithful extracts" (?) did not know that Sara Jacob was still in London, and so he wrote the "original records" (?) to suit his case rather than according" to the facts. The fraud is not pious.

These "Jessey Church Records" say that "Sam House, Sister House," were arrested, and leave the impression that they were man and wife. The Court Records, however, mention no such man, and as to "Sister House," her name was "Penmina Howes," and she was "a maide."

The "Jessey Church Records" say that "Mr. Sargent" was one of the number arrested and imprisoned; but "Mr. Sargent," according to the Court Records, was a woman, and her name was "Elizabeth Sargeant."

The "Jessey Church Records" tell us that "Mr Wilson" was among the members of this church arrested, but the Court Records make it clear that "Mr. Wilson" was a woman, and her name was "Susan Wilson."!!!

A great deal is said of Mr. P. Barebone in the "Jessey Records" and in the "Kiffin" Manuscript. The said Barebones is one of the principal heroes of the amazing stories related in these documents, and the most extravagant claims have been put forth as to his doings. I shall return to Barebones at another time in these papers. I desire now only to point out a reckless statement concerning him made in the "Jessey Records." That document declares that

"Mr. Barebones" was arrested along with Lathroppe on the 29th day of April, 1632. Mr. P. Barebones was not only not arrested at this time, but was receiving honors from his fellow-citizens. He was admitted Foreman of the Leather Sellers Company, 20th January, 1623; elected a Warden of the Yoemanry, 6th July, 1630; a Liveryman, 13th Oct. 1634; and third Warden, 16th June, 1648 (Notes & Queries, 3rd Series, Vol. l, p. 211).

Not only was he not in trouble with the authorities, but on Dec. 3lst, 1635, he was paying over to the government ship money in course of business in large sums. He likewise was using in his business an elaborate seal bearing the arms of one of the nobles (Calendar of State Papers, Vol., 3O5, 80. I). But if we needed anything more to explode this absurd story of the "Jessey Records," I need only to say that the Court Records show that "Mr. Barebones," who was arrested, was a woman, and that her given name was "Sara."!!! These are "genuine records" with a vengeance.

The "Jessey Church Records" make the following statements in reference to Mr. Jacob:

The following persons are represented by the "Kiffin" Manuscript and the "Jessey Church Records" as joining a church along with Sam. Eaton in 1633, Sept, 12: Henry Parker &, wife, Widd Fearne, Mr. Wilson, Jo. Milburne and others. This could not be, for the very earliest date that any of this party were released from jail was April 24, 1634, or some seven months later than the alleged event described. This is about as nearly correct as the dates in these documents ever are. Here is another instance where the State Papers show these Gould documents to be a fraud.

The "Jessey Church Records" further state: "1632. Elizab. Milburn, about 26 committed ye 12th of ye 2nd month (called May 12th) being ye Lord's Day." The records of the court show that this statement is not true, since Elizabeth Milburn was in court upon the 8th of May, and was tried upon that day. That is to say, Mary Milburn was present in court and tried four days before the "Jessey Records" say she was arrested. And it is also a fact May the 12th was not the Lord's day, but Saturday. It is also true that "genuine records" (?) of that date would not have used the apostrophe in "Lord's day," as is done here and elsewhere, for the apostrophe was not used in those times. And it is a further fact that a contemporaneous document would not have called this church, which was not over sixteen years old, an "antient Church," as the "Jessey Church Records" do in this place. All of these points are fatal to a claim of genuineness for these documents. No wonder the writer concealed his identity.

Sam Eaton figures largely in the "Jessey Church Records" and in the "Kiffin" Manuscript. These documents show the grossest ignorance of his history, and several things said of him are impossible. The "Jessey Records" make the following statement concerning him:

"1633. There haveing been much discussing, these denying truth of ye Parish Churches &, ye Church being become so large yt might be prejudicial, these following desired dismission, that they might become an entire Church & further ye communion of those churches in Order amongst themselves, wch at last was granted to them & performed Sept. 12th, 1632, viz

"To these joyned Rich. Blunt, Tho. Hubert, Rich. Tredwell and His wife Katherine, John Trimber, Wm. Jennings, & Sam Eaton, Mary Greenway. Mr. Eaton with some others receiving a further baptism, others joyned to them.

"1638 These also being of ye same Judgment with Sam Eaton & desiring to depart & not being censured, our interest in them was remitted wth Prayer made in their behalfe Julie 8th, 1638. They haveing first forsaken us & joyned with Mr. Spilsbury, viz

"1633, Sundry of ye Church thereof Mr. Jacob & Mr. John Lathrop had been pastors, being dissatisfied with ye Churches owning of English Parishes to be true Churches desired dismission & joyned together among themselves, as Mr. Henry Parker, Mr. Tho. Shepard, Mr. Sam Eaton, Marke Luker & others wth whom Joyned Mr. W. Kiffin.

"1638. Mr. Thos. Wilson, Mr. Pen, & H. Pen, & 3 more being convinced that Baptism was not for infants, but professed Believers joyned with Mr. Jo. Spilsbury ye Churches favour being desired therein."

There is scarcely a statement in the above bill of particulars which is according to the facts. Besides, it will be noted that the "Jessey Church Records" and the "Kiffin" Manuscript contradict each other in important particulars. If we had no other evidence the contradictory nature of these documents would be enough to show that we could not trust them. It would seem from the accounts as given in these documents that Sam Eaton spent a good part of his life in joining various churches, and yet it is certain that with all of the details given, the writer of these documents was grossly ignorant of the most important events in the life of Sam Eaton. For example, neither the "Kiffin" Manuscript nor the "Jessey Church Records" make mention of the fact that he was arrested at the same time Lathrop was, April 29, 1632. A long list of others was mentioned, but so prominent a man as Sam Eaton was is entirely overlooked. Not only was Sam Eaton arrested April 29, and tried May3 of the same year, but he continued in prison until April 24, or a period of two years. He was released from prison under the very same bond that Lathrop was (Calendar of State Papers, Vol. 261, fol. 182). This is fatal to the "Jessey Church Records" and the "Kiffin" Manuscript, since these documents represent him as free, and organizing and leading in independent church movements in 1633. At the very time that these documents represent poor Sam Eaton as doing all these great things, he was in jail, and had been for a year, and continued in jail for a whole year afterwards.

The "Kiffin" Manuscript also makes a complete breakdown in speaking of the church under date of 1633. It says that "Mr. Jacob & Mr. John Lathrop had been pastors." Why put the verb in the past tense, for Mr. Lathrop was pastor at that very time? Another absurd statement is made in both of these documents, that the division of the Jacob church in 1633 was caused by "being dissatisfied with the Churches of English Parishes to be true churches." That reason will not answer, since this Jacob church had existed already 17 years on this very basis of opposition to the Parish Churches, and Sam Eaton had certainly been for more than a year, and perhaps for many years, a member of the Jacob church. Can any reasonable man have any confidence in such documents?

These alleged "genuine (?) documents" represent that on June 8th, 1638, Sam Eaton received "a further baptism," and that since he had been convinced that infant baptism was wrong he joined Mr. Spilsbury's church. These statements lack only one important element to make them reliable -- that is, they are not true. The "Kiffin" Manuscript and the "Jessey Records" have a habit of always giving the wrong date. On June 8th, 1638, Sam Eaton was again in jail and never came out alive. He was turned out on bond April 24th, 1634, on condition not to be present at any private conventicle. He did not keep the terms of his bond, and for a period of nearly two years he succeeded in hiding from the officers. But on May 5, 1636, he was arrested and confined in jail. The entry is: "Samuel Eaton of St. Giles without Criple Gate. London. button-maker" (Calendar of State Papers, Vol. 324, fol. 13). He remained in jail until Aug. 31, 1639, when he died and was buried in Bunhill Fields (Calendar of State Papers, Vol. 427, fol. 107). So the facts are squarely against the "Kiffin" Manuscript and the "Jessey Records." At the very time that these documents represent him as joining Spilsbury's church he was in jail, and had been there for two years. Such is the testimony of the only witnesses to the "1641" theory.

Still again, the "Jessey Records" give another account of an arrest in which, as usual, Sam Eaton figured. The date was January, 1637. The account is as follows:

"11th Month (Vulgarly January) ye 21st day at Queenith (where Mr. Glover, Mr. Eaton, Mr. Eldred & others 1637 ware wth us) after Exercise was done, by means Mr. ----- the overthwart Neighbour, Officers and others came, at last both ye Sheriffs, & then Veasey ye Parsevant who took ye names; The Lord gave such wisdom in their carriage yt some of their opposers afterwards did much favour them & bail'd them. The next day Veasey the Pursevant got money of some of them, & so they ware dismissed, 4 ware remitted to ye Poulter Counter."

Here is the statement that Sam Eaton was arrested upon this 21st of January, 1637, and bailed out. This is flatly contrary to the facts of the case. Mr. Eaton had been committed to jail on the 5th day of May, 1636, and hence was at that moment in jail, and had been for nearly a year. He was not bailed out, but, as we have seen, he died in jail in Aug. 1639. The only element the "Jessey Records" lack of being authoritative is to tell the truth. And the month was not January, but February (Life and death of Mr. Henry Jessey, 1671, B. M. 1418. i.15).

Consider the facts a moment, and then read the following fresh statement: "Is it possible that he is the same Samuel Eaton who became pastor of the Congregational Church at New Haven, Conn., when it was established on the 22d of August, 1639, (Dexter, Congregationalism, p. 413, note; cf. p. 587, note) and returning to England in 1640 founded the Congregational Church at Duckingfield (Dexter, p. 635, note") (A Question in Baptist History, p. 84). Of course not. The very month that the above author had Mr. Eaton going to New England, he died and was buried. It will never do to disturb the sleeping ashes of Sam Eaton to make him pastor of a Congregational church in 1640, when he died in 1639. A theory that requires dead men to be living and living men to be dead, is beyond my power of belief.

I speak of the Crosby "Kiffin" and the Gould "Kiffin" document as distinct versions of the so-called "Kiffin" Manuscript, because Crosby gives "the substance" of a document he saw and loaned to Neal, but which has perished, while the Gould document was copied by Dr. Gould in 1860, and is the only edition we have extant.

The Crosby "Kiffin" declares there were "twenty men and women, with divers others," who left the Jessey church in 1633; the Gould "Kiffin" mentions five and others, while the "Jessey Church Records" give 19 names. The list differs materially in the three documents. This contradictory evidence cannot be received as authoritative.

The lists of names for 1638 do not correspond in the three manuscripts. Crosby's "Kiffin" gives two names and "others;" Gould's "Kiffin" gives three names and says there were three others, and the "Jessey Church Records" give six names, and these six do not include some that are found in the Gould document. There is nothing surprising in all of this, for this is quite as near as these documents usually come to agreeing with each other.

The statements in regard to Mr. Lathrop in the "Jessey Church Records" are as follows:

"After ye space of about 2 years of the sufferings and patience of these Saints, they were all released upon Bail (some remaining to this day as Mr. Jones &c, though never called on) only to Mr. Lathrop and Mr. Grafton, they refused to show such faviour, they were to remain in Prison without release.

"At last there being no hopes yt Mr. Lathrop should do them further service in ye church, he having many motives to go to New England if it might be granted. After the death of his wife he earnestly desiring ye Church would release him of yt office wch (to his grief) he could no more performe, and that he might have their consent to goe to New England. after serious consideration had about it, it was freely granted to him.

"Then petition being made that he might have liberty to depart out of ye land, he was released from Prison, 1634 about ye 4th month (called June), and about 30 of the members, who desired leave and permission from the Congregation to go along with him, had it granted to them, namely," &c.

1. It is claimed that these "saints" were "all released upon bail" with one exception; "only to Mr. Lathrop and Mr. Grafton, they refused to show such faviour, they were to remain in prison without release." But the State Papers give a very different account. After a pretty diligent search through the original State Papers, I have been unable to find where one of these "Saints" was released before Mr. Lathrop, much less "all" of them. On the other hand, It would seem from the entry in the records that Mr. Lathrop played the baby act, while at a later date some of the prlsoners refused to take the oath and were recommitted to prison. The facts in the case are the very reverse of the statements in the "Jessey Records."

2. "Only to Mr. Lathrop and Mr. Grafton they refused to show such favor," and they were retained in prison. That statement is not true, and I give only one example out of many. After Lathrop was dismissed on June 12 William Granger and William Batty, two of this company, "refused to take oaths or to answer articles and were committed to the Gate-house" (Calendar of State Paper, Vol. 261, fol. 39).

3. The "Jessey Records" say that Lathrop was released from prison "about ye 4th month (called June)." The State Papers show that he was released April 24th.

4. The "Records" make the impression that he went to America immediately. As a matter of fact, he hung around London for some months until the magistrates made it too hot for him. On June 19, 1634, this entry was made against John Lathrop: "Bond ordered to be certified, and he to be attached for non-appearance" (Calendar of State Papers, Vol. 261, fol. 50). He did not leave London till the last of August, and arrived in Boston, Sept. 18, 1634, on board the ship Griffin.

I have already qnoted the statement from the "Jessey Records" that Sam Eaton and others organized a church out of Lathrop's church in 1633, and the "Kiffin" Manuscript declares that William Kiffin was in this secession in 1633. This could not have been, for William Kiffin did not join Lathrop's church till 1634, and he is known to have continued in this church till he joined Spilsbury's church in 1638. This date of 1634, whell Kiffin joined Lathrop's church, is undoubtedly correct, for in the account which Kiffin left of his own life, and which was used by Ivimey in the preparation of the Biography of Kiffin, 1634 is the date given (Life of William Kiffin, p. 13). And Waddington in his Surrey Congrgational History, p. 21, gives the same date, with a remarkable extract from Kiffin himself Concerning the annoyances he experienced from the persecutors. Here, then, again, in an important particular these "genuine records" (?) are wrong. The Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript makes William Kiffln secede from the Lathrop church before ever he joined that church and while he was yet an Episcopalian. The Crosby "Kiffln" Manuscnpt, however, declares that Kiff1n joined Spilsbury's church in 1638. These documents, which are declared to be "identical," contradict each other on important points of facts, and, what is more note-worthy, both of them contradict the facts in the case. Yet it is on the sole testimony of such documents that we are asked to believe the Baptists of England all practiced sprinkling before 1641!!!