Division B.A.G 2. v3 Section^Lj .00 No BAPTIST HISTORY VINDICATED JOHN T. CHRISTIAN, D.D., LL.D. PUBLISHED BY BAPTIHT BOOK CONCEEN Louisville, Kentucky 1899 Copyright By W. p. Harvey 1899 INTRODUCTION. Dr. Christian has certainly rendered valu- ble service in bringing to light many facts bearing on the history of the Engiish 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 state- ments of the Gould documents— the so-called "Kiffln" 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 testi- mony 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 Anabap- tists of England were in the uniform practice of pouring and sprinkling for baptism for near- ly 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 be- ing in any sort of succession, and without re- gard to any baptized administrator. Such is the charge against our Baptist fathers in Eng- land, from which Dr. Christian has furnished a complete vindication. WHAT ARE THE PROOFS? 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 til e Anabaptists of England, and records would be produced of the change from sprink- ling to immersion by the Anabaptist churches. But we find nothing of the sort. Not a single instance has been citedwhere any Anabaptist in Eng- land practiced sprinkling or pouring., or where any Anabaptist church changed its practice. The re- markable 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 aflfusion for baptism, it is inferred that these Anabap- tists of England must have done the same. This strained inference is the first part of the alleged evidence that the immersion of believ- ers was unknown in England for more than a century before 1641 . The second part of this evidence is a state- ment found in an anonymous document, the so-called "Kiffln" manuscript. The oldest ex- 111. tant copy of this document dates back only BO 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 Hol- land to be immersed, of his return and of his Immersing Samuel Blacklock, and of their im- mersing others. Along with this account oc- cur the words, "none having then so practiced in England to professed believers." Even if it were conceded tliat 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 o.s tlie toriter knew, there had been no practice of immersing be- lievers in England at that time. But this is a very long 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 suspect- ed, who observed the New Testament teaching in regard to baptism. He proceeded to be- come one of tlT^m, and soon he filled the world with his fame He says of himself in this re- gard: "I had ';hought myself to have been baptized as an infant; and so, when I was con- fronted with the question, 'What is required of persons to be baptized?' and I found that repenta»ice 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 persoil 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 know- ing of the practice of believer's immersion in England in 1640, proves there was no such iv. practice there at that time, how much more does Charles H. Spurgeon's not knowing of the practice of believer's immersion in Eng- land in 1850, proves there was no such practice there at that time. They had facilities of in- formation in 1850 far beyond what they had in 1640. Thomas Crosby, who wrote a history of the Baptists of England, 1738-40, mentions a man- uscript "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 evi- dence 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 oc- currence. 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 per- formance 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 writ- ten by "R. Barrow.' In 1643, only two years after 1641, the Bap- tist 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" documentsays they did, their names should have headed the list. Dr. Joseph Angus knows more aboutEnglish Bap- tist history than any other living man, and in ransacking that whole period he finds no evi- dence of the existence of Richard Blunt or of Samuel Blacklock, so that in his list of Baptist worthies their names are omitted. Dr. Cath- cart, in this country, in the Baptist Encyclo- pedia 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 state- ments, 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 repre- sent women as being men, men as operating long after they were dead, or as actively en- gaged over the country when the court records ghow 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 Ep worth -Crowle document has been rejected on far less evi- dence 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 liistoric 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 para- phrased so as to conform to the "1641 theory," and interpreted as confirming the "Kiffln" manuscript. Even were these expressions all that is claimed for them, they would prove nothing except that the practices of the Bap- tists 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 Vir- ginia, who recently died, wrote : "The Baptists are a religious laity whose main belief is in the necessity of the Hindoo practice of purifi- cation by bathing" (University of Virginia vll. 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 Ist, 1641, and that then the Baptists, who had been obliged to conceal themselves, came out of their hid- ing places and preached their doctrines boldly and broadly, as they could not do before. This, of course, made astir, and it was all new to many of the people of that day. What won- der, then, that these Baptists should be pro- nounced "new" and "upstart?" But it is gro- tesque 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 doctrmes 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 ex- pressions "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 writmgs shows this not to be true. What vill these writers denounce as "new" and "up- start," 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 any- thing but immersion wa'a valid baptism. These writers were used to the idea that while im- mersion 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 up- start 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 immer- sion, 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 state- ment of the anonymous writer, Mercurius Rus- ticus, 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 Out- rages," &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 Ghelmerford 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 inaii. Before this parliament was called, of this nu- merous 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) bath by Act ot Parlia- ment 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 flnde by experience, are Nurceries of Faction and Rebellion) is so filled with Sectaries, es- pecially JBrownists and Anabo.ptists., 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 Anabap- tists: the one they call Old men, or Aspersi, be- cause they have been but sprinkled ; the other they call the New men, or the Immersi, because they were overwhelmed in their rebaptiza- tion." 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 constant- ly confounded Anabaptists with Brownists and others, and denounced them all indiscrim- inately. 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 opin- ion at best. Yet even he 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 Pres- byterian minister in Glasgow, and of course he knew all about what the Anabaptists all over England were doing. He says in his "Ana- baptisme," p. 163: "Among the new inventions of the late Ana- baptists, there is none which with greater ani- mosity they set on foot, than the necessity of dipping over head and ears, than the nullity of affusion and sprinkling in the administra- tion of Baptisme. Among the old Anabap- tists, 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 neces- sity 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 ad- vocacy of "the nullity of affusion and sprink- ling." But how much Baillie knew of the peo- ple he was writing about, may be seen by read- ing further what he has to say of them. He tells of the origin of these Anabaptists, "un- happy men. Stock and Muncer. did begin to breathe out a pestiferous vapour, 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 fol- lowing narrative by such abundance of satis- factory testimonies as may convince the great- est favourers of these men among us" (p. 3). He says of these Anabaptists "that whosoever refused to enter into their society to be rebap- tized and to become members of their church- es 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 Ana- baptists "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 Ana- baptists of a man who writes this way about them? Yet these are probably the main cita- tions 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 "1641 theory" have been grossly misrepresented. For example, Ephraim Pagitt is represented as saying in his Heresiography that the "plunged Anabap- tists" are the newest sort. He wrote in l&fe, and this is urged as confirming the theory that xli. 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 vand 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 Bap- tist historian who wrote in 1738-40, favored the theory that immersion had ceased to be prac- ticed in England, and was started afresh in 1641. But the claim is without valid warrant. Crosby does unhesitatingly speak of restoring immersion, but that he does not mean to con- vey the idea that immersion had ceased to be practiced, is manifest by his point blank dec- larations to the contrary. A practice can be restored without having entirely ceased to ex- ist. 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 move- ment, largely among Pedobaptists, and the mistake is made of thinking that these Pedo- baptists who adopted Baptist viewi* 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. H. page ii.) Crosby gives a sketch of the preservation of immersion from the days of Christ to the be- ginning of the 17th century. He nowhere in- timates that any Anabaptist church in Eng- land ever changed their practice from sprink- ling to immersion. He assumes throughout that the Anabaptists from whom the Baptists largely sprang, had all along practiced immer- sion. He is at pains to point out how the An- abaptists in continental Europe practiced im- mersion from the beginning of the Reforma- tion. 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 deatli in prison." He re- minds his readers how Pomeranius,a compan- ion 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 sprink- ling as a corruption of baptism." This histori- an believed that immersion had been continu- ously 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 Wick- liffe's opinions : "i shall now only further ob- serve that the practice of immersion or 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 xiv. he says: ''That immersion continued in the Church of England till about the year 1600." HOW SPRINKLING GAME. The reign of James I. was tlie turning point, so far as the Church of England was con- cerned. 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 estab- lished in Scotland, and James, coming from Scotland, believed in sprinkling and sought to make it tlie 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 tri- umph of sprinkling in 1643. The high func- tionaries of the Church of England resisted the efforts of the Court to substitute the "bason" for sprinkling, instead of the "font" for im- mersion. 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 ma- jority of one. So far from immersion's beginning in Eng- land 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 Eng- land only two years before. It is incredible that a religious rite, introduced anew by poor and obscure people, and opposed to the prac- tice and prejudice of those in power (as im- mersion must have been, according to the "1641 theory"), sliould 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. ABSENCE OF REOOKDS During the times of persecution before 1641 (the year the persecuting courts were abol- ished), the Baptists could not safely keep rec- ords. To have done so would have been to furnish their enemies with facilities for ident- ifying 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 rec- ords would have been a constant peril. The Baptists were too wise to furnish their adver- saries with such easy means of identification. Necessarily, therefore, the evidence of the ex- istence 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 xvl. might venture to build a house for worship. Such a house is found at Hill Cliff, where there is now a Baptist church whicli traces its ex- istence back to 1622; audit 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 1357. The ruins of an old baptistery have also been lately uncovered. This obscure and inacces- sible place was a safe retreat in times of perse- cution. How many such there were in the land, there are no means of determining. There are to-day 27 Baptist churches in Eng- land 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 be- fore 1641, we can see no reason why there should be no record at all of any of the Ana- baptist churches adopting immersion in 1641 and after, if they did adopt it. POSITIVE EVIDENCE. Stili we are not without i^ositive evidence of the existence of believer's iiiimersion in Eng- land 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. xvll. The quotation from John Fox (Book of Mar- tyrs, 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' "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 Beformuiio Legum Ucclesiastuai-um, &G., A. D. 1571. 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 bur- ial is symbolized, and next his resuscitation, indeed, and his return to life, &c." This language does not tell of an ancient cus - torn, 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 nu- merous testimonies (Jewell, 1609; Busher,1614; Hieron, 1614; Rogers, 1633, and others), both as to the practice of immersion in general, and as to its practice by the Baptists particularly, un- til we come to Edward Barber, who in 1641 was answering objections to the immersion of be- lievers; which proves the practice to have ex- isted before. Barber in this same "treatise," declares that the practice of immersing believ- ers was older than the name Anabaptist, which name no one denies was current in the reign of Henry VIII., over a hundred years before. Barber says (p. 7) : "In like manner lately, those that prof esse 1 xvlli. and practice the dipping of Christ, instituted in the Gospel, are called aud reproached with the name of Anabaptists," &c. The I'de 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." Tills does not i>rove that the prac- tice was really older than the name, but that Edward Barber believed it to be so. That he wrote tills in 1641, proves that the practice of immersing believers did not begin at that time in England, since it ran back beyond liis rec- ollection, 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 Sam Eaton, by John Spilsbury, shows the practice of immer- sion 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. 26th, 1639, and that he was constantly in prison from May 6th, 1636, till his death. Hence his immersion and his immers- ing 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. OONOIiUSION. We have, then, briefly, the following condi- tions : 1st. It is admitted that there were Anabap- tists 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 tliat these Anabaptists ■were constantly reminded of immersion by the rubric of the state churcli and by the writings of the commentators and scholars of the pe- riod. 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 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 fa- vor 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 mis- takes — names wrong, dates wrong, titles wrong and facts wrong. 5th. The other evidence offered is circum- stantial, 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 re- member that in 1641 the abolition of the perse- cuting courts left them free to publicly preach and practice their beliefs as they could not do before. 6th. We have actual documentary and mon- umental evidence of the practice of believers" immersion in England before 1641. 7th. It is claimed that "distinguished his- torians" 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 manv of them have distinctly rejected it. Surely Jiis- torians 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 pro- duced, can judge for himself whether immer- ision was "splinter new" in England in 1641. T. T. Eaton. [Copyrighted.] AN EXAMINATION OF THE JESSEY CHURCH RECORDS AND THE " KIFFIN " MANUSCRIPT. BY JOHN T. CHRISTIAN, D.D., LL.D. In presenting this subject I shall be very careful to give the exact sources of my infor- mation. I am particularly indebted to the -Rev. J. H. Delles, D.D., and his admirable as- ^istant, the Rev. W. C. Ulyat, the librarian of Princeton Theological Seminary. Two very large collections, one on the subject of bap- tism and tlie 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 oppor- tunities were granted me for the examination of these works. Tlie 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,! was able to examine this important collection. I am. also indebted to President Gould for an exam- ination 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 Pa- pers are kept, and the Somerset House where wills, births and marriages are recorded con- tain invaluable iuformatiou. Besides these, I am indebted to a number of libraries and in- dividuals for information which I can ac- knowledge here only in the most general way. I have made full use of all these sources of in- formation in addition to a careful examination of the works I have gathered in my own li- brary during the last twenty years. I have no theory to serve, and have tried to weigh all the facts which have come before me. 1 have furthermore put myself to much trouble to find all the facts in the case , and while not able to fully accomplish this important considera- tion, tlie reader will find much important ma- terial that has not been presented before. The subject certainly needed investigation, and I am glad to be instrumental in tlirowing any light upon it. Most extraordinary and exaggerated claims have been i)ut forth as to the historic value of the ''Kiffin" Manuscript. Its history is no less remarkable. It has been strangely con- founded with other documents by naore than one author, and has been made to serve a pur- pose on more tlian one occasion. It has been used to prove the most preposterous proposi- tions, when these contradicted all known his- tory. It has been asserted in the most posi- tive manner tliat the manuscript is authentic and wholly reliable, although not one con- temporaneous author mentions tiie document or ever refers to the most prominent persons named in it. The interpretations put upon its language are no less strained than the state- ments found in its pages. It has been the fruitful source for visions and extravagant vagaries, while the historians who liave adopt- ed it have given us instead of history confusion worse confounded. As if one sucli manuscript is not enough, we have two, which do not agree witli eacli 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, Cros- hv 'who wrote his Baptist History in the year 1738 ff., quotes a document which he declares was -said" to have been written by Mr. William Kiffln. Where Crosby got this docu- ment, and what became of it, are questions which at this time no one can answer. Cros- bv quoted the document with evident caution, and it is manifest that he was never fully con- vinced that it was written by William Kiffin. In his first volume he appears to have felt that some of the statements contained m it were worthy to be recorded, and he may have ac- cepted some of its theories; but it is equally certain that in the second volume, upon ma- turer consideration, he rejected this document, at least he modified his previous statements. So far from Crosby believing that the Baptists of England began in 16il, he was a believer m church succession. Nor is there a word in ail 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 un- doubtedly have done had the words been m there. His words on succession are plain and unmistakable. He says: -It may be expect- ed, and I did intend, that this volume should have contained all I at first proposed to the publick. But since my pubhcation of the 'ormer volume, I have had such materials jommunicated to me that I could not m r^st- 'ce to the communicators omit them, without incurring the just censure of a partial histo- rian. Besides it having been objected to me that a more early account of the English Bap- tists might be obtained : it gave a new turn to my thoughts, aud put me upon considering the state and condition of the Christian Religion, from tlie first plantation of tlie Gospel in Eng- land. Now in this inquiry, so much has oc- curred 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 be- cause it cannot now be placed where it proper- ly belongs, I have fixed it by way of preface to this Second Volume." On page ii of this Preface, Crosby says: "This great prophet Juhn^ had an immediate commission from heaven, before he entered upon the actual administration of his office. Aud as the English Baptists adhere closely to this principle, that John the Baptist was by di- vine 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 contin- ued in the world to this present day ; so it may not be improper to consider the state of relig- ion 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 Kif- fin, will be abundantly proved in these articles. Two or three points are clear: Crosby did not believe the manuscript was written by Kiffln ; he did believe that the Baptists began in Eng- land upon the first planting of Christianity and had continued there since, and he did not affirm that dipping was a new thing in Eng- land. 2. The Gould edition. In 1860 Rev. George Gould, D.D., the father of President George P. Gould, of Regents Park College, had an un- successful 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 en- titled, "Open Communion and the Baptists of Norwich." In this book was a quotation from the "KifRn Manuscript," but it at once ap- peared that it was not the document quoted by Crosby, since the quotations made by Cros- by 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 con- secutively, besides several miscellaneous pa- pers. 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 pa- pers, but beyond this he knows nothing of the documents whatever. The first page is in JDr. 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 oc- curred 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 contempor- aneous 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 prox- imity of the original is not apparent. We are not even favored with the name of the "com- piler." He is quite as indefinite as anything^ 10 connected with this very indefinite manuscript. The book is itself equally indefinite. The fol- lowing is the introduction to the thirty docu- ments: ''A Repository of Divers Historical Matters relating to the English Antipedobaptists. Collected from Original papers or Faithful Extracts. Anno 1712. "I began to make this Collection in Jan. 1710-11." 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 "Kif- fln" Manuscript is scarcely more definite. It reads: ''AnoldMss, 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 in- troduced the form and spelling of his own time. That these compilations could not have been made before the date indicated, is abso- lutely certain, from the fact that late books like Wall on Infant Baptism, and Stripes' 11 Memorials are quoted, which would stamp the entire work as of late date. We have also another absolute proof that the Kiffin Manucript is not authentic. The author writes an article of his own, Number 17, which he inserts in the work. That por- trays fully the form and style of his writing, and the so-called KiflQn Manuscript and Jessey Records are in exactly that style in con- struction of sentences, in spelling and in all the peculiarities of language. Whatever may have been the basis for these various doc- uments, 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 havo 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 ex- tract 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 par- allel columns, I desire to present two short paragraphs with which tlie author introduces his quotation from Hutchinson. He says: "Mr. Hutchinson Account of ye Revival of Antipaedobaptism towards ye latter end of ye Reign of King Charles ye First. Mr. Edward Hutchinson, a learned & In- genious defender of ye Practice of Baptizing Believers only, in his Epistle Dedicatory to those of ye Baptized Congregations, put at ye 12 beginning of his Treatise concerning ye C ive- nant & 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 i^recisely the same That is true m reference to the use of the ''&," the "ye," "Mr.", which is very un- common in 1641, the use of the capitals, and indeed in every particular. The peculiar doc- trines and words of the Kiiiin Manuscript and Jessey Records are all held by this collator, or perhajps 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 "Antipsedobaptism," in this quotation corresponds with "Antipsedobaptisf in docu- ment number 4 where this statement occurs : "An account of divers Conferances, held in ye Congregation of wch Mr. Henry Jessey was Pastor, about Infant bajjtism by wch Mr. H. Jessey & ye greatest part of that Congregation were proselited to ye Opinion and Practice of ye Antipsedobaptists." 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 col- lator. Crosby claims that the word "Antipse- dobaptist" originated with Wall, who wrote his book, "A History of Infant Baptism," in 1705 (Crosby, vol. 1, p. viii). An edit- orial in the Independent^ in refuting the au- thority of another manuscript, declares: "It employs also, in one instance, the word T>edo- baptistery, 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, 3 wlj 29, 1880. The earliest use I have found of the word is in Bailey's " Anabaptism," but that is some vears later than 1638. The collator talks of "the revival" of "the practice of immersion," "of those of ye Believ- ers," 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 "KifRn" 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 "KifRn" Manuscript which have been so often used by some when speaking of immersion in England, "none having so prac- ticed it in England to professed Believers." The collator must have added these words to the "Kiffln" Manuscript. This opinion is pow- erfully 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 i^racticed 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 Immer- sion, when tliat j)ractice had been so long dis used, yt then was no one who had been so bap- tized to be found." There is absolutely no ex- cuse 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 manip- ulated 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 "KiflBn" 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 Hutchin- son. The first column contains Hutchinson's own words as he wrote them, the second con- tains the collator's quotation fi'om Hutchinson : hutohinson'9 words. "TF?!en the professors of these nations had been a lonn time wearied with the yohe of superstitions, ceremonies, traditions of men, and cor- rupt mixtures in the wor- ship and service of God, it pleased the Lord to break these yokes, and by a very strong impulse of his Spirit upon the hearts of his people, to convince them of the neces- sity of Reformation. Divers pious, ana very gracious peo- ple, having often sought the Lord by fasting and prayer. THE OOLXrATOR'S QUOTATION. When ye Professors of these Nations had been a long time wearied wth ye Yoke of Superstitious Cer- emonies, Traditions of Men, & corrupt mixtures in ye Worship <& Service of God, it pleaspd ye Lord to break these Yokes, & by a very strong impulse of his Spirit upon ye hearts of his People, to convince them of ye Necessity of Reformation. Divers Pious & very gracious People- 15 thit he would show them the pattern of hia house, the go- inux-out andcinuinus-in there- of, tfcc. Resolved (bythegrace of Ood), not to receive or practice any piece of posi- tive worship which had not precept "r example from the word of God. Infant- baptism coming of course utuier consideration, after long search and many de- bates, it was found to have no footing in the Scrip- tures (the only rule and standard to try doctrines by); hut on the contrary a mere innovition, yea, the pro- fanation of an ordinance of Ood. Am i though it was pro- posed to he laid aside, yet what fears, tronhlings, and temptdti07is did altoid them, lest they should he mistaken, considering how many learned and godly men were of an op- posite persuasion. Howgladr ly would they havehod the rest of their brethren gone along with them. But when there was no Iwpes. they concluded that a Christian's faith must not stand In the wis- dom of men ; and that ev- ery one must give an ac- count of himself to God; and so resolved to practice ac- cording to their light. The great objection was, the want of an administrator; which, as I have heard was remov'd by sending certain messengeis to Holland, whence they were supplied." (A Treatise Concerning the Covenant and Baptism Dialogue- wise. Epistle to the Read- er. London, 1676). i havelng often Sought ye Lord by fasting and pray er, yt he would show theni ye pattern of his house, ye goings out & ye comings in thereof,