UC NRLF 
 
 B ^ sie b33 
 
JwlBRARV 
 
 OK TIIK 
 
 University of California. 
 
 aiKT OH 
 
 Class 
 

The True Story of John Smyth, 
 
 THE SE-BAPTIST, 
 
 AS TOLD r>Y HIMSELF AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES- 
 
 WITH AN INQUIrV 
 
 Whether Dipping were a New Mode of Baptism 
 • in England, in or about 1641 ; 
 
 AND 
 
 SOME CONSIDERATION OF THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF 
 CERTAIN EXTRACTS FROM THE ALLEGED 
 
 OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH O? EPWORTH, CROVVLE, AND BUTTERWICK (eNG.), LATELY PUBLISHED, AND 
 CLAIMED TO SUGGEST IMPORTANT MODIFICATIONS OF THE HISTORY OF THE 17TH CENTURY. 
 
 PVii/i Collections t07uard a Bibliography of the first two generations of the Baptist Controversy. 
 
 By henry MARTYN DEXTER. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 LEE AND SHEPARD, 
 
 i88i. 
 
The True Story of John Smyth, 
 
 THE SE-BAPTIST, 
 
 AS TOLD BY HIMSELF AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES; 
 
 WITH AN INQUIRY 
 
 Whether Dipping were a New Mode of Baptism 
 in England, in or abont 1641 ; 
 
 AND 
 
 SOME CONSIDERATION OF THE HISTORICAL VALUE ©F 
 CERTAIN EXTRACTS FROM THE ALLEGED 
 
 **3tncicnt 0ccotti^*' 
 
 OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH O? EPWORTH, CROWLE, AND BUTTERWICK (eNG.), LATELY TUBI-ISHED, AND 
 CLAIMED TO SUGGEST IMPORTANT MODIFICATIONS OF THE HISTORY OF THE 17TH CENTURY. 
 
 IVith Collections toward a Bibliography of the first two geiterations of the Baptist Controversy. 
 
 By henry martyn uextp:r. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 LEE AND SHEPARD, 
 
 1881. 
 
:>c u^ 
 
 Copyright, iSSi, by II. M. Dexter. 
 
 Stereotyped by Thomas Todd, Congregational House, Boston. 
 
TO 
 
 BROWN UNIVERSITY and YALE COLLEGE: 
 '^13 ©ipioma 
 
 FROM EACH OK WHICH 
 
 THE AUTHOR HAS THE HONOR TO BE A "MASTER OF ARTS," 
 
 BY THE TRAINING OF EACH OF WHICH THROUGH ONE HALF OF THE COLLEGE COURSE 
 
 HE HOI-KS NOT TO HAVE BEEN WHOLLY UNFITrKD TO HE, IF NOT A MASTER, YET A 
 
 SCRUPULOUS PR.\CTICER, OF THE ART OF CLEARLY SEEING AND FAIRLY 
 
 STATING THE TRUTH OF MATTERS, AS TO WHICH 
 
 HAPTISTS AND CONGREGATIONALISTS, IN CONSCIENCE, FEELING AND ACTION, 
 
 HAVE DIFFERED; 
 
 (2t5Jjff 55iscus"8"ion is" JtffcctionatdtJ ©cdicatcD. 
 
 112731 
 
4'+. Jn fourtie Dapcs, then tnrote ttuo f)unDreti anti four 33oofee0. 
 
 45. anB tD|)cn tl;e fourtie Dapc0 toerc fulfillcti, tfje iilofl Ibiefj fpa&e, fapinc •• '^i>e 
 first tijat tf)ou fjafl toritten, publift openip, tl^at tlje toortljie aim tntoortfjie map reatie it. 
 
 .^(3. 33ut beep pe feucntie latl, tfjat tf)0u maicll ciue tf^em to the tnifc amonc t})j? 
 i;?eopIe. 
 
 47. Jfor in tbem ia tf)c (Heine of (Hnoerfltanuinos, anti tijc JFountaine of Mifnome, 
 ant) the Eiuer of fi^notoleDge. 
 
 48. anu 3[ HiD foe. 
 
 If thou canft bring 3lcummim trees to the Worke of the Temple, I pray thee do 
 it: my Jfirre fhall giue place — and how canft thou require more of inee ? 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ^^^^^T need hardly be said that the subjects herein discussed I do not now approach for 
 &^ ^^;f(c the first time. The very circumstance that some former judgments in regard to 
 i^^-. .'^^ them have been questioned by most respectable critics, together with the desire to 
 exhume from the literature of the past the means of fairly concluding, if possible, the dis- 
 cussion, led me to take advantage of a few days of leisure during the past winter in London 
 to restudy them. I herewith submit the results with some confidence on two points, viz. : 
 first, that I am able to introduce into the case not merely valuable but decisive new testi- 
 mony; and, second, that there is small probability of further important addition to the roll of 
 witnesses. I have — so far as I am aware, for the first time — attempted some Bibliographical 
 account of the Baptist controversy in England from 1640 to 1700 inclusive; and, while I am 
 far from supposing the result to be complete, I am disposed to think that it includes every 
 utterance of much consequence on every side. And, having personally made close examina- 
 tion of something like seventy-five per cejit. of the volumes therein catalogued; including nearly 
 or quite every treatise likely to be of special value toward settling points in controversy; I 
 cannot anticipate much new light as likely to dawn from sources still remaining occult. 
 
 I believe it to be a principle more and more establishing itself in the conviction of students 
 of history, that concerning any remote period contemporary evidence where it can be had, 
 fairly weighed, must always take precedence of the statements of set histories written long 
 afterward, and, from necessity, and perhaps the fashion of the times, made up more largely 
 from tradition and the reminiscences of the aged, than from the sifting of original records, or 
 the exhaustive examination of the controversial writings of the period under r^iew. To 
 take the case in hand: it was not until 1738 — from three to four generations after the occur- 
 rences first to be narrated — that Thomas Crosby began to publish that Hijloiy of the EnglifJt 
 Baptijls which has been naturally taken as chief authority on the matters which it treats; 
 while in various ways he makes it clear, not only that he never consulted, but that he never 
 even came to the knowledge of the existence of, a large majority of the more than four hun- 
 dred volumes, which, between 1640 and the close of that century, had been published upon the 
 mode and subjects of baptisr.i, with the personal and other issues thereto related. I lis discus- 
 sion of the question whether John Smyth baptized himself [i : 91-ioc] is avowedly founded 
 upon a few extracts from Smyth's treatises and those of his opponents as found at second-hand 
 in a book published after he had been in his grave sevcniy-cight years; strengthened by the 
 writer's conjecture that John Robinson and others were so imbittered against the poor man 
 that they could hardly be expected to tell the truth concerning him. It can surely admit of 
 
[vi] 
 
 small question that such "history" as that, can now have value only as its conclusions mav be 
 confirmed by books and manuscripts still remaining from the pen of the Se-baptist himself, 
 and those who discussed his notions with him. The same principle holds as to the question 
 whether Dipping were introduced in or about 1641, as a new mode of baptism, by English 
 churches which had previously been differenced from their Separatist brethren only by reject- 
 ing the baptism of infants, without controversy as to the manner in which the rite should be 
 administered. If such were the fact, we cannot fail to find traces of it in the tracts — of 
 which, as will be seen, I have traced more than one hundred in the first five years — which 
 swarmed from licensed and secret presses, on that general subject. In their pages, and not in 
 the vague and possibly not wholly unprejudiced surmises of Crosby ninety-six years after, and 
 of Ivimey one hundred and sixty-nine years after, and of others still later, the truth is most 
 likely to be found; as a single pertinent illustration of which may be named tfie fact that 
 Ivimey [i : 157] and Brook [iii : 399] represent Praise-God Barbon as a Baptist minister, while 
 his own books [Nos. 6 and 18, Appendix'] show him as writing against the Baptists. 
 
 Speaking of prejudice, I am reminded that my own labor herein has been much increased 
 by the fact that on former occasions I have been so unfortunate as to receive censure from 
 Baptist critics; some of whom have not hesitated to intimate that my sectarian bias is so 
 strong as to render me incapable of ordinary fairness in the treatment of such subjects. This 
 " excellent oil " has not broken my head. I am humbly sorry if there have been any desert 
 on my part of such censure in the past; while I am sure that the remembrance of these 
 adverse criticisms has in my renewed investigations stimulated me to an indefatigable anxiety 
 as to three points, viz. : to get at all the truth ; to estimate that truth with absolute impartial- 
 ity; and to record the results of that estimate in the exactest manner. As to every matter 
 touched by this investigation I can heartily adopt the language of Dr. Evans [Early English 
 Baptists, etc. i : 204] : " to us it is of no moment whether it be true or false, beyond the interest 
 which we have in it as an historical fact." Whether John Smyth baptized himself; whether 
 Dipping were, or were not, in the last ten years of the first half of the seventeenth century, a 
 mode of Baptism new to England ; and whether the Crowlc papers are veritable ancient rec- 
 ords or a witless modern fraud; are questions which at no point touch anything vital to — I 
 might even say, anything reasonably cherished with especial tenderness by — either Baptist or 
 Pacdobaptist believers. There would seem therefore to be no good reason why they should 
 not be studied in as dry a light, and issued with as frigid a candor, as if they had their being 
 in the domain of metaphysics, and not of history. In such temper I have — not without dili- 
 gence and prayer — sought, in the fear of God and the love of truth, to write; having, in 
 every case, directed all who may be disposed to doubt or criticise my conclusions to the exact 
 sources from which they have been derived. Can it be presumptuous, or offensive, if I respect- 
 fully ask my Baptist brethren to meet mc with a like spirit, in the examination of what I have 
 written? II. M. D. 
 
 Gnystoiics, New Bedford, Mass., i November, iSSi. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 TAGS 
 
 CHAPTER I. The True Story of John Smyth, the Sf/Raptist; as toi.d py 
 
 HIMSELF AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES I-3S 
 
 His birth and training i 
 
 Beneficed at Gainsborough-on-Trent i 
 
 Resigns his living and gathers a separate church at Gainsborough . . 2 
 
 Emigrates to Amsterdam 2 
 
 What sort of a man he was 3 
 
 '^ His first church difficulty, and its cause 5 
 
 ^His own statement of the case 7 
 
 ''When did his change of conviction as to baptism take place ? . . . 8 
 Testimony of Clyfton, Ainsworth, Bradford, Bernard, etc. and of 
 
 Smyth himself 9-10 
 
 -'What modes of baptism were then prevalent, and which mode did 
 
 Smyth and his company probably make use of ? 10-26 
 
 Baptism by affusion clearly existed by 100 years after the Apostles . 1 1 
 
 Testimony of Cyprian ' . , . n 
 
 Clement V. and the 2d Council of Ravenna 12 
 
 Lyndcwood, and the two prayer-books of Edward VI 12 
 
 Calvin's view, and that of Thomas Becon 13 
 
 While the rubric enjoined immersion in England, it was the practice 
 
 there in the time of our fathers to affuse, or aspcrge 14 
 
 View of Zuingli, and of the Helvetic, Belgic and Bohemian Confes- 
 sions 15 
 
 The French Reformed and Lutheran Churches 16 
 
 Description by Sir William Brereton of a Dutch baptism 17 
 
 The original Anabaptists did not immerse 17 
 
 Hoornbeek, Hortcnsius, Guy de Bres, and ^^« iW«/ Z/if</fXr« ... iS 
 
 Robert Baylie's statement 19 
 
 Illustration of ancient Anabaptist baptism from an old print .... 20 
 
 The Collegianten (in 1619) the first to immerse in Holland 21 
 
 The Mennonites, though Baptists, did not dip 21 
 
 Fonts of i6th and 17th centuries not adapted to adult immersion . . 23 
 
 Washing the word ordinarily applied to the rile 24 
 
 Did Mr. Smyth first affuse himself, and then administer the ordin.ance 
 
 to his associates ? 26 
 
 x/ His view was that the true [/.<'. believer's] baptism had died out of 
 
 the world 27 
 
 v/^lle thought a church covenanting together could re-originate it . . . 27 
 
 (vii) 
 
[viii] 
 
 CHAPTER I. {Continued.) pacb 
 
 Why he did not seek affusion from the Mennonites 28 
 
 v^e, and his, first disbanded their former church, and gave up their 
 
 offices 
 
 29 
 
 Probable modus operandi of the se-baptism 30 
 
 Evidences of eight witnesses cognizant of the facts, that Smvth first 
 
 baptized himself and then his company 3i~33 
 
 Further testimony 33~35 
 
 The brief remainder of his story 35~3S 
 
 v^myth excluded from his own Baptist church, and the reasons ... 36 
 
 ""■Refused admission by the Mennonites 37 
 
 Death of Smyth (in 161 2) of consumption, and burial 38 
 
 CHAPTER II. An Inquiry whether dipping were a new mode of baptism in 
 
 England IN, OR ABOUT, 1641 39-62 
 
 Baptist impressions to the contrary 39 
 
 The King's Pamphlets as a source of evidence 40 
 
 Earliest date of public Confession of immersion 41 
 
 At least eleven General Baptist Churches which did not dip .... 42 
 
 The case of Rlr. Spilsbury's church in Wapping in 1633 43 
 
 Mr. Spilsbury did not go to Holland for Baptism 44 
 
 First reference to any novel administration of the rite 46 
 
 Twenty witnesses that dipping was a " new wav," etc 4^-53 
 
 Proof that it was introduced about 1641 49 
 
 Was dipping in England originated from Holland .-' 53-56 
 
 . Were the candidates at first in England dipped naked ? 56-59 
 
 Circumstantial account of a dipping at Hemel Hempstead (1646) . . 60 
 
 Specimen of the debate in 1644 6i 
 
 CHAPTER III. Some Consideration of the historical value of the alleged 
 
 "Ancient Records" OF THE Baptist Church OF Crowle, ETC. . . . 63-86 
 
 Statement as to those papers, and how they became public .... 63 
 
 A transcript thereof 64-67 
 
 Rev. Mr. Stutterd's certificate of the genuineness of that transcript . 6S 
 
 Criticism of the Covenant 69 
 
 Miscellaneous blunders in little things 70-72 
 
 Blunders as to Samuel Fuller 72 
 
 Blunders as to Edward Winslow 73 
 
 Blunders as to John Carver 74 
 
 Blunders as to John Norcott 74 
 
 Blunders as to John Murton 75 
 
 Blunders as to William Bradford 76 
 
 Blunders as to William Brewster 77 
 
 Blunders as to John Smyth 78 
 
 Correspondence as to these " records " S2-S3 
 
 These "records" a base forgery, at some date since 1856 84 
 
 The immense and unrelieved stupidity thereof 86 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX 8; 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE TRUE STORY OF JOHN SMYTH, THE SE-BAPTIST ; AS TOLD BY HIMSELF AND 
 
 HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 
 
 ^HE John Smyth with whom we are now concerned must have been 
 born early in the second half of the sixteenth century, and probably 
 of parents who were not in affluent circumstances, inasmuch as 
 he first emerges to view when matriculating at Christ's College, Cam- 
 bridge, as a sizar* 26 Nov. 157 1. He proceeded B.A. in 1575-6, and was 
 chosen Fellow, and commenced M.A. in 1579." Francis Johnson was here, at 
 one time, his tutor.^ He appears to have been the Master of Arts of this 
 name who, as we learn from Strype,* on the first day of Lent, 1585, preached 
 at Cambridge a doctrine of Sabbath-keeping so much in advance of the public 
 sentiment of the time, as to lead to his citation before the Vice Chancellor in 
 the great chamber. He was clearly, however, not, as has been alleged,^ the 
 Rev. Mr. Smith who, in 1592, was confined eleven months in the Marshalsea; 
 because the name of that sufferer was William.^ He is next heard from, 
 vaguely, on the authority of John Cotton, as preacher to the city of Lincoln.' 
 He appears to have been afterward beneficed at Gainsborough-on-Trent.* We 
 have his own statement that before separating from the Establishment he 
 passed through nine months of doubt, and study ;' and once held, in Coventry, 
 with Masters Dod, Hildersham and Barbon, a conference " about withdrawing 
 
 ' A sizar al Cambridge — like a batteler at Oxford — 
 was a student who waited on the Fellows, etc. and ate 
 after them at the public table without charge; who 
 was therefore often, and perhaps usually, the child of 
 parents too poor to bear his college expenses. 
 
 -These dates have been verified from the original 
 MS. Records of the University, now to be consulted 
 in the Registry Office in the Pitt Press Building, Cam- 
 bridge, Eng. 
 
 ^ Gov. Bradford, Dialogue, etc. in Young, Plym. 
 Chron. 450; Bernard, Piaine Euidences, t\.c. 19; Cot- 
 ton, IVay 0/ Coup. Chhs. Cleared, etc. 7. 
 
 * Annals of ttie Reformation, etc. iii (1): 496. 
 
 " Hunter says this, Founders of Xeiv Plytnonth, etc. 
 35; and Barclay \tntur Life oftlu Religious Societies 
 of the Commonwealth, elc. 52] ; while Waddington 
 
 [Congregatiottal History, etc. ii : 157] falls into the 
 same confusion between individuals. 
 
 ' F. Johnson, Letter to Lord Burghley, Lansdowne 
 A/SS. Ixxv: 50; F. Johnson, Answer to M. //. Jacob 
 His Defence, etc. 200. 
 
 ' "As for Master Smith he standeth and falleth to 
 his own Master; whilst he was preacher to the citic of 
 Lincolne, he wrought with God there." Reply to Mr. 
 lyUliams, his Examination, etc. 58. 
 
 ^UrooV. [Lives of tlte Puritans, eic. ii: 196]. This 
 takes confirmation from the fact that Bernard [Plaine 
 Euidences, elc. 21] says Smyth "was made minister 
 by Bishop Wickam ; " and'VVm. Wickham was Bishop 
 of Lincoln, the diocese in which Gainsborough is, 
 from 1584 to 1595. 
 
 • Parallelcs, Censvres, Observations, etc. 128. 
 
 (0 
 
[2] 
 
 from true Churches, Ministers and Worship, corrapted." '° Possibly as early 
 as 1602, or thereabouts," he gathered a separate church at Gainsborough, of 
 which he subsequently became pastor.'- And, probably in 1606, with his little 
 flock he emigrated to Amsterdam, in Holland, in search of some liberty of 
 conscience and worship denied them at home." A Barrowist church, com- 
 posed of English Separatists most of whom had removed thither from London, 
 had been there before them, certainly since 1595 ;'* of which Francis Johnson 
 was pastor and Henry Ainsworth teacher ; and which, having outlived sore 
 trials in its earlier years, had now grown to a considerable size, and, in its 
 humble way, reached a fair degree of outward prosperity. Here Smyth and 
 his people established themselves, by the side of the older residents, as the 
 " Second English Church at Amsterdam." " 
 
 1" IVay of Conf^. Chks. Cleared, etc. 7 ; Para'ielcs, 
 etc. 129. 
 
 ■ " The sole authority for this date is Morton [N. E. 
 Meinoriall, etc. i], as confirmed by him in the margin 
 of I'radford's Sketch of Brewster, copied from the 
 Governor's MSS. upon the Plymouth Church Records. 
 fVoung, Plym. Ckron. etc. 465.] Prince \_Annals, 
 etc. Pt. i : 4] accepts the date on the theory that 
 although unmentioned by Bradford, Morton had recov- 
 ered it " from some other Writings ... or from Oral 
 Conference." Though rather early, this is not an im- 
 possible year, and Hunter \_Fowiders, etc. Sg] seems to 
 favor it. 
 
 ■- Here again Bernard (his neighbor) testifies [Plaine 
 Euidences, etc. 21]: "By and by in Brownisme be 
 renounced [his Church of England ministry] & was 
 made Minister by Tradesmen, and called himselfe The 
 Fttstour oftlte Church at Gainsborough" 
 
 " Evans [i : 202], Ivimey [Hist. Eng. Dap. etc. i : 
 114] and Taylor [Hist. Eng. Gen. Bap. etc. i: 67] 
 concur in naming 1606 as the year of this exodus. On 
 the other hand Smyth writes himself " Pastor off the 
 church at Ganesburgh" in a letter which [Paradelcs, 
 etc. 2] it would seem must have been written at some 
 time in 1607, and might thence naturally imply that he 
 and the church were there then. The first fixed point 
 which seems to be determinable at Amsterdam from 
 which to measure back is found in this remark by 
 Smyth [Cftaractcr of ilie Beast, etc. 71]: "I end 
 writing this 24 of March, 1608." But his Paralleles, 
 etc., and his Diferences (both published before he led 
 his church into a new baptism) had been issued before 
 this, with time cnoupli afterward to allow the full 
 development of that new theory and practice of adult 
 baptism which it is the object of the Cftaractcr of the 
 Beast, etc. to explain and defend. 1 scarcely see how 
 all this could have taken place, with the necessary inter- 
 
 vals of time, unless the company had reached Amster- 
 dam before 1607. Prof. Scheffer, who has studied the 
 whole subject on the ground with masterly skill, puts 
 the arrival in the autumn of 1606. [De Browtiisten 
 Te Amsterdam, etc (iSSi) p. S5.] " Na aldus voor de 
 achterblijvenden te hebben gezorgd, besloot Smyth tot 
 den overtocht en kwam te Amsterdam in 't late najaar, 
 denkelijk October of November 1606." 
 
 ■* See Congregationalism of last Three Hundred 
 Years, as Seen in its Literature, etc. 255-311. 
 
 '5 I was in error in a former volume [Congregation- 
 alism, as Seen, etc. 312] in the statement adopted too 
 hastily from Brook [ii: ig6] and ^(ircA/y [63, 6S] that 
 Smyth and his people first joined themselves to the 
 church of Johnson and Ainsworth. Subsequent inves- 
 tigation and reflection have convinced me that Smyth 
 himself, and Gov. Bradford, arc more trustworthy 
 witnesses. The language of the latter seems almost 
 necessarily to imply the coexistence from the beginning 
 of the two churches, thus : 
 
 " He [Smyth] was some time pastor to a company of 
 honest and godly men which came wiih him out of 
 England, and pitched at Amsterdam." Ditilogue, etc. 
 in Voting, etc. 450. 
 
 " Seeing how Rlr. John Smith and his companie was 
 allready fallen in to contention with ye church yt was 
 ther before them . . . and also tiiat ye flames of con- 
 tention were like to breake out in y' ancicnte church it 
 selfe, etc." Hist. Plini. Plant. 16. 
 
 Smyth himself, in the title-page of his Diferences of 
 the Churcltes of tlie Seperation, etc. published during 
 the year of Bradford's residence in Amsterdam, calls 
 the body to whom he ministered, " the Brethren of the 
 Seperation of the Second English Church at Amster- 
 dam;" while I think Ainsworth's language [/I «:'»«rt</- 
 I'ersion, etc. 137J may be naturally explained without 
 the theor>' that when .Smyth " proffered writings," and 
 Johnson "withstood and refuted that course," they 
 were members of the same church. 
 
[3] 
 
 It may be well to pause here to get, if we may, some suo^gestive glimpse of 
 the kind of person whose life we are investigating. Clearly he was an impul- 
 sive man, with something magnetic in his popular sympathies and gifts strongly 
 attaching his friends to himself ;'* able to turn his hand to more than one 
 thing/'* unselfish" and charitable;'' punctilious and courageous; never 
 asha'med to own any wrong in himself which he discovered ; '° a good preacher, 
 and a scholar of considerable acquirements =' — having, in short, many of the 
 elements of a great and good man. On the other hand his mind was restless, 
 and perhaps his conscience morbidly sensitive to small matters, so that his 
 extreme defect came to be a want of stability— not of purpose, but in the 
 relation of his perceptions and volitions to the data on which, as a foundation, 
 purposes stand. Gov. Bradford, no doubt as truly as tersely described him as 
 to this, when he said: "his inconstancy, and unstable judgment, and being so 
 suddenly carried away with things, did soon overthrow him."'' Robinson 
 went so far as severely to blame him for yielding to this temperament : " for 
 Mr. Smyth, his instability & wantonnes of wit is his syn, & our crosse." " 
 
 It would appear to have been one of Mr. Smyth's latest labors in the north 
 of England, or' one of his earliest works in Amsterdam,'* to put to press a 
 small tract of two and thirty pages entitled Principles and Inferences concerjiing 
 the visible Church ; which in style is dense and clear, which bristles with proof- 
 texts after the fashion of the time, and which in sentiment shows him at the 
 period of its authorship to have been essentially in thorough accord with the 
 
 JO Even the company which felt itself compelled to 
 the extreme course of excommunicating him for theo- 
 logical error, said of him, afterward: 
 
 " Lrt no man think that we could not willingly have 
 undergone that reproach, and far preater, to have still 
 enioyed him: yea, what would we not have endured or 
 done ; would we not have lost all we had, yea, would 
 we not have plucked out our eyes; would we not have 
 laid down our lives? Doth :iot God know this? Do 
 not men know it? Dolh not he know it? Have we 
 not nejilectcd ourselves, our wives, our children and all 
 we had, and respected him? And we confess we had 
 good cause so to do in respect of those most excellent 
 gifts and graces of God that then did abound in hun; 
 and all our love was too little for liim, and not worthy 
 of him." Declaration p/ Faith of English People, 
 etc. (Hclwys's Company) (i6ii) 14. 
 
 " " After a certaine time (living at Amsterdam) he 
 began to practise Physicke (knowing that a man was 
 bound to vse tlie gifts that the lord h.id beslgwcd 
 vppon him for the Good of others), in administring 
 whereof, he vsuallv tooke nothing of the poorer sort: 
 and if ihev were rich, he tooke but haife so much as 
 other Doctors did, etc." Declaration 0/ Faith of 
 English People, etc. (Smyth's Company) (1612)42. 
 
 "•'I neuer received of them [his church] all put 
 toceihcr the value of fnrtie shillings to my knowledge, 
 since I came out of England." Ibid. 40. 
 
 10 "Moreover he was so mindefuU, and so careful! 
 for the poore: that he would rather live sparingly in 
 his house (or as we say) neglect himself, his wife, and 
 children then that anie should be in exiremitie. Vppou 
 a lime seeing one slenderly apparelled, he sent them 
 his gowne to make them clothes, etc." Jbid. 43. 
 
 «>"In this writing something ther is which over- 
 whartelh my former judgment in some treaties by me 
 formerly published : Yet I would intreat the reader not 
 to impute that as a fault unto niee; rather it should be 
 accounted a vertue to retract errors. Know therfor 
 that latter thouglits oft tvmes are better then the for- 
 mer, & I do professe this (that no man account it 
 straunge) that 1 will every day as my errors shall be 
 discovered confesse them & renounce them. \DiJer- 
 enccs 0/ the Churches 0/ the Separation, etc. ly.] 
 "I have often tvmes beene accused of inconstancie: 
 well, let them think of inee as they please, 1 professe 
 I have changed, and shallbc readie still to change lor 
 the better." Last Booke cf John Smith, etc. 31. 
 
 s' '• A good preacher, and of other good parts." 
 Bradford, Dialogue, etc. 45°- 
 
 ^ Ibid. 450. 
 
 ° Ivstifuation 0/ Separation, etc. 58. 
 
 w It is dated 1607, and in type and ornament it a;> 
 pears to resemble some other issues of the Amsterdam 
 press of that period. 
 
w 
 
 Amsterdam Separatists ; with possibly a slight leaning toward the Brownist, 
 in distinction from the Barrowist, theory of the distribution of Church power."' 
 This was almost immediately followed by a larger work — designed to reply to 
 some passages of Bernard in his Separatists Sc/iisme, and still further to vindi- 
 cate the Congregational way. When Mr, Smyth wrote this "* he was no 
 Baptist ; for again and again in its pages he refers to them in terms of repro- 
 bation." Nor had he yet obtained those new views on other points which were 
 soon to cause the severance of fellowship with the "ancient" church, and 
 which it was to be the object of his next treatise to set forth and establish. 
 Down to this date he heartily accepted the ordinary doctrines of the Separat- 
 ists ; maintaining them "to be the vndoubted truth of God;" not indeed 
 repudiating for them the name " Brownisme," ^^ and going even further than 
 in his previous work in advocacy of the practical democracy of Brownism over 
 the semi-Presbyterianism of the Barrowism which then prevailed."' 
 It must have been, I think, early in 1608, that this persistent rover 
 
 "to fresh woods, and pastures new" 
 
 began vigorously to persuade his church that hitherto they had all been wrong 
 on one vital point, as to which reform needed to be immediate. It has been 
 usual to represent that the movement w-hich now took place was a secession 
 from the " ancient " church, and was caused by the adoption of new views as 
 
 *" " Election is by most voyces of the members 
 of the Church in ful communion. . . . Ordination 
 and so imposition of hands apperteyneth to the whole 
 church, as doth election and approbation, yet for order 
 sake the fittest members lay on hands and perform al 
 other the particulars of ordination for & in the name 
 of the whole church." Principles and Inferences, 
 etc. 15, 17. 
 
 ^'^ Par alleles, Censvres, Observations, etc. n. pi. 4°. 
 pp. iii, 136, xii. The title-page says " Printed 1609." 
 Its type does not resemble that of other Amsterdam 
 issues of that date which I have seen, while "The 
 Printer to the Reader" on the last page may naturally 
 imply that it was not issued under its author's eye. 
 1 conjecture therefore — not without some corrobora- 
 tion from its pages — that it had been written a year or 
 two previous, circulated in MS. and then came into 
 type without Mr. Smyth's immediate volition, and 
 probably at a time when it no longer fairly reflected 
 his views. 
 
 *' E. g. " Do you think that God accepteth the pray- 
 ers & Religious exercises of the Papists, the Arrians, 
 the A7iabaptists, the Familists, or atiy other hcretiques 
 or A niichristians ?" [p. 13.] " Neither can a wicked 
 company be called Holy or Saints truly in respect of 
 
 the visible signes of Gods favour or presence. For 
 then the Papists, Anabaptists, Famiiists, Arrians, & 
 other Heretiques should truly be caled Saints, seing 
 they have the word & Sacraments among them," 
 etc. etc. [p. 35.] 
 
 "^ Paralleles, etc. [135 ] So [109] " Von say wee are 
 not to bee heard, bicause (as Prownists) wee speake 
 our owne fantasies, & visions of our owne harts, and are 
 obstinate. Wei Mr. Bern, [ard] I say no more for this 
 point, but this, that every Godly mynded man give sen- 
 tence whither you or wee have the truth." 
 
 -""You are to remcber that Christs church in sev- 
 eral respects is a Monarchic, an Aristocraty, a Democ- 
 ratie. In respect of Christ the King it is a Monarchy, 
 of the Eldership an .Aristocratic, of the brethren 
 joyntly a Democratic or Popular government. . . wee 
 say therefore that the body of the Church hath all 
 powre immediately from Christ : and the Elders have 
 al their powre from the body of the Church, which 
 powre of the Eldership is not exercized, nor can not be 
 vsed over or against the whole body of the Church, for 
 that is an Antichristian vsurpation. . . Wee say that 
 the definitive sentence, the determining powre, the 
 negative voice is in the body of the Church, not in the 
 Elders," etc. 54, 55. 
 
[5] 
 
 to baptism by Mr. Smyth and his sympathizers. In a former volume ^ I was 
 misled as to the first point, while, as to the second, taking pains to show not 
 only that the moving cause had no reference to the question of baptism, but 
 that Smyth himself was not as yet a Baptist. Further evidence has made it 
 clear that there was at this time no separation from the first church on the 
 part of Smyth and his friends, and no forming of a second church by them ; 
 for the best of all reasons that the Gainsborough company had never become 
 merged in the " ancient " church, but had been a second church by themselves 
 — in close communion with the first — from their arrival in Amsterdam. 
 What really took place now therefore was that Smyth led his second church 
 to decline all further communion with the "ancient" church under Johnson 
 and Ainsworth, until it slioukl renounce and forsake that " mysterie of iniqui- 
 tie " which yet remained in its "worship and offices," wherein "Antichrist is 
 not utterlie eyther revealed or abolished, but in a verie high degree exalted."'* 
 As it is a matter of some consequence to determine exactly what the issue 
 between them at this date was, and as the evidence which I adduced when 
 treating the subject two years ago has been held insufficient,'" I now ask my 
 readers' attention to two or three further witnesses on the point. And in the 
 first place I will cite Mr. Ainsworth, who, writing less than a twelvemonth 
 after, on the spot, thus spake concerning it : '' 
 
 Ther was one onely difference betweene M. Smyth and us, when firft he began to quarrel; 
 though fynce he haue increall them, and increafeth dayly, with deadly feud and open oppo- 
 fition, as al men may fee. 
 
 That difference was this. He with his followers breaking off comunion with us, charged 
 us with fynn for ufmg our Englifli Bibles in the worfliip of God ; & he thought that the 
 teachers should bring the originals, the Hebrew and Greek, and out of them tranflate by 
 voice. His principal reafon againft our tranflated fcripture was this. No Apocrypha 
 writing but only the Canonical fcriptures, are to be ufed in the church in time of Gods wor- 
 fliip. Every written tranflation is an Apocrypha writing, & is not canonicall fcripture. 
 Therefore every written tranflation is unlawful in the church in time of Gods worfliip. Why 
 he counteth every tranflation Apocrypha, and what he meant thcrby, appeareth by thefe 
 words of his : a written tranflation (fayth he), or interpretation, is as wel & as much an 
 humane writing, as an homilie or prayer, written & read. . . That this point of the tranf- 
 lation was [at first] the onely difference, as it is known to al that then heard his publik protef- 
 
 '" Cottgr-egai ionalism of last Three Hundred Years, 
 etc 312. 
 
 " Dtferences of ChJ^s. of Separation, etc. i. 
 
 ^ I refer particularly to an editorial judgment in the 
 Chicago Standard of i July, 1S80, which stigmatizes 
 "the points named" as "trivial." The Exaynir.er 
 and Chronicle of 19 -Aug. iSSo, also said of my con- 
 
 clusion that it "seems to be based on partial and 
 incomplete evidence." 
 
 •■" A Defence of the Holy Scriptures, JVorJJiip and 
 Mini/lcrie ufed in the Chrijlian churches ftparatcd 
 front Atitichrifl: agaiiifl the clialtcnges, cavils, and 
 contradiction of Mr. Smyth. Amsterdam, 1609. [4'^. 
 pp. iv, 132.] [B. M. (4103. d.)) pp. 1-3- 
 
[6] 
 
 J 
 
 tatio; fo his words in writing fliew it. . . . So if wee would have layd afidc our tranflated 
 Bibles, communion (they fay) fliould have been kept with us. . . . 
 
 After much time fpent about this controverfie, he manifefted other differences, touching 
 the miniflerie and treafuric, etc. 
 
 Mr. Bernard also, then at \Vork.sop — scarcely more than twenty miles, as 
 the crow flies, from Smyth's old Gainsborough parish — and who had known 
 him well, after sketching previous steps in his career, thus refers to this period, 
 in a volume written within two years : ^ 
 
 Sixthly, , . hee holdcth for truths what Mr. Ainfworth in his Anfwer to me rejectcth 
 for errors : Hee iudgeth their worfliip in part ludaifme, their Minifterie and Gouernment 
 Anti-Chriflian; of which hee hath alio jjublidicd a Looke, etc. 
 
 About the same time Richard Clyfton, who had been the Teacher of the 
 church of which John Robinson was pastor and William Brewster elder, pub- 
 lished a little quarto at Amsterdam, where he was a co-resident with Smyth 
 during the events now passing under review, in which he states the cause of 
 the change which took place in the second church to be : ^' 
 
 Firft, calling into queflion, whether the fcriptures being tranflated into other tongues, were 
 not the writings of men. Then cafling the reading of them out of the worfliip of God, affirm- 
 ing that there is no better warrant to bring tranflations of Scripture into the Church, and to 
 read them as parts and helps of worfliip, then to bring in expofitions, paraphrafls and fer- 
 mons vpon the Scripture, feing all thefe arc equally humane in refpect of the worke, equally 
 divine in refpect of the matter they handle. And for the fame caufe feparated thcmfelves 
 from other Churches \i.e. the "ancient" church of Johnson and Ainsworth, and the Scrooby- 
 Leyden church under Robinson] that did read and vfe the fame in their publike meetings. 
 
 We may now in the light of these corroborative testimonies^* profitably 
 examine the statement of reasons which Smyth himself gave, at the time, in 
 the volume which he then published in justification of the action taken by 
 
 ** Plaine Eiiidences : The Church of England is 
 Apojlolicall; the Scfiaration fchismaticalt, directed 
 agaiiijl Mr. Ainfworth the Separatist, and Mr. 
 Smyth tlie fe-bafiiist, etc. i6io. [4°. pp. xvi, 340.] 
 [B. M (4135 a)] p. 19. 
 
 *•" The Plea for Infants and Elder People^ concern- 
 ing tlieir Baptifmc. Or a Proceffc of the Paffages 
 between Mr. John Smyth and Richard Clyfton, etc. 
 Amsterdam, 1610. [4°. pp. xx, 22S.] [B. M. (4323. b.)l 
 p. V. 
 
 ''"Add to them the following from Robert Baylie's 
 Diffvafive From the Errours of the Time, etc. 
 [p. i6J : 
 
 There he [Smyth! perfevered not long in concord 
 with his Elder Brethren of the Separation, but quickly 
 
 accufed them all of Idolatry in their wnrfhip, for 
 looking upon their Bibles in the time of Prenching, 
 and on their Pfalters in the time of fmging; and of 
 Antichriftinnifm in their Government, becaiife in their 
 Prcfbytery they joyned to P.illnrs other two Officers, 
 Doctours and ruling Elders, which to him were humane 
 inventions. 
 
 And this from a careful writer on the ground, within 
 a generation fjohn Hoornbeek, Sumina Controverfi- 
 arnin Religionis, etc. (1653) 740]: 
 
 Sed cum aiiliquioribus ejufdem fectae fiHe, Smyth^l 
 non diu concor.s, quos idololalriae accufabat, quod 
 turn in concione ad volumen liiblioriim, turn inler can- 
 tandum, Psalterium relpicerent, eli.Tm Anlichriftian- 
 ifmi in regimine Ecclefiae.quod Palloribns adjungerent 
 alios Doctores, & Kcciores, quae humani cummcnti 
 dicebat . , , deficit, etc. 
 
[7] 
 
 himself and his people. And as, on a former occasion, it has been intimated 
 that it is "very much a question" whether Smyth and his company would 
 recognize my statement of their grounds of action "as correct and adequate,"" 
 I beg the reader particularly to observe, first, that I give that statement in 
 Smyth's 020/1 language, evqn to the minutest jot and tittle of his spelling; and, 
 second, that it is the ///// summary which he himself drew up of the entire 
 case which his book was designed to argue. It is as follows : ^* 
 
 Our differences from the auncyent brethren of the Seperation : 
 
 1. Wee hould that the worfliip of the new tcftament properly fo called is fpiritualj, pro- 
 ceeding originally from the hart : & that reading out of a booke (though a lawfull ecclcfiallical 
 action) is no part of fpirituall worfliip, but rather the invention of the man of fynne, it being 
 fubftituted for a part of fpirituall worfliip. 
 
 2. Wee hould that feeing prophefiing is a parte of fpiritual worfliip : therefore in time of 
 prophefijng it is vnlawfull to have the booke as a helpe before the eye. 
 
 3. wee hould that feeing finging a pfalme is a part of fpirituall worfliip, therefore it is 
 vnlawfull to have the booke before the eye in time of finginge a psalme. 
 
 4. wee hould that the Prefbytery of the church is vniforme : & that the triformed Pref- 
 byterie confifting of three kinds of Elders, viz. Paflors, Teachers, Rulers, is none of Gods 
 Ordinance but mans devise. 39 
 
 5. wee hold that all the Elders of the Church are Paflors : and that lay Elders (fo called) 
 are Antichriflian. 
 
 6. wee hold that in contributing to the Church Treafurie, their ought to bee both a fep- 
 aration from them that are without, & a fanctification of the whole action by Prayer & 
 Thankefgiuing. 
 
 There is absolutely no solitary coeval witness to modify the drift of this 
 testimony; apparently the first writer who alleges that anything other than 
 this came in as an element, having written one hundred and thirty years after, 
 and at the time freely confessed the inadequacy of his acquaintance with the 
 
 " I refer to the editorial of the Chicago Standard ai 
 I July, 18S0. Tlie New York Examiner and Chroni- 
 cle of 19 Aug. 1S80, fell into the same vein, saying; 
 " Other questions are known to have been involved in 
 producing the separation; but they do not exclude the 
 cliange to Baptist views, which lias been declared with 
 preat unanimity to be the primary cause." To which I 
 now reply: (i) that the fact that the complete state- 
 ment about to be given from Smyth's own pen makes 
 no reference to any " Baptist views" does necessarily 
 "exclude" them; and (2) that neither Smyth, nor his 
 people, had any " Baptist views," at the date when the 
 event now under consideration took place. 
 
 "* The Di/crences 0/ tlie Churches of the fepera- 
 tion. Contnyniiig A de/cription of tlie Leitovrgie 
 and Minister ie of the vifible Church Annexed: . . . 
 Pudli/lied, for tlu Satif/actioti of every true lover of 
 
 tJie truth, efpecially the Brethren of the Seperation 
 that are doubtfuU. 2. As alfo for the removing of 
 an Vnjujl Calumnie cajl vppon the Brethren of the 
 Seperation of the fccond Engliflt Church at Amfter- 
 dam. 3. Finally for the clearing of the truth, Gf 
 the difcovering of the myjlcrie of iniguitie yet fur- 
 ther in the ■worjiiifi A' ojffices of the Church. Di- 
 vided into two parts: (1) Concerning the Leitourgie 
 of the Church; (2) Concerning ilie Minijlerie of the 
 Church. One of the Eldership. Another of t lit 
 Deacons office whereto aperteineth the Treafury, etc. 
 by John Sniylh. [n. pl.l [n. d.] [1609.] [4°. pp. iv, 36.] 
 [Bodleian. (Pamph. 6.)] p. v. 
 
 2" Here, and in the following head (5), the divergence 
 of Mr. Smyth from Barrowism in the direction of 
 Brownism, is inore marked than in previous cases to 
 which reference has been made. 
 
[8] 
 
 facts/" In the face of all this, to contuiue to affirm that the subject of baptism 
 had anything to do with that cessation of communion between the first and 
 second churches which took place in 1608, is not only to substitute the single 
 unsupported conjecture of the fourth generation after for the uniform testimony 
 of the time, but is to be wiser than that which was vvritten by the man himself 
 and his contemporaries. To sum all up into a single sentence, as Henry 
 Ainsworth did, in 1613, this conflict, with its consequent cessation of fraternity, 
 was caused by " M. Smyth in deed leaving the truth, and broaching his herefie 
 againft the tranflated Icripture.""" 
 
 Not many months elapsed, however, before the active mind of this intrepid 
 man did evolve that new view in regard to the ordinance above referred to, 
 which, with its consequences, has made his name especially memorable ; and 
 the exact truth in regard to which I am now especially concerned to establish. 
 We may perhaps most wisely reach the material of a sound conclusion as to 
 the case in all its aspects, by answering the following three questions, viz. : 
 When did this change of conviction take place ? What were the modes of 
 baptism then prevalent, and which of them did Smyth and his company prob- 
 ably make use oi? and Did Mr. Smyth first rebaptize himself, and then admin- 
 ister the ordinance to his associates ? 
 
 I, JV/ien did this change of conviction take place! We have already traced 
 the history to the adoption by Mr. Smyth and apparently by the great body of 
 his people, of those views which led to a cessation of fellowship with the 
 "ancient" church; with the publication of the treatise intended to explain and 
 justify that course — all of which seems to have taken place in the late spring 
 or early summer of 1608;*^ and we have discovered down to this time no 
 symptom of special interest in the subject of baptism, or of dissatisfaction on 
 his part with his life-long position respecting it. But inertia once overcome, 
 
 *''> Crosby Un^Yw 92. 
 
 *'^ An Aniinadverfion to Mr. Richard Cly/totts 
 Advertifejnent, etc. Amsterdam, 1613. [4°. pp. viii, 
 13S.J [13. M. (4103. d.)]p. 108. 
 
 <-The difiBcully of exactly determining the period in 
 question is increased by the looseness with which books 
 were sometimes dated in those days. Of course the 
 I'aralleUs, etc. must have been sent to press while 
 Mr. Smyth was still a Brownist, and before the arising 
 of any difficulty between the "ancient" and second 
 churches, yet its title-page bears clearly the imprint of 
 " 1609." On the other hand the preface of T/ie Char- 
 acter 0/ the Beast, etc. written a/ter the full develop- 
 ment of the Baptist change, concludes: " I end writing 
 this 24 of March, 1608"; while the Diferences, etc., 
 which bears no date, must have beeu published be- 
 
 tween them. After considerable thought I harmonize 
 all by the theory that the ParalUlcs was sent to 
 press early in 1608, but was — as 1 have noticed to be 
 the fact in some other cases — wrongly dated; and that 
 the 24th March 1608 is old style, which would make it 
 the last day of that year, but by modern computation 
 24 Mar. |/. e. the ^sdday of J I'xji). Thus (especially as 
 months very likely elapsed after ihe dating of the preface 
 of Tlie Character, etc. before its issue from the press) 
 lime enough is afforded for the entire succession of 
 events; assigning the non-communion excitement, with 
 the Diferences, etc. to the late spring or early summer, 
 and the change of view on Baptism to the autumn or 
 winter of 160S, followed by the Character of the 
 Beast, etc. in the summer or fall of i6og. Clearly no 
 great amount of time was lost, in any case. 
 
[9] 
 
 progress becomes less difficult, and no doubt the sharp discussion wliich arose, 
 on the one hand incHned these radicals to be hospitable toward further views 
 which had always been under the ban of their former associates ; and on the 
 other, invited toward them the attention and persuasion of kindred minds 
 which had already made wider departure from the Orthodoxy of the day. 
 There were many Anabaptists — as they were then uniformly called — in 
 Amsterdam ; and it is very likely, though I do not know that the conjecture 
 can be authenticated by evidence, that Hans de Ries or Lubbert Gerrits, or 
 some other of these, with whom Smyth and his people were subsequently 
 affiliated, may at this time have approached to leaven him with their peculiar 
 views. Bradford indeed says "he was drawn away by some of the Dutch Ana- 
 baptists." '•^ No long period, clearly, elapsed before, wath or without their aid, 
 Mr. Smyth was led to renounce his infant consecration, and to reconstruct his 
 church upon the basis of a new adult baptism. This seems to have been fully 
 accomplished during the closing months of 1608, being the first three months 
 of 1609, by new style. But what I am chiefly anxious to do here is still fur- 
 ther to make clear the fact that there was a distinct interval of time between 
 it and the previous controversy which had called out the Diferences of the 
 Churches of the Separation. Of this there remain at least six witnesses, as 
 follows, viz. : 
 
 (i.) Richard Clyf ton, having referred to the controversy about the Scriptures 
 with its subsequent separation, goes on to say : "" 
 
 After this, they diffolved their Church (which before was coniojTied in the fellowfliip of the 
 Gofpel & profeflion of the true fayth) & Mr. Smyth being Paftor thereof, gave over his office, 
 as did alfo the Deacons, and devifed to enter a new communion by renouncing their former 
 baptifme, and taking upon them another, of mans invention, etc. 
 
 (2.) Henry Ainsworth, after having dwelt at great length upon the cessation 
 of fellowship and its causes, proceeds : *' 
 
 Soon after this God flroke him [Mr. Smyth] with blindnes, that he could no longer find the 
 door of the Church out of which he was gone by fchifme, and which he had aflaulted with 
 error . . . And now as a man benummed in mynd, he cryeth out againft us, contrary to his 
 former fayth and confefllon : Loe [Characti-r of the Beast, etc. (Epistle)] we prottfi against 
 them (fayth he) to bee a falfe Church, falfely conjlitutcd in the baptifing of infants, and their own 
 unbaptifed eflate, etc. 
 
 (3.) Governor Bradford speaks distinctly to the same effect where he says :** 
 
 He first fell into some errors about the Scriptures, and so into some opposition with Mr. 
 
 *^ Diaiog-tu, etc. in Young, 451. 
 ** Flea/or Infants, etc v. 
 
 *^ Defence, etc. 3. 
 
 *'' Dialogue, etc. in Young, 450, 
 
[lo] 
 
 Johnson . . . and the church there . . . but after-.uards was drawn away by some of the 
 Dutch Anabaptists, etc 
 
 ('4.) Richard Bernard, after tracing in six steps Mr. Smyth's progress from 
 the Establishment through Brownism, the sixth of which was his separation on 
 the question of the Scriptures, goes on :''' 
 
 Seauentkly, and laftly, if it prove the Lift, He hath founded a new Church, hcc hath (if you 
 will bclecue him) recoucrcd the true Baptifmc, and the true matter and forme of a true 
 Church, which now is onely to be found pure among a company of Sc-baptijls, etc. 
 
 (5.) The author of Ancient Truth Revived . . . or a trice State of the anticnt 
 Suffering Church of Chrifl commonly (but falfcly) called Brownijls, etc., after 
 making mention of the severance of Smyth and his friends from the fellowship 
 of the "ancient" church, adds i*^ 
 
 Soon after Satan drew him to deny the Covenant preached to Abraham to be the Covenant 
 of Grace, which led him to deny his Baptifm received in Infancy, etc. 
 
 (6.) Mr. Smyth himself testifies clearly on this point. Not having said one 
 word about Baptism in his Diferences, in 1608, in his Character of the Beast, etc. 
 "Printed 1609," he undertakes to meet the objection made against him of 
 inconstancy in religion ; thus : "^ 
 
 to chandge a falfe Religion is commendable & to retaine a falfe Religion is damnable. For 
 a man of a Turk to become a lew, of a lew to become a Papifl:, of a Papifl to become a 
 Proteftant are al commendable chandges, though they al of them befal one & the fame perfon 
 in one yeere, nay, if it were in one month : So that not to chandg Religion is evil fimply : & 
 thcrfor that we fliould fal from the profeffion of Puritanifme to Pirownifme, & from Brown- 
 ifme to true Chriilian baptifme, is not fimply evil or reprovable in it self, except it be proved 
 that we have fallen from true religion: If wee therfor being formerly deceaved in the way of 
 Pedobaptiftry, now doe embrace the truth in the true Chriflian Apoftolique baptifme : then 
 let no man impute this as a fault vnto vs. 
 
 There being no suggestion of evidence, or even opinion, on the other side 
 until more than one hundred years after, we may, in the light of these declara- 
 tions, safely conclude that it was at some time in 1608, several months subsequent 
 to the cessation of communion between the two churches, that Mr. Smyth led 
 his flock forward to a dissolution of their old covenant, with reorganization on 
 the basis of a new baptism. 
 
 2. What modes of Baptism were then prevalent, and which mode did Smyth 
 and his company, in all likelihood, make use oft This inquiry becomes the more 
 needful from the very general assumption that at that time there, as at present 
 
 ^" Plaine Euidftices, etc. 19. 
 «8[B. M. (105. c. 49-)]p-36- 
 
 <9 Bodleian, (Pnmph. 7) p. iii. This book is not in 
 the B. M. libiary. 
 
[■■] 
 
 among us, the two methods of sprinkling and of immersion alone prevailed ; 
 ^vith the result that all descriptive and other language which it would hardly be 
 natural to apply to the former, has been takpn as of course implying the latter.'" 
 It will be further well if we can obtain the means of determining whether the 
 statement often made that infant baptism at this time in England was uniformly 
 administered by immersion, with the inference that therefore the adoption of 
 that form by the Baptists for adults would not be likely to call forth special 
 remark,^' stands upon any sufficient basis of fact. 
 
 It is conceded, even by those who are most earnest in the claim that immer- 
 sion was the earliest form of administering Christian baptism, that it was soon 
 dispensed with in exceptional cases;'" while it is matter of undoubted history 
 that within little more than one hundred years subsequent to the death of the 
 last of 'the Apostles, Novatian, being sick, "was baptized by affusion in the bed 
 on which he lay;"" and that, soon after, the frequency of like cases led 
 Magnus to put to Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, the question whether such 
 procedure were valid. We have the very words of his reply:'* 
 
 Quaesisti etiam, lili carissimc, quid mihi de 
 illis videatur, qui in infirmitate et languore 
 gratiam Dei consequuntur, an habendi sint 
 legitimi christiani eo, quod aqua salutari non 
 loti sint, sed perfusi. 
 
 . , . Nos quantum concipit mediocritas 
 nostra aestimamus, in nullo mutilari et debil- 
 itari posse bcneficia divina, nee minus aliquid 
 illic posse contingere, ubi plena ct tola fide et 
 dantis et sumentis accipitur, quod de divinis 
 muneribus hauritur. 
 
 [Then, after citing Ezek. xxxvi: 25, 26; 
 Numbers xix : 8, 12, 13; viii : 5-7 and xix : 9, 
 
 You have asked also, dearest son, what I 
 thought of those who obtain God's grace in 
 sickness and weakness ; whether they are to 
 be accounted legitimate Christians, for that 
 they are not washed, but sprinkled, with the 
 saving water. 
 
 . . . As far as my poor understanding con- 
 ceives it, I think that the divine benefits can 
 in no respect be mutilated and weakened ; nor 
 can anything less occur in that case, where, 
 with full and entire faith both of the giver 
 and receiver, is accepted what is drawn from 
 the divine gifts. 
 
 M E. g. " The definition of baptism in Helwys's 
 Confession, published in 161 1, viz.: '"washing with 
 water,' instead of pioving affusion, we think very good 
 Baptist [/ e. immersionist] testimony." Examiner and 
 Chronicle, 19 Aug. iSSo. See also a learned article by 
 Dr. Heman Lincoln, Prof, of Eccl. Hist, at Newton 
 Theo. Sem. in the Watchman and Reflector, 14 Oct. 
 18S0. 
 
 i^' So well informed a man as Dr. Evans — who seems 
 to have been almost alone among his English Kaptist 
 brethren of this generation in taking much pains to get 
 at the T&-3\ facts of the early history of the Baptists in 
 that country — says \Early English Baptists, etc. 
 i : 203 notc'\ : "The all but universal practice of immer- 
 sion in the English Church rendered the discussion 
 
 of the mode unnecessary.'' It is curious — I may 
 as well add here as anywhere — to observe with what 
 sang-froid this writer now and again refers in his 
 notes to books which he was aware advocated views 
 lying athwart other views to which he refers, as works 
 which "we have not seen;" when he must have 
 known that a few shillings, and a little trouble, would 
 take him to the British Museum, or the Bodleian, or 
 to York Minster, where he could hardly fail to " see" 
 Ihem. 
 
 ^ Vide Taylor's General Baptists, etc. 1 : 61. 
 
 ""ti^ avTij TT) K/Jvi) 7/ tKetTu Trepixvdetc" 
 Letter of Cornelius to Fabius. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 
 VI: xliii. 
 
 ^Epistola LXIX. [Tauchnitz ed.] 193. 
 
[.2] 
 
 he goes on] : uncle apparet, adspersionem 
 quoque aquae instar salutaris lavacri obtin- 
 erc, ct quando hacc in ccclesia fiunt, ubi sit 
 ct accipientis ct dantis fides integra, stare 
 omnia et consummari ac perfici posse maies- 
 tate Domini et fidci vcritatc. 
 
 Whence it appears that the sprinkling also 
 of water prevails equally with the washing of 
 salvation; and that when this is done in the 
 church, where the faith both of receiver and 
 giver is sound, all things hold and may be 
 consummated and perfected by the majesty of 
 the Lord, and by the truth of faith. 
 
 By the fifth century there is evidence that in France affusion had come into 
 at least occasional use as the mode of baptism for persons in health." In the 
 twelfth century sprinkling, pouring and immersion coexisted in Italy;'* and, in 
 1311, Clement V. sanctioned the action of the second Council of Ravenna 
 making [" sub trina aspersione vel immersione "] sprinkling or immersion 
 optional." In England a Roman Catholic historian judges that while the 
 Anglo-Saxon Church enjoined immersion for infants, in the case of adults it 
 was accustomed to administer "by affusion upon the liead." '* In the fifteenth 
 century Lyndewood says that, where the child is not strong enough to be 
 immersed, or the priest is too feeble to immerse it, baptism may be properly 
 done ["per modum effusionis vel aspersionis "] by pouring or sprinkling. '' 
 The first Prayer-Book of the Reformation — that of Edward VI. of 1549 — 
 ordained: "first dypping the ryghtsyde : Seconde the left syde : The thyrde 
 tyme dippyng the face towarde the fonte : So it be discretly and warely done," 
 but it is added : "if the childe be weake, it shall suffice to poure water vpdn it, 
 etc."^ This was modified in the second book of Edward VI. of 1552, by 
 leaving out the trine immersion, but retaining the same provision in the case of 
 danger of harm from even the single dipping.''' 
 
 In 1536 Calvin published at Basle the first edition of h\s Institutes of the 
 Christian Religion^ in which on this subject he said :*" 
 
 ^ Gcnnadius of Marseilles says the candidate for 
 baptism is "either wetted with the water, or else 
 plutiged into it." De Eccl. Dogmatibus, etc. c. 74, as 
 cited by U'all,\\: 357. 
 
 ^ Thomas Aquinas, [Q. Ixvi. Art. 7] as cited by 
 PVall, ii : 357. So Bunsen says {Hyfifiolytus and his 
 Age, etc. (1854) ii : 121] "The Western Church evi- 
 dently commenced her career, under the guidance of 
 Rome, with more freedom of thought. She abolished, 
 together with adult baptism, its symbol, immersion, and 
 introduced sprinkling in its stead." 
 
 '•T Labbc, R. XI. 
 
 M Very Rev. Canon Flanagan, History o/the Church 
 in Eng., etc. i: 178. 
 
 ^^ Provincialc, etc. 242. There is a curious passage 
 in Tyndali's Obedience 0/ a Christian Man, etc. 
 
 (152S) which refers to this exceptional practice, where 
 he is rebuking the spiritual ignorance of the common 
 people {.Doctrinal Treatises, (Parker Soc. ed. 1848,) 
 
 277]: 
 
 Behold how narrowly the people look on the cere- 
 mony. If aught be left out, or if the child be not alto- 
 gether dipt in the water; or if, because the child is 
 sick, the priest dare not plunge him into the water, but 
 pour water on his head, how tremble they! how quake 
 they! "'How say ye, Sir John" (sav they) "is this 
 child christened enough? Hath it Ins full Christen- 
 dom?" They believe verily that the child is not 
 christened. 
 
 "* Signature X. 2 (iii). 
 
 '^ hiftitutio Chrijlianae Religiouis, etc Lib. IV. 
 cap. XV, sees. 19, 20. 
 
[■3] 
 
 Caeterum mergatur ne totus qui tingitur, 
 iclque tcr an femel, an infufa tantum aqua 
 afpergatur, minimum rcfcrt : fed id pro rc- 
 gionum diucrfitatc Ecclefiis liberum cffe de- 
 bet . . . Vbi inualuit opinio, perditos cffe 
 omnes quibus aqua tingi non contigit, noftra 
 conditio deterior eft cpiam vctcris populi, qua 
 G. reftrictior effet Dei gratia quam fub Lege. 
 
 Whether the person baptized is to be wholly 
 immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or 
 whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, 
 is not of the least consequence : churches 
 should be at liberty to adopt either according 
 to the diversity of climates . . . When the 
 opinion prevails that all are lost who happen 
 not to be dipped in water, our condition be- 
 comes worse than that of God's ancient 
 people ; as if His grace %vere more restrained 
 than under the Law. 
 
 Under the rubric as it stood (and indeed still stands) two causes during 
 Elizabeth's reign have been supposed to have swayed the flexible practice of 
 the English Church froin immersion toward sprinkling. One, the strong pref- 
 erence often had by parents — especially of that wealthier and more cultured 
 class which so much sets the fashion for the humbler sort — for sprinkling, or 
 pouring, over dipping, because they enjoyed neither the stripping their children 
 naked of the fine garments prepared for their christening, nor the affrighted 
 screams with which the little ones were apt to receive immersion ;" the other, 
 the fact that when those English divines who during bloody Mary's reign had 
 taken shelter in Germany and Switzerland, came back, they brought with them 
 as to this subject a preference for Calvin's more liberal theory and practice.^ 
 In the second year of Elizabeth, we find Thomas Becon adding his influence to 
 the movement, thus : *^ 
 
 Chrifl commanded to baptize all men; but he left the manner of baptizing free to his 
 Church, whether they would wafli the whole body, or feme part thereof. Moreover, as all the 
 people of the Jews was counted to be fprinkled with the blood of the covenant, becaufe it was 
 accuftomed to be fprinkled upon all, when notwithllanding not their whole bodies, but fome 
 part of them was imbrued with the blood; fo likewife a man or an infant is taken to be wholly 
 baptized, dipped and clcanfed, when fome one member only is overflowed with water, dipped 
 or cleanfed. For this lawifh^s fprinkling was a figure of the blood of Chrilt, wherewith the 
 
 « Vide W'a//, ii : 365. 
 
 *• Calvin's own practice was pouring. His Genevan 
 Liturgy [Citteckismus Genevensis, etc. (Niemeyer's 
 CoUectio Con/cssionum, etc. iS^o), 1S3] prescribes the 
 form fo be : [Turn in eum nquam Uaplifmi minifter 
 effundit, inquicns, etc.] "Then the minister pours 
 water on ike infant, sayinp;, etc." About the same 
 time we find Bulliniier, at Zurich, using such language 
 as the following {Fi/tic Godlie and Learned Sermons, 
 etc. (ed. 1587) p. 1040], viz.: 
 
 There is contention alfo about this: whether once or 
 thrife hoe that is baplifcd, oiic;ht to bee dipped, or 
 fprinckelcd with water. Truely the Apostles haue not 
 
 ciirioufly commaunded anything in this behalfe. So 
 that it is free eillier to//>rinck/e'or to difi. .Sprinck- 
 lingfeemeih 10 haiie been vied of the old Fathers: for 
 honefty and fliamcfastenelTe forbiddcth to vncover the 
 bodv; and also the (wuake) ftate of Infants for the 
 moft part, can not away with dipping; since fprink- 
 ling alfo doetli as much as dipping. -And it flandeth in 
 the choyce of him that niinillreth b.^ptifme, to fprinckle 
 him either once or thrice, after the cuflome of the 
 Church, whereof hee is miniHer. 
 
 "* A new Catechifmc, fette forth Dialogewife, etc. 
 [Parker Soc. ed. 1S44], 227. 
 
 "" " Lawish sprinkling " = that sprinkling which was 
 prescribed and practiced under the law. 
 
[■4] 
 
 confciences are fprinkled, and of our baptifm. Furthermore, feeing that the virtue and 
 power of cleanfing the minds cometh not from the water, it is all one matter, whether the 
 whole body, or fome part thereof, as the head, be wafhcd. It is therefore fufficient if the fig- 
 nification of fpiritual baptifm be obferved. 
 
 That to "baptize" fignifieth not to plunge the whole man into the water, it may eafily be 
 gathered both of St. Mark's and St. Luke's gofpel, where we read thus i^? Rrcerfi a foro iton 
 comcdunt nifi prius haptizati ; that is, "The Pharifees, when they come home from the market, 
 eat not, except they firfl be baptized" — that is to fay, wafh their hands. Again :6S Mirabatiir 
 PJiarifaetis quod Chrijlus non baptizatus accumbai nienfae; that is: "The Pharifee marveled 
 that Chrift was not baptized," that is to fay, wafhed not his hands, "before he fat down at the 
 table." 
 
 Opinions differ, testimony is not uniform, and practice may have varied in 
 different parts of the kingdom, but I see no sufficient reason to doubt the con- 
 clusion of W. Walker, a ver)^ careful writer who gave large attention to the 
 subject but little more than two generations after,^' that, during the later half 
 of the seventeenth century pouring, or sprinkling, "became the more general," 
 as when he wrote, it was "almoft the only way of Baptizing" in England. 
 
 J. Watts, who wrote like a man of learning and wide research, more than 
 twenty years before Walker, summing up some thirty pages of close historical 
 review, said if immersion were the original baptism it had given place to sprink- 
 ling and aspersion : ^° " which have wholly fupplanted it . . . and fo got away 
 the bleffmg from it, to be the only approved and practifed way in the centuries 
 fucceeding." Mr. Wall, who published a little later, and who received from 
 Oxford the complimentary degree of D.D. for the eminent ability of his work, 
 says : "' 
 
 The Inclination of the People, back'd with thefe authorities,?^ carried the Practice againfl 
 the Rubric; which Hill requir'd Dipping, except in Cafe of Weaknefs. So that in the later 
 Times of Queen Elizabeth, and during the Reigns of Kittg James and of Ki7tg Charles I. very 
 few Children were dipt in the Font. 
 
 It was natural that the Reformed Churches should feel the influence of 
 Calvin's judgment, while Zwingli, in his Confession of Faith to Charles V. 
 (1530) said:'^ 
 
 <■' Mark vii : 4. 
 
 « Luke xi : 38. 
 
 cow. Walker. The Doctrine of Daptifms, etc. 
 (167S). 147- 
 
 ""J. Watts, A Scribe, Pharisee, Hypocrite, and his 
 Letter anfwered, etc. 63. 
 
 ''W. Wall, The History 0/ Jn/ant Baptifm, etc. 
 (1720) ii : 366. 
 
 '- He had just cited Musculus {Loci Communi de 
 
 Baptifmo, etc. 431]: "As for Dipping of the Infant; 
 we judge that not fo neceffary, but that it is free for 
 the Church to baptize either by Dipping or Sprink- 
 ling;" and Dr. Whitaker, Regius Prof, at Cambridge 
 [Pradectiones de Sacr. de Bap. etc. Q. i. c. 2]: "in 
 the cafe of Infants and Cckly People, I think fprink- 
 ling fufficient." 
 
 '^Ad Caro/utH Rom. ItHp. Fidei H. Zuinglii Ratio 
 [NiemeyerJ, 26. 
 
[■5] 
 
 Cum baptizamur, abluitur corpus mundif- When we are baptized, the body is washed 
 
 fimo elemento: fed hoc (ignificatur, gratia in the purest element; but by this is signified 
 divinae bonitatis in Ecclefiae et populi Dei that through the riches of divine mercv we 
 coetum allectos efle, in quo candide fit ac are gatliercd in to the company of the church 
 pure vivendum, etc and i^eople of God, in which one should live 
 
 a clean and holy life. 
 
 This symbolism, of washing with water as the token of that spiritual cleans- 
 ing properly belonging to entrance upon Church life, thenceforward shows 
 itself in many of the Reformed Confessions, and naturally appears to have 
 been connected especially with affusion, or the method of baptism by pouring 
 and rubbing water upon the recipient. Thus the Later Confession of Helvetia 
 (1566) in this manner speaks : ''"* 
 
 Ideoque baptifamur, id eft, abluimur, aut 
 afpergimur aqua vifibili. Aqua enim fordes 
 mundat, deficicntia et aeftuantia recreat, et 
 refrigerat corpora. Gratia vero Dei haec ani- 
 mabus praeftat, et quidcm invifibiliter vel 
 fpiritualiter. 
 
 And therefore are we baptized, that is, 
 •washed and sprinkled with visible water. For 
 the water makcth clean that which is filthy, 
 and refresheth and cooleth the bodies that 
 fail and faint. And the grace of God dealeth 
 in like manner with the soul; and that in- 
 visibly and spiritually. 
 
 In the same year the Belgic Confession used the following language as to 
 the same subject, viz. : " 
 
 Sicut enim aqua in nos effufa et fuper cor- 
 pus baptizati eminens ipfumque irrigans, for- 
 des corporis abluit: fie et Sanguis Chrifli 
 animam abluens, a peccatis ilium emundat, 
 nofque filios irae in filios Dei regenerat . . . 
 Neque tamen hie Baptifmus eo duntaxat me- 
 mento prodert, quo aqua nobis inhaerct, aut 
 quo ea tinginmr : fed per totum vitae noilrae 
 tempus. 
 
 For as water, being poured upon us, and ap- 
 pearing on the body of him that is baptized, 
 moistening the same, doth wash away the 
 filthiness of the body; so the blood of Christ, 
 washing the soul, doth cleanse it from sin, 
 and doth make us, which before were the 
 children of wrath, the sons of God . . . Nei- 
 ther doth this baptism profit us only at that 
 moment 7a/ten the -water restcth upon us, and 
 when we are tnoistened with it; but it is avail- 
 able throughout the whole time of our life. 
 
 In 1573 the Confession of Bohemia defined baptism as [ablutio hominis 
 per aquam cum invocatione nominis Sacrofanctae Trinitatis, etc.] '^ " the wash- 
 ing of the candidate with water in the name of the holy Trinity." It is 
 added : " " that washing is used both to signify, and to witness, a spiritual wash- 
 ing and inward cleansing of the Holy Ghost, from the disease of hereditary sin, 
 and from other sins, etc." 
 
 In entire accord with this we find the French Churches prescribing that the 
 
 ''* Con/effio Helvetica po/lerior. Niemeyer, 517. 
 JS Con/. Belg. Ibid. 384. ■« Conf. Bolum. Ibid. 840. 
 
 "' Harmony 0/ Protestant Confessions, etc. (1844)11 
 
[.6] 
 
 water be poured upon the person to be baptized,^ and the Waldenses [Les 
 Eglises Vaudoises] describing baptism [c'est k dire en noftre langage, lavement 
 d'eau, ou de fleuve, ou de fontaine] ''' as, "the washing with water, either that 
 of a river, or a fountain, in the name of the Father," etc. The Dutch Estab- 
 lished Churches were an offshoot of the Lutheran side of the Reformation. 
 But the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) lays an entirely similar stress upon that 
 symbolism of the rite which implies its administration by affusion. Thus 
 [Question \x\\\'.^ 
 
 Q. Wie wirst du in der he Hi gen Taufe erin- 
 nert und versichcrt, dasz das einige Opfer 
 Christi am Kreitz dir zti gut komme ? 
 
 A. Also, dasz Christus dieses auszerliche 
 Wasserbad eingesetzt, und dabei verheiszen 
 hat, dasz ich so gewisz mit seinem Blut und 
 Geist von der Unrcinigkeit meiner Seele, das 
 ist, alien meinen Sunden gcwaschen sei, so 
 gewisz ich auszerlich mit dem Wasser, welches 
 die Unsauberkeit des Leibes pflegt hinzu- 
 nehmen, gewaschen bin. 
 
 Q. How is it signified and sealed unto thee in 
 Holy Baptism, that thou hast part in the one 
 sacrifice of Christ on the cross ? 
 
 A. Thus: that Christ has appointed this 
 outward washitig with water, and has joined 
 therewith this promise, that I am washed with 
 His blood and Spirit from the pollution of my 
 soul, that is, from all my sins, as certainly as 
 I am washed outwardly with water, whereby 
 commonly the filthiness of the body is taken 
 away. 
 
 What the practice in Holland actually was under this Catechism will be 
 made sure from the Expositions of that symbol by J. Bastingius and P. de 
 Witte. The former says : " 
 
 The ceremony, or rite, is declared by wafJiing or fprinckling with water, in that the bodie of 
 him that is baptized, is (princkled with this water. For this is the ende whv water is vfed, not 
 to be idle, but to be applied to the body, to fprinkle it or to wafli it, according to the com- 
 mandment of Christ: Hereof the Apoflle defineth Baptifmc: the wafliing of water by the 
 worde, etc. 
 
 The latter says:^^ 
 
 Q. How is it [Baptism] done in thefe Countrcys ? 
 
 A. With fprinkling; as the word Baptifme may alfo be taken for that, Mark vii: 4 7vajh' 
 tngs of beds, (Baptifmes as in the Greek), Hcb. ix: 10. 
 
 Q. Ought we not again to bring in dipping, as the Mufcowites and others do ? 
 
 A. It is not neceffary; becaufc wajliing is done with fprinkling :\s well as by dipping, etc. 
 
 We have moreover the testimony of a traveler, taken on the spot a few 
 
 " Quick, Synodicon in Gallia Re/ormata, etc. 
 (i6g2), ii: 453. 
 
 '* Jean Leger, Hijloire Generate des Eglifcs Evan- 
 geliques des Vallees de Piemont, etc. (1669) 65. 
 
 *" I quote from the later German and English ver- 
 sions as given autlientically in the Tercentenary Edi- 
 tion (1S63), by the German Reformed Church in this 
 country, p. 201. 
 
 " A n Expofition or Comtncntarie vpon the Cat- 
 
 echifnte ofChriJlian religion which is taught in the 
 Scholes and Churches 0/ tlie Lowe Countries, etc. 
 (1593) p. 138, verso. 
 
 *- Catechizing upon tlie Hcidclbergh Catcchifme, 
 etc. publijlied after Precedent Inflection and Appro- 
 bation of the Rev. Claffis of Hoorn, etc., and now 
 after tlie Si.rtienth Impreffion tranflated for tlte 
 Englifi Reformed Congregation in A mferdarti, 
 etc. p. 514. 
 
[■7] 
 
 years later. Sir William Brereton describes a baptism which he witnessed in 
 Amsterdam in 1634, b}' which time, in that unaltering land, no great change, it 
 is fair to think, had modified the Dutch custom of the early part of the same 
 generation : " 
 
 The minister here baptized after sermon fourteen children ; the water not sprinkled upon 
 their faces, but the predicant doth pull back the cloth and dressing on the head, so that all the 
 skull of the child's head is bare, and holding the face downwards, he is sufficiently prodigal of 
 \i7\Xcx, pour i/ig divers handf Ills tipon the chihVs head, 7i.ViCi. holding his hand on the child's head, 
 rublniig the same during all the time that he is pronouncing the words of baptism, which, as I 
 conceivcd,^4 were equivalent to those of ours : — "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, 
 Son, etc." using as long a speech whilst he held the child in his arms, as our [English] minis- 
 ters do. I observed diligently, and he used not the sign of the cross, which all the Dutch 
 churches reject. Here were no god-fathers ; those that brought and carried the children gave 
 the name unto the predicant, and all those were women that held and brought the children. 
 
 There was a Dutch Church in London which published the Corpus Difci- 
 plinae, or the Body of Discipline, used in the Reformed Churches of Holland, 
 from which I take the following, as showing the rule they recognized, viz. : *' 
 
 As for fprinkling once or three times, we hold it indifferent . . . Sprinkling with water 
 teacheth us . . . the waJJiing away of our sins by Jefus Christ . . . As water being poured 
 upon us, and being feen and fprinkled upon the body of him that is baptized, doth wajk away 
 the filthinefs of the body, fo likewife the blood of Christ by the operation of the Holy Ghoft 
 inwardly vvorketh the fame in the foul. 
 
 So far as the Established Reformed Churches of Holland, and the French 
 (Walloon) Churches existing there, are concerned — together making the great 
 majority of all — it is now clear that the ordinance of baptism was adminis- 
 tered by pouring, accompanied with such friction of the subject of it as should 
 suggest that washing from the filth of the flesh, which furnished the symbolism 
 especially emphasized in their creeds. There were also some Anabaptists and 
 Mennonites in the Low Countries at the beginning of the seventeenth cent- 
 ury, whose practice in this regard we need to investigate, as well. 
 
 I shall perhaps surprise some of my readers — but not more than the dis- 
 covery astonished myself — when I say that the Anabaptists do not appear to 
 have begun with baptism by immersion. Hoornbeek (1653) seems to be one 
 of the most careful and comparatively unprejudiced writers upon the Ana- 
 baptistic movement of his time. He lays down five points as peculiar to 
 them in Holland — from which insistence on immersion is noticeably omitted 
 — viz.:'^ 
 
 '^ Travels, etc. Cheetliam Soe. Pub. p. 64. 
 ** He did not understand Dutch well enough to be 
 sure. 
 
 ^'•'Corpus Difciplinae, etc. (1645) fB. M. (E. 313. 
 [15])], 7. >2, 63- 
 '^ Sutnttta Controverf. Relig. etc. (ed. 1658), 358. 
 
[i8] 
 
 Apud nos vulgo noti funt ex qiiinque ar- 
 ticulis: oppugnati paedobaptifmi, crroris pri- 
 marii, & apud illos commiiniiTimi ; defcnfi 
 anabaptifmi; ncgata: Chrirti ex Matris fub- 
 (lantia incarnationis ; interdicti ipfis omnis 
 generis juramenti; & officii Magiftratus. 
 
 With us they are commonly known by five 
 tenets, viz. : (i) thev oppose infant baptism, 
 their fundamental error, shared by all; (2) 
 they insist upon rebaptism; (3) they deny 
 that Christ took his flesh from his mother; 
 {4) they forbid their members to take oath, or 
 (S) to hold the magistrate's office. 
 
 Lambertus Hortensius (1548)^' and Guy de Bres (1565)^' are two of the 
 earliest and most careful historians of the origin and progress of Anabaptism, 
 and their statements fully accord with this summary which Hoornbeek gives. 
 I have in my possession a curious confirmation — of date 1579 — of the sub- 
 stantial accuracy of this resuT?ie. It is entitled \_Een Nicu Liedeken, etc.]^ "A 
 New Song, made by two Friends sacrificed in London, in the year 1575," etc. 
 These "two Friends" were John Pieters and Henry Terwoort, the protomartyrs 
 under Elizabeth. It relates how they were summoned to St. Paul's Church and 
 questioned, and their own account of the interview is (partly) this, viz. : 
 
 Dacr waren vergaert, feer veel vermacrt 
 Lecraers hooghe gheacht 
 Den Biffchof als die llercke 
 En ander volck by macht. 
 
 Vier vraghen fy voorflelden 
 Deerfte van wacr hy quam 
 Van Chriflo fy vcrtelden 
 Off hy zijn vleefch aen nam 
 Van Maria faen wy en vcrflaen 
 So niet ghelijck ghy fegt 
 Noch met vraghen fy heur qucldcn: 
 Is dan tfweeren onrecht. 
 
 Dees antwoorde wilt hooren 
 Die was dander ghelijck 
 Noch ftelden fy haer vooren 
 Mach een Chrillcn publijck 
 Sijn kinderen fnel doen doopen wel 
 Segt ons trechte bediet 
 Sy fpraken fonder verftooren 
 Wy en hebbens ghelefen niet. 
 
 Noch vraechden fy na dcfen 
 Vermach een Chriften ledt 
 Een ouerheyt te wefen 
 En te bedienen net 
 En falich zijn ; verllaet wel mijn 
 Segt ons dat recht befcheyt. 
 
 There were gathered, very many celebrated 
 
 Professors highly esteemed 
 
 The Bishop as the strong one 
 
 And other people of consideration. 
 
 They proposed four questions 
 
 The first from where He came 
 
 From Christ they said 
 
 If he had taken his flesh 
 
 From Mary sweet ; we do not understand it 
 
 As you say it. 
 
 Still with questions they plagued them: 
 
 Is then taking an oath a crime ? 
 
 Listen to this answer 
 
 It was like unto the other 
 
 They also propounded to them : 
 
 May a Christian publicly 
 
 Cause his children to be baptized quickly 
 
 Give us the right interpretation? 
 
 They replied, without anger, 
 
 We iiave not read it. 
 
 Yet after this they asked 
 
 Is a Christian allowed 
 
 To be a magistrate 
 
 And to serve as such ? 
 
 And will he be saved ; understand me well. 
 
 Give us the right explanation of this. 
 
 *' Tvmvllvvtn Atiabapti/larvm, etc. 11. 
 " La Racine Sovrce et FonJcment det Atiabaptijles 
 ov Rebnptifez de no/Ire Temfis, etc. passim. 
 
 ^Van Glubodcn, etc. hier cuhter is noch by ghenocclit 
 een Liedeken van it Vrienden opgeoffcrt te Lonnen in 
 EngJtelant. Int iaer M.D.LXXV. (1579) 16°. p. 163. 
 
[■9] 
 
 From the confessions involved in the chaos of these rude stanzas it is easy 
 to see — what indeed is made evident by the histories of the time'° — that 
 these poor Flemings were burned for insisting on the "five points" above 
 named. 
 
 If, now, it were true, as it has been common in some quarters to assert, that 
 immersion were the universal method of administering the rite of Baptism, 
 when, near the close of the first quarter of the sixteenth century. Stork and 
 Muncer laid the foundations of Anabaptism, the inferences would be allow- 
 able : (i) that the new sect baptized in the common way; and (2) that, so 
 doing, no reference would be natural to their practice in that respect either in 
 their own creed, or in the popular objections first raised against them. We 
 have seen, however, that the reverse was the fact, and that the method of bap- 
 tizing then nearly universal was by pouring, or sprinkling.'' And this fact 
 renders it inevitable that had the Anabaptists begun by laying down the law 
 that dipping is the only valid baptism, that law would have found a place in 
 the summary of their belief, while their practice under it must have provoked 
 the dissent of those who followed a different way. Neither being true, the 
 conclusion seems inevitable that they administered baptism, as others around 
 them did, by affusion. 
 
 This quite agrees with Robert Baylie's statement, in 1647 : '^ 
 
 Among the old Anabaptifts, or thofe over fea to this day fo far as I can learn by their 
 writs [writings] or any relation that has yet come to my ears, the queftion of dipping and 
 fprinkling came never upon the Table. As I take it, they dip none, but all whom they baptize 
 thcv fprinkle in the same manner as is our custome. 
 
 Here, again, I have stumbled upon the acquisition of what seems to me a 
 strong confirmatory proof of the view which I take. It is an ancient Dutch 
 version of Lambertus Hortensius,'' containing illustrations. Over against the 
 statement which this author makes in regard to the original Anabaptist bap- 
 tism — which is the following, viz. : '* \et inter ijlajeditionis capita cdebriora Munt- 
 zeri erat nouus baptijmiis in libera ccdefia, quern pnvdarus ille iofo orbe refragatiie 
 iiieri uoluit\ " and among the chief tenets of the sedition of Munzer, was 
 
 •* See Str>'pe, A nttals, etc. ii (i) : 564 ; Fuller, 
 Church History, etc. iv : 390 ; Collier, Eccl. Hist. 
 Great Brit. \i: 543; Evans, £ar. Eng. Bap. 1: 151- 
 165. See the writ for their execution in Rymer. Foed. 
 XV. 740, and Wilkins, iv : 281. 
 
 "'We have seen that the Romish Church had aban- 
 doned immersion, and that the then newly forming Re- 
 formed Churches neither believed nor practiced it, but 
 sjmnkled or poured. 
 
 ^- A nabafii i/m the True Fountain, etc. i6j. 
 
 "' See note 87, atite. There is also in the library of 
 the British Museum the first edition [as I suppose] of 
 \Q.3Xxow' %\ H ifloire des AnabaptsJUs ; contennnt leur 
 Doctrine, les Divcrfcs Opinions, gui Ics divi/eni en 
 ptufteurs Sects; Ics Troubles, quails ont caufcz, et 
 cnjin, tout ce guij^ejl pajfi de plus conftdcrable h leur 
 cgard, depuis Van 1521 jusques h pre/ent. Amster- 
 dam, 1699. 12^. [B. M. (4139. c.)J which contains the 
 same engraving, or a close copy thereof. 
 
 Mp. 9. 
 
[20] 
 
 that of a new baptism into a free Church, whicii that notorious man desired, 
 in the face of all opposition, to promote " — is placed the engraving which 1 
 have had fac-similed for these pages. The " new baptism " was that re-bap- 
 tism, as a believer, whicli was required of all who had been baptized in 
 infancy. And the manner of it is shown to be by affusion. Not daring in 
 the beginning to rouse popular opposition by any pubHc re-administration of 
 the rite, the service 
 took place in a pri- 
 vate house, as is 
 shown by the bed 
 on one side of the 
 chamber; and the 
 candidates kneeled 
 before the dispenser, 
 who lifted water in 
 his hands, and let it 
 fall upon their heads. 
 I do not presume 
 that this picture pho- 
 tographs any actual 
 scene ; but I do re- 
 gard it as most un- 
 likely that such a 
 pictorial adjunct of 
 so ancient a history 
 w o u 1 d go to the 
 length of violent and 
 
 — as it would have 
 been, were it untrue 
 
 — offensive misrep- 
 resentation of a 
 transaction which 
 must have been well 
 
 known in its character, and was so vital to these people as to have given 
 them their popular designation. 
 
 Whatever may have been the fact about this, and however some of the many 
 minor subdivisions of the Anabaptist body'^ may have subsequently modified 
 
 ^^ De Bres declares that tliese subdivisions soon 
 became numerous. He says [p. 66] : 
 
 Neant moms afin de n'eflre trop long, & de peur 
 d'ennuyer les lectcurs de tant de diuerlitez de fectes ie 
 
b'] 
 
 their practice in this respect,'* there is fortunately evidence that none of the 
 Anabaptists in Holland baptized by immersion down to the year 1619. With- 
 out seeking to multiply citations, it will be suiificient to note : — 
 
 (i) the fact that — as we shall see directly — when in 16 19 the CoUcgianten 
 arose at Rynsburg, it is clear that they proceeded to difference themselves 
 from all previous rejecters of infant baptism in Holland, by introducing dip- 
 ping, or immersion ; 
 
 (2) the fact that Dr. Muller, the distinguished antiquary, himself a Dutch 
 Mennonite, declared that previous to 1619'' "the Waterlanders, nor any other 
 of the various parties of the Netherland Doopsgezindeii [Baptists], practiced 
 at any time baptism by immersion ; " and 
 
 (3) the fact that Dr. J. G. de Hoop Schefifer, a learned professor at the 
 present time in the Mennonite College at yVmsterdam, and the man of all 
 others who has studied the question with most advantage of culture and posi- 
 tion, declares that ^* "the Collegianten (1619) were the first persons who 
 practiced immersion in the Netherlands." 
 
 The Mennonites (proper) remain. But it was their habit to baptize by 
 affusion; as to that rite differing from the Reformed only \sed neutiqiuim in- 
 fantcs'Y'^m. declining to baptize infants. Hermann Schyn, their faithful historian, 
 devotes several pages to this subject. After stating several reasons which led 
 them to reject immersion he concludes : '°° 
 
 n'en nomeray feiilemet q quinze de noms. En pre- 
 mier lieu il y a Tliomas Aliiiicer nuec sa bande. Puis 
 apres il y a les Anabapiiftes .ApoAoliqs en (econd lieu. 
 l.es Aiiabaptiftes fpiriuiels lepaarez du mode. Les 
 Anabaptilles faincis & fans iiechez, ce font les Pai- 
 faicts Les Anabaplillts fail'ons filciice. Les Ana- 
 bapliftes Pnans, & (e fians du toul en l^ieu, reiettans 
 tons nioycns ordinaires. Les Anabaplirtes Euihufi- 
 aftiques. Les pros Anabaplifles libres. Des freres 
 Huitiles. Des Anabaplifles Au^ullins. Dcs );loricu.x 
 & triomphans Anabaptilles de Mimllre, de Melclnor 
 Hoffman, & les Meherlandrs. Kt finalemcnt dcs Men- 
 nonites de noftre temps, & des Fianiques, iefquels fe 
 font diuifez depuis peu de iours. Ne Voila pas bie creu 
 & muliipliii en fi peu de teps? 
 
 ^ Rev. H. S. Durrage, editor of the Zioii's Advo- 
 cate, a Baptist journal published in Portland, Me. — 
 i»ho has made a special study of these questions — in 
 an article on " Early English ami American Baptists" 
 published in the Iiidi-petidctit of 21 Oct. iSSo, says that 
 as early as .April, 1525, Wolfgang Ulin;an was immersed 
 by Conrad Grcbcl in the Rhine at Schaflhausen. Ho 
 adds that others were immersed a little later, in the 
 Siller river. This is cited from the diary of Kessler, 
 of St. Gall. Mr. R. Larclay in his htner Life 0/ the 
 
 Relig. Socs. 0/ tlu Commonivealth, etc. refers, as I sup- 
 pose, to the same case (p. 75], saying: " From J. Kess- 
 ler's Sabbata, a MS. printed by the Historical .Society 
 at St. Gallen, Switzerland, it appears that Uliman, 
 afterwards a teacher in the Church of Anabaptists at 
 St. Gallen, was dipt," apparently citing in proof Cor- 
 nelius's Geschichte des Mnnsterischen A ufruhrs, ii : 
 32, 33. 36, 37, 64, which I have as yet failed to procure. 
 Mr. Barclay adds that "the Swiss Unitarian Baptists 
 sought a refuge in Poland, and, in 1550, the rite of im- 
 mersion was practised in Poland." 
 
 "• See his testimony in Evans, i : 223. 
 
 "* See his testimony in Barclay, 75. 
 
 ""Confession prepared by Hans dc Ries and Lub- 
 bert Gerrits: Article xxxi. Schyn, Historia Mennon- 
 itartnn, etc. i : 208. 
 
 \<*> Historia Meniionitarinn, etc. ii : 35-38. Bar- 
 clay [S3] says : 
 
 The Mennonites strnnplv condemned infant b.iptism 
 and made use of adult baptism. It was administered 
 by pouring water on the head of the person received, 
 etc. 
 
["] 
 
 Qiiare plurimae noftrae Ecclefiae Baptif- 
 mum folummodo per effufionem aquae in 
 caput baptizandi adminiflrant; certiffime crc- 
 dentes quod non aquae multitude, ctfi effet 
 totius Oceani, fufficere poffit ad noftrorum 
 peccatorum ablutionem, si baptifmus non in- 
 fucata fide cS: vera refipifcentia a nobis recipi- 
 atur. 
 
 Wherefore nearly all of our Churches ad- 
 minister baptism only by pouring water upon 
 the head of the candidate; most surely be- 
 lieving that it is not the quantity of water — 
 were it even the whole ocean — which can 
 avail for the cleansing of our sins ; unless our 
 baptism is received by us with a genuine faith 
 and a true repentance. 
 
 It is needful here still further to establish the fact that it was not until in 
 1619, that the Collcgianten, one branch of the rejecters of infant baptism in 
 Holland, did introduce immersion into that country ; because as that date, 
 although ten years subsequent to Smyth's se-baptism, was more than twenty 
 previous to the rise of the Baptist controversy in England, confusion and mis- 
 understanding have arisen in regard to it.'°' As to this the testimony of Brandt 
 will be ample and conclusive. After describing, under date of A.D, 1619, their 
 origin, he says : '°" 
 
 From the place of their meeting they came to be called Rynfbiirgers ; and from their way 
 of holding forth, Prophets. They were afterwards ftiled Collegiants [CoUegianten], from the 
 colleges or focieties which they eftabliflied in all places, where they could make a party. 
 Having fixed their feparate meeting at Rynfburg, they likewife celebrated the Lords Supper 
 together, and began to advance the notion of dipping or plunging, as the manner was among the 
 Primitive Christians in the hot countries of the East. Thus became the Plunging-baptism, as 
 they called it, in practice among them. They prevailed with some to fuffer ihemfelves to be 
 thus dipped all over in the very Tan-pits. They alio ufed this kind of plunging with people, 
 W'ho, upon their own confeffion, had been before baptized by the Anabaptifls, in their old age. 
 They rejected Infant-baptism, as well as the Anabaptifts; and with them maintained that no 
 Chriilian ought to bear the office of a Magistrate, or to wage war. 
 
 One further subject requires mention before we are prepared to sum up the 
 conclusions of this brief historical review. 
 
 Subsequent to the earliest introduction of the gospel to savage peoples, and 
 after Christianity had had a few generations in which to settle down to its 
 work, it became the theory in all branches of the Church — since it is clear 
 that, whatever were the primitive practice, all then believed and thoroughly 
 practised infant baptism — that there would be no adult candidates for the 
 
 '*' Thus the Exantiiter and Chronicle, of ig Aug. 
 1880, says, speakinp of the date of the organization of 
 Smyth's church: "it is well known that while some of 
 the Mennonites practised affusion, many of them were 
 immersed" — <M\n^ Mosheim\\\\>xooi. But Mosheim 
 published his Injtitutioncs more than one hundred and 
 fifty years ago, and the world h.is learned much since 
 then as to ecclesiastical history. The remark would 
 
 have been true if referred to the date of the organ- 
 ization of Spilsburj''s Church in England, which was 
 after 1619, but it is in error— as has been shown — as 
 it stands. 
 
 '"-Gerard Brandt, History of the Reformation in 
 the Lotu Countries, etc. [original, in Low Dutch, 1671, 
 English translation, 1723] (ed. i723^iv: 56. Compare 
 Jan WaRenaar, Amsterdam, etc. (1765) ii: 204-206. 
 
[-^3] 
 
 ordinance. Hence no provision appears in the ancient liturgies for any other 
 than infant baptism. It was not until 1645 that, at the third Synod of Charen- 
 ton, the Reformed Church of PVance made such provision, '°^ nor until the 
 revision of 166 1 that the English Prayer-Book recognized such administration 
 by the insertion of a form for the " Public Baptifm of fuch as are of Riper 
 Years," which — says the Preface — "by y" growth of Anabaptifm,'°* through 
 y® Licentioufnefs of y*^ late Times crept in amongfl us, is now become necef- 
 far)'^; and maybe allwaies ufefull, for y" baptizing of Natives in our Planta- 
 tions, and others converted to y*^ Faith.'""' Nor would the fonts of the i6th 
 and 17th centuries, while large enough for the immersion of a new-born infant, 
 have answered the same purpose for full-grown men and women.''* I take it, 
 then, that on those rare occasions of waifs from distant heathenism, and the 
 like, when the ordinance needed to be administered to full-grown converts, they 
 must have been sprinkled, or resort was had to a stream, or pool. And among 
 those affusing Reformed Churches which laid stress upon the symbolism of 
 washing off the filth of the flesh, as prefiguring that inward and spiritual 
 cleansing which should fit the soul for its new relations, it would seem to be 
 almost inevitable that the method of procedure adopted would be for the 
 administrator and the candidate to wade in together until they reached a deptli 
 sufficient to enable the minister without much stooping to reach the surface 
 with his hands, and for him then, with them, to lift and pour water upon the 
 neophyte's head and uncovered shoulders, accompanied with more or less of 
 the motion of washing with the same. This best agrees with much of the lan- 
 guage of the Reformed Confessions which I have already cited, which again 
 and again refer to the water as being poured, so as to rest on the body and to 
 appear on it, and to make it clean and refresh it. 
 
 I now submit that, by the foregoing citations, I have reasonably established 
 the following points, viz. : 
 
 a. That, whatever may have been the mode of baptism at the first organiza- 
 tion of the Christian Church, sprinkling or affusion was used for the baptism 
 of the sick within about one hundred years of the death of the apostle John ; 
 that it was sometimes employed in the fifth century for the baptism of the 
 
 '™ Quick, Synodicon, etc. ii: 447. "The Form and 
 Mnnner of Baptizing Pagans, Jews, Mahometans, and 
 Anabaptists converted to the Christian Faith," etc. 
 
 '^ The idea of course is, that the spread of Anabap- 
 tistic principles tended to diminish Infant baptisms, 
 and so left the unbaptized to grow to adult years. 
 
 jM \ cijg the original MS. now in keeping in the 
 library of Parliament. 
 
 ^^ E. f^. The font still preserved at Austerfield, in or 
 from which, 19-29 March, 15S9-90, William Bradford, 
 afterwards the second Governor of Plymouth Colony, 
 was baptized, is dug out of a block of brown stone, 
 the circular excavation being about 23 in. across, and 
 in. in depth at the central deepest point. It had 
 descended to the base use of a water-trough for fowls, 
 when rescued by American interest. 
 
[=4] 
 
 well ; and that by the twelfth, a Council gave formal sanction to the equal 
 validity of sprinkling, pouring and dipping. 
 
 /;. That, although the rubric of the English Church from its beginning to 
 this day has required the immersion of infants except in cases of physical dis- 
 ability, in point of fact the exception became the law before the time of our 
 fathers; so that in the later portion of Elizabeth's reign, and through that of 
 James I., as the rule, children were baptized by affusion, 
 
 c. That, following the lead of Calvin, the Reformed Churches made sprink- 
 ling, or affusion, the law of their creeds. 
 
 d. That the Anabaptists themselves at first administered their adult baptism 
 by pouring. 
 
 e. That the Mennonites always did, and do, the same. 
 
 f. That at the time of Mr. Smyth's change of view as to the validity 
 of infant baptism — and, indeed, for more than ten years afterward — there is 
 no evidence of the existence in Holland of any sect administering the rite in 
 any other way than by pouring. 
 
 g. That this pouring was accompanied by rubbing, so as to represent the act 
 of washing the body, or some part of it, clean from soil or stain, as a symbol 
 of that washing of regeneration by which the Holy Spirit cleanses the redeemed 
 soul. 
 
 In view of all which, I am prepared to conclude it as every way most prob- 
 able, that when Mr. Smyth renounced the baptism of his youth, and took upon 
 him that rite in a new form, he did so by affusion. To my mind this theory best 
 explains his own language and that of others with regard to the transaction. 
 
 Thus he himself, in the book which he at once proceeded to publish to 
 justify the step he had taken, habitually speaks of baptism as ^^ waj/iing with. 
 water ;"*°^ "the forme [of baptism] is waJJiing one into the covenant;"'"* 
 "the true forme of baptifm confifleth in three things: (i) wajliitig with 
 water ; (2) a new creature ; (3) into the name of Chriffc, or into the Trinity; " '"^ 
 " therefor neceffarily we mufl for having true baptifme repeat waJJiing in to 
 the name of the Father, Sonne & Holy Ghost." "° So he asks : " how then 
 can any man without great folly 7vaJJi with water (which is the leafl cS: laft of 
 baptifme) one \i.e. an infant] that is not baptized with the Spirit & cannot con- 
 feffe with the mouth ; or how is it baptifme if one be_/2? waJJied V "' 
 
 In like manner Richard Clyfton, in his reply to the book whicli I have just 
 been quoting, uses the same term in the like sense, e.g.: " it is fuch a wajhing 
 
 '"" The Character of the Deajl, etc. v. 
 108 Jbid. 50. 100 JiiJ 55. 
 
 i'» Ibid. 57. 
 "1 Ibid. V. 
 
[=5] 
 
 as preacheth unto vs the purging of our finnes byChrift;""- "without this 
 waJJiing with water into the name of the Father, etc. it cannot be baptifme." '" 
 So he calls Smyth's new church " a new waJJied companie." "■* And he else- 
 where makes it clear that by this term "washing" neither of them intended 
 immersion, for, assuming that there is no difference between them as to that, he 
 incidentally shows that he means sprinkling by it : " Concerning the forme of 
 baptifm I confefie it is t\\Q JPrinkling of a fit fubject with water into the name 
 of the Father, etc." "^ 
 
 Ainsworth also published in reply to Smyth, and in his reference to the new 
 baptism he says : "^ 
 
 Mr. Smyth anabaptized himfcif with water, but a child could have done the like unto him- 
 felf, who cannot perform any part of fpiritual worfliip : therefore Mr. Sm. anabaptizing himfcif 
 with water did no part of fpiritual worfliip ; and confequently it was carnal worfliip, and fervice 
 of the Divil. If he anfwcr, that a child, though he could cajl water on him/elf, & utter fuch 
 words as he heard Mr. Sm. fpeak withal ; yet could he not preach or open the covenant as Mr. 
 Sm. did, etc. 
 
 Lastly, it is of great interest in itself, while it may possibly throw a sugges- 
 tion also upon a question of baptism which has been mooted on our side of the 
 sea, that, in 1645, Roger Williams in his Christenings fnake not Christians — a 
 little book for a long time lost, and only within the present year recovered, and 
 reprinted from the probably unique copy in the British Museum — says the 
 evangelization of the heathen must be brought about : "' 
 
 By such jMeffcngers as can prove their lawfuU fending and Commiffion from the Lord Jefus, 
 to make Difciples out of all nations : and fo to baptize or luaJJi t/iem eig rij ivofia into the 
 Tiame ox profejp.011 of Ihe holy Trinity, etc. 
 
 So, on another page of the same tract,"^ he says, had he been so minded, he 
 could have brought the whole Indian " Countrey to have obferved one day in 
 feven ; I adde to have received a Baptifme (or wafliing), etc." 
 
 I need only add under this branch of the subject one single further decisive 
 testimony to the point, that, whatever the form of baptism resorted to on this 
 occasion may have been, it was not immersion. I find it in a letter written at 
 Amsterdam a few months after by Lubbert Gerrils to the Mennonite church 
 at Leuwarden, in whicli, referring to Smyth and his company, he says : "' 
 
 '" Thi Plea for Infants and Elder People concern- 
 ing their Bapti/me, etc. (1610), 171. 
 
 »'"//.;V/. 173. 
 
 >'« Ibid. vi. 
 
 ^^^Ibid. 159. 
 
 "'■.'? Defence of the Holy Scriptures, U'or/liip and 
 Minijlcrie, in tlu Chrijlian Churclies feparatcd from 
 Antichrijl, etc. (1609), frj. 
 
 "' Chrijlcnings tnake not Chrijlutns, or A Briefe 
 Difcourfe concerning tliat name Heathen, cotnntonly 
 given to tlie Indians. A nd alio concerning tliai great 
 point of iluir Converfion, i(P, pp. ii. 22. [li. M. (IC. 
 iiSg. [S.])l p. 17- 
 
 J'-V^/V/. p. 11. 
 
 ""Translated by Mr. MuUur, and printed in Evans, 
 i: 212. 
 
[26] 
 
 Therefore, first of all, we ministers have, according to the desire of our brethren, sum- 
 moned these English before us, and again most perfectly examined them as regards the doc- 
 trine of salvation and the government of the Church, and also inquired for the foundation and 
 for7n of their baptism, and we have not found that there was any difference at all, neither in the 
 OJie nor the other thing, between them and us, etc. 
 
 This verdict, within a twelvemonth, of a jury on the ground, cautious yet 
 disposed to be friendly, must be conclusive as to the point that, after some 
 fashion, the baptism of Smyth and his company was by. pouring, and neither 
 by sprinkling, strictly so called, nor dipping, 
 
 3. Did Mr. Sffiyih first affiise himsclfi and then in like manjicr adtninistcr 
 the ordinance to his associates ? 
 
 We shall best understand what was done, if we can first fairly put ourselves 
 into sympathy with the state of mind out of which action grew. And we shall 
 find that the single special advance which Mr. Smyth had made in the brief 
 interval of time between his leading his people into non-fellowship with the 
 "ancient" church, — the reasons of which were set forth, as we have seen, in 
 his book of Diferences, etc. — and his inspiring them to dissolve and annul their 
 previous organization, and covenant together upon a new basis, — the grounds 
 of which were explained and urged in his book called The Character of the 
 Beafi, etc. — consisted in his seeming to himself to have discovered that the 
 baptism which they all had received in childhood, and been satisfied with in 
 their adult years down to that hour, was inadequate and unscriptural to that 
 degree that v;ith a good conscience it could no longer be tolerated as the fun- 
 damental basis of their Christian organization. It was suddenly revealed to 
 him that that rite had been fatally defective in two respects. 
 
 In the first place, it had descended to them from the old time through a 
 false church. They had separated themselves from the Church of England 
 because of its unscriptural qualities, and yet they had not separated themselves 
 from the baptism of that Church ; which, in the last analysis, was none other 
 than the very baptism of that Rome which they regarded as the mother of 
 harlots and the fountain of spiritual abominations — as the Antichrist of the 
 Word of God. As Antichrist, Rome had utterly corrupted and destroyed all 
 the ordinances of Christ. So far as she was concerned, therefore, true baptism 
 had ceased from among men. And since the Church of England had taken 
 her baptism from Rome, that must also be null and void. So that Smyth 
 insisted that all the Separatists : '^ 
 
 '-" The Character of the Benjl, etc. p. iv. The Sep- 
 ar.ntists who did not follow Smyth took the ground that 
 the lapsed character of the Church of Rome could not 
 
 vitiate its baptism. Thus Francis Johnson replied to 
 him on this point [in Clyflon's Adveriifement, etc. 
 p. 30] thus: 
 
[=7] 
 
 must cither goc back to England, or go forward to true baptifmc ; & al that dial in time to 
 come fcparate from England muft fcparate from the baptifmc of England, & if they wil not 
 fcparate from the baptifmc of England their is no reason why they fliould fcparate from Eng- 
 land as from a falfe Church. 
 
 And in the second place, since infants cannot "confeffe with the mouth," to 
 "walli an infant into the Trinity is not true Baptifme;" true Baptism beins: 
 "to be adminiftered vppon perfons confeffing their faith and their fins."'"' 
 Whence to him it followed that he and all his company, having received the 
 ordinance in their infancy, were still without it. Hence their ecclesiastical 
 estate was fatally inadequate, and they were : '" 
 
 a falfe Church falfely conftituted in the baptifm of infants, & their owne vnbaptifed eflate, 
 . . . and their feparation, the youngeft & the fayrefl daughter of Rome, is an harlot : For as is 
 the mother fo is the daughter. 
 
 But if true baptism had ceased from among men, it was useless to journey 
 hither and thither in any vain hope to find it. The only way in which the 
 ordinance in its purity could be had, must be to originate it de novo — if script- 
 urally that might be done. Smyth was of opinion that it could be. And after 
 he had — as he thought — done it, he explained his views on the subject, as 
 follows : '==' 
 
 Whereas you fay they [we] have no warrant to baptize themfelves, I fay, as much as you 
 have to fct vp a true Church, yea fully as much : For if a true Church may bee erected which is 
 the moft noble ordinance of the New Testament, then much more baptifme : & if a true Church 
 can not bee ere6^ted without baptifme . . . you cannot deny . . . that baptifme may alfo bee 
 recovered. If they muft recover them [the Church and baptism] men muft beginne fo to doe 
 & then two men joyning together may make a Church . . . Why may they not baptize, feeing 
 they cannot conjoyne into Chrifl but by baptifme ? . . . Now/^r baptifnig a mans /elf thcr is 
 as good imrranty as for a man churching himfclfe : For two men fmgly are no ChurcH, joyntly 
 they are a Church, & they both of them put a Church vppon them felves, fo may two men put 
 baptifme vppon themfelves : For as both thofe perfons vnchurched yet have powre to alTume 
 the Church each of them for himfelf with others in communion : fo each of them vnbaptized 
 hath powre to alTume baptifme for himfelf with others in communion : And as Abraham & 
 John Baptift, & all the Profelites after Abrahams example, Exod. 12. 48. did adminifler the 
 Sacrament vppon themfelves; fo may any man raifed vp after the Apoflacy of Antichrifl, in 
 the recovering of the Church by baptifme, adminilkr it vppon himfelf in communion with 
 others . . . And as in the Old Teflament every man that was vncleanc walhed himfelf: every 
 Treill going to facrifice waflicd himfelfe in the Lavcr at the dore of the Tabernacle of the con- 
 gregation : which was a type of baptifme, the dore of the Church, Tit. 2. 5. Every Mr. of a 
 Familv adminiftered the Paffover to himfelf & all of his Family: The Preift dayly Sacrificed 
 
 We hold that the r.aptifnie of Rome wn<> as true 
 Raplifmo, as circumcifion in ihc Apoltalie of ll'racl was 
 true circumcifion, and needed not to be renounced and 
 reiieaicd, etc. 
 
 1=' Tlie Cfuiracter of tht Bcajl, etc. p. iii. 
 '" Ibid. p. vii. 
 *^ Ibid. pp. 58, 59. 
 
[28] 
 
 for himself and others: A man cannot baptifc others into the Church, liimfclfe being out of 
 the Church : Therefore it is Lawful! for a man to baptize himself together with others in com- 
 munion, & this warrant is a picropiiory for the practife of that which is done by vs. 
 
 The question mav here arise why Mr. Smyth and his people in this emer- 
 gency did not apply to the Mennonites in Amsterdam ; who, having always 
 repudiated infant baptism, and not being in succession from any Antichristian 
 Church, might be supposed to be able to convev the ordinance in a form to 
 them unobjectionable. I suggest four reasons. In the first place, the differ- 
 ence of language was clearly an obstacle to that full interchange of thought 
 which might be desired before taking such a step.'^ In the second place, it is 
 not impossible that Mr. Smyth and his people were not anxious, could it be 
 fairly avoided, to invite any such unpopularity toward their new departure, as 
 might have seemed inevitable were they to solicit the Dutch Anabaptism. In 
 the third place, it is quite probable that at that time they felt themselves too 
 much out of theological sympathy with the Mennonites, to be able in conscience 
 to receive the most intimate rite of the Gospel from them ; '"' and this the more 
 that it was one of their chief arguments against infant baptism, that infants 
 could not — indispensably — assent to "the true Fayth."'"^ And in the fourth 
 place, to have been baptized by the Mennonites may have involved joining 
 their church, which they did not then wish to do — preferring to be a church 
 by themselves.'"^ 
 
 As, then, it seemed to be the only course open to them, and as Mr. Smyth, 
 at the time, firmly believed that it was a course which they had undoubted 
 Scriptural right to take, it was determined that the lost rite of a pure baptism 
 — unallo3'ed by infant incapacity to receive it, on the one hand, or by Anti- 
 christian inability to convey it, on the other — should be once more originated 
 on earth by them, and for them. The first step, naturally, was properly to 
 clear the ground of all rubbish of the past. This was done by formal dis- 
 avowal of the old baptism, and express dissolution and renunciation of their 
 former church estate, including the abdication by its officers of all their func- 
 
 '-* When a few months later [12 Mar. 1605] a portion 
 of Smyth's company were in correspondence with the 
 Dutch, they added to their letter the following post- 
 script [Original MS S. A»isterda»i]: 
 
 Wee have written in our owne tonc;e becaufe wee are 
 not able to expreffe our niyiids in anie other, and fceins; 
 you have an interpreter. And wee liave bene much 
 greeved fince our lall conference wiih you, becaufe wee 
 diflionoured the trulh of God much for want of fpeach, 
 in that wee were not nblc to utter that coore niealure of 
 knowledg which God of his grace bathe given us. 
 
 '-■• Tfw Character of tlic Beajf, etc. in its risuini of 
 opinion [pp. vii, viiij seems to make it clear that while 
 
 Smyth and his followers had advanced somewhat toward 
 the general Mennonite position in respect "to the 
 Flesh of Christ," and the magistracy, they had not 
 then adopted their distinctively Arminian views. Hel- 
 wys, Murton and others, who subsequently cast Smyth 
 out of the Church for these heresies, seem never fully 
 to liave adopted them. 
 
 >=« Ibid. 54. 
 
 '-^ This seems an obvious suejiestion, and 1 have met 
 with it somewhere in the literature of the case, but, 
 bavins mislaid the citation, I am now unable to recall 
 the source. 
 
[-'9] 
 
 tions and official character. They seem to have agreed together, and declared, 
 that they were no longer members of Christ's Church ; no longer baptized 
 people ; no longer pastor, deacons and llock ; but simply individual believers 
 desiring church fellowship and privilege according to a new manner which their 
 more enlightened consciences could approve. That such a step was inevitable 
 to their principles, lies on the face of thcm.''^ 'I'hat it was actually taken, we 
 have three credible witnesses. Richard Clyfton, who was resident in Amster- 
 dam at the time, and whose calm and candid character, as evidenced in his 
 books, is fully endorsed by Gov. Bradford, '"' says:"° 
 
 After this, they diffolved their Church (which before was conioj-ned in the fellowfliip of the 
 Gofpcl & profefibion of the true fayth) & I\Ir. Smyth beitis; Pajlor thereof, gave aver his office, as 
 did alfo the Deacons, and devifed to enter a new communion by renouncing their former bap- 
 tifme, and taking upon them an other, etc. 
 
 John Robinson, long familiarly acquainted with all parties to the transac- 
 tion, thus describes it : "' 
 
 Which was [/. e. the procefs of reorganizing the church, etc.] as I have heard from thcmfelves, 
 on this manner : M. Smyth, M. Ileluiffe, and the reft, having utterly diffolved and difclaimed 
 their former church Jlate and miniflry, came together to erect a new church by baptifm, etc. 
 
 And Richard Bernard, writing within a twelvemonth of what took place, 
 says : '^ 
 
 By this trick is he [Smyth] difpaflored, and is but among them as a private perfon, till he be 
 again eletted; this is moll true : And thus hath he bcene off and on in the miniflcrie two or 
 three times. He was made minifter by Eilhop Wickam: that by and by in Brownil'me lie 
 renounced, & was made miniller by Trades men, and called himfclfe The Pastour of the 
 Church at Gainsbrough : this hath he loft; againe by his fe-baptifticke way till he be chofen 
 againc.'33 
 
 Standing thus together as a company of private persons seeming to them- 
 
 128 Ibid. vii. 
 
 '^'^ Dialogue. Young, etc. 453. 
 
 ^'^ Pica/or Ill/ants, etc. v. 
 
 ^^^ 0/ Religious Coitmitnion, &\c. Works (ed. 1S51), 
 iii: t68. 
 
 "- Plaint EuicUnces, etc. 20. 
 
 '•"A closer acquaintance with this fact 'would have 
 saved frequent inconclusive reasoning. Thus the Chi- 
 cago Stattdtird of i July, iSSo, in an editorial to which 
 I have already referred, said: 
 
 In the company was another minister besides him- 
 self, Thomas Helwys, who had the same power to ad- 
 minister the ordinance which Smyth had. Kiich could 
 administer the ordinance to the other, and no culling 
 of the knot wr.uld be called for. Indeed, in such cir- 
 cumstances, the resort to such a proceeding as llie 
 
 solemn baptizing of himself by Mr. Smyth, in order to 
 qualify himself to baptize the rest, is so irrational and 
 absurd as to seem out of the question in the case of 
 persons such as [ohn .Smyth and Thomas Helwys are 
 upon all hands admitted lo have been 
 
 Tlie following considerations impair the usefulness 
 of the above remark, viz. : (1) Smyth had laid down 
 his ministry for the second time, and had not yet been 
 made a minister again ; (2) Helwys up to this date had 
 never been a minister; (%) if both had been and re- 
 mained ministers, it would have been indeed an in- 
 credible absurdity for cither of them — after having 
 denounced their old baptism and church estate as 
 fraudulent and false — to have proceeded in virtue of 
 an official character solely de|)endent on that fraud and 
 falsehood, to administer ministerial acts. 
 
[30] 
 
 selves to have true faith and desiring baptism and church fellowship, it was 
 natural that all should turn to him whose restless logic had created the 
 exigency, for deliverance from it. John Robinson says he was told by some 
 of them that : "there was fome draining of courtefy who fliould begin " '^ — 
 probably because John Smyth, with all his forwardness, was essentially a truly 
 modest and humble man,'-^ who would be very likely at such a time to turn to 
 Helwys or Murton '^^ and urge one of them to act for all. But all looked with 
 expectancy toward him. And so he went forward. What he did is to be 
 determined by testimony — which does not appear to have begun to be con- 
 flicting until more than a century and a quarter had passed away. 
 
 I have shown elsewhere'" that, at this time, these English immigrants seem 
 to have mostly lived, and assembled, over on the southeast side of Amsterdam, 
 in the neighborhood of the ReguUcis-poort. This was very near to the then 
 city wall, and to the mouth of the Amstd ; and I think of Smyth and his com- 
 pany as now meeting a short distance outside the fortifications on the bank of 
 this river, or some little affluent, for the performance of their solemn service. 
 I am the more persuaded of this from the fact that, as no prayer preceded the 
 baptism,"^ it seems not improbable that the entire religious service, with the 
 exception of the rite itself, took place subsequently in the room where they 
 were accustomed ordinarily to worship. Thus gathered together, after quietly 
 waiting until all with one consent had laid the duty of beginning upon himself, 
 I conceive of Mr. Smyth — disrobed sufficiently to allow of the easy washing 
 of the upper portion of his body by himself — as walking into the stream, lift- 
 ing handfuls of water and pouring them liberally upon his own head, shoulders 
 and chest, until clean and white they glistened under the purifying streams, 
 solemnly repeating as he did so that formula which the Saviour bequeathed 
 to his people to the end of time. Then, turning, I imagine him as receiving 
 his associates, Helwys, Murton, Pygott, §eamer, Overton, Bromhead, Jessop, 
 Hodgkins, Bywater, Grindal, Halton, and the others, not forgetting Mary 
 Smyth, Ann Bromhead, Ursula Bywater, the Dickens sisters, and the rest, 
 and, one by one, after the same manner, reinitiating each into the earthly 
 
 IS* Works, iii: i6S. 
 
 133 He who reads The loft booke of lohn Smith, 
 called tlie retractation of his Errours, and tlie con- 
 firmation of the Truth [the only known copy is in the 
 library of the Minster, York, Ens;.] will surely believe 
 ■what I have said, as to this engaging element in the 
 character of a many-sided man. 
 
 '^That John Murton was in full sympathy with 
 what was done is clear from his own words [/} Defcrip- 
 
 tion of ivliat God hath Prcdejlinatcd Concerning' 
 ilAiw, etc. (1620), 159]: "Some one mull Eaptife, not 
 being yet Pallor or Elder ; For there mull be a Flccke, 
 before a Shepherd, as were all the Churches of the 
 Primitiue time, etc." 
 
 12' Con^^e,^iitionaiistn as Seen, etc. 2S4. 
 
 '28 " Unto which [baptism] they alfo afcribed so great 
 virtue, as that they would not fo much as pray together 
 before ihey had it." John Robinson, lyorks, iii: 16S. 
 
[3'] 
 
 king^dom of God. And I have ventured here to introduce, as possibly with 
 considerable exactitude pictorially representing the service performed by Mr. 
 Smyth upon himself, a tracing from an ancient en- 
 graving representing the self-baptism in earlier days 
 of a " Hemerobaptist." 
 
 Turning, now, from fancy which may be truth, to 
 fact which is sure to be truth, I present the following 
 witnesses in evidence that, in this or some other man- 
 ner, John Smyth, on this occasion, did baptize, first 
 \v himself, and then his followers. 
 
 I. Mr. Smyth himself in his last tract, published 
 after his decease, seems to avow and justify the act : "^ 
 
 Seeing ther was no church to whome we could Joyne with a Good confcicnce, to haue bap- 
 tifmc from them, thcr forwee might bapiife our selues : that this is fo the lord knoweth. 
 
 And again : ''" 
 
 Maister Hel. [wys] saith that although ther be churches alreadie eftabliihed, minitlers 
 ordained and facramcnts adminiftered orderly, yet men are not bound to Joyne to thofe former 
 churches etlablilhed, but may being as yet unbaptifed baptil'e them felues (as "we did) and 
 proceed to build churches of them felves, etc. '4' 
 
 2. We have already in part cited Mr. Ainsworth as to the point of affusion. 
 Let us return to note the full scope of his evidence. He says : '*" 
 
 Mr. Sm. anabaptized him/elf ruith 'water . . . Wherefore reading and preaching being 
 joyned togither, as baptifing with water & preaching : he that condemns the one outward 
 action becaufe a child can doe it, condemneth alfo the other by the like reafon. And A/r. Siii. 
 ha%ing thus written of c]\\\Ax&n, aud doon to him/cl/, etc. . . . He aiuibaptizcd hiinself m\(1 then 
 anabaptized others, etc. 
 
 3. In like manner let us revert to John Robinson's full statement, viz. : '■'^ 
 
 As I have heard from themfelves . . . Mr. Smyth baptized Jirji him f elf , and next Mr. //<•.'- 
 wiffe, and fo the rejt, making their j^articutar confelTions. Now to let pafs . . . his Ihiptizing 
 him/elf, which was more than Chrift himfelf did, Matt. iii. 14: I demand into what church he 
 entered by baptifm, etc. 
 
 4. Richard Clyfton (a present witness) devotes large space and long argu- 
 ment to the matter, I cull sentences here and there, only, sampling the 
 squareness of the testimony which he gives as to the fact, viz. : '** 
 
 '* The tajl booke of tolm Smith, etc. 37. 
 
 "Vi/a'. 37. 
 
 '*' Compare with this the confession of Smyth and 
 his sympathizers, when, in i6o<), seeking admission to 
 the Mcnnonite Church in Amsterdam: 
 
 "qui hunc errorem fuum agnofcunt, ejus que poen- 
 itentiae aguut, viz. : quod incoeperint fe iplbs bap- 
 
 tizare, contra ordinem a Chrifto conftitutum, etc. 
 [Autograph MS. Meiinonite Archives A msterdttm. 
 Evans |i: 209] gives this in an English translation.] 
 
 '*' Defence, etc. 6g, S2. 
 "••' ICarks, iii: lOS. 
 
 "* Ptea far ///fauis, elc. (1610), pp. 177-9, '^°t ''^Si 
 1S5, 186, 224. 
 
[ 
 
 1 "> 
 
 In my former anfwcr I fayd that it can not be fliewed that any man did ever baptife him 
 felf without fpecial commandcment from God, etc. and you thus replic: "I fay, as much as 
 you have to fct up a true Church," wherein you anfwere not directly to the point, but fliift it 
 of, with faying that you have as much power to fet vp baptifme, or baptife your selfe, as we to 
 fet vp a Churcii : for fuppofe lue have not this paivcr to fet vp a Church, then ho7a is your action 
 of baptifing your felfe iuflificd? . . . You muft bring like warrant from the Scripture, that jv« 
 being vnbaptif-ii, may baptife your felfe, or els . . . your baptifme prove but a vayne fanfie . . . 
 \iy(ni that baptife your jf//" (being but an ordinary man) may this do, then may an other do the 
 like, and fo every one baptife himfclfe . . . Confider you that are fo barren of proof for the 
 admi>iijlring of Baptifing to your felf, that you can not fliew one good reafon to warrant it to be 
 lawful . . . And fo Mr. Smyth loas a Church, when he baptifed hinifelf which is abfurd to 
 think . . . Then I pray you. Sir, refolvc me how you can baptife your fe!f into the Church, being 
 w// ty //, yea, and where there was no Church? Or how could you baj^tife others, your felf 
 being out of the Church ? . . . Seing you have already chaunged your mind again concerning 
 your baptifing of your self. . . In that you baptifed your felfe, and others, \i\x\\o\i.X. lawful 
 calling, etc. 
 
 5. In 16 10 an able reasoner now known to us only by the initials of "I. H." 
 prefixed to his book, published in London A Dcfcription of the Chvrch of 
 C/irifl, etc., ivith foi?ie Oppofit'ious and Aufwers of Defetice . . . againfl certaine 
 Anahaptiflicall and Erroniovs Opiniotis . . . inaintaificd and practfed by one 
 Maiflcr fohn Smith . . . and a Co??ipanie of EnglifJi People with him now at 
 Amfterdatn in Holland, whome he hath there with himfelfe Re-baptifed.^^^ This 
 writer says : 
 
 I pray you tell vs one thing Master Smith ? 
 
 By 7ohat rule baptifed you your felfe ? What worde or example had you for that in all the 
 Scriptures.' Doe you afifirme the baptifme of children to be the marke of the Beaft, becaufc, 
 you fay, there is no word nor example in all the Scripture, to prouc that they may be baptifed: 
 And yet durfl you prefume without either word or example, to baptife yo7ir felfe. If you go 
 about to proue that lawful which you hauc done, by any word, or example in the Scripture, I 
 fay you cannot fet one Hep forward to that purpofe, but you mufl allow thereby the baptifme of 
 Children. I maruell you did not prcuent this olDie6f ion : which wil be as hard a bone for you 
 to gnaw vpon, as you thinke the baptifme of Children is to vs. It was wonder you wold not 
 receiue your baptifme firft, from fome one of the Elders of the Dutch Anabai^tifts: but you 
 will be holyer then all, a>tdfee hozi' you ha tie marred all. 
 
 6. In 1623 " Edmond Jeffop, who fometime walked in the faid errors with 
 them," printed in London his Difcovcry of the Errors of the Englijh Anabap- 
 tiJIs, etc. In this he thus speaks : '^* 
 
 Mr. Smith baptized himfelfe firfl, and then Mr. Helwis, and lohn Morton, with the reft. 
 
 If I fliould now demand of you your warrant, for a man to baptize himfelfe ; I much 
 maruell where you would findc fuch a pra(5\ife in all the New Teftament of Chrift; I am fure 
 it would be a tafke too hard for you to find. 
 
 '"4°. pp. viii, 120 [Bodleian. (Tanner. 196.)] p. 23. | ""4'^. pp. xii, 104. [Bodleian. (15. 4. 7. Line.)] \->. 65. 
 
[33] 
 
 7- Lubbert Gerrits, a Mennonite minister, writing from Amsterdam to tlie 
 Church at Leeuwarden early in 1610, referring to this case of Smyth, calls it'*' 
 "the act of baptizing by which he has baptized /lim/c//.'" 
 
 8. Another witness whom we have already seen to have a considerable 
 familiarity with the subject, deserves special examination. It is Richard 
 Bernard in his Plaine Euidcnces : etc. directed againjl Mr. Ainfworth the Scpa- 
 ratijl, and Mr. Smyth the fc-baptijl, etc. I cite a sentence here and there 
 directly to the point before us : "* 
 
 Notorious aftes, wee may reade, haue made men remarkable, and haue gotten them names 
 and titles for a memoriall of the facts and deeds done ; why fliould not hec [Smyth] then 
 obtaine what worthily hee hath deferued ? hee is Anabaptijlicall, for rebaptization ; and he is a 
 Sc-baptiJ}, becatife hee did baptife hivifelfe . . . Mr. Smith did baptife, and was not before by his 
 own iudgment & profeflion baptifed ; fo a perfon vnbaptifed did baptife : and therefore it is no 
 true Sacrament by his owne doflrine . . . And therefore all his company haue receiued by him 
 corruption . . . Hee hath (if you will beleeue him) recouered the true Baptifme, and the true 
 matter and forme of a true Church, which now is onely to be found pure among a company of 
 Se-baptijls. Mr. Smith will hold euer this word (Se) to himfelfe ; for in going into Brownifme 
 hee was a Separatift, he held differing opinions from them, and now that he is in Anabaptifme 
 hee is a Se-baptift . . . Baptifme (faith he) is the doore into the Church : there muftebe then a 
 Church, and a doore into the Church. I afke therefore whether the vifible Church was among 
 them or no, when Mr. Smith did baptife himfelfe? ... As one falling to Anabaptifme, leaning 
 all Churches for that way, and entering thereinto by baptifeing of himfelfe, whereby he is become 
 Mr. Smith the Anabaptiflicall Se-baptift . . . [He holds] that true Baptifme was nowhere to 
 be had lawfully : bccanfe he did baptize himfelfe . . . That in his cafe he might baptife himflf 
 and fo his Church be a pure Church, whence men may fetch true baptifme, but lawfully belike 
 no where elfe. Wofull premifes, miferable conclufion : errour and arrogancy void of true char- 
 itie . . . Mr. Smith did bapttfe himfelfe contrary to the Scripture (which commandeth one to 
 baptife another, Mat. 28. 18.) and contrary to all examples in Scripture ... It muft needes 
 then be a falfe baptifing, with which all the reft are polluted, etc. 
 
 9. So much for witnesses immediately cognizant of the facts. There are at 
 least a dozen others, nearer and more remote in time, and circumstances, who 
 might be marshalled to testify, but I will only here further refer to the careful 
 judgment of a single writer — one who has the great advantage of being an 
 antiquary, a Dutchman, and a Mennonite; who has spent his life in the Low 
 Countries ; who has the official custody of the manuscript remains of this very 
 controversy ; and who has for many years been a diligent and intelligent stu- 
 dent of the history of the Separatists in Holland — I refer to Prof. J. G. de 
 Hoop Scheffer, of the Mennonite College in Amsterdam. In a memoir lately 
 read before the Royal Academy upon The Browtiists 0/ Amsterdam, and pub- 
 
 '*" See the whole letter, translated by Mr. Muller, in 
 Evans, i : 2 11-213. 
 
 '♦«4''. pp. xvi, 340 [C. M. (4135- a-)]. PP- '7. 'S. '9i 
 20, 30, 3'4 -3'S- 
 
[34] 
 
 lished within the present year, upon the phase of the subjecj: before us I^e 
 says : ''' 
 
 In cen plcchtige godsdienstoefening, waar- 
 
 schijnlijk in October 1608, bediende hij ecrst, 
 na afgelcgde bclijdcnis en ten aanschouwen 
 van alien, den doop aan zichzelven, vervolgens 
 aan Helwys en daarna aan de anderen, zoo 
 velen 't begcerden en hun geloof beleden : 
 ruim cen veertigtal. 
 
 At a solemn religious service, probably in 
 October. 1608, after making public confes- 
 sion, in the sight of all the others, he [Smyth] 
 performed the rite of baptism upon himself; 
 after which he baptized Hehvys, and others 
 who followed with confession of faith — to 
 the number of about forty. 
 
 Here, now, we have first an antecedent probability growing out of the 
 avowed opinions of the parties in interest, that a certain course would be 
 adopted, and a certain act performed. We have next the direct declaration of 
 the man immediately concerned, that that act did take place. We have then 
 the corroborative statement of seven cotemporaries to the like effect. And 
 we have, further, the express judgment, to the same end, of that modern scholar 
 who by position, culture and opportunity has the best means to reach a candid 
 and conclusive decision. All these unite to declare that John Smyth rebap- 
 tized first himself, and then his company. 
 
 And, what is remarkable, nobody in those days appears to have denied, or 
 doubted, that he did thus. Again and again during Smyth's short life-time, and 
 while Helwys and IMurton still held their pens, was the act charged upon them, 
 as an ecclesiastical irregularity needing justification, but that charge seems 
 never to have been met by any attempt to deny its truth. One hundred and 
 twenty-five years later good, but clums)-, Thomas Crosby — confessing that he 
 had never seen Smyth's own books, which " are not to be met with " — sug- 
 gested that those who charged him with.Se-baptism : "° 
 
 writ . . . with so much paffion and refentment, that it is not unlikely fuch men might take 
 up a report againft him upon flender evidence, and after one had publilhed it the others might 
 take it from him without any enquiry into the truth of it, etc. 
 
 Seventy-three years later Joseph Ivimey improved upon Crosby's suggestion 
 sufficiently with confidence to declare : '^' 
 
 There is no doubt but this silly charge was fabricated bv his enemies, and it is an astonish- 
 ing instance of credulity that writers of eminent talents have contributed to perpetuate the 
 slander. 
 
 Seven years later still, Adam Taylor attributed it to misconstruction : "' 
 
 "° 77^ Brmu7ti!:ten Te Amstrrdatit f;ed7irefide den 
 ecrstcn Tijd na hnnnc Vcstiging, in vcrbafid met het 
 Ontstaan van de Brocderschap der Baptisteit, etc. 
 Amsterdam, iSSi. 8°. pp. 176, p. 104. 
 
 ^'^ History of En!:lish Baptists, etc. (173S) i: 97. 
 ^'•^ History 0/ English Baptists, etc. (iSii) i: 115. 
 ^^'"^Hisioryo/EngUJi General Baptists, etc. (1818) 
 :8s. 
 
[35] 
 
 We may, therefore, presume, that the report of Mr. Smyth's baptizing himself originated 
 in mistake : and Itas been perpetuated by those, who have too hastily taken up a report against 
 their neighbour. 
 
 In our own time — since so many original data for judgment have been 
 recovered — under the lead of Mr. Underhill a theory has been advanced that, 
 inasmuch as, confessedly, the coinpany originated among themselves a new 
 bajDtism, it was for that reason that they were called Se-baptists : "not that 
 each one dipped, or baptized himself, but [that] among them they commenced 
 the practice." '" So reasoning he reaches the result : "* 
 
 I mav, therefore, confidently afifirm that the charge of baptizing himself is, with respect to 
 Smith, a calumny, but arose from the circumstances referred to. In no other way can we 
 account for the silence with respect to it, observed by himself in his writings, and [observed] 
 in those of his friends. '55 
 
 The Chicago Standard has gone so far as to intimate that writers in Hol- 
 land at the time fell into this misapprehension : '^* 
 
 This language was construed by hostile writers as having the absurd meaning noticed 
 above. Something to the same effect Mr. Robinson heard, and honestly misconstruing it, reported 
 it as what he had thus heard. There is no other theorj- of the matter which in the light of 
 candid history will stand the tesu 
 
 The " times of ignorance " we have divine sanction to " overlook." But 
 it is hard to entertain a doubt that, in view of the fuller and weightier evidence 
 herein adduced, the candor of Baptist scholarship must henceforth concede : 
 (i) that this was no more a case of immersion than of sprinkling, but of allu- 
 sion ; and (2) that John Smyth did aff use first himself, and then his company. 
 
 The remainder of this story may be brief. All testimony agrees that but 
 ver}f few months elapsed before Mr. Smyth moved on to another plane ot 
 thought and action ; first suspecting and then affirming, that they had all been 
 wrong in holding the right to baptize and — in his own phrase — to church, 
 themselves ; so that, really : '" 
 
 their new-washed companie is no true church, and that there cannot be in a church the 
 adminillratio of baptifme & other ordinances of Chrift, without Officers; contrarie to his 
 former judgment, practifc & writings. 
 
 Some modification of his theological views accompanied and exaggerated 
 
 >»Dr. E. B. Underhill, in Watchman, 14 July, 1S53. 
 >'••* Ibid. 
 
 '" Prof. S. S. Cutting {Historical Vindicaiiofis, etc. 
 (1839) 60] takes the same view. 
 
 iM 1 July, iSSo. 
 
 '=' Clyfton says [Plea for Infants, etc. vi] that tliis 
 was the account given him at the time, by some of 
 Smyth's church. 
 
[36] 
 
 this difficulty, which soon constrained the majority of the new church, under 
 the lead of Helwys and Murton, sorrowfully to excommunicate Smyth and 
 twenty or thirty who thought with him. We have the statement made public 
 by that majority as the justification of their course, as follows :'^* 
 
 That it may not be thought we lay imputations, or caft reproaches upon Mr. Smyth 
 unjuftly, we thought good, in fliort, to fet downe fonie of the errors whereinto he is 
 fallen, etc. : 
 
 1. That concerning Christ the firtl matter of his flefli, he affirmed that all the Scriptures 
 would not prove that he had it of the virgin Mary, but his fecond matter which he fa>d was 
 his nourifliment, that the Scriptures proved he had of Mary, thus making Christ to have two 
 matters of his flcfh. 
 
 2. That men are juflified partly by the righteoufnefs of Christ apprehended by faith, partly 
 by their own inherent righteoufnefs. 
 
 3. That Adams fm was not imputed unto any of his poflerity, & that all men are in the 
 eftate of Adam in his innocencie before they commit actual fm; & therefore infants were not 
 redeemed by Christ, but as the Angels & all other creatures. 
 
 4. That the Church & Miniftcrie muft come by fucceffion, contrary to his former profeffion 
 in words & writings, & that by a fuppofed fucccfllon he cannot flicw from whom, nor when, nor 
 where. 
 
 5. That an Elder of one Church is an Elder of all Churches in the world. 
 
 6. That Magiflrates may not be members of Christs Church, and retain their magiflracy. 
 
 Smyth and his friends, thus excluded, asked a church of the Mennonites to 
 receive them, and a parley followed. It appears to have been objected against 
 them that they had unwarrantably baptized themselves. Whereupon the fol- 
 lowing document, still preserved in the archives of that church in Amsterdam, 
 was signed by sixteen men, and as many women, and offered to meet that 
 difficulty : ''' 
 
 Nomina yTinglorum qui hunc errorem suum 
 agnofcunt, cjufque pcenitentiae agunt, viz.: 
 quod incoeperint fe ipfos baptizare, contra 
 ordinem a Chrifto conftitutum; quique jam 
 cupiunt hinc verae Chrifli ecclefiae veniri, 
 ea qua feri poffit expeditione. Cupimus un- 
 animiter votum hoc noHrum ecclefiae signifi- 
 cari.'^o 
 
 The names of the Englidi people who con- 
 fefs this their error, and repent of the fame, 
 viz. : that they undertook to baptize them- 
 felves contrary to the order laid down by 
 Chrifl ; who now therefore defire to get back 
 into the true Church of Chrifl as fpeedily as 
 may be. We are of one accord in the desire 
 to have this our wifli signified to the Church. 
 
 'M A Declaration of the Faith of EttgliJJi People 
 remaining at A mflerdam in Holland, etc [Helwys's 
 company] (161 1) p. 16. Tliis must be carefully distin- 
 guished from anoilitr little book iirinted the year fol- 
 lowing with precisely the same title, witii the exception 
 of the addition : "being the remainder of Mr. Smyths 
 Companic, etc." I have conie to the knowledge of no 
 copy of either except those preserved in the library of 
 the Minster at York, Eng. 
 
 i5» I have copied from the original MS. Evans [i : 
 244] has printed it. 
 
 '•"'The names were these. A comparison of my list 
 with that of Dr. Evans [i: 244] will show that I have 
 read some of iheni difierently from him. 
 
 Names of Men Hugo Bromhead, Gervase Nevill, 
 John Sjiiylh, Thomas Canadyne, Kdsvaid Hawkins, 
 John Hardie, Thomas Pygott, Francis Pygott, Rubert 
 Staveley, Alexander Fleniiuge, Alexander Hodgkins, 
 
or The 
 
 OF 
 
 [37] 
 
 Thereupon Helwys, Murton, William Pygott and Thomas Seamer, under 
 date of 12 March, 1609, appealed to the Mennonite church thus addressed, 
 begging them : '" 
 
 as you love the lord and his truth, that you will take wife councell, and that from Gods 
 Word, how you deale in this caufe betwixt us and thofe that are jultlie for their finnes call out 
 from us. 
 
 After various considerations designed to persuade the church to be cautious 
 in such an endorsement of the new applicants for their fellowship as should 
 react against those who had felt constrained to cast them out, they con- 
 clude : 
 
 Thus befecching the lord to perfuade your hart, that your hand may not be againft his 
 truth, and againll us the lords unworthie witneiTes, wee take our leave, commending you to the 
 gracious prote(5lion of the Almightie, etc. 
 
 The Mennonites appear to have been moved by this appeal, and took 
 counsel of a sister church in the capital of Friesland. Considerable delay and 
 several letters followed, all ending in the failure of the movement.'^^ 
 
 Jan Munterwas a friendly Waterlander. He owned a "Great Cake-House," 
 or baker}-, which appears to have had some sort of annex, where men might 
 both meet and lodge. And in the hinder part of this John Smyth now seems 
 to have taken refuge with his little band.'" There was a curious resemblance 
 between his spiritual history and that of Roger Williams, who went from a 
 Congregational, through a Baptist Church, to be and remain a "Seeker" for 
 the rest of his days 3 and Smyth, "inquiring after a new way of walking,"'*^ 
 and, to all appearance, unconnected with any church organization, spent here 
 the brief remainder of his earthly life. For years a feeble man, in the summer 
 of 1612 he fell sick with consumption.'^' And after seven weeks of increasing 
 
 John Grindal, Salomon Thomson, Samuel Halton, 
 Thomas Dolpliine, Mathew Pygott. (i6.) 
 
 .Vnmes of Wotnen. Ann I'.romhead, Jane South- 
 worth, Mary Smyth, Joane Halton, Allis Ariifield, Isa- 
 bel! Thomson, Marparet Staveley, Mary Grindal, Allis 
 Pycott, Margaret Pygott, Betteris Dickens, Mary 
 Dickens, .Mlis Paynter, Allis Parsons, Joane Briggs, 
 Jane Organ. (i6.) 
 
 "• I have copied from the original MS. in the ar- 
 chives at Amsterdam. Dr. Evans [i: 209] has printed 
 the letter, but — I suppose forgetting that new style 
 had been adopted in Holland in 1583, and that the 
 year (which still in England began 25 Mnr.) there 
 began i Jan. — has misstated the dale as 12 Mar. 1610. 
 
 ""'-Dr. Evans [i: 21S] on the other hand represents 
 the application as having been successful. But Prof. 
 SchefEer in a letter before me intimates that Dr. E. has 
 
 confounded this with a later request which was com- 
 plied with : 
 
 This assertion of Dr. E. is quite hypothetical, and 
 not at all probable ; the records mention no other union 
 with the English than the union (after Smyth had been 
 dead some three years] of 1615. 
 
 "'^ Prof. Muller, in Evans, i: 220. 
 
 "''' Clyfton, Plea for In/ants, etc. vi. So in 1609, 
 Ainsworth said [De/etice, etc. 121I that God's hand 
 "as it is heavie upon him already in giving him over 
 from error to error . . . fo wil the fame hand ftil follow 
 him unto furder judgment if he do not repent." 
 
 '"■'Bradford says [Young, Dialogue, etc. 451] "he 
 [Smyth] died there [/. <r. in Amsterdam] of a consump- 
 tion, to which he was inclined before he came out of 
 England." 
 
[3«] 
 
 deliility.'** i September of that year he was borne from the Cake-House to his 
 burial in the A^icioc Kcrk.^" 
 
 Late in 1614 what remained of his company renewed their old request 
 for admission to one of the Mennonite churches, which, 20 Jan. 1615, was 
 granted. For a short season a separate English service was held by them in 
 the Cake-House, but it was not long before they became absorbed among the 
 Dutch, leaving no trace of separate existence visible to history,'*" 
 
 And so endeth the true story of John Smyth the Se-baptist, as told by 
 himself and his contemporaries. 
 
 '™ His company said [Declaration, etc. 44] : 
 
 It plenfed the lord at the legth, to vifit him with 
 ficknes, and wiih a difeafe wherby he perceived that liis 
 life fliould not long continue; yet remayning about 
 
 seaven weakes, during the which space, he behaved 
 liiml'elf Christianlike. 
 
 "" I!urial Records, Niewe Kerk, sub date. 
 
 108 Prof. MuUer, as cited by Evans, \: 220-223. 
 
 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 AN INQUIRY WHETHER DIPPING WERE A NEW MODE OF BAPTISM IN ENGLAND 
 
 IN, OR ABOUT, 1 64 1. 
 
 N the year 1876 Mr. Robert Barclay published in London the judg- 
 ment that " the practice of immersion appears to have been intro- 
 duced in England, on the 12th September, 1633."' Four years later 
 I ventured to print a somewhat similar opinion, supported by such evidence as 
 was then in my possession,"* My statement was at once challenged by Baptist 
 reviewers. One called it ''an amazing error." ^ Another declared that "the 
 unbroken tradition among Baptists is in favor of their immersion." * Another 
 knew "of no reason to doubt that they [Baptists] all were immersed before the 
 year 1641."^ And still another insisted that "no fact in history is more cer- 
 tain than that they have always immersed." ^ 
 
 I did not know very much about the subject then. But I have since 
 studied it as opportunity has offered ; and I now propose to set down the 
 results of that investigation. 
 
 It seems very safe to say that any change like that involved in making con- 
 science of one particular form of the administration of a church rite over other 
 forms, possible and actual; must — with human nature what it always has 
 been — provoke difference of feeling, and the expression of it. And since the 
 art of printing was discovered, it seems equally safe to decide that that kind of 
 argumentation would leave its trace upon the literature of the time. Were any- 
 thing of the sort to take place now, it would breed a tremendous discussion in 
 the columns of the religious newspapers.. Two centuries and a half ago — 
 nearly or quite two hundred years before the founding of journals which could 
 have been so employed — such a controversy must necessarily have been car- 
 ried on through the medium of books, pamphlets and broadsides. We may lay 
 it down then as certain, that, if at any time in the seventeenth century any 
 
 ^ Inner Life of the Relig. Societies of the Com- 
 monwealth, etc. 73. The date is the one given in the 
 Kiffm MS. as that of the founding of Spilsbury's 
 church in London. Ivimey, i: 139. 
 
 ' Cougregationaiism as Seen, etc. 318. 
 
 ' New York Exatniner and Chronicle, 19 Aug. 1880. 
 < Prof. Heman Lincoln, D D., Newton Theo. Sera, 
 in the Boston Watchman, 14 Oct. 18S0. 
 ^ Portland Zion^s Advocate, 28 July, 1880. 
 « Chicago Standard, i July, iSSo, 
 
 (39) 
 
[40] 
 
 question arose among good people in England as to the necessity of the substi- 
 tution of immersion for affusion or sprinkling, as the sole mode of baptism ; 
 books, pamphlets and broadsides were printed about it — for and against — 
 which, if still in existence and to be found, would give us in the most authentic 
 manner ample and accurate knowledge as to what was done, and why it was 
 done. Such literature, however, is proverbially ephemeral, and except as it 
 may have been preserved in some extraordinary way, and for some special end, 
 it would hardly be reasonable to anticipate, at this late date, any large success 
 in its recovery. 
 
 But it so happens that at the exact time when this question of immersion — 
 if there were any such question — must have arisen, Providence raised up a 
 man whom it inspired with the idea of gathering together, and dedicating to 
 the uses of the future, every issue of the J>ress, of whatsoever sort it might be. 
 This was the royalist bookseller, George Thomason, of the Rose and Crown, 
 in St. Paul's Churchyard. It appears to have been in 1641 that the idea first 
 forcibly struck him that there would be both interest and value in thus collect- 
 ing and preserving the multifarious publications which the ferment of those 
 new times in Church and State was breeding thick and fast. He seems to have 
 begun, retrospectively, by procuring all on which he could lay his hand which 
 had seen the light during the few previous months. And then for twenty years 
 — and what years they were ! — down to 1662, he made it his business to let 
 nothing licensed, surreptitious, or secret escape him. He even copied with his 
 own hand " near one hundred feveral [manuscript] pieces, mofl of which," he 
 says, "were on the kings tide, which no man durft venture to publifli here with- 
 out the danger of his ruin." This wonderful collection he arranged chronolog- 
 ically — taking "exact care" that "the very day is written upon [the title-page 
 of] mofl of them that they came out" — and bound in 2220 volumes — folio, 
 quarto, and smaller, according to the size of their contents — aggregating, it is 
 estimated, nearly 34,000 separate publications. It is a curious miscellany, and 
 the chronological necessity of it makes strange bedfellows. An almanac lies 
 sandwiched between a sermon and a squib ; a treatise on turnips may crowd an 
 epithalamium on one side and an elegy on the other ; vulgar and nasty " Mer- 
 curius Philalethes" leans and leers between John Milton and Jeremy Taylor; 
 and tracts on Church Government, engineering, agriculture, wine, wool and 
 witchcraft, maybe looked for in the close company of sailors' songs, catechisms, 
 goodwives' gossip, round-head rhymes and loyalist lampoons.' 
 
 'The facts and ci;ations in this description are taken 
 from Thomason's preface to his MS. catalogue of his 
 collection, etc. The best brief published account is 
 
 perhaps that in E. Edwards's Memoirs of Libraries: 
 including a Handbook of Library Economy, etc. 
 (1859) i: 455- 
 
[4<] 
 
 It seems a curious thing that no English Baptist scholar appears to have 
 thought it worth his while to examine consecutively this collection — now 
 known as the "King's Pamphlets"^ in the library of the British Museum — 
 with reference to the question under discussion ; and that it should have been 
 left for an outsider, and an American, to undertake it. But during the last 
 winter I devoted some days to that work, and was rewarded by the discovery 
 of no fewer than one hundred and eighty separate publications bearing directly 
 upon the Baptist controversy ; — the majority of which were printed within the 
 first ten years after the date alleged by Mr. Barclay as that of the origin of the 
 practice of immersion in England. I kept a register of my findings, with their 
 press marks, which — expanded to cover the remainder of that century — I add 
 at the end of this tract, for the benefit of whomsoever it may concern ; and, to 
 save space, I shall herein cite such treatises included therein as I may have 
 occasion to refer to, simply by their author's name, or the first word or two of 
 the heading of such as are anonymous, with their number in that list, leaving 
 the reader to get the entire title from the Appendix. 
 
 The earliest date at which immersion was publicly and ofiicially announced 
 as being held needful by English Baptists, was i6 Oct. 1644;' at which time 
 appeared The Confcffion of Faith of ihofe Churches which are commonly {though 
 falfly) called Anabaptifls, etc. which was "fubfcribed in the names of feven 
 churches in London," by fifteen persons, the first of whom was William Kifiin. 
 The XLth article is as follows, viz. : '° 
 
 That the way and manner of the difpenfing this ordinance, is dipping or plunging the body 
 under water ; it being a figne, mufl anfwer the things fignified, which is, that intereft the Saints 
 have in the death, burial, and refurre6tion of Chrift : And that as certainly as the body is 
 buried under water, and rifen again, fo certainly (liall the bodies of the Saints bee raifed by 
 the power of Chrifl, in the day of the refurrcSion, to reigne with Chrift. [There is an 
 appended note : The word Baptizo fignifies to dip or plunge, (yet fo as convenient garments be 
 both upon the Adminiftrator and fubject, with all modedy.)] 
 
 The practical question now to be considered is whether this requirement of 
 dipping had been accepted from the rise of distinctively Baptist sentiments 
 in England, or whether plunging had been superinduced upon another and 
 different earlier practice ; and, if so, at what date. And, waiving the inquiry 
 whether there had been, at some time previous to 1600, Baptist churches in 
 that country which had lost visibility, the question respects such Baptist 
 churches there as survived, or had grown up between that year and the period 
 
 'Tl>ey get tliis name because Gi;orgc III., in 1762, 
 spent £300 in making a present of the collection, after 
 various fortunes and perils, to the British Museum. 
 
 " This is the dale of publication endorsed on its face 
 by Thomason. 
 lOApp. 35, p. 20. 
 
■[4=] 
 
 of the publication of the Confession just cited — that is, in the first four and 
 forty years of the seventtenth century. 
 
 It seems to be conceded on all hands that when Hehvys and Murton 
 recrossed 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, Salisburv, 
 Coventry,'- Stoney Stratford," Ashford, Eiddenden and Eyethorn in Kent,'* 
 Canterbury,'^ and Amersham in Buckinghamshire.'^ 
 
 These were all General Baptist churches ; that is to say, they more or 
 less leaned toward Arminianism in their theology ; but Crosby took pains 
 to declare '^ "that this difference in opinion is not a fufficient or realon- 
 able ground of renouncing Chriftian communion with one another," and so 
 makes no distinction between them and the Particular, or Calvinistic, Baptists 
 in his history,'^ It seems to be further safe to conclude — from their own lan- 
 guage;'' from the practice of the Dutch Mennonites with whom they were in 
 fellowship;-" from the concession of the latest and most learned English Bap- 
 tist historian ;-' and from evidence yet to be presented in another form — that 
 these Baptist churches did not practice immersion. Besides these, there appear 
 to have been many other opponents of infant baptism, who were not as yet 
 affiliated on that basis, but w-ere scattered about in various Puritan churches, 
 indistinguishably from their other members. Thus Crosby says " that, down 
 to 1633, the Baptists had been '"intermixed among other Proteftant DilTenters, 
 
 " It used to be said that this was in 1614 \_Taylor, 
 i: 87; Price, Hist. Mod. Noitcon. etc. i: 519], but 
 Evans [i: 224], and Skeats [41 J put it in 1612. Per- 
 haps this latter date finds confirmation in the fact that 
 the Kodleian contains a presentation copy of Helwys's 
 Short Declaration to the kins;, with an autograph note 
 [from Helwys] on the fly-leaf, which is signed " Spit- 
 tlefield near London." .Assuming that such a copy 
 would be sent early, if at ail, the date of the book, 
 which is 1612, would seem to make Helwys resident 
 near London at that date. 
 
 '- The first five are named in a letter of C. C. Aresto, 
 3 Nov. 1626, in Evans, ii: 24, 26. 
 
 " Evans, ii : 54. 
 
 ^* Hid. ii: 56; Taylor, i: 2S3, 281. 
 
 ^^ Ivimcy,\: 138; Taylor, i: 162. 
 
 '0 Taylor, i : 96. 
 
 " Crosby, i: 173. 
 
 "ivimey also [i: 137] claims that General P.aptist 
 Church at Canterbury referred to above, as a regular 
 Baptist Church. 
 
 '"Helwys uniformly calls baptism washing; not dip- 
 
 ping: e. g^. [Short Declaration, etc. p. i6$] " Vou 
 wil have infants baptized, that is -wajlied with water 
 and certen words ; " [p. 139] " he that denies wrt/y/Zwjf, 
 or is not wajlied with the spirit is not baptized, and 
 hee that denies -wajliing, or is not wajlud ivith witer 
 is not baptized; bccaufi; we fee the Baptilme of Chrift 
 is to bee wajlud with water and the Holie Ghost." 
 
 ^ There remain in the archives of the Mennonite 
 Church in Amsterdam si.-c letters, of date from 3 Jan. 
 1624 to 5 June 1631, manifesting fellowship and asking 
 ■advice, which passed between these English churches 
 and the Mennonites. Prof. Mailer translated tlie let- 
 ters, and Evans [ii : 21-51] printed the translations. 
 
 -' Evans [ii: 52] says: 
 
 In this opinion [viz. : that these churches were not 
 immersionistj Dr. Muller fully agrees. I'ut was it so? 
 We cannot pronounce j)osit!ve!y, but are bound to 
 confess that the probabilities are greatly in its favor. 
 The harmony of opinion, and the anxiety for agree- 
 ment, wliich their Dutch brethren manifested in the 
 documents laid before our readers (the six letters 
 aforesaid], would jnore than warrant this conclusion. 
 
[43]- 
 
 without diftindlion, and so confequently fliared with the Puritans in all the 
 perfecutions of thofe times," and later historians"^ mainly endorse his view. 
 It is obvious that all such Baptists, while free to withhold their children from 
 baptism, must themselves have been baptized in the same manner as had all 
 others around them, and could not as yet have made the necessity of dipping 
 an article of their faith. This brings us down to within eleven years of the 
 issuance of the first distinctively Immersionist Confession of Faith, above 
 cited, when we strike the formation of Mr. Spilsbury's Baptist Church in Wrap- 
 ping, by amicable separation from the first Independent Church of Henry 
 Jacob and John Lathrop, the date assigned to which is 12 Sept. 1633. It has 
 been usual — I think I may say nearly universal — to claim that this church 
 was founded on the issue of immersion, and began with that form of baptism. 
 Crosby says he derived his information from "an antient manufcript,y«/V/ to be 
 written by Mr. William Kififin, who lived in thofe times, and was a leader 
 among thofe of that perfuafion." "* Conceding the genuineness of this manu- 
 script, 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 : ^^ 
 
 There was a congregation of Protcflant Dificnters of the independant Perfuafion in London, 
 gather'd in the year 1616, whereof Mr. Henry Jacob was the firft paftor; and after him 
 fuccecded Mr. John Lathorp, who was their minifler at this time. In this fociety feveral per- 
 fons, finding that the congregation kept not to their firft principles of reparation, and being 
 alfo convinced that baptijvi was not to be adminijlrcd to infants, but fuch only as profejfed faith 
 in Chrifi, defired that they might be difmiffed from that communion, and allowed to form a 
 diflindt congregation, in fuch order as was moft agreeable to their own fentiments. 
 
 The church, confidering that they were now grown very numerous, and fo more than could 
 in thefc times of perfecution conveniently meet together, and believing alfo that thofe perfons 
 acted from a principle of confcience, and not obftinacy, agreed to allow them the liberty they 
 defired, and that they fliould be conflituted a diflinct church ; which was perform'd the 12th of 
 Sept. 1633. And as they believed that baptifm was not rightly adminijlrcd to infants, so they 
 looh'd upon the baptifm they had received in that age [/'. e. in infancy] as invalid: whereupon 
 mofl or all of them received a new baptifm. Their minifler was Mr. John Spilfbury. What 
 number they were is uncertain, becaufc in the mentioning of the names of about twenty men 
 and women, it is added, " with divers others." 
 
 In the vear 163S, Mr. William Kiffin, Mr. Thomas Wilfon, and others, being of the fame 
 judgment, were upon their requeft, difmiffed to the faid Mr. SpiU bury's congregation. 
 
 In the year 1639, another congregation of Baptifts was formed, whofe place of meeting was 
 in Crutched-Fryars ; the chief promoters of which were Mr. Green, Mr. Paul Iloblon and 
 Captain Spencer. 
 
 It has been common to represent that Mr. Spilsbury at this time went over 
 
 Taylor, 1 : 97 ; Evans, ii: 51. '*i: too. ^ Ibid i: 14S. 
 
• [44] 
 
 to Holland to obtain immersion ; which of course would settle it that such was 
 the method adopted by this church. But that statement seems to have had its 
 origin as late as 1669 from Wall, who, in his Plain Discovery, etc.^* mentions it 
 as a rumor which he had heard some years before in London that Spilsbury 
 visited Holland to be baptized of Smyth. He did not know that poor Smyth, 
 in 1633, ^^^d been dead more than twenty-one years, nor that lie never bap- 
 tized by immersion. And Hercules Collins (1691) stigmatizes the w-hole story 
 as " absolutely untrue," which Crosby reaffirms."' 
 
 Moreover, we find Mr. Spilsbury himself earnestly and forcibly arguing 
 that, under certain circumstances, unbaptized persons have the right to orig- 
 inate baptism — summing up with this conclusion,"^ viz. : 
 
 By all which it appcares that baptizedneffe is not effential to an Adminiftrator, and therfore 
 we ought not to flay without when Chrift the Porter opens, and invites us in. 
 
 All of w^hich would be very unnatural if Wall's story were true of him. 
 
 So that we are remitted to the language of Kifiin's account uncolored from 
 without, for our knowledge of what was done. Examining it carefully, we 
 discover four things, viz. : (i) that the seceders from Lathrop's church had 
 given up infant baptism ; (2) that having been themselves baptized in infancy, 
 and being convinced that the valid ordinance required the profession of faith 
 in Christ on the part of the recipient, they wished to be again baptized ; 
 '(3) that "most, or all of them" did, therefore, receive "a new baptism ;" but 
 (4) there is neither statement, nor hint, that this new baptism was by immer- 
 sion. I have found no such hint in the autobiography — edited by Orme in 
 1823"' — of Kiffin, who curiously says nothing whatever, in his account of 
 himself, of his becoming a Baptist ; nor in his memoir published by Ivimey in 
 1833.^° There is nothing, then, to interfere with the supposition that the " new 
 baptism " received by this church was by affusion ; leaving them in precisely 
 the same situation with the eleven churches already traced, which had preceded 
 them. I do not now afllrm that this w^as the fact; but I do insist that there is 
 nothing in the statements describing the origin of this church of Mr. Spils- 
 
 20 No. 274, p. 45. 
 
 "Collins [Believers Bapiis7n, etc. No. 358, p. 115] 
 says : 
 
 Could not the Ordinance of Chrirt which was loft in 
 the Apoftafy be revived . . . unlefs in fiich a filthv way 
 as you falliy affert, viz : that the Knslifli lja|/iifts rc- 
 ceivi'd their Baptifm from Mr. John .Sniytli? It is 
 absolutely untrue, it beinj; well known by fome yet 
 alive how falfe this Afleriion is. 
 
 And Croj'by [i: 103] says " Mr. Spilfbury was falfly 
 reported xayxsM&^oxiG. over to Holland to receive bap- 
 tifm from John Smyth," etc. 
 
 -' Gods Ordinance, tJu Saints Friviltdge, etc. [No. 
 81] p. 10. 
 
 -'' Remarkable Paffazes in iJte life of W. Kijjin, 
 •written by him/elf, and edited from t)u original 
 MSS. with notes, by \V. Orme (1S23), etc. S^. pp. 
 xxiv, 162. [B. M. (1124. e. 2.)] 
 
 ^ Tlie Life 0/ Mr. If. Kiffin, vfrjiards of sixty 
 years [1639-1701] Pastor of t lie Baptist Church Dev- 
 onshire Square London, etc. S^. pp. xiv, 110. [B. M 
 (H26. i. 13.)] 
 
[45] 
 
 bury inconsistent with such a theory, provided evidence from any other quarter 
 shall be seen to favor it. 
 
 The same remark is true of the church in CrutchedFriars formed in 1639. 
 So that we come down to a period within about four years of the date of the 
 first English Anabaptist Confession, without finding any proof of the existence 
 of immersion in England. We have testimony which would bear interpretation 
 in its favor, were that made necessary by other considerations ; but which is 
 equally compliant with a different theory, should that be established. 
 
 Let us now examine the quality of the suggestions made by the literature 
 of that day, as to the question before us. 
 
 I begin with Anabaptisine' s Mystcrie, etc." (1623) which contains a letter 
 from an Anabaptist, giving his reasons for leaving the Church of England. He 
 says : 
 
 The thing wherein I differ from the Church of England is, they fay at their waJJiing, or 
 baptizing, in their Infancy, They are mebers, children of God, and inheritours of the kingdom 
 of heaven. This I dare not beleevc ; for the fcriptures of God declare that neither flefh nor 
 luajliing the ficfli can fave . . . The confequcnce of this is, that Infants are not to bee bap- 
 tized, nor can bee Chriftians; but fuch onely as confefle their Faith, as thefe fcriptures teach. 
 
 Not one word is said by the Anabaptist of any question about the inode of 
 baptism — nor is there an allusion to that department of the subject in I. 
 P[reston]"s five and fifty pages of comment on this letter. Whence I infer 
 that, at that date, the mode had not become a subject of discussion in England. 
 
 In 1 641 R. Greville — better known as Robert, Lord Brooke — published 
 a Discovrse^' in which having occasion to refer to the Anabaptists of that 
 time in England, he said, they : 
 
 only deny Baptifme to their Children till they come to yeares of difcrction, and then they 
 baptize them ; but iti other things they agree with the Church of England. 
 
 Nearly at the same time, the author of A Difcovcry of 2g. ScHs, etc." thus 
 describes the Anabaptists, viz. : 
 
 Thefe men fet themfelues wholly againfl the Doctrine of John the Baptilf, except onely in 
 this that they will baptize with Water, but they will not doe it whilejl they are children, till they 
 be able to anfwer for themfelues. They write themfelues Members and Children of God, and 
 certaine inheritours of the Kingdome of Hcauen. 
 
 These testimonies I think imply that down to the time when they were 
 written — which would be the last of 1640, or the early months of 1641 — 
 
 •*' No. 2, p. 2. Crosby's reprint of this letter [i: 134] 
 is not minutely accurate. 
 **/! Difcoirrft opening tht Natvre of that Epifco- 
 
 pacie, which is exercifcd in England, etc. 
 viii, 124. [B. M. (E. 177. [22.])J p. 96. 
 "3 No. 4, p. 5. 
 
[46] 
 
 public attention had not \-et been called to dipping as being insisted upon by 
 the Baptists as a fundamental article of their creed. ^* 
 
 We have, in the same year (1641), the first evidence which I have discov- 
 ered that the subject of baptism, as connected with any novel mode of admin- 
 istration, was attracting the notice of observers ; although its bearings are by 
 no means clear. It occurs as an appendix to a very brief Vindication of the 
 I3ook of Common Praj'^er, being entitled A Difcovery of a fort of people called 
 Re-baptifls, lately found out i7i Hackney MarfJi, neere London, etc. : '^ 
 
 About a Fortnight fince a great multitude of people were met going towards the River in 
 Hackney Marfli, and were followed to the water fide, where they all were Baptized againe, 
 themfelues doing it one to another ; fome of which pcrfons were fo feeble and aged, that they 
 were faync to Ride on Horfc-backe thither. This was wel obserued by many of the Inhab- 
 itants living there abouts, and afterwards one of them Chriftened his owne Child, and another 
 tooke upon him to Church his owne wife, an Abominable Act, and full of groffe Impiety. 
 
 There is nothing here to imply immersion more than affusion as the mode, 
 nor is it easy to explain the latter two averments into consistency with anything 
 likely to be done by the Baptists ; so that I am inclined to dissociate the whole 
 transaction from them, and look upon it as merely an incidental illustration of 
 that unsettledness, and disposition toward novelties, which were about that 
 time ^ beginning powerfully to affect the English mind. 
 
 We now reach the first of several very decided testimonies. In April, 
 1642," one "P. B." published a Discourse favoring the Baptism of children. 
 This was the well-known Praise-God Barbon,^^ whom both Ivimey^'and Brook ^° 
 represent to have been a Baptist and the pastor of a Baptist church, and who 
 really was closely connected with them ; but whose two books which have been 
 preserved, show him, while on friendly terms with the Baptists — "fome of 
 w'hich are my loving friends and acquaintance, whom I would not difpleafe, but 
 rather pleafe ; whom I envy not, but love ; but the truth is to be loved above 
 
 '^ Richard Baxter [Religui<e Baxter iatur, etc. 41] 
 says, under a date which seems to be cither 164 1 or 
 1642, that at Gloucester he met with the first Anabap- 
 tists lie had ever seen: "about a dozen young Men, or 
 more, of confiderable Parts, had received the Opinion 
 againft Infant r.aptifm, and were rcbaptized, and la- 
 boured to draw others after them." But he says 
 nothing about their insisting on any particular mode of 
 administration. 
 
 3= No. 5, p. 8. 
 
 ""The famous " Root and Br.mtli " ]iiiuiioii, j)rayiiig 
 that the government of Bishops with all its Dependen- 
 cies, Roots and Branches, be abolished, had been sent 
 lo Parliament the previous December. 
 
 "'• "April, 1642," is Thomason's endorsement across 
 the title-page. 
 
 *'' Misled by the endorsement, in what seemed to be a 
 contemporary hand-writing, across the title-page of a 
 copy in my possession, in the Bibliographical Collec- 
 tions in the Appendi.x of Congres^atiotialism as Seen, 
 etc., I wrongly attributed this [No. S83] to "P. Bake- 
 well." But Thomason's endorsement refers it to Bar- 
 bon, while Kilcop [Short Treatife, etc. No. 7, p. S] 
 in replying to the bonk says: "thus did Praisgod Bar- 
 bon of late ; " citing passages showing beyond mistake 
 his reference to this tract. 
 
 s'-'ii.S?. 
 
 *"iii: 399. 
 
[47] 
 
 all, being moft deare and precious""*' — to have radically opposed their views 
 on the subject in hand. He says : *^ 
 
 The way of /lew Baptizing, /aU/j' began to be pra(5lifc(l by fome fiippofing tlicmfclvcs, and 
 fo others, not to have bin Baptized with the Baptifmc of Christ, hath no ground, etc. . . . 
 
 But now z-'cry lately fome are mightily taken, as having found out a new defeat in the Bap- 
 tifmc under the defection, which maiceth fuch a nullitie of Baptifme, in their conceit, that it is 
 none at all; and it is concerning the 7/ianner of Baptizing, whcxQm they have efpycd fuch 
 default as it maketh an abfolute nullity of all perfons Baptifme but fuch as have bin fo Bap- 
 tized according to their new difcovery ; and fo j^artly as before in regard of the fubject, and 
 partly in regard of fo great default in the manner : They not only conclude, as is before fayd, 
 a nullity of their prefent Baptifme, And fo but addreffe themfelves to be Baptized a third time 
 after the true way and manner they have foimd ont, which they account a precious truth. The 
 particular of their opinion and frac^i/e is to Dip, and that perfons are to be Dipped, all and ez'cry 
 part to be under the IVatcr ; for if all the whole perfon be not under the Water, then they hold 
 they are not Baptized with the Baptifme of Chrift. As for Sprinkling, or pouring Water on 
 the Face, it is nothing at all as they account, and fo meafuring themfelves by thefe new 
 thoughts, as unbaptized, they addrclTe themfelves to take it up after the manner of Dipping. 
 . . . Baptifme [they reason] is a Buriall, as it is written, We are Buried with him in Baptifme, 
 &c., and we are raifed up alfo to newncffe of life. This Buriall and refurre6tion, only Dipping 
 can import and hold forth. Whcreunto I f;iy it is very true, that Baptifme is a Buriall, and 
 holdeth forth our Buriall and rifing with Chrift. And fo it is [also] in regard of the perfon that 
 is Baptized by Sprinckling, or powring Water on the Face, as they are pleafed to fay, they are 
 under the water, and Buried. I defire they would fliew how elfe they were Baptized unto 
 Mofes in the Cloud and in the Sea, when not fo much as an hair of their heads was wet . . . 
 
 And furthermore to refolve and determine how this totall dipping can (land with modefly 
 and f.iamfaftenefTe, is a hard matter to be made apparant. If out of modefly perfons fliall ufe 
 a linnen garment, or the like, it will be very confiderable [z.^*. it will require to be carefully 
 considered], whether this is not to be modeft above what is written, etc. . . . 
 
 I hope when they have further confidered this matter, they may abate of the fierccnes of 
 their opinion : fo as to thinke that Baptifme under or in the defection may be Gods ordinance, 
 fo as there shall be no need of this new dipping. 
 
 But inafmuch as this is a very new way, and the full growth of it, and fettling is not yet 
 kuffiun, if it be to themfelves, yet not to me and others : I will forbeare to fay further to it. 
 
 Careful reading will find three things here declared, viz. : (i) that certain 
 Baptists were then insisting on dipping as essential to true Baptism ; (2) that 
 this view — in the spring of 1642 — had been very recently for the first time 
 advocated and acted upon ; and (3) that its adoption by some had led them to 
 submit to the rite for the third time "^ — which last renders necessarv the con- 
 
 *' Difcourfe, etc. [No. 6] p. iv. 
 
 **I&id. pp. 3, 12, 13, 15. 
 
 *3 Barbon refers to this in another place fp. 11]: 
 " here is no ground to goe upon, but ihat wliich leadeth 
 into an endlelTe Labyrinth: and, indeed, this fome of 
 them have come to fee and to confelTe, and fo have 
 
 rejected their Tecond Baptifme alfo, and taken up a 
 third, which in time no doubt, when their heate is 
 over . . . they will fee it to be as faulty as their first or 
 fecond, etc." N. Homes in his Vindicaiio7i, etc. 
 (1645) [No. 77, p. v] describes an actual case, as fol- 
 lows : 
 
[48] 
 
 elusion that the English Baptists who had felt bound in conscience to be rebap- 
 tized as adults, had been hitherto sprinkled or affuscd ; obliging them, when 
 they afterwards took up the idea of dipping, to be baptized still again.'" 
 
 Four treatises on the other side followed Mr. Barbon's volume within three 
 months ; one by Thomas Kilcop''^ in May, one by Edward Barber in May,'*^ and 
 one in June by "A. R.,"^' followed by a Second Fart, *^ in July, from the same 
 author. Kilcop refers to Barbon's book, and replies to one of his arguments, 
 Barbon ^' had questioned the right of the Baptists, if they did think true bap- 
 tism to have been lost from the earth, to restore the same without special 
 warrant from heaven. Kilcop answers : ^° 
 
 Every Scripture that gives you warrant, or any of your judgement, to erefl a Church 
 ftate, gives us the fame warrant to ereft baptifme, fith the one cannot be done without the 
 other, for none can put on Chrill (that is vifibly by outward profeffion) but fuch as are 
 baptifed into Chrirt, etc. 
 
 But he makes no allusion whatever to Barbon's charge of the newness of 
 the dipping way. 
 
 Barber's treatise bears on its title-page the date of 1641. But the book 
 contains internal evidence carr}'ing it over at least to May, 1642, as its earliest 
 possible date of issue.-' He replies to Barbon in the same manner as Kilcop 
 had done j^^ but makes no further reference to the charge of the newness of 
 the dipping way, than is involved in saying in his preface : " 
 
 Beloved Reader, it may feeme llrange that in thefe times when fuch abundance of Knowl- 
 edge of the Gofpell is profefTed in the World, there Ihould notwithitanding be generally fuch 
 ignorance, efpecially in and amongft thofe that profcffe themfelves Minifters thereof, of that 
 glorious principle. True Baptifme or Dipping . . . and that the Lord fliould, amongfl fome 
 others, raife up niee, a poore Trade/man, to devlge [divulge] this glorious Truth . . . The Lords 
 ufuall dealing it being to bring mighty things to paffe by weake meanes, as . . . where the 
 walls of Jcrecho fell down by the blails of Rams homes, etc. 
 
 One conpregation at firft addinjc to their Infant-Bap- 
 lifme the adult baptifme of fpniiklin^;: then not reding 
 therein, endeauourinj; toaddeto that a dipping, euen 
 to tlie breakin;j; to peeces of their congrcfcaiion. Since 
 that the Minifter firll dipped himfelfe No! contented 
 therewith, was after baptized by one that had onely hia 
 Infante Uapiil'me. 
 
 *^ I beg to say here, once for all, that I fully appre- 
 ciate the objection which our Baptist brethren logically 
 make, from their premises, to the using of the term 
 " baptized again," when one, sprinkled in childhood, 
 is aflused or immersed in after life. I use the term not 
 with purpose of offense to them, but simply as true 
 from jny standpoint, and the most convenient way, 
 without lengthened circumlocution, of stating the facts. 
 
 «= No. 7. 
 
 <'■ No. 8. 
 
 <■ No. g. * 
 
 ■" No. 10. 
 
 ** Difcourfe, etc. p. 6. [referring to the case of Nadab 
 and Abihu, Lev. x.] 
 
 ^ Short Treati/e, etc. [No. 7] p. 10. 
 
 "' R.g- [p. 27.] " Since part of this Treatife was in 
 PrefTe, there came to my hand a Booke, let forth by 
 P. B. [No. 6, published Apr. 1642] which could f have 
 gotten fooncr, I fliould have answered more fully, 
 etc.'' 
 
 B! Small Treatife, etc. [No. 8] p. 27. 
 
 » Ibid. p. ii. 
 
[49] 
 
 "A. R." has in his Second Part the following plea in mitigation of this 
 charge of newness, etc. : ^* 
 
 If any fliall thinke it (Irange and unlikely, that all the godliefl Divines and bed Churches 
 Ihould be thus deceiued in this point of Baptifme for fo many yeares together [/. e. as never 
 before to know that true baptism is dipping, and dipping alone true baptism] : let them con- 
 fider that all Chriftendome (except here and there one, or fume few, or no confidcrable number) 
 was fwallowed up in groffe Popery for many hundred yeares before Luthers time, which was 
 not untill about lOO. yeares agone. 
 
 We may note here, in passing, a similar plea advanced eleven years later 
 by W. Kaye in his Baptifme without Bafui, etc. (1653), thus : '' 
 
 Q. How comes it then to pafs that this Doctrine of Baptifme [dipping] hath not been before 
 revealed ? 
 
 A. [in part] In difcovery whereof, the Church begitts to be reftored to the purity of tlie 
 primitive time of Chrift and his Apollles. 
 
 At some iime during 1642 one " R. B." also replied to Mr. Barbon in a 
 book^* which has thus far eluded my search, but which led Barbon to write a 
 reply, which came out 14 April, 1643. ^^ ^^^^ course thereof he utters himself 
 as follows, viz. : " 
 
 New things are very pleafant, and many are much taken with them, as is R. B. with dip 
 ping; about which he taketh great paines, produceth many fcripturcs, etc. . . . What fliould 
 be the cause R. B. hath laboured fo much in this matter of dipping, and taken notice of every 
 particular, I leave every man free to judge : for my part I take it to be, as I faid before : // is 
 neiu, and the man is mightily taken with it. [He goes on to charge R. B. wiih] denying the 
 Baptifme of all the Reformed Churches & separed [separated] Churches, & alfo of all other 
 Chrirtians, either Reformed, or yet in defeflion, only thole two or three [Churches] excepted 
 that have within thefe two or tliree yeeres, or fome fuch JJiort time, bin totally dipped {qx Baptifme 
 by perfons at the beginning unbaptized themfelves. [Further in referring to Barber's book, he 
 cites his taunt : " the Church P. B. is a member of was unheard of till within these 200. 
 yeeres," and replies] Well ; two hundred yeeres is fome antiquitie, more then two or three 
 yeeres, fuch as is the defcent of the totall dippers in this kingdojnc. 
 
 Here it will be noticed that the "very lately" of his book of April, 1642, 
 becomes the more definite "two or three yeeres;" which, deducted from .'Xpril, 
 1643, would fi.\ the date of the origin of the practice of dipping, so far as his 
 authority goes, as having been in 1640 or 1641. Another writer, J. Watts 
 (1657), fourteen years later makes a statement which reaches nearly the same 
 result: giving the origin of dipping in England — he probably wrote in 1656 — 
 as "about 13. or 14. yeare agoe." ^^ 
 
 " Tlie Second Part o/ the Vanity, etc. [No. lo] 
 p. 29. 
 '■-'■■No. 168, p. li. 
 
 4 
 
 WNo. 13. 
 
 '■' A Reply, etc. |No. i8] pp. lo, 30, 31, 61. 
 
 '^ J. Walls, A Scribe, etc. [No. 2igJ p. 64. 
 
[50] 
 
 To save space I shall now classify a number of corroborative testimonies, 
 arranged in the order of their years of publication, viz. : 
 
 1644. D. Featley. 59— "this Article [the XLth of the Anabaptijl Confeffion requiring dip- 
 ping] is wholly fowred with the new /eave?t of Anabaptifme. I fay the 7icw leaven ; for 
 it cannot be proved that any of the ancient Anabaptijls maintained any fuch fofitioti. . . . 
 It is true, John baptized Chrift in Jordan, ard Philip baptized the Eunuch in the river: 
 but the text faith not, that either the Eunuch, or Chrifl: himfeif, or any baptized by John, 
 or his Difciples, or any of Chrifts Difciples, were dipped, plunged, or dow/ed over head 
 and ears, as this Article implyeth, and our Anabaptifts now practife." 
 
 1644. W. Cooke : 60 «< I would know with thefe ne7u Dippers, whether the parties to be 
 dowfed and dipped, may be baptized in a garment, or no? If they may, then happily 
 [haply] the garment may keep the water from fome part of the body, and then they are 
 not rightly baptized ; for the whole man, fay they, mufl be dipped." 
 
 1644. The author of the Lovall Convert, etc. 61 styles this baptism by dipping: "The New 
 Distemper." 
 
 1644. I. Knutton:62 "this opinion [of rcbaptizing by dipping] being but new a?td upjlart, 
 there is good reason they should difclaime it, and be humbled for it." 
 
 1645. J' MABBATT63 replies to Knutton's taunt not by denying, but by justifying, the new- 
 ness, in saying: "the Apoftles were in their time charged for 'new and upftart' Doc- 
 trine by fome ; (hould they by good reafon therefore difclayme it, and be humbled for it, 
 and fo have denyed Christs doctrine and Truth," etc. 
 
 1645. E. Pagitt. 64 — "yea, at this day they [the Anabaptists] have a new crotchet come into 
 their heads, that all that have not been plunged nor dipt under water, are not trucly bap- 
 tized, and thefe alfo they re-baptize ... In the Thames and Rivers, the Baptizer, and 
 the party baptized goe both into the Rivers, and the parties to be baptized are dipped or 
 plunged under water." 
 
 1645. Nineteen Arguments, etc. :6s "The nezu Ordinance of Dipping," etc. 
 1645. J- Salt.marsh66 calls "the dippiirg them in the water . . . the nrw Baptifm." 
 1645. Hanserd Knollys,67 in answering Saltmarsh, retorts that "Paul's Doflrine was 
 called ' new,' although he preached Jefus and the Rcfurrecf ion," etc. 
 
 1645. J- Eachard^S says: "the Anabaptiftes by a 7te:u baptifme . . . will not communicate 
 with others, for they think they are more holy then others, by ftrictneffe of their order, 
 etc." 
 
 1646. R. BAILLIE69 declares: "Among the new invcniions of the late Anabaptifts, there is 
 none which with greater animofity they fet on foot, then [than] the neceffity of dipping 
 over head and ears ; then [than] the nullity of affufion and fprinkiing in the adminiflra- 
 
 f'O Tttc Dipf>ers Dipt, etc. [No. 46] p. 187. 
 
 ^ A Learned and Full Answer, cXc. [No. 30] p. 21. 
 
 «' The New Dijietnper, 'writien by the Author of 
 the Loyall Convert, etc. Oxford, 4°. pp. ii, 26. The 
 v/hole book t.ikes its name as an attack upon the 
 "prophanations"' of these dippers. 
 
 ''- Seven Questions, etc. [No. 45] p. 23. 
 
 '^A Bricfe or Generall, etc. [No. 64] p. 32. 
 
 ''* Herrjio^^raphy, etc. [No. 54] pp. 30, 31. 
 
 '■'•'■ No. 68, p. 4. 
 
 •''' The Smoke in tite Temple, etc. [No. 6g] p]). 
 15, 16. 
 
 ^'' Tlu Shining of a Flaming Fire, etc. [No. 74] 
 p. I. 
 
 f'' Tlie Axe AgaivJ}, etc. [No. 75] p. 8. 
 
 ^^* AnabapH/m, etc. [No. 102] p. 163. 
 
[5'1 
 
 tion of baptisme . . . The quejlion aboiU the necejfcty of dipping feems to he taken up oncly 
 the other year by the Anabaptijls in England . . . The prcfiing of dipping, and exploding 
 of I'prinkWng, is hut an ye/terday eoneeit oi the Englilli Anabaptifts . . . Let us therefore 
 confider if this fparkle of ne-M light have any derivation from the lamp of the Sanfluary, 
 etc." 
 
 1650. N. Stephens 70 argues : "If they [Anabaptists] fay that the CommifTion Matt, xxviii : 
 19 was their firll Adminiftrators rule, then he muft be a Difciple made by ordinary 
 preaching and teaching, before he had authority to minifter their 7icio Baptifme." 
 
 1653. John Goodwin — the famous pastor of St. Stephens, Coleman St. — is a voluminous 
 witness. He wrote three books within two years bearing upon the subject, and it would 
 be wearisome to exhaust here the apt citations from these volumes. I extract a few as a 
 sample. 
 
 From Philadelphia, etc. {1653): 71 "the brethren of new Baptifme;" "the way of 
 new Baptifme;" "furprifed with a religious conceit of a neceffity of new Baptifme;" 
 "the children of 7iexu Baptifme," etc. 
 
 From Water-Dipping, etc. {1653) : 72 " not fimply lawful, but neceffary alfo (in point of 
 duty) for perfons baptized after the new mode of Dipping, to continue communion with 
 thofe churches ... of which they were members before the faid Dipping ; " " the 7iew 
 mode of Dipping; " " being a6tually baptized after the manner of the brethren of new 
 Baptifme;" "the main Pillar upon which the houfe of our new Dippers of men, and 
 dividers of Churches, is built;" "I heartily wifh for the fake of fome of them, whom I 
 know, that their nezu Baptifm doth not help to diminifli their old grace;" "and for the 
 Mode of the latefl and newefl Invention ... it is, as far as we are able to conceive by 
 the reprefentation of it made unto fome of us, fo contrived, and fo to be managed, that 
 the Baptifl who dippeth according to it had need to be a man of f^out limbs, and of a 
 very able and acftive body : otherwife the perfon to be baptized, efpecially if in any 
 degree corpulent, or unwieldy, runs a great hazard of meeting with Chrifts latter Bap- 
 tifm, inftead of his former; " "perfons baptized after the nezo mode of dipping." 
 
 From Catabaptism, etc. 73 (1655): "your new baptifme;" "after the new mode of 
 dipping ;" "Mr. W. A. himfelf in his 'Anfvver,' [App. No. 167] etc. maketh it matter of 
 exception and complaint, that I fometimes flile his way of Rcbaptizing New Baptifm. 
 And yet heretofore in difcuffing with a grave Minifter of Mr. A's. judgement in the point 
 of Rcbaptizing, and the moft ancient that I know w-alking in that way, finding him not fo 
 we'll fatiffied that his way fliould be (liled Ana-baptifm, I defired to know of him what 
 other term would pleafe him? His 2i\\i\\QX wns A^ew Baptifn;" "and however Baptills 
 of the 7iew order abhominate the faying . . . yet it may truly, at leaft beyond all reafon- 
 able contradiction be faid that unto many, their buryi/ig U7ider water hath haftened their 
 burial alfo under earth." 
 
 1655. J. Parnell74 testifies: "now withi7i thefe late yeares . . . they [the Anabaptifls] fay 
 . . . they muft be dipped in the water, and that they call baptifing." 
 
 1657. J. Watts 75 declares: "Dipping was, and is, as I have faid, a Alif buf/iefs, and a very 
 Ncr^eltyr 
 
 '">j4 Preceftt, etc. [No. 137] p. 65. 
 " No 166, pp. 13, 24, 25, 2S. 
 "No. 169, pp. i, 5, 11, 26, 39, 89. 
 
 " No. 196, pp. vi, x.\x, xxxii, 56. 
 
 '< TIu Watcher, e\c. [No. 202] p 16. 
 
 '••A Scribe, etc. [No. 219J p. iii. 
 
[52] 
 
 1669. R. Baxter: 76 ''they [Anabaptists] do introduce a new fort of Chriflianity . . . and a 
 new fort of Baptifm, whicli the church of Chrifl never knew to this day ... As if they 
 were raifed in the end of the world to reform the Baptifm and Chriftianity of all ages, and 
 were not only wifer than the univerfal church from Chrifl till now, but alfo at laft mufl 
 make the Church another thing." 
 
 If these multiplied witnesses tell the truth, and the English Baptists, in or 
 about 1641, did largely take up immersion as their form of administering bap- 
 tism, in all human probability — since it would be too much to anticipate that 
 the movement could instantly carry the convictions of the entire body — it 
 must have resulted, that, for a time there were, side by side in that country, 
 two sorts of Baptists ; the one rejecting infant baptism, but using aspersion 
 still, the other adding to their original tenet the fervent holding of the XLth 
 Article of their creed of 1644. We are not without evidence that such was 
 the fact. As late as 1660 we find A Breife Defcription, or Character, of the 
 Religion and Mafifiers 0/ the Phanatiques ifi GcJierall, etc."' carefully distinguish- 
 ing between simple Anabaptists, and Dippers. In 1656 the author of Eiren- 
 ikon "^ in undertaking to compose the existing theological differences of the 
 time, thus speaks : 
 
 But there are Anabaptifls — fo fome call them, 
 Wee'l not Difpute the name : all good befall them. 
 Good Brother, let thy Charity advance 
 To give them timchtg [the timing] of an Ordinance. 
 And for what elfe moft hold, you need not fear them; 
 However, 'tis not Chriftianlike to jeer them. 
 What though fome weak ones hi the water fall ? 
 Be modeft. Brother, do not cenfure all ; 
 Look but amongrt; them with impartial eyes 
 You'll find ther's many godly, fober, wife. 
 
 I maybe wrong, but I interpret the italicized line as referring to immersion- 
 ists, as distinguished from their affusionist brethren. However this may be, we 
 have a most square and definite testimony, in 1646,'' to this effect, as to the 
 town of Chelmsford, in Essex : 
 
 It is fo filled with Sedtaries, efpecially Brownifis and A)iabaptifls, that a third part of the 
 people refufe to communicate in the Church-Lyturgie, and halfe refufe to receive the blcfled 
 Sacrament, unleffe they may receive it in what poflure they pleafe to take it. They have 
 amongft them two forts of Anabaptijls; the one they call the Old Men, or Aspersi, becaufe they 
 
 ^" Tlu Cure of Church-divifioiis ; or Diredions for 
 weak Chrijlians, to keep them front being Dividers or 
 Troublers of t}ie Church, etc. 1669. S°. pp. xlviii, 430, 
 iv. \y<. M. (S73. i. 22. )1 PP- -l?. 4S. 
 
 "No 249, j;. i. 
 
 " No. 214, p. 20. 
 
 " B. Ryves, Mercurius Rufiicus ; or the Countries 
 Cotnplaint of the barbarous Out-rages comutitted by 
 the Sectaries. Oxford, 1646, sm. S'-'. pp. xvi, 224. 
 [B. M. [E. 1099. (i.)] p. 22. 
 
[53] 
 
 "U'ere but fprinkled : the other they call the A'^eio Men, or the Tmmf.RSI, hecaufe they ruere az'er- 
 lohelmed in their Kehaptization, 
 
 One of my Baptist critics, after asking, in a mixture of indignation and 
 triumph :^ "When did English Baptist Churches cease to pour in baptism, and 
 begin to immerse ? " went on to say in censure of my intimation that such had 
 been the case : " In this, as in other things, Dr. Dexter has allowed his eager- 
 ness in making out a case to overbear his fidelity as a historian." I now make 
 respectful answer that — in my judgment — in view of the evidence I have herein 
 presented, nothing but the obstinate and discreditable refusal to apply to 
 matters touching his own denomination those principles and processes of rea- 
 soning which, with other men, he is accustomed to apply to all other things, 
 can prevent a Baptist from conceding that the churches of his order in the 
 mother country did introduce dipping, as a method of baptism at that time 
 new, in or about the year 1641. 
 
 Before passing from the subject I desire to add a few words upon two 
 related questions : Was there any truth in the ancient statements that the early 
 English Baptists sent over to Holland in order to obtain genuine immersion 
 thence ? and that the ordinance was at first received by their candidates 
 naked ? 
 
 Crosby's view of the first matter seems to be that there were three ways 
 possible for the recovery of the lost rite of immersion in England ; viz. : 
 (i) "that the firfl adminifiirator fliould baptize himfelf, and then proceed to the 
 baptizing of others ; " " (2) " that firfl they formed a church of their opinion in 
 the point of baptifm ; then the church appoints two of these miniflers to begin 
 the adminiftration of it, by baptizing each other ; after this one, or both thefe, 
 baptize the reft of the congregation ; " ^" (3) " to fend over to the foreign Ana- 
 baptifts, who defcended from the antient Waldenfes in France or Germany, that 
 fo one or more receiving baptifm from them, might become proper admin- 
 iurators of it to others." " He says : "fome thought this [latter] the beft way, 
 and afted accordingly ; " but " the greateft number of the Englifh Baptifls, and 
 
 >»The Chicago Standard, i July, iS8o. 
 
 " Hist Eng. Bap. etc. i : 97. 
 
 ^ Ibid, i: 99. It is one of the curiosities of mental 
 vagaries on such subjects, that it should never have 
 occurred to the good people advocating this view, how 
 Illogical, upon their own principles, it was. They held 
 that a true church which had not been entered by im- 
 mersion was impossible ; yet they proposed to form a 
 cliurch of unbapli^ed people, and tu have that unbap- 
 
 tized church — which, being such, was no church, and 
 had no church-power — exercise church-power enough 
 to make ministers, and to authorize tliose ministers to 
 immerse each other, and then to turn around and im- 
 merse the rest ! With what consistency could such peo- 
 ple in their next breath denounce p.xdobaptist cliurches 
 as: "falfe churches, fall'ely conllimted in the baptifm 
 of infants, and their own unbaplized eftate?" 
 ^ Ibid, i: 100. 
 
[54] 
 
 the more judicious, looked upon all this as needlefs trouble, etc." ^ He himself 
 was of opinion (i) that John Smyth had not baptized himself; and (2) that the 
 English Baptists had not " derived their baptifm from the aforef^iid Mr. 
 Smith." °^ He therefore judged that most of the English Baptists received 
 their immersion in the second way named. As we have seen,^ he was further 
 clear that Mr. Spilsbury had not sought foreign baptism. But he cites the 
 Kiffin manuscript in proof that another Englishman did go abroad for that 
 purpose. 
 
 The statement of the Kiffin paper is this : " 
 
 Several fobcr and pious perfons belonging to the congregations of the diffenters about 
 London, were convinced that believers were the only proper fubjecfts of baptifm, and that it 
 ought to be adminiftcrcd by immerfion, etc. . . . They could not be fatiffyed about any admin- 
 iflrator in England to begin this practice; bccaufe tho^ fame in this nation rgetfied the baptifm of 
 in/ants, yet they had not, as they knew of, revived the anticnt cufloin of immerfioii : §3 But hearing 
 that fome in the Netherlands pra(5tif'd it, they agreed to fend over one Mr. Richard Blount, 
 who underftood the Dutch Language : That he went accordingly, carrying letters of recom- 
 mendation with him, and was kindly received both by the church there, and Mr. yohn Batte 
 their teacher: That upon his return, he baptized Mr. Samuel Blacklock, a minifter, and thefe 
 two baptized the reft of their company, whofe names are in the manufcript, to the number of 
 fifty-three. 
 
 Ivimey and Evans ^' appear to agree with Crosby in endorsing the trust- 
 worthiness of the account here given. 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. It is true, however, that Edwards,^ in 1646, speaks of "one Blunt, 
 Emmes, and Wrighters Church " as " one of the firft and prime Churches of 
 Anabaptifts now in thefe latter times ; " and Barclay'' seems to have discov- 
 ered that there was a jfohn Batten, who was " a well-known Collegiant, the 
 teacher of a congregation of Collegiants at Leyden," whom he supposes to be 
 the man who administered the immersion. Moreover, in 1676, E. Hutchinson, 
 in speaking of the origin of the Baptists in England, says : '" 
 
 The great objeflion was the want of an Adminiftrator, which (as I have heard) w^as 
 removed by fending certain meffcngers to Holland, whence they were fupplied. 
 
 '* Ibid, i: loi. 
 
 "" He was certainly in error as to Helwys and Mur- 
 ton, and the churches which they founded, and all who 
 stood in succession from them. 
 
 *" See p. 44, a>ite. 
 
 8' nut. En^. Bmp. i: 102. 
 
 *' The reader will not fail to note the — incidental, 
 and therefore influential — corroboration which this 
 
 sentence affords to the demonstration already given 
 that immersion was unknown to the Baptists in Eng- 
 land between 1600 and 1641. 
 
 ^ Hist. Eng. Bap. etc. i: 145: Early Eng. Bap. 
 etc. ii : 78. 
 
 "0 Gangmna, etc. 3d Pt. p. 112. 
 
 ^^ Inner Life, etc. 75. 
 
 ^^ A Treatiie, etc. LNo. 307] p. vi. 
 
[55] 
 
 A broadside, which has been preserved in the library of the British Museum 
 — bearing date 5 Jan. 1659 — may perhaps be fairly taken in general corrob- 
 oration of the Kiffin statement, although it refers to a previous attempt which 
 was a failure in a more distant field. It purports to have been " written by 
 a pious Gentleman that hath been thirteen yeares amongft the Separatifts."'^ 
 He is describing Puritans who had become Anabaptists, and he says : 
 
 V. II. Then you together took in liand 
 
 To build Chrifl; houfe upon the fand, 
 And flill 30U want the Corners-done — 
 I mean Jclus that is Chrift alone. 
 
 V. 12. His word you know you did promife [peruse ?] 
 And there you found the word baptize, 
 You faid the meaning oft mull be 
 Needs meant of water-Baptifnie. 
 
 V. 13. Then did you mufe and cafl your care 
 All for an Adminidrator; 
 But here in England none was feen 
 That ufed aught but/prinMing.'H 
 
 V. 14. At length you heard men fay, 
 
 That there was Saints in Silefia, 
 Who ever fmce the Apollles time 
 I-Iad kept this Ordinance pure, divine. 
 
 V. 15. Thither alafs you fent in hade 
 
 And thus you did fome treafure wade. 
 But when your meffengers came there 
 They were deceiv'd as we are here. 
 
 V. 16. But this they told you in good deed. 
 That they of baptifm stood in need ; 
 And for a prefent remedy. 
 With prayers they to Heaven did cry. 
 
 V. 17. Then did they with a joynt confent 
 Do that of which you now repent. 
 Authorize one them to baptize 
 Thus this fine cheat they did dcuife. 
 
 19. And thus, at length, you yourfclvcs baptized, 
 Till you another feet deuifed; 
 etc. etc. etc. etc. 
 
 ™ A ntiquakeri/nt, or a CharaSler of the Quakers 
 Spirit from its Original, etc. [No. 238.] 
 
 ** Another incidental proof of the truth of the main 
 
 argument of this chapter. 
 
[56] 
 
 The same sheet contains a marginal /wi"^ note, thus : 
 
 They fent up and down the world for a man to baptize them, but they found none, but fuch 
 as had baptized themfelves. In En^/and there was fome [kindred spirits, i.e. Baptists] in the 
 practice of fprinckling, 94 but thefe the Dippers, to my knowledge, did reject from communion 
 with them on this very ground. 
 
 From all which it seems safe to conclude that while Mr. Blount probably 
 did go to Holland and obtain immersion from the Collegiantcn, this was the 
 only case of the sort, and did not alter the fact that the majority of the Cal- 
 vinistic Baptists of England originated immersion among themselves, after the 
 second manner which Crosby suggests. 
 
 The testimony as to the remaining question is conflicting. We may most 
 intelligently glance at this also in chronological order ; and I shall assume that 
 the truth of the old maxim y^^ ejl ab hojle doceri, will sufficiently cover the point 
 of some value in the evidence of those who did not agree with, and even 
 maligned these men, to make it worth our while to include in aid of our judg- 
 ment two or three specimens of what they said. 
 
 1643. An Anabaptists Sermon, etc.9S This word wafh ... is not to fprinkle them with a 
 little idolatrous water out of a Font or Bafon ; but to powre water on their heads ; nay to 
 dip them in water over head and eares ; for fuch dipping will fetch the faltneflc of finnc out 
 of their natures . . . Unleffe all be thus rebaptized Jlark naked, & diped as well head 
 as tayle, as you are, none can be faved. 
 
 1644. The Anabaptists Ground-work, etc. 96 I afk T.[homas] L.[amb] and the reft of 
 thofe Baptifls, or Dippers, that will not be called Anabaptifts (though they baptize fome 
 that have been twice baptized before 97) what rule they have by word or example in 
 Scripture, y<7r their going men and luomen together into the "water, and for their manner of 
 dipping, and every circumftance and aflion they perform concerning the fame. 
 
 1644. D. Featley. 98 The refort of great multitudes of men and women together in the 
 evening, And going naked into rivers, there to be plunged and Dipt, cannot be done with- 
 out Icandall . . . They llrip themfelves Jlark naked, . . . when they flock in great multi- 
 tudes, men and women together, to their Jordaus to be dipt, etc. 
 
 1644. S. Richardson 99 answering Featley, says: Wee anfwcr, wee abhor it [ba]itism 
 naked] and deny that any of us ever did fo, and challenge him to prove it againft us, if 
 he can. 
 
 1645. The Anabaptists Catechisme, etc. : >«> 
 Q. Why are you called Anabaptijls ? 
 
 ""^ No. xg, pp. s, 8. 
 
 '>" No. 24, p. 23. 
 
 '" Notice the confirmation here further giveti of the 
 fact that the Baptists before 1641, or thereabouts, had 
 been affused as adults. Only so could their ultimate 
 
 immersion become the third aJniiiiistration of the rite 
 to them. 
 
 »8 Tlu Dipfiers Drfii, etc. [No 46] pp. 36, 167. 
 
 ^ Some Brief Considerations, etc. [No. 48] p. 5. 
 
 100 No. 59, p. I. 
 
[57] 
 
 A. Becaufe we went naked into the pure water, and were dipped in the holy (Ireames, 
 where we clenfed our bodies (from the corruption that was before upon us) in the 
 prefence of the Brethren, and the Sifters of the Congregation. 
 
 1645. T- Edwards collected several testimonies in the drag-net of his Gangrcena : 'O' They 
 [the Anabaptists] have baptized many weakly antient women naked in rivers in winter, 
 whereupon fome have fickened and died ... In baptizing women naked in the prefence 
 and fight of men . . . No wonder he [a man of doubtful reputation become Anabaptil^ 
 preacher] and many fuch, turned Dippers to dip young maids and young luomcn naked, for 
 it was the fitteft trade to fcrve their turns that could be ... A company of uncleane 
 men under the pretence of Religion, might have thereby faire opportunities to feed their 
 eyes full of adultery in beholding young women tiaked, and in handling young women 
 naked, being about them in dreffing and undrelTmg them, etc. . . . Many in our times who 
 profeffed Religion were luftfull filthy perfons, though this was covered under a profeflion 
 of Religion, and therefore fo loon as they heard of an opinion of baptizing grown per- 
 fons, and that by dipping of naked women, they prefently fell to it, as the beft way to enjoy 
 their lufts by, etc.'°2 
 
 1646. The Times Displayed >o3 [represents the Anabaptist as saying] : 
 
 After fo long a night of woe and forrow 
 
 Behold a fair, and a delicious morrow ; 
 
 After fo many years, when we oppreft 
 
 Were fined, imprifoned, and could never reft. 
 
 For the Beafts Image, the hated Bifliops, now 
 
 We openly and without dread avow 
 
 Our tenets, dipping maids and wives each day 
 
 Their natural concupicence to allay ; 
 
 And although some we drown, thofe drowned fo 
 
 Doe but by water unto heaven goe. 
 
 1648. R. Allen »°4 argues: If it be fufificient reafon againft Infant Baptifm that there is no 
 exprefs precept or example for it, then let the Anabaptiils themfelves for lliame leave off 
 i\\2ii yjtameful Jlripping and dipping thtir profelytes, or elfe ihew me where they have any 
 exprefs command or example for it . . . As for \.\\q.\x Jlripping, it is againft common hon- 
 efty and modefty, and that dipping is not neceffary to be ufed, is clear from their own 
 argument, becaufe they have no where one exprefs word of command or warrant for it. 
 
 1650. T. Bakewell : '05 Neither may they have garments for that use [of dipping] confe- 
 crated as Aarons breeches, Exod. 28 : 42, 43. This would be as bad as the Prelates Sur- 
 plefs; and for women to wear them, being mans apparel, it were an abomination to the 
 Lord, Deut. 22 : 5. 
 
 "" No. 76, pp. 67, 143; No. gg, pp. 189, 261. 
 
 102 Edwards elsewhere [p. 55] adds a confirmatory 
 incident : 
 
 Another woman having a defire to be Re-baptJzed, 
 and havin;j uulled off all her cloaths to the naked Ikin, 
 ready to j;" into the Water, but forbearing during the 
 time the Dipper prayed, the covered her lecret parts 
 with both her hands; the which tlie Dipper efjjying, 
 loid tlie woman that it was an unfeemly fi.cht to fte her 
 hold her hands downward, it being an Ordinance of 
 lesus Chrirt, her hands, with her heart, fhould be lifted 
 
 upwards toward heaven (as he fhow'd her liow he did), 
 but rtie, refuting for modesties lake, could not be Ke- 
 baptized. 
 
 103 T)u Times Di/played, in Six Seflyads : the firjl 
 a Prc/bytcr and an Independent ; tlufecond att A na- 
 baptijl and a Brownijl, etc 4°. pp. 24. [D. M. (E. 
 365. [io.])j p. 8. 
 
 '^*^ An Antidote, etc. [No. 121] pp. 122, 125. 
 
 ^^ Doctor Chandterlen vifited, etc. [No. 134] p. 20. 
 
[58] 
 
 1653. T. Hall: '°(> Now it cannot be imagined that John and the Apodles having great mul- 
 titudes prefent at their baptifm, would thus D'^Y) men and -women /lark naked (ox tslS iomc 
 of our Anabaptifts, ttext to naked) againl^ the Rules of Modefly and Civility. 
 
 1653. H. Haggar : '07 I believe I have baptized and been at the baptizing of many hundreds, 
 if not thoufands, and never faw any baptized naked in my life, neither is it allowed 
 nor approved of amongft any that I know of. But fuppose that fome men have been bap- 
 tized naked, when there were none but men together, would this be fuch an unheard of 
 wickcdnefs ? 
 
 1653. J. Goodwin : 'oS Befides, we do not read in the Scriptures of any Baptifmal Boots, or 
 Baptifmal Breeches, or of fliifting garments to avoyd the danger of being baptized, or of 
 encircling zvomen with women after their coming from the water to falve their modefly, with 
 fome other devices now, or of late, in frequent ufe amongft our new Baptifts in the way 
 of their practife. 
 
 1653. W. Erbury : '°9 Laftly let the world judge if the modefly of Gofpcl churches would 
 fuffer fo many naked women to be dipt with men. 
 
 1657. J. Watts: "° By this time. Sir, I hope you fee that your dipping of women in their 
 clothes is a new bufmefs in the church, and hath no print or footfteps to be leen in the 
 old way, or amongft the ancient Writers and Fathers of the former churches. Yea, this 
 your clothes-dipping alfo, is fo new a thing, that not much above fourteen or fifteen years 
 ago your predecelTors, and primer Anabaptifts, the Virgins of Sion, and the precious 
 Sons of the fame, the profelytes of thofe dayes, did in the Evening refort and run 
 together, and went naked into the Rivers, their Jordan, and were there dipped and 
 plunged in their naked bodies (without clothes on them) b}' their John Dippers, or Dipper- 
 Johns . . . Your ancient fathers did not dip in your manner, nor is it [your manner] as 
 old as your elder Brothers, who about 13. or 14. yeare ago, ran about the countr}'; for 
 they did not dip in your manner, in their clothes, but naked. 
 
 1658. A. Houghton:'" It is neither full nor pertinent to the interrogatory [he is referring 
 to the denial of H. Haggar above (1653)] ; you fpeak to the Jtaked dipping, but not to next 
 to naked . . . and if the beholding men and worneti in their fliirts, etc. be not a coafting 
 upon incivility, I have loft my underl^anding. 
 
 I add but a single further witness, and he of some years later : one who will 
 hardly be suspected of scant information, or the disingenuous use of facts : 
 
 1675. R. B.\XTER : "2 In the year 1647, or 1648, or both, when Anabaptiftry began fuddcnly 
 to be obtruded with more fucceftful fervency than before, I lived near Mr. Tombes, in a 
 country where some [Anabaptists] were, and within the hearing of their practice in other 
 parts of the land : And that in that beginning the common fame of Minifters and people 
 was, that in divers places fome baptized naked, and fome did not : and that I never to my 
 best remembrance heard man or woman contradidl that report till this man [Mr. D'An- 
 vers] did it in this writing. And that no Anabaptift contradidcd it to me that I then 
 
 'oe The Cottier in his Colours, etc. [B. M. (E. 65S. 
 [2.])lr. i<5- 
 
 "" Tlie Foundation of the Font, etc. [No. 164] 
 p. 102. 
 
 It* iyater-Di/iping, etc. [No. 169] p. 40. 
 
 •"» TJu Madmans Plea, etc. [No. 181] p. 6. 
 "" A Scribe, Phari/ec, etc. [No. 219] pp. 20, 64. 
 "• An Antidote, etc. [No. 221) p. 266. 
 ^'^- More Proofs of hifunt Church-MemberJJtip, etc. 
 [No. 299] pp. 2S2, 2S3. 
 
[59] 
 
 or fince converfed with: And that thereupon in 1659, I wrote againfl; both forts — thofc 
 that baptized naked, and thofc that did not : And after all this when Mr. Tombcs an- 
 fwered my book, and iho/e vcryfaffages, he nrc'er denied the truth of the thing (though he 
 did not fo baptize himfelfe) . . . and I appeal to impartial reafon whether he would not 
 then at the time have denied it, had it been deniable ... I mufl; confeffe I did not fee the 
 ferfons baptized naked, nor do I take it to be lawfull to defame any upon doubtful reports : 
 But when it is a fame common, and not denied by themfehcs, either miniflcrs or people at 
 the time, I think it is to be taken fo much notice of as the confuting of the evil doth 
 require. I know not by fight that there is a Fornicator, Adulterer, Murderer, or Thief 
 (as I remember) in England: And yet if I neither Write nor Preach to call fuch to 
 repentance left I be a flanderer in faying that there are any fuch, I think it would be 
 foolifli uncharitable charity, and unrighteous justice. 
 
 I leave my readers to draw their own inferences from this testimony; freely 
 confessing that to my mind the best solution of its contradictions is found in 
 the theory that there were, in the beginning of immersion in England, Baptists 
 and Baptists ; that, very likely, in those rude and turbulent times, there may 
 have been some among them who were fanatical, and some who were destitute 
 of all delicacy of feeling; possibly some scoundrels masquerading in the garb 
 of piety for the service of their lusts ; and that Mr. Baxter was quite right in 
 concluding that " fome baptized naked, and fome did not." Very possibly also 
 there may have been at times room for honest misapprehension, inasmuch as 
 the garments sometimes worn appear to have been so scanty, that, to a spec- 
 tator on the bank of the stream, the candidate when partly immersed might 
 appear to be wholly unclad. And I construe the note in the margin of the 
 fortieth Article of the Anabaptist Creed of 1644 which I have cited,'" as cor- 
 roborative of this view ; being intended as much on the one hand to repress 
 undesirable license among their own people, as, on the other, to convince 
 outsiders of the propriety of their way. 
 
 I shall close this chapter by two or three further extracts which seem to me 
 worth publicity, for the light which they cast upon some aspects of the general 
 subject. 
 
 In Watts's Scribe"* etc. (1657) he gives a brief statement of the modus 
 operandi of the late baptism of two women which had been furnished him by 
 some Baptist hand — to the effect that the two women privately changed their 
 clothes, and went into the water above the knees ; that the administrator tied 
 their clothes about their knees with a string, and dipped them over head and 
 ears ; and that they then went out of the water and shifted themselves, with the 
 help of some of the sisters. 
 
 '"Seep. 41 I "< No iig, p. 
 
[6o] 
 
 We get a much more circumstantial account, in 1646, in the pages of Mcr- 
 curius Civicus,^^^ which is as follows : 
 
 We have been importuned to give you the relation of the rebaptizing of a woman at 
 Hempjled in HartfordJJiire, in a river called Bmirn End, hard by Bourn Mill; which, to fliew 
 the flrangenes of the manner, and the madneffe of that Seel, we have here inferted, as from 
 authenticke hands it was fent unto us. 
 
 In the Parifli of Hempftcd in Ilartfordfliire "6 there liveth one Jatncs Browne, by trade a 
 Sawyer ; by calling a converter of holy fiflers ; by perfon of a very big and tall Mature ; by 
 Religion formerly a good Proteftant, diligent in hearing of fermons, and alwayes fecking to 
 hear the bed men. Now of late time, within thefe fix or feaven yeares,"7 he hath quite left the 
 Church ; and inftead of hearing of Gods Minifters in publique, he is become a preacher and 
 teacher of others (efpecially of women) going about from houfe to houfe preaching and teach- 
 ing, Inflruding and Baptizing; (or Rebaptizing) doing good as they fay to fo many as adhere 
 to his kinde of Teaching: and he is cither the fecond or third man of note for fpirituall abili- 
 ties (as the Brethren are pleafed to call them) in all that part of the Country. 
 
 About the middle of September now laft paft, 1646, this James Brmvne, having on a day 
 Preached (or as they call it fpoken) unto an afiembly of the Brethren, where he inveighed 
 againft Baptizing of Infants; affirming it to be a moft damnable popilh fmne : and that all true 
 Chriftians ought more to mourne and lament for that they were Baptized when they were 
 Infants, then for all the fmnes that ever they committed in the whole courfe of their lives ; and 
 further fliewing how necelTary and needful it was to falvation (having attained unto a sufficient 
 meafure of Faith) to be rebaptized. One Afary IMfey, wife of William Halfey, a holy woman 
 of the company, defired to be baptized a new : fliowing her felfe to be very forrowful for the 
 blindneffe of her parents, that would have her Baptized in her Infancy, before flie knew what 
 it meant, and (lie (being then without P"aith) unworthy of it. Browne having throughly ex- 
 amined this his new Convert, and found her to have attayned to a competent knowledge, the 
 examination ended. 
 
 This v.-oman with Browne went into a River, neere hand to the houfe of that dayes cxcrcife 
 called Bourne End River; and there, neere unto Bonrne End Mill, in a place of the River 
 somewhat deeper then the ordinary Channell, where having joyned together they went down 
 into the water: Brcrojne went down in his leather Breeches in which he ufed to go to Sawing: 
 and the woman went into the water in a paire of Linnen Drawers onely to cover her Shame ; 
 made of purpofe for fuch like nfes ; the reft of her body being all quite naked. 
 
 In this water, ^rc77C'«^ waflicd her body all over from top to toe, rubbing her with his hands, 
 as men do their fhecp when they wafli them ; and fo clenfed her from all filthincffe (as he faith, 
 both of body and fpirit) and throwing water upon her, ufed the words of Baptifme : I Baptize 
 thee, in the 7tame of the Father, and of the Sotme, and of the Holy Ghoft: thrufting her head 
 three times into the water becaufe three perfons in Trenity : and in this water I wafli and 
 purge away all thy linnes ; fending them down the ftream, together with this water that run- 
 neth off thy body : fo that now thou art made as cleane again from all finne and wickcdneffe 
 as ever thou waft in thy Infancy : nay, cleaner, for now thy originall finne if thou hadft any, is 
 
 '^^^ Mercurius Civicus, Oct. S-15, 1646. [B. M. (E. 
 3S7- ['2-])] P- 24'4. 
 
 "''/vii/cey [!i : 178] mentions Hemel Hempstead in 
 Herts as the seat of an ancient Baptist church, probably 
 
 but 
 
 founded "about the period of the Revolution,' 
 says nothing of Browne in connection with it. 
 
 '" Note how all these lime references date back very 
 nearly to the same period. 
 
[6,] 
 
 quite taken away, and thou art now received into the number of Chrifts chofen Children ; and 
 made a member of his Mydicall body, and mayeft be fully alTured of the Kingdome of 
 Heaven. 
 
 This being done, they departed out of the water, and went to the place of that dayes 
 exercife. 
 
 This was feen and heard by the Miller of Bourne End, and fome others, who had got 
 behind a hedge to heare and fee the aflion. As they were going out of the water, the Miller 
 called to them, and wiflicd Brmune to rub her a little more ; for there is (faith he) I doubt one 
 fpot that is not yet made white; and they departed making no anfwer, and a man with them, 
 that the woman brought doune with her to look to her apparell, which flic put off ncere the 
 River fide when flie went into the water. 
 
 It SO happens that we have remaining a tract which had its origin in the 
 very company out of whose amicable separation grew the first Calvinistic Bap- 
 tist English church, and which lets us in to the exact nature of the differences 
 then under discussion between different portions of that body as to Baptism. 
 It was written about ten years after the division by which Mr. Spilsbury's 
 church was formed, and its references to dipping seem to me to imply such 
 newness in that discussion, as to corroborate the theory that Mr. Spilsbury at 
 first affused his adult believers. It is entitled To Sions Virgins: or a JJiort 
 forme of Catechifme of the Doclriiie of B apt if me. In ufe in these times that are 
 fo full of Questions. By an antient member of that long agoe gathered Congrega- 
 tion wliercof Mr. Henry Jacob 7aas an Inflrument of gathering it, and the Paflour 
 worthy of double honour. Air. jfohn lathropp fuccccding him, flow paflor in Nc-iv 
 England, etc. Printed in the yeare 1644."* Two or three extracts from its 
 pages will show us precisely how the debate was then proceeding. Beginning 
 by asserting and advocating Infant Baptism, with various particulars, it asks : "' 
 
 Q. What forme is to be ufed hi bapiifme ? 
 
 A. The Minifter is to dip his hand, and to powre cleane water, fprinkle and wafli the finner, 
 and fo it is fully baptifed. 
 
 Q. Is not dipping of the head fill bapiifme ? 
 
 A. No, not without powring, fprinkling, and wafliing; no more then giving whole wafers in 
 the fupper : there was bread, but no breaking fliewing forth Chrifts fuffcrings; fo whole rivers 
 fhewes not forth Chrifts bufferings, powring Him out like water befprinkling all His rayment. 
 
 Q. What is it for the finner s to goe into the water thenifelves, and come out thcmf elves to fJicw 
 forth death and buriall 1 
 
 A. A lying figne, to make a figure of the creature, for wee mufl fee Chrift in the imploy- 
 ment of the Officer, and ufe of the Water, powring, fprinkling, wafliing: there muft bee a 
 dipper dipping his hand, but not a dipped, but in Chrift himfelfe who by his ownc power puts 
 into himfelfe the Rocke and fountaiuc. 
 
 '" No. 30. 
 
[62] 
 
 Q. IVhat fpeakes powring out of luntcr ? '2° 
 
 A. (i) It fpeakes Chrift poured out like water. (2) Tt fpeakes Chrift powring out cleane 
 water upon loeleevers wafliing away filtli. {3) It fpeakes powring out of the fpirit, fo that out 
 of the belly of believers may flow rivers of water of life. 
 
 Q. JV/iat fpeakes waJJiing ? 
 
 A. It fpeakes wafliing from filthinefl'c and clenfmg from fin. 
 
 Q. What fpeakes fprinkling ? 
 
 A. (i) It fpeakes fprtnkling the confciencc from dead works. (2) It fpeakes our high 
 calling, being called to the blood of fprinkling. 
 
 Q. What doth Chrifl teach beleevers by powring water on the baptized — Infattts or other ? '2' 
 
 A. Chrifl teacheth beleevers to power out their foules to him, hee having powred out His 
 Spirit upon them giving them power to be His Sonnes and Daughters, fo there is [as?] great 
 ufe to eye Chrift in the ufe of the ordinance as once to be baptized. 
 
 Q. What is held forth of Chrifl in dipping the Baptized ? 
 
 A. To dip an Infant there is a dim light of Chrift, as in the whole wafer no fhewing forth 
 Chrift his fuffering : but for a creature to goe in and out of the water, the dipper to dip downe 
 the head, is no fliewing Chrift at all as I can fee. I have not fo learned Chrift. 
 
 Let them take hcedc that teach these "new truths " as they call them, thcfe new for 7ns, ^^z 
 or newly taken up.'-- 
 
 I do not see how a candid reading of the multiplied authorities here pre- 
 sented, can fail to justify the conclusions which I have drawn. 
 
 ^■^ Ibid. p. 2. '^'-'^ Ibid. p. 5. '^"-- Ibid. p. 7. the general argument of this chapter, making dipping 
 
 "* .Notice the corroboration here (1644) afforded to a new form in or about 1641. 
 
 ■* '■'-SAa*r5 
 
 
 fe 
 t 
 
 ^^.' C 
 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 SOME CONSIDERATION OF THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE. ALLEGED 
 records" OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH OF CROWLE, ETC. 
 
 'ANCIENT 
 
 ^^^^HE General Baptist Magazine of London, in its issue for July, 1879, 
 RlFl^,./i published an article entitled "The Beginnings of Liberty,"* "•1^''-'-' 
 
 which 
 '^ was largely made up of extracts from what purported to be the 
 ancient records of the "Church of Chrift meeting at Epworth, Crowle, and 
 Weft Butterwick," in Lincolnshire, Eng. A second article, in the October 
 number of the same journal for the same year, entitled "John Norcott,"' 
 contained a few additional extracts.^ The quality of these was so remarkable 
 as speedily to attract attention on this side of the Atlantic ; inasmuch as, if to 
 be depended upon for stating the truth, they would go far to modify not merely 
 the accepted annals of Nonconformity in the old country, but those of the 
 Plymouth Colony as well. 
 
 The Baptist and other religious journals of England appear to have re- 
 ceived these "quotations" without question a$ genuine and trustworthy, and I 
 have heard that Mr. Spurgeon has on one or two occasions made them his 
 authority for some public utterance. One Baptist gazette in this country 
 referred to them as settling certain .controverted questions "beyond reason- 
 able dispute;"* but most of the American newspapers of that denomination 
 so far as I observed touched them gingerly, if at all. Meanwhile, although it 
 was vaguely stated^ that these "ancient records" had been submitted to an 
 "antiquarian," who, after examination, had "certified his belief that they are 
 genuine, and refer to the days of Queen Elizabeth;" no historical scholar in 
 England appeared to think the matter of sufficient consequence to make such 
 a thorough examination at first hand, and on the ground, as might furnish a 
 
 ' General Baptist Magazine for iSjQ. Edited by 
 John Clifford, A/.A. LL.B., B Sc, Fellow of the 
 Geological Society, The Eighty-First Volutne. Lon- 
 don, E. Marlborough & Co. 51 Old Bailey. %°, pp. 
 SCO, p. 327- 
 
 » Ibid. p. 438. 
 
 •The London Baptist of 6 Feb. iSSo, I have seen it 
 
 stated also contained the same, or similar, extracts ; but 
 I have never met with that paper. 
 
 *The Hartford Christian Secretary, 4 Aug. 1SS0. 
 
 "This statement was made in the Christian Secre- 
 tary, of the above date, apparently having been copied 
 from the London Baptist. I find nothing of the sort 
 mentioned in the General Baptist Magazine. 
 
 (63) 
 
[64] 
 
 reasonable basis for their acceptance as authentic data by the student of those 
 times. 
 
 Anxious, in the absence of all more competent endeavor, to do what I 
 could for my own satisfaction in the matter, on 6 May last, I went up from 
 London on purpose to get a look, if possible, at these venerable papers. 
 Crowle is a little market town and parish of Lincolnshire, near the confluence 
 of the Trent and the Ouse ; containing a few more than 3,000 inhabitants, and 
 easily reached by rail from Doncaster, from which it is distant some fifteen 
 miles in a direction a little north of east. I was so fortunate as to find the 
 Rev. Jabez Stutterd, who is the pastor of the General Baptist Church in that 
 place, and the copyist of the documents in question, at home, and was very 
 kindly received by him. On telling him the purpose of my visit, and asking to 
 be permitted, under his supervision, to examine the original ancient manuscript, 
 I was grieved — more, I will confess, than surprised — to be told that that 
 original has been for some time lost, — it is feared irrecoverably, — and that 
 only his copy remains. This copy he assured me that he made, with all pos- 
 sible care, about ff teen years before. This he was very willing I should transcribe 
 in full, and in the most obliging manner aided me to do so. I found several 
 passages to be included which have never been printed ; some of them, if pos- 
 sible, of a more extraordinary character than any heretofore made public. I 
 now proceed to give the whole consecutively, with Mr. Stutterd's appended 
 voucher for the fidelity of my work. 
 
 I should premise here, that, in the matter of spelling, I found considerable 
 variation in different portions of these extracts ; owing, perhaps to Mr. Stut- 
 terd's failure always, as to that, to follow closely his original. I have therefore, 
 throughout, in this respect conformed to the style of orthography indicated in 
 those parts which partake most strongly of the characteristics of the date 
 assigned to them. 
 
 The firjl Church Covenant — 4 January, 1^99- 
 
 Wee, this Church of Chrift (meeting at Epworth, Crowle and Weft Buttcrwick, in ye County 
 of Lincoln) whofe names are underwritten, give up ourfelues to ye Lord, and one to another, 
 according to ye will of God, and do promife and covenant in ye prefence of Chrift, to walke 
 together in ye lawes and ordinances of baptized belieuers, according to ye rules of ye gofpel, 
 through Jefus Chrift. He helping us. James Rayner, 
 
 Henry Helwife, 
 John A for ton, 
 William Brcwjlcr, 
 William Bradford, 
 
 Elders of 
 yc Church. 
 
 [32 signatures, or marks.] 
 
[65] 
 
 Tjp^, 20 Ncrvember, William Bradford baptized in ye old river Tome, below Epworth 
 town, at midnight. Moon flione bright. To God bee praife euermore.^ 
 
 J 603, 3 September. Our poor people are hunted & pcrsequted on every fide: fome taken 
 & fliut up in prifons. 
 
 Things have come to fuch a paffe among us it has been refolved, yet not without a bitter 
 flruggle on our parts as a Church of Chrifl; meeting at Crowlc, Epworth & Butterwick, that 
 for the fake of peace we fliall leaue this our dear native countrye & retire to Holland, wher, 
 we heare, there is freedome of religion for all men. Wee fliall haue to learne a ncwe language, 
 and get our linings we know not how. It is a dear place & fubject to ye mifTerics of warre : 
 is thought by many of ye brethren, an adventure almofl dcfperate, a cafe intolerable, & a 
 mifferie worfe then death. Efpetially feeing'our brethren are not acquainted with trads nor 
 traffique (by which Hollanders fubfifte) but wee are ufed to plaine countrie life and farming. 
 
 Wee have refolued to pray vnceafmglie : our chiefe difificultie is wee cannot flay, yet wee 
 are not fuffered to goe ; for ye Ports & Haucns arc fliut againft us, fo wee muft lookc for fecrete 
 meanes of conveyance, fee ye failers, & pay high rates for our paifage. 
 
 ■/■^oj, J November. Brother Brewfler found a fea-captaine who agreed to take us from 
 Bofton in this county to Amftcrdam in Holland. Wee parted with our goods, repaired to 
 Boflon as fecretly as wee could. Wee arrived before ye captainc, & had a wearie time waiting, 
 fearing wee might bee betrayed. The vefTeF appeared at night. Wee embarked with our 
 goods, & now thought — furely the bitterneffe of death is paft. But, no, the fliip was horded by 
 ferchers, ,& other officers, with whom our Captaine was in league. In ye deade of ye night wee 
 were turned out into open boats, & fearched & ranfaked by ye officials — women as wel as men. 
 When they had taken all our money, bookes & goods from us, they carried us before ye magef- 
 tratcs, who ordered us off to prifon, where we lay for a month : our only crime being that we 
 would worfhij) God in liberty of confcience. 
 
 The monthe after the greater number of us 72. were releafed ; but Mr. Brewfter & feaven 
 others were detained & conveyed to Lincoln goale, to bee trycd at the Afiizes. Wee trudged 
 homewards to Crowlc, Butterwick, Epworth, where wee arrived pennyleffe, hungrie and tired ; 
 but ye brethren met for prayer. 
 
 1603,30 December. The judge at Lincoln Aflizes has been more merciful than wee dared 
 to hope. Our brethren & filters are fet at libertie. But thcfe perfcqutions are unendurable. 
 Wee have firmly refolved to make another effort to departe. 
 
 1604, 12 February. John Smith, Vicar of Gainfborough, came inquiring about our views : 
 he debated nearly all night with Elders Henry Helwife and John Morton, who defended our 
 caufe well. Hee comes againe in a Ihort time. 
 
 1604, 7 May. John Smith has carefully read ye fcriptures and is convinced wee are in 
 ye truth: hee tells us he was deceived in ye way of Poedobaptiftry, & does now embrace 
 ye fayth in ye true Chriftian & Apoftolic baptifme. 
 
 Hee difcourfed fweetly laft night in Elder James Rayners chamber from "Lo, ye kingdom 
 of God is within you." It was fweet as honie. He will religne his church living, & ye Church 
 
 ■This entire entry about BrndforU is not in Mr. 
 Stutterd's manuscript copy, which merely bears a mar- 
 ginal eador>ement of Bradford's immersion at this 
 
 date. I transcribe this therefore from the printed ver- 
 sion in the Magazine; Rlr. S. attesting the genuine- 
 ness of that. 
 
[66] 
 
 of Chrift at Epworth, wnich hee fays is ye true Church of Chrift, will receive him for 
 baptifme. 
 
 ibo6, 24 March. This night at midnight Elder John Morton baptized John Smith, vicar of 
 Gainfborough in the river Don. It was fo dark wee were obliged to have torch-lights. Elder 
 Brewfter prayed, & Mr. Smith made a good confefllon. Walked to Epworth in his cold 
 clothes, but received no harm. The diftance was over two miles. All our friends were 
 prefent. A (Irong wind, but faire aboue-head. To ye triune God be all ye praife. 
 
 ibo-j, 10 February. John Smith has held filent meetings at midnight all this week at Brigg, 
 Beltoft, Epworth, Buttcrwick. At Crowle ye parifli parfon told us hee would informe. William 
 Bradford is to holde fourth next Tuefday at Crowle CrolTe. 
 
 7607, lb February. William Bradford, from Aufterfield, wiflied to fpeake at Crowle Crofle, 
 but ye parfon prevented liim, & flogged him with his horfe-whip, & set his bull-doggc at him ; 
 but hoc awed ye brute off with his flaff e. 
 
 j6og, 22 March. W^ee kept a folemn daye of prayer. The Church had fmall communion 
 for fome monthes till God put it into our hearts to humble ourfelves, rcforme his houfe, and 
 fett upon his work almofle loft by fi.x yeares perfeqution. 
 
 7609, 24 March. John Norcott, of Crowle, baptifed at two of ye clockc in ye morn, in 
 ye river Torne, by John Smith, late Vicar of Gainfborough. ^ 
 
 itog, 30 March. A meeting of ye Church to-night. John Smith, late vicar of Gainf- 
 borough, John Morton, Henry Helwife, Richard Carver, William Bradford, James Ravner, 
 William Brewfter, Eli Kelfcy, John Rowe.S met to confult on removing ye Churcii into Holland 
 on account of perfeqution.9 They refolved to remove part of ye Church into Holland in 
 order to ye quiet enjoyment of ye ordinances of his houfe in Apoftolic manner. Lord, doe 
 help us. '° 
 
 i6og, 4 April. Received at ye Supper of ye Lord John Norcott. John Smith broke 
 ye bread & mingled ye wine in James Rayners apple-chamber. John Norcott chofe as ye Elder 
 of ye Church. " 
 
 i6og, 4 April. Rev. John Smith ftartcd in an open boat from Buttcrwick down ye Trent 
 river unto Hull, thence to Holland (Ghent or Leyden) to enjoy liberty of confcicnce in a 
 foreign country. John Norcott, Henry Helwife, John Morton, Richard Carver, William Brad- 
 ford went. More are to followe. John Carver, \ 
 
 William Bradfo7-d, 
 Thomas Prince, 
 Edward Winjlow, 
 
 Elders. >2 
 
 'This entire entry I did not find in Mr. Stutterd's 
 copy, but I insert it here as having been printed in the 
 General Baptist Magazine [1870, p. 439], and there- 
 fore, a further extract of like authenticity with its 
 companions, so attested by Mr. S. 
 
 " This name is printed John Wood in the General 
 Baptist Magazine [1879, p. 439], where the extract is 
 given. 
 
 '•■ To this extract as printed above in the Gen. Bap. 
 Mag. are added tlie names of " James Rayner, Will- 
 
 iam Brewfter and John Morton — Elder s^ The date 
 tliere named for this entry is 4 April, tboq. 
 
 '"This last entrj' beginning at "They refolved," etc. 
 is not in Mr. Stutterd's copy, but is printed as above, 
 as being duly copied from the record. 
 
 " The same is true of this entire passage. 
 
 '- I was a little doubtful as to the significance of 
 these four names thus appended, but Mr. Stutterd said 
 that he understood it as an official certificate inserted 
 in the body of the record to authenticate the same. 
 
[67] 
 
 ibi3- John Rowe has come home from Holland, and fays our friends haue no peace. The 
 babv-baptifcrs are verily mad. John Norcott has written his book on baptifm, and got it 
 printed. And he [John Rowe] has brought one with him home. It is quaint, but according to 
 ye Bible. 
 
 jbi4, December. Thomas Fetch has returned very unwell from Holland, and brings ye fad 
 newes of ve fudden deaths of John Smith & John Norcott of putrid fever, after a few houres 
 illnefe. They were both buried in one grauc. Their confolations in Chrill were wonderful. 
 In life united — in death not diuided. 
 
 /6/j, February. John Carver, William Bradford, Edward ^Vin^ow, William Brcwller, 
 Richard Carver, John Morton, Henry Helwifc, John Turner, Thomas Tinker, Samuel Fuller, 
 Edward Fuller, John Oldham, returned from Holland. Oh how dejected! Poore deare 
 foules! 
 
 /6/5, i6 March. John Morton, William Bradford, gone over to Collingham and Millerton 
 to confult Elder Warner of Millerton, and put thinges in order. Thinges diforderly at both 
 jjlaces. 
 
 1617, Ncmevtber. The Church Elders refolved to day to fell their eftates & move from Eng- 
 land to provinces lately difcovered by Sir Walter Raleigh in Virginia. Continual haraffment 
 by Ecclefiaftical Courtes and Bifliops Mandamufes. Six of our friends are in Lincoln gaole, 
 charged with reading the Word, & praying themfelves, in flead of going to church to publique 
 prayers. 
 
 ibij, 10 N^oz'embcr. John Morton returned from Chicheller where he went as foon as he 
 came home from Holland, to fet things orderly there. 
 
 j(yij^ . John Morton fell ficke and dyed. Buried at Butterwick in ye front of 
 
 ye meeting door. A good man. Hee were twice in Lincoln Old Caflle. Hee was a bright 
 light. May his wery bones reft peacefull. 
 
 161S, I January. Agree to hold a faft day & much prayer for ye poor deare foules in Lin- 
 coln gaole. Doe Lord hear us when wee crie. 
 
 i6ig. John Carver, Richard Carver, William Bradford, Edward Winflow, William Brew- 
 fter, John Turner, Thomas Tinker, Samuel Fuller, & Edward Fuller, fold yr eftates & decided 
 to goe to M erica, or wee (hall foon be in gaole. Oh, thefe fiery perfequtors ! 
 
 1620, 22 July- Hired a fliallop to ftart for Bofton Deepes, there one met us to take us on 
 to Plimoth. The church met all night this night for folemn prayer and farewel. Oh ye sobs 
 ii: ye fighes & groaningcs in ye fpirit. Seventy-four of us moving away. 
 
 Agreed by the Church not to haue no commune with Robinfon, and not any of that party, 
 Becaufe wee beleeue : 
 
 I. Jefus Chrift dyed for all human kinde. 
 
 H. Ve Holy Ghoft renewes mans fallen ftates. 
 
 in. Wee baptife man & woman ; not babys. William Bradford, 
 
 Enoch Claphatn, 
 Edward Fuller, 
 Ed'vard U'inJlo70, 
 William Brcwjler, 
 Thomas TinkerM 
 
 '^Mr. Stutterd's explanation with regard to these 
 names was the sarae as that before given in a similar 
 
 case: "They seemed to be affixed to authenticate the 
 record." 
 
[68] 
 
 Certificate of Authentication. 
 
 I hereby certify that, in the year 1866, sereral loose leaves of the original church records of the 
 Ancient Baptist Church of Crowle, Epworth and Butterwick, came into my possession, and were 
 copied by me -with great care; and that the above transcript '4 by Mr. Dexter, has this day been by 
 him 7nade /« viy presence from my copy then take/t, and, according to my best knowledge and 
 belief, is faithful to those originals, now lost. 
 
 Had these " extracts " been first printed /// /////, as above, on the American 
 side of the Atlantic, they could have awakened little more than a passing 
 wonder as to what manner of man should have taken the trouble of their 
 origin ; and would scarcely have been thought worthy of serious examination 
 — least of all of deliberate refutation. But the critical study of the begin- 
 nings of Nonconformity seems to be now so much less common in England 
 than in America, that these amazing declarations — at least such and so many 
 of them as Were then made public — appear at once to have gained unques- 
 tioning acceptance there, as a genuine and valuable addition to the sources of 
 Separatist history. Twice, at least, the literary editor of the Nonconformist and 
 Independent'^^ has cited them as if they stood on a par in point of authority 
 with \Mnthrop's or Pepys's Journal, or Bradford's and Strype's Histories; 
 while one of the freshest issues of the London press — a volume called The 
 English Baptists, Who They are, and What they have done, etc.'* — founds upon 
 their statements in regard to John Smyth an important portion of its argument 
 and appeal. It seems to be needful, therefore, to give them a consideration to 
 which in themselves they have no claim, and this must plead my apology for 
 
 " Mr. Stutterd referred me to tlie extracts which had 
 been publislied in tlie General Baptist Magazhie, as 
 being authentic, except as he then and there amended 
 them in one or two slight particulars; so that tl.is 
 voucher covers all the extracts here given, whether 
 
 actually copied from Mr. S's manuscript, or copied 
 from the Magazine under his eye. 
 
 1'' In its issues of 30 Sept. 1S80, and 18 Aug. 18S1. 
 
 '0 Edited by John Clifford, M.A., LL.B., and pub- 
 lished by E. Marlborough & Co., 1881. 
 
[69] 
 
 repeating here the offense which has before been charged upon me, of swing- 
 ing a beetle to knock down a fly." 
 
 Truth always agrees with itself. And tlie fairest of all possible tests of the 
 value of such a record is applied in its minute comparison with facts otherwise 
 well known, which stand in a relation so close to it as to demonstrate its verity 
 or its inexactness, through its conformity or its nonconformity with them. To 
 such a test I now propose to subject the various statements above made. 
 
 I. To begin with the. covenant. I make no objection to that as being an 
 instrument probable for such use at that time ;'" but I must question the plausi- 
 bility of a small portion of its phraseology. The clause "whofe names are 
 underwritten," has no counterpart in any authentic early document of the sort 
 which I have ever seen, and appears to have a somewhat later flavor.'' The 
 act of covenanting in those days evidently emphasized itself as a deed of 
 public engagement and avowal, rather than of more private mutual written con- 
 tract. This may best be shown by placing side by side the earliest three 
 formulae of the sort with which I am acquainted — thus: 
 
 1593-'° 
 Deposition of Daniel 
 
 Blxk. 
 Being aflced what vowe or 
 promife hee made when hee 
 came firft to yr Sccietie, hee 
 aunfwereth & fayth yt he 
 made ys Protejlation, viz. : 
 That hee -wold 7valke with 
 
 1606.21 
 The Mayflower Church. 
 As ye Lords free people, 
 
 1 616.22 
 
 Mr. Jacob's Church. 
 Standing together, they joined 
 hands, and folemnly covenant- 
 ed with each other, in the 
 
 joyned them felves (by a cov' 
 enant of the Lord) into a 
 
 Church Eftate in ye fclowfliip prefence of Almighty God : 
 of ye gofi"jclI : To walk together in all Cods 
 
 To walke in all his ivayes, wayes and ordinances, accord- 
 made known, or to be made ing as he had already revealed, 
 
 y rejl 0/ yn Jo lojige as they knoiun tinto them, according to or JJiould further make them 
 
 did walke in yf way of ye Lor de, their befl endcauours, whaffo- known to them. 
 
 &^ as farr as might bee war- etier it fitotild cofl them, the 
 
 ranted by ye Word of God. Lord affifiing them. 
 
 " Golden Rule, 4 Dec. 18S0. 
 
 "The New York Independent, in July, iSSo, did 
 thus object. In noticing this document as then found 
 in tlie columns of Zion^s Advocate, it said: 
 
 So far as our readinp; goes, church covenants were 
 not in use during that period. They are a rather more 
 mcdern invention, coming into use during the next 
 age. 
 
 Bu: this overlooks the fact, abundantly evidenced, 
 that ihe church afterwards officered by Johnson and 
 Ainsworth was using such a covenant in 1593, and that 
 Neal gives, in almost the same words, the covenant by 
 which, in 1616, Henry Jacob's church in London was 
 confederate. 
 
 '" The earliest near approach to this form of words 
 which I recall, is in the covenant of the church in I'ury 
 St. Edmunds, 21 Dec. 1648 (Browne, Hist. Congin. in 
 Norfolk and Suffolk, etc. 395] : " Wee whofe names 
 arc here fubfcribed, etc." 
 
 We find the exact phraseology in the covenant of the 
 church of which Doddridge was afterwards pastor, at 
 Northampton, at some date apparently a few years 
 prior to 1695 [Coleman, Memorials Independent CMC s 
 Northamptonshire, etc. p. 11]: "We, this church of 
 Chrift, whofe names are Jtnderivritiett, etc. 
 
 '"Ha leian MSS. 7042, p. 399. 
 
 " Bradford, Hist. Plim. Plant. 9. 
 
 ^ Neal, Hist. Puritans (ed. 1837), i: 462. 
 
[7o] 
 
 The phrase "baptized belieuers," also, although common fifty years later, 
 seems to be of doubtful authenticity in the sixteenth century in the North of 
 England. The five signatures here declared to be attached to the covenant, I 
 will at present criticise no further than to suggest that we shall by and by find 
 reason to question the accuracy of the Christian names of two of them, and 
 that there is the best of evidence that other two at this time represented lads 
 respectively of eight and sixteen years of age — most unlikely to be so set 
 forward and honored. 
 
 2. The second entry suggests a few inaccuracies, in little things, running 
 through the extracts, which may be noted together here : 
 
 (i.) It is stated that the "moon fhone bright" at midnight of 20 November, 
 J^gS. But Robert Watson's New Abnanacke, etc. for this prefent yeare J^g8,^^ 
 states that the full moon for November of that year, was " on the iiid daye, 
 iii minutes after two of ye clocke in ye morning;" which would make the 
 twentieth day to be two days after the new moon — so that the amount of 
 moonlight available at midnight of that date, could hardly have aided much in 
 the dipping even of William Bradford. 
 
 (2.) On the other hand, it is further set down that, at the baptism of John 
 Smyth, 24 March, 1606, although it was "faire aboue-head," it was so dark at 
 midnight that they could not see without torches. Of course, if fair overhead, 
 the moon, if there were any, must have had entire opportunity to shine. But 
 I have the authority of Prof. Pickering of the Harvard College Observatory,"* 
 for stating that the moon came to the full at the meridian of Greenwich in the 
 afternoon of 23 March, 1606 ; so that this baptism took place the night after the 
 full moon; when, with an unobscured sky, it could not have been as dark as is 
 here represented. 
 
 (3.) It is stated that, on 12 February, 1604, John Smyth came inquiring for 
 the " views " of these people, and debated nearly all night upon them. But 
 12 February, 1604, was Sunday; a most unlikely day for one who was, and 
 who — according to the statement herein made — remained for more than two 
 years longer, vicar of Gainsborough, to have been thus engaged fifteen or 
 twenty miles away from his own Church Service. 
 
 (4.) The term " Padobaptiflry " — under date of 7 May, 1604 — seems a 
 questionable one for that time, and has much more the savor of one or two 
 generations later. 
 
 ^ New A Imanacke and Prognoflication for this 
 prefent yeare, etc. B. M. f P P. 2465.'] sub data. 
 
 "" By Newcomb's Tables of Solar Eclipses, 1 infer 
 
 that the moon was full March 23, 1606, in the after- 
 noon, on the meridian of Greenwich." Edward C. 
 Pickering, &1S. note. 
 
[7i] 
 
 (5.) It is ver)' unlikely that so impulsive and rapid a man as we have already 
 seen John Smyth to be, if he embraced "ye fayth in ye true Chriftian & Apof- 
 tolic baptifme " as early as 7 May, 1604, should have waited until the last day 
 of 1606"^ — two years, ten months and seventeen days — before being rebap- 
 tized. 
 
 (6.) It is noted that William Bradford " wiflied to fpeake at Crowle Croffe" 
 on 16 Februar}', 1607, and that this was the "next Tue/day" after 10 P'ebruary. 
 But 1 6 February, 1607, was iMoni/ay. 
 
 (7.) It is declared that John Norcott was "chofe as ye Elder of ye Church" 
 on [4 April, 1609] the very day of his admission to that church, and /nr/Vt'/v 
 eleven months and twenty days before he was baptized ! This follows from the fact 
 that by Old Style — wliich was in universal use in England until 2 September, 
 1752 "* (or more than one hundred and forty years after the events here set 
 down) — the 24th of March was the last day of the year; which would make 
 4 April, 1609, the eleventh, and 24 March, 1609, the three hundred and sixty- 
 fifth day of the same year. Improbable as such church membership and prefer- 
 ment of an unbaptized man must be, in itself, the more in the case of a small 
 church which, if these records are to be taken in evidence, already had eight 
 elders ; that unlikelihood is increased by the fact, which will be made evident 
 further on, that John Norcott could not have been born for nearly a quarter of 
 a century after this date. 
 
 (8.) The entry of 4 April, 1609, purports to be certified by the sii^natures 
 of four Elders. If this be authentic, the predilection of this church for 
 youthful officers seems something wonderful ; inasmuch as, at this date, Brad- 
 ford was scarcely nineteen, Winslow not six months over thirteen, and Prince 
 — who was born in 1600 or 1601 — between eight and nine years of age ! 
 
 (9.) The sudden and unannounced appearance in the summer of 1620 of 
 Enoch Clapham \_he wrote his name Henoche] upon the scene, rises very 
 nearly to the acme of absurdity. Nearly thirty years before ordained a minis- 
 ter of the Established Church by Bishop Wickham, after preaching some years 
 in Lancashire, he associated with the Separatists and went to Holland, thence 
 to Scotland, then to Holland again, then back to Scotland, and once more to 
 the Netherlands ; whence, leaving the Separation and returning to England, he 
 preached in Southwark nine sermons on Tares, out of which he made a book. 
 In the time of the great plague he discoursed unacceptably, and was committed 
 
 ** It must be rerpembered that these dates, if genu- 
 ine, arc in Old Style, so that the year began on 25 
 March ; and 24 March, 1606, would be ten months 
 and seventeen days after, instead of one month and 
 
 thirteen days before, 7 May, 1606, as, by New Style, it 
 would be. 
 
 '" The day after Wednesday 2 September, being called 
 Thursday 14 September, by Statute 24, Geo. II. c. 2J. 
 
[72] 
 
 to the Gate-house at Westminster by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Down to 
 1609 — that is, during the first eighteen years of his ministry — he had pub- 
 lished eleven volumes which I can trace, after which date I find none. From 
 the general tone of these books, I do not believe it possible that he could have 
 lived eleven years longer in silence, and I therefore presume him to have gone 
 to his rest — he seems to have had little on earth — long before the date when 
 he is herein named as at Crowle.'^^ In any event, taking his own words in tes- 
 timony, particularly some in one of his latest known works,°' one would nearly 
 as.soon have expected to find Lyman Beecher or Thomas Binney joining the 
 Mormons, as to find Clapham in his old age an Anabaptist Elder! 
 
 (10.) As to "provinces " in the autumn of 1617 '■'lately difcovered by Sir 
 Walter Raleigh in Virginia: " not to press the point that Raleigh himself never 
 was in North America; more than three and thirty years — or the lifetime of 
 an entire generation — had passed since his captains Amadas and Barlow first 
 sighted Ocracoke, 
 
 (11.) The statement [22 July, 1620] in regard to " Plimoth," with its con- 
 cluding reasons why Bradford, Fuller, Tinker, Winslow and Brewster deter- 
 mined " not to haue no commune with Robinfon, etc. ; " as Prince Henry said, 
 is " laughter for a month, and a good jest forever ! " 
 
 I now proceed to look at these pretended records a little more closely, in 
 connection with what they have to say in regard to the more prominent of the 
 actors therein. 
 
 3. As to Samuel Fuller two statements are made, viz. : 
 
 (i.) /6/j, February, that he returned "a dejected foule " from Holland; 
 
 (2.) /dig, , that he sold his estate (presumably in Crowle, or its neighborhood) to 
 
 "goe to Merica." 
 
 Now "among the few things that we positively know about Samuel Fuller 
 are: (i) that he lived in London before going to Holland;"' (2) that he was 
 in .Amsterdam with Robinson's people in 1608-9;^° (3) that he buried a child 
 in St. Peter's, Leyden, 29 June, 1615 ;^' (4) that he lived in the Pieterjkerkhoff 
 
 " I have taken these facts mainly from his otvn pen 
 in the " Epistle to the Reader" of his Antidoion; or 
 a Sovcreif;ne retnfdie af^ainjl Schi/mc and Here/ie, 
 etc. (1600) 4°, pp. 48. [Bodleian. (H. 9. Th.;)] 
 
 -' I refer particularly to his Errovr on the Right 
 Hand through a Prepojtcrous Zeale, etc. (160S) 12°, 
 pp. 79, [B. M. (1020. e. 9. [i.])] in which lie is tremen- 
 dously severe upon Separatists and Anabaptists. It is 
 fair to add that he followed this with Errovr on the 
 
 Left Hand through a Frozen Securitie (160S), 12°, 
 [B. M. (1020. e. 9. [2.])J in which he vividly depicts 
 the evils which afRicted the Establishment, and indi- 
 cates that he held a fairly evangelical conservative 
 position. 
 
 "-"^ Echi-boeck, etc. B. p. 19. 
 
 '" Lawne's Prophane Schi/me, etc. 11, 24, 76. 
 
 " Regijter van de Overledene per/ontn Begravtn 
 binnen Leyden, No. 3, p. 167. 
 
[73] 
 
 in Leyden in July, 1615; (5) that he buried his wife Agnes in St. Peter's 
 3 July, 1615;^- (6) that he was married again in Leyden 27 May, 1617;" 
 (7) that he then lived near the Mare-poort in Leyden;^" and (8) that he was 
 one of the witnesses of John Goodman's marriage there, 5 October, i6ig.^^ 
 
 All of which is violently incompatible with the assertions made with regard 
 to him in these papers. 
 
 4. Of Edward Winslow we find four averments, viz. : 
 
 (i.) ibog, 4. April, that he signed the Crowle record as an Elder; 
 
 (2.) ibi^, February, that he returned to Crowle, as one of the "dejected foules," from 
 Holland ; 
 
 (3.) Jbig, , that he sold his estate (in Crowle or neighborhood) "to goe to Merica; " 
 
 (4.) 1620, 22 July, that, as an Elder of Crowle church, he renounced communion with 
 Robinson and his company. 
 
 Now of Winslow we know : (i) that he was born at Droitwich, Eng. 18 Oct. 
 1595 ; ^* (2) that, by consequence, he was precisely thirteen years, five months and 
 seventeen days old, when represented above to be signing church records as an 
 elder; (3) that he lived in London before going to Leyden ;^^ (4) that instead 
 of returning in a dejected state from Holland in the spring of 16 15 (when he 
 would be scarce five months beyond his nineteenth year) there is no evidence 
 that he ever was in Holland at all before 1617;^^ that at Leyden, 13 Maj'-, 
 1618, he married Elizabeth Barker;^' and (5) finally, that he was in Leyden 
 10 June, 1620;"° heard Mr. Robinson's farewell discourse (for the preservation 
 of all knowledge of which we are indebted to his pen) early in July/' sailed 
 from Delfs-Haven in the Speedwell 12 July;^ and was with the Mayflower 
 company at Southampton making ready for their voyage across the Atlantic on 
 that very July day on which he is above misrepresented as having renounced 
 all fellowship with them. Comment is needless. 
 
 M Ibid. 
 
 ss Echt-boeck, etc. B. p. 64. 
 
 ^Ibid. 
 
 *•'' Ibid. p. 90. 
 
 ** Transcript of Parish Record, A''. E. Hist, b* Gen. 
 Reg;. 1867, p. 210. 
 
 ^'•Echt-boeck, etc. B p. 75. 
 
 •* He himself says \Hypocrifie Vnmajked, etc. p. 
 93]: "I livinK three yeares under his [Mr. Robinson's] 
 Ministery, before we began tlie worke of Plantaticn in 
 New-England." This would throwback his going to 
 Leyden to reside, to the summer of 1617. 
 
 * Echt-boeck, etc. B. p. 75. 
 
 ♦"With Falltr, liradford and Aller'on [see Brad- 
 ford, p. 51], lie signed at Leyden a letter of date i-io 
 June, 1620, to Carver and Cushman in London. 
 
 <' He reports this from memory [Hypocrijie Vn- 
 majked, etc. p. 97] as if he heard it, and his language 
 can fairly warrant no other conclusion than that he di4. 
 
 *- He says [Ibid. p. 90] : 
 
 And when the Ship was ready to carry us away, the 
 Brethren that ftayed havinp; againe folemnly (bucht the 
 Lord wiih us, and for us, and we further enfjauiug our 
 felve^ mutually as before ; they, I lay, that (fayed at 
 Leyden feaAed us that were to poe at our Paftors 
 houfe being large, where wee relreilied our felves after 
 our teares, with finging of Pfalmes, making joyfull mel- 
 ody in our hearts, as well as with the voice, there being 
 many of the Congregation very expert in Mufick; and 
 indeed it was the I'wecteft melody that ever mine cares 
 heard. After this they accompanyed us to Delfihs- 
 Haven, where wee were to imbarque, and there fenfled 
 us againe: and after prayer performed by our Paflor, 
 where a flood of teares was poured out, they accom- 
 panyed us 10 the Ship, etc. 
 
[74] 
 
 5- Of yohn Carver three things are declared, viz. : 
 
 (i.) ibog, 4 April, that, as Elder of Crowle church, he signed its records; 
 
 (2.) ibi^, February, that he returned "dejected " from Holland; 
 
 (3.) ibrg, , that he sold his property in that region to "goe to Merica." 
 
 For so good, and probably great, a man, our knowledge of John Carver is 
 singularly scanty. But we do know a few things, as follows, viz. : (i) that, to 
 appearance — the record is not clear — he was in Leyden, and buried a child in 
 St. Pancras, 10 July, 1609 /^ (2) that he was in Leyden at a marriage, 28 May, 
 1616;** (3) that he was at another there, 23 Mar. 1617;*^ (4) and at still 
 another 18 August, 1618;'** (5) that he was a deacon of Robinson's church;*' 
 (6) that he was sent from Leyden to London as an agent of Robinson's con- 
 gregation in the autumn of 1617;''^ (7) that he was sent again on a like 
 errand in the spring of 1620;"' (8) that he went from Leyden to Delfs-Haven 
 and Southampton with the company in July, 1620; (9) received a letter at 
 Southampton from John Robinson of date 27 July, 1620;*° and (10) was 
 chosen Governor of one of the ships for the expedition — a choice confirmed 
 for the whole Colony, 11 November following, in Provincetown harbor.^* Which 
 things could not have been true of him were the Crowle records authentic. 
 
 6. We now come to jtohn Norcott, concerning whom these papers include 
 six statements, viz. : 
 
 (i.) i6og, 24 March, that he was baptized in the Torne by John Smyth; 
 
 (2.) ibog, 4 April, that he was received at the Lord's Supper ; 
 
 (3.) ibog, 4 April, that he was chosen an Elder of the Church; 
 
 (4.) ibog, 4 April, that he started with others for Holland; 
 
 (5.) /6/j, , that he had written a quaint but scriptural book on Baptism, which was 
 
 printed in Holland; 
 
 (6.) ibi4 — A^ovember Q), that he died suddenly at Amsterdam of putrid fever, and was 
 buried in the same grave with John Smyth. 
 
 As to these particulars there are four things only needing here to be said, 
 (i) As will be seen by turning back,^' John Smyth had been in Amsterdam 
 two or three years at the time when he is above made to have been at Epworth 
 performing this baptism ; (2) he had certainly been dead and buried in Am- 
 
 ** Register van de Overledene persomn, etc. No. 3, 
 p. lo. The handwriting is very blind, and the name 
 may be John something else, but Baron E'sevier, ar- 
 chivist 01 Leyden, inclines to read it Carver. A like rec- 
 ord occurs [A'tx. No. 4, p. S] under dale of 11 Nov. 1617. 
 
 " Echl-boeck, etc. B. p. 51. 
 
 *■'■ Ibid. p. 60. 
 
 ^'^ Ibid. p. 77. 
 
 *' Bradford, p. 32. 
 
 *' Ibid. pp. 30-32. 
 
 ^^Ibid. p. 43. 
 
 ^Ibid. p. 63. 
 
 '■• Ibid. pp. 6S, go. 
 
 '- p. 2 of lliis pamphlet. 
 
[75] 
 
 sterdam more than two years, when he is here represented as dying and sharing 
 John Norcott's interment there;" while (3) Ivimey^'' states that tlie John 
 Norcott, who wrote that Baptijrn Difcovered^ etc. which, beyond question," must 
 be the book referred to, as "quaint, but according to ye Bible," having "prob- 
 ably shortened his days by his excessive labours," after a ministry that "was 
 but short," died "in middle life," 24 March, 1675-6, pastor of the church in 
 Gravel-lane, Wapping. But if he died "in middle life," he could not have 
 been over forty-five years of age ; and if he were five and forty at his death in 
 1676, he must have been born not earlier than 1630 — or one and twenty years 
 after the first, and sixteen years after the last mention of his name in these 
 Crovvle " records." And, finally (4), the book which is here represented to 
 have been printed in Holland in or about 16 13, appears, in reality, to have 
 been first put to press ?i!oQ\xt Jifty-seve7i years later in England. ^^ 
 
 7. We next reach jfohn Mor/on, or, as he himself wrote his name, yohn 
 Alurton, of whom nine declarations are made, to wit, that : 
 
 (i.) ijgg, 4 yanuary, he signed the original church covenant as an Elder; 
 
 (2.) 1604, 12 February, as a Crowle Elder he debated with John Smyth ; 
 
 (3.) 1606, 24 March, he baptized John Smyth in the Don ; 
 
 (4.) I bog, 30 March, he met the church in consultation about emigration; 
 
 (5.) /6og, 4 April, he started with Smyth and others for Holland; 
 
 (6.) 161J, February, he came back among the " dejected ; " 
 
 (7.) /6/j, j6 March, he went to CoUingham, etc. to order things; 
 
 (8.) 1617, 10 Ncrvember, he came back from Chichester; 
 
 (9.) ibij, , he fell sick, died, and was buried at Buttcrwick. 
 
 '^Ibid. p. 38. 
 
 '^ iii : 296, 298. 
 
 "•"Beyond question" — because there is neither 
 trace of any other John Norcott, nor of any other 
 book on Baptism by any kind of a Norcott ; because 
 the phrase "quaint but according to yc Bible" might 
 very fairly be appHcd (by a Baptist critic) to the book 
 in its original form : and because the author dedicates 
 it " To his truly beloved Friends and Brethren in ajid 
 about Wapping," etc., thus identifying the Wapping 
 pastor as its author. Mr. Spurgeon — who can hardly 
 be cpngratulated on special eminence as an antiquary 
 (non otnnia possutnus omttcs) — published a new edition 
 of it, "corrected and somewhat altered," in 1878, in 
 the preface to which he said [p. vij: 
 
 The little book which is here presented to you, 
 almost in its ancient form, was first jirinted in Holland 
 more than 200 years aco, by a servant of the Lord who 
 was in exile for the faith. 
 
 If Mr. Spurgeon had taken the tro'ible to examine 
 the earliest edition now accessible in the British Mu- 
 
 seum — which is the fifth — [4326. aa.] he would have 
 found in it an "Epistle Dedicatory" to the third 
 edition, signed by William Kiflin and R. C. [Richard 
 Claridge], which says : 
 
 What Approbation this Piece hath found may appear 
 from hence; xhM fitice the Firjl Edition 0/ it here in 
 England, it hath been Kefirintcd in Holland, was alfo 
 lately tranflated into Wclfti; and now Krowing I'carce 
 and much afked for, the nookfeller hath been Advifed 
 to give it another IniprelTion. 
 
 "« Watt does not mention the book. The Dr. Will- 
 iams Library has the third edition, of date 1694, the 
 earliest which I have met with. We have then [see 
 last note) these four data: (i) The third edition in 
 1694; (2) The j-^fo«</ (English) published in Holland; 
 (3) the first, publislied in England while its author was 
 pastor at Wapping. (4) As he says in his dedication : 
 " Our Sun is going down, eternity is upon us," etc., it 
 is fairly to be i^resumed that this first edition was pub- 
 lished not long before his death in March, 167?^; from 
 all which its date cannot reasonably he put earlier than 
 i6;o, where I place it [App. No. 276J. 
 
[76] 
 
 Put by the side of the above dates and declarations the following facts, viz. : 
 (i) that John Murton was born in 1582 or 1583," and was consequently little 
 if any more than twenty-one years of age when he is represented as being so 
 effective in debate as an Elder with an old hand like Smyth; (2) that he lived 
 in Gainsborough (or Queensborough'^) before going to Amsterdam ; (3) that 
 he was in Amsterdam 23 August, 1608, because he, on that date, announced to 
 the magistrates of that city his intention, being 25 years of age, to marrj' Jane 
 Hodgkin of Worksop, who was 23;^' (4) that, in the room of his baptizing 
 Smyth in the Don in 1606, at some time in 1608 Smyth rebaptized Iwn at Am- 
 sterdam •j'^ (5) that so far from coming among the "poor dear dejected " back 
 to Crowle in February, 1615, he had two or three years before returned, in 
 good courage, to England and founded a Baptist church in London at New- 
 gate;" and (6) that instead of dying, and laying his "wery bones," in 
 "ye front of ye meeting door" at Butterwick in 1617, he was alive and vigorous 
 in his London pastorate as late as 13 November, 1626." 
 
 8. We have next eleven entries touching William Bradford^ thus : 
 
 (i.) i^gS, 20 Noz'ember, he was baptized in the Torne; 
 
 (2.) i^gg, 4 January, was an Elder of Crowle church; 
 
 (3.) iboi, 10 February, announced to " holde fourth " at Crowle Crosse ; 
 
 (4.) j6oi, 16 February, tried it, but the parson and his dog prevented; 
 
 (5.) jbog, 30 March, met with the church about emigrating; 
 
 (6.) i6og, 4 April, started after liberty of conscience in an open boat; 
 
 (7.) rbog, 4 April, signed record as Elder stating that fact; 
 
 (S.) /6/5, February, came back from Holland among the "deare dejected; " 
 
 (9.) 161^, 16 March, started for Collingham, etc. to set things to rights ; 
 
 (10.) J6ig, , sold his property in Crowle, or thereabouts, to "goe to Merika ; " 
 
 (ii.) J620, 22 July, renounced communion with Robinson and his "party." 
 
 Compare with the above the following facts, viz. : (i) we have the evidence 
 of the Austerfield Parish Records, remaining in beautiful parchment, that William 
 Bradford was baptized 19 March, 1589-90" — he would, consequently, have been 
 only eight years, eight 77ionths and one day old when he is said to have been im- 
 mersed as an adult ; (2) he would have been only nine years, nine months and 
 sixteen days old, when he is here represented to be signing the covenant as an 
 
 ^ Amsterdam Puy-boeck, 1606-12. s. d. 23 Aug. 1608. 
 
 ^* The record says Qrtcynsborch, which might stand 
 for cither. The Dutch scribes spelled as they liked, 
 T. /r- Riossom is once Bliise, and Goodman Cocdmoer I 
 
 ™ /did. 
 
 '^ See pp. 10, 30, 32, anie. 
 
 *' See p. 42, anie. See also Truths Victory, etc. 
 (1645) p. 19. 
 
 ^-Letter o/C. C. Arcsto, Ezians, ii : 25, 33. 
 
 •"■^ 1 cite the original. A transcript may also be found 
 in Hunter. Collections coitcerning Scrooby Church, 
 etc. {1S54) p. igS. 
 
[77] 
 
 Elder of the church ; (3) he would have been but sixteen years, fen months aiid 
 i^ventX'Six days old on that memorable day of the encounter with the parson 
 and "the bull-dogge;" (4) his own history shews ^* that having lived in Am- 
 sterdam "aboute a year," as early as in February, 1609, he was making arrange- 
 ments, which were perfected by the first of May of that year, to remove to 
 Leyden /^ (5) instead of coming back "dejected '' from Amsterdam to Crowle 
 in Februar}'^, 1615, he was assisting Samuel Lee to citizenship in Leyden on 
 19 October of that year ;'* instead of selling property in Crowle and its neigh- 
 borhood preparing to "goe to Merika" in 1619, he sold in Leyden 19 April of 
 that year a house on the north side of the Achtcrgracht^^ and, 7 June follow- 
 ing, aided William Ring to become a citizen there;''* and in 1620, shared in 
 the departure of the Pilgrim fathers from Delfs-Haven, and all their fortunes 
 at Southampton, Dartmouth and Plymouth, with their subsequent Mayflower 
 voyage — there being no evidence that he ever set foot in England from the 
 day of his first leaving it for Amsterdam, till, in July, 1620, he disembarked 
 from the Speedwell in Southampton Water. 
 
 9. Turn we now to William Brewster, as to whom there are the eight follow- 
 ing assertions, viz. : 
 
 (i.) ^599, 4 yanuary, that he was an Elder of Crowle Church ; 
 
 (2.) i6oj,j Na-jcmbcr, that he agreed with a sea-captain to remove 72 of the Crowle Com- 
 pany from Boston to Amsterdam ; 
 
 (3.) iboj, Novevibcr, that by treachery he was lodged in prison, and lay a month in Lin- 
 coln jail ; 
 
 (4.) 1606, 24 March, that he offered prayer at the midnight baptism of Smyth in the Don ; 
 
 (5.) idog, JO March, that he met to consult with the church about emigration ; 
 
 (6.) i6fj, February, that, as one of the "deare dejected," he returned from Holland; 
 
 (7.) i6ig, , that, with others, he sold his' estate in or near, Crowle; and 
 
 (8.) 1620, 22 July, that he joined with Bradford, Clapham, Fuller, Winslow and Tinker in 
 renouncing communion with Robinson. 
 
 It will be quite sufficient to set the memory of William Brewster right con- 
 cerning these asseverations, if we note: (i) that, from i April, 1594, for many 
 years he filled the place at Scrooby as agent of the Archbishop of York which 
 his father had filled before him, and was Postmaster there \^ and that he con- 
 tinued thus in Government employ until 30 September, 1607 '° — a fact which, 
 
 M Hist. Plim. Plant, etc. i6. 
 " Gerechls Dng-boeck (Leyden), (G.) p. 34. 
 "'^ Poorter-boeck (Leyden), bcgonsl in dm Jure 
 /Ooj, enile Ge-eijn-dight in den Jart l6jS, (F.) p. 91. 
 
 "^ 0/ Dragts-boecken-van huizeit (V. V.) p. 1 ^5. 
 
 '^ Poo'i-ier-boeck, i\.c (F.)p. 120. 
 
 f' P. R. O. Dom. Eliz. vol. 233, no. 48. 
 
 '" Hunter, Collections, etc. 68. 
 
[-8] 
 
 in those jealous days, must have been irreconcilable with the first four of 
 them ; (2) that, with Bradford and the others, he had been in Amsterdam a 
 twelvemonth, and was just about removing with them to Leyden, at the date 
 of the fifth;'' that instead of returning to England in 1615, he was chosen by 
 John Robinson's church in Leyden "an affiflant unto him in ye place of an 
 Elder;"" that in 1617, 1618 and 1619 he was publishing books, Latin and 
 English, in Leyden ;" that in i6ig he was sent to London as an agent in the 
 negotiations about the removal to New England ;"* and that, in 1620, instead of 
 renouncing communion with Robinson and his company, he led off in the emi- 
 gration to New Plymouth in a harmony of both doctrinal and practical feeling, 
 desire, and design, with his beloved and honored pastor which was so perfect, 
 that it is hard to say whether the Crowle falsehood which declares the contrary, 
 excels in its unveracity or its impudence/^ 
 
 ID. I have reserved inquiry as to jfohn Smyth until the last needing special 
 investigation as to the tone of these " records " with regard to them, partly 
 because, in some aspects, he was the most noteworthy of the company; but 
 mainly because his case has one peculiarity. It can scarcely be called violently 
 probable, yet the human mind is able to conceive it possible, that there should 
 have been contemporaneously living during the first quarter of the seventeenth 
 century, in England and thereabouts, two Samuel Fullers, and two Edward 
 Winslows, and two John Carvers (there surely were not two John Norcotts), 
 and two John Murtons, and two William Bradfords, and two William Brewsters, 
 concerning one set of whom the statements made in these Crowle papers might 
 be facts ; as, concerning the other set of whom, the statements which I have 
 accumulated above from various authentic sources surely were facts ; so that an 
 enthusiastic and inappeasable champion of those " records " might still insist 
 that, granting the truth of all which I claim to be true, all which those docu- 
 ments allege may still be also true — of other men of the same names. Waiv- 
 ing then, for the present, all inference from what has gone before, it will be 
 agreed on all hands as inconceivable that there can have been two John 
 Smyths, both vicar of Gainsborough, in and about 1600. This name, then, fur- 
 nishes the opportunity for a crucial test, which shall now be applied. Nine 
 distinct declarations are made concerning him. Thus : 
 
 " Vide Bradford's Hist. Plym. Plant. i6; Dialosue, 
 etc. Voung-, 466. 
 
 '- Bradford, p. 17. 
 
 '•'' See the titles of three such volumes in Latin and 
 seven in EnRlish, tinder these three year;, in the A]^ 
 peiidix of Congregatio7utliim as Seen, etc. Besides 
 
 these I have surely traced other two in Latin, and one 
 in English. 
 
 '^ Bradford, p. 30. 
 
 ""This lies on the face of Bradford's whole account 
 of the removal, with the arrantiements that led to, and 
 the correspondence which followed, it. 
 
[79] 
 
 (i.) 1604, 12 February. "John Smith, Vicar of Gainfborough," inquired and debated. 
 
 (2.) 1604, 7 May. He acknowledged his conversion to Anti-paedobaptistry, proposed to be 
 rebaptizcd, discoursed sweetly, and announced his intention to resign his vicarage. 
 
 (3.) 160b, 24 March. After subsequently waiting a time, for him, most extraordinary [two 
 years, ten months and seventeen days] he, "John Smith, Vicar of Gainfborough," was bap- 
 tized in the Don, having "made a good confeffion." 
 
 (4.) iboy, 10 February. He is declared to have — another extraordinary thing for him — 
 been holding "silent meetings." 
 
 (5.) idog, JO March. He — "late Vicar of Gainfborough" — shared in the church debate 
 about emigrating to Holland, 
 
 (6.) idog, 4 April. He administered the sacrament in an "apple-chamber," and received 
 John Norcott to the church. 
 
 (7.) ibog, 4 April. On the same day — it was Tuesday — he started with John Norcott 
 and others down the Trent in an open boat, bound for Hull, Holland, and liberty of con- 
 science. 
 
 (8.) ibog, 24 March. He and Norcott seem to have come back together from the Low 
 Countries, in order that he might baptize that mythical young man — who had been alreadv, in 
 his unbaptized state, a church member, and an Elder, for eleven months and twenty days — in 
 the Torne ; — doubtless better than all Dutch w'aters in which to wash and be clean. 
 
 (9.) ibi4, December. The painful news of his decease — and that of the mythical young 
 man — both dying suddenly oi putrid fever, and sharing one grave, reaches the bereaved 
 remnant at Crowle. 
 
 To take the last first, we have already seen that the burial records of the 
 Niewe Kcrk at Amsterdam contain the proof that Smyth was interred there 
 J September, 1612, or a little more than huo years previous to the date here 
 assigned ; and that he died of a consumption, having been sick seven weeks^^ 
 We have also already seen that the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh of 
 these statements cannot be true, because Smyth went to Amsterdam with his 
 Gainsborough company in October or November, 1606," and there is no 
 evidence that he ever revisited England. As to the first, second, and eighth, 
 all which can be needful to destroy any possible remnant of probability which 
 in any mind may still attach to them, will be to recall attention to the fact that 
 Smyth never accepted the Baptist theory of believers' baptism until i6og;"* 
 and that in the very month in which he is here represented to have been bap- 
 tizing Norcott in the Torne in the North of England, having been excommuni- 
 cated from the church he had formed at the date of his se-baptism in Amster- 
 dam, he was vainly asking a Mennonite church in that city to receive him., 
 while Murton, Hehvys, Pygott and Seamer were remonstrating against such 
 reception ;'' with some further proof of the uniform Px-dobaptist tenor of his 
 
 " See pp. 37 and 38, and notes 167, 166, 165, ante. I " See p. 9, atiie. 
 
 " p. 2 and note 13, aiU*. < '" See pp. 36 and 37, ante. 
 
[80] 
 
 books down to his CharaHcr of the Beajl, printed also in 1609. Let us glance 
 at these. 
 
 (i.) Principles and Inferences, etc. [1607]. This of course was sent forth 
 three years after tliese " records " assure us that its author had renounced 
 "Paedobaptiftry," and one year after they say he had been rebaptized. Yet 
 among these 203 Principles or Inferences, there is not the slightest reference 
 to the mode or subjects of Baptism — a thing incredible were the author 
 already a convert to the notion that that subject requires to be made the 
 corner stone of churches. 
 
 (2.) The Diferences of the Churches of the Separation, etc. [summer of 
 1608].^ Here, again, although the book was expressly written to "clear 
 further " the truth, he never once alludes to Baptism as a subject of doubt, 
 difficulty, or debate — showing that his opinions on that subject still remained 
 at one with those then common among the Separatists. 
 
 (3.) Paralleles, Censures, Obfervations, etc. [I think late in 1608, although 
 dated 1609], Here, down almost to the very epoch of his re-baptism by 
 se-baptism, we find him : 
 
 (<?) identifying himself still with " the Brownifis," whose doctrine he declares 
 to be " the vndoubted truth of God ; " " 
 
 {Ji) denouncing Anabaptists, in common with " Papists " and "Arrians," 
 etc. as " heretiques ; " ^^ 
 
 ic) objecting against the baptism of the Church of England, not because of 
 any defect in manner,, or error as to its subjects, but simply because that church 
 is " not the true body of Chrill, the true Church of God, therefore all the holy- 
 things are profaned when they are ther adminiftred ;"" 
 
 (^) and, finally, by distinctly saying that all which he asks as to reform on the 
 subject of baptism i?i the Church of Euiiland, is that infant baptism " be admin- 
 iftred fimply, as Chrift teacheth : without Godfathers, the croffe, queftions to 
 infants, etc." ^* 
 
 This must necessarily be conclusive that down to a period nearly five years 
 later than the date of his alleged full conversion to immersionist views — 
 saying nothing of dipping, which he never accepted — Smyth had not gotten 
 so far as that fundamental tenet of the Baptists, of baptism for adult believers 
 alone. No Baptist out of a lunatic asylum could have written the sentence 
 last quoted above ! 
 
 *" See p. 8, and note 42, ante. 
 "rP- '09. 119, IJ5. 
 
 •- See p. 4, note 27, ante. 
 8* pp. 117, 139, 140. 
 
[8i] 
 
 I find in these alleged records of this ancient Baptist church, eighty dis- 
 tinct statements, as to twenty different individuals. I have now minutely, and 
 as I trust candidly, examined from them two assertions as to Samuel Fuller, 
 four as to Edward Winslow, three as to John Carver, six as to John Norcott, 
 nine as to John Murton, eleven as to William Bradford, eight as to William 
 Brewster, and nine as to John Smyth — fifty-two in all; and have proved every 
 one of them to be, if not impossible, at least improbable with an intensity in 
 most cases equivalent to moral incredibility. I have pointed out, further, 
 eleven cases of palpable disagreement with well established facts. As to 
 Henoch Clapham and Thomas Prence I have shown further unlikelihoods. 
 Thomas Fetch I never heard of before, and, considering that the only thing 
 which he is said to have done, is, to have brought from Holland the misstate- 
 ment that a man who had died of a lingering consumption two years before, 
 was then just suddenly deceased of putrid fever, I never care to hear of him 
 again. This disposes of eleven of the twenty persons, and of six and sixty of 
 the eighty "facts" — leaving nine unimportant men and fourteen unessential 
 assertions unexamined as yet ; concerning whom, and which, more directly. 
 
 The candid reader who bears in mind the two facts : (i) that in the case of 
 the eight prominent persons whose relation to this record has been considered, 
 every one of the two and fifty averments made in regard to them has been shown 
 to be unfounded; and (2) that in the case of John Smyth, "vicar of Gainf- 
 borough," well-meant mistake was impossible, and no conclusion other than 
 that of an attempt at the deliberate perversion of history remains credible ; 
 will now be prepared to join me in the conclusion that these newly-discovered 
 leaves out of an old oaken chest are — falsiim in uno, falsiwi in oninibus — all 
 together, an unblushing forgery ; undertaken by some excessively ill-informed 
 person, and carried out in a singularly stupid and bungling manner. A few 
 words further on that subject. 
 
 And here let me say, at once, that I acquit the Rev. Mr. Stutterd of all 
 complicity with such an attempt, and all suspicion of it. He impressed me 
 as an honest and good man, much more likely, in his comparatively uncultured 
 simplicity in regard to such subjects, to be imposed upon, than to undertake 
 imposition upon others. In answer to my inquiries at the time he told me that 
 the "original records" which he copied, seemed written neither on paper nor 
 parchment, but on something reminding him of plantain leaf; that the ink now 
 and then was very faded ; and that the leaves were much decayed and eaten 
 by small red insects discernible under a magnifier ; so that in parts it was only 
 with the greatest difficulty that the contents could be made out at all. Anxious 
 to get possession of all the facts, I addressed him a note on my return to 
 6 
 
[82] 
 
 London, which, with his reply, I append — for convenience placing my ques- 
 tions and his answers in parallel. 
 
 Grand Hotel, London, 9 May, iSSi. 
 
 Rev. Jabez Stutterd, 
 
 Dear Sir : Two or three inquiries have sug- 
 gested themselves to me, which I ought to 
 have proposed to you, in reference to the very 
 interesting records of your church, when I 
 saw you the other day : but, as they escaped 
 me at that time, I venture to send them now, 
 and ask you to be so good as to reply to them 
 in the enclosed envelope. I will be glad to 
 know : 
 
 I. As nearly as possible, when, by whom, 
 and in what place, were these leaves of the 
 old record discovered ? 
 
 2. Was any public announcement — so far 
 as j'ou know — of that discovery made at the 
 time ? 
 
 3. Of whom did you receive them for the 
 purpose of copying them; and to wliom, and 
 when, did you return them after you had 
 copied them ? 
 
 4. Did you copy all of that record which 
 referred to matters of public interest, of the 
 general character of those which you did 
 copy ? 
 
 5. When were you first made acquainted 
 with the fact that the originals are since lost ; 
 and from whom did you learn it ? 
 
 Crowle, I-inco!nshire, 
 
 Via Doncaster, 
 
 12 May, 18S1. 
 My dear Sir, 
 
 Yours of yesterday arrived, but found m.e 
 from home. 
 
 6. Do you think any thorough and sufficient 
 
 1. The old records were discovered at But- 
 terwick in a chest of an old Baptist family, by 
 the Rev. Smith Watson many years ago. In 
 1866 I first saw them at Revd. Smith Wat- 
 son's, and copied the 7 or 8 leaves, moth- 
 eaten and decayed as they were. Some two 
 or three weeks I had them. 
 
 2. No public announcement was made at 
 the time. At length by the wish and desire 
 of the members and deacons of the Church, 
 and not on my own responsibility, a portion 
 of it was sent to our own Magazine for pres- 
 ervation. 
 
 3. I received them of Revd. Smith Wat- 
 son. And when copied they were returned 
 to his care again, after being carefully copied 
 in the presence of some of our Brethren. 
 This was in 1S66. 
 
 4. I copied all I possibly could which re- 
 lated to matters of interest — from the damp 
 and moth-eaten records. 
 
 5. About four years ago, when preaching at 
 Butterwick, we wanted to sec them, and refer 
 to them again, but we could not find them 
 anywhere. When Smith Watson died his 
 goods and chattels were divided amongst his 
 friends, who all say they have not seen any- 
 thing of them [/. e. the records]. These par- 
 ticulars I have had over and over again from 
 his relatives. 
 
 6. A thorough and severe search has been 
 
[83] 
 
 search has been made to recover the lost 
 manuscript; and is it to your mind perfectly 
 clear that it is now of no use to undertake at 
 Epworth, or Butterwick, or elsewhere, any 
 further inquiry for the missing records? 
 
 7. Should you imagine there could be the 
 slightest probability that, in copj-ing the man- 
 uscript, in its confessedly imperfect and illegi- 
 ble state, you mistook and miscopied names ; 
 so that, for the names of William Bradford, 
 John Carver, Edward Winslow, Samuel Ful- 
 ler, and John Smyth — for example — as 
 given in your copy, other names ought to be 
 substituted, in order exactly to render the 
 original ? 
 
 8. Is there the slightest doubt in your mind 
 that the fragment which you copied was a 
 getiuine portion of the original records of your 
 church ? Or do you conceive it as barely 
 possible that some mischievous or designing 
 person could have prepared such an (appar- 
 ently) ancient manuscript, in the view and in- 
 tent to deceive you, and others, into the belief 
 that it was what it really was not ? 
 
 Vou will, my dear sir, much add to the 
 obligations under which I already am to your 
 kind courtesy, if you will reply to the above. 
 I am, faithfully, yours, 
 
 Henry M. Dexter. 
 Rev. Mr. Stutterd. 
 
 made in Epworth, East and West Butterwick, 
 in Ashby, Winterton and Hasey and other 
 places, to recover the lost portions of the 
 record. For the present, though, we keep 
 making inquiries. And to my mind it seems 
 clear that they are lost irrecoverably, but 
 some of our friends think they may turn up, 
 some day. 
 
 7. The greatest care was taken in copying 
 the manuscript, for then it was falling fast 
 into a state of decay. Possibly there might 
 be a name copied wrong, but I am not aware 
 such is the case. We are all imperfect in 
 this imperfect world. 
 
 8. I have no doubt %vhatever on my mind 
 but what was copied was a genuine portion of 
 the original records. My Brethren here think 
 the same. I cannot entertain the opinion that 
 some mischievous or ill-designing person 
 could prepare such a Document for the sake 
 of deceiving. 
 
 Dear Sir, I have replied with pleasure to 
 your enquiries. 
 
 And believe me. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 Jabez Stutterd. 
 
 The well informed student of New England history who has closely exam- 
 ined the pretended extracts printed near the beginning of this chapter, will, 
 long since, no doubt, have reached the conclusion that, if left to stand solely 
 on their own probability — as Mr. Stutterd's letter above clearly shows they 
 must be — they cannot possibly be assigned to a date earlier than 1856 — while 
 probably written some years later. The evidence of this I will now produce, 
 by asking the reader to examine with minutest care the passages which I now 
 place side by side. 
 
 Things have come to fuch a paffe . . . Seeing them felves thus molefted, and that 
 
 ... it has been refolved . . . that for the ther was no hope of their continuance iher, 
 fake of peace we fliall leaue this our dear by a joynte confente they refolued to goe into 
 
[R4] 
 
 native countrye & retire to Holland, whcr, we ye Low-Countries, whcr they heard was free- 
 
 heare, there is freedome of religion for all men. dome of Religion for all men 
 
 Wee fliall haue to learne a ncwe language, and they muft learne a new language, and get their 
 
 get our liuings we know not how. It is a linings they knew not how ; it being a dear 
 
 dear place & fubject to ye miffcries of warre: place & fubjecte to ye mifferies of warr, it 
 
 is thought by many of ye brethren, an adven- was by many thought an adventure almoft 
 
 ture almoft defperate, a cafe intolerable, & a defperate, a cafe intolerable & a mifferie 
 
 miffcrie worfe then death. Efpetially feeing worfe then death. Efpetially feeing they were 
 
 our brethren are not accjuainted with trads not acquainted with trads nor trafifique (by 
 
 nor traffique (by which Hollanders fubfifle) but which yt countrie doth fubfifte) but had only 
 
 wee are ufed to plain countrie life and farm- been ufed to a plaine countrie life & ye inno- 
 
 ing. cente trade of hufbandrey 
 
 Wee have refolued to pray vnceafinglie : Though they could not flay, yet were yy not 
 
 our chiefe difficultie is wee cannot (lay, yet fuffered to goe, but ye ports & hauens were 
 
 wee are not fuffered to goe ; for ye Ports & fliut againft them, fo as they were faine to 
 
 Hauens are fhut againft us, fo wee muft looke feeke fecrete means of conveance, & to bribe 
 
 for fecrete meanes of conveyance, fee ye fail- & fee ye mariners, & giue exterordinarie rates 
 
 ers, & pay high rates for our paffage. for their paffages. 
 
 Any scholar familiar with such matters will see, and will say, at once, that 
 the person who wrote one of the above statements must have had the other not 
 merely in memory, but actually under his eye, while writing. But that in the 
 second column was written by William Bradford in the year 1630^' in the little 
 settlement of New Plymouth on this side of the sea ; remained in manuscript 
 — a part of the time in the custody, of Thomas Prince in the steeple of the 
 Old South Church — until it was purloined, carried to England and in some 
 inexplicable way deposited in the Fulham library ; whence it was first printed 
 in 1856 by the Massachusetts Historical Society, and where (it is charitable to 
 suppose through the Bishop of London's ignorance that he is the keeper of 
 stolen goods) it still remains. It is safe to say that Bradford did not copy 
 from the Crowle " records ; " therefore the fabricator of those " records " which 
 are printed in the first column copied from Bradford. And, as the forger could 
 never have seen the manuscript, he copied from the printed version. He could 
 not, therefore, have written earlier than 1856, and as it would naturally take 
 some lime for such a volume to work its way up to the North of England, he 
 probably manufactured these "records" not very long before they were "dis- 
 covered" in 1S66 ; having been by him placed in the "old oaken chest" 
 judiciously and conveniently to that end. 
 
 Following this clew we strike at once upon further probable revelations. 
 There can hardly be reasonable doubt that the whole story of the thwarted 
 Crowle and Epworth endeavor to flee to Holland by way of Boston in 1603, 
 
 8" See Bradford's own statement, Hist. Plynt. Plant. | etc. 6. For the extracts see pp. lo, ii and 12. 
 
[85] 
 
 was su--ested by Bradford's account of the like attempt of the Scrooby men 
 in iGosT'^ nor that it was, in the main, as to its language, largely suggested 
 therefrom. For example, mark the following : 
 
 The Craii'le Forgery. (1603.) 
 
 A fea-captaine who agreed to take us from 
 Bofton in this county to Amfterdam . . . Wee 
 arrived before ye captaine, & had a wearie time 
 waiting . . . The veffel appeared at night . . . 
 The (hip was horded by ferchers & other 
 officers, with whom our Captaine was in 
 league. In ye deade of ye night wee were 
 turned out into open boats, & fcarched & ran- 
 faked by ye officials — women as wel as men. 
 When they had taken all our money, bookes 
 & goods from us, they carried us before 
 ye mageftrates, who ordered us off to prilbn, 
 where^ve lay for a month . . . The monthe 
 after the greater number of us 72. were re- 
 leafed ; but Mr. Brewftcr cS: feaven others were 
 detained & conveyed to Lincoln goale. 
 
 Bradford's History. (160S.) 
 
 At Bofton in Lincolin-fliire . . . made agree- 
 ment with the maistcr, etc. . . . After long 
 waiting ... he came at length & tookc them 
 in, in ye night. But when he had them & their 
 goods abord. he betrayed them, haveing before 
 hand complotted with ye ferchers & other 
 officers fo to doe ; who tooke them, and put 
 them into open boats, & ther rifled & ran- 
 faked them, fearching them to their fliirts for 
 money, yea even ye women furder then be- 
 came m'odeftie . . . Stripte of their money, 
 books and much other goods, they were pre- 
 fentcd to ye mageftrates . . . and fo they 
 were coiiiiled to ward . . . After a months 
 imprifonment, ye greatest parte were difmifte 
 & fent to ye places from whence they came, 
 but 7. of ye principall [foot-note, "Elder 
 Brewfler was one of thefe "] were ftill kept 
 in prifon, and bound over to ye Affifes. 
 
 We may now, perhaps, see our way to account for the nine men remaining. 
 Of these Helwise was a natural suggestion ; as he was always a true yokefello.v 
 of Murton, and the change of his Christian name from Thomas to Henry was 
 either one more blunder, or a precautionary measure agamst over-exactness 
 Robert Carver appears to have been prompted in the same way, as brother of 
 Tohn Edward Fuller, John Oldham, Thomas Tinker and John Turner were 
 taken bodilv from the lists of the passengers of the Mayflower, and the Anne 
 and Little James." John [James] Rayner appears to have been one of Rob- 
 inson's men, and probably one of Brewster's printers.- John Rowe and Eh 
 Kelsev remain. But there was a John Rowe - son of John - who was a well- 
 known man in those days;^' and Taylor '^ says that in 1661 there was an Ana- 
 baptist named John Kelsay in Lincolnshire, from whom-givtng him another 
 Bible Christian name -this laboring romancer could complete the roll of his 
 dramatis pcrsoncz. 
 
 *f. ihiti. p. 12. 
 
 8' fir-rt^<jrrf, pp. 449i 453, 4S«! J^^"".?'. 352- 
 
 M"I1 ful imprimeur probablement avec William 
 
 Drewster," etc. MS. of M. U Baron W. J. C Ram- 
 melinftn Elsevier. 
 80 Palmer's Ctiiamy, i : iSo. «« Gen. Bap. i : J93- 
 
[86] 
 
 This inquiry may here be concluded. Perliaps it ouglit to be concluded 
 with an apology for having occupied so much space in the examination of such 
 unmitigated rubbish. A more despicably fraudulent endeavor to pollute the 
 sources of history, than these alleged ancient Crowle Church records, surely 
 does not stain the annals of English literature. Were it not that the ill effects 
 of such deception sadden all aspects of such a case, this would be positively 
 ludicrous for the stupendousness of its stupidity ; for the absurdities growing 
 out of its inacquaintance with so simple a fact of the past as the difference 
 between Old Style and New ; for its never-mending failure to hit any nail upon 
 the head. If the man had thrown a font of types into the air, they could not 
 have fallen down into feebler fables. The doctrine of the calculation of 
 chances, if he had left it unmeddled with, must surely have somewhere yielded 
 him at least one little single solitary fact amid his howling wilderness of lies. 
 
 As it is, one may write the epitaph of these " records " fitly in " the wordes 
 of the Preacher, the fonne of Dauid king in Jerufalem " — injecting the re- 
 iterated noun thereof with the fulness of that classic sense of mendacity, in 
 which Cicero in his Tusculan Questions employed it: 
 
 Uanita.if Uanitatum : Clanitasf Ctanitntum : 
 Ct omnia Oanita.!^. 
 
 
Collcction.iS toltjarti a ^iftliogrnpljp of tl)c jpir^t tluo fenera- 
 tions of t^c baptist Controbcrap in ornglantJ* 
 
 [The only explanation which seems to be needed here is that, in arranging books by their dates, in every 
 case where possible I have followed Thomason's endorsement on the title-pages; printing, when they have 
 been indicated by him, the month and day, in fine type under the year. In doing thus I have sometimes been 
 compelled to disregard the year as set forth on the title-page. E. g: No. S bears the printed date of 1641, but, as 
 I have shown [note 51, p. 48 ante], it could not have been published before May, 1642. As my object herein has 
 simply been to direct to the means of knowledge the attention of those who may doubt my statements, or who 
 desire further to pursue lines of thought by them suggested, I have generally given only so much of a title as 
 may accurately identify a book, and named some one library where it may be consulted. In those cases where I 
 have not found a volume, I have sometimes indicated the source of my impression that such a book had existence. 
 The place of publication is London, unless otherwise stated.] 
 
 161S. A Plain and Well-grounded Treatise concerning Baptisme. [translated from the Dutch.] [Crasiy, i 
 
 i: iiS.] 
 
 1623. [I. P.] [reston.] — Anabaptismes Mysterie of Iniquity Unmasked, etc. 16°, pp. xxx, 68. [contains 2 
 
 Anabaptist letter giving grounds of separation from the Chh. of Eng. rep. by Crosby, i: 133-139.] 
 13. M. [4323. a.] 
 
 1624. DoDD & Cleaver. — The Patrimony of Christian Children, etc. 4°. \Crosby, \: 141.] 3 
 
 1641. A Discovery of 29. Sects here in London, all of which except the first, are most Divelish and Dam- 4 
 
 nable, etc. 4°, pp. 8. 
 B. M. [E. 16S. (7.)] 
 
 1641. The Book of Cornmon Prayer now used in the Church of England, vindicated from the Aspersions 5 
 
 of all Schismatiques, Anabaptists, Brownists and Separatists ; Together with a discovery of a sort 
 of people called Rebapiists, lately found out in Hackney Marsh neere London, etc. 4°, pp. 8. 
 B. M. [3475- aaa.] 
 
 1642. [P. B.] [arbon ] — A Discourse tending to prove the Baptisme in, or under the defection of Anti- 6 
 [Apr.] Christ to be the Ordinance of Jesus Christ, as also That the Baptisme of Infants or Children, is war- 
 rantable and agreeable to the Word of God, etc. 4°, pp. viii, 32. 
 
 B. M. [E. 13S. (23.)] 
 
 [1642.] T. KiLCOP. — A Short Treatise of Baptisme. Wherein is declared that only Christs disciples or beleev- 7 
 rxaj] ers are to be baptized, etc. [n. pi. J i(P, pp. iii, 13. 
 B.M.[E. 11.3.(1.)] 
 
 [1642.] E. Barber. — A Small Treatise of Baptisme, or Dipping; wherein is cleerly shewed, that the Lord 8 
 
 [Mtj] Christ ordained Dipping for those only that professe repentance and faith : (i) proved by Script- 
 ures; (2) by Arguments; (3) a Parallel betwixt Circumcision and Dipping; (4) an Answere to some 
 objections by P. B[arbon] [i.e. those raised in no. 6]. 4^, pp. viii, 30. 
 13. M. [E. 143. (17-)] 
 
 1642. [A. R.] — A Treatise of the Vanity of Childishe Baptism; wherein the deficiency of the Baptisme of 9 
 [Juu] the Church of England is considered in five particulars thereof ; and wherin also is proved that 
 Baptizinf^ is Dipping and Dipping Baptizing. 4°, pp. vi, 32. 
 B. M. Lis2. (4.)] 
 
 1642. [A. R.] — The Second Part of the Vaniiy & Childishnes of Infants Baptisme [no. 9] wherein The 10 
 [4 Jnijj grounds from Severall Scriptures usually brought for to justifie the same, are urged and answered. 
 
 As also the nature of the divers Covenants made with Abraham and his seed, briefly opened and 
 
 applied. 4°, pp. ii, 30. 
 B. M. tE. 59- (S)] 
 
 (87) 
 
[SS] 
 
 1642. T. Wynell. — The Covenants Plea for Infants: or, The Covenant of Free Grace pleadin<j the Divine 11 
 [iSipu] Kight of Christian infants unto the Scale of holy Haplisme. Against the rusiicke Sophistry, and 
 wicked Cavillationsof sacrilegious Anabaptists, etc. Oxford, 4°, pp. xii, 124. 
 B. M. [E. 1.5.(17)] 
 
 1642. A Short History of the Anabaptists of High and Low Germany, etc. 4°, pp. iv, 56. 12 
 
 B. M. [E. MS. (5.)] 
 
 1642. [R. B.] — An Answer to the Treatise of P. B. [no. 6] on Baptisme, etc. 4°. 13 
 
 1642. A Warning for England, especially for London, in the famous history of the frantic Anabaptists, 14 
 etc. 4''. 
 
 Bodleian, [Wood. 647. 2.] 
 
 1642. Reasons humblv offered in justification of the action of letting a Room in London-house unto certain 15 
 peaceable Christians called Anabaptists. 4°. 
 Bodleian, [4^, P. i. Art. BS.] 
 
 1642. J. Taylor. — A Cluster of Coxcombes; or a Cinquepace of five sorts of Knaves and Fooles: x6 
 
 namely, the Donatists, Publicans, Disciplinarians, Anabaptists, and Brownists, etc. [n. pi.] 4*^, 
 pp.8. 
 
 B. M. [E. 154.(49-)] 
 
 1643. The Roundheads Catechisme: or, the Newter catechizing the Anabaptists, Puritans, Separatists, 17 
 [8 Apr.] and weli-alfected under the name of Roundheads, with their joyut Answer to the same. 32°, 
 
 pp. 32- 
 
 H. M. [E. 1205. (1.)] 
 
 1643. [P. B.1[.\rbon1 — A Replv to the Frivolous and impertinent Answer of R. B. [no. 13] to the 18 
 [14 Apr.] Discourse of P. B. [no. 6] in which Discourse is shewed,' that the Baptisme in the Defection of 
 Antichrist, is the ordinance of God, notwiihstanding the corruptions that attend the same, and that 
 the Baptisme of Infants is lawful; both of which are vindicated from the exceptions of R. B. and 
 further cleared by the same author [i. e. V. IJ.]. There is also a reply in way of Answer to some 
 exceptions of E. B. [no. 8] against the same. 4°, pp. vi, 64. 
 B. M. [E. 96. (2o.)J 
 
 1643. An Anabaptists Sermon. Preached at the Rebaptizing of a Brother, at the new or holy Jordan, as ig 
 [;i9Apr.3 they call it, neare Bow or Hackney River, etc. 4°, pp. 4. 
 B. M. [E. 97. (.3.)] 
 
 1643. [S C] — A Christian Plea for Christians Baptisme: Raised from the grave of Apostasie : or, A 20 
 [35 Ma/] Short Treatise, being a reproof of some thinijs written by A. R. in his Treatise entituled 'flu Vati- 
 itie [no. 9], etc. 4", pp. viii, 30. 
 B. M. [E. 104. (2.)J 
 
 1643. The Clergyes Bill of Complaint; or submissive suit of one in the behalf of all the Orthodox and 21 
 great sorrow-suffering Church-inen throughout England ; exhibited to the Houses of Parliament 
 against Hrowiiisis, Anabaptists, and other Schismaticks. Oxford, 4^. 
 Bodleian, [Pamph. 5S.] 
 
 1643. [S. C] — A Christian Plea for Infants Baptisme, or a Confutation of some things written by A. R. 22 
 [8 Feb.] in his Treatise entituled 7'A^ >S"^c<?/i<//'«r/ [no. loj etc. 4^, pp. ii, 166. 
 B. M. [E. 32. (2.)J 
 
 1643. T. Blake. —The Birth-Priviledge or Covenant-Holinesse of Beleevers and their Issue in the time 23 
 [18 Mar.] of the Gospel: With the right of Infants to Baptism. 4°, pp. vi, 34. 
 
 B. M. [E. 37 (29)] 
 
 1644. The Anabaptists Groundwork for Reformation : or. New Planting of Churches, that no man, 24 
 [81 May] woman nor child, may be baptized, but such as have justifying Faith, and doe make profession 
 
 thereof, before, to the Baptizer, Found false, with all things depending thereon, as being contrary 
 to the Scriptures, and to the Examples of Christ and his Apostles, etc. 4°, pp. iv, 34. 
 B. M. [L\ 50. (2.)] 
 
 1644. H. AiNSwoRTH. — A Seasonable Discourse, or, a Censure upon a Dialogue of the Anabaptists, etc. 25 
 [4 Juno] 4°, pp. iv, 74. [first printed (probably) in 1623. 1 
 B. M. [E. 50. (8.)] 
 
 1644. T. Bakewell. — A Confutation of the Anabaptists, and all others who affect not civill government; 26 
 SlJune] proving the Lawfulnesse of it . . . Also Arguments against the Anabaptists, proving that Infants 
 borne of Christian Parents ought to be baptized, etc. 4^, [n. p.] pp. 102. 
 B. M. [E. 5.. (20.)] 
 
 1644. T. NoTT. — The Nut-Cracker crackt by the Nutt . . . being the vindication of honest men from 27 
 [3 Aug.] the scandalous aspersions of T. B. as you may see in his learned book called the Confutation [no. 
 26J, etc large 4", [n. p.] pp. 8. 
 B. M. [E. 254. (ii.)J 
 
 1644. S. Marshall. — A Sermon of the Baptizing of Infants; preached in the Abbey-Church at West- 28 
 [27 Aug.] minster. 4^, pp. iv, 62. 
 
 B. M. [K. P. gold no. 171. (21.)] 
 
[89] 
 
 1644. Infants Baptizing Proved Lawfull by the Scriptures : Objections against it resolved and removed, ag 
 nssepio etc. 4°, pp. 16. 
 
 B. M. [E. 8. (31.)] 
 
 1644. W. Cooke. — A learned and Full Answer to a Treatise intituled The Vanity fnos. 9 & lo], etc. 30 
 [18 Sept.] Also the question concerning the necessitie of Dipping in Baptisme is fully discussed, etc. 4°, 
 pp. viii, 1 12. 
 
 B. M. [E. 9. (2.)] 
 
 1644. John the Baptist, Forerunner of Christ lesvs; or A necessity for Liberty of Conscience, as the only 31 
 [23 Sept.] meane.s under heaven to strengthen Children weake in faith, to convince Hereticks misled in faith, 
 etc. 4^, pp. vi>i, :oS. 
 B. M. [E. 9. (.3.)] 
 
 1644. F. CoRNWELL. — The Vindication of the Royall Commission of King Jesus, Matt, xxviii: iS-20, 32 
 [S7 Bept.] compared with Mark, xvi : 15, 16, against the Antichristian Faction of Pope Innocensius the third, 
 
 that enacted by a decree that the Baptisme of the Infants of Beleivers should succeed Circum- 
 
 [cijsion. 4^, pp. vi, 18. 
 B. M. [E. 10.(15.)] 
 
 1644. The Summe of a Conference at Terling in Essex, Jan. 11, 1643 ... on Infants Baptisme, etc. 4°, 33 
 rr Oct.] pp. viii, 36. 
 
 B. M. [E. 12. (2.)] 
 
 1644. A Declaration against Anabaptists: to stop the Persecution fo their errours, falsely pretended to be 34 
 [9 Oct.] a Vindication [no. 32], etc. 4^, pp. ii, 6. 
 B. M. [E. 12. (9.)] 
 
 1644. The Confession of Faith of those Churches which are commonly (though falsely) called Anabaptists, 35 
 [18 Oct.] etc. 4^, pp. 24. 
 
 B. M. IE. 12. (24.)] 
 
 1644. To .Sions Virgins: Or, A Short Forme of Catechisme of the Doctrine of Baptisme, in use in these 36 
 [4 Not.] Times that are so full of Questions. By an Ancient Member, of that long agoe gathered Congre- 
 gation, whereof Mr. Henry Jacob was an Instrument of gathering it, and the Pastour worthy of 
 double honour, Mr. jfohn Lathrofipe succeeding him, now pastor in Ne7v-Bngland: and the 
 beloved Congregation, through Gods mercies sees her Teachers, waiting when God shall give more 
 Liberty and Pastours according to his own heart, praying the Lord of the harvest to thrust forth 
 Labourers into his harvest. 4 , pp. iv, 8. 
 B. M. [E. 17. (19.)] 
 
 1644. T. Bakewell. — The Antinomians Christ Confounded, and the Lords Christ exalted, [pp. 56-68. 37 
 [ISSoT.] "The grounds of true Religion laid open and applied"] etc. 4°, pp. iv, 68. 
 B. M. [E. 17. (16.)] 
 
 1644. The New Distemper, written by the Author of the Loyall Convert, etc. Oxford, 4°, pp. ii, 26. 38 
 
 [20 Nor.] B. M. [E. 17. (20.)] 
 
 1644. [T. B., B. D.] — A Moderate answer to these two Questions: (i) whether ther be sufficient ground 39 
 [38 Not.] in Scripture to warrant ... a Christian to present his infant to the Sacrament of Baptism; 
 (2) whether it be not sinfull ... to receiv the Sacrament in a mixt assembly. 4°, pp. ii, 32. 
 B. M. (E. 19. (6.)] 
 
 1644. C. Blackwood. — The Storming of Antichrist in his strongest Garrisons, of compulsion of Con- 40 
 [S8Dm.] science, and Infants Baptisme, etc. 4°, pp. iv, 62, 68, 
 B. M. [E. 22. (15.)] 
 
 [1644.] J. Spilsburv. — A Treatise concerning the lawful subjects of Baptism, etc. 4°. [probably ist ed. 41 
 of no. 149.] 
 
 1644. T.Lamb. — The Un-Lawfulnesse of Infants Baptisme, etc 4°. 42 
 
 1644. The Compassionate Samaritane. Vnbinding the Conscience, and powring oyle into the wounds 43 
 which have beene made upon the Separation, etc. [pp. 60-71 the Anabaptists in particular.] 24°, 
 pp. 84. 
 B. M. [E. 1202.(1.)] 
 
 1644. The Fountaine of Free Grace opened . . . wherein they [/. e. the Congregation of Christ in London 44 
 ['.'iJ»n.] falsly called Anabaptists] vindicate themselves from the scandalous aspersions of holding Free- 
 will, and denying a free Election by grace. 12°, pp. iv, 24. 
 B. M. IE. ii'8i.(3.)] 
 
 1644. I. Knutton. — Seven Qvestions abovt the Controversie betweene the Chvrch of Engkind, and the 45 
 [ziJu.j Separatists and Anabaptists, breifely discussed, etc. 4°, pp. iv, 36. 
 B. M. [E. 25. (20.)] 
 
 1^44. D. Fbatlev — The Dippers Dipt, or the Anabaptists dvck'd and plvng'd over Head and Eares at a 46 
 [7 Fob.] Disputation in Southwark, etc 4°, pp. xviii, 22S. 
 B. M. [E. 268. (11.)] 
 
[9o] 
 
 1644. [P. B.] — A Defence of the Lavvfulnesse of Baptizing Infants ... in way of answer to someihinj; 47 
 psFeb.] written by J. Spilsbeiie [no. 41], etc. 4'', pp. vi, 64. 
 B. M. [E. 270. (.2.)] 
 
 1644. S. RiCHARDSo.v, — Soine brief Considerations on Dr. Featley, his book intituled The Dipper Difit, 48 
 [25 Feb.] [no. 46J, wherein in some measure is discovered his many great and false accusations of divers per- 
 sons commonly called Anabaptists, etc. 4^, pp. ii, iS. 
 
 B. M. [E. 270. (22.)] 
 
 1645. H. Denne. — Antichrist Vnmasked in two Treatises. The first, An Answer unto two Pa;dobaptists 49 
 [lApr.] . . . the Arguments for Childrens Baptisme opened, and answered. The Second, the Man of 
 
 Sinne discovered in Doctrine, etc. 4^, pp. iv, 52. 
 Bodleian, [G. Pamph. 1042. (4.)] 
 
 1645. R. Ram. — Paedobaptisme: or, the Baptizing of Infants Justified, by the judgment and practice of 50 
 pApr.] ancient and modern Divines, etc. 4°, pp. iv, 28. 
 B. M. [E. 276. (i2.)J 
 
 1645. [J. G.]fRAUNT.] — Truth's Victorie acainst Heresie; all sorts comprehended under those ten men- 51 
 [9Apr.]j tioned, viz. : (i) Papists; (2) Familists; (3) Arrians; (4) Arminians; (5) Anabaptists; (6) Sepa- 
 ratists; (7) Antinomists; (S) Monarchists; (9) Millenarists; (10) Independents, etc. 4^, pp. iv, 74. 
 B. M. [E. 277. (7.)J 
 
 1645. [R. BvFiBLD.]^Temple-defilers defiled, wherein a true visible Church of Christ is described, the 52 
 [22Apr.] evils and pernicious errours, especially apperlaining to Scliisme, Anabaptisme and Libertinisrae 
 that infest our Church are discovered, etc. 4°, pp. viii, 40. 
 B. M. [E. 278. (20.)] 
 
 1645. T. Blake. — Infants baptisme freed from Anti-christianisme. A full repulse to Mr. C. B. in his 53 
 [29Apr.] assault, Tfie Storming [no. 40], etc. 4°, pp. viii, 130. 
 B. M. [E. 279. (lo.)J 
 
 1645. E. Pagitt. — Heresiography : or, a description of the Hereticks and Sectaries of these latter times, 54 
 [8M»j] etc. 4°, pp. x.\iv, 132. 
 B. M. [E. 282. (5.)J 
 
 1645. G. Phillips. — A Reply to a Confutation of some Grounds for Infant Baptism ; as also concerning 55 
 [lOJune'l the form of a Church, put forth against me by one T. Lamb [no. 42 ?1, etc. 4^, up. xvi, 11:4. 
 B. M. [E. 287. (4.)J 
 
 1645. \V. KiFFiN. — A Briefe Remonstrance of the Reasons and Grounds of Anabaptists for their Sepa- 56 
 pojulj] ration, etc. 4°, pp. iv, 16. 
 B. M. [E. 293. (16.)] 
 
 1645. J. RiCRAFT. — A Looking Glasse for the Anabaptists and the rest of the Separatists: Wherein they 57 
 [4 Sept.] may clearly behold a brief Confutation of a certain un-licensed Scandalous Pamphlet Intituled the 
 Remotistratice [no. 56J, etc. 4"', pp. iv, 26. 
 B. M. [E. 299. (9.)] 
 
 1645. J. Brinsley. — The Doctrine and Practice of Pasdo-baptisme asserted and vindicated. 4°, pp. vi, 58 
 posepi.] 100, 86. 
 
 B. M. [E. 300. (14.)] 
 
 1645. The An.ibaptists Catechisme: with all their Practises, Meetings and Exercises, etc. 16°, pp. ii, 14. sn 
 
 QlSept.] B. M. [E. 1185. (8.)] . 1-1 . t jj 
 
 1645. [Capt. Hobson.] — The Fallacy of Infants Baptisme Discovered, or Five Arguments, to prove that Oo 
 [10 Deo.] Infants ought not to be baptized, etc. 4°, pp. vi, 16. 
 B. M. [E. 311. (r8.)J 
 
 1645. J. ToMBES. — Two Treatises and an Appendix to them concerning Infant-Baptisme : (i) an Exer- 61 
 [10 Deo.] citation presented to llie Chairman of a Committee of the Assembly; (2) an Examen of Mr. Mar- 
 shalls .Sermon [no. 28], etc. 4'-", pp. x, 34, 176, x. 
 B. M. [E.3.2. (i.)] 
 
 1645. R. Face, Jr. — The Lawfulnesse of Infante-Baptisme, or. An Answer to Thomas Lamb his eight 62 
 [10 Deo.] arguments entituled The Un-laiv/ulttesse \no. 42 1, etc. 16^, up. ii, 16. 
 B. M. [E. 1189.(10)] 
 
 1645. A Declaration concerning the Publike Dispute which should have been in the Publike meeting- 63 
 [30 Deo.] house of Alderman-bury, the 3d of this inst. moneth of December, concerning Infanls-Baptisme, 
 etc. by B. Cox, H. Knollys, W. Kiffin, etc. 4°, pp. ii, 20. 
 B. M. IE.313. (22.)J 
 
 1645. J. Mabbatt. — A Briefe or Generrill Reply unto Mr. Knuttons Answers unto the VI L Questions 64 
 [no. 45] and the Controversie between the Church of England and the Separatist and Anabaptist, 
 briefly discussed, etc. [n. pi.] 4'^, pp. 40. 
 [I have it.] 
 
[91] 
 
 1645. J. Waite. — The Way to Heaven by Water, concomitnlerl by the sweet-breathing gales of the O5 
 Spirit. V'ork, 4°. 
 
 liodleian, [NIason. AA. 473.] 
 
 1645. R. Garner. — A Treatise of Captisme ; wherein is clearly proved the lawf ulnesse of Beleevers Bap- 66 
 piJin.] tisme, etc 4°, pp. iv, 34. 
 B. M. [E. 314. (i6.)J 
 
 1645. C. Blackwood. — Apostolical! Baptisme; or a Sober Rejoinder to a Treatise written by Mr. T. 67 
 [13J»n.] Blake, intituled Infants Baptistne freed\xiO. 53], etc. 4^, pp. iv, 83, iii. 
 B. M. IE. 3.5. (.7.)] 
 
 if>45- [R- J] — Nineteen Arguments, proving Circumcision no seal of the Covenant of Grace . . . the 68 
 [isjin.j unlawfullnesse of Infant Baptisme, etc. 4^, pp. iv, 20. 
 B. M. [E. 3iS-('6.)] 
 
 1645. J. Saltmarrh. — The Smoke in the Temple, etc. 4°, pp. xvi, 32, 70. 69 
 
 pojan.] B. M. [E. 316. (14.)] 
 
 1645. [T. E.][akewell.] — A Justification of two points now in controversie with the Anabaptistes, etc. 70 
 pgju.3 4°) PP- ii. 30. 
 
 Bodleian, [C. 13. 16. Line] 
 
 1645. R. Bavi.ie. — A Dissvasive from the Errours of the Time, etc. 4°, pp. xxiv, 252. 71 
 
 p2j»n.] B. M. [E. 317. (15.)] 
 
 1645. R. Williams. — Christenings make not Christians, or, a Briefe Discourse concerning that name 72 
 [25J»B.] //^rt///^«, commonly given to the Indians. As also concerning that great point of their Conver- 
 sion, etc. 16°, pp. ii, 22. 
 B. M. [E. 1189. (S.)] 
 
 1645. A Confession of Faith of .Seven Congregations, or Churches of Christ in London, which are com- 73 
 1.2iiJ»ii.] monly (but uniustly) called Anabaptists, etc. Second Impression, corrected and enlarged [see no. 
 351- 4^, [n. p.] pp. 24. 
 B. M. [E. 319. (13.)] 
 
 1645. H. Knollys. — The Shining of a Flaming Fire in Zion. Or, a Clear Answer unto 13 Exceptions 74 
 til Feb.] against the Grotinds of New Baptism ; (so called) in Mr. Saltmarsh his Book intituled The Smoke 
 [no. 6q1, etc. 4°, pp. iv, 18. 
 B. M. [E. 322. (i6.)] 
 
 1645. J. Eachard. — The Axe against Sin and Error, and the Truth conquering, etc. 4°, pp. xii, 40. 75 
 
 p4Fcb.] B. M. [E. 322. (26.)] 
 
 1645 T. Edwards. — Ganermna : or a Catalogue and Discovery of many of the Errours, Heresies, Bias- 76 
 [18 Feb.] phemies and pernicious Practices of the Sectaries of this time, vented and acted in England in 
 these four last yeares, etc. 4°, pp. xxiv, 1S4. [first part.] 
 B. M. [E. 323. (2.)] 
 
 1645. N. Homes. — A Vindication of Baptizing Beeleevers Infants, in some Animadversions upon Mr. 77 
 raoFob.] Tombes, His Exercitations about In/ant Baptism [no. 61], etc. 4°, pp. vi, 227, v. 
 B. M. [E. 324. (>.)] 
 
 1645. J. Geree. — Vindicia Pcedo-baptismi: or a Vindication of Infant Baptism, in a full Answer to Mr. 7b' 
 r4Mu.] Tombs his twelve arguments alleged against it [no. 61 ?], etc. 4°, pp. viii, 72. 
 
 B. M. [E.325. (=5-)] 
 
 1646. S. Marshall. — A Defence of Infant-Baptism : in answer to two Treatises of Mr. J. Tombes [no. 79 
 pApr.] 61], etc. 4°, PP vi, 256, iv. 
 
 B. M. [E. 332. (5.)] 
 
 1646. J. Lev. — Light for Smoak, or a reply to Tlie Smoke in the Temple [no. 69], etc. 4°, pp. xxx, 80 
 ni Apt.] 98, 22. 
 
 B. M. [E. 333. (2.)] 
 1646. J. Spilsbury. — Gods Ordinance, the Saints Priviledge: discovered and proved in two Treatises 8i 
 MUaj] . . . the second wherein the Saints right to the use of Baptisme is proved, etc. 4°, pp. viii, 80. 
 
 B. M. [E. 335. (17 )] 
 
 1646. T. Bakewell. — An Answer, or Confutation, of divers Errors Broached and Maintained by the 82 
 [7Msj] seven Churches of Anabaptists, contained in their Confession [no. 73], and other grosse opinions 
 held bv them against the cleare Light of the Gospel, etc. 4^, pp. iv, 46. 
 B. M. [E. 336. (10.)] 
 
 1646. T. Edwards. —The Second Part of Gan^rcena [see no. 76], or a fresh and further Discovery of 83 
 [38likj] the Errors, Heresies, Blasphemies, and dangerous Proceedings of the Sectaries of this time, etc. 
 4°, PP xii, 212. 
 
 B. M. [E. 338. (.2.)] 
 
 1646. W. Ho';rev. —An Answer to Mr. Toinbes his sceptical Examination [Exercitation] of Infant-Bap- 84 
 [6 Jaij] lisme [no. 6iJ, etc 4^, pp. vi, 72. 
 B. M. [E. 343- (3 )J 
 
[9-'] 
 
 1646. H. Lavor. — Predestination handled and maintained against Papists, Arminians, and Certaine 85 
 noJalyJ Churches also of Anti-pasdobaptists. 12°, pp. ii, 34. 
 
 B. M. [E. 11S7. (2.)] 
 1646. Of Baptisme. The heads and order of such things as are especially insisted on, you will find in the 86 
 noAag.] table of Chapters. Rotterdam, 16°, pp. viii, 410, vi. 
 
 B. M. [E. in6.] 
 
 1646. J. ToMBBS. — An Apology or Plea for the Two Treatises and Appendix concerning Infant Baptism 87 
 [28 Aug.] [no. 61], etc. 4°, pp. VI, 158. 
 B. M. [E. 352- ('•)] 
 
 1646. T. Gataker. — Shadowes without Substance, or, pretended New Lights, etc. 4°, pp. ii, 116. 88 
 
 ni s»pt.] B. M. [E. 366. (2.)J 
 
 1646. J. Cotton. The Grovnds and Endes of the Baptisme of the Children of the Faithfvll, etc 4°, 89 
 no Oct.] pp. viii, 106. 
 
 B. M. [E. 356. (16.)] 
 
 [1646.] [R. H.] — The True Guide, etc. [a discourse on Baptism.] [see no. 91.] 4°. 90 
 
 1646. [R. B.] — A Briefe Answer to R. H. his Booke, entitled The True Guide [no. 90], etc. 4°, pp. ii, 38. 91 
 paoot.] B. M. [E. 357. {2.)] 
 
 [1646.] [Mr.] Harrison. — Pxdobaptism Oppugned, etc. [in review of no. 78, as see no. 98], etc. 4°. 52 
 
 1646. [A. WvKE.] — The Innocent in Prison Complaining; or, a True Relation of the Proceedinps of the 93 
 Committee of Ipswich, the Committee at liiiry St. Edmonds, in the County of .Suffolk, .isainst one 
 Andrew Wyke, a witness of Jesus in the same County, who was committed to prison, June 3, 1646, 
 etc. \_Crosby, i : 235.] 
 
 1646. W. Ht;ssEY. — A Ivst Provocation of Master Tombes, to make good his generall charge [no. 87?] 94 
 n\ Oct.] against Mr. W. Hussey's Satisfaction to his Sceptical! Exercitation [no. 84], etc. 4°, pp. iv, 8. 
 B. M. [E. 357- (6.)J 
 
 1646. [T. KiLCOP.] — Seekers Supplyed, or Three-and-Forty Non-Church Queries by Scripture answered. 95 
 [3 Mot.] Penned and Publish't for the vindication of Christs commands, and edification and confirmation of 
 his people, by T. K. Servant to Christ Jesus, the King of Kings. 4°, pp. iv, 12. 
 B. M. [E. 359- (4.)] 
 
 [1646.] [J. Wilkinson.] — The Sealed Fountaine opened to the faithful!, and their Seed. Or, a short 96 
 [17 Not.] Treatise, shewing that some Infants are in the state of Grace, and capable of the Scales, and 
 
 others not. Being the chief point wherein the Separatists doe blame the Anabaptists. By J. \V. 
 
 Prisoner at Colchester against John Morton, Prisoner at London. 32°, pp. xii, 16. 
 B. M. [E. 1205. (2.)] 
 
 1646. F. SpANHEMius. — Englands Warning by Germanies Woe : or, An Historical! Narration of the 97 
 [23KoT.] Originall, Progresse, Tenets, Names, and Severall Sects of the Anabaptists, in Germany and the 
 Low Countries, etc. 4°, pp. ii, 50. 
 B. M. [E. 362. (28.)] 
 
 1646. J. Geree. — Vittdicia Vindiciaru^n ; or, a Vindication of his Vindication 0/ In/ant Baptism 98 
 piNoT.] [no. 78] from the exceptions of Mr. Harrison in his Pcedpbaptisin Oppuf;7i£d [no. 92], etc. and 
 from the exceptions of Mr. Tombes [no. 87], etc. 4", pp. vi, 42. 
 B. M. [E. 363. (13.)) 
 
 1646. T. Edwards. — The Third Part of Gattgrcena, etc. [see nos. 76 & 83.] 4°, pp. xlii, 318. 99 
 
 [iBNoT.J B. M. [E. 368. (5.)] 
 
 1646. B. CoxE. — An Appendix to a Confession of Faith, or a more full Declaration of the Faitli and Judg- 100 
 [30 Not.] ment of Baptized Beleevers. Occasioned by the inquiry of some wel-aflected and godly persons 
 
 in the Country. Published for tlie cleering of truth and discovery of their mistake wlio liave 
 
 imagined a dissent in fundamentals where there is none. 4°, pp. 12. 
 B. M. [E. 364. (i.)] 
 
 1646. An Order of the Lords assembled in Parliament, for the punishing of Anabaptists and Sectaries that 101 
 [22 Deo.] shall (listurbe tlie ministers in their publike exercises, etc. 4°, pp. ii, 4. 
 B. M. [E. 367. (2.)] 
 
 1646. R. Bavi.ie. — Anabaptism the True Fovntaine of Independency, Brownisme, Antinomy, Farailisme, 102 
 [4Ju.] and most of the other Errours, which for the Time doe trouljle the Church of England . . . Also 
 tlie Questions of Pidobaptisme and Dipping liaudled from Scripture. In a second Part of the 
 Disswasive [no. 71], etc. 4°, pp. xxxii, 179, xiii. 
 B. M. [E. 369. (9-)] 
 1646. A Catalogue of the several! sects and opinions in England, and other nations, with a brefe Rehersall 103 
 [IOJm.] of their false and dangerous tenets, single sheet fol. [refers to "Anabaptists."] 
 B. M. [669. f. 10. (m.)] 
 
 1646. O. Sedgwick. — The Natvre and Danger of heresies; opened in a sermon before the House of 104 
 [27 Ju.] Commons [on Rev. xii: 15, 16J, etc 4*^, pp. iv, 44. 
 B. M. [E. 372. (i3.)J 
 
[93] 
 
 1646. The New Letanie, etc. Broad sheet, folio, [refers to "Anabaptists," etc.] 105 
 
 [li»l«r.] B. M. [66g. f. 10. (120.)] 
 
 1646. R. Whittle. — An Answer to Mr. F. Cornwells Positions and Inferences, concerning Dipping, 106 
 [S4Uar.] Anabaptisnie, .Antipxdobaptisme, Tythes and Consecrated Churches, etc. 4°, pp. ii, 22. 
 
 B. M. IE. 516. (i.)J 
 
 1647. The Anabaptists late Protestation ; or, their Resolvtion to depart the City of London. Wherein is 107 
 [3Apr.] set forth the full proceedings of a great number of Anabaptists, at a late Conventicle neere Old- 
 Street, etc. 4'-^, [n. p.] pp. 8. 
 
 B. M. [E. 3S3. (n.)j 
 
 1647. J. Bastwick. — The Storming of the Anabaptists garrisons, with a brief Discovery of the weak- 108 
 C3Juii«J nesse of the same, etc. 4'-', pp. ii, 50. 
 B. M. [E. 390. (23.)] 
 
 1647. G. Pai.mer. — Sectaries vnmasked and confuted, by the treating upon divers Points of doctrine in leg 
 pjolj] debate betwixt the Presbyterians and Sectarists, Anabaptists, Independents and Papists, etc. 4°, 
 pp. viii, 56. 
 
 B. M. [E. 396. (27-)] 
 
 1647. G. Palmer. — The Voice of Infants by Infants Defender, etc. 4°, pp. 12. 110 
 
 [8 July] B. M. IE. 396. (28.)] 
 
 1647. A Declaration by Congregationall Societies in and about London; as well of those commonly called iii 
 pjNoT.] Anabaptists, as others, in way of vindication of themselves touching: (i) Liberty; (2) Magis- 
 tracy; (0 Proprietv ; (4) Poiygamie, etc. 4°, pp. 14. 
 B. M."[E. 416. U'o.)] 
 
 [1647.] A Looking-Glass for Sectaryes ; or, True Newes from Newbery, being the relation of the Newbery 112 
 Anabapiisies, whereof three were to be carried into Heaven, but failed in their lourney, etc. 
 4°, pp. 8. 
 
 B. M. [E. 419. (20.)] 
 
 1647. n. Grotius. — Baptizatorum Puerorum Institutio, etc. Londini, 12°. [/fa//, s. n.] 113 
 
 1647. J. HoORNBEEK. — Disputationes de Baptismo Veterum, ctc. Ultraject. 4°. [Wrt//, s. n.] 114 
 
 1647. A Testimony to the Truth of Jesus Christ, and to our Solemn League and Covenant ; as also against 115 
 [ISJu.] the Errours, Heresies and Blasphemies of these times, etc. [p. 18 discusses " Errours against the 
 Sacrament of Haptisme."J 4'-', pp. ii, 38. 
 B. M. [E. 423. (3)J 
 
 1647. [W. Dell.] — Baptismon Didache: or. The Doctrine of Baptismes, Reduced from its Ancient and 116 
 noFeb.j Moderne Corruptions: and restored to its Primitive Soundnesse and Integrity, etc. 4'-', pp. iv, 26. 
 
 B. M. [E. 427- (25-)] 
 
 1648. T. Cobbet. — A Jvst Vindication of the Covenant and Church-estate of Children of Church-mern- 117 
 
 bers: as also of their right unto Baptisme . . . Hereunto is annexed a Refutation of a certain 
 Pamphlet, stvli-d the Plain atid wel-grou7ided Treatise [no. i], etc. 4°, pp. xii, 296. 
 Bodleian, [4°, B. 9. Th. BS.J 
 
 1648. J. Church. — The Divine Warrant of Infant Baptism; or. Six Arguments for the Baptism of the 118 
 Infants of Christians, etc. 
 Bodleian, [Pamph. 87.] 
 
 1648. A. MiNGZEis. — A Confutation of the New Presbyterian Error, shewing not onely how neere our iig 
 late Presbyterians came to the Anabaptists in reslrayning the Supper of the Lord from the jieople 
 by wav of 'Examination, as they doe children from the Sacrament of Baptisme, etc. 16°, pp. 24. 
 B. M. [E. 1181. (10.)] 
 
 [1648.] [W. CooiCE.] — The Font uncovered, for Infant-Baptisme, etc. 4°. 1:0 
 
 1648. R.Allen. — An Antidote against Heresy; or a Preservative for Protestants against the pnyson of i:i 
 
 Papists, Anabaptists, Arrians, Arminians, etc. and their pestilent errours, etc. 16^, pp. xviii, 144. 
 B. M. [E. 1168. (2.)] 
 
 [164S.] S. Gates. — A New Baptisme and Ministery, etc. 4*^. 122 
 
 1649. The Humble Petition and Representation of several Churches of God in London, commonly (though 1:3 
 [3Apr.j falslv) called W wait? //u/j. [presented to Parliament 2 Apr.J with the Answer thereto. 4-', pp. 8. 
 
 B. M. [E. 549- ^'4)J 
 
 1649. J. Drew. — K .Serious Atldresse to Samuel Gates for a Resolve in some few Quxries touching his 1:4 
 [iAiir.] Ne7u Jiafitiiiiie aitd Ministery \.ao. 122], c\.c. 4^, pp. 38. 
 B. M.[E. 549(«6.)J 
 
 1649. Eight Reasons for Baptizing Infants born of Believing Parents, etc. 4', p. ii, 8. 125 
 
 paJoD.] B. M. [E 559. (i8.)J 
 
[94] 
 
 1649. T. Hooker. —The Covenant of Grace Opened: Wherein th'>se paniciilars are handled; viz.: 126 
 [sJuljJ (1) What the Covenant of Graci; is; (?.) What the Scales of the Covenant are; (3) Who are the 
 
 Parlies and Sulijects fit to receive these Scales. From all which Particulars Infants Baptisme is 
 
 proved and vindicated, etc. 4"^', jip. ii, 86. 
 [Hon. J. Hammond Triimbnll.| 
 
 1649. EcclesiiF Gemitus sub Anabaptistica Tyraiinide. [n. pi.] S^, pp. viii, i;6. 127 
 
 U. M. [E. 1214. (2.)J ' 
 
 1649. Infants Baptism Maintained; or, a True Account of the Disputation at Ashford in Kent, Julie 27, 128 
 [3J«o.] 1649. 4°, pp. iv, 28. 
 
 B. M. [E. 5S7. (.2 )] 
 
 1649. P- Chamberlen. — To my beloved Friends and Neighbours of the Blackfr>'ers, etc. [single 129 
 niFeb.] sheet.) fol. 
 
 B. M. [fol. 9. (16.)] 
 
 [1649.] P. Chamberlen. — A Question to Dr. Gouge whether that Sprinkling of Infants in Baptism is of 130 
 God or Man ? 4°. 
 
 [1649.] W. Hartlv. — Infant Baptism none of Chri.sts, etc. [cited and criticised bvR. Carpenter, no. 191.] 131 
 
 1650. T. Bakewell. —The Dippers Plunp;ed in a Sea of Absurdities. Or, An Answer to Dr. Chamberlen 132 
 
 concernint; .Sprinkling the Baptized [no. 130], etc. 4°, pp. 8. 
 B. M. [E. 605. (4.)] 
 
 1650. P. Chamberlen. — Master Bakewells Sea of Absurdities concerning Sprinkling [no. 132] calmly 133 
 [l2Apr.j driven back, etc. 4°, pp. ii, 14. 
 B. M. [702. d. 12. (lo.)J 
 
 1650. T. Bakewell. — Doctor Chamberlen visited with a Bunch of his own Grapes, gathered out of his 134 
 po M»jj Packet of Letters, etc. . . . Also, an Answer to Dr. Chamberleus Reply concerning Sprinkling 
 the Baptized [no. 133], etc. 4°, pp. 28. 
 B. M. [E. 601. (4.)] 
 
 1650. R. Baxter. — Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-Membership and Baptism, being the Argu- 135 
 ments prepared for (and partly managed in) the publick dispute with Mr. Tombes at Bewdley, ou 
 the 1st dav of Jan. 1649, etc. 4°, pp. liv, 346. 
 B. M. [K.. P. gold no. 685. (3.)] 
 
 1650. J. Couch. — Anabaptistorum Scrupuli: or, Answer of a Kentish Anabaptist, made in the year 136 
 [4 Feb.] 1649. 4°, pp. viii, '.o. 
 B. M. [E. 623. (2.)] 
 
 1650. N. Stephens. — A Precept for the Baptisme of Infants out of the New Testament, etc. 4°, pp. x, 62. 137 
 [10 Feb.] B. M. [E. 623. (9.)] 
 
 1650. R. Everard. — Baby-Baptisme Routed, etc. 4°. 138 
 
 1650. H. Jersey. — A Store-house of provision to further resolution in several cases of conscience, and 139 
 questions now in dispute, etc. 8°. [Cr<7j/>y, i : 322.] 
 
 1650. D. King. — \ Way in Sion, sought out, and found, for Believers to walk in, etc. . . . Wherein is 140 
 cleared up by Scripture and Arguments lounded upon Scripture, who of right mav administer Ordi- 
 nances, and amongst the rest the Ordinance of Baptism with Water, etc. "4°. \_Ivimey, ii : 577.] 
 
 1650. D. King. — Some Beams of Light for the further clearing up of the Way; wherein crooked things 141 
 
 are made straight, and rough places made plain by direct Scriptures, etc. 4°. [/viiiiej', ii: 57S.J 
 
 1651. T. Hall. — The Font Guarded with XX Arguments, containing a Compendium <if that Great 142 
 [20 Mar.] Controversie of Infant Baptism; Proving the lawfulness thereof, with a word to one Collier, and 
 
 another to Mr. Tombes in the end of the Book. 4°, pp. xviii, 136. 
 B. M. [E. 658. (2.)] 
 
 1651. D. Cawdrby. — The Inconsistencie of the Independent way, with Scripture and It Self . . . with a 143 
 [l6M»j] Diatribe . . . concerning Baptism of Infants of Non-Confederate Parents, etc. 4', pp. xxvi. 220. 
 B. M. [E. 629. (i.)J 
 
 1651. S. Chidley. — The Separatists Answer to the Anabaptists Arguments concerning Baptism, or the 144 
 [22 Oct.] answer of S. C. to J. S.[pilsburyj concerning the point in difference, etc. 4', [n. p. J pp. 16. 
 B. M. [E. 643. (22.)] 
 
 1651. G. FiRMiN. — A Serious Question stated: viz. Whether the Ministers of Enghnd are bound bv the 145 
 Word of God to Baptize the Children of all such Parents which sny they believe in Jesus Christ, 
 but refuse to submit to Church Discipline . . . The negative is defended, etc. 4'^, pp. xxiv, 40. 
 B. M. [i 15. e. 5.] 
 
 1651. H. AiNswoRTH. — A Seasonable Discourse. Or, a Censure upon a Dialogue of the Anabaptists, 146 
 etc. [first issued (probably) in 1623, and again in 1644 (no. 25).] 4^^, pp. iv, 74. 
 Bodleian, [Pamph. 94.] ' 
 
ISO 
 151 
 
 [95] 
 
 1652. Of CInists Testaments, viz : Baptisme and ihe Supper, etc. written in A. D. 1624 bv Jacob Behm, 147 
 [£)M>;] and Knulislied by John Sparrow, etc. 4^, up. xxvi, 9S, x. 
 
 B. M. [K. 6(.5. U.)] 
 
 1652. The Disputes between Mr. Cranford and Dr. Chambcrlen, at the house of Mr William Webb at the 148 
 t8Jun»] end nf Hartholoniow Lane by the Old Kxcliaii.U'e i Mar. and i, 6, 13 Apr. 1652. Published fur the 
 satisfaction of all that love the truth. 4^, pp. vi, 2S, iv. 
 B. M. [E. 666. (b.)] 
 
 1652. J. Spilsbury. — A Treatise concerning the Lawful Subjects of Baptism, wherein are handled these 149 
 particulars: (i) Haptizing of Infants confuted; (2) the Covenant of Abiahain handled; (-,) the 
 Baptism administered bv an Antichrislian power confuted; (4) how wantint; church or ordinance 
 are to be recovered; (s) Ihe Covenant, not Baptism, forms the Church; aiid hinv ('.) there is no 
 succession under the New Testament, but such as is spiritually by faith in the Word of God. 
 [probably 2d ed. of no. 41.] 4°, pp. vi, 74. 
 B. M. [4323. b.J 
 
 1652. J. To.MBES. — Pmcursor; or, a. Forerunner to a large Review of the Dispute concerning Infant- 
 baptism. 4°. {Crosby, i: 2<)$.'\ 
 
 1652. C. Blackwood. — A Brief Catechism concerning Baptism, first published at the end of his Sform- 
 ins; [no. 40J, etc. afterwards reprinted for the satisfaction and information of the people of God in 
 Lancashire, etc. 4^. yivimey,\\\ 233.] 
 
 1652. J. ToMBES. — An Addition to the Apology for the two Treatises concerning Infant Baptisme [no. 152 
 S7], etc. 4°. 
 
 1652. J. ToMBBS. — Letters that passed between Mr. Baxter and Mr. Tombes concerning the Dispute [on 153 
 Infant Church Membership and Baptism]. 4°, pp. 14. 
 B. M. [K.. P. gold no. 6S5. (3.)] 
 
 1652. H. Lawrence. — A Plea for the Vse of Gospell Ordinances, etc. against Mr. Dels Booke entituled 154 
 The Doctrine 0/ Baplisvtes [no. ii6], etc. 4'-', pp. viii, S4. 
 B. M. [E. 654. (2.)] 
 
 1652. J. Taylor. — A Discourse on Baptism, its Institutions, and Efficacy upon all believers. 4°, pp. 155 
 
 [27 Sot.] iv, to. 
 
 B. M. [E. 6S2. (2.)] 
 
 1652-4. J. Tombes. — Anti-pxdobaptism, or no plain . . . Scripture . . . Proof of Infants Baptism, etc. 156 
 [■a Not.] 4^, pp. viii, 260. I 1 wo parts.] 
 B. M. [E. 6S2. (3.)] 
 
 1652. D. Cawdrey. — A Sober Answer to a Serious Qt'estion propounded by Mr. G. Firmin, etc. whether 157 
 riODM.] the Ministers of England are bound . . . to baptize [no. 145], etc. 4'-', pp. viii, 32. 
 B. M. [E. 6S3. (23.)] 
 
 1652. T. Gataker&S. Ward. — De Baptismatis Infantilis Vi & Efficacia Disceptalio, Privatira habita, 158 
 rsjjui.] inter Virum celeberrimum D'num S. Wardum . . . etT. Gatakerum. S-', pp. viii, 272. 
 B. M. [E. 1436. (i.)] 
 
 1652. W. Erbury. — A Call to the Churches; or a Packet of Letters to the Pastors of Wales, presented 159 
 nuFob.] to the Baptized Teachers there, etc. 4-', pp. ii, 52. 
 
 B. M. [E. 6S8. (1.)] 
 
 1633. T. FtJLLER. — The Infants Advocate of Circumcision in Jewish and Baptism in Christian Children, 160 
 r2U>T] etc. 8'-^, pp. xxii, 176, 40. 
 B. M. [E. i43>. (I.)] 
 
 1653. W. Lyford. — An .Apologie for our Publick Ministerie and Infant Baptism. Written som years ago 161 
 nsMaj] for Private satisfaction of som Dissenting Brethren, etc. 4S pp. vi, 46. 
 
 B. M. [E. 697. (.).)] 
 
 1653. J. Spittlehouse. — A Confutation of the Assertions of Mr. Samuel Oates (in relation to his not 162 
 [II Jane] practising the laying on of hands on all baptized Believers) . . . who doth contrary wise affirm, etc. 
 4°. [no title p.] pp. 8. 
 B. M. [E. 699. (12 )] 
 
 1653. J. Kellett, J. Po.MROY, P. Glisson. — A Faithfvl Discovery of a treacherous Design of Mys- 163 
 risJuBc] tical Antichrist displaying Christs Banners, etc. 4°, pp. viii, 60. 
 B. M. [E. 699. (.3.)] 
 
 1653. H. Haggar. — The Foundation of the Font discovered to the view of all that desire to behold it, 164 
 [i;Aa(.] and the baptizing of Men and Women when they believe (in rivers and foimtains) proved to be a 
 standing Ordinance in the Church of Christ to the end of the world ; by plain Scripture proof; in 
 answerto Mr. Cooke [no. 120J, and Mr. Baxter [no. 135J, etc. 4", pp. viii, 132. 
 B. M. [E. 7ii.(<.)J 
 1653. G. Baitmav. — The Arrow of the Almighty shot out of the creatures bowe against the uncalled 165 
 [9tlcpi.] Ministers in England . . . likewise here is opened . . . the Mystery in Baptisme, etc. 4^, 
 pp. xii, 122. 
 B. M. [E. 712. (16.)] 
 
[96] 
 
 1653. J- CoODWiV. — Philade7/>'kia: or XL. Queries for the discovery of fnitli in this question ; Whether 166 
 persons baptized after a profession of faith may hold communion with churches . . . baptized in 
 infnncv? 4^, pp. 32. 
 U. M. [E. 702. (7.)] 
 
 1653. [W. A.] — An Answer to Mr. J. G.[oodwin] his XL. Queries, touching the Lawfulness or unlawful- 167 
 [23 Sept.] ness of holding church communion between such who have W-mw ba|)tized after their beleeving, 
 and others who have not otherwise been baptized then in their Infaucie [no. i(i6J, etc. 4^, pp. oo. 
 li. M. [E. 713. (17.)] 
 
 1653. W. Kave. — Baptism without Bason: or, Plain Scripture-proof against Infant Baptism, etc. 4°, i58 
 
 ru Not.] PP X, 42. 
 
 B. M. [E. 715- (i3-)] 
 
 1653. J. Goodwin — Water-dipping no Firm Footing for Church communion, etc. 4°, pp. 92. 169 
 
 ri'2l)M.] B. M. [E. 723. (i5.)J 
 
 1653. A False Jew: or, a wonderful Discovery of a Scot. Baptized at London for a Christian, circumcised 170 
 [tuDcc] at Rome to act a Jew, re-baptized at Hexham for a Believer, but found out at Newcastle to be a 
 
 Cheat : Being a true Kelation of the delecting of one Thomas Ramsey, born of Scotch parents at 
 
 London, etc. 4', pp viii, 14, xiv. 
 B.M. I £.724.(6.)] 
 
 i6|;3. [T. TiLLAM.] — Banners of Love displaied over the Church of Christ walking in the order of the 171 
 []6Jan.] Gospel at Hexliam_. . . against the Jesuitical design lately attempted by the false Jew: or, an 
 Answer to a Narrative stuffed with untruths [no. 170], etc. 4^, pp. 4S. 
 B. M. [E. 726. (S.)] 
 
 1653. C. Sydenham. — .A. Christian Sober and Plain Exercitation on the two grand practical Controver- 172 
 sifS of these times; Infant Baptisme and Singing cf Psalms. 8^, pp. vi, 210. 
 B. M. [E. .443- (■•)] 
 
 1653. H. Savage. — Tres Questiones Theologies in Comitiorum Vesperiis discussae. An Pxdobaptismus 173 
 sitlicitus? Christus in quern baptizamur, sit Deus ? Hjeretici qua Hseretici, sint supplicio dam- 
 nandi? Oxou. 4°. llVaii, s. n.J 
 
 1653. J. ToMBES. — ^^Refutatio Positionis, ejusque Confirmationis, Psdobaptismum esse licitum, affirman- 174 
 tis, ab Henrico Savage, S. T. D. [no. 173], etc. 4-". [Crasfy, i: 295.] 
 
 1653. H. Whistler. — An Aim at an Upshot for Infant Baptism, etc. 4^. [If/i//, s. n.] 175 
 
 1633. [H. D'anvers, E. Chillbnden, &' i^ oi/icrs.'] — Eight Questions in reference to that Principle of 176 
 the Foundation of the Doctrine of Christ, termed Laying-o7i 0/ Hands, etc. 4°. 
 
 1653. J. More. — A Lost Ordinance Restored : or Eight Questions, etc. with a General Exhortation to 177 
 alt Baptized Churches not yet under the Practice ... of the laying ou of hands, etc 4^, pp. 8. 
 B. M. [E. 727. (..)J 
 
 1653. J. H00RN13EEK. — Suinma Controversiarum Religionis: cum Infidelibus, Hsereticis, Schismaticis : 178 
 Id est . . . Anabaptistis, etc. 8-", pp. xii, 1002, xiv. 
 B. M. [3559- a.] 
 
 1653. R. Byfield. — A Short Treatise describing the true Church of Christ, and the Evills of Schisrae, 179 
 Anabaptism and Libertinism, etc. 4°, pp. ii, 40. 
 B. M. [T. 1562. (i.)J 
 
 1653. W. Allen. — Some Baptismal Abuses briefly discovered, etc. 4°, pp. xvi, 120. 180 
 
 B. M. [E. 702. (i2.)J 
 
 1633- [W. E.][rbury.] — The Madmans Plea; or, A Sober Defence of Capt. Chillingtons Church, etc. 181 
 4-', pp. ii, 10. 
 
 B. M. [E. 7.5. (.7.)] 
 
 1653. E. PuNCLB. — A Cryer in the Wildemesse of England declaring the Baptisme of the Eternal! Spirit 182 
 [23 Dec] to be the onely Baptisme in Christs Kingdom, etc. 4°, pp. xii, 86. 
 
 B.M.fE. 725.(7)] 
 
 • 653. [J. H.] [ORNE.] — Diatribe Peri Paido-Baptismoii : or, a Consideration of Infant Baptism : Wherein 183 
 [13 Fell.] the Grounds of it are laid down, and the Validity of them discussed, and many things of Mr. 
 Tombes about it, etc. 4^, pp. viii, 160. 
 B. M. [E. 729. (3.)] • 
 
 1C54. J. ToMBES. — A public dispute betwixt J. Tombes respondent, J. Cragge and H. Vaughan, oppo- 184 
 nents, touching Infant Bajjtism . . . Also a sermon ... by Mr. Cragge . . . wherein the neces- 
 sity of dipping is refuted, and Infant Baptism asserted, etc. 8*^. 
 B. M. [1355. a.] 
 
 1654. Anabaptists Anatomized and Silenced in a Public Dispute between J. Tombes, J. Cragge and H. 185 
 
 Vaughan Touching Infant Baptism, 5 Sept. 1653, etc. S^, pp. xxii, iiz. 
 B. M. [1355. a.] 
 
[97] 
 
 1654 J. Tom BBS. — A Plea for Anti-P.-edobaptists asifninst the Vanity and Falsehood of Scribled Papers 186 
 racMkjJ entituled T/u A nabaptnts Atuitonnzc-d [no. 1S5J, etc. 4'-', pp. ii, 44. 
 B. M. IE. 73S. (7.)1 
 
 1654. R. Farnworth. — To you that are called by the name of Baptists, or the Baptized people, etc. [no 187 
 pSAug.J title-page] 4°, pp. S. 
 B. M. [E. S09. (iS.)] 
 
 1654. Conference Toiichant Le Pedobaptesme, teniie a Paris entre Le Sieur Jean Mestrezat, Pasteur de 188 
 [15 Sept.] I'Eglize Refornit5e de Charenton les Paris & Theodore Naudin, doctcur en medecine. Imprim^ 
 a Londres, etc. 4°, pp. ii, 66. 
 B. M. [E. S12. (3.)J 
 
 1654. W. Britten. — The Moderate Baptist; briefly shewing Scripture-way for that initiatory Sacrament 189 
 of Baptism, etc. Wherein may appear that the Baptists of our times hold not those strange opin- 
 ions as many heretofore have done, etc. 4°. [Crosby, '\: 2^^.'^ 
 
 1654. S. Ford. — Two Dialogues concerning the Practical Use of Infant Baptism, etc. 8°. [IVatt, s. n.] 190 
 
 1654. R. Carpenter. — The Anabaptist Washt and washt, and shrunk in the washing: Or, a Scholas- 191 
 ticall Discussion of the much-agitated controversie concerning Infant-Baptisme ; occasioned by a 
 Publike Disputation, Before a great assembly ... in the Church of Newport-Pagnell : betwixt 
 Mr. Gibs, Minister there, and the author, etc. 16°, pp. xxvi, 470. 
 B. M. [E. 1484. (i.)] 
 
 >6S4' J.Rogers. — Ohel, or Beth Shemesh: A Tabernacle for the Sun, ox Irenicum Evangelicum,zxi xga 
 [7 Not.] Idea of Church Discipline, etc. 4°, pp. xiv, 326, xlii. 
 B. M. [E. 717 ] 
 
 1654. T. Patient. — The Doctrine of Baptisme, etc. 4°. 193 
 
 [Dr. Williams's Library.] 
 
 1654. R. Baylie. — The Disswasive [no. 71], etc. Vindicated from the Exceptions of , . . Mr. Tombes 194 
 r4Ju.] [no. 152], etc. 4°, pp. iv, 88. 
 
 B. M. [E. 234. (7)] 
 
 1655. J. Reading. — Anabaptism Routed: or a Survey of the controverted points concerning: (i) Infant 195 
 [«Juij] Baptisme; (2) Pretended Necessity of Dipping; (3) The dangerous Practice of Rebaptizing, etc. 
 
 4°, pp xvi, 204. 
 
 B. M. [E. 845. (14.)] 
 
 1655. J. Goodwin. — Cata-Baptism; or New Baptism waxing old, an answer to W. A. etc. 4°, pp. 19O 
 [21 Juljl xcviii, 406, xviii. 
 B. M. [E. 849.] 
 
 '^SS- J- Ives. — Infant Baptism disproved, and Believers Baptism proved, being an answer to several 197 
 Arguments propounded by Mr. Alexander Kellie, and sent to him, elc. 4-'. \,Crosby,\'v: 24S.] 
 
 [1655.] S. Fisher. — Baby Baptism mere Babyism, etc. fol. [only_/t;//o in the controversy.] [Crosby, \: 198 
 363. Ivimey,\\\ 248.] 
 
 1655. H. Savage. — Thesis sus Pzdobaptismum esse licitum Defensio, contra J. Tombes [no. 174], etc. 199 
 Oxon. 4°. [IVatt, s. n.] 
 
 1655. H. Hammond. — The Baptism of Infants defended, against the exceptions of Mr. Tombes, etc. 200 
 4°. [*Ka//, s. n.] 
 
 1655. W. Allen. — A Doubt resolved, or. Satisfaction for the Seekers [on Baptism, etc.] 4°, pp. ii, 38. 201 
 B. M. [4323.b.] 
 
 1655. J. Parnell. — The Watcher: or the Stone cut out of the Mountain, etc. or a discovery of the 202 
 ground and end of all . . . seals, etc. 4°, pp. iv, 52. 
 B. M. [E. 845. (18.)] 
 
 1653. T. I.AMB. — Tnith Prevailing against the fiercest opposition; or, an Answer to Mr. I. Goodwins 203 
 Water Dipping [no. 169], etc. 4^, pp. xx, 128. 
 B. M. [4323. b.] 
 1655. S. Ford. — Dialogues on Infant Baptism, etc. 8°. 204 
 
 [24Sfpt.] B. M. [K. P. gold no. 351. 18.] 
 
 1655. [H.Woodward.] — An Appeal to the Churches of Christ for their righteous judgment in the mat- 205 
 ri3F«b.] ters of Christ, etc. [as to Infant Baptism, etc.] [n. p.] 4°, pp. 44. 
 
 B. M. [E. 863. (6.)] 
 
 1656. M. Mason. — The Boasting Baptist dismounted, and the Beast disarmed and sorely wounded with- 206 
 [23A|ir.] out any carnal weapon, etc. 4^, pp. ii, 12. [the "Boasting Baptist" was Jonathan Johnson; 
 
 Mason, I judge, was a Qu.iker.] 
 
 B. M. [k. 877. (2.)] 
 1656. A Confession of the Faith of several [Baptist] Churches of Christ in the County of Somerset, and 207 
 noAuf.] of some Churches in the Counties neer adjacent, elc. 4°, pp. xviii, 40. 
 
 B. M. [E. S85. (6.)] 
 
[98] 
 
 1656 [J. PendarvisI fet al.] — Sighs for Sion : or Faith and Love constraining some prievincs in her 208 
 Sorrow, and Rroanings for her Deliverance, liy a few of her weak and unworlhy children, etc. 
 \Ivinuy, ii : 64.] 
 
 1656. J. Cloppenburgius. — Gii}i_erce>ia Theolo^ia Anabapiisiirir, Di<;piitationbus XLIIX. Et F. 2og 
 Spanheniii Uintriba historica de Origine, Progressu, & bectis Anabapiislorum, elc. Kranekerae, 
 24°, pp. xvi, 4-56. 
 B. M. [848. "b. II.] 
 
 1656. Of Laying on of Hands, Heb. vi: 2, Or, a Discourse containing these 4 Chapters: (i) Ends of 210 
 laying on of hands; (2) What it is not; (3) What it is; (4) Thai Christ never instituted it or com- 
 manded it as practised bv some Baptized Believers, elc. 4^', pp. ii, 14. 
 B.M. [700.5.24. (2.)J 
 
 1656. A True and Faithfull Narrative (for substance) of a Publique Dispute, between Mr. T. Porter and 211 
 Mr. H. Haccar, concerning Infant Baptism, at Ellesmer, Salop, 30 Apr. 1656. 4^, pp. vl, 22. 
 B. M. [Er'8S7. (1.)] 
 
 1656. S. Winter. — The Summe of diverse Sermons preached in Dublin . . . wherein the Doctrine of 212 
 Infant Baptism is asserted, and the main objections of Mr. Tombes [no. 156I, etc. answered. 
 Dublin, h°, pp. xiv, i!>2. 
 B. M. [4452. a.] 
 
 1656. J. Craggb. — Arraignment and Conviction of Anabaptism against Mr. Tombes [no. 156], etc. 8°. 213 
 Bodleian, [8=, N. 88. Th.] 
 
 1656. Eirenikon: a poeme, wherein is perswaded the composing of the differences of all the faithfull in 214 
 [8>ov.] Christ Jesus, under what form soever, whether Episcopall, Presbyterian, Congregalionall, or Anti- 
 
 pedobapiist. 4°, pp. 32. 
 B. M. [E. 892. (6.)] 
 
 1657. J. Tombes. — Anti-Pasdo-baptism ; or The Third Part [.see no. 156], etc. Being a full Review of 215 
 
 the Dispute concerning Infant Baptism, etc. 4^, pp. xxviii, 932. 
 
 1657. R. PuRNELL. — A Little Cabinet richly stored, etc. . . . Milk for Babes and Meat for strong Men, 216 
 etc. 12°, pp. 46S. \_Ivitney, ii : 465. J 
 
 [1657.] A Short Discovery of his Highness the Lord Protector's intentions touching the Anabaptists in the 217 
 Army, and all such as ari; against his reforming things in the Church ; which was first communi- 
 cated to a Scotch Lord, who is called Twidle; but is now come to the ear of the Anabaptists: 
 upon which there is propounded thirty-six queries for his Highness to answer to his own Con- 
 science. By a well-wisher to the Anabaptists prosperity, etc. 4°. \Crosby, iii: 231.] 
 
 1657. J. GosNOLD. — Baptismon Didaclie : or, a discourse of the Baptism of Water and the Spirit, etc. 2 18 
 4°, ii, 4S. 
 
 B. M. [700. g. 21. (i.)] 
 
 1657. J. Watts. — A Scribe, Pharisee, Hypocrite and his Letter answered, Separates churched. Dippers 219 
 sprinkled, or a Vindication of the Church and universities of England, etc. . . . whereunto is 
 added A narration of a publick dipping June 26, 1656, iu a pond, etc. 4°, pp. Ivi, 264, 212, 
 viii, I20. 
 
 B. M. [E. 921. (i.)] 
 
 1657. S.Ford. — The Use of Infant Baptism, etc. 8". 220 
 
 Bodleian, [8^, G. 29. Th. BS.] 
 
 1658. A. Houghton. — An Antidote against H. Haggars poysonous pamphlet entituled T/te foundation 221 
 pSftoT.] [no. 164], etc. 4°. pp. viii, 334. 
 
 B. M. [E. 961. (i.)J 
 
 1658. P. Gunning & H Denne. — A Contention for Truth. In two several publique Disputations . . . 222 
 nsDco.] concerning the Baptism of Infants, whether lawful or unlawful, etc. 4-', pp. vi, 46. 
 
 B. M. [E. 963. (i.)J 
 
 1659. J. Tombes. — A Short Catechism about Baptism, etc. 8°, pp. 22. 223 
 
 B. M. [E. 1854.(1.)] 
 
 1659. J. Tombes. — Feh de se ; or, Mr. Baxters Self-Destroying, manifested in twenty arguments against 224 
 Infant-baptism out of his own writings, etc. 4°. {Croihy, i: 296.] 
 
 1659. S.Patrick. — Aqua Genitalis : a Discourse concerning Baptism, etc. 12°. [on Acts xvi: 33.] 225 
 
 [Dr. Williams s Library.) 
 
 1659. A Disputation concerning Church-members and their Children in answer to xxi. Questions, by an 226 
 Assembly of Divines at Boston in New England, etc wherein the stale of such children when 
 adult, together wi;h their dutv toward the Church, is discussed, etc. 4°. 
 B. M.(K. P. gold no. 794.(3)] 
 
 1659. Scripture Baotism and Church-Way with True Seekers, [n. pi. n. p.] 4°, pp. 24. 227 
 
 [27M.t: B. M. [E. 9i4(5)J 
 
[99] 
 
 i659- Declaration of Several of the People called Anabaptists, in and about the City of London, [single 228 
 sheet I fo). 
 
 B. M. [S16. m. 24. (9 )] 
 
 1659. A Further Testimony to Truth ; or, some Earnest Groans for a Righteous Settlement by some Bap- 229 
 ti/xd Congregations in Leicester, etc. [broadside.] 
 [Mass. Histor. Society's Library.] 
 
 1659. R. HuBDERTHORNE. — An Answer to a Declaration put forth by the general consent of the People 230 
 called Anabaptists in . . . London, etc. 4°, pp. 24. 
 B. M. [4139. b.] 
 
 1659. [J. Fell.] — The Interests of England stated; or, a Faithful and Just Account of the Aims of all 231 
 Parties now prevailing; distinctly treating of the designraents of the Roman Catholics, Royalists, 
 Presbyterians, and Anabaptists, etc. 4°. ( H^aii, s. n.] 
 
 1659. T. AsHTON. — Bloodthirsty Cyrus, unsatisfied with Blood; or, the boundless cruelty of an Anabap- 232 
 tist's Tyranny, manifested in a Letter of Col. J. Mason, Governor of Jersey, etc. 4°. [IVatt, 
 s. n.J 
 
 1659. T. AsHTON. — Satan in Samuel's Mantle; or, the cruelty of Germany acted in Jersey; containing 233 
 the arbitrary, bloody and tyrannical proceedings of John Mason, of a baptized Church, etc. 4°. 
 ill-'atl, s. n.J 
 
 1659. L Bourne. — Defence and Justification of Ministers maintenance by Tithes, Infant Baptism, 234 
 Human Learning, etc. in reply to some Anabaptists, etc. 16°, pp. xvi, 98. 
 B. M. [E. 1907.(1.)] 
 
 if)59. J. Ellis. — The Pastor and the Clerk: or a Debate (real) concerning Infant-Baptisme: wherein 235 
 [June] (1) the truth of that doctrine is (afresh) cleared; (2) The Scriptures alledged for it are vindicated; 
 
 (3) The Objections usual are briefly answered ; (4) and the Seeds-men of them truly Cyphered, etc 
 
 16-*, pp. XX, 20S. 
 B. M. [E. 1909.(2.)] 
 
 1659. The Anabaptists Faith and Belief Opened, etc. [single sheet] fol. 236 
 
 p'Bcpi.] B. M. [669. f. 21. (72.)] 
 
 1659. A Declaration of a small Society of Baptized Believers, undergoing the name of Free-Willers, about 237 
 pa Jan.] the citv of London, etc. [s. sh.] fol. 
 B. M. [669. f. 22. (67.)] 
 
 1659. Anti-Quakerism ; or a Character of the Quakers Spirit from its Original and First Cause. Written 238 
 [5JM.] by a pious Gentleman that hath been thirteen years amongst the Separatists, etc. [s. sh.] fol. 
 [B. M. [669. f. 22. (59.)] 
 
 1659. H. Adis. — A Fanaticks Mite cast into the Kings Treasury ; being a Sermon Printed to the King, 239 
 [12 Jul.] because not preached before the King. 4*^, pp. xvi, 60. [contains appended the Declaration (no. 
 22S), etc. of Adis's church.] 
 B. M. [4473i aaa. 46. (i.)] 
 
 1659. A Declaration of some of those People in or near London called Anabaptists who own and believe 240 
 [14 J&n.] that Gods love in the death of his Son is extended to all men, and are in the practice of the Doc- 
 trines of Christ contained in Hebrews vi: i, 2. folio, s. sh. 
 B. M. [669. f. 22. (68.)] 
 
 1659. A Serious Manifesto and Declaration of the Anabaptist, and other Congregational Churches, Touch- 241 
 [2d Feb.] ing the present Transactions of the Avail's of this Commonwealth, both in Church and State, 
 [single sheet) fol. 
 B. M. [669. f. 23. (65.)] 
 
 1659. A Brief Confession or Declaration of Faith set forth by many of us, who are (falsely) ciUed 242 
 [l6Uu.] Stn.llMpriStS, to inform all men (in these days of scandal and reproach) of our innocent Belief 
 and Practise, etc. 4°, pp. 12. 
 B. M. [E. 1017. (14.)] 
 
 1659. Thp Arraignment of the Anabaptists Good Old Cause, with the manner and proceedings of the 243 
 [22 Mu.] Court of Justice against him, etc. 4°, pp. 16. 
 B. M. [E. 1017. (32.)] 
 
 1659. A Phanatique League and Covenant solemnly entered into by the Asserters of the Good Old Cause, 244 
 [24 Uu.] etc. [single sheet] fol. 
 
 B. M.[669. f. 24. (11.)] 
 
 1660. The Character of a Phanatique, etc. [single sheet] fol. S4S 
 [»M.r.] B. M. [669. f. 24. [34.J 
 
 1660. Quesumus TV, etc. : Or, the Supplement for the new Letanv for these Times, etc. 4°, pp. 8. 246 
 
 B. M. LE. 1017. (2.)J 
 
[lOO] 
 
 1660. G. Whitehead. — The Authority of the Tnie Ministry, in Baptizing with the Spirit, etc. Being a 247 
 short return to a Honk entituled A Reply to a Scandalous Paper, subscribed by one Samuel 
 Bradley, a Baptist Teacher, as concerning a dispute that was between some of the people 
 called Quakers, and soin$ Baptists in Southwarke, etc. 4'-', pp. 16. [Smith's Friends Books, etc. 
 ii : 887.] 
 
 1660. J. CoLLENS. — A Message from the Spirit of the Lord to the Poeple called Anabaptists, etc. 4°. 248 
 IWatt, s. n.] 
 
 1660. A Breife Description or Character of the Religion and Manners of the Phanatiques in General!, 249 
 etc. 16°, pp. ii, 52. 
 B. M. [E. 1765. (i.)] 
 
 1660. W. Allen. — A Retractation of Separation, wherein VI. Arguments formerly erected for the service 250 
 of Separation, upon the account of Infant Baptisme are taken down ; and VI. other arguments 
 for saints penerall communion . . . arc erected in their room, etc. 4°, pp. vi, 72. 
 B. M. [4325. a.] 
 
 1660. R. Blome. — The Fanatick History; or, an Exact relation and account of the old Anabaptists, and 251 
 the New Quakers, etc. 8^, pp. x, 224. 
 B. M. [E. 1832. (2.)] 
 
 1660. A Brief Confession or Declaration of Faith (lately presented to King Charles the Second) set forth 252 
 [20 Jttlj] by many of us who are (falsly) called Anabaptists, etc. [single sheet] fol. 
 B, M. [E. (fol.) 18. (63.)] 
 
 1660. G. Pressick. — A Briefe Relation of some of the most remarkable passages of the Anabaptists in 253 
 pa Not.] Hitih and Low Germany in the year 1521, etc. Dublin, 4*^, pp. iv, 20. 
 B.M.LE. 1047.(5)] 
 
 1660. The Humble Apology of some commonly called Anabaptists, in behalf of themselves and others of 254 
 [28J»o.] the same Judgment with them; W'wVi \hc\r Protestation against the late wicked and most horrid 
 treasonable Insurrection and Rebellion acted in the City of London. Together with an Apol- 
 ogy formerly presented to the Kings most Excellent Majesty, etc. 4°, pp. 18. 
 B. M. [E. 1057. (i.)] 
 
 1660. The Way to True Peace, ora Calm, Seasonable, and Modest Word in Love to the Independent Pha- 255 
 [•3J»n.] naticks, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, etc. 4°, pp. 8. 
 B. M. [E. 1057. (2.)J 
 
 1660. The Character of an Anabaptist, [single sheet] fol. 256 
 [29J.il.] B. M. [669. f. 26. (51.)] 
 
 1661. J. Got;GHE. — EcclesicE AnglicancB Threnodia: in qua perturbatissimus Regni. et Ecclesije status 257 
 
 sub Anabaptistica Tyrannide lugetur. 8°, pp. iv, 160. 
 B. M. [E. 1814. (2.)] 
 
 1661. H. Adis. — A Fanaticks Alarm, given to the Mayor in his quarters by one of the Sons of Zion . . . 258 
 H. A. a Baptized believer, undergoing the name of a Free-Wilier, and also most ignoininiously 
 by the tongue of Infamy called a Fanatick, or a Mad Man. 4°, pp. 56. 
 B. M. [701. g. 45.] 
 
 1661. Semper lident : or, a Parallel betwixt the Ancient and Modern Fanaticks, etc, 4°, pp. 24, 259 
 
 Bodleian, [Pamph. 125.] 
 
 1661. J.Griffith. — A Complaint of the Oppressed against the Oppressor. 4°. [Taylor, i : 244.] 260 
 
 1661. Thomas Venner, Orator Conventiculorum Regni Millenarii et Libertinorum, Seductor et Capitaneus 261 
 
 Sediiiosor, Anabapiistarum et Quackerorum in Civitat. Londineiis. etc. 4°. 
 B. M. [K. i3i.b. 23.] 
 
 1662. Behold a Cr>'; or, a True Relation of the inhuman and violent outrages of divers Soldiers, Consta- 262 
 
 bles and others, practised upon many of the Lords people, commonly, tho' falsely called Anabap- 
 tists, at their several meetings in and about London, etc. 8°. ICrosiy, ii : 160.] 
 
 [1662.] [T. Grantham.] — The Prisoner against the Prelate ; or a Dialogue between the Common Gaol and 263 
 Cathedral of l.iiicolii : wherein the true Faith and Church of Christ are brietly discovered and 
 vindicated, by the authority of Scripture, Sul^rages of Antiquity, Concessions and Confessions of 
 the Chief Opjiosers of the same Church and Faith. Written by a Prisoner of the Baptized 
 Churches in Lincolnshire, [s. 1.] S°. [Taylor, i: iqS; H^atl, s. n.] 
 
 1663. Propositions concerning the Subject of Baptism, and Consociation-of Churches, etc. by a Synod at 264 
 
 Boston in New England, etc. Cambridge, N. E. 4°, pp. 48. 
 B. M. [701. i. 9. (i.)] 
 
 1662. C. Chauncy. — Anti-Synodalia Scripta Americana; ora Proposal of the Judgment of the Dis- 265 
 senting Messengers of the Churches of N. England, etc. Cambridge, N. E. 4°, pp. 38. 
 [Mass. Hist. Soc. Lib.] 
 
[lOl] 
 
 1663. J. Davenport. — Another Essay for Investication of the Truth !n Answer to Two Questions, con- 266 
 cerning (1) The Svbject of Baptism, (2) the Consociation of Churches, etc. Cambridge, N. E. 
 4°, pp. xvi, 72. 
 B. M. [4183. aa.] 
 
 1663. T. Shepard. — The Church-membership of Children, and their Right to Baptisme. Cambridge, N. 267 
 
 E. 4°, pp. xxii, 26. 
 Prince Library, [27. 83.] 
 
 1664. [B. Reach.] — Tlie Child's Instructor; or, a new and easy Primmer, etc. 16°. [teaches that infants 268 
 
 should not be baptized, etc.] [Cros6y,u: 1S6.] 
 
 1664. J. Allin. — Animadversions upon the Antisynodalia [no. 265], etc. in the name of the Dissenting 269 
 Brethren, etc. Cambridge, N. E. 4°, pp. vi, S2. 
 Prince Library, [27. 85.] 
 
 1664. [J. Mitchell & R. Mather.] — A Defence of the Answer and Arguments of the Synod met at 270 
 
 Boston in the year 1662, concerning the Svbject of Baptism, etc. . . . against the keplv made 
 thereto by the Rev. Mr. J. Davenport ... in his Treatise entituled Another Essay [no. 266J, etc 
 Cambridi;e, N. E. 4^, pp. ii, 46, 102. 
 B. M. [701. i. 9. (2.)J 
 
 1665. J. Ives. — Infant Baptism Disproved, and Believers Baptism Proved, etc. 4°. \_]Vait, s. n.] 271 
 
 1665. Collection of the Testimonies of the Fathers of the New England Churches respecting Baptism, etc. 272 
 Cambridge, N. E. 4°, pp. 32. \Trans. Amcr. Atitiq. Soc. vl : 315.] 
 
 166S. [J. S] [coTTOW.] — Translation of a portion of G. de Brez's Rise, Spring and Foundation of the 273 
 Anabaptists, or Rebajnized of our Times, etc. Cambridge, N. E. 4", pp. 52. 
 [Dr. Williams's Library.] 
 
 1669. T. Wall. — A Necessary Treatise for this age, or a Plain Discovery of that great Error of Denying 274 
 Baptisme with Water to the Children of Believers, etc. ib'^, pp. 52. 
 B. M. [loiS. c. 13. (i.)J 
 
 1669. M. Crafordius. — Exercltatio Apologetica. Pro doctrina de perpetua obligatione quarti pracepti 275 
 
 de Sabbato, ab Ecclesiis Reformatis conimuuiter recepta, etc. adversus Socinianos, Anabaptistas, 
 etc. Ultraject. S°. 
 [I have it.] 
 
 [1670.] J. NoRCOTT. — Baptism Discovered Plainly and Faithfully According to the Word of God, etc. 4°. 276 
 [several times reprinted, f.^. 1694, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1S78.] 
 
 1670. J. Whistom. — Infant Baptism from Heaven, and not of Men, etc. 8°, pp. xlvi, 320. 277 
 
 B. M. [4323. a. (i.)] 
 
 1671. T. Lawson. — A Treatise concerning Baptism ; with a Discourse concerning the Supper-Bread and 278 
 
 wiile called also Communion, etc. 4°. [ll^'aii, s. 11.] 
 
 1672. [T. R.]ruDVARD.] — The Anabaptists Lying Wonder attested by his Brother Independent, returned 279 
 
 upon themselves, etc. 4°, pp. 16. 
 B. M. [4151. b.] 
 
 1672. [T. R.] [UDVARD.] — The Anabaptist Preacher unmask'd, in a further Discovery of his Lying Won- 280 
 der out of Lincolnshire: as also the News from Richard Hobbs, an Anabaptist Preacher in Dover, 
 examined. Their ju'zgles. Lyes, and Deceits detected, etc. 4'-', pp. 20. 
 B. M. [no. j. 242. (3.)] 
 
 1672. L.Howard. — A Looking Glass for the Baptists, etc. [ TVzyA^r, i : 99, etc.] 281 
 
 1672. G. Whitehead. — The Dipper Plunged; or, Thomas H\cks his feigneA DtnU^te ie/rveen a C/tr:'s- 282 
 tian and a Quaker, etc. proved an unchristian forgery, etc. 4°, pp. 20. [Smith's Friends Books, 
 ii:893.] 
 
 1672. [E. N.] — Truth is strongest, or Infant Baptism once more soberly Examined, fairly Tryed and 283 
 
 justly Censured. Being Reflections on two sermons by Mr. Sharp on behalf of J. B. etc. 4-'. 
 
 1673. H.Collins. — An Antidote to prevent the Prcvalency of Anabaptism, etc. 4°. [/A'a/^, s. n.] 284 
 
 1673. Mr. Baxter Baptized in Bloud, or, a Sad Historj'of the Unparallel'd Cruelty of the .Anabaptists in 285 
 New England. Faithfully Relating the Cruel, Barbarous, and Bloudy Murther of Mr. Baxter an 
 Orthodox Minister, who was kill'd by the Anabaptists, and his skin most cruelly flead off from his 
 Body, etc. 4*^, pp. 6. 
 (One sold in the Brinley Collection.] 
 
 1673. Forgery Detected, and Innocency Vindicated: Being a faithfull account of the seasonable Discovery 286 
 of an horrid and detestible slander raised on the Anabaptists of New England, in that diabolicjil 
 pamphlet entituled Mr. Baxter [no. 2S5J, etc. 4°, pp. 16. 
 B. M. [4323. b.] 
 1673. J. BuNVAN. — Differences in Judgment about Water Baptism do bar to Communion, etc 8°, pp. 287 
 122. (" Here is also Mr. H. Jesses Judgment," etc] 
 B. M. [4327- b.l 
 
[l02] 
 
 1674. T. Plant. —An Account of the two Meetings at Parbican and Wheeler's Street, on account of 288 
 the Quakers' Appeal to the baptists against Thomas Hicks [see no. 2S2I, etc. 4°. Uvimey, 
 11:443] 
 
 1674. B. Keach. — Mr. Baxter's Arguments for Believers Baptism, etc. [single sheet.] [Crosby, iv: 276.] 289 
 
 1674. T.Grantham.— The Loyal Baptist; or an Apology for the Baptized Believers, etc. [iVatt.s. n. 290 
 Croiby, IV : vi.] 
 
 1674. D. Dyke. — The Quakers Appeal Answered: or, a full Relation of the occasion, progress, and 291 
 issue of a meetuig at Barbican between the Baptists and the Quakers, etc. 8^. {.Crosby, i: 359.] 
 
 1674. H. D'.-Vnvers. — A Treatise of Baptism, etc. S'^, pp. xlviii, 3SS. 202 
 
 B. M. [874. d. 34.(1.)] ""^ 
 
 J674. J. Grattan. — John Baptist Decreasing, and Christ increasing, etc. 8°. 203 
 
 Lcited by Barclay, Inner Life, etc. p. 37i>.J 
 
 1674. O. Wills. — Infant Baptism asserted and vindicated by Scripture, and Antiquitv: in answer to H. 204 
 
 I>. [no 292], etc. ' 
 
 Bodleian, [8-', Z. 22. Th.] 
 
 1675. I. Mather. — The First Principles of New England, concerning the Subject of Baptisme & Com- 295 
 
 munion of Churches, etc. Cambridge, N. E. 4^, pp. viii, 40, 8. 
 B. M. [41S3. b.J 
 
 1675. I. Mather. —A Discourse concerning the Subject of Baptisme, Wherein the present Controversies, 296 
 elc. in ihe New iMi-land Churches are enquired into. Cambridge, N. E. 4'^, dd iv 76 
 Bodleian, [Mather, 4-, lo.j ^ . w . 7 • 
 
 1675. Fifty Queries seriously propounded to those who question or deny Infants right to Baptism. 12°. 297 
 
 [Dr. Williams's Library.] 
 
 1675. O. Wills. — Viiidicia l^ indie iarum: or, a Vindication of a late Treatise, entiluled. Infant Bap- 298 
 tism Asserted \\w 2Q4J, etc. j 6^, pp. viii, 200. 
 Bodleian, [S^ Z. 22. Th.J 
 
 1675. R. Baxter. — More Proofs of Infant Church-Membership, and consequently of their right to Bap- 2qq 
 tisni, etc. 8°, pp. xiv, 414. ^ ^ = k- aa 
 
 B. M. [4326. b.] 
 
 1675. Arguments Pro and Con about the right of Baptizing: Whether it ought to be by putting the whole 300 
 Bodv under water, etc. [single sheet.] fol. 
 B. M. [816. m. 24. (24.)] 
 
 1675. R. Blinman. — A Rejoynder to Mr. Henry D'Anvers his Brief Friendly Reply to my Answer about 301 
 Infant Baptism, etc. 24°. \.Ailibotie,%.\\.\ 
 
 1675. T. Grantham. — Mr. Home Answered; or, Pasdo-Rantism not from Zion ; wherein is shewed his 302 
 mislake about the reason of his writing; and the insufficiencv of his evidence ailedged to prove 
 Infant-Baptism descended from Zion [no. 1S3], briefly discovered, etc. 4°, pp. 30. [Taylor, i: 482.] 
 
 1675. D. DvKE.— The Baptists Answer to Mr. Wills' Appeal [no. 294], etc. 8°. [Croi/Sy, i: 359.] 303 
 
 1675- J- ToMBES. — A Just Reply to the books of Mr. Wills [no. 294] and Mr. Blinman [no. 301], for In- 304 
 fant-baptisra; in a Letter to Henry D'Anvers, Esq. S^. [Crosby, i: 297.] 
 
 1676. J. Whiston. — An Essay to revive the Primitive Doctrine and Practice of Infant Baptism. 8*^. 30s 
 
 Bodleian, [8°, Z. 23. Th.] 
 
 1676. R. Baxter. — A Review of the State of Christian Infants, etc. 12°. 306 
 
 Bodleian, [8^, C. 125. Th.] 
 
 1676. E. Hutchinson. — A Treatise concerning the Covenant and Baptism Dialogue-wise, between a 307 
 Baptist and a Pado-baptist ; wherein is shewed that Believers only are the Spirituall seed of Abra- 
 ham . . . with some animadversions upon a book Intituled InfantBaptism frovi Heaven [no. 
 277], etc. 8^, pp. xxviii, loS. 
 B. M. [S74. d. 32.] 
 
 1676. W. Russell. — An Epistle concerning Baptism, in answer to two Treatises published by Mr. T. 308 
 James, Teacher of a Congregation at Ashford in Kent, etc. [Crosby, iv: 261. J 
 
 1676. W. Allen. — A Friendly Address to the Nonconformists, beginning with the Anabaptists, etc. 8^. 309 
 [Watt, s. n.] 
 
 1676. O. Wills. — A Censure of the Sentence of the Baptists upon an Appc.il made against H. D'Anvers. 310 
 4°. [Watt, s. n.] 
 
 1676. T. Delaune. — Mr. R. Baxter's Review 0/ the State 0/ Christian In/ants [no. 306], etc. examined, 311 
 etc I2^ 
 [Dr. Williams's Library-.] 
 
[i03] 
 
 1677. W- Wai.kfr. — A !\foclest Pica for Infants Baptism, Wherein the lawfulness of the baptizing of 312 
 Infant-; ir; defended against the Anti-pa;dobaplisls, etc. Cambridge, S^. 
 B. M. [4323. aa.] 
 
 1677. A Confession of Faith, Put forth by the Elders and Brethren of many Congrepations of Christians 313 
 
 (baptized upon Profession of their Faith) in London, and the country, etc. 16^, pp. xiv, 142. 
 V>. M. [3505. aa. 6.] 
 
 1678. [J. St NicHOLAS.l — The History of Baptism, or, One Faith, one Baptism, in the several Editions 314 
 
 thereof, under Noah, Moses, Christ; with an Apytendix, cnlhled Jia/iisi/ius Jiedtvivits, elc. S'', 
 pp. viii, 20, vi, loS, xxix. 
 Prince Library, [12. 40. 41.] 
 
 167S. An Abstract of Mr. Baxter's Plain Scripture Proof {x\o%. 135, 299], etc. 12°. 315 
 
 [Dr. Williams's Library,] 
 
 1678. Some Brief Directions for Improvement of Infant Baptism, etc. 12°. 316 
 
 IDr. Willinms's Librarj'.] 
 
 167S. T. Grantham. — C/iristianismus Primitivus ; orthe Ancient Christian Religion, etc. [ ll^atl, s n ] 317 
 
 1678. W. Walker. — The Doctrine of Baptisms, or a Discourse of Dipping and Sprinkling, etc. S^. 318 
 
 [li^att, s. n.] 
 
 1679. J. Eliot. — A Brief Answer to a .Small Book written by John Norcot [no. 276] against Infan:-Bap- 319 
 
 tisme. This Answer is written by John Eliot for the Sake of Some of the Flock of Jesus Cliri>t 
 who are ready to be staggered in point of Iiijant Baptistn by reading his Book. Boston, N. E. 
 8°, pp. ii, 23. 
 
 [A copy was sold with the Brinley Collection, which fetched S130.00.] 
 
 16S0. S. Mather. — An Irenicum ; or an essay for union between Presbyterians, Independents and 320 
 Anabaptists, etc. 4°. 
 
 Bodleian, [Ashm. 12 10. (4.)] 
 
 16S0. T. Grantham. — Epistle for Plain Truth and Peace between the Protestants of the Church of Eng- 321 
 land and those of the Baptized Believers, etc. S-". [ll^ati, s. n.] 
 
 1680. R. Rich — The Epistles of Mr. Robert Rich to the seven Churches (so called by him), viz. : (i) To 322 
 
 the Roman Catholics; (3) The Episco|ial Protestant; (3) The Presbvtcrian ; (4) 'I'he Independent; 
 (5) The .Anabaptist; (')) rhe Quaker ; (7) The Church of the First Born, etc. 4-', pp. xx, 116. 
 B. M. [4151. aaaa. (6.)] 
 
 16S0. I. Mather. — The Divine Right of Infant-Baptisme Asserted and Proved from Scripture and .\n- 323 
 tiquity, etc. 4^, pp. viii, 2S. 
 B. M. [43-3- ana-] 
 
 16S0. T. Grantham. — The Controversie about Infants Church Membership and Baptism epitomized, etc. 324 
 4°. PP- 36. 
 B. M. [4325. aaa.] 
 
 1681. S. WiLLARD. — Ne Sutor ultra Crefiidain. Or Brief Animadver.<iions upon the New-Encland 325 
 
 Anabaptists late Fallacious Narrative Isee Backus's II ist. N. Eng i : 490]; wherein the Notorious 
 Mistakes and Falsehoods by them Published, are detected. Boston, N. K. 4", pp. viii, 2S. 
 B. M. [41S3. b.] 
 
 168 1. The J^-eacherous Anabaptist: or, The Dipper Dipt. A New Protestant Ballad, etc. [single 326 
 sheet] fol. 
 
 B. M. [1872. a. I. (91.)] 
 
 1681. N. Coxe. — A Discourse of the Covenants that God made with Men before the Law: wherein the 327 
 Covenant of Circumcision is more largely handled, and the Invalidity of the Plea for Pxdobaptism 
 taken from thence discovered, etc. 8-". \Ivitney,\\: ■\o(,.\ 
 
 1681. W. KiFFiM. — A Sober Discourse of Right to Church Communion, wherein is proved . . . that no 328 
 unbaptized Person may be regularly admitted to the Lord's Supper, etc. 4°. [Ivitney, iii : 315.] 
 
 1681. N. Collins. — A Sermon Preached at the Ordination of an Elder and Deacon in a Baptist Congre- 329 
 gatinn in London, etc. 4-, pp. 40. 
 [Mass. Histor. Soc.'s Library.] 
 
 1683. N.Taylor. — The Baptism of Infants Vindicated, etc. 8°. 330 
 
 [Dr. Williams's Library.] 
 
 1683. [G. FiK.MiN.] — The Plea of Children of Believing Parents for their Interest in Abraham's Cov- 33X 
 enant, their Right to Church-membership with their parents, etc. in answerlo Mr. D'Anvers [no. 
 292], etc. 
 
 [Dr. Williams's Library.] 
 
 1683. G. HicKES. — The Case of Infant Baptism, in Five Questions, etc. 4°, pp. ii, 94. [Qursi. 3: 332 
 " Whether is it l.iwful to scpaiate from a Church which appoiuteth Infants to be Baptized ? "J 
 B. M. I701. i. 9. (3.)J 
 
[i04] 
 
 1684. R. BiTRTHor.GB. — Arguments for Infant Baptism, etc. 8°. 333 
 
 [Dr. Williams's Library] 
 
 [i685.][T. Grantham. 1 —The Baptists Complaint against the Persecuting Priests, etc. [MS.l [CrosSy, 334 
 iii : 84; Taylor, i: 20S.J 
 
 1687. G. TowERSON. — Of the Sacrament of Baptism in particular: of the right of Baptism among the 335 
 Heathens and Jews, and of the Institution of Christian Ijaptism, elc. [U^aii, s. n.] 
 
 1687. T. Grantham. — Presumption no Proof, etc. 4°. [a reply against Infant-baptism to Mr. Petto and 336 
 ' Mr. Kirmin.J [Taylor, i: 213.] 
 
 16S7. T. Grantham. — Hear the Church t or, an Appeal to the Mother of us all. Being an Epistle to 337 
 all the Baptized Believers in England, etc. 4'^. [Taylor, i: 214.] 
 
 1687. Infant Baptism of Christ's .Appointment, etc. 12°. 338 
 
 [Dr. Williams's Library.] 
 
 1687. O. Hi:ywood. — Baptismal Bonds Renewed; beinc some Meditations on Ps. 1: 5, etc. 12°. 330 
 
 H. M. [3090. b.J 
 
 1688. VV. Pardoe — Ancient Christianity Revived ; being a Description of the Doctrine, Discipline, and 340 
 
 Practice of the little City Bcthania, etc. . . . By one of her Inhabitants, who desirelh to worship 
 God after the way which some men call heresie, etc. 12°. [Ivtmey,\\: 5S0.] 
 
 [16SS.] Three Considerations proposed to Mr. W. Penn, concerning the Validity and Security of his new 341 
 Mas:na Lliarta for Liberty of Conscience. By a Baptist. 4''. 
 B. M. [T. 692. (6.)J 
 
 1688. An Answer by an Anabaptist to the Three Considerations [no. 341], etc. by a pretended Baptist, 342 
 etc. 8°. 
 
 Bodleian, [G. Pamph. 1785. (4.)] 
 
 1688. G. FitiMiN. — Scripture-Warrant Sufficient Proof for Infant-Baptism, etc. 4°. 343 
 
 [Ur. Williams's Library.] 
 
 1688. T. Grantham. — The Infants Advocate, etc. in answer to a book of Mr. G. F.'s, entitled Scripture 344 
 
 /<-'rtrrrt«^ [no. 343], etc. 4°. 
 B. M. [4323. b.J 
 
 1689. P. Tillinghast. — Water-Baptism Plainly Proved by Scripture to be a Gospel Precept, etc. 4°, 345 
 
 pp. 16. _ 
 
 [.'\mer. Antiqn. Soc.'s Library.] 
 
 16S9. B. Reach. — Gold Refin'd; or Baptism in its Primitive Purity . . . in which it is clearly evinced 346 
 that Baptism is not Aspersion, etc. 16°, pp. viii, 184. 
 B. M. [4326. a.] 
 
 1689. A Narrative of the Proceedings of the General Assembly of Divers Pastors, Messengers, and Min- 347 
 istring Brethren of the Baptized Churches, met together in London from Sept. 3 to 12, 16S9, etc. 
 owning the Doctrine of Personal EUection and final Perseverance. Sent from and concerned for 
 more than one hundred conerecations, etc. 4°, pp. 30. 
 B. M. [4.39. c] 
 
 1689. T. Grantham. — A Friendly Debate concerning Infant Baptism, being an answer to Dr. Hickes 348 
 Case [no. 3.^2], etc. 4°. 
 [Dr. Williams's Library.] 
 
 1689. G. FiR.MiN. — An Answer to the vain and unprofitable Question put to him, and charged upon him 349 
 
 by Mr. Grantham in his book intituled Tlu In/attis Advocate [no. 344], etc. 4°. 
 
 16S9. T. Grantham. — Truth and Peace; or the last and most Friendly Debate concerning Infant Bap- 350 
 tism, etc. 8°. [Taylor, i : 316.] 
 
 [1689.] J. Owen. — Infant Baptism from Heaven, etc. [in Welsh ] [hn/ney, ii: 385.] 351 
 
 [1689.] B. Keach. — Light broke forth in Wales, etc. in reply to Mr. Owen's In/ant [no. 351], etc. [in 352 
 Welsh and English.] [lvimcy,\\: i^s-] 
 
 ibqo. [Mn. Cary.] — A Solerane Call to Baptisme, etc. 8°. [IVait, s. ■n.'\ 353 
 
 1690. T. Wall. — Baptism Anatomized: being Propounded in five Queries, viz. : (i) What Water Bap- 354 
 
 tism is ? (2) What is the end for which it is instituted ? (3) What giveth right to it ? (.() Who are the 
 true administrators of it ? (5) Whether it be lawful for a man to baptize himself ? 8^. 
 
 1690. J. Whiston. — The right method for the Proving of Infant-Baptism. With reflections on some 355 
 late Tracts on Infant Baptism, etc. 8°, pp. 72. 
 Bodleian, [Pamph. 19S.] 
 
 1690. A Brief History of the Rise, Growth, Reign, Supports and Sodain fatal Foyl of Poperj', during the 356 
 years and an half of James the Second, etc. Together with a Description of the Six Pojnsh Pillars : 
 the Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Independents, Roraan-Calholicks & Popish Churchmen, 
 etc 4°, pp. ii, 34. 
 Bodleian, [Pamph. 199.] 
 
[105] 
 
 i6</j. Primitive r.aptis;m, and therein Infants and Parents right. 12°. qm 
 
 Bodleian, (S-', Z. 267. Th.J 
 
 1691. II. Collins. — Believers-Baptism from Heaven, and of Divine institution; Infants- Baptism from 358 
 earth and human invention. Proved from the Commission of Christ, etc. with a Brief, yet suffi- 
 cient Answer to T. Wall's book called Baptistn A natoinized [no. 354], etc. 16°, pp. ii, 140. 
 B. M. [4323. a.] 
 
 1691. S. Petto. — Infant-Baptism Vindicated from the exceptions of Thomas Grantham [no. 336?], 359 
 etc. S . 
 
 B. M. [loiS. d. 20.(2.)] 
 
 [1691.] J. Flavel. — A Treatise on Baptism, etc. 4°. 360 
 
 1691. A Narrative of the General Assembly of the Elders and Messengers of the Baptized Churches, sent 361 
 from divers parts of England and Wales, which bcpan in London June 2, and ended on the 8th of 
 the same month, 1691, Owning the Doctrines of Personal Election and Final Perseverance, etc. 
 4^. [Ivimey, 1:311.] 
 
 1691. B. Keach. — Pxdo-Baptism. Being an answer to the Athenian Society, etc. 4°. [Cro^i^^, vi: 312.] 362 
 
 1691. T. Grantham. — A Dialogue between the Baptist and the Presbyterian, etc. 4°, pp. 50. [TV^- 363 
 
 lor, i: 4S2.] 
 
 1692. T. Wall. — Infants-Baptism from Heaven, of divine institution: being a brief yet satisfactory 364 
 
 Answer to some objections made by H. Collins in his book entituled Believer's Baptism [no. 358], 
 etc. 16^, pp. 40. 
 B. M. [4326. bb.] 
 
 [1692.] W. BuRKiT. — An Argumentative and Practical Discourse of Infant Baptism, etc. [Ivimey, 365 
 ii: 367.] 
 
 1692. B. Keach. — The Rector rectified, or. Infants Baptism unlawful. Being an Answer to Mr. Burkit 366 
 [no. 365], etc. 8°. [Crosby, v'\: iii..] 
 
 [1692.] E. Rothwell. — A Vindication of Presbyterian Ordination and Baptism, etc. 8°. 367 
 
 1692. M. Strong. — The Indecency and Unlawfulness of Baptizing Children in Private, etc. 4°. [IVatt, 368 
 
 s. n.] 
 
 [1692.] G. Shute. — An Antidote to prevent the Prevalency of Anabaptism, etc. 4°. 369 
 
 1693. A Copy of a Brief Treatise of the proper subjects and Administration of Baptism, etc. 12°. 370 
 
 [Dr. Williams's Library.] 
 
 1693. P. Stubs. — A Sermon on Publick Baptism before the Lord Mayor of London, etc. 4°. 371 
 
 Bodleian, [C. 5 12. Line] 
 
 1693. A Narrative of the Proceedings of the Elders, Messengers and Ministering Brethren of divers bap- 372 
 tized Churches in England and Wales, holding the doctrines of Particular Election and Final Per- 
 severance, in their General Assembly at Bristol on the igth of the second month, called April, 
 1693, and continued to the 21st. of the same. Also, containing the Proceedings of the General 
 Assembly held in London the 6ih day of the 4th month, called June, and continued till the 12th of 
 the same, etc. 4"-'. [Ivimiy, i: 524.] 
 
 J. Exell. — A Serious Inquiry into Infant Baptism, shewing, by plain Scripture Proof, that John 373 
 Baptist did as certainly baptize infants as Adults, etc. 4°. [IVatt, s. n.] 
 
 H.Collins. — The Antidoie[\-\o 369] proved a Counterfeit, or Error Detected, and Believers Baiv 374 
 tism Vindicated, etc. 4°. [^Ka//, s. n.] 
 
 B. Keach.— The Ax laid to the Root; or one Blow more at the Foundation of Infant's Baptism 375 
 and Church Membership. 4°. [Crosby, wi: 112.] 
 
 B. Keach. —The Ax laid to the Root, Part II. wherein Mr. Flavel's [no. siio]; Mr. Rothwell's 376 
 [no. 367], and Mr. Exell's (no. 373J Arguments are answered, etc. 4°. [Crosby, vi: 312.] 
 
 The Lynn Persecution, etc. 4°. [TVy/or, i : 215.] 377 
 
 C. Doe — The Reason why not Infant-Sprinkling, but Believers Baptism ought to be approved, etc. 378 
 . . . To which is added How Infant .Sprmkling came in Fashion: The Evil Tendencies of Infant 
 Sprinkling: Differences between Believers Baptism and Infant Sprinkling, etc. iti^, pp. 84. 
 
 [Mass. Hist. Soc.'s Lib.] 
 
 1694. J Ollvffe. — A Brief Defence of Infant Baptism, with an Appendix, etc. 4°. 370 
 
 B. M [47S. a. 29. (3.)] 
 
 [1694 ] G. Fii;min — Some Remarks u)ion the Anabaptists Answer to the Athenian Mercuries, etc. 4". 380 
 [-V. E Hist. &' Gen. Kci;. xxv: 56 ) 
 
 1694. B. Keach. — A Counter Antidote: or, an Answer to Shutc's Antiilote to prevent the Prevalency 0/ 381 
 ./^/ttiAj//u>« [no. 369], etc. 4^. [Crosby, y'\: ii2.\ 
 
 ■693 
 1693 
 1693 
 1693 
 
 ■ 693 
 •693 
 
[io6] 
 
 1695. G. Shute. — Infant Taptism and Church Membership proved; and also the Mode of Baptism to be 382 
 by Sprinklinp, etc. 12^. 
 I'odleian, (Pamph. 218.] 
 
 1695. W. AssHETON. — Conference with an Anabaptist, etc. 18°. 383 
 [1695.] H. Collins. — The Sandy Foundation of Infants Baptism shaken, etc. 4°. [Crosiy, iu: 130.] 384 
 
 1696. M. Harrison. — Infant Baptism God's Ordinance, etc. With a Rebuke of several erroneous opin- 385 
 
 ions the Arminian Anabaptists hold concerning Onginal Sin, etc. being an answer to the Anabap- 
 tists, and Mr. Collins his Sandy Fouudat ion [no. 384], etc. 16-', pp. xiv, 50. 
 Prince Library, [28. 32.] 
 
 1696. R. Barclay. — Baptism and the Lord's Supper substantially asserted. Being an Apology in behalf 386 
 
 of the People called Quakers concerning these two heads, etc. S^, pp. 68. 
 [Amer. Antiqn. Soc. Library.] 
 
 1697. E. Reach. — A Short Confession of Faith, containing the substance of the Larger, put forth by the 387 
 
 Elders of the Baptized Churches, etc. 24°. 
 (Brown University Library.] 
 
 1698. G. Keith. — The Arguments of the Quakers, more particularly, of G. Whitehead, W. Pcnn, R. 3S8 
 
 Barclav, etc. against Baptism and the Supper, examined and refuted, etc. 4°, pp. 120. 
 B. M. I4152. e.] 
 
 1698. A Discourse on Infant Baptism, by way of Dialogue, etc. 12°. 389 
 
 [Dr. Williams's Library] 
 
 [1698-9.] [W. Russell.] — A True Narrative of the Portsmouth Disputation between some Ministers of the 390 
 Presbyterians, and others of the Baptist persuasion, concerning the Subjects and Manner of Bap- 
 tism, etc. 4''. [Crosby, m: ii'i.l 
 
 391 
 
 1699. S. Chandler, W. Leigh & B. Robinson. — An Impartial Account of the Portsmouth Disputa- 
 tion. With some just Reflections on Dr. Russell's Pretended Narrative [no. 390J, etc. with an 
 healing Preface to the sober Anabaptists. 8°, pp. xvi, 102. 
 [I have it.] 
 
 1699. A Confession of Faith put forth by the Elders and Brethren of many Congregations of Christians, 392 
 (bajnized upon profession of their faith) in London and the Countr)', etc. 24^, pp. xxiv, 106, ii. 
 [another edition of no. 313.] 
 
 1699. [F. Catroi;.] — Histoire des Anabaptistes ; contenant leur Doctrine, les diverses Opinions, qui les 393 
 divisant en plusieurs sects, les Troubles, qu'ils ont causez, et Jiifin tout ce qui s'esl passd de plus 
 considerable k leur egard, depuisl'an 1521 jusques a present. Amsterdam, 12^. 
 B. M. [856.1 15.] 
 
 1699. J. Turner. — A Vindication of Infant Baptism, etc. 4°. [IVaii, s. n.] 394 
 
 1699. T. Hewerdine. — Some Plain Letters in the Defense of Infant Baptism, etc. S°. [ll^ai/, s. n.] 395 
 
 1700. W. Russell. — Infant Baptism is Will- Worship; being a Confutation of the Answer to the Ports- 396 
 
 mouth Disputation [no. 391], etc. 4'^. [Crosby, iv: 261.] 
 
 1700. R. Holland. — A Sermon at the Baptizing of some Persons of Riper Years, on Acts ii: 38, etc. 397 
 4°. [lVaU,s.n.] 
 
 1700. [T. Oates.] — New Discovery : being his Letters to the Church of the Baptists, etc. 4°. [U'aii, 398 
 s. n.] 
 
 [1700.] Agreeincnt of the Associated Ministers of the County of Essex [Eng.] as to Baptism, etc. 4°. 399 
 
 [Bowdoin College Library.] 
 
 1700. E. HiTCHiN. — The Infants Cause Vindicated, etc. 8°. 400 
 
 (Dr. Williams's Library ] 
 
 I1700.] D. RussEN. — Fundamentals without a Foundation; or a true picture of the Anabaptists. 401 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 INTER-LI SPvARY 
 
 
 LOAN 
 
 1 
 
 APR 19 19^7^ 
 
 
 r>> ' ' 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LD 21-32wi-3,'74 General Library 
 (R7057sl0)476 — A-32 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
.1 LV I ' *w" 
 
 t 1 o7:> 1