The most elaborate and sometimes the most far-fetched arguments have been offered to sustain this date of 1641 and Richard Blunt's trip to Holland. A writer of 1642-3, by the name of P. B., which initials have been interpreted to mean Praise God Barebone has figured largely in these calculations, and the most amazing arguments have been put forth as to his teaching. In order to be absolutely fair I give two rather lengthy extracts setting forth this claim: It is likely that Barebone knew personally every member of Jessey's Church and had canvassed them over and over again during the schism which he produced in May, 1640. There can be little question that he knew Mr. Richard Blunt by heart. He may indeed have heard something of the project to send him into Holland that he might fetch immersion over seas. At any rate when that practice was introduced among them in the year 1641 -- 'the yeare of jubilee' -- Mr. Barebone got upon the track of it almost as soon as anybody else in England. This marked change struck him very forcibly, since adult immersion was unknown in England in 1640. "The above treatise of Mr. Barebone apparently met a speedy reply from the very man who of all others we should expect to enter the list against him. Richard Blunt, who had gone to Holland to obtain immersion took up his pen and probably before the close of the year 1642 issued a printed work which up to this moment, so far as I know, has not been recovered. It might throw a desirable light on these discussions if it could be produced, and it is worthy of diligent search in many libraries. Its exact title cannot be given: all that we know of it is found in the following work by P. B[arebone]: A Reply to the Frivolous and Impertinent Answer of R. B. to the Discourse of P. B., in which Discourse is shewed that the Baptisme in the Defection of Anti-christ is the ordinance of God, notwithstanding 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. P.B.]" (Question in Baptist History, 103, 8, 9).
This statement shows a singular ignorance of facts. Mr. Barebones did not know "Richard Blunt by heart" for the best of reasons, for it he had ever heard of such a man he does not mention him, and consequently he never replied to anything he had to say. And as to Richard Blunt, who "had gone to Holland to obtain immersion," taking "up his pen and probably before the year 1642" issuing "a printed work," is not even an "ingenius guess." This book that the above writer thought was lost "has been recovered," and there is no further need "for diligent search in many libraries;" "its exact title can be given," and, as might be expected, the author's name is not Richard Blunt, but his name is R. Barrow. The book lies before me as I write, and this is the exact title: "A Briefe Answer to a Discourse Lately Written by one P. B. To Prove Baptisme under the defection of Antichrist, to be the Ordinance of JESUS CHRIST, and The Baptizing of Infants to be agreeable to the Word of God. Wherein is declared (from his own ground) that the Baptisme. and a false Church is inconsistent, and cannot stand together; and also maintained, That the Baptizing of Infants hath no authority from the Scriptures. The simple beleeveth every Word: but the prudent man looketh well to his goings. Prov. 14.15. By R. Barrow. London, Printed in the yeere 1642." This one statement that R. B. is R. Barrow and not Richard Blunt. sweeps away whole pages of argument, and recalls to us the truth that "an ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory."
R. Barrow, like all Baptists are, and were, was a straight-along immersionist. His book appears to have very much exasperated Praise God Barebones, who replied in 1643 with much heat. Barebones declares that Barrow had already been dipped three times, and was seeking a fourth immersion, for Barrow was disturbed on the subject of a proper administrator of baptism. The question of immersion did not trouble him, for he had already in 1643 been dipped three times, and was seeking a fourth dipping (pp. v., vi.) Barebones does not know of anyone who had been to Holland for baptism, for he tells Barrow that if he was not satisfied with his baptism, to go to Holland to get an administrator. His words are: "There were baptized persons in Holland of an hundred yeers descent and more, to have repaired thither were more easie, then for the Eunuch to have gone to Jerusalem: as easie as it was, for them to have gone thither, as for our Lord to have gone over Jordan to John." He adds that this would not be altogether agreeable to Barrow since "if R. B. question their baptisme, it is much: happily he may, because they practise not totall dipping" (pp. 18, 19). It is therefore evident: that Praise God Barebones knew no one that had been to Holland for baptism, and that while he suggests such a course, he did not think it would be entirely satisfactory. Barebones further declares that Barrow's opinion was so rare and singular that only two or three churches believed in it (p.30). Barebones becomes, not a witness in favor of Blunt's trip to Holland, but a witness who states, singularly enough, that the Baptists of England had not received their baptism from Holland. The witness, who was declared to be none other than the original Richard Blunt, turns out not to be Richard Blunt at all, and Praise God Barebones, who "knew Richard Blunt by heart," knew nothing about him, and this excellent witness who was to throw so much light on the subject, when duly examined testifies on the other side. Rather than spend my time in speculating what a man would say if he could be found, and putting words in his mouth that he never uttered, I went to work, brought the witness forward and let him tell his own story. That was supposed to be the last thing needed to establish the authenticity of the "Kiffin" Manuscript. Here, as everywhere else, the facts are against that document. The "Kiffin" Manuscript and the Jessey Records always collapse when the facts are told.
The conclusion that the Anabaptists practiced dipping before January, 1642, may be reached in another way. I have a little book called: "An Anabaptist Sermon which was preached at the Re-baptizing of a Brother at the new or holy Jordan, as they call it, near Bow, or Hackney River; together with the manner how they used to perform their Ana-baptisticall Ceremonies. London, 1643." It is worth while to note that this report was written by an enemy, who refers to the Ana-baptists as "they." It will also be noted that it describes a past event, and that the baptism was at some considerable time before 1643, for the writer says that it was "the manner they use to perform their Anabaptisticall ceremonies." The only point, however, that I wish to especially emphasize is that the Hackney River was the baptizing place, "the new Jordan," where these Anabaptists dipped their candidates. Remember that the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript declares that Blunt performed his immersion in January, 1642. But I have another book called "The Booke of common Prayer vindicated from the aspersion of all Schismatiques, Anabaptists, &c Together with a discovery of the sort of people called Rebaptists, lately found out m Hackney Marsh. neere London." This book was written in 1641, some months before the "Kiffin" Manuscript says Blunt returned from Holland. The following is an account of the Hackney Marsh transaction, the New Jordan, the dipping place of the Baptists, before Blunt had returned from Holland and instituted immersion: "The discovery of a base Sect of people called Rebaptists, lately found out in Hackney Marsh neere London. "About a Fortnight since a great multitude of people were met going toward the river in Hackney Marsh and were followed to the water side, where they were all baptized againe, themselves doing it to one another, some of which persons were too feeble and aged that they were fayne to Ride on horseback thithere this was wel observed," &c. (pp. 9, 10).Here comes very nearly being the name Baptist, that we have so often heard was not in use till some time after, for these people were called Re-baptists. It is such a pity that these Baptists would insist upon dipping before they heard of Blunt and of his trip to Holland! It was my pleasure to preach to a Baptist church near Hackney Swamp the past summer, which was organized before 1641, and may have been the very church referred to in the above narrative. It is also a fact that Spilsbury's church was located near the Hackney river, and that river was doubtless the baptizing place for that congregation. The Spilsbury church had existed from, or probably before 1633; and like all Baptist churches had a convenient place for immersions.
This Lathrop church had much trouble on the subject of immersion. Some of the members seceded and went over to John Spilsbury in 1633, and the agitation kept up till he went to America, and, as we shall see, it did not then close. If Lathrop had hoped to free himself from this immersion controversy when he came to America, he was to be disappointed. He brought quite a number of persons over with him. He and the church located at Scituate, Mass., where Lathrop remained pastor till 1639. On his settlement the immersion controversy broke out immediately. Dean, who was a very able historian and editor of a number of the works of the Massachusetts Historical Society, says: "Controversy respecting the mode of baptism had been agitated in Mr. Lathrop's church before he left England, and a part had separated from him and established the first Baptist (Calvinistic) church in England in 1633. Those that came seem not all to have been settled on this point, and they found others in Scituate ready to sympathize with them."In 1639 Lathrop removed to Barnstable with a number of his members and formed a new church. A majority, however, of those who remained in Scituate believed in immersion, and Dean says that some believed in "adult immersion exclusively." Here, then, is immersion and adult immersion exclusively in this American Lathrop church before 1639. Not only so, when this church carne to call a pastor to succeed Mr. Lathrop, they called an avowed immersionist as pastor, Mr. Chauncy. Fortunately we are not at a loss for Mr. Chauncy's views. Felt says of Chauncy, July 7, 1642: "Chauncy at Scituate still adheres to his practice of immersion. He had baptized two of his own children in this way. A woman of his congregation who had a child of three years old, and wished it to receive such an ordinance, was fearful that it might be too much frightened by being dipped as some had been. She desired a letter from him, recommending her to the Boston Church, so that she might have the child sprinkled. He complied and the rite was accordingly administered" (Felt's Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I., p. 497).Think for a moment how powerful and direct this evidence is. Here is John Lathrop who was pastor of this Jacob church in London. His church divides, and part of it becomes Baptist by joining with John Spilsbury in 1633; there was another secession to John Spilsbury in 1638. In the meantime John Lathrop and a part of this church has settled in New England, and this same immersion controversy breaks out there. There were some who believed in "adult immersion exclusively," and when Mr. Lathrop resigned this church called to its pastorate a noted immersionist. Mark you that this was not a Baptist church but an Independent church, and the very one the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript declares never heard of immersion of believers till 1641. But we furthermore reach the conclusion that the Baptists were immersionists as they have always been. I should immensely rather trust the facts in the case than to tie myself blindly to the so-called "Kiffin" Manuscript, a document of which no one knows its origin and which has been proved false in almost every particular.
We happen to have another direct proof of immersion in this Jessey church in London before 1641. I have a book called "To Sions Virgins." This edition was printed in 1644. There was an earlier edition, because the title page tells us that this catechism, for that is that the book is, "is in use in these times." We are pretty well able to locate its exact date. It was written after Sept. 18, 1634, for it declares that "Mr. John Lathroppe" was "now pastor in America," and that was the date of Mr. Lathroppe's arrival in America. And it was before 1637 when Mr. Jessey was called to the care of the church, for the church was engaged in prayer for a pastor, and Mr. Jessey continued pastor until after 1644. The date, then, was 1634-7. But this church at that date had already had great disturbance on the subject of believers' immersion. The writer of this book, who declares that he is "an antient member" of the Lathrop church, makes the statement that we should avoid "those that make divisions," and then continues: "I desire to manifest in defence of the Baptisme and forme we have received, not being easily moved, but as Christ will more manifest himself, which I cannot conceive to bee in the dipping the head, the creature going in and out of the water, the forme of baptisme doth more or lesse hold forth Christ. And it is a sad thing that the citizens of Zion, should have their children born foreigners not to be baptized," &c.Now here is a direct statement of immersion and believers' baptisms long before 1641. Then on p. 18 it is asked: "Then sayes such as be called Anabaptists, &c. and this answer is given in part: 'Wherefore let such as deny infants baptisme, and goe into the water and dip downe the head and come out to shew death and buriall, take heede they take not the name of the Lord in vaine, more especially such as have received baptisme in their infancy.'"
I cannot conceive how there could be a more appropriate witness. He was a member of this Lathrop or Jesseey church, he was an "ancient member," and he certainly knew what he was talking about. He testifies directly that believers' immersion was then practiced by persons who had been members of this very congregation, and at that very moment these persons were causing divisions on account of believers' immersion. And yet in the face of this kind of a witness I am asked to believe this "Kiffin" Manuscript, which professes to be an account of this very church, and that says that none in England practiced believers' immersion before 1642. The "Kiffin " Manuscript is not even a respectable forgery. =================== [From pp. 136-144.]
Baptist History Vindicated By John T. Christian
Chapter XIV
We will now notice the names of those who were reported to have been baptized as recorded in the "Kiffin" Manuscript. The list is as follows: "The names of all 11 MO Janu: Begin 1 Richard Blunt Sam Blacklock 2 Greg Fishburn Dere. Fishburn 3 John Caldwell, Eliz. Cadwell 4 Sam Eames Tho. Munden, 5 Thos. Kilcop William Willieby 6 Robert Locker Mary Lock 7 John Braunson John Bull 8 Rich. Ellis, Mary Langride. Tho. Shephard ) Hus wife ) Mary Millison 9 Wm. Creak, Mary Haman, 10 Robt. Carr, Sarah Williams, 11 Martin Mainprise Joane ) Dunckle Anne ) 12 Henry Woolmare Eliz. Woolmore, 15 Henry Creak, Judeth Manning 16 Mark. Lukar Mabel Luker, 17 Henry Darker Abigal Bowden, 13 Robert King, Sarah Norman, 14 Thomas Waters Isabel Woolmore.
Eliz. Jessop Mary Creak Susanna King 41 in all11th month 11 January 9 addedunderstood John Cattope George Wenham as appears Nicholas Martin Thomas Davenant above! &. Ailie Stanford Rich Colgrave this was Nath Natthon Eliz. Hutchinson Jan. 9th Mary Birch John Croson Sybilla Dees John Woolnlore. Thus 53 in all."
I would call attention to the date. This baptism was in January, 1642, and it was in the early part of January, for upon the "9" of that month 12 other persons were added to this number. That is to say, that after all, even according to the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript, immersion was not revived in England in 1641, but in 1642. We would be compelled "to move up the date to" 1642. On the basis of the "Kiffin" Manuscript it is a 1642, rather than a 1641, controversy.
But look at that list of names who were said to have been baptized by Blunt and tell us how many prominent Baptists were in the list. If these persons were immersed at this time, what about all the other leading Baptists before and after this date? There is nothing to prove that one of them was immersed at or near this time. Read carefully over the above list, and then read the following words of the New York Independent on this 1641 theory: "If immersion was introduced, as we suppose, in 1641, then it is clear that John Spilsbury, who became a Baptist in 1633, was sprinkled or poured upon; likewise Mr. Kiffin, who became a Baptist in 1638; likewise Roger Williams and his church at Providence, who joined the Baptists in 1639; likewise Mr. Clark and the church at Newport, who, we must believe, joined the Baptists very shortly after Mr. Williams. The year 1644, which is mentioned as the date when the 'First Baptist church at Newport was formed and set in order,' we are inclined to think was the time when the church accepted and began the practice of immersion." N. Y. Independent, Oct. 7th, 1880.
This statement is wide of the mark, and is not based even upon the "Kiffin" Manuscript. That document is false and unauthoritative enough, but it has never made a statement like that. I challenge the Independent to make good this statement. The "Kiffin" Manuscript does not intimate that John Spilsbury was sprinkled in 1633 and afterwards dipped in 1641. It does not say that Kiffin, "who became a Baptist in 1638," was poured upon. Nor does it even mention Roger Williams, nor Mr. Clark, nor the first Baptist church of Providence, nor the first Baptist church of Newport. There is no proof that these men were sprinkled by anybody to make them Baptists.
If we are to believe the account of the baptism as given in the "Kiffin" Manuscript, then not one of the great Baptist leaders of 1641 had anything to do with it. Let us see.
William Kiffin had nothing to do with this procedure, nor was he baptized by Blacklock and Blunt. His baptism came from some other source. John Spilsbury was not strict enough for William Kiffin. Although John Spilsbury practiced immersion, shortly after 1638 Kiffin separated himself from this church because this church occasionally admitted a minister to preach for it who had not been immersed. He was, in other words, a Landmark Baptist. Crosby says: "He was first of an Independent congregation, and called to the ministry among them; was one of them who were concerned in the conferences held in the congregation of Mr. Henry Jessey; by which Mr. Jessey and the greatest part of the congregation became proselyted to the opinion of the Baptists. He joined himself to the church of Mr. John Spilsbury, but a difference arising about permitting persons to preach amongst them that had not been baptized by immersion, they parted by consent" (History of the Baptists, Vol. III., p. 3-4).Samuel Richardson had nothing to do with this Blunt affair. His baptism came from some other source.
John Spilsbury was not baptized by Blunt. He owed his baptism to another administrator.
Paul Hobson was not baptized by Blunt. He was baptized by another.
The same is true of Thomas Lamb. Edward Barber was not baptized by Blunt. He was baptized years before.
Hanserd Knollys was not baptized by Blunt. He owed his baptism to another administrator.
Crosby was therefore quite right when he affirmed: "But the greatest number of English Baptists looked upon all of this as needless trouble, and what proceeded from the old Popish Doctrine of right to administer sacraments by an uninterrupted succession which neither the Church of Rome, nor the Church of England, much less the modern Dissenters, could prove to be with them" (Vol. I., p. 103).
Look at those who were declared to be baptized in the "Kiffin" Manuscript.
Nobody ever heard of Blunt in or about 1641. So far as history records, he was a myth.
Nobody ever heard of Blacklock. He is another myth, so far as history records.
There is Thomas Shepherd! History does speak of him, but he was a Congregational preacher at that moment in Boston; and he had not been in England for years, and, so far as I know, he never was in London.
Yet this is the crowd we are asked to believe started immersion among the Baptists in 1641!
The "Kiffin" Manuscript makes the following statements concerning the Confession of Faith of 1643.
"1644. These being much spoken against as being unsound in doctrine as if they were Armenians & also against Magistrates &c, they joyned togeather in a Confession of their Faith in fifty-two Articles wch gave great satisfaction to many that had been prejudiced.
Thus subscribed in ye names of 7 Churches in London. Willn Kiffin Thos. Gunn Paul Hobson Tho. Patience Jos. Mabbet Tho. Goore Geo. Tipping John Web, Jo. Phelps John Spilsbury Tho. Kilcop Edward Heath Thos. Shephard, Tho. Munder."
So ignorant was the writer of the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript of Baptist affairs that he did not know that this Confession of Faith was put forth in 1643, and not in 1644.
If the author of the "Kiffin" Manuscript is wrong on the date of the Confession of Faith, he is also wrong in regard to the persons who signed it. I copy the names directly from the Confession itself: "William Kiffin, Thomas Patience, John Spilsbery, George Tipping, Samuel Richardson, Thomas Skippard, Thomas Mundy, Thomas Gunne, John Mabbatt, John Webb, Thomas Killcop, Paul Hobson, Thomas Goare, Joseph Phelps, Edward Heath" (B. M. E. 12. (24)).
It will be seen that the compiler who made this "collection in 1710-11," or some other time, has taken the privilege to "doctor" the facts. He follows his own method of spelling here as everywhere else, and hence does not get the names correctly. Neither does he get the names in the right order. But what is worse, he leaves out the name of Samuel Richardson altogether. He was one of the most prominent Baptists of those times and a great writer. Yet the "Kiffin" Manuscript, "a contemporaneous record," "a genuine church record," knows nothing about him. The closest the "Kiffin" Manuscript can come to Thomas Munday is Tho: Munder, and John Mabbatt becomes Jos. Mabbet.
But the most curious thing is yet to be mentioned. Thomas Shephard is represented as signing the Baptist Confession of Faith. He was then, and had been for nine years, a Congregational preacher in Boston, and, so far as I know, he never returned to England. He was not only not a Baptist, but a bitter opponent of them. One. year from the date the "Kiffin" Manuscript represents Thomas Shephard as signing a Baptist Confession of Faith, we find him writing an introduction to a book written by George Philips in favor of infant baptism and sprinkling, in answer to Thomas Lamb, the English Baptist minister. This book was published in England in 1645. In that introduction he complains that "the doctrine of Anabaptirsme especially in this controversie concerning Infants, will gangrene farre, and leaven much."This is no mere misprint for this same Thomas Shephard, as has been claimed, for that document represents him as baptized by Blunt on his return. It will not relieve the "Kiffin" Manuscript to say, as has already been said, that it was not this Thomas Shephard, but another, who was a Baptist. The trouble with this is that there is not one particle of evidence to support it. Thomas Shephard did not sign the Baptist Confession of Faith, published in 1644, as the Gould manuscripts assert. This is a fabrication pure and simple. But this is as authentic as anything else in the "Kiffin" Manuscript.
But we have still other proof of the unreliability of this "Kiffin" Manuscript. In January, 1640, two of the persons who signed the Confession of Faith were already Baptists. The names of these two men were John Webb and Thomas Gunn. They were arrested and brought before the House of Lords on that date for being Baptists (Journal of House of Lords, vol. 4, p. 13. A. D. l639-40). The Journal says: "Anabaptists recommended to the justice of the House by his majesty." Six names are mentioned; in which number are the two above, and there were at "least sixty People more." It is significant that not one of these six persons is found among the persons baptized by Blunt in the list recorded in the Gould document, and two of this number signed the Baptist Confession of Faith. Bluntism did not make much progress among the Baptists of 1641!
The Gould Document Number 4 makes this absurd statement in regard to Hanserd Knollys: "1643. About Baptisme,. Qu: Ana:
Hanserd Knollys our Brother not being satisfied for Baptizing his child, after it had been endeavored by ye elder & by one or two more; himself referred to ye Church then that they might satisfye him, or he rectifye them if amiss herein, which was well accepted.
"Hence meetings were appointed for conference about it at B. Ja: & B. K. & B. G. & each was performed with prayer & in much Love as Christian meetings (because he could not submit his judgment to depend on with its power: So yielded to) Elder _____. The maine argument was from these fower conclusions.
"1. Those in Gospel institutions are so set down to us. Those not cleare.
"2. Whatever Priviledg God hath given to his Church is still given to all churches.
"3. God hath given to his Church as a Church this Privilege to have their children in a Gosspel covenant, & to have its token in Infancy Gen. 17.7. 10.
"4. Baptism seems to be in ye rome of Circumcision.
To be now to Churches Infants."
Every fact known in regard to Knollys goes to prove that this statement is not true. The Rev. John Lewis, who replied to Crosby's History, affirms that Knollys rejected infant baptism as early as 1636 (Rawlinson Mss. C. 409. p. 62). Crosby declares that he was a Baptist in 1636. He came to America in 1635 and settled in New Hampshire, and returned to England in (?) 1640. While in America he was regarded as an Anabaptist.
Cotton Mather mentions a number of Baptists among the first planters of New England, and that some ministers of that persuasion came over. He says of Hanserd Knollys: "Of them there were some godly Anabaptists; as namely, Mr. Hanserd Knollys (whom one of his adversaries called absurd Knowles), of Dover, who afterwards moved back to London, lately died there, a good man, in a good old age" (Magnalia Christi Americana, Vol. I., p. 243, Hartford, 1855). (Crosby, Vo1. I., p. 120).
He wrote an autobiography of himself, which was edited and completed by William Kiffin. Knollys died September 19,1691, and from the words of Kiffin it is probable that he became a Baptist as early as 1631. Kiffin's words are: "The author of these ensuing experiences was that ancient and faithful servant of God, Mr. Hanserd Knollys, who departed this life in the ninety-third year of his age, having been employed in the works and service of Christ, as a faithful minister, for above sixty years; in which time he labored without fainting under all the discouragement that attended him, being contented in all conditions, though never so poor in this world; under all persecutions and sufferings, so that he might therein serve his blessed Lord and Saviour. I have myself known him for above fifty four years, and can witness to the truth of many things left by him under his own hand" (Life and Death of Hanserd Knollys, p. 2. London, 1692. B. M. 1694. (1)).
The point I raise is a definite one. The Gould Document number 4 declares that in 1643 Hanserd Knollys was a Pedobaptist, and gives at great length the argument that satisfied his mind and made a Baptist out of him. On the other hand, I present indisputable authorities who declare that Hanserd Knollys was an Anabaptist as far back as 1636, and perhaps 1631. The proof is simply overwhelming, and these statements, like the rest of the statements of these Gould documents, are false. ========== [From pp. 146-152.]
Baptist History Vindicated By John T. Christian
Chapter XV
The Conclusion
In a former article, Number V., it was pointed out that the story in the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript of Sam Eaton was absolutely inconsistent with the Court Records and the State Papers of England. It was demonstrated that not one of the things related of him in the Gould document could have taken place. Not one statement there made needs to be modified, but my attention has been called to an important additional matter which goes to show that Sam Eaton became a Baptist, and that he was immersed by John Lathrop between April 24, 1634 and May 5, 1636, and Sam Eaton immersed others. This information is given by John Taylor, who put in rhyme the following: Also one Spilsbury rose up of late,
(Who doth or did dwell over Aldersgate)
* * * * * He rebaptiz'd in Anabaptist fashion
One Eaton (of the new found separation)
A Zealous Button-maker, grave and wise,
And gave him orders others to baptize;
Who was so apt to learne that in one day,
Hee'd do't as well as Spilsbury weigh'd Hay.
This true Hay-lay-man to the Bank side came
And likewise there baptized an impure dame"
&c. (A Swarme of Sectaries and Schismatiques).
This was published in London probably in 1641, but possibly earlier. It is admitted that this was an example of immersion among the Baptists. Now Sam Eaton died in prison Aug. 25, 1639 (Calendar of State Papers, vol. 427, fol. 107). Therefore Spilsbury immersed Eaton before Au,g. 25, 1639. But Sam Eaton immersed others. He was in jail from May 5, 1636, continuously till his death, therefore he was immersed before 1636, and he also immersed others before that date. This simple statement overthrows the entire 1641 theory, and demonstrates that immersion was in practice more than five years before 1641, which is in accord with all the facts in the case. I beg to present my congratulations.
This additional fact permits my giving a pretty detailed account of the church relations of Sam Eaton. In the Court Documents which I have before me which give an account of the trial of Lathrop's church, April 29, 1632, it is shown that Sam Eaton was a member of the Lathrop, or, as it was afterwards called, the Jessey church. He continued in jail until April 24, 1634, when he was released from prison under the same bond that Lathrop was (Calendar of State Papers, vol. 261, fol. 182). After this date, and before May 5, 1636, he was immersed by John Spilsbury, for that was the only date he was out of prison until his death. The record of this second imprisonment is: "Samuel Eaton of St. Gile's, without Cripple Gate, London, button-maker" (Calendar of State Papers, vol. 324. fol. 13). Then there follows a petition, the exact date is not given, of one Francis Tucker, B.D. He complains that Samuel Eaton is an unruly fellow, and persists in preaching in prison. One of the points is that "Eaton has oftentimes affirmed in his sermons that baptism was the doctrine of devils, and its original and institution of the devil, and has railed against the arch-bishop." &c. (Calendar of State Papers, vol. 406, fol. 64). This is about what a bigoted Pedobaptist of that day would report against a Baptist who was denouncing infant baptism and sprinkling. The next entry in the Calendar of State Papers, vol. 437, fol. 107, where there is an account of his death under date of Aug. 31, 1639, which occurred Sunday, the 25th. A Mr. Alsop reports that he was present at the funeral, and he reports that he met the Anabaptists, and some others, "I think at least two hundred, with Eaton's corpse, so I went back with them to see how they would bury the dead. I observed how they answered such as met them, demanding who that was to be buried; they said it was one of the bishop's prisoners, but when they came to the grave, It being made ready for them in the new church yard near Bethlehem (Bunhill Fields) they, like so many bedlams, cast the corpse in, and with their feet, instead of spades, cast and turned in the mold till the grave was almost full. Then they paid the grave-maker for his pains, who told them that he must fetch a minister, but they said, that he might spare his labour." This single instance is, therefore, absolutely fatal to the whole 1641 theory.
In Article VIII the ground is taken that the Presbyterians were the first to introduce sprinkling in England to the exclusion of immersion. Wall declared that sprinkling began in England "in the disorderly times of 1641," and that in "1645 it was used by very few." Sprinkling came in with the Westminster Assembly, which excluded dipping by a majority of one. This was in 1643 and in 1644 that the Presbyterians passed acts in the Parliament excluding dipping and substituting pouring in its place. At the time that Article was written, only extracts of these Acts of Parliament were before me, now I have these acts in full. They are even stronger than I supposed, and carry out fully my contention that sprinkling was introduced as the ordinary act of baptism in 1644. Scobell's Collection of Acts of Parliament, Anno 1644, it is decreed that "The book of Common-Prayer shall not be henceforth used, but the Directory for Public Worship." The Book of Common Prayer prescribed immersion, and the Directory prescribed affusion. It was ordered that the Directory should under penalty be used throughout the United Kingdom. In order that none might escape, it was decreed that "a fair Register book of Velim, to be kept by the Minister and other Officers of the Church; and that the Names of all Children Baptized, and of their Parents, and of the time of their Birth and Baptizing, shall be written and set down by the minister;" &c. This infamous law was meant as a check on every Baptist in the land, and all that was needed to convict such a one was to refer to this book of "Velim." In order that there might be no mistake on the meaning of baptism, it was decreed: "Then the Minister is to demand the Name of the Childe, which being told him, he is to say (calling the Childe by his Name)
"I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "As he pronounceth the words, he is to Baptize the Childe with water: which for the manner of doing it is not onely lawfull but sufficient and most expedient to be, by powring [pouring] or sprinkling of the water on the Face of the childe, without adding any other ceremony." Here, then, is the law which directly replaces immersion by sprinkling and pouring, and this was passed in January 3, 1644-5.
It was not, however, till 1648 that the Presbyterians were enabled to enact the gaglaw." They had already substituted sprinkling for dipping, but they now go further and punish the Baptists as "blasphemers and heretics." It was declared that any person who said "that the baptizing of Infants is unlawfull, or such Baptism is void, or that such persons ought to be baptized again, or in pursuance thereof shall baptize any person formerly baptized," shall be placed in prison and remain there until they "shall finde two sufficient surities" that "they shall not publish the same error any more." Under this infamous law 400 Baptists were thrown into prison. This was the triumph of sprinkling in England, and reached its culmination in 1648. Sprinkling began in 1641, became the ecclesiastical law in 1643, the civil law in 1644-5, and was vigorously pushed in 1648, and those who held dipping were punished as blasphemers and heretics. Thus did sprinkling prevail in England. Those who declare that Baptists sprinkled till the Presbyterians came into power, and when sprinkling became the law of the land they became dippers, only make the Baptists absurd in the eyes of the world.
It may have been observed by some that up to this point I have engaged in no discussion upon one John Batte, who, it is declared, baptized Blunt in Holland. The reason for this delay was to give time to examine a certain book which Dr. Rauschenbusch, of Hamburg, Germany, found which was declared to settle the baptism of Blunt by Batte. If such evidence had been found, I was anxious to see it and to accept it, if it were valid. The Journal ans Messenger published an article which professed to be a translation of the advanced sheets of a chapter from a work which was to appear from Dr. Rauschenbusch. It was claimed that Dr. Ranschenbusch had found a "rare book" which settled the entire question. The book in question was called: "Geschiedenis der Rhynsberger Vergadering." Since the appearance of this article I have secured Dr. Rauschenbusch's book, and have also read the "old" Dutch book mentioned above, so I can speak in the light of the facts.
The quotation from a translation of a chapter from Dr. Rauschenbusch's book in the Journal and Messenger, in which I was interested, is as follows: "The Rhynsburgers were a Christian party which began In Holland in 1620. Like the Puritans in England they permitted not only their pastors, but also lay members to speak in their meetings. Baptism was practiced by them only by immersion, therefore they were called in Dutch 'Dompelaers,' that is, immersionists. (To this day one can see at Rhynsburg the large basin where they baptized). Blount was most cordially welcomed at Rhynsburg and received baptism of Jan Batte, their pastor. He returned immediately to the church at London and immersed the pastor, Samuel Blacklock, and the latter 53 others. Most probably they belonged to several Independent churches, but principally to the church, which had separated in 1633 from the Independent church founded by Henry Jacob. Their pastor was at that time John Spilsbury, a godly and most intelligent man, who also received baptism. It was only conjectured in former years, but not known for a certainty that it was the Rhynsburgers, from whom Richard Blount received baptism. But in the year 1880 the writer had the privilege by special providence of God to meet at the watering place Godesberg near Bonn on the Rhine; a Dutch book-seller who showed me great kindness and sent me a copy of the very rare book, 'Geschiedenis der Rhynsburgische Vergadering,' that is, History of the Rhynsburger Congregation. This copy I presented later to the library of the German Baptist Theological Seminary at Hamburg-Horn, where all who wish can read it for themselves. In this book right at the beginning Jan Batte is named as a very prominent teacher of the Rhynshurgers. Undoubtedly he is the same of whom Thomas Crosby (who calls him John Batte) tells, affirming that "Richard Blount was baptized by him."After reading the above extract rather carefully, it was easy to see that the "rare book" which "the special providence of God" had thrown in the way of Dr. Rauschenbusch after all was not thoroughly convincing to Dr. Rauschenbusch himself. It was far from being convincing to others.
1. Dr. Rauschenbusch distinctly tells us above that he relies upon the testimony of Thomas Crosby for the connecting link between John Batte and Richard Blunt; and Crosby distinctly declares that all the testimony he has on that subject is a manuscript said to have been written by William Kiffin. Prof. Newman says of Dr. Rauschenbusch's book: "He seems not to be familiar with the later discussions on this question, and to possess only the information supplied by Crosby." In truth, no one has presented any testimony in regard to" John Batte that has not had its origin in Crosby. Dr. L. Cramer, Professor of History in the Mennonite Preachers' Seminary, Amsterdam, Holland, after an investigation of the subject, wrote under date of March 23, 1899: "About John Batten we here in Holland know nothing more than you can find in Crosby." We have already seen that the "Kiffin" Manuscript is of no authority whatever, and is absolutely contrary to well known and well established facts.
2. Dr. Rauschenbusch directly contradicts the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript when he says: "Blount was most cordially welcomed at Rhynsburg, and received baptism of John Batte, their pastor." The Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript does not declare that Batte baptized Blunt, but only that he "was kindly accepted there, and returned with letters from them." The Gould "Kiffin" does not assert that Blunt was ever dipped by anybody.
3. Dr. Rauschenbusch makes a statement of which there is not one line of proof in the "Kiffin" Manuscript or anywhere else. He says: "Their pastor was at that time John Spilsbury, a godly and most intelligent man, who also received baptism." There is no proof that Spilsbury was re-immersed or baptized in any way in 1641. He is not in the list of those baptized by the "Kiffin" Manuscript, nor is there any other proof that he was baptized in 1641.
4. There was a sense of uncertainty that ran all through Prof. Rauschenbusch's statements that would not make his words very authoritative where facts and not suppositions are needed. "Most probably" does not just now answer where facts are needed. The 1641 vagarists are already well-supplied with opinions, but just now they are dreadfully in need of some facts.
But let us look after the book, "the rare book," which Dr. Rauschenbusch found. "The brilliant professor" who furnished this translation of Prof. R.'s book to the Journal and Messenger makes Prof. Rauschenbusch declare of "The History of the Rhynsburger Congregation," "this copy I presented later to the library of the German Baptist Theological Seminary at Hamburg-Horn, where all who wish can read it for themselves." As a matter of fact, the book is not in Hamburg-Horn, but in Philadelphia; not in the library in Germany, but in the American Baptist Historical Society. Library, and was not presented to the German library, but was sold, as the owner had a perfect right to do, to the Society in Philadelphia. How is this known? Through a personal letter from Prof. Rauschenbusch, and also through the very book which the "brilliant professor" was trying to translate, namely: Die Entstehung der Kindertaufe, by A. Rauschenbusch, Hamburg, 1898, p.124. And I was permitted to examine this very copy through the courtesy of the officers of the Historical Society.
Of course, I was expecting something very ancient and very authoritative. I was surprised to find an anonymous book of recent origin. The following is the title-page: "Historie Der Rijnsburgsche Vergadering. Te Rotterdam, Bij Jacob Burgvliet on Zoon. MDCCLXXV." In other words, a nameless author had printed a book 134 years after 1641, and I am asked to accept that book as conclusive. The book does not even possess the merit of telling us where it got its information in regard to Batten. A distance of 134 years does not seem to trouble the 1641 theorists.
The book does not contain one solitary word about Richard Blunt. There is not a line in the book from beginning to end in regard to the English Baptists. It is not declared that Batten was a teacher. There is not a word to prove that Batten was ever immersed, or that he believed in immersion. Besides, the name of the man mentioned in the Crosby "Kiffin" and the Gould "Kiffln" Manuscripts is not Jan Batten, but John Batte. I would have no reason to believe that these were the same persons, although the author of A Question in Baptist History has changed the name from Batte in the "Kiffin" Manuscript to Batten, p. 82, to make it appear that these names were the same, and in so doing he changed the very text he was professing to quote. (See Gould's Open Communion and the Baptists of Norwich, pp. cxxiii., cxxiv.)
This Dutch book does not contain a statement about John Batte and only one in reference to Jan Batten. I present a literal translation of the Dutch: "Then some one rose up and read a text or Scripture passage which he treated (or expounded) in the manner of a harangue or sermon. This speech having been ended was left to the criticism of the hearers, so that every one who had any remarks to make or additions, to the end (or purpose) that any one might make use of the liberty of the place. Then another one arose who read and spoke in the manner already mentioned."It has even happened in the beginning of the movement that this was repeated by four speakers successively, so that these meetings prolonged themselves into the (or toward) the morning and several in the audience had fallen into a deep sleep.
"Notwithstanding the freedom extended to all, the usual speakers were ordinarily Gysbert Jacobszoon (son of Jacob) Van der Kodde, Jan and Adriaen Van der Kodde, Tonis Komeliszoon (son of Cornelius) from the Kaeg and a certain Jan Batten from Leiden. Although occasionally some one else brought forward something, the former nevertheless were also heard on one or the other subject.
"This new persuasion, also known by the name of the 'Sect of the Prophets,' did not remain hidden very long. Many preachers got wind of it, and among others the Rev. Jakobus Batelier, who was formerly settled at Kralingen, but on account of his Remonstrant views was deposed and was now living at Leiden, appeared in their meeting" (pp. 21, 22).
The date in which Jan Batten's name waft mentioned was before 1618, for the Rhynsburgers were not yet organized, and were having some meetings which afterwards resulted in the organization of that people. At this time "the sect of the prophets" was hidden, and the new persuasion was not known to the people. It was not until quite a time after this, "when the meetings increased in size," that the Lord's Supper was instituted, and still later they baptized by immersion (pp. 38, 39). This is the only mention of Batten; he is not represented as having accepted immersion; he is not represented as a teacher; he is not represented as ever having become a member of the Rhynsburg Congregation. He was simply affiliated some time before with the persons who afterwards formed an organization. He was a citizen of Leyden, and appears to have been only a transient visitor in or near Rhynsburg. In this history detailed accounts are given of this Congregation throughont Holland, and the performances of many teachers in Leyden, and elsewhere, but not one word is ever said in regard to Jan Batten. This is more than 23 years before 1641, and there is not the slightest reason to believe that Jan Batten was a teacher in a Society that was never large for 23 years and more, where there are detailed accounts of doings of this Society and not a mention made of this man. It is amazing how a little light and a knowledge of the facts in the case dissipates all this 1641 business. There is not a court on earth that would receive such stuff as testimony.
Here is an anonymous book, written 123 years after 1641, telling of a man who lived 146 years before, whose name was Jan Batten. This book knows not one word of Richard Blunt, never heard of the English Baptists, and does not mention John Batte. In order to make this book serve the 1641 theory, we must imagine that John Batte and Jan Batten were the same, that Jan Batten was still alive in 1641, that he joined the Congregation, that he became a preacher, that he moved from Leyden to Rhynsburg, that he was immersed, and that finally he immersed Richard Blunt, and finally we must imagine that there was a Richard Blunt who lived in England, that he was a Baptist, that he changed his mind on the subject of immersion in 1640, that he made his trip to Holland, met Batten, that he convinced Batten that he was the proper man to be baptized, that he was baptized, that he came back to England, that he convinced all the Baptists that they ought to be immersed, that he immersed them all and introduced immersion in England; we must further imagine that he so effectually hid himself that nobody ever heard of him, and that he remained absolutely unknown to any man of his generation. We must further imagine that somebody sometime wrote an anonymous manuscript which was called the "Kiffin" Manuscript, and that this must be hid away for an hundred years before anybody ever heard of it, and when it is needed this "Kiffin" Manuscript can appear in a new edition to suit local conditions, and that no man knows whence it came or whither it went. And when all of these imaginings have taken place, we must still further stretch our imagination and explain that the "Kiffin " Manuscript is infallibly correct, although it contradicts court records and all contemporaneous documents, &c., &c., &c.
In this series of papers there has been no discussion of the act of baptism among the Dutch and German Anabaptists. That has not been done because the point of contact between these and the English Baptists was not of such a character as to demand it at this time. Fortunately I have a very large number of Dutch and German works on the subject, but shall content myself with giving the opinion of a few scholars who can express an intelligent opinion. The first is Rev. W. W. Evarts, D.D., who has given a good deal of study to German and Dutch Baptists. He says: "What is needed in discussing a point in history is data. Here are a few facts that bear on the question of the practice of immersion before the year 1641: In 1524, at Zurich, Leo's ritual says: 'Dip it into the water.' In 1530, at Gotha, Myconius suggests the substitution of pouring for immersion in cold weather. In 1532, in Holland, Slachtcalf dips a child in a pail of water. In 1533, at Munster, Rothmann says: 'Baptism is a dipping into water, a true sign that the candidate is dead to sins, buried with Christ, and arises to newness of life.' Dr. Leopold Dick described, in 1530, the mode of German Anabaptists as follows: 'Only those who are old enough to believe and repent are permitted to be baptized in water, which custom is both indecorous and new, though they call it the rite of purification. It is increasing from day to day, so that many cities are disturbed, where the Anabaptists scarcely cease baptizing, using domestic baptisteries.'"Gastius in 1530, tells of the Anabaptists of Basel, who 'are wont to meet in the flowery field by a flowing stream, most handy for baptism." Urbanus Rhegius says of the Anabaptists at Augsburg at the same time: 'They think if they are only baptized as Christ was in the Jordan, then it is all done.' As early as 1523 'The Sum of Holy Scripture' was published in Holland. It says: 'So we are dipped under as a sign that we are as it were dead and buried. The life of man is a battle upon earth. In baptism when we are plunged under the water, we promise that we will fight.'
"Passing over into England we find that no mention of pouring occurs in any ritual before 1550. In 1603 the eighty-first canon revives one of 1570 that ordered in every church a font of stone for dipping and forbade the use of a basin. In 1635 Daniel Rogers writes a treatise in favor of restoring the practice of dipping, which was then becoming obsolete. When Edward Barber published in 1641 his argument for the immersion of believers, it is natural to suppose that the practice preceded the defense of the practice.
"Ricraff, in his 'Looking Glass for Anabaptists,' published in 1646, quotes Kiffin, the Baptist, as saying: 'What can you find for your practice more than the dirty puddle of men's inventions. Our congregations were erected and framed as now they are, according to the rule of Christ, before we heard of any Reformation, even at that time when Episcopacy was in the height of its vanishing glory, even when they were plotting and threatening the ruin of all those who opposed it.' These words seem to throw the practice of immersion back of 1641 to the day when Archbishop Laud was holding a high hand. To this conclusion we are led by the remark of Richard Baxter, who spoke in 1655 of Anabaptists, who 'within twenty years' had given trouble in a corner of the world. To the same conclusion we are led by the words of Dr. Featley." -- The Chicago Standard, Nov. 14, 1896.
I have at hand the testimony of a celebrated English scholar, Prof. T. Witton Davies. He has given this subject much attention. He is a Professor of History in the Midland Baptist College, Nottingham. He says: "The real explanation is simple enough. 'Dopper' in Dutch is the English word 'Dipper,' and the German word 'Taufer.' The 'Dippers,' as they are called in Holland, are a very powerful body in that country, almost as numerous and as wealthy as the Reformed community, which is the established church of the land; they are really Baptists, and trace their origin to Simon Menno, who died A. D. 1561. At first they dipped as Baptists do in this country now; they still hold that no one has a right to the ordinance of baptism but those who have reached years of discretion, and, first of all, make a public profession of Christianity. They do not now dip nor do they sprinkle; they pour, or rather they dip their hand in a basin of water, and convey such as can be carried to the head of the candidate. I have attended their services and witnessed the observance of the rite of baptism among them. There can be no doubt on historical, as well as on etymological, grounds that originally they immersed; they have abandoned the mode on account of its inconvenience, but they adhere to what the Baptists the whole world over regard as immeasurably more important than the mode, the practice, namely, of baptizing those only who know what they are about, and who of their own free will and choice, wish to submit to the ordinance."The great German historian, Karl Rudolf Hagenbach, D.D., wrote the article on the Collegiants, or Rbynsburgers, for the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia, vol. 1, p. 512. His testimony is simple and direct. He says: "Like the Anabaptists, they used immersion at baptjsm." No one will assert that he is not a competent historian.
Dr. Ludwig Keller, the great German Anabaptist historian declares: "That a portion of Taeufer (those who baptized) practiced immersion is certain."
Along by the side of such historians I am willing to stand. ================
[From pp. 152-166.]
Appendices
Baptist History Vindicated Index
Baptist History Homepage