AN EXAMINATION OF THE JESSEY CHURCH RECORDS
AND THE "KIFFIN" MANUSCRIPT.
In presenting this subject I shall be very careful to give the exact sources of my information. I am particularly indebted to the Rev. J. H. Delles, D.D. and his admirable assistant, the Rev. W. C. Ulyat, the librarian of Princeton Theological Seminary. Two very large collections, one on the subject of baptism and the other on Puritanism, aggregating some ten thousand volumes, are to be found in that library, to say nothing of the important books in the general library. Unusual opportunities were granted me for the examination of these works. The British Museum, London, and the Bodleian Library, Oxford, are rich in works which treat of early English Baptists. The Rev. Joseph Angus, D.D., kindly opened up his large collection of tracts to my use, and through the courtesy of the Rev. George P. Gould, President of Regents Park College, where Dr. Angus' library is located, I was able to examine this important collection. I am also indebted to President Gould for an examination of the Gould edition of the "Kiffin" Manuscript and of the Jessey Church Records. The library at York Minster also contains some important works not found elsewhere. The Record Office, London, where the State Papers are kept, and the Somerset House where
[p. 6]
wills, births and marriages are recorded contain invaluable information. Besides these, I am indebted to a number of libraries and individuals for information which I can acknowledge here only in the most general way. I have made full use of all these sources of information in addition to a careful examination of the works I have gathered in my own library during the last twenty years. I have no theory to serve, and have tried to weigh all the facts which have come before me. I have furthermore put myself to much trouble to find all the facts in the case, and while not able to fully accomplish this important consideration, the reader will find much important material that has not been presented before. The subject certainly needed investigation, and I am glad to be instrumental in throwing any light upon it.Most extraordinary and exaggerated claims have been put forth as to the historic value of the "Kiffin" Manuscript. Its history is no less remarkable. It has been strangely confounded with other documents by more than one author, and has been made to serve a purpose on more than one occasion. It has been used to prove the most preposterous propositions, when these contradicted all known history. It has been asserted in the most positive manner that the manuscript is authentic and wholly reliable, although not one contemporaneous author mentions the document or ever refers to the most prominent persons named in it. The interpretations put upon its language are no less strained than the statements found in its pages. It has been the fruitful source for visions and extravagant vagaries, while the historians who have adopted it have given us instead of history confusion worse confounded.
As if one such manuscript is not enough we have two, which do not agree with each other,
[p. 7]
indeed they differ so widely that they both cannot be the same document, and yet they are both called the Kiffin Manuscript.1. The Crosby edition. The historian, [Thomas] Crosby, who wrote his Baptist History in the year 1738ff., quotes a document which he declares was "said" to have been written by Mr. William Kiffin. Where Crosby got this document, and what became of it, are questions which at this time no one can answer. Crosby quoted the document with evident caution, and it is manifest that he was never fully convinced that it was written by William Kiffin. In his first volume he appears to have felt that some of the statements contained in it were worthy to be recorded, and he may have accepted some of its theories; but it is equally certain that in the second volume, upon maturer consideration, he rejected this document, at least he modified his previous statements. So far from Crosby believing that the Baptists of England began in 1641, he was a believer in church succession. Nor is there a word in all of his writings to indicate that he believed that the Baptists of England began to dip in 1641. He nowhere indicates that the words in regard to dipping, "none having so practiced in England to professed believers," were in the manuscript before him, which he would undoubtedly have done had the words been in there. His words on succession are plain and unmistakable. He says: "It may be expected, and I did intend, that this volume should have contained all I at first proposed to the publick. But since my publication of the former volume, I have had such materials communicated to me that I could not in justice to the communicators omit them, without incurring the just censure of a partial historian. Besides it having been objected to me that a more early account of the English Baptists might be obtained: it gave a new turn to
[p. 8]
my thoughts, and put me upon considering the state and condition of the Christian Religion, from the first plantation of the Gospel in England. Now in this inquiry, so much has occurred to me as carries with it more than a probability that the first English Christians were Baptists. I could not therefore pass over so material a fact in their favor; and now because it cannot now be placed where it properly belongs, I have fixed it by way of preface to this Second Volume."On page ii of this Preface, Crosby says:
"This great prophet John had an immediate commission from heaven, before he entered upon the actual administration of his office. And as the English Baptists adhere closely to this principle, that John the Baptist was by divine command, the first commissioned to preach the gospel, and baptize by immersion, those that received it; and that this practice has been ever since maintained and continued in the world to this present day; so it may not be improper to consider the state of religion in this Kingdom: it being agreed on all hands that the plantation of the gospel here was very early, even in the Apostles' days."
That this manuscript was not written by Kiffin, will be abundantly proved in these articles. Two or three points are clear: Crosby did not believe the manuscript was written by Kiffin; he did believe that the Baptists began in England upon the first planting of Christianity and had continued there since, and he did not affirm that dipping was a new thing in England.
2. The Gould edition. In 1860 Rev. George Gould, D.D., the father of President George P. Gould, of Regents Park College, had an unsuccessful lawsuit in regard to certain chapel property. Mr. Gould maintained a system of lax church order and open communion. After the suit was lost Mr. Gould presented his side
[p. 9]
of the question to the public in a volume entitled, "Open Communion and the Baptists of Norwich." In this book was a quotation from the "Kiffin Manuscript," but it at once appeared that it was not the document quoted by Crosby, since the quotations made by Crosby and Gould upon the same subject did not at all agree. This entire Gould document, with three others from the same source, were printed in the WESTERN RECORDER under date of Dec. 31, 1896.Recently I had the privilege of examining these Gould documents. Instead of consisting of one or even four documents, there are no less than thirty of these papers numbered consecutively, besides several miscellaneous papers. These are copied into a very large book under the general title, "Notices of the Early Baptists." If printed this material would make quite a large volume, and undoubtedly was compiled by the same person. From whence Dr. Gould obtained this material is a profound mystery, and what became of the papers he copied is a mystery. Prof. Gould only remembers that his father had these papers, but beyond this he knows nothing of the documents whatever. The first page is in Dr. Gould's handwriting, the remaining pages were copied by an old usher, or schoolmaster, who was in his employ. This was in 1860, two hundred and twenty years after the events occurred which are described. That is to say, for a period of two hundred and twenty years no one ever heard tell of this document, and it is not authenticated by a single contemporaneous document. It will also be borne in mind that this is not the original, neither is it a copy of the original. At the very best it is only a copy of a copy, but even that proximity of the original is not apparent. We are not even favored with the name of the "compiler." He is quite as indefinite as anything
[p. 10]
connected with this very indefinite manuscript. The book is itself equally indefinite. The following is the introduction to the thirty documents:"A Repository of Divers Historical Matters relating to the English Antipedobaptists. Collected from Original papers or Faithful Extracts. - Anno 1712._________ "I began to make this Collection in Jan. 1710-11."
One could hardly conceive how an author could hide his personality more completely. Who is "I?" At any rate, we have a date given, 1712, but this is 71 years after 1641. Where were these manuscripts from A. D. 1641 to 1711? where were they from 1711 to 1860? and where were they from 1860 to 1898? The sub-introduction placed before the so-called "Kiffin" Manuscript is scarcely more definite. It reads: "An old Mss, giveing some Accott of those Baptists who first formed themselves into distinct Congregations or Churches in London, found among certain Paper given me by Mr. Adams."
Who was the "me" to whom these papers were given? Who was Mr. Adams? Of course if a man desires to write conjectural history no documents would serve his purpose better; but if he wishes to state facts no documents could serve his purpose less.
I was quite certain when, on reading the Gould Kiffin Manuscript in its present form, that it was not a seventeenth century document. If the work was copied, as it is claimed, in 1712, the copyist did not follow the original, but introduced the form and spelling of his own time. That these compilations could not have been made before the date indicated, is absolutely certain, from the fact that late books like Wall on Infant Baptism, and Stripes'
[p. 11]
Memorials are quoted, which would stamp the entire work as of late date.We have also another absolute proof that the Kiffin Manuscript is not authentic. The author writes an article of his own, Number 17, which he inserts in the work. That portrays fully the form and style of his writing, and the so-called Kiffin Manuscript and Jessey Records are in exactly that style in construction of sentences, in spelling and in all the peculiarities of language. Whatever may have been the basis for these various documents, one thing is certain: in their present form these thirty articles are all from one man, and that man did not live anywhere near 1641. It is also a fact that the documents have been so changed in this compilation that no dependence can be put upon them.
When the author of these articles professed to quote literally he did not quote correctly. A striking example of this will be presented later, and it could be illustrated at great length. I shall put in parallel columns the original extract from Hutchinson and this collator's quotation from Hutchinson. Two things will be apparent: the first is that the collator does not follow the form of the original, though this is one of the instances where he attempted to literally present the very words of his author. It will be seen also that the form of spelling and the peculiarities of style of the collator are the form of spelling and the peculiarities of style of the "Kiffin" Manuscript and of the Jessey Records. But before I present the parallel columns, I desire to present two short paragraphs with which the author introduces his quotation from Hutchinson. He says: "Mr. Hutchinson Account of ye Revival of Antipaedobaptism towards ye latter end of ye Reign of King Charles ye First.
Mr. Edward Hutchinson, a learned & Ingenious defender of ye Practice of Baptizing Believers only, in his Epistle Dedicatory to those of ye Baptized Congregations, put at ye
[p. 12]
beginning of his Treatise concerning ye Covenant & baptism, gives ye following account of ye beginning & increase of ye People in these latter times."There is no doubt these two paragraphs are from the collator, and yet any person who is at all familiar with the Jessey Records and the "Kiffin" Manuscript as given by Gould would not hesitate to declare that the style of this author and of those documents is precisely the same. That is true in reference to the use of the "&," the "ye," "Mr.", which is very uncommon in 1641, the use of the capitals, and indeed in every particular. The peculiar doctrines and words of the Kiffin Manuscript and Jessey Records are all held by this collator, or perhaps I might more properly say that this collator put into the Kiffin Manuscript and the Jessey Records all of his peculiar views. The collator and these documents held precisely the same views, expressed in the same style of language, and spelled in the same way. The word "Antipaedobaptism," in this quotation corresponds with "Antipaedobaptist" in document number 4 where this statement occurs:
"An account of divers Conferances, held in ye Congregation of wch Mr. Henry Jessey was Pastor, about Infant baptism by wch Mr. H. Jessey & ye greatest part of that Congregation were proselited to ye Opinion and Practice of ye Antipaedobaptists."
It is manifest that this term was familiar to this collator, and it is quite certain that in 1638 (the alleged date) it was not in use, and therefore it stands to reason that it was read into these "genuine records" (?) by the collator. Crosby claims that the word "Antipaedobaptist" originated with Wall, who wrote his book, "A History of Infant Baptism," in 1705 (Crosby, vol. 1, p. viii). An editorial in the Independent, in refuting the authority of another manuscript, declares: "It
[p. 13]
employs also, in one instance, the word Pedobaptistery, which, to say the least, is quite suspicious for a paper claiming to belong to the Puritan period. So far as our reading goes, the Baptists never used that word prior to the year 1660; but always said in the place of it, 'Infants baptism, Childish Baptism or Baby Baptism.'" - The Independent, July 29, 1880. The earliest use I have found of the word is in Bailey's "Anabaptism," but that is some years later than 1638.The collator talks of "the revival" of "the practice of immersion," "of those of ye Believers," and in Document 4 the collator says: "An Account of ye Methods taken by ye Baptists to obtain a proper Administrator of Baptism by immersion, when that practice had been so long disused, yt then was no one, who had been so baptized to be found." This is almost a word for word statement of the case as we find it in the "Kiffin" Manuscript. These persons were called Baptists in the Jessey Church Records, a name which was not in use in 1641, and we all remember the celebrated words from the "Kiffin" Manuscript which have been so often used by some when speaking of immersion in England, "none having so practiced it in England to professed Believers," The collator must have added these words to the "Kiffin" Manuscript. This opinion is powerfully strengthened when we recollect that Crosby gives the passage from which these words occur, but he never mentioned these words. If Crosby intentionally omitted these words from the Manuscript, then he was not an honest man, but no one has ever suspected his honesty. We have shown that these are the very words of the collator, and since they are inserted here and ommitted by Crosby, this collator is responsible for them.
But fortunately we have point blank proof that the words, "none having so practiced it
[p. 14]
in England to professed believers," are those of the compiler. If one will turn to Number 18 of this Gould collection, the words of this compiler are found as follows: "An account of ye Methods taken by ye Baptists to obtain a proper Administrator of Baptism by Immersion, when that practice had been so long disused, yt then was no one who had been so baptized to be found." There is absolutely no excuse for these words in the quotation which follows. This compiler had a theory of his own and a set form of words, and he read these words into any narrative that happened to suit his convenience. He put them in the "Kiffin" Manuscript. It is thus demonstrated beyond a doubt that this compiler has manipulated the "Kiffin" Manuscript to suit his own purposes. Whether this "compiler" wrote in the 19th or the 18th century is of little moment. He either wrote a "Kiffin" Manuscript, or he "doctored" a "Kiffin" Manuscript to suit his purposes. One is as bad as the other. The fact remains that the "Kiffin" Manuscript is a fraud and of no value.Here are the parallel columns from Hutchinson. The first column contains Hutchinson's own words as he wrote them, the second contains the collator's quotation from Hutchinson:
Hutchinson's Words The Collator's Quotation "When the professsors of these nations have been "When ye Professors of these Nations have been a long tme wearied with the yoke of superstitions, a long time wearied with ye Yoke of Superstitious ceremonies, traditions of men, and corrupt mixtures Ceremonies, Traditions of Men, & corrupt mixtures in the worship and service of God,it pleased the Lord in ye Worship & Service of God, it pleased ye Lord to break these yokes, and by a very strong impulse to break these Yokes. & by a very strong impulse of his Spirit upon the hearts of his people, to convince/of his Spirit upon ye hearts of his People, to convince them of the necessity of Reformation. Divers pious, them of ye Necessity of Reformation. Divers Pious and very gracious people, having often sought the & very gracious People haveing often Sought ye Lord by fasting and prayer, that he would show them Lord by fasting and prayer, yt he would show them the pattern of his house, the going-out and coming-in ye pattern of his house, ye goings out & ye comings in thereof, &c. Resolved (by the grace of God), not to thereof, &c. Resolved (by ye grace of God) not to receive ot practice any piece of positive worship which receive or practice any piece of positive worship wch had not precept or example from the word of God. had not Precept or Example from ye word of God. Infant-baptism coming of course under consideration Infant baptism coming of course under consideration after long search and many debates, it was found long Search & many debates it was found to have no footing in the Scriptures (the only rule to have no footing in ye Scriptures (ye only rule and standard to try doctrines by); but on the contrary & standard to try Doctrines by) but on ye Contrary a mere innovation, yea, the profanation of an ordinance a meer innovation, yea ye prophanation of an Ordinance of God. And though it was proposed to be laid aside, of God. And tho' it was proposed to be laid aside, yet what fears, tremblings, and temptations did attend yet wt fears, trembling & temptations did attend them, lest they should be mistaken, considering how them least they should be mistaken, considering how many learned and godly men were of an opposite many & Godly men ware of an opposite persuasion. How gladly would they have had the rest perswasion. How gladly would yhey have had ye rest of their brethren gone along with them. But when there of their Brethren gone along with them. But when there was no hopes, they concluded that a Christian's faith was no hopes, they concluded that a Christian's faith must not stand in the wisdom of men; and that every must not Stand in ye wisdom of men, & yt every one must give an account of himself to God; and so one must give an account of himselfe to God, & so resolved to practice according to their light.The great resolved to practice according to their light; The Great objection was, the want of an administrator; which, as Objection was ye want of an Administrator, wch (as I have heard was remov'd by sending certain I have heard) was removed by sending certain messengers to Holland, whence they were supplied." to Holland, whence they were supplyed. (A Treatise Concerning the Covenant and Baptism Dialogue-wise. Epistle to the Reader. London, 1676).A comparison of this quotation with the original carries out fully my contention that the collator does not accurately follow the original, and that the form of words and spelling of the "Kiffin" Manuscript are after the collator
[p. 16]
rather than the original. In this passage he evidently tried to follow the original, although he met with indifferent success. But in the "Kiffin" Manuscript it is certain that he has added matter. I have already pointed that out, but this could be made out in any number of instances. The four superscriptions to the documents are all of that class. Take Document number one, the "Jessey Church Records." The following superscription occurs: "The Records of an Antient Congregation," &c. To call this church an "antient congregation" at that time was absurd. But that is not only in the superscription but it is in the main body of the "Jessey Records" at an alleged period when the church was not over 16 years old.After a careful examination of the thirty articles which go to make up this book, with the miscellaneous matter thrown in, I cannot regard it as of any historical value. It is evident that an irresponsible collator has gathered a lot of miscellaneous material, never exactly following the original, and frequently only giving a paraphrase, and sometimes he makes the author say what the collator thinks, rather than what the author thinks. But I have even more grave objections to the "genuine (?) records" than these. These will be given in the next article.
============
[From Baptist History Vindicated, 1899, pp. 5-16.]
Baptist History Vindicated By John T. Christian
Chapter IIIt is very interesting to note the opinions of the historians on the "Kiffin" Manuscript, and as to the Jessey Church Records no notice whatever has been taken of their existence. Not one historian has been willing to risk his reputation by declaring that the "Kiffin" Manuscript is authentic and authoritative. There is not one line that any historian has been able to find concerning the chief events or the principal persons mentioned in its
[p. 17]
pages. Whoever heard of Blunt or Blacklock outside of these "Kiffin" Manuscripts? Neal and others who refer to them do so wholly on the authority of these documents. It is incredible that all the things which the "Kiffin" Manuscript affirm of Blunt and of Blacklock, of the trip to Holland, of their introduction of immersion among Baptists, and the rest of the miraculous things recorded could have taken place, and yet the hundreds of contemporaneous pamphlets and books published on the subject of baptism never even mention or in the remotest manner refer to the exploits of either of these gentlemen. One could come as near believing the tales of Baron Munchausen as the tales of the "Kiffin" Manuscript. But the use that the historians have made of the "Kiffin" Manuscript is a very interesting one.The first was Neal. He wrote in 1732-38, or 97 years after 1641. Crosby loaned the "Kiffin" Manuscript, along with other documents, to Neal. Nobody in those days mentioned a Manuscript corresponding with the Gould edition. The "Kiffin" Manuscript was so confusing and contradictory that Neal, like every one else who has tried to follow this document, got mixed in his facts. The result was that Crosby was disgusted and wrote a history himself.
Although Crosby had criticized Neal for his blunders in the use of the "Kiffin" Manuscript, he was scarcely more successful. Crosby, however, did not believe that the document had been written by Kiffin, for the very best he could say of it was: "This agrees with all account of the matter in an ancient manuscript said to have been written by Mr. Wm. Kiffin, who lived in those times" (Crosby, Vol. I., 100).
Who "said" that the manuscript was written by William Kiffin, Crosby fails to state. It is quite evident from the second volume of Crosby
[p. 18]
that he does not believe the "Kiffin" Manuscript to be authoritative, for he constantly maintains positions which contravene its statements. Crosby had great trouble in quoting from his copy of the "Kiffin" Manuscript, but his difficulties would have been multiplied ten-fold had he attempted to quote the Gould edition of that document.We come now to some very interesting statements from one John Lewis. After Crosby had published his history, John Lewis, an Episcopalian, of Kent, replied to it in a little volume entitled, "A Brief History of the English Anabaptists." After the publication of this book Mr. Lewis appears to have spent the remainder of his life in writing books against the Baptists. He was very violent and venomous, but he gathered a great many statements concerning the Baptists. These works were never published, but they are preserved in many volumes in manuscript form in the Bodliean Library, where I consulted them. He utterly repudiates the "Kiffin" Manuscript, and makes all manner of fun of Crosby for quoting such a document. After quoting the story of Blunt and Blacklock as given by Crosby, taken from the "Kiffin" Manuscript, he says: "This is a very blind account. I can't find the least mention made anywhere else of these three names of Batte, Blunt and Blacklock, nor is it said in what town, city or parish of the Netherlands those Anabaptists lived who practiced this manner of baptizing by dipping or plunging the whole body under water" (Rawlinson Mss. C. 409).
Mr. Lewis quotes the comment of Crosby where he says, "an antient Ms. said to be written by Mr. WIlliam Kiffin," and then adds: "How ignorant!" (Rawlinson Ms. C. 409).
In another volume Lewis remarks:
"But it is pretty odd, that nobody should know in what place this antient congregation (a congregation
[p. 19]
much about the same antiquity with the antient Ms.) was and, that John Batte, their teacher, should never be heard of before or since" (Rawlinson Ms. C. 409).This sarcastic remark that a supposed contemporaneous manuscript should refer to a church of the same date as an "antient congregation," does not miss its mark. Of course, a contemporaneous document would not make any such statement.
Lewis quotes the statement of Crosby -
"In the year 1633 the Baptists, who had hitherto been intermixed among the Protestant Dissenters without distinction, began now to separate themselves, & form distinct societies" - and then makes this comment: "Here seems to me to be two mistakes - I. That the Anabaptists till 1633 were intermixed among the protestant dissenters viz: the puritans, Brownists, Barrowists and Independents. Since they all disclaimed them. 2. That the English Anabaptists began in 1633 to separate themselves. The writer of this ignorant and partial history owns," &c. (Rawlinson Ms. C. 409).Again he says: "Others say it was first brought here by one Richard Blount, but who and what he was I don't know" (Rawlinson Ms. C. 410).Once more: "But we have no authority for this account but a manuscript said to have been written by William Kiffin" (Rawlinson Ms. C. 110, p. 200).
It is refreshing to read the words of this historian, who had no good words for the Baptists, but the statements of this "Kiffin" Manuscript were too unauthentic for him to believe. This is the more remarkable because being hostile to the Baptists, it would have suited him exactly to have believed the statement of the Manuscript. With all his bitterness towards the Baptists, he was too honest to use against them unauthentic documents.
It is, therefore, perfectly clear that John Lewis rejects the "Kiffin" Manuscript as not
[p. 20]
authentic. But he goes further and declares and argues out an elaborate supposition that if this document is true, then the Anabaptists of that period in England were in the practice of sprinkling, which he did not believe. This proposition he regarded as absurd. He further goes on to elaborate that the Dutch Baptists were in the practice of sprinkling. Indeed, this supposition of his covered the entire statements of those Baptists of our day who hold the 1641 theory. This statement throws a curious light upon "the new discovery." Dr. Dexter borrowed his theory from Robert Barclay, a Quaker who wrote his "Inner Life" in 1860, and Barclay borrowed his theory from John Lewis, a bitter Episcopalian, who wrote about 1740. The difference, however, is startling. Lewis rejected the sprinkling theory, and put it forth as involving his opponent, Thomas Crosby, in an absurdity; but Barclay, writing a hundred and twenty years later, accepted this absurd supposition as a fact and elaborated it into a theory. It is amusing to see how these writers have followed each other, using the same quotations, theories, arguments and sometimes words, and how all of them have boasted of superior learning and the ignorance of Baptist historians, and each one boasted that he had made the only original and "new discovery." The case stands: Lewis invented the theory to overthrow his Baptist opponent, Crosby; Barclay accepted this invention as a fact; Dexter accepted the 1641 theory but rejected the "Kiffin" Manuscript, and the few Baptists who have gone off with this "invention" of Lewis' swallowed the "Kiffin" Manuscript and all.Evans, the Baptist historian, regards the statements in this Manuscript as vague and uncertain. He says: "This statement is vague. We have no date and cannot tell whether the fact refers to the Separatists under Mr. Spilsbury
[p. 21]
or to others" (History Early English Baptists, Vol. II., p. 78).Cathcart says this transaction of Blunt's may have happened, but he further remarks: "We would not bear heavily on the testimony adduced by these good men" (Baptist Encyclopaedia, Vol. I., p. 572).
Armitage is pleased to say:
"A feeble but strained attempt has been made to show that none of the English Baptists practiced immersion prior to 1641, from the document mentioned by Crosby in 1738, of which he remarks that it was 'said to be written by Mr. William Kiffin.' Although this manuscript is signed by fifty-three persons, it is evident that its authorship was only guessed at from the beginning, it may or may not have been written by Kiffin" (History of the Baptists, p. 440).Dr. Henry S. Burrage, who has given much time and attention to this subject, after a somewhat lengthy discussion of the Jessey Church Records and the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript, is constrained to say:"It will be noticed that in our reference above to the Jessey Church Records, we say 'if they are authentic.' We have not forgotten the 'Crowle and Epworth' records. These made their appearance about the same time as the Jessey Church Records, and it is now known that they are clumsy forgeries. The Jessey Church Records may be genuine, but their genuineness has not yet been established" (Zion's Advocate, September, 1896).
Prof. A. H. Newman, who, if he has not accepted this Manuscript as genuine, has at least been an apologist, confesses that by following this manuscript he has been led into insuperable difficulties. After making some obscure statements about the Baptists of England, he makes the following remarkable apology:
"A few remarks seem called for by the obscurity of some of the statements quoted above. It
[p. 22]
is not possible out of the material that has thus far come to the light to trace in detail the evolution of the seven churches that signed the confession of 1644. The statement quoted from the so-called 'Kiffin' Manuscript, with reference to the division of 1640 involves a number of difficulties. P. Barebone, with whom half of the church withdrew, has commonly been regarded by Baptist writers as a Baptist. Yet in 1642 he published 'A Discourse tending to prove the Baptism in, or under, the Defection of Antichrist to be the Ordinance of Jesus Christ, as also that the Baptism of Infants or Children is Warrantable or Agreeable to the Word of God, and in 1643 and 1644 he published other polemical tracts against Antipedobaptism. If in 1641 he was the leader of the Antipedobaptists and immersionist half the divided congregation, he must soon after have abandoned his position. This is, of course, possible. From the construction of the sentence Jessey might be taken to be the leader of the Baptist half, but it appears that Jessey did not become a Baptist till five years later. This difficulty seems inexplicable without further material" (A History of the Baptist Churches in the United States, pp. 52, 53).Dr. Newman is a very clear and convincing writer usually, but in this instance he has been betrayed into the use of material that would lead a man into all manner of errors. We hope that Dr. Newman will in the next edition of his otherwise admirable history leave out all of these statements which are given upon the authority of the "Kiffin" Manuscript alone.
The "Kiffin" Manuscript was so bad that even Dr. Dexter would not accept it. Anything that Dexter would not have used against the Baptists must have been very unreliable, but the "Kiffin" Manuscript, even in the Crosby form,
[p. 23]
was too much for him. His repudiation of the document was clear and explicit. He says:"Crosby says he derived his information from 'an antient manuscript said to be written by Mr. William Kiffin, who lived in those times, and was a leader among those of that persuasion.' Conceding the genuineness of this manuscript, and its value in testimony - both of which might be open to question - let us note its exact words as to the point before us" (The True Story of John Smyth, p. 43).
Again: "On the other hand, had not Kiffin - as it is supposed - made the statement, it would be suspicious for its vagueness, and for the fact that none of the historians, not even Wilson, Calamy, Brook, or Neal, know anything about either Blount or Blacklock, beyond what is here stated" ( p. 54).
We may, therefore, divide the historians into three classes - 1. Those who reject the "Kiffin" Manuscript, and do not think it worthy of mention at all. This class is perhaps the largest and contains many of the foremost writers of these times. 2. Those writers who have seen fit to mention it but reject it as unworthy of credence, or call in question the statements which it makes. 3. A very small number of writers who attempt to quote the statements and reconcile them with known facts. These writers generally apologize for and do not endorse the manuscript in so many words. I can, therefore, make the claim that scholars, as far as they have expressed themselves on the subject, are almost unanimous against the authenticity and value of the "Kiffin" Manuscript.
One of my principal objections to the "Kiffin" Manuscript is that it contradicts Kiffin himself. The "Kiffin" Manuscript declares that immersion in 1641 was unknown in England, as "none having then so practiced it in England to professed believers." Now Kiffin in 1645
[p. 24]
said in a document which is undoubtedly genuine: "It is well-known to many, and especially to ourselves, that our congregations as they now are, were erected and framed, according to the rule of Christ before we heard of any Reformation, even at that time when Episcopacie was at the height of its vanishing glory."It has been contended that the "Reformation" here mentioned had reference to the Presbyterian Reformation in England. That is a very strained interpretation to put on this language and this explanation can only be prompted by a desperate desire to sustain a sinking cause; but even if this explanation were true it would carry us to a date much earlier than 1641. But fortunately we are not left in doubt as to what was meant by Kiffin. Mr. Josiah Richart, who says he wrote the queries to which Kiffin replied, understood that Kiffin referred to the Episcopal and not the Presbyterian Reformation. "You allege," he says, "your own practise, that your congregation was erected and framed in the time of episcopacie, and that before you heard of any Reformation." Richart admits that this might be true. (A Looking Glass for the Anabaptists, London, 1645, pp. 6, 7). Here, then, is a Baptist church organized and framed, immersion and all, "as they now are," long before 1641. This example is strictly to the point, and settles the existence of immersion in at least one Baptist church before 1641.
Further on Kiffin distinctly makes the claim that the Baptists outdated the Presbyterians. He says:
"And for the second part of your querie That we disturb the great Worke of Reformation now in hand; I know not what you meane by this charge, unless it be to discover your prejudice against us in Reforming ourselves before you, for as yet we have not in our understanding, neither can we conceive anything
[p. 25]
of that we shall see reformed by you according to truth, but that through mercie wee enjoy the practice of the same already; tis strange this should be a disturbance to the ingenious faithful Reformer; it should bee (one would think) a furtherance rather than a disturbance, and whereas you tell us of the work of Reformation now in hand, no reasonable men will force us to desist from the practice of that which we are perswaded is according to truth, and waite for that which we knowe not what it will be; and in the meantime practice that which you yourselves say must be reformed" (pp. 12-14. London, 1645).William Kiffin, Thomas Patient, John Spilsbury and John Pearson, four of the most prominent Baptists of those times, wrote an introduction to a book written by Daniel King, which was published in 1650, entitled," A Way to Zion, Sought Out, and Found, for Believers to Walk In." This startling proposition in the first part is proved, "1. That God hath had a people on earth, ever since the coming of Christ in the flesh, throughout the darkest times of Popery, which he hath owned as Saints and as his people."
The third part "Proveth that Outward Ordinances, and amongst the rest the Ordinance of Baptism, is to continue in the Church, and this Truth cleared up from intricate turnings and windings, clouds and mists that make the way doubtful and dark."
I think some people would have spasms if some prominent Baptist author were to put forth and "prove" the above propositions. But these words of Daniel King did not disturb William Kiffin, and these other Baptist preachers. These men declared that the assertion that "there are no churches in the world" and "no true ministers" has been of "singular use in the hands of the devil." I quote a portion of the words in the introduction:
[p. 26]
"The devil hath mustered up all his forces of late to blind and pester the minds of good people, to keep them from the clear knowledge and practice of the way of God, either in possessing people still with old corrupt principles; or if they have been taken of them, then to perswade with them that there are no churches in the world, and that persons cannot come to the practice of Ordinances, there being no true ministry in the world; and others they run in another desperate extreme, holding Christ to be a shadow, and all his Gospel and Ordinances like himself, fleshy and carnall. This generation of people have been of singular use in the hand of the Devil to advance his kingdom, and to make war against the kingdom of our Lord Jesus. Now none have been more painfull than these have been of late, to poison the City, the Country, the Army, so far as they could; inasmuch as it lay upon some of our spirits as a duty to put out our weak ability for the discovering of these grosse errors and mistakes; but it hath pleased God to stir up the spirit of our Brother, Daniel King, whom we judge a faithfull and painfull minister of Jesus Christ, to take this work in hand before us; and we judge he hath been much assisted of God in the work in which he hath been very painfull. We shall not need to say much of the Treatise; only in brief, it is his method to follow the Apostles' rule, prove everything by the evidence of Scripture light expounding Scripture by Scripture, and God hath helped him in this discourse, we judge, beyond any who hath dealt upon this subject that is extant, in proving the truth of Churches, against all such that have gone under the name of Seekers, and hath very well, and with great evidence of Scripture light answered to all or most of their Objections of might, as also those above, or beyond Ordinances."Nor was William Kiffin alone in this opinion.
[p. 27]
Thomas Grantham was one of the greatest Baptist writers of that century, and he said: "That many of the learned have much abused this age, in telling them that the Anabaptists (i. e., the Baptized Churches) are of a late edition, a new sect, etc., when from their own writing's the clean contrary is so evident" (Christianismus Primitivus, pp. 92, 93).Joseph Hooke, another Baptist writer of the same century, put forth the same claim for the long continuance of the Baptists in England. He says:
"Thus having shewed negatively, when this sect called Ana-Baptists did not begin, we shall show in the next place affirmatively, when it did begin; for a beginning it had, and it concerns us to enquire for the Fountain Head of this Sect; for if I were sure that it were no older than the Munster-Fight that Mr. Erratt puts in mind of, I would Resolve to forsake it, and would persuade others to do so too.
"That religion that is not as old as Christ and his apostles is too new for me.
"But secondly, affirmatively, we are fully perswaded, and therefore do boldly, tho' humbly, assert, that this Sect is the very same sort of People that were first called Christians in Antioch, Acts 11, 26. But sometimes called Nazarenes, Acts 24, 6. And as they are everywhere spoken against now, even so they were in the Primitive Times. Acts 28, 22" (A Necessary Apology for the Baptists, p. 19).
Nor is that an antiquated idea among the Baptists of England. Many of the most intelligent Baptist of England believe that the Baptists date back to the very days of the Apostles. The Rev. George P. Gould, to whom I have before referred, is now editing and bringing out a series of Baptist Manuals, historical and biographical. In 1895 he published one on Hanserd Knollys, by James Culross, M. A., D. D., ex-president of Bristol Baptist
[p. 28]
College. After stating that Hanserd Knollys became a sectary, probably in 1631, he declares"Had Baptists thought anything depended on it, they might have traced their pedigree back to New Testament times, and claimed apostolic succession. The channel of succession was certainly purer if humbler, than through the apostate church of Rome. But they were content to rest on Scripture alone, and, as they found only believers' baptism there, they adhered to that" (p. 39, note).
I mention these facts, not for the purpose of proving Baptist succession, for that topic is not under discussion in this paper, but for a two-fold purpose. The first is that William Kiffin could have had no connection with this so-called "Kiffin" Manuscript, and the second is that the Baptists of that century knew nothing of the alleged "facts" as given in this document.
_____________ [Taken from John T. Christian, Baptist History Vindicated, 1899, pp. 17-28.]
Baptist History Vindicated By John T. Christian
Chapter IIIIt has been claimed that our people were called Anabaptists before 1641, and that they practiced believers' sprinkling, while after 1641, when they adopted immersion, they were on that account called Baptists. The following is the claim:
"But so long as their contention related merely to the subjects of baptism they could never shake off the name Anabaptists. Their act of baptism being the same as that employed by other Christians, namely, pouring and sprinkling, it was always described as mere repetition of baptism - as Anabaptism. But when another act was introduced, namely, immersion, it then became possible for the brethren to obtain a new designation. Henceforth they were called 'baptized Christians,' par excellence, and in due time Baptists. The earliest instance in which this name occurs as a denominational designation, so far as any information goes, befell in the
[p. 29]
year 1644, three years after immersion had been introduced" (Question in Baptist History).There are three answers to this statement, either of which is conclusive:
1. Sprinkling was just now only coming into use in England in 16411, and the Baptists, since all denominations practiced immersion in England, did not have to protest against it before this time. The Baptists always stood against living errors. The earliest charges against them in England after the Reformation was that they denied the popish doctrine of transubstantiation, and so they were burned to death on that account. Later the point of their contention was that infant baptism was not according to the Word of God, so they were put to death on that account. And when sprinkling began to prevail, at the end of the Civil Wars, they vigorously protested against that. There had been no occasion to protest against sprinkling previously. This is a complete and full answer to the above claim, and the objection is based upon a misunderstanding of the history of those times, and at best is a begging of the whole question at issue.
2. The name Anabaptists was always repudiated by the Baptists before and after 1641. It never did describe them and never was accepted by them; and the name Anabaptist was applied to them no less after 1641 than before. Even to this day the name is applied to them. There was no change in the Baptist opinion on the subject before and after 1641. Thomas Collie was a Baptist long before 1641. Indeed, he was a Baptist before 1635, for he was in prison at that date for being a Baptist (Calendar of State Papers, vol. 282, fol. 82). He linked the word Anabaptist with "baptized Christians," which was always understood to mean immersed Christians in those days. His words are: "They (these persecutors) would say as much of the Anabaptists, or rather of the baptized Christians of this Nation." He further says that these persons are "malitiously mistaken," and show their ignorance "in calling them Anabaptists, for the practising Baptism, according to the Scripture, that grieves you it seems; but you have learned a new way, both for matter and manner: for matter, Babies instead of believers: for manner, sprinkling at the holy Font, instead of baptizing in a River: you are loth to go in with your long gowns, you have found a better way than was ever prescribed or practiced; who now Sir are the Ignoramuses?" Here, then, a Baptist who lived in 1641, writing ten years later, says that the word Anabaptist meant a denial of infant baptism, and included immersion as opposed to sprinkling. The objection to the name Anabaptist among the Baptists of 1641 was precisely the objection of the Baptists of 1898, viz.: it carried with it the idea of the repetition of baptism, which Baptists have always repudiated. I would not give the testimony of this Baptist, who lived and suffered in those days, for all the croaking objections of these days.
If the above objection, that the Baptists of 1641 changed their minds on immersion, that the word Anabaptists describes those who practiced sprinkling, and the word Baptist afterwards described the same people who had become dippers, then the writers of the Baptist Confession of Faith deliberately attempted to falsify the facts. These fifteen men put forth an article declaring that dipping was baptism, and that they were falsely though commonly known by the name of Anabaptists. They admitted that the name Anabaptist was the common name which was applied to them, and there was no denying that they were the people who had long been in England under that name. But they could not have used the word falsely if they had been sprinklers before. What they would have said before was, we have changed our mind, and we shall practice immersion after this, and so are no longer Anabaptists, but Baptists.
3. The Pedobaptists continued to call them Anabaptists. It is safe to say where they were called Baptists once by their opponents in that century, they were called Anabaptists twenty times. In a book which now lies before me entitled "An axe laid at the root of the Tree: or, a Discourse wherein the Anabaptist Mission & Ministry are Examin'd and Disprov'd," and bearing date London, 1715, written 74 years after 1641, these Baptists are called Anabaptists. Baptists in England are now not unfrequently called Anabaptists. The author of 1715 and the authors of this day could not possibly mean to say that the Baptists of these dates were sprinklers, and yet that must be the meaning if this objection has any weight. To state the objection is to refute it.
Furthermore, the same author would call them both Baptists and Anabaptists, which could not be true if the objection that Anabaptists meant those who practiced sprinkling, and Baptists those who dipped. For example, I. E., in his "The Anabaptist Groundwork for Reformation," says: "I ask T. L. and the rest of those Baptists, or Dippers, that will not be called Anabaptists (though they baptize some that have been twice baptized before) what rule they have by word or example in Scripture, for their going men and women together into the water and for their manner of dipping, and every circumstance and action they perform concerning the same" (p. 23. B. M. E. 50. [2]). Now this work, which was written in 1644, demonstrates that the same people were called, by the same author Baptists and Anabaptists, and that the Baptists repudiated the name Anabaptist. The author called them Baptists because they dipped "men and women together into the water," and he called them Anabaptists because "they baptize some that have been twice baptized before," I do not see how a clearer distinction could be drawn.
I have already quoted the caption to the "Kiffin" Manuscript and of the Jessey Church Records, and shown that instead of giving light on the authors of these documents, they conceal the truth, but I desire now to point out that the statements themselves are false and contradictory. The Jessey Records say:
"The Records of an Antient Congregation of Dissenters from wch many of ye Independant & Baptist Churches in London took their first rise: ex MSS of Mr. H Jessey, wch I received of Mr. Rich Adams." The "Kiffin" Manuscript says: "An old Mss, giveing some Accott of those Baptists who first formed themselves into distinct congregations, or Churches in London, found among certain Paper given me by Mr. Adams."
The claims set forth in the above statements are false in almost every particular:
1. These are the words of the compiler, who did not write before 1710-11. The spelling and words are all his. It is known positively that he added the title to everyone of the thirty papers of this compilation, and that these two documents constitute two of the thirty papers in his motley collection. It therefore follows that the very first thing found in both of these manuscripts was added by a later hand, and yet added in such a way as to leave the impression that the words of this compiler were the words of the original manuscript.
2. The Jessey church was declared to be an "antient congregation" at this time, which is false. It was only organized in 1616, and was therefore in 1641 not a quarter of a century old.
3. The two accounts contradict each other. The Jessey Records say that "many" of "the Baptist churches took their first rise" from this church leaving the plain alternative that other Baptist churches of London had another origin; but the "Kiffin" Manuscript makes the distinct statement that the first Baptist churches of London originated in this Jessey church. These statements are, therefore, contradictory and hence unreliable.
4. Both of these documents call these congregations "Baptist churches." The word "Baptist" was not in use at that time to designate our people, and the phrase "Baptist churches" was not in use in England till long afterwards. These documents are therefore a false record and cannot be depended upon.
5. The statement that "many" or "all" Baptist churches of London came out of the Jessey church is false. Furthermore, there is no proof that even one Baptist church ever came out of this Jessey church. I demand the proof. Neither do the Jessey Church Records nor the "Kiffin" Manuscript, outside of these superscriptions, which we are now examining, contain any such suggestion. Indeed some of the members of this Jessey church "joyned" Mr. Spilsbury's church in l638. It would be very difficult to explain how these seceders could join an organization which had no existence. The Crosby "Kiffin" Manuscript declares (vol. 1, pp. 148, 150) that this entire transaction occurred in 1633, and not in 1638, and thus contradicts both the Jessey Records and the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript. The statement that "many" or "all" the churches of London had their rise in this Jessey church, therefore, is false.
6. The statement that the "Baptist churches" of London or of England in 1638 "first formed themselves into distinct congregations" is false. Nothing can be further from the truth. Any one who is at all familiar with the history of the Baptists of England from the reign of Henry the Eighth till the close of the Civil Wars will be solemnly convinced that all the Baptists were not only not associated with the "Dissenters" and "Independents," but that the Baptists had no more hostile enemies than these, and that the Independents took every opportunity to denounce them and declare that there was no connection between them. John Lewis, the bigoted Episcopalian, denounces this statement that they then began to separate from the Independents as a "mistake," since, says he, "They all disclaimed them" (Rawl. C. 409). The constant persecutions of the Baptists under the name of Anabaptists is sufficient refutation of the silly assertion that they only began to separate from the Independents in 1638.
The proof that Baptist churches existed in England before 1638 is so adequate and so often confessed that one does not know how to account for a denial of it. The simple question at this moment is not what was the act of baptism among them, but were there such churches. I would not argue the question a moment were it not that this Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript and this Jessey Church Record make this astounding assertion, and I crave the pardon of the reader while I point out how thoroughly unreliable these "genuine Records" (?) are. With all his trimming and "waiving the enquiry whether there had been, at some time previous to 1600, Baptist churches" in England, Dr. Dexter is constrained to admit:
"It seems to me to be conceded upon all hands that when Helwys and Murton re-crossed the German Ocean from Holland, in or about 1612, the church which they founded in Newgate was the first Baptist church, and the only one then in England in that century. By 1626 we can trace possibly ten others, making eleven in all, viz., those in London, Lincoln, Tiverton, Salisbury, Coventry, Stoney Stratford, Ashford, Biddenden and Eyethorne in Kent, Canterbury, and Anersham in Buckinghamshile" (True Story of John Smyth, pp. 41, 42).
While I do not at all agree with the date assigned to some of these churches, and that this church of Helwys' "was the first Baptist church, and the only one then in England," I present this statement of Dexter's to show how utterly worthless is the statement of the "Kiffin" Manuscript and the Jessey Records when they assert that the first Baptist churches were organized out of the Jessey church in 1638.
Perhaps Dr. Angus has given more attention to English Baptist churches than any other Englishman, and he says:
"That there was no such delay in forming Baptist churches as our American friends have supposed, is proved by the dates of the formation of a number of them. Churches were formed, chapels built and doctrines defined long before 1641, and others, down to the end of that century owed nothing probably to the discussions of that year.
"The following churches, were formed in the years mentioned, still remain: Braintree, Eyethorne, Sutton, all in 1550; Warrington, 1522; Crowle and Epworth, both l597; Bridgewater, Oxford, and Sadmore, 1600; Bristol (Broadmead),1640; King, Stanley, Newcastle, Kilmington (Devon), Bedford, Sutton, Cirencester, Commercial-street (London), Lincoln, Dorchester, and Hamsterley, in l633; Lyme Regis, Chipping Sodbury, Upottery, Boston, etc., 1650-1658.
Many others that belong to similar dates have since become extinct through change of population and other causes. Most of these churches hold the common faith, and most of them have received it without special reference to the creed of 1641. Dates and particulars of more churches may be seen in any recent number of the Baptist Handbook, published by the Baptist Union."
The original authorities for the opinions expressed by these authors, that there were Baptist churches in England before 1641, could be given at great length.
The testimony to this position is so ample, and the admissions of competent Pedobaptist historians so direct that I am embarrassed by the amount of material at hand. I shall, however, mention three Pedobaptist scholars. Herbert S. Skeats, the historian of the Free chuches, says: "It has been asserted that Baptist church existed in England in A. D. 1417 (Robinson's Claude, Vol. II., p. 54). There were certainly Baptis churches in England as early as the year 1589 (Dr. Some's reply to Barrowe, quoted in Guiney's Hist., Vol. 1., p. 109); and there could scarcely have been several organized communities without the corresponding opinions having been held by individuals, and some churches established for years previous to this date" (Hist. Dissenting Churches of England, p. 22).
The Baptists had so wonderfully prospered that Neal says that in 1644 they had 54 churches (Neal's Hist. Puritans, Vol. 3, p. 175). And it will be remembered that in the opinion of Neal a Baptist was always an immersionist. All of Crosby's material for a Baptist history was in his hands, but he never suspected that any Baptist ever sprinkled. His words are decisive:
"Their confession consisted of 52 articles and is strictly Calvinistical in the doctrinal part, and according to the independent discipline, it confines the subjects of baptism to grown Christians and the mode to immersion. The advocates of this doctrine were for the most part of the meanest of the people; their preachers were generally illiterate and went about the country making proselytes of all who would submit to immersion. * * * The people of this persuasion were most exposed to the public resentments, because they would hold communion with none but such as had been dipped. All must pass under the cloud before they could be received into their churches; and the same narrow spirit prevails too generally among them to this day" (History of the Puritans, Vol. III., pp. 174-176).
The original authorities for the opinions expressed by these authors could be given at length, but I apprehend that this is not necessary at this moment. I do wish, however, to present the testimony of a Baptist who lived and was one of the principal actors in those times. He tells in simple language the story of the planting of those London Baptist churches in the days of persecution before 1641. The title of this book is: "A Moderate Answer Unto Dr. Bastwick's Book Called 'Independency Not God's Ordinance.' Wherein is declared the manner how some churches in this city were gathered, and upon what tearmes their members were admitted; that so both the Dr. and the Reader may judge how near some Believers who walk together in the Fellowship of the Gospell do come in their practice to the Apostolicall rules which are propounded by the Dr. as God's Method in gathering Churches and Admitting Members. By Hanserd Knollys, London, 1646." Of course, such a book is authoritative and worth a thousand guesses. Knollys says:
"I shall now take the liberty to declare, what I know by mine own experience to be the practice of some Churches of God in this City. That so far both the Dr. and the Reader may judge how near the Saints, who walk in the fellowship of the Gospell, do come to their practice, to these Apostolicall rules and practice propounded by the Dr. as God's method in gathering churches, and admitting Members, I say that I know by mine own experience (having walked with them), that they were thus gathered, viz,: Some godly and learned men of approved gifts and abilities for the Ministrie, being driven out of the Countries where they lived by the persecution of the Prelates, came to sojourn in this great City, and preached the word of God both publikely and from house to house, and daily in the Temple, and in every house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ: and some of them have dwelt in their own hired houses, and received all that came in unto them, preaching the Kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ. And when many sinners were converted by their preaching of the Gospell, some of them believers, consorted with them, and of professors a great many, and of the chief women not a few. And the condition which those Preachers, both publikely aud privately propounded to the people, unto whom they preached, upon which they were to be admitted into the Church was Faith, Repentance, and Baptism, and none other. And whosoever (poor as well as rich, bond as well as free, servants as well as Masters), did make a profession of their Faith in Christ Jesus, and would be baptized with water, in the Name of the Father, Sonne, and Holy Spirit, were admitted Members of the Church; but such as did not believe, and would not be baptized, they would not admit into Church communion. This hath been the practice of some Churches of God in this City, without urging or making any particular covenant with Members upon admittance, which I desire may be examined by the Scripture cited in the Margent, and then compared with the Doctor's three conclusions from the same Scriptures, whereby it may appear to the judicious Reader, how near the Churches some of them come to the practice of the Apostles rules, and practice of the primitive churches, both in gathering and admitting members" (pp. 24, 25).
We may note in passing that no one denies that in 1645, when this was written, Knollys was an immersionist, so when speaking of the practice of baptizing "with water" by the Baptist churches of London he must have meant immersion. And since he not even hints at any change of the ordinance by these churches, such must have been their practice from their organization, so far as his knowledge went.
I would not exchange the testimony of this Baptist preacher, who was pastor of one of the very churches in question, and writing at the very time, for all the "Kiffin" Manuscripts in existence, and the other variations of that famous document, which may be discovered when some Baptist may have a vagary to exploit. That Knollys knew all about the organization of these Calvinistic Baptist churches, there can be no question. And it is equally certain that he gives not the least hint about these churches all coming out of the Jessey church. The reason is perfectly plain; nothing of the sort ever happened. It did split all to pieces on the subject of immersion, but the "first" Baptist churches of England had no such origin. Therefore the "Kiffin" Manuscript and the Jessey Church Records are not authoritative nor of any value. Let the reader bear in mind that this "Kiffin" Manuscript is the sole foundation for the "1641 theory." With the foundation destroyed, the theory tumbles into chaos.
There is a record that in 1635-6, Feb. 20. Lambeth. 34. complaint was made that the Anabaptists "refuse on Sundays and other festival" days to come to their parish churches, but do meet together m great numbers on such days, and at other times, in private houses and places, and there keep conventicles and exercises of religion, by the laws of the realm prohibited."
We have in the same year, Jan. 11, in the Acts of the High Court of Commissioners, vol. cclxi. fo1. 307. b., charges preferred against Francis Jones, of Ratcliff, Middlesex, basketmaker.
"Being charged that he is a schismatic recussant, and that he has long fore-borne to come to his parish church to hear divine service said and to receive the holy communion, and that he useth to keep private conventicles and exercises of religion, and that he is an Anabaptist, and for that he confesseth he hath been rebaptized, he was committed to Newgate." Note he was "rebaptized."
I do not care to pursue this line of investigation at this time to any great length. Barclay, who cannot be regarded as very partial to the Baptists, and who has been quoted largely by those who believe in "1641," is pleased to say:
"As we shall afterwards show, the rise of the Anabaptists took place long prior to the foundation of the Church of England, and there are also reasons for believing that on the Continent of Europe, small hidden societies, who have held many of the opinions of the Anabaptists, have existed from the times of the Apostles. In the sense of the direct transmission of divine truth and the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems probable that these churches have a lineage or succession more ancient than the Roman Church" (Barclay's Inner Life of Religious Societies, p. 12).
All this shows that the statements of the "Kiffin" (?) Manuscript are not true. The first English Baptists did not begin in 1641, nor in 1633, not at any date near these.
===============
[From John T. Christian, Baptist History Vindicated, Baptist Book Concern, Louisville, KY, 1899. Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
Go to chapter 7
Baptist History Vindicated Index
Baptist History Homepage