The "Jessey Church Records" open with an elaborate account of the books written by Mr. Jacob. Of course, if this were a minute of the church, the "Records" or minutes should set down a correct account of the first pastor of the church. This the document attempts to do, and yet it misses the facts in the case in almost every particular. They give a list of the books written by Mr. Jabob, and the dates at which they were written. Yet it is a remarkable fact that the author of the records did not know the titles of Mr. Jacob's books nor the dates when they were written. The document gives the following title and date to one of Mr. Jacob's books: "The Divine Beginning & Institution of a Visible Church, proving [sic] ye same by many Arguments opening Matth: xviii. 15, wth a declaration and fuller evidence of some things therein: "and the date is set down at 1612. The following is the correct title: "The Divine Beginning and Institution of Christs true Visible or Ministeriall Church. Also the Unchangeableness of the same by men: viz. in the forme & essentiall constitution thereof. Written by Henry Jacob. Imprinted at Leyden by Henry Hastings. 1610." (British Museum, 4103. b). It will therefore be seen that neither the date nor the title corresponds with the facts in the case. The book was printed two years before the "genuine records" (?) say it was. It will not only be seen that the author of the "Jessey Records" was ignorant of the title of Mr. Jacob's book and the time when it was written, but that the spelling and forms of expression are those of the person who began to "make this collection in Jan. 1710-11." The words "wch" and "proveing" are a clear give-away. It is hard for the "Collector" to cover up this tracks in his "Faithful Extracts," Fraud is written upon almost every line of these "genuine (?) church records."The ignorance of the author of the document is further shown by reference to another work written by Mr. Jacob. This document gives the name of the book as follows: "An Attestation of ye most famious and approved Authors witnessing wth one mouth ye each Church of Christ should be independent as it should have ye full Power of all ye Church affairs entire within itsefe:" and the date of this book put down at 1610. The correct title is: "An Attestation of many Learned, Godly, and famous Divines, Lighters of Religion, and pillars of the Gospell, justifying this doctrine, viz. That the Church-government ought to bee alwayes with the peoples free consent," &c., and the date is 1613. The preface of the book is signed "July, 18. Anno 1612" (British Museum, 698, a, 35). The author of these "Records" in the former instance gives a date two years too late, and in this instance three years too early. Any one who will take the trouble to compare the title as given by the anonymous author of the "Records" with the true title as given above, will see how little he really knew about what he was discoursing. The reader will note here again that the spelling and expressions of the "Jessey Records" all belong to the man of "1710-11," and not to Mr. Jacob. The repeated use of "ye," the "wth" and the "famious" all say fraud, and that the "Jessey Records" are not genuine, to say nothing of their being not contemporaneous.
The "Jessey Church Records" make the following statements in reference to Mr. Jacob:
1624 - "About eight years H. Jacob was Pastor of ye said Church & when upon his importunity to go to Virginia, to wch he had been engaged before by their consent, he was remitted from his said office, & dismissed ye Congregation to go thither, wherein after Years he ended his dayes. In the time of his Service much trouble attended that State and People within and without."Without stopping to note that the "&" and the "ye" and other words all point to the man who made this "collection in 1710-11," I desire to show that every statement in the above extract is contrary to the facts in the case. Mr. Jacob did not serve this church eight years, but only six years; he did not go to Virginia in 1624, but in 1622; and he did not in "after years" end "his dayes" in Virginia, but he returned to England in 1624, and died there in April or May of that year, and was buried from St. Andrew Hubbard's Parish, Burrough of Canterbury (National Biography, Art. Jacob). That is to say, every statement in the above extract is false. How do I know all this? In the simplest way possible. There lies before me the last will and testament of Henry Jacob, "Extracted from the Principal Registry of the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury," 1624. 38 -- Byrde, and may be consulted at Somerset House, London. This copy is taken from the records and duly signed. The will was probated "5th May 1624," and his estate was administered upon by his wife, "Sara Jacob." He declares that on "the fifth day of October, in the yeare of our Lord a thowsand six hundred and twenty and two," he was "now goeing thither" to Virginia. Why he returned to England I know not, but it is certain he died in London before the 5th day of May, 1624, since no man's will is probated till he is dead. Here is evidence that no man can doubt. The so-called "Jessey Church Records" are thus wrong in every statement concerning this pastor of that church.
It is a significant and certainly a fatal objection to these Records that they follow the ordinarily received statements in regard to Jacob rather than the original authorities. I mean this: the ordinary statements in the histories correspond with the "Jessey Records." If they are a fraud they would follow supposed historical facts as closely as possible. This the "Records" do. The facts set forth in this will until now have been unknown to historians, because they did not know this will was in existence. But the "Jessey Records" fall also into the mistakes of modern historians. It is incredible that the clerk of the Jacob church in London could have been ignorant of the return and death of Mr. Jacob, and should not even know the year in which Mr. Jacob severed his connection with the church. It is also incredible that the clerk of the church did not know that the wife of Mr. Jacob did not go with him to Virginia, but remained in London as a member of the church there. Mr. Jacob expressly says in his will that his wife and part of his children were to remain behind, and if providence permitted to come to Virginia the "ensewing May;" but instead of the good wife going to him, he came back to her. More than that, Sara Jacob was arrested, along with this church, on the 29th of April, 1632, and along with the other members of the church was tried and imprisoned May 3, 1632 (Records of the High Court of Commission and Star Chamber). The author of the "Jessey Records" not only did not know these facts, but calls this good pastor's wife "Mr. Jacob." The records of the Court are perfectly clear on this point. If there ever was a more stupidly blundering document than this so-called "Jessey Records," unless it be the Gould "Kiffin Manuscript," which comes from the same quarter, I yet have to see it. The author of the "Jessey Records" knows scarcely one fact concerning Mr. Jacob and his family, but on the other hand, has made assertions and given dates which are proved incorrect. If these Records were the actual minutes of the church, not one of these blunders could have occurred. But these are the very blunders that a man writing long afterwards without the original records before him and with the statements of modern historians as his guide, would fall into.
The next statement of the "Jessey Records" is equally false. They say:
"After his Departure hence ye Congregation remained a year or two edifying one another in ye best manner they could according to their Gifts given to them from above. And then at length John Lathrop sometimes a Preacher in Kent, joyned to ye said Congregation; And was afterwards chosen and Ordained a Pastor to them, a Man of tender heart and a humble and meek Spirit serving the Lord in the ministry about 9 years to their great comfort."The statement that the church was without a pastor "a year or two" cannot possibly be true. If Mr. Lathrop served the church about 9 years, he became pastor the latter portion of 1625. But we have already seen that Mr. Jacob left the church as pastor in 1622. At the very least calculation the church was more than three years without a pastor. And any one who is familiar with church records knows that "genuine" (?) church records would not be so indefinite about important matters as is this document. It would have been quite natural for church records to say that Pastor Jacob resigned upon a certain day named, and Pastor Lathrop became pastor upon a certain date. But even this effort to be indefinite is fatal to these records, for at any calculation "a year or two" is not three or four years.
In these alleged "Records," the most elaborate account is given of the arrest, trial and imprisonment of members of this church. The account is very specific and enters into minute details. Of course, if these were truly records of this church they would be accurate. Their glaring mistakes prove them to be forgeries. After much searching I have been able to secure a copy of the original court proceedings in the Court of High Commission and Star Chamber. These minutes were supposed to be lost, as they were not to be found in the Calendar of State Papers nor in the collection of original State Papers preserved in the Record Office in Chancery Lane, London. At length I located them, however, in the Rawlinson Manuscripts, Vol. 128, Bodeleian Library, Oxford. The subsequent proceedings in this celebrated case, as they are presented, may be found in the original papers in the Record Office. I give not theories nor "ingenious" guesses, but the actual facts in the case. But these facts contradict the "Jessey Records" in almost every particular, and show how utterly unreliable they are.
Take the case of Humphrey Barnett. The Jessey Records say of him:
"1632. The 2nd month (called Aprill) ye 29th Day, the Church was seized upon by Tomlinson, ye Bps. Pursevant, that ware mett in ye house of Hump: Barnet, Brewer's Clark in Black: Fryers, he being no member or hearing abroad, at wch time 18 were not committed but scaped, or ware not then present. About 42 ware all taken & their names given up," &c.It appears from this account that Humphrey Barnett was not arrested and committed to prison. And yet this is directly contradicted by the Court Records. He was the very first man to appear before the court. The court record reads that "therefore the 1nan of the howse wherein they were taken was first called: who was asked when he was at his parish church?"The "Jessey Records" affirm that those arrested were put in various prisons, whereas as a matter of fact they were all confined in one prison. The "Records" say: "Several were committed to the Bps Prison, called the New Prison in _____ Crow a merchants house again) & thence some to the Clink, some to ye Gathouse & some that thought to have escaped he joyned to them, being in prison together," &c. It is singular that the writer of this document did not know the Location of the New Prison, and was compelled to leave a blank space. This is a very suspicious circumstance. It will be noticed that the "Jessey Records" mention at least three prisons where these persons were confined: The Bishops Prison, the Clink and the Gathouse. The evidence is that they were all confined in the New Prison, and none of them in the Clink or the Gathouse. We learn this from another trial where some other heretics taken in another conventicle were tried on the 14th of June, 1632. The Bishop of London directed that this company be "sent two and two to other prisons, and none to the New Prison, because the Keeper hath let some of the principall of the other companie to escape." The conclusion of the Archbishop of Canterbury was that since the keeper of New Prison was not careful enough, these prisoners should be scattered into various prisons. His words are: "Therefore let these men be put 2. and 2. in severall prisons." Here, then, we find that the "Jessey Records" are wrong again. I have official copies of the entire court proceedings in these cases, and it is manifest that the "other company" were the Jessey company.
These same "Jessey Records," say of Humphrey Bernard and Some others, that they were converted and added to the church in prison. "In this very time of their restraint ye word was so farr from bound, & ye Salnts so farr from being scared from the Ways of God, that even then many ware in prison added to ye church." Bernard was of this number. But the facts, as given in the records of the court, throw a very different light on the matter. He is there represented as a member of this conventicle, and his name immediately follows that of "John Latroppe the minister." He was imprisoned because he was a member of this church. It seems a pity to spoil this very pretty story, but the facts are against it.
Of the persons in prison the "Jessey Church Records" say: "Henry Dod, deceased in prison." Unfortunately for the records, that was not the fact. Henry Dod, did not die in prison, at any rate he did not die at this time. He was tried on the "3 Maij [March], 1632," and found guilty and imprisoned. He was probably one of those of whose escape the Bishop of London complained, for we find that on the 25th of November, 1633, he was out of prison. Bishop Lindsell, of Peterborough, writes to Sir John Lambe, Dean of the Marshes, and says that he hopes he has conferred with the Archbishop of Canterbury about Mr. Dod and his preaching heresy, and has received directions what is to be done with him about it (Vol. ccli. Domestic -- Charles I. Calendar State Papers). So it is plain that the "Jessey Records" are wrong about Henry Dod's dying in prison.
Mr. Jacob is announced in these records as one of the men who was arrested. But "Mr. Jacob" was not a man at all. The person arrested and tried, as I find from the Court Records, was a woman, and her name was Sara Jacob, the widow of the late pastor of the church, Henry Jacob. The writer of these "faithful extracts" (?) did not know that Sara Jacob was still in London, and so he wrote the "original records" (?) to suit his case rather than according" to the facts. The fraud is not pious.
These "Jessey Church Records" say that "Sam House, Sister House," were arrested, and leave the impression that they were man and wife. The Court Records, however, mention no such man, and as to "Sister House," her name was "Penmina Howes," and she was "a maide."
The "Jessey Church Records" say that "Mr. Sargent" was one of the number arrested and imprisoned; but "Mr. Sargent," according to the Court Records, was a woman, and her name was "Elizabeth Sargeant."
The "Jessey Church Records" tell us that "Mr Wilson" was among the members of this church arrested, but the Court Records make it clear that "Mr. Wilson" was a woman, and her name was "Susan Wilson."!!!
A great deal is said of Mr. P. Barebone in the "Jessey Records" and in the "Kiffin" Manuscript. The said Barebones is one of the principal heroes of the amazing stories related in these documents, and the most extravagant claims have been put forth as to his doings. I shall return to Barebones at another time in these papers. I desire now only to point out a reckless statement concerning him made in the "Jessey Records." That document declares that
"Mr. Barebones" was arrested along with Lathroppe on the 29th day of April, 1632. Mr. P. Barebones was not only not arrested at this time, but was receiving honors from his fellow-citizens. He was admitted Foreman of the Leather Sellers Company, 20th January, 1623; elected a Warden of the Yoemanry, 6th July, 1630; a Liveryman, 13th Oct. 1634; and third Warden, 16th June, 1648 (Notes & Queries, 3rd Series, Vol. l, p. 211).Not only was he not in trouble with the authorities, but on Dec. 3lst, 1635, he was paying over to the government ship money in course of business in large sums. He likewise was using in his business an elaborate seal bearing the arms of one of the nobles (Calendar of State Papers, Vol., 3O5, 80. I). But if we needed anything more to explode this absurd story of the "Jessey Records," I need only to say that the Court Records show that "Mr. Barebones," who was arrested, was a woman, and that her given name was "Sara."!!! These are "genuine records" with a vengeance.=============== [John T. Christian, Baptist History Vindicated, 1899, pp. 41-50.]
Baptist History Vindicated
By John T. Christian, D.D., LL.D., 1899
Chapter VThe following persons are represented by the "Kiffin" Manuscript and the "Jessey Church Records" as joining a church along with Sam. Eaton in 1633, Sept, 12: Henry Parker &, wife, Widd Fearne, Mr. Wilson, Jo. Milburne and others. This could not be, for the very earliest date that any of this party were released from jail was April 24, 1634, or some seven months later than the alleged event described. This is about as nearly correct as the dates in these documents ever are. Here is another instance where the State Papers show these Gould documents to be a fraud.The "Jessey Church Records" further state: "1632. Elizab. Milburn, about 26 committed ye 12th of ye 2nd month (called May 12th) being ye Lord's Day." The records of the court show that this statement is not true, since Elizabeth Milburn was in court upon the 8th of May, and was tried upon that day. That is to say, Mary Milburn was present in court and tried four days before the "Jessey Records" say she was arrested. And it is also a fact May the 12th was not the Lord's day, but Saturday. It is also true that "genuine records" (?) of that date would not have used the apostrophe in "Lord's day," as is done here and elsewhere, for the apostrophe was not used in those times. And it is a further fact that a contemporaneous document would not have called this church, which was not over sixteen years old, an "antient Church," as the "Jessey Church Records" do in this place. All of these points are fatal to a claim of genuineness for these documents. No wonder the writer concealed his identity.
Sam Eaton figures largely in the "Jessey Church Records" and in the "Kiffin" Manuscript. These documents show the grossest ignorance of his history, and several things said of him are impossible. The "Jessey Records" make the following statement concerning him:
"1633. There haveing been much discussing, these denying truth of ye Parish Churches &, ye Church being become so large yt might be prejudicial, these following desired dismission, that they might become an entire Church & further ye communion of those churches in Order amongst themselves, wch at last was granted to them & performed Sept. 12th, 1632, viz"To these joyned Rich. Blunt, Tho. Hubert, Rich. Tredwell and His wife Katherine, John Trimber, Wm. Jennings, & Sam Eaton, Mary Greenway. Mr. Eaton with some others receiving a further baptism, others joyned to them."Henry Parker & wife Widd Fearne Marke Luker ------ Hatmaker Mr. Wilson Mary Millburn Thomas Allen Jo: Milburn -----Arnold.
"1638 These also being of ye same Judgment with Sam Eaton & desiring to depart & not being censured, our interest in them was remitted wth Prayer made in their behalfe Julie 8th, 1638. They haveing first forsaken us & joyned with Mr. Spilsbury, vizThe "Kiffin" Manuscript says of this last transaction:Mr. Petie Fenner Wm. Batty Hen. Penn Mrs. Allen (died 1639) Tho. Wilson Mrs. Norwood.""1633, Sundry of ye Church thereof Mr. Jacob & Mr. John Lathrop had been pastors, being dissatisfied with ye Churches owning of English Parishes to be true Churches desired dismission & joyned together among themselves, as Mr. Henry Parker, Mr. Tho. Shepard, Mr. Sam Eaton, Marke Luker & others wth whom Joyned Mr. W. Kiffin.There is scarcely a statement in the above bill of particulars which is according to the facts. Besides, it will be noted that the "Jessey Church Records" and the "Kiffin" Manuscript contradict each other in important particulars. If we had no other evidence the contradictory nature of these documents would be enough to show that we could not trust them. It would seem from the accounts as given in these documents that Sam Eaton spent a good part of his life in joining various churches, and yet it is certain that with all of the details given, the writer of these documents was grossly ignorant of the most important events in the life of Sam Eaton. For example, neither the "Kiffin" Manuscript nor the "Jessey Church Records" make mention of the fact that he was arrested at the same time Lathrop was, April 29, 1632. A long list of others was mentioned, but so prominent a man as Sam Eaton was is entirely overlooked. Not only was Sam Eaton arrested April 29, and tried May3 of the same year, but he continued in prison until April 24, or a period of two years. He was released from prison under the very same bond that Lathrop was (Calendar of State Papers, Vol. 261, fol. 182). This is fatal to the "Jessey Church Records" and the "Kiffin" Manuscript, since these documents represent him as free, and organizing and leading in independent church movements in 1633. At the very time that these documents represent poor Sam Eaton as doing all these great things, he was in jail, and had been for a year, and continued in jail for a whole year afterwards."1638. Mr. Thos. Wilson, Mr. Pen, & H. Pen, & 3 more being convinced that Baptism was not for infants, but professed Believers joyned with Mr. Jo. Spilsbury ye Churches favour being desired therein."
The "Kiffin" Manuscript also makes a complete breakdown in speaking of the church under date of 1633. It says that "Mr. Jacob & Mr. John Lathrop had been pastors." Why put the verb in the past tense, for Mr. Lathrop was pastor at that very time? Another absurd statement is made in both of these documents, that the division of the Jacob church in 1633 was caused by "being dissatisfied with the Churches of English Parishes to be true churches." That reason will not answer, since this Jacob church had existed already 17 years on this very basis of opposition to the Parish Churches, and Sam Eaton had certainly been for more than a year, and perhaps for many years, a member of the Jacob church. Can any reasonable man have any confidence in such documents?
These alleged "genuine (?) documents" represent that on June 8th, 1638, Sam Eaton received "a further baptism," and that since he had been convinced that infant baptism was wrong he joined Mr. Spilsbury's church. These statements lack only one important element to make them reliable -- that is, they are not true. The "Kiffin" Manuscript and the "Jessey Records" have a habit of always giving the wrong date. On June 8th, 1638, Sam Eaton was again in jail and never came out alive. He was turned out on bond April 24th, 1634, on condition not to be present at any private conventicle. He did not keep the terms of his bond, and for a period of nearly two years he succeeded in hiding from the officers. But on May 5, 1636, he was arrested and confined in jail. The entry is: "Samuel Eaton of St. Giles without Criple Gate. London. button-maker" (Calendar of State Papers, Vol. 324, fol. 13). He remained in jail until Aug. 31, 1639, when he died and was buried in Bunhill Fields (Calendar of State Papers, Vol. 427, fol. 107). So the facts are squarely against the "Kiffin" Manuscript and the "Jessey Records." At the very time that these documents represent him as joining Spilsbury's church he was in jail, and had been there for two years. Such is the testimony of the only witnesses to the "1641" theory.
Still again, the "Jessey Records" give another account of an arrest in which, as usual, Sam Eaton figured. The date was January, 1637. The account is as follows:
"11th Month (Vulgarly January) ye 21st day at Queenith (where Mr. Glover, Mr. Eaton, Mr. Eldred & others 1637 ware wth us) after Exercise was done, by means Mr. ----- the overthwart Neighbour, Officers and others came, at last both ye Sheriffs, & then Veasey ye Parsevant who took ye names; The Lord gave such wisdom in their carriage yt some of their opposers afterwards did much favour them & bail'd them. The next day Veasey the Pursevant got money of some of them, & so they ware dismissed, 4 ware remitted to ye Poulter Counter."Here is the statement that Sam Eaton was arrested upon this 21st of January, 1637, and bailed out. This is flatly contrary to the facts of the case. Mr. Eaton had been committed to jail on the 5th day of May, 1636, and hence was at that moment in jail, and had been for nearly a year. He was not bailed out, but, as we have seen, he died in jail in Aug. 1639. The only element the "Jessey Records" lack of being authoritative is to tell the truth. And the month was not January, but February (Life and death of Mr. Henry Jessey, 1671, B. M. 1418. i.15).
Consider the facts a moment, and then read the following fresh statement: "Is it possible that he is the same Samuel Eaton who became pastor of the Congregational Church at New Haven, Conn., when it was established on the 22d of August, 1639, (Dexter, Congregationalism, p. 413, note; cf. p. 587, note) and returning to England in 1640 founded the Congregational Church at Duckingfield (Dexter, p. 635, note") (A Question in Baptist History, p. 84). Of course not. The very month that the above author had Mr. Eaton going to New England, he died and was buried. It will never do to disturb the sleeping ashes of Sam Eaton to make him pastor of a Congregational church in 1640, when he died in 1639. A theory that requires dead men to be living and living men to be dead, is beyond my power of belief.
I speak of the Crosby "Kiffin" and the Gould "Kiffin" document as distinct versions of the so-called "Kiffin" Manuscript, because Crosby gives "the substance" of a document he saw and loaned to Neal, but which has perished, while the Gould document was copied by Dr. Gould in 1860, and is the only edition we have extant.
The Crosby "Kiffin" declares there were "twenty men and women, with divers others," who left the Jessey church in 1633; the Gould "Kiffin" mentions five and others, while the "Jessey Church Records" give 19 names. The list differs materially in the three documents. This contradictory evidence cannot be received as authoritative.
The lists of names for 1638 do not correspond in the three manuscripts. Crosby's "Kiffin" gives two names and "others;" Gould's "Kiffin" gives three names and says there were three others, and the "Jessey Church Records" give six names, and these six do not include some that are found in the Gould document. There is nothing surprising in all of this, for this is quite as near as these documents usually come to agreeing with each other.
The statements in regard to Mr. Lathrop in the "Jessey Church Records" are as follows:
"After ye space of about 2 years of the sufferings and patience of these Saints, they were all released upon Bail (some remaining to this day as Mr. Jones &c, though never called on) only to Mr. Lathrop and Mr. Grafton, they refused to show such faviour, they were to remain in Prison without release."At last there being no hopes yt Mr. Lathrop should do them further service in ye church, he having many motives to go to New England if it might be granted. After the death of his wife he earnestly desiring ye Church would release him of yt office wch (to his grief) he could no more performe, and that he might have their consent to goe to New England. after serious consideration had about it, it was freely granted to him.
"Then petition being made that he might have liberty to depart out of ye land, he was released from Prison, 1634 about ye 4th month (called June), and about 30 of the members, who desired leave and permission from the Congregation to go along with him, had it granted to them, namely," &c.
Almost all the particulars mentioned in this extract are contrary to the facts.
1. It is claimed that these "saints" were "all released upon bail" with one exception; "only to Mr. Lathrop and Mr. Grafton, they refused to show such faviour, they were to remain in prison without release." But the State Papers give a very different account. After a pretty diligent search through the original State Papers, I have been unable to find where one of these "Saints" was released before Mr. Lathrop, much less "all" of them. On the other hand, It would seem from the entry in the records that Mr. Lathrop played the baby act, while at a later date some of the prlsoners refused to take the oath and were recommitted to prison. The facts in the case are the very reverse of the statements in the "Jessey Records."2. "Only to Mr. Lathrop and Mr. Grafton they refused to show such favor," and they were retained in prison. That statement is not true, and I give only one example out of many. After Lathrop was dismissed on June 12 William Granger and William Batty, two of this company, "refused to take oaths or to answer articles and were committed to the Gate-house" (Calendar of State Paper, Vol. 261, fol. 39).
3. The "Jessey Records" say that Lathrop was released from prison "about ye 4th month (called June)." The State Papers show that he was released April 24th.
4. The "Records" make the impression that he went to America immediately. As a matter of fact, he hung around London for some months until the magistrates made it too hot for him. On June 19, 1634, this entry was made against John Lathrop: "Bond ordered to be certified, and he to be attached for non-appearance" (Calendar of State Papers, Vol. 261, fol. 50). He did not leave London till the last of August, and arrived in Boston, Sept. 18, 1634, on board the ship Griffin.
I have already qnoted the statement from the "Jessey Records" that Sam Eaton and others organized a church out of Lathrop's church in 1633, and the "Kiffin" Manuscript declares that William Kiffin was in this secession in 1633. This could not have been, for William Kiffin did not join Lathrop's church till 1634, and he is known to have continued in this church till he joined Spilsbury's church in 1638. This date of 1634, whell Kiffin joined Lathrop's church, is undoubtedly correct, for in the account which Kiffin left of his own life, and which was used by Ivimey in the preparation of the Biography of Kiffin, 1634 is the date given (Life of William Kiffin, p. 13). And Waddington in his Surrey Congrgational History, p. 21, gives the same date, with a remarkable extract from Kiffin himself Concerning the annoyances he experienced from the persecutors. Here, then, again, in an important particular these "genuine records" (?) are wrong. The Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript makes William Kiffln secede from the Lathrop church before ever he joined that church and while he was yet an Episcopalian. The Crosby "Kiffln" Manuscnpt, however, declares that Kiff1n joined Spilsbury's church in 1638. These documents, which are declared to be "identical," contradict each other on important points of facts, and, what is more note-worthy, both of them contradict the facts in the case. Yet it is on the sole testimony of such documents that we are asked to believe the Baptists of England all practiced sprinkling before 1641!
=============== [John T. Christian, Baptist History Vindicated, 1899, pp. 50-58.]
Baptist History Vindicated By John T. Christian, D.D., LL.D., 1899
Chapter VI[p. 58]
It is absolutely essential to a full understanding of this subject that a most clear and marked distinction be continuously maintained between the various documents which have been indiscriminately referred to as the "Kiffin" Manuscript, or the "So-called Kiffin Manuscript." Certain writers have classed as "Kiffin" Manuscript, documents drawn from widely different sources. These documents are as follows: Crosby gives (Vol. 1, pp. 101-2) the substance of a manuscript which he distinctly declares was only "said to be written by Mr. William Kiffin." Gould gives (pp. cxxiii., cxxiv.) a quotation which he claims to be the original language of this manuscript, "said to be written by Mr. William Kiffin," of which Crosby gives the substance. Crosby (Vol. 3,
[p. 59]
p. 41) makes a short quotation from a "manuscript" whose authorship he does not mention; aud he also gives (Vol. 1, pp. 148, 149) a quotation of some length from what he says is an undoubted manuscript of William Kiffin.Even if Crosby and Gould had not erected such plain and unmistakable signboards to guard the student against error in regard to these various documents, it would seem that the very nature of the manuscripts themselves would be sufficient to guard against any confusion concerning them. I give below in one column Crosby's quotation from what he accepted as a genuine and authentic manuscript of William Kiffin, and in the other column I give so much of the Gould manuscript "said to be written by Mr. William Kiffin," as purports to contain a record of the period preceding the year 1640:
Crosby's Manuscript of Gould's Anonymous Kiffin William Kiffin Manuscript to the year 1640 An. Dom. 1633. "There was a 1633. "Sundry of ye Church thereof congregation of Protestant Mr. Jacob and Mr. John Lanthrop Dissenters of the independent had been Pastors. Being dissatisfied Persuasion in London, gathered with ye churches owning of English in the year 1616, whereof Mr. Henry Parishes, to be true churches desired Jacob was the first pastor; and after him dismission & joyned together among succeeded Mr. John Lathrop, who themselves, as Mr. Henry Parker, Mr. was their minister at this time. In this Tho. Shephered, Mr. Sam Eaton, Mark society several persons finding that the Luker & others with whom joyned Mr. congregations kept not to their first Wm. Kiffin. principles of separation, and beingalso convinced that baptism was 1638. "Mr. Thomas Wilson, Mr. Pen, not to be administered to infants, but & H. Pen, & 3 more being convinced that such only as professed faith in Christ, Baptism was not for infants, but professed desired that they might be dismissed from Believers joyned with Mr. Jo. Spilsbury that communion, and allowed to form ye churches faviour being desired therein." a distinct congregation in such order as was most agreeable to their own Sentiments.
[p. 60]
Records of that Church
"This church considering that they were now
grown very numerous, and so more than could in
these times of persecution conveniently meet
together, and believing also that those persons acted
from a principle of conscience, and not obstancy,
agreed to allow them the liberty they desired, and that
they should be constituted a distinct church; which was
perform'd the 12th of Sept, 1633. And as they
believed that baptism was not rightly
administeredto infants, so they look'd upon the
baptism they had receiv'd in that age as invalid;
whereupon most or all of them received a new baptism.
Their minister was Mr. John Spilsbury. What number
they were is uncertain, because in the mentioning of the
names of about twenty men and women it is added,
with divers othersAn. Dom. 1638. "In the year 1638, Mr. William
Kiffin, Mr. Thomas Wilson and others, being of the
same judgment, were upon their request dismissed to
the said Mr. Spilsbury's congregation."In the year 1639 another congregation of Baptists
was formed, whose place of meeting was in
Crutched-Fyrars; the chief promoters of which
were Mr. Green, Mr. Paul Hobsonand Captain
Spencer."
Crosby, Vol. I, pp. 148-9.At the very beginning we are struck with the contradiction in these documents. The Gould document contradicts the Crosby document in a most important particular: The
[p. 61]
Gould document declares that this movement to send Blunt to Holland all occurred among some dissatisfied persons in the Jessey church. It was a one church movement. The words are so plain that there can be no mistake. The words are: "Sundry of ye church thereof Mr. Jacob & Mr. John Lathrop had been pastors;" and "the church became two by mutuall consent half being with Mr. P. Barebone," &c. But the Kiffin document according to Crosby affirms that there were a numbar [sic] of Independent churches engaged in this enterprise. The words are: "Several sober and pious persons belonging to the Congregations of the dissenters about Lon do, were convinced that believers were the only proper subjects of baptism, and that it ought to be administered by immersion, or dipping the whole body into the water." A more contradictory statement I never saw. The one document declares that this was undertaken by one church, the other as positively declares that more than one church was doing; this thing. And now we are asked to believe that these documents are the very same. Yet this is the contradictory trash we are asked to accept as authoritative, and this is the kind of stuff that the whole 1641 theory is built upon.The most casual examination of these manuscripts would show that they are not the same: they may slightly resemble each other, but they cannot be the same. The document which Crosby claims as genuine is some four times longer than that part of the Gould anonymous document which covers the same period, and does not correspond with it in language or facts. All the Crosby document says of 1639 is entirely omitted in the Gould document. Yet we have been gravely informed that this Gould document is "identical with" that "used by Crosby in the preparation of his history." There is no important point of identity
[p. 62]
between the two. A man must have on a curious pair of spectacles who can find identity in these two extracts.Now the only one of the documents which I have discussed that gives any support whatever to the 1641 theory is Gould's version of the anonymous manuscript "said," by some unknown person, "to be written by Mr. William Kiffin;" and the only words of that manuscript which afford any aid and comfort to the said theory is the entry under the date 1640, which immediately follows the quotation given above; and the only words in this 1640 part at all pertinent to that theory are the now famous words in regard to dipping, "none having then so practiced in England to professed believers." Thus the 1641 theory rests upon the presence of ten words in an anonymous m manuscript of which the earliest extant copy belongs to the year 1869, and this copy is itself at best a mere copy of a copy!!
Now, although but a small part of this anonymous manuscript, as given by Gould, is pertinent to the 1641 theory, yet if any part of the manuscript can be demonstrated to be false, then the whole must be discarded, for a genuine contemporaneous record contains no material falsehoods. False in one, false in all. I have already demonstrated that much of this "Kiffin" Manuscript cannot possibly be true, and much more is contradictory and absurd; and it will still further be shown that this Manuscript is a fraud. The entry for the year 1640 in Gould's edition of this anonymous manuscript begins as follows: "1640, 3d Mo. The Church [whereof Mr. Jacob and Mr. John Lathrop had been Pastors], became two by mutual consent, just half being with Mr. P. Barebone and ye other halfe with Mr. H. Jessey. Mr. Rich'd Blunt with him being convinced of. Baptism, yt also it ought to be by dipping ye Body into
[p. 63]
ye Water, resembling Burial and riseing [sic] again, Col. II., 12; Rom. VI., 4;" and then asserts that the subject baptized should be a professed believer. Now the facts are that neither "Mr. P. Barebones" nor "Mr. H. Jessey" did anything of the sort. The narrative says that Mr. Richard Blunt being convinced with "him," went to Holland for immersion. Being convinced with whom? P. Barebones? Certainly not, for Barebones did not become a Baptist till somewhere before 1654. He was not a Baptist in 1641, nor was he convinced of the necessity of "immersion," nor yet of "beleavers' [sic] baptism," for after this he wrote at least three books, which are before me, in which he violently assailed both, and one of these books bears date as late as 1645. It was not Praise-God Barebones. Was it Mr. Jessey that joined in with Mr. Blunt? Certainly not, for Mr. Jessey did not believe in the necessity of dipping, nor was he convinced of the necessity of believers' baptism till the summer of 1644, and he was not baptized till the mid- summer of 1645, or five years after this date (Life of Jessey, p. 83). The plain conclusion is that this anonymous manuscript, as quoted by Gould, is false, for neither Barebones nor Jessey joined in 1640 with Blunt to go to Holland or any other place for immersion.That this Jessey church divided, "just half being with Mr. P. Barebone and ye other halfe with Mr. H. Jessey" on the subject of immersion, is a very improbable story. Churches are not accustomed to divide on mathematical lines on the subject of immersion or any other doctrine. It is rather queer, when one comes to think about it, that there should have been an exact division of this church on such lines. The story here told is suspiciously like the one related by Ivimey in his History of the Hubbard church, which divided equally, but the reason there given was a legitimate one, since
[p. 64]
that church was so large that it was in danger of being apprehended, and it divided evenly for security. It is possible that the writer of the Gould document got these two churches mixed. Where, however, the compiler got this story is immaterial, but it is certain that it does not bear the marks of truth.We now come to the passage - the famous ten words - in which so much reliance has been placed, where the Gould document declares that in 1640 none in England had practiced believers' baptism by dipping. It will be seen from the paragraphs above that I have shown that the first statement that Jessey was convinced of believers' baptism by dipping is false. One falsehood in a matter of fact would throw doubt upon the whole. But I attack the integrity of the passage itself. It is radically different from the account as quoted by Crosby from his copy of the Manuscript, "said to be written by Mr. William Kiffin." I give these accounts as they occur in the Gould "Kiffin" and the Crosby "Kiffin" for comparison in parallel columns:
Editor's note: These are not in parallel columns, but one follows the other.
GOULD MANUSCRIPT, 1860.
1640. 3rd. Mo: The Church became two by mutuall consent half being with Mr. P Barebone, & ye other halfe with Mr. H Jessey. Mr. Richard Blount with him being convinced of Baptism yt also it ought to be by dipping in ye body into ye water, resembling Burial and rising again. 2 Col. 2. 12, Rom. 6. 4. had sober conference about in ye Church, & then with some of the forenamed who also were so convinced; and after prayer & conference about their so enjoying it, none having then so practiced it in England to professed Believers, & hearing that some in and ye Netherlands had so practiced they agreed and sent over Mr. Rich. Blunt (who understood Dutch) with letters of Commendation, and who was kindly accepted there, and returned with letters, from them, Jo: Batte & Teacher there and from that Church to such as sent him.
They proceed therein, viz: Those Persons that ware [sic] persuaded Baptism should be by dipping ye body had met in two Companies, and did intend so to meet after this, all those agreed to proceed alike togeather. And then manifesting (not by any formal Words A Covenant) Wch word was scrupled by some of them, but by mutual desires and agreements each Testified:
Those two Companies did set apart one to Baptize the rest: so it was solemnly performed by them.
Mr. Blunt baptized Mr. Blacklock yt was a teacher amongst them and Mr. Blunt being baptized, he and Mr. Blacklock baptized the rest of their friends that ware so minded, and many being added to them, they increased much.
CROSBY'S ACCOUNT OF THE MANUSCRIPT.Several sober and pious persons belonging to the Congregations of the dissenters about London were convinced that believers were the only proper subjects of baptism, and that it ought to be administered bt immersion or dipping the whole body into the water, in resemblance of a burial and resurrection according to Colos. II., 12, and Rom. VI., 4. That they often met together to pray and confer about this matter, and so consult what methods they should take to enjoy this ordinance in its primitive purity: That they could not
[p. 65]
be satisfied about any administrator in England to begin this practice; because tho' some in this nation rejected the baptism of infants, yet they had not as they knew of revived the ancient custom of immersion: But hearing that some in the Netherlands practiced it, they agreed to send over one Mr. Richard Blunt, who understood the Dutch language; that he went accordingly, carrying letters of recommendation with him and was kindly received both by the church there and Mr. John Batten, their teacher.
That upon his return he baptized Mr. Samuel Blacklock, a minister, and these two baptized the rest of their company [whose names are in the manuscript to the number of fifty-three]. - Crosby, Vol. I, pp. 101-2
Upon the statement made in this Gould document, that believers' immersion was unknown in England at this time the most elaborate treatises have been prepared, and the most extravagant theories put forth. Spurgeon states in his autobiography that when he himself made a profession of faith in England in this century, he did not know that any one in England practiced believers' baptism by dipping. Accordingly, even if this Gould document were a genuine manuscript, the mere fact that
[p. 66]
its prejudiced author did not know any thing about the Baptists would not prove that they did not exist. Genuine Baptists have never been much given to self-advertising.It has already been shown that this "Kiffin" Manuscript is absolutely untrustworthy, and it has made statements in almost every particular which cannot be depended upon. It will also be seen, by consulting the parallel columns above, that these accounts differ in words, spelling, matter, and indeed in almost every particular. Both of these accounts cannot be genuine. One or the other is a fabrication. Which one am I to believe? Shall I accept Crosby's document as correct, then the passage "none haveing then so practiced it in England to professed Believers," is left out, for it is not in the Crosby "Kiffin" Manuscript. That passage gone, there is nothing left of the elaborate theory which has been built on those words. The rejection of the Gould document kills the 1641 theory, and if we accept the Gould document, we have a still worse state of affairs. Then it follows that Crosby in quoting from this document deliberately falsified the facts to suit his purposes, and left out the most important words to be found in the Manuscript. Crosby did this, too, with a full knowledge of the fact that the Pedobaptist historian, Neal, knew all about it and had every means in his hands to expose him, for Crosby had loaned this very Manuscript to Neal, and Neal, in several instances, quotes from it. Besides, Crosby stands above reproach in his honesty and integrity. I do not believe that Crosby wilfully left out a passage like this. It must also be taken into account that this Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript is an unauthenticated document, and that no man can tell from whence it came or whither it went. The oldest extant copy was made less than 40 years ago: viz., 1860. A man must have a
[p. 67]
stupendous credulity to believe in the authenticity of this Gould document.I once again call attention to a very important fact, that the opinion expressed on dipping of believers, as set forth in the Gould Kiffin Manuscript, was the peculiar opinion of the compiler of the thirty papers of which this manuscript is one. This writer, over and over again, in the other papers of this series, wove in these almost identical words In passages which he wrote himself, and around quotations from other authors whose words would not warrant such language, The reader can draw his own conclusions, Crosby had a "Kiffin" Manuscript before him, but it did not have these words in it. This unknown writer had these words as a pet phrase. This unknown writer, who changed every author he quoted, leaves a "Kiffin" Manuscript, and these words are in his copy. How did these words get into this copy? I repeat, how did these words get into this document? I would also repeat that this document from which Gould quotes is not pretended by anyone to be the original manuscript, but is at best the mere copy of a copy. Thus this whole 1641 theory rests upon the casual presence of ten words in an unauthenticated and remote copy of an anonymous manuscript, when these words are not reported by Crosby to have been in the copy of that manuscript, which was inspected by him and do not make their appearance except in a remote and unauthenticated copy. With these facts before us, and they cannot be denied, we do not regard this Gould "Kiffin" as of one particle of value.
But let us consider some additional facts. There is not one line from any contemporaneous author to prove that Blunt ever went to Holland; there is not one contemporaneous author who indicates that he ever heard tell of Richard Blunt or Samuel Blacklock. All
[p. 68]
we know of these men is found in this so-called "Kiffin" Manuscript. It is calculated to stretch a man's credulity a good deal to believe that these men introduced believers' immersion into England in 1641, and yet were never heard of nor mentioned by any writer of those times. There is no proof that any such men ever lived. For more than half a century there is not a reference to either of them. If they did the great things claimed for them, the Baptists were incredibly ungrateful and unappreciative. Edwards does indeed refer to a Blount who was an Anabaptist, but his given name is not mentioned, and there is no circumstance to connect him with the alleged Richard Blunt. The Blount mentioned by Edwards was a General Baptist, and not a Calvinistic Baptist, as was Jessey and the rest, and so could not have been connected with them in this enterprise. Nor did the Blount mentioned by Edwards go to Holland. The first reference I have found to the Baptists sending to Holland for baptism is in an account by Hutchinson, who wrote in 1676, thirty-five years after 1641, and he declares that the point of the trouble is not immersion, but the administrator of baptism. Hutchinson says: "the great objection was the Want of an administrator, which, as I have heard, was remov'd by sending certain messengers to Holland, whence they were supplied" (A Treatise Concerning the Covenant and Baptism Dialogue-wise. Epistle to the Reader. London, 1676). But Hutchinson does not mention Blunt, nor does he appear to know anything about him. Neither Blunt nor Blacklock signed the Confession of Faith of 1643, and I repeat that their names are not found in any Baptist document, nor in any other kind of a document anywhere near 1641. It is a matter incredible that a man of such importance should have been mentioned
[p. 69]
by no one of his contemporaries.Indeed, the original story was not that Blunt went to Holland to get immersion, but that John Spilsbury went. Crosby gives the story in these words: "Mr, Spilsbury, who was falsely reported to have gone over to Holland to receive baptism from John Smith, declares expressly against a man baptizing himself, and judges it to be far from any rule in the Gospel so to do; but observes, that where there is a beginning, some one must be first. 'And because,' says he, 'some make it such all error, and so, far from any rule or example, for a man to baptize others, who is himself unbaptized , and so think thereby to shut up the ordinance of God such a strait, that none can come by it but thro' the authority of the Popedom of Rome; let the reader consider who baptiz'd John the Baptist before he baptized others and if no man did, then whether he did not baptize others, he himself being unbaptized. We are taught by this what to do upon like occasions.'
"'Further,' says he, 'I fear men put more than is of right due to it, and so prefer it above the church and all other ordinances besides; for they can assume and erect a church, take and cast out members, elect and ordain officers, and administer the supper, and all a-new, without any looking after succession, any further than the scriptures. But as for baptism they must have that successively from the Apostles, tho' it comes thro' the hands of pope Joan. What is the cause of this, that men can do all from the word but only baptism?'
"Now is it probable that this man Should go over sea to find an administrator of baptism, or receive it at the hands of one who baptized himself?" (Crosby, vol. I, p. 103).
Here, then, is the original story that this going to Holland occurred in the time of John Smith, and that John Spilsbury was the man who went. This is flatly contradicted by
[p. 70]
Crosby. But there is just the same evidence for this as that Blunt went to Holland: namely, no evidence at all.The date of the supposed visit of Blunt to Holland is as mythical as is the person of Blunt. A Baptist writer who published a History of the Baptists, supplementary to Neal's History of the Puritans, says that Blunt went to Holland in 1608, and there is just the same amount of evidence in favor of that date as any other, viz.: No evidence at all. Barclay says Blunt went to Holland in 1633, and some recently have been much impressed with 1640 as the date.
But the writer who has had more to say about Blunt than any other has named three dates, 1640, 1641 and 1644 as the time when Blunt went to Holland. He is equally certain about all these dates, and the funny thing is that he adopts both 1640 and 1641 as the proper date in the same book.. I quote the three statements. In the New York Indepedent he says: "But the mission of this Mr. Richard Blount, according to Neal ('History of the Puritans,' Vol. III., 173-4), did not occur until the year 1644, eleven years after the 'new baptism' was received by the Spilsbury secession. There is not the slightest reason anywhere to question the correctness of the date here given by Neal; and, hence, we must hold that the 'new baptism' of the First Particular Baptist church was a new sprinkling."
In his book he says: "The other leading item is that Mr. Blunt was sent to Holland in 1640 to obtain immersion; that he went to John Batten, well known as a teacher among the Collegiants, and, receiving the rite at his hands, returned to England" (A Question in Baptist History, p. 89).
In the same book, when he conceived that he needed the authority of Prof. de Hoop Scheffer, the "incomparable scholar," who had
[p. 71]
mentioned his researches to the "Royal Academy of Science," and had given such "encouragement for an humble professor across the sea," he names 1641 as the date. His words are: Professor Scheffer affirms that this intimate union continued until the year 1641 when Richard Blunt went to Rhynsburg, and receiving immersion at the hands of John Batten, returned to England and imparted it to the members of his church."I mention this to show the utter confusion into which those fall who try to follow this Gould document; and in this very point the Gould document and Crosby's account contradict each other. The Gould document positively gives the date of Blunt's journey to May, 1640; whereas Neal, who used the manuscript which Crosby quoted from, positively states that the date mentioned is 1644. Neal is very plain on this point, and says he had the manuscript before him (Neal, Vol. 3, pp. 173, 174).
It was held by the Independent that Barber was the "founder of immersion" in 1641 among the General Baptists, and that Blunt founded immersion among the Particular Baptists in 1644. Two weeks before the editorial quoted above appeared, that is to say Oct. 21, 1880, an editorial appeared in the Independent setting forth this position, and the editorial of Nov. 7 was written to enforce this position. The editorial says: "We see no reason to question the accuracy of Neal in assigning 1644 as the date of Mr. Blount's mission to Holland. The seeming discrepancy which Dr. Burrage points out may be readily explained by reference to the rivalry of the two parties among Baptists. Those who sent Mr. Blount in 1644 would not recognize, and hence chose to ignore, the immersion which had been started by Barber in 1641."
It is therefore, necessary, in order to be right
[p. 72]
up with the "new discovery," "to move up the date to" 1644. Of course, the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1643 was then in full force, and that affirms that immersion is the only baptism, and it is against the contention of the above writer. But this could be met, as an editorial in the same Independent did answer the same objection when it was offered to the above extract taken from the Independent. The answer was: "High Baptist authority declares that the Confession of the Seven Churches in London 'was first put forth about the year 1643,' but no copy of the edition of that year has been recovered. If a copy could be recovered, it would, perhaps, be found to prescribe sprinkling or pouring, instead of immersion. It was probably not until 1644 that the London Confession decided in favor of immersion." - The Independent, Jan. 19, 1882.Of course, nobody is going to believe that the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1643 was a sprinkling document, and that the very same Confession, signed by the very same men, published one year later was a dipping document. But there is as much reason to believe that all Baptists of 1643 suddenly changed their minds, and from all practicing sprinkling all began to practice immersion, as to believe that all the Baptists of 1641 did this. Indeed, if we could believe all of these authors, Blunt spent 36 years in going; and returning from Holland to get dipped, and in all his sea voyages he never crossed a man who cared enough about his doings to make a record of his exploits, or ever knew that such a man lived. And yet this is the only evidence that supports this 1641 business!
We have already seen that Jessey was convinced that immersion was baptism, and was baptized in 1645. But document No.4 says that Blunt was convinced only the night before Jessey was. The exact words are: "After
[p. 73]
some time all these in ye 2nd Row were satisfied vide in their scruple and judged supra yt such disciples as are gifted to teach & Evangelists may also Baptize &c &c and ware baptized Some before H. Jessey and ye rest of ye Church ware convinced against Pedobaptism and hence desired to enjoy it where they might, & joyned also, some with Bro. Knollys, some with Bro. Kiffin, thus TheseB. S. Knollys, B. Ford, B. S. Wade, B. Potshall B. Conver, S. Dormer. S. Jane Todderoy S. Pickford, S. Eliza Phillips, S. Reves, B. Darel, B. Blunt,"After that H. Jessey, was convinced also, the next morning early after that that wch had been a day of solemne seeking ye Lord in fasting & prayer (That infant Baptism ware unlawful and if we should be further baptised &c, the Lord would not hide it from us, but cause us to know it). First H. Jessey was convinced against Pedo-Baptism and then that himselfe should be baptized (notwithstanding many conferences wth his Honored Beloved Brethren."
1645 4 Mo. June 29 - The weight, then, of the four documents which we are examining is against 1640 and in favor of 1644 as the time that Blunt went to Holland. Let us see. The Jessey Records and document No.4 make no mention of Blunt and his Holland performances. This is very strange. and thus the negative evidence is against this matter, since the Jessey Records should, if genuine, be a record of the proceedings of this church. The Crosby "Kiffln" Manuscript sets the date at 1644, and document No.4 puts the date of Blunt's joining the Baptists at 1644. The Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript declares that Jessey was convinced of the necessity of immersion at the same time
[p. 74]
Blunt was, and we know positively that Jessey was so convinced in 1644 and baptized in 1645. That leaves the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript unsupported in its date of 1640, and even suspicion is cast upon its statement by another statement in it. Thus the weight of evidence is all toward 1644 in these four documents. I am not arguing that 1644 is the date when Blunt went to Holland; I have no evidence that he ever went to Holland at all, or that there was ever such a man as Richard Blunt. I am simply setting forth an unanswerable argument to the effect that if these documents could be depended upon there is no doubt that the date that Blunt made his trip to Holland was in 1644, and not 1640.=============== [From John T. Christian, Baptist History Vindicated, Baptist Book Concern, Louisville, KY, 1899. Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
Go to chapters 7-9
Baptist History Vindicated Index
Baptist History Homepage