A History of the Baptists

John T. Christian

Vol. 1 - Chapter 17

Origin of the Particular Baptist Churches.

The General Baptists Numerous—Calvinistic Views Among Baptists—The Rise of the Particular Baptists—The Independent Church of Henry Jacob—Crosby—Underhill—Crosby Sometimes Misleading—The Opinion of Lewis—The MS. of William Kiffin—The Sending to Holland for Baptism—The Statement of Hutchinson—John Spilsbury—The Right to Begin Baptism—The Administrator of Baptism—The Continuance of Baptist Churches—William Kiffin—Daniel King—A Notable Introduction—Henry D’Anvers—The Confession of Somerset—Thomas Grantham—Joseph Hooke—Samuel Stennett—The Baptist Magazine—Thomas Pottenger—James Culross—The Story of Blount Going to Holland—The Mistakes of the So-called Kiffin Manuscript—Two Kiffin Manuscripts—The So-called Practice of Sprinkling—Hanserd Knollys—The Jacob Church Often in Trouble on The Subject of Dipping—The Practice of Spilsbury—Of Eaton—Of Kiffin—Of Henry Jessey—The Church of Hubbard—John Canne—The Broadmead Church—Samuel Howe—Paul Hobson—Thomas Kilcop—The Practice of Dipping Called "New"—The Answer of the Baptists—Samuel Richardson—Thomas Collier—Hanserd Knollys—John Tombes—Jeffrey Watts—The Confession of 1643—The Form of Baptism Dipping—Jesse B. Thomas—The Practice of the General Baptists—Masson—Featley.

Thus far only the history of the General Baptist churches of England has been considered. This body constituted by far the larger portion of the Baptists of that country, and their history runs on in an uninterrupted stream from generation to generation. On the subject of the administrator of baptism Baptists held, as has been seen, that they hid the power to originate baptism, but that it took at least two persons to begirt the act; and that these two could institute the rite. This was the method of Smyth and was the general theory held by them. To understand this history this position must be kept sharply in mind. They were mildly Arminian in their views, and forcefully impressed free will.

It is now time to consider the history of another body of Baptists, who if not so numerous were at least highly influential. They were called Particular Baptists, since they held to Calvinistic views. Two views of the administrator of baptism prevailed among them. The first and oldest was that every Christian man could, without himself having been baptized, immerse a candidate upon a profession of faith. Later there were those who held that an administrator should have a succession from a previously baptized administrator. At times these views came into conflict and caused much troublesome discussion. The Particular Baptists had a wholly different origin from the General Baptists.

It must not be thought that either of these parties were new. Crosby says:

There were likewise many Baptists in England who did not choose to assume either name, because they receive what they think to be truth, without regarding with what human schemes it agrees or disagrees" (Crosby, I. p. 174).

But some of the Particular Baptist churches originated in the Independent church of Henry Jacob. There is no proof that all of the seven Particular Baptist churches of London originated in this manner. "The Seven Churches of London, however," says Cutting, "are not to be supposed as comprising the whole of the Particular Baptist denomination at that time. There were certainly several churches besides these, and their increase at a period immediately succeeding was very rapid."

Dr. Underhill, after years of investigation, very ably discusses the entire problem. He says:

The first company went out from Jacob about the year 1688. A want of recognition of this origin, and just discrimination between these bodies, has caused much confusion and led to many erroneous conclusions. Crosby indeed states this fact, that he nowhere gives a separate history of the two bodies, and this is the chief fault of his invaluable history. In this he has unfortunately been followed by some other historians. The General and Particular Baptists were not only distinct in origin and in history, but were often in debate one with the other. Very many of the misunderstandings of Baptist history, in the reign of Charles I, have their basis in the confounding of the history of these distinct and separate Baptist bodies.

The first statement that Crosby makes concerning the origination of the Particular Baptist church under the ministry of John Spilsbury is misleading, since it apparently ascribes to all Baptists, only what actually took place in the one congregation of Henry Jacob. The mistake of Crosby consists in making a general statement of a specific instance. He says:

Lewis, a Church of England man, reviewed on its appearance Crosby’s History. After quoting the above statement he says:

In his contentions Lewis was right and Crosby was wrong. Crosby continues:

Upon the organization of Spilsbury’s church the question of a lawful administrator of baptism came up. There were Baptists among these Dissenters already and it did not follow that they had received their baptism from Pedobaptist sources. But a line of action must be established. Two possible sources were open to them. Crosby says:

After giving a quotation from Hutchinson, Crosby continues:

John Spilsbury did not believe he was under obligation to send anywhere for baptism; but that he had a right to baptize like John the Baptist did. He had nothing to do with this Blount scheme. He says:

"Nor is it probable," says Crosby, "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, I. p. 104). The position was defended with ingenuity by the Particular Baptists. John Tombes was one of the most learned men of his times; an unwearied opponent of infant baptism; and frequent1y in public debates with Baxter and others. He defended this position (Tombes Apology for two Treatise, p. 10), and such was likewise the view of Henry Laurence, Esq. (Laurence, Treatise on Baptism, p. 407).

The position was finally assumed by the Particular Baptists as the correct one. Says Crosby:

The position of the Particular Baptists meant that for an administrator of baptism they did not go beyond the authority of the New Testament. They declared that it was not necessary to prove a succession of Baptist churches. This body of Baptists have, however, been singularly clear in affirming the long continued existence of the Baptists of England, and elsewhere. They even claim, if it were at all necessary to prove it, that they have a succession more ancient and purer, if humbler than that of the Roman Catholic Church. The witnesses on this point are numerous and weighty. William Kiffin, A. D., 1645, wrote:

This was after the Confession of Faith of 1643 was written and published. Kiffin affirmed that their churches as they are now erected and framed preceded the Reformation of the Episcopacy. Mr. Joseph Richart, who says he wrote the queries to which Kiffin replied, affirmed that he understood the Episcopal and not the Presbyterian Reformation. "You allege, " he says, "your practice, that your congregations were erected and framed in the time of Episcopacy, and before you heard of any Reformation" (Richart, A Looking Glass for Anabaptists, pp. 6, 7. London. 1645).

Here were Baptist churches, according to Kiffin, before the times of Henry VIII, and this fact was well known to the Baptists. Further on Kiffin makes the claim that the Baptists outdated the Presbyterians. He says,

The year 1650 marked the appearance of a distinguished book by Daniel King (A Way to Zion, sought out and found, for Believers to walk in; or, a Treatise, consisting of three parts). In the first part it is proved:

Here is a distinct claim that the Baptists have existed since the days of Christ. King further says:

This was the ordinary position of the Particular Baptists. In the third part King says:

Four of the most prominent Baptists of those times, Thomas Patience, John Spilsbury, William Kiffin and John Pearson wrote an introduction for the book. These men declare 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." These old Baptists carefully guarded every historical statement. A part of the introduction is as follows:

This is the endorsement of five of the leading Baptists in the world in their day, "that God hath a people on earth, ever since the coming of Christ in the flesh" They further believed that these people were the Baptists.

Henry D’Anvers was a man of great celebrity among the Baptists. He was born about the year 1608. He was a colonel in the Parliamentary army and governor of Strafford. While governor he embraced Baptist principles and was baptized probably by Henry Haggar. He wrote a book on baptism, in which he greatly stirred up the Pedobaptists. It is a vigorous defense of believers’ baptism by dipping. He traces the history of the Baptists century by century back to the apostles. After referring to the existence of Baptists in England for long periods, he says:

He further says

The Confession of Faith of several Congregations of Christ in the county of Somerset, and some churches in the counties near adjacent, A. D., 1656, has always been an important document. On this subject it is very clear. The Confession says:

Another mighty Baptist of this century was Thomas Grantham. He says:

Joseph Hooke, who styled himself "a servant of Christ and a lover of all men," was a noted Baptist of this century. He wrote with great fullness on the continuation of the Baptists through the ages. He says:

Again he says:

Many more such statements occur in the book, but the following must end his testimony:

Samuel Stennett was one of the most accomplished scholars of his day, and was for forty-seven years pastor of the Little Wild Street Baptist Church, in London. His father, grand-father and great-grandfather were all Baptist ministers. His great-grandfather was born before the Civil Wars. He was in position to judge of the claims of the Baptists to antiquity. On this point he says:

The Baptist Magazine was founded in London in 1809. The very first number in this magazine, after the introduction, was "A Miniature History of the Baptists," in which it was claimed that the Baptists had always practiced, adult baptism by immersion. The Editor further says:

Again, in 1817, the same magazine says:

One of the best posted English Baptists was Thomas Pottenger. Writing in 1845, of English Baptists, he says:

This is not an antiquated opinion among the English Baptists, for many of the most intelligent Baptists of that country believe that the Baptists date back to the Apostles. The Rev. George P. Gould, ex-President of Regents Park College, edited and published a series of Baptist Manuals, historical and biographical. In 1895 he published one on Hanserd Knollys, by James Culross, ex-President of Bristol Baptist College. After stating that Knollys became a sectary in 1631, Culross says:

The story of the sending of Blount to Holland to obtain immersion is a blind account, and rests solely on the authority of the so-called Kiffin Manuscript. This is a document which has been shown to be utterly worthless (Christian, Baptist History Vindicated. Louisville, 1899). The Kiffin Manuscript has generally been discredited by Baptist authors. Crosby can only affirm that it "was said to be written by William Kiffin" (Crosby, History of the English Baptists, I. p. 101). Evans says: "This statement is vague. We have no date and cannot tell whether the facts refer to the Separatists under Mr. Spilsbury or to others" (Evans, Early English Baptists, II. p. 78). Cathcart says this transaction may have happened, but "we would not bear heavily on the testimony adduced by these good men" (Cathcart, Baptist Encyclopedia, I. p. 521).

Armitage says:

Dr. Henry S. Burrage, who gave much time and attention to this subject, after a somewhat lengthy discussion of the Jersey Church Records and the Gould Kiffin Manuscript, is constrained to say:

Pedobaptist writers have rejected the Kiffin Manuscript, and pronounced its testimony untrustworthy. John Lewis, in his reply to Crosby, ridicules the Kiffin Manuscript. After quoting the story of Blount and Blacklock, taken from Crosby, he says:

Lewis, in referring to this "ancient Manuscript," mentioned by Crosby, says: "How ignorant" (Ibid.). Elsewhere he says:

Again:

Once more;

The document was so untrustworthy that Dr. Dexter, though it was in line with his contention, rejected it. He says:

This manuscript, in which almost every statement in it can be shown to be false, which is rejected by the most of Baptists, and by controversial Pedobaptist writers, is the only authority to prove this story of Blount going to Holland, and that the Baptists were in the practice of sprinkling. Not one contemporary author mentions the journey of Blount, or the names of Blount or Blacklock. There is no proof that either man ever lived. Edwards does indeed mention a Blount who was a Baptist, but his given name is not mentioned and no circumstance connects him with Holland. The Blount mentioned by Edwards was a General and not a Particular Baptist. and could not have been connected with this enterprise.

The first reference that has been found to the Baptists sending to Holland for baptism is in an account by Hutchinson, who wrote in 1676, and he declares the point of the trouble will not immersion, but a proper administrator. He says:

Hutchinson knows nothing of Blount, Blacklock or Batte. The people he mentions were all Pedobaptists, who had just been converted to Baptist views. This is hearsay testimony years after without any details. The first man mentioned, who was sent to Holland to get immersion, was John Spilsbury, but Crosby says this was not true. The date of the going of Blount to Holland is as mythical as the person of Blount A Baptist writer who published a history of the Baptists, supplementary to Neal’s History of the Puritans, says that Blount went to Holland in 1608. Barclay says he went in 1638. Other writers have been impressed with the date of 1640. One writer mentions three dates, 1640, 1641 and 1644. The Kiffin Manuscript mentions both 1640 and 1644. One date is just as good as another, for there is no authority to substantiate any of them. Not one prominent Baptist received his baptism from this source. William Kiffin, John Spilsbury, Samuel Richardson and Paul Hobson did not.

We are confronted with the Amazing proposition that there were two Kiffin Manuscripts, differing from one another in most important respects. The one by Crosby has already been referred to; the other is known as the Gould edition. In the year 1860, Rev. George Gould had a lawsuit in regard to certain chapel property. After the suit was over Mr. Gould presented his side of the question to the public in a volume entitled: Open Communion and the Baptists of Norwich. He also left a volume of manuscripts. Through the kindness of Rev. George P. Gould, ex-President of Regents Park College, an opportunity was granted the author to examine these papers. There were some thirty documents, with other miscellaneous papers, copied into a large book, under the general title: Notices of the Early Baptists. These papers were copied into this book about the year 1860. It has recently been announced that these papers have been found; but what became of the originals is a mystery. Information was sought in vain. The Kiffin Manuscript as copied in this book differs in a radical manner from the quotations made by Crosby from the so-called Kiffin Manuscript. The Gould Kiffin Manuscript has been shown in almost every detail to be contrary to well authenticated records, such for example, as sworn depositions in the courts of the land. Some who were described as men were women, some who were pronounced alive were dead, some who were declared to be in prison were free, etc, etc. Records in the book profess to be the minutes of the church of which Henry Jacob was pastor, and yet not one date or fact connected with his life is correctly given. Take a single incident from the minutes:

This is the so-called minute of the church, and yet every statement is contrary to the facts in the case. Mr. Jacob did not serve the church eight years, but only six years; he did not go to Virginia in 1624, but in 1622; and he did not die 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, Borough of Canterbury. All of this is found in the last will and testament of Henry Jacob, which may he consulted at Somerset House, London. The will was probated by his wife, Sarah Jacob.

From the Gould Kiffin Manuscript, of 1860, the following is taken:

Upon these eleven words "none having then so practiced it in England to professed Believers" treatises have been written to prove that the English Baptists did not practice immersion before 1641. If his document were genuine it would prove no such fact. All that could be claimed for it is, that so far as the writer knows, there had been no practice of believers’ immersion previous to that date. The document does not say they received baptism in Holland from Batte, but that they received letters and Blunt baptized Blacklock and Blacklock baptized Blunt and they baptized the rest. All this took place in England and not in Holland.

In 1850 Charles H. Spurgeon did not know that any one in England practiced immersion. It was a surprise and joy to him to find that there were in England, those whose existence he had not anticipated, who observed the New Testament teaching in regard to baptism. He proceeded to become one of than, and soon filled the world with his fame (Spurgeon, Sermon on God’s Pupil. Ps. 71:17). Because a certain man, who was not a Baptist, did not know of the practice of believers’ immersion in 1640, no more proves that such a baptism was not practiced than the want of knowledge in 1850, on Spurgeon’s part proved that no believers then immersed in England. Besides they had facilities of information in 1850 far beyond what they had in 1640. But Crosby leaves out these words altogether. If these words were in the Kiffin Manuscript then he deliberately falsified the record to suit his purpose and left out the most important words in the manuscript. He did this with the full knowledge of the fact that he had loaned this manuscript to Mr. Neal, who in several instances quoted from it, and could easily have exposed Crosby. Crosby stands above reproach in candor and honesty.

Whoever compiled the Gould manuscripts, repeatedly, in the thirty documents, recorded these eleven words in connection with documents which do not naturally mention baptism in any form. It was a pet phrase of the compiler of the Gould Kiffin Manuscript. how did these words get into the Gould Kiffin Manuscript?

No.18 of the Gould collection is an example of how the compiler made use of these words. Effort has been made to prove that the Gould collection was made by Edward Bampfield, but this is a failure since this number was written after Bampfield was dead, and his autobiography is mentioned. He died in 1683. This collector believed that the Baptists obtained immersion from somewhere, so he puts it in all of the documents. Therefore we read in No. 18:

The same statement is found in document No.4. How did these statements get into the Gould Kiffin Manuscript? They are not in Crosby’s edition. They are in a number of the documents in the Gould collection. There is not a single instance known in this period, where a Baptist church practiced sprinkling, or where any Baptist church changed its practice.

Fortunately it is not necessary to turn to a confused and misleading manuscript for an account of the organization of the Particular Baptist Churches. Hanserd Knollys was one of the principal actors of those times, and he gives an account of their organization. He rejected infant baptism in 1631 (John Lewis, Appendix to the History of the Anabaptists. Rawlinson MSS. CCCCIX, 62), and probably became a Baptist in the same year (Kiffin, Life and Death of Hanserd Knollys, p. 47. London, 1812). He tells in simple language (A Moderate Answer unto Dr. Baswick’s Book. London, 1645), the story of the planting of these churches in the days of persecution before 1641. He relates:

This is a rational, genuine, straightforward account of the organization of the Particular Baptist churches.

The Independent church, of which Henry Jacob was the first pastor and of which Mr. Lathrop was the second, was often troubled on the subject of immersion. In 1638, during the pastorate of Mr. Lathrop, there was a division in the church on the subject of dipping, and a Baptist church was organized under the pastorate of John Spilsbury. This church of Spilsbury’s practiced dipping. Spilsbury immersed Sam Eaton between the dates of April 14, 1634, and May 5, 1636. Eaton also became a preacher and immersed others. This information was given by John Taylor, who put in rhyme as follows:

Also one Spilsbury rose up of late,
(Who doth or did dwell over Alderagate)
.     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .
He rebaptiz’d in Anabaptist fashion
One Eaton (of the new found separation)
A zealous button maker, grave and wise,
And gave him orders others to baptize:
He was so apt to learn that in one day,
He’d Do’t as well as Spilsbury weigh’d Hay.
This true Hay-lay man to the Bank side came
And there likewise baptized an impure dame.

This book was written, in 1638 (Taylor, A Swarme of Sectaries, and Schismatiques). It is interesting to note Spilsbury’s idea of immersion. He says:

In regard to the enemies calling baptism "a new fangled way," Spilsbury remarks: "Yet truth was before error." He evidently thought immersion was the old way. The Lathrop church had continual trouble on dipping. A book called "To Zion’s Virgins," was written by an ancient member of the congregation. An edition was printed in 1644, but it had been in use for several years and was in fact a Catechism. The date can be approximated. It was written after September 18, 1634, for it declared that Mr. Lathrop was now pastor in America. It was before 1637 when Mr. Jessey was called as pastor, for the church was engaged in prayer for a pastor. The date was then. between 1634 and 1637. The church at that date had already experienced disturbances on the subject of believers’ immersion. The writer exhorts the members that they avoid "that that makes divisions," and continues:

Again:

This ancient member of the Independent church testifies directly to the immersion of believers, and the date was before 1637.

Spilsbury immersed Eaton; and Eaton immersed others. Moreover Eaten had been a member of Lathrop’s church, and so Spilsbury did not recognize the baptism administered by Lathrop. The date of the baptism of Lathrop can be approximately fixed by the records of the High Court of Commission. Eaton died in prison August 25, 1639 (Calendar of State Papers, CCCCXXVII. p. 107). He was in jail from May 5, 1636, continuously to his death, therefore he was immersed before 1636; and he was likewise a preacher and practiced immersion before that date, The Court Records show that April 29, 1632, he was a member of Lathrop’s church. He continued in jail until April 24, 1684, when he was released from prison under the same bond that Lathrop was (Ibid., CCLXI. p. 182). After that date and before May 5, 1636, he joined the Baptist church and was dipped by Spilsbury. At a later date he was again cast into prison (Ibid., CCCXXIV. p. 18), and while in prison he attacked the baptism of the Churchmen (Ibid., CCCCVI. p. 64). He died on Sunday, August 25, 1689 (Ibid., CCCCXXXVII. p. 107), and not less than two hundred persons accompanied the corpse to the grave.

There was another secession from the Jacob church in 1638, when William Kiffin and five others united with the church of Spilsbury. (Ivimey, The Life of William Kiffin, P. 16, London 1883).

Of this event Goadby says:

Spilsbury was in the practice of immersion; but Kiffin was more strict in his views than was his pastor. Spilsbury permitted pulpit affiliation; Kiffin would have none of it. He believed that only an immersed man should occupy a Baptist pulpit. Crosby gives this account of Kiffin:

Kiffin, in the year 1639, or 1640, withdrew from the church of Spilsbury and organized the Devonshire Baptist Church, of London, on a strict immersion line. This honored church has continued to this day.

After the organization of the church under Spilsbury, the subject of dipping still troubled the Independent church of Lathrop. He removed to America in 1634 with a part of his church, which brought on a great debate on baptism in this country.

We are not yet done with this church of Jacob’s for one of its most distinguished pastors, Rev. Henry Jessey, became a Baptist. He was one of the most noted men of his times. He was born September 3, 1601, entered Cambridge University in 1622, and became a minister in 1626, and became pastor of the Jacob church in 1637. The frequent debates on baptism soon unsettled his mind. In 1642 be freely declared to the church his convictions on the subject of dipping, and proposed that those baptized in the church thereafter he baptized by that form. In 1644 he held frequent debates on the subject of infant baptism, and in June, 1645, he was baptized by Hanserd Knollys.

This Independent church, organized by Jacob, had a most wonderful record for making Baptists, and encouraging the practice of dipping. There were repeated secessions from it on that account. Out of it came a number of the great leaders of the Particular Baptists, all of whom were in the practice of dipping. Henry Jessey received his baptism from Hanserd Knollys, who had been a Baptist since 1631. Eaton was immersed by John Spilsbury, and Eaton in turn dipped others. William Kiffin was the strictest of them all and would not permit those who had not been immersed to preach in Baptist pulpits. Even those who emigrated to America precipitated a great debate on the subject of dipping.

There was another Independent church which at least had two distinguished pastors who were Baptists. It was organized by Mr. Hubbard, about the year 1621. He was a Pedobaptist minister, but the immediate successors in the pastorate were Baptists. The church worshipped at Deadman’s Place, and contained many Baptists in its membership. It is probable that by 1640 a majority of its members were Baptists and had been immersed. They were arrested in January, 1640, and brought before the House of Lords. So greatly did Baptist sentiment prevail among them that they were called Anabaptists (Journal of the House of Lords, IV. 133). There were more than sixty-six of them. The House of Lords, on the 16th of January, reprimanded them. This action on the part of the House of Lords directed much sympathy to the church.

Some of the persons before the House of Lords on this occasion signed the great Confession of Faith of 1643. Just when John Canne became minister is not known certainly, but he resigned and went to Holland in 1633. He was in Amsterdam in 1634, at which time he wrote his celebrated book: "The Necessity of Separation," which had a wide circulation with important results. At that time he was an Anabaptist (Brereton, Travels, p. 65). Stovell makes it perfectly plain that while pastor of the Hubbard church he was a Baptist. He was still, in 1638, in Amsterdam and heavily fined for his activities (Evans, Early English Baptists, II. p. 108). He probably returned in that year to London, where he labored with success. He went, in 1640, larger liberty being granted of preaching, to Bristol, where he preached in public places, at other times in the open air, and founded a church. Being a Baptist, he was described as a "baptized man," meaning an immersed man. Already, in 1640 a Baptist was known as an immersed man.

The Broadmead Records give an account of his arrival and work in that city. The Records say:

Mr. Canne attempted to preach in a suburb of the city and a wealthy woman placed some obstructions in his way. The Broadmead Records say:

Canne, in 1640, was a baptized man, such a man was called an Anabaptist, and there is no record that any time since his conversion he had changed his mind on the subject of baptism.

The third pastor of the Hubbard church was Samuel Howe, a Baptist He died about 1640, while pastor of the church. He had been pastor about seven years. He was much lamented. He was persecuted, denied Christian burial, and was finally interred at Agnes-la-cleer. He wrote a famous book, called Howe’s Sufficiency of the Spirit’s Teaching. His contemporaries bore high praise to his ability and zeal for his work. It was Samuel Howe who greatly impressed Roger Williams; and it was probably from Howe that Williams learned some of his lessons of soul liberty and dipping in baptism (Howe, Sermon, 12. 13).

It has been shown that Taylor aid Spilsbury practiced dipping. He bears the same testimony to Howe. Taylor says the Baptists of England date back to the "reign of Henry 8," and affirms that "in these, our days, the said Anabaptisticall sect is exceeding rife, for they do swarm here and there without fear of either God or man, law or order" (Taylor, A Cluster of Coxcombes. London, 1642). Here follows the relation of the preaching cobler, Sam Howe:

This reverend translating brother (Howe)
Puts both his hands unto the spiritual-plow,
And the nag’s head, near the Coleman-Street,
A most pure crew of Brethren there did meet,
Where their devotions were so strong and ample,
To turn a sinful Tavern to a Temple,
They banished Bacchus then, and some small space
The drawers and the Bar-boy had some grace
(Taylor, A Swarme of Sectaries, p. 8).

Taylor makes Howe a Baptist and a dipper. He represents him in the title page standing in a tub filled with water as a pulpit. and marks the picture "Sam How." This was in 1638. The above book of Taylor’s was answered by Henry Walker. Of the tub in which Howe was standing, Walker says:

Taylor thereupon reads a lecture and pronounces Walker also an Anabaptist. He likewise represents Walker as standing in a tub and makes him an Anabaptist dipper (Taylor, A seasonable Lecture). Thus were John Canne and Samuel Howe, the pastors of this Independent church, both practicing dipping. Both of these were Baptists. Two other parties connected with this church, Thomas Gunn and John Webb, were Baptists, who signed the Confession of Faith of 1643. Thus can the opinions of the most of the Baptists be accounted for.

There is yet another Baptist who signed the Confession of Faith of 1643, for whose practice we can give an account His name was Paul Hobson. Of him Ivimey says:

The above statements in regard to Paul Hobson are confirmed by Edwards (Edwards, Gangræna, I. p. 33), who was a contemporary. Edwards wrote in 1645, and he says that Hobson had been a tailor, but was now in the army. He had been a great while a Baptist preacher. An Anabaptist in the mouth of Edwards was always one who immersed.

Thomas Kilcop was another of the Baptists who signed the Confession of Faith of 1643. He had long been a Baptist minister. when Praise God Barbon, in 1641, attacked the Baptists he was answered by Edward Barber for the General Baptists; and by Thomas Kilcop for the Particular Baptists. This Barbon had been a member of the church of Jacob, and had become pastor of an Independent organization of his own. He was a rabid Pedobaptist, and is variously described as a leather seller and a politician. He became a distinguished member of the Long Parliament and his Parliament was called the Praise God Barbon Parliament, He was born, probably, in 1596, and died in 1679. Like many of the members of Jacob’s church, he became a Baptist The date we do not know, but in the "Declaration" of the Baptists, issued in 1654, twenty-two names signified to it as "of that church which walks with Mr. Barbon" (National Dictionary, III. p. 151). The book of Kilcop appeared early in 1641. On the subject of immersion, he said:

There is no intimation that he ever recognized any other form of baptism save immersion. on the subject of succession he held the views of the other Particular Baptists of his times.

Those who have read the literature of the seventeenth century cannot fail to have been impressed with its harsh controversial tone. This is true on well nigh all subjects. The remark especially applies to those who wrote on the form and subjects of baptism. The harshest of the opponents of the Baptists were the Presbyterians. They had separated more widely from the New Testament practice, and they felt called upon to justify the acts of the Westminster Assembly; and their radical changes in the fundamental law of England in enacting affusion. Naturally their most determined opponents were the Baptists. What the Presbyterians lacked in argument they made up in assertion. They never tired. of calling the Baptist practice of dipping "new fangled, a novelty of recent occurrence, and soured leaven." An illustration could be secured from almost any year of the century. For example, Richard Burthogge, A. D., 1684, says of the Baptists: "Your opinion is but a novelty" (Burthogge, An Argument for Infant Baptism, p. 122). Richard Baxter, A. D. 1670, says: "These and many more absurdities follow upon this new conceit" (Baxter, The Cure of Church Divisions, p. 49).

The word "new," however, in the mouth of writers of the period was a relative term and meant from one to sixteen hundred years. In the main they meant to deny the affirmation of the Baptists that immersion was "the good old way" and had the mark of "antiquity upon it" (Watts, A Scribe, Pharisee and Hypocrite, iv. London, 1657). Samuel Richardson is a good witness. He answered Daniel Featley, in the year 1645, who had affirmed that the Baptists were new. Richardson says:

William Allen, another Baptist, writing in 1655, says to call it "new baptism," as the enemies call it, is to "miscall it, being indeed the old way of baptizing" (William Allen, An Answer to J.G., his XL Queries, p. 72).

Thomas Collier, a famous Baptist, A. D., 1651, affirms that dipping was the old practice. He says:

Hanserd Knollys, in answer to John Saltmarsh, a Quaker, who affirmed that immersion was new (Saltmarsh, The Smoke in the Temple, p. 16. London, 1646), declares that immersion is not new. He says:

John Tombes answered the charge of Mr. Marshall, that he was "itching after new opinions." Of this, Mr. Tombes says:

The announcement from a Baptist that immersion was the good old way, and as ancient as the times of the Apostles, brought a violent outbreak from Jeffrey Watts. He says:

The Baptists claimed to have "the good old way" when they practiced immersion; Watts calls it "a new way" since he affirmed that immersion was not taught in the New Testament. He mentioned two things the Baptists did which he pronounced new. The first was that in 1642 or 1648, they immersed nude women in the rivers. "I hope," said he, "you see, that your dipping of women in their clothes, is a new business in the church" (Ibid., p. 19). He takes up much time in elucidating the old slander. The second thing he affirms about dipping is that it is not found in the Scriptures. He said that it had been of long continuance in England and gives many examples, and then he affirms that it is new among Baptists, since they had practiced it only since 1524. He says:

According to Watt, the Baptists of England had been in the practice of immersion one hundred and thirty-two years. John Goodwin took precisely the same view. He called the immersions of the Baptists new. He said it had only been in existence among Baptists since the time of Nicholas Storch. His words are:

The Particular Baptists, in 1643, prepared a Confession of Faith, which was published the following year. The XL Article of the Confession of Faith of those churches which "are commonly (though falsely) called Anabaptists" is as follows:

There is a note appended, as follows:

Perhaps in a Confession of Faith, it would be impossible to state the practice of the Baptists more plainly. It has been asserted that this Confession of 1643, was the declaration of their change of doctrine on the subject; and that this Confession of Faith was the first Baptist document which affirmed immersion. As a matter of fact, according to all psychological principles and all history, this Particular Baptist Confession, of 1643, was simply the expression of the doctrines this body of Baptists had held all of the time.

If one will read the Confession he will find that not only did the Baptists not change their doctrines, but they further declared that they had long groaned under persecution; and that only from the meeting of the Long Parliament, in 1640, had they had any redress. All of this and more is stated in Article L, which is as follows;

They looked into the future as they had a retrospect of the past. The persecutions of the past, they say in Article LI, inspired them with the courage for the future. They expressed themselves as willing to give up all and that they did not count their lives dear that they might finish their course with joy. They had endured persecution in the past, they were willing to suffer affliction in the future. The God of our fathers had been true to us in the past he will not forsake us now. This is a heroic statement.

It is impossible to conceive that men of a mould like this would change their minds on a fundamental doctrine over night. Professor J. B. Thomas, late Professor of Church History, in Newton Theological Institution, concisely states the argument, when he says:

The Confession of Faith was equally clear on the proper administrator of baptism. The view of Spilsbury prevailed. He held that if baptism was lost, any disciple could begin it again, and quoted John the Baptist in proof of his position. They declared it was not necessary to send anywhere for an administrator. Article XLI is as follows:

The Baptists of 1643 did not have an "agent extraordinarily sent" to Holland to obtain baptism. They believed in and practiced no such thing.

The Confession of Faith was made by the representatives of seven churches and was signed by the following persons: William Kiffin, Thomas Patience, John Spilsbury, George Tipping, Samuel Richardson, Thomas Skippard, Thomas Munday, Thomas Gunn, John Mabhatt, John Webb, Thomas Kilcop, Paul Hobson, Thomas Goare, Joseph Phelpes and Edward Heath.

The Confession of Faith was clear and orthodox enough to allay suspicion, and ought to have saved the Baptists from further annoyance and persecution, The impartial Masson says of it:

Their adversaries took no such view of the Confession of Faith. They could not be satisfied or induced to give the Baptists credit for common honesty. It was greeted by an outburst of passion from the Pedobaptist world. Dr. Featley, who wrote with no small prejudice, says:

Nevertheless, the Confession of Faith exerted a powerful and favorable influence for the Baptists. It was orthodox, evangelical and free from objectionable errors. "The Baptists never did anything that more effectually cleared them from the charge of being dangerous heretics, than did this" (Crosby, I., p. 170).

Joseph Ivimey, A History of the English Baptists, 4 volumes.

Adam Taylor, The History of the English General Baptists, 2 volumes.

J. H. Wood, A Condensed History of the General Baptists of the New Connection.