Does that prove that before the Baptists of our land practiced infant baptism? George F, Holmes, of the University of Virginia, who recently died, wrote: Holmes was one of the greatest scholars of the world.
These are but samples from men who surely had abundant opportunity to know about the Baptists, but who had not taken the trouble to inform themselves. If, then, such men, who are not chargeable with hostility to the Baptists, and living in our own land and time, so utterly misunderstand our denominational beliefs and practices, shall we be surprised to find bitter enemies of the Baptists in the 17th century in England charging them with being "new" and "upstart?
Let it be remembered that the persecuting courts of High Commission and Star Chamber went out of existence August lst, , and that then the Baptists, who had been obliged to conceal themselves, came out of their hiding places and preached their doctrine boldly, and broadly, as they could not do before.
This, of course, made a stir, and it was all new to many of the people of that day. What wonder, then, that these Baptists should be pronounced "new" and "upstart? The very fact that they showed themselves so vigorously and preached their doctrines so boldly in , as is conceded on all hands, just so soon as they could do so safely, proves that they did not then invent or adopt these practices. They came from their hiding places and advocated openly what they had been believing and practicing in secret all the time.
What these writers denounce as "new" and "upstart," is not the practice of immersion. Not at all; for that was, up to the decree of the Westminster Assembly in , regarded as the normal form of baptism. The "new" thing was the absolute refusal to admit that anything but immersion was valid baptism.
These writers were used to the idea that while immersion was all right, affusion, especially in cases of sickness, was equally valid. It was the denial of the validity of affusion that gave offense, and which was denounced as "new" and "upstart. Featley clearly states the case when he says, p.
Featley made no objection to the practice of immersion, but only to the rejection of affusion. Great reliance has been placed on a statement of the anonymous writer, Mercurius Rusticus, and so it may be well in passing to quote his language in full, which those who throw him at us have carefully avoided doing. Michelson is parson, an able and godly man.
Before this parliament was called, of this numerous congregation, there was not one to be named, man or woman, who boggled at the Common prayers, or refused to receive the sacrament kneeling, the posture which the church of England walking in the foot-steps of venerable antiquity hath by Act of Parliament injoined all of those which account it their happinesse to be called her children. But since this magnified Reformation was set this towne as indeed most corporations, as we finde by experience, are Nurceries of Faction and Rebellion is so filled with Sectaries, especially Brownists and Anabaptists , that a third part of the people refuse to communicate in the Church Lyturgie, and half refuse to receive the blessed sacrament, unless they may receive it in what posture they may please to take it.
They have amongst them two sorts of Anabaptists: It is to be noted: That this comes from an anonymous and a bitter royalist. The chief reliance of the advocates of the " theory" is on anonymous documents. He constantly confounded Anabaptists with Brownists and others, and denounced them all indiscriminately. Yet even here he does not claim that any who had been sprinkled in infancy were resprinkled, which must have been the case had the Anabaptists practiced sprinkling.
The reasonable conclusion, even if this unknown writer be regarded as reliable, is that those who were converted from the state church and were immersed were the "Immersi," while those who broke from the state church without being immersed were the "Aspersi.
Yet even be says nothing of Blunt's introducing immersion in or at any other time. Another writer greatly relied on is Robert Baillie, and it may be deemed worth while to consider what he says. He was a Scotch Presbyterian minister in Glasgow, and of course he knew all about what the Anabaptists all over England were doing.
He says in his "Anabaptisme," p. Among the old Anabaptists, or those over sea to this day, so far as I can learn by their writs or any relation that has come to my ears, the question of dipping and sprinkling came never upon the Table.
As I take it, they dip none, but all whom they baptize they sprinkle in the same manner as is our custom. It is to be noted that his special objection is not to the practice of immersion but to the advocacy of "the nullity of affusion and sprinkling.
He tells of the origin of these Anabaptists, "unhappy men, Stock and Muncer, did begin to breathe out a pestiferous vapor, for to over-cloud that golden candlestick" p. The spirit of Mahomet was not more hellish in setting foot most grosse errors and countenancing abominable lusts, nor was it anything so much hellish in making an open trade of bloodshed, robbery, confusion and Catholick oppression through the whole earth as the spirit of Anabaptisme.
This great and severe sentence will be made good in the following narrative by such abundance of satisfactory testimonies as may convince the greatest favourers of these men among us" p. He says of these Anabaptists "that whosoever refused to enter into their society to be rebaptized and to become members of their churches were without all pity to be killed" p.
He goes yet farther: Once more he says that among these Anabaptists "the Scripture is denied to be the Word of God, and is avowed to be full of lies and errors, men are sent from the Word to seek revelations above and contrary to it" p.
In all fairness let it be asked what reliance can be placed in the statements about the Anabaptists of a man who writes this way about them? Yet these are probably the main citations relied upon to confirm the statement of the so-called "Kiffin" manuscript. It is only fair, though painful, to add, that many of the authors cited in favor of the "l theory" have been grossly misrepresented.
For example, Ephraim Pagitt is represented as saying in his Heresiography that the "plunged Anabaptists" are the newest sort. He wrote in , and this is urged as confirming the theory that immersion had then been lately introduced. But the fact is, Pagitt says no such thing. I secured a copy of his book and read it through carefully twice and others have read it , and the expression "plunged Anabaptists" does not occur in the book at all, and he draws no distinction whatever between the "plunged Anabaptists" and any other sort, nor does he intimate that immersion was new among them.
It is claimed that Thomas Crosby, the Baptist historian who wrote in , favored the theory that immersion had ceased to be practiced in England, and was started afresh in But the claim is without valid warrant.
Crosby does unhesitatingly speak of restoring immersion, but that does not mean to convey the idea that immersion had ceased to be practiced, is manifest by his point blank declaration to the contrary. A practice can be restored without having entirely ceased to exist.
When the abolition of the persecuting courts High Commission and Star Chamber in , left Baptists free to publicly preach their doctrines and observe their practices, there was, as a matter of course, a revival of both.
There was a decided Baptist movement, largely among Pedobaptists, and the mistake is made of thinking that these Pedobaptists who adopted Baptist views were the first in England, for over a century, to hold those views. Crosby, however, does not put the revival or restoring of immersion in , but back at the beginning of the century, for he speaks of John Smyth as one of those who restored the ordinance in England, and Smyth died in or Crosby believed that the immersion of believers had been practiced in England from the earliest times, and that it had been kept up in the world since the days of John the Baptist.
Crosby gives a sketch of the preservation of immersion from the days of Christ to the beginning of the 17th century. He nowhere intimates that any Anabaptist church in England ever changed their practice from sprinkling to immersion.
He assumes throughout that the Anabaptists from whom the Baptists largely sprang, had all along practiced immersion. He is at pains to point out how the Anabaptists in continental Europe practiced immersion from the beginning of the Reformation.
He tells of the decree at Zurich in the year , "making it death for any to baptize by immersion; upon which law some called Anabaptists were ty'd back to back, and thrown into the sea, others were burned alive, and many starved to death in prison. Speaking of Arnoldus Meshovius and others about , as opposed to infant baptism, Crosby says Vol.
The reign of James I. James came from Scotland, where the Protestant divines on returning from their stay in Geneva, when Elizabeth ascending the throne made their return safe, had established sprinkling. Hence James began to introduce sprinkling and to root out immersion from the Church of England.
These Protestant divines had fled from the persecution of Bloody Mary, and had gone to Geneva. There, under the tuition of John Calvin, they adopted sprinkling as the normal act for baptism; and when on the accession of Elizabeth they returned as the Edinburgh Encyclopedia tells us , they thought they could not do their church a greater service than by introducing a practice suited to their Northern clime and sanctioned by the great name of Calvin.
Thus sprinkling was established in Scotland, and James, coming from Scotland, believed in sprinkling and sought to make it the general practice. And just here Dr. Christian has rendered valuable service in enabling us to trace the growth of sprinkling in England. He has personally examined copies of the Articles of Visitation sent out to the clergy by the Archbishops, every year from the beginning of James' reign to the triumph of sprinkling in The high functionaries of the Church of England resisted the efforts of the Court to substitute the "bason" for sprinkling, instead of the "font" for immersion.
In these Articles exhortations abound to keep the "font" in its place and to keep out the "bason. So far from immersion's beginning in England in , it was not far from that time that sprinkling began.
And the very fact that immersion was voted down in this Assembly by a majority of only one in , is positive proof that immersion did not begin in England only two years before. It is incredible that a religious rite, introduced anew by poor and obscure people, and opposed to the practice and prejudice of those in power as immersion must have been, according to the " theory" , should in two years have taken such hold of the members of that Assembly as that the rite could be voted down by only one majority.
Yet without an atom of positive evidence, we are asked to believe that just that took place. During the times of persecution before the year the persecuting courts were abolished , the Baptists could not safely keep records. To have done so would have been to furnish their enemies with facilities for identifying them and imprisoning and killing them. The persecutors sought for records that they might learn the names and locations of these "pestilent heretics;" and the existence of records would have been a constant peril.
The Baptists were too wise to furnish their adversities with such easy means of identification. Necessarily, therefore, the evidence of the existence and practices of the Baptists of those times, consists of what the court records tell us, of what writers chose to say of them, and of occasional utterances of the persecuted ones themselves, when they could safely write.
It could not be expected that their enemies would do them justice. In certain obscure places, where they could safely meet, they might venture to build a house for worship. Such a house is found at Hill Cliff, where there is now a Baptist church which traces its existence back to ; and it is believed there has been a church there since the earliest times. Christian saw there a tombstone, lately exhumed, with the epitaph of a pastor of that very church, and bearing date l The ruins of an old baptistery have also been lately uncovered.
This obscure and inaccessible place was a safe retreat in times of persecution. How many such there were in the land, there are no means of determining. There are to-day 27 Baptist churches in England which antedate No one denies that these churches have been in existence during the time they claim; but it is coolly assumed, in the absence of any evidence, that prior to these churches practiced sprinkling.
The reason for assuming this is that the exigencies of the " theory" demand it. From on, the material is abundant, just as we would expect. And if the Anabaptist churches of England did really change their practice in from sprinkling to immersion, there is no reason there should not be records of such a change.
From on, it was safe to keep records, save during a brief space, when persecution was renewed to some extent after the restoration of Charles II.
So while we see abundant reason for the absence of records before , we can see no reason why there should be no record at all of any of the Anabaptist churches adopting immersion in and after, if they did adopt it. Still we are not without positive evidence of the existence of believer's immersion in England before Christian gives a good supply of such evidence, much of which is new to the public.
We note a very few of these. It was admitted that it was decisive, if genuine ; but its genuineness was denied, and so Dr. Christian omitted it in the second edition of "Did They Dip? In this book Fox says in Latin which is given in full by Dr.
The quotation is given in full in the body of the book, and need not be repeated here. Coming on down, we are furnished with numerous testimonies Jewell, ; Busher, ; Hieron, ; Rogers, , and others , both as to the practice of immersion in general, and as to its practice by the Baptists particularly, until we come to Edward Barber, who in was answering objections to the immersion of believers; which proves the practice to have existed before.
Barber in this same "treatise," declares that the practice of immersing believers was older than the name Anabaptist, which name no one denies was current in the reign of Henry VIII. The late thing is the name Anabaptist, which was applied as a reproach to those who all along had been professing and practicing "the dipping of Christ.
That he wrote this in , proves that the practice of immersing believers did not begin at that time in England, since it ran back beyond his recollection, certainly. Had immersion been a "splinter new" thing in , he could not then have believed that it was older than the name Anabaptist.
Similarly, the account given by John Taylor in of the immersion of Samuel Eaton, by John Spilsbury, shows the practice of immersion in England previous to For the court records show that Sam Eaton and there can be no question about his being the same man died Aug. Hence his immersion and his immersing others must have taken place before May 5th, The testimonies of Fuller, Busher, Featley and others are given fully by Dr.
Christian, and need not be repeated here. We have, then, briefly, the following conditions: It is admitted that there were Anabaptists in England before , who were very strict in their belief and interpretation of the Bible, and were ready to die for their faith. But it is denied that any of them ever saw their duty in the Bible in regard to baptism till , and then they all saw it at once and began to practice it. It is admitted that these Anabaptists were constantly reminded of immersion by the rubric of the state church and by the writings of the commentators and scholars of the period.
Yet it is denied that any of them took the hint till , and then they all took it and adopted immersion. There is no account of any Anabaptist church's [sic] having practiced sprinkling and changing to immersion, and the absence of any such account cannot be explained on the " theory. The only direct evidence offered in favor of the " theory" is the statement of an anonymous document, the oldest extant copy of which is less than 40 years old, which is not, confirmed by any writer of the period, and which has been proved to be full of gross mistakes -- names wrong, dates wrong, titles wrong and facts wrong.
The other evidence offered is circumstantial, and is, moreover, not to the point. We have actual documentary and monumental evidence of the practice of believers' immersion in England before It is claimed that "distinguished historians" have adopted the " theory. On the other hand, it were easy to cite scores of names of eminent historians who reject the " theory.
Surely historians in England can be supposed to know the facts of the history of England better than those in other lands. And, moreover, equally distinguished historians, and more of them, too, in this country distinctly reject the theory. The reader, by examining the evidence produced, can judge for himself whether immersion was "splinter new" in England in In presenting this subject I shall be very careful to give the exact sources of my information.
I am particularly indebted to the Rev. Ulyat, the librarian of Princeton Theological Seminary. Two very large collections, one on the subject of baptism and the other on Puritanism, aggregating some ten thousand volumes, are to be found in that library, to say nothing of the important books in the general library. Unusual opportunities were granted me for the examination of these works.
Angus' library is located, I was able to examine this important collection. The library at York Minster also contains some important works not found elsewhere. The Record Office, London, where the State Papers are kept, and the Somerset House where wills, births and marriages are recorded contain invaluable information. Besides these, I am indebted to a number of libraries and individuals for information which I can acknowledge here only in the most general way.
I have made full use of all these sources of information in addition to a careful examination of the works I have gathered in my own library during the last twenty years. I have no theory to serve, and have tried to weigh all the facts which have come before me. I have furthermore put myself to much trouble to find all the facts in the case, and while not able to fully accomplish this important consideration, the reader will find much important material that has not been presented before.
The subject certainly needed investigation, and I am glad to be instrumental in throwing any light upon it. Most extraordinary and exaggerated claims have been put forth as to the historic value of the "Kiffin" Manuscript. Its history is no less remarkable. It has been strangely confounded with other documents by more than one author, and has been made to serve a purpose on more than one occasion. It has been used to prove the most preposterous propositions, when these contradicted all known history.
It has been asserted in the most positive manner that the manuscript is authentic and wholly reliable, although not one contemporaneous author mentions the document or ever refers to the most prominent persons named in it.
The interpretations put upon its language are no less strained than the statements found in its pages. It has been the fruitful source for visions and extravagant vagaries, while the historians who have adopted it have given us instead of history confusion worse confounded.
As if one such manuscript is not enough we have two, which do not agree with each other, indeed they differ so widely that they both cannot be the same document, and yet they are both called the Kiffin Manuscript.
The historian, Crosby, who wrote his Baptist History in the year ff. Where Crosby got this document, and what became of it, are questions which at this time no one can answer. Crosby quoted the document with evident caution, and it is manifest that he was never fully convinced that it was written by William Kiffin.
In his first volume he appears to have felt that some of the statements contained in it were worthy to be recorded, and he may have accepted some of its theories; but it is equally certain that in the second volume, upon maturer consideration, he rejected this document, at least he modified his previous statements.
So far from Crosby believing that the Baptists of England began in , he was a believer in church succession. Nor is there a word in all of his writings to indicate that he believed that the Baptists of England began to dip in He nowhere indicates that the words in regard to dipping, "none having so practiced in England to professed believers," were in the manuscript before him, which he would undoubtedly have done had the words been in there.
His words on succession are plain and unmistakable. But since my publication of the former volume, I have had such materials communicated to me that I could not in justice to the communicators omit them, without incurring the just censure of a partial historian.
Besides it having been objected to me that a more early account of the English Baptists might be obtained: Now in this inquiry, so much has occurred to me as carries with it more than a probability that the first English Christians were Baptists. I could not therefore pass over so material a fact in their favor; and now because it cannot now be placed where it properly belongs, I have fixed it by way of preface to this Second Volume.
On page ii of this Preface, Crosby says:. And as the English Baptists adhere closely to this principle, that John the Baptist was by divine command, the first commissioned to preach the gospel, and baptize by immersion , those that received it; and that this practice has been ever since maintained and continued in the world to this present day; so it may not be improper to consider the state of religion in this Kingdom: That this manuscript was not written by Kiffin, will be abundantly proved in these articles.
Two or three points are clear: Crosby did not believe the manuscript was written by Kiffin; he did believe that he Baptists began in England upon the first planting of Christianity and had continued there since, and he did not affirm that dipping was a new thing in England.
Gould, of Regents Park College, had an unsuccessful lawsuit in regard to certain chapel property. Gould maintained a system of lax church order and open communion. After the suit was lost Mr. Gould presented his side of the question to the public in a volume entitled, "Open Communion and the Baptists of Norwich. Recently I had the privilege of examining these Gould documents.
Instead of consisting of one or even four documents, there are no less than thirty of these papers numbered consecutively, besides several miscellaneous papers. These are copied into a very large book under the general title, "Notices of the Early Baptists. Gould obtained this material is a profound mystery, and what became of the papers he copied is a mystery. Gould only remembers that his father had these papers, but beyond this he knows nothing of the documents whatever.
The first page is in Dr. Gould's handwriting, the remaining pages were copied by an old usher, or schoolmaster, who was in his employ. This was in , two hundred and twenty years after the events occurred which are described. That is to say, for a period of two hundred and twenty years no one ever heard tell of this document, and it is not authenticated by a single contemporaneous document.
It will also be borne in mind that this is not the original, neither is it a copy of the original. At the very best it is only a copy of a copy, but even that proximity of the original is not apparent. We are not even favored with the name of the "compiler. The book is itself equally indefinite. The following is the introduction to the thirty documents:. Collected from Original papers or Faithful Extracts. One could hardly conceive how an author could hide his personality more completely.
Where were these manuscripts from A. The sub-introduction placed before the so-called "Kiffin" Manuscript is scarcely more definite. Who was the "me" to whom these papers were given? Of course if a man desires to write conjectural history no documents would serve his purpose better; but if he wishes to state facts no documents could serve his purpose less.
I was quite certain when, on reading the Gould Kiffin Manuscript in its present form, that it was not a seventeenth century document. If the work was copied, as it is claimed, in , the copyist did not follow the original, but introduced the form and spelling of his own time. That these compilations could not have been made before the date indicated, is absolutely certain, from the fact that late books like Wall on Infant Baptism, and Stripes' Memorials are quoted, which would stamp the entire work as of late date.
We have also another absolute proof that the Kiffin Manuscript is not authentic. The author writes an article of his own, Number 17, which he inserts in the work.
That portrays fully the form and style of his writing, and the so-called Kiffin Manuscript and Jessey Records are in exactly that style in construction of sentences, in spelling and in all the peculiarities of language. Whatever may have been the basis for these various documents, one thing is certain: It is also a fact that the documents have been so changed in this compilation that no dependence can be put upon them.
When the author of these articles professed to quote literally he did not quote correctly. A striking example of this will be presented later, and it could be illustrated at great length. I shall put in parallel columns the original extract from Hutchinson and this collator's quotation from Hutchinson.
Two things will be apparent: It will be seen also that the form of spelling and the peculiarities of style of the collator are the form of spelling and the peculiarities of style of the "Kiffin" Manuscript and of the Jessey Records.
But before I present the parallel columns, I desire to present two short paragraphs with which the author introduces his quotation from Hutchinson. There is no doubt these two paragraphs are from the collator, and yet any person who is at all familiar with the Jessey Records and the "Kiffin" Manuscript as given by Gould would not hesitate to declare that the style of this author and of those documents is precisely the same.
The peculiar doctrines and words of the Kiffin Manuscript and Jessey Records are all held by this collator, or perhaps I might more properly say that this collator put into the Kiffin Manuscript and the Jessey Records all of his peculiar views.
The collator and these documents held precisely the same views, expressed in the same style of language, and spelled in the same way. The word "Antipaedobaptism," in this quotation corresponds with "Antipaedobaptist" in document number 4 where this statement occurs:.
Henry Jessey was Pastor, about Infant baptism by wch Mr. It is manifest that this term was familiar to this collator, and it is quite certain that in the alleged date it was not in use, and therefore it stands to reason that it was read into these "genuine records"? Crosby claims that the word "Antipaedobaptist" originated with Wall, who wrote his book, "A History of Infant Baptism," in Crosby, vol. An editorial in the Independent , in refuting the authority of another manuscript, declares: So far as our reading goes, the Baptists never used that word prior to the year ; but always said in the place of it, 'Infants baptism, Childish Baptism or Baby Baptism.
The earliest use I have found of the word is in Bailey's "Anabaptism," but that is some years later than The collator talks of "the revival" of "the practice of immersion," "of those of ye Believers," and in Document 4 the collator says: These persons were called Baptists in the Jessey Church Records, a name which was not in use in , and we all remember the celebrated words from the "Kiffin" Manuscript which have been so often used by some when speaking of immersion in England, "none having so practiced it in England to professed Believers," The collator must have added these words to the "Kiffin" Manuscript.
This opinion is powerfully strengthened when we recollect that Crosby gives the passage from which these words occur, but he never mentioned these words. If Crosby intentionally omitted these words from the Manuscript, then he was not an honest man, but no one has ever suspected his honesty. We have shown that these are the very words of the collator, and since they are inserted here and ommitted by Crosby, this collator is responsible for them.
But fortunately we have point blank proof that the words, "none having so practiced it in England to professed believers," are those of the compiler. If one will turn to Number 18 of this Gould collection, the words of this compiler are found as follows: This compiler had a theory of his own and a set form of words, and he read these words into any narrative that happened to suit his convenience.
He put them in the "Kiffin" Manuscript. It is thus demonstrated beyond a doubt that this compiler has manipulated the "Kiffin" Manuscript to suit his own purposes. Whether this "compiler" wrote in the 19th or the 18th century is of little moment. He either wrote a "Kiffin" Manuscript, or he "doctored" a "Kiffin" Manuscript to suit his purposes. One is as bad as the other. The fact remains that the "Kiffin" Manuscript is a fraud and of no value.
Here are the parallel columns from Hutchinson. The first column contains Hutchinson's own words as he wrote them, the second contains the collator's quotation from Hutchinson:. A comparison of this quotation with the original carries out fully my contention that the collator does not accurately follow the original, and that the form of words and spelling of the "Kiffin" Manuscript are after the collator rather than the original.
In this passage he evidently tried to follow the original, although he met with indifferent success. But in the "Kiffin" Manuscript it is certain that he has added matter. I have already pointed that out, but this could be made out in any number of instances. The four superscriptions to the documents are all of that class. Take Document number one, the "Jessey Church Records.
To call this church an "antient congregation" at that time was absurd. But that is not only in the superscription but it is in the main body of the "Jessey Records" at an alleged period when the church was not over 16 years old. After a careful examination of the thirty articles which go to make up this book, with the miscellaneous matter thrown in, I cannot regard it as of any historical value.
It is evident that an irresponsible collator has gathered a lot of miscellaneous material, never exactly following the original, and frequently only giving a paraphrase, and sometimes he makes the author say what the collator thinks, rather than what the author thinks. But I have even more grave objections to the "genuine? These will be given in the next article. It is very interesting to note the opinions of the historians on the "Kiffin" Manuscript, and as to the Jessey Church Records no notice whatever has been taken of their existence.
Not one historian has been willing to risk his reputation by declaring that the "Kiffin" Manuscript is authentic and authoritative. There is not one line that any historian has been able to find concerning the chief events or the principal persons mentioned in its pages.
Whoever heard of Blunt or Blacklock outside of these "Kiffin" Manuscripts? Neal and others who refer to them do so wholly on the authority of these documents. It is incredible that all the things which the "Kiffin" Manuscript affirm of Blunt and of Blacklock, of the trip to Holland, of their introduction of immersion among Baptists, and the rest of the miraculous things recorded could have taken place, and yet the hundreds of contemporaneous pamphlets and books published on the subject of baptism never even mention or in the remotest manner refer to the exploits of either of these gentlemen.
One could come as near believing the tales of Baron Munchausen as the tales of the "Kiffin" Manuscript. But the use that the historians have made of the "Kiffin" Manuscript is a very interesting one. The first was Neal. He wrote in , or 97 years after Crosby loaned the "Kiffin" Manuscript, along with other documents, to Neal.
Nobody in those days mentioned a Manuscript corresponding with the Gould edition. The "Kiffin" Manuscript was so confusing and contradictory that Neal, like every one else who has tried to follow this document, got mixed in his facts. The result was that Crosby was disgusted and wrote a history himself. Although Crosby had criticized Neal for his blunders in the use of the "Kiffin" Manuscript, he was scarcely more successful.
Crosby, however, did not believe that the document had been written by Kiffin, for the very best he could say of it was: Kiffin, who lived in those times" Crosby, Vol. Who "said" that the manuscript was written by William Kiffin, Crosby fails to state.
It is quite evident from the second volume of Crosby that he does not believe the "Kiffin" Manuscript to be authoritative, for he constantly maintains positions which contravene its statements. Crosby had great trouble in quoting from his copy of the "Kiffin" Manuscript, but his difficulties would have been multiplied ten-fold had he attempted to quote the Gould edition of that document.
We come now to some very interesting statements from one John Lewis. Lewis appears to have spent the remainder of his life in writing books against the Baptists. He was very violent and venomous, but he gathered a great many statements concerning the Baptists. These works were never published, but they are preserved in many volumes in manuscript form in the Bodliean Library, where I consulted them. He utterly repudiates the "Kiffin" Manuscript, and makes all manner of fun of Crosby for quoting such a document.
After quoting the story of Blunt and Blacklock as given by Crosby, taken from the "Kiffin" Manuscript, he says: I can't find the least mention made anywhere else of these three names of Batte, Blunt and Blacklock , nor is it said in what town, city or parish of the Netherlands those Anabaptists lived who practiced this manner of baptizing by dipping or plunging the whole body under water" Rawlinson Mss.
Lewis quotes the comment of Crosby where he says, "an antient Ms. WIlliam Kiffin," and then adds: In another volume Lewis remarks:. This sarcastic remark that a supposed contemporaneous manuscript should refer to a church of the same date as an "antient congregation," does not miss its mark. Of course, a contemporaneous document would not make any such statement. Lewis quotes the statement of Crosby That the Anabaptists till were intermixed among the protestant dissenters viz: Since they all disclaimed them.
That the English Anabaptists began in to separate themselves. It is refreshing to read the words of this historian, who had no good words for the Baptists, but the statements of this "Kiffin" Manuscript were too unauthentic for him to believe. This is the more remarkable because being hostile to the Baptists, it would have suited him exactly to have believed the statement of the Manuscript. With all his bitterness towards the Baptists, he was too honest to use against them unauthentic documents.
It is, therefore, perfectly clear that John Lewis rejects the "Kiffin" Manuscript as not authentic. But he goes further and declares and argues out an elaborate supposition that if this document is true, then the Anabaptists of that period in England were in the practice of sprinkling, which he did not believe. This proposition he regarded as absurd. He further goes on to elaborate that the Dutch Baptists were in the practice of sprinkling. Indeed, this supposition of his covered the entire statements of those Baptists of our day who hold the theory.
Canon xxxvi from the Synod of Hippo records the Scriptures which is considered canonical; the Old Testament books as follows: On 28 August , the Council of Carthage confirmed the canon issued at Hippo; the recurrence of the Old Testament part as stated: The 'two books of Esdras' referred to in the canon lists of both North African councils are now commonly recognised as corresponding to the books entitled Esdras A and Esdras B in manuscripts of the Septuagint and Vetus Latina ; which in modern schlarship are known as 'Greek Esdras' and 'Ezra-Nehemiah' respectively.
Augustine of Hippo is referring to both these texts when says: Successively the Council of Carthage in its Canon 24 listed exactly the same Old Testament Canon of the previous councils. Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books: For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus Twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows: The 59th canon forbade the readings in church of uncanonical books.
The authenticity of the 60th canon is doubtful  as it is missing from various manuscripts and may have been added later  to specify the extent of the preceding 59th canon. Athanasius AD ,  Cyril of Jerusalem c. Epiphanius of Salamis c. The monk Rufinus of Aquileia c.
The Decretum Gelasianum which is a work written by an anonymous scholar between and contains a list of books of Scripture presented as having been made Canonical by the Council of Rome AD. This list mentions the Hebrew Bible plus the deuterocanonical books as a part of the Old Testament Canon. The Quinisext Council or the Council in Trullo in —, which was rejected by Pope Sergius I  and is not recognized by the Catholic Church see also Pentarchy , endorsed the following lists of canonical writings: The Old Testament part of the Canon n.
Karl Josef von Hefele argues that "This is probably the least ancient canon in the whole collection"; : One of the tenets of the Protestant Reformation beginning c. The reformers saw the Apocrypha at variance with the rest of Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church uses them to support the doctrine of Purgatory , for prayers and Masses for the dead 2 Macc Luther did remove the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament of his translation of the Bible, placing them in the " Apocrypha , that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read".
Luther argued unsuccessfully for the relocation of Esther from the Canon to the Apocrypha, since without the deuterocanonical sections , it never mentions God.
Yes, because it tells the story of the survival of the people from whom Christ came. There is some evidence that the first decision to omit these books entirely from the Bible was made by Protestant laity rather than clergy. Bibles dating from shortly after the Reformation have been found whose tables of contents included the entire Roman Catholic canon, but which did not actually contain the disputed books, leading some historians to think that the workers at the printing presses took it upon themselves to omit them.
However, Anglican and Lutheran Bibles usually still contained these books until the 20th century, while Calvinist Bibles did not. Several reasons are proposed for the omission of these books from the canon. One is the support for Catholic doctrines such as Purgatory and Prayer for the dead found in 2 Maccabees. Luther himself said he was following Jerome's teaching about the Veritas Hebraica.
The Council of Trent on April 8, , approved the enforcement of the present Roman Catholic Bible Canon including the Deuterocanonical Books as an article of faith the contents of the canon itself having already been reaffirmed unanimously , and the decision was confirmed by an anathema by vote 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain. The canonical books list is the same as produced following the Council of Florence Session 11, 4 February , . In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Of the names and Number of the Canonical Books: Such are these following: All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them Canonical. The English Civil War broke out in and lasted till The Long Parliament of decreed that only the Hebrew Canon would be read in the Church of England , and in the Westminster Confession of Faith  was issued which decreed a book OT and book NT, the others commonly labelled as "Apocrypha" were excluded.
With the Restoration of the Monarchy to Charles II of England — , the Church of England was once again governed by the Thirty-Nine Articles, as printed in the Book of Common Prayer , which explicitly excludes the Apocrypha from the inspired writings as unsuitable for forming doctrine, while eirenically conceding them value for education so permitting public reading and study.
According to The Apocrypha, Bridge of the Testaments:. On the other hand, the Anglican Communion emphatically maintains that the Apocrypha is part of the Bible and is to be read with respect by her members. One of the offertory sentences in Holy Communion comes from an apocryphal book Tob.
Lessons from the Apocrypha are regularly appointed to be read in the daily, Sunday, and special services of Morning and Evening Prayer. There are altogether such lessons in the latest revised American Prayer Book Lectionary [The books used are: And the other Books as Hierome [St. Jerome] saith the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox receive as their canon the books found in their Septuagintal , Patristic , Byzantine , and liturgical tradition.
As of the Synod of Jerusalem , convened in , the Orthodox Church considers as canonical the following:. For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which has delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, has undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those. And if, perhaps, it seems that not always have all of these been considered on the same level as the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, both by Synods and by many of the most ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church.
All of these we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture. Not all books of the Old Testament are covered in the Prophetologion , the official Old Testament lectionary: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
For the Jewish canon, see Development of the Hebrew Bible canon. Tanakh Torah Nevi'im Ketuvim. Authorship Dating Hebrew canon. Pauline epistles Petrine epistles. Hermeneutics Pesher Midrash Pardes. Biblical apocrypha , Protocanonical books , and Deuterocanonical books.
Fifty Bibles of Constantine. Quinisext Council and Canons of the Apostles. Synod of Jerusalem This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. Davies in The Canon Debate , page Old and young Small tits Blonde College Cumshot. Old and young Milf German Mature Stockings. Old and young Cumshot Cute Cunnilingus College. Old and young Big ass Amateur Slut. Old and young Friend Wife. Old and young Military.
Japanese Old and young Mom Milf Creampie. Big cock Vintage Old and young Threesome. Old and young Gangbang Small tits. Old and young Fitness Uniform. Old and young Teen Aged.
Old and young Girlfriend. Japanese Old and young Taboo Asian. Old and young Teen Cute College Big tits. Old and young School girl. Vintage Old and young Mature Amateur Hardcore. Lesbian Old and young Threesome Rimming. Old and young Old man. Mom Old and young Spanish Anal Friend.
Old and young Russian Uniform Amateur. Old and young Teen. Old and young Brunette Pornstar. Old and young Stud Birthday. Japanese Old and young Creampie.