s assured by
Mr. Gifford that this is the true meaning of the record; and
I observed in the Register Book that other names were recorded
in like manner. There were several other baptisms the
same day, with different days of birth.
Most truly your friend and obedient servant,
JARED SPARKS.

This will be deemed decisive; though to me not entirely satisfactory.
I think I see cause for questioning the "b.1." not their _import_, but
their _correctness_: occasioned either for family reasons, or that
the date given at the font either was not distinctly heard by the
officiating clergyman, or misremembered at the time when the entry
was made in the Book. Besides, there would seem no occasion for the
presentation so immediately after the birth; for, according to custom,
it is very unusual before _the eighth day_. On the other hand, from
the statement of Nichols, Vol. II. p. 19, that of the children of Sir
Theophilus, "the five eldest were born at St. James London," we may
infer that JAMES, who was the _sixth_ in the order of births in the
family, was born at Godalming. This is proved, also, by Shaftoe's
narrative, which mentions the going down of the mother to London, in
consequence of the sickness and death of one of the nurslings. Now,
though the main statement of that document may not be true, such an
incidental circumstance as this, which has no direct bearing on "the
vexed question," may be admitted. If, therefore, born at Godalming,
he could not be taken to London, for baptism, _on the day after his
birth_. And, admitting that his nativity was on the 21st of December,
the season of the year alone would be sufficient reason for deferring
the public ceremony till after the inclement weather, and the
opportunity favored for having it in the Parish Church, where all the
other children had been baptized.

After all, the fact that on the _ninth_ of July, _seventeen hundred
and four_, he was _sixteen years_ old, as is testified on the Record
of his admission into College, is incompatible with the date of June
1st, 1689, for the day of his birth, but consistent with that of
December 21st, 1688.

To adjust all these discrepancies respecting the time of his birth,
and others of the time of his death, one needs the ingenuity of the
Benedictins of St. Maur, who published a 4to volume with this title:
"_L'art de verifier les dates des faits historiques_."

III.