Jarrel - Baptist Church Perpetuity - Landmark Baptist
Jarrel - Baptist Church Perpetuity - Landmark Baptist Jarrel - Baptist Church Perpetuity - Landmark Baptist
nearly all night with Elders Henry Helwisse and John Morton, who defended our cause well.’ Not yet, however, was he convinced, but after three months’ reflection, his mind had advanced beyond the position of the Separatists. He had, says the Church Book, ‘consulted the Scriptures and admitted that he was deceived in the way of Pedobaptistry,’ and ‘so, embraced the faith in a true christian and apostolic baptism,’ and on the 24th of March, 1606, at midnight, to avoid the satellites of the persecuting Church, and under the glare of the torchlight, ‘he was baptized by Elder John Morton, in the River Don, and then walked to Epworth, a distance of two miles in his wet clothes.’” Dr. Clifford says: “The church book from whence this statement is taken about John Symth’s baptism, belonged to the church at Epworth and Crowle, in Lincoln-shire. The Rev. Jabez Stuttered, minister at Epworth and Crowle, heard his deacons speak of the existence of this work; and being interested, found that it was in the possession of Rev. Smith Watson, a minister at Butterwick, hard by. He obtained a sight of it, and discovered that it consisted of a few moth eaten leaves, which had been given to Mr. Smith Watson by an old Baptist family of the district, who met with it in an old chest many years before. Mr. Stuttered thought the pages might be of value, and the opinion of an expert a skilled antiquarian, of the district, was sought and he reported as follows: ‘NOVEMBER 9th, 1866. ‘As keeper of the Manor Charts of North Lincoln-shire, I have examined the old Baptist Records, and believe them to refer to the last days of Queen Elizabeth and James the First. And recommend the friends connected with the Baptist cause, to quickly copy them or they will surely vanish away.’ ‘F. CHAPMAN, Antiquarian.’” The book was guarded with jealous care, but at the request of the deacons, and with their aid, Mr. Stuttered made a number of extracts, and after some time forwarded them to me. I was surprised at their contents, and especially at the statement concerning John Smyth’s baptism, and asked to see the original; meanwhile Smith Watson had deceased, and the book could not be found. Search has been made again and again, but, at present in vain. The following document bears date December the 16th, 1879: “We, the undersigned deacons of the Baptist church at Butterwick, Epworth, Crowle, having seen and handled the Old Records of seven or eight loaves, long before Rev. J. Stuttered came into the country, and at our request and desire, and with our assistance he copied the same moth-eaten records, We, as a church, tendered him our sincere thanks and requested him to send them to the editor of the General Baptist Magazine for insertion. When copied they were taken back to Butterwick, and consigned to the care of the late Rev.
Smith Watson, and now we cannot, at present, place our hands on the document, or it would have been sent for Mr. Clifford’s inspection. ANDERSON HIND, PETER GLOSSOP, JOHN CHAPMAN, BENJAMIN BATTY, GEORGE SINCLAIR, THOMAS SMITH, WM. CHAMBERLAIN.” f821 (6.) Were we to admit this slander on John Smyth, and that the error was not corrected it effects but few of the Baptists: (a.) Because there were Baptists in England before the time of Smyth. (b.) Because, at the time of his baptism, there were Baptist churches near him. Armitage says that the “Dutch Baptists of London rallied around Helwys and John Murton, his successor” — Smyth’s successors. f822 By the way, who can believe the Dutch Baptists would have given this help to Smyth’s church had it originated as Baptist enemies allege? Of the origin of what is generally regarded the Particular Baptists of England, Neal’s History of the Puri-tans says: “When, after long search, and many debates, it appeared to them that infant baptism was a mere innovation, and even a profanation of a divine ordinance, they were not brought to lay it aside without many fears and tremblings. … They were persuaded that believers were the only proper subjects of baptism, and that immersion or dipping the whole body into water was the appointed rite. But as this was not practiced in England” — a great mistake of Mr. Neal, originating with the little then known of Baptists — “they were at a loss for an administrator to begin with. After often meeting together to pray and confer about this matter, they agreed to send over into Holland Mr. Richard Blount, who understood the Dutch language, to a Baptist church there; he was kindly received by the society and their pastor and upon his return he baptized Mr. Samuel Blacklock, a minister; these two baptized the rest of the company, to the number of fifty-three. Some few others of this persuasion were among the original planters of New England.” f823 Thus an eminent Pedobaptist historian established the “succession” of English Baptists through the Baptists of Holland who were the original Waldenses and their descendants. Vedder, notwithstanding all his prejudice, admits this account as true, and pronounces the baptism of the English Baptist as henceforth correct. f824 W. W. Everts, Jr., a very high authority on church history, severely criticises Dr. Dexter for giving so little attention to this, which was in order to discredit the Baptists through John Smyth, and says, of one of his false statements: “I cannot account for such a statement except by supposing an animus in the
- Page 191 and 192: certain professors of church histor
- Page 193 and 194: history, with a genuine Waldensian
- Page 195 and 196: events as to deny that traditional
- Page 197 and 198: deserved his surname by residing am
- Page 199 and 200: we have demonstrated, the names are
- Page 201 and 202: Baptists. Keller insists throughout
- Page 203 and 204: (6.) While Waldo may have been the
- Page 205 and 206: CHAPTER 22. — THE WALDENSES PERPE
- Page 207 and 208: Peter de Bruis and Henry — “But
- Page 209 and 210: first propagandists on Holland soil
- Page 211 and 212: Dr. Limborch, Professor in the Univ
- Page 213 and 214: “It is well known that the Anabap
- Page 215 and 216: As explanatory, says Armitage: “A
- Page 217 and 218: Let it not be forgotten that I have
- Page 219 and 220: continued from the times of the Apo
- Page 221 and 222: There is no record of Baptists havi
- Page 223 and 224: William R. Williams, says: “Raste
- Page 225 and 226: enefit. Thieves and vagabonds share
- Page 227 and 228: “History has for them no word of
- Page 229 and 230: there were many Baptist CHURCHES in
- Page 231 and 232: least a hundred years prior to the
- Page 233 and 234: Queen Elizabeth reigned from 1558 t
- Page 235 and 236: of Baptist principles are the demon
- Page 237 and 238: (7.) Laying all this aside, I have
- Page 239 and 240: CHAPTER 24. — JOHN SMYTH’S BAPT
- Page 241: thereof. Now it is reason-able to c
- Page 245 and 246: Orchard’s suggestion, that Spilsb
- Page 247 and 248: CHAPTER 25. — THROUGH WELSH BAPTI
- Page 249 and 250: In the year 603, Augustine, called
- Page 251 and 252: “The vale of Olchon is difficult
- Page 253 and 254: earth can tell where the church was
- Page 255 and 256: Says Cramp: “A church was immedia
- Page 257 and 258: any others than Wickenden, Brown, e
- Page 259 and 260: Armitage says: “In view of the fa
- Page 261 and 262: No church or minister ever originat
- Page 263 and 264: Brown, Wickenden and Dexter. … Th
- Page 265 and 266: “The first certain date in their
- Page 267 and 268: Massachusetts Baptist churches thus
- Page 269 and 270: “In the year 1751, Mr. Nicholas B
- Page 271 and 272: Christian era. … He had little ec
- Page 273 and 274: organized before Williams’ church
- Page 275 and 276: fellowship any who should do these
- Page 277 and 278: (3.) To assist those members that s
- Page 279 and 280: pleased the Lord to stir up their h
- Page 281 and 282: “agreed that the churches should
- Page 283 and 284: Silas Hart, 1795, died and left to
- Page 285 and 286: letters desiring the aid of this bo
- Page 287 and 288: “Elder James Osborne was a member
- Page 289 and 290: As there is no difference in doctri
- Page 291 and 292: So, without looking into their othe
Smith Watson, and now we cannot, at present, place our hands on the<br />
document, or it would have been sent for Mr. Clifford’s inspection.<br />
ANDERSON HIND,<br />
PETER GLOSSOP, JOHN CHAPMAN,<br />
BENJAMIN BATTY, GEORGE SINCLAIR,<br />
THOMAS SMITH, WM. CHAMBERLAIN.” f821<br />
(6.) Were we to admit this slander on John Smyth, and that the error was not<br />
corrected it effects but few of the <strong>Baptist</strong>s:<br />
(a.) Because there were <strong>Baptist</strong>s in England before the time of Smyth.<br />
(b.) Because, at the time of his baptism, there were <strong>Baptist</strong> churches near him.<br />
Armitage says that the “Dutch <strong>Baptist</strong>s of London rallied around Helwys and<br />
John Murton, his successor” — Smyth’s successors. f822 By the way, who can<br />
believe the Dutch <strong>Baptist</strong>s would have given this help to Smyth’s church had it<br />
originated as <strong>Baptist</strong> enemies allege?<br />
Of the origin of what is generally regarded the Particular <strong>Baptist</strong>s of England,<br />
Neal’s History of the Puri-tans says: “When, after long search, and many<br />
debates, it appeared to them that infant baptism was a mere innovation, and<br />
even a profanation of a divine ordinance, they were not brought to lay it aside<br />
without many fears and tremblings. … They were persuaded that believers<br />
were the only proper subjects of baptism, and that immersion or dipping the<br />
whole body into water was the appointed rite. But as this was not practiced in<br />
England” — a great mistake of Mr. Neal, originating with the little then known<br />
of <strong>Baptist</strong>s — “they were at a loss for an administrator to begin with. After<br />
often meeting together to pray and confer about this matter, they agreed to<br />
send over into Holland Mr. Richard Blount, who understood the Dutch<br />
language, to a <strong>Baptist</strong> church there; he was kindly received by the society and<br />
their pastor and upon his return he baptized Mr. Samuel Blacklock, a minister;<br />
these two baptized the rest of the company, to the number of fifty-three. Some<br />
few others of this persuasion were among the original planters of New<br />
England.” f823<br />
Thus an eminent Pedobaptist historian established the “succession” of English<br />
<strong>Baptist</strong>s through the <strong>Baptist</strong>s of Holland who were the original Waldenses and<br />
their descendants. Vedder, notwithstanding all his prejudice, admits this<br />
account as true, and pronounces the baptism of the English <strong>Baptist</strong> as<br />
henceforth correct. f824<br />
W. W. Everts, Jr., a very high authority on church history, severely criticises<br />
Dr. Dexter for giving so little attention to this, which was in order to discredit<br />
the <strong>Baptist</strong>s through John Smyth, and says, of one of his false statements: “I<br />
cannot account for such a statement except by supposing an animus in the