Jarrel - Baptist Church Perpetuity - Landmark Baptist
Jarrel - Baptist Church Perpetuity - Landmark Baptist Jarrel - Baptist Church Perpetuity - Landmark Baptist
writer that delights to make early Baptists out a disorderly set.” f825 Inasmuch as they would not have sent to Holland unless they believed the Holland Baptists were in the Continuity Line we have, here, incidental evidence of the Holland Baptists then being well and widely known as historical successors of the apostolic church. Crosby thus narrates it: “This agrees with an account given in the matter in an ancient manuscript, said to be written by William Kiffin, who lived in those times.” Crosby, after giving the account, just quoted from Neal, concludes: “So that those who followed this scheme did not derive their baptism from the afore-said Mr. Smyth, or his congregation at Amsterdam, it being an ancient congregation of foreign Baptists in the Low Countries to whom they sent.” f826 Some have misunderstood the above accounts to be of Smyth’s alleged rebaptism and church. But Orchard is correct in saying: “The Particular Baptist church in London, at its formation’, A.D. 1633, deputed Mr. Blount to visit a church in Holland, and receive from a Waldensian Baptist, scriptural immersion. The Baptists are the only Christians that can prove a scriptural immersion and order descended to them from the days of John the Baptist.” f827 Armitage says the “church referred to in the above account was that of which Messrs. Jacob and Lathrop had been pastors.” “A number of this society came to reject infant baptism, and were permitted to form a distinct church, Sept. 12th, 1633, with Spilsbury for their pastor. … In 1638, William Kiffin, Thomas Wilson and others, left Lathrop’s independent church, then under charge of Mr. Jessey, and united with Spilsbury’s church.” f828 Orchard says: “Mr. Spilsbury’s name not being mentioned by Kiffin, suggested to previous writers, that his account was of another church, erected about the same time, yet as Mr. Kiffin joined a church at Wapping, it is natural to conclude he gave a statement of the rise of his own community. Mr. Spilsbury might have been selected as a teacher only during their infancy; and Blacklock, or some other minister, might have succeeded him. Edwards, saying this was one of the first, admits of more existing at the same time.” f829 That the reader may not be confused by Spilsbury’s church being mentioned in London and Kiffin belonging to it in Wapping, I will here inform him that Wapping, at that time was a pleasant suburb of London.” The Wapping and London church is identical. f830
Orchard’s suggestion, that Spilsbury was pastor during only the infancy of the church, is unnecessary since Blacklock having been baptized by Blount and then baptizing the others do not necessarily imply Spilsbury was not pastor at that time. As now, owing to sickness or other causes, pastors have others baptize for them, so Blacklock may have baptized for Spilsbury, after baptizing him. But however this may be — of which the scantiness of the records leaves doubt — it in no way effects the scriptural perpetuity of baptism. Finally, concluding the John Smyth affair, and the Spilsbury church, do not forget that this is the account of only two churches and their successors, while I have proved there were at that time many other Baptist churches in England. As Armitage says of the Spilsbury church: “The fact that a part of this congregation did not know that the immersion of believers had been practiced in England cannot he accepted as decisive proofs that the Baptists were strangers to that practice, still less that it had never been known in England before 1641.” f831 Benedict says: “The account of Mr. Spilsbury is said, in the margin, to have been written from the records of that church; but from anything that appears there is nothing to justify the conclusion of Mr. Crosby that this was the first Baptist church, as the account relates simply to the origin of that particular church — to state which, it is probable, was Mr. Kiflin’s design, rather than to relate the origin of Baptist churches in general and which he must certainly have known were in existence previous to that period.” f832 Benedict after saying: “It must be admitted that some obscurity hangs over the history of the oldest Baptist communities in this kingdom,” in a note, says: “From all the fragments of history, I am inclined to believe that Baptist churches, under various circumstances, have existed in England from the time of William the Conqueror, four or five centuries prior to those of which any definite accounts have come down to us. … Here churches in persecuting times are mere household affairs which must of necessity be hid from public view. More than three centuries had elapsed before the Baptists in England had any knowledge that a church of their order existed in Chesterton in 1457. Mr. Robinson brought the facts to light by examining the manuscript records of the old bishop of Ely.” f833 Goadby, of the English Baptists of the seventeenth century says: “All these are scions of that stock of Anabaptism transplanted out of Holland in the year 1535, when two ships laden with Anabaptists fled into England.” f834
- 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 and 242: thereof. Now it is reason-able to c
- Page 243: Smith Watson, and now we cannot, at
- 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
- Page 293 and 294: laid on infant baptism. … We are
Orchard’s suggestion, that Spilsbury was pastor during only the infancy of the<br />
church, is unnecessary since Blacklock having been baptized by Blount and<br />
then baptizing the others do not necessarily imply Spilsbury was not pastor at<br />
that time. As now, owing to sickness or other causes, pastors have others<br />
baptize for them, so Blacklock may have baptized for Spilsbury, after<br />
baptizing him. But however this may be — of which the scantiness of the<br />
records leaves doubt — it in no way effects the scriptural perpetuity of<br />
baptism.<br />
Finally, concluding the John Smyth affair, and the Spilsbury church, do not<br />
forget that this is the account of only two churches and their successors, while<br />
I have proved there were at that time many other <strong>Baptist</strong> churches in England.<br />
As Armitage says of the Spilsbury church:<br />
“The fact that a part of this congregation did not know that the immersion of<br />
believers had been practiced in England cannot he accepted as decisive proofs<br />
that the <strong>Baptist</strong>s were strangers to that practice, still less that it had never<br />
been known in England before 1641.” f831<br />
Benedict says:<br />
“The account of Mr. Spilsbury is said, in the margin, to have been written<br />
from the records of that church; but from anything that appears there is<br />
nothing to justify the conclusion of Mr. Crosby that this was the first <strong>Baptist</strong><br />
church, as the account relates simply to the origin of that particular church —<br />
to state which, it is probable, was Mr. Kiflin’s design, rather than to relate the<br />
origin of <strong>Baptist</strong> churches in general and which he must certainly have known<br />
were in existence previous to that period.” f832<br />
Benedict after saying:<br />
“It must be admitted that some obscurity hangs over the history of the oldest<br />
<strong>Baptist</strong> communities in this kingdom,” in a note, says: “From all the<br />
fragments of history, I am inclined to believe that <strong>Baptist</strong> churches, under<br />
various circumstances, have existed in England from the time of William the<br />
Conqueror, four or five centuries prior to those of which any definite accounts<br />
have come down to us. … Here churches in persecuting times are mere<br />
household affairs which must of necessity be hid from public view. More than<br />
three centuries had elapsed before the <strong>Baptist</strong>s in England had any knowledge<br />
that a church of their order existed in Chesterton in 1457. Mr. Robinson<br />
brought the facts to light by examining the manuscript records of the old<br />
bishop of Ely.” f833<br />
Goadby, of the English <strong>Baptist</strong>s of the seventeenth century says:<br />
“All these are scions of that stock of Anabaptism transplanted out of Holland<br />
in the year 1535, when two ships laden with Anabaptists fled into England.”<br />
f834