Jarrel - Baptist Church Perpetuity - Landmark Baptist
Jarrel - Baptist Church Perpetuity - Landmark Baptist Jarrel - Baptist Church Perpetuity - Landmark Baptist
compiler, who stated only what he found and attempted no manufacture of facts to complete his story. We are obliged to consult sidelights and outside testimony, therefore, and take it for what it is worth, according to the means of information enjoyed by contemporaneous and immediately succeeding witnesses. These are not numerous in this case, nor are they very satisfactory, because their testimony does not always agree, nor had they equal means of knowing whereof they spoke. Hence, several different theories have been put forth on the subject.” f866 In view of the foregoing, I will conclude the point, as to the records, in the language of the Journal and Messenger, of Cincinnati: “It will be seen from such accounts that it is very difficult to establish anything of this history, beyond a peradventure and that it is taking a good deal for granted to admit the claims of a church which kept no records for over one hundred years. In order that the First Baptist church of Providence may be regarded as the first in America, we have to proceed upon the Catholic system of fixing dates, etc., and argue that there must have been a first church, and since we cannot certainly fix upon any other as that one, then this was the best, and the indisputable claim. But we are not quite ready to adopt this method of settling historical claims.” The claim of the Williams church to have been the first Baptist church in America, is a late claim. Says Prof. J.C. C. Clarke, of Shurtleff College, in a most masterly review of the subject, after a thorough examination of the original records of these times: “A Mr. Lechford, having visited Providence about 1640, wrote: ‘At Providence lives Master Williams and his company of divers opinions; most are Anabaptists. They hold there is no true, visible church in the Bay, nor in the world, nor any true ministry.’ A hundred years later, the oldest residents of Providence were ignorant of any tradition that Roger Williams was the founder or a member of the Baptist church there.” f867 Thus we see that even the tradition upon which the claim of the Providence church rests is perfectly worthless, in that it originated over a century after the time in which it is claimed Williams originated that church, and that the claim of that church originated a century later than the disputed dates of origin for the Providence and Newport churches. Mr. Adlam, one of the highest authorities on this subject, says: “The general opinion of Roger Williams being the founder and pastor of the first Baptist church, is a modern theory; the farther you go back, the less generally it is believed; till coming to the most ancient times, to the men who knew Williams, they are such entire strangers to it, that they never heard that he formed the Baptist church there. The first, and the second and the third, and almost the fourth generation must pass away before men can believe that
any others than Wickenden, Brown, etc., were the founders of that church.” f868 Facts as to Roger Williams and his so-called church. First. Williams, while a Baptist in some points, was not a Baptist in so many others, that he never was a Baptist in an ecclesiastical sense. Instead of any orderly Baptist church recognizing any one as a Baptist, who had let an unbaptized man who was a member of no church, baptize him, and then, he in turn, had baptized his baptizer, and, thus originated a church, it would unhesitatingly refuse him any church fellowship, and disown his acts. Yet this is the history of Roger Williams’ baptism and socalled church. If possible, Williams’ course is still more inexcusable in view of the fact that Baptist administrators could more easily have been procured from England than the charter he assisted John Clarke to get from there. Why did he not, if he was a Baptist, do like Spilsbury’s church of London, or Oncken, of Germany — send off and get the true baptism? Yea, worse and worse, why did he not get John Clarke or Hansard Knollys to baptize him, as they were on the ground? Cramp says: “Hansard Knollys was then preaching at Dover … and was one of the ‘godly Anabaptists’ mentioned by Cotton Mather.” f869 Knollys was a graduate of the University of Cambridge. As a Baptist minister of London, after returning there, often preaching to an audience. of one thousand hearers. Of Knollys’ coming to America, Backus says: “Persecuted in England he fled to America. Forbidden at once to remain in Massachusetts he went to Piscataqua, soon afterwards called Dover. Here he met with immediate opposition, but according to Winthrop (vol. 1, p. 326) ‘he gathered some of the best minded into a church body and became their pastor.’” f870 Rev. C.E. Barrows says: “We are informed that there were Baptists among the first settlers of Massachusetts Bay,” f871 This statement is made on the authority of Cotton Mather. As we have seen, in the case of Williams, Clarke and Knollys, Baptists, to escape persecution for their opposition to infant baptism, fled to Rhode Island, where they had liberty. Settling in Newport, Clarke would find Baptist material which his faithfulness as a preacher must have immediately organized into a Baptist church.” f873 “Mr. Hansard Knollys was minister there from the spring of 1638 to the fall of 1641.” f874 The church was traduced from without and was rent with dissension within, and its pastor returned to England.” f875 Cramp, after confirming the above, adds:
- 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 and 244: Smith Watson, and now we cannot, at
- 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: Says Cramp: “A church was immedia
- 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
- Page 295 and 296: church. … I cannot be conscientio
- Page 297 and 298: spiritual choice for any souls. Hen
- Page 299 and 300: “We are surprised to learn that t
- Page 301 and 302: In defining baptizo the American ed
- Page 303 and 304: “That this is a mistranslation th
- Page 305 and 306: M. T. Yates and A.B. Cabaniss are a
any others than Wickenden, Brown, etc., were the founders of that church.”<br />
f868<br />
Facts as to Roger Williams and his so-called church. First. Williams, while a<br />
<strong>Baptist</strong> in some points, was not a <strong>Baptist</strong> in so many others, that he never was<br />
a <strong>Baptist</strong> in an ecclesiastical sense. Instead of any orderly <strong>Baptist</strong> church<br />
recognizing any one as a <strong>Baptist</strong>, who had let an unbaptized man who was a<br />
member of no church, baptize him, and then, he in turn, had baptized his<br />
baptizer, and, thus originated a church, it would unhesitatingly refuse him any<br />
church fellowship, and disown his acts. Yet this is the history of Roger<br />
Williams’ baptism and socalled church. If possible, Williams’ course is still<br />
more inexcusable in view of the fact that <strong>Baptist</strong> administrators could more<br />
easily have been procured from England than the charter he assisted John<br />
Clarke to get from there. Why did he not, if he was a <strong>Baptist</strong>, do like<br />
Spilsbury’s church of London, or Oncken, of Germany — send off and get the<br />
true baptism? Yea, worse and worse, why did he not get John Clarke or<br />
Hansard Knollys to baptize him, as they were on the ground? Cramp says:<br />
“Hansard Knollys was then preaching at Dover … and was one of the ‘godly<br />
Anabaptists’ mentioned by Cotton Mather.” f869<br />
Knollys was a graduate of the University of Cambridge. As a <strong>Baptist</strong> minister<br />
of London, after returning there, often preaching to an audience. of one<br />
thousand hearers. Of Knollys’ coming to America, Backus says:<br />
“Persecuted in England he fled to America. Forbidden at once to remain in<br />
Massachusetts he went to Piscataqua, soon afterwards called Dover. Here he<br />
met with immediate opposition, but according to Winthrop (vol. 1, p. 326) ‘he<br />
gathered some of the best minded into a church body and became their<br />
pastor.’” f870<br />
Rev. C.E. Barrows says: “We are informed that there were <strong>Baptist</strong>s among the<br />
first settlers of Massachusetts Bay,” f871 This statement is made on the authority<br />
of Cotton Mather.<br />
As we have seen, in the case of Williams, Clarke and Knollys, <strong>Baptist</strong>s, to<br />
escape persecution for their opposition to infant baptism, fled to Rhode Island,<br />
where they had liberty. Settling in Newport, Clarke would find <strong>Baptist</strong><br />
material which his faithfulness as a preacher must have immediately organized<br />
into a <strong>Baptist</strong> church.” f873 “Mr. Hansard Knollys was minister there from the<br />
spring of 1638 to the fall of 1641.” f874 The church was traduced from without<br />
and was rent with dissension within, and its pastor returned to England.” f875<br />
Cramp, after confirming the above, adds: