Jarrel - Baptist Church Perpetuity - Landmark Baptist
Jarrel - Baptist Church Perpetuity - Landmark Baptist Jarrel - Baptist Church Perpetuity - Landmark Baptist
odies from 1521 onwards … practiced strict communion. English General Baptists, from the beginning of their history in 1610, were strict. Their Confessions published in 1611, 1660, 1663 and 1678 plainly require baptism before communion. Their churches would not even allow attendance upon other worship. They said, ‘The whole Scripture is against such Balaamitic and wavering actions.’ They were never open communion until in the last century they became Socinians. The Confessions of Faith of the Particular Baptists in England are emphatic for strict communion. … The same is true of all the Confessions that can be found in Baptist history until 1688. Then the Century Confession of London which is always pleaded for open communion appeared. … This confession itself makes communion a church ordinance, and puts it after immersion; but as these brethren avowed their aim to show how little Baptists differed from Presbyterians and Congregationalists they granted an appendix that while most of the churches adhered to strict communion some few did not; and they recognized this fact and would not impose conditions upon these.” Rev. Dr. Underwood, f1035 of Chilwell College, Nottinghamshire, in a paper, read before the English Baptist Union, at Birmingham, Oct., 1864, said: “In the matter of communion our churches are far from being uniform. Until within a very few years nearly all our churches were close and strict.” In the language of Rev. Porter S. Burbank, one of the most representative Freewill Baptist defenders: “The Freewill Baptist connection in North America commenced A.D. 1780, in which year its first church was organized.” f1036 . From history and its own confession the Free-will Baptist sect is certainly of modern origin. The Six Principle “Baptists” are of the seventeenth century — Rev. A.D. Williams, their representative, beingwitness. f1037 They being Arminian in showing Baptists have ever been Calvinists, the foregoing chapters, have demonstrated them not in the line of Church Perpetuity. The so-called “German Baptists” or Tunkers thus originated in Germany, in 1708: “The first constituents were Alexander Mack and wife, John Kipin and wife, George Grevy, Andreas Bhony, Lucas Fetter and Joanna Nethigum. They agreed to read the Bible together, and edify one another in the way they had been brought up, for as yet they did not know there were any Baptists in the world. However, believers’ baptism and a Congregational church soon gained on them, insomuch that they were determined to obey the gospel in these matters. They desired Alexander Mack to baptize them, but he deemed himself in reality unbaptized, refused, upon which they cast lots to find who should be the administrator; on whom the lot fell hath been carefully concealed. However, baptized they were in the river Eder, by Schwartzenau, and then formed themselves into a church, choosing Alexander Mack as their minister.” f1038
So, without looking into their other errors, we can safely set aside the so-called “German Baptists” as Tunkers from all claim to Church Perpetuity. The German Seventh Day Baptists were originated in Germany, in 1728, by Conrad Beissel, one of the Tunkers. It is, therefore, a split off the Tunker sect. f1039 The origin of the Seventh Day English Baptists as a church is thus given by Rev. G.B. Utter, one of the most eminent representatives of that sect: “The Seventh Day Baptists in America date from about the same period that their brethren in England began to organize churches.” Then he dates its American rise in 1671. f1040 Prof. W.W. Everts, Jr., writes me that the ancient Baptists observed the first day of the week as the day of rest and worship. Save among Judaizers, who practiced circumcision and other such errors there were no scattered advocates of the seventh day, nor any permanent organization in its interest, until the rise of these so-called Seventh Day Baptists. Seventh Day “Baptists” certainly are a modern sect. Religious Denominations in the United States and Great Britain,” published by “Charles Desilver,” is probably the best book in its line. I have now examined all the different “Baptists” which it mentions — six beside the Regular Baptists — and have found that not one of them has any true claim to be the New Testament Baptists in the Church Perpetuity line. LET IT BE EMPHASIZED, THAT: ALL THIS TALK ABOUT THERE BEING TWENTY-SEVEN DIFFERENT KINDS OF BAPTISTS, AND THAT WE CAN’T KNOW WHICH OF THEM IS THE OLD BAPTIST CHURCH, ORIGINATES IN IGNORANCE, OR IN PURE HATRED TO THE BAPTIST CHURCH AND DISREGARD FOR VERACITY AND IS “DARKENING OF COUNSEL.” Like the fable of the dog on the hay, bitter and unscrupulous Baptist assailants, knowing their own churches are but modern sects, and that they cannot appropriate Church Perpetuity are determined to leave “unturned no stone” to make the people believe that “Baptists are in as bad a fix as we are.” f1041 Owing to this attempt to mislead honest men and women I have given the question, Who are the Old Baptists? much more space than it deserves.
- 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 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: As there is no difference in doctri
- 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
- Page 307 and 308: the rate of 99 per cent.; Campbelli
- Page 309 and 310: THE FOLLOWING FROM THE BAPTIST YEAR
- Page 311 and 312: property, their good name, their li
- Page 313 and 314: doctrinal or practical word, they h
- Page 315 and 316: CHAPTER 29. — ST. PATRICK A BAPTI
- Page 317 and 318: crowned in A.D. 1057. When Collier
- Page 319 and 320: Thus, first, Irish monasteries were
- Page 321 and 322: REVELATION 20:2. ROMISH CHURCH TREE
- Page 323 and 324: FOOTNOTES ft1 In this list I have n
- Page 325 and 326: seed.” The “invisible” notion
- Page 327 and 328: ft95 From wieder, meaning again, an
- Page 329 and 330: y aspersion, in the bed in whirl’
- Page 331 and 332: ft182 Israel of the Alps, vol. 1, p
- Page 333 and 334: ft245 Robinson’s Eccl. Researches
- Page 335 and 336: ft300 Kurtz’s Chr. Hist., vol. 1,
- Page 337 and 338: Proverbs 28:26; Genesis 6:5; 8:21;
- Page 339 and 340: sunt et prudenter expenderere deben
So, without looking into their other errors, we can safely set aside the so-called<br />
“German <strong>Baptist</strong>s” as Tunkers from all claim to <strong>Church</strong> <strong>Perpetuity</strong>.<br />
The German Seventh Day <strong>Baptist</strong>s were originated in Germany, in 1728, by<br />
Conrad Beissel, one of the Tunkers. It is, therefore, a split off the Tunker sect.<br />
f1039<br />
The origin of the Seventh Day English <strong>Baptist</strong>s as a church is thus given by<br />
Rev. G.B. Utter, one of the most eminent representatives of that sect:<br />
“The Seventh Day <strong>Baptist</strong>s in America date from about the same period that<br />
their brethren in England began to organize churches.”<br />
Then he dates its American rise in 1671. f1040 Prof. W.W. Everts, Jr., writes me<br />
that the ancient <strong>Baptist</strong>s observed the first day of the week as the day of rest<br />
and worship. Save among Judaizers, who practiced circumcision and other<br />
such errors there were no scattered advocates of the seventh day, nor any<br />
permanent organization in its interest, until the rise of these so-called Seventh<br />
Day <strong>Baptist</strong>s. Seventh Day “<strong>Baptist</strong>s” certainly are a modern sect.<br />
Religious Denominations in the United States and Great Britain,” published by<br />
“Charles Desilver,” is probably the best book in its line. I have now examined<br />
all the different “<strong>Baptist</strong>s” which it mentions — six beside the Regular<br />
<strong>Baptist</strong>s — and have found that not one of them has any true claim to be the<br />
New Testament <strong>Baptist</strong>s in the <strong>Church</strong> <strong>Perpetuity</strong> line.<br />
LET IT BE EMPHASIZED, THAT: ALL THIS TALK ABOUT THERE BEING<br />
TWENTY-SEVEN DIFFERENT KINDS OF BAPTISTS, AND THAT WE CAN’T<br />
KNOW WHICH OF THEM IS THE OLD BAPTIST CHURCH, ORIGINATES IN<br />
IGNORANCE, OR IN PURE HATRED TO THE BAPTIST CHURCH AND<br />
DISREGARD FOR VERACITY AND IS “DARKENING OF COUNSEL.”<br />
Like the fable of the dog on the hay, bitter and unscrupulous <strong>Baptist</strong> assailants,<br />
knowing their own churches are but modern sects, and that they cannot<br />
appropriate <strong>Church</strong> <strong>Perpetuity</strong> are determined to leave “unturned no stone” to<br />
make the people believe that “<strong>Baptist</strong>s are in as bad a fix as we are.” f1041<br />
Owing to this attempt to mislead honest men and women I have given the<br />
question, Who are the Old <strong>Baptist</strong>s? much more space than it deserves.