The Origin of Baptists

Br. Criswell's book was very refreshing to read. It is a very accurate primer in Baptist-like church history.

I found this on Baptist History Home Page. (I used to date one of Jim Duvual's many daughter's, when I lived around Ashland Avenue Baptist Church and attended there when I went to Bible College and Br. William J. Van Nunen pastors my former church, here in Georgetown, KY.).

This is an excerpt from a critical thinking author, like yourself, that you might enjoy.


THE PROBLEM OF BAPTIST SUCCESSION
By Wendell H. Rone, Sr.

"BAPTIST SUCCESSION is a term in use among Baptists which has come to refer to a belief, or theory, or conviction held by many Baptists that "there has never been a day since the organization of the first New Testament Church in which there was no genuine Church of the New Testament existing on earth."8

"The belief affirms, furthermore, that the first New Testament Churches organized by our Lord and His Apostles were in doctrine and in practice essentially the same as the Baptist Churches of today, and vice versa.

"The claim is likewise made that there is sufficient historical proof to demonstrate that the Baptist Churches of today have direct historical connection* with the Churches of apostolic times, and that the Baptists are the historical descendents of these same New Testament Churches."

*No an Indefensible chain-link historical record of "succession", but the succession records from history showing the existence of "like faith and order", Baptist-like Churches from apostolic times, strongly suggesting that the "like faith and order" Baptist's of today are descendents of those same New Testament Churches.

If so, that succession would simply be a fulfillment of Promises made by The Lord and other New Testament writers.

 

Thank you, JonC, myriad dissenting remarks of this nature have beuen leveled and generally answered, over and over, as they resurface.

As far as c&p of a secondary source, this excerpt demonstrates a typical charge leveled that has met with total acceptance by the enemies of Baptist Succession, but why don't they except our history, with equally stringent criteria, i.e., precious little to none?

Baptist History Vindicated
By John T. Christian, 1899

"The question is, what do they prove?

"The claim has been made that the Anabaptists of England were in the uniform practice of pouring and sprinkling for baptism for nearly

[p. ii]
all the 16th century and up to 1641 in the 17th. In 1641, it is said, one Richard Blunt was sent over to Holland to be immersed, and returning to London he immersed Samuel Blacklock, and these two immersed others.

"This is claimed as the first immersion of a believer in England for more than a century. It is claimed that about this time others began to practice immersion without reference to being in any sort of succession, and without regard to any baptized administrator. Such is the charge against our Baptist fathers in England, from which Dr. Christian has furnished a complete vindication.

WHAT ARE THE PROOFS?

"What is the evidence brought forward in proof of this charge? One would suppose that the evidence would be clear and decisive; that cases would be cited of the practice of affusion by the Anabaptists of England, and records would be produced of the change from sprinkling to immersion by the Anabaptist churches.

"But we find nothing of the sort. Not a single instance has been cited where any Anabaptist in England practiced sprinkling or pouring, or where any Anabaptist church changed its practice. The remarkable claim is made that a practice was universal among a people, when not one of them has been shown to have observed any such practice!! What sort of history is that?

"But because certain parties on the Continent of Europe are said to have practiced affusion for baptism, it is inferred that these Anabaptists of England must have done the same. This strained inference is the first part of the alleged evidence that the immersion of believers was unknown in England for more than a century before 1641.

"The second part of this evidence is a statement found in an anonymous document, the so-called "Kiffin" manuscript. The oldest extant

[p. iii]
copy of this document dates back only so far as 1860, less than 40 years ago. In this copy, now at Regents Park College, London, is an account of Richard Blunt's going to Holland to be immersed, of his return and of his immersing Samuel Blacklock, and of their immersing others.

"Along with this account occur the words, "none having then so practiced in England to professed believers." Even if it were conceded that this document were authentic and authoritative - which I by no means concede - all that could be claimed as proved by it, is that, so far as the writer knew, there had been no practice of immersing believers in England at that time.

"But this is a very long way from proving that there was no such practice in England.

"In 1850 Charles H. Spurgeon did not know that anybody practiced immersion in England.

"It was a surprise and a joy to him to find that there were people in England, whose existence he had not suspected, who observed the New Testament teaching in regard to baptism. He proceeded to become one of them, and soon he filled the world with his fame. He says of himself in this regard: "I had thought myself to have been baptized as an infant; and so, when I was confronted with the question, 'What is required of persons to be baptized?' and I found that repentance and faith were required, I said to myself, 'Then I have not been baptized; that infant sprinkling of mine was a mistake; and [to] please God that I ever have repentance and faith, I will be properly baptized.' I did not know that there was one other person in the world who held the same opinion; for so little do Baptists make any show, or so little did they do so then, that I did not know of their existence" (Sermon on God's Pupil. Ps. 71.17).

"If, then, a certain unknown man's not knowing of the practice of believer's immersion in England in 1640, proves there was no such[p. iv]
practice there at that time, how much more does Charles H. Spurgeon's not knowing of the practice of believer's immersion in England in 1850, proves there was no such practice there at that time. They had facilities of information in 1850 far beyond what they had in 1640.

con't

 

"Thomas Crosby, who wrote a history of the Baptists of England, 1738-40, mentions a manuscript "said to have been written by Mr. William Kiffin," which corresponds in many respects to the document in Regent's Park College, and no doubt the latter is a version of the document Crosby saw, but of which he gives the substance, with some quotations.

"It is remarkable that Crosby does not mention or refer to the words, "none having, then so practiced in England to professed believers," and it is questionable whether those words were in the manuscript Crosby had before him.

"That document, however, mentioned the story of Richard Blunt. But there is no other evidence of the story except this sole document, which is anonymous. The only witness in the case is unknown, both as to his name and his date. We find no trace of him till Crosby speaks of him a century after the alleged occurrence. Neale also speaks of Blunt, but does so solely on the authority of this same document. Indeed, outside that document there is no evidence that there was such a performance as Blunt's going to Holland to be immersed and of his immersing Blacklock and others.

"No writer of the period, or for nearly a century later, makes any reference to any such proceeding. The book written by "R. B." was supposed to furnish proof in regard to Blunt, but, as has been said, that book has been found, and turns out to have been written by "R. Barrow."

In 1643, only two years after 1641, the Baptist churches of London put forth their famous

[p. v]
confession of faith, which was signed by the leading Baptists of the city. It is significant that neither the name of Richard Blunt nor that of Samuel Blacklock appears.

"If they did what the "Kiffin" document says they did, their names should have headed the list. Dr. Joseph Angus knows more about English Baptist history than any other living man, and in ransacking that whole period he finds no evidence of the existence of Richard Blunt or of Samuel Blacklock, so that in his list of Baptist worthies their names are omitted. Dr. Cathcart, in this country, in the Baptist Encyclopedia gives no hint of the existence of such a man as Richard Blunt.

"The only evidence of existence I have been able to hear of comes from a lady, whose name I am not at liberty to mention, who has relatives by the name of Blunt in England. She says that Richard Blunt was a Baptist, that he left the o out of his name so as to distinguish himself from the Roman Catholic Blounts, and that he died in 1620. She gives as authorities for these statements, Alexander Cooke's History of the Blunts and Maj. Gen. Blunt of the British army. I have had no opportunity to examine this evidence. If it shall prove to be valid, while it will show that such a man as Richard Blunt really did live, it will not help the 1641 theory, since a man who died in 1620, cannot be depended on to have introduced immersion into England in 1641.

"But Dr. Christian has clearly proved that these documents, the "Kiffin" ms., "Jessey Records," &c., are thoroughly unreliable.

"They abound in the grossest and most glaring mistakes. They get names wrong, titles of books wrong, and dates wrong. They represent women as being men, men as operating long after they were dead, or as actively engaged over the country when the court records show they were in prison.

"If such errors do

[p. vi]
not prove a document to be unreliable, in the name of reason, what errors would prove it?

"The documents were evidently written long after the events, by parties who did not even dare to give their names, and who were in gross ignorance of the facts. The Epworth-Crowle document has been rejected on far less evidence than is produced against these Gould documents - so-called because the extant copies were made in 1860, under the direction of the Rev. George Gould.

"According to all the recognized principles of evidence, these Gould documents are utterly unworthy of credit. Yet in them is found the only direct testimony (?) to the "1641 theory." On such evidence (?) we are asked to rest our historic faith.

"The third part of the alleged evidence, that the immersion of believers was unknown in England for a long period before 1641, consists of certain expressions of writers after 1641, who speak of the Anabaptists as "new," "upstart," &c. These expressions are arrayed and paraphrased so as to conform to the "1641 theory," and interpreted as confirming the "Kiffin" manuscript.

"Even were these expressions all that is claimed for them, they would prove nothing except that the practices of the Baptists were new to those who were writing.

"There are millions of people in the United States to-day to whom the practices of the Baptists are unknown. It was not until after the war between the States that Gen. Robert E. Lee knew that there were any Christians in this country who rejected infant baptism.

"Does that prove that before 1861 the Baptists of our land practiced infant baptism? Prof. George F. Holmes, of the University of Virginia, who recently died, wrote: "The Baptists are a religious laity whose main belief is in the necessity of the Hindoo practice of purification by bathing" (University of Virginia

[p. vii]
Bulletin for August, 1898). Dr. Holmes was one of the greatest scholars of the world. These are but samples from men who surely had abundant opportunity to know about the Baptists, but who had not taken the trouble to inform themselves. If, then, such men, who are not chargeable with hostility to the Baptists, and living in our own land and time, so utterly misunderstand our denominational beliefs and practices, shall we be surprised to find bitter enemies of the Baptists in the 17th century in England charging them with being "new" and "upstart?"

On and on it goes...

 

I posted this that has a wonderfully detailed Table of Contents.

It goes a little further.

BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY, from the Time of Christ, until He Comes Again.

If they say something like, "Gosh we have a Pedigree that's historically provable", which I don't know that they go there, the History of Like Faith and Order church assemblies is what we're looking for, in each period of The New Testament era, not a 'link-to-link' (although, God can have a link-to-link all He wants, whether He choose to provide us a solid history on it, or not, right?).

...
I posted this, below, as to why some called Baptists believe in the Promises of The Bible for Succession and if it ain't Baptists, who were these Promises to?

Remember, we see the church assembly that Jesus Founded as always being a local assembly of believers. It is the local assemblies of Jesus that we believe these Promises were made to and not 'The Kingdom of God' (ALL LIVING Saints, or this by any other name), for which they don't fit.

Thoughtful, Prayerful, Acquiescence to The Eternal Word of God.

...

Earth Wind and Fire told me that he didn't get where my 'inspiration springs' to post a bunch of info like I do, "unless it's The Holy Spirit", he said.

Well, of course, we can go with that good enough, I think. Why not?

Bible study gets into the Supernatural real quick!

If Jesus actually does have 'True' churches of His that He has Perpetuated, Supernaturally, then one thing is sure, ...HE & His Disciples TOLD the TRUTH, in these Promises!

 

Below, is a comment in Br. Christian's defence of speculations made about early Baptist-like Congregations, from the introduction to his book:

"In all fairness let it be asked what reliance can be placed in the statements about the Anabaptists of men who write this way about them?"

The remainder to the introduction is here, along with the finely detailed history in the chapters to his book,
"Baptist History Vindicated"
By John T. Christian, 1899

Editor's Note: John T. Christian wrote this book as a result of William H. Whitsitt's articles and book claiming 1641 as the beginning date for immersion as baptism by Baptists. -- Jim Duvall

Dr. Christian has certainly rendered valuable service in bringing to light many facts bearing on the history of the English Baptists in the 16th and 17th centuries. -- T. T. Eaton

"Thus the 1641 theory rests upon the presence of ten words in an anonymous manuscript, of which the earliest extant copy belongs to the year 1860, and this copy is itself at best a mere copy of a copy!"
(Chapter VI, p. 62. -- John T. Christian)

"Baptist History Vindicated"
By John T. Christian, 1899

"Introduction"
By T. T. Eaton

Baptist History Vindicated,
Chapters I-III
AN EXAMINATION OF THE JESSEY CHURCH RECORDS
AND THE "KIFFIN" MANUSCRIPT.

Baptist History Vindicated,
Chapters IV-VI

Baptist History Vindicated,
Chapters VII-IX

Baptist History Vindicated,
Chapters X-XII

Baptist History Vindicated,
Chapters XIII-XV

Baptist History Vindicated,
Appendices I-III

W. H. Whitsitt: The Man and the Controversy, 2009
By James Slatton
Reviewed by Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin

 

History of Baptist Churches
By Dr. Gail Terrell
Baptist History Notebook
By Berlin Hisel
The Origin of the Baptists
By Samuel H. Ford, 1860
1905 edition
The Origin of the Baptists
By George B. Taylor
From The Baptist Challenge Magazine
The People Called Baptists
By George W. McDaniel, 1919
The Baptist People
From the First to the Twentieth Century
By P. E. Burroughs, 1934
Compendium of Baptist History
By J. A. Shackelford
Landmarkism
There are Many Essays and Links.
The History of Baptists
By William D. Nowlin
Fundamentals of the Faith, 1922
Materials for Baptist History
By Basil Manly, Jr.
American Baptist Memorial Journal, 1856
The Trail of Blood
2,000 Years of the Baptist Story
By Ben Stratton
Baptists in History
Pillars of Orthodoxy, 1900
By W. P. Harvey
The First Baptist Churches in America
By William Warren Sweet, 1942
Baptist Church History
By Rev. R. J. W. Buckland, Pastor
Calvary Baptist Church, New York City
The Madison Avenue Lectures, 1867

 

Baptist History Homepage
AMERICAN BAPTIST HISTORY

[Scroll Down For Additional Histories.]
Introduction

Alabama Baptist History
Thirteen documents

Arkansas Baptist History

California Baptist History
Eight documents

Connecticut Baptist History
Eleven documents

Delaware Baptist History
Four documents

Florida Baptist History
Five documents

Georgia Baptist History
Twenty-six documents

Idaho Baptist History
One document

Illinois Baptist History
Ten documents

Indiana Baptist History
Twenty-five documents

Iowa Baptist History
Five documents

Kansas Baptist History
Two document

Kentucky Baptist History
Sixty-one documents

Louisiana Baptist History
Nine documents

Maine Baptist History
Ten documents

Maryland Baptist History
Five documents

Massachusetts Baptist History
Twelve documents

Michigan Baptist History
Five documents

Mississippi Baptist History
Twenty-two documents

Missouri Baptist History
Fifteen documents

Nebraska Baptists
Two documents

New Hampshire Baptist History
Three documents

New Jersey Baptist History
Fourteen documents

New York Baptist History
Twenty-three documents

North Carolina Baptist History
Forty-six documents

Ohio Baptist History
Forty documents

Oklahoma Baptist History
Two documents

Pennsylvania Baptist History
Twenty-four documents

Rhode Island Baptist History
Seven documents

South Carolina Baptist History
Twelve documents

South Dakota Baptist History
Two documents

Tennessee Baptist History
Forty-two documents

Texas Baptist History
Seventeen documents

Vermont Baptist History
Four documents

Virginia Baptist History
Twenty-six documents

West Virginia Baptist History
Nine documents

Wisconsin Baptist History
Two documents