B
benaiah
Guest
Continued:
But do not think for one moment that Baptists have arrogantly propagated this opinion of themselves alone. Many of our adversaries and detractors have also testified as to the antiquity of the Baptist faith. Some, who out of the hatred in their hearts for these people called Baptists, have unwittingly given credibility to our illustrious history.
Roman Catholic Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, President of the Council of Trent in 1524, said, “Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers.” A Roman Catholic Cardinal, the personal representative of the Pope, in the year 1524 acknowledged that the Baptists had existed for 1200 previous years. That, by Catholic admission, puts the Baptists back within three hundred years of Christ’s ministry on earth.
Even the principal Lutheran historian, Johann Laurenz von Mosheim, wrote, “Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all of the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists.”
And the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, a Presbyterian publication, states, “It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time.” Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.
Other renowned scholars and writers, some knowingly, some cluelessly, have lent their support to the notion that the original church of Christendom was a Baptist church. Such men as Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), the aide and successor to the reformer Zwingli admitted that as contrary as the doctrine was, this doctrine of the Baptists persisted from the days of the Apostles. Even Peter Allix, the learned scholar and historian of the Church of England, “furnishes us a list of thirty-three errors charged against this people by the Jacobite priest Raynerius” from his work first published in 1690. Raynerius Saccho was a thirteenth century monk and sworn enemy of the Waldensian Baptists.
Even famed English scientist, Sir Isaac Newton, wrote, “The modern Baptists formerly called Anabaptists are the only people that never symbolized with the Papacy.” He thus admits that the beginning of this illustrious group of Christians began sometime before the Roman Catholic system itself. Testimonies to this fact can also be extracted from the writings of such great minds as those of Professor David Masson of Edinburgh University (1822-1907); William C. King, editor of Crossing the Centuries; Robert Barclay the Quaker theologian (1648-1690); Alexander Campbell, founder of the Churches of Christ; and respected American educator and historian, John Clarke Ridpath, a Methodist. Mr. Ridpath, professor for sixteen years of what is now known as De Pauw University said, “I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist Church as far back as A.D. 100, although without doubt there were Baptists then, as all Christians were then Baptists.”
Perhaps the most excellent testimony to the antiquity of the people called “Baptists” comes from the very unlikely source of Doctors A. Ypeij and J. J. Dermout, Chaplain to the King of Holland. In 1819 these men received a royal commission to prepare a history of the Dutch Reformed Church. This history, prepared under royal sanction, and officially published, contains the following testimony to the origin of the Baptists, “We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists … were the original Waldenses … On this account, the Baptists may be considered as the only religious community which has stood since the days of the apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the gospel through all ages. The perfectly correct external and internal economy of the Baptist denomination tends to confirm the truth, disputed by the Roman Church, that the Reformation brought about in the sixteenth century was in the highest degree necessary, and at the same time goes to refute the erroneous notion of the Catholics, that their denomination is the most ancient.”
Now that was just some of the views of Church History from many of the Church History books I have and listed previously. If that is ones only source of information, what view do you think one would have?
“But, no one can be forced to accept something they have strong doubts about.”
I am not being forced into anything nor do I have “strong doubts”. I am simply trying to get a more balanced view than from what I have. In a court room, I want to examine the evidence, not be told what evidence I’m allowed to look at. I feel that is how one arrives at the truth. I appologize for this lengthy reply. God Bless,
Benaiah
But do not think for one moment that Baptists have arrogantly propagated this opinion of themselves alone. Many of our adversaries and detractors have also testified as to the antiquity of the Baptist faith. Some, who out of the hatred in their hearts for these people called Baptists, have unwittingly given credibility to our illustrious history.
Roman Catholic Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, President of the Council of Trent in 1524, said, “Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers.” A Roman Catholic Cardinal, the personal representative of the Pope, in the year 1524 acknowledged that the Baptists had existed for 1200 previous years. That, by Catholic admission, puts the Baptists back within three hundred years of Christ’s ministry on earth.
Even the principal Lutheran historian, Johann Laurenz von Mosheim, wrote, “Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all of the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists.”
And the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, a Presbyterian publication, states, “It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time.” Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.
Other renowned scholars and writers, some knowingly, some cluelessly, have lent their support to the notion that the original church of Christendom was a Baptist church. Such men as Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), the aide and successor to the reformer Zwingli admitted that as contrary as the doctrine was, this doctrine of the Baptists persisted from the days of the Apostles. Even Peter Allix, the learned scholar and historian of the Church of England, “furnishes us a list of thirty-three errors charged against this people by the Jacobite priest Raynerius” from his work first published in 1690. Raynerius Saccho was a thirteenth century monk and sworn enemy of the Waldensian Baptists.
Even famed English scientist, Sir Isaac Newton, wrote, “The modern Baptists formerly called Anabaptists are the only people that never symbolized with the Papacy.” He thus admits that the beginning of this illustrious group of Christians began sometime before the Roman Catholic system itself. Testimonies to this fact can also be extracted from the writings of such great minds as those of Professor David Masson of Edinburgh University (1822-1907); William C. King, editor of Crossing the Centuries; Robert Barclay the Quaker theologian (1648-1690); Alexander Campbell, founder of the Churches of Christ; and respected American educator and historian, John Clarke Ridpath, a Methodist. Mr. Ridpath, professor for sixteen years of what is now known as De Pauw University said, “I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist Church as far back as A.D. 100, although without doubt there were Baptists then, as all Christians were then Baptists.”
Perhaps the most excellent testimony to the antiquity of the people called “Baptists” comes from the very unlikely source of Doctors A. Ypeij and J. J. Dermout, Chaplain to the King of Holland. In 1819 these men received a royal commission to prepare a history of the Dutch Reformed Church. This history, prepared under royal sanction, and officially published, contains the following testimony to the origin of the Baptists, “We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists … were the original Waldenses … On this account, the Baptists may be considered as the only religious community which has stood since the days of the apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the gospel through all ages. The perfectly correct external and internal economy of the Baptist denomination tends to confirm the truth, disputed by the Roman Church, that the Reformation brought about in the sixteenth century was in the highest degree necessary, and at the same time goes to refute the erroneous notion of the Catholics, that their denomination is the most ancient.”
Now that was just some of the views of Church History from many of the Church History books I have and listed previously. If that is ones only source of information, what view do you think one would have?
“But, no one can be forced to accept something they have strong doubts about.”
I am not being forced into anything nor do I have “strong doubts”. I am simply trying to get a more balanced view than from what I have. In a court room, I want to examine the evidence, not be told what evidence I’m allowed to look at. I feel that is how one arrives at the truth. I appologize for this lengthy reply. God Bless,
Benaiah
. Thanks and God Bless,