ORIGIN OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH

     The history of the world does not refer to the existence of a Lutheran, or Lutheran Church before the days of Luther. That he was the founder of the Lutheran Church none can successfully deny. Luther, revolting against the degeneracy of the Catholic Church, organized a movement for reform. There is no historical evidence that he even thought of breading with the Catholic Church and forming a new one. But his activities brought down upon him the anathema of excommunication, and Luther and his followers were almost forced into forming a new organization. The year 1520 is the very earliest date that can be assigned to the formation of the Lutheran Church. It was in this year, according to McGlothin (Guide to Study of Church History), that Luther burned the bull of papal excommunication and openly defied the pope. It was not, however, until the year 1530 that the system of doctrine and morality which he and his followers had adopted was presented to the Diet of Augsburg.

     It cannot be but evident that the Lutheran Church founded by Martin Luther, 1,533 years or thereabouts after Christ, fails to meet the historical test of Christ as to origin and perpetuity, hence cannot be the church which He founded.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, OR EPISCOPAL CHURCH

     The origin of this church is very clearly and succinctly summed up by Dr. S. E. Tull, in his booklet before mentioned in the following words: “In 1509 Henry the Eighth was crowned King of England. Henry was only twelve years of age at the time. He was married the same year to Catherine of Aragon, daughter of Ferdinand and widow of his brother, Arthur. Twenty years later than this, when Henry came to exercise his own prerogative in personal matters, he decided to divorce Catherine and to marry Ann Boleyn, an English girl who had been reared at the court of Charles the Fifth of France.

This question of Henry’s divorce raised a great discussion, which was finally carried to the Pope of Rome for settlement. The Pope decided against Henry. Realizing the political impotence of the Pope to interfere in England’s political matters, Henry thereupon took matters into his own hands, and proceeded to put away Catherine and to marry Ann, notwithstanding the Pope’s pronounced interdiction. This defiance of the Pope caused Henry’s excommunication from the Church by Pope Clement the Seventh, 1534. Accepting the situation as an opportunity to rid himself completely of all political alliances with the Pope, Henry immediately convened his Parliament, and on November 23^rd of the same year, 1534, caused his Parliament to pass an act known as “The Act of Supremacy,” which declared Henry the Eighth to be “The Protector and Supreme Head of the Church and Clergy of England.” Thus it was that on the 23^rd of November, 1534, the “Church of England” was set up, with the profligate, adulterous murderous Henry as its founder and head. Brought into existence in a day by the power of a political fiat, the Episcopal Church started on its career as a “Christian” denomination.

     Of the church mentioned above, Macauley writes as follows ( History of England, Vol. 1 p. 32) :  “Henry the Eighth attempted to constitute an Anglican Church differing from the Roman Catholic Church on the point of supremacy, and on that point alone. His success in this attempt was extraordinary.”  Can anything be clearer than that the Church of England, or Episcopal Church, founded not by Christ, fails to meet the test as to origin and perpetuity, hence cannot be the true church?

ORIGIN OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

     “The success of Luther’s Protestantism on the Continent gave liberty for other like movements. John Calvin, who was born in the year 1509, the same year the Henry the Eighth was crowned King of England, who was educated a Catholic monk, joined hands with Luther and aided the Reformation. In some respects Calvin’s ideas of both doctrine and polity were different from those of Luther. For this reason, Calvin’s reform fell into distinct channels and crystallized into an independent organization, and because of their form of government, Calvinists became known as Presbyterians.”

     We may date the beginning of the Presbyterian Church as a separate denomination in the year 1536, as it was in this year that “Calvin’s Institutes” was given to the world.

     It followers quite naturally  that the Presbyterian Church, founded by John Calvin, 1,536 years after Christ, cannot meet the historical test of Christ and cannot be the true church—the one that Jesus founded and promised to perpetuate.

THE CONGREGATIONALIST

     The Lutherans, Episcopalians and Presbyterians constitute the three great Catholic-Protestant denominations. There are in existence two great denominations, who protested from the Episcopalians, and consequently are the offspring of the Episcopal Church. Let us briefly consider the facts relating to their origin. I quote from Tull’s excellent tract “There lived in England in 1580 and Episcopal preacher by the name of Robert Brown. He started a movement in opposition to the State Church, in which he advocated a congregational form of church government and greatly opposed sacerdotalism. He got a following who called themselves “Independents.” Robert Brown organized the first Independent church in 1580. Afterwards Brown repented, made confession of his mistake, went back to the Church of England and died in that faith. His followers, however, continued the movement, and became knows as “Congregationalist.”

     Having been founded by Robert Brown 1,580 years after Christ, the Congregationalist Church fails to meet the historical test imposed by Christ and cannot successfully claim to be the true church of Christ.

ORIGIN OF METHODISM

     Let us next consider the other Protestant movement that arose in the Episcopal Church—the one that has in the course of time come to be known as the “The Methodist Episcopal Church.” This movement was led by John Wesley and his brother Charles. While in Oxford University they, by their regular habits of religious study and work, earned for themselves the designation of “medthodists,” which later attached itself to the movement originated by them. Wesley never intended to organize a church, and indeed did not even dignify his organization by the name church, but called it a “Society.” Neither of the Wesleys ever affirmed the right to start a church, and as a matter of fact both of them died members of the Episcopal Church.

      With reference to the origin of Methodism, we find the following statement in the “Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church” (1912 edition): “In 1729 two young men in England, reading the Bible, saw that they could not be saved without holiness, followed after it and incited others to do so…God then trust them out to rise a holy people. This was the RISE of Methodism, as given in the words of its FOUNDERS, John and Charles Wesley…..Throughout England and in Scotland and Ireland, arose united SOCIETIES of men having the form and seeking the power of godliness. These subsequently became the Wesleyan churches of Great Britain.”  Again, referring to Methodism in the early days of its history in the United States, we find these words on page 16 of the same Discipline: “The parish clergy had mostly returned to England and the Methodist SOCIETIES were without ordained pastors for hundred of miles together.”

     It may be seen from these quotations that Methodism at first did not assume to express itself in the form of a church, but was a society within the Episcopal Church. It did not start on a separate denominational existence until the year 1739, according to Dr. McGlothin in his “Guide.” It was in this year that the first class meeting was held. However, the first conference was not held until five years later.

     The question here arises, If the Methodist Society had a right to evolve into a Church, why may not any church society of the present day do the same? They assuredly have as much right. Again, this question comes: If Luther, Calvin, the Wesleys and others had the right to found a church, have not you and I an equal right to do the same? Again, this question: How old must a movement or society become before it can properly evolve into a “Church”?

     But to return to the origin of Methodism, it ought not be difficult to see that the Methodist Church, or “Society” as it was formerly called, founded by John Wesley about 1,740 years after Christ, in no wise meets Christ’s test as to origin and perpetuity, and cannot be the true church of Christ.

ORIGIN OF THE CAMPBELLITE DENOMINATION

     It scarcely seems necessary to take the space to detail the origin of this sect, since it is of such recent origin that it would be absurd for anyone to claim for them apostolic origin. Indeed, I am personally acquainted with individuals who knew Alexander Campbell, and remember many incidents connected with the early days of his church, which is more commonly known today by the name “the Christian Church.” The date of the beginning of the Campbellites or “Christians” as a separate denomination cannot well be fixed earlier than 1827, although, ignoring the facts of history, they date their origin a few years earlier than the date I have just given. However, a few years makes no difference so far as we are concerned in this discussion. I remember quite well that just a few years ago this denomination with great enthusiasm, all over the land, celebrated their one hundredth anniversary! To accept their own date, they are only slightly over a hundred years old. Yet I remember to have seen carved on the cornerstone of one of their large church buildings, a statement to the effect that they trace their origin to the time of Jesus and the apostles. Strange statement indeed in the light of their own admission!

     Since they had a human founder and are of modern origin, it is quite evident that they do not meet Christ’s test and are not the true church.

     I could go on and make mention of the Mormons, Christian Scientist, Seventh Day Adventist, Russelites, Nazarenes, “Holy Rollers” and others, and detail their origin, but it would be entirely superfluous. It is sufficient to say that each of these just mentioned, together with all the numerous other smaller sects, have had human founders and were never heard of for more than a thousand years after Christ.

WHAT ABOUT THE BAPTISTS?

     We have shown that every sect, denomination and so-called church, Baptist alone excepted can be traced to a human founder, and originated long after Christ started His church. Plainly all of these being of post-apostolic origin, are eliminated. Just as when in the illustration you looked in every book save one and failing to find the document, knew that it must be in the one remaining, so when every church save one fails to qualify historically as the true church of Christ, it is but right and logical to conclude that the remaining church is the institution that Christ founded. Baptist churches are unique and clearly distinguished from all others in that no one can truly point to anyone as the human founder. Neither can the date be fixed for their beginning this side of Christ. Some have tried it, and their disagreements and contradictions constitute prima facie evidence of their historical inaccuracy. Those who would deny that Baptist date back to Christ, and who would assign them a modern origin, ought to hold council together and agree on some certain date! Otherwise their contradictory statements are liable to prejudice people in favor of the very thing they deny!

     In succeeding chapters I shall offer historical proof to substantiate my statement that Baptist  alone have had existence from the time of Christ. As Dr. Tull puts it: “The first Baptist church was organized by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, during His personal ministry on the earth. The Baptist church has Jesus for its Founder, the Holy Spirit for the Administrator of its activities, the New Testament for its articles of faith and laws of being. Throughout the Christian ages, pure Baptist teaching has survived. The ‘gates of Hades’ have not and shall not prevail against it.”

VII

The Doctrinal Test

In the preceding chapter I sought to show by a process of elimination that only Baptist churches meet Christ’s historical test as to origin and perpetuity. Laying aside for a time our findings, let us now peruse our search for the true ecclesia or church along the second line proposed, namely, that of DOCTRINE. This doctrinal test is fully as important as the historical test. If it can be demonstrated that Baptist churches are apostolical in regards to the doctrines they hold, and that they are the only churches that do hold the doctrines that obtained in the New Testament churches in a pure form, it ought to be doubly apparent that Baptist churches are the true churches of Christ.

     It is by no means a difficult task to ascertain the fundamental doctrines and practices of the churches that existed in the days of the apostles, because the church which Jesus founded has certain well defined doctrinal characteristics laid down in the New Testament by which it may be forever recognized and distinguished from all apocryphal institutions which may through the ages arise to call themselves Christian churches.

     In seeking to identify the church which Jesus built by means of doctrinal comparison, it might be well to indicate the method which we shall peruse. Let us first go to the New Testament and note the characteristics of the churches of the apostolic times. Next we shall examine Baptist characteristics to see if they coincide with those of the New Testament period. Then, finally, we shall take a brief glimpse at the teachings and practices of other great denominations to see how they stand in relation to the doctrines and practices of the churches of the New Testament. In following this procedure we shall necessarily have to be brief.

     One of the things that very forcibly strikes us when we read about the New Testament churches is that they were composed of THOSE WHO HAD BEEN REGENERATED AND BORN AGAIN. The doctrine of regenerated church membership is on the pages of the New Testament so clearly that none can mistake it. Indeed the very word ecclesia, as used in the Christian sense, should signify to us an assembly of people “called out” of the world, so as to form a separate company—a company of regenerated people. As Dr. Bow puts it: “The word translated church originally meant ‘called out’…so in the highest sense and holiest sense all the redeemed are called our, and it is fitly applied to them” In Acts 2:47 we find the following words: “Moreover the Lord was adding to the church day by day those being saved.” (Sco. Bible, Margin) Throughout the New Testament we find no slightest hint that any save those claiming regeneration were admitted to the churches. In fact, without regeneration church membership loses all significance. The duties and obligations which the New Testament teaches as belonging to church members presupposes a radical internal change on the part of  every person uniting with a church such as to fiat him for his task. The Scriptures most certainly do not bear out the idea that a church is to exist as a sort of reformatory into which unregenerates are to be taken, worked over and made into children of God. On the contrary each church, according to the New Testament idea, is to be an assembly of God’s people, regenerated, called out, and separated from the world—“a peculiar people, zealous and of good works.”

     And inseparable from the doctrine of regenerate church membership we may mention incidentally that the New Testament churches practiced only BELIEVER’S BAPTISM. A profession of faith in Christ was necessary before baptism was administered. In Acts 2:41 we read, “Then they that gladly received His word were baptized.” Note that “receiving His word” proceeded baptism. “His word” refers to the gospel preached by Peter. None are eligible for baptism, according to the Scriptures, until they have heard the gospel, believed and received it. As one writer has put it: “The only difference between a person who has not ‘received the Word,’ before and after immersion is that before their immersion they had on dry clothing, while afterwards their clothing is wet.” Many cases might be cited to prove that only believers were baptized and added to the church in New Testament times, if space permitted. I readily call to mind the case of Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Cornelius, and Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. In no verse of the new Testament is to be found anything to indicate that persons were ever baptized before reaching an age that permitted a person faith in Christ. Indeed scriptural baptism is taught in the New Testament presupposes saving faith in Christ. The order given in the Great Commission is, first make disciples, second baptize them.

     Now let us ask, do Baptist churches today coincide with apostolic churches in the two respects just mentioned? How do other denominations stand in regard to these matters? Note well this very true statement by Dr. T. T. Martin (The N.T. Church):”BAPTIST CHURCHES ARE THE ONLY CHURCHES ON EARTH THAT REQUIRE A PERSON TO PROFESS TO BE SAVD BEFORE THE PERSON UNITES WITH THE CHURCH OR IS BAPTIZED.” This statement proved startling to me when I first read it several years ago. But investigation has confirmed me in the belief that it is true. Other great denominations either mix infant baptism with believer’s baptism, or else hold the theory of baptismal regeneration. For instance, the Methodists and Presbyterians holds evangelistic meetings and following such meetings often baptize (?) those who profess faith in Christ during the meeting. At the same service perhaps they baptize (?) infants who are not of an age to believe anything. Of course if infant baptism were universally practiced, believer’s baptism would perish from the earth. On the other hand, Campbellites baptize only those or an age to believe, but hold the theory of baptismal regeneration, and baptize to help save. Only Baptist require a profession of saving faith in Christ before baptizing or accepting into church membership.

     Another thing that stands out in the New Testament as regards the churches of that time is the WAY OF SALVATION as taught by them. The apostolic churches held that salvation was by grace, through faith in Christ alone. As proof of this I submit Paul’s well-known words found in Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; not of works least any man should boast.” The vicarious death of Jesus was set forth as the only means of redemption for any human being, and the teaching was that it was only by faith in Him as Divine Redeemer and Saviour that one could be saved and become a child of God. Gal. 3:26 is to the point: “For ye are all children of God through faith in Jesus Christ.” Acts 16:31: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.”

     Are Baptist in accord with the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Christ? Indeed they are. “This is a doctrine that is fundamental in Baptist thought. It runs through the whole system of Baptist ideas, and helps to determine everything else in Baptist thinking.” No other way of salvation is held or taught in true Baptist churches.

     Are other denominations as one with the New Testament and Baptist in this matter? On this point I give another quotation from Dr. S. E. Tull: “The Catholics believe that salvation is not purely of grace, that the death of Jesus Christ is not the only means of salvation, but that the ordinance of baptism is efficacious, contains sacramental grace, and is essential to salvation.” The council of Trent declared that in “baptism not only remission of original sin was given, but also all which properly has the nature of sin is cur off.” It makes one “a Christian, a child of God, and an heir of heaven.”

     On the doctrine of salvation purely by grace through faith, the Baptist stand alone, and all others hold the position of the Catholics. Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalist and Methodist hold squarely to the Catholic position that infant baptism contains sacramental grace, while the Campbellites hold that baptism by immersion is essential to salvation.

     For fear that some may find fault with me for classing them with the Catholics on this doctrine of baptismal regeneration, I will quote from the law of some of the other churches on the subject. Unless church legislators have changed the law very recently, the following obtains among the churches named, and is a fair sample of the position of all covenantal churches on this doctrine.

     The Episcopal Catechism says:

“Baptism is that wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an   inheritor of the Kingdom of heaven.”

     If the above does not teach baptismal regeneration, pray tell what words would be used to teach it?

     The Presbyterian Confession reads:

            “Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and a seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of the giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to walk in newness of life.”

     The Methodist ritual reads as follows:

            “Sanctify this water for his holy sacrament and grant that this child, now to be baptized, may receive the fullness of thy grace, and ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children.”

     Look well at what you have just read, “Grant that this child …may…ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children.” This ritual puts the infant into the kingdom and family of God, and that without personal faith. It may grow to maturity with the idea that it is a baptized child of God and thereby never be regenerated, or perhaps even see the need of it. This certainly does not accord with the words of Jesus, “Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”

     The Methodist articles were based on those of the English Church, and reference to the writings of the founder of Methodism shows that he believed in baptismal regeneration as regards infants. Concerning the articles of the English Church, the which he belonged, we find John Wesley writing as follows (Sermons, London, 1872, Vol. 2 sermon 45, p 74): “It is certain our church supposes that all who are baptized in their infancy are at the same time born again; and it is allowed that the whole office for baptism of infants proceeds on this supposition.”

     I have known Methodist to vehemently deny that the founder of Methodism held to baptismal regeneration of infants, but in the quotation above, from his own printed sermons we have it in black and white.

     Again, let us examine the Lutheran view. This expressed by the founder in the Augsburg Confession as follows:

               “Concerning baptism, they teach that it is necessary to salvation…And condemn the Anabaptist, who hold…that infants can be saved without it.” (Neander, History of Christian Dogmas, Vol.2, p 693.)

     “In a city where the writer was laboring in the gospel, the pastors of all the churches in the city came together one morning to consider the propriety of inviting Dr. R. A. Torrey to conduct a city-wide evangelistic meeting. To that pastors’ conference came the Episcopalian rector of the city. The rector asked to make a statement, He proceeded as follows: ‘I want to put myself right before all you pastors of the city, in my relation to the proposed evangelistic meeting. I want you to understand my convictions in the matter. I do not believe in what is known among you as evangelism. I do not believe in what you call conversion under the spontaneous operation of the Holy Spirit in the human heart. I believe in covenantal grace and that people become Christians by baptism and confirmation into the Church. Believing as I do, I cannot consistently engage with you in your proposed evangelistic campaign.’ All this the rector said very frankly and earnestly. Then in seeming justification of his position, after a moment’s hesitation he continued: ‘I want to say to you Presbyterian pastors here,  that if you live up to the covenantal teaching of your church, you cannot engage in an evangelistic meeting. You should either abandon our covenantal teachings or quit holding evangelistic campaigns. By undertaking to carry out both, you make two plans by which men become Christians. As I see it, these Baptist preachers are the only preachers in our city who can consistently carry on an evangelistic meeting. They do not believe in covenantal grace, but they consistently hold every man to a personal experience of religion, which they call conversion and regeneration.’” (“Denominationalism Put to Test.”)

     Further study of the apostolic churches as described in the New Testament, reveals several facts in connection with the ORDINANCES WHICH WERE ADMINISTERED BY THEM. These facts may be stated as follows:

     1. The ordinances were two, and only two, in number: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper—Matthew 18:19; I Cor. 11:23-30.

     All the attempts to deduce foot-washing as an ordinance, from the Scriptures, fail. Plainly the apostles had no such ordinance. Neither were the two ordinances mentioned above held in the light of sacraments. To speak of the Lord’s Supper as the “Sacrament” is not only unscriptural; it is anti-scriptural.

     2.  The ordinances were church ordinances. This is admitted with practical unanimity by all the great denominations. In the light of this admission, “open communion” becomes not only an unscriptural practice, but likewise a glaring inconsistency. And if the ordinances were given to Baptist, as I have endeavored to show, then the receiving of “alien immersion” is of all things most inconsistent for Baptist churches.

     3.  They were symbolic ordinances, designed to picture great truths and possessing no saving power at all. There is no need for me to discuss this, as the New Testament teaching of salvation by grace dealt with above prohibits us from attributing saving efficacy to the ordinances. For of course if salvation is by grace through faith in Christ, it cannot be by baptism, the Lord’s Supper, or the doing of any works on our part.

     4.  Baptism was administered by immersing the candidate in water. Not even the slightest hint of sprinkling or pouring is to be found in the New Testament. Many clear cases of immersion are recorded. That was evidently the only form of baptism, for Paul in Ephes. 4:5 writes, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” And indeed the meaning of the term “baptize,” if studied in the original, is enough to make perfectly clear to the unbiased mind that immersion was the primitive mode. Besides this, all reliable scholars of the different denominations frankly admit that immersion was the “mode” of baptism practiced in apostolic times.

     5.  The Lord’s Supper, being a church ordinance, was restricted to church members. This being the case, it was of course preceded by immersion.

     How do the beliefs of Baptist churches today square with the New Testament teaching concerning ordinances? The answer is, they are in perfect accord.

     Other denominations are sadly at variance. The Catholics admit that they changed the ordinance of baptism in the twelfth century because sprinkling is more convenient. I quote just here from Cardinal Gibbons (Faith of Our Fathers, pp. 316, 317): “For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity, baptism was usually conferred by immersion. But since the twelfth century baptism by infusion had prevailed in the Catholic Church, as this manner is attended with less inconvenience than baptism by immersion……Baptism is the essential means established for washing away the stain of original sin, and the door by which we find admittance into the Church. Hence baptism is as essential for the infant as for the full-grown man. Unbaptized infants are excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven, Baptism makes us heirs of heaven and co-heirs of Jesus Christ.”

     Protestant churches (remember again that Baptist are not Protestants), the direct descendants of the Catholic Church, got their infant baptism and their perverted modes of baptism from their parent, the Catholic Church. The Campbellites and others who hold baptism essential to salvation, get their baptismal regeneration from the same source.

     As regards the Lord’s Supper, we find that the Catholic and Protestant world have departed from the simplicity of the New Testament idea that the bread and wine is merely a symbol or memento which is to be taken in remembrance of the Saviour. The Catholics hold to transubstantiation, the doctrine that the bread and wine becomes the actual body of Christ. The Lutherans hold to consubstantiation, which is but a modification of Catholic view. Others, such as the Presbyterians and Methodist, hold the sacramental or spiritual blessing idea, which makes of the ordinance something more than a mere memorial. Besides this, most denominations in actual practice do not make immersion a prerequisite to the partaking of the Lord’s Supper as did the churches of the New Testament, for they practice “open communion” which admits everybody who wants to eat-immersed, sprinkled, unsprinkled, or what not.

     Further, we find that the apostolic churches were DEMOCRATIC IN THEIR FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. This means, of course that they recognized the absolute lordship of Christ, and had no human head or master. “One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren” (Matt. 243:8-10) is the New Testament teaching. There was no higher or lower order of clergy; no popes or bishops in the modern sense, to boss the rest around. Peter had no thought of being pope, for he called himself a fellow-elder with other preachers (I Peter 5:1) When a successor was needed to fill the place of Judas Iscariot, Peter did not appoint him, but the one hundred and twenty members of the Jerusalem church (Acts 1:15-26). When the first deacons were appointed, their appointment was by Peter, nor by the apostles as ruling elders, or as constituting a college of bishops. They were chosen by the multitude of disciples, or church. We find that churches transacted business without outside interference or dictation. They elected their own officers, and by vote of the congregation received and excluded members. For example, Paul writes to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:1) “Him that is weak in faith, receive ye.” This indicated that they were in the habit of receiving members. In I Cor. 5, Paul tells the church at Corinth to exclude an unworthy member. In II Thess. 3 he gives similar counsel to the church at Thessalonica. Again, from Acts 9 we gather that Paul himself was refused membership in the church at Jerusalem, because at that time the church was in doubt about his conversion and was afraid of him.

     Having a democratic form of church government; being composed of individuals who were on an equality—and having no visible, earthly head, churches were separate and distinct, and were bound together in no organic way. This is conceded by all the earliest and most reliable historians as having been the order for several centuries. Geisler, the historian, says in writing of the churches of the first two centuries: “All congregations were independent of one another” (Vol. 1, Chap. 3). Mosheim, the Lutheran historian, says (Vo. 1, p 142), “During a great part of this (second) century all the churches continued to be, as at first, independent…each church was a kind of independent republic.”

     Do Baptist churches accord with the apostolic way in regard to their church government and polity? Anyone at all acquainted with Baptist churches knows that democracy in its purest form is to be found in them. Each church is separate and distinct as in apostolic times, and when churches meet together in associations and conventions they come together in only a cooperative, voluntary way. There is no organic union in one big “Church.” And furthermore no association or convention has the right to dictate to the local church. Baptist churches today, as in apostolic times, have no dignitaries or ecclesiastics to impose their will upon them. True, in these days we sometimes have an occasional individual who desires for himself ecclesiastical powers with which to force cooperation among Baptist. Such an individual is in each case predestined to an early fall.

     But let us, for the sake of comparison, take a glimpse at the government of other churches.

     Catholics give church members no privileges but to obey “The Church,” and no voice whatever in the government of the church.

     The Lutheran Church is an episcopacy with legislative powers governing both the doctrine and polity or particular congregations and individuals.

     The Episcopal Church has legislative courts and does the same.

     The Presbyterian Church is what had been termed “a centralized aristocracy,” composed of legislative courts with a gradation in authority, from the sessions of particular church of the General Assembly of the whole denomination. From the decisions of the General Assembly there is no appeal, either for churches or individuals.

     The Congregational Church comes nearer the Baptist position in this matter than most others, but veers farther away on some other points.

     The Methodist Church is an episcopacy with a system of ecclesiastical machinery that leaves little room for the autonomy of the local church or the expression of individuality on the part of its members.

     This form of church government is not only unbiblical; it proves to be unwise in many instances from the standpoint of what is expedient. The matter of where preachers shall labor, the choice of their respective fields, is taken out of their own hands so that they must needs go where they are sent. In this system a preacher may be sent where he does not want to go and where he feels that neither the Lord nor the people want him. In one case that came under my observation, a man was sent to a smaller pastorate to which was attached a smaller salary than he had been accustomed to receive. The change was so arbitrary and unsatisfactory that the preacher rebelled and only remained on his new field long enough to dispose of his household goods. If I was correctly informed he left with the avowed intention of joining another denomination. Such happenings are very embarrassing to both the church and pastor. They are the natural outgrowth of an unscriptural, ecclesiastical system.

     The Campbellite or “Christian” Church received its form of government from its founder, Alexander Campbell, who from his brief association with the Baptist, had imbued some of their ideas. Campbellites profess a congregational form of government, but in reality the pastor is vested with Episcopal powers to receive members without a vote of the congregation.

     Another thing that is to be clearly gathered from the New Testament concerning the churches of that day is that they WERE ENTIRELY FREE FROM COERCION. In other words, they believed in religious liberty. Religion was a purely voluntary matter. They were deeply impressed with their duty to preach, teach and persuade, but their word ended there. As to whether or not the individual accepted the gospel and affiliated with the church, was a matter to be decided by the individuals himself apart from all coercive measures of any kind. There was entire separation of church and state. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s” was the admonition of Jesus. With such a conception as the New Testament churches had of freedom of conscience, religious precaution was with them impossible.

     Again let us ask, how do Baptist churches of today accord with the principles of freedom held by the apostolic churches? The answer is they hold these principles still, just as they held them in the first century. They hold that it is their duty and obligation to preach the gospel to all the world, but they seek to force no one to accept it. They believe that every man has the individual right to settle for himself the question of his relation to God. Consequently they believe that infant baptism is a sin against God and against little children, in that it forces a religious rite upon a helpless child and from it the privilege of obeying Christ for itself. Baptist put neither priest, ordinance, nor anything else between the individual and God. They hold that every person can, through Jesus Christ, approach God and deal with Him for himself. In church relations the same voluntary principle holds good. No high ecclesiastic forces churches into measures. No set of ecclesiastics run the churches’ affairs for the, and for acceptance of the leaders they choose for the people. Baptist people govern themselves, and each church determines the measure and kind of cooperation that it will engage in with other bodies and organizations.

     To Baptist, union of church and state is an unspeakable evil, and one that they have never been a party to. They have through the ages suffered cruel imprisonments, punishments, and even martyrdom at the hands of other peoples because, forsooth, peoples of other faiths, through the civil powers, wielded the sword of coercion and persecution.

     Let us now take a glance at other denominations and observe their attitude on this point. Catholics give the individual no personal prerogative. The Church holds the soul of the individual and can by excommunication destroy all hope for eternity. The history of the Catholic Church is one that reeks with blood. Through long periods Catholicism was the state religion, and so fiercely did it persecute that dissenters were forced to hide in the “dens and caves of the earth.” I need only mention the massacre of the Huguenots in which hundreds of people were butchered, or the horrors of the Inquisition, in which devilish ingenuity devised every torture with which to afflict Baptist and others who held dissenting religious views. I write these lines from Brazil, where on every side is to be seen the evidence of Catholic intolerance. Just last week news came of how Catholics broke up services that were being held by Baptist in the town of Bom Jardim, a few miles away.

     Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodist and Congregationalist stand with the Catholics in abridging the freedom of the individual conscience because of their practice of infant baptism. “Campbellites place an ordinance between the sinner and the Saviour, and thereby forbid his unlimited approach to God” Episcopalians in England derive their support from the government and Baptist are forced to pay to support a church in which they do not believe. Dr. John Clifford, a noted Baptist preacher, went to jail time and time again because of his refusal to pay to help support the Episcopalian Church. Lutherans have united with the state and have used their power to persecute. For instance, Henry Crant, Justice Muller, and John Peisker, Baptist, were beheaded in Jena, in 1536, by the Lutherans. Among their announced views was the doctrine that all infants are saved without baptism. (See McArthur’s “Why I am A Baptist.”) Presbyterians have consented to the unholy alliance of church and state and have persecuted also. The part that John Calvin, the founder of Presbyterianism, Had in burning Seventus, the Anabaptist, at the stake is too well known to mention in detail. Congregationalist persecuted by means of civil power in the early colonial days in America. Clark, Holmes and Candrall, Baptist leaders, were fined, imprisoned an publicly whipped in Boston. On asking what law of God or man he (Clark) had broken, Endicott replied to Clark, “You have denied infant baptism and deserve death.”

     And I may add that persecution of Baptist does not all belong to the past. In almost every place today where Baptist stand for the whole Bible and preach their doctrines, they meet with persecution. They are called “narrow,” “bigoted,” and are pointed at with scorn. Many times, because their beliefs do not permit them to engage in all sorts of union movements and programs, they are bitterly criticized. In my own ministry I have in one instance had my church boycotted by members of other denominations because I preached the New Testament teachings concerning the ordinances. The forms of persecution are not the same as in days gone by, but persecution that is none the less real is often resorted to by those who do not espouse the purely voluntary principle of the New Testament and Baptist.

     Another characteristic of the churches of Christ in apostolic times was their REVERENCE FOR THE SCRIPTURES AND THE COMMANDS OF THE LORD GIVEN TO THEM THROUGH INSPIRED MEN. To them the Word of God, whether contained in the Old Testament or delivered through the mouth or pen of inspired men, was sufficient.

     Christians of those days did not butcher the Old Testament as do the Modernist of our day, who parcel it out into bits and call this part a portion of the “J” document this other a part of the “E” document, and so on. To them the Old Testament did not merely contain a revelation from God; it was the revelation. The teachings of the apostles they received as authoritative.

     Here again we distinguish the likeness between Baptist churches of today and the churches of the early times. To Baptist, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament constitute the final authority on all matters of belief and practice. The great doctrine that constitutes the bedrock upon which all of their doctrines are laid in this: “The Bible, the Bible alone, is our only an all-sufficient rule of faith and practice.” As one has aptly put it, “if you can’t find it in he Bible, it isn’t Baptist doctrine; if it is Baptist doctrine you can find it in the Bible.” Baptist believe that each individual has the right to read and interpret the Scriptures for himself. They do not believe in studying and interpreting in the light of someone’s comments, as do Christian Scientists, who study in the light of Mrs. Eddy’s “Science and Health,” or Russelites, who interpret by the aid of Pastor Russell’s “Bible Studies,” or Catholics, who, when they read the Bible at all, read the imperfect translated Douay version, in the light of the Church’s interpretations appended to each page in the form of “notes.” Baptist believe that the Bible says what it means and means what it says, and that it is so written as to be understood by the common people. They do not believe that it is right to seek to justify a practice by a set of regulations drawn up by fallible men. Consequently, that a thing is found in a “Discipline” or “Catechism” adds little weight to it, for them. But while these things are true, it is also true that Baptist have always been willing to state their beliefs. This they have done repeatedly in the form of “Confessions of Faith.” These confessions merely place before the world their interpretation of what the Bible teaches on fundamental matters. They are not binding creeds forced upon Baptist bodies, for each church has the privilege of making its own statement of belief.

     What is the attitude of other denominations toward the Bible? It is not the Baptist attitude, else there would not be the division that exists today. Much is said today about church union, and Baptist are often blamed for the schismatic condition of Christendom. But it can be truly said that Baptist are ready to unite with those of other faiths at any time that they are willing for union to be consummated upon the principle of absolute adherence to the New Testament.

     The Catholic view, for instance, is the exact opposite of the Baptist. Catholics believe in the Pope as the source of doctrine, and they hold he is infallible in his decisions. On this point we have the statement of Cardinal Gibbons as follows: “When a dispute arises in the Church regarding the sense of Scripture, the subject is referred to the Pope for final adjudication…He pronounces judgment, an his sentence is final, irrevocable, and infallible.” Again, in the same book (Faith or Our Fathers), he says: “The Scriptures can never serve as a complete rule of faith and a complete guide to heaven independent of an authorized living interpreter.”

     Other denominations occupy positions between the Baptist and the Catholics. The Lutheran, Episcopal and Methodist churches are vested with legislative powers ample to allow them to fix doctrine and legislative conduct for the particular congregations and for individuals. As we have already seen, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church is vested with supreme power in matters affecting doctrine and polity.

     There is yet another thing that was considered fundamental among New Testament churches, and that was what has been termed. “THE COMPETENCY OF THE SOUL, UNDER GOD, IN RELIGION.” “Everyone of us shall give an account of himself to God,” is the teaching of Paul. Every soul was deemed competent to deal with God without the interference of human priests or mediaries. .  Absolute freedom or conscience was allowed, and coercion was never resorted to, in matters pertaining to religion, as has already been pointed out.

     In this we find Baptist to be strictly apostolical.  Baptist believe that man, as man, has the capacity to know God. and under the power of the Holy Spirit to do God’s will. “This competency of the soul under God,” as one writer puts it, “is at once exclusive an inclusive. It excludes all human interference, all proxy in religion, all ideals of priestly or episcopal intervention. Religion is a matter between the individual soul and God. It includes all the rights of an absolute democracy, and constitutes every believer his own priest and king.” It might not be out of place just here to quote Dr. E. Y. Mullins on this point. He says: “The Biblical significance of the Baptist is the right of private interpretation and obedience to the Scriptures. The significance of the Baptists in relation to the individual is soul freedom. The ecclesiastical significance of the Baptists is a regenerated church membership and the equality and priesthood or believers. The political significance of the Baptist is the separation of the church and state. All of these grow naturally and of necessity out of the doctrine of the competency of the soul in religion.”

     And now let us take a brief look at other denominations and not their attitude in this matter. Everyone who is at all familiar with the Catholic position will admit very readily that it is in direct antithesis to the Baptist doctrine of the competency of the soul. Underlying the whole scheme of Roman Catholicism is the idea of incompetency of the soul. This is seen in the auricular confession, the denial of right of private interpretation of the Bible, infant baptism, the priestly monopoly of the elements necessary to the “communion” and numerous other things.  

     Protestantism is a mixture of the Baptist and Catholic positions. A quotation from Dr. M. P. Hunt (The Baptist Faith) will make this clear. He writes as follows: “in many things the Protestant world is now with the Baptist, but in some things it still clings to the rags of Catholicism. As, for instance, the episcopacy, infant baptism, and baptismal regeneration. They are all unscriptural, and first saw light in the Catholic Church, and were nourished by its unscriptural conception of the incompetency of the soul in religion. In holding to the doctrine of justification by faith, the Protestant world is at that point one with the Baptist, while in baptizing their children into the church in unconscious infancy they are one with the Catholics. In the matter of civil and religious liberty, the Protestant world in America is now in full sympathy with the Baptist position, while those churches that have the Episcopal form of government get the same from the Catholics. Take the ‘Disciples,’ who are less than a hundred years old, and they are one with the Baptist in the matter of believer’s baptism; but at the same time one with the Catholics in holding baptism to be essential to salvation.”

     Other characteristics of the apostolic churches could be taken up and their identity with Baptist characteristics established. But surely enough has already been said to demonstrate that Baptist are apostolic as regards their faith and practice. One who reads the New Testament cannot help but see the doctrinal identity of Baptist today with the churches of the New Testament. Dr. A.T. Robertson has said: “Give a man a New Testament and a good working conscience, and a Baptist is the sure result.” Instances are on record where several denominations have been seeking to get into their church a new convert, and, as a rule, whenever it is announced that the individual is making a study of the New Testament, and will let that guide him, it is generally conceded that the Baptist have won.

     If I wished to take the space I could go on at length and tell of I. N. Yohannan, a Persian, converted under the preaching of a Presbyterian missionary, but who, upon reading the New Testament, came from Persia to New York to get Baptist baptism. I could tell the story of John G. Oncken and his family in Hamberg, Germany. They, becoming believers and being without ecclesiastical guides, shut themselves up to study of the New Testament with this result: A BAPTIST CHURCH! I could tell of Judson and Rice, who were sent to the foreign field by another denomination, on the voyage studied the New Testament and arrived on their field with convictions that led them to join a Baptist church, even though it meant for them to renounce the support of those who had sent them. I could tell of how in the state of Parahyba, Brazil, men were converted under the preaching of a Presbyterian missionary and were made Baptist in belief by reading the New Testament. They sent to the city where I now reside (Perambuco) for a Baptist preacher to come and baptize them.

VIII.

Points to be remembered

     We have seen in a former chapter that all churches and denominations, with the single exception of Baptist Churches, originated in post-apostolic times, and moreover that their origin may be traced to a human head and founder. Applying Jesus’ historical  test, which requires that the true church must have had Him for the Founder, and must have been perpetuated through all ages, we eliminated all churches save those of the Baptist. In the preceding chapter we applied the doctrinal test, with the results that we found Baptist churches alone to be apostolical in doctrine, form and practice. Other denominations, we saw, failed to meet this test; each of them showing wide departure from apostolic doctrine and practice. Already it has become apparent that Baptist churches are identical with the churches of the New Testament era, and consequently may right claim to be the true churches of Christ. However, we shall not stop here. We proposed in the beginning to devote some time to proving Baptist church perpetuity by statements of reliable historians.

     Before we hear the testimony of these historical witnesses, it might be well for the sake of clearness to deal briefly with several matters bearing more or less on the subject. These points, indicated numerically, follow:

     1.  Let it be born in mind as indicated at the beginning that Baptist do not attempt to establish their claims by the Baptist name.  Some say that Baptist churches are not the true churches because they are not called by the name Baptist in the New Testament. The plain fact is that they were not called by any distinguishing name at that time, but were simply spoken of as “churches.” And why? Plainly because all churches were then of one faith and consequently needed no name, except the church at such and such a place, as for example, “the church at Antioch,” “the church at Corinth,” etc. But it can be readily seen that as time passed, and spurious organizations calling themselves churches sprang up, distinguishing names came to be used as a matter of necessity. As for Baptist, they have during the course of centuries been called by different names. These names were usually bestowed upon them by their enemies and persecutors, as I have previously tried to show. Sometimes in one land a certain name was applied to them while at the same time in another land they were being called by another name. The same kind of churches existed, characterized by the same evangelical doctrine and life, but the names they bore were different. It is very easy to understand how this could be in a time when churches were widely separated and when there was little intercommunication. As late as colonial days in America, Baptist were often termed “Anabaptist” and “Catabaptist.” Indeed, in reading some historical documents relating to the history of Kentucky I found that the Baptist were referred to as Anabaptist. Most surely the dropping of the “ana” in no wise changed the characteristics of the churches. No more were the Waldenses changed when in the course of time came to be called Anabaptist. So the thing insisted upon is not identity of name, but rather continuity of doctrine and life, held by peoples meeting as bodies of baptized believers in Christ.

     2.  Let it be remembered that those who deny Baptist perpetuity differ widely as to when Baptist had their origin. Their very uncertainty, and their complete divergence of opinion about the matter is in itself a good argument for the thing they oppose. Dr. W. A. Jarrell, in preparing his manuscript for his book, perpetuity some years ago, wrote a number or letters to high officials and scholars of Catholic and various Protestant churches, asking the question, “When, where, and by whom was the first Baptist church originated?” The answers received showed hopeless confusion and uncertainty. These men, unwilling to concede that the first church that ever existed was a Baptist church, where hard pressed to find an answer, and their answers failed to correspond with each other.

     Permit me to further illustrate on this point: I have here on my writing table two books written by men who violently oppose the Baptist perpetuity idea. In dating the origin of Baptist, one says that the Baptist were started in Germany in 1521 by Nicholas Stork. The other says that the first Baptist church was founded in Amsterdam by John Smyth, an Englishman in 1607. The fact is, those who deny that Jesus started the first Baptist church at Jerusalem simply cannot place their finger on the date of the beginning of the first Baptist church, and the man who started it. They cannot correctly name the date because it doesn’t exist! They cannot name the man this side of Christ, because he never lived!

     3.  Note the confusion that prevails among those who claim that Jesus did not found the local assembly, but a “universal invisible Church.” For instance, Dr. C. I. Scofield, in his “Synthesis of Bible Truth,” says that ecclesia is used in the New Testament in four different senses, as follows: “To designate the whole body of the redeemed during the present dispensation, to designate a local church, to designate groups of local churches, and to designate the visible church or body of professed believers without reference to locality or numbers.” Confusion is here worse confounded! Who can read the New Testament with unbiased mind and get the impression that Jesus founded several different kinds of churches? This teaching could only have arisen as a theoretical necessity. Further, we find that the Westminster Confession contains still another conception of church in which those who have never become believers are members. This confession says that the church consist “of all those throughout the world who profess the true religion, together  with their children.”

     4.  There are those who readily admit a perpetuity of Baptist principles but who are not willing to admit perpetuity of Baptist churches. For instance H. C. Vedder, in his “Short History of the Baptist,” devotes most of his introduction to an argument against Baptist perpetuity, then, strange to say, begins his history of Baptist in the New Testament times! He does not admit the continuance of Baptist churches, but devotes upwards of two hundred pages to what he calls a “history of Baptist principles.” There immediately arises this question: If Baptist principles have had continuous existence from apostolic times, then surely there must have existed people who held those principles. For the perpetuity of Baptist principles necessarily involves the fact that there lived individuals who held them. Were not the individuals who held Baptist principles Baptist? And were not the churches made up of such, individual Baptist Churches? If not, I am greatly concerned to know what kind of churches they were. The position that there has been a perpetuity of Baptist principles but not of Baptist is illogical, an it ill becomes a person of thoughtful mind to hold such a position.

     5.  None deny that there have existed from the days of the apostles on, companies, congregations, and sects of Christians dissenting from the established and commonly accepted forms. When the prevailing churches fell into errors, and departed from the gospel teaching, those who continued godly separated themselves from the multitude and worshipped and served God according to their understanding of the Scriptures. These people, true to apostolic teaching, constituting in the strictest sense what remained of the true church of Christ, were bitterly persecuted, termed “heretics,” and had applied to them all sorts of odious names. And because they usually wore the names applied to them in hatred by their enemies, the names varied. Consequently it would be foolish for one, because the name Baptist cannot be traced back successively to apostolic times, to deny that people holding Baptist principles and in a real sense Baptist have existed.

     6. Objection is often made to tracing Baptist descent through the so-called dissenting “sects” that existed from the New Testament times on, upon the ground that there were irregularities among them as to doctrine and practice. Some of the churches included under that same name as that of the peoples through whom Baptist trace their perpetuity, practiced things out of harmony with the things that Baptist practice today. Therefore, it is argued that Baptist err in claiming kinship with them. Let us think about this objection for a few moments. It ought to be evident to anyone who will think it over that churches, absolutely independent, bound together in no close organic way, driven into seclusion, scattered and separated by persecution, would in all probability come to differ somewhat in minor matters of doctrine and polity. Moreover, some might even depart so far from the Scriptures’ teaching as to become unworthy of the name borne by them. There is no doubt that this very thing happened in many instances among the peoples through whom the Baptist trace descent. Biased historians have seized upon these more or less isolated instances, and have magnified them in an attempt to show that the whole “sect” was not baptistic in it s doctrines and practices. Upon the same principle it could be argued that certain churches of the apostolic era were not true churches. For instance, the church at Corinth was very imperfect; irregularities existed, yet no one asserts that it was not a true church of Christ. One could magnify the irregularities and variations that exist between Northern and Southern Baptist churches, or between Southern Baptist and the Baptist of Canada or England, and erroneously conclude that they are not to be classed as the same people. And indeed, there are churches calling themselves by the name “Baptist” that have without doubt so far departed form Scriptures as to n longer be true Baptist churches. It is quite unfair, however, to judge a people as a whole by the actions of a few churches that go astray form the truth. In properly estimating them w must find out what they in the main stand for. We must ascertain, what were the principles that generally characterized them.

     It  should be remembered that much of what is on record concerning those who held Baptist views in ages past has come from the pens of their foes. Those who wrote about them generally hated these “dissenters” with deadly and malignant hatred and did not scruple at persecuting them to the death. Can the testimony of such witnesses be considered as trustworthy? All too often have historians even some who bear the name Baptist been willing to characterize Baptist of ages gone by according to the records of their persecutors, who delighted in nothing more than to exaggerate their faults. Strange to say, some historians seem to give more credence to the statements of their enemies than to those contained in the extant writing of these Christians themselves. It seems to me that the histories of Newman and Vedder go to this extreme just mentioned. As I have compared their writings concerning the various bodies of Christians who withstood Rome in the earlier days with the writing of other Baptist historians. I have been unable to keep from feeling that they do these people a deep injustice. Those noble men and women who kept alive the great doctrines of the New Testament faith through bloody times of persecution who maintained evangelical religion in  the face of Romish apostasy, often at the cost of life—surely they bore enough during their lifetime without having perpetuated against their memory, by biased historians the calumnies of their enemies.

     7.  It might well be asked at this point, How far can a church depart from the truth and still be a New Testament church? Those who claim that Montanist, Novations, Paulicians, Waldenses, etc were too heretical for Baptist to claim kin with, might well ponder this question. Even Dr. A. H. Newman recognizes that churches may have irregularities and still be true New Testament churches, for in his history of “Antipedobaptistm”  page 28, he says: “That a church also may make grave departures in doctrine and practice from the apostolic standard without ceasing to be a church of Christ, must be admitted.” If we can determine just how far a church may depart from the truth and still remain a New Testament church, we shall then be prepared to examine the beliefs of the various parties and “sects” of ancient times to determine whether or not we may justly trace the Baptists through them.

     On the matter of what constitutes a true New Testament church I wish to quote with approval the words of Dr. T. T. Martin, as found in his splendid book on the New Testament church. He says: “Only two doctrines are essential to a New Testament church. Other doctrines are important, precious, but only two are essential to a New Testament church. They are the WAY OF SALVATION and the WAY OF BAPTISM. The Commission makes this clear. Matthew 28: 19-20 R. V.: ‘Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…..’ A body of people holding these two doctrines and in this New Testament order may be in error on other doctrines; yet it is a New Testament church. For instance, if there is in the West a church called a ‘Baptist’ church that holds immersion for baptism, but does not hold the New Testament way of salvation, then it is not a New Testament Church. If there is a church in New York or England called a ‘Baptist’ church that holds the New Testament way of salvation but does not hold immersion as baptism, then it is not a New Testament church. If there is a church called a ‘Baptist’ church that holds the New Testament way of baptism, but that one ought to be baptized before being saved, then it is not a New Testament church.”

     There have been Baptist churches within recent times that practiced foot-washing. Others have held erroneous views relating to the Sabbath. On our day, I have known of Baptist churches in the North having a woman for pastor, and I have known churches to adopt various unscriptural plans for the carrying on of their work. But the point is none of these things kept them from being New Testament churches. Just as a Christian may be disobedient and yet remain a Christian, so a church may be disobedient and yet remain a New Testament church—though admittedly an unworthy one. For, let us repeat, according to the terms of the Commission, two doctrines and two only are essential to a New Testament church: THE WAY OF SALVATION AND THE WAY OF BAPTISM.

IX

Baptist Under Other Names

     We have touched on the fact that from the time that corruption began to gain the ascendancy and God’s order began to be perverted and changed, there have been dissenters—those who protested against the evil and corruption, and banded together to live and act in accordance with the teachings of the Scriptures. Those who maintained the New Testament form, doctrine and teachings were termed by the corrupt churches “sects,” and were denounced as “heretics.”  All historians admit that these “sects” or “heretics” existed all along down through the ages.

     In these churches which stood for the New Testament teaching against corruption, there were leaders and learned men who became extremely well known an well hated because they dared to champion the cause of truth against apostasy. In many instances a large number of those holding the true faith had applied to them the name of the leader. When a new name came to be applied to those holding Baptist beliefs, historians often write as though a new sect originated. In truth it was only a new name that originated, an out of the mouths of enemies at that. A new name applied to the same people, holding the same peculiar beliefs, in no wise changed them.  

     Now, before I begin to suggest some of the peoples of ancient times through whom Baptist may properly claim historical continuity, let me re-emphasize two points which I request the reader to bear in mind throughout the reading of the entire chapter. First, all I am seeking to establish is that there has always from the time of Christ, been groups of individuals who held on essential points the New Testament faith, and who banded together in churches that were essentially baptistic in faith and practice. Second, only two doctrines are essential to a New Testament church: The way of salvation and the way of baptism. If a group of churches are sound on these two cardinal points they may properly be called Baptist churches. There is no doubt that, due to circumstances that prevailed and which we might profitably dwell upon if space permitted, some of the “sects” had irregularities existing among them. Some of the peoples whom I shall mention held erroneous ideas and indulged in some extravagances. However, if I can show that they hold pure the two cardinal doctrines mentioned as essential to a Baptist church, I shall have proved my contention that they were Baptists. It is held against some of the “dissenters,” for instance, that they had extravagant ideas about the Second Coming of Christ. That does not disqualify them from being Baptist. So did the Thessalonians have these erroneous views, and Paul had to write II Thess., to correct them. So do some Baptist to-day go to extremes in making programs a placing the events connected with Christ’s return.

     But let us proceed to very briefly notice some of the “sects” that maintained separation from the movement that came to be known as Catholicism. We may well begin with the

MONTANIST

     I am well aware that a few Baptist historians hold up their hands in horror at the thought of Baptist claiming kin with the Montanist. (Cf. Newman and Vedder.) With preconceived antipathy for the Baptist continuity idea they seek to draw as dark a picture of the early “sects” as they call them, as possible . From many historians I have gleaned information concerning the Montanist. My conclusion is that their irregularities have been greatly exaggerated. In some of the churches there were irregularities, no doubt, but I am convinced that on the whole they were a great and good people holding the doctrines essential to a Baptist church. Let us notice the admissions of historians concerning them:

     Vedder says (Short History of the Baptist, pp 58, 62): They clearly apprehended the truth that a church of Christ should consist of the regenerated only…of course the Monatanist immersed—no other baptism, so far as we know, was practiced by anybody in the second century. There is no evidence that they baptized infants, and their principle of a regenerate church membership would naturally require the baptism of believers only.”

     Should we be ashamed to claim kinship with these churches, composed of regenerate people, duly immersed upon profession of faith in Christ?

     But let us read further the testimony of historians:

“Montanism’ was a protest against corrupt a sinful living and lax discipline. The substance of the contention of these churches was for a life of the spirit. It was not a new form of Christianity; it was a recovery of the old, the primitive church set over against the obvious corruption of the current Christianity. The old church demanded purity; the new church had struck a bargain with the world and arranged itself comfortably with it, and they would therefore break with it.” (Moeler, Montanism, in Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia)

“As there was at that time…no essential departure from the faith in action, the subject of baptism, church government or doctrine, the Montanist on these points were Baptist. (Jarrel, Perpetuity, p. 69)

“Montanism continued for centuries and finally became known under other names. (Eusebius, Church History, p. 229, note by Dr. McGiffert.)

“The severity of their doctrines gained them the esteem and confidence of many who were far from being of the lowest order.” (Mosheim, Eccl. History, Vol. 1 p. 233.)

“Monatanism…is best understood as a reaction against a condition of the church and of the Christian life, which seemed to the Montanist to be pitched too low and also to have decayed from an earlier and purer stand.” (The Ancient Catholic Church, by Rainy, p. 130.)

“Montanist held that membership in the churches should be confined to purely regenerated persons; and that a spiritual life and discipline should be maintained without any affiliation with the authority of the state.”  (Armitage’s History, p. 175)

“Montanus was charged with assuming to be the Holy Spirit himself; which was simply slander.” (Armitage, p 175)

“History has not yet relieved the Montanist of the distortion and obliquity which long held them as enemies of Christ; while in fact they honestly, but in some respects erroneously, labored to restore that Christ-likeness to the churches which had so largely departed.” (Armitage, p. 176)

     2.  THE NOVATAIANS. These were so called because of the leader of the puritist movement who bore the name Novatian. He was a member of the Church of Rome planted by Paul, but which became so corrupt that separation was necessary in order to preserve the faith. Of Novatian, Dr. J. B. Moody says:

“He neither began or propagated a sect. Others followed his example in separating from the corrupt churches and thus followed the divine command, and thus their walk was orderly. The disorderly constituted the apostasy.”

Robinson says (Eccles. Researches, p. 126)

“A tide of immorality pouring into the church, Novatian withdrew and a great many with him…Great numbers followed his example, an all over the Empire puritan churches were constituted and flourished through the succeeding two hundred years. Afterwards, when penal laws obligated them to lurk in corners and worship God in private, they were distinguished by a variety of names, and a succession of them continued until the reformation.”

Vedder says (Short History, p. 64) :

     “The Novatians were the earliest Anabaptists; refusing to recognize as valid the ministry and sacrament of their opponents and claiming to be the true church, they were logically compelled to rebaptize all who came to them… The party gained great strength in Asia Minor, where many Montanist joined them.”

     Dr. J. T. Christian, in his recent Baptist history, shows that the Novatians held to the independence of the churches, and recognized the equality of all pastors in respect to dignity and authority.

     Dr. J. B. Moody, after having studied the Novatians in the light of a dozen or more historians, says of Novatian:  “He contended that…salvation…was of the Lord, by grace through faith.”

     Without multiplying quotations we find that the Novatians were Anabaptist, holding the scriptural view on the way of salvation, pure in life and scriptural as regards their conception of the ministry and church government. I see no reason as to why Baptist should not trace continuity of existence through them.

     3.  THE DONATIST.  Dr. J. B. Moody, who read widely on subjects pertaining to church history, says relative to the Donatists:

“Those who contended earnestly for the original pattern were called in some countries Novatians and in others Donatists. These men did not originate sects, but separated from the growing apostasy and perpetuated the true churches.”

     In the case of the Donatists, separation from the corrupt occurred in the year 311 A.D.

     The French historian Crespin gives the following as the view held by them:

“First for purity of church members, by asserting that none ought to be admitted to the church but such as are true believers, and true saints. Secondly for purity of church discipline, Thirdly, for the independency of each church. Fourthly, they baptized again those whose first baptism they had reason to doubt. They were consequently rebaptizers or Anabaptist.”

     From this it is apparent that they held the doctrines essential to a Baptist church.

     Curtis says (Progress of Bapt. Principles, p. 21)

                 “Donatists…seem to have formed the germ of the Waldenses.”

     Benedict says (Church History, p. 4)

“After the Donatists arose they (the Monatanist) were often called by that name.”

     Jones says (HIst. Chri. Church):

      “There was hardly a city or town in Africa where there was not a Donatist church.”

     4.  THE PAULICANS  Dr. J. T. Christian say in his Baptist History, pages 76 and 77:

The Paulician churches were of apostolic origin and were planted in Armenia in the first century.”

     An old book of the Paulicians called the “Key of Truth,” was discovered a few years ago by Dr Coneybeare of Oxford. In this book the Paulicians claim for themselves apostolic origin. Dr. Coneybeare, who translated the “Key of Truth” and who is probably the greatest authority on the Paulicians, tells us that the Paulicians and Bogomils were persecuted but persisted here and there in many hiding places until the Reformation, when they reappeared under the form of Anabapatism.

     Mosheim says”

“They baptized and rebaptized by immersion. They would have been taken for downright Anabaptist.”

     Dr. Christian says:

“Baptist views prevailed among the Paulicians. They held that men must repent and believe, and then at a mature age ask for baptism, which alone admitted them into the church.”

     Abney says (Greek and Eastern Churches, page 217):

“There it is quite arguable that they (Paulicans) should be regarded as representing the survival of a most primitive type of Christianity.” 

     From the references above it may be seen that the Paulicians claimed apostolic origin, held Baptist doctrines and persisted until they were absorbed in the Anabaptist movement.

     5.  THE ALBIGENSES. Many historians, such as Mosheim, Gibbon, Muratori, Coneybeare and others, regard the Paulicians as the forerunners of the Albigenses, and indeed the same people save only for name. Dr Christian states in his history, previously referred to, that recent writers hold that the Albigenses had been in the valleys of France from the earliest ages of Christianity. Because of persecution they left hardly a trace of their writings, so that our knowledge of them is not as full as we could wish. Jones, in the history already quoted from, says that they held the two doctrines necessary to a New Testament church. He also tells us that they rejected infant baptism.

     Other “sects” holding these New Testament doctrines in common, but called by such names a Petrobrussians, Henricans, Arnoldists, existed, but space does not permit a detailed account of them. Of these Dr. A. h. Newman says (Recent Researches Concerning Med. Sects, p. 187) “There is much evidence of the persistence in Northern Italy and Southern France, from early times, of evangelical types of Christianity.”

     6.  THE WALDENSES. The close connection of the Waldenses with the peoples whom I have previously mentioned is recognized by historians. Jones says (History, Vol. 2, p. 4)

“when the popes issued their fulminations against them (the Albigenses) they expressly condemned them as Waldenses.”

     Some have tried to begin the Waldenses with Peter Waldo and to make of him the founder, but without success. Peter Waldo did not start the Waldenses, neither are they called after him, for he and the Waldenses have their name form the same origin. On this point Jones says (H, Vol. 2): “The words simply signify ‘valleys,’ inhabitants, and no more.” Peter Waldo was so called because he was a ‘valley man,’ and he was only a leader of a people who had long existed. The Waldenses held the opinion that they were of ancient origin and truly apostolic. In regard to some historian’s way of dealing with them, Jones remarks: “The very generic character of the Waldenses is overlooked by most writers respecting the wide-spread community to whom it applied…They spread all over Europe for many centuries…Whatever local name they bore, the Catholics called them all Vudois or Waldenses.”

     Of their origin, Vedder says (Short History, p. 122):

“The Waldenses, in their earlier history, appear to be little else than Petrobrussians under a different name…The doctrines of the earlier Waldenses are substantially identical with those of the Petrobussians, the persecutors of both being witnesses.”

     Some have tried to make it appear that the Waldenses practiced infant baptism. Of course, as I have preciously pointed out, a people so widely scattered, with churches in many sections, may have in some of their churches had heretical practices. But my study of the Waldenses from many sources has led me to conclude that to charge the Waldenses generally with having practiced infant baptism, is a base slander. I concur with Dr. Christian when he says: “There is no account that the Waldenses proper ever practiced infant baptism.”

     Of the doctrines held by the Waldenses, Vedder has this to say (S. Hist., pp. 123, 124):

     “Roman writers before 1350 attributed the following errors to the Waldenses: 1. They asserted that the doctrines of Christ and the apostles, without the decrees of the church, sufficed for salvation. 2. They say that baptism does not profit little children, because they are never able actually to believe. 3. They affirm that they alone are the church of Christ and the disciples of Christ. They are the successors of the apostles.”

     Vedder also goes on to give a list of other beliefs help by them and similar to those held by Baptist today. Then he adds:

“Also we find attributed to them certain tenets which were afterwards characteristic of the Anabaptist….Maintaining these views, they were the spiritual ancestors of the Anabaptist churches.”

     The historian Keller has this to say:

“Very many Waldenses considered, as we know accurately, by baptism on (profession of) faith to be the form which is conformable with the words and example of Christ.”

     No one can make a study of the Waldenses and fail to see very rapidly that they held the two doctrines essential to a Baptist church. They were a great and noble people, who maintained the true faith in the face of bitter and almost continuous persecution. Baptist need feel no shame in claiming kin with them.

     7.  THE ANABAPTISTS. There is much evidence that the Waldenses came to be known later as Anabaptist. The Reformation gave opportunity for the various “sects” in hiding, which we to-day identify as Baptist, to come forth and declare themselves. These hated, so-called “sects” came to be known by the general name “Anabaptist.” Dr. Vedder says:

“It is a curious a instructive fact that the Anabaptist churches of the Reformation period were most numerous precisely where the Waldenses of a century or two previous had flourished…That there was an intimate relation between the two movements few doubt who have studied this period and its literature. The torch of truth was handed on from generation to generation.”

     Similarly Dr. Christian says:

“In those places where the Waldenses flourished, there the Baptist set deep root…Many able preachers of the Waldenses became widely known as Baptist ministers…Many details marked the Waldenses and the Baptists as of the same origin.”

     Again, he says, with reference to the Waldenses and Paulicians:

                 “In my judgment both parties were Baptist.”

     If we ask the opinion of those hostile, we find Baronius, the learned Roman Catholic historian, saying (Danver’s Baptism, p. 253): “The Waldenses were Anabaptist.”

     Again, Vedder, who, let us remember, is hostile to the idea of Baptist perpetuity, has this to say (S. Hist., p. 130):

“These Anabaptist churches were not gradually developed but appear fully formed from the first….Complete in polity, sound in doctrine, strict in discipline. It will be impossible to account for these phenomena without an assumption of a long existing cause. Though the Anabaptist churches appear suddenly in the records of the time contemporaneously with the Zwinglian Reformation, their roots are to be sought further back.”

     Further, he says on pages 136, 143:

“The Anabaptist, like Baptist of today, argued that there is no command or example of infant baptism in the New Testament, and that instruction and belief are enjoined before baptism…The teachings of the Swiss Anabaptist are accurately known to us from three independent and mutually confirmatory sources: The testimony of their opponents, the fragments of their writings that remain, and their Confession of Faith. The latter is the first document of its kind known to be in existence. It was issued in 1527….It teaches the baptism of believers only, the breaking of bread by those alone who have been baptized, and inculcates a pure church discipline…The Confession corresponds with the beliefs avowed by Baptist churches today. It is significant that what is approbriously called ‘close communion’ is found to be the teachings of the oldest Baptist document in existence.”

     I shall close my discussion of the Anabaptist with a quotation from Dr. W. D. Nowlin (Fundamentals of the Faith):

As to the origin of the Anabaptist, church historians differ, but it is probable that in many instances they were the revival of the remains of the earlier sects or at least of their sentiments, which still lingered in many localities. Undoubtedly it was the quickened life and thought of the Reformation that brought them again into notice and resulted in the vast increase of their numbers. Anabaptist held to the complete separation of Church and state, liberality of the individual conscience and the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice. They opposed infant baptism; admitted none but regenerated persons to baptism and church membership; and practiced immersion only for baptism. As a result they were bitterly persecuted and outlawed. Nevertheless they greatly increased in numbers an extended over a large part of Europe…The Baptist of the last three hundred years are the direct descendants of the true Anabaptist of the period of the Reformation; perhaps we might more correctly say, the Baptist were then called Anabaptist. So we find Mosheim, whose authority is great as a church historian, saying: ‘The true origin of that sect which acquired the name Anabaptist is hid in the remote depths of antiquity, and is consequently extremely difficult to be ascertained.’ ”

     I have been dealing with so-called “sects” more commonly dealt with by church historians, and have shown that they held views in the main essentially baptistic. I have also indicated by historical quotation the connection that the peoples had with each other. However, there are several bodies of Christians through whom we could trace continuity of organized Baptist life if space were available. I shall take time to barely indicate these Christians bodies through whom Baptist connect with apostolic times.

     There are, for instance, THE WELCH BAPTIST, who make well authenticated claims to apostolic origin. I can do no better than to state the facts concerning them, in the words of a write to the “Religious Herald” of some years ago:

“The Welch Baptist claim their origin direct from the apostles, and their claim has never been successfully controverted. They maintain that the light of pure Christianity has been preserved among her people during all the ‘Dark Ages.’ They were a pastoral people, dwelling in their mountain homes. They were subjected to almost constant persecution, and therefore sought to conceal themselves in their mountain recesses, that have been so appropriately styled ‘the Piedmont of Britain.’ And yet the fact of their early existence is placed beyond peradventure or doubt. They attracted the attention of the Romish Church, and as early as the year 597 a monk visited them, by the name of Austin, and sought to win them to his views.”

     Dr. J. T. Christian, in his recent Baptist History, presents an abundance of historical evidence which proves Welch Baptists of apostolic origin. He is well worth reading on this point.

     Benedict, in his history of the Baptist (page 343f.), shows most convincingly that Welch Baptist are of early origin. According to him, they were ancient in Wales in 597. He shows that at that date they had a college and at least one association of churches.

     Further, the history of IRISH BAPTISTS is very interesting reading in connection with the thought of Baptist perpetuity. Baptist had churches in Ireland at a time not vastly remote from the days of Paul. Patrick, the great Irish preacher, was born about 360, but according to historians, Christianity in Ireland antedated Patrick’s arrival by a long period.

     Of Patrick Dr. Vedder writes as follows:

                 “Rome’s most audacious theft was when she seized bodily the apostle Peter and made him the putative head and founder of her system; but next to that brazen act stands her affrontery when she ‘annexed’ the great missionary preacher of Ireland and enrolled him among her ‘saints’…From the writings of Patrick we learn that his teachings and practices were in many particulars at least evangelical. The testimony is ample that they baptized believers…There is no mention of infants…Patrick’s baptism was that of apostolic times …immersion.”

      Of the churches of Ireland, Vedder further says:

“The theology of these churches up to the ninth century continued to be remarkably sound and scriptural.”

     I could go on to cite historical references to show that these Irish Baptist sent missionaries to Northern France and Southern Germany and in that way are related to he “Baptists under other names” that I have already mentioned.

     Surely I have presented evidence ample to prove my claim that from the days of Christ there has always been in existence churches holding the two doctrines essential to a New Testament church. I have been able to give only a scrap of the historical evidence at my command. The more one studies on this question the more dogmatic they are forced to become in the belief that history justifies the Baptist claim to continuity of Baptist church life throughout the ages. History indeed vindicates the Master’s promise that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against His church!

X

Statements of Historians

     We saw in the last chapter that from the days of Christ and the apostles there have existed churches that held to the New Testament way of salvation and baptism. These churches I have shown to be, on essential points, Baptist churches. I wish for us now to spend a few moments considering the statements of historians of different denominations concerning Baptist origin and perpetuity. Some of these statements have been much used and often quoted. This, however has in no wise affected their truth. Indeed they should carry greater weight, having stood the test of time and criticism.

     The charge is sometimes made that even Baptist historians do not believe in Baptist continuity. In reply to this it may be said that some Baptist historians do not. Some are too “broad” to risk the charge of narrowness that would be hurled at them if they laid claim to perpetuity. Some have pedobaptist and even modernistic tendencies, and hold to the “invisible” Church theory. But it can be truly said that most Baptist historians are firm believers in Baptist continuity. And it is interesting to note that those who seek to discredit it are careful not to assert that Baptist continuity cannot be traced. For instance Dr. Vedder says: “One cannot affirm that there was not a continuity in the outward and visible life of the church, founded by the apostles down to the Reformation. To affirm such a negative would be foolish, and such…could not be proved.” (S, Hist., p.9) Vedder, however takes the position that it was to the “invisible” Church that Christ promised perpetuity. He evidently expects the reader to accept this merely upon the authority of his word, without proof, biblical or otherwise. He offers no proof because none can be offered. As I have already shown, there is no such thing as an “invisible” Church. There has either been a continuity of visible churches, or else Christ’s promise has failed.

     The Baptist historian A. H. Newman disclaims belief in Baptist continuity, but he also is very careful not to assert that such continuity cannot be traced. Indeed, he goes so far as to admit that all did not go off into apostasy, for he says (History of Antepedobaptism, p. 28): “That there were hosts of true believers can by no means be doubted.” I have shown that these “hosts” were Baptist, gathered into New Testament churches!

     The Baptist historian McGlothlin, like Vedder and Newman, does not venture to assert that there was not a continuity of Baptist churches. His statement is (Guide, p. 29), “Anabaptists may have had some connection with earlier sects.”

     Among the better known Baptist historians of the past who were believers in Baptist perpetuity may be mentioned Robinson, Crosby, Irving, Orchard, Jones, Backus, Benedict and Cramp. Of these historians Dr. Armitage says: “In the main their leading facts and findings have not been proven untrustworthy, and no one has attempted to show their conclusions untenable…Their historical acumen is quite equal to that of other church historians” (Armitage’s History, p. 11).

     I want that we shall consider a few statements from noted Baptist themselves concerning their origin and continuity, after which we shall consider what historians of other faiths have to say about them.

     The Baptist historian that is regarded by many leading Baptists as their greatest historians is John T. Christian. Dr. Christian’s new Baptist History (Baptist S. S. Board, 1922) presents unassailable proof of the continuity of Baptist. I quote from the preface to his great word this ringing statement: “I have no question in my own mind that there has been a historical succession of Baptists from the days of Christ to the present time.”

     Dr. Geo. Lorimer (The Baptists in History, p. 49):

“That the Baptist are more likely the oldest is generally conceded an grows more certain with the progress of scholarly investigation.”

     Dr. J. B. Moody (My Church) :

“Church perpetuity is scriptural, reasonable, credible, historical and conclusive.”

     Dr. J. L. Smith (Baptist Law of Continuity):

“We have submitted the testimony of more than forty of the world’s best historians—not one of them a Baptist—who expressly and clearly point out the movement of these Baptist people through the long centuries back to the apostolic days.”

     Dr. J. W. Porter, noted author and editor says:

“If Baptist have not perpetuity then Christ’s prophecy and promise have failed. This is unthinkable.”

     H. B. Taylor (Bible Briefs):

“Baptist churches are the only institutions that are divine on this earth. Without them Matthew 16:18 has failed of fulfillment.”

     Dr. T. T. Eaton:

“Those who oppose Baptist succession have no logical ground to stand on in organizing a church out of material furnished by other churches, and with those baptized by regular ordained ministers.”

     Dr. R. B. Cook (Story of the Baptist):

“Baptist are able to trace their distinctive principles to the apostolic age…When from the union of the church and state Christianity became generally corrupt, there still remained, in obscure places, churches and sects which maintained the pure doctrines and ordinances of Christ, and hence it is certain that these churches and sects held substantially the same principles which are now held as the distinctive views of the Baptist.”

     Dr. D. B. Ray (Baptist Succession, p. 10):

“Baptist have with one voice denied any connection with the Romish apostasy, and claimed their origin as a church from Jesus Christ and the apostles.”

     Dr. D. C. Haynes (The Baptist Denomination, p. 21)

“The Baptist church is the primitive church—there has never been a time when it was not in being.”

     Dr. Geo. W. McDaniel (Churches of the New Testament):

“There is no personality this side of Jesus Christ who is a satisfactory explanation of their origin.”

     I could go on almost indefinitely with quotations from noted Baptist, showing that great an representative men of that faith, after investigation and thought, have been firm believers in the perpetuity of Baptist churches. Some of these have written books that offer conclusive proof on this point. I mention “Baptist Succession,” by Dr. D. B. Ray; “Baptist Church Perpetuity,” by Dr. W. A. Jarrell: “The World’s Debt to the Baptists, by Dr. J. W. Porter; “Fundamentals of the Faith,” by Dr. W. D. Nowlin; “The New Testament Church,” by T. T. Martin; “My Church,” by J. B. Moody, as examples. To the books just referred to, are to be added many historical works by men whose names I have made no mention of.

     So much for the beliefs of Baptists relative to the continuity of their own churches. Let us now see what historians and great men of other faiths have to say about Baptist origin and perpetuity. I begin with those who have been the bitterest enemies and persecutors of Cardinal Hosius, the president of the Council of Trent. He says:

                 “If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be truer an surer than that of the Anabaptist, since there have been none for these twelve hundred years past that have been more generally punished, or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and even offered themselves to the more cruel punishment than these people.” (Quoted from Christian’s History.)

     Cardinal Hosius wrote in A. D. 1554. He dates the history of Baptist back twelve hundred years. This is an important concession. Date them back to 354 A. D. and we have little trouble following them the rest of the way.

     Zwingli, the Swiss reformer, co-worker with Luther and Calvin in the Reformation of 1525 and bitter enemy of the Baptist says:

“The institution of the Anabaptist is no novelty, but for thirteen hundred years has caused great trouble to the church.”

     This admits the existence of Baptist in the year 225 A. D.

     Mosheim, Lutheran historian of great note says:

“Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of the modern Dutch Baptist.” (Inst. Of Eccl. History.)

     Robert Barclay, Quaker says:

“There are also reasons for believing that on the continent of Europe small hidden Christian societies, who have held many of the opinions of the Anabaptist, have existed from the time of the apostles.” (Inner life of the Societies of the Commonwealth, pp 11, 12)

     John Clark Ridpath, Methodist, author of that monumental work, “Ridpath’s History of the World,” in a letter to Dr. W. A. Jareell (Baptist Church Perpetuity, p.59) says:

“I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist church as far back as A. D. 100, though without doubt there were Baptist then, as all Christians were then Baptist.”

     Alexander Campbell, founder of the Campbellite or “Christian” church says:

“From the apostolic age to the present time, the sentiments of Baptist have had a continued chain of advocates, and public monuments of their existence in every century can be produced. (McCalla-Campbell Debate on Baptism, pp. 378, 379.)

     Sir Isaac Newton, learned English philosopher, student of the Scriptures and of history, says:

“The Modern Baptist formerly called Anabaptists, are the only people who have never symbolized with the Papacy.” (Quoted from Baptist Law of Continuity, p. 39)

     Edinburg Cyclopedia:

“It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptist are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described under the appellation of Anabaptist. Indeed, this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time.” (From N. T. Church, p.22)

     Tertullian was a Montanist. He was born about fifty years after the death of John the apostle.

     I quote next from “Crossing the Centuries,” by W. C. King, having as associate editors some of the great men of America, such as former President Roosevelt, President Wilson, David Starr Jordan, Lyman Abbott, and a number of presidents and professors of leading universities. Of The Baptist it has this to say:

“Of the Baptist it may be said that they are not reformers. These people, comprising bodies of Christian believers, known under various names in different countries, are entirely distinct and independent of the Roman and Greek Churches, having an unbroken continuity from apostolic days down through the centuries. Throughout this long period they were bitterly persecuted for heresy, driven from country to country, disfranchised, deprived of their property, imprisoned, tortured and slain by the thousands, yet they swerved not from their New Testament faith, doctrine and adherence.” (From the N. T. Church, p. 25)

     The Dutch Baptist historians all claim apostolic origin for the Baptist, according to Dr. J. T. Christian, who has given much study and thought to this question. Such is the claim of  Herman Schynn (Historia Christianorum), while Blaupont Ten Cate Says (Christian’s History, p. 95): “I am fully satisfied that Baptist principles have in all ages, from the time of the apostles to the present, prevailed over a greater or smaller portion of Christiandom.”

     The claim of Dutch Baptist to apostolic origin was thoroughly investigated in the year 1819. The King of Holland appointed J. J. Dermont, his chaplain, a scholarly man, and DR. Ypeij. Professor of theology in Groningen, both members of the Dutch Reformed Church, to write a history of the Dutch Reformed Church and also investigate the claims of Dutch Baptist. They prepared the history, and in it they devote a chapter to the Baptists. A portion of what they have to say about the Baptists reads as follows:

“The Mennonites are descended from the tolerably pure evangelical Waldenses, who were driven by persecution into various countries; and who during the latter part of the twelfth century fled into Flanders; and into the province of Holland and Zeeland, where they lived simple and exemplary lives, in the villages as farmers (in towns by trade) free from the charge of any gross immoralities, and professing the most pure an simple principles, which they exemplified in a holy conversation. They were, therefore, in existence long before the Reformed Church of the Netherlands.

We have now seen that the Baptist, who were formerly called Anabaptist, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and who have long in history received the honor of that origin. On this account the Baptist may be considered the only Christian 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 Romish   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.” (History of the Dutch Reformed Church, by A Ypeij and J. J. Dermont, Vol. 1, p 148)

     Other authorities could be cited, and quotations could be multiplied, but it is unnecessary to go on indefinitely with these. I shall offer only two more ere I close the chapter. Enough has already been written, however, and sufficient proof has been produced to convince the open, unbiased, teachable mind that Jesus founded a Church, that that church was the local assembly; that He promised its perpetuity, and that His promise is seen fulfilled in the churches today known as Baptist churches.

     I submit the following from Dr. J. W. Porter’s book “Random Remarks,” concerning Dr. John Clark, who was pastor of the first Baptist church in America, located in Newport, R..I.  Dr. Porter says:

                 “Dr. John Clark received his baptism from Rev. Stillwell’s church in London, and this church received theirs from Holland, and the Holland Baptists from the Waldenses, and the Waldenses from the Novations, and the Novations from the Donatists, and the Donatist received their baptism from the apostolic church, and the apostolic church from John the Baptist and John the Baptist from heaven.”

     In 1921 or 1922 I clipped an article that appeared in the Oklahoma Baptist Messenger, and simultaneously in several denominational papers of the South. This article deals with the ancestry of the Baptist church at Dryer, Tennessee. It shows a continuity of Baptist church life from the present to the days of Jesus. I am not informed as to the one who made the research, neither have I had at my command all the books necessary to enable me to verify each historical reference given.  I give the article in full below for the consideration of the reader:

BAPTIST SUCCESSION BACK TO CHRIST

Link One. The Baptist church at Dyer, Tennessee, was organized by J. W. Jetter, who came from the Philadelphia Association.

Link Two. Hillcliff church, Wales, England. H. Roller came to the Philadelphia Association from the Hillcliff church. See minutes of Philadelphia Association, book 3, item 1.

Link Three. Hillcliff church was organized by Aaron Arlington, A. D. 987. See Alex Munston’s Israel of the Alps, p. 39.

Link Four.  Lima Piedmont church ordained Aaron Arlington in 940. See Jones’ Church History, p 324.

Link Five.  Lima Piedmont church was organized by Balcolo, A. D. 812. See Neander’s Church History, vol. 2 p. 320.

Link Six. Balcolao came from the church at Timto, Asia Minor.

Link Seven. Timto church was organized by Archer Flavin, A. D. 738. See Mosheim’s History, vol. 1, p. 394

Link Eight Archer Flavin came from the Darethea church, organized by Adromicus, A. D. 671, in Asia Minor. See Lambert’s Church History, p. 47.

Link Nine. Andromicus came from Pontifossi. At the foot of the Alps in France. See Lambert’s Church History, p. 47.

Link Ten.  Pontifossi church was organized by Tellestman from Turan, Italy, A. D. 398. See Nowlin’s Church History, vol. 2, pa. 318.

Link Eleven. Turan church was organized by Tertullan from Bing Joy, Africa, A. D. 237. See Armitage’s Church History, p. 182.

Link Twelve.  Tertullian was a member of the Partus church at the foot of the Tiber, that was organized by Polycarp, A. D. 150. See Cyrus’ Commentary of Antiquity, p. 924.

Link Thirteen. Polycarp was baptized by John the Beloved or Revelator on the twenty-fifth of December , A. D. 95. See Neander’s Church History, p. 285.

Link Fourteen. John was with Jesus on the Mount. Mark 3:13-14; Luke 6:12-13.

XI

What is the Mission of the Church that Jesus Built?

     In the preceding chapters I have sought to show the reader the Biblical teaching as to what a genuine New Testament church is. With this I have presented historical evidence to prove to a demonstration that Baptist churches have had continuous existence from the time of Christ until now. I trust that the views of you who have read thus far have narrowed and become more distinct, so far as your conception of the church is concerned.

     Now that we are clear that Baptist churches are the true New Testament churches, divinely perpetuated throughout the ages, let us go further and inquire concerning the mission of the church in the world. The world has many erroneous views concerning what a church is for. Those who belong to the different so-called churches share in many of these mistaken notions, and in some cases Baptist have come to have a perverted idea as to the proper function of a church. It is no uncommon thing for one to see in the magazines and newspapers of today the bold charge that the churches have “failed.” By this is meant that some churches have failed as measured by the standard that some individual or group of individuals have set up. Let us consider for a few moments some of the erroneous views that are commonly held concerning what a church is for.

     As some conceive it, A CHURCH IS TO BE CHIEFLY ENGAGED IN THE WORK OF CIVILIZATION.  In proportion as churches aid a nation to advance in the arts an sciences of civilization, they are thought of as having succeeded. Especially does this idea obtain as regards Christian efforts on the foreign mission fields.  If only the heathen can be brought to dress properly, observe rules of cleanliness and sanitation, and adopt the ways and manners of civilized nation, it is often considered that the missionary had abundantly succeeded.

     But, as I shall presently seek to prove, it is not the primary business of churches to civilize. When on the mission field the dominate motive come to be to civilize, then the labors of the workers on that field are a failure from the standpoint of the true mission of the church.

     Then there is the CLUB IDEA OF THE CHURCH that some have. It is to be feared that some look upon church membership largely as they do membership in some club or fraternal organization. Church work comes to be sort of a pleasant diversion, and it seems quite the nice and respectable thing to be a church member, especially if the church is one of the fashionable kind that includes in its membership some of the socially prominent persons of the community.

     But of this idea it may be said that if a church is merely on a par with clubs, lodges, societies, and other such organizations, it has little to justify its separate existence.

     Again, there are those who hold THE SOCIAL AND HUMANITARIAN IDEAL FOR THE CHURCH. To them the church’s main concern should not be preparation of individual souls for life in an eternity beyond, but the transforming of society as a whole until this world becomes a better place for men to dwell during this present life. Their chief emphasis is not upon the then but upon the now. To the end of approximating the ideal they have in view, they insist that the church engage in all sorts of humanitarian projects; that is deal with politics and legislation, and that it lay out an ambitious program of social service and reform. To those who conceive of a church in this way, as their ideas are carried out, the churches come to deal less and less with the spiritual and more and more with the physical. They are the advocates of the “institutional” church, where, as one writer puts it, one can get anything from a sermon to a sandwich. In that church buildings of such a church recreational features are prominent.  They have swimming pools, reading rooms, shower baths, gymnastic apparatus, social halls, etc. Often supper is served from the church kitchen, so many nights a week at so much per plate. All sorts of social affairs are constantly being planned. All in all the church building is used in such a way that people come to look upon it as a place to have a good time.

     If Christ should enter some church buildings today, I am sure that He would throw out a lot of the things to be found in them. He would overturn and cast out the gymnastic apparatus, the motion picture machines and the other amusement paraphernalia, just as He overturned the tables of the money changers long ago and drove out those who desecrated and secularized the temple. His words to those who desecrate and secularize the places of worship today would be the same as to the same kind of culprits of long ago, when He said: “Mine house shall be called and house of prayer.” Is there any reason in the world to believe that Jesus looks more leniently today upon the secularizing of the house of worship than He did two thousand years ago? Those who bring all sorts of secular things beneath the church roof, follow exactly in the steps of the Jews whom Jesus drove from the temple.

     Of the view that makes of a church an organization whose primary concern is the improvement of social conditions, and the physical betterment of humanity it may be said that it is wholly of variance with the truth concerning the real mission of a church. True, social conditions improve where the gospel is preached and churches thrive. Most great moral reforms have had their genesis among Christian people, but these things ought to be considered merely as by-products of church activity and influence and not as things of paramount concern.

     In regard to the matter of the church’s mission, when there are so many divergent opinions, where shall we go for the truth concerning the matter? There is but one place to go—THE NEW TESTAMENT. It is not a question of what this person or that thinks the church should be, or engage in. It is a question as to what Jesus Christ founded His church for, and what orders He left for it to follow. Strange indeed that men should ever go astray in regard to the church’s mission, when it is set forth so very clearly in His own words.

     For Baptist to err in regard to this mission is inexcusable. Other denominations, sects, an so-called churches may engage in the things mentioned, and may make humanitarian projects their chief concern if they please to do it, without being liable to such strict censure, because they have no Commission or orders from Christ. He is not responsible for their existence and they are not responsible for the carrying out of the Commission which He gave centuries before they came into being. But Baptists are responsible, because it was to a Baptist church that the Lord Jesus Christ gave His Commission. This Commission forever settles the question of what a church exists for by clearly defining its mission and purpose. Some will no doubt think me very “narrow” for saying that the Great Commission is a Baptist Commission, but “narrow” or not, it is the truth. The whole of my book thus far is proof of this fact. A well-known editor recently expressed the truth that I am trying to convey, in these words: “The Commission was given to none but Baptists. All present were Baptists because they had been baptized by John or by the twelve, all of whom had been baptized by John the Baptist. It was given to them, not as preachers or individuals, but as a church, for it was to be obeyed until the end of he age and none of them would live that long. But the Master had promised that the church He founded would not be destroyed by the gates of hell (Matt. 16:18); and to that church and other churches founded through their missionary labors the Master gave this world-wide and age-long Commission. No infants, no seekers, no probationers, no sinners, no proselytes, none but disciples or Christians, are included by the Master in His orders to be baptized. This Commission was given to Baptists, for every one present was a Baptist. It is a very definite command to make me Christians by preaching the gospel to them, and then to make them Baptists by giving them Baptist baptism, for that is the only kind there was at the time the Commission was given. No one else but Baptist can obey this Commission, because no one else has the kind of baptism that Jesus commanded Christians to submit to. And no one else can do what this Commission enjoins, namely, make the disciples Baptist by giving them Baptist baptism.”

     And now let us examine the Commission that Jesus gave to His church, and let us analyze it for a few moments. These are the words: “Go ye therefore and teach (R.V.’disciple’) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Here is the church’s mission. Nothing less than this, nothing more, should be included in its program. As one has put it, “That should be the horizon of our visions and the limits of our tasks.”  Note well what the Commission includes:

1. MAKE MEN CHRISTIANS.

     That is the first, the foremost, the most important thing—to make disciples of Christians. A study of the Commission in the original will show that the emphasis or accent is upon making disciples. When in church and denominational affairs we major on education, hospitals, orphanages or anything else no matter how worthy, we are going contrary to the Great Commission. The Commission puts first the making of disciples. Disciples or Christians are to be made by preaching the gospel to the lost. It is the gospel that makes Christ known to men. When they hear the gospel and receive Him as their personal Saviour they become children of God. John 1:12, “As many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.” The main concern of every true church ought to be soul winning. To follow the Commission demands that each church shall be intensely missionary both as regards the lost of the immediate community in which the church exists and the lost unto the uttermost parts of the earth. Often the building of a “plant” (?) comes to be thought of as the main thing, the securing of social recognition or something apart from the thing that the Master emphasized. I repeat, the first task given by the risen Lord is to make Christians. This must always precede baptism and indoctrination. In John 4:1 we are given the example of Jesus on this point, where we are distinctly told that Jesus made disciples before He baptized them. Those who baptize infants, and those who baptize to help make disciples are plainly at outs with both the Master’s precept and example, as are those who receive “probationers” and seek to indoctrinate before discipling. As I indicated earlier in the chapter, the Commission is a Baptist Commission. It puts salvation before baptism and church membership. It was not only given solely to Baptist; it is obeyed by them alone. For remember the statement made earlier in the book “Baptist churches are the only churches on earth that require a person to profess to be saved before the person unites with the church or is baptized.”

     But let us examine the Commission further and we shall see that the second part of this three-fold Commission is the command to

MAKE CHRISTIANS BAPTIST.

     We are to make me Christians by preaching salvation through faith in Christ to them, then we are to make those Christians Baptists by baptizing them according to His orders.          “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of he Son and of the Holy Spirit.” While the command to make disciples takes the place of precedence in the Commission, the command to make Baptists is just as obligatory and binding upon us. Some censure Baptist, claiming that they put too great an emphasis upon baptism. This criticism is wholly unjust, for Baptists place baptism exactly where the Master placed it in the Commission.  They hold that it should never precede salvation, but that it should in every case follow it. They do not believe that they are warranted in stopping with the making of disciples, for their orders read—“baptizing them,” and as they see it they have no right to change their orders.

     The third part of the Commission is just as explicit as the rest; it commands the

INDOCTRINATION OF BAPTISTS

     It reads: “…teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” The “all things” means every teaching of Jesus contained in the New Testament, such, for instance, as the teaching concerning the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, the security of believers, and stewardship. To separate some of His teachings into a group and call them “non-essentials” and refrain from teaching them is to violate His command. It is a sad fact that most of the denominations omit two-thirds of the Commission and only take note of the part that refers to making disciples. They assume, although incorrectly, that the Commission was given to them as well as to Baptists, then they show their unfitness to be custodians of Christ’s sacred trust by cutting off two-thirds of the Commission—the portion that commands to immerse and to teach all things that He commanded. Baptist are absolutely the only people who are willing to carry out all three parts of the Commission.

     It is often the case nowadays that what is commonly termed “Christian Education” is justified and taught from the last clause of the Commission. This is either the result of a faulty exegesis or else it is willful misinterpretation of the Scriptures. This passage cannot rightly be interpreted to refer to the teaching of history, mathematics, biology, psychology and such as is taught in denominational schools and colleges. Jesus said, “All things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Christian education in the truest sense is education in the things of the Word of God. That is the only education authorized in the Commission. Many good arguments can be made in favor of Christian schools, but the point I am making is that they are not authorized by the Great Commission.

     The last clause of the Commission places upon Baptist churches the responsibility of teaching an indoctrinating all of those who are saved an added to the church. No teaching of Christ is to be ignored or omitted, but every doctrine is to be taught, no matter how many charges of “narrow” are called forth, or how displeasing it may prove to those who minimize certain teachings of Christ on the ground of their being “non-essential.”

     I bring this chapter to a close by recapitulating the things said before.

WHAT IS THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH THAT JESUS

BUILT?

      It is not the mission assigned by the world, set forth by press, and conceived by some churches. It is not the civilization of mankind, it is not social and moral reform, it is not the physical, intellectual and social elevation of the race—save as the things come about incidentally as by-products of Christianity. But the mission of the church is that which was given by the Founder, Jesus Christ, in the Great Commission, namely, to make Christians, immerse, and indoctrinate them. Or, to put it more at length, the divine program for the church is this: To preach the gospel to every human being that lives in this world; to baptize those who accept a free salvation through Christ; then to teach the saved and baptized until they know the commands of Christ, and until His will is expressed through those redeemed lives unto the world.

XII

The Church That Jesus Built Justifying Its Existence

     In the earlier chapters we found from doctrinal and historical study and comparison that Baptist churches are the only churches that can rightly claim Jesus Christ for Founder, or that coincide with the doctrinal teachings of the New Testament. In the preceding chapter, I sought to show what was the Master’s purpose in founding His church, as indicated in the words of the Great Commission. This Commission was proven to have been given to a Baptist church and consequently is rightly claimed as a Baptist Commission. Let us next examine to see how Baptists have responded to the orders given them by the Master. Have Baptists tried to do the things that the Master left for them to do? Have their labors through the ages been indicative of their divine origin? What has been their work and influence? A volume might be devoted to answering these questions, but I shall be able to mention only a very few Baptist achievements, and those in only the briefest way.

     I am persuaded that many are not aware of the tremendous debt that the world owes to the Baptist. Many of the most priceless things that humanity possesses today have been bequeathed by Baptist churches. Yet, because of their depth of conviction and the tenacity with which they cling to their faith, many look with strong disapproval upon Baptist today. They get far less notice by the press than many denominations much smaller. The amount of notice given them by newspapers and magazines would never lead one to believe they are the largest single evangelical body of Christians in the world, today, but it is nevertheless the truth.

     Let us consider what Baptist have done with regard to the things that Jesus placed the “accent” on in the Commission, namely, MAKING CHRISTIANS. Have they been a missionary people? Indeed they have. In the apostolic age Baptist “went everywhere preaching the Word.” In the apostle Paul Baptist possessed the greatest missionary of all ages. In the period of one short lifetime Paul well nigh spread the gospel over the known world. So zealous were the Baptist of that early time that within a few decades there were literally millions of Baptists throughout the Roman Empire. Then began the gradual development of the Roman apostasy, and with this the lessening of missionary endeavor. The time came when Catholicism dominated governments and with the sword and torture rack sought to exterminate all who refused to bow the knee to the authority of the Pope. No longer was it possible for Baptist to carry on their missionary labors in the same way. That they persisted in so great numbers through those trying ages of persecution, and that many were martyred because of their preaching the gospel, proves, however, that they never ceased to be a missionary people. When the Reformation brought some relief from Roman oppression, we find that the Anabaptist literally swarmed. So much did they increase that the Reformers were constantly irritated by the evidences of their growth. Had it not been for oppression and fierce persecution, I believe I am safe in saying that Baptist would have taken this world for Christ.

     Today there are tremendous missionary efforts being put forth by all of the larger denominations. The modern missionary movement is one of the greatest movements of our times. Who started the modern missionary movement? IT WAS WILLIAM CAREY, A BAPTIST. Baptist churches were the first in modern times to support workers in a foreign land. Before other denomination in America were doing anything along the line of foreign missions, Baptist churches were sending funds toward the support of Carey and his work. Late Judson, who had been inspired by the example of Carey, went out under the Congregationalists, but during his long sea voyage he was made a Baptist by reading the New Testament. He was baptized following his arrival, severed connection with the people who sent him out, and was adopted by American Baptist as their missionary.

     Not only were Baptist pioneers in the starting of the modern missionary movement, they have preached the gospel for the first time in many lands. For instance, in Bermuda, Cuba and India they were the first of the so-called evangelical churches to preach the gospel. In America the Baptist were the first to preach the gospel in the vast territory west of the Mississippi river. Today Baptist mission stations girdle the globe. In every clime are to be found Baptist in pursuance of the Master’s last command to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.”

     As to the second part of the Commission, which commands the baptizing of Christians, Baptist alone have obeyed. Others have either ignored, or else minimized and perverted this part of the Commission.

     Now as the third part of the Commission, the teaching to “observe all things whatsoever Jesus commanded”—how do Baptist stand? In answer it may be truly said that Baptist are the only people who have been willing to teach absolutely “all” things commanded.  They have always believed in education and in indoctrination. So it is not surprising that Baptist started the modern Sunday school movement. The view most commonly held is that Robert Rakes started this movement, but this is untrue. The honor belongs to William Fox, a Baptist deacon, as Dr. J. W. Porter abundantly proves in his book, “The World’s Debt to the Baptist.” Deacon Fox started his Bible school in 1783, and two years later helped to organize the “Society for the Support and Encouragement of Sunday Schools.”  This society organized by Baptist was the first organization for the promotion of Sunday schools in the world, so far as we have record. However, so far as individual Sunday schools are concerned, the primacy belongs to Welch Baptist. In Wales some Baptist churches maintained Sunday schools at least 132 years before the Raikes movement. And in this connection it is well to point out that the school of Raikes as not a Sunday school in the modern sense. True it met on Sunday, but not for Bible study. The Bible held no place in the course of study.

     Not only is it true that Baptist started the modern Sunday School movement, they have likewise led in Sunday School work.  A little investigation will prove this. For instance, it was a Baptist, B. F. Jacobs, who gave the world the “international Uniform Lesson System.” It was a Baptist, Dr, Warren Randolph, who was the first secretary of the international Lesson Committee. It was a Baptist, Dr. J. R. Sampey, who worked out the first course of advanced lessons for the International Sunday School Association of America. It was a Baptist, Dr. B. H. DeMent, who occupied the first chair of Sunday School Pedagogy ever established in any theological school in the world, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The first Sunday School Clinic ever help was help under the auspices of the Baptist S. S. Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.

     Not only have Baptist occupied the place of primacy in teaching the “all things commanded” by word of mouth; they have likewise been first in teaching by means of printed page.  Being pre-eminently a “Bible people,” they have sought to sow down the whole word with Bibles.  The oldest Bible society in existence, The British Bible Society, which has circulated millions of copies of the Scriptures, was founded by a Baptist preacher, Rev. William Hughes. The mission of William Carey had before his death published Bibles in forty languages, embracing one-third of the world’s population. Much of the translating was done by Carey himself.

     It was Judson’s labors that produced the first Bible in Burmese. This is the only translation that is used in Burma today. Joshua Marshman, a Baptist, gave the Chinese their Bible. Frances Mason, a Baptist gave the Bible to the Karens. Lyman Jewett, a Baptist, gave the Bible to the Telugus. Nathan Brown gave to both the Assamese and the Japanese the Bible in their own tongue. Other Baptist have had a great part in Bible translation. For instance, the English-speaking world is indebted to Baptist for the most accurate version of the Bible that is printed in their tongue. I refer to the American Bible Union Version, which was translated solely by Baptist.

     In addition to the work of translating and circulating the Scriptures, it is relevant to mention that the first marginal reference in our English Bible were prepared by John Cranne, a Baptist, in 1637.

     But passing from the specific work of carrying out the Great Commission, I am sure that it would not be amiss for me to make brief mention of Baptist achievements along some other but more or less related lines.

     Some charge Baptist with being an ignorant folk. It is quite true that a great deal of their work is among the lowly, and that they number among their members millions of the common people, but the charge of widespread ignorance can not be sustained. As proof of this I need but mention a few facts, as follows: Baptist have more money invested in educational institutions in America than any of the evangelical denomination today. And Baptist have more students in educational institution in America than any other denomination of evangelical Christians. The largest giver to cause of education in America is professedly a Baptist. The greatest university in point of size and endowment in America is run under Baptist auspices and professed to be a Baptist institution. The larges theological seminary in the world is a Baptist school. On the foreign mission fields Baptist are in the front rank along educational lines. Indeed, it is sometimes said that they are placing too great stress upon education in foreign lands. And it cannot be said that Baptist have only numbered educational men among their ranks during the last few years, for if we go back to the beginning of educational work in America we find the same thing to be true. For instance, the first president of Harvard University was a Baptist, as was also the second, while one of the largest sums of money given for the endowment of Harvard during its early days was the gift of a Baptist.

     Baptist have had many great scholars and writers. It was John Bunyan, a Baptist, who wrote “Pilgrim’s Progress,” a book that has had the greatest sale of any book ever written, with a single exception of the Bible. It was John Milton, a Baptist, who gave to the world one of its greatest literary productions, “Paradise Lost.” It is a Baptist, Dr. A. T. Robertson, who is the author of the world’s standard Greek grammar of the New Testament, and who is recognized as being the world’s greatest Greek Scholar. These names are but a few of the many that could be mentioned.

     Baptist have had a large part in the development of America and in the shaping of her ideals and institutions. To Baptist, American people, in part, owe their democratic form of government as well as their ideals of religious and political freedom. The very Constitution of the United States came into existence as a result of Baptist teaching, for Thomas Jefferson, the framer of the Constitution, got his ideas of democracy from the Baptists. Dr. J. W. Porter shows this beyond dispute in his book, “The World’s Debt to the Baptist.” On pate 76 he writes as follows: “The conception, the faith that calls things into existence, the confidence of the practicability of a free government, whose ultimate earthly power is vested in the masses of the community. This idea was plainly obtained by Jefferson himself from a small Baptist church meeting month after month to govern itself by the laws of the New Testament, in his own neighborhood. It was certainly the Baptist churches of this country who were the first to suggest and maintain those ideas of religious liberty.”

     In addition to Baptist influence as regards the Constitution, the first amendment to the Constitution, fully guaranteeing religious freedom and the protection of religious rights, was secured through the efforts of Baptists.

     Dr. Porter truly says: “The government of Road Island was the first in the world to fully and clearly embody the principles of religious liberty. This was due to Roger Williams, a Baptist preacher.” And to this Bancroft, the historian, adds: “Freedom of conscience, unlimited freedom of mind, was from the first the trophy of Baptist.”

     It was Baptist churches that help before the world the precious truths of equality, liberty, and religious freedom and it is but fitting that it should have been a Baptist woman, Betsy Ross, who designed and made the American flag, the stars and stripes, which symbolize to the world freedom, both religious and political, for all.

     Along many other lines than those mentioned, Baptist have been and are a blessing to the world. As by-products of their religious life and co-operation, many benevolent enterprises have been and are being carried on.

     In the Southern states alone they maintain twenty-six hospitals and many orphanages, where many thousands for people are ministered to every year.

     Having noted that the Great Commission was given to Baptists and having found from history that they have always been devoted to the carrying out of Christ’s orders, we should not be surprised to find that in our own America they are growing more rapidly in proportion than any other non-Catholic denomination. I say non-Catholic because the Catholics are constantly being increased by immigration. Baptist growth by baptism in 1925 was nearly 350,000! Since the beginning of the Republic Baptists grown from 10,000 in 1776 to over eight million at the present time. From one Baptist to every 264 of the total population at the time of the beginning if our nation, there is now one Baptist for every 13 of the total population.

     In foreign lands their growth is marvelous. It is estimated that in Russia alone, since the World War, Baptist  have had an increase of over two million!

     Let Baptist stick to the task outlined in the Commission and the blessings of God will continue to rest upon them. For the past two thousand years have through “dungeon, fire and sword,” followed the teachings of the Founder, and their record proves that they abundantly justified their existence!

XIII

Conclusion

     With the facts presented in the forgoing chapters full before us, we are driven to the inevitable conclusion that Baptist churches are the only true churches of Christ—the only churches authorized by Him to carry out the Commission and to administer His ordinances. Many of our day will make almost any concession in order to be thought of as “broad.” How many, many times I have heard some individual who aspired to the position of one of great “broadness” remark, “Oh, it doesn’t matter which church one belongs to. One church is just as good as another.” That all sounds very nice, but can it be true in the light of the facts that we have studied? What right has any man to set up a rival organization to the one founded by the Son of God and to call it “just as good?” What right has anyone to call such a man-originated institution “just as good?” The church that Jesus founded is very dear to His heart. Its importance is indicated by the fact that to it alone He has committed the task of carrying on His work in the world. That His church is the object of His tender solicitude and care is indicated by the fact that in spite of persecution, wars, turmoils, the rise and fall of nations, the decay and death of human languages, He has preserved and perpetuated His church. Most certainly it ought to matter to any sincere Christian who wishes to be obedient to his Lord, as to which church he belongs to. He ought to want to belong to a church that can claim Jesus for Founder and Head rather than to a man-founded institution. He ought to want to be identified with the church to which Jesus committed His ordinances, the church, He perpetuated through the centuries and which has New Testament warrant for its doctrines and practices .

     In revival meetings, particularly those of the “union” type I have often heard evangelists tell people to “join the church of their choice,” no matter which that might happen to be. Some may call me narrow for saying it, but I could not conscientiously tell anyone to do that. As I see it, a mere “choice” perhaps dictated by fancy, caprice, or mere sentiment, is not enough when it comes to setting the church question. The question with each Christian ought to be, “Which is the true church-the one that Jesus founded? Which is entirely scriptural in its doctrines and practices? It is a great thing to point a lost person to Christ. It is also a great thing to point a saved person to the path of full obedience. For a new-born soul to make a wrong choice with reference to the church, and to unite with a church whose doctrines and practices are unscriptural, means to start out on a career of life-long disobedience to Christ.

     “Union” meetings, in which sentiment is more exalted than truth, and in which Christ’s commands are bartered away lightly for popularity’s sake, are the cause of many people entering upon a lifetime of disobedience. In such meetings where the full truth is not preached, people usually form their church affiliations upon the basis of which church, relatives of friends belong to, which church the evangelist belongs to, or something else equally trivial. In fact, almost anything may help decide, except the one thing of importance-the teaching of the Word of God.

     BAPTIST CANNOT BE CONSISTENT AND MIX UP IN DENOMINATIONAL HODGEPODGES FOR UNION REVIVALS. For a union meeting to please all concerned, the preacher must keep his mouth shut on certain truths. For a preacher to preach what the Word of God says concerning the security of believers, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church truth, etc., would be to wreck a union meeting. In such a meeting a Baptist cannot properly counsel new converts concerning “the all things.” That Jesus commanded without arousing indignation and criticism. Is it right to engage in meetings where a part of the plain teaching of the Word of God is not welcomed? The truth, the whole truth, as taught in the whole Word of God, without addition, or subtraction—that is what Baptist have always stood for. In so far as they engage in union efforts they depart from their time honored principles.

     I do not wish to convey the impression that Baptist are to be selfish, churlish, unsociable, unkind, or anything of the sort. They should rejoice when Christ is preached by whatever sect or denomination. They should rejoice at every soul that is saved. Their spirit should never be that of hostility or unkind controversy. But certainly their first loyalty and allegiance should be to Christ and His Word. On His commands there can be neither compromise nor concession. They are to “contend earnestly (not angrily) for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”

     Reader, you who have followed me through the pages of this book, if a Christian, are you also a member of a genuine New Testament church?  It will pay you to be strict about the matter of your church affiliation. This is not a matter that affects your salvation, but it is one that affects your reward with God. Jesus taught that “He that breaketh one of these least commandments and teacheth me so shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.”

     The person that belongs to a church that minimizes and breaks some of the commands of Christ, necessarily lends his influence toward “teaching men so.” By so doing they place themselves in the class of those whom Christ said should be “called the least” in the Kingdom. The question of your church affiliation is something that you will one day have to give an account for when you stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ. It will pay you to do what is right about the matter irrespective of what it may cost you, and irrespective of what anyone in the world may think about it.

     I have tried to set forth the truth on the church question in this book, plainly and simply. My aim has been to enable you who read to know your duty in the matter of what church you should belong to. As to whether or not you will DO what you know to be the right thing-that is a matter for which you are answerable, not to me, but to your Lord.

     “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin.” (James 4:17)

BOOKS READ OR QUOTED

     Below is given a partial list of books read in whole or in part, in preparing the manuscript for this book:

                        A History of the Baptist, by John T. Christian.

                        A Short History of the Baptist, by H. V. Bedder.

                        History of the Baptist, by Benedict.

                        History of the Baptist , by Thos. Armitage.

                        Manual of Church History, by A. H. Newman.

                        History of Anti-pedobaptism, by A. H. Newman.

                        A Century of Baptist Achievement, by A. H. Newman

                        The Baptist Denomination, by Haynes.

                        History of the Christian Church, by Jones.

                        The Story of the Baptist, by Cook.

                        Progress of Baptist Principles, by Curtis.

                        The Baptists in History, by Geo. C. Lorimer.

                        Baptist History Vindicated, by John T. Christian.

                        History of the Christian Church, by Schaff.

                        History of the Christian Church, by Fisher.

                        History of the Apostolic Church, by Schaff.

                        History of the Popes, by Ranke.

                        The Ancient Church, by Kellen.

                        Ancient British and Irish Church, by Cathcart.

                        Church history, by Kurtz.

                        Source book for Ancient Church History, by Ayer.

                        Lectures on Baptist History, by W.R. Williams.

                        Distinctive Principles of Baptists, by Pendleton.

                        Doctrines of Our Faith, by Wallace.

                        Baptist Succession, by Ray.

                        Church Perpetuity, by Jarrell.

                        The Church, by Harvey.

                        Directory of Baptist Churches, by Hiscox.

                        The Ancient Catholic Church, by Rainey.

                        History of England, by Macaulay.

                        Ten Epochs of Church History, by Walker.

                        Baptist History, by Isaac Backus.

                        Guide to Study of Church History, by McGlothlin.

                        Ecclesiastical History, by Mosheim.

                        The Churches of the New Testament, by McDaniel.

                        Fundamentals of the Faith, by Nowlin.

                        World’s Debt to the Baptist, by Porter

                        My Church, by J. B. Moody.

                        The New Testament Church, by T. T. Martin.

                        The Church and the Kingdom, by Thomas.

                        Axioms of Religion, by Mullins.

                        Synthesis of Bible Truth, by Schofield.

                        The Mould of Doctrine, by Thomas.

                        Methodist Episcopal Church Discipline.

                        Baptist Beliefs, by Mullins.

                        Bible Beliefs, by H. B. Taylor.

                        Ecclesia—the Church, by B. H. Carroll.

                        Denominationalism Put to the Test, by Tull.

                        Baptist Churches Apostolical, by Newman.      

                        Seven Baptist Fundamentals, by Connor.

                        The Baptist Faith, by M. P. Hunt.

                        The Baptist Position, by J. F. Love.

                        Baptist Law of Continuity, by Smith.

                        The Church a Composite Life, by Prestridge.

                        Compendium of Baptist History, by Shackelford.