Three Witnesses for the Baptists
By Curtis Pugh
Our aim is to believe and follow the Word
of God, the Bible. Should any Brethren find error in our views as expressed
herein, we ask that they show us our error BY THE WORD OF GOD, and we pledge to
mend our error as God may give us grace. If the church views expressed in this
book are correct and therefore cannot be refuted by the Bible, we invite all
true Brethren to join with us and with that great host of departed “Anabaptist”
witnesses in following Christ by serving Him in His Scripturally-baptized
Churches.
Copyright © 1994, 2002
Curtis A. Pugh
All rights reserved. No part of this book
may be reproduced
ISBN 0-9716713-1-1
First printing 1994
Second Printing 2002
Published by the
(662) 282-7794
www.bereabaptistchurch.org
Printed in the
1-800-259-2592
Table of Contents
Forward........................................................................................................
iv
Acknowledgement
....................................................................................
v
Preface
.........................................................................................................
vi
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS
............................................ 7
Chapter 2
THE FIRST WITNESS
............................................................................ 27
Chapter 3
THE SECOND WITNESS
...................................................................... 46
Chapter 4
THE THIRD WITNESS
.......................................................................... 59
CONCLUSION
.........................................................................................
87
GLOSSARY (to be read)
......................................................................... 89
Appendices
I. The First
II. A Vindication of the Continued
Succession of the Primitive
III. Can You Identify This Woman and Her
Daughters? ............... 140
IV. The Need for a
Foreword
It is with a great deal of pleasure I
write the Foreword to this second edition of Three Witnesses for the Baptists
by Elder Curtis Pugh. Bro. Pugh is presently a missionary out of our church
doing mission work in
We live in a time when many Baptist
churches are in a state of apostasy. Never has there been a time when Baptists
are so ignorant
of their own heritage. It is difficult to
find a Baptist Successionist. Most brethren hold to
Anabaptist Kinship theory of Baptists Beginning, and some have even embraced
the English Separatist Descent theory. Many brethren are convinced there is no
such thing as a succession of true churches from the days of Christ to the
present time.
There is no doubt in my mind that from the
days of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ one church has started another
church, according to the apostolic pattern. It poses no problem for the
Almighty Savior of the body (Eph.
Truth is invincible, indestructible,
incorruptible, and immortal. Wicked spirits and evil men may oppose it, but
they can never dispose of it. When all its enemies lie dead upon the
battlefield, truth remains and sets up trophies of victory. The heavens shall
dissolve (II Pet.
Those who love their Baptist heritage will
enjoy this book.
Milburn Cockrell
Acknowledgements
Second Edition
Writing this book has been undertaken with
a view to the glory of God, for the Bible says, “Unto him [God] be glory in the
church
by Christ Jesus throughout all ages...”
(Eph. 3:21). Thus all things are rightfully dedicated to the glory of God. Many
Brothers and Sisters have helped by their interested encouragement concerning
this project. Special appreciation goes to those whose criticism and counsel
emboldened me to undertake such an endeavor. Many thanks to my pastor Milburn
Cockrell, and Baptist elders Richard Eckstein, Jarrell Huffman, Forrest Keener,
Delbert Shults, and Michael McCoskey.
The membership of the
I wish to express special appreciation to
my wife, companion and best friend, Janet. She has helped me much in this
project and has borne with me through many hours. Our younger daughter, Anna,
has also helped much in this project. Their work in proofreading has been
immeasurable.
This book is the result of time spent in
the wee hours of the morning after other duties were done and in odd hours here
and there over a period of several years. Any fault is mine.
Curtis Pugh
Preface
Second Edition
We rejoice that sufficient interest in
this book exists to warrant it’s republication in a second edition. Only a few
minor changes have been made for clarification so that materially this edition
is the same as the first.
This publication is not intended to be
just another book on the church for preachers! Our purpose is to present the
issues as they presently are and to provide concrete evidence as to the
apostolic origin of true New Testament Baptist churches. This we have tried to
do in a concise, readable and usable format. It is our desire that this little
book be useful to every genuine lover of the truth.
This work is presented in four chapters in
an attempt to meet the Bible standard for establishing truth. Thus, as was
commanded
by the Old Testament Law of God (Deut.
17:6;
After some necessary introductory
considerations in chapter one, the three groups of “witnesses” shall be
presented as follows. THE FIRST WITNESS: in chapter two our Baptist forefathers
shall testify as to their understanding of our origin. THE SECOND WITNESS: in
chapter three our historic enemies shall attest the continual existence of
churches founded on Baptist principles. THE THIRD WITNESS: in chapter four the
Scriptures shall be examined as to the teachings and promises of the Son of God
affecting His church and her ordinances. We believe such testimony as is
presented herein would convince any candid jury in favor of the Baptists! The
Glossary is meant to be read as it has much information for the reader. While
the documentation introduced is not intended to be exhaustive, its cumulative
effect should convince any sincere inquirer. Bible believers will be assured of
the truth in that we will have more than met the Scriptural requirement of “two
or three witnesses.” May God give the reader grace to believe and understand the
truth and then give him or her the grace needed to practice it! May God be
pleased to bring His chosen people into the Lord’s churches that they may serve
Him “acceptably with reverence and godly fear,” (Heb.
Chapter One
INTRODUCTORY
CONSIDERATIONS
As was aptly stated in a booklet published
many years ago by
the Southern Baptist Convention, Baptists
believe that:
“No man can be more liberal than the Bible
and be true to
Christ.” 1
This is the historic Baptist position!
This is also the view of
modern, Bible-believing Baptists who want
to be true to Christ in
spite of the present situation.
The Present Situation
Some liberal “Baptists” are striding
toward unification with
Roman Catholicism. Many others remain firm
in their conviction
that continued separation from both the
“Mother of Harlots” and
her Protestant daughters is the only right
course of action. The
following quotation is furnished merely as
an illustration of the
unionizing tendencies now prevalent among
some Baptist groups.
Clearly, certain liberal elements within
the once conservative
Southern Baptist Convention of the
engaged.
“Southern Baptist and Roman Catholic
scholars have declared
that they basically agreed on doctrinal
issues. Sponsored by the
Catholic Bishop’s Committee on Ecumenical
and Interreligious
Affairs and the Southern Baptist
Department of Interfaith Witness,
the dialogue group recently released a
report in the “Theological
Educator.” Quoting Eph. 4:5, the group
concluded “We not only
confessed but experienced ‘One Lord, one
faith, and one baptism”2
As a further example of the present move
among some Baptists
toward union with Roman Catholicism, and a
more current one,
consider the following news item.
“
Roman Catholics to end their ‘loveless
conflict’ is being welcomed
in some parts of the Bible Belt.
“The agreement signed a week ago by
evangelical leaders,
including Pat Robertson, and by Catholic
bishops continues progress
that began seven years ago when Pope John
II visited
and suggested closer ties, religious
leaders said.
“‘Indeed, is it not the duty of every
follower of Christ to work
8 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
for the unity of all Christians?’ the pope
told 26 American leaders
of several denominations at the time.
“Parishioners at
were glad to hear of the recent agreement,
especially the part calling
for an end to trying to convert each
other...” 3
Anyone who understands the Bible message
of salvation by
grace alone and who is aware of the
teachings of the Roman Catholic
Church will agree that the two are poles
apart. Although Catholicism
mouths the words of the Bible, she teaches
salvation by works. Of
course, most Protestants teach works for
salvation and liberal
“Baptists” do the same. Some “Baptists”
are just as guilty of desiring
a union of all “Christian denominations”
as is the Catholic hierarchy.
This is evidenced by the following
statements made by
“parishioners” of the
“Baptists and Catholics each believe
theirs is the only religion
to follow, parishioner Dale Finley said.
“‘I think for peace, they should work
together and quit trying
to shove (beliefs) down their throats,’
she said.
“Helen Ford, another member of the large
brick church with a
wooden cross of flowers on its lawn the
day after Easter, said she
welcomed the cooperative effort.
“‘I’m not so narrow that I cannot accept
the fact that there are
other very good Christian people in other
denominations,’ she said.
‘I think we’re all working toward the same
goal; we’re just taking
different routes to get there.’” 4
These last statements quoted are
indicative of the sad doctrinal
decline among some who call themselves
Baptists. They do not
know the truth, or have heard and rejected
it.
Jesus said “the truth shall make you
free.” There is no salvation
apart from the truth. Genuinely converted
individuals are
characterized by a knowledge of the truth.
Regenerate persons do
not have a perfect knowledge of truth, but
a genuine knowledge,
nevertheless. Truth, similarly, sets the
churches of God apart from
those that are false. The Lord’s churches
are the “pillar and ground
of the truth.” Doubtless, therefore, the
devil is attempting to do
away with true New Testament churches. If
true Baptists are New
Testament churches, the way to do away
with them is to destroy
their distinctive principles. This is the
“modus operandi” presently
used by the enemy of truth, the one whom
Jesus said was “a liar
and the father of it” ( John
Satan is often subtle in bringing about
misrepresentations of
9 Introductory Considerations
the truth. He instigates mockery of the
Bible and Bible-believers.
He promotes man-glorifying freewill-ism,
the Holy-Spirit-glorifying
charismatic movement, doctrine-denying interdenominationalism,
and the “universal invisible church”
theory that denigrates the
Church Jesus built. He attempts to
accomplish his goal under the
guise of brotherly love, unity and
scholarship. After all, he argues,
if all Christians are in one great
“universal invisible church” and
thus all part of one “mystical body” why
should they not get together
down here? Thus, he persuades the
unthinking, and he
coincidentally makes Bible-believing
Baptists look like unloving,
bigoted fanatics because they will not
join with “evangelical
Christians.”
Satan has actively promoted these hurtful
doctrines in leading
colleges, seminaries and publishing houses
in our own day. Because
of this activity, he is enjoying some
success as most Protestant
organizations are now conducting
“ecumenical dialogue” with the
Harlot. Cooperation, pulpit affiliation,
reception of immersions,
union meetings, etc. between even some
so-called “Baptists” and
the Protestant daughters of the Harlot are
now common.
Charismatic Protestants are now one in
spirit with Charismatic
Catholics. Doctrinal purity has thus been
sacrificed on the altar of
Christian union.
If Baptist churches could be obliterated,
the process of
ecumenical union (not unity) would be made
easier. Few oppose
the merger of all churches into the Romish system other than healthy
Baptists. “Evangelicals” in
distinctiveness eroded away by New
Evangelicalism, liberalism and
the Charismatic movement. Most
“evangelical Christians” do not
even realize what is happening! The
end-time one-world church is
just around the corner!
Many “Baptists” are fed Protestant fodder
that is prepared in
apostate seminaries and effectively
disseminated through
unscriptural denominational machinery,
literature and programs.
In spite of this, God still has a remnant
who will not surrender
Bible principles. These very principles
are what make them Baptists.
These historic principles keep this
remnant of New Testament Baptist
churches from organizing under some
earthly headquarters,
fellowship, convention or association.
After all, in spite of what you may have
been led to believe, it is
no sin to be a Baptist in a Baptist church
practicing Biblical Baptist
principles!
10 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
The Issues Stated
Although often accused of believing that
they alone will be in
Heaven, Baptists do not believe that only
Baptists are saved!
Salvation is an individual matter.
Salvation is the result of the work
of the sovereign grace of God in the
individual heart. We are happy
to recognize that God’s people may be
found in many
denominations. One Baptist writer of
another generation has well
said:
“Calling on God to witness his sincerity,
the author of this book
gladly expresses his Christian affections
for every blood-washed
soul - whatever may be his or her creed.”
5
Baptist elder Claude Duval Cole, formerly
an instructor at the
Toronto Baptist Seminary, had this to say:
“While claiming to be the true church,
Baptists do not deny the
salvation of others. We put salvation in
the person of Jesus Christ,
and believe any and every sinner who pins
his faith and hope to
Jesus Christ will be saved. We never tell
the sinner to unite with a
the sinner to the Lamb of God, even the
Lord Jesus Christ, Whose
blood cleanseth
from all sin.” 6
However, there is another matter to be
considered here: the
matter of acceptable service to God. Is
everything that goes by the
name of service to Christ acceptable to
God? If Christ did establish
His kind of church and such churches still
exist upon the earth, are
not those churches important to Him? Will
He not surely be angry
with all who have thought His work
inconsequential? Will he be
pleased with those who have refused to
serve Him in His church?
Shall those who continue to rebel against
His order and authority
be rewarded along with those faithful
servants who have borne the
brunt of opposition and persecution down
through the centuries?
If we would please Christ, must we not do
things His way? After
all, did He not say, “Ye are my friends,
if ye do whatsoever I command
you” ( John
converts to “observe ALL THINGS” He had
commanded?
David learned to his anguish that not just
any procedure is
permissible with God. He tried to serve
God in a way that was
popularly acceptable but foreign to the
Word of God. David’s
inappropriate (sinful) method in attempting
to return the
the Covenant to its rightful place
resulted in terrible judgement.
God’s anger was vented on Uzzah! What sorrow, frustration, fear
and mistrust must have swept through the
nation
this evident judgement
of God. Following this tragedy David was
11 Introductory Considerations
both “displeased” and “afraid of God” (1 Chr.
the terrible consequences in the nation
was in such a wretched spiritual
condition! Can you see the
consequences of disregarding God’s
revealed will regarding the
Divinely ordained way of service today? Do
you doubt that
Christendom has run amuck with all its
man-made organizations,
methods, activities and plans?
David was made to see that the reason for
the catastrophe
incurred in moving the
after the due order” (1 Chr.
In service to God we must do things the
way He instructed!
God had said that His priests were to walk
and carry the
on poles provided for the work. The
nations around them might
use oxen to pull their idols about on
flower-laden, newly painted
carts - and even got by with putting God’s
God’s chosen people, while not
specifically forbidden to do the same,
were specifically commanded to do
otherwise. There is a basic Bible
principle displayed here! It is important
to remember that a specific
positive command implies and includes
specific negative
prohibitions. The command to do one thing
automatically forbids doing
anything else! A clear understanding of
that principle causes sound
Baptists to insist that things must be
done the Bible way! We have
no right to innovate in either worship or
service to God!
Sincerity was not enough! Being acceptable
to the people round
about was not enough! Doing things like
their pagan neighbors
was not acceptable! There was a right way
then, and there is a “due
order” for acceptable service to God and
Christ today! Acceptable
service to God today is in a New Testament
church in submission
to the Great Head of the church. There is
no other institution that
was founded by Christ and authorized by
Christ to do His work in
the earth!
When God’s children have the truth taught
to them they are
gladly obedient to it. Spiritual “goats”
“butt” at the truth; God’s
sheep are led by Christ, the Shepherd,
through His Word. Because
of the work of the Holy Ghost, multitudes
have been led to be
Baptists by the truth of the Scriptures.
This writer is one! We urge
you to search the Scriptures that you may
perceive the truth and
“...let us have grace, whereby we may
serve God acceptably with
reverence and godly fear: For our God is a
consuming fire” (Heb.
12:28, 29).
12 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
Baptist History Versus Religious History
Either by design or by unconscious bias,
popularly accepted
history is most often the recounting of
events in a manner favorable
to the dominant party. Throughout history
the parties in power
have been either a Protestant sect or a
branch of Catholicism. First
one group then the other was in control.
Power changed hands
from time to time and from country to
country as religious politics
fluctuated. Since Baptist churches are not
and have never been in
that ruling position, though at times they
could have been, history
is most often slanted against us. It is
not our objective here to recount
either the history of religion or the
history of the Lord’s churches.
(These two histories are not the same!)
However, the reader should
be alert to the fact that what is usually
represented as “church”
history may not be the history of the
Lord’s true churches at all
when viewed in the light of all the facts.
Hear the statement of
Professor C. D. Cole:
“What is known and taught as Church
History is in reality the
history of Christianity rather than a
history of the church Christ
founded and promised perpetuity to.
History reveals that the true
Church as an institution was represented
by local congregations as
opposed by a developing and growing
hierarchy until the bishop
of
The dominant party soon became what today
is known as the
Roman Catholic Church. That she is a
mixture of paganism and
Old Testament Jewish practices under
Christian names is clear. Hear
the words of an old English Baptist
brother regarding “church
history” being the history of a corrupt
“Judaism”. [We have
modernized his spelling.]
“What is all church history but an account
of people, who under
the name of Christians lived as the Jews
lived? Had the Jews a
priesthood? So had they. Had the Jews a
priest of priests, an high
priest? They had one in prospect, and each
aimed to be the man.
Did the Jews keep the Passover, and
worship God by rituals? So
did they. Had the Jews Ecclesiastical
courts? So had they. Were the
Jews governed by traditions of elders? So
were they. Had the Jews
a temple and an altar, and a sacrifice? So
had they. Did the Jews
place religion in the performance of
ceremonies and not in the
practice of virtue? So did they. Have the
Jews monopolized God,
and hated all mankind except themselves?
So have they. 8
To understand the history of the Lord’s
churches, the reader
should be aware that until relatively
recently, Baptists had neither
historians among themselves nor histories
of their own writing.
13 Introductory Considerations
Baptists were ravaged initially by civil
governments goaded by
whatever religious establishment was in
power at the time. First the
Jews instigated persecution against the
Lord’s churches. Later, pagan
idolaters violently opposed the churches.
Afterwards, both Catholic-controlled
and Protestant-controlled “courts”
condemned Baptists
and turned them over to the “secular arm”
for punishment and
most often execution.9
Our Baptist forefathers were hounded from
place to place as
outlaws in most kingdoms of the world.
Forced to live in constant
peril because of their doctrines and
practices (neither of which was
ever a hazard to any individual or civil
power), these Baptists had
neither time, opportunity nor inclination
to employ themselves with
recording their past. Other more immediate
concerns pressed upon
them because of their circumstances. To
write accounts of their
actions and their members would have
resulted in arrests,
imprisonments and worse. Matters of doctrine
required their efforts
as heresies were rampant in the churches
round about them.
Doubtless their history would have been
entirely lost had not their
persecutors written against them and so
unintentionally chronicled
their existence. J.H. Grime stated it
well:
“From the first rupture in the church,
resulted in Catholicism, to the
Reformation
churches of Jesus Christ were known as
Ana-Baptists and such other
local names as their enemies gave them.
They were not permitted
to keep records or write their own
history. But their enemies have
said enough for us to gather a fairly good
history.” 10
Consequently, if we would find Baptists
early on in history, we
must scrutinize the writings of their
enemies who were then the
ruling party. In those writings, Baptists
will not be represented as
Christ’s churches, but as the enemies of
Christ. Mention will be
made of them in court records. Accounts of
persecutions against
“heretics” will often present Baptists to
view. Records of religious
disputations will introduce them to you.
Histories of Roman
Catholicism, Protestant sects and those
dissenters who opposed them
will often tell of our Baptist
forefathers. The proceedings of church
councils who sought to exterminate them give
testimony to their
patient continuance. Descriptions of the
flogging and executions of
Baptists who stood against the dead
ritualism and worldliness of
Popery often shine as beacons in Baptist
history. As the “front page
church” continued in her departure from
New Testament truth and
piety, the martyrs of Jesus shone forth as
gold. We will find them -if
we look carefully - although we must often
view them through
14 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
the smoke screen of dishonesty and
fabrication. They will often be
slanderously charged with the most
abhorrent sins and scathingly
condemned as heretics of the worst sort.
But the undeniable fact
remains: people holding Baptist
principles, observing Christ’s
ordinances and meeting in church capacity
have continued to
surface in every generation since the days
of Jesus Christ’s earthly
ministry! This fact cannot be denied by
any honest and informed
person!
Baptists Differentiated
Surely to any honest and unprejudiced mind
these three groups
of witnesses shall resolve the matter of
whom the Baptists are and
conversely who are actually the Baptists!
However, it is imperative
to point out one more thing. Baptists have
waxed “respectable” in
the last two hundred years or so of their
existence. Being no longer
viewed as “the off scouring of all
things,” churches abound that
profess the name Baptist, but who bear
little likeness to the churches
of the New Testament. This has come about
because the name
Baptist, given first to John and later to
those who baptize with his
baptism, has become socially acceptable
although the old Baptist
doctrines and practices have not. Once
this name was used as an
epithet of disdain and only those
compelled by Bible principles to
own it were willing to do so. Now that the
name is socially acceptable
and sometimes financially advantageous,
many flock to its shadow.
The devil has failed in his many attempts
to “murder” the
Baptists. He has put that weapon away in
most parts of the world.
Now he usually resorts to his more
formidable weapon, “mixture.”
Compromise has replaced killing in his
armory. Whereas the devil
failed to destroy Christ’s churches by
persecution, he now seeks to
persuade them away from the truth. We
would warn our fellow
Baptists, if we may borrow the words of
Paul, “This persuasion
cometh not of him that calleth
you” (Gal. 5:8).
No doubt there are many members of these
quasi-Baptist (see
glossary) churches who are sincere in
their profession. They have
been immersed somewhere by someone into
something called a church.
Perhaps it was called a Baptist church. We
persist in the view that
such an act does not necessarily
constitute them members of the
Lord’s church! Our spiritual forefathers
would not have received
them based on their immersions. Neither
can we!
Today, any immersion is sanctioned as
valid baptism in most
religious circles. “Baptisms” are
routinely accepted by many
“Baptist” churches today even though
administered by ministers of
15 Introductory Considerations
congregations bearing little resemblance
to the churches of the New
Testament. The fact that such
congregations possess no valid claim
to being a Scriptural body of Christ seems
to matter little to many
at this period in Baptist history. Any
immersion is acceptable, in
the eyes of the religious enthusiasts of
our day, if the candidate was
“sincere.” Our spiritual forefathers
talked of “alien immersion” and
refused to accept it as valid. The point
we wish to make is that not
all who claim the name are, in fact,
Baptists in any historical and
Scriptural sense of the word! By that we
also mean to say that not
all churches bearing the name Baptist are
true churches of Christ!
The Baptist Name
The fact that some are sailing under false
colors is insufficient
reason for us to lower our banner or
exchange it for another. We
are aware that a few brethren are ready to
throw away the name
Baptist since it has been accepted by so
many who are in no way
true churches of Christ. To us, to do so
would surely be to flee
before the enemies of Christ! We do not
glory in a mere name, but
gladly accept the name “Baptist” for
several reasons. S. E. Anderson
has well written:
“First, the name Baptist is a Scriptural
name. It is found fifteen
times in the New Testament. It stands for
the man whom Christ
approved with high praise. It signifies
all that John believed and
taught his many converts to believe. They
shared his views; they
had his viewpoint as to the Lord Jesus:
they were as firm believers
in his Gospel and in baptism as converts
could be. While it is not
said they were called Baptists (no need
then), they could have been
so called with perfect propriety. They
were Baptistic without being
partisan.
“Second, the name Baptist is a descriptive
name. It describes one
who believes in Christ’s death, burial and
resurrection on his behalf,
one who has voluntarily buried his past
life of sin and has risen to
walk in newness of life with Christ, one
who believes all that John
preached about Christ, one who believes
all that Christ said about
His forerunner, and one who is obligated by
his baptism to exhibit
the indwelling Christ in his life.
“Third, the name Baptist is doctrinally
sound. Besides conveying
the salient points of the Gospel as
mentioned above... it is solidly
based upon Scripture. For the Lord Jesus
approved the name Baptist.
He used it repeatedly. The Holy Spirit
directed its use. And God
the Father approved the baptism of John by
His voice at the baptism
of His Son.
16 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
“Fourth, the name Baptist is unifying.
Here is one act that any
convert, no matter how weak, can do in
exactly the way Christ
Himself observed it. It is the same for
all races, for bond or free, for
men or women, for all ages, for rich or
poor, for the learned or
illiterate, for old or young, for entire
families, for every country, for
every age, and it is accepted by every
denomination. No other
“mode of baptism” has all these assets. d:”One Lord, one faith, one
baptism” (Eph. 4:5).
“Fifth, the name Baptist is
Christ-centered. It points to Christ Who
died and rose again for us; it points to
Christ as the Lamb of God
Who takes away the sin of the world; it
points to Christ alone as
our Saviour. It
therefore denies salvation by works, or by ordinances,
or by birth, or by character, or by
ancestral covenant. In symbol it
puts to death and buries every claim
anyone has on salvation by
works. It indicates, by complete
submission to the baptizer as God’s
agent, entire dependence upon God. This
name also reminds us of
John’s oft-quoted promise that Christ
would baptize His followers
in the Holy Spirit.”11
Having frequently been blackened by
vicious and imprecise
nicknames from ancient times, we consider
the appellation “Baptist”
a forthright and honest one. To us the
name Baptist speaks of New
Testament faith and practice that has successively
existed since the
days of Christ and His apostles. In our
minds it brings to view the
kind of church established by Jesus Christ
during His earthly
ministry. It speaks to us of that
Heaven-authorized gospel (Luke
Spirit-led men in every generation since
then.
Baptist elder C. D. Cole had this to say
about the Baptist name:
“The name Baptist is a denominational name
to distinguish it
from other denominations. There were no
denominational names
until there came to be distinct
denominations. Before the time of
the so-called Reformation under Martin
Luther there were scattered
churches under different names, and the
Roman Catholic Hierarchy.
The Reformation started in the Roman
Catholic Church, and was
only partial. The reformers took with them
some of the heresies of
Rome such as baptismal regeneration, a
graded ministry, and a
form of government much like that of
Protestant denominations hated and
persecuted Baptists.
“Baptists are sometimes accused of being
narrow bigots because
we believe Baptist churches are after the
N.T. pattern. The line
must be drawn somewhere, for all the
hundreds of diverse and
conflicting denominations cannot be the
church Christ founded
17 Introductory Considerations
and to which He promised perpetuity...
“The writer is a Baptist but not a Baptist
braggart. We lay no
claim to superiority in character or
conduct or education. When
you find a Baptist with a superiority
complex, you may be sure that
he is an off-brand. The churches of the
first century were not made
up of perfect people in character and
conduct. In an experience of
salvation the sinner becomes nothing in
his own eyes and Christ
becomes all in all. Before his conversion
Saul of
and self-righteous, but after he trusted
Jesus as the Christ he thought
of himself as less than the least of all
saints. See Eph. 3:8;
7:14-25; Phil 3:1-7; 1 Cor.
15:9.
“The first N.T. preacher was called John
the Baptist: Matt. 3:1;
that the followers of Christ and members
of the first church had
only John’s baptism. The only difference
between John’s baptism
and that of Christ is that John’s looked
forward to the coming of
Christ, and since then valid baptism looks
backward to the Christ
who has already come. John baptized those
who confessed their
sins and who trusted the Christ who was to
come: we baptize those
who profess faith in Jesus Christ who has
already come.” 12
True Baptist churches follow both the
instructions and the
models contained in the New Testament and
stand in succession to
the first church. This qualifies true
Baptist churches to administer
valid baptism just as John and Christ’s
apostles did. Both Jesus and
His apostles, incidentally, submitted to
John’s baptism (Matt.
17; John 1:35-37; Acts 1:21-22).
We can recognize no other baptism as
valid, although our
Protestant friends assure us that John’s
baptism is not Christian
baptism. If it is not, we beg, tell us
just when did this new “Christian
baptism” begin? And, we ask, just who was
Divinely authorized to
initiate this modern baptism? We also
would want to know just
when the apostles and all those obedient
to John’s preaching were
rebaptized
with this new “Christian baptism?” We would also
appreciate knowing just what this new
“Christian baptism” depicts?
We believe honesty demands that those
believers who are sailing
under false colors (claiming to be
Baptists when they are not)
acknowledge their error and become sound
Baptists. This would
require submitting to the “baptism of
John” at the hands of an
ordained man administering baptism with
the authority of a New
Testament church. Such a “re-baptism” is
repugnant to many
“Baptists” who are Baptists in name only.
They do not consider
that Paul “re-baptized” twelve men in
18 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
Scriptural baptism (Acts 19:1-5). If these
“modern Baptists” remain
adamant in their unwillingness to submit
to Scriptural baptism, we
would be gratified if they would change
their colors. We believe
that they would more precisely and
honestly portray themselves
before God and the world by removing
“Baptist” from their names.
The Baptist Distinctive is the Protestant
Dilemma
The following quote from one of our own
generation represents
a clear and thorough statement of the
historic Baptist position. To
point out that Baptist claims are based
upon their concept of
salvation and of baptism, it is stated:
“1. Any religious assembly that preaches a
false gospel and/or
practices a false baptism cannot be
recognized as a true New
fundamentally, characteristically and
permanently preach a false
gospel come under the indictment of Gal.
1:6-9.
“2. Salvation and a profession of faith
are undeniably
prerequisite to baptism. Salvation is not
by means of baptism. True
believing disciples are the only proper
subjects for baptism.
Immersion is the only proper mode of
baptism.
“3. Scriptural baptism is absolutely
necessary to church
constitution, organization and existence,
so much so, that where
there is no Scriptural baptism there is no
Scriptural church. No
baptism, no church.
“4. There is an intimate and inevitable
connection between the
true doctrine of salvation and the proper
administration of baptism.
Scriptural baptism is the representation
of and the identification
with the Scriptural plan of salvation.
“5. According to the commands of Christ,
the practice of the
early churches of the New Testament, the
Epistles of Paul, and the
Confessions of Faith of all evangelical
religious denominations...
baptism as an ordinance, was delivered to
the New Testament church
to be administered by it according to
Christ’s commands until He
returns.
“6. All the aspects of baptism, (the mode,
subject, purpose and
administrator) are irrevocably fixed and
prescribed by Christ’s
example and commands. These are to remain
permanent and
unchanged. A consistent recognition of
Christ’s Kingship over the
soul demands that these things be so,
(Mal. 1:6; Luke
Christ only has the authority to make,
give or alter the doctrines
and practices of the
“7. Only churches of New Testament origin
and New Testament
19 Introductory Considerations
order can give Scriptural baptism.
Therefore, any religious society
that preaches a false gospel cannot give
Scriptural baptism.”
What are the ramifications of the
concepts? Consider the
further statements of the author we quote
here:
“1. Strict Baptists have always believed
that Catholicism is a
false religion that preaches a false
gospel, described no doubt in
Rev. 17:1-18:24. Catholic assemblies
cannot, therefore, give
Scriptural baptism. Many others have taken
the same position as to
the invalidity of Catholic baptism. The
Presbyterians, for example,
took the same position at the Presbyterian
General Assembly (Old
School), May, 1845. This is recorded in
‘The Collected Writings
of J.H. Thornwell’
Vol. 3, pp. 277-413, Banner of Truth Edition,
1974. We state again, Catholic baptism is
unscriptural, invalid, null
and void.
“2. Any person with Catholic baptism has
no baptism. Any
denomination founded upon Catholic baptism
has no baptism and
therefore no church validity. [All
Protestant groups and those who
came out from them were formed by persons
with Catholic baptism.]
The reason?... Number 3 above: ‘No
baptism, no church.’ (See R.L.
Dabney’s
Lectures in Systematic Theology, lecture 64, pp. 774-
775, for the same conclusion, i.e., ‘No
baptism means no church’).
[Had Presbyterian minister, author, and
theologian R.L. Dabney
been consistent in his practice with the
definition of baptism, he
would have been compelled to be a
Baptist!]
These concepts are the reasons for the
“historic” Baptist practice
of baptizing all those who came over to
them from any religious
society that is not of ‘like faith and
order.’ This is why Baptists will
not accept Protestant rantism.
All Protestant denominations are
founded upon Catholic and infant rantism.” 13 [“Rantism” from
Greek “rhantizo”
- to sprinkle]. [All brackets mine: C.A.P.].
At issue, then, is this: if Baptists admit
that Protestant “baptisms”
are Scriptural and valid, they must also
admit that Romish baptisms
are Scriptural and valid because
Protestant baptisms. Consider these words:
“...no Christian Pedobaptist
[see glossary] has any other baptism
than he received from the priests of
Knox, and all the first ministers, and all
those who composed the
first societies of the Reformers, were
baptized by Roman Catholic
priests, and in the Church of Rome, and
consequently their baptisms
are unscriptural and invalid. But if their
baptisms are invalid, then
their societies can not be considered churches
in any sense, as there
can be no church without baptism; and if
not churches, Protestant
20 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
ministers have no Scriptural right to
preach the Gospel, or baptize
others into their societies. Moreover, by
so doing they deceive and
mislead the people, causing them to
believe they are baptized, when,
in fact, they are not; causing the people
to believe that they are in
visible churches of Christ, when, in fact,
and according to the
admissions of these leaders, they are not,
but in human societies
that can never administer the ordinances
of Christ’s Church.!” 14
[Brackets mine: C.A.P.].
This fact was recognized and agreed upon
by representatives
of a large Presbyterian body during a
previous century as follows:
“I was in the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church in
1829, (a body of about two hundred
members,) when a question
was sent us for decision: ‘Are the
baptisms of Popish priests to be
accepted by our (Presbyterian) Churches as
valid Baptisms?’ It was
discussed, and we should have voted ‘No,’
nearly unanimously;
but an influential and more shrewd one
-secretly reflecting that
ALL our baptisms originally came from
Popery - moved and
obtained an indefinite postponement of the
subject.” 15
That Roman Catholicism became so corrupt
as to provoke some
within her walls to attempt a reformation
is a well-known fact. She
had corrupted the free grace of God into a
works-religion of
baptismal regeneration, penances, ritual
prayers, prayers for the
dead, prepaid indulgences to sin, grace
coming through “the
sacraments,” etc., etc. Corruption of the
gospel and gospel
ordinances caused her to cease being a
that there can be no true church without
the true gospel. This
corruption also made invalid her ordinances
that by this time she
had perverted into soul-saving sacraments.
Not being a church of
Christ, she had no Divine authority to
administer baptism.
Her “reformers,” upon finding themselves
ejected from the
Romish
church, founded churches suitable to their own thinking.
They had been trained as Popish priests
and brought much Romish
“baggage” with them over into their new
“Protestant” churches.
They possessed Roman Catholic baptism that
was no true baptism
since she was apostate. They “baptized”
others with that same
Romish
“baptism” for that was all they had. Thus the Protestant
“churches” are not churches at all in the
Scriptural sense. Protestant
baptisms are invalid, coming from apostate
true
To be consistent, Protestants MUST receive
Roman Catholic
baptisms as equal to their own for
Protestant baptisms are nothing
more than a continuation of Romish baptisms. To reject persons
21 Introductory Considerations
having Catholic baptism would require that
they “unbaptize and
unchurch”
themselves. Upon the insistence of the individual, many
Catholic priests will immerse as the mode
of baptism. Protestants,
if consistent, will accept these
immersions as valid baptisms in spite
of the damnable heresies taught by
earth who can be consistent and reject
such immersions are sound
Baptist churches.
The pastor of one “Baptist church” in the
city of
would be received by his “Baptist church”
since they recognized
Anglican assemblies as “Christian
churches.” This illustrates the
point. IF Catholic and Protestant churches
are indeed churches of
Christ, their immersions of believers must
be valid. If such baptisms
are valid, then the reception by Baptists
of all such immersions is
the logical conclusion that consistency
demands.
Christ delegated authority to baptize to
His New Testament kind
of churches. Churches founded by some man
are not Christ’s
churches. Neither are churches that have gone
off into apostasy the
Lord’s churches, for if that were the
case, Christ would have the
Harlot for His bride! Only such regenerate
persons as are immersed
by Christ’s churches have Scriptural
baptism. This is the Baptist
distinctive and the Protestant’s dilemma.
In axiom form this can be presented in
four statements.
“AXIOM I
A true
divinely authorized to preach the Gospel
or to administer Church
ordinances.
“AXIOM II
A body, though once a true
from its original and scriptural faith and
order, and teaching
doctrines in manifest contravention of
them, can not be considered
a
“AXIOM III
If the majority of a true church should
fall away from the
fundamental doctrines of the Gospel,
perverting the ordinances to
the subversion of men’s souls, and should
exclude the minority
that abides by the truth, such a majority,
though it should retain the
name, would not be entitled to the claims
of being a Church of
Christ, and all its acts and ordinances
would be manifestly null and
void.
“AXIOM IV
The constitutional minority of any church,
however small,
22 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
holding fast the doctrine and order of the
Gospel, though excluded
and cast out by an apostate majority,
must, in accordance with law
and reason, be considered a true Church
and its ordinances valid
and scriptural.” 16
There can be no doubt among
Bible-believing Christians as to
the apostasy of the Romish
churches. Therefore it follows that her
administrations are invalid. Protestant
administrations, having issued
from
Only faithful Baptist churches established
in succession from the
first church have any claim to Divine
authority to act in the matter
of baptism.
Two Canadian Illustrations of Biblical
Practice
As illustrative of the ongoing practice of
Baptists, let us look at
the following instances.
Caleb Blood in
In 1802 Baptist elder Caleb Blood of the
in
met by the Shaftsbury Association.
largely unsettled place. The inhabitants
of this new country were
States and were carving out of the
wilderness homes, farms and
businesses for themselves. Elder Blood’s
allotted time for travel ran
out when he reached the head of
of the present city of
could not go farther with these words:
“I must here mention a trying
circumstance. Word came to me,
with a request to go about fifty miles
farther, to a place called Long
Point Settlement, on
divine grace in that place; that there
were thirty or forty persons
stood ready for baptism, and no
administrator whom they could
obtain within two hundred miles of them;
but I had my
appointments back through the Province,
and could not go to their
relief...” 17
If Protestant clergy can administer valid
baptism, the believers
at Long Point Settlement were wrong to
send for an ordained man
- a man with authority from a Baptist
church - to administer baptism.
Elder Blood was wrong about the matter and
needlessly upset that
he could not help these people. If the
administrator of baptism is
unimportant, Elder Blood would no doubt
have taken comfort that
23 Introductory Considerations
there were ministers of other
denominations who could baptize
these people. The accompanying record
shows that there were
Protestant ministers not far away and
available to these folk at Long
Point. Had he believed that Protestant
ministers could administer
valid baptism no doubt he would have
recommended that these
“thirty or forty persons” obtain the
services of such a minister. The
fact is that the immersions of Protestant
ministers would not satisfy
those people whom the Scriptures had made
Baptists. These new
converts knew better than to seek
Scriptural baptism at the hands
of Protestant ministers, and so did Elder
Blood!
Neither did they believe that just any
believer acting without
church authority could administer valid
baptism. Otherwise they
might have got either Brother Fairchild or
Brother Finch (both of
whom were unordained
but who preached in the Long Point area)
to immerse them. Obviously these people,
including Elder Blood,
believed in those Baptist principles of
both church authority and
succession - the very things for which we
contend in this volume.
Lemuel
Covell and Obed Warren in
The next year (1803) another Baptist elder
named Lemuel
Covell
of Pittstown, N.Y. traveled into
Elder Obed
Long Point area previously referred to by
Elder Blood. They
reported in part as follows:
“At this place we found a number of
Christian brethren, who
had lived a number of years without the
privileges connected with
Gospel ordinances for want of an
administrator. They had frequently
sent the most pressing requests to one and
another, but had always
been unsuccessful... There are two brethren
who improve in public
[an old Baptist way of saying there were
two unordained men who
preached publicly] in that country, by the
names of Finch and
Fairchild. Brother Fairchild resides at
some distance from the body
of brethren, but visits them at times.
Brother Finch lives among
them and labors with them steadily; but
neither of them are
ordained, and when we arrived there,
brother Finch had never been
baptized.” 18 [Brackets mine: C.A.P.]
Historic Baptist doctrine and practice,
based as it is on the Bible
alone, allows an unordained
brother to evangelize. That same
historic doctrine and practice also
maintain that without church
authority (baptism, church membership and
ordination) none can
properly administer the ordinances. This
is the pattern of the New
24 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
Testament! The pattern in the Book of Acts
is clear: men who
baptized had been previously baptized and
ordained as either elders
or deacons.
While there was a gathering of brethren
who maintained Baptist
principles in the Long Point area of
principles forbad them organizing
themselves together as a church
of Christ. Some there were baptized. But
they lacked an ordained,
“sent” man to form them into a church
according to gospel order.
Without someone coming to them with church
authority to baptize
them and set them in gospel order, they
knew they could not be a
church after the New Testament pattern.
The two accounts cited
above prove that Baptists both in
believed this, or they prove nothing at
all. Today we have Neo-landmarkers
(perhaps better “pseudo-landmarkers”) who try to
maintain that they are historic Baptists.
They are bent on proving
that a group of baptized believers can
organize themselves into a
true church. Then such a self-made church,
according to them, can
begin to maintain valid ordinances. They
can originate a church
and then originate baptism and the supper!
Bible-believing Baptists
in
such looseness in the early 1800’s - nor
do sound Baptists today! If
our Baptist forefathers in the accounts
above involving
themselves into a church, the whole story
would have been different!
There would have been no need of an
“administrator” coming to
them, etc.
Nowhere in the Scriptures do we find any
endorsement of “free
lance” organizing of churches or baptizing
of converts! Indeed,
Christ Himself did not enter His ministry
of preaching and baptizing
(through His disciples) until He (and
they) had been baptized by
John the Baptist.
:John the Baptist is the only man in the
world who had authority
to baptize who was himself unbaptized. Remember, John the Baptist
had direct commission from Heaven to
preach and to baptize ( John
1:6, 33). Christ commissioned His church
to carry on the work of
preaching, baptizing and teaching, if we
may sum up the “great
commission” in that fashion (Matthew
28:19-20). The specific
command being given to a specific entity
(His church) automatically
excludes any and all other entities having
authority to carry on that
specific work.
Bear in mind that these early missionaries
to
sound Baptist practice in this matter.
Notice also that these events
25 Introductory Considerations
took place PRIOR to the coinage of the
term “Landmarkism.” It is
also important to note that these men
represented churches in the
northeastern part of the young
the American Revolution. These were
churches who had recent
ties with
incidents illustrate that such practices
were usual and approved
procedures among mainline Baptists of that
era.
If the reader will bear in mind the
distinctions set forth in this
present chapter, Baptist claims will be
clearly understood as stated
in Chapter Two: The Testimony of the
Baptists.
FOOTNOTE REFERENCES
1. J.G. Bow, WHAT BAPTISTS BELIEVE AND WHY
THEY BELIEVE
IT, (
n.d.), pp. 4, 5.
Information furnished by The Historical
Commission of the Southern Baptist
Convention,
this book by J. G. Bow from about the turn
of the century until 1925.
2. News Item from “CVN” quoted in the
PLAINS BAPTIST
CHALLENGER, E. L. Bynum, ed., (
April, 1990), p. 4.
3. “Evangelicals, Catholics Edging
Closer”, Rene DeCair, Associated Press
Writer, (Tulsa World, April 9, 1994), p.
16.
4. DeCair, ibid.
5. W.A. Jarrell, BAPTIST CHURCH
PERPETUITY, (
CHURCH, Vol. III, (
7. Cole, ibid., p. 16.
8. Robert Robinson, ECCLESIASTICAL
RESEARCHES, (
Francis Hodson,
1790), [reprinted by Church History Research & Archives], pp.
134, 135.
9. That various Protestant powers actively
persecuted Baptists and others
who dissented from whatever group was the
“established church” is a fact of history
though often denied. Michael Servetus (1511-1553) “died in Calvin’s
condemned as a heretic.” (William P.
Barker, WHO’S WHO IN CHURCH
HISTORY,
apparent tacit approval of Calvin” (ibid.
p. 252).
The oft praised Philip Melanchthon
(1497-1560), ranks with Luther and Calvin
as one of the ‘greatest of the Reformers.’
Baptists should be aware that, “He
applauded... the execution of Servetus” and “recommended that the rejection of
infant baptism, or of original sin, or of
the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist,
should be punished as capital crimes,” (Schaff, quoted by Will Durant, THE
STORY OF CIVILIZATION, Vol. VI, NY, Simon
& Schuster, 1957, pp. 423-424).
He was appointed over the secular
inquisition that persecuted the Anabaptists
26 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
of
he was sure that God had destined all
Anabaptists to Hell (Smith, quoted by Will
Durant, ibid. p. 423).
10. J.H. Grime, WHY AM I A BAPTIST, (
11.
11. W.
Press, 1972), pp. 120, 121.
13. Bill Lee, Publisher’s Foreword to A
COMPLETE BODY OF
DOCTRINAL AND PRACTICAL DIVINITY, ( John
Gill,
and Leigh, 1809), [reprinted by The
Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc.,
1987], pp. vii, viii.
14. J.R. Graves, TRILEMMA, (Texarkana, Bogard Press, 1969), pp. 13, 14.
15. J.F. Bliss, POPERY AND PROTESTANTISM
COMPARED, quoted
by
16. Graves, ibid., pp. 119-121.
17. Stuart Ivison
and Fred Rosser, THE BAPTISTS IN UPPER AND
p. 36.
18. Ivison and
Rosser, ibid., pp. 42, 43.
27 The First Witness
Chapter Two
THE FIRST WITNESS
THE TESTIMONY OF THE BAPTISTS
It is altogether necessary that the claims
of Baptists be voiced
because many, even of our own people, have
not been grounded
in Baptist history. Being unfamiliar with
their own past, they are
often adrift among the flotsam and jetsam
of popular notions
regarding “church history.”
You may be amazed to read in this second
chapter what Baptists
have historically asserted as pertaining
to themselves and their
beginning. You may be disturbed as the
truth concerning other
“churches” becomes apparent. This may
especially be so if you are
not a Baptist. It will be demonstrated
that mainline Baptists have
consistently believed in the high
antiquity of the Baptist churches.
It will further be demonstrated that these
Baptists affirmed that the
Lord’s true New Testament churches were to
be found exclusively
among those people known as Baptists. We
are not saying that every
“Baptist church” is a New Testament
church, but we are saying that
every authentic Baptist church is a New
Testament church.
Many well-known Baptist preachers, living
and asleep in Christ,
could be subpoenaed to testify here. Prominent
ministers of years
gone by such as J.B. Moody, pastor and a
former president of the
Southern Baptist Convention; B.H. Carroll,
pastor of the First
Baptist
Seminary; Jesse Mercer, leader among
J. Newton Brown, pastor, author and
professor in New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, New York and Virginia; John
A. Broadus, pastor,
and leader in the Southern Baptist Convention;
William Williams,
pastor in
many years president of the Southern
Baptist Convention; George
C. Lorrimer who
served Churches in Kentucky, New York,
and
corresponding secretary for an agency of
the Southern Baptist
Convention; T.T. Eaton, author and pastor
of churches in
and Virginia; and a host of others could
be cited. Many Baptist
28 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
authorities as well known and respected as
these few mentioned
could also be heard to testify to the
apostolic origin of the Baptists.
While not all who held to the apostolic
origin of the Baptists
maintained strict Baptist practices, we
insist that consistency
demands that we follow Biblical, historic
Baptist practices. Those
whom we shall call upon to testify were
prominent in their day and
highly esteemed among their peers. Their
honesty was without
question and their knowledge cannot be
discounted.
While we are not given to the use of
titles honoring men, we
include some of the educational
achievements of the following
witnesses lest any claim that these were
uneducated men. Letters
following a man’s name do not necessarily
make him right, but do
indicate he has completed a certain level
in his studies.
The Testimony of John T. Christian, A.M.,
D.D., L.L.D.
Pastor and historian John T. Christian
served as professor of
history and librarian from 1919 to 1925 at
the Southern Baptist
Convention’s Baptist Bible Institute of
witness, representing Baptists of the
early part of the twentieth
century. He wrote the following
endorsement:
“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.” 1
This apt and concise statement is the
historic Baptist position
regarding Baptist churches. Many so-called
Baptists of our own day
are either untaught concerning these
things or have apostatized
from this ancient position. Their
departure in no way proves the
old to be error, but rather speaks volumes
concerning the sad
spiritual state of our times.
The Southern Baptist Convention published
Dr. Christian’s two-volume
history from its first edition in 1922
until they permitted it
to go out of print after the non-Landmark
or Protestant view took
over their seminaries. The founders and
many early leaders of the
S.B.C. were sound Baptists - by that we
mean “Landmarkers” - and
men of good intention whose writings are a
great help to Bible-loving
Christians. Current leaders within the
S.B.C. have almost
unanimously repudiated its historic
doctrinal position and historic
“Landmark” Baptist practices. By dropping
the publication of Dr.
Christian’s two-volume history, powers
within the S.B.C. testify to
their own departure from the Biblical
faith and practice of their
“Landmark” fathers.
29 The First Witness
The Testimony of T. G. Jones, D.D.
Let us step back several years into the
nineteenth century and
hear the testimony of another eminent
member of the Southern
Baptist Convention. Tiberius Gracchus Jones, as a teenager, was
brought to repentance and faith in Christ
and subsequently baptized
by James B.
the
the same church that authorized his
baptism. After graduating as
valedictorian at the
the same honor from William and
of the
as pastor of the
the
Seminary). After several years, he was
called a third time to the
pastor of the First Baptist
remained for many years..
Consider some of T.G. Jones’ achievements.
While pastor of
the church at
College,
become president of
appointments, however, he refused as he
felt he must remain faithful
to his pastoral responsibilities. Besides
published addresses and
articles in various periodicals, T.G.
Jones wrote three small books.
2
Consider the following words of
commendation by a man of
his own time.
“Dr. Jones is regarded as one of the
finest pulpit orators of the
nation, and highly esteemed by his charge
in
“He has been for several sessions one of
the vice-presidents of
the Southern Baptist Convention, and is
now first vice-president of
the board of trustees of the Southern
Baptist Seminary. He is
possessed of a rare dignity of manners,
fine scholarship, and a
blessed record.” 3
Hear what this eminent Southern Baptist
pastor and scholar
had to say about the origin of the Baptist
Churches.
“...They [the Baptists] have always
maintained that their
churches are as ancient as Christianity
itself. That their foundations
were laid by no less honorable hands than
those of Christ and his
30 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
apostles. In all ages since the first, the
Baptists have believed their
denomination more ancient than themselves.
The American Baptists
deny that they owe their origin to Roger
Williams. The English
Baptists will not grant that John Smyth or
Thomas Helwysse was
their founder. The Welsh Baptists
strenuously contend that they
received their creed in the first century,
from those who had
obtained it, direct, from the apostles
themselves. The Dutch Baptists
trace their spiritual pedigree up to the
same source. The German
Baptists maintained that they were older
than the Reformation,
older than the corrupt hierarchy which it
sought to reform. The
Waldensian
Baptists boasted an ancestry far older than Waldo, older
than the most ancient of their
predecessors in the vales of
So, too, may we say of the Lollards, Henricians, Paterines, Paulicians,
Donatists,
and other ancient Baptists, that they claim an origin more
ancient than that of the men or the
circumstances from which they
derived their peculiar appellations. If in
any instance the stream of
descent is lost to human eye, in ‘the
remote depths of antiquity,’
they maintain that it ultimately reappears,
and reveals its source in
Christ and his apostles.
“Now we think that this singular unanimity
of opinion among
the Baptists of all countries and of all
ages, respecting their common
origin in apostolic and primitive times -
a unanimity the existence
of which might easily be established by
numerous quotations from
historians and other writers among them,
is of itself a fact of no
little value, as furnishing a presumptive
argument of much force in
support of the Baptist claim. In
especially, the Baptists are now numerous,
intelligent, and in every
way as respectable as any denomination of
Christian people. Among
them are men, not only of unimpeachable
moral and Christian
character, but of profound learning and
extensive historical research.
And all these, as well as the humblest and
most unlearned among
them, believe that Baptists, (whether with
or without the name, is a
matter of indifference,) have existed
‘from the days of John the
Baptist until now.’” 4 [Brackets mine:
C.A.P.]
Such plain words by so eminent a Southern
Baptist cannot be
lightly discounted. This writer could only
wish that the successors
of T.G. Jones might be as solid in their
stand for the truth of the
Lord’s Churches. It is an incontestable
fact of history that at one
time the ministers as well as the rank and
file in the churches of the
Southern Baptist Convention were, almost
to a man, sound in their
church views. By that we mean that they
held to the view that the
true churches of Christ were to be found
among those people known
31 The First Witness
as Baptists and that Baptist churches of
their day originated during
the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ.
It is noteworthy that this particular
volume was published by
the American Baptist Publication Society
of
indicates that these views were those held
by Baptists in the North
as well as in the southern
views were once universally held among
mainline Baptists, but lately
have been cast aside by many.
The Testimony of Joseph Belcher, D.D.
Going back farther in time and across the
Joseph Belcher who was born in Birmingham,
converted in
and later served other churches. He became
pastor of a Baptist
church in Halifax, Nova Scotia in 1844 and
after serving there for
three years relocated to Philadelphia and
the Mount Tabor Church.
Initially, we shall hear from Belcher’s
enormous work of more
than a thousand pages which was praised by
the secular and religious
press of its day and by representatives of
the Baptist, Methodist,
Episcopal, Lutheran and Presbyterian
denominations for its honesty,
fairness and comprehensiveness. Several of
these testimonials are
to be found toward the forepart of the
volume, placed there as a
matter of advertisement. Joseph Belcher
wrote:
“In proceeding to sketch the History of
the Baptist body at large,
their writers rejoice that early
historical documents are in existence
which very materially aid them. They
cannot, they say, but be
thankful to Mosheim [see glossary] when he
tells them that their
origin is hidden in the depths of
antiquity, because such a testimony,
like that of Cardinal Hosius
[see glossary], when he says that the
Baptists have furnished martyrs for twelve
hundred years, goes to
show that they are not so modern in their
origin as some recent
writers would pretend.” 5 [Brackets mine:
C.A.P.].
Again Dr. Belcher speaks of Baptist claims
to exclusive
perpetuity when he wrote:
“But as the Baptists lay claim to the
highest antiquity, even to
be the lineal descendants of the primitive
church...” 6
We quote Belcher in a later work of a
similar nature, where he
testifies in the clearest of language.
“It will be seen that the Baptists claim
the high antiquity of the
commencement of the Christian church. They
can trace a succession
of those who have believed the same
doctrine, and administered
the same ordinances, directly up to the
apostolic age.” 7
32 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
Surely no clarification of this testimony
is required!
The Testimony of William Cathcart, D.D.
Long time pastor of the Second Baptist
Church of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, Dr. Cathcart
was born of Scotch-Irish stock in the
north of Ireland in 1826. Brought up a
Presbyterian, he was
converted early in life and received
Baptist baptism in 1846. His
higher education was in the University of
Glasgow, Scotland and
in Rawdon
College, Yorkshire, England. He arrived in North
America in November of 1853 and in
December that year became
pastor of the Third Baptist Church of
Groton in Mystic River,
Connecticut. He was called to take the
oversight of the Philadelphia
church in 1857.
Cathcart
wrote several books and was active in Baptist affairs.
He edited an encyclopedia (a sizeable
volume of more than 1300
pages). In this large work he obtained
assistance from nearly seventy
principal Baptist ministers in both Canada
and the United States.
Consequently his testimony can also be
said to be the testimony of
many other Baptist ministers as well. His
article entitled, “Baptists,
General Sketch of the” commences thus:
“The Baptist denomination was founded by
Jesus during his
earthly ministry. Next to the Teacher of
Nazareth, our great leaders
were the apostles, and the elders,
bishops, and evangelists, who
preached Christ in their times. The
instructions of our Founder are
contained in the four Gospels, the
heaven-given teachings of our
earliest ministers are in the inspired
Epistles. The first Baptist
missionary journal was the Acts of the
Apostles…” 8
Surely no person can read the foregoing
and doubt that Cathcart
believed that Baptist churches were the
true churches of Christ!
Those nearly seventy ministers in both
Canada and the United
States evidently held similar views to
have contributed to such a
work and to have their names connected
with it.
The Testimony of Charles Spurgeon
Charles Haddon Spurgeon is said to be the
most extensively
read preacher since the apostles. His
books and sermons have been
reprinted numerous times both as
collections and as individual
pieces. Spurgeon (1834-1892) was converted
during his teenage
years and shortly thereafter began to
preach. He was privileged to
preach to multitudes both in rented
auditoriums and in the
meetinghouses of his own church in London,
England. Under
Spurgeon’s leadership this congregation
built a meetinghouse
33 The First Witness
known as the Metropolitan Tabernacle that
would seat six thousand
people. Whereas Mr. Spurgeon was not
nearly as conscientious in
church polity as we think consistent with
Bible principles, he
evidences a clear understanding of the
origin of Baptist churches.
Before the congregation moved into the
Metropolitan
Tabernacle, while still meeting at the New
Park Street location in
1860, Spurgeon preached these words:
“I am not ashamed of the denomination to
which I belong,
sprung as we are, direct from the loins of
Christ, having never passed
through the turbid stream of Romanism, and
having an origin apart
from all dissent or Protestantism, because
we have existed before
all other sects...” 9
During the next year, 1861, after moving
to the new Tabernacle,
Spurgeon proclaimed:
“We believe that the Baptists are the
original Christians. We
did not commence our existence at the
reformation, we were
reformers before Luther or Calvin were
born; we never came from
the church of Rome, for we were never in
it, but we have an
unbroken line up to the apostles
themselves. We have always existed
from the very days of Christ, and our
principles, sometimes veiled
and forgotten, like a river which may
travel underground for a little
season, have always had honest and holy
adherents.” 10
Later, that same year Spurgeon boldly
proclaimed for all the
world to hear:
“And now it seems to me, at this day, when
any say to us, ‘You,
as a denomination, what great names can
you mention? What fathers
can you speak of?’ We may reply, ‘More
than any other under
heaven, for we are the old apostolic
Church that have never bowed
to the yoke of princes yet; we, known
among men, in all ages, by
various names, such as Donatists,
Novatians, [sic] Paulicians,
Petrobrussians,
Cathari, Arnoldists, Hussites, Waldenses, Lollards,
and Anabaptists, have always contended for
the purity of the
Church, and her distinctness and
separation from human
government. Our fathers were men inured to
hardships, and unused
to ease. They present to us, their
children, an unbroken line which
comes legitimately from the apostles, not
through the filth of Rome,
not by the manipulations of prelates, but
by the Divine life, the
Spirit’s anointing, the fellowship of the
Son in suffering and of the
Father in truth.” 11
Such evidence shows that Mr. Spurgeon was
not backward about
openly and frequently speaking out
concerning the history of the
people now called Baptists! This writer
wishes all Baptist ministers
34 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
were so forward in this matter!
In 1881, some TWENTY YEARS LATER, Spurgeon
was still
preaching the same things regarding the
origin of Baptists. It is
most significant that after twenty years
of further study, ministry,
and association with both Baptists and
others, Mr. Spurgeon still
believed in the apostolic origin and
perpetuity of Baptist churches.
He declared:
“History has hitherto been written by our
enemies, who never
would have kept a single fact about us
upon the record if they could
have helped it, and yet it leaks out every
now and then that certain
poor people called Anabaptists were
brought up for condemnation.
From the days of Henry II [A.D. 1154-1189]
to those of Elizabeth
[1558-1603] we hear of certain unhappy
heretics who were hated
of all men for the truth’s sake which was
in them. We read of poor
men and women, with their garments cut
short, turned out into the
fields to perish in the cold, and anon of
others who were burnt at
Newington for the crime of Anabaptism.
Long before your
Protestants were known of, these horrible
Anabaptists, as they were
unjustly called, were protesting for the
‘one Lord, one faith, and
one baptism.’” – 12 [Brackets mine: C.A.P.].
Strangely, there are a good many so-called
“reformed Baptists”
(a creature we think to be an
impossibility and a contradiction in
terms) who glory in Mr. Spurgeon’s sermons
and writings regarding
soteriology
(the doctrine of salvation), but who utterly disregard
these statements regarding ecclesiology
(the doctrine of the church).
It is certainly worthy of note that Mr.
Spurgeon did not date the
Baptist origin as having occurred during,
or subsequent to, the
Protestant Reformation. In the last quote
he specifically mentions
Henry II whose reign was some four hundred
years prior to the
Protestant Reformation and that was, of
course, the date of the origin
of Protestant churches.
The Testimony of John Ashworth
John W. Ashworth was pastor to the Baptist
Church that met in
George Street Chapel, Plymouth, England in
A.D.
year he preached both before his own
church and before the Western
Association of Baptist Churches two
sermons on “Baptist Principles
and History.” These sermons with notes and
appendix were
“published by request” running at least to
a third edition and twenty-five
thousand printed copies. Elder Ashworth
said,
“No such thing as Infant Baptism was known
in England for
the first six centuries.”
35 The First Witness
“Going back to the time of William the
Conqueror, [A.D. 1066-1087]
we find that the Baptists had spread so
rapidly that the
Archbishop of Canterbury, [Lanfranc] seeing that many of the
nobles as well as of the poor had adopted
their sentiments wrote a
book against them, in which he complained,
as Archbishop Egbert
did of the Cathari
(Puritans) about the same time, that they were
‘very pernicious to the Catholic faith;
FOR THEY MAINTAINED
THEIR OPINIONS BY AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE:’
a great
crime in those days, and still a great
inconvenience, oft-times, to
those who prefer the traditions and
customs of men to the
commandments of God! But the Baptists
flourished, spite of the
Archbishop’s book; and therefore the King
was induced to issue an
edict, that ‘those who denied the Pope
should not trade with his
subjects.’” 13 [Brackets mine: C.A.P.]
Ashworth identifies the Paulicians as Baptists when he cites
Evan’s Early English Baptists, vol. i, in his footnote and says in the
text,
“In the twelfth century thirty Baptists,
probably Paulicians, were
put to death at Oxford.” 14
By identifying the Paulicians
as Baptists Ashworth is saying that
the Baptists had a continual existence
although known at times by
other nicknames. Incidentally, he mentions
that during the reign
of Charles II, Baptists suffered more than
other groups because of
their open stand for religious and civil
liberty. He goes on to say,
“It was during that shameful reign that
Bunyan [ John Bunyan,
author of Pilgrim’s Progress] was
imprisoned, and Keach was
pilloried; and Abraham Cheare,
the beloved Pastor of this Church,
was ‘done to death’ on Drake’s Island.”
[Brackets mine: C.A.P.]
With regard to religious groups other than
Baptists Ashworth
sums up with,
“And most of the ‘other churches’ are ‘but
of yesterday’
compared with us. Neither the English
Episcopal Church nor the
Presbyterians can go back more than about
three hundred years;
the Independents trace their origin to the
Brownists of the latter
part of the sixteenth century; the
Wesleyans began with John Wesley,
about one hundred and forty years ago; and
the Plymouthists, of
every shade of opinion, are only of this
generation.” 15
What more can be demanded? Here is clear
testimony from
associational Baptists in England as to
the origin and continued
existence of Baptists from the days of the
apostles!
36 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
The Testimony of J.M. Cramp, D.D.
John M. Cramp, was born in England, July
25, 1796. He served
as pastor in London, the Isle of Thanet and Hastings, Sussex. He
“took charge in 1844 of the Baptist
college, Montreal, Canada;
became president of Acadia College, Nova
Scotia, in 1851, and
retired in 1869 from that position.” 16
Published in Canada, the following
statements by J.M. Cramp
are to the point. While we may not agree
with all Dr. Cramp’s
other conclusions, he declared,
“Christian history, in the first century,
was strictly and properly
Baptist history, although the word
“Baptist,” as a distinctive
appellation, was not then known. How could
it be? How was it
possible to call any Christians Baptist
Christians, when all were
Baptists?”
And with regard to that group of Baptists
referred to as Donatists,
Dr. Cramp wrote the following clear
testimony,
“In the fourth century the DONATISTS
raised the reform
standard. They constituted about one-half
of the Christian
population of Northern Africa. Purity was
their main object; they
also, as well as the Novatians,
called themselves CATHARI - the
PURE - PURITANS. Other men called them
DONATISTS, after
Donatus,
whose leadership they followed. Robert Robinson, a
learned writer of ecclesiastical history,
in the last century, says they
were ‘Trinitarian Baptists.’ The Rev.
Thomas Long, Prebendary of
Exeter, [a Church of England clergyman]
whose ‘History of the
Donatists’
was published in 1677, asserts that they ‘were generally
anabaptistical;
for they did not only rebaptize the adults that came
over to them, but refused to baptize
children, contrary to the practice
of the Church, as appears by several
discourses of St. Augustine,
(Page 103).’” [Brackets mine: C.A.P.]
Dr. Cramp points out that Augustine
opposed Anabaptists in
his day. Augustine lived from A.D. 354 to
430. Here we find
Augustine serving as another witness,
albeit an unwitting one, to
the antiquity of the Baptists!
Speaking of his own times, Cramp likens
Baptists of his day to
those in the Baptist succession known by
other names. He wrote,
“Every age brought to view champions for
the true and right:
and we Baptists are the Novatians, the Donatists, the Paulicians,
the Petrobrussians
of the nineteenth century.”
In answer to those who allege that the
aforementioned groups
were all heretics of the worst sort, Dr.
Cramp responds with,
“Some one starts up in dismay; - ‘Sir! all
those people were
37 The First Witness
heretics and schismatics!’
Hard words, these! But we have been
used to them. They called our Lord himself
a ‘Samaritan,’ and said
that ‘he had a devil.’ The fact is, that
the dominant part always
assumed to be the orthodox, and bade the
people believe that those
who differed from them were heretics.
Trinitarians were orthodox
in the days of Constantine, and the Arians
were banished. The
Arians were the orthodox in the next
reign, that of Constantius,
and then the Trinitarians were banished.
These alternations were
continually taking place. And so it comes
to this, that if you want to
trace the true church of God, you must
follow her down the line of
those who have been stigmatized, and their
names cast out as evil.
Patriotism has been oftener found at the
headsman’s block than in
kings’ palaces.’” 17
Clear words, indeed, from this Canadian
Baptist who knew the
origin of sound Baptist churches! Oh, that
today’s Canadian Baptists
knew these truths and stood with Brother
Cramp.
The Testimony of Thomas Crosby
Going farther back in time we call upon
another outstanding
Baptist to give his testimony in this
affair. While those previously
quoted lived during or after the middle
1800’s when “church truth”
became a much disputed issue in some
places, Crosby predates
that period of debate by more than a
hundred years! Let the words
of another speak of the work of this man
Thomas Crosby, who:
“...was a London Baptist of great
influence in our denomination.
He was married to a daughter of the
celebrated Benjamin Keach
and taught an advanced school for young
gentlemen. Being a Baptist
deacon for many years, he was selected to
make the usual statement
on behalf of the church when Dr. Gill was
ordained the pastor of
the church of which Mr. Crosby was a
member.
“Mr. Stinton,
the brother-in-law of Thomas Crosby, and the
predecessor of Dr. Gill, had collected
materials for a work on Baptist
history, which was never published. These
materials were given to
Crosby...” 18
It is worthy of note, as quoted above,
that Crosby was a respected
leader in his own church: a church of
considerable distinction and
whose leaders exercised much influence on
Baptist life. Notice
should also be taken that much material
was gathered by Mr. Stinton
and passed on to Mr. Crosby who published
his FIRST volume of
the History Of The English Baptists in
1738. Being criticized for using
“secondary sources,” Crosby then made
original investigations and
published other volumes. He wrote the
following in his second
38 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
volume after personal research and study.
“This great prophet John, had immediate
commission from
heaven, Luke iii 2, before he entered upon
the actual administration
of his office. And as the English Baptists
adhere closely to this
principle, that John the Baptist was by
divine command, the first
commissioned to preach the gospel, and
baptize by immersion,
those that receive it; and that this
practice has ever since been
maintained and continued in the world to
this present day; so it
may not be improper to consider the state
of religion in this
kingdom; it being agreed on all hands that
the plantation of the
gospel here was very early, even in the
Apostles days.” 19
Crosby candidly points out the beginning
of Scriptural baptism
and the perpetual existence of this
ordinance since its beginning.
Understanding that Baptists have
historically held the ordinances
to be church-ordinances, that is, that
they are to be observed in
and by a (local) church only, it follows
that the perpetuation of the
ordinances necessitates the perpetual
existence of Baptist churches.
Further, Brother Crosby testifies to the
gospel being brought to
Britain during the days of the apostles!
This is an important
consideration in the history of the Lord’s
churches.
The Testimony of Joseph Hooke
The next testimony from the Baptists
themselves will be from
the Englishman Joseph Hooke.
Again it should be noted that these
words were penned long before the dispute
over church succession
came along. Hooke’s
work, published in A.D. 1701, states:
“Thus having shewed
negatively, when this sect called
Anabaptists did not begin; we shall shew in the next place
affirmatively, when it did begin; for a
beginning it had, and it
concerns us to enquire for the fountain
head of this sect; for if it was
sure that it were no older than the
Munster fight... I would resolve
to forsake it, and would persuade others
to do so too. That religion
that is not as old as Christ and his
Apostles, is too new for me.
“But secondly, Affirmatively, we are fully
persuaded, and
therefore do boldly though humbly, assert,
that this sect is the very
same sort of people that were first called
Christians in Antioch,
Acts 11:26. But sometimes called
Nazarenes, Acts 24:5. And as they
are everywhere spoke against now, even as
they were in the
Primitive Times.
“And sometimes anciently they were called
Anabaptists, as they
have been of late times, and for the same
cause, for when others
innovated in the worship of God and
changed the subject in baptism,
39 The First Witness
they kept on their way, and men grew
angry, and for mending an
error, they called them Anabaptists, and
so they came by the name,
which is very ancient...” 20
The undeniable fact is that Joseph Hooke and other English
Baptists held to the view now known as
historic “Landmarkism.”
The fact that Hooke
lived more than 150 years before that nickname
was coined proves that while the nickname
“Landmarker”
originated then, the historic “Landmark”
view was not invented in
the mid-1800’s as some liberals contend.
Historic “Landmarkism”
holds the old view held by Baptists down
through the centuries.
The Testimony of John Gill, D.D.
Augustus Toplady,
author of the well-known hymn “Rock Of
Ages,” among others, gave this testimony
to our present witness:
“If any one man can be supposed to have
trod the whole circle of
human learning it was Gill.” 21 This
comment on the scholarship of
John Gill takes on a whole new light when
it is remembered that
Toplady
was a well-known and pious Church of England priest
who thought so much of Gill’s learning to
attend “frequently at a
week-night lecture of Dr. Gill’s!” 22 When
a Church of England
clergyman goes often to hear a Baptist
preach, that’s news!
John Gill produced a voluminous commentary
on the whole
Bible and A Body Of Doctrinal And
Practical Divinity, as theological
works were then known, as well as other
writings. He served as
pastor to the London church that was
earlier served by Benjamin
Keach
and later by C.H. Spurgeon. He wrote the following
concerning his understanding of the
churches of Christ hidden away
in some European mountains.
“...I should think the valleys of
Piedmont, which lie between
France and Italy, are intended, where God
has preserved, and
continued a set of witnesses to the truth,
in a succession, from the
beginning of the apostasy [sic] to the
present time, living in obscurity,
and in safety, so far as not to be utterly
destroyed...” 23
No one who is even slightly aware of the
history of that branch
of our Baptist forefathers kept hidden
away in the valleys of the
Piedmont, can doubt that Gill here speaks
of Baptist succession as
being continual from the days of the
apostles. No other inference
can be drawn from his statement! Had
“church truth” been a
problem and an issue among Baptists in
Gill’s day, he would have
doubtless had more to say.
The testimony of these Canadian, American
and English
Baptists prove that historic “Landmarkism” was not a view restricted
40 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
to some minor segment of Baptists. These
views did not originate
with - nor were they limited to - an
insignificant number of Baptists
located primarily “down south” in the
United States as has
sometimes been charged in an effort to
discredit them.
The “Landmark” view - by that we mean the
historic Baptist
view - asserts that Christ founded His
church during His earthly
ministry from persons prepared by John the
Baptist (Luke 1:16,
17). The historic view is that churches
issuing out from that first
church and of the same sort as that church
have existed in succession
ever since the first one. Sadly, some of
these men whom we have
called upon to testify were not always
consistent in all their practice
with this historic view, but the fact
remains that they held to such a
view! (This fact should spur modern
Baptists toward being
consistent!)
Of course the reason quasi-Baptists and
Protestants reject this
view is that to admit its veracity would “unbaptize” and “unchurch”
them. It would require them to submit to
“the baptism of John,” the
only baptism authorized by God and
therefore recognized in the
Scriptures as valid. Many are too proud to
admit error and abandon
man-made churches because of the social
stigma attached to strict
Baptist practice. Thus many are unwilling
to submit to the “baptism
of John.” There were some religionists in
Jesus’ day, like those of
our own, who would not submit to John’s
baptism at the hands of
Christ’s apostles. It was said of these
that they “rejected the counsel
of God against themselves, being not
baptized of him” (Luke 7:30).
CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM BAPTIST CLAIMS
The conclusions, at which all must arrive,
if our witnesses are
correct, are these:
(1) among the people now called Baptists
are to be found the
true churches of Christ:
(2) all other religious groups have too
recent a beginning, were
founded by some man and consequently are
not churches of Christ
at all:
(3) all other religious groups lack Divine
authority to administer
and perpetuate the ordinances or to carry
out the commission.
Therefore the baptisms of all other
religious groups are null and
void of any Heavenly recognition though
they may carry much
weight with religiously inclined people of
this present time.
A narrow and bigoted view, you say?
Indeed, in our day of
looseness, liberalism and religious
inclusiveness, it may seem so.
This historic Baptist view is the very view
so hated by the religionists
41 The First Witness
of days gone by. It is just as detested by
many in today’s man-made
churches. It is certainly hated by the
ecumenical minded aiming at
forming a one-world “church”. The
unwillingness of Baptists to
concede that man-made churches are just as
good as the church
that Christ built brings down the wrath of
those who think their
organization as good as Christ’s. Surely
every true Christian will
admit that a church that follows the Bible
is better than one which
does not. (By that we do not mean that the
people are “better,” but
that it is better to obey God’s Word than
to discard it.) This “narrow
and bigoted” view is the view held by our
“Anabaptist” fathers of
bygone days and is the view held
consistently by significant numbers
of Baptists of all generations. It is the
view held by Baptists in the
early days of American when their growth
and influence was the
greatest. We cannot help but think that
this view which set Baptists
apart from others is one reason for their
great growth and influence
on society.
Example 1: Abraham Booth
Long before healthy Baptists were
nicknamed “Landmarkers”
we find Baptists writing and speaking in
defense of the old historic
view which is now so hated. In A.D. 1778
Abraham Booth, an
English Baptist, wrote a volume entitled,
A Defense for the Baptists in
Which They Are Vindicated from the
Imputation of Laying an
Unwarrantable Stress on the Ordinance of
Baptism and Against the Charge
of Bigotry in Refusing Communion at the
Lord’s Table to Pedobaptists.
While such lengthy titles are no longer in
vogue, this one speaks
volumes to our point. Baptists in 1778
thought Scriptural baptism
to be essential to church fellowship. They
would not admit that
baby baptizers were baptized. Therefore they
would not admit them
to membership in Baptist churches based on
their infant “baptisms”
and consequently would not allow them to
partake of the Lord’s
Table in Baptist churches.
Example 2: John Spittlehouse
and John More
In A.D. 1652, more than 125 years previous
to Abraham Booth’s
writing, two English Baptists, John Spittlehouse and John More
published a volume entitled A Vindication
of the Continued Succession
of the Primitive Church of Jesus Christ
(Now Scandalously Termed
Anabaptists) from the Apostles Unto this
Present Time.24 Here we have
another lengthy title according to the
style of the day, but which
witnesses clearly concerning historic
Baptist belief about themselves
and their churches.
42 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
While modern Baptists would not agree,
perhaps, with some
interpretations of prophecy held by Spittlehouse and More, ten
important points were clearly maintained
by them in this little
volume. They vigorously held:
1. That the true or Primitive Church of
Jesus Christ was extant
in their day (A.D. 1652) in England and
was then slanderously
nicknamed “anabaptist.”
2. That Christ’s Churches have never been
a part of nor in
communion with the false churches.
3. That Christ’s Church has had a
continual succession and
therefore a continual existence since He
founded it.
4. That true Churches are visible
societies of saints following
the practices, patterns and teachings of
the apostles.
5. That these true Churches have preserved
the ordinances
(baptism and the supper) of Jesus Christ since
He gave them.
6. That Catholicism and Protestantism
originated from the same
source.
7. That Roman Catholicism is the Harlot
and Protestant
Churches are the Daughters of the Harlot,
neither being Churches
of Christ.
8. That Catholic priests and Protestant
ministers have no valid
ordinations and are not ministers of
Christ.
9. That the “Protestant Reformation” was
not of God, but
resulted in false churches being formed
and that these false churches
were compromised in doctrine and practice
with Rome.
10. That there was no need for a
“Reformation” inasmuch as
Christ’s Churches never all went into
apostasy.
Surely no one can be aware of such
writings as this and honestly
maintain that mainline Baptists have
thought themselves to be a
Protestant sect originating during the
so-called Reformation. Sound
Baptists have continually maintained that
it is among themselves
that the true churches established by
Christ are to be found! Baptists
in every generation since the apostles
have consistently maintained
that their origin was older than
themselves!
The evidence is clear: Baptists of earlier
times recognized that
individuals in other churches might be
saved, safe and going to
Heaven, but they refused to recognize
these other religious groups
as churches of Christ. They would not
accept their immersions as
Scriptural. It is important that the
reader realize that Baptists of
days past took issue with other groups not
over the mode of baptism
but over the matter of which church had
authority from God to
baptize.
The
First Witness
The historic leaders of all major
religious groups agreed that
immersion was the original mode of
baptism.25 Even John Wesley
(1703-1791) refused to sprinkle babies
unless they were “weak or
sickly,” but rather insisted on immersing
them according to the
Church of England rule of his day!
Obviously, then, the contention
with Baptists was not over mode, but
authority! This cannot be
stated too strongly. The facts are these.
All mainline Protestant and
Catholic groups historically immersed except
in instances of
sickness, etc., hence they called
sprinkling “clinic baptism” (on those
few occasions when allowed). The old
Baptists took issue with
Catholics and Protestants alike, not
because they sprinkled - for
they seldom did - but rather because, they
viewed the Catholics as
apostates and the Protestants as man-made
organizations. Old
Baptists held that neither could be a true
church of Christ and
therefore refused to recognize their
“administrations,” i.e.
ordinances, as valid, regardless of mode.
The Baptists of days gone by counted the
members of both
Protestant and Catholic groups as unbaptized! This is the view and
practice of a multitude of Baptist
churches of our own day and, we
believe, the Scriptural view.
Baptists maintain that a view, be it ever
so narrow, is not bigotry
IF that view is true according to
Scripture. Thus sound Baptists have
always held to the Scripture as the ONLY
rule of faith and practice.
May it ever be so!
Let no one say that this “narrow” view was
a minority view
held only by a few Baptists. Baptists
maintain, and have ever
maintained, that they have Christ as their
Founder. They maintain
they have perpetually existed since He
built the first church. They
insist that they have remained separate
and pure from all man-made
“churches.” This uniqueness can be the
only foundation for
their continued existence.
To teach that Baptists are merely a sect
within Protestantism is
to sow the seeds of Baptist annihilation.
Indeed, if Baptist churches
are merely man-made organizations, let
them cease their separate
existence and join with the Protestant
“evangelical” churches. If
Baptist churches are merely a sect within
Protestantism there is no
valid reason for Baptist separateness. If,
however, their existence is
apostolical
and their faith and practice Biblical, let them continue
to “earnestly contend for the faith once
delivered to the saints” ( Jude 3).
44 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
NOTES
1. John T. Christian, A HISTORY OF THE
BAPTISTS (Texarkana, Bogard
Press, 1922), Vol. 1, p. 5, 6.
2. T. G. Jones wrote the following books:
THE DUTIES OF PASTORS TO
CHURCHES, (Charleston, Southern Baptist
Publication Society): THE
BAPTISTS: THEIR ORIGIN, CONTINUITY,
PRINCIPLES, SPIRIT,
POLITY, POSITION, AND INFLUENCE. A
VINDICATION, (Philadelphia,
American Baptist Publication Society); THE
GREAT MISNOMER, OR THE
LORD’S SUPPER RESCUED FROM THE PERVERSION
OF ITS
ORIGINAL DESIGN, (Philadelphia, Griffith
& Rowland Press).
3. William Cathcart,
THE BAPTIST ENCYCLOPEDIA, (Philadelphia, Louis
H. Everts,
1881), [reprinted by The Baptist Standard Bearer, Paris, AR., 1988] pp.
620, 621.
4. T. G. Jones, THE BAPTISTS: THEIR
ORIGIN, CONTINUITY,
PRINCI PLES, SPIRIT, POLITY, POSITION, AND
INFLUENCE. A
VINDICATION. (Philadelphia, American
Baptist Publication Society, n.d.), pp.
23, 24, 25.
5. Joseph Belcher, THE RELIGIOUS
DENOMINATIONS IN THE
UNITED STATES, New and Revised Ed.,
(Philadelphia, John E. Potter, 1861), p.
120.
6. Belcher, ibid., p. 124.
7. Joseph Belcher, RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS
IN EUROPE AND
AMERICA, p. 53, [quoted by J.R. Graves,
OLD LANDMARKISM, Second
Edition, Texarkana, Bogard
Press, 1881], p. 86.
8. William Cathcart,
op cit, p. 74.
9. C.H. Spurgeon,
Texas, Pilgrim Publications, 1973
reprint), p. 66.
10. C.H. Spurgeon, METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE
PULPIT, Vol. 7,
1861 (Pasadena, Texas, Pilgrim
Publications, 1973 reprint), p. 225
11. Spurgeon, ibid., Vol. 7, p. 613.
12. Spurgeon, ibid., Vol. 27, p. 249.
13. John W. Ashworth, BAPTIST PRINCIPLES
Yates & Alexander, 1880), pp. 6, 7, 8.
14. Ashworth, ibid.
15. Ashworth, ibid.
16. Cathcart, op
cit, p. 286.
17. J.M. Cramp, D.D. THE CASE OF THE
BAPTISTS, STATED
EXPLAINED, ADDRESSED TO
N.S., “Christian Messenger” Office, 1873),
pp. 3-5, 10.
18. Cathcart,
op. cit., pp. 296, 297.
19. Thomas Crosby, A HISTORY OF THE
BAPTISTS, Vol. II, p. ii.
20. Joseph Hooke,
A NECESSARY APOLOGY FOR THE BAPTIZED
BELIEVERS, (London, 1701), p. 66.
21. THE BIBLICAL
GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY, (Ashland, KY., Calvary
Baptist Church, n.d.), p. 24.
45 The First Witness
22. Cathcart,
op. cit., p. 454.
23. John Gill, GILL’S EXPOSITOR, (London,
Matthews & Leigh, 1809),
Vol. VIII, p. 691: [quoted in the Berea
Baptist Banner, Mantachie, Mississippi,
November & December issues, 1987.]
24. Spittlehouse
and More, A VINDICATION OF THE CONTINUED
SUCCESSION OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH OF
JESUS CHRIST (
SCANDALOUSLY TERMED ANABAPTISTS) FROM THE
APOSTLES