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
UNTO THIS PRESENT TIME, (London, Gartrude Dawson, 1652).
The only original copy of this volume
known to exist is located in the Samuel
Colgate Memorial Library, American Baptist
Historical Society, Rochester, New
York.
A VINDICATION OF THE CONTINUED
SUCCESSION..., in
modernized spelling and format, is
included in the back of this present volume as
APPENDIX II.
25. Bow, op cit, p. 27, furnishes the
following information.
“John Calvin, the founder of the
Presbyterian church, in its present form,
said: ‘The very word baptize, itself,
signifies to immerse; and it is certain that
immersion was observed by the ancient
church.’
“Commenting on the baptism of the eunuch,
he [Calvin] says:
‘Here we perceive how baptism was
administered among the ancients, for
they immersed the whole body in water.’
“John Wesley, founder of Methodism, on
‘We are buried with him, alluding to the
ancient manner of baptizing by
immersion.’
“Martin Luther says:
‘For to baptize in Greek is to dip, and
baptizing is dipping. Being moved by
this reason, I would have those who are to
be baptized to be altogether dipped
into the water, as the word doth express,
and as the mystery doth signify.’ (Works.
Wittemb.
Ed., vol. 2, p. 79.) [For political reasons, no doubt, Luther changed his
mind and went along with Rome.]
“Cardinal Gibbons, Roman Catholic, says:
‘For several centuries after the
establishment of Christianity, baptism was
usually conferred by immersion, but since
the twelfth century the practice of
baptizing by effusion has prevailed in the
Catholic church, as this manner is
attended with less inconvenience than
baptism by immersion.’ - Faith of Our
Fathers, p. 275.
“The Encyclopedia Britannica, in the
article ‘Baptism,’ vol.3, p. 351, says:
‘The usual mode of performing the ceremony
was by immersion... The council
of Ravenna, in 1311, was the first council
of the [Roman Catholic] church to legalize
sprinkling by leaving it to the choice of
the officiating minister.’”
[Brackets mine: C.A.P.].
46 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
Chapter Three
THE SECOND WITNESS
THE TESTIMONY OF
NON-BAPTISTS
In opposing the old Baptists and their
Biblical doctrines and
practices, both Catholics and Protestants
have unwittingly given
witness to the perpetual existence of the
very people they wished
to extinguish. They have mentioned in
their writings that there
existed churches that would not conform to
the wishes of the party
in power. Churches outside the
“established church” are mentioned:
churches whose members refused to submit
to non-Biblical teaching
and polity.
The Catholics and Protestants (depending
on which group was
in power at the time) called themselves
“orthodox” and all others
“heretics,” especially the Baptists. They
falsely accused our Baptist
forefathers of the grossest sins: things
too disgusting and mean to
be believed. These powerful religious
interests categorized our
Baptist forefathers with the worst of
heretics because they refused
to compromise the truth of God.
We do not intend that the reader should
think that all whom
the Catholics or Protestants termed
heretics were necessarily sound
Baptists. However, we do understand that
from among those groups
thus stigmatized are to be found our
Baptist forefathers and that
they are a scarlet cord of witness for
Christ. Our second witness,
then, shall be the unsolicited and
sometimes antagonistic testimony
of those outside Baptist ranks.
The Testimony of Heinrich Bullinger
Heinrich (sometimes Henry) Bullinger (1504-1575), Protestant
Swiss reformer, first aided then succeeded
Zwingli in the work of
the Protestant Reformation. Bullinger hated the Anabaptists. He
opposed them in every way possible, even
unto persecution. He
wrote:
“...anabaptism
is... as contrary as can be to the doctrine of Christ
and His Apostles: truly it is no marvel
that the obstinate Anabaptists
47 The Second Witness
are kept under and punished by common
laws. For otherwise these
things are damnable, and not to be
dissembled or suffered of a
christian
magistrate.” 1
Here he calls upon every “christian magistrate” to punish the
anabaptists
of his day! In other comments about these anabaptists
he unwittingly gave testimony as to their
ancient origin by citing
the opposition to “re-baptizers” on the
part of the Caesars as follows:
“Now, I think it not labour
lost to speak somewhat of
anabaptism.
In the time that Decius and Gallus Caesar were
Emperors, there arose a question in the
parts of Africa of rebaptising
heretics; and St. Cyprian, and the rest of
the Bishops, being
assembled together in the council of
Carthage, liked well of
anabaptism...
Against the Donatists St. Augustine, with other
learned
men, disputed. There is also an Imperial
Law made by Honorius
and Theodosius, that holy Baptism should
not be iterated [repeated].
Justinian Caesar hath published the same,
in Cod. lib. I. Tit. 6, in
these words. ‘If any Minister of the
Catholic Church be detected to
have rebaptised
any, let both him which committed the
unappeasable offence, (if at least by age
he be punishable) and he,
also, that is won and persuaded thereunto,
suffer punishment of
death.’” 2 [Brackets mine: C.A.P.]
Decius
lived from about A.D. 201-251 and was “The first
[Roman Emperor] to launch organized
persecution against the
Christians.” 3 Bullinger
testifies that as early as the third century
A.D. the apostate church opposed the anabaptists! What a testimony
to the ancient age of persons holding
Baptist views!
Gallus Caesar (Gallerius)
lived from about A.D. 201-311 and
“was probably responsible for initiating
the persecution against
Christians in 303.” 4 Persecution by the
preceding emperor, Decius,
failed to destroy anabaptism!
It was still present according to
Bullinger’s
testimony, in Africa at least, into the fourth century.
Justinian Caesar (A.D. 483-565) was “Roman
emperor from
527... He established many churches and
monasteries...” 5 Implicit
in Bullinger’s
testimony is this: by the 6th century after Christ,
apostate churches had joined with imperial
Rome in outlawing
anabaptism
as a capital offense. Bullinger furnishes unwitting
testimony to the pre-Reformation existence
of persons holding
Baptist views outside of the state church!
Bullinger
is quoted as having stated early on in the Reformation:
“The Anabaptists think themselves to be
the only true church
of Christ and acceptable unto God and
teach that they who by
baptism are received into their churches
ought not to have any
48 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
communion [fellowship] with [those called]
evangelical or any other,
whatsoever, for that our [i.e. evangelical
Protestant, or reformed]
churches are not true churches any more
than the Papists.” 6
We believe this to be an accurate
statement of Baptist views.
Baptists are not about to admit that a
church that does not follow
the Bible is as good as a church which
does! Similarly, Baptists
maintain that a church started by Christ
and faithful to Him must
of necessity be approved of God rather
than any man-made society
even though it may call itself ‘Christ’s
Church.’
The Testimony of Peter Allix,
D.D.
Between A.D. 800 and 1000, some European
Anabaptists were
ridiculed with the name “Waldenses” from their geographic location
in the valleys of the Alps. Some were also
nicknamed “Cathari”
which means “pure ones” - this because
they insisted on a regenerate
church membership evidenced by holy
living. Peter Allix (A.D.
1641-1717) was a learned scholar and
historian of the Church of
England. He furnishes us a list of
thirty-three errors charged against
this people by the Jacobite
priest Raynerius. While some of the
charges are doubtless false and others are
“twisted truth,” the
following excerpts indicate the doctrine
and practice of these
Baptists:
“...THEY
CHURCH OF CHRI ST and his disciples. They
declare
themselves... to have apostolic authority
and the keys of binding
and loosing. They hold the Church of Rome
to be the Great Whore
of Babylon [mentioned in Revelation
chapters 17, 18] and all that
obey her are damned... They hold that none
of the ordinances of
the [Roman Catholic] Church, that have
been introduced since
Christ’s ascension ought to be observed,
as being of no worth: the
feasts, fasts, orders, blessings, offices
of the [Roman Catholic]
Church, and the like, they utterly
reject... THEY SAY, THAT
THEN FI
RECEIVED INTO THEIR SECT... They do not
believe the body
and blood of Christ to be the true
sacrament, but only blessed bread,
which by a figure only is called the body
of Christ, in like manner
as it is said, “and the rock was Christ,”
and such like... According to
them there is no purgatory; and all that
die do immediately pass
either into heaven or hell. That therefore
the prayers of the [Roman
Catholic] Church for the dead are of no
use... They hold, that the
saints in heaven do not hear the prayers
of the faithful, or regard
the honors which are done to them... They
add, that the saints do
49 The Second Witness
not pray for us... Wherefore also they
deride all the festivals which
we celebrate in honor of the saints, and
all other instances of our
veneration for them... They do not observe
Lent or other fasts of
the [Roman Catholic] Church... They do not
receive the Old
Testament; but the Gospel only, that they
may not be overthrown
by it, but rather be able to defend
themselves therewith; pretending,
that upon the coming of the Gospel, all
old things are to be laid
aside.” 7 [Brackets & emphasis mine:
C.A.P.]
These Baptists lived hundreds of years 8
before the Protestant
Reformation. They remained separate from
the Romish church and
maintained the same church doctrine and
practice for which sound
Baptists stand even to this very day. We,
like them, do not regard a
person as baptized or a member of Christ’s
church until and unless
he or she is baptized on the authority of
Christ as delegated to one
of His New Testament Baptist churches.
The Testimony of Ulrich Zwingli
Ulrich (or Huldrych)
Zwingli, Swiss Reformer, (1484-1531) was
contemporary with Luther and Calvin. The
Council of the city of
Zurich, Switzerland (doubtless acting
under Zwingli’s leadership
for there was then a union of church and
civil government) “...took
the drastic step of decreeing death by
drowning as the penalty for
all those who persisted in the heresy” of anabaptism. 9
He gives testimony to the Anabaptists who
caused both the
Protestants and the Catholics great consternation
because of their
refusal to compromise with either
“established” church. Hear this:
“The institution of Anabaptism is no
novelty, but for thirteen
hundred years has caused great disturbance
in the church, and has
acquired such a strength that the attempt
in this age to contend
with it appears futile for a time.” 10
This statement takes Baptists back to the
third century! The third
century is NOT the time of the beginning
of the Baptists. The third
century is near about the time when some
apostate congregations
began mixing Old Testament priesthood
ideas with paganism under
Christian names to form what is now known
as the Catholic church.
Zwingli testifies to the faithfulness of
our Baptist forefathers in
opposing the wicked innovations of
apostate Rome from her
beginning. Baptist doctrine and practice,
founded as it is on the
Scriptures alone, could not be destroyed.
Neither unscriptural
teachings of man’s manufacture nor the
sword of civil power could
destroy the truth. The frustrated fury of
those who had no support
from the Bible for their pernicious
doctrines and traditions resulted
50 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
in the persecution of those who held the
truth.
The Testimony of Cardinal Hosius
Roman Catholic Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius (see glossary) (1504-
1579) was one of the most significant
figures of the Roman Catholic
“Counter Reformation.” He was official
representative of the pope
and presiding officer of the Council of
Trent (see glossary). Of the
Anabaptists he said:
“If the truth of religion were to be
judged by the readiness and
cheerfulness which a man of any sect shows
in suffering, the opinions
and persuasions of no sect can be truer or
surer than those of the
Anabaptists, whence there have been none
for these twelve hundred
years past that have been more grievously
punished, or that have
more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone
and even offered
themselves to the most cruel sorts of
punishment than these people.”
11
Again the Cardinal gives his unsolicited
and clear testimony to
the perpetuity of the Lord’s churches when
he says of our Baptist
forefathers:
“Were it not that the Baptists have been
grievously tormented
and cut off with the knife during the past
twelve hundred years
they would swarm in greater numbers than
all the reformers.” 12
The Cardinal takes Baptists back to at
least A.D. 350 - just after
Constantine united the secular government
with apostate churches.
Hosius
is really saying that as long as the Romish church
has existed
there have been Baptist churches that
opposed her heresies. And
this in spite of vigorous and violent
attempts to exterminate them.
We heartily agree with the Cardinal.
Baptists were already in
existence when Romanism came into being!
The Testimony of An Educated Host
J. Cardinal Gibbons, Primate of the Roman
Catholic Church
in America; Patrick J. Healy, D.D.,
Catholic University of America;
Theodore Roosevelt, LL.D., Associate
Editor, “The Outlook” and
former President of the United States of
America; and some eleven
other eminent scholars served as
contributors to the volume entitled
Crossing the Centuries.
This popular history was edited by William
C. King and
copyrighted in 1912. Mr. King advertised
to bring forward, among
other things, “The Development of
Literature, Religions,
Philosophies...” and stated that he was
“Assisted by the Editorial
Counsel and Special Contributions of
College Presidents, Leading
51 The Second Witness
Educators, Distinguished Divines, Eminent
Authors, Literary
Specialists, Historians, Archaeologists,
Sociologists, Scientists, State
and National Officials, State Librarians
and Bibliographers.”
This educated host of men and women gave
the histories of
various religious denominations then known
in North America.
Regarding the Baptists this volume states:
“Of the Baptists it may be said that they
are not reformers.
These people, comprising bodies of
Christian believers known
under various names in different
countries, are entirely distinct and
independent of the Roman and Greek
churches, have had an
unbroken continuity of existence from
Apostolic days down through
the centuries. Throughout this long period
they were bitterly
persecuted for heresy, driven from country
to country, disfranchised,
deprived of their property, imprisoned,
tortured and slain by the
thousands, yet they swerved not from their
New Testament Faith,
Doctrine and Adherence.
“The extreme conditions of the Reformation
served to develop
an organized denominational unity among
the Baptists in
Switzerland in 1523, which extended into
Germany, then spread to
Holland and other countries of Europe,
also to England and Wales.
The Baptist church of modern times may
properly claim its
“organized” denominational activities as
beginning with the
Switzerland movement.” 13
What a testimony! We make no claim other
than this: true New
Testament churches holding and following
basic, Biblical, Baptist
principles have existed from the days of
Christ’s earthly ministry
down to the present time. Those principles
caused them to require
baptism at the hands of a baptized man
with connection to a New
Testament kind of church.
The Testimony of Robert Barclay
Robert Barclay, a Scottish apologist for
the Society of Friends
(Quakers), lived from 1648-1690. Barclay,
along with eleven others,
was granted a patent for the province of
East New Jersey by the
Duke of York. This notable man was then
appointed governor.
Barclay’s collected works were published
posthumously in 1692
under the title Truth Triumphant Through
the Spiritual Warfare. The
preface to this work was written by
William Penn, for whom
Pennsylvania was named. Barclay reports
the following concerning
the Baptists:
“We shall afterwards show that the rise of
the Anabaptists took
place prior to the reformation of the
Church of England, and there
52 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
are also reasons for believing that on the
continent of Europe small
hidden Christian societies, who have held
many of the opinions of the
Anabaptists, have existed from the times
of the apostles. In the sense
of the direct transmission of divine
truth, and the true nature of spiritual
religion, it seems probable that these
churches have a lineage or
succession more ancient than that of the
Roman Church.” 14
Barclay’s testimony certainly supports the
old Baptist claim to
their direct connection with the first
church! The testimony of this
respected individual carries much weight
not only because of his
position, but also because, as a Quaker,
he was not connected with
the Baptists. Thus he had no interest in
promoting them or their
cause.
The Testimony of John Lawrence von
Mosheim, D.D.
More properly spelled Johann Laurenz von Mosheim (see
glossary), this candid and noteworthy
Lutheran wrote:
“The true origin of that sect which
acquired the denomination
of the Anabaptists, by their administering
anew the rite of baptism
to those who came over to their communion,
and derived that of
Mennonites from that famous man, to whom
they owe the greatest
part of their present felicity, is hid in
the remote depths of antiquity,
and is consequently extremely difficult to
be ascertained.” 15
Modern Baptists and Mennonites share a
kindred ancestry in
some instances, although the Mennonites
have swerved, in many
instances, from the truth. Thus von
Mosheim’s testimony bears
directly on the origin of those people
called in our day “Baptists.”
The Testimony of David Masson
Masson was professor at the University of
Edinburgh and lived
from 1822-1907. This Scottish literary
critic and biographer wrote
the six-volume Life of John Milton as well
as other biographies.
Concerning the Baptists he wrote:
“The Baptists were by far the most
numerous of the sectaries.
Their enemies... were fond of tracing them
to the anarchical German
Anabaptists of the Reformation; but they
themselves claimed a
higher origin. They maintained, as
Baptists still do, that in the
primitive or apostolic church the only
baptism practiced or heard
of was an immersion in water; and they
maintained further that the
baptism of infants was one of the
corruptions of Christianity against
which there had been a continued protest
by pure and forward
spirits in different countries, in ages
prior to Luther’s Reformation,
including some of the English Wyclifites, although the protest may
53 The Second Witness
have been repeated in a louder manner, and
with wild admixtures,
by the German Anabaptists who gave Luther
so much trouble.” 16
True Baptists continue to maintain that
the ONLY baptism
according to Scripture is immersion in
water - just as Paul wrote of
the “one baptism” in
administered only to repentant believers
in Christ. Neither a
different mode, subject, motive nor
administrator than those
exemplified in the Scripture will satisfy
those who follow the Bible.
And since Baptists refuse to accept as
true the innovation of Luther
- an invisible church - we have no need of
an invisible “baptism”
into it.
We understand
to refer to the one baptism inaugurated by
John the Baptist. Those
who believe
do so at the peril of forcing themselves
into a corner in which they
must believe in more than one baptism.
Usually they try to link 1
Cor. 12:13 with the prophecy of
John (
that Christ would baptize IN THE SPIRIT on
Pentecost, which
He did.
RATHER THAT THE HOLY GHOST WOULD BE THE
ACTING AGENT - quite a different thing
altogether. Thus those
who try to hold this view have TWO
“invisible” baptisms. One
with Christ as administrator and the other
with the Holy Spirit acting
as administrator. We insist that
Ghost leads believers to be baptized just
as Simeon “came by the
Spirit” into the temple in
Spirit” in 1 Corinthians with “came by the
Spirit” in Luke. No
student of the Bible understands that
Simeon was somehow
supernaturally carried through the air
into the temple, nor is it sound
exegesis to say that the Spirit
supernaturally immerses anyone. We
do understand that the Holy Spirit leads
men to seek the truth and
submit to Scriptural baptism just as the
Spirit led Simeon to go into
the temple at the right moment to see the
infant Christ.
Protestants are forced to believe in two
or three baptisms for
this age. They believe in (1) water
baptism as there are just too
many clear Scriptures to deny it. They
believe in (2) the baptism in
the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost - Charismatics and
Pentecostals insist this event has often
been repeated though they
can furnish no data for such claimed
recurrences. Protestants also
usually believe in (3) believers being
somehow baptized into the
invisible church by the Holy Spirit. Shame
on anyone who
knowingly tries to defend such a forced
interpretation as Protestants
54 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
do with
baptism” doctrine on only
that of disputed meaning! Baptists believe
in “
FAITH,
BECAUSE the Bible says it! Which will you
believe, reader, the
teachings of men or the simple Word of
God?
The Testimony of Alexander Campbell
Alexander Campbell, founder of the various
Campbellite groups
now known as “The Churches of Christ,”
“The Disciples,” “The
Christian Churches,” etc., in his debate
with MacCalla, a
Presbyterian, had this word of testimony
for the Baptists:
“...from the apostolic age to the present
time, the sentiments of
Baptists, and the practice of baptism has
had a continued chain of
advocates, and public monuments of their
existence in every century
can be produced.” 17
What need we add to Mr. Campbell’s
statement?
The Testimony of John Clark Ridpath
John C. Ridpath
was a well-respected American educator and
historian. Born in 1840, he lived until
1900. He was, for 16 years,
associated with what is now De Pauw University in Indiana. There
he held the professorship of
belles-letters, of history, and of political
philosophy. He also served as
vice-president of De Pauw, his alma
mater. He resigned this office in 1885 to
devote the remainder of
his life to writing. He is known for his
monumental work, History of
the World, as well as numerous other works
of various sorts. He was
a Methodist in his denominational
affiliation. He wrote:
“I should not readily admit that there was
a Baptist Church as
far back as A.D. 100, although without
doubt there were Baptists
then, as all Christians were then
Baptists.” 18
It seems logical that if all Christians
were Baptists in A.D. 100,
then their churches would have been
Baptist churches. It is
unthinkable that such a principled people
as the Baptists would
organize churches contrary to their
principles! No doubt Mr.
Ridpath,
in saying there was not “a Baptist Church” in A.D. 100,
referred to an organized group of Baptist
churches as some have
formed in recent times. Usually these
organizations are understood
by the public at large to be “The Baptist
Church” although such a
thing does not exist and never has
existed. As Southern Baptist
Convention preacher and author J.G. Bow
wrote:
“Baptists, following the New Testament
pattern, have no
55 The Second Witness
aggregate known as ‘The Baptist Church.’
Like the apostles and
early Christians we have churches...
“Errors in the formation and government of
churches lead to
errors in doctrine and practice. Baptists
believe the New Testament
plan to be good enough, and hence we cling
to the scriptural form
and government. Jesus commanded (Matt.
18:17) to tell a certain
kind of grievance to the church, after
other divinely given measures
had failed.
“Imagine an Episcopalian, a Methodist,
Presbyterian, or
Catholic attempting to obey the
injunction, and telling his grievance
to his church.” 19
We are in hearty agreement that there was
no such man-made
organization of churches in A.D. 100 nor
is there any Scriptural
warrant for their existence now. We
further agree with Mr. Ridpath
concerning first-century Christians, that
“all Christians were then
Baptists.”
The Testimony of Sir Isaac Newton
Sir Isaac Newton, English scientist,
mathematician, philosopher,
student of the Scriptures and of history
said:
“The modern Baptists formerly called
Anabaptists are the only
people that never symbolized with the
Papacy.” 20
“Symbolize” in its older usage meant to
resemble, represent or
make to agree. In this Newton is saying
that the Baptists are unique
in that they were never connected with the
Roman Catholic Church.
Baptists maintain that they existed BEFORE
the Catholic apostasy
took place; that they existed ALONGSIDE
Catholicism after her
formation; and that they existed APART
from Catholicism. Sound
Baptists who understand their history and
their principles would
never maintain that they originated during
or after the Protestant
“Reformation.”
The Testimony of Drs. Ypeij
and Dermout
Dr. A. Ypeij was
Professor of Theology at Graningen. Along
with Dr. J.J. Dermout,
Chaplain to the king of Holland, he received
a royal commission to prepare a history of
the Dutch Reformed
Church in 1819. This history, prepared
under royal sanction, and
officially published, contains the
following testimony to the antiquity
and orthodoxy of the Baptists:
“We have now seen that the Baptists, who
were formerly called
Anabaptists, and in later times, Mennonites,
were the original
Waldenses...
On this account, the Baptists may be considered as
56 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
the only religious community which has
stood since the days of the
apostles, and as a Christian society which
has preserved pure the
doctrines of the gospel through all ages.
The perfectly correct
external and internal economy of the
Baptist denomination tends
to confirm the truth, disputed by the Romish Church, that the
Reformation brought about in the sixteenth
century was in the
highest degree necessary, and at the same
time goes to refute the
erroneous notion of the Catholics, that
their denomination is the
most ancient.” 21
The words of these two Dutch scholars is
certainly clear. No
elucidation is required!
SUMMARY OF THE TESTIMONY OF NON-BAPTISTS
Thus we conclude our brief look at a
sampling of non-Baptist
witnesses. We have heard the testimony of
Presbyterian, Methodist,
Lutheran, Quaker, Church of England, and
Dutch Reformed
Protestants, as well as the testimony of
Roman Catholics. They all
give witness to the continual existence of
persons holding Baptist
principles and observing Baptist practices
in Baptist churches from
ancient times until the present.
Their testimonies combine to provide what
would be considered
incontrovertible evidence in a court of
law! They testify to the
apostolic origin of those churches
practicing New Testament
principles found among the people called
Baptists today.
Doubtless, ignorance of the Bible is the
reason some of these
non-Baptists stood against John’s baptism
and Christ’s church. (See
Matt. 22:29.) However, history records
that many non-Baptists of
by-gone days remained in the churches of
their own or some other
man’s manufacture because of vested
interests! It would have cost
them too much to follow Christ completely!
They followed the
Bible until they saw their prospects were
painful and then left off
following it in order to follow the path
of expediency. What an
awful thing to have knowingly rejected the
truth of God concerning
His church - that church which Christ
loved and gave Himself for -regardless
of the reason!
While these “great Reformers” are held in
the highest regard
by some, it is feared that when they give
account of themselves to
God, it will be quite a different matter.
You and I, reader, will also
give account to God for our actions and
religious loyalties. Do we
think to commend ourselves to God and His
will by rejecting His
church, His baptism and His truth? May God
give grace to all,
57 The Second Witness
both writer and reader, to learn of Him
and follow His Word in
pattern and principle as well as precept.
NOTES
1. Henry Bullinger,
SERMONS ON THE SACRAMENTS, (Cambridge,
University Press for T. Stevenson, London,
1811), p. 189.
2. Bullinger,
ibid., pp. 186, 187.
3. J. D. Douglas, Walter A. Elwell, & Peter Toon, THE
CONCISE
DICTIONARY OF THE CHRI STIAN TRADITION,
(Grand Rapids,
Zondervan,
1989), p. 119.
4. Douglas, Elwell,
& Toon, ibid., p. 162.
5. Douglas, Elwell,
& Toon, ibid., p. 213.
6. Heinrich Bullinger,
(Graves, OLD LANDMARKISM, Texarkana, Bogard
Press, 1881 ed.), p. 115.
7. Pierre Allix,
D.D., THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF THE
ANCIENT CHURCHES OF PIEDMONT originally
published in 1690,
(reprinted at Oxford, Clarendon Press,
1821), [reprinted by Church History
Research & Archives, Gallatin, TN,
1989], pp. 209-212.
8. James Murdock, translator of Mosheim,
though opposing the view of
Rainerius
Saccho, a 13th century enemy of the Cathari, nevertheless quotes him
as follows regarding the Waldensian Baptists:
“Their sect has been the most injurious of
all to the church of God on account
of their antiquity; for they, according to
some, originated in the times of the Roman
bishop Silvester
in the fourth century; and according to others, existed as early as
the days of the apostles.” [Rainerius Saccho, LIEBER
[in the Biblioth.
Patrum, tom. xxv., p. 262, &c.] quoted by James
Murdock, footnote
in his translation of John Lawrence von
Mosheim, INSTITUTES OF
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, (Boston,
Scriptural Tract Repository, 1892), Vol.
II, p. 27.}
Murdock opposed the apostolic origin of
the Baptists, but was forced to admit
the Waldensians
were of ancient origin as follows:
“...it has long been admitted that for
centuries there had existed in the valleys
of Piedmont various sorts of people, who
were not in communion with the Romish
church.” ibid. p. 27.
Surely no honest and informed person can
doubt the apostolic origin of the
Baptists and their continued existence
under differing local names.
9. G.W. Bromiley,
THE LIBRARY OF CHRI STIAN CLASSICS,
(Philadelphia, The Westminster Press),
Vol. XXIV, p. 120.
10. Christian, op cit, p. 86.
11. Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, Letters, APUD OPERA, pp. 112, 113. [Baptist
Magazine, CVII, p. 278 (May 1826)], quoted
by Christian, op. cit. pp. 85, 86.
Quoted also by C. B. and Sylvester Hassell, HISTORY OF THE CHURCH
OF GOD, (Middletown, NY, Gilbert Beebe’s
Sons, 1886), [reprinted by Old School
Hymnal Co, Inc., Conley, GA., 1973], p.
504.
12. Hosius,
ibid.
58 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
13. William C. King, Ed., CROSSING THE
CENTURIES, (London,
Stationer Hall, 1912), p. 174.
14. Robert Barclay, THE INNER
COMMONWEALTH, (London, Hodder
& Stoughton, 1876), pp. 11, 12.
15. Johann Laurenz
von Mosheim, AN ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY,
(New York, Harper & Brothers, 1860),
[Reprinted by Old Paths Book Club, Box
V, Rosemead, CA., Second ed.], Vol. II.
pp.119, 120.
16. David Masson,
CONNECTION WITH THE POLITICAL,
ECCLESIASTICAL,
LITERARY HISTORY OF HIS TIME, (London,
1876), Vol. I, p. 146.
17. Alexander Campbell, A DEBATE ON
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM,
BETWEEN THE
pp. 378, 379.
Campbell goes on in the same place to say,
“Even the greatest enemy, among
ecclesiastic historians, Dr. Mosheim, [see
Glossary] is constrained to say, vol iv, p.
424, ‘The
Anabaptists, by their administering anew
the rite of baptism, to those that came
over to their communion, and derived the
name of Mennonists from the famous
man to whom they owe the greatest part of
their present felicity, is HID in the
REMOTE DEPTHS of antiquity, and is of
consequence difficult to be
ascertained.’” [Capitals & Italic type
belong to Campbell: brackets mine, C.A.P.]
18. John Clark Ridpath,
personal letter to W.A. Jarrell, quoted in W.A. Jarrell’s
BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY, (Dallas, 1894),
[reprinted by the Calvary
Baptist Church Book Store, Ashland, KY.],
p. 59.
19. Bow, op cit., pp. 21, 22.
20. William Whiston,
MEMOIRS OF WHISTON ( Jarrell, op cit), p. 313.
Whiston
was at first deputy to Isaac Newton in the mathematics professorship
at Cambridge, then successor to him. He
lived from 1667 to 1752 and was a well-known
preacher in the Church of England until he
left it because of his “Arian”
views to become a General Baptist.
21. Ypeij en Dermout, GESCHIEDENIS
HERVORMDE KERK, (Breda,
1819), Christian, op. cit. pp. 95, 96.
A slightly different, but materially
identical translation by Thomas W. Tobey,
D.D., college professor, editor, and
pastor, is quoted by J.R. Graves, op cit, p. 87
59 The Third Witness
Chapter Four
THE THIRD WITNESS
THE TESTIMONY OF THE SCRIPTURES
Christ’s Church Revealed In The Scriptures
Writing concerning the Lord’s Churches,
Jarrell Huffman, pastor
to the Sovereign Grace Baptist Church of
Duncan, OK, wrote:
“This subject [church truth] must be
reckoned with; it cannot
be dismissed by subtle attacks on ‘Landmarkism,’ examining the
works of the Puritans, or checking all of
the lexicographers to see
what they say or think. History is fine,
but it gives only a secondary
source of proof on any doctrine. First and
foremost is the Word of
God, the standard of faith and practice
for the churches of the living
God (2 Timothy 3:16, 17;
“To the law and to the testimony,” then.
If what Baptists and their
enemies have said about them is not
warranted by Holy Writ, cast
aside the words of men and cling to the
truth of the Bible. If,
however, the Bible does indeed teach the
perpetuity of the Lord’s
churches, let us look around for churches
that are (1) like unto the
ones described in the New Testament and
which have (2) a valid
claim to a continual existence from that
time. When we find
churches meeting these two qualifications,
then we shall have found
the true churches of Christ!
Since all the Protestants, cults, interdenominationalist groups,
etc., etc., are but of yesterday as to
their origin, the only possible
contenders for meeting the two
aforementioned criteria are (1) the
Catholics and (2) the Baptists. While the
Catholics are seen to be
almost as old as the Baptists, they have
deviated from the principles
of Bible Christianity so far as to be
unrecognizable as New Testament
churches. Catholicism fails in longevity
and in kind: they are, in
fact, apostate Baptists whose beginning
was hundreds of years this
side the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ.
There are, however, among the people
called Baptists, churches
whose ordinances, officers, doctrines and
practices are patterned
after the teaching and example of the New
Testament. Thus one of
the criteria for qualifying as Christ’s
church is met. The basic doctrine
of these churches requires that they were
organized as churches by
60 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
men having previous church connection,
i.e. Scriptural baptism, as
well as ordination and good standing with
a previously existing
church of like faith and practice.
Baptist churches that have consistently
held strictly to these
principles can be assured that they are
successors to the first church
by virtue of the very nature of the polity
they espouse. The proof is
this: no sound Baptists would approve of unbaptized persons
forming themselves into a church and
“baptizing” each other.
Neither would they think to organize a new
church without previous
church connection. This church connection
between previously
existing churches and newly constituted
ones is seen clearly
throughout the book of Acts and is often
referred to as “church
authority” among sound Baptists. This is
historic Baptist polity
derived from the New Testament and has
characterized sound
churches down through the centuries
whatever they may have been
nicknamed. It is this historic polity that
produces churches with a
valid succession back to the Jerusalem
church that Jesus founded.
Upon the solid rock of Scripture do we
rest our argument. While
we have called as witnesses the voices of
several outstanding Baptists
and have presented the testimony of
non-Baptists, neither our faith
nor our practice rest upon the testimony
of men. Regardless of the
testimony of history, we would not dare
ground our doctrine and
polity upon it. If, however, the Scriptures
teach a thing to be true
and right we propose to believe it,
advocate it and practice it though
it cost us our very lives. We have no
choice but to obey the Word of
God and thus “earnestly contend for the
faith once delivered...” ( Jude
verse 3).
Some questions for your reflection as you
read this chapter are
these: Did Christ organize His church or
did someone else effect
what He could not? Did Christ assign
authority to conduct His
work to anyone in particular? Was He
specific in giving this
authority? Did He give specific commands?
Did He give such
commands to specific persons? If so, in
what capacity were these
persons commissioned? Did Christ make any
promises that require
the perpetual succession of His churches?
Do the teachings of Christ
indicate or require that there be a
succession of New Testament
churches? Was church succession taught
and/or assumed by the
apostles? Was the practice of the apostles
consistent with or contrary
to the historic Baptist view? If the New
Testament kind of churches
did cease to exist, could they be
“restarted” by some kind of
“reformation?” Can baptism, if lost, be
instituted again? If so, by
whom can it be reinstituted? What
qualifications, according to the
61 The Third Witness
pattern of Scripture, would be required of
the one re-establishing
the Lord’s church and valid baptism? While
it is not our plan to
specifically answer every one of these
questions, after reading this
book you should be well on the way to
resolving these questions
for yourself from the Scriptures.
That the Scriptures are meant to be the
rule and guide of our
faith (doctrine) and practice (conduct) is
evident. While some may
be satisfied to give lip service to this
idea, it is our firm conviction
that we must actually and really follow the
Bible!
“To the law and to the testimony: if they
speak not according to this
word, it is because there is no light in
them.”
As in all matters of both faith (what we
believe)
(what we do), faithful Baptists require a
“Thus saith the Lord!” This
is one principle that sets genuine
Baptists apart from others.
Protestants may claim to base their
doctrine on the New Testament,
but obviously their practice has been
derived from other sources -either
Romish
traditions, paganism or the teachings of some man.
Consider this concrete example of
Protestant profession
contradicted by Protestant practice. Most
Protestant groups claim
to believe in salvation by grace alone
through faith, but by their
practice they deny what they say they believe.
They put water on
an unbelieving baby and teach that such a
“baptism” makes the
babe a child of God. And they do this
without Biblical instruction
to do so and without Biblical example of
the practice.
Baptists believe the New Testament
contains both the
instructions and the patterns necessary to
know the truth and to
practice it in a manner well pleasing to
God. Sound Baptists demand
that their church practice be consistent
with Bible truth.
The church of Christ in Thessalonica was
commended for their
faithfulness in following both the
apostolic party
in Judea. The word “followers” is a
translation of the Greek
“mimetes” from
whence comes our word “mimic.” Notice the words
as follows:
“And ye became followers of us, and of the
Lord...” (1 Thess.
1:6).
“For ye, brethren, became followers of the
churches of God which
in Judea are in Christ Jesus...” (1 Thess. 2:14).
New Testament Baptist churches “mimic” the
first church and
others like it. They insist on not only
believing the same doctrines
but also following the godly pattern set
before us by those churches.
This belief that the New Testament is not
only the guide for our
faith, but also the pattern for our
practice is a second principle that
62 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
sets genuine Baptists apart from others.
We have no right to interject our own
ideas, beliefs, practices
or traditions into the worship and service
of God. To do so nullifies
God’s Word, for after all, He has revealed
in the Bible everything
He wants us to know about spiritual
things. The following verses
clearly instruct us as to our obligation
to be subject to the Bible in
all things. Consider these warnings:
(Mark 7:13) “Making the word of God of
none effect through
your tradition, which ye have delivered:
and many such like things
do ye.”
(Deut 4:2) “Ye shall not add unto the word
which I command
you, neither shall ye diminish ought from
it, that ye may keep the
commandments of the LORD your God which I
command you.”
(Deut 12:32) “What thing soever I command you, observe to do
it: thou shalt
not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”
(Rev 22:18) “For I testify unto every man
that heareth the words
of the prophecy of this book, If any man
shall add unto these things,
God shall add unto him the plagues that
are written in this book.”
It is devastatingly serious to tamper with
the Word of God either
in theological matters or in the matter of
observance, practice and
celebration.
That many in the days of the apostles (and
ours) have perverted
God’s truth is the cause of the divisions
within “Christendom.”
Because of their strict views, Baptists
are often charged with causing
divisions among Christians. Mature
consideration shows that in
reality others are the guilty parties.
Those who have separated from
Baptist churches and founded new ones are
in reality guilty of schism
and sowing discord among brethren. It is
those churches that left
off being Baptist churches and merged into
the Catholic system
that are in actuality the schismatics. Protestants, unable to stomach
Romish
corruption, either left or were ejected from Catholicism.
Their “reformation” was only partial as is
always the case with
human renovations. They failed to return
to the Lord’s churches
and went about to establish their own.
Thus they, and not Baptists,
are guilty of divisiveness and schism.
Multitudes have not followed the plain
teachings of the Bible
and have left the Lord’s churches to
follow some human leader.
Others either lacking knowledge or
unconcerned with truth, have
started their own “churches” without
considering or understanding
the New Testament doctrine and pattern of
church truth. This was
the case even in the days of Christ’s
apostles. Consider these verses:
(2 Cor. 2:17)
“For we are not as many, which corrupt the word
63 The Third Witness
of God: but as of sincerity, but as of
God, in the sight of God speak
we in Christ.”
(2 Cor. 4:2)
“But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty,
not walking in craftiness, nor handling
the word of God deceitfully;
but by manifestation of the truth
commending ourselves to every man’s
conscience in the sight of God.”
(1 John 2:19) “They went out from us, but
they were not of us; for
if they had been of us, they would no
doubt have continued with us:
but they went out, that they might be made
manifest that they were
not all of us.”
Many churches of our own time have been
started by persons
unwilling to follow historic Biblical
doctrine and practice. Some
openly “corrupt the word of God” and are
guilty of “handling the word
of God deceitfully.” Others “were not all
of us” and therefore “they went
out from us.” This has been done for so
long and by so many that
few in today’s religious world even
consider that they have no right
to found their own churches.
The Catholic churches, both Eastern and
Latin, and all their
Protestant “offspring” are the results of
people apostatizing from
Bible truth and leaving the Lord’s
churches. Without a doubt many
in these societies are sincere, but
sincerity is no measure of the
truth! Some “churches” were formed or “deformed”
by persons
leaving off New Testament practices.
Others were formed by those
who came only partially out from the
errors of Rome. Whichever
is the case, all the various non-Baptist
societies now known as
“churches” have their origin apart from
the founding work of Christ.
Many of these churches have their own
“popes” - either dead
or living - who rule as lords over them.
If you doubt that Protestants
set up their own infallible “popes,”
consider the following
information concerning one of the larger and
more socially
acceptable Protestant bodies, the
Methodists.
“In the application of human wisdom to the
organization of a
religious society, John Wesley was, as
commonly remarked, more
like Ignatius Loyola [the founder of the
Jesuits] than any other man;
he conformed the organization of Methodism
more to that of
Romanism than that of any other Protestant
body... By his famous
‘Deed of Declaration to the Legal
Hundred,’ “the Magna Charta of
Methodism” (made in 1784, when he was
eighty-one years of age),
bequeathing the property and government of
all his chapels in the
United Kingdom to a hundred of his
traveling preachers and their
successors, on condition that they should
accept as their basis of
doctrine his Notes on the New Testament
and the four volumes of
64 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
his sermons published in or before A.D.
1771, he surpassed even
the worldly wisdom of Catholicism, and
made himself not only the
infallible, but the eternal pope of his
society. So his Twenty-five
Articles of Religion are declared, in the
Methodist Book of
Discipline, to be unalterable. This makes
Wesley the last and greatest
authoritative teacher of the human race,
and places him above Christ
and His Apostles, as we are required to
look through the medium
of Wesley at all the Divine teaching, and
to accept forever his
interpretation of the doctrine and
precepts of the Bible. How can
any of the dear children of God be willing
thus to substitute the
headship of a sinful and fallible mortal
for the headship of Christ?”
2 [Brackets mine: C.A.P.]
Wesley was neither the first nor the last
Protestant to be set up
as the final authority on spiritual truth.
This writer, before becoming
a Baptist, was once a follower of “Dr.”
C.I. Scofield, a long dead
“pope” to many. Scofield’s
Bible notes and writings are often good
and helpful but are sometimes dangerous in
their error as well!
Often great and helpful Bible teachers
have been nearly idolized
by those who follow their teachings.
Hurtful error as well as soul-damning
heresies arise in the
depraved hearts and minds of men and women
who do not know
the Scriptures. Therefore our only safe
guide is the Word of God.
This is clearly seen in the following
words of Christ.
(Matt 22:29) “Jesus answered and said unto
them, Ye do err, not
knowing the scriptures, nor the power of
God.”
It is the Word of God, the Bible, that
tells of God’s provision of
salvation and that same Word is to teach
us correct doctrine and
guide our lives.
(2 Tim 3:15, 16) “And that from a child
thou hast known the
holy scriptures, which are able to make
thee wise unto salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in
righteousness.”
Let the Roman Catholic Church claim
infallibility for her popes!
Let the Protestants set themselves up
infallible guides! Such a
practice has no foundation in the
teachings of the Bible!
Roman Catholic scholars do not view the
Scriptures in the same
light as Baptists. They believe the Bible,
not because they see and
understand it to be the revealed truth of
God, but because the
Roman Catholic Church tells them to
believe it. If you doubt this,
hear the words of the venerated “Saint”
Augustine.
“I would not believe the New Testament if
the [Roman Catholic]
65 The Third Witness
Church doctrine did not command me to.” 3
[Brackets mine: C.A.P.].
This is the reason “Saint” Augustine could
pick and choose
among the teachings of the Bible. He could
select what he wanted
to believe and practice from the Old
Testament as well as from the
New. He claimed to believe that all men
were sinners,
“...except the Holy Virgin Mary, whom I
desire, for the sake of
the honor of the Lord, to leave entirely
out of the question when
the talk is of sin.” 4
And yet some speak of Mary-worshipping
Augustine as if he
were next to Paul in preaching the truth
of God. In my opinion,
Spurgeon fell into this error. Augustine’s
authority was not the Bible,
but was rather the Romish
church that told him to believe the Bible
along with her traditions and papal
pronouncements. What a sober
warning this ought to be to those who
profess to believe the Bible!
Let us believe it all! Let us be in
submission to its authority, for it is
the Word of God. How dare we select from
among its teachings
that which we like and then deny that
which may go contrary to
our preconceived ideas. How sad that many
in our own day will
not believe the truth about the Lord’s
churches because it runs
contrary to their own ideas!
Let the Protestants glorify some great
theologian or teacher and
follow after him or her if they insist.
When the blind lead the blind
“both fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:14).
But let those folk who profess
to believe the Bible prove their belief in
it by their obedience to it!
Among those churches called Baptist are to
be found people
who have been brought by God Himself to
stand upon the New
Testament as their only rule of faith and
practice. They see in it
both precept and pattern for acceptable
worship and service. We
believe this is the only course well
pleasing to God, the Divine
Author of the Bible. If we have no
Biblical authority for either our
doctrine or our practice, abandon such
things as innovations of
depraved mankind. On the other hand, if
the Bible teaches it, we
who “tremble at His word” can do nothing
more or less than believe
and obey it!
Three questions, in the main, should be
set forth at this juncture.
They are as follows:
(1) Do the Scriptures teach that Christ
built His church during
His earthly ministry, or do they teach
that the Holy Ghost built it
on the Jewish festival of Pentecost?
(2) Do the Scriptures assume that this
kind of church would
persevere until the Lord returns for her,
or are there Scriptures that
say she would totally apostatize and
therefore require a reformation?
66 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
(3) Do the Scriptures teach adequately
about this kind of church
so as to enable us to identify these
churches today?
Keep these questions in mind as you
consider the following
pertinent points.
Christ Founded His Church
That Christ’s church was built
(established) by Him during His
earthly ministry is evident from the
Scriptures. He asserted that He
would build it:
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art
Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my church; and the gates
of hell shall not prevail
against it” (Matt. 16:18).
Without going into great length, it should
be observed here
that Christ did not say He would build His
church on Peter. The
word for “Peter” is, according to Strong,
“Petros (pet’-ros);
apparently
a primary word; a (piece of) rock as a
name, Petrus, an apostle,” 5
but the word for “rock” upon which the
church is built is “petra
(pet’-ra);
feminine a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively).” 6 This
second word, “petra”
signifies a massive bedrock as illustrated in
the following verses:
Matt 7:24-25: “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of
mine, and doeth them, I will liken him
unto a wise man, which
built his house upon a rock” (petra). “And the rain descended, and
the floods came, and the winds blew, and
beat upon that house; and
it fell not: for it was founded upon a
rock” (petra).
Matt 27:60: “And laid it in his own new
tomb, which he had
hewn out in the rock: (petra)
and he rolled a great stone to the door
of the sepulcher, and departed.”
Mark 15:46: “And he bought fine linen, and
took him down,
and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him
in a sepulcher which
was hewn out of a rock, (petra) and rolled a stone unto the door of
the sepulchre.”
Luke 6:48: “He is like a man which built
an house, and digged
deep, and laid the foundation on a rock (petra): and when the flood
arose, the stream beat vehemently upon
that house, and could not
shake it: for it was founded upon a rock”
(petra).
Romans 9:33: “As it is written, Behold, I
lay in Sion a
stumblingstone
and rock (petra) of offence: and whosoever believeth
on him shall not be ashamed.”
1 Cor 10:4: “And
did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they
drank of that spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them: and that
Rock was Christ.”
67 The Third Witness
1 Pet 2:8: “And a stone of stumbling, and
a rock (petra) of offence,
even to them which stumble at the word,
being disobedient: whereunto
also they were appointed.”
These verses demonstrate that Christ
contrasted Peter (petros),
a small stone, with a massive rock (petra). Doubtless our Lord
pointed to Himself as the Rock on which He
established His church.
(Compare with Jesus’ use of “temple” in
John 2:19.) He is “a foundation
stone,” “the foundation,” and the apostles’
and prophets’ “foundation”
as indicated in the following verses:
Isaiah 28:16: “Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay
in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried
stone, a precious corner
stone, a sure foundation: he that
believeth shall not make haste.”
1 Cor 3:10-12:
“According to the grace of God which is given
unto me, as a wise masterbuilder,
I have laid the foundation, and
another buildeth
thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth
thereupon. For other foundation can no man
lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man
build upon this foundation
gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay,
stubble...”
Eph 2:20: “And are built upon the
foundation of the apostles
and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being
the chief corner stone.”
Jesus Christ did NOT build His church on
Peter, in spite of the
Romish
claims that Peter was her first pope. In this connection
there is absolutely no Scriptural
confirmation that Peter was ever
in Rome, let alone was the first pope as
the Roman Catholic Church
claims! In fact, from the Scriptures we
garner much that would
cause us to be assured he never was in
Rome. Consider:
(1) Paul wrote the great doctrinal Book of
Romans to the church
in Rome. It seems strange that he would
need to do so if another
apostle was already there with the church
in Rome as the Papists
affirm. What would be the necessity of
such a letter?
(2) Even more conclusive is the fact that
Paul, while greeting
the church there in the beginning of his
Roman letter, says nothing
by way of greeting to Peter. Surely, if
Peter were then present in
Rome, Paul would have greeted him. If
Peter were the Pope in
Rome, Paul most certainly would have
greeted him in his letter!
(3) Later Paul was confined in Rome,
perhaps as many as three
different times. From Rome during his
imprisonments Paul wrote
the Bible books of Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians and 2 Timothy.
In 2 Timothy alone Paul mentions 23
friends and foes, but never
once in any of these books does he mention
Peter! Surely if Peter
had been in Rome, Paul would have
mentioned him. Some
individuals sent greetings to other
brethren by the hand of Paul in
68 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
these letters. Others are mentioned by
name, but no mention is
made of Peter. He obviously was not in
Rome!
There just is no Bible confirmation that
Peter was ever at Rome.
Biblical evidence being to the contrary,
Rome’s claim to Peter being
the first pope is seen to be another of
her bogus assertions! It is just
an empty, man-made tradition of no
consequence or worth
whatsoever.
What is significant for us to observe here
is that while Christ
did not say He would build His church on
Peter, He DID say He
would build His church! There is no hint
in the words, “I will build
my church” that anyone other than Christ
was to be the agent in
building it. Jesus did not say that the
Father would build His church.
Neither did He say that the Holy Spirit
would build His church!
Neither is there a single Scripture verse
that says or even hints
that the Holy Ghost would build, begin or
birth Christ’s church on
the Jewish feast of Pentecost. The idea
that the church was founded
on Pentecost has been taught so routinely
that many presume it to
be the “birthday of the church.” Such an
assumption has no basis
in the Word of God! We believe Christ did
what He said He would
do: He built His church during His earthly
ministry. Until someone
can give Bible evidence for the birth of
the church taking place on
Pentecost, there is no reason to make this
assumption.
Christ Founded A Real Church
By the word “church” the Bible does not
mean a regional,
national or worldwide organization as some
might think. Such a
meaning for the word “church” is as
foreign to the Bible as is the
idea of a “universal, invisible church.”
These and other definitions
have been given to the word “church,” but
a careful study of the
word shows its local, visible nature. We
quote James Strong again:
“ecclesia (ek-klay-see’-ah);
a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a
popular meeting, especially a religious
congregation...” 7
Although Strong goes on to try to make
“ecclesia” some-thing
more than a “local church,” he and others
fail under both biblical
evidence and the evidence of original
language. He offers no Biblical
or linguistic reason for his attempt to
make “ecclesia” refer to a
“universal church.” Indeed, he could not,
for there is neither Biblical
nor linguistic basis for such an attempted
definition! New Testament
usage, secular usage and the Septuagint
usage of the word “ecclesia”
indicate it was only and always used of an
organized, congregating
body of people in a given locality.
One of the biggest hindrances to a proper
understanding of
69 The Third Witness
New Testament church truth is the notion
that the word church
means more than one thing. For years this
author followed the
wisdom of the Protestants, notably “Dr.”
C.I. Scofield and his Dallas
Seminary disciples who, without Scriptural
warrant, teach several
“kinds” of churches. To bolster their
interdenominational views,
they blithely assure us that there is an
“invisible church.” This
“leaven” has infiltrated the theological
world to the point that many
Baptists now assure us there does indeed
exist such a “universal
church.”
B.H. Carroll (1843-1914) was the founder
and first president of
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
and for thirty years
served as pastor of the First Baptist
Church of Waco, Texas. He
produced the following works, The Holy
Spirit; Christ and His
Church; Evangelistic Sermons: Baptists and
Their Doctrine;
Inspiration of the Bible: Jesus the
Christ; Revival Messages; and
the seventeen volume An Interpretation of
the English Bible; as
well as other works. Elder Carroll wrote
the following:
“Our Lord and the New Testament writers
neither coined this
word [Greek “ecclesia”] nor employed it in
any unusual sense.
Before their time it was in common use, of
well-understood
signification, and subject like any other
word to varied employment,
according to the established laws of
language. That is, it might be
used abstractly, or generically, or
particularly, or prospectively,
without losing its essential meaning...
“What, then, etymologically, is the
meaning of this word? Its
primary meaning is: An organized assembly,
whose members have
been properly called out from private homes
or business to attend
to public affairs. This definition
necessarily implies prescribed
conditions of membership...
“When, in this lesson, our Lord says: “On
this rock I will build
my “ecclesia” while the “my” distinguished
His “ecclesia” from the
Greek state “ecclesia” and the Old
Testament “ecclesia,” the word
itself naturally retains its ordinary
meaning...
“Commonly, that is, in nearly all the
uses, it means: The
particular assembly of Christ’s baptized
disciples on earth, as ‘The
church of God which is at Corinth.’
“To this class necessarily belong all
abstract or generic uses of
the word, for whenever the abstract or
generic finds concrete
expression, or takes operative shape, it
is always a particular
assembly.” 8 [Brackets mine: C.A.P.].
Carroll goes on to point out that generic
uses do not prove the
existence of some “universal, invisible
church” as imagined by
70 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
Luther. Just as the Scriptures say, “The
husband is the head of the
wife” (Eph. 5:23), and yet no one is
foolish enough to believe in
one gigantic “husband” or one “universal,
invisible wife.” So when
the Scriptures speak of the “church” in an
abstract sense, we only
find the church existent in assemblies of
Scripturally baptized
believers organized according to the New
Testament. Carroll makes
this point, writing as follows:
“For example, if an English statesman,
referring to the right of
each individual citizen to be tried by his
peers, should say: ‘On this
rock England will build her jury and all
power of tyrants shall not
prevail against it,’ he uses the term jury
in an abstract sense, i.e., in
the sense of an institution. But when this
institution finds concrete
expression, or becomes operative, it is
always a particular jury of
twelve men and never an aggregation of all
juries into one big jury.
–”Or if a law writer should say: ‘In
trials of fact, by oral
testimony, the court shall be the judge of
the law, and the jury shall
be the judge of the facts,’ and if he
should add: ‘In giving evidence,
the witness shall tell what he knows to
the jury, and not to the
court,’ he evidently uses the term
‘court,’ ‘jury,’ and ‘witness’ in a
generic sense. But in the application the
generic always becomes
particular - i.e., a particular judge, a
particular jury, or a particular
witness, and never an aggregate of all
judges into one big judge,
nor of all juries into one big jury, nor
of all witnesses into one big
witness. Hence we say that the laws of
language require that all
abstract and generic uses of the word
“ecclesia” should be classified
with the particular assembly and not with
the general assembly.” 9
Further testimony to the New Testament
usage of the word
“ecclesia” is found in the standard work
of W.E. Vine, not a Baptist,
but a noted Greek scholar. He states:
“Ekklesia... was
used among the Greeks of a body of citizens
gathered to discuss the affairs of
State... In the Sept. [Septuagint -Greek
translation of the Old Testament] it is
used to designate the
gathering of Israel summoned for any
definite purpose, or a
gathering regarded as representative of
the whole nation...” 10
[Brackets mine: C.A.P.]
Honesty demanded that Vine place his
definition in his
dictionary, not under the letter “C” for
church, but rather under
“A” for assembly and that is where you will
find his comments.
Sadly, due no doubt to preconceived
notions, Vine asserts with
absolutely no etymological or Scriptural
basis that the word can
also refer to all the saved. Such
inconsistency cannot rightly be
called scholarship. Shame on Mr. Vine. We
trust he knows better
71 The Third Witness
now!
Similarly, honesty forces Vincent,
Robertson and others to admit
that the etymology of the word demands a
(local) assembly founded
by Christ in contrast to the (local)
Jewish assembly which was called
a synagogue. There is no instance of
Christ ever using the word in
any but a local sense. Neither is it
sensible to suppose that the
apostles changed the meaning of the word
to mean something
universal and invisible. For the apostles
to do so without making
such a distinction clear would have been
misleading, to say the
least!
If common sense and the normal usage of
language prevail,
there is absolutely no reason to think
that “church” means anything
other than an assembly of
Scripturally-baptized believers in Christ
who are organized according to the New
Testament. Only those
who oppose the church or have an axe to
grind in support of
Protestantism find it necessary to make
such a simple matter into a
very complex one by insisting that there
is an additional kind of
church other than a “local” one. We are
reminded of Paul’s words
to the church at Corinth whom he had
“espoused” as a “chaste
virgin” or bride to Jesus Christ. He
wrote, “But I fear, lest by any
means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through
his subtilty, so your minds
should be corrupted from the simplicity
that is in Christ.” (2 Cor.
11:3). Simplicity lies in believing in the
regular, usual, logical and
linguistically authentic definition of the
word church as a local
congregation. Complexity and confusion
arise when men
manufacture additional definitions for the
word “church” and then
try to distinguish between them. That
these lexicographers who
insist on blatantly inserting their own
ideas into their definition of
“church” are neither infallible nor free
from preconceived notions,
the Reformed scholar Berkhof
tells us quite frankly:
“It is necessary to bear in mind that the
Lexicons are not
absolutely reliable, and that they are
least so, when they descend to
particulars. They merely embody those
results of the exegetical
labors of various interpreters that
commended themselves to the
discriminating judgement
of the lexicographer, and often reveal a
difference of opinion. It is quite
possible, and in some cases perfectly
evident, that the choice of a meaning was
determined by dogmatical
bias... If the interpreter has any reason
to doubt the meaning of a
word, as given by the Lexicon, he will
have to investigate for
himself.” 11
Some have tried to argue that the word
“ecclesia” - since it
comes from two Greek words which basically
mean “to call” and
72 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
“out” must mean “the called out ones.” Scofield and others pursue
this unscientific and unreal route. By
doing so they try to say that
the “ecclesia” or “church” is therefore all
the “called out” or elect of
any one or even all ages. We readily admit
that the word “ecclesia”
springs from the two words as mentioned,
but would also point out
that words often come to mean something
other than a combination
of their roots. Baptist elder Edward Overby points out:
“A few words should be said about the
etymology of ekklesia
before going on... A distinction should be
maintained between the
etymology of a word and its meaning at
some particular time in
history. Sometimes the two are the same:
many times they are quire
different. ‘Hussy’ came from ‘huswife’ which means housewife;
today it means worthless women, or girl,
or a pert girl. ‘Con-stable’
came from ‘comes stabuli’
which means attendant of the stables;
today it means a peace officer. Ekklesia came from ekkletos which
means called out but in the times prior to
the New Testament it
meant assembly or called out assembly. To
say it means the called
out is not correct. Broadus writes, ‘The
Greek word ecclesia signified
primarily the assembly of citizens in a
self governed state, being
derived from ekklaleo
to call out; i.e., out of their homes or places
of business, to summon, as we speak of
calling out the militia. The
popular notion that it meant to call out
in the sense of separation
from others, is a mistake...’ Hort also confirms this when he writes,
‘There is no foundation for the widely
spread notion that ekklesia
means a people or a number of individual
men called out of the
world or mankind.” 12
The word ecclesia always referred to an
assembly gathered and
organized to conduct business. This was
the common usage before
and during the days of the Lord Jesus on
earth. S.E. Anderson points
out:
“Some of the greatest Greek scholars say
that no case has been
found in classic Greek where ecclesia is
used of unassembled or
unassembling
persons.” 13
Further to the point, Roy Mason writes:
“Prof. Royal, of Wake Forest College,
North Carolina, who
taught Prof. A.T. Robertson, of the
Louisville Seminary, and Prof.
C.B. Williams, Greek, when asked if he
knew of an instance in
classic Greek where ecclesia was ever used
of a class of ‘unassembled
or unassembling
persons’ said: ‘I do not know of any such passage
in classic Greek.’ With this statement
agree Professors Burton of
Chicago University, Stifler
of Crozer, Strong of Rochester and many
other scholars.” 14
73 The Third Witness
Since neither Jesus nor His apostles ever
indicated that they
were using the word ecclesia in any but
the well-known and
commonly accepted usage of the day, it is
a grievous violation of
all the common sense rules of
interpretation to substitute a different
definition for the one they meant and the
one their hearers
understood. By such loose interpretative
procedures as these, the
Bible can be made to teach almost anything.
Pointing out that the
church is always “local” and that we need
not use that adjective
before the word, J.B. Moody, in addressing
the meeting of the
Southern Baptist Convention hosted by his
church said:
“I never read of a local assembly,
building, body, bride, city,
congregation, candlestick, flock, fold,
family, field, house, household,
temple, vine, vineyard, woman, or wife.
They may be local, but it
is tautological tomfoolery to say so,
except to distinguish them from
some other kind. But there is no other.
The kingdom is not local,
but the church is necessarily so. When a
church dies IN a place, it
dies only TO the place, and scatters
itself to others. Christ says, “I
will REMOVE the candlestick OUT OF ITS
PLACE...” 15
Again we quote the well-known and
respected Elder Moody,
this time from an address delivered at the
Baptist Young Peoples
Union Encampment at Estill Springs,
Tennessee, on June 25, 1907:
“A universal church, visible or invisible,
must have organization
and officers and doctrine and government,
or it can do nothing.
Such a church could not be a steward of
anything. It never meets to
consult about anything and has no officers
to execute anything.
This senseless error about a universal
church has deceived more
people and wasted more energy and begot
more bigotry than
perhaps any other deceitful device of the
devil... ‘The Church of
God’ is a congregation. The expression
‘Church of God’ occurs
twelve times, and any man, though blind in
one eye and purblind
in the other, can see it so in every case.
The lion is a ferocious
beast; every lion is a ferocious beast;
but all lions are not a ferocious
beast. That is an inconceivable
conception; an “unsupposable”
supposition and an unspeakable
superstition. The executive ability
is in the real beast and not in the
unreal, buster. So of the horse,
man, jury, church, etc... The universal
church has been assumed,
asserted and insisted on to the
irrevocable damage of the faith for
which we should contend. I don’t believe
in it. If there could be
such a thing it could not do anything. It
never has met, it has no
doctrines, no officers, no government, no
commission. You can’t
tell who is in it or how they got there.
It is an invisible, impracticable,
impeachable, impossible, impecunious imp,
spread out into
74 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
shallowness, enlarged into littleness and
increased into nothingness.
It makes a man feel too large for a
contemptible little congregation
that Christ organized for work. They think
they are in the big church
by reason of saving faith, and they don’t
see the need of being
added to another church -a little, local,
limited church, too small
for their little finger. Let me magnify
this “minified” and crucified
church, which is the church of the living
God.” 16
To say that Christ did not build His
church is to make Him out
to be a liar at worst, or to be a failure
at best. Neither is acceptable
to the true Christian for we know our Lord
to be both truthful and
well able to accomplish all He wills to
do.
While some attempt to hold to the position
that while the church
is limited to only Scripturally baptized
believers in organized
assemblies here on earth, it will include
all the saved in Heaven,
this position is to be rejected for at
least four good reasons. The late
Roy Mason, author and for many years
pastor of the Buffalo Avenue
Baptist Church (now Central Avenue Baptist
Church) of Tampa,
Florida, states our position clearly:
“To hold that the church is local and
visible, and is a continuation
of the institution that Christ started and
promised to perpetuate,
then to shift from this, the true church,
and to teach that the church
that finally assembles over yonder will be
composed of all of these
redeemed regardless of whether they ever
belonged to any church
or not, is an inexcusable contradiction.
If that were true, then several
other things would have to be true:
“1 - As already argued, the Bride would
turn out to be different
from the one betrothed to Christ.
“2 - Christ’s promise that nothing would
prevail against His
church, would be proven false, for the
institution started by Him
would completely flop, for the church in
Glory would prove to be
a different thing entirely.
“3 - In such case, there would be no
reward for the church that
endured endless persecution for Christ,
and that furnished fifty
million martyrs for the defense of His
truth.
“4 - Why should so much be made of the
church that Jesus
started? Why should its truth be defended
so arduously? Why should
members of this church have been willing
to die for their beliefs, if
in the final windup, the ultimate triumph
is to be given to those
who - some of them - persecuted those of
the true church, or else
ignored or disdained the true church? If
all believers are to constitute
the church in Glory - the Bride - then in
the climax the church
turns out to be something different than
Christ’s church here on
75 The Third Witness
this earth.” 17
The teaching that two (or more) meanings
of the word “church”
are correct is of great harm to the cause
of Christ. To have two
“churches” with differing requirements for
membership and
different methods of entrance is to foment
confusion in the minds
of believers. We quote B.H. Carroll again
regarding those who hold
to a “universal, invisible church.”
“...I honestly and strongly hold that even
on this point his theory
is erroneous and tends practically to
great harm. Yes, I do most
emphatically hold that this [universal,
invisible church] theory is
responsible for incalculable dishonor put
upon the church of God
on earth. I repeat that the theory of the
co-existence, side by side,
on earth of two churches of Christ, one
formal and visible, the other
real, invisible and spiritual, with
different terms of membership, is
exceedingly mischievous and is so
confusing that every believer of
it becomes muddled in running the lines of
separation. Do let it
sink deep in your minds that the
tabernacle of Moses had the
exclusive right of way in its allotted
time and the temple of Solomon
had the exclusive right of way in its
allotted time - so the church of
Christ on earth, the particular assembly,
now has the exclusive right
of way, and is without a rival on earth or
in heaven...” 18 [Brackets
mine:C.A.P.].
Christ Commissioned His Church
When anything is commissioned it receives
delegated authority
to act in behalf of another. That person
or entity commissioned,
when acting in official capacity, no
longer acts on its own authority,
but functions in the name of and on behalf
of and by the express
command of the superior granting the
commission. The second
mention of “church” in the New Testament
is in Matt 18:15-18 and
clearly demonstrates the authority of
Christ as entrusted to His
church:
“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass
against thee, go and tell
him his fault between thee and him alone:
if he shall hear thee,
thou hast gained thy brother. But if he
will not hear thee, then take
with thee one or two more, that in the
mouth of two or three
witnesses every word may be established.
And if he shall neglect to
hear them, tell it unto the church: but if
he neglect to hear the
church, let him be unto thee as an heathen
man and a publican.
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall
bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall
loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven.”
Notice that neither the pastor nor some
imagined board has
76 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
authority to act in this matter. The
matter must be brought before
the church (the membership) and they are
to seek the mind of the
Lord in the matter. The decision (vote) of
the church in obedience
to Christ is binding in Heaven as well as
within the confines of the
church.
Here the church is explicitly authorized
and instructed to
exclude from her fellowship those whose
behavior brings reproach
upon the Head of each true church. Are we
to believe that Christ
did not mean for His disciples to obey
these words? Why did He
not tell them they would be obligated to
obey these instructions at
some future undisclosed time? There is
nothing here to indicate
these instructions were not for them then
and there. The idea that
these are instructions for the “future
church” find a basis only in
the writings of “Dr.” C.I. Scofield and his anti-Baptist followers.
Additionally, just prior to His ascension,
Christ gave definite
authority to act and specific directives
for His church to heed on
the following occasion:
“Then the eleven disciples went away into
Galilee, into a
mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
And when they saw
him, they worshipped him: but some
doubted. And Jesus came
and spake unto
them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven
and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach
all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded
you: and, lo, I am with you always, even
unto the end of the world.
Amen.” (Matt. 28:16-20).
This authorization by Christ of His church
to act is often called
“The Great Commission.” It is actually the
FINAL commission,
for there was an earlier one, just as
specific and explicit, but of a
somewhat different nature. It is found in
Matt. 10:1-15. To
understand the nature of a commission, the
reader is urged to note
that in that passage Christ’s church was
sent forth to a specific people,
Israel, and Israel only. They were given
definite directives as to
what they were to do and not do. No one
other than the Lord’s
church was given this commission; thus, no
one other than His
church was acting under His authority.
If the church did not originate until the
festival of Pentecost as
our Protestant neighbors affirm, then
Christ is found to be in the
rather preposterous position of giving
guidance, authority and a
commission to something that did not
exist! Not only was the first
commission given before Pentecost, but so
also was the “Great”
one. A candid reading of Matthew evidences
that these words (i.e.
77 The Third Witness
the Commission) were spoken to actual men
then in existence who
were expected to obey. While they were
instructed to wait for the
power of the Holy Ghost which indeed came
on the following
Pentecost, no new or additional authority
was given on that Jewish
feast day.
Some would attempt to maintain that
Christ, in Matt. 28:18-20,
gave His authority and instructions to the
eleven as ordinary men.
Others inform us that He addressed them as
apostles. Neither of
these can conceivably be an accurate
perception of the Commission,
for if either of these be correct, His
words, “and lo, I am with you
always, even unto the end of the world.”
are insignificant rhetoric.
According to this interpretation Christ
was either mistaken or
perhaps He was an outright fraud. It is
obvious that neither as
individuals nor as apostles have these men
continued even to our
day, and the “end of the world” has not
come yet. Jesus has not
continued with them either as individuals
or apostles in the sense
of which He spoke.
However, if we understand that Christ gave
authority and
instructions (the “Great Commission”) to
the eleven as His church,
then we begin to understand His promise to
be with them. This
view is consistent with Revelation
chapters 1-3 where He is revealed
to be in the midst of the “seven
candlesticks” which are the seven
churches. Only if we understand that
Christ gave authority to act
in evangelism, baptism and teaching to His
church, and promised
perpetual existence to her, do we begin to
realize that He really
meant what He said in promising to be with
them “always”.
Allow me to illustrate the matter of
authority in this way. A
man may possess the financial and physical
ability to mine vast
deposits of gold from the earth. He may
busy himself about this
work and enjoy great success in his labor.
He CAN mine the gold.
However, because society has enacted laws
to attempt to ensure
equity among her citizens, this man may
lose not only all he has
gained by mining, but also all he has
previously owned. You see, IF
a man does not have the authority to mine
gold - if he has no legal
claim to the ground he works - all his
labor may be in vain. While
he CAN mine the gold, he MAY not do so
without proper
authorization. He may even be subject to a
fine levied against him
because he violated the laws respecting
mining.
So it is with Christ. He has delegated His
authority to His church.
She is not only the “pillar and ground of
the truth,” but also to her
was committed the ordinances of baptism
and the Lord’s Supper
as well as the authority to send forth
teaching servants in the work
78 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
of the Lord as the Holy Ghost calls and
leads. While a man CAN
(is able to) preach, immerse, and
administer bread and wine, he
MAY NOT (does not have permission to do
so) unless the Holy
Ghost sends him forth out of and by a New
Testament church. This
is the teaching and pattern of the New
Testament!
This “church authority” delegated by
Christ to His churches is
seen in action in the New Testament.
Consider the sending out of
Paul (Saul) and Barnabas in Acts 13:1-4.
“Now there were in the church that was at
Antioch certain
prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and
Simeon that was called
Niger, and Lucius
of Cyrene, and Manaen,
which had been brought
up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As
they ministered to the
Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said,
Separate me Barnabas and
Saul for the work whereunto I have called
them. And when they
had fasted and prayed, and laid their
hands on them, they sent
them away. So they, being sent forth by
the Holy Ghost, departed
unto Seleucia;
and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.”
Note these several things:
(1) The men to be sent out were active
teaching members “in
the church that was at Antioch” which was
a real, functioning “local”
church.
(2) “The Holy Ghost said,” speaks of the
Divine call to service.
Without the working of the Holy Ghost in
both the individual called
AND in his church there can be no
Scriptural sending-out of men
to do the work of “church planting”.
(3) After more fasting and prayer the
spiritual leaders in the
church of which they were members “laid
their hands on them”
(that is, ordained them to the work).
(4) In this way they were “sent forth by
the Holy Ghost.” Both
the sovereign working of the Spirit AND
the obedience of the
members of a New Testament church are
required for an individual
to be “sent forth by the Holy Ghost.”
It is quite clear that the church at
Antioch was involved in
sending these Brethren out as evangelists.
Baptists maintain that a
church must be involved in separating (by
ordination - which is
appointment to service) and sending out
evangelists (often called
missionaries today) just as in the New
Testament. It was to this church
at Antioch that these Brethren were
accountable. It was this church
at Antioch to which they later returned.
It was this church at Antioch
to which they gave reports of their work.
This “church connection”
is consistently found in the New
Testament. The New Testament
knows nothing of “free lance” individuals
being somehow “called
79 The Third Witness
of God” apart from a New Testament church.
None were approved
of God who went about preaching, baptizing
and teaching apart
from church authority having been given to
them. Anyone who
acts in such a “free lance” fashion does
so without New Testament
instruction or example and therefore
without Divine authority.
Surely honest and sensible Christians who
will lay aside
preconceived notions and vested interests
can see the truth here.
The simple, clear meaning of these
passages is that Christ built His
church and invested her with the work of
evangelism, baptism, and
the teaching and observing of “all things
whatsoever I have
commanded you”. Quite simply stated,
Christ’s church, through
successive organizations, must necessarily
continue to exist in
perpetuity if these things are to be
rightly carried out. If these are
responsibilities given to the Lord’s
church, then she must continue
to exist for these responsibilities to be
continued.
Christ Guaranteed Perpetuity To His Church
Nothing can be more assuring to the true
Christian than the
words of Jesus Christ. If He gave a
guarantee that His church would
never cease to exist, then that church
still exists! You may not have
found it yet, but IF Christ promised its
perpetuity, IT EXISTS! He
said, in Matt. 16:18:
“I will build my church; and the gates of
hell shall not prevail
against it.”
“Hell,” according to Strong is: “haides (hah’-dace); properly,
unseen, i.e. “Hades” or the place (state)
of departed souls.” 19
The idea conveyed by the term “gates”
seems related to the
fact that the rulers of Israel sat in the
gate. The gate was the location
of government for a city; thus, the “gate”
was spoken of as the
government. This is evidenced by the
following verses:
Deut 25:7: “And if the man like not to
take his brother’s wife,
then let his brother’s wife go up to the
gate unto the elders, and say,
My husband’s brother refuseth
to raise up unto his brother a name
in Israel, he will not perform the duty of
my husband’s brother.”
Ruth 4:10, 11: “Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon,
have I purchased to be my wife, to raise
up the name of the dead
upon his inheritance, that the name of the
dead be not cut off from
among his brethren, and from the gate of
his place: ye are witnesses
this day. “And all the people that were in
the gate, and the elders,
said, We are witnesses. The LORD make the
woman that is come
into thine house
like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the
house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in
80 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
Bethlehem.”
Daniel 2:49: “Then Daniel requested of the
king, and he set
Shadrach, Meshach,
and Abednego, over the affairs of the province
of Babylon: but Daniel sat in the gate of
the king.”
In using the term “gates,” the Lord Jesus
was saying that the
government of hell (the unseen evil spirit
world) shall not prevail
against His church! The word translated
“prevail” is “katischuo (kat-is-
khoo’-o); to overpower.” 20 Can
any Christian ask for a better
guarantee than the word of Christ? Surely
not! For this reason we
believe that Christ’s church has existed
in succession and that there
are churches of the same sort on the earth
today.
The only alternative is to say that the
church went off into
apostasy sometime prior to or during the
“Dark Ages.” This popular
Protestant view of history (that the
church apostatized and required
a “reformation”) is to say that the church
Christ founded ceased to
exist. It is to say that Christ’s church
perished off the face of the
earth, for apostate churches are spiritual
harlots and not Christ’s
pure bride at all. Such churches cannot be
Christ’s! If Christ’s
churches ceased to exist, then it must
follow that baptism was lost.
Corrupt churches can only administer a
false and corrupt baptism.
Once lost, then only by direct Divine
intervention and authority
could baptism ever be reinstated. This
because no unbaptized man
ever baptized anyone in the New Testament
except John the Baptist,
and he had direct Divine authority.
The historic Baptist position is that the
Lord’s churches did not
cease to exist during the apostasy of the
Dark Ages. Rather she
continued and still continues to make
disciples, mark them with
John’s baptism (which is Scriptural,
Christian baptism) and mature
them so as to fit them for the work of the
ministry.
Christ Instituted A Perpetual Supper In
His Church
Writing under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, Paul wrote
these words to the Scripturally-baptized
church of Christ in Corinth:
“For as often as ye eat this bread, and
drink this cup, ye do shew
the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26).
This statement means nothing unless it
means that the Lord’s
churches are to perpetually exist until He
comes for them.
Remember, the ordinance of the Lord’s
Supper, like baptism, was
given to the Lord’s churches to be
observed by them as a church of
Christ “TILL HE COME!” Paul, in
instructing the Corinthian
Church regarding abuses at the Lord’s
Table, said, “...when ye come
together in the church...” (1 Cor. 11:18). The problem was obviously
81 The Third Witness
“in the church.” Paul did not refer to
being in a building, but rather
the members meeting in “church capacity.”
It is therefore seen that
the apostolic churches kept the ordinances
“in the church,” and so
do the Lord’s churches unto this day.
As quoted above, the promise to the Lord’s
church was that
they were to continue observing the Supper
“till he come.” If the
Protestants are right and the churches
went off into apostasy, error
and corruption in the Dark Ages, then the
Lord’s intent that the
Supper be observed “TILL HE COME” has
failed. If ALL the
churches went off into apostasy, they
ceased to exist as true churches
of Christ. Scriptural baptism and the
Lord’s Supper ceased with
them.
There is, however, no indication
whatsoever that ALL churches
apostatized. During the “Dark Ages” and at
all other times since
the earthly ministry of Christ, there have
been churches, hidden
away perhaps, but nonetheless faithfully
standing for the truth of
God regarding salvation and proper
service. These are the churches
of Christ!
Churches which are damnably corrupted,
either in practice or
doctrine, cease to be the Lord’s churches.
This is doubtless the
meaning of the warnings to the seven
churches of Revelation. Hear
the message Christ sent to the “angels”
(pastors) of these churches.
Rev 2:4-5: “Nevertheless I have somewhat
against thee, because
thou hast left thy first love. Remember
therefore from whence thou
art fallen, and repent, and do the first
works; or else I will come
unto thee quickly, and will remove thy
candlestick out of his place,
except thou repent.”
Rev 2:13-16 “I know thy works, and where
thou dwellest, even
where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not
denied my faith, even in those days
wherein Antipas was my faithful
martyr, who was slain among you, where
Satan dwelleth. But I have
a few things against thee, because thou
hast there them that hold the
doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock
before
the children of Israel, to eat things
sacrificed unto idols, and to commit
fornication. So hast thou also them that
hold the doctrine of the
Nicolaitans,
which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto
thee quickly, and will fight against them
with the sword of my
mouth.”
Rev 2:20-23 “Notwithstanding I have a few
things against thee,
because thou sufferest
that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a
prophetess, to teach and to seduce my
servants to commit fornication,
and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
And I gave her space to repent
82 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
of her fornication; and she repented not.
Behold, I will cast her into
a bed, and them that commit adultery with
her into great tribulation,
except they repent of their deeds. And I
will kill her children with
death; and all the churches shall know
that I am he which searcheth
the reins and hearts: and I will give unto
every one of you according
to your works.”˜
Rev 3:1-3 “And unto the angel of the
church in Sardis write;
These things saith
he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the
seven stars; I know thy works, that thou
hast a name that thou livest,
and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen
the things which remain,
that are ready to die: for I have not
found thy works perfect before
God. Remember therefore how thou hast
received and heard, and
hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come
on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come
upon thee.”
Rev. 3:15-16 “I know thy works, that thou
art neither cold nor
hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So
then because thou art lukewarm,
and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”
The fact that individual churches have
their “candlestick”
removed does not imply that all churches
have perished from off
the earth, but only that a congregation
has ceased being Christ’s
church in that place. That many churches
have thus lost their
“saltness” (Mark
9:50) is apparent. That a remnant of churches have
remained faithful by the sovereign grace
of God is also true.
It was to His church that Christ entrusted
His ordinances to be
kept as He instituted them. (Clearly the
New Testament pattern,
historic Baptist polity and sensible
practice is that the Lord’s supper
be observed by the members of a church
meeting together in church
capacity. 21 See 1 Cor.
11:18 & 20.) Christ’s words indicate that the
Lord’s supper was to be a perpetual
memorial. It was to be observed
until He comes. Therefore, in order for it
to enjoy continual
existence, His church must enjoy continual
existence through
successive congregations. So we say that
the Lord’s supper proves
church succession or perpetuity.
Christ Designed His Church To Continue
SHE IS A BRIDE
That each church is a “chaste virgin”
“espoused” to Christ (2
Cor. 11:2), in other words a
“bride” of Christ, is evident to all who
will study the Scriptures honestly ( John
3:29; Rev. 21:2,9; 22:17). It
is worthy of note that John the Baptist
said he was neither Christ
nor a part of the bride, but rather was
the “friend of the bridegroom.”
83 The Third Witness
In contrast to this pure “bride,” the
false religious system is likened
to a “great whore” in Revelation chapters
17 and 18. This “Harlot”
is clearly the Roman Catholic
organization. She is also the mother
of certain offspring, for she is called
the “Mother of harlots.” These
harlot “daughters” are no doubt the
Protestant “churches.” We know
of no others who could be said to be the
offspring of Rome other
than the Protestant churches, for they
came out of her. Like natural
children often do, these Protestant
churches bear striking
resemblance to their mother. So, then, we
have two completely
different kinds of churches: one pictured
as a virtuous woman and
the other a corrupt woman.
If the corrupt Roman church was ever the
bride of Christ, then
He is married to an harlot! (Espousal is
marriage, not just
engagement!) If Protestant churches are
the bride of Christ, then
Christ is married to a partially reformed
harlot! If all churches are
mere branches of corrupt Romanism, and we
are all “unconscious
Catholics” as she falsely claims, Christ
has no pure bride, but is
married to a trollop.
Neither can we believe that Christ is a widower!
If Christ’s
church ceased to exist, that is the bride
corrupted herself and needed
a reformation, then He had then no bride
and could be considered
a widower. We raise the question then, can
you really believe that
Christ is presently without a bride on the
earth - a bride who is
anticipating His return for her? Surely
not! Christ will return and
find His bride hidden away out of sight, a
godly remnant looking
for His return! If that bride is not the
Harlot or her daughters, then
she must be sound New Testament Baptist
churches. Nothing on
the earth, other than a sound Baptist
church, acts and looks like a
New Testament church AND can offer proof
of her continued
existence since her founding by her
Bridegroom in the days of His
earthly sojourn.
SHE IS AN HOUSE
Each church is said to be “the house of
God, which is the church
of the living God, the pillar and ground
of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
In architectural language, then, a church
is responsible to support
the truth as both footings and pillars support
the upper structure of
a building. It is in churches that the
truth is taught, and it is the
churches that are responsible to
evangelize. If the church
(institutionally speaking) ceased to exist
because of apostasy, then
the truth would crash to the ground and be
lost. Can you really
believe that Christ’s church ceased to
exist and required a re-formation
under such men as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli,
etc., etc?
84 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
Church members are exhorted to “earnestly
contend for the faith
which was once delivered unto the saints”
( Jude 3). To some who
might object, claiming that a specific
church is not mentioned in
Jude we would enquire just what it was
into which “certain men
crept” in verse 4. Who but a church held
agape-feasts as mentioned
in verse 12? Obviously these people to
whom Jude wrote existed in
church capacity and they were responsible
to God for the truth
“once delivered to the saints.”
God preserves His truth, and He does so by
perpetually
sustaining His churches that are made up
of those who have received
a love of the truth. Christ knew what He
was doing when He
designed and built His church. A church
that has an hierarchy,
once corrupt at the top, corrupts itself
entirely. It matters not whether
it is a Roman or Eastern Catholic
hierarchy, Protestant
denomination, Cult, “Baptist convention,”
“Baptist association,”
“Baptist mission board,” or “Baptist
fellowship.” Anything beyond
the “local” church, once corrupt at the
top, corrupts itself entirely.
This is the testimony of history! Each
sound Baptist church has
Christ “at the top” as her Head. Being
autonomous entities, if one
church should fall away into apostasy, the
remaining churches are
unaffected. If one ceases, others in other
places continue. The pillar
and ground of the truth will stand until
Christ returns for her!
SHE IS KEPT BY HER SOVEREIGN FOUNDER
The plain fact of the matter is that
Christ did build His church,
and genuine believers in New Testament
days were members of
His churches. In fact, the book of Acts
knows nothing of saved
individuals who were not baptized into a
church. Are we to believe
that Christ’s work in establishing His
church has come to naught?
Has Satan thus overcome the Lion of the
tribe of Judah? Has the
usurper god of this world dethroned the
rightful Sovereign? Such
things are unthinkable to all who are
familiar with the teachings of
the Bible!
To any unprejudiced student of the Bible
it surely must be
evident that Christ established His
church. He gave her the
responsibility of evangelizing, baptizing
and teaching. As well He
left her the observance of the two
ordinances, both of which relate
to the redeeming death of Christ for His
elect. He promised to be
with her until the end of the age and that
the powers of the unseen
spirit world would not be able to
“prevail” over her.
That New Testament kind of church is yet
with us today. It
behooves every saint of God to locate such
a church and join himself
85 The Third Witness
to it so that his service might be
pleasing, orderly, acceptable to
Christ and eternally rewarded.
NOTES
1. Jarrel E.
Huffman, “The Elect Within the Elect,” (The Berea Baptist Banner,
South Point, Ohio/Mantachie, Miss.,
Milburn Cockrell, Ed., Vol. IX, Number 5,
May, 1988), p. 7.
2. Hassell and Hassell, op. cit., pp. 334, 335.
3. Augustine, quoted by W.W. Everts, Introduction, W. A. Jarrell, BAPTIST
CHURCH PERPETUITY, 1894), p. xi.
Everts
wrote his introduction from Haverhill, Mass. in May of 1894. Formerly
his was the Chair of Ecclesiastical
History, Chicago Baptist Theological Seminary.
4. Augustine, De nat.
Et grat. 36,42, Wilhelm, CHRIST AMONG US, A
MODERN PRESENTATION OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH,
2nd Ed., (NY/
Paramus, Paulist
Press), p. 91.
5. James Strong, THE GREEK-HEBREW
DICTIONARY AND
ENGLISHMAN’S CONCORDANCE, (Seattle, Biblesoft, 1988), a software
version of STRONG’S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE
OF THE BIBLE,
James Strong, (Nashville, Abingdon).
6. Strong, ibid.
7. Strong, ibid.
8. B.H. Carroll, ECCLESIA - THE CHURCH,
(Little Rock, AR, Challenge
Press, n.d.),
pp. 8, 9.
9. Carroll, ibid., p. 9.
10. W.E. Vine, AN EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF
NEW TESTAMENT
WORDS WITH THEIR PRECISE MEANINGS FOR
ENGLISH READERS,
(Westwood, NJ, Fleming H. Revell Company, 1966), pp. 83, 84.
11. Louis Berkhof,
PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION,
(Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1950),
pp. 68, 69.
12. Edward Hugh Overby,
THE MEANING OF ECCLESIA IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT, (Little Rock, Challenge Press,
1974), p. 10.
13. S.E. Anderson THE FIRST CHURCH,
(Little Rock, Challenge Press,
1964), p. 88.
14. Roy Mason, THE CHURCH THAT JESUS
BUILT, (Clarksville, TN,
Bible Baptist Church Publications, 1977),
p. 28.
15. J.B. Moody, MY CHURCH, (Greenwood, SC,
The Attic Press, Inc. 1974
reprint), p. 13.
16. Moody, ibid., pp. 30, 31, 36, 37.
17. Roy Mason, Th.D.,
THE MYTH OF THE UNIVERSAL INVISIBLE
CHURCH THEORY EXPLODED, (Ashland, KY,
Economy Printers, 1978), pp.
62, 63.
18. Carroll, op cit., p. 24
19. Strong, ibid.
20. Strong, ibid.
21. Only the “closed communion” position
can harmonize with the instructions
86 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
of the Bible regarding church discipline.
A church which practices either “open
communion” or “close communion” (sometimes
called “denominational
communion”) is disorderly because she
cannot exclude a member from the Table
as required by the New Testament.
For instance: a member of such a church
may be excluded for a disorderly
walk, heresy, etc. The Bible command is
“with such an one no, not to eat” (1 Cor.
5:11). Yet such an excluded member might
very well have joined another church
of similar order, as has often happened,
whose practice in receiving members is
not so careful. That excluded member,
under the terms of either “open” or “close
communion” could with perfect liberty
return to a meeting of the church that
excluded him and partake of the Lord’s
Table. The command “not to eat” would
be disobeyed. Thus, Biblical church
discipline is mocked and rendered useless by
any other position than “local church
members only” or “closed communion”.
CONCLUSION
Surely to any candid mind the facts are
clear. Baptists of the
historic sort have been shown to be the
original Christians. The
New Testament “kind” of Baptist churches
have authority from
Christ to carry out the work of the Great
Commission. Sound
Baptists and their churches have perpetual
existence both promised
and as a matter of historical fact. There
is no hint or assumption
anywhere in the New Testament that
Christ’s church would cease
to exist before He comes. Neither is there
any hint or suggestion
that any other entity would succeed the
church in doing Christ’s
work. Hence there is no room, nor need for
denominational
organizations, associational machinery,
mission boards or such like.
This Baptist perpetuity demands church
succession. Churches
do not mystically spring up of themselves.
Baptist churches are
gathered by men who have previous Baptist
baptism and church
connection (authority). This is the
consistent New Testament pattern
as well as historic Baptist practice. No
real Baptist believes that any
unbaptized
person, unless directly sent by God as John was, has a
right to baptize others. No such practice
can be found in the
Scriptures or in the accepted practice of
the Baptists. Such a practice
must be viewed as an innovation of man.
In the mouth of three groups of witnesses
we have sought to
establish the facts. We believe that these
“three witnesses” - (1)
historic Baptist testimony, (2) the
testimony of non-Baptists, and
(3) the testimony of the Scriptures -
positively settle these matters.
If these three witnesses are true, then
all churches other than
the New Testament Baptist churches are
man-made and without
Divine authority. Their members are unbaptized. This seems to
have been the view of Tertullian
who was born about 50 years after
the beloved apostle John died. Tertullian wrote, “Baptismum quum
rite non habeant,
fine dubio non habent,”
which translates, “Those
who are not rightly baptized, are,
doubtless, not baptized at all”. 1
We doubt not that many members in man-made
churches are
sincere and well-meaning people trying to
serve God the best way
they know how. We do not disagree with
much of what some groups
teach. However, if the Baptists are in
reality the “original Christians,”
then all other groups obtained whatever
truth they may have from
Baptists, for the New Testament was penned
by Baptist hands.
Settle it then: salvation is in Christ and
all who have savingly
88 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
come to Him, having repented of their
sins, are saved and safe!
Not being a member of a Baptist church
does not mean that a person
is lost and, conversely, being immersed by
a Baptist church does
not mean that one is saved. The new birth,
regeneration, is the
absolute requirement for salvation.
There is, however, the matter of
acceptable service to Christ -the
matter of pleasing Him! There is the
matter of properly carrying
out His commission. Will you serve Him
faithfully in the way He
established? Do you dare, for whatever
reason, think to serve Him
according to your own desires and
preferences?
There were those in Jesus’ day who refused
to submit to
Scriptural baptism - the baptism of John -
the only baptism the
Bible endorses. We believe the baptism
initiated by John is the
only baptism God recognizes. Of the people
who refused John’s
baptism, Luke spoke when he said they
“rejected the counsel of
God against themselves, being not baptized
of him” (Luke 7:30).
Surely no child of God would willingly and
knowingly reject the
counsel of God. Did not Jesus say that His
sheep hear His voice
and follow Him? ( John 10:27). Follow
Christ!
FINIS
NOTES
1. Tertullian,
de BAPTISMO, cap. XV, p. 230, quoted by Abraham Booth,
A DEFENSE FOR THE BAPTISTS, (London, E.
& C. Dilly, 1778), [reprinted
by The Baptift
Standard Bearer, Paris, AR., 1985,] p. 25.
89 Glossary
GLOSSARY
Since both the faith and practice of the
New Testament churches have been
laid aside by so many, the “old paths” of
Biblical practice often seem unusual
and new despite their apostolic origin.
The old apostolic doctrines of grace
are slandered as “Calvinism” and the old
practices of Baptists are smeared
as “Landmarkism.”
We believe both “tulip-ism” and strict Baptist polity
are Scriptural although both have been
largely abandoned. Because of this
present situation, you may be unacquainted
with Baptist terms. This glossary
is provided to enable all to read with
ease and understanding the terms
used..
Anabaptist:
literally a “re-baptizer” - a collective
name given often in
ancient times to many groups who insisted
on immersing
all who joined them despite previous “baptisms”
at the hands
of other societies. Among these groups the
Lord’s truth-loving
churches existed in former days. Baptists
do not
believe it is possible to “re-baptize”
anyone though we are
charged with doing so because we baptize
aright those
previously “baptized” by other groups
lacking New
Testament authority. Our old writers
vigorously denied
being “Anabaptists” because they knew it
impossible to re-baptize
anyone. A believer, previously immersed
unscripturally,
can be re-immersed and in actuality baptized
for the first time upon this repeat
immersion
Apostate:
one who has willfully left the doctrines
and practices of the
Bible.
Church:
a church of Christ is a congregation of
Scripturally-baptized
believers organized in harmony with New
Testament precept
and procedure. This definition is
consistent with the New
Testament Greek word “ecclesia” and its
usage both in sacred
and secular writings.
Council of Trent:
(1545-63) convened to damn those who
opposed “free will”
and those who resisted the Roman Catholic
Church. It set
forth dogmatically the doctrines of
Romanism. It “...among
other things dogmatized the medieval
theology of the
90 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
Scholastics. It made the Latin Vulgate,
including 11 O.T.
apocryphal books, the authorized Bible,
and declared
Scripture AND tradition as ultimate
authority.” 1 Further,
this council proclaimed “If any one
affirms that the baptism
of John had the same force as the baptism
of Christ, let him
be anathema” - a blow directed at the
Anabaptists of the
day as well as certain Protestants.
Donatists,
Novatians, Petrobrussians, Cathari, Arnoldists,
Hussites,
Waldenses, Lollards:
etc. are historic nicknames applied in
various localities to
those people known collectively as
Anabaptists. That there
was a connection between these groups is
clear. 2 It is among
these groups that New Testament churches
are to be found
although obviously not all within these
groups were saved
nor were all the congregations so labeled
necessarily sound.
Among these are the spiritual forefathers
of modern New
Testament Baptists.
Hosius,
Cardinal Stanislaus:
Born May 5, 1504 in Krakow, Poland, Hosius died August
5, 1579, at Capranica,
the Papal Estates, Italy. Appointed
Cardinal in 1561, Hosius
was later appointed presiding Papal
legate to the Council of Trent. He is
described as “the most
brilliant writer, the most eminent
theologian, and the best
bishop of his time.” 3 Because he carried
on such a relentless
campaign against all dissenters from the
Roman church, he
was dubbed “hammer of the heretics.” 4
“Landmarkers” or
“Landmark Baptists:
“ Baptists who maintain the historic
Baptist (and we believe,
Biblical) position regarding the nature,
origin and succession
of true churches of Christ are often
called and sometimes
call themselves “Landmarkers.”
The nickname originated
from an essay published in 1854 entitled
“An Old Landmark
Reset” written by J.M. Pendleton, a
Baptist minister in the
United States. The principles and
practices of historic
Landmarkism
can be proved to be as old as the New
Testament. This is not to say that
everything believed
by some who call themselves “Landmarkers” is
Scriptural. Some “Landmarkers”
have gone off to extreme
views, such as “new-lightism.”
Historic Landmarkism is
church practice consistent with Bible
principles.
Mosheim, Johann Laurenz
von:
(1694? - 1755). Known as the father of
modern church
91 Glossary
history, this Lutheran was no friend of
Baptists, but gets
high marks for his attempt at honest
reporting of the facts.
He has been praised as follows: “...von
Mosheim, a German
preacher, university professor at Goetingen, and noted
scholar, was the first to attempt to write
Church history
objectively. Instead of publishing history
to produce
propaganda, von Mosheim tried to examine
the
development of the Church without bias or
party line.” 5
Munster:
City in Westphalia, (region of western
Germany bordering
on the Netherlands), was the scene of
tumultuous riots during
the Peasant Wars. The Anabaptists were
falsely blamed for
the riots which were led by Thomas Munzer, radical
reformer and former comrade of Martin
Luther. Some have
tried to trace the Baptists back to these
fanatical “madmen
of Munster.” One of the ablest of
historians wrote:
“The most searching investigation has
failed to prove that
Munzer,
the leader of the riots in the Peasant Wars, was a
Baptist, or that the Baptists were in
anyway responsible for
the uprisings.” 6
Ordinances:
Baptists hold only two ordinances as
Scriptural, namely
water baptism of believers and the Lord’s
supper, both of
which they view as being church ordinances
as opposed to
mere “Christian ordinances.” By that it is
meant that Baptists
view the ordinances as properly observed
only by a (local)
New Testament kind of (Baptist) church.
Ordinances differ
from sacraments in that an ordinance is
merely a memorial,
while it is claimed by ritualists
that a sacrament is a work
that actually conveys grace to the
recipient. Those who hold
the sacramental view believe that grace is
obtained by
religious works and ceremonies - a thing
contrary to the
very definition of grace which is
“unearned favor” or
“unmerited love.”
Pedobaptist:
one who “baptizes” infants whether by
sprinkling, pouring
or immersion. There is no mention of this
practice in the
New Testament; thus, Baptists view it as
an unscriptural and
evil innovation. Its promoters practice it
because they
believe the rite washes away the guilt of
sin and makes the
unconscious babe a child of God.
92 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
Perpetuity:
the concept that churches of the New
Testament sort have
had continual existence since the first
one was established
by Christ and that they shall continually
exist until He comes
again. Closely related to “succession.”
(see “Succession”
below).
Protestant:
used of those individuals and religious
societies which
separated from or arose in protest against
the Roman
Catholic Church during the period of
history known as the
“Reformation.” The term is also used of
groups later splitting
off those earlier splits. Baptists,
originating with Christ, are
not Protestants in this sense though they
have consistently
opposed the errors of Romanism.
Quasi-baptists:
churches or individuals who are designated
Baptist, but who
only slightly resemble historic Baptists
in doctrine and
practice. Used of liberal, loose,
irregular and apostate
Baptists.
Succession:
the concept of churches being founded by
the authority of
previously existing churches. J.R. Graves,
erroneously called
the father of Landmarkism,
wrote:
“The sense in which any existing Baptist Church
is the
successor of the First Church of Judea
-the model and pattern
of all -is the same as that existing
between any regular
organization and the first such
organization that was ever
instituted. Ten thousand local
organizations of like nature
may have existed and passed away, but this
fact in no wise
affects the continuity of the
organization. From the day that
organization was started, it has stood;
and though it may
have decayed in some places, it has
flourished in others,
and never had but one beginning...” 7
Transubstantiation:
the Catholic teaching that in the Mass the
bread and wine
actually become the body and blood of
Christ in a non-bloody
sacrifice. Hear from one of Rome’s own
authorized
statements:
“This is the word the [Roman Catholic] Church
has adopted
as most accurately expressing what happens
at the
Consecration at Mass. At this moment, by
divine power,
what was bread and wine now becomes the
Body and Blood
93 Glossary
of Christ. The Catholic, therefore,
subscribes to the
traditional doctrine of the [Roman
Catholic] Church which,
in the words of the Council of Trent,
speaks of ‘the change
of the whole substance of the bread into
the Body, of the
whole substance of the wine into the Blood
(of Christ), only
the appearances of bread and wine
remaining; which change
the Catholic Church most fitly calls
transubstantiation.” 8
[Brackets mine:C.A.P.]
NOTES
1. Merrill F. Unger, Th.D.,
Ph.D., UNGER’S BIBLE HANDBOOK,
(Chicago, Moody Press, 1966), p. 913.
2. Of the Cathari
(one group of Anabaptists) it is said, “They derived their
teachings from Paulicians:
their chief ramifications were the Albigenses and the
Bogomils.”
Clarke F. Ansley, Ed., THE COLUMBIA ENCYCLOPEDIA IN
ONE VOLUME, NY, Columbia University Press,
1945), p. 313.
The various groups evidently had not only
a connection of principles and doctrines,
but as the waters of one stream flow into
another, so these succeeded and sometimes
paralleled one another.
3. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Edition,
Vol. 6, article “Hosius”, p. 77
4. Douglas, Elwell,
and Toon, op cit., p. 189.
5. William P. Barker, WHO’S WHO IN CHURCH
HISTORY, (Grand
Rapids, Baker, 1977), p. 198.
6. Christian, op cit., p. 153.
7. J.R. Graves, OLD LANDMARKISM
(Texarkana, Bogard Press reprint of
the second edition, 1881), p. 84.
8. Mabel Quin,
Ed., THE CATHOLIC PEOPLES ENCYCLOPEDIA, Vol.
3 (Chicago, The Catholic Press, Inc.,
1966), p. 1019.
This three volume set bears the Imprimatur
of Cletus F. O’Donnell, J.C.D. and
this statement: “The Nihil
obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that
a book or
pamphlet is free from doctrinal or moral
error...”
94 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
Appendix I
THE FIRST LONDON BAPTIST
CONFESSION OF FAITH
A.D. 1644
Note to the Reader
By Curtis Pugh
Composed and published some two years PRIOR
to the now famous
Protestant Westminster Confession, this
Baptist Confession of 1644 sets
forth the historic Baptist view regarding
both the doctrines relating to
salvation and those now called “church
truth.” There is little evidence here
of Protestant influence. This old
confession is highly valuable not only because
of its doctrinal soundness, but because of
its adherence to Biblical phrases
and terminology. It is Christ- centered
and Christ-honoring.
The text presented here has been changed
only in the matter of updating
the spelling, except for the title page
where the old spellings have been retained.
While some punctuation changes have been
made, older usage of words is
kept so as to avoid editorializing the
text. Capitalization has been left as
found.
95 Appendix I
[Facsimile Title Page]
The
CONFESSION
OF FAITH,
Of those CHURCHES which are
commonly (though falsly)
called ANABAPTISTS;
Presented to the view of all that feare God, to
examine by the touchstone of the Word of
Truth: As
likewise for the taking off those
aspersions which
are frequently both in Pulpit and Print,
(although
unjustly) cast upon them.
Acts 4.20
We can not but speake
the things which wee have
seene
and heard.
Isai. 8.20
To the Law and to the testimony, if they speake not
according to this Rule, it is because
there is no light
in them.
2 Cor. 1.9, 10
But wee had the sentence of death in our
selves, that
wee should not trust in our selves, but in
the living
God which raiseth
the dead; who delivered us from
so great a death, and doth deliver, in
whom wee
trust that he will yet deliver.
LONDON
Printed by Matthew Simmons in Aldersgate-street.
1644
96 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
To
ALL THAT DESIRE
The lifting up of the Name of the LORD
Jesus in sincerity, the
poor despised Churches of God in London
send greeting, with
prayers for their farther increase in the
knowledge of CHRIST
JESUS.
We question not but that it will seem
strange to many men, that such as
we are frequently termed to be, lying
under that calumny and black brand
of Heretics, and sowers
of division as we do, should presume to appear so
publicly as now we have done: But yet
notwithstanding we may well say, to
give answer to such, what David said to
his brother, when the Lord’s
battle was a fighting, 1 Sam. 29:30. Is
there not a cause?
Surely, if ever people had cause to speak
for the vindication of the truth
of Christ in their hands, we have, that
being indeed the main wheel at this
time that sets us awork;
for had anything by men been transacted against
our persons only, we could quietly have sitten still, and committed our
Cause to him who is a righteous Judge, who
will in the great day judge the
secrets of all men’s hearts by Jesus
Christ: But being it is not only us, but the
truth professed by us, we cannot, we dare
not but speak; it is no strange
thing to any observing man, what sad
charges are laid, not only by the
world, that know not God, but also by
those that think themselves much
wronged, if they be not looked upon as the
chief Worthies of the Church of
God, and Watchmen of the City: But it hath
fared with us from them, as
from the poor Spouse seeking her Beloved,
Cant. 5:6, 7. They finding us out
of that common roadway themselves walk,
have smote us and taken away
our vail, that
so we may by them be recommended odious in the eyes of all
that behold us, and in the hearts of all
that think upon us, which they have
done both in Pulpit and Print, charging us
with holding Free-will, Falling
away from grace, denying Original sin,
disclaiming of Magistracy, denying
to assist them either in persons or purse
in any of their lawful Commands,
doing acts unseemly in the dispensing the
Ordinance of Baptism, not to be
named amongst Christians: All which
Charges we disclaim as notoriously
untrue, though by reason of these calumnies
cast upon us, many that fear
God are discouraged and forestalled in
harboring a good thought, either of
us or what we profess; and many that know
not God encouraged, if they
can find the place of our meeting, to get
together in Clusters to stone us, as
looking upon us as a people holding such
things, as that we are not worthy
to live: We have therefore for the
clearing of the truth we profess, that it may
be at liberty, though we be in bonds,
briefly published a Confession of our
Faith, as desiring all that fear God,
seriously to consider whether (if they
compare what we here say and confess in
the presence of the Lord Jesus and
his Saints) men have not with their
tongues in Pulpit, and pens in Print,
97 Appendix I
both spoken and written things that are
contrary to truth; but we know our
God in his own time will clear our Cause,
and lift up his Son to make him
the chief cornerstone, though he has been
(or now should be) rejected of
Master Builders. And because it may be
conceived, that what is here
published, may be but the Judgement of some one particular Congregation,
more refined than the rest; We do
therefore here subscribe it, some of each
body in the name, and by the appointment
of seven Congregations, who
though we be distinct in respect of our
particular bodies, for convenience
sake, being as many as can well meet
together in one place, yet are all one in
Communion, holding Jesus Christ to be our
head and Lord; under whose
government we desire alone to walk, in
following the Lamb wheresoever he
goeth;
and we believe the Lord will daily cause truth more to appear in the
hearts of his Saints, and make them
ashamed of their folly in the Land of
their Nativity, that so they may with one
shoulder, more study to lift up the
Name of the Lord Jesus, and stand for his
appointments and Laws; which
is the desires and prayers of the
condemned Churches of Christ in London
for all saints.
Subscribed in the Names of seven Churches
in London.
William Kiffin.
Thomas Patience.
————————————
John Spilsbery.
George Tipping.
Samuel Richardson.
————————————
Thomas Skippard.
Thomas Munday.
————————————
Thomas Gunne.
John Mabbatt.
————————————
John Webb
Thomas Killcop.
————————————
Paul Hobson.
Thomas Goare.
John Mabbatt.
————————————
Joseph Phelpes.
Edward Heath.
98 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
The
CONFESSION
Of Faith, of those Churches
which are commonly (though falsely)
called ANABAPTISTS.
I.
That God as he is in himself, cannot be
comprehended of any but
himself, 1 dwelling in that inaccessible
light, that no eye can attain
unto, whom never man saw, nor can see;
that there is but 2 one
God, one Christ, one Spirit, one Faith,
one Baptism; 3 one Rule of
holiness and obedience for all Saints, at
all times, in all places to be
observed.
II.
That God is 4 of himself, that is, neither
from another, nor of another,
nor by another, nor for another: 5 But is
a Spirit, who as his being is
of himself, so he gives 6 being, moving,
and preservation to all other
things, being in himself eternal, most
holy, every way infinite in
7 greatness, wisdom, power, justice,
goodness, truth, etc. In this God-head,
there is the Father, the Son, and the
Spirit; being every one
of them one and the same God; and
therefore not divided, but
distinguished one from another by their
several properties; the
8 Father being from himself, the 9 Son of
the Father from everlasting,
the holy 10 Spirit proceeding from the
Father and the Son.
III.
That God hath 11 decreed in himself from
everlasting touching all
things, effectually to work and dispose
them 12 according to the
counsel of his own will, to the glory of
his Name; in which decree
appeareth
his wisdom, constancy, truth, and faithfulness; 13 Wisdom
is that whereby he contrives all things;
14 Constancy is that whereby
the decree of God remains always immutable;
15 Truth is that
whereby he declares that alone which he
hath decreed, and though
his sayings may seem to sound sometimes
another thing, yet the
sense of them doth always agree with the
decree; 16 Faithfulness is
that whereby he effects that he hath decreed,
as he hath decreed.
And touching his creature man, 17 God had
in Christ before the
foundation of the world, according to the
good pleasure of his will,
foreordained some men to eternal life
through Jesus Christ, to the
praise and glory of his grace, 18 leaving
the rest in their sin to their
just condemnation, to the praise of his
Justice.
IV.
19 In the beginning God made all things
very good, created man
after his own 20 Image and likeness,
filling him with all perfection of
99 Appendix I
all natural excellency and uprightness,
free from all sin. 21 But long
he abode not in this honor, but by the 22
subtlety of the Serpent,
which Satan used as his instrument,
himself with his Angels having
sinned before, and not 23 kept their first
estate, but left their own
habitation; first 24 Eve, then Adam being
seduced did wittingly and
willingly fall into disobedience and
transgression of the
Commandment of their great Creator, for
the which death came
upon all, and reigned over all, so that
all since the Fall are conceived
in sin, and brought forth in iniquity, and
so by nature children of
wrath, and servants of sin, subjects of 25
death, and all other calamities
due to sin in this world and forever,
being considered in the state of
nature, without relation to Christ.
V.
All mankind being thus fallen, and become
altogether dead in sins
and trespasses, and subject to the eternal
wrath of the great God by
transgression; yet the elect, which God
hath 26 loved with an
everlasting love, are 27 redeemed,
quickened, and saved, not by
themselves, neither by their own works,
lest any man should boast
himself, but wholly and only by God of 28
his free grace and mercy
through Jesus Christ, who of God is made
unto us wisdom,
righteousness, sanctification and
redemption, that as it is written,
He that rejoiceth,
let him rejoice in the Lord.
VI.
29 This therefore is life eternal, to know
the only true God, and whom
he hath sent Jesus Christ. 30 And on the
contrary, the Lord will render
vengeance in flaming fire to them that
know not God, and obey
not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
31 VII.
The Rule of this Knowledge, Faith, and
Obedience, concerning
the worship and service of God, and all
other Christian duties, is
not man’s inventions, opinions, devices,
laws, constitutions, or
traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only
the word of God contained
in the Canonical Scriptures.
32 VIII.
In this written Word God hath plainly
revealed whatsoever he hath
thought needful for us to know, believe,
and acknowledge, touching
the Nature and Office of Christ, in whom
all the promises are Yea
and Amen to the praise of God.
IX.
Touching the Lord Jesus, of whom 33 Moses
and the Prophets wrote,
and whom the Apostles preached, is the 34
Son of God the Father,
the brightness of his glory, the engraven form of his being, God
100 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
with him and with his holy Spirit, by whom
he made the world, by
whom he upholds and governs all the works
he hath made, who
also 35 when the fullness of time was
come, was made man of a
36 woman, of the Tribe of Judah, of the
seed of Abraham and David, to
wit, of Mary that blessed Virgin, by the
holy Spirit coming upon
her, and the power of the most High
overshadowing her, and was
also in 37 all things like unto us, sin
only excepted.
X.
Touching his Office, 38 Jesus Christ only
is made the Mediator of the
new Covenant, even the everlasting
Covenant of grace between
God and Man, to 39 be perfectly and fully
the Prophet, Priest and
King of the Church of God for evermore.
XI.
Unto this Office he was foreordained from
everlasting, by the
40 authority of the Father and in respect
of his Manhood, from the
womb called and separated, and 41 anointed
also most fully and
abundantly with all gifts necessary, God
having without measure
poured the Spirit upon him.
XII.
In this Call the Scripture holds forth two
special things considerable;
first, the call to the Office; secondly,
the Office itself. First, that
42 none takes this honor but he that is
called of God, as was Aaron, so
also Christ, it being an action especially
of God the Father, whereby
a special covenant being made, he ordains
his Son to this office:
which Covenant is, that 43 Christ should
be made a Sacrifice for sin,
that he shall see his seed, and prolong
his days, and the pleasure of
the Lord shall prosper in his hand; which
calling therefore contains
in itself 44 choosing, 45 foreordaining,
46 sending. Choosing respects
the end, foreordaining the means, sending
the execution itself, 47 all
of mere grace, without any condition
foreseen either in men, or in
Christ himself.
48 XIII.
So that this Office to be Mediator, that
is, to be Prophet, Priest, and
King of the Church of God, is so proper to
Christ, as neither in the
whole, nor in any part thereof, it can be
transferred from him to
any other.
XIV.
This Office itself to which Christ was
called, is threefold, of 49 a
Prophet, of 50 Priest, and of 51 a King:
this number and order of Offices
is showed; first, by men’s necessities
grievously laboring 52 under
ignorance, by reason whereof they stand in
infinite necessity of the
Prophetical office of Christ to relieve
them. Secondly, 53 alienation
101 Appendix I
from God, wherein they stand in need of
the Priestly Office to
reconcile them: Thirdly, our 54 utter
disability to return to him, by
which they stand in need of the power of
Christ in his Kingly Office
to assist and govern them.
XV.
Touching the Prophesy of Christ, it is
that whereby he hath
55 perfectly revealed the whole will of
God out of the bosom of the
Father, that is needful for his servants
to know, believe, and obey;
and therefore is called not only a Prophet
and 56 a Doctor, and the
57 Apostle of our profession, and the 58
Angel of the Covenant; but
also the very 59 wisdom of God, and 60 the
treasures of wisdom and
understanding.
XVI.
That he might be such a Prophet as thereby
to be every way
complete, it was necessary that he should
be 61 God, and withal also
that he should be man; for unless he had
been God, he could never
have perfectly understood the will of God,
62 neither had he been
able to reveal it throughout all ages; and
unless he had been man,
he could not fitly have unfolded it in his
63 own person to man.
XVII.
Touching his Priesthood, Christ 64 being
consecrated, hath appeared
once to put away sin by the offering and
sacrifice of himself, and to
this end hath fully performed and suffered
all those things by which
God, through the blood of that his Cross
in an acceptable sacrifice,
might reconcile his elect only; 65 and
having broken down the
partition wall, and therewith finished and
removed all those Rites,
Shadows, and Ceremonies, is now entered
within the Vail, into the
Holy of Holiest, that is, to the very
Heavens, and presence of God,
where he forever liveth
and sitteth at the right hand of Majesty,
appearing before the face of his Father to
make intercession for
such as come to the Throne of Grace by
that new and living way;
and not that only, but 66 makes his people
a spiritual House, an holy
Priesthood, to offer up spiritual
sacrifice acceptable to God through
him; neither doth the Father accept, or
Christ offer to the Father
any other worship or worshippers.
XVIII.
This Priesthood was not legal, or
temporary, but according to the
order 67 of Melchizedek; 68 not by a
carnal commandment, but by the
power of an endless life; 69 not by an
order that is weak and lame,
but stable and perfect, not for a 70 time,
but forever, admitting no
successor, but perpetual and proper to
Christ, and of him that ever
liveth.
Christ himself was the Priest, Sacrifice and Altar: he was
102 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
71 Priest, according to both natures, he
was a sacrifice most properly
according to his human nature: 72 whence
in the Scripture it is wont
to be attributed to his body, to his
blood; yet the chief force whereby
this sacrifice was made effectual, did
depend upon his ˜ 73 divine
nature, namely, that the Son of God did
offer himself for us: he was
the 74 Altar properly according to his
divine nature, it belonging to
the Altar to sanctify that which is
offered upon it, and so it ought to
be of greater dignity than the Sacrifice
itself.
XIX.
Touching his Kingdom, 75 Christ being
risen from the dead, ascended
into heaven, sat on the right hand of God
the Father, having all
power in heaven and earth, given unto him,
he doth spiritually
govern his Church, exercising his power 76
over all Angels and Men,
good and bad, to the preservation and
salvation of the elect, to the
overruling and destruction of his enemies,
which are Reprobates,
77 communicating and applying the
benefits, virtue, and fruit of his
Prophesy and Priesthood to his elect,
namely, to the subduing and
taking away of their sins, to their
justification and adoption of Sons,
regeneration, sanctification, preservation
and strengthening in all
their conflicts against Satan, the World,
the Flesh, and the
temptations of them, continually dwelling
in, governing and keeping
their hearts in faith and filial fear by
his Spirit, which having 78 given
it, he never takes away from them, but by
it still begets and
nourisheth
in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all
heavenly light in the soul unto
immortality, notwithstanding through
our own unbelief, and the temptations of
Satan, the sensible sight
of this light and love be clouded and
overwhelmed for the time.
79 And on the contrary, ruling in the
world over his enemies, Satan,
and all the vessels of wrath, limiting,
using, restraining them by his
mighty power, as seems good in his divine
wisdom and justice to
the execution of his determinate counsel,
delivering them up to a
reprobate mind, to be kept through their
own deserts, in darkness
and sensuality unto judgment.
80 XX.
This Kingdom shall be then fully perfected
when he shall the second
time come in glory to reign amongst his
Saints, and to be admired
of all them which do believe, when he
shall put down all rule and
authority under his feet, that the glory
of the Father may be full
and perfectly manifested in his Son, and
the glory of the Father
and the Son in all his members.
XXI.
That Christ Jesus by his death did bring
forth salvation and
103 Appendix I
reconciliation only for the 81 elect,
which were those which 82 God
the Father gave him; and that the Gospel
which is to be preached
to all men as the ground of faith, is,
that 83 Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of the ever blessed God, filled with
the perfection of all heavenly
and spiritual excellencies, and that
salvation is only and alone to
be had through the believing in his Name.
XXII.
That Faith is the 84 gift of God wrought
in the hearts of the elect by
the Spirit of God, whereby they come to
see, know, and believe the
truth of 85 the Scriptures, and not only
so, but the excellency of them
above all other writings and things in the
world, as they hold forth
the glory of God in his attributes, the
excellency of Christ in his
nature and offices, and the power of the
fullness of the Spirit in its
workings and operations; and thereupon are
enabled to cast the
weight of their souls upon this truth thus
believed.
86 XXIII.
Those that have this precious faith
wrought in them by the Spirit,
can never finally nor totally fall away;
and though many storms
and floods do arise and beat against them,
yet they shall never be
able to take them off that foundation and
rock which by faith they
are fastened upon, but shall be kept by
the power of God to salvation,
where they shall enjoy their purchased
possession, they being
formerly engraven
upon the palms of God’s hands.
XXIV.
That faith is ordinarily 87 begot by the
preaching of the Gospel, or
word of Christ, without respect to 88 any
power or capacity in the
creature, but it is wholly 89 passive,
being dead in sins and trespasses,
doth believe, and is converted by no less
power, 90 than that which
raised Christ from the dead.
XXV.
That the tenders of the Gospel to the
conversion of sinners, 91 is
absolutely free, no way requiring, as
absolutely necessary, any
qualifications, preparations, terrors of
the Law, or preceding Ministry
of the Law, but only and alone the naked
soul, as a 92 sinner and
ungodly to receive Christ, as crucified,
dead, and buried, and risen
again, being made 93 a Prince and a Saviour for such sinners.
XXVI.
That the same power that converts to faith
in Christ, the same power
carries on the 94 soul still through all
duties, temptations, conflicts,
sufferings, and continually whatever a
Christian is, he is by 95 grace,
and by a constant renewed 96 operation
from God, without which
he cannot perform any duty to God, or
undergo any temptations
104 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
from Satan, the world, or men.
XXVII.
That God the Father, and Son, and Spirit,
is one with 97 all believers
in their 98 fullness, in 99 relations, 100
as head and members, 101 as house
and inhabitants, as 102 husband and wife,
one with him, as 103 light
and love, and one with him in his inheritance,
and in all his 104 glory;
and that all believers by virtue of this
union and oneness with God,
are the adopted sons of God, and heirs
with Christ, co-heirs and
joint heirs with him of the inheritance of
all the promises of this
life, and that which is to come.
XXVIII.
That those which have union with Christ,
are justified from all their
sins, past, 105 present, and to come, by
the blood of Christ; which
justification we conceive to be a gracious
and free 106 acquittance of
a guilty, sinful creature, from all sin by
God, through the satisfaction
that Christ hath made by his death; and
this applied in the
manifestation of it through faith.
XXIX.
That all believers are a holy and 107
sanctified people, and that
sanctification is a spiritual grace of the
108 new Covenant, and effect
of the 109 love of God, manifested to the
soul, whereby the believer
is in 110 truth and reality separated,
both in soul and body, from all
sin and dead works, through the 111 blood
of the everlasting
Covenant, whereby he also presseth after a heavenly and
Evangelical perfection, in obedience to
all the Commands, 112 which
Christ as head and King in hits new
Covenant has prescribed to
him.
XXX.
All believers through the knowledge of 113
that Justification of life
given by the Father, and brought forth by
the blood of Christ, have
this as their great privilege of that the
new 114 Covenant, peace with
God, and reconciliation, whereby they that
were afar off, were
brought nigh by 115 that blood, and have
(as the Scripture speaks)
peace 116 passing all understanding, yea,
joy in God, through our
Lord Jesus Christ, by 117 whom we have
received the Atonement.
118 XXXI.
That all believers in the time of this
life, are in a continual warfare,
combat, and opposition against sin, self,
the world, and the Devil,
and liable to all manner of afflictions,
tribulations, and persecutions,
and so shall continue until Christ comes
in his Kingdom, being
predestinated and appointed thereunto; and
whatsoever the Saints,
any of them do posses or enjoy of God in
this life, is only by faith.
105 Appendix I
119 XXXII.
That the only strength by which the Saints
are enabled to encounter
with all opposition, and to overcome all
afflictions, temptations,
persecutions, and trials, is only by Jesus
Christ, who is the Captain
of their salvation, being made perfect
through sufferings, who hath
engaged his strength to assist them in all
their afflictions, and to
uphold them under all their temptations,
and to preserve them by
his power to his everlasting Kingdom.
XXXIII.
That Christ hath here on earth a spiritual
Kingdom, which is the
Church, which he hath purchased and
redeemed to himself, as a
peculiar inheritance: which Church, as it
is visible to us, is a company
of visible 120 Saints, 121 called and
separated from the world, by the
word and 122 Spirit of God, to the visible
profession of the faith of
the Gospel, being baptized into that
faith, and joined to the Lord,
and each other, by mutual agreement, in
the practical enjoyment
of the 123 Ordinances, commanded by Christ
their head and King.
XXXIV.
To this Church he hath 124 made his
promises, and given the signs of
his Covenant, presence, love, blessing,
and protection: here are
the fountains and springs of his heavenly
grace continually flowing
forth; 125 thither ought all men to come,
of all estates, that
acknowledge him to be their Prophet,
Priest, and King, to be
enrolled amongst his household servants,
to be under his heavenly
conduct and government, to lead their
lives in his walled sheepfold,
and watered garden, to have communion here
with the Saints, that
they may be made to be partakers of their
inheritance in the
Kingdom of God.
126 XXXV.
And all his servants are called thither,
to present their bodies and
souls, and to bring their gifts God hath
given them; so being come,
they are here by himself bestowed in their
several order, peculiar
place, due use, being fitly compact and
knit together, according to
the effectual working of every part, to
the edification of itself in
love.
XXVI.
That being thus joined, every Church has
127 power given them from
Christ for their better well-being, to
choose to themselves meet
persons into the office of 128 Pastors,
Teachers, Elders, Deacons, being
qualified according to the Word, as those
which Christ has appointed
in his Testament, for the feeding,
governing, serving, and building
up of his Church, and that none other have
power to impose them,
106 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
either these or any other.
129 XXXVII.
That the Ministers aforesaid, lawfully
called by the Church, where
they are to administer, ought to continue
in their calling, according
to God’s Ordinance, and carefully to feed
the flock of Christ
committed to them, not for filthy lucre,
but of a ready mind.
130 XXXVIII.
That the due maintenance of the Officers
aforesaid, should be the
free and voluntary communication of the
Church, that according
to Christ’s Ordinance, they that preach
the Gospel, should live on
the Gospel and not by constraint to be
compelled from the people
by a forced Law.
131 XXXIX.
That Baptism is an Ordinance of the new
Testament, given by Christ,
to be dispensed only upon persons
professing faith, or that are
Disciples, or taught, who upon a
profession of faith, ought to be
baptized. [Later editions added, “and
after to partake of the Lord’s
Supper.” C.A.P.]
XL.
The way and manner of the 132 dispensing
of this Ordinance the
Scripture holds out to be dipping or
plunging the whole body under
water: it being a sign, must answer the
thing signified, which are
these: first, the 133 washing the whole
soul in the blood of Christ:
Secondly, that interest the Saints have in
the 134 death, burial, and
resurrection; thirdly, together with a 135
confirmation of our faith,
that as certainly as the body is buried
under water, and riseth again,
so certainly shall the bodies of the
Saints be raised by the power of
Christ in the day of the resurrection, to
reign with Christ. [The
word Baptizo,
signifying to dip under water, yet so as with convenient
garments both upon the administrator and
subject, with all modesty.]
XLI.
The persons designed by Christ, to
dispense this Ordinance, the
136 Scriptures hold forth to be a
preaching Disciple, it being no where
tied to a particular Church, Officer, or
person extraordinarily sent,
the Commission enjoining the
administration, being given to them
under no other consideration, but as
considered Disciples.
137 XLII.
Christ has likewise given power to his
whole Church to receive in
and cast out, by way of Excommunication,
any member; and this
power is given to every particular
Congregation, and not one
particular person, either member or
Officer, but the whole.
138 XLIII
107 Appendix I
And every particular member of each
Church, how excellent, great,
or learned soever,
ought to be subject to this censure and judgement
of Christ; and the Church ought with great
care and tenderness,
with due advice to proceed against her
members.
XLIV.
And as Christ for the 139 keeping of this
Church in holy and orderly
Communion, placeth
some special men over the Church, who by
their office are to govern, oversee,
visit, watch; so likewise for the
better keeping thereof in all places, by
the members, he hath given
140 authority, and laid duty upon all, to
watch over one another.
141 XLV.
That also such to whom God hath given
gifts, being tried in the
Church, may and ought by the appointment
of the Congregation,
to prophesy, according to the proportion
of faith, and so teach
publicly the Word of God, for the
edification, exhortation, and
comfort of the Church.
142 XLVI.
Thus being rightly gathered, established,
and still proceeding in
Christian communion, and obedience of the
Gospel of Christ, none
ought to separate for faults and
corruptions, which may, and as
long as the Church consists of men subject
to failings, will fall out
and arise amongst them, even in true
constituted Churches, until
they have in due order sought redress
thereof.
143 XLVII.
And although the particular Congregations
be distinct and several
Bodies, every one a compact and knit City
in itself: yet are they all
to walk by one and the same Rule, and by
all means convenient to
have the counsel and help one of another
in all needful affairs of
the Church, as members of one body in the
common faith under
Christ their only head.
144 XLVIII.
That a civil Magistracy is an ordinance of
God set up by God for
the punishment of evil doers, and for the
praise of them that do
well; and that in all lawful things
commanded by them, subjection
ought to be given by us in the Lord: and
that we are to make
supplication and prayer for Kings, and all
that are in authority, that
under them we may live a peaceable and
quiet life in all godliness
and honesty.
XLIX.
The supreme Magistracy of this Kingdom we
believe to be the King
and Parliament freely chosen by the
Kingdom, and that in all those
civil Laws which have been acted by them,
or for the present is or
108 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
shall be ordained, we are bound to yield
subjection and obedience
unto in the Lord, as conceiving ourselves
bound to defend both the
persons of those thus chosen, and all
civil Laws made by them,
with our persons, liberties, and estates,
with all that is called ours,
although we should suffer never so much
from them in not actively
submitting to some Ecclesiastical Laws,
which might be conceived
by them to be their duties to establish
which we for the present
could not see, nor our consciences could
submit unto; yet are we
bound to yield our persons to their
pleasures.
145 L.
And if God should provide such a mercy for
us, as to incline the
Magistrates’ hearts so far to tender our
consciences, as that we might
be protected by them from wrong, injury,
oppression and
molestation, which long we formerly have
groaned under by the
tyranny and oppression of the Prelatical Hierarchy, which God
through mercy hath made this present King
and Parliament
wonderful honorable, as an instrument in
his hand, to throw down;
and we thereby have had some breathing
time, we shall, we hope,
look at it as a mercy beyond our
expectation, and conceive ourselves
further engaged forever to bless God for
it.
LI.
But if God withhold the Magistrates’
allowance and furtherance
herein; 146 yet we must notwithstanding
proceed together in Christian
communion, not daring to give place to
suspend our practice, but
to walk in obedience to Christ in the
profession and holding forth
this faith before mentioned, even in the
midst of all trials and
afflictions, not accounting our goods,
lands, wives, children, fathers,
mothers, brethren, sisters, yea, and our
own lives dear unto us, so
we may finish our course with joy:
remembering always we ought
to 147 obey God rather than men, and
grounding upon the
commandment, commission and promise of our
Lord and master
Jesus Christ, who as he hath all power in
heaven and earth, so also
hath promised, if we keep his commandments
which he hath given
us, to be with us to the end of the world:
and when we have finished
our course, and kept the faith, to give us
the crown of righteousness,
which is laid up for all that love his
appearing, and to whom we
must give an account of all our actions,
no man being able to
discharge us of the same.
148 LII.
And likewise unto all men is to be given
whatsoever is their due;
tributes, customs, and all such lawful
duties, ought willingly to be
by us paid and performed, our lands,
goods, and bodies, to submit
109 Appendix I
to the Magistrate in the Lord and the
Magistrate every way to be
acknowledged, reverenced, and obeyed,
according to godliness;
not because of wrath only but for
conscience sake. And finally, all
men so to be esteemed and regarded, as is
due and meet for their
place, age, estate and condition.
149 LII. [sic]
And thus we desire to give unto God that
which is God’s, and to
Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to all
men that which belongeth
unto them, endeavoring ourselves to have
always a clear conscience
void of offence towards God, and towards
man. And if any take
this that we have said, to be heresy, then
do we with the Apostle
freely confess, that after the way which
they call heresy, worship
we the God of our Fathers, believing all
things which are written in
the Law and in the Prophets and Apostles,
desiring from our souls
to disclaim all heresies and opinions
which are not after Christ,
and to be steadfast, unmovable, always
abounding in the work of
the Lord, as knowing our labor shall not
be in vain in the Lord.
1 Cor. 1:24.
Not that we have dominion over your faith,
but
are helpers of your joy: for by faith we
stand.
FINIS
NOTES
1. 1 Tim. 6:16
2. 1 Tim. 2:5; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Cor. 12:4-6, 13; John chap. 14.
3. 1 Tim. 6:3, 13, 14; Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 Tim.
3:15.
4. Isa. 44:67;
43:11; 46:9.
5. John 4:24.
6. Ex. 3:14.
7. Rom. 11:36; Acts 17:28.
8. 1 Cor. 8:6.
9. Prov. 8:22,
23; Heb. 1:3; John 1:18.
10. John 15:16; Gal. 4:6.
11. Isa. 46:10;
Rom. 11:34-36; Matt. 10:29, 30.
12. Eph. 1:11.
13. Co. 2:3.
14. Num. 23:19, 20.
15. Jer. 10:10;
Rom. 3:4.
16. Esa. [sic]
44:10.
17. Eph. 1:3-7; 2 Tim. 1:9; Acts 13:48;
Rom. 8:29, 30.
18. Jude vs. 4, 6; Rom. 9:11-13; Prov. 16:4.
19. Gen. chap. 1; Col. 1:16; Heb. 11:3; Isa. 45:12
110 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
20. Gen. 1:26; 1 Cor.
15:45, 46; Ecc. 7:31.
21. Psa. 49:20.
22. Gen. 3:1, 4, 5; 2 Cor.
11:3.
23. 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude v. 6; John 8:44.
24. Gen. 3:1, 2, 6; 1 Tim. 2:14; Ecc. 7:31; Gal. 3:22.
25. Rom. 5:12, 18, 19; 6:25; Eph 2:3; Rom.
5:12 [sic].
26. Jer. 31:2.
27. Gen. 3:15; Eph. 1:3, 7; 2:4, 9; 1 Thess. 5:9; Acts 13:38.
28. 1 Cor. 1:30,
31; 2 Cor. 5:21; Jer. 9:
23, 24.
29. John 17:3; Heb. 5:9; Jer. 23:5, 6.
30. 2 Thess 1:8;
John 3:36.
31. John 5:39; 2 Tim. 3:15, 16, 17; Col.
21: 18, 23 [sic]; Matt. 15:9.
32. Acts 3:22, 23; Heb. 1:1, 2; 2 Tim.
3:15-17; 2 Cor. 1:20.
33. Gen. 3:15; 22:18; 49:10; Dan. 7;13;
9:24-26.
34. Prov. 8:23;
John 1:1-3; Col. 1:1, 15-17.
35. Gal. 4:4.
36. Heb. 7:14; Rev. 5:5 with Gen. 49:9,
10; Rom. 1:3; 9:5; Matt. 1:16 with Luke
3:23, 26; Heb. 2:16.
37. Isa. 53;3-5;
Phil. 2:8.
38. 2 Tim. 2:25; Heb. 9:15; John 14:6.
39. Heb. 1:2; 3:1, 2; 7:24; Isa. 9:6, 7; Acts 5:31.
40. Prov. 8:23; Isa. 42:6; 49:1, 5.
41. Isa. 11:2-5;
61:1-3 with Luke 4:17, 22; John 1:14, 16; 3:34.
42. Heb. 5:4-6.
43. Isa. 53:10.
44. Isa. 42:13.
45. 1 Pet. 1:20.
46. John 3:17; 9:27; 10:36; Isa. 61:1.
47. John 3:16; Rom. 8:32.
48. 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:24; Dan. 5:14; Acts
4:12; Luke 1:33; John 14:6.
49. Deut. 18:15 with Acts 3:22, 23.
50. Psa. 110:3;
Heb. 3:1; 4:14, 15; 5:6.
51. Psa. 2:6.
51. Acts 26:18; Col. 1:3.
52. Col. 1:21; Eph. 2:12.
53. Cant. 1:3; John 6:44.
54. John 1:18; 12:49, 50, 15[sic]; 17:8;
Deut. 18:15.
55. Matt. 23:10 [So reads the Geneva
Bible].
56. Heb. 3:1.
57. Mal. 3:1.
58. 1 Cor. 1:24.
59. Col. 2:3
61. John 1:18; 3:13.
62. 1 Cor. 2:11,
16.
63. Acts 3:22 with Deut. 18:15; Heb. 1:1.
64. John 17:19; Heb. 5:7-9; 9:26; Rom.
5:19; Eph. 5:12; Col. 1:20.
65. Eph. 2:14-16; Rom. 8:34.
111 Appendix I
66. 1 Pet. 2:5; John 4:23, 24.
67. Heb. 7:17.
68. Heb. 7:16.
69. Heb. 7:18-21.
70. Heb. 7:24, 25.
71. Heb. 5:6.
72. Heb. 10:10; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19; Col.
1:20, 22; Isa. 53:10; Matt. 20:28.
73. Acts. 20:28; Rom. 8:3.
74. Heb. 9:14; 13:10, 12, 15; Matt. 23:17;
John 17:29.
75. 1 Cor. 15:4;
1 Pet. 3:21, 22; Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:51; Acts 1:11; 5:30, 31;
John 19:36; Rom. 14:17.
76. Mark 1:27; Heb. 1:14; John 16:7, 15.
77. John 5:26, 27; Rom. 5:6-8; 14:17; Gal.
5:22, 23; John 1:4, 13.
78. John 13:1; 10:28, 29; 14:16, 17; Rom.
11:29; Psa. 51:10, 11; Job 33:29, 30; 2
Cor. 12:7, 9.
79. Job chaps 1 and 2; Rom 1:21; 2:4-6;
9:17, 18; Eph. 4:17, 18; 2 Pet. chap. 2.
80. 1 Cor.
15:24, 28; Heb. 9:28; 2 Thess. 1:9, 10; 1 Thess. 4:15-17; John 17:21,
26.
81. John 15:13; Rom. 8:32-34; 5:11; 3:25.
82. Job 17:2 with 6, 37.
83. Matt. 16:16; Luke 2:26; John 6:9; 7:3;
20:31; 1 John 5:11.
84. Eph. 2:8; John 6:29; 4:10; Phil. 1:29;
Gal. 5:22.
85. John 17:17; Heb. 4:11, 12; John 6:63.
86. Matt. 7:24, 25; John 13:1; 1 Pet.
1:4-6; Isa. 49:13-16.
87. Rom. 10:17; 1 Cor.
1:21.
88. Rom. 9:16.
89. Rom. 2:1, 2; Ezek. 16:6; Rom. 3:12.
90. Rom. 1:16; Eph. 1:19; Col. 2:12.
91. John 3:14, 15; 1:12; Isa. 55:1; John 7:37.
92. 1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 4:5; 5:8.
93. Acts 5:30, 31; 2:36; 1 Cor. 1:22-24.
94. 1 Pet. 1:5; 2 Cor.
12:9.
95. 1 Cor.
15:10.
96. Phil. 2:12, 13; John 15:5; Gal. 19, 20
[sic].
97. 1 Thess.
1:1; John 14:10, 20; 17:21.
98. Col. 2:9, 10; 1:19; John 1:17.
99. John 20:17; Heb. 2:11.
100. Col. 1:18; Eph. 5:30.
101. Eph. 2:22; 1 Cor.
3:16, 17.
102. Isa. 16:5;
2 Cor. 11:3.
103. Gal. 3:26.
104. John 17:24.
105. John 1:7; Heb. 10:14; 9:26; 2 Cor. 5:19; Rom. 3:23.
106. Acts 13:38, 39; Rom. 5:1; 3:25, 30.
107. 1 Cor. 1:1;
1 Pet. 2:9.
108. Eph. 1:4.
109. 1 John 4:16.
112 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
110. Eph. 4:24.
111. Phil. 3:15.
112. Matt. 28:20.
113. 2 Cor.
5:19; Rom. 5:9, 10.
114. Isa. 54:10;
26:12.
115. Eph. 2:13, 14.
116. Phil. 4:7.
117. Rom. 5:10, 11.
118. Eph. 6:10-13; 2 Cor.
10:3; Rev. 2:9, 10.
119. John 6:33; Heb. 2:9, 10; John 15:5.
120. 1 Cor. 1:1;
Eph. 1:1.
121. Rom. 1:7; Acts 26:18; 1 Thess. 1:9; 2 Cor. 6:17; Rev.
18:18.
122. Acts 2:37 with 10:37.
123. Rom. 10:10; Acts 20:21; Matt. 18:19,
20; Acts 2:42; 1 Pet. 2:5.
124. Matt. 28:18-20; 2 Cor.
6:18.
125. Isa. 8:16;
1 Tim. 3:15; 4:16; 6:3, 5; Acts 2;41, 47, Song 4:12; Gal. 6:10;
Eph. 2:19.
126. 1 Cor.
12:6, 7, 12, 18; Rom. 12:4-6; 1 Pet. 4:10; Eph. 4:16; Col. 2:5, 6, 19; 1
Cor. 12:12 to the end.
127. Acts 1:2; 6:3 with 15:22, 25; 1 Cor. 16:3.
128. Rom. 12:7, 8; 16:1; 1 Cor. 12:8, 28; 1 Tim. chap. 3; Heb. 13:7; 1 Pet. 5:1-3.
129. Heb. 5:4; Acts 4:23; 1 Tim. 4:14;
John 10:3, 4; Acts 20:28; Rom. 12:7, 8;
Heb. 13:7, 17.
130. 1 Cor. 9:7,
14; Gal. 6:6; 1 Thess. 5:13; 1 Tim. 5:17, 18; Phil.
4:15, 16.
131. Matt. 28:18, 19; Mark 16:16; Acts
2:37, 38; 8:36-38; 18:8.
132. Matt. 3:16; John 3:23; Acts 8:38.
133. Rev. 1:5; 7:14 with Heb. 10:22.
134. Rom. 6:3-5.
135. 1 Cor.
15:28, 29.
136. Isa. 8:16;
Matt. 28:16-19; John 4:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Matt. 26:26.
137. Acts 2:47; Rom. 16:2; Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:4; 2 Cor. 2:6-8.
138. Matt. 18:16-18; Acts 11:2, 3; 1 Tim.
5:19-21.
139. Acts 20:27, 28; Heb. 13:17, 24; Matt.
24:25; 1 Thess. 5:14.
140. Mark 13:34, 37; Gal. 6:1; 1 Thess. 5:11; Jude v. 3, 20; Heb. 10:34, 35;
12:15.
141. 1 Cor.
chap. 14; Rom. 12:6; 1 Pet. 4:10, 11; 1 Cor. 12:7; 1 Thess. 5:17-19.
˜ 142. Rev. chaps. 2 and 3; Acts 15:12; 1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 2:16; 3:15, 16; Heb.
10:25; Jude v. 15; Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:4, 5.
143. 1 Cor.
4:17; 14:33, 36; 16:1; Matt. 28:20; 1 Tim. 3:15; 6:13, 14; Rev. 22:18,
19; Col. 2:6, 19; 4:16.
144. Rom. 13:1-4; 1 Pet. 2:13, 14; 1 Tim.
2:2.
145. 1 Tim. 1:2-4; Psa.
126:1; Acts 9:31.
146. Acts 2:40, 41; 4:19; 5:28, 29, 41;
20:23; 1 Thess 3:3; Phil 1:27-29; Dan.
3:16, 17; 6:7, 10, 22, 23.
147. Matt. 28:18-20; 1 Tim. 6:13-15; Rom.
12: 1, 8; 1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Tim. 4:7, 8;
Rev. 2;10; Gal. 2:4, 5.
113 Appendix II
148. Rom. 13:5-7; Matt. 22:21; Titus 3.
[sic]; 1 Pet. 2:13; Eph. 5:21, 22; 6:1, 9; 1
Pet. 5:5.
149. Matt. 22:21; Acts 24:14-16; John
5:28; 2 Cor. 4:17; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 1 Cor.
15:58-59.
114 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
A VINDICATION OF THE CONTINUED
SUCCESSION of the PRIMITIVE CHURCH
of JESUS CHRIST (now scandalously termed
Anabaptists) from the Apostles unto this
present time.
INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION
By Curtis Pugh
The “Baptist problem” will not go away!
Baptist Churches
maintain that they have continually
existed since the earthly ministry
of Jesus Christ (not “Baptist” in name,
perhaps, but in principle and
connection). Although it infuriates
Catholics, Protestants and quasi-Baptists
alike, sound Baptists maintain that both
the Bible and the
true facts of history prove that it is
among them alone that the true
Churches of Christ are to be found. These
New Testament Baptists
maintain that they have ever been and
continue to be separate
from Catholicism and Protestantism. They
point out that while
religious historians have ample proof as
to the origins of Catholicism
and the Protestant schisms, all honest
scholars must agree that no
founding date for Baptist churches can be
found this side the earthly
ministry of Jesus Christ.
This old volume with modernized spelling
is evidence that
Baptists have consistently maintained
their separation from other
religious bodies for good and valid
reasons. Sound Baptist Churches
are the only churches having a valid claim
to a continual succession
from the first Church. As such, New
Testament Baptist Churches
are the only churches that have preserved
the ordinances (baptism
and the Lord’s supper). John Spittlehouse and John More
maintained, and sound Baptists continue to
teach the following:
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.”
Spittlehouse and More are careful to point
out that the Lord’s churches were then
“scandalously termed
Anabaptists.” Anabaptist means
“re-baptizer.” From our spiritual
forefathers until this day, we have
maintained and do maintain
that there is but “one baptism” (Eph. 4:5)
and therefore baptism
Appendix II
115 Appendix II
cannot be re-administered. Because our
forefathers refused to
recognize man-made churches, their
ordinances, and ordinations,
they baptized aright those who came over
to them from the Catholic
and Protestant sects regardless of
previous so-called baptisms. Thus
they were slandered as “re-baptizing”
their converts while they
insisted that they only baptized them
(e.g. their previous “baptisms”
were not valid).
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 of
Jesus Christ since He gave them.
6. That Catholicism and Protestantism are
the same in origin.
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 compromised in
doctrine and practice
with Rome.
10. That there was no need for a
“Reformation” inasmuch as
Christ’s Churches never went into
apostasy.
The reader will note that Spittlehouse and More used such terms
as “true church,” “Primitive Church,” and
even the presently
unpopular word “succession” when referring
to true churches.
Baptists hold that there is nothing in the
name “Baptist” which
confers authority. (The Lord’s true
Churches have been slandered
by many nicknames in the past.) There are
many so-called “Baptist
churches” whose connection (origin),
doctrine and practices are evidently
NOT of the New Testament. Baptists
maintain these are as much
Daughters of the Harlot as any other
man-made Protestant sect.
Today sound Baptists follow the New
Testament pattern (Acts.
19:1-5) and reject the ordinances and
ordinations of the Harlot
(Catholicism), her Daughters
(Protestantism), and the “abominations
of the earth” (the sects and cults arising
out of the Daughters) (Rev.
17:5). Thus we insist that for a person to
have Scriptural baptism
there must be a Scriptural mode
(immersion), a Scriptural motive
(baptism a profession of faith), a
Scriptural candidate (a repentant
116 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
sinner), and a Scriptural administrator
(authority of a Church
having a valid claim to the commission).
Sadly, four of the middle pages of Spittlehouse’s and More’s
book (17, 18, 19, and 20) are missing. We
have corresponded with
more than 100 libraries and rare book
dealers in the United States,
Canada, and the United Kingdom, with no
success in locating a
whole volume. While the value of the work
may be somewhat
lessened by their absence, this volume
will be found to be of
inestimable worth to lovers of Biblical
(Baptist) truth and practice.
Herein will be found ample evidence that
our Baptist forefathers
believed as we do regarding both Baptist
Church perpetuity and
succession. While our present enemies
often accuse us of being
mere followers of a movement that arose
among American Baptists
in the mid-1800’s, this work, published in
A.D. 1652, proves that
the historic Baptist view predates any
such movement in America
by some 200 years. (Indeed we believe that
this historic “Baptist”
view of the church and the ordinances to
be the view of the New
Testament and go to that Book to prove the
validity of our practice.)
Few readers, in all probability, will agree
with Spittlehouse and
More regarding their identification of the
Woman who fled into
the wilderness. It is doubtful that they
will identify the Red Dragon,
the Beast, etc. as these men did. In no
way should their interpretation
of prophecy diminish the value of this
volume as proof of the early
and consistent testimony to Christ’s true
Churches. At some time
in their lives, perhaps after the
publication of their book, these men
became Seventh Day Baptists. Some have
sought to discredit them
because of this connection, but until all
the facts are known in Glory,
none are qualified to discredit either
them or their position on the
origin of the Baptists. Shame on anyone
who tries to discredit truth
by attacking the faults of those who hold
to truth!
Regeneration (the new birth) comes to the
sinner by the free
and sovereign grace of God apart from any
works of man
whatsoever. However, it will be admitted
by all who know the
Scriptures, God has always had an
acceptable place and manner of
service where He was glorified. The New
Testament proves this
proper place and manner of service to be
in a church whose doctrine,
origin and practice are like that first
Church. “Unto Him (God) be
glory in the church by Christ Jesus...”
(Eph. 3:21).
To those who have been truly born again
the matter of proper
obedience to Christ will surely be of
paramount importance! Let it
never be said of any who read these pages
that they “rejected the
counsel of God against themselves, being
not baptized of him” (Luke
117 Appendix II
7:30). May God give grace to enlighten the
minds of His elect as to
the proper place and manner of worship and
service to Him!
It has not been my intention to edit this
work in any way
whatsoever. The spelling has been brought
up to modern usage
and marginal notes have been combined with
footnotes under one
numerical system. Except for the omission
of quotation marks
preceding each line of a direct quotation
(an old practice which
was followed in the original in some
places) and the addition of a
few apostrophes, the punctuation has been
left as originally marked.
Their free use of Capital Letters and
Italic typeface has been
maintained as well as the oft used “viz.”
and “aforesaid.” Such were
the customs of the times. Material in
[brackets] is mine and has
been added for clarity.
It is my hope that by making this volume
available in updated
spelling its usefulness and testimony will
be increased among
Baptists and among those not yet members
of true Churches but
who are sincerely seeking the Scriptural
place of worship and service
to God.
A Vindication of the Continued Succession
of the
Primitive
Church of Jesus Christ (now scandalously
termed Anabaptists) from the Apostles
unto this present time.
In Answer to three following Assertions,
Extracted out of
the Writings of Mr. John Brain and chiefly
out of his Book
entitled -The
Churches going in, and Coming out of the
Wilderness, Viz,
1. That the Gospel-frame of the Primitive
Church hath been devolved
into the Antichristian Estate and
condition since from about the year 406
unto this present time.
2. That during the aforesaid time, there
hath not been a true
Church-frame of Gospel-government.
3. That the Gospel-frame of the
Gospel-government is to be restored
again by some one Man, who shall have
Authority given him from above,
to restore Baptism, and all other lost
Ordinances of the Church.
118 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
And may also serve as a further Caveat, to
the present
deluded People of this Nation, that are
yet seduced by the crazy
rm:Demetriousses
[sic] of the Times, who for love of Gain, still
endeavour
to cry up their Diana of Rome whom England, and all
they call Christendom yet Worship.
——————————————————
Matt. 28:19,20. Go ye therefore and teach
all Nations baptizing
them, etc. Teaching them to observe all
things, etc. And lo I am with you
always, even unto the end of the World,
Amen.
John 10:1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16.
——————————————————
Published by John Spittlehouse,
and John More.
—————————
London, Printed by Gartrude
Dawson, 1652
A Vindication of the continued Succession
of the Primitive Church
of Jesus Christ, (Now scandalously termed
Anabaptists) from the
Apostles unto this present time.
Sir
Having several times conferred with you
about your judgement
in the aforesaid Particulars, and
perceiving your resolution to
persevere in them [those] your opinions. I
have now undertaken
by the power of Jesus Christ, to vindicate
a continued Succession
of his Church and Ordinances (as
aforesaid) against your Assertions.
In the first place, I shall declare your
meaning by the Gospel-frame
of Gospel-government, (Viz. The true
public Worship of God,
consisting in external Ordinances, as of
Baptism, etc.) which you say
hath ceased in the Nations this 1200
years, doth yet cease, and shall
so cease, until the Sanctuary be cleansed.
Having thus explained your Meaning, as in
relation to the
aforesaid frame of Gospel-Government, I
shall in the next place answer
to your first Assertion, (Viz.)
That the Gospel-frame of the Primitive
Church hath been devolved into
the Antichristian estate, since from about
the year 406 to this present time.
In answer to which, I shall oppose your
own expressions, in
your aforementioned Book, hoping such a
confutation will be most
prevalent with you.
119 Appendix II
1. I shall begin with that in page 14.
where you say,
That Christ and Antichrist cannot agree.
But if the aforesaid Gospel-frame, etc.
had been devolved or
mixed with the Antichristian frame of
worship since the year
aforesaid, then they must of necessity
have had such a communion
and fellowship together, as to become one
and the same with each
other, (during the aforesaid time) which
the aforesaid words do
plainly contradict.
Therefore it may be concluded from the
aforesaid words, That
the aforesaid Gospel-frame, etc. was never
so devolved or mixed
together, as in that your Assertion.
2. Again page 2. you acknowledge the
aforesaid Gospel-frame
etc. was to be hid, and so hid from the
face of the Dragon, as that the
Dragon could not find it, or make
discovery of it.
Now all rational Men know, that that which
was hid from the
Dragon, was neither hid by the Dragon, nor
in the Dragon, nor can
it be imagined that anyone will fly into
the bosom of him that seeketh
his destruction for sanctuary, which the
aforesaid Gospel-frame must
have done according to your Assertion.
3. Again page 2. You also say that the
twelve hundred and sixty
days, prophetically years, do clearly show
the time of the Churches hiding,
in its obscure condition, in which time it
should not be known unto Antichrist,
what her estate was.
But Antichrist could not be ignorant of
the aforesaid Gospel-frame,
etc. if it had (during the aforesaid time)
been devolved, or
made one and the same with the aforesaid
Antichristian frame, etc.
For certainly, if so, either must
Antichrist be ignorant of his own
frame, etc. Or he must of necessity know
the Churches: But you
have there positively affirmed, That
Antichrist was not to be
acquainted with the Primitive Church
condition during the aforesaid
time.
Therefore the Gospel frame of the Primitive
Church during the
aforesaid time, had a secret and obscure
condition which Antichrist,
or the men of the world became ignorant
of.
4. Again in page 2. you likewise
acknowledge the aforesaid
Gospel-frame to be carried away from the
World and Antichrist, as
it were into another World, during the
aforesaid time, alluding it he:(in its
then condition) to the absence of the Sun
from us, when it is departed our
of our Horizon.
But as it is most certain that the Sun
doth neither cease to shine,
or be a Sun, while it remains so obscure,
as aforesaid, or by any
other interposition, whatsoever which for
a time may cause a
120 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
THE SHADES OF NIGHT
by Milburn Cockrell
seeming appearance to the contrary.
So likewise albeit the aforesaid
Gospel-frame, etc. hath for so
long a time been interposed by Papacy,
[Catholicism] Prelacy, [Ch.
of England; Anglican Ch.; Episcopal Ch.]
Presbytery,
[Presbyterianism] etc. by reason whereof
it hath been totally Eclipsed
to the World, etc.
Yet certainly as the Israelites could have
told the Egyptians that
the gross darkness in Egypt, was no
prejudice to them in Goshen, so
likewise hath not the overshadowings
of truth by the aforesaid
Errors, been any prejudice to the true
Israel of God while they
were in that wilderness, or hidden
condition as aforesaid, which in
effect you yourself have confessed, page
9. where you acknowledge
(by way of Simile to what I have said)
That the Israelites in time of
their Persecution, had light in their
dwellings when their Persecutors were
under darkness: As also that God would
ever keep, and teach us to keep a
difference betwixt the godly and ungodly
in this, (Viz. of Christ from
Antichrist, truth from error, light from
darkness) as in other divisions
made of God. As Israel had the bright
side, and the Egyptians the dark
side of the cloud towards them; All which
doth clearly contradict
your aforesaid Assertion, for by it you
would have all the aforesaid
Gospel-frame, etc. so confounded together
with that of Antichrist’s,
as to become one with each other, making
an absolute concord
and harmony betwixt truth and error, light
and darkness, Christ
and Antichrist.
Again, It is as plain from Scripture,
where it is said, That the
Manchild,
who was to rule all Nations with a rod of Iron, was caught up
unto God, and to his Throne; as also that
the Woman fled into the
Wilderness, where she had a place prepared
of God, wherein she should be
fed a thousand two hundred and threescore
days, Rev. 12:5,6.
But Antichrist, or the Papacy of Rome,
etc. was neither the place
where the aforesaid Woman, and her Manchild (viz. the Primitive
Church and her frame of Government) was
either to be caught up
or fed, unless you will make the seat of
the Papacy the Throne of
God, and Antichrist, and his Consort (the
Mother of Harlots) their
foster-Father and Mother, during the
aforesaid time, which cannot
be.
First, In that the aforesaid Manchild is said to be caught up unto
God, and to his Throne, as in point of
safety and preservation, from
the fury and rage of the Dragon, etc.
But Antichrist did not any ways preserve
the Primitive Church,
or its frame of Government, but
contrariwise hath endeavored to
subvert it.
121 Appendix II
Therefore the aforesaid Antichrist, and
his Consort, did not
any ways preserve the aforesaid Manchild from their own fury
against it, neither is it rational to
imagine they would, in that its
ruin was to become the other’s rise.
Secondly, Because the Woman, etc. is said
to flee into the
Wilderness, etc. where she would be fed,
etc.
But that Antichrist, and his aforesaid
Consort, would preserve
the Primitive Church in its purity (for
otherwise how is it preserved)
is contrary to common sense, for the
reasons aforesaid. Or that
they should feed it with primitive truths
in relation to its essentials,
substantials,
and circumstantials, (for otherwise how could it be
truly
fed) which is every whit as contrary to
common sense that they
would. And that for the aforesaid reason.
Therefore it is also as
impossible that the aforesaid Antichrist,
etc. did either preserve, or
feed the aforesaid Primitive Church, etc.
in its aforesaid Wilderness-condition.
Yea, you yourself have acknowledged, That
Jerusalem and Babel,
have their Ordinances and worship so
distinct one from the other, that
what is of and in the one, is not of, nor
cannot be in the other. And if so,
then how is it that you should so confound
them together? etc.
Object[ion]. I know you will produce Dr.
Taylor in his tract, etc.
against this, where he says, That the
Churches’ flight was not in respect
of Motion, but of State and Condition, not
a change of Place but Condition,
etc. For which expressions you seem very
highly to applaud him.
But before you too highly exalt him for
that saying, I desire to
know by what logic either that Doctor, or
yourself, can prove the
flight of anything without Motion or
change of place: As for his
instance in point of condition I assent so
far unto, as that the
Primitive Church, etc. was brought unto an
exceeding great outward
hardship, through the tyranny of that Man
of sin and his Adherents.
Again, if the Antichristian frame
aforesaid, was intended by
God to be the Wilderness, in which the
aforesaid Primitive Church,
etc. was to be hid, etc. then it must also
of necessity come out of the
said Antichristian Wilderness again, as
the Title of your aforesaid
Book attests.
And if so, then Prelacy, Presbytery, etc.
have been Christian
conversions, which elsewhere you utterly
deny, where you say, the
way of worship which proceeds from Rome
must cease, and that it
is not the way of propagating the Gospel,
as also, that God will not
be found in it, and if so, how shall the
true Church-frame, etc. be
found in it? and if it be not in it, it
cannot be extracted out of it, for
if so, than a clean thing may be brought out
of an unclean [thing]
122 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
contrary to that of Job 14:4 and James
3:11,12. you likewise term the
reformings
aforesaid, to be the reformings of Rome, or Babel,
etc.
(and not of Christ) as indeed they are.
By all which it doth clearly appear, that
the primitive Church,
etc. was not devolved, or mixed with the
aforesaid Antichristian
frame during the time aforesaid, and that
from your own
Expressions.
I shall now proceed to your second
Argument, viz.
That during the aforesaid time, there has
not been a true Church-frame,
etc.
Object[ion]. In confirmation of which, you
cite Hillary of Poyctoyes
in France, who lived in the year 380 and
says, That in his days the
Primitive Church was not to be found in
Houses, in Temples, or Cities, but
in Prisons, Mountains, Dens, Deserts, and
Caves of the Earth.
Answ[er].
Now I appeal to any rational man, whether that
Historian has in so saying proved the
aforesaid Primitive Church
to have been without a being in that time,
but rather to have had a
being, albeit in the aforesaid Prisons,
Mountains, Dens, Deserts, and
Caves of the Earth, where he concludes it
had then its residence.
Object[ion]. Again, albeit the same Author
says, That in the 26[th].
year after, there was a more exceeding
increase of darkness, then
[than] in the time before.
Answ[er].
Yet that proves no more a darkness in reference to
the aforesaid Primitive, or true Church,
then [than] the absence of the
Sun from us in England, does prove the
like to all the habitable Earth at the
same time, so that albeit the splendor of
that Gospel-Mercy (as you
term it) was then withdrawn from the view
of Antichrist, etc. for the
time aforesaid, yet certainly it did
retain its lustre in itself, for it is
every whit as possible to separate the light
from the body of the Sun, as it
was possible for Antichrist to separate
the Gospel-frame, etc. from the
body of the true Church of Jesus Christ.
Object[ion]. You will say, Where was there
any one visible Society of
Saints, which did practise
according to the Apostles’ Rules and Precepts.
Answ[er].
The not-appearance [nonappearance] of a visible body
or Society of Saints to the public view of
Antichrist, etc. does no
more prove, that the true Church had no
visible estate in itself, then
[than] the Sun ceases to be a Sun, during
the absence of the light thereof;
neither is it more to be imagined, that
the true Church, during its
hidden, or Wilderness condition, did
desist from practicing according
to the Apostles’ Rules, and Precepts, (so
far as the well being of such small
societies did require) then [than] it is
to imagine, that there was not
two or three Saints left living upon the
face of the earth, which I suppose
123 Appendix II
you will not affirm.
Object[ion]. You will say, Antichrist was
to take his rise, by taking
down the Gospel-frame of
Gospel-government, making that to be hid, that
he might only appear.
Answ[er].
His rise was not by taking down the Gospel-frame,
etc. but by setting up another frame of
his own, apart from it, and contrary
unto it, as is also confessed by you (as
in page 10.) where you say, he
took his rise by setting up a counterfeit
way of his own, carrying a false
light with it by which he bewitched the
Nations with the Cup of
abominations, deceiving poor silly souls
with the outward show of Religion
and Piety, etc. by which expressions you
have proved for me, that
Antichrist was not to take his rise by
taking down the Gospel-frame,
etc. according to your aforesaid
Assertions.
Object[ion]. But I know you will further
object, That the Holy City
was to be trodden under foot, (which, say
you, is meant of the Gospel-frame,
etc) and truth by him was to be cast down
to the ground, and Antichrist
was only to prosper. Dan. 8:12, 13; Rev.
11:2 and 13:1.
Answ[er].
As it is possible for a man to be cast down to the
ground, and also trodden under foot of his
enemy, and yet retain
life and motion, yea and in time so
recover his strength as to vanquish
the Vanquisher, as many times it has
happened, and may happen.
So likewise was it as possible for the
Church of Christ, after her
hidden and wilderness-condition, to gather
such strength and vigor,
as to return a double portion of
affliction and misery upon the head
of her Persecutor, to what she had
formerly received of him, and
his adherents. As in Rev. 18, verses 6, 7.
Again, as it is impossible that Truth in
itself should be destroyed
by Error, so likewise was it also as
impossible, that the Faith and
Practice of the then Saints, should be
destroyed in them, by the
Antichristian power then predominant over
their bodies. Or, that
they should become Proselytes to his
aforesaid delusions. For if the
sons of Jonadad,
etc. would not transgress the command of their
Father in the Flesh, (Jer.
chap. 35) how much more is it to be thought
that the other would obey the Father of
their Spirits, in observing
of all his precepts which was given them
in charge to keep.
Yea the contrary cannot be imagined,
unless you will maintain
a falling away from Grace by the Elect,
which I know you abominate.
Yea the Scriptures do clearly manifest the
contrary, by distinguishing
of such as were so to be over-powered and
deluded by Antichrist,
by these phrases. (viz.) Such as were to
perish. As in 2 Thess. 2:9, 10.
Of such as were not written in the Lamb’s
book of life. Rev. 13:8. Yea you
acknowledge as much yourself, in your
aforesaid expressions, where
124 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
you term them Silly souls, etc. page 10,
etc.
So that I may safely conclude, both from
the aforenamed
Scriptures, and yourself, that Antichrist
was to prevail over none
but such as aforementioned, and if so,
then he was not to conquer
or subvert the Faith and Practice of the
then Saints, and so
consequently of none of their successors,
who are concluded by
the Apostle, To be wise unto salvation. 2
Tim.3:15. Yea Christ himself
gives this Character of them, That they
will not follow strangers. John
10:5, etc. as also, That they know not the
voice of strangers, but
contrariwise, that they know his voice,
and follow him only, Verse 27.
Yea he is said to take such care and
cognizance of them, as that he
knoweth
them by name, Verse 3. Yea, God the Father is said so to
protect them, as that they shall never
perish. Yea, to have so fast hold
of them, as that neither Man nor Devil can
pluck them out of his
hands, For that he is more great and
powerful than all their adversaries.
Verse 29.
It is therefore without all controversy,
that Antichrist was not
to beguile the aforesaid Saints of their
Faith, or to gain them as
Proselytes to his kingdom of darkness, and
so consequently not
from the fruits thereof, (viz.) in point
of worship, or any precept or
command of Jesus Christ whatsoever. The
uttermost extent of the
power of Antichrist consisting only in
persecuting or killing their bodies,
but not to touch their Faith, the life of
their Souls. And if not their
Faith, then not their Obedience, which is
ever individually annexed
unto it as an inseparable consequence
thereof.
So that the aforementioned texts in Daniel
and the Revelations,
[Revelation] must of necessity be
understood of the despicable and
contemptible estate and condition of the
aforesaid Saints in the
esteem of Antichrist, etc. during the time
they were to Lord it over
them, but so far were they from
extinguishing or rooting up their Faith
and Obedience to the commands of Christ
and his Apostles, as that
they increased the more in strength by
such cruelties, their blood
being the seed of the Church, as
Historians do declare of them.
Object[ion]. You cite also Mr. Bernard on
Rev. 12:6 who understands
by the Churches flight into the
Wilderness, that she lost her visibility before
her Enemies.
Answ[er].
I do freely acknowledge as much, but that doth not
prove the Primitive Church was to be unchurched by her enemies
in her distressed or Wilderness-condition,
or that she was invisible
to such of whom she then consisted, but
rather that she was
preserved by that her flight from the fury
and rage of Antichrist.
Object[ion]. You cite also Mr. Cooser, Bishop of Galloway, who
125 Appendix II
compares the then hiding of the Primitive
church and frame of Gospel-government
unto the hiding of the Popish Church or
Synagogue in England,
who are, (saith
he) without public State or Regiment, or open free exercise
of Holy Function, etc. Then which
expression you think nothing can
more fitly and fully clear your aforesaid
Assertion.
I do likewise freely acknowledge that his
Expression to be very
pertinent to the setting forth of the
state of the Primitive Church
under the Persecution of Antichrist, etc.
but little to that purpose you
drive at, Viz. as to a cessation of the
aforesaid Primitive Church, etc. in
that her condition. Yea so far was it from
tending to such a construction,
as that it does rather argue the quite
contrary, Viz. To prove a
succession or continuance of the aforesaid
Primitive Church, etc.
in that her condition. In prosecution of
which we may compare the
present estate and condition of the
aforesaid Romish Church or
Regiment in this Nation with the other,
which if without public
State or Regiment etc. in that Bishop’s
days, certainly much more at
this present time, as all rational men
must needs acknowledge.
And yet notwithstanding the present
restriction by virtue of the
Acts now in force against Popish Priests
and Jesuits etc. I presume all
rational men will acknowledge, that they
cannot but conceive and
believe that the Popish Religion is yet
put in practise in this Nation,
albeit not to the public view of such as
will call them in question for
so doing.
And if so, then I appeal to any rational
man, whether or no the
like practice might not have been used by
the Primitive Christians
and their Successors, during their
Persecution by Antichrist. Yea, that
it was more probable may thus appear. For
by how much the
aforesaid Papists, etc. dare now be so bold
as to support an Error;
by so much or more may we justly conceive
the other would be as
valiant to maintain a Truth, by practicing
what was their duties as
Members of the true Primitive Church, yea,
I would gladly know
any one Ordinance of Jesus Christ, that
was impossible to be
practised
by them (that was requisite to their then present condition)
during their enemies’ hottest rage,
against them. Having thus clearly
proved a continuation of the Primitive
Church and frame of Gospel-government
(so far as was requisite for their then
present condition) I
shall in the next place by the same
assistance prove the first approach
of its visibility into the world, after
its aforesaid persecution under
the Dragon and the Beast mentioned, Rev.
chap. 12 and 13.
And first of its persecution under the
aforesaid red Dragon,
whose Original I take to be the Emperor
Nero, and that for these
ensuing Reasons, Viz.
126 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
In that it is reported of him by Eusebius
(lib.2, ch. 24, 25, fol. 34)
That when he had reigned for the space of
8 years, etc. and being
settled in his Throne, he fell into
abominable facts, and took armor
against the service due unto the universal
and almighty God, etc.
How detestable he was become, is not for
this present time to
declare, for there be many that have
painted out his willful malice,
which may easily appear if we consider the
furious madness of that
man, through the which after that beyond
reason he had destroyed
an innumerable company, he fell into such
a sucking way of
slaughter, that he abstained not from his
most dear and familiar
friends; Yea, he tormented with divers
kinds of deaths his own
mother, his brethren, his wife, and many
of his dear kinfolks, as if
they had been Enemies, and deadly foes
unto him.
Again, It behoved
us to take notice of this one thing of him
above the rest, Viz. “That he was counted
the First 1 Enemy of all the
Emperors unto the service of God, by which
we may conclude,
that Nero was the first that began the
persecution in the Gentile
Church of Christ.”
Again, Tertullian,
the Roman writes thus of the said Nero, Viz.
“Read your Authors there you shall find
Nero chiefly to have
persecuted this Doctrine at Rome,” etc.
“he became cruel unto all,”
etc.
Again he says, This enemy of God set up himself
to the destruction of
the Apostles, wherein he was first
discovered. 2 For they write that: Paul
was beheaded of him at Rome, etc. all
which being compared with Phil
4:22 does clearly demonstrate that they
were Paul’s followers that
were so persecuted by Nero in Rome. Yea,
it is very probable, that
Nero himself for the first eight years of
his reign, did favour Paul’s
Doctrine, or otherwise he would not have
suffered so many of his
family to have been his followers, as it
plainly appears in the
aforesaid chapter: as also by their
aforesaid sufferings by Nero, as
the aforesaid Histories do relate.
Having thus found out the Original of the
aforesaid Red Dragon,
and also the very year wherein he began
his persecution, as also in
all probability, the first Martyr of the
Gentile Church of Christ, which I
take to be the Apostle Paul, and that for
these Reasons, Viz.
1. In that he was designed to be the
Apostle of the Gentiles, (Gal.
2:8, 9) it was therefore most requisite,
that he should be the first
Martyr that should suffer under that
heathen Dragon, to the end he
might as well be their Captain in
sufferings, as in the practice of the truth
which he had taught them, and that
according to the example of his Master
Jesus Christ.
127 Appendix II
2. In that the aforesaid Tyrant is said to
be first discovered by his
causing Paul to be beheaded.
3. In relation to so gentle a death as the
aforesaid Apostle is said
to die by, which doth argue a kind of
leniency, or mildness in that
Tyrant, as being but his first entrance
into that Tragedy, being compared
with the cruelties which he is said to use
afterward, yea, and that
even to his own Mother, whose very Womb he
is said to have caused
to be ripped open, to the end he might see
the place of his conception,
with many other cruelties which are
reported of him, all which
doth argue the Apostle’s death (as
aforesaid) to have been the first
entrance of that Tyrant into his butchery
of the Saints.
I shall in the next place discover the
original of the Beast which
was to act the second part of that
Christian Tragedy, begun by the
aforesaid Nero, and continued during the
ten persecutions (viz.)
from the aforesaid Claudius Nero, unto Constantius Magnus, in whose
days the aforesaid ten Persecutions had
their period.
Who seeing the aforesaid Emperors his
Predecessors frustrated
of their expectation (viz.) of a total
Extirpation of the Primitive
Church and frame of Gospel-government from
off the earth, and
that notwithstanding all their [“?] bloody
Massacres, and killing
courses, whereby many “thousands were oft
time slain in a day,
resolved to take “a more subtle
course,[“?] and that by practicing
another design to the same effect, which
was by giving a seat and
power, and great authority unto such silly
souls as he could by that
means delude and ensnare; “To the end “he
might do that by craft
and subtlety, which his “Predecessors
could not do by force and
violence.[“?] To which purpose I say it
does plainly appear that the
said Constantius
etc. called the great Council of Nice, in which Diet
the aforesaid Constantius,
and they decreed that like as the King of
the Romans was then called Emperor above
other Kings, so the Bishop
of the same City, should be called Pope,
above other Bishops. And to
the more specious carrying on of the aforesaid
design, he likewise
erected many sumptuous Temples or
Churches, decking them with
Jewels, and costly Ornaments; And to the
end he might further
procure his ends therein, he gave likewise
to the Priests of them
[those] times (whom he had so ensnared
under pretence of
advancing and promoting Religion) worldly
power and great riches,
that they might more freely manage his
design. And to carry it on
yet further, he likewise pretended to have
seen the Sign of the Cross
in the air, and thereby took occasion to
set up Imagery and Idolatry
of Crosses; 3 and Saints relics, yea, and
what not, which might tend
to an Aaronical
glory, into which dress he was then determined to
128 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
transform or reduce the then afflicted
Church of Jesus Christ;
supposing it the only time and means to
bring that his purpose to
pass. All which and much more, Eusebius
and other Historians report
of him in a plentiful manner; by all which
means the Cross of Christ
began to be made of none effect, and the
power of Christ’s death either no
more remembered, or no more understood by
the deluded Professors of such
false Worship, Insomuch, as a Voice was
then heard from Heaven
saying, This day is poison poured forth
into the Church, All which does
clearly demonstrate the aforesaid Constantius to be the very Man, or
Dragon, who gave his power unto the Beast,
as Rev. 13.
Having thus discovered the place where,
the time when, and
the manner how the Dragon, and the Beast
took their first rise, I
shall in the next place compute the time
of the aforesaid 1260 years,
(which was assigned to be the time of the
hiding of the Primitive Church,
etc. in its Wilderness condition) from the
rise of the Beast or Papacy, To
which purpose, It is very remarkable, that
betwixt the Birth of
Constantius,
and the death of Luther, is fully expired the aforesaid
number of years, Constantius
being born in the year 283 and Luther’s
death happening in the year, 1546 from
which latter number if you
deduct, the former, the remainder will be
1263 years as by
comparing of Eusebius with Mr. Fox in his
Book of Martyrs, upon
the life and death of the aforesaid Constantius and Luther will appear:
So that it is probable the aforesaid
Primitive Church etc. came out
of its wilderness condition, about three
years before the death of
Luther.
Now that it came forth as aforesaid, not
by the means of Luther,
but rather contrary to his desire, will
clearly appear by this ensuing
Story of Sphanhemus,
Professor of Leiden in his Historical Narrative
of the Church of Christ in Germany, which
that Enemy of the Truth
there stills, by the scandalous name of
Anabaptists, in which story
contrary to his intended desire he
testifies the visibility of the aforesaid
true Church in Luther’s time, as the
aforesaid story will clearly
manifest, 4 where speaking out of
ignorance, by way of contempt
against three famous Champions of the
Primitive Church of Jesus
Christ (which was at that very instant
making its first approach out
of its Wilderness-condition, in its
morning dress) uses these following
expressions, by way of narration, viz.
That when God raised up Luther, Melancton [Melanchthon],
Zwinglius
and divers [various] other Worthies, to be Reformers of
his Church, at the same time the enemy of
mankind raised up the
Anabaptists to be the disturbers of his
Church: That Thomas Munzer
their great Antisignanus,
[sic] etc. when he could not get Luther to
129 Appendix II
join with him, etc. began to thunder
against Luther himself, crying
out, that Luther was as much in fault as
the Pope of Rome, yea, and
more, yea, that Luther, and those of his
party, favoured nothing but
of the flesh, vaunting indeed, that they
had cut off some of the
leaves of Antichrist, but the tree and the
root remained still untouched,
which (said Munzer,
Storch, and Becold) must be
cut down, and which
cut down they would.
So that the Papacy, Prelacy, and
Presbytery, may fitly be
compared to three families under one roof,
striving to supplant
each other, witnesses the continual
conflicts betwixt the old Strumpet
and her aforesaid daughters, and that as
it were in a battle Royal,
both by Word and Sword, to subvert each
others’ Hierarchies, which
they have already done in a great measure
in this Nation, the full
accomplishment whereof I hope in a short
time to see effected both
in this Nation and elsewhere, which the
Lord in much mercy hasten,
that the truth of his Promises may be
fulfilled in these our days,
which was written by his servant John,
Rev. 13:10, viz. That such as
have and would lead the Primitive Church
of Christ captive may be led
themselves into captivity, and that such
as have killed them with the Sword,
etc. may be killed by the Sword, etc. Rev.
18:6, 7, 8; Psa. 149: 6, 7, 8, 9,
and that the true Primitive Church may be
restored to such a latitude,
as to spread itself over the face of the
whole earth, as in Dan. 7:18,
27.
But to return where I left (viz.) to the
first approach of the
aforesaid Primitive Church in its mornings
dress, as you yourself
have very elegantly described it, page 1,
etc. where from Canticles
6:10 you compare the degrees of the
approach thereof out of its
wilderness-condition. 1. To be like the
looking forth of the morning.
2. To the fairness of the Moon. 3.To the
clearness of the Sun. And
lastly, To the terribleness of an Army with
Banners. All which are
indeed most excellent and lively Emblems
of the degrees which
have been, and are yet, to be taken by the
aforesaid Primitive
Church, since her wilderness-condition.
Which aforesaid Gradations, was doubtless
the only reason why
the aforesaid Spanhemus,
Luther, etc. could not at that time discern
the aforesaid Church to be the Primitive
Church, which was then
looking, or peeping out of its
wilderness-condition; and that in as
much also, because of the long hiding
thereof (viz.) for the aforesaid
space of 1260 years, during which time of
its absence, it was departed
from them, as it had been into another
world (as yourself do also
acknowledge) so that they were in the
interim set down in darkness,
and so knew not the aforesaid true Church
at that time of the
130 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
approach thereof, but continued rather
wondering at it, and hating
it, etc. (which is now your own present
condition, which I humbly
desire you would lay to heart, by a
serious consideration of your
present estate, and to redeem the time you
have hitherto spent in
deluding, and being deluded, which phrase
I am constrained to use,
hoping it may be unto you, as such a
reproof as the Prophet David desired
to be reproved by, Psa.
14:5, which he there esteems, as a precious Balm
upon his head.)
(PAGES ORIGINALLY NUMBERED 17, 18, 19,
& 20 ARE
MISSING. )
cover their Ordination (unto you) by the
Constitution of their
Church.
Now they cannot avoid, but that the
Constitution of their
Church, is now the same with that party,
or Church which did
separate from the Papacy of that time,
from which they derive their
succession. So that if the Constitution
(and so consequently the
Ordination) of the now Presbyterian
Churches and Ministers be
Constituted and Ordained contrary to the
command of Jesus Christ,
and the Practice of his Apostles: then it
must unavoidedly follow,
that the aforesaid party which Mr.
Cranford says, did so separate
themselves from the Papacy, was also
Constituted and ordained
contrary to the commands of Jesus Christ,
and the practice of his
Apostles.
But that the present Church whereof Mr.
Cranford is now termed
the Minister, etc. is a Church constituted
(and so consequently
ordained) contrary to the command of Jesus
Christ, and the practise
of his Apostles I thus argue.
That Church which is constituted of such
persons as have neither
been taught, nor have Faith, Repentance,
Baptism, is a Church
constituted contrary to the commands of
Jesus Christ, and the
practice of his Apostles. Matt. 28:19, 20;
Mark 16:15, 16; Acts 2:38,
41, and 8:12, 35, 36, etc. and 16:14, 15,
31, 32, 33.
But the aforesaid Church, whereof Mr.
Cranford is Minister, etc.
has been so constituted as aforesaid, viz.
of Infants sprinkled, etc.
Ergo, the aforesaid Church whereof Mr.
Cranford is Minister, is
constituted contrary to the command of
Jesus Christ, and the practise
of his Apostles.
2. That Church which is constituted
contrary to the Commands
of Jesus Christ, and the practise of his Apostles, is no constituted
Church of Jesus Christ.
But the aforesaid Church of Mr. Cranford’s
has been so
constituted. Ergo it is no constituted
Church of Jesus Christ.
131 Appendix II
3. That Church which is not a constituted
Church of Jesus Christ,
is a constituted Church of Antichrist.
But the aforesaid Church of Mr. Cranford
is not a constituted
Church of Jesus Christ, etc.
Ergo it is a constituted Church of
Antichrist.
4. That Church which is a constituted
Church of Antichrist, is a
Church constituted by the power and
authority of Antichrist.
But Mr. Cranford’s Church is a constituted
Church of Antichrist:
Ergo Constituted by the authority and
power of Antichrist.
5. That Church which is constituted by the
power and authority
of Antichrist is one and the same with
Antichrist in its constitution,
etc.
But Mr. Cranford’s Church as aforesaid, is
constituted by the
authority and power of Antichrist:
Ergo it is one and the same with
Antichrist in its constitution,
etc.
6. That Church, whose constitution is one
and the same with
the Church of Antichrist in its
constitution, is not separated from
the constitution of the Antichristian
Church.
But the constitution of Mr. Cranford’s
Church, etc. is one and
the same with the constitution of the
Church of Antichrist.
Ergo the Constitution of Mr. Cranford’s
Church was never
separated from the constitution of the
Church of Antichrist, and so
consequently, neither that Party, or
Church, formerly instanced by
Mr. Cranford, from whom he, and the whole
Presbyterian party, do
plead succession from, as to their constitution
and ordination, and
so consequently, all such as plead the
like succession and ordination
as they do.
For that Church, whose constitution is
Antichristian, cannot
ordain Ministers of Jesus Christ.
But the Constitution of the aforesaid
Church is Antichristian,
Ergo, They cannot ordain Ministers of
Jesus Christ.
So that all the Churches that have been
constituted by baptizing
or sprinkling of Infants, as aforesaid,
have been constituted by the
authority and power of Antichrist.
t:But
all the aforesaid Churches who pretend to have been
separated from Antichrist, did never
separate from the constitution
of the Church of Antichrist.
Ergo, The constitution of all the
aforesaid Churches have
continued Antichristian, from their
Separation to this present, and
so consequently have neither had a true
constitution or Ordination,
as the Churches or Ministers of Jesus
Christ, since their aforesaid
132 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
separation.
But to leave them without any further plea
in this particular, I
shall urge the writings of them, whom they
so highly esteem as the
great Reformers of their times, presuming
the testimony that they
shall afford to my present purpose will be
of force to leave an impress
upon their consciences, I shall begin with
Melancton, [Melanchthon]
who in his Answer to the Anabaptists is
forced to confess, 5 That
about the year of our Lord 248, and after
the departure of John the
oldest Apostle, 158 years, there lived a
certain Priest one Finus,
who would that men should according to the
manner of
Circumcision baptize young children upon
the eight [eighth] day,
with whom says he, Cyprian 6 with 66
Bishops and elders more
gathered together joined themselves and
ordained, That every one
without delay should receive Baptism, and
that young children
should be timely brought thereunto; after
which (says Bullinger) the
Carthaginian Council concluded thus to Innocentius, Viz.
7 Forasmuch as we believe that Christ the
Son of God was holily
born of the pure Virgin Mary to fulfil and ratify the promises of
God, which excludes not children from
salvation, we will therefore
that they be baptized.
In which two Instances we have the grand
foundation laid to
the Mystery of iniquity (foretold by the
Apostle Paul, 2 Thess. 2:1, 2,
3, 4, etc. as also by John I Epistle 18,
19 [1 John 2:18-19]) whereupon
Antichrist was to erect his Fabric apart
from the true Church, from which
they had revolted, as in the aforesaid
Scriptures) and that chiefly instead
of Circumcision, upon which Basis it is
yet supported by the daughters
of the aforesaid Harlot, the Original of
the rise thereof, being like 8
unto that of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who when he had through
his subtlety procured a revolt of the ten
Tribes from their obedience
to the house of David, 1 King. 12. And
after considering what would
be the event thereof, if he should not use
some means to bottom
their worship apart from each other (as in
v. 26, 27, 28, etc.) did
thereupon take counsel, etc. By means
whereof he erected another
foundation to settle the aforesaid Revolters upon, by way of allusion
to what they had formerly practised; By which his subtlety, he is
said to continue a firm and sure
separation of the aforesaid Revolters
from those of their brethren, that kept
themselves to their first
principle of obedience and loyalty to the
aforesaid house of David,
etc. So in like manner when the aforesaid
9 Revolters from the truth
were grown so numerous as aforesaid, they
thought it high time to
use the like craft and subtlety, as the
aforesaid Jeroboam did, to the
end their like rebellious consorts or Renigadoes [Renegades] should
133 Appendix II
not return to their former faith, or
worship; and hence it was that
they also took counsel together as
aforesaid, where they likewise
concluded, that instead of their former
constitution founded upon
baptizing of such as had been taught,
believed, and repented, as hath been
clearly proved, they should now constitute
their Churches, by baptizing
of Infants, without any reference to the
aforesaid motives, (viz.) of being
taught, or having faith or repentance, by
which means their Church
became every whit as distinct, or separate
from the Church of Jesus
Christ, as the aforesaid revolting
Israelites became to the House of
David. But lest Mr. Cranford, etc. should
say these are my own words,
without any further testimony, to
strengthen and confirm the same,
in point of History, or human testimony, I
shall therefore present
you with the opinions and judgements of such, who albeit 10 enemies
to the true Baptism of the true Church, as
their practise did declare,
yet being urged to speak their consciences
in relation thereunto,
have declared and published as follows.
And first of the confession
of 11 Luther himself, Who in his Book
Entitled, The ground-work and
cause, Tom. I. where speaking of the
Sacraments, uses these
expressions upon the words of Jesus
Christ, Mark 16:16. (Viz.) That
these words are spoken in reference to
faith before Baptism, concluding, that
where faith is not, there Baptism 12
avails not, as the following words of
the same place do show, saying, He that
believeth not shall be damned,
etc. For it is not Baptism, but by Faith
in Baptism [note Luther’s words!]
that saves, as we read Acts 8:36. That
Philip would not baptize the
Eunuch until he had first demanded of him,
whether he believed, etc. But
without Faith the Sacraments profit
nothing; yea, they are not only in vain,
but bring damnation also to the Receivers.
Again, writing upon the 48th Chapter of
Genesis, he says, That
before we receive the Sacrament of
Baptism, and the Lords Supper, we
must have Faith.
Again, in his book of the Civil Magistrate
he also says, That the
Sacrament neither can, nor may be received
without Faith 13 but with great
hurt, etc. So that either before, or else
even then present, when Baptism is
administered, there must needs be Faith,
or else there is a contempt of the
divine Majesty, who offers his present
Grace when there is none to receive it.
Again, in his Epistle of Anabaptism, he
confesses, That it cannot
be proved by any place of Scripture, that
Children do believe, neither do the
Scriptures clearly or plainly with these
or the like words say, Baptize your
Children, 14 for they believe: wherefore
we must yield to those that drive us
to the letter, because we find it nowhere
written.
Melanct[on]
15 on 1 Cor. 11. faith, 16 In times past, those that
had
repented them were baptized, and was
instead of an absolution, wherefore
134 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
Repentance must not be separate from
Baptism, for Baptism is a sacramental
sign of Repentance.
Again, in his Treatise concerning the
doctrine of Anabaptists, he is
forced to confess, that there is 17 no
plain Commandment in the holy
Scriptures, that Children should be
baptized.
Zuinglius
18 in his book says, That 19 in old time Children were
openly instructed, who when they came to
understanding were called
Chatecumeni,
[Catechumen] that is, such as are instructed in the Word
of Salvation; and when they had imprinted
the faith in their hearts, and
made confession thereof with their mouths,
they were admitted to baptism.
Again, in his book of the Movers of
Sedition he likewise uses this
expression, viz. When we speak of
Children’s Baptism, so it is that there is
no plain word in the Scriptures, whereby
the same is commanded.
Calvin 20 likewise is put to confess, That
it is no where expressly
mentioned by the Evangelists, that any one
Child was by the 21 Apostles’
hands baptized.
Having thus given you the testimonies of
the late great pretended
Reformers, etc. (though contrary to their practise) I shall in the next
place give you the like testimonies of
other Writers relating to
Baptism, as it was practised
in the Apostles’ days, and the first two
hundred years after.
Hier[onymus]
22 [ Jerome] says, The Lord commanded his Apostles,
that they should first instruct and teach
all Nations, and 23 afterwards
should baptize those that were instructed
in the mysteries of Faith, etc.
Athan[atius] 24 [sic] says, That our Saviour
did not slightly command
to baptize, but first of all he said,
teach, and then baptize, that true Faith
might come by teaching, and Baptism be
perfected by faith.
Haimo
25 says, That there is set down a rule 26 rightly how to baptize,
that is, that teaching should go before
baptism, for he says, teach all Nations,
and then he says, baptize them, for he
that is to be baptized must be before
instructed, that he first learn to believe
that which in baptism he shall
receive; for as faith without works is
dead, so works when they are not of
faith are nothing worth.
Rossensis
27 says, The now Rulers of Churches use such Baptism as
Christ never used in his Church.
28 Eck, writing against the new Church
Orders, etc. says, That the
Ordinances concerning the baptism of
Children is without Scripture, and
concludes thus against the Lutherans; What
are you such fools, to take on
you the Ordinances of men, which is found
only to be a custom of the Church.
29 Orig[en]
calls Baptism of Children, 30 a Ceremony and Tradition of
the Church, in Levet.
Hom. 8 in Epist. ad Rom.
lib. 5. Augustine also
calls it a Custom of the Church, De Baptismo contra donat. lib. 4.
cap.
135 Appendix II
23. Pope Gregory calls it, a Tradition of
the Fathers, in Decretis destinet
de consecrat. Cassander, in his book de Infantum
Baptismo, says,
That it came to be used by the Fathers
which lived three hundred years after
Christ. 31
From all which it is clearly proved (and
that from the mouths
of such as did then practise
Infant-Baptism or sprinkling) that all
such persons as have been incorporated
into Church-fellowship by
being baptized or sprinkled, while Infants
were incorporated by a
way or means that Jesus Christ never
commanded to be used to
such a purpose, as also by such a way as
was never practised by his
Apostles, and so consequently not
incorporated visible Members
of the Church of Jesus Christ, but
contrariwise, visible Members of
the visible Church of Antichrist, whose
invention it was, and whose
practise
it yet is, instance Mr. Cranford’s Church as aforesaid, and
therefore as Antichristian as the rest;
and so consequently the
ordination, which Mr. Cranford and the
rest of the Ministers of London
(Presbyterian Ministers) have received,
from such as have been so
baptized or sprinkled as aforesaid, is
every whit as Antichristian as
their Baptism, which has been clearly made
out to be a mere
tradition of men, and therefore abominable
in the Church of Jesus
Christ, Matt. 15:8.
Having thus clearly proved, that all the
aforesaid societies of
people, are neither Churches or Ministers
of Jesus Christ (albeit
their separations as aforesaid) it must of
necessity follow, that the
Church, or society of People (now
scandalously termed Anabaptists)
was ever kept distinct and separate from
Antichrist, and that to all
ends and purposes whatsoever, whether in
essentials, substantials,
and circumstantials,
so that the aforesaid Primitive Church and
frame of Gospel-government, was never
totally destroyed in her
externals by the aforesaid red Dragon, or
Beast, or Antichrist (maugre
[in spite of] all their malice and endeavours to do the same) much
less in her internals, but contrariwise
preserved and continued unto
this present time; and therefore it will
be needless to answer to
your third assertion, viz.
That the Gospel-frame of Gospel-government
is to be restored by some
one man, etc.
For what need is there of restoring that
by any one man, when
the aforesaid Church has power to do it
(when need requires) of,
and by itself, the Church of Christ being
as a tree (Psa. 1:3) whose
seed is in itself: now experience teaches
us, that a tree so planted as
aforesaid, albeit in the autumnal or
winter season, it become
seemingly dead, by being deprived of its
outward ornaments of
136 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
leaves and fruit (which is procured by the
coldness of the season,
which causes the sap to shrink down into
the root) yet the like
experience does also teach us, that at the
springtime, the aforesaid
sap or moisture, being exhaled again by
virtue of the heat of the
Sun, does furnish the same tree again with
its like natural ornaments
of leaves and fruit, and that of, and from
itself.
So put the case, that during the autumnal
or winter season of
the Antichristian persecution of the
Church of Christ, it might be
deprived of its aforesaid ornaments of
order, and form of worship,
yet the root and the tree being preserved
(viz. the Word of God as
the root, and Saints as the tree, wherein
the aforesaid order and
form of worship have been retained, during
the aforesaid time) has
by the virtue and power of the Sun of
righteousness shining upon it
(at the time of its approach out of its
aforesaid condition) even as
much power to furnish itself with its
spiritual ornaments, of order,
and form of worship, and that without any
other artificial help
whatsoever, as the aforesaid tree has to produce
its own leaves and
fruit.
But lest what has been said shall not
satisfy you, I shall answer
the particulars, wherein you conceive it
defective, as first in point
of its present Constitution, and
Ordination.
In answer to which, I shall refer you to the
Commands, and
Practises
of Jesus Christ, and his Apostles, relating to the Constitution
and Ordination of the Church which they
first gathered, as in Matt.
28:18, 19, 20; Mark 16:15, 16, 17. As also
the book of the Acts, viz. by
teaching, and baptizing, the gatherers, as
also by Faith, Repentance,
and being baptized, in such as were
gathered thereunto, which hath
been, and is yet, the present practise of those that have and do yet
succeed the Apostles in that Gospel-Church
so gathered by them.
Viz. The Church now scandalously termed
Anabaptists: And
therefore one and the same with the
aforesaid Gospel-Church so
gathered as aforesaid.
Object[ion]. But you will reply, that the
standing Officers in the
Primitive Church, ceased, while it was in
its Wilderness-condition.
Answ[er].
What need of Deacons was there in the Church at
Jerusalem before the number of the
Disciples were multiplied, Acts
6:1 etc. or when the aforesaid Church was
scattered abroad by the
then persecution (viz.) the whole Church,
[(] except the Apostles, Acts
8:1) and yet I presume you will not deny
there was a Church of
Jesus Christ then at Jerusalem, as in Acts
8:14.
So likewise when the aforesaid Primitive
Church, was penned
up into Mountains, Dens, Deserts, and
Caves of the earth, and when,
137 Appendix II
as it is likely, not above eight or ten
persons might meet in one
place together, what need had they of
Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers,
Elders, Deacons, etc. when one or two of
them might supply the place
of them all (so far as there was need of
them) and so likewise in
relation to the rest of the Ordinances,
what need was there of any
other then [than] of private teachings,
prophesying, prayer, baptism,
breaking of bread, which I have fully
cleared to all rational men,
might be then performed by the aforesaid
Church in its then
condition, where I compared it with the
present Condition of the
Popish Synagogue in this nation: And
without which it had been
impossible it should have subsisted for so
long a time as 1260 years,
(which that it did, I have also cleared by
the aforesaid Instances of
Munzer,
Storch, and Becold, in
their addresses to Luther, when the
aforesaid time was expired, albeit the
said Luther was ignorant
thereof, supposing (as yet you do) that
the aforesaid Primitive
Church had been devolved into the then
Antichristian estate, of which
he then conceived himself a Reformer, (the
contrary to which I think
I have clearly proved) however I am
confident, that the then poor
distressed Saints, had as much respect to
observe all the commands
of Jesus Christ, as possibly were then in
their power to prosecute,
during their aforesaid
wilderness-condition, in the aforesaid Mountains,
Dens, Deserts, and Caves of the earth,
whereunto they were confined, and
in which they were preserved.
Object[ion]. Peradventure you will bid me
prove that the
aforesaid Primitive Church was so
preserved, and where.
Answ[er].
It is enough for me to prove that it was only to be hid,
and so hid from the face of the Dragon,
etc. As that the said Dragon, etc.
could not find it, or make discovery of
it, which is your own confession,
page 2. in your aforesaid Book: By which
your Expressions it is evident,
1. That it was only to be hid. Ergo, It
had a being where it was so hid. 2.
You say it was hid from the Dragon, etc.
Ergo, Not devolved into the
Dragon, etc. 3. You say the Dragon could
not find it, or make discovery of
it. Ergo, It was apart from him, or
otherwise such words were
ridiculous.
But that you declared the very truth in so
saying (though not 32
wittingly) I shall prove further from
Scripture, where Jesus Christ
promises to be with it to the end of the
world, Matt. 28:20. Ergo, It
was to have a continuance unto the end of
the world. And if so,
then during the aforesaid time of 1260
years. Again, If continued a
Church, then in all the Essentials, Substantials, and Circumstantials
that appertained unto it, (so far as there
was need of, in its then
condition) as aforesaid. Again, I would
gladly know any one Church
138 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
(in that which we now call Christendom)
that can produce the like
hidden condition, 33 as the Church now
scandalously termed Anabaptists.
And much more in that it is so clearly
discovered to be so near, yea
even one and the same with the Pattern of
the first Church that was erected
by the commands of Jesus Christ, and the
practice of the Apostles. And as
to the place where it was so preserved, It
may be probably
conjectured to be in 34 Germany, in as
much as the aforesaid Munzer,
etc. did there discover themselves at the
time aforesaid.
Redeem the time therefore which you have
hitherto spent in
opposing so plain a truth (as has been
declared) by disclaiming that
Error, as you have done many more (Viz.
your sprinkling and
ordination, etc.) in doing of which, you
will have the benefit, I my
desire, and God the Glory.
FINIS
You may have this Book, as also another
lately published by John
More (Entitled, A General Exhortation to
the World, etc.) at the
Shop of Giles Calvert at the Black
spread-Eagle at the West End of
Pauls.
NOTES
1. Nero began the first persecution in the
Gentile Church.
2. Nero first discovered by acting against
Paul.
3. From whence sprung the Cross in Baptism
[among Catholics and
Protestants].
4. Reader, take notice that this story of
the Anabaptists (scandalously so called) was
written by an utter adversary to the
Truth, as I shall hereafter make appear. Or otherwise
through his ignorance of the Truth. Take
notice also that the aforesaid Champions of the
Truth, (viz) Munzer, etc. appeared at the same time that Luther, etc.
began to oppose the
Pope so that when there was but the least
way made for the Church of Christ to appear, it
had its Champions to publish it to the
world, as by their expressions to Luther did appear,
wherein they spake
nothing but the very truth, for without all controversy, Luther, etc. was
no other then [sic] Romish
Sectaries, yea such as made only a division in Rome, but not
from Rome, and so consequently, such as
was [sic] never of the true Church of Jesus Christ,
and therefore the Papists may boldly,k and justly, question the Prelates, where their
Religion
was before Luther, as also the
Presbyterians before Calvin, in as much as they are no other
than the Daughters of that grand harlot,
Rev. 17:5. Witness their National Churches, their
Popish institution of Priests, and
baptizing of Infants, which are infallible Characters, to
prove them Harlots like their Mother.
5. [There is no note in existence - it
appears that the margin has been mended
or in some way covered over in this place.
C.A.P.]
6. Note the power of Antichrist in the
year, 248.
7. Bullingerus
ex Augustino contra Julianum,
lib. 1. cap. 2.
8. Simile The revolt of Antichrist
compared with the revolt of the ten Tribes
from the house of David.
139 Appendix II
9. Viz. Falers [sic]
from the [unintelligible] faith, [unintelligible] Pray
[unintelligible].
10. The enemies of the truth forced to
speak contrary to their own practice.
11. The testimony of Luther.
12. What then avails Infants sprinkling.
13. [This marginal note obliterated.]
14. But if unbelievers, then why are they
baptized?
15. The Testimony of Melancton.
16. [Marg. says
only “Note”, C.A.P.]
17. How then dare they do it, contrary to
the practice of the Apostles?
18. The Testimony of Zuinglius.
Art. 18.
19. Note old time, and why not so now?
20. The Testimony of Calvin in his
Institutions, lib. 4. cap. 16
21. If not by the Apostles, by whom then I
say.
22. The Testimony of Hieronymus upon Matt.
28:19, 20.
23. Then not [unintelligible].
24. [unintelligible] Testimony of Athanatius, in his third Sermon against the
Arians. Idem.
25. Item Haimo
in Postilla, fol. 278. Idem.
26. If such be right Baptism, then the
other is wrong.
27. Rossensis contracep. Balilon.
28. Doctor Eckius
a popish Priest in Cinchiridion.
29. Origen
30. Then a Pharisaical manner of worship.
Augustine. Pope Gregory.
31. Cassander.
He guessed within 52 years.
32. Many speak truth though not wittingly
or willingly.
33. Neither the Popish, Prelatical, Presbyterian, etc. Churches can claim the
like hidden state and condition, as etc.
34. Germany the most probable place of the
Churches hiding, etc.
140 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
Appendix III
CAN YOU IDENTIFY THIS
WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTERS?
By Curtis Pugh
This woman and her younger, more
attractive daughters pose
a deadly spiritual threat. Because we care
about people we call
your attention to this danger by
furnishing you with this little study.
You can find out for yourself just what
the Bible says by looking up
the references given. For this “Bible
detective work” you will need
the Book of Revelation, the last book in
your Bible, and perhaps a
dictionary or encyclopedia. You will also
need an honest and
prayerful heart. Here are some clues to
help you in your search.
1. Clue number one: A thoughtful reading
of Revelation chapters
17 and 18 shows that this woman is more
than just an individual.
She symbolizes a “city” that controls the
governments of the world
(Rev. 17:18).
2. The second clue is her influence and
popularity. She sits on
many waters explained to be the peoples of
the world, Rev. 17: 1,
15 (See how the Bible explains itself!)
Revelation 17:2 speaks, no
doubt, of her deception of the peoples of
the world. (See also Rev.
14:8; 18:3; 19:2). Evidently her
popularity and social acceptability
allow her to do her evil work freely.
3. Clue number three is her connection
with civil governments.
Revelation 17:2, and 18 mention her ties
with “the kings of the
earth.” She is a world political power and
is recognized as such by
various governments.
4. The fourth clue is her bright colorful
attire. Rich colors of
purple, scarlet (Rev. 17:4) and “linen”
(Rev. 18:16 - white in color)
are hers. Could the leaders of this
“Harlot” actually wear these
colors? Her adornment is also gold,
precious stones, and pearls.
Think about this. What comes to mind?
5. Clue number five has to do with her
immense wealth. She
possesses riches in abundance (Rev. 17:4;
18:7, & 11-19). Vast
financial holdings make this “city” a
great power in world commerce.
And her pagan observances cause her
followers to spend vast sums
141 Appendix III
of money annually during the “holiday
season” so that the cessation
of such observances will spell ruin for
merchants world wide.
6. Clue number six concerns a multitude of
martyrs. Read Rev.
17:6 and Rev. 18:24. What city of
worldwide influence has been
responsible for multitudes martyred
because of their faith in Christ
and the Bible?
7. The seventh clue is her name.
Revelation 17:5 tells us her
name is MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT, THE
MOTHER
OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
She
is not literal Babylon, for that is in
ruins. She is “Mystery Babylon.”
Archaeology has shown that Babylon was the
origin of mystery
religions such as the worship of Simiramis and Tammuz, the ancient
eastern Madonna and child. Locate where
and by whom these are
venerated today under other names and you
may be well on your
way to solving this puzzle.
8. Clue number eight is her location. She
is a “city” that sits on
seven mountains (Rev. 17:9, 18). There is
a famous city that sits on
seven hills (mountains in the local
tongue) which has named them
(1) Palatine; (2) Capitoline;
(3) Quirinal; (4) Aventine; (5) Caelian;
(6) Esquiline;
and (7) Viminal. Check this out with a dictionary,
gazetteer, or encyclopedia!
9. The ninth and final clue also has to do
with her names as
does clue number seven above. In
Revelation 17:5, she is also named
THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF
THE EARTH. This Harlot has given birth to
many of the same
sort as the mother. They too enjoy great prestige,
popularity and
power. They are socially acceptable and
listened to by the civil
leaders of this world. Identify the Mother
and give a little thought
to her offspring. You may be surprised at
your conclusions!
Revelation 18:4 gives a great command and
a serious warning:
“come out of her, my people, that ye be
not partakers of her sins,
and that ye receive not of her plagues.”
This harlot (and her harlot-daughters)
are guilty of terrible sins and those who
remain in her
are “partakers of her sins.” They will be
judged by God because
they are a part of her.
Read these Scriptures and do a little
research. When you do
learn just who the Harlot and her
Daughters are, please do not get
mad at me for calling this to your
attention. I did not write the
Bible. I am only to tell you what it says.
How you respond to the
Bible has eternal consequences.
The vital question is this: are you a part
of this “Mother of
Harlots,” or her wicked Brood? If so, will
you heed the warning
142 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
and obey the call to “Come out of her?” Be
done with her! Repent
of your sins and trust in Christ alone and
separate yourself from
the Harlot and her Daughters!
“...COME OUT OF HER, MY PEOPLE, THAT YE BE
NOT
PARTAKERS OF HER SINS, AND THAT YE RECEIVE
NOT
OF HER PLAGUES.” (Rev. 18:4).
End
143 Appendix IV
Appendix IV
THE NEED FOR A MOTHER
CHURCH
By Ronnie Wolfe 1 , Pastor
First Baptist Church
Harrison, Ohio
“We will consider this topic in four
sections with the following
titles: A Church Enclosed, A Church Fragmented,
A Church
Estranged, A Church Extended.
A CHURCH ENCLOSED
“A garden inclosed
is my sister, my spouse” (S. of S. 4:12)
The Lord’s church is a distinct and
separate organization from
any other on the earth. The local church
is not simply a fraction or
a part of a larger and similar
organization. She is loved by God,
Christ, and the Holy Spirit. God purchased
the church (local
concept) with his own blood (Acts 20:28).
Jesus Christ delegated
authority to his church (Matt. 28:18-20).
The Holy Spirit approved
the church (local concept) on the Day of
Pentecost (Acts 1:5; 2:1-3).
As we think of the church’s being a
distinct organization unlike
any other in the world, let us consider
briefly her authority by
example.
Example #1: In Acts chapter 6 we read of a
problem arising in
the church regarding the “daily
ministration.” The problem was
solved by a general agreement [today we
think of that as a church
vote] wherein they chose seven men to take
care of the “daily
ministration.” The church exercised her
distinct authority in doing
this. Being members of this church, they
voted in agreement to
select these seven men.
Proposition #1: What if ten of the members
of this church
met somewhere away from the regular
meeting place and voted to
do something about the problem of the
“daily ministration”? Would
their agreement together or their vote
determine what was or what
was not to be done in regard to this
“daily ministration”? The answer
is no.
Example #2: In Acts chapter 15 we read of
the disagreement
that came to the churches over
circumcision and the Mosaic Law.
144 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
When the meeting took place, an agreement
was made that is
recorded in verse 20. In verse 22 we find
that it pleased the apostles,
the elders, with the whole church.
Proposition #2: If there were some in the
church who met on
their own and came to some conclusions
concerning circumcision,
would it have any validity in the “inclosed” church? The answer is
no. In fact, the sect of the Pharisees
(verse 5) did just that; but when
it was considered in the context of the
church, their decision was
refused. Notice also that the persuasion
of the “sect” was not even
considered by the local church until their
influence had caused
confusion within the local church.
So, in saying that the church is “inclosed” this writer is
advocating that each church of the Lord
Jesus is completely
independent of all other organizations and
that no decisions
pertaining to the work of God through the
churches can be made
outside this local establishment.
Keep this in mind as we consider the next
point, which naturally
follows.
A CHURCH FRAGMENTED
“That there should be no schism” (I Cor. 12:25)
This very sect mentioned under our first
point (the sect of the
Pharisees, Acts 15:5) shows their true
form in this chapter. First, we
must notice that they were believers.
These were not lost sinners
who were trying to penetrate the church,
but this “sect” formed
right within the church itself.
They had formed their own clique and had
formed their own
sub-theology. They were not teaching works
for salvation; they were
simply putting the burden of the Law on
Christian believers.
The most important aspect of this example,
though, is that this
sub-set of believers had separated
themselves from the church and
had taken authority upon themselves to
carry on the business of
the Lord’s church. Acts 15:24 tells us
that they “went out from us.”
This is the perfect example of a small
group of believers in a
particular church who decide arbitrarily
to meet in a different
location and appoint themselves to be a
body and take upon
themselves the authority to select a
pastor and deacons and to serve
the ordinances; namely, baptism and the
Lord’s Supper.
This is done on a regular and ongoing
basis in Baptist churches
around the country. What is wrong with
this? Let us consider it by
example.
Example: Bro. and Mrs. Swakley
are saved through the ministry
of the Shawnee Baptist Church. They both
submit themselves to
145 Appendix IV
baptism under the authority of this
church. After baptism, they are
members in good standing with the
privilege of participating in
various aspects of that church’s
ministries and activities. They may
now vote on issues brought up by that
church. They may be served
the Lord’s Supper by that church and may
partake of the same on
a regular basis as long as they are
members in good standing. They
may NOT, however, make personal and
private decisions for the
church. Whatever decisions are made come
before the church for
discussion and consideration and are voted
upon by the entire
membership before any actions are taken.
Now, let us say, that Bro. Swakley moves to a different city and
cannot find a Bible-teaching church to
attend; so he decides (on his
own) that he will get a few believers
together and start meeting for
prayer and fellowship. After some time and
consideration, Bro.
and Mrs. Swakley
decide that they may as well have a church in
that community; so they take the following
action: A preacher called
to come to preach to them on a regular
basis. The preacher preaches
for awhile and someone is saved. They
determine that the new
believer must be baptized, so they decide
that the preacher is to do
the baptizing. The new convert is immersed
in water just the way
they used to do at the previous church.
Now he is a member of this
“church”.
At this stage of the drama most people
would automatically
and without question call this group of
people a church. But if we
follow through with this example
logically, we find that some
problems arise. Following are some statements
and questions that
will, I hope, show the problems.
1. To what church did this couple belong
when they were first
saved and baptized? Shawnee Baptist
Church.
2. By what authority did they perform
their privileges in that
local church? Local church authority.
3. When they moved away from the community
of the Shawnee
Baptist Church, where was their
membership? It remained at the
Shawnee Baptist Church.
4. Was there anything wrong with meeting
with other believers
for prayer and fellowship? Absolutely not!
5. Was it wrong for them to call for a
preacher to come and
preach to them? Not per se! But a mental
attitude is being formed
at this time, an attitude of worshipping
and functioning as a church.
6. What is now the status of the Swakley’s membership at
Shawnee Baptist Church? By continuing to
be members they remain
obligated to the church and are under its
authority. Distance does
146 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
not change that. Names are not removed
simply because people
move to a different place except for
nonattendance, which is done
because of lack of faithfulness to the
church. That is no way to have
your name removed from a church roll.
7. Were they wrong for having the new
convert baptized? Yes.
Having their membership back at Shawnee
Baptist, they usurped
the authority of Shawnee Baptist Church by
asking for the baptism
of a new convert on their own.
If they had lived around the corner from
the meeting place of
Shawnee Baptist Church, would they have
taken the same authority
upon themselves? Then what makes it all
right to do at a distance?
Distance does not change authority.
Do you see what is happening? The same
thing that happened
in Acts chapter 15. A new “sect” is being
organized and is going out
“from us.”
8. Upon baptizing the new convert the
authority for baptism
was changed from the church to an
individual or a fragment. Making
this decision to baptize, whether it be
made by one person or a
few, is usurping the authority of the
church; because it becomes an
arbitrary decision. Now, does the
authority for baptism, then, lie in
the preacher? Some would say that it does;
but if you will notice
the above example, the authority is
actually wielded by Mr. and
Mrs. Swakley.
Mr. & Mrs. Swakley
have now decided to vote without consent
of the church to which they belong.
Remember, distance makes no
difference in authority. Mr. and Mrs. Swakley have now fragmented
the Shawnee Baptist Church by separating
to themselves and
claiming authority which they do not have.
This is no different
from ten of the men of a church meeting
outside of the building in
the parking lot and making decisions for
the church. These ten
men have no business deciding who will or
will not be baptized,
because if their discussion determines
that Mr. Back be baptized,
they must first bring it up before the
church before Mr. Back can be
baptized. This is church authority.
If these same ten men decided to carry on
church business by
themselves and simply stay away from the
Shawnee Baptist Church,
they are still wrong in these ways.
1. They are wrong for not attending their
church (Heb. 10:25).
2. They are wrong for not giving to their
church (I Cor. 16:1).
3. They are wrong for not visiting for
their church (2 Cor. 5:20).
You may ask why they cannot simply ask for
their names to be
removed from the church roll of Shawnee
Baptist Church. That
147 Appendix IV
can be done, but that is a negative
aspect. That is like saying that
you no longer agree with the theology or
the program of the church
and do not want to be like them or a part
of them.
Not only that, but if your name is removed
from a roll by request,
you are still submitting to the authority
of the church and are
considered a disciplined member.
Too, if your name were removed from
Shawnee Baptist Church
by request, to what church would you
belong? If you say none,
then how do you become a member of another
church?
In our example, the person simply places
himself in the new
church, and others are added according to
his agreement; therefore,
the first person to begin the work becomes
the authority for all the
actions of the church. The authority rests
completely upon that one
person.
You do no become a member of any local
church simply by
declaring that you are such. We have many
people in the Harrison
area who claim to be members of First
Baptist Church but are not.
So we see how innocently that a church can
be fragmented.
Christ is against a church schism, and
this is what develops under
the example given.
A “CHURCH” ESTRANGED
“Certain which went out from us” (Acts
15:24)
When the foregoing example has been
developed completely,
we find a fine-looking building sitting on
the corner of some city
somewhere having people attend regularly
and being baptized
regularly and functioning in the same
manner as the Shawnee
Baptist Church before mentioned.
But remember that the authority for all
this church business
comes from one person, the person who got
the ball rolling. They
will tell you perhaps that the preacher
has the authority to baptize,
but you tell me who asked the preacher to come
and do the baptizing
and I will tell you that it was Mr. and/or
Mrs. Swakley. So the
authority for baptism, church business,
the Lord’s Supper, church
discipline, etc. came from the Swakleys.
This church, instead of being just another
Baptist church on
another corner in another city is an
estranged church, not a true
church at all. At what time did the
Shawnee Baptist Church vote to
give the Swakleys
(members of Shawnee) permission to meet
together and carry on business as a
church? At no time. They
assumed it. They claimed it. Yea, they
usurped the authority of
their own church, betrayed that church,
and estranged themselves
from that church just as the “sect” in
Acts chapter 15 did.
148 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
A CHURCH EXTENDED
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations”
(Matt. 28:19)
The Bible offers a proper way for
extending the church of the
Lord Jesus Christ to spread throughout the
world with her influence
and her Gospel. This in modern times is
called the “mother church”
method. You will not find this phrase in
the Scriptures, but the
principle is definitely presented by
example especially in the book
of Acts.
Institutional Authority - A Biblical
Principle
Please refer to Deuteronomy chapter 12.
This chapter shows
an ancient principle that was practiced by
Israel from the
commandment of God. Notice especially
these verses:
Verse 5: But unto the place which the Lord
your God shall
choose out of all your tribes to put his
name there, even unto his
habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou
shalt come.
Verse 8: Ye shall not do after all the
things that we do here this
day, every man whatsoever is right in his
own eyes.
Verse 13: Take heed to thyself that thou
offer not thy burnt
offerings in every place that thou seest.
This same authority is found in the New
Testament beginning
with the preaching of John the Baptist and
continuing throughout
what is commonly called the church age.
John was a man “sent
from God” ( John 1:33). John did not just
begin a ministry of his
own, but he had God’s direct authority.
This authority continues to our present
age. The authority of
John was given to the church by Christ in
Matt. 28:18-20:
18 And Jesus came and spake
unto them, saying, All power
[authority] is given unto me in heaven and
in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end
of the world. Amen.
Jesus And The Apostles Had John’s Baptism
Neither Jesus nor any of the apostles did
anything regarding
the church until they were baptized by
John, so John’s baptism
carried a very powerful authority. Even
the Pharisees demanded to
know by what authority Christ did the
things that he did (See Matt.
21:23). Jesus answered the Pharisees with
a question: The baptism
of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of
men? And they reasoned
with themselves, saying, If we shall say,
From heaven; he will say
unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
(Matt. 21:25). The
149 Appendix IV
Pharisees could not tell Jesus from where
the authority of John came.
That is because they refused to recognize
Heaven’s authority (See
Luke 7:29-30).
From One Church To Another: The Biblical
Pattern
The church at Jerusalem was the first
church in existence. When
it was found that there were believers in
Samaria through Philip’s
preaching, the church at Jerusalem sent
Peter and John; and they
laid their hands on the Samaritans, and
they received the
demonstration of the Holy Spirit
[authority] just as the believers in
Jerusalem had received. This receiving of
the Holy Spirit was God’s
institutional sanction. This was necessary
because the Samaritans
thought that God’s authority was already
upon them (See John 4:20).
When Saul of Tarsus was saved he was taken
to Damascus. [See
Acts 9:1-19] A man by the name of Ananias, who evidently was
affiliated with the church at Jerusalem
(see verse 13),2 was sent (verse
17) to Saul that he might pray for him and
that he might receive his
sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.
So, even Paul’s ministry
was sanctioned by the church at Jerusalem.
He was not an authority
of himself.
When Paul and Silas were to begin their
first missionary journey,
they were sent out by the church at
Antioch; and when they returned
from their missionary journey, they
reported to the church at
Antioch. That is because they were not a
ministry unto themselves,
but their ministry was through the local
church. Paul teaches us in
Eph. 3:21 that God receives glory only
through the church.
So down through the ages a continual line
of authoritative
baptisms has existed even unto our day.
If a person, then, begins a ministry
without the express authority
of an existing church of the Lord Jesus
Christ, then he is a ministry
to himself and has divided the church of
the Lord and caused a
schism, which the Lord hates. He has
become a “denomination” of
his own, and his ministry is not approved
of God. He has taken
authority unto himself despite the pattern
that God has laid down
in Scripture over and over.
May God bless us as we spread the Gospel
by way of the
churches of the Lord Jesus Christ. He
promised that no matter how
long the world stands the gates of Hell
will not prevail against the
church of the Lord. So the authority of
God continues throughout
history form the time of Christ. Every
spiritual worker should be
very careful to be sure that this
authority is taken with responsibility
in order not to usurp the authority of
Christ’s churches. (Eph. 3:21)”
150 Three Witnesses for the Baptists
NOTES
1. Baptist elder Ronnie Wolfe graciously
gave permission to include this
excellent article as an appendix to this
volume.
2. Whether Ananias
was a member of the Jerusalem church or the Damascus
church is beside the point. The point is
he was a member of a New Testament
church and acted with church-authority. It
seems likely that Ananias had previously
been a member of the Jerusalem church and
consequently heard of the outrages
perpetrated by Saul against the Lord’s
church. It seems probable that at the time
of Saul’s conversion Ananias
was a member of the Damascus church. That he was
at this time resident in Damascus is
clear. It would seem that he took Saul to meet
“with the disciples which were at Damascus,”
for we find Saul assembling with
them (Acts 9:19). Obviously Ananias had authority since he not only put his hands
on Saul with the result that Saul received
the Holy Ghost, but Ananias also baptized
him. Some think he was one of the seventy
disciples. Extra-biblical writers say he
was pastor of the Damascus church. This
seems highly probable, but is not
absolutely known [C.A.P.].
Remarks on the Use of the Term “Mother
Church”
by Curtis Pugh
Some Brethren object to the use of the
term “Mother Church.”
While they are correct in their point that
the term is not used in
Scripture, neither are such words as “the
rapture,” “gambling,”
“rape,” etc., but the concepts are dealt
with nevertheless. Many
scholars, including non-Baptist R.C.H. Lenski, have maintained that
John addressed the letter we call 2 John
to a church under the simile
of an “elect lady” with “children” (v. 1).
(“Lady” is nowhere used of
a woman in the Bible, unless here). This
“elect lady” had an “elect
sister” who also had “children” (v. 13). If
this view is correct, there
can be no argument as to the propriety of
the term “mother church.”
Furthermore, the false church-system is
given the name “Mother
of Harlots.” While we would disassociate
ourselves completely from
her, nevertheless, the concept of
motherhood in relation to churches,
although false ones, is set forth clearly
in this instance. It seems
clear that the concept of each church
being or having the capability
of being a “mother” is Biblical even if
the term itself is not used.
The reader will note that churches are
likened to a “bride.” Certainly
the Biblical pattern is that no church was
ever established without
previous “church connection” or authority
from an already existing
church - a “mother church.”