========================================================================
  JARREL, W.A. - BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY OR HISTORY
  by W.A. Jarrel
========================================================================

A historical argument for the perpetuity of Baptist churches from the apostolic
era to modern times. Jarrel traces a continuous succession of believers who held
to Baptist distinctives, contending that Christ's church has never ceased to
exist through the centuries.

  Chapters: 32

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. PREFACE.
    2. INTRODUCTION
    3. AUTHORS QUOTED.
    4. WHAT IS CHURCH PERPETUITY?
    5. CHURCH PERPETUITY. A FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH OF THE BIBLE
    6. CHURCH PERPETUITY. A BAPTIST POSITION.
    7. CHURCH PERPETUITY ADMITS OF VARIATIONS AND IRREGULARITIES
    8. THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON OPPONENTS TO BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY.
    9. THE NEGATIVE PROOF.
   10. PERPETUITY OF BAPTIST PRINCIPLES FROM THE APOSTOLIC AGE
   11. THE MONTANISTS.
   12. THE NOVATIANS.
   13. THE DONATISTS.
   14. CHAPTER 11. THE PAULICIANS.
   15. THE ALBIGENSES.
   16. THE PATERINES.
   17. THE PETROBRUSSIANS AND HENRICIANS.
   18. THE ARNOLDISTS.
   19. THE DONATISTS.THE WALDENSES.
   20. THE ANABAPTISTS.
   21. THE ANABAPTISTS AND THE MUNSTER DISORDERS.
   22. THE BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY LINE, OR LINES FROM THE APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE PAULI...
   23. THE BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY LINE, OR LINES, THROUGH THE PAULICIANS TO THE ANAB...
   24. THE WALDENSES OF APOSTOLIC ORIGIN.
   25. THE WALDENSES PERPETUATED IN THE ANABAPTISTS AND BAPTISTS.
   26. BAPTIST CHURCHES IN ENGLAND LONG BEFORE, UP TO AND AT THE TIME OF JOHN SMYTH.
   27. JOHN SMYTH’S BAPTISM AND THE ORIGIN OF ENGLISH BAPTISTS.
   28. THROUGH WELSH BAPTISTS, BAPTISTS HAVE A CONTINUITY FROM APOSTOLIC TIMES TO THE P...
   29. AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES ORIGINATED INDEPENDENTLY OF ROGER WILLIAMS. ROGER WILL...
   30. THE REGULAR BAPTISTS, OFTEN CALLED MISSIONARY BAPTISTS, ARE THE “OLD” OR PRIMITI...
   31. BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY TESTED BY THE FRUITS OF BAPTIST CHURCHES.
   32. ST PATRICK A BAPTIST

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: PREFACE.
========================================================================

PREFACE.

Notwithstanding that many of the ablest Biblical expositors and theologians
rightly regard the Romish church as the apocalyptic, “Babylon the great, the
mother of harlots and abominations of the earth ... the woman drunken with the
blood of the saints, and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus,” some church
historians and some professors in Theological Seminaries, treat her as the
“Christian church,” and the true witnessing church as “heretics” and “heresies.”
Surely, it is high time this was reversed.

Baptist churches being regarded as but one among the Reformation sects, no
wonder there is so little interest in Baptist history that several of the best
publications on Baptist history, by the American Baptist Publication Society,
have hardly returned the financial outlay in publishing them. Regarding Baptists
but one of modern sects, thinking and conscientious people naturally reject
their exclusive claims and practices. Seeing this, Baptist opponents leave
“unturned no stone” to teach the people that Baptist churches are in origin “but
of yesterday.” In this, Baptist opponents are wiser than Baptists who are
content that Baptist Church Perpetuity be presented as a trifle.

Seeing that one man has as much right to originate a church as has another,
ambitious and designing men, by originating new sects, are continuously adding
to the babel of sectarianism. Thus the answer to Christ’s prayer — “that they
may all be one ... that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” — is
hindered and infidelity is perpetuated.

Calling on God to witness his sincerity, the author of this book gladly
expresses his Christian affection for every blood-washed soul — whatever may be
his or her creed. He begs that this book be taken not as an assault on any dear
child of God, but as a Biblical and historical exposition and demonstration of
very important practical truth — truth sorely needed for this falsely liberal
and sectarian age. The book has been worded and the proof read by time snatched
in revival meetings from needed rest. For any little oversights which possibly
may appear in it, let this be the explanation. Nearly all quotations within this
volume having been made in person by its author — excepting a very few, and they
from reliable sources — the reader can use them with the greatest assurance. The
author thanking the public for the generous reception given his other books,
which has encouraged him to send this one out, with profound gratitude to God
for the opportunity and the grace to publish this one, signs himself, A Sinner
Saved By Grace, DALLAS, TEXAS. May, 1894.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION
========================================================================

INTRODUCTION The Baptist movement in history has always been back to the New
Testament. This people has always refused to follow others away from the
teaching and practice of that book. In the New Testament are plainly stated
certain great principles which lie as foundation stones in the base of the
Church of Christ. These principles are the regeneration of the believer by the
Holy Spirit and the word of God, the baptism of the believer in water, the
equality of believers in the church, the separation of church and State, and in
the church the sole authority of the Bible. But these distinctive principles of
Christianity were soon set aside and Jewish or pagan notions were put in their
places. The doctrine of regeneration by the Spirit, and the word was the first
to be abandoned and in its place was introduced the notion of regeneration by
water. To water, a material element, was ascribed the virtue which the New
Testament gives to the word as the seed of life. With the attention directed to
the performance of a sacrament instead of to hearing and believing the word, it
was not long before the churches Were filled with members who were Christians by
sacrament, who had the form of godliness, who had a name to live, but were dead.

Then it was about 150, A.D. that the first Baptist protest was raised by the
Montanists. The Montanists with all their faults, stand in the line of the
Apostles. They raised their voices against the increasing formalism and
worldliness of the churches and proclaimed an ever present Holy Spirit in the
hearts of believers. They were wrong in magnifying fasting and forbidding second
marriage, but were right in looking for the Holy Spirit not without in forms,
but within in the heart. This is the chief mark of the Baptist movement in
history, the demand for evidence of regeneration, for a personal experience of
the grace of God, for the witness of the Holy Spirit with the human spirit. In a
Baptist church this is an unalterable condition of membership. The intimacy with
God observed by Max Goebel in the prayers and hymns of the Anabaptists, and
which he contrasts with the formal devotion of others, is traceable to the
universal and deep-seated conviction of the Anabaptists, that union with Christ
is essential to salvation and that a new life is the only evidence of that
union. The second fundamental principle of the New Testament, to wit, the
baptism of believers only, was displaced with the first, for as soon as baptism
became a synonym for regeneration and water was supposed to wash away sin, it
was natural that dying or sickly, and then all infants should be brought to the
priest to have their sins washed away. It is the protest which Baptists have
raised against this innovation and revolution in gospel order that has attracted
the attention of the world and occasioned most of the wickedness that have been
invented to describe them. The refusal to have their own infants baptized and
the denial of the validity of baptism received in infancy, placed them in
conflict with the authorities of church and State and made an impression upon
multitudes who inquired no further and cared nothing about their doctrine of the
secret operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer. To this day,
most people when they think of Baptists, think of baptism and not of what goes
before baptism — the new creation of the soul. The third fundamental principle
of the New Testament, namely the equality of believers in the church, was
discarded with the other two, for when regeneration was reduced to the sacrament
of baptism, the servant of the church who administered the saving rite, was
servant no longer, but a priest, a magician, a little god. In this way the
clergy were exalted above the laity and became a separate class. This official
distinction of the ministers did not improve their character. It was not a
question of character any longer, but of ordination. Those who were properly
ordained had the power to wash away sins what-ever their character might be. The
office hallowed the man and not the man the office. The next two protests in
church history were raised by the Novatians in the third century and by the
Donatists in the fourth, against the false view of the priesthood. The
persecutions of Decius and of Diocletian had exposed many hypocrites who were
said to have “lapsed.” After peace was restored, the question arose as to the
proper treatment of these lapse christians who sought restoration to church
fellowship and office. The majority, led on by Cyprian and Augustine, took a
lenient view of their apostacy, but the Novatians and Donatists declared that
the rights of apostles were forfeited. Hence they were called “Puritans” and
“Anabaptists” because they demanded a pure and loyal record for the ministry,
and because they rebaptized those who had been baptized by the disloyal
ministers of the Roman Catholic church. Baptists have always insisted not only
on a holy ministry and on the equality of ministers, but also on the ministry of
all believers. Lay preaching has been favored by Baptists from the beginning. No
bishop is allowed to lord it over the pastor, and the pastor is not allowed to
lord it over the humblest member. The highest place a minister can occupy, is to
be the servant of all. The fourth fundamental principle of the New Testament,
that is to say, the separation of church and State, was necessarily maintained
for three centuries, because the Roman State persecuted the church during that
period, but when the Emperor Constantine made the offer of an alliance between
church and State, the offer was accepted, and the union then formed remained in
force everywhere until a Baptist obtained his charter for Rhode Island. Except
in the United States, Australia and Ireland, the old order still prevails. Thus
the

Lord’s decree, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God
the things that are God’s” — the most momentous utterance, Von Ranke says, that
ever fell from his lips, is disregarded by the rules of church and State. The
interesting historical fact is that a Baptist in Rhode Island was the first to
try the application to civil affairs of our Lord’s decree, and that Baptists
were the first to move to secure the adoption by Congress, before its adoption
by the States, of this Baptist principle. It may be called a Baptist principle
because before Rhode Island was formed, only Baptist voices were heard in the
advocacy of the separation of church and State. Total separation is the logical
outcome of the Baptist principles already stated. Beginning with a regenerated
soul and the baptism of believers only, and holding firmly to the equality of
all believers, there is no place for the State in the church and there is no
need of the State by the church. As a Baptist church is founded upon voluntary
faith, persecution is prevented from the start. Is it not time that Baptists,
the first and foremost friends of liberty, should be cleared of the charge of
bigotry? The last fundamental New Testament principle, namely, the Bible, the
sole authority in the church, was discarded soon after the union of church and
State under Constantine. Some other authority was needed to justify that union
and many other departures from New Testament precept that had already taken
place. That authority was found in the church itself and in tradition. “I would
not believe the New Testament if the church did not command me to,” said
Augustine. “I esteem the four general councils,” said Pope Gregory, “as highly
as I do the four gospels.” Throughout the middle ages tradition held full sway.
When the Waldensians translated the New Testament into the vernacular, Pope
Innocent III compared the Bible to Mt. Sinai, which the people were forbidden to
touch. The fourth Lateran council, held in 1215, forbade laymen to read the
Bible, and the Bishop of Tarragona, in 1242, forbade even the priests to do so.
Baptists have always done their share in translating the Bible into the
languages of earth. Carey, Marshman, Ward, Judson and many others have lot the
light of life shine in heathen lands. Joseph Hughes was the Baptist founder of
the British and Foreign Bible Society. Baptists were the leaders in the movement
to revise the English Bible, and furnished Conant, Hackett and Kendrick to
represent them in the enterprise.

While they hold fast to these fundamental principles of the New Testament,
Baptists have a bright future before them. By insisting, on evidence of
regeneration in every candidate for baptism, this will prevent the spirit of
worldliness, which weakens other churches, from entering the assembly of the
saints. By maintaining the equality of believers, the temptation of ambition, so
strong in all human organizations, will find nothing in them. By guarding the
independence of the church, they will preserve the independence of the State,
and by upholding the Bible as the sole authority and as interpreter of its own
decrees, they will be safe from the attack of rationalism on the one hand or
superstition on the other.

W. W. Everts.

Haverhill, Mass., May, 1894.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: AUTHORS QUOTED.
========================================================================

AUTHORS REFERRED TO OR QUOTED.

S. H. Ford.

Beza.

Winebrenner.

J. R. Graves.

Raphaelius.

Armitage.

Hiscox.

Liddell & Scott.

Geo. B. Taylor.

J. M. Pendleton.

Trench.

Pengilly.

E. Adkins.

Bengel.

Peck.

H. Harvey.

Stier.

Orchard.

H.M. Dexter.

Adam Clarke.

John A. Broadus.

W. W. Gardner.

Scott.

Benedict.

Crowell.

Horsley.

Belcher.

E. J. Fish.

Vatringa.

William Williams.

Wardlaw.

Olshausen.

Lorimer.

A. Campbell.

Lange. R.

J. W. Buckland.

Lard.

Fanning.

Dayton.

W. M.F. Warren.

Lipscomb.

T. T. Eaton.

Barnes.

Mtth. Henry.

Cramp.

Andrew Fuller.

Edward Robinson.

J. Newton Brown.

G. W. Clarke.

J. M. Mathes.

William R. Williams.

A. Hovey.

Leslie.

J. Wheaton Smith.

Tholuck

Bannerman.

Ray.

Varden.

Owen.

Catchcart.

Rosenmuller.

Isaac Newton.

Everts, Sr.

Bretschneider.

Kelley.

Everts, Jr.

Alford.

Swedenborg.

Swindall.

Thayer.

Buckle.

T. G. Jones.

Godet.

Voltaire.

T. J. Morgan.

Bloomfield.

Bangs.

True.

Paulus.

Porter.

Greenleaf.

Fleck.

Cowherd.

Whately.

Borneman.

Fahnestock.

Lecky.

DeWette.

A. D. Williams.

William Jones.

Doddridge.

Burbank.

Davis.

Lyon.

Tertullian.

Allix.

Haeckel.

Vales.

Wall.

Gentille.

Cornelius.

Vedder.

G. H. Elder.

Harnack.

G. Schmidt.

John S. Murphy.

Socrates.

Brewster.

C. F Thomas.

Robert Robinson.

Whitsitt.

H. C. Sheldon.

Dupin.

Rainer Saccho.

H. M. Scott.

Bohringer.

Erasmus.

A. C. Lewis.

Walsh.

Mezeray.

L. L. Paine.

Long.

Herzog.

Ridpath.

Guy de Bres.

A. A. Hodge.

Cobb.

Augustine.

Petrus Cluniacenis.

B. D. Dean.

Osiander.

Montanus.

Wilston Walker.

Thos. Fuller.

Hossius

Bergier.

Twisk.

Bellarmine.

Dollinger.

Gotfried Arnold.

Perrin.

Alzog.

Iverney.

T. Sims.

Darra.

Merivale.

Richard Baxter.

Davidson.

Gibbon.

Thomas Waldensis

Wadington.

Child.

Ludwig Keller.

McKnight.

Gass.

Grimmel.

Coleman.

Brockett.

Vecembecius.

Conybeare & Howson.

Jortin.

Ermengard.

Kitto.

Lardner.

Stephen.

Philip Schaff.

Petrus Siculus.

Moneta.

Neander.

Photius.

Hahn.

Jacobson.

Monachus.

David.

Hackett.

Mathew Paris.

Ypdj.

Dowling.

Alarms.

Dermout.

Meyer.

Hoveden.

Baird.

Duncan.

Gevase.

Burrage.

Gesenius.

Jirecek.

Fusslin.

A. H. Newman.

Geo. P. Fisher.

Schrnucker.

J. L.M. Curry.

Massons.

Vives.

Kurtz.

Hallam.

Lord

Dorner.

Semler.

Muston.

Guericko.

Rule.

Preger.

Mosheim.

Carl Schmidt.

Hubmeyer.

Hase.

Macaulay.

J. A. Smith.

Moller.

Limborch.

Denck.

John Muller.

Bayle.

Danvers.

Osgood.

Motley.

Heman Lincoln.

Grebel.

Daubigne.

J. C.L. Gieseler.

Overton.

Fessenden.

Eusebius.

J. B. Thomas.

Michelet.

Gretzer.

Featley.

Gerard.

Baltes.

Sears.

Brandt.

Wm. Hall.

Luther.

Palfry.

Purcell.

Menno.

Bancroft.

Sepp.

Zwingli.

May.

Van Der Kemp.

Kessler.

Moreland.

Vand Der Palm.

Wagenseil.

Leger.

Bennett.

Stumpf.

Jonas.

Ridley.

Simler.

Siessel.

Marsden.

Sicher.

Dieckhoff.

Evans.

Arents.

Montgomery.

Some.

Millard.

Pilchendorf.

Usher.

Schyn.

Charvaz.

Francis Thackeray.

Maatscheon.

Bernard.

Bede.

Trecksel.

Bernard de Fontcaud.

Knighton.

Turretine.

Gilly.

Rastell.

Winkler.

Metivier.

Collier.

Knight.

Todd.

Short.

Poole.

M. Schmidt.

Cardwell.

Bourasse.

Claude,of Turin.

Clifford.

Floyer.

Bert.

C. H. Spurgeon.

Crosby.

Merriam.

Bishop Burnett.

Spellman.

Morel.

Bonner.

Linwood.

M. Gieseler.

Joseph Cook.

Cutting.

Wattenbach.

Froude.

Christian.

Matthias Flacius Illyricus.

Withrow.

Conant.

Henry Ward Beecher.

Mason.

H. Haupt.

Douglas Campbell.

Wilson.

Lemme.

Judge Story.

Neal.

Herberle.

Skeats.

Uhlborn.

Latimer.

President Elliot.

Frank.

Goebel.

Gervinus.

Wetzel.

Bullinger.

Ivimey.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: WHAT IS CHURCH PERPETUITY?
========================================================================

CHAPTER 1. WHAT IS CHURCH PERPETUITY? As the New Testament church is defined in
Chapter 2, of this book, I refer the reader to that instead of here defining it.

Webster defines perpetuity: “The state or quality of being perpetual ...
Continued existence or duration.” The late and lamented scholar, J.R. Graves,
LL. D., wrote:

“Wherever there are three or more baptized members of a regular Baptist church
or churches covenanted together to hold and teach, and are governed by the New
Testament,” etc., “there is a Church of Christ, even though there was not a
presbytery of ministers in a thousand miles of them to organize them into a
church. There is not the slightest need of a council of presbyters to organize a
Baptist church.” And the scholarly S.H. Ford, LL. D., says:

“Succession among Baptists is not a linked chain of churches or ministers,
uninterrupted and traceable at this distant day. ... The true and defensible
doctrine is, that baptized believers have existed in every age since John
baptized in Jordan, and have met as a baptized congregation in covenant and
fellowship where an opportunity permitted.” To this explanation of Church
Succession by Drs. Graves and Ford, all believers in Baptist “Church Succession”
fully agree. As the term “Succession,” from its being used by Romanists, may
mislead the uninformed into the belief that Baptists believe the Apostles have
been succeeded by apostles and hierarchal bishops — bishops who have received
the Spirit from the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, and, then, episcopal
grace, the phrase “Church Perpetuity” is preferrable to the phrase “Church
Succession.” The apostolic office terminated with the death of the last of the
Apostles. It was intended only for the closing of the New Testament canon and
the organization of the first churches. The New Testament, and other church
history, certainly teach there were no other bishops in apostolic churches than
pastors of one congregation — the diocese and the diocesan bishop having been
born in the third century.

Every Baptist church being, in organization, a church complete in itself, and,
in no way organically connected with any other church, such a thing as one
church succeeding another, as the second link of a chain is added to and
succeeds the first, or, as one Romish or Episcopal church succeeds another, is
utterly foreign to and incompatible with Baptist church polity. Therefore, the
talk about every link “jingling in the succession chain from the banks of the
Jordan to the present,” is ignorance or dust-throwing. The only senses in which
one Baptist church can succeed another are that the church leads men and women
to Christ, then through its missionaries or ministers baptizes them, after which
the baptized organize themselves, into a Baptist church; or, in lettering off
some of its members to organize a new church; or, in case the old church has
fallen to pieces, for its members to reorganize themselves into a church.

All that Baptists mean by church “Succession,” or Church Perpetuity, is: There
has never been a day since the organization of the first New Testament church in
which there was no genuine church of the New Testament existing on earth.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: CHURCH PERPETUITY. A FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH OF THE BIBLE
========================================================================

CHAPTER 2.

CHURCH PERPETUITY. A FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH OF THE BIBLE.

1. Inasmuch as many deny the Bible teaches that the Church of Christ should
never totally apostatize, I will here prove that it teaches its preservation
until the Second Coming of Christ. Let us first settle what is the church. The
M.E. Discipline defines the church:

“The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in which the
pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered according to
Christ’s ordinance in all things that are of necessity requisite to the same.
[Note: Art. 13] Substituting ordinances for “sacraments” and adding Scriptural
Church Government, this definition is good.

Dr. Hiscox:

“A Christian Church is a congregation of baptized believers in Christ,
worshipping together, associated in the faith and fellowship of the gospel;
practicing its precepts; observing its ordinances; recognizing and receiving
Christ as their Supreme lawgiver and ruler; and taking His Word as their
sufficient and exclusive rule of faith and practice in all matters of religion.”
[Note: Baptist Church Directory, p. 13] This expresses what the Methodist
Discipline seems to mean, but with much more clearness. With equal clearness
J.M. Pendleton, D.D., [Note: Pendleton’s Church Manual p. 7.] E. Adkins, D.D.,
[Note: Adkins’ The Church; its Polity and Fellowship, p. 18] H. Harvey, D.D.,
[Note: The Church, p. 26] Henry M. Dexter, D.D., [Note: Congregationalism, p.
l.] W.W. Gardner, D.D., [Note: Missiles of Truth, pp. 189,190.] William Crowell,
D.D., [Note: Church Members’ Manual, p. 35.] say the same thing. The New
Hampshire Confession says:

“We believe that a visible church of Christ is a congregation of baptized
believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel;
observing the ordinances of Christ; governed by His laws; and exercising the
gifts, rights and privileges invested in them by His Word,” [Note: Art. 13.]
etc.

Ekklesia — the word for church — (εκκλησία) occurs 114 times in the New
Testament, In all but three it is rendered church. It refers to the Christian
Church once typically, (Acts 7:38) the remaining 110 occurrences antitypically.
In 99 instances, by counting, I find it denotes local organizations; in 12, by
synecdoche, it means all the local organizations. It is used by synecdoche in
Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 3:10; Ephesians 3:21; Ephesians 5:23-25; Ephesians
5:27; Ephesians 5:29; Ephesians 5:32; Hebrews 12:23, and, possibly, one or two
other occurrences.

Says E.J. Fish, D.D.

“All investigation concurs with ‘unequivocal uses of the term in pronouncing the
actual church to be a local society and never anything but a local
society.’”[Note: Ecclesiology, p. 114.]

“The real Church of Christ is a local body, of a definite, doctrinal
constitution such as is indispensable to the unity of the Spirit.” [Note: Idem,
p. 116.]

Alluding to its application to all professors, of all creeds, scattered
everywhere, as an “invisible,” “universal church,” Dr. Fish well says:

“Not a single case can be adduced where the loose and extended use of the
collective can be adopted without a forced and unnatural interpretation. The New
Testament is utterly innocent of the inward conflict of those theories which
adopt both the invisible, or universal, as it is now more commonly called, and
the local ideas.” [Note: Idem, p. 102.] M. Dexter, a Congregationalist, was
forced to say:

“The weight of New Testament authority, then, seems clearly to decide that the
ordinary and natural meaning of εκκλησία (ekklesia, rendered church,) is that of
a local body of believers.” [Note: Congregationalism, p. 33.] Says Ralph
Wardlaw, D.D., a Congregationalist:

“Unauthorized uses of the word church. Under this head, I have first to notice
the designations, of which the use is so common, but so vague — of the church
visible and the church mystical, or invisible. Were these designations to be
found in the New Testament, we should feel ourselves under obligation to examine
and ascertain the sense in which the inspired writers use them.

This, however, not being the case, we are under no such obligation.” [Note:
Wardlaw’s Cong. Indep., p. 54.]

A. Campbell:

“The communities collected and set in order by the Apostles were called the
congregation of Christ, and all these taken together are sometimes called the
kingdom of God.” [Note: Christian System, p. 172.]

Moses E. Lard, of the difference between the kingdom and the church: “My
brethern make none.” [Note: What Baptism is For, No. 3, p. 5.] On the same page:
“God has not one thing on this earth called his kingdom and another called his
church.” That church refers to a local body, anyone can see by such as Matthew
18:17; Acts 8:1; Acts 9:31; Acts 11:26; Acts 13:1; Acts 14:23; Acts 14:27; Acts
15:3-4; Acts 15:22; Acts 15:41; Acts 16:5; Acts 18:22; Romans 16:1; Romans 16:5;
1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Corinthians 4:17; 1 Corinthians 7:17; 1 Corinthians 11:16;
2 Corinthians 8:1; 2 Corinthians 8:18-19; 2 Corinthians 8:23-24; 2 Corinthians
11:8; 2 Corinthians 11:28; 2 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 1:2; Galatians 1:22;
Revelation 1:4; Revelation 2:1; Revelation 2:7-8; Revelation 2:11-12; Revelation
2:17-18; Revelation 2:23; Revelation 2:29; Revelation 3:1; Revelation 3:6-7;
Revelation 3:13-14; Revelation 3:22; Revelation 22:16. A careful comparison of
these references will prove that the church is a local body, administering the
ordinances, discipline, etc., known as church when but one in any locality, and
churches when several of them are spoken of. Kingdom, in the New Testament,
means the aggregate of the churches, just as any kingdom means the aggregate of
[Note: Except that there is no general organization of the churches but each
church is in organization, independent of every other church, save as Christ is
King over them all.] its provinces — or countries of which it is composed. A
kingdom includes the unorganized part of its geographical territory. In the New
Testament, likewise, the term kingdom may include regenerate persons who have
been misled so as to have never united with any of the churches or organized
parts of the kingdom. Such an instance is ‘‘Revelation 18:4, where Christians
are exhorted to come out of the Romish church. But, in no instance, either
politically or ecclesiastically, can the application of the term kingdom to the
organized localities, or parts, exclude the organized as necessary to the
kingdom.

W. M. F. Warren, D.D., President of Boston University, Methodist:

“The Christian Church is the kingdom of God, viewed in its objective or
institutional form.” [Note: Essay before the Proph. Conf., held in N. Y., in
1873.]

“In an earlier period this kingdom was identified with the church. ... The
Protestants regarded it ... as the Christian institution of salvation.” [Note:
Schaff-Herzog Ency., vol. 2, p. 1246.]

Barnes: The kingdom means “the state of things, which the Messiah was to set up
— his spiritual reign began in the church on earth, and completed in
heaven.’”[Note: Com. on Matthew 3:2.]

Neander, while stating that the kingdom is used in other sense, — which, by the
way, can easily be included in the one he mentions — says:

“The idea of the Church of Christ is closely connected in the views of Paul with
that of the kingdom of God.” [Note: Plant, and Tr. of the Chr. Ch., p. 455.]

“At the time of which we are speaking, the church comprised the whole visible
form of the kingdom of God.” [Note: Idem. p. 458.] Andrew Fuller regards the
kingdom and the church indissoluble when he says:

“If the nature of Christ’s kingdom were placed in those things in which the
Apostles placed it, the government and discipline of the church would be
considered as means not as ends.” [Note: Fuller’s Works, vol. 2, p. 639.]

W. Clarke:

“This kingdom, reign, or administration of the Messiah is spiritual in its
nature John 18:36; Romans 14:17) and is exercised over and has its seat in the
hearts of believers. — Luke 17:21. It exists on earth Matthew 13:18-19; Matthew
13:41; Matthew 13:47) extends to another state of existence (Matthew 13:43;
Matthew 13:26; Matthew 13:29; Php 2:10-11) and will be fully consummated in a
state of glory (1 Corinthians 15:24; Matthew 8:11; 2 Peter 1:11). It thus
embraces the whole mediatorial reign or government of Christ on earth and in
heaven, and includes in its subjects all the redeemed, or, as Paul expresses it,
(Ephesians 3:15) ‘the whole family in heaven and earth.’ Kingdom of heaven and
church are not identical, though inseparately and closely connected. The
churches of Christ are the external manifestations of this kingdom in the
world.” [Note: Com. on Matthew 3:2.] In an excellent article in Smith’s Bible
Dictionary. [Note: Vol. 2, pp. 1541, 1543.] A. Hovey, D.D., President Newton
Theological Seminary, says:

“This kingdom, though in its nature spiritual, was to have, while on earth, the
visible form in Christian Churches, and the simple rites belonging to church
life were to be observed by every loyal subject Matthew 28:18; John 3:5; Acts
2:38; Luke 21:17 : 1 Corinthians 11:24.) It cannot, however, be said that the
New Testament makes the spiritual kingdom of Christ exactly co-extensive with
the visible church. There are many in the latter who do not belong to the
former, 1 John 2:9,) and some, doubtless, in the former, who do not take their
place in the latter.”

Tholuck:

“A kingdom of God — that is an organic commonwealth.”

“The New Testament kingdom of God, is both from within and from without, in the
individual as in the whole community.”

“The idea of the kingdom of God ... is an organized community, which has its
principle of life in the will of the personal God.” [Note: Sermon on the Mount,
by Tholuck, pp. 71, 74.] In the invisible church and kingdom theory are all
disorganizers who reject baptism and church organization. Under the pretense of
great zeal and spirituality they make the invisible everything and the
organization nothing. This is illustrated by the following from The Watchman, of
Boston:

“But, of late, there has been a marked disposition among certain thinkers to
contrast the ‘kingdom’ with the ‘church,’ to the disadvantage of the latter.
What we need to-day, they say, is not to strengthen the church, but to extend
the kingdom of God; to work for the reorganization of society and the influence
of Christian principles and motives in every department of life, and not for the
salvation of individual men and women, which is the peculiar work of the church.
Some of these writers have gone so far as to imply that the church is the
greatest obstacle in the way of the advance of the kingdom of God.” As Luke
17:21 is the main passage for an invisible kingdom, I submit the following from
that critical scholar, Dr. Geo. Varden:

“The weight of critical authority inclines mightily to ‘in your midst.’ Lexicon
Pasoris (1735) so renders. Raphel (Notre Philologicoe 1749) similarly.
Rosenmuller (Scholia, 1803) seeks to show at some length that, though entos may
in general mean within, the character of the persons addressed forces the other
meaning. Bretschneider (Lexicon, 1829) translates, ‘The founder of the divine
kingdom is already in your midst.’ Alford (Critical Greek Testament) ‘The
misunderstanding which rendered these words within you, should have been
prevented by reflecting that they are addressed to the Pharisees, in whose
hearts it certainly was not.’ Then, ‘among you’ is the marginal reading of the
authorized version: and it has justly been said that, as a rule, these readings
are preferable to the text. Moreover, the latest revision of the A. B. Union
reads, ‘The kingdom of God is in the midst of you.’ Writes Thayer in his Greek
Lexicon of the New Testament (the latest and by many regarded the best) ‘In the
midst of you, others within you (id est, in your souls) a meaning which the use
of the word permits, but not the context.’ And Godet, in his recent critical
Commentary on Luke, writes, ‘These words are explained by almost all modem
interpreters in the sense of in the midst of you.’” To this I add the words of
Dr. Bloomfield, on this passage:

“Is among you ... On this interpretation the best commentators are agreed and
adduce examples of this use of εντὸς... The kingdom of God has even commenced
among you, i.e., in your own country and among your own people.” So Paulus,
Fleck, Bornemann, DeWette, Doddridge, Beza, Raphaelius, et al.

Inasmuch as Acts 19:32, where ecclesia is rendered “assembly,” is presumed to
prove it means, also, a “mob,” I submit the following conclusive critical
refutation, from the late and lamented J.R. Graves, LL. D.:

“Let us, without prejudice, look into this question. (1.) Ecclesia is nowhere in
the whole range of classical Greek usage used to denote a mob or an unorganized
or riotous crowd. (2.) It is nowhere so used in Septuagint Greek. (3.) It is
nowhere else in the 111 instances of its occurrence in the New Testament used to
denote a mob or riotous crowd. This should arouse suspicion that it may not have
this unwonted meaning here. Certainly if it can mean a lawful and organized
assembly here, we should give it that signification. It certainly can, and I
believe should be, given the sense of a lawful assembly — even a political body
possessed of civil functions.

“Ephesus was a free city of Greece. Every free city was governed by jury courts
— Diakastres — that had jurisdiction over all criminal cases. The ecclesia,
which was an organized body composed of all free citizens entitled to vote, and
presided over by a recorder. The meeting place of the ecclesia at Ephesus, as at
Athens, was in the theater — as the capital at Frankfort is for the sessions of
the Kentucky Legislature. (3) The council of five hundred corresponded to our
Senate or the House of Lords. Ephesus, then, had an ecclesia, and its meeting
place the great theater of the city, and its duty to look after the general
peace and welfare of the city — not to sit as a criminal court to try personal
offenses.

“Let us now examine Luke’s account of what took place, remembering that the
ecclesia may have been in session before the uproar commenced, or that it, as it
was its duty to do, came immediately together as soon as cognizant of it.
Demetrius and his workmen and the mob, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus,
rushed with them into the assembly, ‘and some [of the mob] cried one thing and
some another, and the ecclesia was confused’ by these varied cries, while no
definite charge was brought to its notice of which it could take cognizance. Now
mark it was not the ecclesia that was riotous, but ‘oklos’ — crowd that had
rushed into the theater where the ecclesia assembly of Ephesus was in orderly
session, or had gathered to hold one; for it was the ‘oklos’ not the ecclesia,
that the presiding officer of the ecclesia quieted. (See Acts 19:35.) He
informed this riotous, ‘oklos’ crowd, ‘if Demetrius and the workmen with him had
a charge against any man, there were the courts and the proconsuls; but if it
was about other things the ecclesia would settle it.’ The ecclesia was
responsible for public tumults, insurrections, etc., and the officer appealed to
the crowd to be quiet and disperse, ‘for,’ said he, speaking for the ecclesia,
‘we are even in danger of being accused about the tumult of to-day, there being
no cause by which we [the ecclesia] can excuse this concourse’ — sustrophes —
not ecclesia. And having said this, he adjourned, dissolved, the assembly —
ecclesia — not the sustrophes — mob — which he could not dismiss. Now, in this
account, we have, in Greek, four terms used: ‘demos,’ people; ‘oklos,’ crowd;
‘sustrophes,’ mob; ‘ecclesia,’ assembly — a body having civil jurisdiction.
Ecclesia and sustrophes are never used interchangeably, never mean the same
body.” Were we to admit that ecclesia here meant a “mob,” since the church in no
way involves a mob, this passage has no bearing on what is the church. Liddell
and Scott, in their Greek Lexicon, define the word, “ekklesia, an assembly of
citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly.”

Dean Trench says:

“Ekklesiaa, as all know, was the lawful assembly in a free Greek city of all
those possessed of the rights of citizenship, for the transaction of public
affairs. That they were summoned is expressed in the latter part of the word;
that they were summoned out of the whole population, a select portion of it,
including neither the populace, not yet strangers, nor those who had forfeited
their civic rights — this is expressed in the first. Both the calling and the
calling out, are moments to be remembered, when the word is assumed into a
higher Christian sense, for in them the chief part of its peculiar adaptation to
its auguster uses lie.”

If the kingdom and the church mean “the reign of grace in the heart without a
visible organization,” as grace had reigned in the heart, at least, from the
time of Abel, Daniel 2:44 and Matthew 16:18, could not have spoken of the
kingdom and the church as not built before the New Testament age. A kingdom
without organization — definite, ascertainable laws, is but the creature of the
babel of sectarianism. It never did exist, in nature, in politics or in grace;
and never can exist. It is twin brother to the notion that there is an
“invisible church” — as if there were invisible men and women! The only part of
the church which is invisible is the internal part and that part which has
“crossed over the river.” That the term church in the New Testament, always
means, literally, in the language of the New Hampshire Confession, “a
congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and
fellowship of the gospel, observing the ordinances of Christ,” and, in its few
figurative uses, the aggregate of the local churches, and that the church and
the kingdom are so related that neither can exist without the other, I have now
clearly demonstrated. THIS BEING THE CASE, EVERY PROMISE OF PRESERVATION AND
PERPETUITY, MADE TO THE KINGDOM, IS A PROMISE TO THE CHURCHES OF WHICH IT IS
COMPOSED, AND VICE VERSA.

I will now proceed to prove the Bible promises that the church should never so
far apostatize as to lose its existence as a true church.

“I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from
them to do them good, but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall
not depart from me.” — Jeremiah 32:40. (1.) That this refers to the New
Testament none will deny. (2.) That the church and the “covenant” are
indissoluble, will not be denied.(3.) That this covenant and its subjects are in
contrast with the old covenant and its subjects, is equally evident. From this
it follows, that, inasmuch, as the people of the old covenant apostatized, and
that they were repudiated of God, the new covenant and its people are
everlastingly united to Him. This is positively affirmed: (a) an “everlasting
covenant;” (b) “fear in their Hearts;” (c) “that they Shall NOT DEPART from me”
— no departing from God, as under the old covenant, no apostate Israel, hence
Church Perpetuity. The only possible way to deny that this is a positive promise
of Church Perpetuity is to affirm that God departs from His people, who do not
depart from Him, which is affirming that. He is unfaithful.

II. “In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which
shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but
it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand
forever.” — Daniel 2:44.

(1.) Here God affirms He will set up a kingdom — but one kingdom.

(2.) This kingdom includes the church or churches, as the United States
government includes the State or the States.

(3.) That this kingdom and church or churches are in-divisible, is certain.

(4.) He affirms this kingdom, including His church, shall not be left to other
people; i.e., under the law of the old covenant, the kingdom, because of
apostasy, was given to the Gentiles — “other people,” but under the law of the
new covenant there shall be no apostasy of the church, so as to cause it to be
given to “other people” — to Wesley, Calvin, etc., and their followers. No room
here for men to set up churches of their own on the ground of the original
churches having all apostatized.

(5.) This kingdom “shall NEVERbe destroyed.”

(6.) This kingdom “shall stand FOREVER.”

(7.) This kingdom, instead of becoming apostate, shall be aggressive — “shall
break in pieces and consume all ‘other kingdoms.’”

(8.) The days of these kings refer to the days of the Caesars. The only possible
way of avoiding this promise of Church Succession is to deny that this kingdom
and church are indissoluble. That this denial is vain is evident, from the fact,
that, in the New Testament, the two are never separate, and the promises of
preservation therein to the one are equally to the other. So writers of all
denominations hold them one. Here, then, in the Old Testament are the most
unequivocal promises of Church Perpetuity.

III. “Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it.” — Matthew 16:18.

(1.) This is church, but one kind of church — a kingdom — not “branches.” The
New Testament says that, as individuals, Christ’s disciples are “branches” of
Him. But it nowhere so much as intimates there are “branches of the church.” If
there are “branches of the church” where is their trunk?

(2.) Christ built His church. Wesley, Calvin, Campbell, etc., built theirs. He
built it on a sure foundation. — Isaiah 28:16; Psalms 118:22; Ephesians 2:20; 2
Timothy 2:19.

(4.) The church and its foundation are indissolubly joined together by undying
love.

(5.) “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” — it “shall never be
destroyed,” but “shall stand forever” Bengel well says: “The Christian Church is
like a city without walls, and yet the gates of hell, which assail it, shall
never prevail.” “A most magnificent promise.” [Note: Com. in loco.] So say
Stier, Adam Clarke, Scott, Barnes, G.W. Clarke, Bloomfield, Horsley, Vitringa,
Olshausen, Doddridge and Lange, et mulal. Has Christ’s promise failed? The
following are Campbellite concessions:

“The rock is not that against which the unseen is not to prevail; neither has
the church ever become extinct. These we deem gross errors.” [Note: Lard’s
Quarterly Review for 1886, p. 309.] Mr. Fanning:

“The church was built upon the rock laid in Zion; that she has withstood the
rough waves of eighteen centuries, and that she will finally triumph over all
the principalities and powers of earth.” [Note: Living Pulpit, p. 520.] David
Lipscomb: “God founded a church that ‘will stand forever;’ that the gates of
hell shall not prevail against.” [Note: Gospel Advocate for 1867, p. 770.] “True
witnesses of Christ never failed from the earth.” [Note: That these Campbellites
and Pedo-baptists, when they come to justify the origin of their churches, say
the gates of hell did prevail against the church, is true. But, then they speak
from their churches; here they speak from the Bible.] [Note: Isaac Errett’s
Walks about Jerusalem, p. 142.]

IV. “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.” — Matthew 28:18-20.

(1.) Christ here promises His presence.

(2.) His presence is here implied to be the only guarantee of the fulfillment of
the mission, but the sure one. This promise is to His church. That this is true
is evident from the Great Commission having been committed to only the church.
This will hardly be questioned.

(4.) Christ’s promise is to insure that the nations will be discipled, baptized,
etc. That He has promised to be with His church to guarantee the preservation of
baptism — all things included in the commission — is, therefore, clear.

(5.) Christ promises His presence always, all the days — pasas tas heemeras —
not leaving a single day for apostasy.

(6.) If this church has gone into Babylon He is gone there too, and all are lost
— “Lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Bengel says on
this: “A continual presence, and one most actually present.” “This promise also
belongs to the whole church.” [Note: Com. In loco.] Inasmuch as Methodism,
Presbyterianism, Campbellism, etc., are “but of yesterday,” this promise cannot
apply to them. On this Stier says: “He is present with his mighty defense and
aid against the gates of hell, which would oppose and hinder His church in the
execution of His commands.”

So, G.W. Clark, Scott, Matthew Henry, Barnes, Doddridge, Olshausen, and Adam
Clark, et. mul. al.

V. “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the
church: and he is the Savior of the body ... Christ also loved the church, and
gave Himself for it ... that He might present it to Himself, a glorious church,
not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and
without blemish.” — Ephesians 5:23; Ephesians 5:29.

(1.) This is taken from the relation of husband and wife.

(2.) The husband that does not use his utmost power to save his wife is an
unfaithful husband.

(3.) Only his lack of power prevents him from saving his wife.

(4.) For Christ to not use His utmost power to save His church would be for Him
to be unfaithful to her.

(5.) Only by His lack of power can the church apostatize.

(6.) But, “all power in heaven and in earth” belongs to Him; therefore the
church is insured forever against apostasy. He “gave Himself for it” and He is
its “Savior.”

(7.) An apostate church is not a “glorious” church, has spots, wrinkles, serious
blemishes.

(8.) But, inasmuch as Christ’s church has “nosuch thing,” His church shall never
apostatize. On this Adam Clark says: “Christ exercises His authority over the
church so as to save and protect it.” [Note: Com. In loco.] Verses 26 and 27,
Bengel, Matthew Henry and Adam Clark say allude to “the different ordinances
which He has appointed;” hence they agree that the passages speak of the Church
organization.

VI. Having been “built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus
Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly
framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord.” — Ephesians 2:20-21.

(1.) This building — the church — is “fitly framed together.”

(2.) It is framed — JOINED to its foundation — “in whom.”

(3.) A church being framed to the foundation so as to be removed from the
foundation is not “fitlyframed,” the only “fitly” framing, according to the
spirit and the design of Christianity, is that which so frames the church into
its foundation, that it can never be razed by the devil; and, thus, Wesleys,
Campbells, Calvins left to rebuild it.

(4.) As it is “fitly framed” into its foundation, if the devil has forced it
into Babylon, the foundation, too, is gone; for they are “fitly framed
together.”

VII. “Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved” — Hebrews 12:28.
Greenfield, Liddell, Scott and Thayer define the Greek, here rendered “moved,”
“shaken,” and the Bible Union and the New Revision render it “shaken” instead of
“moved.”

(1.) If this kingdom cannot be “shaken,” surely the church cannot be forced from
its foundation into Babylon.

(2.) The church, therefore, must ever be faithful to its husband — Church
Perpetuity.

VIII Christ is the King of His church. — Matthew 21:5.

(1.) To destroy the kingdom is to destroy the king as king.

(2.) If Christ’s church has been destroyed, as king, Christ is destroyed. [Note:
To the attempt to evade the force of this argument, by the fact that Saul became
King, and thence inferring God then was no longer King (1 Samuel 18:23) is a
sufficient reply.]

(3.) But as His kingship in His church is essential to save a lost world, if for
no other reason, He would preserve His church from apostacy.

(4.) In no instance has a king ever lost his kingship, except by being too weak
to save it.

(5.) But Christ has “all power;” therefore, He will save His kingship by saving
His church from apostasy.

IX. Christ is “High Priest’ of His church. — Compare Hebrews 10:21 with 1
Timothy 3:15.

(1.) Christ’s priesthood is essentially related to His church.

(2.) Therefore to destroy His church is to destroy His priesthood.

(3.) Inasmuch as He can never permit His priesthood to be destroyed, He can
never permit apostasy to destroy His church.

X. Church Perpetuity grows out of the nature of the truth as the instrument of
the Spirit. The spirit through the truth preserved the apostolic church. Unless
the Spirit and the truth lose their power, they must thence preserve the church
from apostasy until Christ comes. The same cause, under like conditions, will
always produce the same effect. The truth is conditioned for all time only by
sinful nature and the unchangeable Spirit; therefore Church Perpetuity.

XI. Church Perpetuity grows out of the mission of the Church. Her mission is to
preach the gospel to the world, preserve the truth and the ordinances. The
Scriptures make the churches the custodians of the ordinances and of all affairs
of the kingdom of Christ, on earth. The Commisson says, disciple, baptize and
teach them to observe all the institutions of Christ — Matthew 28:19-20.

Those who make disciples are, naturally, the judges of the progress and the
rights of the disciple.

Peter, on Pentecost, in that he commanded certain persons to be baptized, judged
of their fitness for baptism. — Acts 2:38.

In asking “can any man forbid water,” Peter implied that water can be
scripturally forbidden for persons who are unfit for baptism. — Acts 10:47-48.

In Philip saying to the eunuch, “if thou believest with all thy heart thou
mayest,” he implied his right to refuse to baptize him, if he regarded him as
not born again. Compare Acts 8:37, with 1 John 5:1.

Through the Apostles the churches were given the ordinances.

(1.) Compare Acts 16:4 : — 1 Corinthians 11:2.

(2.) The Church is “the pillar and the ground of the truth.” — 1 Timothy 3:15.

(3.) In caring for the things of the kingdom, the churches baptize into their
membership — through their officers — those whom they think are believers. “Him
that is weak in the faith receive “ — Romans 14:1.

How receive if no authority to receive or reject?

Again, if the Church is not the judge, how can it know whether the candidate is
“weak” or strong in the faith — or whether he has any faith at all?

Proslambanesthe — προσλαμβάνεσθε — means,. “to admit to one’s society and
fellowship.” — Thayer’s, Robinson’s and the other Lexicons.

Adam Clarke: “Receive him into your fellowship;” [Note: In loco.] so Comp. Corn,

Doddridge, etc. See 1 Corinthians 5:4-5, where the church excluded a member and
2 Corinthians 2:6-10, where she receives him back into her membership.

(4.) In caring for the interests of the kingdom the churches exclude members. 1
Corinthians 5:4-9; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; Revelation 2:14-15; Revelation 2:20;
Revelation 3:10; Matthew 18:17-19.

(5.) The church is to watch, guard the interest of the kingdom as a soldier, on
guard, guards what is under his care. Teereo — τηρέω— rendered “observe” in the
Commission — Matthew 28:20 — means to “watch, to observe attentively, to keep
the eyes fixed upon, to keep, to guard, e.g., a prisoner, a person arrested. ...
to keep back, to keep store, to reserve.” [Note: Thayer’s, Robinson’s and other
Lexicons.] In the following passages it, and its family, are rendered,
“watched,” “keepers,” “keep,” “kept.” Matthew 27:36; Matthew 28:4; Mark 7:9;
John 2:10; John 12:7; John 17:12; John 17:15; Acts 12:5-6; Acts 16:23; Acts
24:23; Acts 25:4; Acts 25:21; 2 Timothy 4:7; James 1:27. Thus the “keepers did
shake;” “they watched him;” “Peter was kept in prison;” “the keepers before the
door kept the prison;” “charging the jailer to keep them safely;” “commanded a
centurion to keep Paul;” “that Paul should be kept in Caesaren;” “I commanded
him to be kept;” “keep yourselves in the love of God.” Thus the church, at
Philadelphia, is commended concerning the interests of the kingdom, in that
“thou didst keep my word.” — ‘““Revelation 3:8. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, katekete
— κατέχετε— “to hold down, to detain, to restrain, to retain, hold firm in
grasp, to maintain” — see the Lexs. — is used “keep the ordinances” — Revised
Version, “holdfast “ Thus we see, as plainly as that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God, that as the Jews, under the Old Dispensation, had the exclusive care of the
word, the ceremonies, etc., so has the church under the new; that the church, as
a soldier, with its eyes fixed on the interests of the kingdom, is to propagate,
practice and guard them — as the Commission reads, “teach them to guard all
things whatsoever I have commanded you.” As the Church, according to the word
and the Spirit, obeys the Great Commission, Jesus is with it. — Matthew 28:20.
[Note: Inasmuch as the objection against Restricted Commission is based on the
presumption that the church is not the custodian of New Testament institutions,
the reader now has. In a nut, shell. the key to the whole subject of “Close
Communion.” No church which believes itself a New Testament church can extend
Its privileges to those outside its membership— those who differ from It.] If
the church were necessary in apostolic times it is necessary “alway, even unto
the end of the world.” — Matthew 28:20. Did not Christ provide for this
necessity by providing for Church Preservation? Or, was there, here, a little
omission which Wesley, Calvin, Campbell and other church builders provided for?
No doctrine of the Bible is more clearly revealed than is the doctrine of Church
Perpetuity. As easily can one deny the atonement. Convince me there is no church
to-day that has continued from the time of Christ, and you convince me the Bible
is false. “Pedo-baptists” and Campbellites have admitted that Church Perpetuity
is a Bible doctrine, so clearly is it taught in the Bible. Prof. Bannerman, a
Presbyterian, says:

“There are statements in Scripture that seem distinctly to intimate that the
Christian Church shall always continue to exist in the world, notwithstanding
that all is earthly and hostile around her. He has founded it upon a rock; and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ... That Christ will be with His
church ‘alway, even unto the end of the world,’ ministering the needful support
and grace for its permanent existence on earth, we cannot doubt.” [Note: The
Church of Christ, by Bannerman, vol. I, p, 51.]

“He has left us a promise that the powers of evil shall never finally prevail
against or sweep it entirely away; and as belonging essentially to the due
administration of that kingdom, and forming a part of it, the outward
dispensation of the ordinances and worship in the church shall never fail.”
[Note: Idem., p. 333.]

“The ministry, embracing an order of men to discharge its duties, is a standing
institution in the Christian Church since its first establishment until now, and
Leslie, in his Short Method with the Deists, has fairly and justly appealed to
the uninterrupted existence of the office as the standing and permanent monument
of the great primary facts of Christianity, and, therefore, as demonstrative
evidence of its truth.” [Note: Idem., p. 439.]

Eld. J.M. Mathes, a leading Campbellite, adduces the recent origin of the
Methodist church as one evidence that it is not the church of Christ. He says:
“The M.E. church, as an organism is not old enough to be the church of God.”
[Note: Letters to Bishop Morris, p. 140.]

“In the darkest ages of Popery, God never ‘left Himself without a witness.’ It
is true that from the rise of that anti-christian power till the dawn of the
Reformation, the people of Christ may be emphatically denominated a ‘little
flock,’ yet small as their number may appear to have been to the eye of man, and
unable as historians may be, to trace with accuracy the saints of the Most High,
amidst ‘a world lying in wickedness,’ it cannot be doubted that even then, there
was a remnant, which kept the commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus
Christ. If God reserved to Himself “seven thousand in Israel who had not bowed
the knee to Baal,’ in the reign of idolatrous Ahab, can we suppose, that during
any preceding period, His Church has ceased to exist, or that His cause has
utterly perished?” [Note: History Waldenses, Published by American Sunday School
Union.] The attempt is made, in two ways, to weaken the force of these
Scriptures for the Perpetuity of Churches.

(1.) By resorting to the loose, assumed meaning, of the word church, as not
including organization. But in reply (a) I have shown that ekklesia (ἐκκλησία)
always indicates organization. [Note: Ecclesiology, p. 102.] (See the first part
of this chapter.) (b) No man can show where it ever excludes organization. (c)
There can be no reason why God — if there is such a church-should care so much
for a general, indefinable, intangible, “invisible” body of men and women who
have no definite places of meeting, no gospel and gospel ordinances committed to
it, no definite and tangible objects before it, as to promise to preserve it,
while He cared so little for a special, definable, tangible, visible body of men
and women, with definite places of meeting, tangible objects before it, and
gospel and gospel ordinances committed to it, as to give it no promise of
preservation!The preaching, the ordinances, the administration of discipline —
all the work of the gospel — having been committed, not to a general,
indefinable, intangible, invisible, body of men and women, with no places of
meeting, no objects before it, but to organization, it is clear that, what-ever
may be promised to a non-organization, the very mission and the very design of
the church lead us to expect its preservation. When Paul directed Timothy “how
men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the
living God, the pillar and ground of the truth,” — 1 Timothy 3:15 — he spoke of
organization with officers — “bishops” and “deacons” — see the context, in
verses 1-13. The election of officers, the receiving, the discipline and
exclusion of members, the keeping of the ordinances, — everything necessary for
the work of the gospel and the salvation of a lost world was committed to
“organized churches.” Compare Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 1:26; Acts 6:2-3; Acts 6:5;
Acts 10:47; Acts 15:22; Acts 16:4; Romans 14:1; 1 Corinthians 5:4-5; 2
Corinthians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; Revelation 2:14;
Revelation 3:10, in which it will be seen that the churches elected their
officers, received, excluded members, preached the gospel, kept everything in
order. In preaching, baptizing, receiving, excluding, the churches are the
powers through which the king of Zion governs, extends His empire. A. Campbell,
of the churches, says:

“But as these communities possess the oracles of God. ... they are in the
records of the kingdom regarded as the only constitutional citizens of the
kingdom.” [Note: Christian System, p. 172.]

Few deny this necessity for the churches, until they come to meet the
impregnable stronghold of Bible promises of Church Perpetuity, when they
disparage the churches for their own general, in-tangible, invisible — I must
say it — nothing; and then they have Church Perpetuity promised to their pet —
nothing. Some of them will say:

“Yes, we admit, that through all ages there were men and women who held Bible
principles, Bible doctrines, Bible ordinances, etc.”

Yet, in the next breath, they deny that these were churches! Just as if the
life, evinced by the maintenance of these “principles,” these “ordinances” and
the “doctrine” would not maintain the scriptural church organization! Where,
today, find we men and women who maintain Bible principles, Bible ordinances,
Bible doctrine, etc., without scriptural organization? Indeed, what is such a
life in manifestation but organization and the work of organization? The
Scriptures represent the organization as indispensable to the purity, the
preservation of the doctrine, the gospel and the ordinances. But, to rob the
church of the promise of preservation, it is denied that the church is necessary
to such purposes. What these deniers of Church Perpetuity think the church was
instituted for, would require more than the wisdom of Solomon to tell.

(2.) It is claimed that the apostasy of some churches proves the apostasy of
all. Excuse me for reducing the objection to a logical absurdity, in stating it.
As well prove that a whole army deserts from some having deserted. The
Scriptures speak of some churches being spewed out, their candlesticks being
removed. The Romish church is only apostasy. But the promises to the church and
to the kingdom, as institutions, are, that “it shall stand forever,” that “the
gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” The attempt is, also, made to
weaken the statements of commentators, etc., that the Scriptures promise Church
Perpetuity. This is done in the same way by which the attempt is made to weaken
the direct statements of the Scriptures, viz., by saying that these commentators
mean the general, indefinable, intangible, “invisible” body of men and women —
church means men and women — with no place of meeting, no objects before it —
the “invisible church.” To this I reply: Some of these writers have fallen into
the error of speaking of an “invisible church,” but

(1.) I have shown that they speak of the “visible” church as being preserved.
For example, Adam Clark says, that the church, of Ephesians 5:23-29, is a church
with ordinances.[Note: An invisible church — if there is such a thing — has
neither ordinances nor anything else. If any passage, in the Bible, seems to
mean an “invisible” church, this passage is that one. The bad results of the
“invisible” notion is seen in Cowboy Deanism, now in Texas, and elsewhere. On
the plea that the church is made up of all believers, wherever they are and to
whatever they are connected, it is calling our churches “ Babylon,” those who
maintain them, “church idolaters,” etc , and is endeavoring to destroy them.
This is but the Pedobaptist notion of an “invisible church” “gone to seed.” The
“invisible” notion is the seed of ecclesiastical nihilism and anarchy.]

(2.) But, if every one of these writers under-stood these promises as applicable
to only an “invisible church” it does not, in the least, weaken their testimony
to these promises guaranteeing Church Perpetuity. The promises of perpetuity to
a church are one thing; to what kind of a church is given these promises is
quite another. I have not quoted any of these writers as de-fining the church to
which the promises were given; but I have quoted them all to prove that the
promises clearly leave no ground to doubt that perpetuity of some kind of a
church if promised. Having proved that the churches [Note: “The learned Dr. Owen
fully maintains, that in no approved writer, for two hundred years after Christ,
is mention made of any organized, visibly professing church, except a local
congregation of Christians.”— Church Members’ Manual, p. 36, by William
Crowell.] of the New Testament are organizations, to which are committed the
gospel, the doctrine, the ordinances, the discipline — that they are thus “the
house of God, which is the church of the living God, the Pillar and Ground of
the Truth,” (1 Timothy 3:15.) whoever denies that these are the church to which
the promises of preservation are given has his controversy not with me so much
as with the King of Zion. [Note: That the reader may neither be confused nor
think that I am contused I will again state that I use “ church,” in the
singular, to denote the aggregate of churches. Just as it la used In Matthew
16:18; Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 5:24; Colossians 1:18. It is thus used by
synecdoche, and I use “churches” for the Independent organizations- the literal
churches, as in Acts 9:31; Acts 15:41; Acts 16:6; Acts 19:37 : Romans 16:4;
Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 7:17; 1 Corinthians 11:16; 1 Corinthians 14:33-34; 1
Corinthians 16:1; 1 Corinthians 16:19. To say “Baptist church” for all Baptist
churches is, therefore, correct, so is it to say Baptist churches.] So far as
the use of the testimony of these writers is concerned, it matters not, if these
writers believed the churches of the New Testament are Romish or Mormon
churches. They agree that whatever the churches of the New Testament are, they
are promised Church Perpetuity. And I have proved them all organizations.

I will close this argument with the testimony of one Methodist and two
Presbyterian scholars.

Adam Clarke:

“The church of the living God. The assembly in which God lives and works, each
number of which is a living stone, all of whom, properly united among
themselves,” — this is organization, — “grow up into a holy temple in the Lord.”
[Note: Com. on 1 Timothy 3:15.] Barnes, Presbyterian:

“Thus it is with the church. It is intrusted with the business of maintaining
the truth, of defending it from the assaults of error, and of transmitting it to
future times. The truth is, in fact, upheld in the world by the church. The
people of the world feel no interest in defending it, and it is to the Church of
Christ that it is owing that it is preserved and transmitted from age to age.
... The stability of the truth on earth is dependent on the church. ... Other
systems of religion are swept away; other opinions change; other forms of
doctrine vanish; but the knowledge of the great system of redemption is
preserved on earth unshaken, because the church is preserved and its foundations
can not be moved. As certainly as the church continues to live, so certain will
it be that the truth of God will be perpetuated in the world.” [Note: On 1
Timothy 3:15, in “Old Landmarkism,” p. 44.] Again, says Bannerman:

“The visible church is Christ’s kingdom; and the administration of government,
ordinance, and discipline within it, is but a part of that administration by
which He rules over His people. That kingdom may at different times be more or
less manifest to the outward eye and more or less conspicuous in the view of
men. But He has left us a promise that the powers of evil shall never finally
prevail against it or sweep it entirely away; and, as belonging essentially to a
due administration of that kingdom, and forming a part of it, the outward
dispensation of ordinances and worship in the Church shall never fail. *** There
are express announcements in Scripture, warranting us to assert that the various
institutions and rites that make up the outward provision of government,
worship, ordinance, and discipline in the Church of Christ, should be continued
to the end of the world.” [Note: Bannerman’s Church of Christ, vol. 1, pp. 332,
333.]

“The ministry, embracing an order of men to discharge its duties, is a standing
institution in the Christian church, since its first establishment until now;
and Leslie, in his Short Method with the Deists, has fairly and justly appealed
to the uninterrupted existence of the office as a standing and permanent
monument of the great primary facts of Christianity, and as therefore
demonstrative evidence of its truth... There are a number of Scripture
declarations of the promises, of the permanence and perpetuity of a ministry in
the church, which have been appropriated and perverted by the advocates of
apostolic succession into arguments in favor of the doctrine... In short, most
of those Scripture statements, which afford us warrant to say that there shall
be a church always on this earth, and that the office of minister and pastor is
a standing appointment in the church, have been pressed into the service of the
theory that an apostolical succession in the line of each individual minister is
essential to the validity of the ministerial title, [Note: Advocates for
receiving persons into our churches, on alien immersions, have fallen into the
Romanist and Episcopal error; for they claim that we can have no proof of a
regularly constituted ministry until we can trace “every minister’s pedigree
back to apostolic times!” Just as if a Scriptural Church is not the authority to
baptize !] and, as most, if not all, the advocates hold essential also the
existence of a church at all. Now, with regard to such statements of Scripture,
it may readily be admitted — nay, it is to be strenuously affirmed — that they
demonstrate this much, that a Church of Christ, more or less visible, is always
to exist on the earth; but this conclusion has nothing to do with apostolic
succession in the church. Further still, many of these texts may be held as
demonstrating that the office of the ministry is a standing and permanent one in
the church...

There are not a few statements in Scripture that justify us in believing that
the office of the ministry in the church can never, as an office, become
extinct; that an order of men set apart to its public duties can never, as an
order, be interrupted and come to an end, so long as the church itself endures.”
[Note: Idem, pp. 439, 442.]

Prof. Bannerman, feeling the force of this, against the Presbyterian church,
tries to evade it by a resort to the notion of a “universal Christian society,
and in all the branches of the Christian church.” But this does not weaken the
force of the quoted statements. How significantly, then, is every honest scholar
bound to voice the Lord’s statement: “Upon this rock I will build. my church and
the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” — Matthew 16:18.

“Unto Him be glory in the church, by Jesus Christ, throughout all ages, world
without end.” — Ephesians 3:21. By her fulfilling the great commission — her
godly life — the church perpetuates and extends Christ’s glory. Many, in our
age, rather reverse this by having this glory out of the church. But this makes
His glory dependent on the church. As this glory is “in the church throughout
all ages, world without end,” the perpetuity of the church is assured.

The Scriptures more than justify the lines of Newton:

“Glorious things of thee are spoken,

Zion, city of our God;

He whose word cannot be broken,

Formed thee for His own abode.

Lord, thy Church is still thy dwelling, Still is precious in thy sight, Judah’s
temple for excelling, Beaming with the gospel’s light. On the Rock of Ages
founded, What can shake her sure repose? With salvation’s walls surrounded, She
can smile at all her foes.” or of Kelley:

“Zion stands with hills surrounded, Zion kept by power divine; All her foes
shall be confounded, Though the world in arms combine: Happy Zion, What a
favored lot is thine. In the furnace God may prove thee, Thence to bring thee
forth more bright, But can never cease to love thee; Thou art precious in His
sight; God is with thee; God, thine everlasting life.”

Thus poets join scriptural expositors in declaring church preservation a
fundamental Bible doctrine.

Having proved that the church should never apostatize is a fundamental Bible
doctrine, I pass To notice that it is a fundamental infidel doctrine that it
should apostatize. A few years ago I met in debate a Spiritist, who affirmed, as
a proposition, that the church has apostatized. So Mormonism teaches. Swedenborg
says of the church:

“Its condition may be compared with a ship, laden with merchandise, of the
greatest value, which, as soon as it got out of the harbor, was immediately
tossed about with a tempest, and presently being wrecked in the sea, sinks to
the bottom.” [Note: True Christian Religion, p. 269.]

Says Buckle:

“The new religion was corrupted by old follies, ... until after a lapse of a few
generations, Christianity exhibited so grotesque and hideous a form that its
best features were lost, and the lineaments of its earlier loveliness were
altogether destroyed.” [Note: Buckle’s, History of Civilization, vol. 1, p.
183.]

Infidels, of the present, seeing that the church yet stands, are preaching its
apostasy. Voltaire said the church would be extinct before A.D. 1800. Robert
Ingersoll, and every infidel lecturer and writer, proclaim the doctrine of the
apostasy. The Devil has believed in and worked for church apostasy ever since
its birth. Christ said: “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against” the
church; the combined powers of hell have ever said “they shall” and “that they
have prevailed against it.” With which of these parties do you, my dear reader,
agree? Remember, you cannot evade the question, by resorting to the assumption
of an “invisible” church; for we have seen

that the only church which the New Testament speaks of is a local organization,
and

if there were “invisible” churches, the promise of preservation is given to the
“visible,”

Modern churches are essentially based on the infidel assumption, viz, the
apostasy, harlotry of the blessed Bride or Church of Christ. A wife is “off on a
visit.” To steal the wife’s place, a woman circulates the report that the wife
has been lost at sea. The woman knows this report is necessary to make room for
her. So, every new sect builder and new sect — and sects now number hundreds —
knowing there is no room for another Bride of Christ, while the first is alive
or true to Him, proclaim the death or the unfaithfulness of His first Bride.
Bangs, one of the earliest Methodist writers, said:

“That the state of society was such in Great Britain at the time Wesley arose as
to call, in most imperious language, for a Reformation, no one, at all
acquainted with those times, I presume, will pretend to question.” [Note: Bangs’
Original Church, p. 103.]

Again: “Methodism arose from the necessity of the times.” [Note: Idem, p. 302.]
Mr. Bangs omitted telling his readers that the very church — the Episcopal —
that then ruled Britain, was a church which originated with the bold assumptions
of the apostasy or harlotry of the Bride of Christ, and of the necessity of a
“reformation.”

Porter, another standard Methodist writer:

“More than a thousand years the church was sunk in the deepest ignorance and
corruption, so that it is exceedingly doubtful whether there was a valid bishop
on earth.” [Note: Compendium of Methodism, p. 329.]

“The church was dead.” [Note: Idem, p. 337,] A sect, calling themselves “Bible
Christians” — wonder if the Campbellites cannot get a suggestion from this name,
as to what to call their church? — says: “In subsequent times, when reformation
was needed, a Luther, a Calvin, a Melancthon and others have been raised up,
etc.

... Under Providence” — by the way, these sect builders all talk of a
Providential call, but no one of them recognizes the others’ call as
sufficiently doing the work for which they were called, and none of them shows
us what wonderful Providence called them! — “the body, known by the appellation
of Bible Christians, began to assume an external, visible existence as a church,
about the year 18CC, principally through the labors of Rev. William Cowherd.”
[Note: Religious Denominations, p. 123.] of the German Seventh Day Baptists (?),
William M. Fahnestock, M.D., of that sect, says: “About the year 1694 a
controversy arose in the Protestant churches of Germany and Holland in which
vigorous attempts were made to reform some of the errors of the church...In the
year 17C8, Alexander Mack ... and seven others, in Schwartzenau, Germany, began
to examine carefully and impartially the doctrines of the New Testament, and to
ascertain what are the obligations imposed on Christians; determined to lay
aside all preconceived” — the special plea of Campbellism — “opinions and
traditional observances. The result of their inquiries terminated in the
formation of the society, now called the Dunkers, or First Day German Baptists.”
[Note: Religious Denominations, p. 109.] Of a sect called “The Free Communion
Baptists” (?), Rev. A.D. Williams, one of its ministers, writes: “At the close
of the seventeenth century two pernicious errors had crept into ecclesiastical
matters in some parts of New England.” As a result: “During the first-half of
the eighteenth century a number of these societies were formed in Rhode Island
and Connecticut.” [Note: Religious Denominations, p. 109.] Rev. Porter S.
Burbank, of the “Free Will Baptists” (?), writes:

“Generally there was but one Baptist denomination in America till the origin of
the Free Will Baptists, a little more than sixty years ago...The Free Will
Baptist connection in North America commenced A.D. 178C, in which year its first
church was organized.”

Then he proceeds to justify its organization, by such statements as:

“Churches were in a lax state of discipline, and much of the preaching was
little else than dull, moral essays, or prosy disquisitions on abstract
doctrines.” [Note: Idem, pp. 74,75.]

John Winebrenner, the founder of the Winebrenarians, who call themselves “The
Church of God” — a suggestion for the Campbellites as that name is as near as
any name, which the Bible calls the church, nearer than most of the names they
have given their church — says:

“We shall accordingly notice that religious community, or body of believers, who
profess to have come out from all human and unscriptural organizations” — just
what the Campbellite church professes — “who have fallen back upon original
grounds, and who wish, therefore, to be called by no other distinctive name,
collectively taken, than the Church of God.” So he says: “In October, 1830,”
some persons “met together” and organized the “Church of God.” [Note: Idem, p.
172.] Of course, though Mr. Winebrenner founded his church, like A. Campbell, he
says it was originated in the first century! In a tract, published by the
“Seventh Day Adventists,” at Battle Creek, Mich., — a sect which is doing far
more than Ingersoll to introduce Sabbath desecration and materialism — entitled
“The Seventh Day Adventist: a brief sketch of their origin, progress and
principles,” we read: “our field of inquiry leads us back only to the great
advent movement of 1840-’44. Respecting that movement, it is presumed that the
public are more or less informed; but they may not be so well aware of the
causes which have led since that time to the rise of a class of people calling
themselves Seventh Day Adventists.” [Note: Page l.] Then, on the assumption of
all things needing reforming, it says:

“A Seventh Day Baptist sister, Mrs. Rachel D. Preston, from the State of New
York, moved to Washington, N.H., where there was a church of Adventists. From
them she received the doctrine of the soon-coming of Christ, and in return
instructed them in reference to the claims of the fourth commandment in the
decalogue. This was in 1844. Nearly that whole church immediately commenced the
observance of the seventh day, and thus have the honor of being the first
Seventh Day Adventist Church in America.” [Note: Idem, p. 5.]

Thus, we see how sects arise, how Christians are divided, how the world is led
into infidelity by sectarianism. The Infidel Doctrine, That The Blessed Bride Of
Christ Is Dead, Or Has Been Unfaithful To Him, Is The Basis, The License Of The
Whole Of The Sectarian Trouble. Once it is admitted, everyone, good or bad, who
becomes offended, and who can get a few followers, can get up a “new church,” so
on ad infinitum.[Note: These sects, in the same breath, profess that “to have
existed from the apostolic age is not necessary,” then exhaust their ingenuity
in “refuting Baptists,” by attempting to prove them of modern origin!! Why this.
If age is not necessary to a church???]

Thus, here comes Alexander Campbell, like all the other sect founders, claiming
to reform the church, to “get back to the Bible,” etc. A. Campbell says that he
originated the Campbellite church from “a deep and an abiding impression that
the power, the consolations and joys — the holiness and happiness of Christ’s
religion were lost in the forms and ceremonies, in the speculations and
conjectures, in the feuds and bickerings of sects and schisms.” [Note: Christian
System, p. 6.] [Note: See “Gospel In Water or Campbellism,” p. 620; cloth bound,
price, $2.00, by the author of this book. It Is the most thorough refutation of
Campbellism ever published and is recommended by Dr. John A. Broadus, Dr. Angus,
of London, and many of our ablest scholars.]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: CHURCH PERPETUITY. A BAPTIST POSITION.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 3.

CHURCH PERPETUITY. A BAPTIST POSITION.

1. That Church Perpetuity is a Baptist position is inevitable from its being a
Bible position. (See Chapter II. of this book.)

2. Notwithstanding that Dr. Armitage has denounced Church Perpetuity, in a
letter to the author of this book, dated January 31, 1886, after his “History of
the Baptists” was published, he virtually destroys his denunciation when, he
says:

“For nearly fifty years I have been feeling after that land with perpetual
disappointment so far as the trend of ecclesiastical history is concerned. As is
natural with every honest Baptist, there is a good instinct in his loving soul
which feels after the links of a holy chain, which binds him to the apostolic
age ... No person living would be more thankful than myself, if you will show by
unquestionable facts that since the Holy Spirit established the church at
Jerusalem there never has been a time when the church did not repeat itself in
living and organic bodies of Christians.”

If Church Perpetuity is “a bulwark of error” and “is the very life of
Catholicism,” why did Dr. Armitage so long after proof for it, and why did he
say that the belief in it “is natural with every honest Baptist?”

Geo. B. Taylor, D.D., a late writer, says: “Baptist principles and Baptist
practices have existed in all ages from the Reformation back to apostolic
times.”

“I humbly claim that we originated not at the Reformation, nor in the dark ages,
nor in any century after the Apostles, but our marching orders are the
commission, and that the first Baptist church was the church at Jerusalem.”
[Note: The Baptists, pp. 5,8,35- published by the American Baptist Publication
Society.]

Pengilly:

“Our principles are as old as Christianity. We acknowledge no founder but
Christ.” [Note: Baptist Manual, p. 82.]

Dr. Peck:

“Baptists in every age from the Apostles remained true to the kingdom which
Christ came to establish.” [Note: Religious Denom., p. 197.]

Dr. Howell:

“I assert that from the days of John the Baptist to the present time the true
Baptist church has ever been a missionary body.” [Note: Letters to Watson.]

Mr. Orchard:

“I have demonstrated so far as human testimony is allowed to prove any fact that
the Baptist church, as the Church of Christ, has existed from the day of
Pentecost to this privileged period.” [Note: Orchards’ Baptist History, vol. 2,
p. 11.] John A. Broadus, D.D., LL. D.:

“And it would seem to be entirely possible and very probable that the patient
research of generations to come may gather material for a much nearer approach
to a continuous history of Baptists than is now practicable.”

Many years ago Dr. Benedict, a Baptist historian, wrote:

“The more I study the subject the stronger are my convictions that if all the
facts in the case could be disclosed a very good Succession could be made out.
[Note: Benedict’s Hist. of Baptists, p. 51.] Dr. Joseph Belcher:

“It will be seen that Baptists claim the high antiquity of the Christian church.

They can trace a succession of those who believe the same doctrine and
administer the same ordinances directly up to the apostolic age.” [Note:
Religious Denom., p. 53.] The late William Williams, D.D., when Professor of
Church History in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, refuting a
statement that he taught that Baptists originated with the Reformation, wrote
September 5, 1876:

“I now hasten to reply that it is not the teaching of the Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, through its Professor of History, that the origin of
Baptists is to be traced to the Church of Rome in the sixteenth century ... The
Baptist churches, in my opinion, are of divine origin, and originated in the
first century under the preaching and founding of the Apostles of our Lord.” The
lamented Charles H. Spurgeon wrote:

“We care very little for the ‘historical argument,’ but if there be anything in
it all, the plea ought not to be filched by the clients of Rome, but should be
left to that community which all along has held ‘by one Lord, one faith and one
baptism.’ ... It would not be impossible to show that the first Christians who
dwelt in the land were of the same faith and order as the church now called
Baptist ... The time will arrive when history will be rewritten.”

Geo. C. Lorimer, D.D.:

“There are reasons for believing that the Baptists are the oldest body of
Christians who dissent from the assumption of the Romish church.

Historically they are not Protestants, for while they sympathize with the
protest offered by the reformers at the Diet of Spire, 1529, in which this now
famous name originated, their existence antedates it by many centuries.”

There has probably never been a superior in Baptist history to the late,
lamented Dr. Buckland, Professor of Church History in Rochester Theological
Seminary. Just before his death he wrote me that he was a strong believer in
Baptist Church Perpetuity and that he was, at that time, preparing to prove it
from history. In his Madison Avenue lectures Dr. Buckland says: “Have Baptists a
history? Prejudice and passion have always answered, no.” [Note: Madison Ave.
Lect., p. 311.] On the next page he says:

“From the time when Christ walked the earth down to the present there has not
been a period in which they have not suffered persecution. From the age of John
the Baptist to the massacre in Jamaica, bigoted religionists have not ceased
first to slaughter and then to slander them.” On page 314 he says:

“We cannot accept a place in the catalogue of sects or broken schismatical
fragments of God’s church.” To this could be added like statements from Drs.
A.C. Dayton, T.T. Eaton, J.M. Cramp, J. Newton Brown, J. Wheaton Smith, J.R.
Graves, D.B. Ray, William R. Williams, T.J. Morgan, S.H. Ford, both W.W. Everts,
William Cathcart, T.G. Jones, D.D. Swindall, etc., etc., etc. Indeed, Armitage,
indirectly conceded his position not in harmony with Baptists, when he says, at
the conclusion of an assault on Church Perpetuity: “The principles above set
forth are not generally adopted in Baptist history.” [Note: Armitage’s Bap.
Hist., p. 8.]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: CHURCH PERPETUITY ADMITS OF VARIATIONS AND IRREGULARITIES
========================================================================

CHAPTER 4.

CHURCH PERPETUITY ADMITS OF VARIATIONS AND IRREGULARITIES IN BAPTIST FAITH AND
PRACTICE.

Thomas Armitage, D.D., in a letter to the author, wrote December 31, 1886:

“No person living would be more thankful to you than myself if you will show by
unquestionable facts that since the Holy Spirit established the church at
Jerusalem, there has never been a time when that church did not repeat itself in
living and organic bodies of Christians who followed all its principles and
practices without addition or diminution. From early in the third century to
about the twelfth, there was scarcely a denomination of Christians in any land,
so far as we can now trace them by actual faith and practice, in all points
great and small, who would be held in full fellowship with the regular Baptist
churches of to-day, if they were living to-day.”

Prof. B.O. True, D.D., who occupies the chair of Church History in a leading
Theological Seminary, recently wrote the author:

“Do we mean, then, by Baptist churches merely those which hold scriptural views
on the subjects and acts of baptism or those who conform in all essential
matters of conduct, doctrine and polity to the will of Jesus Christ? I certainly
do not say that these were not Baptists (speaking of those claimed for Baptists
in past ages) and possibly Baptist churches.”

These statements, made by Dr. Armitage, contain the explanation for some
Baptists arraying themselves among the opponents of Church Perpetuity.

If Prof. True’s testing the churches, claimed in the succession line, by their
agreement “in all essential matters of conduct, doctrine and polity,” be the
true test, Baptists may agree that there is the Church Perpetuity.

Hence Prof. True’s statement of those claimed in the Perpetuity line: “I
certainly do not say that these were not Baptists and possibly Bapfist churches
I” But, by Dr. Armitage’s test, that those bodies claimed as Baptists, were “In
all points, great and small,” “without addition or diminution,” exactly what
Baptist churches now are and what they now hold “in full fellowship,” many
Baptist churches of the present as well as the past could not be fellowshipped
as Baptists by our best churches. For many of them, to some extent, are
Arminian; or feet washers; or have scarcely any church discipline; or disregard
the Lord’s day and command by meeting for worship “only once a month;” or
contribute nothing or near nothing to their pastors, and nothing or near nothing
to missions and education; and, in many cases, rarely look into their Bibles.
The truth is, the good brethren who doubt historical and Bible Church Perpetuity
because those churches of the past may not have been or were not “in all points,
great and small, without addition or diminution,” what the best Baptist churches
now are, would most vehemently oppose applying the same test to English and to a
large part of American Baptists of to-day. By their test, from the standpoint of
Baptists in the Southern States, Baptists in the Northern are not genuine
Baptist churches, because Baptists North, excepting that of the Campbellites,
recognize alien immersion as valid, vice versa. Since man, “in all points, great
and small, without addition or diminution,” is not “in doctrine or practice what
he ought to be,” the test, by which these good brethren hesitate to acknowledge
their Baptist brethren of the past ages as Baptist churches, would deny that we
are men and women. In case that history related that in case the Montanist, the
Donatist, the Novatian, the Paulician, and other churches in the perpetuity line
not only retained in their membership one who had his “father’s wife,” but that
they “were puffed up and had not rather mourned “at such a state of things; that
they had teachers among them who taught that “except ye be circumcised, ye
cannot be saved,” that we “are justified by the law,” that held “the doctrine of
the Nicolaitanes,” “the doctrine of Balaam,” and were taught and led by “that
woman Jezebel,” without rebuke of the church, with what a great noise would they
be disowned as Baptists. Yet, such were several apostolic churches. — Acts 15:1;
1 Corinthians 5:1-2; Galatians 5:4; Revelation 2:14-15; Revelation 2:22. In
reply to Dr. Armitage I proposed to find an error in apostolic and Baptist
churches of our own day equal to anyone he could find in those claimed to be in
the Baptist line of Church Perpetuity. Of course, the good brother did not
accept the challenge. That challenge I make to anyone. Yet weak hearted Baptist
brethren, as to Church. Perpetuity, are hesitating to own our own Baptist
ancestors because they may not have been or were not “in all points, great and
small, without addition or diminution,” “in doctrine and practice,” just what
the best Baptist churches now are! A very large part of the saints of the Old
Testament, tested by the lives of the best saints of to-day, were not God’s
people; and were they now living and living as they then lived, they could
retain membership in no orderly Baptist church.

Admitting that many of those in the line of Church Perpetuity could not be held
in “full fellowship” with our best churches now does not in the least militate
against their being regarded as real Baptist churches, since, as I have just
shown, the test of Dr. Armitage would cut off, as saints, the claim of the
saints of the Old Testament, of English and of many American Baptist churches of
to-day, as Baptist, and that its principle would cut off man’s claim to be man.
They were Baptist churches; but, like Old Testament saints, the churches of the
first centuries, and those of the present, they were colored by their times. By
the test of Dr. Armitage and of all other weak-kneed brethren on Church
Perpetuity, Baptist churches have no continuity from Christ to the present time,
and, but few now known as Baptist churches are really Baptist churches, But
dropping their test and applying the test by which we recognize, though not what
they ought to have been or what they ought to be, all churches of the first
century and the English and the American Baptist churches as genuine Baptist
churches, Baptist churches have a continuous existence from the first century to
the present. That all true Baptists, when the true test is applied, with
scarcely a dissenting voice among them, agree that Baptist churches have never
ceased to exist since the first century, I believe true. Thus, Dr. Armitage, in
the sentence I quoted from his letter to me, as much as says he believes in
Church Perpetuity:

“From early in the third century to about the twelfth, there was scarcely a
denomination of Christians in any land, in all points, great and small, who
would be held in full fellowship with the regular Baptist churches of to-day.”

“Scarcely,” as in the sentence: “If the righteous scarcely be saved” — 1 Peter
4:18 — implies that those churches, not-withstanding their incidental errors,
were essentially Baptist churches. At the expiration of from one to five
centuries from now — saying nothing of from ten to fifteen — to prove from a
historical contrast of the life and the practices of the churches of this
century with those of that time that, in: “doctrine, practice and polity” they
were not,: “in all points, great and small,” such as could be fellow-shipped by
each other, were they contemporaneous, would be an easy thing to do. In other
words, by Dr. Armitage’s test, by which he denies Baptist Church Perpetuity, the
superior life of the Baptist churches of a future age proves the same churches
of the past age were not Baptist churches.

I thank God that the history of the church shows such growth in the divine
knowledge and such improvement towards the high standard of perfect New
Testament life that future churches hesitate to own their own denomination of
the past. For the same cause, in the future world, to own we are the same
children of God that we were here will be yet more difficult. — See Ephesians
5:27.

Only by a man’s habits or regular course of life are we to know he is not a
child of God. Likewise, isolated, occasional and brief aberrations, even in
essential matters, can not alter the nature of a church or prove it not a
Baptist church. In the preceding remarks and Scripture references, in this
chapter, this is demonstrated. The Professor of History in the Campbellite
College, at Irvington, Indiana, in a letter to me, Oct. 9, 1893, says:

“Nor is it true that a church may not depart, in some measure, from the perfect
ideal church of the New Testament and still be styled a church. The Seven
Churches of Asia, held pernicious doctrines and yet were called by an Apostle,
churches.” In the fellowship of Baptist churches of our own day this is
recognized. An isolated and occasional error or temporary variation as to what
is Christian baptism, as to church polity, as to whether certain books of the
Bible are canonical, as to the exact relation of grace and works to salvation,
or as to being slightly dyed with an essentially modified form of Manichaeism,
is not a more radical departure from the New Testament than is incest, following
the error of Balaam, of Jezebel, substituting works for grace, or for the
doctrine of Christ substituting the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes. In other
words, as these errors of the churches of the first century invalidated them
only when they became their permanent character, so errors, even when
fundamental, in succeeding churches, cannot be allowed to invalidate their claim
to a place in the perpetuity line, save when they become permanently
characteristic. [Note: See Revelation 2:5; Revelation 3:3; Revelation 3:16;
Revelation 3:19.] Much less can we, for a moment, consider incidental errors in
the history of our churches as entitled to any bearing on the succession
question. To the question, then:

“Why recognize, as Baptist churches, sects in past ages which were guilty of
errors equal to affusion, infant baptism, other Pedobaptist errors and errors of
certain non-Pedobaptist bodies while you deny that Pedobaptist churches are New
Testament churches?” the answer is: For the same reason that we recognize the
churches of the first century, with all their errors — referred to in the
foregoing — as Baptist churches, while we deny the recognition to all present
contemporaneous nonBaptist churches. Pedobaptist and other non-Baptist churches
by faith, constitution and practice, are essentially and permanently anti-New
Testament. But, were we to admit much that is falsely laid to the charge of
those sects which are usually counted in the succession line, it would be true
of them only as greater errors were true of the churches of the first century,
referred to in the preceding part of this chapter. Like it was with the church
at Laodicea, Christ does not deny a church because of even a great temporary
error, but He spews it out only because it becomes characteristically and
permanently wrong. [Note: Compare Revelation 3:16; Revelation 2:5.]

I, therefore, conclude this chapter with this rule: Only by becoming
characteristically, fundamentally and permanently unscriptural, as to either or
both faith and practice, has a church ever thrown itself out of the Church
Perpetuity line, or can it ever do so.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON OPPONENTS TO BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 5.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON OPPONENTS TO BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY. THE MATERIAL ON
WHICH THE HISTORIAN MUST DEPEND. THE DEGREE OF PROOF NECESSARY.

1. The burden of proof is on opponents of Baptist Church Perpetuity.

Says Greenleaf, the standard authority on Evidence in all our courts of law:

“Presumptions are founded on the experience or permanency, of longer or shorter
duration in human affairs. When, therefore, the existence of a person, a
personal relation, or a state of things, is once established by proof, the law
presumes that the person, relation, or state of things continues to exist as
before, until the contrary is shown, or until a different presumption is raised,
from the nature of the subject in question. Thus, when the issue is upon the
life or death of a person, once shown to have been living, the burden of proof
lies upon him who asserts the death.” [Note: Greenleat on Evidence, vol. 1, p.
46, 47.] Whatley, an eminent authority on logic, in other words, makes the
statement just quoted from Greenleaf:

“There is a presumption in favor of every existing institution. No one is called
on (though he may find it advisable) to defend an existing institution, till
some argument is adduced against it.” [Note: Whatley’s Rhetoric, p. 138.]
Applying this law against infidelity, Whatley says:

“Christianity exists, and those who deny the divine origin attributed to it, are
bound to show some reasons for assigning to it a human origin.” [Note: Idem, p.
143.] With the law, announced by Greenleaf and Whatley, to govern this
investigation, those who claim the post-apostolic origin of Baptist churches are
bound to show “some reasons for assigning them a human origin.”

Since all modern institutions, whether secular or religious, have a historical
and well-known origin, whoever affirms the modern origin of Baptist churches
must show where, when and by whom they were originated. Since “the law presumes
that the person, relation, or state of things continues to exist as before,
until the contrary is shown, or until a different presumption is raised, from
the nature of the subject in question,” with a Baptist church existing in the
first and the present centuries, in the language of Whatley, “we are not called
upon to defend an existing institution” — Baptist churches — “until some
argument is adduced against it” — against their succession from apostolic
churches. Reader and author may, therefore, join J. Wheaton Smith, D.D., of
Philadelphia, in saying:

‘Why, sir, if between us and the apostolic age there yawned a fathomless abyss,
into whose silent darkness intervening history had fallen, with a Baptist church
on this side, and a New Testament on the other, we should boldly bridge the gulf
and look for the record of our birth among the hills of Galilee.” [Note: Letters
to Albert Barnes.] This book shoulders the burden of proof because Baptist
Church Perpetuity can be sustained without the help of this law of
investigation.

The material for proving Baptist Church Perpetuity:

A well-known historian says:

“But the pagan priests wrought so effectually on the fears of Diocletian, as to
obtain from him in 303, an edict to pull down the sanctuaries of Christians and
to burn their books and writings.”

Lecky, an infidel historian, says:

“No impartial reader can, I think, investigate the innumerable grotesque and
lying legends that were deliberately palmed upon mankind as undoubted facts,
during the whole course of the middle ages; or can observe the complete and
absolute incapacity the polemical historians of Catholicism so frequently
display, of conceiving anything good in their opponents’ ranks, and their
systematic suppression of whatever can tell against their cause, without
acknowledging how serious and inveterate has been the evil. Yet it is, I
believe, difficult to exaggerate the extent to which this moral defect exists in
most of the ancient and very much of the modern literature of Catholicism.”
[Note: History European Morals, vol. 2, p. 225.] Buckle, another infidel
historian, observes of these times:

“There was, properly speaking, no history — men not satisfied with the absence
of truth supplied its place with falsehood.” [Note: History Civilization, vol.
l, p. 222.] As an illustration, infidel writers and lecturers quote from an
anonymous writing, called “Synodycon,” to prove the silly — unsupported by a
shadow of history as well as contradicted by it — falsehood, that the New
Testament canon was settled by the Council of Nice, and that, too, by putting
all the books for which inspiration was claimed under the communion table,
promiscuously, and asking the Lord that the inspired records should get upon the
table, while the uninspired should remain beneath; and, that their prayer was
thus answered. A document made probably by some lying monk, no one knows by whom
or when. Its internal marks clearly prove that it could not have been written
earlier than the latter half of the ninth century. The False Decretals are
another illustration of the unscrupulous forgeries of Roman Catholic writers:

“About the middle of the ninth century a collection of canons and decretals
appeared in the Frankish Empire, which bore the venerable name of Isidore, and
embodied the so-called Isidoriana, but contained besides, also, a large number
of spurious decretals. This was composed of the Fifty Canones Apostt.,which was
followed by fifty-nine forged decretal letters, professedly written by the first
thirty popes from Clemens Romanus to Melchiades.” [Note: Kurtz’s Church History,
vol. 1, p. 340, old edition.]

These forgeries were laws in the Romish church, not called in question, until
the Magdeburg Centuriones exposed them, at the time of the Reformation.
Turrianus, a Jesuit, in 1572, entered the list as their defender, only to be
routed.

Take the history of the Paulicians, who figure so prominently in the Baptist
perpetuity line, as another illustration. Until recent discoveries — and they
are very limited —

“The only authorities whence we derive any knowledge of their sentiments are.
Photius and Peter Siculus, who wrote against them with great bitterness, and on
that account cannot be considered as worthy of entire credence.

Photius was archbishop of Constantinople, and died A.D. 890, and Peter Siculus,
a learned nobleman, died a few years later.” [Note: Baptist History by Cramp, p.
71-72.] Of the Paulicians, Jones, quoting Peter Siculus, says:

“To their excellent deeds the divine and orthodox emperors added this virtue,
that they ordered the Montanists and Manichaeans (by which epithets they chose
to stigmatize the Paulicians) to be capitally punished; and their books wherever
found to be committed to the flames also; that if any person was found to have
secreted them he was to be put to death and his goods confiscated.” [Note:
Jones’ Church History, p. 244.] Of another important section of the Baptist
perpetuity line says Dr. Armitage:

“Early Bohemian books were burnt on suspicion or brand of heresy, and some
individuals boasted that they had burnt 60,000 copies of their sacred
literature.” [Note: History of the Baptists, p. 32.] Of the German Baptists,
another important link in the chain, Armitage says:

“The Jesuits attempted to blot this book (‘Reckoning of Their Faith’) out of
existence and nearly succeeded. No copy is known to remain of the first edition,
and but two of the second, one of which is in the Baptist Seminary at Morgan
Park, Illinois.” [Note: Idem, p. 384.] “Their enemies distributed forged
articles of faith, called ‘Nicholasburg articles.’”[Note: Idem, p. 384.] Of the
early records of the Welsh Baptists — they are in the perpetuity line — Davis
says:

“Many of the Welsh writings, which were far more important than gold, were
destroyed about the year 285.” [Note: Davis’ History of the Welsh Baptists, p.
18.]

“Diocletian’s strict orders were to burn up every Christian, every meeting house
and every scrap of written paper belonging to the Christians, or anything that
gave any account of their rise and progress.” [Note: Idem, p. 9.]

Modern misrepresentations and slanders of Baptists illustrate the sifting
necessary in taking the accounts of ancient Baptists as given by their enemies.
Thus, in a letter from Leipsig, Germany, January 4, 1881, Prof. D.G. Lyon, of
Harvard University, wrote:

“Closely akin, indeed, another form of persecution, is the social ostracism
which Baptists here must endure. They are regarded as the lineal descendants of
the Anabaptists of Luther’s time, and the word ‘ Wiedertauser[Note: From wieder,
meaning again, anew, and tauser, meaning baptizers— Re-baptizers.] is the German
synonym for all that is low and evil. Persons who have social standing would
lose it by visiting Baptist churches. A lady who attended a Baptist
Sunday-school festival in Hanover, two weeks ago, was not willing for her name
to be known. She had heard that it was there customary to turn the gas off and
indulge in general kissing. In another place a lady whose husband intended
visiting a Baptist meeting was fearful lest he should be won to Baptist views.
When he persisted she warned him not to drink any of the coffee — which is
sometimes served — evidently supposing that the coffee contained some secret
winning power.”

If in scholarly Germany such slanders are now made and credited against the
Baptists, what of the ages of darkness preceding!

If the reader asks: “Why the diffiulty of tracing a succession of Baptist
churches from apostolic time to ourown?” in the destruction of records, the
forgeries and the slanders of Baptist enemies he has the answer to his question.

2. The degree of proof necessary to historically prove a continuity of Baptist
churches from the apostolic age to the present.

Prof. Haeckel, an infidel and an eminent scientist, says:

“What do we know of the essential nature of electricity, or the imponderables
generally, whose brief existence is not proved? What of ether, upon which our
science of light and optics is founded; and what of the atomic theory on which
our chemistry is built? We do not certainly know these things.”

Yet what scientific man would question these sciences? Who can prove the present
animal and vegetable world, by every link, to have descended from the creation?
Who can prove the facts, link by link, in the doctrine of the correlation of
forces and the conservation of energy? Who can prove his descent from Adam?
More: Who can prove his genealogy ten generations back — even five? Yet who
would deny these things until historically proven, year by year? Yet, strange to
say, the demand upon Baptists is not simply to show that there were Baptist
churches in the first century, and that we have glimpses of them as they
occasionally appear in the past centuries, but that unless we can clearly see
them in continuous line for the past eighteen centuries, they did not exist
unceasingly during that time!

What reasonable man questions the Biblical canon because of the scarcity of the
records for its history? Who denies the discovery of America because the time
and the name of its discoverer are unsettled?

Greenleaf says:

“In all human transactions, the highest degree of assurance to which we can
arrive, short of the evidences of our own senses, is that of probability.”
[Note: Test. of the Evangelist, p. 45.]

I, therefore, close this chapter with the remark. Strict conformity to this
rule, laid down by Greenleaf, which governs our courts of law, is all that the
Christian apologist asks of the infidel and all that this book asks of the
opponents of Baptist Church Perpetuity — not whether there is any room for
doubting Baptist Church Perpetuity, but whether there is a historical
“probability” of its being true.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: THE NEGATIVE PROOF.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 6.

THE NEGATIVE PROOF. BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY, FROM THE APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE
PRESENT, EVIDENT FROM BAPTIST OPPONENTS BEING UNABLE TO ASSIGN AND AGREE ON ANY
HUMAN FOUNDER AND POST- APOSTOLIC ORIGIN FOR BAPTIST CHURCHES.

Answering my questions: When, where and by whom was the first Baptist church
originated? I have the following from Roman Catholic bishops, priests and
Protestant scholars, given me A.D. 1893: The priest of Shreveport got out of the
difficulty by writing: “You have in Dallas two or three priests with valuable
libraries. Interview them.” — J. Gentille, Shreveport, La. The Archbishop of
Cincinnati wrote me:

“I cannot get time to answer all my letters. These questions cannot be answered
without explanations, which I have not time to make. And there is no reason why
you come to me for them. You have men near you — priests and others — who can do
it better than G.H. Elder.” With more judgment, many other Romanists dropped my
letters aside without so much as acknowledging their being received. With less
judgment than any of the others, the following Romanists attempted to answer:
The bishop of New Orleans, answered: “In Germany, called Anabaptists, by Nich.
Stork, 1522.”

Priest Jno. S. Murphy, of St. Patrick’s Church, Houston, Texas, answered:
“Stork, a short time after Luther proclaimed his heresies.”

It seems that the bishop of New Orleans, the Houston priest, and one or two
Protestant writers, when they answered, must have had the same Romish,
slanderous authority before them. But the Cincinnati arch-bishop, the Shreveport
priest, and other scholars, either knew nothing of that authority, did not
remember it, or did not think it reliable. Here comes the spokesman for Cardinal
Gibbons, who contradicts the New Orleans bishop and the Houston priest, and, by
his attempt to answer, without intending to do so, concedes the impossibility of
assigning the origin of Baptist churches to any man or age since the first
century. He writes:

“Cardinal’s residence, Baltimore, Md., Sept. 4, 1893. Your questions are not
possibly capable of exact and very positive answers. The Baptist church of the
present time seems to be the lineal descendant of the old Anabaptists of
Reformation times. They have their most probable origin in the Mennonites or
Dutch Baptists. These arose, as you know, after Martin Luther. The forefathers
emigrated into England in the time of Henry the VIII, and of Queen Elizabeth.
However, the first church known as the Baptist church seems to have been built
in London in 16C6. The year 1547 is about the earliest date set by reliable
historians for the existence of a Baptist denomination. As a sect they cannot go
back to a more remote date than that.

It is not sound history or good reasoning to try to connect them with an earlier
sect or heresy; though you may find some similarity between their teachings and
the teachings of the ancient Waldenses, or sects and controversies even
earlier.” — C.F. Thomas, Chancellor. The reader will notice how Cardinal
Gibbons, by using the word “seems” and such phrases as “not possibly capable of
an exact and very positive answer,” concedes that no man can confidently fix a
modern origin and on a modern originator for the Baptist church.

Turning to Protestant scholars, we find the same hesitancy and confusion. Prof.
H.C. Sheldon, Methodist, Professor of History in Boston University, evasively
wrote me:

“A portion of the so-called Anabaptists who appeared in Germany in the third and
the following decades of the sixteenth century, might be called Baptists.” The
Professor of Church History in the Gettysburg Lutheran Theological Seminary,
wrote me: The “Baptists were originated by ‘some Swiss, about 1523.’”

M. Scott, Professor of Church History in the Congregational Theological
Seminary, in Chicago, wrote:

“It arose in Zwickau, Saxony, A.D. 152C, under the Zwickau prophets, Storch and
others.”

A. C. Lewis, Professor of Church History in the Presbyterian Theological
Seminary, in Chicago, wrote me:

“I regret not being able to give you the categorical answers you seem to
anticipate The questions as put do not admit of short and categorical answers.
The first Baptist church was not formed or organized, but evolved out of
Anabaptist antecedents.”

Professor L.L. Paine, of the Congregational Theological Seminary, of Bangor,
Maine, wrote me:

“When Luther begun his reformation ‘there were so-called Ana-baptists. But the
Baptist denomination is later. The origin of the English Baptists is very
obscure. They appear in, the reign of Elizabeth, persecuted.’”

Professor John Clarke Ridpath, Methodist, of Du Paw University, evasively
answered:

“The answers of your questions turns upon the definition of the word Baptist.

... There is, therefore, a sense in which we should say that there was a Baptist
church in the age of Luther. There is another sense in which we should have to
deny the proposition. I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist church
as far back as A.D. 100, though without doubt there were Baptists then, as all
Christians were then Baptists.” The President of the Campbellite College, at
Bethany, Va., wrote me: “The Baptists appeared first in Switzerland.” Who
founded the first Baptist church that ever existed, “cannot be determined. There
were no Baptist churches before the beginning of the sixteenth century though
immersion was practiced from the beginning.”

P. Cobb, Pastor of the First Campbellite Church, in Springfield, Ill., wrote me:

“Was there a Baptist Church when Luther began his Reformation? Yes. In
Switzerland, 1523. Large churches fully organized in 1525-30 in South Germany.
Who originated the first Baptist church? I cannot tell.” The Pastor of the First
Campbellite Church, Ann Arbor, Mich., wrote me:

“Was there a Baptist Church when Luther began his Reformation? The Baptists had
large churches fully organized between 1520-30 in Switzerland.

They were persecuted by both Zwingli and the Romanists. Who originated the first
Baptist Church that ever existed? I do not know.” The Professor of Church
History in the Campbellite College, at Irvington, Ind., indorsed the following
quotation — which he inclosed with his letter — from the Journal and Messenger,
of Cincinnati:

“Baptists believe that the churches founded by the Apostles were essentially
Baptist. That they believed and practiced what Baptist churches believe and
practice to-day. They also believe that persons holding these essential
doctrines were found all along down through the centuries, from the days of the
apostles until now. But they do not fix upon any particular time when the first
Baptist church of modern times came into existence. They find that such churches
existed in Switzerland in the early part of the sixteenth century — the days of
Zwingli and Luther. They find that about the same time such churches were to be
found in Holland and the Low Countries; and that soon after they were to be
found in England. They find that as early as 1640-44 they were existing in
various parts of our own country, and that their founders for the most part came
from England or Wales. Not to speak of Roger Williams, it is found that Hanserd
Knollys founded a little Baptist church in New Hampshire; that a similar church
was founded in New Jersey, another in Pennsylvania and others in the Southern
States, in the seventeenth century. No one church in this country can be called
the mother church of Baptists.” His words are:

“As it did not seem possible to answer in the brief space of your card, the
reply has been delayed. In the meanwhile the enclosed extract from the Journal
and Messenger ... sets forth all the facts in the case, as given in church
history.”

D. Dean, Professor of Church History in Hiram College, wrote me:

‘Was there a Baptist church when Luther began his Reformation? No, not under
that name. Baptist churches sprang up simultaneously in different countries as
the result of the Reformation. I know of no Baptist churches calling themselves
Baptist churches prior to 1600.”

Professor Dean, in his letter, indorses the following statement:

“In Switzerland, in Germany, in Holland, it has been found impossible to decide
when Baptists first appeared, or which were the first churches of Baptists in
those lands ... and it is quite as difficult to decide the question about
Baptists in England.” Had I asked any of the foregoing scholars: Who was the
first President of the United States? When and by whom was the Methodist Church
originated? The Presbyterian? The Lutheran? The Campbellite? The Episcopal? In a
half dozen words they could have answered. Yet, in answer to when and by whom
Baptist churches originated, we see they spend more time refusing to attempt an
answer, than would be necessary to tell the name and the date of the origin of
Baptist churches if they were of modern and of human origin; or, they evade the
question; or, they annihilate each other’s answers by their contradictions of
each other; or, they admit the impossibility of answering my questions; or, they
in-directly, without intending it, concede Baptist churches are neither of human
nor of modern origin.

Closing these answers is the following, which I received when I received the
others just quoted, from Prof. Walker, Professor of Church History in Harvard
university:

“As you are probably aware, your questions relate to one of the most disputed
points in church history. Whether the Baptist movement can be traced back of the
Lutheran Reformation or not, is a question which has been much debated of late
... Some men of weight in church history, and notably the German scholar, Ludwig
Keller, of Munster, would find a continuous relation between the Anabaptists of
the Reformation period and individual sects like the Waldenses, and through them
a line of free and possibly evangelical churches, back to the early days of the
church.” In view of these statements of representative scholars — to which an
almost unlimited number can be added — that HISTORY DOES NOT ASSIGN TO BAPTIST
CHURCHES A HUMAN FOUNDER AND A POST-APOSTOLIC DATE OF ORIGIN IS SETTLED BEYOND
DOUBT.

Turning to other denominations, we see there was nothing with the distinctive
marks of the Romish church until many centuries after the first. The blasphemous
title of: “Universal Bishop” was conferred on Boniface the III, A.D. 606. This
was the origin of the Pope and of the Romish church — originated by the Emperor
Phocas. In A.D. 756 the Pope became temporal sovereign. [Note: Dowling’s History
of Humanism, p. 55.]

See Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. 2, p. 1651-1675, for a
most scholarly and conclusive demonstration of the post-apostolic origin of
Popery; and with it, vol. 1, p. 209, demonstrating the non-apostolic origin of
the hierarchy. [Note: That there was no hierarchy, of any kind, in the apostolic
churches, the reader may see by consulting Doddridge, Bloomfield, McKnight, the
Bible Commentary, Olshausen, Barnes on 1 Corinthians 5:4; 2 Corinthians 2:6; or
Jacobson on Acts 20:17-18; Titus 1:5; or Meyer Baumgarten, Olshausen, Doddridge,
Hackett on Acts 6:2-5, or Schaff- Herzog Encyclopedia, vol. 1, p. 294; Coleman’s
Apostolic and Primitive Church, Davidson’s Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 157;
Kurtz’s Church History, vol. 1, p. 67; Mosheim’s, vol. 1, chap, 2, sec. 8;
Schaff’s, vol. 1, p. 134; Wadington’s, p. 41; Neander’s Plant., tr. p. 149;
Fisher’s, p. 37; Smith’s Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, p. 310; Conybeare’s and
Howson’s Life and Epistles or Paul, vol. l, p. 465; Kitto’s Cyclopedia, article
Bishop; Ulman’s Reformers before the Reformation, vol. 1, p. 124; Thayer’s N. T.
Lex., p. 536. Nothing is more certain from exegesis, lexicography and history
than that the apostolic church was, in its government, Baptist.] By consulting
Bergier’s Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. 488; Dollinger’s First Age of the Church, pp.
318, 319; Darra’s History of the Christian Church, p. 350; Alzog’s Universal
History, p. 105, it will be seen that Baptists are Scriptural as to baptism
while Romanism is an apostacy. Thus, Darra concedes that in the first age of the
church, “baptism was conferred by immersion.” Dollinger concedes:

“Like that of St. John, by immersion of the whole person, which is the only
meaning of the New Testament word. A mere pouring or sprinkling was not thought
of. St. Paul made this immersion a symbol of burial with Christ, and the
emerging a sign of resurrection with Him to a new life.”

Dollinger further concedes:

“There is no proof or hint in the Now Testament that the Apostles baptized
infants or ordered them to be baptized. When the baptism of households is spoken
of it is left doubtful whether they contained children and whether, if so, they
were baptized.” [Note: First Age of the Church, pp. 318,319. These are Romish
historians.] The same thing is true of transubstantiation, confession to
priests, of giving only the bread to the laity, of purgatory, of penance, of
image worship, of burning candles before the altar, of every distinctive feature
of the Romish church. Thus, nothing is more certain than that, instead of the
Romish church having the Christian Succession, it has the succession of being
spewed out of Christ’s mouth. [Note: Revelation 3:15-18.] But Dr. Duncan says:

“That when Gesenius, the great German Hebraist and Biblical critic, first
learned what Baptist churches were, he exclaimed: ‘How exactly like the
primitive churches.’”[Note: Hist. Bap., p. 71.] The Lutheran church was
originated by Martin Luther, A.D. 1525, in Germany. The Episcopal, from a Romish
church, became the “Episcopal church,” A.D. 1534, by Henry the VIII forcing the
Romish clergy to proclaim him the “supreme head of the Church of England.” The
Presbyterian church was founded especially by Zwingli and John Calvin, A.D.
1516-1530, in Switzerland. The Methodist church was originated by John Wesley,
A.D. 1729, in England. The Campbellite church was brought into complete
existence by Alexander Campbell, A.D. 1829, in the United States of America.

These are but illustrations of the recent and human origin of all non-Catholic
churches, except the Baptist.

Except the Episcopal — and that, we have just seen, has not so much as a shadow
of claim to be in the Apostolic Church Perpetuity line — only the Baptist church
even pretends to be as old as Christianity. We have just demonstrated that
history points to no human or post-apostolic date of origin for Baptist
churches. In a case a millionaire dies and leaves his estate to a man whom the
will mentions as John Wilson, and, as having been born A.D. 1849, and there are,
and have been, but four of that name in all the world, three of whom were born
after 1849, that only the one born at that date can receive the estate is beyond
question. As history agrees that all churches, excepting the Baptist, came into
existence after the apostolic church was founded; and, as the apostolic church,
by its very purpose of organization, mission and direct promise of the
Scriptures, is assured of preservation until the second coming of Christ, that
the Baptist is the only one that has the Church Perpetuity is certainly true.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: PERPETUITY OF BAPTIST PRINCIPLES FROM THE APOSTOLIC AGE
========================================================================

CHAPTER 7.

IN THE PERPETUITY OF BAPTIST PRINCIPLES FROM THE APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE PRESENT IS
NECESSARILY THE SAME PERPETUITY OF BAPTIST CHURCHES.

Prof. Albert H. Newman, D.D., December 13, 1893, wrote me:

“The probability is that there never was a time when Christians of a decidedly
evangelical type, possessing many of the features of the Baptists, and with
organizations closely resembling Baptist churches, did not exist. There are
times, however, when we can find no record of such churches. We can, I think,
say with all confidence that there has been an unbroken succession of
evangelical life. Beyond this I do not care to go.”

And, alluding to my question: “Has there ever been a time since the first
century when there was no genuine Baptist church on earth?” Dr. Newman closes
this statement in the next sentence: “But I should be very far from making the
strong assertion which you suggest.” The Journal and Messenger, a leading
Baptist paper, of Baptists and their doctrines, says:

“They believe that persons holding these essential doctrines are found all along
down through the centuries, from the days of the apostles until now.”

Dr. Armitage’s title page to his history reads: “A history of the Baptists
traced by Their Vital Principles and Practices from the time of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ to the year 1886.” This concedes a perpetuity of “Baptists”
who practiced “Baptist Principles from the time of our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ to the year 1886” — unless language is meaningless. But what are “Baptist
Principles” and “Practices,” as practiced by “Baptists,” but church organization
and church work — preaching, observing “the ordinances,” administering
discipline — church life? What more does this book affirm? To whose book does
Dr. Armitage’s title page better belong — to his, that denies the truth of his
title page, or to mine, which avows it?

J. L.M. Curry, LL. D., in his Introduction to Dr. Armitage’s History, well says:

“Believers came together into the primitive churches by an elective affinity, an
inwrought spiritual aptitude and capacity; and constituted a brotherhood of the
baptized, a holy fellowship of the redeemed, a community of regenerated men and
women, united to one another by the same animating spirit. A New Testament
church, the apostolic model, was a result, a product, an evolution from
antecedent facts and principles.” [Note: p.8.] Dr. Curry says: “Things will
follow tendencies.”[Note: Idem, p. 11.]

If believers thus came together in apostolic times, into New Testament churches,
and “things follow their tendencies,” as reasonably affirm that while the
“tendency” of the gospel in apostolic times was to make churches, yet, in the
dark ages, it was the reverse. Only by imagining ourselves in Hafed’s chance
world “can we imagine that the “principles and practices” and their Christ,
which produced gospel churches in the first century, have not produced them ever
since. The Campbellite boasts of great faith in the power of the gospel. Yet, to
make room for Mr. Campbell’s church, he denies that the gospel produced New
Testament churches during the dark ages. Who really believes in the power of the
gospel — the Baptist who boldly affirms that so great is the power of the gospel
that from the first to the present century it has perpetuated gospel churches,
or the Campbellite who denies this? Talk about Perpetuity of Baptist “principles
and practices” or of Baptists without Perpetuity of Baptist churches — without
Baptists to observe and propagate them! As well talk about Christian principles
and practices perpetuated by Jews, Masonic principles and practices by
non-Masons, or life without corresponding form or appearance, as to talk about
the Perpetuity of “Baptist principles and practices” without Baptist churches to
observe these “practices and principles.” Or, as well speak of Masons,
Oddfellows, Republicans, Democrats or Romanists continuing without organization,
as to speak of Baptists continuing during the dark ages without churches. Or, as
the principles and the practices of physicians inevitably imply physicians; of
lawyers, lawyers; of engineers, engineers; of Buddhists, Buddhists; of
Mohammedans, Mohammedans; of Mormons, Mormons; of Lutherans, Lutherans; of
Episcopalians, Episcopalians; of Methodists, Methodists; of
Campbellites,Campbellites; of Presbyterians, Presbyterians; so, “the principles
and the practices of Baptists from the time of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
to the year 1886,” inevitably demand the existence of Baptist churches during
the same period. Consequently, in response to a complimentary copy of Bro.
Armitage’s Baptist History which the publishers presented me as soon as it was
published, soliciting a recommendation, I gave L a recommendation, commending it
for “much valuable material and as also a refutation of the erroneous theory of
its author,” viz.; that there has not been a Perpetuity of Baptist churches with
a perpetuity of their “principles and practices.” In the name of all reason and
experience, what are people thinking about when they say: “I believe in the
Perpetuity of Baptist principles and practices from the apostolic age to the
present, but I am not so certain as to the same Perpetuity of Baptist churches!”
Fray, do stop and answer the question: Whom do we now find believing and
practicing the Baptist principles but Baptists?

Baptist churches? “Baptist principles and practices” being preaching, baptizing,
observing the Lord’s Supper and administering church discipline, they cannot be
observed save in Baptist church organization. The moment they are done by
individuals who are not in scriptural churches, by thus denying the necessity of
Baptist churches, they cease to be “Baptist,” thereby becoming subversive of New
Testament church order. I therefore conclude this chapter by saying: “The
principles and the practices of Baptists” being conceded to have existed — a
belief of all true Baptists who are scholars — during the past 1800 years, all
the demands of the bottomless pit cannot shake my faith in the truth that there
has been the same Perpetuity of Baptist churches.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: THE MONTANISTS.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 8. THE MONTANISTS. In historic times Phrygia comprised the greater part
of Asia Minor. “Montanism” appeared there about the middle of the second
century.

Montanism enrolled its hosts and was one of the greatest Christian influences
throughout the early Christian centuries. As there was at the time, when
Montanism arose, no essential departure from the faith in the action, the
subjects of Baptism, church government or doctrine, the Montanists, on these
points, were Baptists. Of the Montanists, Armitage says:

“Tertullian and the Montanists denied that baptism was the channel of grace.”
[Note: Armltage’s Hist. of the Bap., p. 177.]

Kurtz says:

“Its leading characteristics were a new order of ecstatic prophets, with
somnambulistic visions and new relations; a grossly literal interpretation of
scriptural predictions; a fanatical millenarianism; a self-confident ascetecism;
an excessive rigor in ecclesiastical discipline. Thus, without dissenting from
the doctrinal statements of the church, Montanism sought to reform its practice.
In opposition to the false universalism of the Gnostics, the Montanists insisted
that Christianity alone, and not heathenism, contained the truth.” [Note:
Kurtz’s Ch. Hist. vol. 1, p. 131.]

Schaff says:

“Montanism was not originally a departure from the faith, but a morbid
overestimating of the practical morality of the early church.” [Note: Schaff’s
Hist. Chr. Ch.vol. 1, p. 302.] Kurtz further says:

“Still their moral earnestness and zeal against wordliness and heirarchism and
false spiritualism rendered important service to the church, both in the way of
admonition and warning.” [Note: Idem, p. 131.] Wadington concedes:

“Another cause of the temporary fame of the Montanists was the severity of the
morality inculcated by them.” [Note: Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p. 78.] Dorner says
of the Montanists:

“This is a form of vigor and widely influential significance. In it the original
Christian feeling, the Christian people, the democratic basis of the church
predominated against the gnostic and against the hierarchal element.”

Against “Gnostocism, Montanism was the shyest and most self-sufficient” [Note:
Dorner’s Person of Christ, vol. l, p. 256.] Gnostocism was, at that time, the
great and dangerous enemy of true Christianity.

Another well-known historian says:

“Among those hostile to the Alexandrian school, is to be numbered Montanus. His
aim evidently was to maintain or to restore the scriptural simplicity, nature
and character of the religion of the New Testament with a constant reliance on
the promise of the Holy Spirit.”

Guericke’s crediting the statement, that the Montanists did not believe in any
visible church, is refuted by Tertullian’s statements on baptism and by their
well-known character. It is discredited by Schaff and other historians. [Note:
See Schaff’s Hist. Chr. Ch. vol. l, pp. 364, 365; Armiltage’s Bap. Hist. p.176.]
Thus Schaff says of the Montanists: “Infant baptism only it seems to have
rejected.”

Guericke concedes that “they received the general truths of Christianity, as
understood by the universal church.” [Note: Guericke’s Ch Hist., vol. 1, pp.
191-93.]

Admit that the Montanists did have women teachers among them, and that some of
them practiced trine immersion, since the position of women in the New Testament
Church is a disputed point, and since both it and trine immersion are only an
irregularity, neither of which is as bad as open communion, feet washing and
non-cooperation in missions, they cannot invalidate those churches as New
Testament churches. [Here read in Chapter IV of this book.] Their millenarian
views, while they may have been extravagant, could but class them with the
church of Thessalonica. [Note: See 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3.]

Schaff charges the Montanists with believing in the celibacy of the clergy. But
he admits they had no law or rule that forbade the marriage of ministers; and
then concedes there are two sides to even the charge of discouraging their
marriage. The explanation probably is: as owing to the persecutions of the
Christians, Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, rather favored celibacy as a
temporary thing, so did the Montanists as to their ministers. The charge of
believing in the continuance of inspiration, of ecstacies, inward experiences
and that their leader claimed to be the Holy Spirit, are much what Campbellites
charge against the Baptists of our age.

Mosheim took up these charges and credited Montanus, their great leader, with
calling himself the Comforter. But his translator, in a foot note, corrects him
and says: “Those are undoubtedly mistaken who have asserted that Montanus gave
himself out that he was the Holy Ghost.” [Note: McLean’s Note, p. 188, vol. l,
of Mosheim’s Ch. Hist.] Hase says of Tertullian, one of the great Montanist
leaders:

“He placed a high estimate upon that consciousness of God, which he contended
might be found in the depths of every soul, but he was fond of contrasting with
proud irony the foolishness of the gospel with the wordly wisdom of his
contemporaries, and the incredibility of the divine miracles with ordinary
understanding of the world. His writings are partly controversial ... and partly
devotional. They are, however, so written that the devotional element constantly
appears in the former, and the polemic in the latter, in behalf of strict
morality and discipline.” [Note: Hase’s Hist. Chr. Ch., p. 88.] Hase says of
Tertullian’s writings:

“The Montanistic spirit is perceptible in them all, but in the earliest of them
it holds up the simple, noble nature of Christian morality in opposition merely
to an effeminate form of civilization, gradually it proceeds to severer demands,
and shows an increasing consciousness of its pneumatic nature in opposition to
those who were merely physical Christians; and, finally it was especially
hostile to the Romish Church, in proportion as the latter ceased to favor
Montanism. For it was not so much Tertullian as the Roman bishop who changed his
views with reference to that system ... Tertullian, to whom the Paraclete was
rather a restorer of apostolic order than an innovator, and religious ecstacy
was rather a theory than a principle, became so prominent that he was looked
upon as the model for Latin theology. This theology was rather disinclined to
philosophical theories respecting divine things; it spoke of Athens and the
Academy as irreconcilable with Jerusalem and the church and turned its whole
attention to questions respecting the condition of the church, and things
essential to salvation.” [Note: P.701.] Of Tertullian, Moller says:

“To him the very substance of the church was the Holy Spirit and by no means the
Episcopacy whose right to wield the power of the keys he rejected.” [Note:
Schaff-Herzog Ency., vol. 2, p. 1562.] Thus, in Church Government they were
Baptists. In the following, we have this yet more explained: Says Neander:

“Montanism set up a church of the Spirit, consisting of spirateles homines in
opposition to the prevailing outward view of that institution. Tertullian says:
‘The church, in the proper and prominent sense, is the Holy Spirit in which the
Three are One, — and next, the whole community of those who are agreed in this
faith (that God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are One,) is called
after its founder and consecrator, (the Holy Spirit,) the church. [Note: Nam et
ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est Spiritis, in quo est trinitas unius
divinitatis. Illam ecclesiam congregat, quam Dominus in tribus posuit, (where
two or three are gathered together in his name) atque ita exiude etiam numerus,
qui in hanc fidem conspiraverint ecclisae ab auctore et conscratore consetur. L.
C.] The Catholic point of view, expresses itself in this — viz., that the idea
of the church is put first, and by this very position of it, made outward; next,
the agency of the Holy Spirit is represented as conditioned by it, and hence
derived through this mediation. Montanism, on the other hand, like
Protestantism, places the Holy Spirit first, and considers the Holy Spirit
first, and considers the church as that which is only derived. [Note: Christian
reader; decide which of these. In the light of the Bible, Is the true church!]
... The gifts of the Spirit were to be dispensed to Christians of every
condition and sex, without distinction They were thus led to give prominence
once mare to the idea of the dignity of the universal Christian calling, of the
priestly dignity of all Christians, which had been in a measure suppressed.”
[Note: Neander’s Hist. Chr. Ch., vol. 1, pp. 518.61B.] Tertullian defines the
ecstatic condition thus:

“In spiritu homo constitutus, praesertim cum gloriam Dei conspicit, vel cum per
ipsum Deus loquitor, necesse est excidat sensu, obumbratus scilicit virtute
divina” — probably meaning only what David meant, when he said: “my cup runneth
over;” or, as the poet, in describing the ecstacy of the young convert — “on the
wings of a dove I was carried above.”

Admitting the Montanists did run to the extreme as to visions and prophecies
does not affect the validity of their churches, for Neander, describing the
visions of one of their prophets, says:

“The matter of her visions corresponded to what she had just heard read out of
the Holy Scriptures, what was said in the Psalms that had been sung, the prayers
that had been offered;” there are things, in our best churches, more harmful
than that extreme. [Note: Tertulllan thus narrates this: “Jam vero prouet
scrlpturae leguntur, aut Psalmi canuntur, aut allocutiones proferuntur, aut
petitiones delegantur, ita inde materiae visionibus subministrantur.”
Translated; But truly according as the Scriptures are read, or Psalms are sung,
or addresses are delivered, or prayers are offered, thence, from that medium are
materials by which we are assisted by visions.]

Gieseler admits that “the Montanists had not an uninterrupted series of
prophets.” [Note: Gleseler’s Bed. Hist., vol. 1, p. 141.] Thus, whatever was
this extreme, it was not permanent or continuous.

Armitage:

“The one prime idea held by the Montanists in common with Baptists, and in
distinction to the churches of the third century was, that the membership of the
churches should be confined to purely regenerate persons; and that a spiritual
life and discipline should be maintained without any affiliation with the
authority of the State. Exterior church organization and the efficacy of the
ordinances did not meet their idea of Gospel church existence without the
indwelling Spirit of Christ, not in the bishops alone, but in all Christians.
For this reason Montanus was charged with assuming to be the Holy Spirit, which
was simply a slander.” [Note: Hist. Bap., p. 175.]

Yet, from superficial examination, Armitage gives too much importance to the
charge of “visions” and “revelations” against them. The sum of these answers I
give in the words of one of the highest authorities in church history:

Says Wm. R. Williams, D.D.

“The Comte de Champagny, who has written, though an ultramontane Catholic, so
eloquently and eruditely on the early history of Christianity and the collision
of it with Judaism on the one side and Paganism on the other side, has said of
the Montanists, that it was hard to find any doctrinal errors in their views;
that they were rather like Jansenists or Methodists in their high views of
religious emotion and experience. They were accused of claiming inspiration,
when they intended, probably only, like the early followers of Cameron among the
Covenanters, or Wesley among the English Methodists, the true experience of
God’s work in the individual soul.” [Note: Williams’ Lect. Bap. Hist., p. 129.]
Again, says Dr. Williams, of the Montanists:

“They insisted much upon the power of the Spirit, as the great conservator and
guardian of the life of the Christian church. Now, as far back as the days of
Montanism, this was offensive to Christian churches, which became, under the
power of wealth and fashion, secularized and corrupted.” [Note: Idem, pp.
118,129.] Says Dr. Dorner:

“Montanism may be styled a democratic reaction on the part of the members of the
church, asserting their universal prophetic and priestly rank against the
concentration of ecclesiastical dignities and rights in the episcopate.”

“In this aspect, Montanism was a reaction of the substantial, real principle
against the formal unity of the episcopate, which entrusted to the unworthy, and
those who were destitute of the Spirit, power over those who were filled with
the Spirit.” [Note: Dorner’s Per. of Christ, vol. 1, p. 363.] Again, says
Dorner:

“If now Montanism implicitly reproached the church with hitherto possessing too
little of the Holy Ghost, it is evident that, dogmatically viewed, the charge
implies, that however much the church might have spoken concerning the Son, or
the Logos, and the Father, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit had been hitherto
kept in the back-ground.” [Note: Idem, p. 398.] The central power of Montanism
was “ρήμα εὶμι καὶ πνευμα καὶ δύναμις” — I am word and spirit and power, which
it represented as its conception of the Holy Spirit in His relation to the
church. The character of the Montanists and their being the original church is
thus clear.

Moller says:

“But Montanism was, nevertheless, not a new form of Christianity; nor were the
Montanists a new sect. On the contrary, Montanism was simply a reaction of the
old, the primitive church, against the obvious tendency of the day, to strike a
bargain with the world and arrange herself comfortably in it.” [Note: Schaff
Herzog Ency., vol. 2, p. 1562.] That the Montanist churches were Baptist
churches is the only legitimate conclusion from their comparison with the facts
in this chapter.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: THE NOVATIANS.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 9.

THE NOVATIANS.

Says W.W. Everts, Jr.:

“A century later than Montanus, 250 A.D., there was converted at Rome, on what
seemed his dying bed, and amid severe conflicts, a distinguished Pagan
philosopher, named Novatian. The genuineness of this conversion was attested,
not only by his learned treatises — which, in Neander’s estimation, rank him as
the most distinguished of the early theologians of Rome — but, by his life of
stern self-denial and his death by martyrdom. He renewed the moral protest of
Montanus.” [Note: Baptist Layman’s Book, p. 17.] The Novatians extended
throughout:

“the Roman Empire, from Armenia to Numedia, in Spain. They were especially
strong in Phrygeia, where the Montanists fused with them, and in the great
cities, Constantinople, Alexandria, Carthage and Rome.” [Note: Idem, p. 17.]

“The occasion of the schism was the election of Cornelius bishop of Rome.
Novatian was elected by a minority who objected to the lax discipline favored by
Cornelius.” [Note: Idem, p. 17.]

Scriptural church discipline, consecrated church membership and church purity,
being the issues between Cornelius and Novatian, in their candidacy for the
pastorate of the church of Rome, the election of Cornelius was equivalent to a
repudiation, by the majority of that church, of these marks of a scriptural
Church. There being no other course left, the scriptural minority of that
church, led by Novatian, withdrew fellowship from the unscriptural majority. In
Baptist church life this has often since been done. Baptist councils and civil
courts, whenever they have been called upon to decide which is the original
church, have invariably decided it is that party which stands upon the original
platform. [Note: The action of Baptist councils, in all cases. Is but advisory.
That of Civil courts only to protect the original body in its property rights.]
The charge that the division was caused by Novatian’s ambition and jealousy is
the attempt of Cornelius to shield himself and his apostate party.

(1.) From the great issue which historians agree to have divided them, the
charge is evidently false.

(2.) Historians exonerate Novatian and his people from this charge. Instead of
jealousy being the ground on which Novatian and his people withdrew fellowship
from Cornelius and his party the biographer of Socrates, the church historian of
the fourth century, who did not belong to the Novatians, says:

“Socrates takes no notice whatever of the declaration of Cornelius, that
Novatian separated from ecclesiastical communion through jealousy, because he
had not been elected bishop; that he managed to get himself elected by three
prelates. whose reason had been clouded by the fumes of wine, and that pardon
granted to those who sacrificed to idols during the persecution excited by
Decius against the church was buta pretext for his schism.” [Note: p, 9,10, of
the Life of Socrates, in Socrates’ Eccl. Hist.]

Says Schaff: “Novatian against his will was Chosen bishop by the opposition.”
[Note: Schaff’s Hist. Chr. Ch , vol. l, p. 450.] Of Cornelius’ letter, whence
these charges against Novatian are mainly gathered, Neander says:

“Not less wanting in, good sense than unworthy of a Christian.” [Note: Meander’s
Hist. Chr. Ch., vol. 1, p. 238,239.]

Neander says:

“According to the accusation of this passionate opponent we must, indeed,
suppose at the outset he was striving, from motives of ambition, after the
episcopal dignity, and was thence trying to throw himself at the head of a party
... We have the less reasons to doubt that it was his zeal for the more rigid
principles which inspired Novatian from the first, because they accorded so
perfectly with his character. The accusations of his opponents should not be
suffered to embarrass us; for it is the usual way with the logical polemics to
trace schisms and heresies to some untoward, unhallowed motive, even when there
is no evidence at all that any such motive exists. Novatian had on some occasion
solemnly declared, after the Roman bishopric was vacated by the death of Fabian,
that he would not be a candidate for the Episcopal dignity — an office to which,
perhaps, on account of the high respect entertained for him by a large portion
of the community he might easily have attained. But he said he had no longing
for that office. We have no reason, with Bishop Cornelius, to accuse Novatian in
this case with falsehood. He could say this with perfect sincerity; he, the
quiet, loving ascetic, the theologian, glad to be left undisturbed to his
dogmatic speculations, surely had no wish to burden himself with an office so
overwhelmed with cares as that of a Roman bishop had already become. Novatian
was only contending for what he conceived to be the purity of the church and
against the decline of discipline, without wishing or seeking for anything
beside. Settled in his own convictions, zealous in the defence of them, but
averse, by natural disposition, to everything that savored of boisterous,
outward activity, he was, against his own will, made the head of a party by
those who agreed with him in principles, and compelled by them to assume the
episcopal dignity. In this regard he could say with truth, in his letter to
Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, that he had been carried on against his will”
[Note: Neander’s Hist. Chr. Ch., vol. 1, pp. 239, 241.] To the charge that
Novatian never was immersed, [Note: Eusebius thus quotes Cornelius’ slanderous
letter. In which Novatlan’s baptism Is mentioned; “Who aided by the exorcists,
when attacked with an obstinate disease, and being supposed at the point of
death, was baptized by aspersion, in the bed in which he lay; if, indeed, it be
proper to say that one like him did receive baptism.” — Eusebius’ Eccl. Hist.,
p. 6, chap. 43.] the reply is

(1.) His pouring was intended to be so pro-fuse as to cover him in his sick bed
— to be an immersion. “Baptizo” signifies that its object shall be covered and
has nothing to do with how that covering is effected. While there may be a
debatable question as to whether they really got Novatian covered with water,
the intent being immersion as near as possible is clear from the Greek record.
[Note: πεрιхνθεις, by which Novatian’s baptism is mentioned, is from περı which
means “around, about,” and from хεω, to “pour, flow, stream.” Perikutheis,
therefore, should be here rendered, “ poured around,” with the idea of intended
covering over, as when, on a dam giving way, the waters overflow and bury all
before them— baptizing by pouring. Thus Liddell and Scott define perikrino, “to
plaster over;” perikusos, “covered with gold;” perikusis, “a pouring round, or
over;” perikuteerion, “a vessel for pouring over,” pericuteerios, “pouring round
about or over, bathing,” perikonnumi, “to heap around with earth.” These uses of
peri with keo and its family, clearly show that Novation’s pouring was Intended
to cover him, as near as could be done. Had it been the intention to only pour
on him, as affusion for baptism does, Cornelius would certainly have used the
word epikutheis Instead of perikutheis. See Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon on
epikeo, epikusis, etc.]

(2.) Considering that immersion was the universally recognized law and custom at
that time, as he recovered, if they did not get him covered in baptism at first,
there is reason to believe that on his recovery he was baptized. Vales states
that clinics, when they recovered, were required to go to the bishop to supply
what was wanting in that baptism. [Note: Armitage, p. 178.] That Novatian did
not so do may be only another slander against him. Considering the extent to
which he was slandered, to believe that on his recovery he was baptized, is much
easier than to believe that, against the rule, the custom and the Scriptures,
which were for only immersion, he was content with his clinic baptism and that
so many hundreds of ministers and churches followed his leadership when he was
unbaptized, and that, too, without protesting against his imperfect baptism.

(3.) Admit all that Baptists opponents claim, viz.: that he never was, in any
way, immersed, as the Novatians were not founded by him and did not get their
baptism from him, all it proves is, that one Baptist minister, among hundreds,
from a failure in the attempt to cover him with water, was never baptized. But,
as Novatian baptized by the authority of immersionist churches, his baptisms
were all valid, though the churches were censurable for allowing him to baptize
while himself imperfectly baptized. Should it, then, be conceded to Baptist
opponents that Novatian was imperfectedly baptized, it proves but a censurable
irregularity, in but one case, in no way invalidating any church claim. As to
Novatian and his people believing in baptismal regeneration, the charge rests on
Cornelius’ slanderous account of his baptism. In fact, Cornelius does not say
Novatian was baptized to save his soul. He says he was baptized on what was, at
the time of his baptism, thought to be his death bed. Death bed baptisms are as
reliable as death bed conversions. The Novatian high conception of spiritual
life and the consequent battle of the Novatians for a spiritual church are
utterly incompatible with the charge that Novatian and his people believed in
water salvation. No party has ever contended for a scripturally regenerate
church while holding to baptismal regeneration.

Hippolytus has been quoted as a Novatian and as proving the Novatians believed
in baptismal salvation. But Armitage says [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 184.]
Hippolytus “is supposed to have suffered martyrdom by drowning in the Tiber,
A.D. 235-239.” Hase [Note: Hase’s Hist. Chr. Ch., p. 700.] says: “Hippolytus
could hardly have lived to witness the Novatian schism.” The Novatian church
government was substantially that of Baptists of our own time. Bishop —
episcopos — then meant what it meant in the first churches and what it now means
with Baptists — a pastor, superintending the church of which he was pastor.
Prelatical bishops in the Novatian age were just sprouting — not sufficiently
adopted to be a characteristic of any large body of Christians. That the bishop
of Rome was not a prelatical bishop is evident from the fact that Novatian was a
bishop by an ordination, which gave to him no prelatical charge. Says Cornelius:

“When he was converted he was honored by the presbytery, and that by the power
of the bishop [the pastor] pacing his hand upon him [according him] to the order
of bishops.” [Note: Eusebius’ Eccl. Hist., p. 5, ch. 43.] Having by this no
charge he became a candidate for pastor of the church of Rome. Of this age,
Mosheim says:

“But it is to be carefully observed, that even those who, with Cyprian,
attributed this pre-eminence to the Roman prelate, insisted at the same time,
with the utmost warmth, upon the equality, in point of dignity and authority,
that subsisted among all the members of the episcopal order. In consequence of
this opinion of an equality among all Christian bishops, they rejected, with
contempt, the judgment of the bishop of Rome, when they found it ill-founded or
unjust, and followed their own sense of things with a perfect independence.”
[Note: Mosheim’s Church History, cent. 3, part 2, sec. 2.] To the charge that
the Novatians would never restore to church membership one who had been excluded
for a gross offence, even on his repentance: Admitting this true, it only proves
an error of discipline, not so bad as when easily proved guilty, to retain such
— a thing often now done, and even done in Baptist churches. To the charge that
the Novatians held there was no forgiveness from God for such, the answer is,

They taught no such thing.

Even if they did teach it, it is no worse than, by retaining them in the church,
to teach they are on the road to heaven.

Says Adolf Harnack, one of the most eminent and critical historians:

“Down to 220, idolatry, adultery, fornication and murder, were punished in the
Catholic church by formal excommunication. This practice was first broken by the
peculiar power which was ascribed to the confessors, in accordance with an
archaic idea which lived in the end of the third century, and then by an edict
of Pope Calixtus I., which spoke of re-admittance into the church as a
possibility. The edict caused the schism of Hippolytus; but as the schism was
healed towards the middle of the third century, it seems probable that the
successors of Calixtus returned to the old, more rigorous practice. At all
events, it must be observed that the now and milder views were applied only to
the sins of the flesh. As none, who in the peaceful period, between 220 and 250,
relapsed into Paganism, was likely to ask for readmittance into the Christian
church, idolatry was left entirely out of the consideration. But with the
outbreak of the Decian persecution a great change took place. The number of the
lapsed became so great that the very existence of the congregation was
endangered ... Novatian was not from principle opposed to the re-admittance of
the lapsed ... It is simply a stubbornly repeated calumny that Novatian or his
party ever declared penitence to be of no use ... Cyprian’s argument was, that
since salvation could be obtained only through the church, every one who was
definitely severed from her must forever perish. Consequently, to refuse
communion of the church to one who had definitely separated himself from the
church, would be an anticipation of the judgment of God; while the re-admittance
of a lapsus could in no wise prevent God from refusing him salvation. On the
other side, when Novatian considered it the right and duty of the church to
exclude forever all heavy sinners, and denied her power to give absolution to
the idolater, it is apparent that his idea of the church, of the right of the
priest, in short, his idea of the power of the keys is another than that held by
his adversaries. The church is to him not the ‘conditio sine qua non,’ for
salvation is an institution educating mankind for salvation, but the
congregation of saints, whose very existence is endangered if there is one
single heavy sinner among its members. To him the constitution of the church,
the distinction between laity and clergy, the connection with the clergy, are
questions of secondary importance. The one question of primary importance is to
be a saint in the communion of saints. It is unquestionable that the Novatians
retained many most valuable remnants of old traditions, and their idea of the
church as a communion of the saints corresponds exactly to the idea prevalent in
the first days of Christendom.” [Note: Schaff-Herzog Ency., vol 2, pp. l670,
1671.]

Socrates says that Novatian exhorted those who were excluded from the church for
the gross offence of being traitors to the faith,: “to repentance, leaving the
pardoning of their offence to God, who has the power to forgive all sin.” [Note:
Socrates’ Eccl. Hist., p. 248.]

Neander says:

“Novatian, too, declared the fallen brethren must be cared for and exhorted to
repentance. He, too, acknowledged God’s mercy toward sinners, and allowed it
right to recommend the fallen to that mercy; but that men could once more surely
announce to them that forgiveness of sins they had trifled away, this he was
unwilling to concede, because he could find no objective ground for such
confidence.” [Note: Neander’s Hist. Chr. Ch., vol. 1, p. 246.] Of course,
Baptists know how to regard Harnack’s succeeding statement, that such discipline
was: “an open injustice,” and that “the idea of the church as a community of
saints could not fail to end in either miserable delusions, or in bursting
asunder the whole existing Christendom.”

Says Hase:

“Novatian was a prudent advocate of the faith generally embraced in the church.
The Novatians excluded from the church all who had been guilty of deadly sins
[Note: A duty that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, makes obligatory on churches in
all ages.] and taught, that while such should be exhorted to repentance and hope
of divine mercy, no prospect should be held out to them that they should ever be
re-admitted to a church [Note: By 2 Corinthians 2:6-10, this an error. But not
as disastrous to the life of the church as disregard to 1 Corinthians 6:5,— a
sin in our churches now. The extreme corruption and aggravation of offenders in
Novatian’s time may be some excuse for this severity.] which should consist of
saints and purified persons (καθαροί)” [Note: Hase’s Hist. Chr. Ch., p. 67.]

Much of the trouble was to avoid persecution. Thousands of unregenerate church
members in time of persecution denied Christ; then, when persecution was over,
to get back into the church, would come up with a whining confession. Thus the
church was greatly scandalized, as this led on to greater disregard of church
obligations. Hence, says Socrates:

“Those who took pleasure in sin, encouraged by the license thus granted them,
took occasion from it to revel in every species of criminality.” [Note:
Socrates’ Eccl. Hist., b. 4, ch. 28, p. 248.]

Robinson says:

“The case is briefly this: Novatian was an elder in the Church of Rome. He was a
man of extensive learning, and held the same doctrine [Note: The Scriptures
include all the Christian belief and practice as doctrine. But, since the latter
part of the eighteenth century, the history of dogmas and dogmatics has been
raised, in Germany, to the rank of a distinctive branch of sacred science.”
Hence, in church history, the word doctrine often or generally means only
dogmatics— having no allusion to church government, ceremonies or discipline.—
See Schaff-Herzog Ency., vol. l. p. 650: Aldens’ Univ. K., vol. 5, p. 341. Thus
the term is used in stating that the various names agreed in “doctrine” with the
Romish church.] as the church did, and published several treatise in defence of
what he believed. His address was eloquent and insinuating, and his morals were
irreproachable. He saw with extreme pain the intolerable depravity of the
church, Christians within the space of a very few years were caressed by one
emperor and persecuted by another. In seasons of prosperity many rushed into the
church for base purposes. In times of adversity they denied the faith and ran
back to idolatry again. When the squall was over, away they came again to the
church, with all their vices, to deprave others by their example. The bishops,
fond of proselytes, encouraged all this, and transferred the attention of
Christians from the old confederacy for virtue, to vain shows at Easter, and a
thousand other Jewish ceremonies, adulterated, too, with paganism. On the death
of Bishop Fabian, Cornelius, a brother elder, and a vehement partisan for taking
in the multitude, was put in nomination. Novatian opposed him; but as Cornelius
carried his election and he saw no prospect of reformation, but, on the
contrary, a tide of immorality pouring into the church, he withdrew and a great
many with him ... Great numbers followed his example, and all over the empire
Puritan churches were constituted, and flourished through the succeeding two
hundred years. Afterward, when penal laws obliged them to lurk in corners and in
private, they were distinguished by a variety of names and a succession of them
continued until the Reformation.” [Note: Robinson’s Eccl. Researches, p. 126.]

Neander says:

“The controversy with the Novatians turned upon two general points; one relating
to the principles of penitence, the other to the question, what constitutes the
idea and essence of a true church? In respect to the first point of dispute,
Novatian had been often unjustly accused of maintaining that no person, having
once violated his baptismal vows, can ever obtain the forgiveness of sin ...
But, first, Novatian by no means maintained that a Christian is a perfect saint
... Novatian, too, declared that the fallen brethren must be cared for and
exhorted to repentance. He, too, acknowledged God’s mercy toward sinners, and
allowed it right to commend the fallen to that mercy; but that men could once
more surely announce to them that forgiveness of sins which they had trifled
away; this he was unwilling to concede because he could find no objective ground
for such confidence. With regard to the second main point in the controversy,
the idea of the church, Novatian maintained that one of the essential marks of a
true church being purity and holiness, every church which neglected the right
exercise of church discipline, tolerated in its bosom, or readmitted to its
communion such persons as, by gross sins, have broken their baptismal vow,
ceased by that very act to be a true Christian church, and forfeited all rights
and privileges of such a church ... Novatian ... laid at the basis of his theory
the visible church as a pure and holy one, and this was, in his view, the
condition of the truly catholic church.” [Note: Neander’s Hist. Chr. Ch., vol.
l, pp. 243, 246, 247.]

Without adding other testimonies, suffice it to conclude this chapter with J.M.
Cramp, D.D., whom Dr. Armitage pronounces, “A sound theologian and thoroughly
versed in ecclesiastical history.” [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 926.]

“We may safely infer that they abstained from compliance with the innovation,
and that the Novatian churches were what are now called Baptist churches,
adhering to the apostolic and primitive practice.” [Note: Cramp’s Hist. of Bap.,
p. 59.] The biographer of Socrates says: “The Novatian church was not only
sounder in doctrine, but at the same time abounded with the most eminent
clergy.” [Note: Intro. to Socrates’ Eccl. Hist., p. 7.]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: THE DONATISTS.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 10.

THE DONATISTS.

“The Donatists agitation arose in north Africa, A.D. 311, in what are now known
as the Barbary States; but it centered in Carthage, Numidia, and the
Mauritanias. Its field covered nearly seven degrees of north latitude, immense
centers of commerce and influence, soils and climate, marking a stretch of land
2000 miles long by about 300 wide, reaching from Egypt to the Atlantic and
fringing the Atlas mountains, the Mediterranean and the desert.

Mensurius, Bishop of Carthage, manfully opposed the mania which led thousands to
court martyrdom in order to take the martyr’s crown; because he thought it
savored more of suicide than of enforced sacrifice for Christ. But he died in
311, and Caecilianus, who was of the same opinion, was ordained in his place,
with which election a majority were dissatisfied. Others were displeased because
he had been ordained by Felix, who was charged with giving up the Bible to be
burnt, and a division took place in the church. The retiring party first elected
Majorinus, their bishop, who soon died, and after him Donatus, of Caste Nigrae.
This party was greatly increased and was read out of the Catholic body,
Constantine taking sides against them.” [Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist. pp. 200,
201.] On this account it is well to remember that the giving up of the Bible to
be “burnt,” in connection with the well-known fact, that many readily denied
Christ other-wise, throws much light upon the story of the Donatist party
courting martyrdom. It furnishes the strong presumption that these cowardly and
wealthy Christ deniers branded the true soldiers of the cross as hunting for an
opportunity to die for Christ’s sake. But, admitting that the enemies of
Donatists have not overdrawn the matter, instead of essentially affecting their
character as churches, it only shows that they had been persecuted until they
morbidly courted the privilege of testifying for Christ by their deaths — an
error far less serious than the compromising spirit of our own times by which
Christ is so often denied. To attribute the split between the Donatists and
their enemies to election of Felix as pastor, or the Novatian split to the
election of Cornelius, would be as ridiculous as to attribute the American
Revolution of 1776, to a little tea. All the revolutions were only the outburst
of a storm, originating from great and intolerable wrongs. It was a protest of
the pious part of the church against the impious; the necessary result of
loyalty to the doctrine of a regenerate church membership. Says Kurtz:

“Like the Novatians, they insisted on absolute purity in the church, although
they allowed that penitents might be readmitted into their communion. Their own
churches they regarded pure while they denounced the Catholics as schismatics,
who had no fellowship with Christ, and whose sacraments were therefore invalid.
On this ground they rebaptized their proselytes.” [Note: Kurtz’ Ch. Hist. vol.
1, p. 246.]

Mosheim:

“The doctrine of the Donatists was comformable to that of the church, as even
their adversaries confess, nor were their lives less exemplary than that of
other Christian societies, if we accept the enormous conduct of the
Circumcelliones which the greater part of the sect regarded with the utmost
detestation and abhorrence. The crime, therefore, of the Donatists lay properly
in the following things: In their declaring the church of Africa, which adhered
to Caecilianus fallen from the dignity and privileges of a true church and
deprived of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, on account of the offenses with which
the new bishop and Felix of Aptungus, who had consecrated him, were charged; in
their pronouncing all the churches which held communion with that of Africa,
corrupt and polluted; in maintaining that the sanctity of their bishops gave
their community alone the full right to be considered as the true, and pure, the
holy church; and in their avoiding all communication with other churches from an
apprehension of contracting their impurity and corruption. This erroneous
principle was the source of that most shocking uncharitableness and presumption
that appeared in their conduct to other churches. Hence they pronounced the
sacred rites and institutions void of all virtue and efficiency among those
Christians who were not precisely of their sentiments and not only rebaptized
those who came over to their party from other churches, but oven with respect to
those who had been ordained ministers of the gospel, observed the severe custom
either of depriving thorn of their office, or obliging them to be ordained the
second time.” [Note: Moshelm’s Hist., part 2, ch. 5, sec. 8.] Who cannot see in
this the picture of the Baptists of our own times and see the denunciation of
Mosheim the very words of present Baptist opponents? With Kurtz, Mosheim thus
exonerates the Donatists of the violence of the Circumcelliones:

“It cannot be made to appear from any records of undoubted authority that the
bishops of that faction, those at least who had any reputation for piety and
virtue, either approved the proceedings, or stirred up the violence of this
odious rabble.” [Note: Idem, part 2, ch. 5.]

“‘You,’ said the Donatists, ‘do not trove your charges against us, relative to
the Circumcelliones.’ ‘Neither,’ said Augustine, ‘do you prove your charge
against the church’”

— thus admitting the charge not proven.

“Strange as it may appear, neither in Mosheim nor Milner, nor any other writer
who has made some lame apologies for this reputed confederacy, do we find any
mention of the important fact that the whole body of the Donatists, both their
bishops and their laity, disclaimed any knowledge of such a race of men as the
Circumcelliones, or any concern with them.” [Note: Benedict’s Hist. Donatists,
p. 148, 149.]

While this violence was, perhaps, unjustifiable, yet it is a question as to
whether, had we as full a history of that event as of the peasants’ war of
Munster, it would not, as in their case, show that they were far more right than
wrong — that like them, they were goaded to desperation by the combined wrongs
of corrupt and oppressive politico-ecclesiastical governments. Be this, however,
as it may, history clears the Donatists of the doings of the Circumcelliones.

Schaff concedes:

“Like the Montanists and Novatianists they insisted on rigorous church
discipline and demanded the excommunication of all unworthy members.” [Note:
Scbaff’s Hist. Ch., vol. l, p. 366.] Chambers’ Universal Knowledge:

“The Donatists, like the followers of Novatian, went upon the principle that the
essence of the true church consisted in purity and holiness of all its members
individually, and not merely in the apostolic foundation and doctrine.” [Note:
Vol. 4, p. 367.] Neander says the Donatist principle was:

“That every church which tolerated unworthy members in its bosom was itself
polluted by the communion with them. It thus ceased to deserve the predicates of
purity and holiness, and consequently ceased to be a true Christian church,
since a church could not subsist without these predicates.” ... “The Donatists
maintained that the church should cast out from its body those who were known by
open and manifest sins to be unworthy members.” [Note: Neander’s Ch. Hist., vol.
2, pp. 203,205.] Neander farther says:

“According to the Catholic point of view, to the essence of the genuine Catholic
church belonged its general spread through the medium of episcopal succession
down from the Apostles. From the conception of the Catholic church in this sense
was first derived the predicates of purity and holiness. On the other hand,
according to the Donatist point of view, the predicate of Catholic ought to be
subordinate to those of purity and holiness.” [Note: idem, p. 208] Dupin, a
Roman Catholic, says:

“The Donatists maintained that the true church ought to consist of none but holy
and just men. They confessed the bad might be mixed with the good in the church,
but only as secret sinners, not as open offenders.” [Note: Baptist Layman’s
Book, p. 19.] Bohringer sums up the meaning of the Donatist movement:

“The Donatists, Novatians and Montanists wanted a pure and holy church, because
the purity of its members constitute the genuineness of the church.”[Note: Idem,
p. 21.]

Walch:

“The chief cause of their schism was their abhorrence of communion with
traitors.” [Note: Idem, p. 21.] Neander says the Donatists, claimed:

“When the church, however widely extended, becomes corrupt by intercourse with
unworthy members, then that church,in whatever work and corner of the earth it
might be which had no manifestly vicious members within its pale is the genuine
Catholic church.” [Note: Neander’s Hist. Ch., vol. 2, p. 208.]

Guericke says:

“The after of the Christian church would have been very different ... had it
once more resorted to the primitive discipline and hedged up the way to the
multitudes of unconverted persons who were crowding into it, and had it sought,
not indeed by a more artificial organization, but in the exercise of a deeper
and simpler faith in God, to render the church more self-consistent and less
dependent upon the State.” [Note: Guericke’s Ch. Hist., vol.:, p. 281.]

These historians make very clear that in the third and fourth centuries,
Montanism, Novatianism and Donatism were the great witnesses for New Testament
church membership. Between the Baptists and their opponents was the contest that
has been the contest ever since and which to-day is the great contest between
Baptist and others, viz.: a regenerate or an unregenerate church.

But, I will give the reader a sample of their debates over this question: To the
argument of Augustine, that the parable of the wheat and tares growing together
till the end of the age taught that known unworthy members ought to be retained
in the churches, the Donatists replied:

“The field, the Lord says, is the world, therefore not the church, but this
world, in which the good and the bad dwell together till the harvest; that is,
they are reserved till the judgment day.” This interpretation, which is that
given by our Lord, they asserted, could not be gainsaid, since, said they, if
the Apostles, the companions of our Lord himself, should have learned from the
tares, that is, the children of the devil, springing up in the church by the
neglect of discipline, were to be left in the communion of the saints, they
never would have expelled from the thresholds of their churches, Simon, Erastus,
Philetus, Alexander, Demas, Hermogenes, and others like them. Yes, indeed, said
the reforming Donatists, the mixed policy of the Catholics would make void the
whole public instructions throughout the divine writings pertaining to the
separation of the wounded from the sound, the polluted from the clean.” [Note:
Benedict’s History Donatists, pp. 85, 86.]

Any one who is familiar with the present controversy between the Baptists and
their opponents will readily recognize that both sides and arguments are
represented in the Donatist controversy.

It has been charged that the Donatist held to infant baptism. In reply

(1.) As no church that ever believed in infant baptism held so tenaciously to
converted church membership and spirituality, as did the Donatists, and as
infant baptism and such a church are irreconcilably antagonistic, that the
Donatists opposed infant baptism is evident. “Their principles would undoubtedly
lead them to the rejection of infant baptism.” [Note: Cramp’s Bap. Hist.. p.
60.]

(2.) History otherwise refutes the charge. Says Armitage, “Long says: ‘They
refused infant baptism.’”[Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 201.] Long was an
Episcopalian and wrote a history of the Donatists.

Guy de Bres said: “That they demanded that baptized infants ought to be baptized
again as adults.”

Augustine, replying to the Donatists:

“Do you ask for divine authority in this matter? Though that which the whole
church practices is very reasonably believed to be no other than a thing
delivered by the Apostles, yet we may take a true estimate, how much the
sacrament of baptism does profit infants, beg the circumcision which God’s
former people received.” [Note: Idem, p. 20.]

Osiander, says:

“Our modern Anabaptists are the same as the Donatists of old.”

Fuller, Episcopalian:

“The Anabaptists are the Donatists new dipt.” [Note: Fuller’s Ch. Hist. Britain,
book 5, sec. 5:ll.] As the Anabaptists were especially noted for opposition to
infant baptism, Fuller’s statement is very clearly against the Donatists having
baptized infants.

Bullinger is often quoted as saying:

“The Donatists and the Anabaptists held the same opinion.”

Twick, Chron. b. 6, p. 201, says:

“The followers of Donatus were all one with the Anabaptists, denying baptism to
children, admitting believers only thereto who desired the same, and maintaining
that none ought to be forced to any belief.” [Note: In the Baptist, by T. G.
Jones, D. D., p. 70.] D’Anvers, in his Treatise on Baptism, says:

“Austin’s third and fourth books against the Donatists demonstrated that they
denied infant baptism, wherein he maintains the argument of infant baptism
against them with great zeal, enforcing it by several arguments.” [Note: In the
Baptist, by T. G. Jones, D. D., p. 70.] Bohringer, a late biographer of
Augustine, says:

“Infant baptism is the only point of difference between Augustine and the
Donatists, and this grew out of the Donatist notion of the church.” [Note: Ch.
In the Wilderness, p. 42.]

Alluding to and endorsing Bohringer’s statement, W.W. Everts, Jr., than whom,
perhaps, no one in America has a better knowledge of church history, says:

“This is only a more confident statement of what Gotfried Arnold and Ivirney had
said before in identifying the Donatists and modern Baptists.” [Note: Church in
the Wilderness, p. 42.] Augustine presided over a council of 92 ministers, which
aimed at the Donatists, Montanists and Novatians, declared:

‘We will that whoever denies that little children by baptism are freed from
perdition and eternally saved, that they be accursed.”

Armitage says:

“It is commonly conceded that Augustine wrote a separate work against thorn on
infant baptism which has not come down to us. If he did, the fair inference
would be that they rejected that doctrine.” [Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., p.
201.]

Yes, and if Armitage had thoroughly investigated, he would have learned that Dr.
Benedict has, in his History of the Donatists, produced sufficient amount of
Augustine’s writings to so clearly prove that the Donatists rejected infant
baptism as to leave the fact beyond any reasonable doubt. Cramp regards it
possible that some Donatists practiced infant baptism. In his history of the
Donatists, Benedict mentions four divisions called Donatists, [Note: p.135.] the
last two did not go out from the original company. If any of the people who were
called Donatists ever held to infant baptism, some of the last two divisions
must have been the ones.

Merivale says of the Donatists:

“They represented the broad principle of the Montanists and Novatians, that the
true Church of Christ is an assembly of real pious persons only ... Jerome and
Augustine and others class the Donatists with the Novatians as to general aim
and purpose, and Augustine sneers at them as ‘spotless saints.’”[Note:
Armitage’s Bap. Hist., pp. 200,201.] The church government of the Donatists was
substantially the same as that of the Baptists of our own time. W.W. Everts,
Jr., says:

“We clearly trace among them the polity of the apostolic and Baptist church.
Independence of the hierarchy was universally maintained, and no higher
authority than the local church was acknowledged. Insubordination to bishops and
councils was their conspicuous and unpardonable offence ... They maintained,
therefore, a position of irreconcilable order.” [Note: Church in the Wilderness,
pp. 16, 18.] The hierarchy at the time the Donatists split occurred being but in
its bud, even Donatist opponents then had not the full grown hierarchy of later
times. Muston represents the voice of history when he says:

“In the first centuries of the Christian era, each church founded by the
disciples had a unity and an independence of its own.” “The bishops being
elected by the people of their diocese.” [Note: Israel of the Alps, vol. 1, pp.
4, 7.] Long, an Episcopalian:

“The Donatists rejected the Catholic liturgy and set up for themselves in a more
congregational way.” [Note: Long’s Hist. Don., p. 55.]

Says Benedict:

“In all their operations as a religious community I have discovered nothing
peculiar to episcopacy, or the episcopal regimen, except the diocese, which in
early times was deficient in what in later times becomes essential to diocesan
episcopacy.” [Note: Benedict’s Hist. Don., 138.] As Whatley observes:

“A church and a diocese seem to have been for a considerable time, coextensive
and identical; and each church a diocese, and consequently each superintendent,
though connected with the rest by the ties of faith and charity, seems to have
been perfectly independent, as far as regards any power and control.” [Note:
Benedict’s Hist. Don., p. 139.]

“In point of fact the word (diocese), which perhaps retained to a certain degree
its general rather than its technical sense, is found applied in turn to every
kind of ecclesiastical territorial division ... Suicer alleges other authorities
to show that the word is sometimes employed in a sense closely resembling our
word parish, viz: The district of a single church or parish. It has been
observed that this was a Latin and especially an African use of the term.”
[Note: Smith’s Dic. Chr. Antiq., vol. 1, pp. 558, 559.] This use of the word
diocese in Africa, the land of the Donatists, not only removes all ground to
suppose that it implied episcopacy, but in its being there used for a single
congregation, it proves the Donatist bishop and his diocese only a pastor and a
congregation, as with Baptists now.

Only a few hierarchal bishops are necessary to the largest country. But among
Baptists a very largo number is necessary. The fact, therefore, that 279
Donatist bishops were present at the council of Carthage explodes the
possibility of reasonably believing the Donatists had Episcopal prelates.
Another like proof is, there were “410 Donatist bishops assembled together.”
[Note: Bap. Layman’s Book, pp. 19, 22.] Who ever heard or dreamed of 410 Romish,
Episcopal, Greek or Methodist bishops in as limited a territory as was North
Africa? As W.W. Everts, Jr., well observes:

“The number of the Donatist bishops proves that every pastor received the title,
a name which Donatists very much disliked.” [Note: Idem, p. 22.] The Donatists
were not Campbellites and Romanists, but were Baptists, in that they believed in
the blood before the water, salvation by grace and not by the work of baptism.

Says Benedict: (Optatus was the Donatus adversary.) “Optatus was in union with
the Donatists in requiring faith before baptism. The repetition of the rite was
the principle matter of dispute between the parties, except that Optatus, with
his party held to the salutary influence of baptism. Baptism, said he, makes a
man a Christian, and how can he be made a Christian the second time? Baptism in
the name of the Trinity confers grace, which is destroyed by the second
baptism.” [Note: Benedict’s Hist. Don., p. 19.] To the charge that the Donatists
held to the union of church and State, I reply:

(1.) As no other people, holding to a regenerate church membership, the blood
before the water, only believers’ baptism, and to a congregational church
government ever, at the same time held to this adulterous union, the charge is
incredible.

(2.) The only ground of this charge is, the Donatists appealed to the emperor to
decide whether they were heretics. Dr. Armitage well says: “Nothing could have
been more stupid and inconsistent” than this, as “they were struggling for a
pure church against the laxness of the Catholic party.” [Note: Armitage’s Bap.
Hist., p. 201.] This remark of Armitage is on the report that the appeal was
made, to unite church and State, a report not supported by history. A.D. 312, on
gaining control of the empire, Constantine proclaimed freedom of religious
belief to all. [Note: Benedict’s Hist. Don., p. 11.] But, to deprive the
Donatists of this liberality, it seems their enemies accused them of being
traitors to the emperor. Based on the Romish report, Gibbon says:

“Both parties accused each other of being traitors ... The cause of the
Donatists was examined with attention, perhaps it was determined with justice,
but perhaps their complaints were not without foundation, that the credulity of
the emperor was abused by the insidious acts of his favorite Otius” [Note: Idem,
p. 9.] As the result of the emperor’s decision, the Donatists “were treated as
transgressors of the imperial laws.” [Note: Idem, p. 12.] “He certainly exiled
some, and is said to have deprived them of their churches.” [Note: Wadington’s
Ch. Hist., p. 151, note.] This persecution is said to have been the cause of the
violence of the Circumcelliones who, [Note: Hase’s Hist. Chr. Ch., p. 158.]
though not being Donatists, were excited to their deeds by these cruel
persecutors. Thus, it is probable that the Donatists consented to the appeal,
not to get up a union with the State, but to get the emperor to decide they were
orthodox Christians. This decision they seemed to have desired only to save them
from persecution. It was on the same principle on which Baptist now, in case of
a split in any of their churches, on the ground that one party is heretical,
appeal to Caesar’s court to decide which is the true Baptist church — not for
State aid or any form of union of church and State, but for their property
rights. The first Baptist confessions of faith were especially to show the
authorities that their enemies slandered them — that they were good citizens. An
enemy, with the scarcity of history that characterized the time of the
Donatists, could as easily pervert these appeals of Baptists of modern times, as
of the time of Constantine, into an appeal for union of church and State. About
sixty-eight years after the Donatists appealed to Constantine, “on his accession
to the throne, the Donatist bishops transmitted to” Julian, his nephew, “a
petition in which they besought a ruler who required only justice, to rescind
the unjust decrees that had been issued against them.” [Note: Benedict’s Hist.
Don., p. 41.]

Here they are appealing to the emperor to remove the very decrees against the
passage of which they aimed in their first appeal, nearly sixty-eight years
before. In this appeal there is not so much as an intimation of desire for union
of church and State. Why; then, in the name of fairness to a people, confessed
on all sides to have been a truly Christian people, should they everlastingly be
besmirched with the charge of believing in union of church and State?

Even were we to admit they did, in the moment of error, seek the union of church
and State, since it was opposed to their principles and is opposed to their
usual position, it in no way affects their claim to be in line of Church
Perpetuity.

Armitage says:

“It is but just to say that, so far as known, this is an isolated act in their
history, and not one of a number in the same line.”[Note: Annltage’s Hist. Bap.,
p. 202.]

All it can possibly prove is a momentary missing the mark. History clearly shows
the Donatists utterly opposed to persecution and the union of church and State.
Petillian describes a true church as one which “does not persecute, nor inflame
the minds of emperors against their subjects, nor seize on the property of
others, nor kill men.” [Note: Idem, p. 53.] Benedict says the Donatists
“uniformly represented their community” as the one “which suffers persecution,
but does not persecute.” [Note: Idem, p. 83.]

“A people who suffer persecution, but do not persecute was their stereotyped and
cherished motto.” [Note: Idem, p. 38.]

“Nowhere in all church history, can be found a more non-resisting people under
the assaults of their enemies except by arguments.” [Note: Idem, p. 38.]

“They were treated as rebels by Macaries, the Roman general, and his mission and
policy were to hurry them into the Catholic church, peaceably if he could,
forcibly if he must” in their controversy with the Catholics “one often finds
repetition of the following pertinent questions of the reformers: ‘What has the
emperor to do with the church? What have the bishops to do at the palace? What
has Christianity to do with the kings of this world?’”[Note: Idem, p. 100.]

“At an early period this persecuted people entirely renounced the church and
State policy, and, of course, ‘What has the emperor to do with the church?’ was
their reply to the offers of royal bounty.” [Note: Idem, p. 32.]

Guericke says:

“The emperor sent them money for distribution as a loan, but Donatus Magnus,
sent it back with the obstinate protestation against the union of church and
State.” [Note: Guericke’s Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 281; also Neander’s Ch. Hist.,
vol. 2, p. 195.]

Neander:

“Another more important point of dispute related to the employment of force in
matters of religion. The Donatists bore their testimony on this point with
emphasis in favor of the cause which the example of Christ and the Apostles,
with the spirit of the gospel, and the sense of man’s universal rights, called
forth by the latter, required. The point of view first set forth in a clear
light by Christianity, when it made religion its common good of all mankind and
raised it above all narrow political restrictions, was by the Donatists manfully
asserted, in opposition to a theory of ecclesiastical rights at variance with
the spirit of the gospel, and which had sprung out of a new mixture of
ecclesiastical with political interests.” [Note: Neander’s Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p.
212.]

“Quid est emperatori cum ecclesia?” — What has the emperor to do with the
church? — was fundamental with the Donatists.

T. J. Morgan, D.D., ex-Professor of Church History in the Chicago Baptist
Theological Seminary: “The Donatists ... resisted the interference of the State
in ecclesiastical affairs.” [Note: In The Standard, of Chicago, March 18,1880.]
Child, an infidel, says:

“The members of their party were forbidden to receive presents from the reigning
powers. The corruptions resulting from the union of church and State became
their favorite theme of eloquence. They traced all degeneracy to the splendor
and luxury of the times, and railed at bishops whose avarice led them to flatter
princes.” [Note: Child’s Prog. Relig. Ideas, vol. 3, pp. 29,30.] The Donatists,
like the Novatians and the Montanists, in the following, were Baptist.
Petillian, one of their most eminent ministers, said:

“I baptize their members, as having an imperfect baptism, and as in reality
unbaptized. They will receive my members as truly baptized, which they would not
do if they could discover any fault in our baptism. See, therefore, that the
baptism which I give you may hold so holy that not any sacriligious enemy will
have destroyed.” [Note: Benedict’s Hist. Don., p. 56.] So, Baptist baptism,
only, has, in all ages and in all countries, been universally conceded to be
gold. As to the action of baptism, as Benedict remarks:

“It may be proper to notify the readers that not only the Donatists, but all
others then, whether Catholics or dissenters, practiced immersion; and the
practice also was prevalent with all parties of requiring faith before baptism.”
[Note: Idem 130; Robinson’s Eccl. Researches, p. 150.] To the slander, that the
Donatists believed in suicide, I let Benedict reply:

“In his correspondence with Dulcitius, he, Gaudentius, was requested to
surrender his church to the Catholics. In his reply to this request the resolute
bishop addressed the Tribune in these terms: ‘In this church, in which the name
of God and his Christ is always invoked in truth, as you have always admitted,
we will permanently remain as long as it may please God for us to live.’ This is
the whole of the threatened suicide of Gaudentius. The whole story which has
gone the rounds of church history originated in the perverted language of
Augustine. ‘You,’ said he to Gaudentius, ‘declared with other words I grant,
that you would burn your church, with yourself and people in it.” [Note: Idem,
p. 125.] In this contemptible and malicious charge, coming from where all the
slanders against that whole band of witnesses for Christ came, we see the
necessity of examining the charges against the Donatists and other ancient
Christians with great allowance and care.

Prof. Heman Lincoln, D.D., recently Professor of Church History in Newton
Theological Seminary, wrote:

“The Donatists held ... many of the principles which are regarded as axioms by
modern Baptists. They maintained absolute freedom of conscience, the divorce of
church and a regenerate church membership. These principles, coupled with their
uniform practice of immersion, bring them into close affinity with Baptists.”

We may, therefore, having examined the only charges on which the Donatists are
called in question as Baptists, conclude the examination as proving, beyond any
reasonable doubt, that, in all essential respects, the Donatists were genuine
Baptist churches.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: CHAPTER 11. THE PAULICIANS.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 11. THE PAULICIANS. The origin of the name, Paulicians, is:

“Constantine, from the neighborhood of Samosata and connected with a gnostic
generation ... found in the perusal of the New Testament a world unknown, and
became animated with the hope (about 660) of bringing hack a state of things
which had existed in the apostolic church.

He assumed the name of Silvanus, and called those communities which acknowledged
him as a reformer, Pauline congregations. By their opponents they were called
Paulicians.” [Note: Hase’s Hist. Chr. Ch., p. 159.] Instead of Constantine
having originated the Paulicians, or of their beginning in his time, Mosheim
says:

“Constantino revived, under the reign of Constans, the drooping faction of the
Paulicians, which was now ready to expire and propagated with great success its
pestilential doctrines.” [Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 7, part 2, sec. 1.]

Thus, they were revived, just were Schaff and others leave them, in a weak
condition under the name Donatists. But, as is seen in Chapter XIX of this book,
this is not the origin of the people who were called Paulicians.

Manichaeism being the main charge against the Paulicians, is here noticed first.

“Photius possessed great ability ... Gass says another synod deposed Photius in
867 as a ‘liar and adulterer, parricide and heretic.’ This is the chief witness
on whose evidence the Paulicians are condemned.” [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap.,
pp. 234, 236, 237.]

Mosheim says:

“The Greeks treated the Paulicians ... as Manichaeans; though, if we may credit
the testimony of Photius, the Paulicians, expressed the utmost abhorrence of
Manes and his doctrine.”

Even Mosheim concedes:

“Most evident it is that they were not altogether Manichaeans, though they
embraced some opinions that resembled certain tenets of that abominable sect.”
[Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 9, part l, sec. 5.]

Kurtz:

“The Catholic controversial writers of the ninth century traced the sect of the
Paulicians and even their name to a Manichaean family of the fourth century.

... But later investigations have failed to discover any trace of Manichaean
tenets in their system.” [Note: Kurtz’s Ch. Hist., vol. I, p. 207.] Universal
Knowledge:

“The charge of Manichaeism was falsely brought against them by their
persecutors.” [Note: Art. Paulicians.]

Cramp:

“Manichaeism was looked upon as a concentration of all that was outrageously bad
in religious opinion and became the fashion to call all heretics Manichaeans.
Hence many excellent men have been so stigmatized whose views and practices
accorded with the word of God.” [Note: Cramp’s Hist. Bap., p. 68.]

Armitage:

“They have always been coupled with Manichaeans and nothing has been too base to
say of them. Bossuett and Bowers have distinguished themselves in this calumny,
but Bowers has been effectively answered by the learned Lardner. The Paulicians
themselves certainly should have known what they were, and both these witnesses
(Photius and Siculus) explicitly state that they repelled the charge with great
spirit. But what differences did it make with these maligners? So long as they
could befoul their fame by that odious brand, they pinned it to them as if it
were true. Gibbon states that the Paulicians disclaimed the theology of Manes,
and the other kindred heresies, and the trinity generations of eons which had
been created by the fruitful fancy of Valentine. The Paulicians sincerely
condemned the memory and the opinions of the Manichaean sect, and complained of
the injustice which impressed the invidious name on the simple votaries of St.
Paul and of Christ. Although these witnesses judged them by a false standard of.
their own raising, to which the Paulicians are allowed no counter evidence, nor
cross examination, nothing but denial and protest, Photius pretended fair play
when He took up his pen to write ‘Contra Manichaeas’ in one book, without
telling what they did believe; and then, on a false assumption, followed by
three others to confute them as though they were disciples of Manes ... There
were different classes of Manichaeans as well as Paulicians, but Photius and
Siculus lump them en masse and convict themselves again and again of
misrepresentations in matters of public notoriety ... They admit that
Constantine, the leader of the Paulicians, received the New Testament as his
inspired guide, and cited it to prove his tenets, and then charged him with
claiming to speak by the Holy Spirit. They failed to charge him with any new
doctrine, but alleged that he pretended to speak by the Holy Spirit, and then
charged him with borrowing his doctrines from the Scythian, Pythagorean, and
other pagan teachers. They condemned him for professing to be the power of God,
but failed to show that he ever attempted miracles! They ridicule the Paulicians
as an aristocratic organization, then sneered at them because they gave the
Scriptures to everybody because they had no priests, and because instead of
listening to the ravings of their inspired leader, they read the Scriptures
publicly! They charged them with dissolute lives, with gluttony and obscenity at
their festivals; and, in the same breath, tell us that they studiously married,
drank no wine and ate no flesh! They taught that they might eat fruit, herbs,
bread, but neither eggs nor fish. In other things they discredit their whole
testimony under ordinary rules which govern evidence.” [Note: Armitage’s Hist.
Bap., pp. 234,236, 237.]

“Arnold, of Germany, Beausobre and Lardner have honored themselves and the
subject with sedate investigation and judicial candor, and have set right many
of the inconsistencies and contradictions of Photius and Siculus.” [Note:
Armitage’s Hist. Bap., pp. 234,236, 237.] Wm. R. Williams:

“The Paulicians, a later body, were eminent especially for their love of Paul’s
Epistles, which they so admired, that their teachers, many of them, changed
their names for those of some of Paul’s helpers and converts. For centuries
defamed and pursued, they held their course, testifying and witnessing. Hase,
the modem church historian, himself a Rationalist, speaks of them as continuing
under various names down quite near to our own age.” [Note: William E. William’s
Lect. on Bap. Hist., pp. 129,130,] Dr. Brockett, a special investigator of the
Paulicians, says:

‘With the proofs now at our command of the identity of the Catharists and the
Waldenses with the Bogomiles,” (Paulicianists) “this admission proves fatal to
the Manichaean doctrines of the whole.” [Note: The Bogomilles, by L. P.
Brockett, p. 125.] [Note: That some of them held to a modified, and, almost
harmless Manichaeism, is not denied. Some of them, for a time, may have been
seriously Manichaean. [Here see Chapter IV, of this book.]] Sir William Jones,
one of the most learned investigators, says:

“Their public appearance soon attracted the notice of the Catholic party who
immediately branded them with the opprobrious name of Manichaeans; but they
sincerely (says Gibbon), condemned the memory and the opinions of the Manichaean
sect and complained of the injustice which impressed that invidious name on
them.” [Note: Jones’ Ch. Hist., p. 244.] Of their great leader, Benedict says:

“From the time he got acquainted with these writings (the gospels and Paul’s
Epistles) it is said he would touch no other book. He threw away his Manichaean
library and exploded and rejected many of the abused notions of his countrymen.”
[Note: Benedict’s Hist. Baptist, p. 12.] So Jones substantially says. [Note:
Jones’ Ch. Hist., p. 243.] Benedict:

“The religious practices of this people are purposely mangled and
misrepresented.” [Note: Benedict’s Hist. Baptist, p. 12.] Says Neander of the
Manichaean charge against the Paulicians:

“The truth is that in their period there was a universal inclination to call
everything of a dualistic tendency Manichaean; while no one seemed to correctly
understand the distinctive marks which separated the gnostic from the Manichaean
tenets. We find nothing at all, however, in the doctrines of the Paulicians
which would lead us to presume that they were an offshoot from Manichaeism; on
the other hand we find much which contradicts such a supposition.” [Note:
Neander’s Hist. Chr. Ch., vol. 3, p. 244.]

Jortin:

“Though charged with the Manichaean errors they have been honorably freed from
this reproach by respectable writers.” [Note: Jortin’s Rem. on Hist., vol. 3, p.
478; Lardaer’s Cred. G. Hist., vol. 3, pp. 422,546; Cramp’s Bap. Hist, pp. 71,
73, 77.]

Notice, secondly, the charge that the Paulicians rejected parts of the Bible.
Cramp does not so much as regard the charge worthy of notice. He mentions their
leader as having had given him by a deacon, “a copy of the gospels and of the
Epistles of Paul.” That he “read, believed and obeyed.” Manichaeism, by which he
had been deluded, was immediately renounced. His Manichean books were thrown
aside and the sacred writings exclusively studied. [Note: Jortin’s Rem, on
Hist., vol. 3, p. 478; Lardner’s Cred, G. Hist., vol. 3, pp, 422, 546; Cramp’s
Bap. Hist,, pp, 71, 73, 67.] This is pretty conclusive evidence that so far as
the Paulicians had knowledge of the Bible they fully accepted it as inspired.
Gibbon says of Constantine, the Paulician leader:

“The four gospels and the epistles” (it is not certain they were able to possess
the whole Bible) “became the measure of his studies and the rule of his faith;
and the Catholics who dispute his interpretation acknowledge that his text was
genuine and sincere. But he attached himself with peculiar devotion to the
writings and character of St. Paul. The name of the Paulicians is derived by
their enemies from some unknown teacher; but I am confident that they gloried in
their affinity to the Apostles to the Gentiles ... In the gospels and the
epistles of St. Paul his faithful follower investigated the creed of
Christianity; and whatever may be the success a Protestant reader will applaud
the spirit of the inquiry.” [Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., p. 237.] This does not
harmonize with Gibbon’s and some others’ statement that they rejected the old
Testament and the Epistles of Peter. No man can be a consistent follower of the
gospels and Paul’s Epistles and at the same time reject the Old Testament —
their very root, so much preached from in these books. As this charge is,
therefore, self-evidently false as to the Old Testament, there is no reason for
believing the rest of it, especially as the Epistles of Peter in no way are
discordant with the gospels and Paul’s Epistles.

Hase says:

“Their principal attention was directed to a revival of apostolic and spiritual
Christianity. On every subject they appealed to the New Testament as a sacred
book for the people in the text used by the church, but with the exclusion of
the Epistles of Peter.” [Note: Hase’s Hist. Chr. Ch., p. 160.]

Mosheim:

“They received all the books of the New Testament except the two Epistles of
Peter, which they rejected for reasons unknown to us, and their copies were the
same with those used by all the Christians, without the least interpolation of
the sacred text; in which respect they also differed from the Manichaeans.”
[Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., part 2, chap. 5, sec. 6.] Says Dr. Brockett,
perhaps the highest authority as to the Paulicians:

“This assertion that they rejected the entire Old Testament is reiterated by all
the Greek and Roman Catholic writers, from Petrus Siculus, in the ninth century,
Monachus and Alanus in the thirteenth, down to Mathew Paris, Roger de Hoveden,
and Gevase of Canterbury: yet we have the most conclusive evidence that it was
not true. Euthymius Zygabenus, the secretary of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus
when Basil was examined by the emperor, and a most bitter enemy of the
Bogomiles, states in his Panoplia (as stated by Evans’ Historical Review, etc.,
p. 36) the Bogomiles accepted seven holy books, which he enumerates as follows:

1. The Psalms;

2. The Sixteen Prophets;

3. 4, 5 and 6. The Gospels;

7. The Acts of the Apostles, The Epistles and The Apocalypse.

Some writers have charged them with rejecting the Epistles of Peter and the
Apocalypse, but there is no evidence of this. The Bogomiles’ New Testament was
word for word that of the early Sclavic apostle, Methodius. Of this Jirecek
furnishes, on page 177, the most conclusive proofs. If, then, this statement of
their enemies, like so many others, is proved to be false, what assurance is
there that their alleged dualistic doctrines were anything more than an old
falsehood revamped.” [Note: The Bogomiles, by L. P. Brockett, p, 126.]

Considering the slanderous character of the witnesses who make this charge, the
inconsistency and contradictory nature of their testimony for it, and the
positive testimony to the contrary, all fair minded men must agree on throwing
it out of court. Even it were proven, since they had not the necessary
opportunities to test the Biblical canon; since it is not infallibly certain we
have all the canonical books; and since, therefore, to test their being Baptists
by their infallibility as to the canon, would be an unreasonably severe and
unfair test, we may dismiss the charge.

Martin Luther, at one time, rejected the book of James. Giving them no
opportunity to look into a book for an answer when asked, what are the canonical
books, not near half the churches of any denomination could mention them; yea,
more, there are useful preachers whom this test would confuse. Here, read
Chapter IV. of this book: Let us quit torturing these ancient witnesses for the
truth on a rack that few churches of our own time could stand. The origin of the
charge is given by Sir Wm. Jones:

“One of their imputed errors is that they rejected the whole of the Old
Testament writings; a charge which was also brought by the writers of the
Catholic school against the Waldenses and others with equal regard to truth and
justice. But this calumny is easily accounted for. The advocates of popery, to
support their innovations and usurpations in the kingdom of Christ, were driven
to the Old Testament for authority, adducing the kingdom of David for example.
And when their adversaries rebutted the argument, insisting that the parallel
did not hold, for that the kingdom of Christ, which is not of this world, is a
very different state of things from the kingdom of David, their opponents
accused them of giving up the divine authority of the Old Testament. Upon
similar principles it is not difficult to vindicate the Paulicians from other
charges brought against them.’”

Says Prof. Geo. P. Fisher, D.D.: The Paulicians “did not oppose marriage.”
[Note: Fisher’s Hist. Chr. Ch., p. 162.] To the charge that they denied baptism
and the supper, I reply, (1.) they were accused of this by enemies, who, like
Campbellites, were unable to see the differences between denying the ordinances
as ordinances and denying them as saving institutions. (2.) History contradicts
the charge. Kurtz does not so much as notice this charge. Neither does
Wadington. See their histories. Jones says:

“In these churches of the Paulicians, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s
supper they held to be peculiar to the communion of the faithful; i.e.
restricted to believers.”[Note: Jones’ Ch. Hist., p. 245.]

Gibbon is quoted: “In practice, or at least in theory, of the sacraments, the
Paulicians were inclined to abolish all visible objects of worship, and the
gospels were, in their judgments, the baptism and communion of the faithful.”
[Note: Benedict’s Hist. Bap., p. 12.] The reader will observe that Gibbon is
very uncertain as to what was the position of the Paulicians. His statement,
that the “words of the gospel were baptism and communion of the faithful,” taken
in connection with the statement that they “were inclined to abolish” the
“sacraments as visible objects of worship,” implies that while they observed the
ordinances they did not look to them for a medium of salvation, but looked to
the words of the gospel. Being a poor infidel and thus blind to spiritual
things, Gibbon understood this to mean rejecting the ordinances.

Mosheim:

“They rejected baptism and in a more especial manner, the baptism of infants, as
a ceremony that was in no respect essential to salvation. They rejected, for the
same reason, the sacrament of the Lord’s supper.” [Note: Moshelm’s Eccl. Hist.,
cent. 9, part 2, chap. 5, sec. 6.]

Whatever Mosheim may mean to teach, this statement must be taken in the light of
its phrase, “As a ceremony that was in no respect essential to salvation.” Just
as in cent. 11, part 2, chap. 5, sec. 4, he says: “They considered marriage as a
pernicious institution, and absurdly condemned without distinction all connubial
bonds,” which a foot note to the same page thus explains:

“The eleventh article is scarcely credible, at least, as it is here expressed.
It is more than reason-able to suppose these mystics did not absolutely condemn
marriage, but only held celibacy in high esteem, as a mark of superior sanctity
and virtue.” The truth is, while this note hits the mark as to their not
rejecting marriage, it misses it as to the explanation of the charge. The
explanation in this and in the case of baptism and the supper is: The Romanists
accused them of rejecting both marriage and the two ordinances because they
denied them as sacraments — rejecting them only as saving institutions.
Mosheim’s explanation of their meaning, in cent. 9, part 2, chap. 5, sec. 6, yet
more clearly shuts us up to this interpretation:

“They refused to celebrate the holy institution of the Lord’s supper; for as
they looked upon many precepts and injunctions of the gospel to be of merely
figurative and parabolic nature, so they understood by the bread and wine, which
Christ is said to have administered to his disciples at his last supper, the
divine discourses of the Savior, which are a spiritual food and nourishment for
the soul, and fill it with repose, satisfaction and delight.”

Taking baptism and the supper as “merely figurative and parabolic,” symbolizing
the great truths of the gospel, is the Baptist position of all ages, for which,
by those who look to them as saviors, from Campbellism to its mother Rome,
Baptists have been unceasingly misrepresented and reproached.

Mosheim makes the same blundering interpretation in cent. 12, part 2, chap. 5,
sec. 4, where, treating them as Catharists — from not knowing they were
Paulicians — he says, they held “that baptism and the Lord’s supper were useless
institutions, destitute of all saving power.” Just as Campbellites and other
Romanists, to-day, charge Baptists with making these two ordinances “useless,”
simply because they can see no use in obeying Jesus unless the obedience saves
from hell. Benedict gives us an illustration of the same charge, made in a
discussion, against the Baptists, at a time when no one doubts that they
baptized and observed the supper. In this discussion, between a Baptist and a
Romanist, the Romanist says:

“You Anabaptists, tell us once, something about supper. I suppose you observe
none, since you know nothing about a sacrament *** Yes, you have always the
scriptures at your finger ends, for you Anabaptists read nothing but the holy
scripture, hence it is that you read nothing concerning the sacrament of the
altar. *** Therefore you are ignorant of the sacrament of the altar.” [Note:
Benedict’s Hist. Bap., p. 101.]

Says Brockett:

“Harmenopoulos, a Byzantine monk of the tenth century, more candid than most of
his fellows, says, as quoted by Evans, that the Bogomiles practiced the right of
water baptism (and if they did they must have received it from the Paulicians)
but did not attribute to it any perfecting virtue (τελειουν) virtue. [Note: The
Bogomiles, p. 119.] This last expression is significant in this connection as
showing that this rite was administered to all believers (Credentes) in
distinction from spiritual baptism, or consolamentum ... It is, we believe,
generally admitted that the early Armenian church, of which the Paulicians were
an offshoot, did not practice trine immersion, though they immersed their
converts once.” [Note: Idem, p. 119.] Brockett proves they baptized, by:

“Their well-known and universally admitted repudiation of infant baptism.
Harmenopoulos, a Greek priest of the twelfth century, expressly declares that
they did practice single immersion but without unction, etc., and only upon
adults, on the profession of their faith. He adds that they did not attribute to
it any saving or perfecting virtues, which is in accordance with their other
teaching.”

Reinero, the inquisitor, who had originally been one of them, says:

“They say that a man is first baptized when he is received into their community
and has been baptized by them, and then hold that baptism is of no advantage to
infants, since they cannot actually believe. We find in the histories of Jirecek
and Hilferding numerous incidental allusions to the baptism of persons of high
rank, such as the ban Culin, Tvartko III, King Stephen Thomas, the Duke of St.
Sava, etc. *** who are said to have been baptized into the Bogomile faith. That
during the period of the greatest persecutions, the ordinances were administered
secretly, and perhaps at night is very probable, but there is no evidence that
it was ever omitted. That would have been impossible in an oriental church.
[Note: Idem, p. 41.] To the authorities here named for the proposition that the
Credentes, or believers were baptized must be added Alanus de Insulis, a French
writer of about A.D. 1200, whose treatise against heretics was published by
Massons of Lyons, in 1612. He is cited by Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. 3, pp. 359,
360, note Am.” [Note: Idem, pp. 121, 122.] Alanus speaking of Albigenses, who
were fully identified with the Bogomiles, says:

“They rejected infant baptism, but were divided as to the reason ... It does not
appear they rejected either of the sacraments.” [Note: The Bogomiles, p. 122.]

“Nothing is said by Hoveden of their rejection of the sacraments of baptism and
the eucharist, which would have certainly been mentioned by as careful a writer
as Hoveden if it had existed.” [Note: The Bogomiles, p. 122.] As to their having
opposed marriage, though it has been disprovingly alluded to, in the foregoing,
I will quote the statement of Prof. Geo. P. Fisher: The Paulicians: “did not
oppose marriage.” [Note: Fisher’s Hist, Chr., Ch., p. 162, also p. 126 of Church
Perpetuity.]

While I have more testimony to prove the Paulicians were Baptists as to the
ordinances, I conclude this point with these as amply sufficient:

(1.) They did administer the ordinances.

(2.) Only to believers.

(3.) They recognized the scriptural truth, that only immersion is baptism.

(4.) As they baptized only believers they believed in a regenerate church
membership, The Paulicians were Baptists in church government. Of them Benedict
quotes Gibbon:

“Churches were founded upon the plan and model of the churches. They were
incapable of desiring the wealth and honors of the Catholic prelacy; such anti-
christian pride they bitterly condemned.” [Note: Benedict’s Hist. Bap., p. 13.]

Armitage:

“Dr. Semler accords them more correct ideas of godliness, worship and church
government than the Catholics of their time, and these virtues drew upon them
more persecution from the hierarchy than their doctrinal views.” [Note:
Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 239.]

Robinson: They were called: “Acephali, or headless.” [Note: Robinson’s Eccl.
Researches, p. 92.] They were doubtless as Benedict explains, so called because
they rejected Romish rules. Mosheim:

“They had not, like the Manichaeans, an ecclesiastical government administered
by bishops, priests and deacons; they had no sacred order of men distinguished
by their manner of life or any other circumstance from the rest of the assembly;
nor had councils, synods or such like institutions any place in their religious
polity.” [Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 9, part 2, chap. 5, sec. 5;
Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p. 478.] This language might be misunderstood to mean
that they had no ministers at all. But it is the contrast between the simplicity
of the ministry, as among Baptists now, and the prelacy, as in the Romish
churches now. The next words of Mosheim clearly so explain:

“They had certain doctors whom they called Sunecdemi, i.e. companions in the
journey of life, and also notarii. Among these there reigned a perfect equality,
and they had no peculiar rights, privileges nor external mark of dignity to
distinguish them from the people. The only singularity that attended their
promotion to the rank of doctors was, that they changed their lay names for
scripture ones.” [Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 9, part 2, chap. 5, sec. 5;
Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p. 478.]

Wadington quotes and adopts the statement of Mosheim as his own. [Note:
Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p. 478.] Kurtz: “Their form of worship was very simple
and their church government modeled after that of apostolic times.” [Note:
Kurtz’s Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 271.] Kurtz shows the apostolic church government
to be what we regard Baptist.

Says Hase:

“The community of Paulicians had a chief ... but neither he nor any of his
fellow pilgrims (συνέκημοι) and scribes (νοτάροι) exercised any hierarchal
powers.” [Note: Hase’s Hist. Chr.Ch., p. 160.]

Neander says:

“They recognized it as belonging to the popular essence of christianity. That it
aimed to establish a higher fellowship of life among all ranks and all classes,
tolerating no such distinctions as the existing ones between clergy or priests
and laity. They had among them, it is true, persons who administered
ecclesiastical offices, but these, like the rest, were to be looked upon as
members of the communities. They were distinguished from others neither by
dress, nor by any outward mark. The names, also, of their church officers were
so chosen, as to denote the peculiarity of their vocation, which was to
administer the office of spiritual teaching, to the exclusion of all sacredotal
prerogatives.” [Note: Meander’s Hist. Chr. Ch., vol. 3, p. 264.] Dr. Brockett.
says:

“A hierarchy of any sort was utterly abhorrent to the spirit and temper of both
the Bogomiles and their affiliated sects in the West.” [Note: The Bogomiles, p.
58, 60, 71.]

Some have supposed they had an ecclesiastical chief dignitary. But as Brockett
says, and the foregoing quotations prove:

“The Bosnian died, or elder, seems to have been at this time about A.D. 1220 the
presiding officer of the affiliated sects or denominations, somewhat like the
former presidents of our triennial conventions. He was Primus inter pares, but
possessed no judicial or ecclesiastical authority.” [Note: Idem, p. 127.] [See
Jirecek, Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 180.] Neander says of their doctrine and
life:

“Certain it is, that the Paulician doctrines as a whole, not only required, but
were calculated to foster, a spirit of sober and strict morality.” [Note:
Neander’s Hist. Chr. Ch., vol. 3, p. 266.] Sir William Jones, of the Paulicians,
says:

“I see no reason to doubt that we should see in them the genuine successors of
the Christians of the first two centuries.” [Note: Jones’ Ch. Hist., p. 245.]
(In this chapter italics are all mine.)

I, therefore, conclude this examination of the Paulicians in the language of
perhaps the highest authority on the subject — Brockett — “The Armenian
Paulicianists were clearly Baptists.” [Note: Bap. Eev., vol. 4, No. 10.]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: THE ALBIGENSES.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 12. — THE ALBIGENSES.

I will introduce the treatment of the sects, between century ten and century
sixteen, in the following words of Mosheim:

“We find from the time of Gregory the VII. several proofs of the zealous efforts
of those who are generally called by the Protestants the witnesses of the truth;
by whom are meant such pious and judicious Christians as adhered to the pure
religion of the gospel, and remained uncorrupted amidst the greatest
superstition; who deplored the miserable state to which Christianity was
reduced, by the alteration of its divine doctrines, and the vices of its
profligate ministers; who opposed with vigor the tyrannic ambition both of the
lordly pontiff and the aspiring bishops; and in some provinces privately, and
others openly, attempted the reformation of a corrupt and idolatrous church, and
of a barbarous and superstitious age. This was, indeed, bearing witness to the
truth in the noblest manner, and it was principally in Italy and France that the
marks of this heroic purity were exhibited.” [Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent.
11, part 2, chap. 3, sec. 2.] From those reformers were derived great hosts of
recruits to the Baptist churches. The influence of Baptist churches created a
great desire among the members of the Romish church for reformation. Out of
Baptist influence originated Martin Luther’s Reformation. The name Albigenses
was one of the designations of the Paulicians from “the beginning of the
eleventh century to the middle of the thirteenth century.” Coming from Asia,
where they were known as Paulicians, they crossed the Balkan Peninsula and
reached the Western empire. In the tenth and the eleventh centuries, under the
name Paulicians, but especially Albigenses, from the town of Albiga in Southern
France, and Cathari — from their pure lives — they filled and moulded both
France and Italy, affecting in a less degree, other parts of Europe. The
Albigenses — and others, too, — are, in this book, treated under distinctive
heads; not because they were not identical with their predecessors and
contemporaries, but for the sake of clearness, to conform to the usual
classification — a classification that recent researches demand should be
abandoned. Here I remind the reader of a necessary caution:

“It ought always to be borne in mind, however, that for the larger part of our
information regarding those stigmatized as heretics, we are indebted, not to
their own writings, but to the works of their opponents. Only the titles remain
of the bulk of heretical writings, and of the rest we have, for the most part,
only such quotations as prejudiced opponents have chosen to make. That these
quotations fairly represent the originals would be too much to assume.” [Note:
Vedder’s Bap. Hist., p. 50; Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 12, chap. 5, sec 1.]

Kurtz:

“The little town of Albi in the district of Albigeois, was regarded as the great
center of the party, whence the name of Albigenses.” [Note: Kurtz Ch. Hist.,
vol. l, p. 462; Schaff-Herzog Ency., vol. 1, p. 46] The Encyclopedia Britannica
says of the Albigenses: “The descent may be traced with tolerable distinctness
from the Paulicians” [Note: Ency. Brit., Art. Albigenses.] Dr. Carl Schmidt, an
eminent German authority of Strasburg, speaking of their being called
Albigenses, says:

“Before that time the sect was spoken of as Publicants or Publicani, probably a
corruption of the name Paulicians, which the Crusaders had brought back from
Western Europe.” [Note: Schafl-Herzog Ency., vol. 1, p. 46; The Bogomiles, pp.
122, 123, 128, 131; Cramp’s Cap. Hist., p. 99.] To the charge that the
Albigenses held to Manichaeism, I reply:

(1.) By reminding the reader of Vedder’s words beginning this article.

(2.) That, as they are identical with the Paulicians, the refutation of this
charge, in Chapter XI., is the refutation of this charge against the Albigenses.

(3.) To this I add the following: Robinson, one of the most careful and reliable
historians, did not sufficiently credit the charge to affirm it. His cautious
words are: “The Albigenses were Manichaeans, or nearly so,” “Nearly so” is not
“so.” [Note: Robinson’s Eccl. Researches, p. 463.] There are certain modified
forms of Manichaeism which, while erroneous, would not unchurch any party.
Mosheim says that those who held to Manichaeism held it “differently interpreted
and modified by different doctors.” [Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 12, part
2, chap. 5, sec. 6; Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p.478.] Prof. Carl Schmidt says: “The
representations which Roman Catholic writers, their bitter enemies, have given
them, are highly exaggerated.” [Note: Schaff-Herzog Ency., vol. 1, p 47.] Even
admitting them slightly tainted with Manichaeism, since they lived in an age of
little thought and learning, it would no more affect their claims to be churches
of Christ than slight errors of the head, especially of the unlearned, now
unchurch. (See Chapter V. of this book.)

(4.) But there is no proof conclusive that the Albigenses were so much as
tainted with Manichaeaism. Wadington, speaking of the great Romish
controversialists attempt to blacken their characters, (Bishop Bossuett)
observes: “He has failed to prove their Manichean origin — still more their
Manichaean doctrine. He calls them indeed ‘new’ Manichaeans and admits that
‘they had softened some of their errors.’ But they had parted with the
characteristic error, or in fact they never held it.’ [Note: Wadington’s Ch.
Hist., p. 552— note.] On p. 291 Wadington observes:

“Manichaeism was the frightful term employed to express their delinquency; but
it is more probable that their real offence was the adoption of certain mystical
notions, proceeding, indeed, from feelings of the most earnest piety, but too
spiritual to be tolerated in that age and in that church.” [Note: Idem, p. 291.]

Though the charge that the Albigenses rejected marriage, baptism and the supper,
has been refuted in page 119, refuting the same charge against them under the
name Paulicians, the reader will notice that these charges are, incidentally,
farther refuted in the following. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of them:

“The statement that they rejected marriage, often made by Roman Catholics, has
probably no other foundation in fact than that they denied marriage as a
sacrament; and many other statements of their doctrines must be received at
least with suspicion, as coming from prejudiced and implacable opponents.”
[Note: Art. Albigenses.]

Alanus, speaking of the Albigenses, says: “They rejected infant baptism ... It
does not appear that they rejected either of the sacraments.” [Note: The
Bogomiles, p. 122.] Collier says:

“They refused to own infant baptism.” [Note: Robinson’s Eccl. Besh., p. 463.]
Brockett says: “Nothing is said by Hoveden of their rejection of the sacraments
of baptism and the eucharist, which would certainly have been mentioned by so
careful a writer as Hoveden, had it existed. Indeed, his strongest objection to
them was their refusal to take an oath.” [Note: The Bogomiles, p. 122.]

Favin, a historian, is quoted as saying: “The Albigenses do esteem the baptizing
of infants superstitious.” Izam, the Troubadour, a Dominican persecutor of these
heretics, says: “They admitted another baptism.” [Note: Robinson’s Eccl. Besh.,
p. 463.] Chassanion is quoted as saying:

“I cannot deny that the Albigenses, for the greater part, were opposed to infant
baptism; the truth is, they did not reject the sacraments as useless, but only
as unnecessary to infants.”

They had no Campbellism in them. As Armitage observes: “They rejected the Romish
church and esteemed the New Testament above all its traditions and ceremonies.
They did not take oaths, nor believe in baptismal regeneration; but they were
ascetic and pure in their lives; they also exalted celibacy.” [Note: Armitage’s
Bap. Hist., p. 278.] Their encouraging celibacy, as they believed in marriage,
was probably for the reason that Paul encouraged it temporarily, because of
persecution being harder to endure in families than when single. [Note: 1
Cor.,7;27, 40.] As refusing to take oaths was a practice of many of these
ancient Baptists, I here stop to say: While that matter with Baptists is a
matter of little importance, yet I believe they were, probably, nearer right
than we are; for, while by “swear not at all” our Savior alluded to only
profanity, yet, as Archbishop Whately observes, I believe that men who will tell
a lie will swear one as readily, once the penalty is out of the way; hence,
instead of taking oath annex the penalty of swearing a lie to telling it in
court. In church government the Albigenses were Baptists. A historian says:
“Their bards or pastors were every one of them heads of their churches, but they
acted on nothing without the consent of the people and the clergy,” i.e., the
ministers who had charge of no church. “Deacons expounded the gospels,
distributed the Lord’s supper, baptized, and sometimes had the oversight of
churches, visited the sick and took care of the temporalities of the church.”
Chr. Schmidt says: “Their ritual and ecclesiastical organization were
exceedingly simple.” [Note: Schaff-Herzog Ency., p. 421.] This was so much the
case that the Romish church, not seeing any church in so simple an organization,
thought they had no churches, and Prof. Schmidt has, thereby, been mislead into
the same conclusion. In Chap. XI — noticing them as Paulicians — they are
clearly proved to have been, in church government, Baptist. The Albigenses were
pure in their lives and a zealous people in good works. Carl Schmidt says of
them: “Their severe moral demands made impression because the example of their
preachers corresponded with their words ... In a short time the Albigenses had
congregations with schools and charitable institutions of their own ... The
Roman Catholic church, so far as it still could be said to exist in the country,
had become an object of contempt and derision. This state of affairs, of course,
caused great alarm in Rome.” [Note: Schaff-Herzog Ency., vol. 1, p. 47.]

Thus, “the Albigensian heresy,” as Lord Macaulay observes, brought about the
civilization, the literature, the national existence ... of the most opulent and
enlightened part of the great European family.” [Note: Macaulay’s Works, vol. 6,
p. 463.]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: THE PATERINES.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 13. — THE PATERINES.

Though names are not essential to Church Perpetuity in this chapter I will
notice the Paterines. In church history the Paterines are called Cathari, from
Catharoi, meaning pure ones. Gazari, perhaps from the inhabitants of Crimea, the
Chazars. Bulgari, from the supposition of their having come from Bulgaria.
Pataria, Patereni, i.e., black-guards. Tisserands, from many of them being
weavers. Bogomils, from the Bulgarian Bog z’milui, signifying “God have mercy,”
meaning a praying people. Massalians, said to be from Syriac, signifying those
who pray. Euchites, meaning those who pray. Albigenses, from the little town of
Albi in the district of the Albigeois, in the South of France, being regarded as
the great center of various parties, called Cathari. Paulicians was converted
into a well-known term of reproach and into too many other terms to notice.
[Note: Kurtz’s Ch. Hist., vol. 1, pp. 410, 453; The Bogomiles, p. 29.]

While, in church history, the Paterines are generally called Cathari, as they
are better known among Baptist writers by the term Paterines, I will use that
term. As Roman Catholics used any term with which they could best reproach their
opponents there may have been churches or parties of shades of faith who were
called Paterines; [Note: Pretentious of Baptists to Antiquity, by Clements, p.
326; “Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p. 288; Limborch, Hist. Inquist., lib. 1 C. 15;
Johnson’s Ency., Art. Cathari; Mosheim’s Ch. Hist., cent. 11, part 2, chap. 2,
sec. 13— note; part 2, clia.p. 5, sec. 2; Jones’ Ch. Hist., p. 287; Robinson’s
Ecol. Researches, pp. 456, 405 and 408.] and some of them grossly erroneous. The
Paterines are on record at least from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries.
[Note: Eccl. Resh., p. 463; Bap. Hist., p. 277.] They numbered hundreds of
thousands. They flourished especially in Italy, France and more especially in
the South of France, The better part of them were Paulicians. But as they figure
in Baptist history under the names Paterines and Cathari I give them this
separate notice. In the study of all these names we must, also, bear in mind the
remarks of Robinson and Armitage.

Robinson:

“The practice of confounding heretics of all kinds in one common herd, devoted
to the shambles, hath been an ancient custom with ecclesiastical historians and
it hath obscured history.” [Note: Jones’ Ch. Hist., p. 288; Robinson’s Eccl.
Resh, p. 409.]

Armitage:

“The Cathari, the pure, have been the subjects of much confusion in
ecclesiastical history, largely in consequence of classing widely different
sects under that general name both amongst ancient and modern writers, whether
Catholic or Protestant.”

While it may be that some people who were called Paterines were fundamentally in
error, that there were distinct churches covered by the name which were
essentially Baptistic, we must conclude in spite of the whole catalogue of
errors with which Satan has never hesitated to blacken their character.

Thus, the Paterines are charged with opposing marriage. But, this being a charge
so generally made by the Romish church of those times against those who denied
marriage a “sacrament,” and now, Romish theologians, presuming Protestant
marriage invalid, as the charge originated with Romanists, it is not probably
true. In an age when it was popular to do so, Roman Catholics with great
effectiveness blackened all who did not regard marriage a sacrament as rejecting
marriage. On 100 and 101 of Benedict’s History of the Baptists will be found an
illustration of how the Mennonites were charged by Romanists of denying baptism
and marriage, simply because they denied they are sacraments. Since no moral
people can perpetuate itself without marriage, the Paterines being by historians
pronounced a people of the purest morals, should brand this charge an infamous
slander. Robinson positively refutes this charge:

“That they denied the seven sacraments of the church, of which matrimony is one,
is admitted; but they denied these only in the sense in which the Catholics
affirmed them, as all Protestants do. That they married and had families is
beyond all doubt, for in an authentic trial of Arman Punzilupe of Ferrara, who
had held office among them, his wife and the wives and children of many more are
mentioned.” [Note: Robinson’s Eccl. Resh., p. 407, compare, also, pp. 119, 126
of Ch. Perpetuity.] The serious errors which Mosheim and others record against
the Paterines, so far as true, necessarily applies to others called Peterines
and not to the moral ones, since their acknowledged morality and life, being the
result of belief, clearly necessitates freedom of a part of the Paterine
churches from the charges. We have already, from historic facts, refuted most of
these charges, when charged on the Paulicians. Yet, the better part of the
Paterine churches, being Paulicians, were free from those errors charged. As to
the charge against them of opposition to ecclesiastical and civil law, Hase
says:

“The name Catharists, by which this sect was usually designated ... The accounts
we have respecting them are almost exclusively from their enemies, or from
apostates from them, and are consequently full of errors and calumnies. All
agree in describing them as absolutely opposed to the Catholic church and all
its pomp, in consequence of what they professed to he, an immediate
communication of the Holy Ghost, exalting them above all necessity of
ecclesiastical or civil laws.” [Note: Hase’s Hist. Chr. Ch., p. 252.] As we know
they believed in New Testament laws, exalting themselves above all necessity of
ecclesiastical or civil laws is, evidently, a Romish intentional perversion, or
a misunderstanding of their opposition to Romish ecclesiastical law, which, in
the union of church and State, was a part of civil law. As to the common Romish
charge of Manichaeism or Dualism, Hase considerately says:

“Their dualistic tendency, however, may have gone no farther than the popular
notion of a devil and his subordinate spirits, [Note: Hase should have said:
“The scriptural teaching of a devil and his subordinate spirits.”] and in a
portion of the Catharist church it appears to have been modified in various
ways, to have been full of moral seriousness and religious sincerity, and yet to
have laid great stress upon fastings,” etc. [Note: Hase’s Hist. Chr. Ch., p.
252.] Dr. J.M. Cramp, says:

“But if one accusation is manifestly outrageous and unfounded, may not the other
be? Are we not entitled to the inference that there was, at least, gross
exaggeration if not malicious libel. And finally is it credible that those who
avowed and manifested unlimited deference to the word of God were led astray by
the fantasies of the Manichaean theory.” [Note: Cramp’s Bap. Hist., p. 103.]
Library of Universal Knowledge, on this charge, says:

“There is much reason to think that the errors of a few were indiscriminately
charged upon all, and that such charges, indeed, sometimes rested upon ignorant
or willful misconstruction.” [Note: Art. Catharl.]

Neander concedes that the charge of Manichaeism is not proved. “The marks of
Manichaeism are by no means indisputable,” [Note: Neander’ s Hist. Chr. Ch.,
vol. 4, p. 566.] Of another similarly disreputable charge against them Neander
farther concedes:

“We will not deny that as this account proceeds from the fiercest enemies of the
sect, we might be tempted to consider the whole report as a manufactured
conclusion, or a pure invention of heresy hating spite.” [Note: Idem, p. 570.]
The following account of them, by Neander, is irreconcilable with the reports
against their character and doctrine:

“The feature that so much distinguished the first Christian communities, seemed
to have revived again in this party, more closely bound together as they were by
persecutions. Their adversaries expatiate on the ample support which everyone
who professed their peculiar principles found among them as a means by which
attachment to those principles was especially promoted. As in the first ages of
Christianity, every Christian who brought with him a letter of recommendation
from his community was certain of meeting a hospitable reception from his
brethren in the faith, so any one belonging to the sect of the Catharists, when
recommended by one of their communities, might expect to meet with a kind
reception everywhere among the Catharists. Let him travel in Italy, or in South
France, he was sure of finding everywhere, whatever he needed in abundance ...
In particular, the perfects, when on their travels were received into the houses
of all believers with great respect. The inmates thrice bowed the knee to
receive their blessing. The members of the sect in the whole place speedily
assembled at the house where they were entertained, and perhaps others also, who
were not liable to be suspected as informers, were invited to hear them preach
and expound the scriptures. In South France, they took in the daughters of
indigent noblemen and educated them.” [Note: Idem, p. 584.]

There is no more reason to believe that the reports of their holding absurd
doctrines are reliable than there is that the slanders on their character are
reliable; and Neander says:

“The most absurd reports of unnatural excesses and other abominations, said to
be committed in the secret assemblies of the sect, were spread among the
multitude; accusations similar to those brought against the primitive Christians
... and such as are wont to be repeated against all opponents of a dominant
religion.” [Note: Idem, p. 586.] As an illustration of how history has begun to
do that noble people justice, I quote:

“The liturgy lately discovered by Kunitz dates from the close of the thirteenth
century and gives a more favorable opinion of them than has been formerly
entertained.” [Note: Kurtz’s Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 455.] This was since Mosheim
and others who have given such credit to the Romish slanders on this people
wrote. In their zeal against Church Perpetuity, Vedder and Armitage credit those
foul aspersions without so much as intimating there is another side to the
question. In church government they were clearly Baptists, as appears from Hase:

“In the midst of a people thus professing to be filled with the spirit, and
whose pope was the Holy Ghost himself, none of the existing officers of the
church could exercise any of their hierarchal prerogatives.” [Note: Hase’s Hist.
Chr. Ch., p. 252.]

Schmidt says:

“Their ritual and ecclesiastical organization were exceedingly simple.” [Note:
Schaff-Herzog Ency., vol. l, p. 421.] In the following accounts appear not only
their Baptist church government but other Baptist marks.

Robinson, than whom there is no better authority, says of them:

“It is remarkable that in the examination of these people, they are not taxed
with any immoralities, but were condemned for speculations, or rather for
virtuous rules of action, which all informers accounted heresies. They said: ‘A
Christian church ought to consist of only good people; a church has no power to
frame any constitution; it was not right to take oaths; it was not lawful to
kill mankind; a man ought not to ho delivered up to officers of justice to be
converted; the benefits of society belonged alike to all the members of it,
faith alone could not save a man,’ (faith which had not the spirit of obedience)
‘the church ought not to persecute any, even the nicked; the church cannot
excommunicate;’ (that is in the Romish sense of cursing) ‘the law of Moses was
no rule to Christians;’ (no infant baptism or seventh day observance) ‘there was
no need of priests, especially of wicked ones; the sacraments and orders and
ceremonies of the church of Rome were futile, expensive, oppressive and wicked;
with many more such positions, all inimical /o the hierarchy. In these reasons
and rules they all agreed, but in speculations they widely differed.’”[Note:
Robinson’s Eccl. Resh., pp. 407, 408.]

Thus, as Baptists to-day do, this people rejected the whole heresy of there
being sacraments (sacraments mean saving ceremonies), priesthood, church and
State persecution, legislating for the church of Christ and of an unconverted
membership. Robinson continues:

“As the Catholics of those times baptized by immersion, the Paterines by what
name soever they were called ... made no complaint of the mode of baptizing; but
when they were examined they objected vehemently against the baptism of infants
and condemned it as an error. They said, among other things, that a child knew
nothing of the matter, that it had no desire to be baptized, and was incapable
of making any confession of faith, and that the willing and confessing of
another could be of no service to him. ‘Here then,’ says Dr. Allix, very truly,
‘we have found a body of men in Italy, before the year 1026, 500 years before
the Reformation, ‘who believed contrary to the opinions of the church of Rome,
and who condemned their errors.’ Atio, bishop of Vercelli, had complained of
such people eighty years before, and so had others before him, and there is the
highest reason to believe they had always been in Italy ... Errors most gross
are laid to their charge, but they scent strongly of fable ... The adjacency of
France and Spain, too, contribute to their increase, for both abounded with
Christians of their sort. Their churches were divided into sixteen compartments,
such as the English Baptists would call associations. Each of these was
subdivided into parts, which would here be called churches or congregations. In
Milan there was a street called Pataria, where it is supposed they met for
divine worship. At Modena they assembled at some water mills. They had houses at
Ferrara, Brescia, Viterbo, Verona, Vicenza and several in Rimini, Romandolia,
and other places. One of their principal churches was that of Concorezzo, in the
Milanese, and the members of churches in these associations were more than
fifteen hundred. Their houses where they met seem to have been hired by the
people, and tenanted by one of the brethren. There were several in each city,
and each was distinguished by a mark known only by themselves. They had three,
some say four, suits or officers; the first were teachers, called bishops. John
de Casaloto was the resident teacher at Mantua; Albert and Bonaventura
Belasmagra, at Verona; Lorenzo or Lawrence at Sermione. The second are called
quaestors, and by some, elders and younger sons; here they would be named
teaching elders or deacons. The third were messengers, that is, men employed in
traveling to administer to the relief and comfort of the poor and persecuted. In
times of persecution they met in small companies of eight, twenty, thirty, or as
it happened, but never in larger assemblies for fear of consequences. [Note: The
smallness of these meetings is partly what renders It as difficult for the
historian to find them and trace their history as it was for their persecutors
to find them.] The different associations held different doctrines but they were
all united in opinion against the whole of popery, and in perfect agreement
among themselves on the great leading points above mentioned. The Paterines were
decent in their deportment, modest in their dress and discourse, and their
morals were irreproachable. In their conversation there was no levity, no
scurrility, no detraction, no falsehood, no swearing. Their dress was neither
fine nor mean. They were chaste and temperate, never frequenting [Note: With
them taverns were saloons. Let all our churches enforce the same rule. The man
who thinks he can be a member at a saloon or a theater or horse racing, etc.,
and a true member o£ the church at the same time is a shame on Christianity.”]
taverns or places of public amusement. They were not given to anger and other
violent passions. They were not eager to accumulate wealth, but were content
with a plain plenty of the necessaries of life. They avoided commerce because
they thought it would expose them to the temptation of collusion, falsehood and
oaths; and they chose to live by labor or handicraft. They were always employed
in spare hours in giving as receiving instructions. [Note: That Baptists do not
now always thus improve their time is but to be deplored.] . About the year 1040
the Paterines had become very numerous and conspicuous in Milan, which was their
principal residence, and here they flourished at least two hundred years. They
had no connection with the church for they rejected not only Jerome of Syra,
Augustine of Africa, and Gregory of Rome, but Ambrose of Milan, and they
considered them as all other pretended fathers and corrupters of Christianity.
They particularly condemned Pope Sylvester as the anti-Christ, the son of
perdition.” [Note: Robinson’s Eccl. Resh., pp. 408-411.] To the report made by
Bonacursi, a traitor from their ranks, that they said “the devil wrote the Old
Testament,” Robinson well retorts: “He should have said, he expounded it, for
this was their meaning’ — alluding to its use by the Romish church. [Note:
Robinson’s Eccl. Resh., p. 415.] Alluding to the Romish church, Robinson says:

“The Paterines let the church alone, constantly affirming the sufficiency of
Scriptures, the competency of each to reform himself, the right of all, even
women, to teach; and openly disclaiming any manner of coercion.”

These three kinds of offices, mentioned, by Robinson in the foregoing account,
corresponded substantially to Baptist church offices, thus: their first, to
settled pastors; their second, to deacons; their third, to various kinds of
traveling ministers — different functions of two offices.

“They maintained church discipline, even on their ministers, as examples are
recorded.” [Note: Benedict’s Hist. Bap., p. 20.]

They were Baptists on the doctrine of election and “appealed to the texts in the
ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, employed by others also in proof of
the doctrine of unconditional predestination.” [Note: Meanders’ Hist. Chr. Ch.,
vol. 4, p. 568.] Like Baptists they said:

“We perform a miracle when we convert a man to God; then we drive out from him
the evil spirits.” [Note: Idem, p. 569.]

Kurtz says: “Even their opponents admitted their deep and moral
earnestness.”[Note: Kurtz’s Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 454.]

“It was by means of the Paterines,” says another historian, “that the truth was
preserved in the dioceses of Milan and Turin ... They are also freed from the
baleful charge of Manichaeism.” Nor can their differences of: “speculations,” in
the least, make them different from Baptists, since Baptists, freely allow such
differences in their churches, Leaving out little variations, consequent on
individual peculiarities, and the times in which they, this people, were
Baptists, Robinson says:

“It appears highly credible that this kind of people, Paterines, continued there
till the Reformation.” [Note: Eccl. Kesh, p. 417] No historian being able to
show that they ceased to exist, this completes the Baptist Perpetuity line,
through the Anabaptists, to the present.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 17: THE PETROBRUSSIANS AND HENRICIANS.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 14. — THE PETROBRUSSIANS AND HENRICIANS. The Petrobrussians numbered
their hundreds of thousands. In the Middle Ages they were a great and shining
light. Historians agree that the Petrobrussians appeared in the South of France
about 1104. Of their great leader — Peter de Bruys — Kurtz says:

“He rejected the outward or visible church, and only acknowledged the true,
invisible church in the hearts of believers. In his opinion all churches and
sanctuaries should be destroyed, since God might be worshipped in a stable or
tavern. He used crucifixes for cooking purposes; inveighed against celibacy, the
mass and infant baptism; and after twenty years of continued disturbance ended
his days at the stake by the hands of an infuriated mob, 1124. He was succeeded
by one of his associates, Henry of Lausanne, formerly a monk of the order of
Clugny. Under him the sect of the Petrobrussians greatly increased in numbers.”
[Note: Kurtz’s Chr. Hist., vol. 1, p. 456.]

Farther on we will see that in stating the Petrobrussians rejected the visible
church, Kurtz is as much in error as he is in stating that the only true church
is not an outward organization, but only internal or invisible. Indeed, in that
he says they rejected infant baptism, implying that they practiced adult
baptism, Kurtz confutes his own statement; since water baptism implies a visible
church.

Says Mosheim:

“A much more rational sect was that which was founded about the year 1110 in
Languedoc and Provence by Peter de Bruys, who made the most laudable attempts to
reform the abuses and to remove the superstitions that disfigured the beautiful
simplicity of the gospel, and after having engaged in the cause a great number
of followers, during a ministry of twenty years continuance, was burnt at St.
Giles, in the year 1130, by an enraged populace, set on by the clergy, whose
traffic was in danger from the enterprising spirit of the reformer. The whole
system of doctrine, which this unhappy martyr, whose zeal was not without a
considerable mixture of fanaticism, taught to the Petrobrussians, his disciples,
is not known. It is, however, certain that the five following tenets made a part
of his system.

(1.) That no persons whatever were to be baptised before they were come to the
fullness of their reason.

(2.) That it was an ideal superstition to build churches for the service of God,
who will accept of sincere worship wherever it is offered, and that such
churches as had already been erected should be pulled down and destroyed.

(3.) That the crucifixes as instruments of superstition deserved the same fate.

(4.) That the real body and blood of Christ were not exhibited in the eucharist,
but were merely represented in the holy ordinance, by their figures and symbols.

(5.) And, lastly, that the oblations, prayers, and the good works of the living,
could be in no respect advantageous to the dead. This innovator was succeeded by
another, who was of Italian birth, and whose name was Henry, the founder and
parent of the sect of Henricians.” [Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 12, part
2, chap. 5, sect. 7, 8.] In Mosheim stating that notwithstanding Henry took up
the work where Peter de Bruys left it and that Henry founded the Henricians, we
see how historians attribute the origin of any previous party to its new leader,
naming it a new name, for that leader. Mosheim continues:

“We have no account of the doctrines of this reformer transmitted to our times.
All we know of the matter is, that he rejected inland baptism; censured with
severity the corrupt and licentious manners of the clergy; treated the festivals
and ceremonies of the church with the utmost contempt; and held clandestine
assemblies, in which he explained and inculcated the novelties he taught.
Several writers affirm that he was a disciple of Peter de Bruys.” [Note: Idem,
ibid.] After giving substantially the same account of the Petrobrussians and
Henricians, as the foregoing, Wadington says:

“Henry is generally described as a disciple and fellow laborer of Pierre de
Bruys. The objection to this opinion, urged by Mosheim, is, that Henry was
preceded in his expeditions by the figure of the cross, whereas Pierre consigned
all crucifixes to the flames. Without supposing that the objection of Pierre
might be to the image of the Savior, not to the form of the cross, the objection
is far from conclusive.” [Note: Wadington’s Ch. Hist.-note to p. 287.] To
Wadington’s answer may be added: Protestant and Baptist churches, while joining
Peter de Bruys in destroying crucifixes as he found them used, do not hesitate
to use the representation of the cross in song, picture and even on churches.
Hence, Henry could have used the cross in harmony with his teachers.

After giving substantially the foregoing account, another historian adds:

“The Petrobrussians, to justify themselves from the calumnies of Peter of Clugny
and others, sent forth a work in answer to the question, ‘What is antiChrist?’
It is generally supposed to have been the production of Peter de Bruys, and is
said to have been written as early as 1120 ... In reference to the ordinances,
it declares, ‘A third work of anti-Christ consists in this, that he attributes
the regeneration of the Holy Spirit unto the mere external rite,’ (as
Campbellism), ‘baptizing infants in that faith, teaching that thereby baptism
and regeneration must be had; on which principle he bestows and confers orders,
and, indeed, grounds all his Christianity, which is contrary to the mind of the
Holy Spirit. This view was supported by a confession of their faith, in fourteen
articles, published about the same time. In this confession they acknowledge the
Apostles’ creed; belief in the Trinity; own the Canonical books of the Old and
New Testament; scriptural character of God, of Adam and his fall; work of Christ
as mediator; abhorrence of human inventions in worship; that the sacraments were
signs of holy things and that believers should use the symbol or forms when it
can be done; though they may be saved without those signs; they own baptism and
the Lord’s supper; and express their obedience to secular powers.’”

Thus, we see the Petrobrussian and Henrician churches were far from being either
Campbellites or Pedobaptists, and that they believed in the visible church.
Neander says: “Henry became the leader of the Petrobrussians.” [Note: Neander’s
Hist. Chr. Ch., vol. 4, p. 602.] Dr. J.M. Cramp says of them:

“Baptism and the church were contemplated by Peter in the pure light of the
Scripture. The church should be composed, they constantly affirmed, of true
believers, good and just persons; no others had any claim to membership.

Baptism was a nullity unless connected with personal faith, but all who believed
were under solemn obligation to be baptized, according to the Saviour’s command.
Peter was not merely what is now called ‘a Baptist in principle.’ When the
truths he inculcated were received and men and women were received to ‘newness
of life’ they were directed to the path of duty.

Enemies said that was Anabaptism, but Peter and his friends indignantly repelled
the imputation. The right performed in infancy, they maintained, was no baptism
at all, since it wanted the essential ingredient, faith in Christ.

There and then only when they professed were the converts really baptized.

Great success attended Peter’s labors ... Henry repaired to the district where
Peter de Bruys preached and entered into his labors ... This is certain that he
fully agreed with Peter on the subject of baptism and those who received the
truth were formed into ‘apostolical societies,’ or, as we should now say, into
Christian churches.” [Note: Cramp’s Bap. Hist., p. 129.]

Even Dr. Wall concedes that the Petrobrussians and Henricians rejected infant
baptism. [Note: Wall’s Hist. Int. Bap., vol. 3, p. 250.] Of one of the
slanderous reports against them, Dr. Wall says: “I hope that those reports are
not true.” Wall further quotes them:

“It is therefore an idle and vain thing for you to wash persons with water, at
such a time when you may indeed cleanse their skin from dirt in a human manner,
but not purge their souls from sins. But we do stay till the proper time of
faith, and when a person is capable to know his God, and believes in him, then
we do (not as you charge, rebaptize him) but baptize him.” On which Wall
remarks: “This is, as to the practice, perfectly in agreement with modern
anti-pedobaptists.” [Note: Idem, vol. 2, pp. 256, 259.] Dr. Wall here reports a
slander, that they believed in infant damnation, a slander so threadbare and
contradictory to what we know of them, that it is unworthy of notice. Says Dr.
S.H. Ford: “Henry was a Baptist.” [Note: Ford’s Origin of Bap., p. 97.] Vedder
shows they were not Campbellites. He says: “A third capital error,” the Romanist
charged on them was they: “denied sacramental grace.”[Note: Vedder’s Hist. Bap.,
p. 60] Though Vedder seems as much prejudiced against Church Perpetuity, and
more ready to credit slanders against some of our Baptist ancestors than candid
Pedobaptist writers are, the Petrobrussians were so clearly Baptists, that he
says:

“In the main, the beliefs attributed to them are such as are firmly held today
by Baptists the world over. The question is already practically answered, were
the Petrobrussians Baptists? In their main principles they certainly were.
Those, therefore, who attempt to trace the descent of modern Baptists through
the Petrobrussians have at least a plausible starting point. Anybody that holds
to the supremacy of the Scriptures, a spiritual church, and believers’ baptism,
is fundamentally one with the Baptist churches of to-day, whatever else it may
add to or omit from. the statement of its belief. Contemporary records have been
sought in vain to establish any essential doctrine taught by this condemned sect
that is inconsistent either with the leaching of the Scripture or with the
belief avowed in recent times by Baptists.” [Note: Idem, p. 62. ] Vedder,
farther, says:

“There were other preachers of a pure gospel, nearly contemporary with Peter de
Bruys, and more or less closely connected with him. Henry of Lausanne
(1116-1150) is described by some as a disciple of Peter, though others insist
that he did not share Peter’s heresies. Certain it is that at one time; they
were close companions and the balance of evidence indicates that Henry of
Lausanne was powerfully influenced by his predecessor and co-laborer. ... He is
described as a man of great dignity of person, of fiery eye, a thundering voice,
impetuous speech, mighty in the Scriptures. His preaching was largely
scriptural, and an exhortation to shun the prevalent corruption of life and seek
righteousness. The words quoted from Bernard seem to prove that he taught and
practiced the baptism of believers only, while it is certain that he held to the
supreme authority of the Scriptures and rejected the authoritative clauses of
the tradition and the church.” [Note: idem, p. 64.] Dr. Armitage who has
denounced: “Succession” as intemperately as any one can well do, says:

“The term Cathari has been applied to another thoroughly Baptist sect ... the
Petrobrussians ... In the Petrobrussians we find a sect of Baptists for which no
apology is needed. Peter of Bruis seized the entire Biblical presentation of
baptism and forced its teaching home upon the conscience and the life, by
rejecting the immersion of babes and insisting on the immersion of all believers
in Christ. He held the church to be made up of a regenerated people only,
counted the bishops and priests, as he knew them, mere frauds; and set aside all
the ceremonial mummeries of the Romish hierarchy. He would not adore images,
offer prayers to or for the dead, nor do penance. He laughed at the stupidity
which holds that a child is regenerated when baptized, that he can be a member
of Christ’s flock when he knows nothing of Christ as a Shepherd, and demanded
that all who came to his churches should be immersed in water on their own act
of faith ... No one is to be called baptized who is not washed with the baptism
wherewith sins are washed away ... The Petrobrussians were a thoroughly
anti-sacerdotal sect, whose hatred of tyranny threw off the Roman yoke of the
twelfth century; a democratic body, in distinction from the aristocratic
organization ... They demanded the words of Christ in the New Testament for
everything and not the traditions of all inner and favored few ... The
Petrobrussians were thoroughly and deeply anti-Catholic in all that conflicted
with the gospel. While they were Puritanical they were not ascetic. They
abolished all fasts and penance for sin because Christ only can forgive sin, and
this he does on a sinner’s trust in his merits. They held marriage as a high and
honorable relation not only for Christians generally, but for priests ... With
them a church did not mean an architectural structure, but a regenerated
congregation, nor had consecrated places any charm for them; for God could hear
them as well in the market place as in the temple ... The death of Peter was not
the end of his cause. Labbe calls him ‘the parent of heretics,’ for almost all
who were then branded after his day trod in his steps; and especially all
Baptist heretics ... When, like Elijah, God took Peter to heaven in a fiery
chariot, he had Elisha ready to catch his falling mantle, in the person of Henry
of Lausanne, or as Cluniacensis much prefers to put it, he was followed by Henry
‘the heir of Bruis’ wickedness,’ This petulant author imagined that Peter’s
principles had died with him, and like a simpleton writes: ‘I should have
thought that it had been those craggy Alps, and rocks covered with continual
snow, that had bred that savage temper in the inhabitants, and that your land
being unlike to other lands, had yielded a sort of people unlike to all others
... Such a bold soul had Christ been preparing in Henry, the next brave Baptist
of the; Swiss valleys. He had formerly been a monk at Clugny and had joined
himself to his master, Peter of Bruis, in the midst of his toils; and thus had
caught his spirit and been numbered with his principles ... He then made common
cause with Peter, as Melanethon did with Luther ... The land swarmed with
Henry’s followers.” [Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., pp. 283-290.] The opposition
to church buildings, mentioned in the foregoing, was probably to them only as
almost deified by the Romish church. As the Petrobrussians had been accustomed
to church buildings only as used by the Romish church they may have opposed them
in toto. If they did indiscriminately condemn church houses that in no way
rendered them unbaptistic, since church houses are not a Baptist article of
faith or necessary to the existence of a Baptist church. That the extravagances
of the times should drive the Baptists of those ages into extremes is not to be
unexpected. Yet God preserved them from essential departures from the faith.
(See Chapter V of this book.) That the Petrobrussians and the Henricians were
Baptists is so certain that I conclude this chapter in the language of that very
high authority, Prof. Buckland, late Professor of Ecclesiastical History in
Rochester Theological Seminary:

“We do reach a distinctively Baptist line in the Petrobrussians, in 1104, and I
believe that we may claim that our distinctive principles were perpetuated
continuously from that date onward into the Reformation period, and so to our
day.” Or of Dr. A.H. Newman, of Peter de Bruys and of Henry of Lausanne: “The
views of these teachers are well known to have been substantially Baptist.”
[Note: Baptist Quart. Rev., July, 1885, p. 321.]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 18: THE ARNOLDISTS.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 15. — THE ARNOLDISTS.

Says Mosheim:

“In Italy, Arnold of Brescia, a disciple of Abelard, and a man of extensive
erudition and remarkable austerity, but also a turbulent spirit, excited new
troubles and commotions both in church and State. He was, indeed, condemned in
the council of the Lateran, A.D. 1139, by Innocent II., and thereby obliged to
retire to Switzerland; but upon the death of the pontiff he returned into Italy
and raised at Rome, during the pontificate of Eugenie III., several tumults and
seditions among the people, who changed by his instigation the government of the
city and insulted the persons of the clergy in the most disorderly manner. He
fell, however, at last, a victim to the vengeance of his enemies; for, after
various turns of fortune, he was seized, in the year 1155, by a prefect of the
city, by whom he was crucified and afterward burned to ashes. This unhappy man
seems not to have adopted any doctrine inconsistent with the spirit of true
religion; and the principles upon which he acted were chiefly reprehensible from
their being carried too far, and executed with a degree of vehemence which was
as criminal as it was imprudent. Having perceived the discords and animosities,
the calamities and disorders, that sprang from the overgrown opulence of the
pontiffs and bishops, he was persuaded that the interests of the church and the
happiness of nations in general required that the clergy should be divested of
all their worldly possessions, of all their temporal rights and prerogatives. He
therefore maintained publicly that the treasures and revenues of popes, bishops
and monasteries ought to be solemnly resigned and transferred to the supreme
rulers of each State, and that nothing was to be left to the ministers of the
gospel but a spiritual authority and a subsistence drawn from the tithes, and
from the voluntary oblations and contributions of the people. This violent
reformer, in whose character and manner there were several things worthy of
esteem, drew after him a great number of disciples who derived from him the name
of Arnoldists, and in succeeding times discovered the spirit and intrepidity of
their leader, as often as any favorable opportunities of reforming the church
were offered to their zeal.” [Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 12, part 2,
chap. 5, see. 10.] Kurtz says of Arnold:

“His fervent oratory was chiefly directed against the secular power of the
church and its possession of property, views which were probably based on a more
spiritual conception of what the church really was. Otherwise his doctrinal
opinions seem to have been in accordance with those commonly entertained.”
[Note: Kurtz’s Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 456.] Wadington gives substantially the
above account, adding:

“It is, besides, asserted that his orthodoxy was liable to suspicion respecting
the eucharist and infant baptism. In consequence of these various charges he was
condemned by a Lateran council in 1139 A.D.” [Note: Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p.
258.] Of Arnold Wadington further says:

“To diminish the privileges, to reduce the revenues of the church, to deprive
the pontiff of temporal power and all civil jurisdiction, and to degrade (should
we not rather say exalt?) his stately splendor to the homeliness of his
primitive predecessors; these were the projects preparatory to the political
regeneration of Rome.” [Note: Idem, ibid.] Says C. Schmidt, regarded as one of
the main authorities on this subject:

“But comparing the first Christian congregation, the church of the Apostles,
with the church of his own time, he felt scandalized at the difference. The root
of all evil he found in the wealth of the church. All the vices and all the
worldliness of the clergy he ascribed to their riches ... He was a gifted man,
upright and fervent. The frightful corruption of the church naturally struck
him, and in the Bible itself he found the corrective.” [Note: Schaff-Herzog
Ency., vol. 1, p. 148.] To the charge that Arnold was turbulent and a creator of
mobs and other disorders, the reader must bear in mind that anyone, on behalf of
liberty and a pure church, could not then speak out against such evils as he
protested without being so charged. Church and Stale then being united, the
people, under the pretence of taxation, were robbed to enrich a licentious
clergy and to build up vast houses of ecclesiastical prostitution and kindred
abominations. [Note: During the middle ages the Romish church robbed the people
until it got much or most of their wealth into its own hands. The age of freedom
brought tie recovery or much of this property. But in Mexico, and in some other
countries, it yet retains the property it obtained by this robbery.] Why, no
greater praise could be accorded any one than that he made troublesome times for
such a church and such a clergy. Treason against such government can but be
loyalty to God. If, as reported, there were disorders attending Arnold’s
agitation, what were they but such as attended all great movements, from wicked
men taking advantage of the state of war; or, more likely, from an outraged
people being no longer able to control themselves, a thing for which not Arnold
was to blame but the corrupt clergy and the church, from which the cause of
outrage proceeded. Arnold:

“exhorted the people to organize a government similar to the ancient Roman
republic, with its consuls, its tribunes and equestrian order. But they,
provoked by the treachery and opposition of the papal party, and disunited among
themselves, gave way to the grossest excesses.” [Note: Universal Knowledge, vol.
l, p. 671.] As Cramp observes:

“Had it not been for the support derived from the imperial power, Italy would
have been Protestant before the Reformation. The success of Arnold of Brescia
was an impressive warning. In the year 1143 he established a new form of
government in Rome, which wrested the civil power out of the hands of popes and
compelled them to content themselves with the management of ecclesiastical
affair’s. That the attempt was ill-advised, because society was not sufficiently
prepared for it, is evident; but the continuance of the new order of things for
eleven years and the alacrity with which the people adopted an anti papal
policy, were remarkable signs of the times.” [Note: Cramp’s Bap. Hist., p. 98.]

“Arnold was formally condemned by the second general Lateran council, 1139. But
his appeals to the people had found an echo in many breasts.” [Note: Kurtz’s Ch.
Hist., vol. 1. p. 403.]

Baird:

“At his suggestion the form of the ancient Roman commonwealth was restored with
its consuls, senate, equestrian order and the tribunes of the people. But it was
all in vain. The Romans were no longer fit for freedom, but like the
Cappadocians of old, when offered the boon, they preferred the chains which they
had been so long accustomed to wear ... We know little of this Arnold from any
contemporaneous source, except the pages of Roman Catholic writers, who were not
likely to do him justice. But by their own showing, it is manifest that he
contended for truth and justice.” [Note: Baird’s Prot. in Italy, pp. 20, 22.]

Says G. Schmidt, of Arnold: “His reforms were all of a practical character.”
[Note: Schaff-Herzog Ency., vol. 1, p. 149.] Of Arnold, Armitage says:

“God had endowed him with rare gifts. He possessed great fervor, purity and
serenity, with a remarkable flow of eloquence; these he united to most graceful
and attractive manners and charming conversational powers. As a preacher he
filled Lombardy with resistance to the pride and pretensions of the priesthood.
He was the purest, most severe and bold personification of republican democracy,
both laical and ecclesiastical, of the century ... Under the stirring appeals of
his deep convictions and impassioned eloquence the popular cry was raised: ‘The
people and liberty,’ and he became as much its incarnation as Mazzini and
Garibaldi in modern times. As the apostle of liberty he contended for a full
dissolution of the union between church and State, and fired the cities to seek
perfect freedom from both pope and empire by establishing a republic. As a
patriot he looked upon these civil enemies only with contempt, and summoned
Italy to shake them off. As a Christian he was an anti-sacramentarian, desiring
to bring the church back to the New Testament standard; or, as Gibbon expresses
it, he boldly threw himself upon the declaration of Christ: ‘My kingdom is not
of this world.’ He would not use the sword, but maintained his cause by moral
sentiment; and yet formed the daring plan of planting the standard of civil and
religious liberty in the City of Rome itself, for the purpose of restoring the
old rights of the senate and the people. His pure morals and childlike sense of
justice startled the whole land. Rome was thrown into insurrection; all Europe
felt his power, and the eyes of Christendom were turned to the Eternal City.
After a desperate contest against three several popes, which cost Lucian his
life, a new constitution was framed and the sanction of Adrian IV. was demanded
to its provisions. The pope fled for his life, his temporal power was abolished,
and a new government was established in 1143, which maintained the struggle with
varying fortunes for about ten years. The violence of the people, however,
prevented final success. They rose in insurrection, demolished the houses and
seized the property of the papal party, while Arnold was conservative and
touched nothing. Nevertheless, his holy apostolate planted the seeds of that
republicanism which controls the Italy, Switzerland and France of to-day.”

Speaking of his martrydom,

“Thus perished this great patriot and martyr to the holy doctrine of
soul-liberty. But Italy will ever hold his name in hallowed remembrance.

“Down to 1861 a simple slab commemorated his noble deeds; then a modest statue
took its place. But in 1864-65 the Communal and Provincial councils of Brescia
each voted a sum of 30,000 lire (Itali) for a splendid monument to his honor.
The city of Zurich made a large contribution, and from other sources the sum
amounted to 150,000 lire, about $30,000. The ablest artists of Northern Italy
competed for the prize model, which was awarded M. Tabacchi. The base after the
design of the great architect, Tagliaferri, who has succeeded admirably in
reproducing the old Lombard style of architecture in Arnold’s time, is of
various colored marbles, hewn from the rocks of Brescia. The statue itself is of
bronze and is four meters (13 feet 4 inches) high. Arnold is represented in a
preaching attitude; his gigantic figure being that of a monk, in a long robe
with graceful folds. His long nervous arms extend from the wide sleeves, his
wonderful face is serene, but inspired for address; and the simplicity of the
whole conception is worthy of the greatness of the man. The first alto-relievo
represents him expounding his doctrine to the Brescians, holding in his hand the
book of truth; in the second he is on trial, defending himself before his judges
against the accusations of his foes; in the third he stands preaching in the
Forum, surrounded by shields, broken columns and capitals, among which is the
arch of Titus; the fourth presents him on the scaffold with his hands tied
behind his back, the judge at his side about to read the sentence, and a funeral
pile ready for lighting behind him. This beautiful work of art was dedicated to
him as the fore-runner of Italian liberty in the nineteenth century, and was
officially unveiled in Brescia, Aug. 14, 1882. Most eloquent orations were
delivered, while redeemed Italy looked on, by the patriot Zanardelli, ‘Minister
of Grace and Justice’ for that year.

“Although the great distinctive feature in which Arnold most sympathized with
Baptists relates to his unbending opposition to any union whatever with church
and Slate, he appears to have sympathized with them in other respects. Dr. Wall
says that the Lateran Council of A.D. 1139, condemned him for rejecting infant
baptism, and he thinks that he was ‘a follower of Peter de Bruis’ in this
respect. If so, then the council which condemned the Petrobrussians, condemned
him. Bernard accuses him and his followers of deriding infant baptism. Evervine
not only complains of the same thing but says that they Administered baptism
only to believers. Gibbon also states that Arnold’s ‘ideas of baptism and the
eucharist were loosely censured; but a political [Note: History demonstrates
this “political heresy” the result of Baptist principles.] heresy was the source
of his fame and his misfortunes.’”[Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., pp. 291-293;
Wall’s Hist. Inf. Bap., vol. 2, p. 265.] Gibbon says: “The trumpet of liberty
was first sounded by Arnold of Brescia.” [Note: Gibbon’s Hist. Rome, vol. 3, p.
366, etc.]

Says Brewster:

“It is impossible not to admire the genius and the persevering intrepidity of
Arnold. To distinguish truth from error in an age of darkness, and to detect the
causes of spiritual corruption in the thickest atmosphere of ignorance and
superstition, evinced a mind of more than ordinary stretch. To adopt a plan for
recovering the lost glory of his country, and fixing the limits of spiritual
usurpation, demanded a degree of resolution which no opposition could control.
But to struggle against superstition entrenched in power, to plant the standard
of rebellion in the very heart of her empire, and to keep posession of her
capitol for a number of years, could scarcely have been expected from an
individual who had no power but that of eloquence, and no assistance but what he
derived from the justice of his cause. Yet such were the individual exertions of
Arnold, which posterity will appreciate as one of the noblest legacies which
former ages have bequeathed.” [Note: Brewster’s Edinburgh Ency., Art. Arnold.]

Dr. Allix says:

“We may truly say that scarcely any man was ever so torn and defamed on account
of his doctrine as was Arnold of Brescia. Would we know the reason of this? It
was because, with all his power, he opposed the tyranny and usurpation which the
popes began to establish at Rome over the temporal jurisdiction of the
emperors.” [Note: Allix’s Ch. Pied., p. 169.]

Says Jones:

“But there was a still more heinous thing laid to his charge, which was this:
Praeter haec de sacramento altaris et baptismo parvulorum, non sane dicitur
senisse! That is, he was unsound in his judgment about the sacrament of the
altar and infant baptism. In other words, he rejected the popish doctrine of
transubstantiation and the baptism of infants.” [Note: Jones’ Ch. Hist., p.
286.] Arnold had no Campbellism in him; for the Romish church said of him:

“Arnoldistae asserunt, quod nunquam per baptismum aquae homines Spiritum sanctum
accipiunt” — the Arnoldists assert that men never receive the Holy Spirit
through baptism in water. [Note: Quoted in Recent Researches Concerning
Mediaeval Sects, p. 182.]

Neander:

“The inspiring idea of his movements was that of a holy and a pure church, a
renovation of the spiritual order, after the order of the apostolic church. His
life corresponded with his doctrine ... The corrupt bishops and priests were no
longer bishops and priests; the secularized church was no longer the house of
God ... We must allow that the way in which Arnold stood forth against the
corruptions of the church, and especially his inclination to make the objective
in the instituted order, and in the transactions of the church, to depend on the
subjective character of the men, might easily lead to still greater aberations.”
[Note: Neander’s Ch. Hist., vol. 4, p. 149]

Modern historians rightly conclude that Luther’s Reformation was only the
outburst of principles and doctrines agitated by the “heretics” long before and
up to his time; to the Baptist agitation which had prepared the people for the
great uprising against the old: “mother of harlots” Without that preparation
Luther’s work would have been impossible. Only by keeping in mind the previous
Baptist agitation, can we rightly appreciate the origin of Arnold’s work. Their
agitation of the great principles on which Arnold did his work had made hundreds
of thousands of converts and honey-combed the old Romish fortress with gospel
shot. Hence the people so readily gathered around Arnold as their God-sent
leader. Ivimey says: “Arnold of Brescia seems to have been a follower of Bruis.”
[Note: Ivimey’s Hist. Eng. Bap., p. 21.] Peter de Bruys having been, probably, a
pupil of the famous Abelard of Paris, [Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., p. 284.] of
whom Arnold had been a pupil [Note: Neander’s Hist. Chr. Ch., vol. 4, p. 148.]
the latter would naturally fall into line with the Petrobrussians, especially as
their cause was identical, and as they both took only the Bible for their guide.
No great movement, believing, as did Arnold’s, in a spiritual church, in the
baptism of only believers — regenerate persons — and the separation of church
and State, has been other than Baptist. Hence, with Dr. Ford, we may safely say,
the Arnoldists were: “Baptists.” [Note: Ford’s Origin of Bap., p. 102.] Or, in
the language of Vedder, an opponent of Church Perpetuity: Arnold “may fairly be
claimed by Baptists as belonging to them.” [Note: Vedder’s Bap. Hist., p. 65.]
Or with the Watchman, a leading Baptist paper, of Boston:

“As to Arnold, of Brescia, from what we read of him, we are not ashamed to call
him brother, or to join his goodly fellowship.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 19: THE DONATISTS.THE WALDENSES.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 16. — THE WALDENSES. Of the twelfth century, Mosheim says:

“Of all the sects that arose in this century none were more distinguished by the
reputation it acquired, by the multitude of its votaries, and the testimony
which its bitterest enemies bore to the probity and innocence of its members,
than that of the Waldenses ... This sect was known by different denominations.”
[Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 12, part 2, ch.5, sec. 11.]

Prof. William Whitsitt, D.D., of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has
said, the Waldenses joined the Catharists. [Note: MS. Leet.] The Catharists, in
previous articles, we have seen, were Paulicians, Albigenses, etc.

Prof. Whitsitt has conveniently divided the Waldensian history into two periods.
The first from the origin of the term Waldenses to the Reformation; the second,
during and since the Reformation. Prof. Whitsitt says that no doubt the
Waldenses altered their opinions under Luther’s influence. Until we come to
Anabaptist history we are concerned only with the first period of Waldensian
history. To unravel much entanglement in their history and to prevent farther
entanglement, it is probably well to here introduce Mosheim’s statement:

“It is, however, to be observed that the Waldenses were not without other
intestine divisions. Such of them as lived in Italy differed considerably in
their opinions from those who dwelt in France and other European nations. The
former considered the church of Rome as the church of Christ, though much
corrupted and sadly disfigured. They acknowledged, moreover, the validity of the
seven sacraments, and solemnly declared they would always continue in communion
with it, provided they might be allowed to live as they thought proper, without
molestation or constraint. The latter affirmed, on the contrary, that the church
of Rome had apostatized from Christ, was deprived from the Holy Spirit, and was,
in reality, the whore of Babylon mentioned in the Revelation of St. John.”
[Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 12, part 2, ch. 5, sec. 13.] Prof. A.H.
Newman makes about the same distinction. [Note: Bap. Quart. Rev. for July,
1885.]

Another thing may be well remembered: The party of Waldenses which first, in a
great measure, agreed with Rome, would gradually, by study of the Scriptures and
the influence of more evangelical parties, become more Scriptural. Herein lies
the explanation of Kurtz’s statement, that: “their dogmatic views underwent a
complete change,” and that the time when they received the “doctrine of
justification by faith alone, commenced about the time of Huss” [Note: Kurtz’s
Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 460.] Huss, in the main, in principle, was a Baptist.
[Note: Hase’s Hist. Chr. Ch., pp. 347, 348.] As Hase remarks: “The Waldensians
... were connected with the Hussites by fraternal ties.” [Note: Idem, p. 510.]
The views of Wickliffe, who was in principle, at least, a Baptist, must have had
a great influence, too, over the erroneous Waldensians.

Dorner says that in the Waldenses: “the Christian ground ideas” were “long
propagated incorrupt.”[Note: Dorner’s Hist. Per. Christ., vol. l, div. l, p.
94.] A Dominican, named Rainer Sachet, of the Waldenses, acknowledged:

“While other sects were profane and blasphemous, this retains the utmost show of
piety; they live justly before men, and believe nothing respecting God which is
not good; only they blaspheme against the Romish church and the clergy, and thus
gain many followers.” [Note: Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p. 290.] To multiply like
testimonies to the godly character and the right views of the Waldenses, to the
weariness of my readers, is an easy thing. Hence, several Protestant bodies have
tried to make out ecclesiastical kinship to the Waldenses; not by way of proving
Succession from them, but identity of faith.

Whether or not we recognize Mosheim’s Italian and French distinction between the
different Waldenses, there is so much evidence that, in this period, there were
parties of different characters, known as Waldenses, that we must recognize
different beliefs and practices among them. This will readily harmonize the
different documents, showing some Waldenses of this period remained in the
church of Rome; some separated from it; some were never in it; some may have had
infant baptism and other Romish trumpery, while most of them were Baptistic.

I now invite the reader to the proof that part of the Waldenses were Baptists.

(1.) They were Baptists in that they believed only in a professedly regenerate
church membership. In article 12 of the Waldensian Confession, dated by Sir
Samuel Morland, A.D. 1120 — an eminent authority on Waldensian history — we
read, of the ordinances:

“We regard it as proper and even necessary that believers use these symbols as
visible forms when it can be done.” [Note: Jones’ Ch. Hist., p. 333.] In their
Confession of 1144 they thus reiterate this confession:

“We believe there is one holy church, comprising the whole assembly of the elect
and faithful ... In the church it behooves all Christians to have fellowship.”

Using the symbols for only believers, and stating the church is a: “holy”
church, “comprising the elect and faithful” — comprising “Christians” — clearly
and inevitably imply the Waldenses were Baptists. [Note: Art. 4.] That the
Waldenses believed in a professedly regenerate membership is also certain from
their rejecting infant baptism. (See proof farther on of their rejecting infant
baptism.)

(2.) The Waldenses were Baptists in that they practiced only immersion. To all
who are familiar with church history it is well known there was no affusion till
the middle of the third century, and that from that time to the Reformation
immersion was the rule and affusion allowed only in cases of sickness — called:
“clinic baptism.” Thus the Prayer Book of 1549 says: “If the child be weak it
shall suffice to pour upon it.” While: “clinic baptism” was practiced by the
Romish church it was never sanctioned by any council until sanctioned by the
council of Ravenna, A.D. 1311. We have seen that that the Waldenses affiliated
with the Hussies; and Erasmus wrote of them:

“The Hussites renounced all rites and ceremonies of the Catholic church; they
ridicule our doctrine and practices in both the sacraments; they deny orders
(the hierarchy) and elect officers from among the laity; they receive no other
rule than the Bible; they admit none into their communion until they are dipped
in water, or baptized; and they reckon one another without distinction or rank
to be called brothers and sisters.” [Note: Ivimey’s Hist. Bap., vol. 1, p. 70.]

Living in an age in which immersion was the universal law and the custom, and in
which affusion was only allowed for sick infants, and in, possibly, a very few
cases for sick adults, and then to save from hell, and practicing only
believer’s baptism, rejecting, as we will see, water salvation, that the
Waldenses were Baptists as to the action of baptism is the inevitable
conclusion. Hence, Armitage says: “They believed and practiced immersion
only.”[Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., p. 305,] Mezeray says: “In the twelfth
century they (Waldenses) plunged the candidate in the sacred font. [Note: Hist.
France, cent. 12, p. 288—quoted.]

(3.) The Waldenses were Baptists as to the design of baptism. In their
Confession of A.D. 1120, just quoted, the Waldenses say:

“We consider the sacraments as signs of holy things, or as the visible emblems
of invisible blessings. We regard it as proper and ever necessary that believers
use these symbols or visible forms when it can be done. Notwithstanding, we
maintain that believers may be saved without these signs, when they have neither
place nor opportunity of observing them.” [Note: Art. 12, in Jones’ Ch. Hist.,
p. 333.] In their Confession of 1544, they say:

“We believe that in the ordinance of baptism the water is the visible and
external sign, which represents to us that which by virtue of God’ s invisible
operations is within us, namely, the renovation of our minds and the
mortification of our members through the faith of Jesus Christ. And by this
ordinance we are received into the congregation of God’s people, previously
professing and declaring our faith and change of life”[Note: Art. 7, in Junes’
Ch. Hist., p. 335.] As Baptists do now, taking the ordinances for mere signs of
grace which is already in the heart and for only believers or Christians,
Armitage well says: “They rejected the error of regeneration by baptism” [Note:
Armitage’s Bap. Hist.,p. 305.] Hence, in the Waldensian tract, describing
anti-Christ, they say:

“A third mark of anti-Christ consists in this, in that he attributes the
regeneration of the holy Spirit unto the mere external rite, baptizing infants
in that faith, teaching that thereby baptism and regeneration must be had; on
which principle he bestows orders, and, indeed, grounds all his Christianity,
which is contrary to the mind of the Holy Spirit.” [Note: Jones’ Ch. Hist., p.
338.] Leaving out infant baptism, this, condemned, is also a good picture of
Campbellism.

(4.) The Waldenses agreed with Baptists in that while they said: “In articles of
faith the authority of the Holy Scriptures is the highest; and for that reason
is the standard of judging,” [Note: Jones’ Ch. Hist., p. 333.] they said we:
“agree with the general Confession of Faith.,” [Note: Idem, p. 336.] etc. They
believed in Confessions of Faith as useful in making known their faith. Hence I
have the opportunity of just quoting from two of their Confessions. In their
trial before a court, they said: “But according to the decree of the court it is
upon our Confession of Faith that we ought to be examined.” As a result of this
examination, showing the utility of Confessions of Faith, the examiner said: “I
have not only found this paper conformable to the Holy Scripture, but, moreover,
I have learned to understand them better during these two or three days, than
during all the rest of my life.” To this the Romish prelate, impliedly accusing
the examiner of being led over to Waldensian belief, said: “You are under the
influence of the devil.” On which Muston remarks:

“The councillor withdrew; and as we shall not meet with him again in the course
of this history, it may here be added that this circumstance led him to search
the Scriptures still more than he had yet done, and that a year after he went to
Geneva, where he embraced Protestantism. Had the Confession of Faith of the
Vaudois churches produced only that result, there is enough of good in the
conversion and salvation of one immortal soul to make us regard it with feelings
of satisfaction, whatever temporal misfortunes may have ensued from it.” [Note:
Israel of the Alps, vol. 1, p. 61.]

(5.) The Waldenses were Baptists as to the operation of the Holy Spirit. Article
III, of their Confession of A.D. 1544 reads:

‘We believe that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, proceeding from the Father
and the Son, by whose inspiration we are taught to pray; being by Him renewed in
the spirit of our minds; who creates us anew[Note: People do not work to be
created anew or saved; but they are saved in order to work, as this article
declares.—See Ephesians 2:10.] unto good works, and from whom we recover the
knowledge of the truth.” [Note: Jones’ Ch. Hist., p. 335.]

(6.) From the foregoing they agreed with Baptists on depravity. The new creation
inevitably implies: “total depravity;” otherwise no need of the mighty power of
the Spirit and the new creation in saving a soul. [Note: By “total depravity”
Baptists do not mean inability to pay honest debts, to tell the truth, to be
kind and charitable, and other such acts. But all they mean by the phrase Is :
Until “created anew in Christ Jesus,” no sinner has any love to God in his heart
or any holiness. Compare Job 11:12; Job 14:14; Psalms 51:5; Psalms 58:3-5;
Isaiah 48:8; Isaiah 64:6; Jer. l7:9; Proverbs 28:26, Genesis 6:5; Genesis 8:21,
Matthew 15:19; John 3:6; Ephesians 2:3; John 8:44; Matthew 23:27-28; Romans
7:18; Isaiah 1:6; Romans 3:10-18.]

(7.) Instead of believing in weekly communion they held the Baptist position,
that the New Testament does not set the observance of the supper for every
Lord’s day. Says Armitage: “Herzog” says: “certain of the Waldensians’ ‘met
every year for the observance.’”[Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 309.]

(8.) The Waldenses agreed with Baptists in the doctrines of salvation by grace
and justification by faith only. In their belief in the new creation of the soul
by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit, and their rejection of sacramental
regeneration, as just proved, this is manifest.

(9.) The Waldenses were Baptists as to the doctrine of Election.

Prof. A.A. Hodge, D.D., of Princeton Theological Seminary, says:

“The Martyrology of Calvinism is pre-eminent in the history of the entire
church. We call to witness John Huss and Jerome, of Prague, who perished for
their adherence to the faith over one hundred years before Luther.” [Note:
Johnson’s Ency., vol. 1, p. 733.]

“The Waldenses, of whom were the slaughtered saints, whose ‘bones lie scattered
on the Alpine mountains cold’; the victims of the reign of ‘Bloody Mary,’ John
Rogers and Hooper, Farras, Ridley ... were all Calvinists.” [Note: Idem, Ibid.]

“The Lollards, another name for the Waldenses, the followers of Wickliffe, in
the fourteenth century, were all of the general school of St. Augustine.” [Note:
Idem, p. 734.] (10.) The Waldenses were Baptists in rejecting infant baptism.
From the extracts, under a previous head, given from their Confessions, that
they rejected infant baptism is evident. Notice the words of Article XI, of
their Confession of 1120: “We regard it as proper and even necessary that
believers use these symbols.” [Note: Jones’ Ch. Hist, p. 833.] Their Confession,
of 1544, says in Article VII:

“We believe, in the ordinance of baptism the water is the visible and external
sign which represents to us that which by virtue of God’s invisible operation,
is within us ... and by this ordinance we are received into the holy
congregation of God’s people, previously professing and declaring our faith and
change of life.” [Note: Jonea’ Ch. Hist., p. 336.]

These articles are almost verbatim the present articles of Baptist faith, and
the present Baptist articles are as much in accord with infant baptism as they
are. In the Waldensian tract against anti-Christ, said to have been written
about the middle of the twelfth century, the Waldenses say of “anti-Christ:” “He
teaches to baptize children into the faith, and attributes to this the work of
regeneration.” [Note: Idem, p. 338.]

Evervinus, of Stanfield, is said to have complained to Bernard, Abbot of
Clairval, that Cologne wag infested with Waldensian heretics who denied baptism
to infants. [Note: Allixs’ Ch. Pied., ch. 16, p. 140.]

Petrus Cluniacenis, or Peter the Abbot of Clugny, wrote against them; and among
the errors he imputes to them are these:

“That Wants are not baptized, or saved by the faith of another, but ought to be
baptized and saved by their own faith and that those that are baptized in
infancy, when grown up, should be baptized again rather rightly baptized.”
[Note: Ivimey’s Hist. Eng. Bap., vol. 1, pp. 20, 21.]

Wall says: “They speak that baptism does no good to infants, and because they
cannot profess faith.” [Note: Wall’s Hist. Inf. Bap., vol. 2, p. 250, 0xford
ed.] “Ermengendus, a great man in the church, charges the Waldenses with denying
infant baptism.” [Note: Danvers on Bap., p. 298, quoted.] The Waldenses were
condemned in conference at Albi, when the Bishop of Lyons, to convince them of
their error, produced what were considered proofs of infant baptism, and tried
to solve their objections from infants wanting faith, without which they said it
was impossible to please God.” [Note: Allixs’ Ch. Albig., ch. 15, p. 133,
quoted.] Alanus Magnus states that they denied baptism to children. He disputes
their views and refutes their opinions. [Note: Allixs’ Ch. Pied., ch. 16, p.
146, quoted.] The Waldenses admitted the catechumeni after an exact instruction,
a long fast in which the church united, to witness to them the concern they took
in their conversion, and a confession of sins in token of contrition. The newly
baptized were, the same day, admitted to the eucharist, with all the brethren
and sisters present. [Note: This is Baptist” Close Communion.”] Thus they, like
Baptists, first instructed; second, baptized; third, being in the church,
admitted them to the supper[Note: Allix’s Ch. Fled., ch.2, pp. 7-8—quoted.]
believers’ baptism and “close communion.” The Ordibarians, or Waldenses, say
that baptism does no good to infants, unless they are perfected, by instruction
first, in that sect [Note: Wall’s Hist. Inf. Bap., vol. 2: p. 254, Oxford ed.]

“A catechism emanating from the Waldenses, during the thirteenth century, has no
allusion to infant baptism. It says of the church catholic, that it is the elect
of God, through the merits of Christ, gathered together by the Holy Spirit, and
foreordained[Note: Election vs. Arminianism.] to eternal life.” [Note: Gilly’s
Nar. App., p. 12— quoted.] Montanus is quoted as saying:

“The Waldenses, in the public declaration of their faith to the French king, in
the year 1521, assert in the strongest terms the baptizing of believers and
denying that of infants.”

Robinson says: “They hold on to the baptism of only believers, and the right of
private judgment, in which they all agreed.”[Note: Robinson’s Eccl. Resh., p.
446.] “There is no positive proof, there can be none, that they baptized their
babes.” [Note: Idem, p. 71.] Speaking of a liturgy of “certainly very high
antiquity” among the Waldenses, Robinson says:

“In this liturgy there is no office for the baptism of children, nor the least
hint of pouring and sprinkling; on the contrary, there is a directory for making
a Christian of a pagan before baptism [Note: Had they been of Campbellite belief
they would have tried to make Christians by baptism. ] ... preparatory to
baptism.” This creed runs thus:

“You are about to hear the creed, therefore, to-day, for without that neither
can Christ be announced, nor can you exercise faith, nor can baptism be
administered.” [Note: Idem, pp. 473-474.] “While baptism was left to the choice
of the people it was not administered to babes.” [Note: Idem, p. 475.]

Cardinal Hossius, who presided at the council of Trent, and made a history of
the heresies of his own times, says the Waldenses, “rejected infant baptism and
rebaptized all who embraced their sentiments.” [Note: Hosslus’ Letters, Apud
Opera, pp. 112, 213—quoted.]

Bellarmine, a Catholic writer of repute, is said to have: “acknowledged the
Waldenses to have held that only adults ought to be baptized.” [Note: Facts Op.
to Fic., p. 42—quoted.] Article XXIX of the Waldensian Confession of 1635, says:

“That God has ordained the sacrament of baptism to be a testimonial to our
adoption, and of our being cleansed from our sins by the blood of Jesus Christ
and renewed in holiness of life.” [Note: Gilly’s Nar., app., p. 12—quoted.] The
modern Waldenses are Pedobaptists. An eminent historian says: “This confession
is altered by the Protestants of the valleys, which may be seen by a comparison
of the above with a confession in Peyrins’ Historical Defence, edited by Rev. T.
Sims, 1826, sec. 27, p. 463.” Baxter did refer to a Waldensian Confession of
1176 for infant baptism, but Wall admits the Catholics forced that out of them
under threats, and says: “It is a wonder Mr. Baxter would urge it.” [Note:
Wall’s Hist. Inf. Bap., vol. 2, p. 288, Oxford ed.] Perrin endeavored to make
infant baptism appear among the earlier Waldenses by quoting a catechism of
early date. But Wall, virtually, gives that up when he says: “But what date that
catechism is I know not.” [Note: Idem, vol. 2, p. 403, Oxford ed.]

Says W.W. Everts, Jr., one of the highest authorities on the subject: “The creed
of the Bohemian Waldenses, published in 1532, quoted by Starck, is equally
explicit on this point of dispute, saying: “It is as clear as day that infant
baptism does no good.”[Note: Church in the Wilderness, pp. 46, 47, a 10-cent
pamphlet published by Am. Bap. Pub. Soc.; a work you should get and scatter
everywhere.]

“The same is true of the English Waldenses ... for according to the testimony of
the chronicler, Thomas Waldensis, they acknowledged but two sacraments and
administered baptism only to adults.” [Note: Idem, p. 46.]

Rechinius affirms that: “in their opinion baptism was neither necessary nor
useful to infants.” [Note: Idem, p. 46.]

“In the full statement of Waldensian doctrine and practice made to Ecolampadius,
the reformer of Basle, by George Maurel, a delegate from the old reformers to
the new he says that sometimes, to avoid detection, Waldensian parents offered
their children to the Catholic priest to be baptized. The most natural inference
is, that though they did not believe in infant baptism, rather than suffer
unnecessary persecution they allowed it.” [Note: Idem, pp. 46,47.] Ludwig
Keller, a very late, careful and original investigator (Lutheran) of highest
authority, says:

“Very many Waldenses considered, as. we know accurately, the baptism on (
profession of) faith to be that form which is conformable to the words and
example of Christ. They held this to be the sign of a good[Note: As the
Waldenses regarded baptism a “sign” of our salvation, to be obeyed only by those
of a “good conscience”—compare 1 Peter 3:21, where baptism is seen to be for
only those of a “good conscience,” and Hist. 9:l4; 10:22, by which you will see
that only the blood wasted have a good conscience-that they had no leading to
the Romish-Campbellite baptism salvation is certain.] conscience with God, and
it was certain to them that it had no value only as such.” [Note: In Vedder’s
Bap. Hist., p. 71.] As Vedder properly observes: “This belief would logically
exclude infant baptism.” [Note: In Vedder’s Bap. Hist., p. 71.] Keller says:
“Mostly they let their children be baptized, yet with the reservation that this
ceremony was null and void.” Probably by Romish priests the baptism was done.
Keller farther says:

“The Waldensians ever held to the baptism upon faith; wherever they omitted it,
it was owing to the stress of painful circumstances.”

“Throughout the fifteenth century, up to 1536, they observed the baptism of
adults as a sign and seal of covenant ‘twixt good [Note: As the Waldenses
regarded baptism a “sign” of our salvation, to be obeyed only by those of a
“good conscience”—compare 1 Peter 3:21, where baptism is seen to be for only
those of a “good conscience,” and Hist. 9:l4; 10:22, by which you will see that
only the blood wasted have a good conscience-that they had no leading to the
Romish-Campbellite baptism salvation is certain.] conscience and God,” [Note:
Quoted by J. C. Grimmell, D. D., in Am. Bap.] To this Dr. Grimmell on Keller’s
authority, adds: “At different times, in different parts of Europe, their trial
reveals that they held to baptism in adult years and upon a profession of
fellowship with Jesus.” [Note: Quoted by J. C. Grimmell, D. D., in Am. Bap.]

Peter Vecembecius, in an oration delivered in the academy of Jenna in 1585, on
the Waldenses and Albigenses, said they caused their men to be baptized. Perrin,
a Pedobaptist historian of the Waldenses, whom Todd and other Pedobaptist
scholars have convicted of otherwise distorting Waldensian history, substituted
for “homines baptizari,”: “saisoyent baptizer leures enfans,” thus making
Vecembecius testify they practiced infant baptism! Because Jones, in his Church
History, quotes this as it is, in the Campbell and Rice Debate, Rice tried to
convict Jones of purposely perverting testimony! Pope, a Congregationalist, in
his debate with McGuire, a Romish priest, correctly quoted it, sustaining Jones
and convicting Perrin. But until Dr. S.H. Ford, a few years ago, from the
British Museum, copied the original of this oration, there was some question as
to who had falsified history. But Perrin is now convicted as basely perverting
history, to prove the Waldenses practiced baby baptism — a thing which would
have been unnecessary had there been sufficient other evidence to prove it.
Armitage: “Almost all the Roman Catholic writers agree with Cardinal Has-sins,
who says the’ Waldenses rejected infant baptism.’” [Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist.,
pp. 302, 303.] Addis and Arnold declare of them:

“As to baptism they said that washing of infants was of no avail to them.”
Armitage adds:

“This impression is deepened by the fact that Farrel, Ecolampadius and others at
the time of the Reformation, made strenuous efforts to convince the Waldenses of
Eastern Dauphine and Savoy of the righteousness of infant baptism.” [Note:
Armitage’s Bap. Hist., pp. 302, 303.] Ermengard, about A.D. 1192:

“They pretend that this sacrament cannot be conferred except upon those who
demand it with their own lips, hence they infer the other error, that baptism
does not profit infants who receive it.” [Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., pp. 302,
303.] Stephen of Barbone, A.D. 1225, says:

“One argument of their error is, that baptism does not profit little children to
their salvation, who have neither the motive nor the act of faith, as it is said
in the latter part of Mark, he who will not believe will be condemned.” [Note:
Armitage’s Bap. Hist., pp. 302, 303.] Pseudo Reinerius, A.D. 1230-1250,
concerning baptism they say

“the catechism is of no value. Again, that the washing that is given to infants
is of no value. Again, that the sponsors do not understand what they answer to
the priest. They do not regard compaternity, i.e., the relation of sponsors.”
[Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., pp. 302, 303.]

Moneta, the Dominican, who wrote before A.D. 1240: “They maintain the nullity of
the baptism of infants.” Hahn, in quoting Moneta, makes him say:

“These heretics charge that the Roman Catholic church baptizes first and teaches
afterward, while the church of Christ taught at first before baptizing; also,
that Christ and his Apostles never baptized any one without faith and reason.”
[Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., pp. 302, 303.] One of the Austrian inquisitors:

“Concerning baptism some err in saying that little children are not saved by
baptism, for the Lord says, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”
[Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., pp. 302, 303.]

David of Augusburg, A.D. 1256-1272: “They say that a man is then truly for the
first time baptized, when he is brought into their heresy.” [Note: Armitage’s
Bap. Hist., pp. 302-303.]

Drs. Ypeij and Derinont, two of the ablest and most eminent Pedobaptist scholars
of Holland, who made this subject a matter of years’ research in the archives of
Europe, say:

“The Baptists who were in former times called Anabaptists were the original
Waldenses.” [Note: Gercheid. d. Nederl. Hervormde Kert, t. i., 1819, p. 148 in
William R, Williams’ Lect. on Bap. Hist., p. 172.] Robert Baird, in his: “The
Waldenses,” says:

“But it is due to candor to say, that we deem it quite probable, if not certain,
though we have never examined this point with much care, that there were other
branches of the Waldenses, for they were numerous, which did neither hold nor
practice infant baptism. It would be difficult upon any other hypothesis to
account for the opinion, confidently maintained and, without doubt, most
honestly too, by the excellent brethren who reject pedobaptism, that the
Waldenses were Baptists.” [Note: Note to p. 398, of his Waldenses.] Henry S.
Burrage:

“Certain it is that some of the Waldensians, how many we cannot say, but
doubtless they were not few, adopted early in the thirteenth century the views
of other separatists who were antipedobaptists.” [Note: In Bap. Quart. Rev. vol.
9, No. 3, p. 356.]

Fusslin:

“They not only reject infant baptism, but highly esteem baptism itself.” [Note:
Kirch. u. Ketz. Hist., vol. 1, p. 462—in Bap. Quart. Rev. vol. 9, No. 3, p.
356.] “There were in Switzerland Waldensians who rejected infant baptism.”
[Note: Idem, in Bap. Quart. Rev., vol. 9, No. 3, p. 357.]

Fusslin:

“The Anabaptists were not wrong, therefore, when they say that anabaptism was no
new thing. The Waldensians had practiced it before them.” [Note: Idem, in Bap.
Quart. Rev., vol. 9, No. 3, p. 358.] Of Waldo and the Waldenses, Samuel M.
Schmucker says:

“One of the most prominent doctrines which he and his followers believed was the
impropriety of the baptism of infants and the necessity of immersion to the
validity of any baptism.” [Note: Schmucker’s Hist. of All Religions, pp. 37, 38,
39.] Mosheim says of the Baptists:

“It may be observed that they are not entirely mistaken when they boast of their
descent from the Waldenses and the Petrobrussians.” [Note: Mosheim’s Eccl.
Hist., cent. 16, sec. 3, chap. 3, 2.] But if the Waldenses were adherents of
infant baptism the Baptists could not have descended from them. The Baptists:

“appear supported by history in considering themselves the descendents of the
Waldenses.” [Note: New Royal Encyclopedia.]

Limborch:

“To speak candidly what I think of all the modern sects of Christians, the Dutch
Baptists mostly resemble the Albigenses and the Waldenses.” [Note: Limborch’s
Hist. Inquis.—in Jones’ Ch. Hist., p. 358.] Ludo Vives, who wrote in the
sixteenth century, having observed that:

“formerly no person was brought to the holy baptistry till he was of adult age,
and when he had both understood what the mystical water meant, and desired to be
washed in it; yea, desired it more than once,” alluding, presumably, to the
Waldenses, adds: “I hear in some cities in Italy the old custom is still in a
great [Note: See Comment, in Aug. de Civ. Del., Lib. I., c. 27.] measure
preserved.” [Note: Ivimey’s Bap. Hist., vol. 1, p. 29.] In an old Waldensian
tract we read:

“Those that believed they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” [Note: Idem,
page 26.] Prof. George P. Fisher, D.D.:

“There had been opposition to infant baptism in earlier days among the Waldenses
and other sects.” [Note: Fisher’s Hist. Chr. Ch., p. 424.]

I have quoted this overwhelming amount of testimony because Pedobaptists, to
prove the Waldenses did not hold to only believers’ baptism, have made a
desperate fight. Possibly some Waldenses who had just come out of the Romish
church, or who were yet within it — who were never of the original Waldenses,
which had continued from apostolic times — may have been adherents of infant
baptism. Possibly, to avoid the fiery ordeal of persecution, having no faith in
it and thinking it would be harmless to their children, some Waldensian parents
consented to have their children baptized. [Note: Just as in our own age, to
have peace at home. Baptist wives of Pedobaptists have carried their children to
church to have them sprinkled.] But that infant baptism was generally detested
by the ancient Waldenses is certainly, in this chapter, demonstrated. The
Waldensians of the Reformation and the Post-Reformation period, by the
reformers, were converted from only believers’ baptism. Says Armitage:

“A great council of the Waldensians was held at Angrogna, in Savoy, 1532, to
which the Swiss Protestants sent Farel and Olivetan, and then a new departure
was taken. Henceforth the Piedmontese Waldensians were joined to the Swiss
Protestant Pedobaptists.” [Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., p. 304.] Robert Baird
says of modern Waldenses:

“That there was a falling off in relation to sound doctrine towards the close of
the last century, and in the beginning of the present, cannot be denied. This
was brought about by the influence of Geneva and Lausanne, especially the
former, whither the Waldenses have been in the habit of sending their young men
to pursue their studies for the ministry. When Calvin established the academy at
Geneva provision was made for the education of two students from the valleys. At
Lausanne provision was made for five in the academy or university of that city.
In consequence of this there have always been seven Waldensian students of
theology prosecuting their studies in those institutions during the last three
hundred years.” [Note: Baird’s Wald., pp. 396, 397; also Dr. Whitsitt’s MS.
Lect., et mul. at.] In church government the Waldenese were essentially
Baptists. Gieseler speaks of “their anti-hierarchal system.” [Note: Gieseler’s
Ch. Hist , vol. 2, p. 587.] “The Catholic hierarchy and its pretensions to a
mediatorial character, ordained of God, they rejected.” [Note: Idem, p.
589—note.] To reconcile Gieseler’s statement, that they may have had some kind
of bishops, with their being anti-hierarchal, it is only necessary to remember
that they used the term bishop as Baptists use it — a term they, like the
Baptists, rarely used — and that some Waldenses, who were just coming out of
Rome, probably had bishops. [Note: Remember that the names of these dissenters
were applied to persons coming out of the Romish church as well as to the
churches, known by that name, which were older than it.]

Dr. Lord: “They have had It ministry of their own, consisting only of presbyters
and deacons.” [Note: Apoc., chap. 11.] Lord farther says: “It has held,
professed and vindicated the great doctrines of the Bible:

(1.) That God has the sole right to legislate in respect to his worship.

(2.) That the Scriptures are the only authoritative rule of faith.

(3.) That Christ is the only redeemer.

(4.) That yet it is by the RENEWINGagency of the Spirit alone that men are led
to repentance, faith and love.

(5.) That neither rulers nor ecclesiastics have any right to oppress and
persecute. ...

(6.) It has disowned alike the authority of the civil magistrate and the
nationalized church to dictate its faith and worship. They obstinately
maintained that nothing that is not expressly commanded by Christ or taught by
the Apostles can over be constituted alone by those of latter ages, though
decreed even by synods, inasmuch as the latter church has no legislative
authority.” [Note: Idem.] Muston says of the Waldenses:

“‘In place of priests and cures,’ says a Catholic of that country, ‘they had
ministers, who, under the names of Barbas, presided in their secret religious
conventicles. However, as they were seen to be quiet and reserved, and as they
faithfully paid their taxes, tithes and seigneural dues, and were, moreover,
very industrious, they were not disturbed upon the subject of their practices
and doctrines.’”[Note: Israel of the Alps, vol. l, p. 54.] Of the Waldenses in
the fifteenth century, Muston says:

“The right was granted them of combining themselves into one or more independent
communities, of naming their own rulers, both civil and ecclesiastical.” [Note:
Idem. p. 74. ] As proof that their ministers were controlled by no higher
authority than the church, in one of their general meetings, in the sixteenth
century, they say:

“The ministry of the word of God ought not to wander about, nor to change their
residences, unless it shall be for the good of the church.” [Note: Idem. p. 99.
] Says Robert Baird:

“There is nothing in the organization or action of these churches that in the
slightest degree savors of prelacy. And, in answer to our inquiries on this
subject, the pastors have, without exception, stated that prelacy has never
existed in these valleys; and that such has ever been the uniform opinion of
their ancestors, so far as it has been handed down to them. As to their bishops,
spoken of in some of their early writings, they believe that they were nothing
more than pastors. They say what is undeniable, that their histories speak
continually of their barbes, as being their religious teachers and guides, but
that the word bishop is hardly over met with.” [Note: The Waldenses, by Baird,
pp. 389,390,346, 347.]

Reinerius says of the sect in general: “They say the bishops, clergy and other
religious orders are no better than the scribes and Pharisees.” [Note:
Armitage’s Bap. Hist., p. 305.] As Armitage remarks:

“This relates to character, however, but they did not despise a true Christian
ministry, for the same writer, who was a resident of Lombardy, says there they
had ‘elders.’ Yet, there is nothing to show that they had any order of ministers
amongst them as a universal thing; or even regularly located pastors, as we
should deem them. They had barbes, or preachers, but on the principle of the
seventy disciples which Jesus sent forth two by two. These were not divided into
orders, but into three moral classes, from which the mistake has arisen
concerning an episcopal form of church government.” [Note: Idem, p. 304.] Of
them Preger, than whom there is no higher authority, says that all:
“ecclesiastical authority was vested in the congregation, so that there was no
room for bishops.”[Note: Idem, p. 305.] “Reinerius represents them as holding
that all men in Christ’s church stand on an exact parity.”[Note: Idem, p. 304.]

Armitage says:

“In this fraternity of preachers, in the absence of orders, distinction was made
between them as major and minor. This arose from the custom of sending them out
in twos, a young man and an elder, that the younger might learn from the elder.”
[Note: Idem, p. 305.] This may explain Mosheim’s statement, that “The government
of the church was committed by the Waldenses to bishops, presbyters and
deacons,” while a foot note says, “the bishops were also called majoralies or
elders.” [Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., part 2, cent. 12, ch. 12, sec. 13.]

Prof. Whitsitt, of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says: “At first
there was no distinction between clergy and laity.” That is, as we have seen, no
kind of prelatical distinction was between their ministers and members. [Note:
Lect. to his classes.]

They had (as are the general secretaries or superintendents of missions. among
Baptists of to-day) general superintendents. But, as Dr. A.H. Newman observes:
“The early Waldenses ... refused to employ the word bishop to designate their
general superintendents. Speaking of the Humiliati, Dr. Newman says:

“Like the Waldenses, they ascribed to the local body of believers, or to the
general assembly of the local bodies, the highest ecclesiastical powers.” [Note:
Bap. Quar. Rev., July, 1885, p. 309—note.] A well-known historian says:

“Their barbas or pastors were every one of them heads of their churches, but
they acted in nothing without the consent of the people and clergy,” i. e., the
people and ministers in their churches who were not pastors.

Drs. Dermont and Ypeij: “The Baptists ... were originally Waldenses.” [Note:
Gercheid. d. Nederl. Hervormde Kerk, t. i. 1819, p. 148, in William R. Williams’
Left. on Bap. Hist., p. 172.] If “Baptists,” of course, Baptist in church
government, so Ypeij and Dermont say the “Baptists ... were the original
Waldenses.” [Note: Idem, p. 172.] Says Rev. W.W. Everts, Jr.:

“The Waldenses were excommunicated by Pope Lucius III, for rejecting the
lordship of anti-Christ, all clerical titles and offices not contained in the
New Testament, and insisting on their independence in worship and discipline.”
[Note: Ch. in Wild., p. 21.] Speaking of the Waldenses, Reiner, the Romish
inquisitor, says:

“This is a true picture of the heretics of our age, particularly the
Anabaptists.”

Reiner’s words are:

“Vera effigies haereticorum nostrae aetatis (1013), praesertim anabaptistarum.”
[Note: Robinson’s Eccl. Resh., p. 315.]

Limborch:

“To speak candidly what I think of all the modern sects of Christians, the Dutch
Baptists most resemble both the Albigenses and Waldenses.” [Note: Limborch’s
Hist. Inq., vol. 1, ch. 8, in Jones’ Ch. Hist., p. 358.] Jones quotes from a
translation of Mosheim:

“Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed in almost all the
countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of the
Dutch Baptists.” [Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 16, part 2, ch. 3, sec. 2,
in Jones’, p. 358.] As Dr. William R. Williams says:

“It is not claimed that our denominational views were universal among the
Waldenses.” [Note: Lect. on Bap. Hist., p. 126.] But I am willing to close this
chapter with the statement, that the Waldenses were, certainly, as a whole,
Baptists.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 20: THE ANABAPTISTS.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 17. — THE ANABAPTISTS. In the time of the Reformation, the genuine
Anabaptists were the great and evangelical movement. Out of their principles and
spirit grew all that was good in Luther’s Reformation. Historians credit the
Anabaptists with being the originators of the separation of church and State, of
modern liberty and of the doctrine of a regenerate church membership. In faith
the Anabaptists of the Reformation were one with the Baptists of today. In a
paper read by Rev. Henry S. Burrage, D.D., one of the highest authorities on
this subject, before the “American Society of Church History,” in 1890, on “The
Anabaptists of the Sixteenth Century,” he says: “What were sonic of the ideas
that characterized the Anabaptist movement of the sixteenth century? The
following are especially worthy of attention:

(1.) That the Scriptures are the only authority in matters of faith and
practice.

(2.) That personal faith in Jesus Christ only secures salvation; therefore
infant baptism is to be rejected.

(3.) That a church is composed of believers who have been baptized upon a
personal confession of their faith in Jesus Christ.

(4.) That each church has entire control of its affairs, without interference on
the part of any external power.

(5.) That the outward life must be in accordance with such a confession of
faith, and to the end it is essential that church discipline should be
maintained.

(6.) That while the State may properly demand obedience in all things not
contrary to the law of God, it has no right to set aside the dictates of
conscience, and compel the humblest individual to set aside his views, or to
inflict punishment in case such surrender is refused. Every human soul is
directly responsible to God. These ideas characterized the Anabaptist movement
in Switzerland. They appeared in the public discussions held with Zwingli and
his associates. The supreme authority of the Scripture was made especially
prominent in these teachings. The great evangelical truth which the Swiss
reformers preached, they held. They believed in regeneration by the atoning
blood[Note: This demonstrates they were not Universalists or Unitarians. Since
there can be no human blood atonement for sin, they certainly were sound on the
deity of Christ.] of Christ, but they demanded the fruits of regeneration. Their
hymns, which happily have been preserved, show no trace of revolutionary or
fanatical doctrines, but abound in devout sentiments pertaining to Christian
experience and hope, and exhortation to fidelity and steadfastness in the faith,
although persecution and death should be the result. These ideas the banished
Swiss leaders made known in other lands. Prominent among these was Balthazar
Hubmeyer. Indeed, no one influenced the Anabaptist movement from 1525 to 1528
more profoundly than he ... His numerous publications bear witness to his
evangelical spirit and his devotion to Baptist principles. ‘Baptism,’ he says,
‘is an ordinance of Jesus Christ. It is not enough that one believes in Jesus;
he must confess him openly. He who confesses Christ before men, Christ will
confess before his Father. The divine order is, first, the preaching of the
word; second, faith: third, baptism.’ When it was charged against the
Anabaptists that they proposed to establish a church of sinless persons,
Hubmeyer replied: ‘You do us an injustice. If we say we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves and the truth is not in us-’ The charge of communism he indignantly
repels. ‘I have always said with reference to a community of goods,’ is his
testimony, ‘that one should have regard to others, so that the hungry may be
fed, the thirsty receive drink, and the naked be clothed; for we are not lords
but stewards. There is certainly no one who says that all things should be
common.’ When it was said that those who were opposed to infant baptism hold
that no one can be saved without water baptism, Hubmeyer replied: ‘Salvation is
conditioned neither on[Note: No Campbellism or water salvation among the
Anabaptists.] baptism nor on works of mercy. Condemnation is the result, not of
neglect of baptism, but of unbelief alone.’ And when it was added that the thief
on the cross believed, and on the same day was with Christ in Paradise, yet he
was not baptized with outward baptism, Hubmeyer replied: “The man who has the
excuse of the thief on the cross will have the favor of God, though
unbaptized.’”[Note: Am. Soc. of Ch. Hist., pp. 157, 158.] W. W. Everts, Jr., who
is another of the highest authorities on the subject, says Hubmeyer says:

“Nothing but Christ can draw the sinner. Nevertheless, as pictures are in the
churches, let no violence be used, but of the preaching of the word let the
people be instructed till they are in favor of their removal ... Among the
reforms which he advocated are justification by faith only, the confession of
sin, the marriage of priests, the proper support of ministers who preach the
gospel, and the right of a congregation to dismiss a minister who does not
preach the gospel ... He used to say: ‘Baptism stands for faith and the supper
for love. If one knew no other word of Scripture, but understood the true
meaning of baptism and the supper, he knows God and angels, faith aid love, law
and prophets.’ ‘Where there is no baptism there is neither church nor ministry,
neither brothers nor sisters, neither discipline, exclusion nor restoration. As
faith is a thing of the heart, there must be an external confession by which
brothers and sisters can mutually recognize each other.’ Replying to Zwingli,
Hubmeyer said: ‘We must do as God pleases, consult the word, not the church;
hear the Son, not Zwingli or Luther ... We are not condemned for not being
baptized ... but for unbelief. He that believes will be baptized if he can get
to water and a baptizer.’ To Oecolampadius he said: ‘Baptism is a mere sign, but
the meaning of the sign namely, the pledging of faith till death, is the
essential part of the sign, and is wanting in pedobaptism.’ ... ‘The visible
church,’ he said, ‘is a general assembly of all living believers.’” Of course,
Hubmeyer, in his conceptions of the church, was not., in every respect, fully up
to the understanding of the best expositors of Baptist church polity in our own
time; but the above statements, as well as the preceding from Dr. Burrage, show
Hubmeyer and his people essentially Baptist. [Note: Bap. Rev., vol. 10, pp. 205,
217, 218.] In a tract, [Note: Quoted by Dr. W. W. Everts, Jr., in Tex. Hist.
Mag, vol. 1, p. 135.] Hubmeyer says:

“A heretic is one who knowingly resists the Holy Scriptures; likewise, one who
falsely interprets the Scriptures, putting Rome for church and Lord for
shepherd. Although we cannot look for much good from such men, still they should
be instructed with all mildness, and if that accomplishes nothing dismiss them
free. For Christ wished that the tares should grow up with the wheat. From this
and many other passages of the Holy Scriptures, it appears that persecutors of
heretics are themselves the greatest heretics. For Christ did not come to
butcher, to kill and to burn, but to deliver and improve all. It is necessary,
therefore, to pray for the improvement of the erring, and to look for it as long
as a man lives. The Turk, or the heretic, can be overcome, not by fire or sword,
but only by patience and instruction. Burning heretics is, therefore, nothing
less than a sham confession and actual denial of Christ. The chief art consists
in testing errors, and in refuting them by the Holy Scriptures.” In a document
which the Anabaptists presented to the authorities of the Gruningen district, we
read:

“Believers are those who walk in the will of the Spirit, and bring forth the
fruits of the Spirit; they are the company of the body of Christ, the Christian
church. To this, therefore, the Anabaptists belong.” [Note: The Anabaptists of
Switzerland, by H. B. Barrage, D. D., p. 180.] In A.D. 1527, Denck, a great
Anabaptist leader, “in a letter frankly laid his views before Oecolampadius, and
asked for himself what he was willing to accord all men, religious freedom.”
[Note: Idem, p. 184.] In a tract Denck said:

“Those who walk in the footsteps of Christ I rejoice in and love, wherever I
find them. But with those who will not keep silent, I cannot have much
fellowship, for I do not discover in such the mind of Christ, but a perverted
mind, which will force me to abandon my faith and compel me to adopt its own,
whether it be right or not. And even if right, zeal may be very commendable but
unwise. For it should be known that in matters of faith everything should be
free, voluntary and without compulsion.” [Note: Idem, pp. 185,186. ] The
Anabaptists believed children inherit the moral depravity of their parents.
Denck said: “There is something in me that strongly opposes my inborn
inclination to evil.” [Note: Preussische Jahrbucher, for Sep 1892—from an
article by Ludwig Keller, translated in Bap. Rev., by Dr. H. B. Burrage.] They
believed faith the miraculous gift of God:

‘What our parents and teachers tell us, and what is written in books, we may
regard as true and believe; I myself,” says Dr. Denck, “have ‘believed’ in this
sense: but this faith has never helped the infirmities which were born in me,
and has not released me from the conflict in my soul between good and evil
inclinations. For me, therefore, it is incontestable that merely to hold as true
that which has been handed down to me cannot lead me to the life for which a
deep longing slumbers within. Since it is true we are saved by faith, the word
must be understood in the right sense. ‘Faith,’ says Denck, ‘is the accordance
of our will with the will of the good, or with the divine will ... Faith,
therefore, must be built upon other foundations; indeed upon the immediately
given facts of experience.’ As such a fact Denck designates the feeling within,
which says to every one that he must do good, ‘which impels me wholly without my
will and assistance.’ ... The Scripture teaches that the unfolding of the good
seed is not possible through our power alone ... The inclination to evil has its
seat deep in the nature of man; it is indeed possible for us to strive after the
good; but we cannot accomplish it without the help of Almighty God ... But the
more I am filled with the divine source of the doctrines of Christ, which are
transmitted in the Holy Scriptures, the more is my conviction that he only can
rightly understand them who has himself been illuminated by the light of the
divine Spirit ... Yes, it is true, that the inclination to evil resides deep in
human nature; however, the Holy Scriptures were the only means of leading men to
the good, there never would have been good men among those who are ignorant of
the Scriptures, and God would not have given to many millions of men oven the
possibility of attaining to the good and salvation.” [Note: Idem, pp. 38,43.]
These Anabaptists believed in election:

“Christ, the Lamb of God, has been from the beginning of the world a mediator
between God and men, and will remain a mediator to the end. Of what men? Of you
and me alone? Not so, but of all men whom God has given to him for a
possession.” [Note: Idem, p. 43.] John Muller, another Anabaptist leader, in
1525, wrote:

“Since faith in the free gift of God and not in every man’s possession, as the
Scriptures show, do not burden my conscience. It is born not of the will of the
flesh, but of the will of God ... No man cometh unto me except the Father draw
him. The secret of God is like a treasure concealed in a field which no man can
find unless the Spirit of the Lord reveal it to him.” In an article in the
Standard, Prof. Howard Osgood, D.D., than whom there is no higher authority on
this subject, says:

“Like their brethren in southern Europe they sought only soul liberty, freedom
to serve God according to their understanding of the Scriptures, while they
acknowledged their full duty of obedience to the civil power in all matters not
contrary to God’s word. Their church discipline was strict, almost to severity,
and wherever they were allowed to remain in peace the desert smiled and bloomed
around them. They sought to obtain no deserted Roman Catholic church buildings
for themselves; they were renowned for the purity of their domestic relations in
life; and in their confessions and practice they urged the duty of complete
religious liberty for all ... They hold that there could be no contradiction
between God’s doctrine of his church and of salvation, that election and
justification by faith and regeneration by the Spirit result in a church of
believers. To bring in those as children who give no evidence of having been
elected of faith, or of regeneration, is to institute a practice at war with the
doctrines and for which there is not the first evidence of Scripture ... The
claims of Baptists were, freedom to preach the gospel, to form churches after
the scriptural pattern which should be separated from the world and worldlings,
to exercise church discipline over their members, and that each church should
have entire control over its own ecclesiastical affairs without interference of
the State ... They choose their own pastors and supported them and sent forth a
multitude of missionaries so that Melancthon could say that they went where no
evangelical, Lutheran and Zwinglian, had penetrated. For a hundred years
Switzerland was drained of her sturdy sons, who in great numbers braved the loss
of their goods and the long journey through hostile territory and the price set
upon their heads by the Bavarian dukes in order to reach Moravia, where they
might enjoy some little freedom to worship God. From Moravia, they sent out
missionaries in scores to all parts of Germany, Tyrol and Switzerland, to
Hungary, Silesia and Poland, who took their lives in their hands that they might
preach the word of their Redeemer and raise up churches to his praise. The
Romish church historians say that these missionaries were very successful in
their efforts to delude the people.”

While speaking of these Baptists and missions I will here quote from a letter
recently received from one of the highest authorities on this subject, Rev. W.W.
Everts, Jr.:

“I am much interested in your question about missions and the Anabaptists.

They were the most determined colporteurs and missionaries throughout Europe.
The only reference I have found to any heathen land I have given in Armitage,
where the persecuted flock think of settling in America among ‘the red Jews
Columbus has just discovered.’ This was in 1524, I believe.”

Though I have already noticed that they agreed with present Baptists against
Campbellite positions, I will give further proofs of this. As to believing
repentance pre-cedes faith, Hottinger, at his execution, exhorted the people to
“Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” [Note: The Anabaptists in
Switzerland, p. 72; Dr. Philip Schaff, In Bap. Quart. Rev., July 1889. ] They
utterly rejected “sacramental salvation,” Grebel, a great Anabaptist leader,
said:

“From the scriptures we learn that baptism declares that by faith and the blood
of Christ our sins have been washed away, that we have died to sin and walked in
newness of life; that assurance of salvation is through the inner baptism,
faith, so that water does not confirm and increase faith as Wittenberg
theologians say, nor does it save.”[Note: Idem, p. 124.]

Hubmeyer said:

“In order to live a Christian life there must be a change in the natural man,
who is by nature sinful and with no remedy in himself by which the wounds that
sin has made can be healed. When a man has received this new life he confesses
it before the church of which he is made a member according to the rule of
Christ; that is he shows to the church that, instructed in the Scriptures, he
has given himself to Christ to live henceforth according to his will and
teaching. He is then baptized, making in baptism a public confession of his
faith ... In other words, in baptism he confesses that he is a sinner, but that
Christ by his death has pardoned his sins, so that he is accounted righteous
before the face of his God.” [Note: Idem, p. 88.]

Again, says Hubmeyer: “Condemnation is the result not of a neglect of baptism
but of unbelief alone.” [Note: Idem, p. 149.] Again, “we ascribe nothing
whatever to water baptism. It is an ordinance instituted by Christ and by the
Apostles and received by believers.” [Note: Idem. p. 151.]

Again, he says:

“No element or outward thing can cleanse the soul, but faith purifies the hearts
of men. It follows that baptism cannot wash away sin. If, therefore, it can not
wash away sin, and yet is from God, it must be a public testimony of inward
faith, and an outward pledge to live henceforth a new life as God gives grace.”
[Note: Idem, p. 152.] Says Denck, another great Anabaptist leader:

“In themselves ceremonies are not useful, and ho who thinks thereby to attain
anything whether through baptism or the breaking of bread is superstitious. He
who makes ceremonies burdensome is not much of a gainer thereby, for should one
lose all ceremonies, he would not suffer any injury, and indeed it is better to
want them than to misuse them.” [Note: Idem, pp. 186, 187.] In an Anabaptist
confession of faith, called the Schleitheim Confession,” made in 1527, we read

“Baptism should be given to all those who have learned repentance and change of
life, and believe in truth that their sins have been taken away through Christ.”
[Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., p. 950.] Hans Overton, in 1520, said:

“It is not enough that we have received baptism on the confession of our faith
and by that faith have been engrafted into Christ.” [Note: Idem, p. 412.] In
1529, Anabaptist sufferers in prison said in their appeal to their persecutors:

“Baptism is the registering of believers in the eternal church of God. Faith
confessed is wine and baptism is the sign hung out to show that wine is within.
What a thing is this to hang out a sign while the wine is still in the grape on
the vine, when it may be dried up.” [Note: Idem, p. 387.]

“In 1532, a book appeared in Holland, without the name of the author ... It was
soon translated into English, French and Italian, and so many editions were sold
that it added largely in spreading Baptist views throughout Europe. On baptism
it says: ‘So we are dipped under as a sign that we are as it were dead and
buried as Paul writes in Romans 6 and Colossians 2 ... The pledge is given when
we are plunged under the water.’”[Note: Idem, p. 409.] An Anabaptist woman, when
“on the rack was asked whether she ‘expected to be saved by baptism?’ She
answered: ‘No, all the water in the sea cannot save me, nor anything else but
that salvation which is in Christ.’”[Note: Idem, p. 412.] That the Anabaptists
did not believe in water salvation or Campbellism is certain from abundance of
testimony, additional to this. But I will close the testimony on this point in
the language of Dr. Philip Schaff, of the Anabaptists: “They denied that baptism
is necessary for salvation” [Note: Dr. Schaff, In Bap. Quart. Rev., July 1889.]
The Anabaptists in the Schleitheim Confession said that “he who serves the
gospel should also live from it as the Lord has ordained.” [Note: Armitage’s
Hist. Bap., p. 951.] The Anabaptists were what are called “close communion”
Baptists. On the terms of communion the Schleitheim Confession says:

“We are one and are agreed concerning breaking of bread ... that all who would
drink one draught as a memorial of the poured blood of Christ should beforehand
be united to one body of Christ, to-wit: by baptism ... Hence, also it should
and must be whoso has not the call of one God to one faith, to one baptism, to
one spirit, to one body, common to all the children of God, he cannot be made
one bread with them, as must be if he would in truth break bread according to
the command of Christ.” [Note: Idem, p. 950.] The Anabaptists had no sympathy
with the doctrine of infant damnation.

“They denied that baptism is necessary for salvation and maintained that infants
are saved without baptism and by the blood of Christ.[Note: Dr.Schaff says: “The
Baptists and Quakers were the first organized Christian communities which
detached salvation from ecclesiastical ordinances and taught the salvation of
unbaptized infants and unbaptized but believing adults.” — Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles, p. 56.] But baptism is necessary for church membership.” [Note:
Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 951.] As infants thus appear to need the “blood of
Christ” it thus appears that these Anabaptists believe that infants are
depraved, a belief clearly demanded by the Scriptures and maintained by all well
instructed Baptists.

I will close this by the testimony of Dr. Philip Schaff, as to various points of
Anabaptist belief:

“The reformers founded a popular State church; the Anabaptists organized on the
voluntary principle, select congregations of baptized believers, separated from
the world and from the State ... They were cruelly persecuted by imprisonment,
exile, torture, fire and sword, and almost totally suppressed in Protestant as
well as in Roman Catholic countries. The age was not ripe for unlimited
religious liberty and congregational self-government. The Anabaptists perished
bravely as martyrs of conscience. Luther calls them martyrs of the devil ...
They preached repentance and faith, baptized converts, organized congregations,
and exercised rigid discipline ... They accepted the New Testament as their only
rule of faith and practice ... They were generally orthodox ... Their demand of
rebaptism virtually unbaptized and unchurched the entire Christian world ...
These two ideas of a pure church of believers and of baptism of believers only
were the fundamental articles of the Anabaptist creed ... It is unjust to charge
the extravagant dreams and practices upon the whole body ... The Anabaptist
psalms and hymns resemble those of Schwenkfeld and his followers. They dwell on
the inner life of the Christian, the mysteries of regeneration, sanctification
and personal union with Christ. They breathe throughout a spirit of piety,
devotion, cheerful resignation under suffering and readiness for martyrdom.

They are hymns of the cross, to comfort and encourage the scattered sheep of
Christ, ready for the slaughter in imitation of the divine Shepherd ... The
blood of martyrs is never shed in vain. The Anabaptist. movement was defeated by
fire and sword, but not destroyed; it revived among the Mennonites, the Baptists
in England and America, and more recently in isolated congregations on the
continent. The question of the subjects and the mode of baptism still divides
Baptists from the Pedobaptist churches; but the principle of religious liberty
and separation of church and State, for which the Swiss and the German
Anabaptists suffered and died, has left its imprint upon the course of history,
has triumphed in America and is making steadyprogress in Europe. [Note: In Bap.
Quart. Rev., PP. 266, 268, 270, 272, 273, 276.] The genuine Anabaptists were
exclusive immersionists. Of the Anabaptist age, says Dr. Philip Schaff:

“The controversy between the reformers and the Ana-baptists referred only to the
subjects of baptism ... The mode of baptism was no topic of controversy, because
immersion was still extensively in use, and decidedly preferred by Luther and
the other reformers as the most expressive and primitive, though not the only
mode.” [Note: The Bap. Quart. Rev., July 1889.] That the Anabaptists were
exclusive immersionists is evident.

(1.) From their making the Bible their only rule of faith and practice.

(2.) From their having inherited immersion from their Baptist ancestry.

(3.) From their having been persecuted AS DIPPERS.

“That some of these preferred and practiced immersion we infer from the fact
that their persecutors, who delighted in fitting the penalty, as they cruelly
judged it, to the fault, put many of them to death by full immersion, swathing
the sufferers to large sacks with their living contents into huge puncheons
where the victims were drowned. So the Swiss, some of them, at least, immersed
in rivers. This appears from the work Sabbata of Knertz, a contemporary
Lutheran.” [Note: William B. Williams’ Lect. on Bap. Hist., pp. 246, 247;
Cramp’s Bap. Hist., pp. 181,182.] The translator of Luther’s Controversial
Works, speaking of Luther’s sermon on Baptism, [Note: Vol. 10, pp. 2513, 2593.]
on p. 8, of his Introduction, says:

“The sermon and letters are directed principally against the Anabaptists, a
fanatical sect of reformers who contended that baptism should be administered to
adults only, not by sprinkling, but by dipping.” A writer who has given this
special investigation, says:

“And thus it is through the whole book of Luther on the sacraments. I have read
it over and over again, years ago, and marked all the places in controversy
concerning the Anabaptists, and in not one single instance is there the remotest
hint that they practiced sprinkling and pouring. When the Anabaptists spoke of
the sprinkling of the Lutherans they called it ‘a handful of water,’ doubtless
in derision; and when they alluded to the dipping of Luther, without faith
either on the part of the administrator or the subject, they called it ‘a dog
bath,’ also in derision. Nothing satisfied them but the immersion of a professed
believer.”

Robinson says:

“Luther bore the Zwinglians dogmatizing, but he could not brook a reformation in
the hands of the dippers ... Notwithstanding all he had said in favor of
dipping, he persecuted them under the names of re-dippers, re- baptizers, or
Anabaptists.” [Note: Robinson’s Eccl. Resh., p. 542.]

Dr. J.B. Thomas, Professor. of Church History in Newton Theological Seminary:
“Usually they insisted upon immersion as the only baptism.” [Note: Ms. Lect., p.
59.] Dr. Featley published a work against them as “Dippers Dipped,” etc. Says
Rev. W.W. Everts, Jr.:

“Dr. Sears’ inference from their alleged failure to magnify the significance of
immersion, and from their apparent agreement with the reformers as to the mode,
falls to the ground when we learn from an authority like Hofing, that at that
time immersion was as common as sprinkling, that the Roman ritual, Luther’s
books on baptism, and almost all the Lutheran rituals instruct the administrator
to immerse the candidate and that the word sprinkle is hardly ever to be found
in the earlier regulations. It is well known that the church of England put
immersion first, and allowed sprinkling only in case of the feeble. Logically,
therefore, it might be admitted that the Anabaptists did not differ from the
prevalent mode of baptism and still the presumption would be that they immersed
... Gastins was wont to say, with ghastly sarcasm, as he ordered the Anabaptists
to be drowned: ‘They like immersion so much let us immerse them,’ and his words
became a proverb. Zwingli used to call them ‘bath fellows.’ Hubmeyer destroyed
the font as well as the altar at Waldshut, denouncing them both as nests of evil
... He says, ‘the soul must be sprinkled with the blood of Christ and the body
be washed through pure water.’ The subjoined tract of this scholar and martyr is
unmistakable on this point. Bullinger admits all the spiritual significance of
immersion, in his controversy with the Anabaptists. Finally, the English
Baptists practiced immersion and the first of them came from the continent.”
From a form for baptizing in water, Niclolsburg, 1527, Dr. Everts, quotes: “Do
you upon this faith and duty desire to be baptized in water.”

Says Dr. J.A. Smith, formerly Lecturer on Church History to the Baptist
Theological Seminary, in Chicago:

“Whether Menno Simon was or was not strictly a Baptist, has been lately called
in question. Pertinent to the matter is a quotation from his writings, Mennonis
Simons Opera, p. 24, by a writer in the Nonconformist and Independent. At the
place noted, Simon Menno says: ‘After we have searched ever so diligently, we
shall find no other baptism besides dipping that is acceptable to God and
maintained in his word.’ We can from PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE testify to the accuracy
of this quotation.” The writer goes on to say: “It is true that the followers in
Holland departed from the practice.” [Note: In The Standard, of Chicago.] Of
Menno’s words — Doopsel in den water — Dr. Howard Osgood says:

“The words, indoopenege, onderdoopinege, onderdompelinge, are employed in Dutch
to express immersion ... Doop and doopen in Dutch exactly correspond to taufe
and taufen in German. All these words come from the same root and etymologically
signify dipping and dip.”

Dr. Osgood gives the following proofs that the Anabaptists immersed:

“Zwingli was all powerful in the council at Zurich and the council passed the
following decree, ‘Qui interum mergat, mergatur.’ Under the decree in 1527, the
first Anabaptist martyr in Switzerland, Felix Mantz, one of the first scholars
in his day, was drowned in the lake of Zurich, near Zwingli’s church ... Within
the canton of Zurich the usual punishment was drowning, as will be seen by
instances related in the martyrology, published by the Hanserd-Knollys Society.
John Stumpf, a con-temporary of Zwingli in his history of Switzerland, p. 2444,
says: ‘What was worst of all, they, the Ana-baptists, repeated the baptism ...
and were rebaptized in the rivers and streams.’

“Again, Kessler, in his Sabbata, vol. 1, p. 266, says that ‘Wolfang Uliman, of
St. Gall, went to Schaffhausen and met Conrad Grebel,’ the most prominent
leader, preacher and scholar among the Anabaptists, ‘who instructed him in the
knowledge of Anabaptism that he would not be sprinkled out of a dish, but was
drawn under and covered over with the water of the Rhine by Conrad Grebel.’ On
p. 268, Kessler adds that Grebel came to St. Gall, Kessler’s home, where his
preaching was attended by hundreds from the town and surrounding country and the
longing desire many had nourished for a year, was accomplished by following
Grebel to the Sitter river and being baptized by him there. When I was at St.
Gall, in 1867, I made special investigation upon this point. A mountain stream,
sufficient for all sprinkling purposes, flows through the city, but in no place
is it deep enough for the immersion of a person, while the Sitter river is
between two and three miles away, and is gained by a different road. The only
solution of this choice was that Grebel sought the river in order to immerse the
candidates. August Naef, secretary of the council at St. Gall, in a work
published in 1850, on p. 1021, speaking of the practices of Anabaptists, in
1525, says: “They baptized those who believed with them in rivers and lakes, and
in a great wooden cask and the butchers’ square before a great crowd.’

“These immersions were in Switzerland from 1524-30. An old historian of
Augsburg, Sender, says: The hated sect in 1527 met in the gardens of houses, men
and women, rich and poor, more than 1100 in all, who were rebaptized. They put
on peculiar clothes in which to be baptized, for in the houses where their
bapisteries were, there were a number of garments always prepared.’

“A later historian of Augsburg, Wagenseil, says: ‘In 1527 the Anabaptists
baptized none who did not believe with them; and the candidates were not merely
sprinkled with water but were wholly submerged.’ These are the testimonies of
Pedobaptists.

“Zwingli entitles his great work against the Anabaptists, ‘Elenchus contra
Catabaptistas.’ Catabaptistas, a word of post-classical Greek, according to
Passow and Liddell and Scott, means ‘one who dips or drowns,’ and that Zwingli
uses the word in this signification, is shown by his repeated endeavor in this
work to make all sorts of fun of the baptism of the Anabaptists, immersion,
‘dying people,’ ‘redying them,’ [Note: In The Religious Herald.] ‘plunging them
into the darkness of water to unite them to a church of darkness,’ ‘they
mersed,’ etc.

“The following I find from the Anabaptists on the mode of baptism ... Belthazar
Hubmeyer, in his treatise on baptism, ‘von dem Christenlichen Tauffder
Glaubigen,’ A.D. 1525, page 5, says: ‘Tauffen im wasser ist dem bekennenden
verjeher seiner sunden auss dem Gotlichen beneleh mit eusserlichem wasser
ubergiessen und den in die zal der sundern auss eygner erkantuss und bewilligung
einschreiben.”Translation: ‘To baptize in water is to cover the confessor of his
sins in external water, according to the divine command, and to inscribe him in
the number of the separate upon his own confession and desire. I have translated
ubegiessen to cover, we cannot translate here ‘to pour the confessor’ ... with
external water, for which signification see Sanders’ Lexicon under,
‘giessen.’[Note: In The Religious Herald.]

“The fact that a baptistry was built at St. Gall, and that John Stumpf, a
Lutheran pastor, who lived in Zurich from 1522 to 1544, and who wrote of them
from personal knowledge of their practices, says they ‘rebaptized in rivers and
streams’ is good evidence that they immersed.” [Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., p.
352.] Then Sicher, a Roman Catholic, gives the account of their baptisms at St.
Gall:

“The number of the converted increased so that the baptistry could not hold the
crowd and they were compelled to use the streams and the Sitter river.” [Note:
idem, p. 353.]

Simler says that: “Many came to St. Gall, inquired for the Tauffhaus (Baptistry)
and were baptized.” [Note: Idem, p. 352.]

Dr. Rule, who speaks contemptuously of them, says that they took their converts
“and plunged them in the nearest streams.”

Mosheim says the Socinians, in their Catechism of 1574, say: “Baptismus est
hominis Evangelio credentis et penitentiam agentis in nomine Paris et Filii, et
Spiritus Sancti, vel in nomine Jesu Christi in aquam immersio et emersio” [Note:
Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 16, sec. 3, chap. 4, sec. 10—note.]

Baptism is an immersion and the emmersion of a man who believes and is truly
penitent, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, or in
the name of Jesus Christ, in water. The Socinians were surrounded and mingled
with the Baptists. How absurd, then, even with only this to the contrary, to
take the position that “exclusive immersion began among the Baptists in the
seventeenth century,” because, “until the seventeenth century and that near its
middle — exclusive immersion had been abandoned.”

Replying to the statement that “the only instance in which immersion among the
Anabaptists occurred during the sixteenth century, is the immersion of Wolfang
Uliman, at Schaffhausen, in 1525,” H.S. Burrage, D.D., says:

‘Well, let us see. In the ‘Bekenntniss von beiden Sacramenten’ which at Munster,
Oct. 22, 1533, was subscribed by Rothman, Klopriss, Staprade, Vienne, and
Stralen, and was made public on the eighth of November following, occurs this
statement: ‘Baptism is an immersion (eintauchung) in water, which the candidate
requests and receives as a true sign that, dead to sin, buried with Christ, he
rises to a new life, henceforth to walk not in the lusts of the flesh, but
obedient to the will of God.’”[Note: In Zion’s Advocate.] Prof. Howard Osgood,
D.D., says:

“In 1666 and ‘68, Arents, a Mennonite author, published a treatise in favor of
immersion.” “In 1740 an anonymous Mennonite [Note: Some early Anabaptists were
called Mennonites from Menno, one of their great leaders.] author defends
immersion. Schyn, the historian of the Mennonites, certainly leans in favor of
immersion.”

S. H. Ford, LL.D., who has made Baptist history rather a specialty, says:

“In the Dutch Martyrology, translated by the eminent Dutch scholar, Rev.
Benjamin Millard, of Wigan, the name given to the Anabaptists or Mennonites is
that of Dippers. Thus, on page 34, are found these words:

‘Some of the principal Dippers, that is, Baptist people, were seized (De
voornaemste Doopers: verstaet Doops Gesinde. )’ That Millard gave a false
rendering of Doops is not to be supposed, and consulting seven Dutch Lexicons,
they all agree with the one now before me. It is by Tauchnitz,

Leipsic:

“Dooping — baptizing, christening, dipping, plunging.

“Doopsel — baptism, dipping.

“Dooper — dipper, plunger, Baptist.

“Now, Dooper was the term of reproach given to these Anabaptists by their foes
in Holland, as its equivalent, Dipper, was in England.

“We read in the Dutch Martyrology that one Herz Lowrys, in 1528, persecuting the
Baptists, ‘addressed the council in strong terms, inquiring what they intended
to do with these dipping heretics (Martyrology, vol. 1, p. 71), and again, in
the next pages he is quoted as exclaiming: ‘O, the dippers, the dippers!’
Several such instances might be cited. But these are surely sufficient to show
that the use of such expressions and epithets can be accounted for only on the
ground that they immersed all candidates for baptism ... We close this by
affirming that every scholar knows, who has consulted the original, that the
words of Menno, Doopsel inden water, are correctly translated immersing, as
dipping in water.

“But Menno adds to this its explanation: ‘Yet, whoever will oppose, this is the
only mode of baptism that Jesus Christ instituted, and His Apostles taught and
practiced.’”[Note: Chr. Repository.] As to the argument for affusion among the
ancient Mennonites, derived from modern Mennonite authors, I will reply in the
words of Mosheim:

“Many circumstances persuade me that the declarations and representations of
things given by the modern Mennonites are not always worthy of credit.” [Note:
Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 16, sec. 3, chap. 3— note to 1.] [Note: As an
illustration of Mosheim’s statement I quote the following from Prof. Howard
Osgood, D.D.: “Schyn, the historian of the Mennonites, certainly leans in favor
of immersion, and is severely taxed for so doing by his late editor, Maatschoen,
who, vol. 2, p. 72, note, says: ‘No true Mennonite has ever practiced immersion
or defended it in writing.’“ Yet, Schyn is the old and main Mennonite
historian!] That some Mennonites practiced immersion is proved from the fact
that, in 1620, there were Mennonite pastors who served two churches — a
Mennonite and a Collegiant church — and the Collegiants always practiced
immersion.

Barnes Sears, D.D., thus quotes Trecksel, a recent writer of much weight: “The
Anabaptists baptized in running streams and in [Note: When they baptized in any
kind of houses they used “palls” or tanks sufficiently large for immersion. See
in another place, in this chapter.] barns.” [Note: In The Religious Herald.]

Turretine, called the theological Blackstone: “The Anabaptists are so called
from their repetition of baptism in the case of those who have been already
baptized, whether in respect to infants [Note: In this appears the error, that
they re-baptized only because the former baptism was in infancy. They were
Anabaptists because they admitted no baptism scriptural except that of the true
church.] or adults, who pass from one sect of this people to another, whom they
again baptize — immerse — (tingunt) that they may receive them into their
communion.” [Note: Quoted by the eminent scholar, E T. Winkler, D.D.]

Cramp quoting Bullinger, concerning the Anabaptists, brings out the fact, that
both the people and himself regarded the Anahaptists as exclusive immersionists:
“For the people said, ‘Let others say what they will of the dippers, we see in
them nothing but what is excellent.’”[Note: Cramps’ Bap. Hist., p. 179.]

Samuel H. Schmuker says: “The Anabaptists held to the baptism of believers by
immersion, denying the efficacy of infant baptism.” [Note: History all Relig.,
by Schmuker, pp. 37, 38, 39.] Of Anabaptists Neal says:

“They differed about the subject and mode of baptism, whether it should be
administered to infants, or in any other manner than in dipping the whole body
under water.” [Note: Neal’s Hist. Puritans, vol. l, p. 137.] This shows there
was a kind of Anabaptists who baptized infants and who were not exclusive
immersionists; and, that there was a kind who were the reverse. From the former
kind and from some who were just coming out of the Romish church — as is seen in
another part of this chapter — comes “the testimony that the genuine Anabaptists
did not exclusively immerse!”

Jacob Ditzler, a famous Methodist controversialist, conceded that the
Anabaptists were immersionists: “The German Anabaptists restored baptism by
coming out of the Romish church and immersing each other when they had been
sprinkled.” [Note: Graves-Ditzier Deb., p. 828. As I quote Mr. Ditzier, not
because he is any authority with scholars, but only for those who blindly follow
him, I beg the pardon of scholars for quoting him. When such a man is driven to
make this concession the evidence ought to convince all candid persons.]

Regarding the examples, related in Armitage, and by others, of affusion among
Anabaptists, I cannot better answer than in the language of that lamented and
eminent historical and exegetical scholar, the Rev. E.T. Winkler, D.D.: [Note:
In a letter I received from the excellent Baptist historian of Rochester
Theological Seminary, Prof. R. J. W. Buckland, D.D.,—just before his death -he
confirms Dr. Winkler’ statement.]

“Neither do the cases of pouring decide any-thing. For the administrators who
acted on their own authority, were members of the Reformed Party and would
still, if permitted, retain connection with it. The pourings were administered
by those who were associates or disciples of Zwingli and Luther, ... who began
their public labors at Wittenberg and Zurich. Except that they insisted on a
converted membership they agreed in doctrine and ordinances with the Reformers.
Nay, some of them, as we are expressly told, held aloof from the general body of
the Anabaptists; so it was with the Anabaptists of Munster, who were
Separatists, and considered all others bearing the name as damned, (Luther’s
Ger. Works, vol. 2, quoted by Michelets’ Luther, p. 54.) These cases of pouring
were due to these advanced reformers and that at the very chaos of the
Re-formation. The practice of these dissenters, under such circumstances. can
afford no satisfactory evidence of the customs which prevailed among the general
body of the Anabaptists, as the opinion of Luther a year or two after he broke
from Rome cannot be identified with the established creed of Lutherianism. The
incohate Anabaptists advanced according to the light they had. Thus Grebel, who
in 1525, baptized Wolfgang Uliman, afterwards immersed him in the Rhine.”

Inasmuch as the Anabaptists, in the language of Mosheim: “Before the rise of
Luther and Calvin ... lay concealed in almost all the countries of Europe,
particularly in Bohemia, Moravia and Switzerland and Germany,” — under other
names — [Note: Mosheim’s’ Eccl. Hist., cent. 16, gee. 3, chap. 3 and 1, 2.] Dr.
Winklers’ statement conclusively shows that those cases of affusion have no
bearing whatever as to the immersion of the general body of Anabaptists. In but
one month after Grebel poured Uliman he immersed him. In the chapter, in this
book, in which I show the connection and perpetuity of these various dissenters,
appears how these Anabaptists received immersion in an orderly manner.

Inasmuch as the Anabaptists sometimes baptized in “tubs,” “pails,” houses and
barns they have been presumed not exclusive immersionists. As Dr. Winkler has so
conclusively met this I will give his answer:

“We can prove from ecclesiology and from the testimony of Luther himself that
the pail or tub, such as Hoffman used at Emden (‘a large pail’) was the
baptismal font of the Western churches. There was even a certain sacredness
connected with it. We find in Luther’s Table Talk (Bohns’ Ed, p. 165) the
following incident: ‘Dr. Menius asked Dr. Luther in what manner a Jew should be
baptized?’ The Doctor replied: ‘You must fill a large tub with water, and having
divested the Jew of his clothes, cover him with white garments. He must then sit
down in the tub and you must then baptize him quite under the water. This garb,’
added Luther, ‘was rendered the more suitable from the circumstance that it was
then, as now, the custom to bury people in a white shroud, and baptism, you
know, is an emblem of our death.’

“Here Luther alludes to these immersions which are very familiar to
ecclesiologists ... There is reason to believe that the baptismal fonts in early
Europe were tubs. The ecclesiologist, Poole, says (Structures, etc, of Churches,
p. 45): ‘The first defined shape which the font assumed in England is that of a
circular tub-shaped vessel, some probably of Saxon, many of them of Norman date,
as the antique font of St. Martins’ church, at Canter-bury.

Knight says (Land we Live In, 261): ‘It is even supposed to have been built by
Christians in the Roman army, A.D. 187. It was certainly one of the first ever
made in England. It was about three feet high and capacious within. It has no
stand; but rests upon the ground. The sculptures upon it are a sort of
ornamental interlacings in low relief. It closely resembles the font delineated
by the old illuminators in representing the baptism of King Ethelbert; and it is
believed to be the very first font in which the first of our Christian kings
were baptized.’

“Under this division, the tub fonts, Poole, an Episcopalian antiquarian, groups
the font of Castle Frome, Herefordshire, that at Bride Kirk, in Cumberland, that
at West Haddon, in Northamptonshire, and that at Thorpe Emald, in
Leicestershire. And in regard to all the ancient fonts of England, he says: ‘The
rule of the church of England, however many the exceptions, and however
accounted for, is to baptize by immersion; and for this all the ancient fonts
are sufficiently capacious.’ (Structure, etc,p. 59, note.)

“We learn from Bourrasse, a Catholic archaeologist, that the leaden font in the
cathedral of Strasbourg has a tub-shape, and so has the baptismal font at
Espanburg, Diocese of Beauvais. Both of these baptismal tubs are represented on
the plates of Bow-asses’ Dictionaire D’Archaologic Sacree. At Notre Dame, in
Rouen, the font was made in the form of a coffin, six feet long, with a covering
of black wood. This sepulchral figure was the symbolical translation of the
words of Paul: ‘We are buried with him by baptism into death.’ Bourasse,p. 493.”
[Note: In Alabama Baptist, of 1875?] In Smith’s Dictionary of Christian
Antiquities [Note: Arts. on Baptistry and Fonts.] the position of Dr. Winkler is
confirmed. The lamented Prof. Heman Lincoln, D.D. — Professor of Ecclesiastical
History in Newton Theological Seminary — a little while before his death, wrote
me of the Anabaptists: “My own impression is that the majority of them accepted
both immersion and baptism upon a profession of faith.”

Answering Dr. Sears, Prof. W.W. Everts, Jr., well said: “Dr. Sears would have
been nearer right if he had made pouring the exception and immersion the rule
among the Anabaptists.” Just as with the Campbellites, who have poured and
sprinkled, but are, as a people, exclusive immersionists.

Prof. W.W. Everts, Jr., wrote: “The English Anabaptists practiced immersion, and
the most of them came from the Continent.”

Inasmuch as it has been denied that the English Baptists immersed — and even,
therefore, that the first American Baptists did so — I close this chapter with
proof that the English Anabaptists were exclusive immersionists. Only because of
the effrontery with which this denial is made is it here noticed.

Crosby quotes Sir John Floyer:

“The practice of immersion, or dipping in baptism, continued in the church until
the reign of James I., or about the year 1600 ... Sir John Floyer says: ‘My
design being to recommend the use of cold bathing to this country, I thought it
necessary for the assuring of all people of the innocency of that practice to
represent to them the ancient custom of our church in the immersion of infants,
as well as all other people at their baptism. And I do here appeal to you, as
persons well versed in the ancient history and canons and ceremonies of the
Church of England; and therefore are sufficient witnesses of the matter of fact
which I desire to prove, viz.: That immersion continued in the Church of England
until about the year 1600. And from thence I shall infer that if God and the
church thought that practice innocent for sixteen hundred years, it must be
accounted an unreasonable nicety in this present age to scruple either at
immersion or cold bathing as dangerous practices.’ ... In the Synodus
Wigorniensis, ‘Trina semper fiat immersio baptizandi,’ Anno 1240. And in the
Synodus Exoniensis, 1287, ‘Si puer rite baptizatus, non ipsa submersio, neo
praecedentia, sod subsequentia persacerdotem suppleantur,’ and the Synodus
Wintoniensis, Anno 1306, mentions the immersion. I have quoted all the preceding
passages, says Sir John Floyer, from Spellman, whose credit cannot be
questioned, and I desire all thence to observe that the immersion was always
used to children as well as adult persons ... Linwood, who began to write his
Constitutiones Angliae, about the year 1422, interprets a competent baptistry to
be big enough for the immersion of the person to be baptised ... It is evident,
by the rubrick in the days of King Edward VI., that the English church used that
practice: “Then shall the priest take the child into his hands, and ask the
name, and naming the child, shall dip it in water thrice; first dipping the
right side, secondly, the left side, and the third time, dipping the face
downwards in the font, so it be discreetly and warily done.’ In the Common
Prayer Book, in Queen Elizabeth’s days, the rubrick says, naming the child: ‘You
shall dip it in the water, so it be discreetly and warily done, but if the child
be weak, or be baptized privately in a case of necessity, it was sufficient to
pour water upon it.’ King Edward’s injunctions were published in 1547, by which
all were forbidden the breaking obstinately the laudable ceremonies of the
church. And in Sparrow’s collection of articles, etc., in the articles of Queen
Elizabeth, 1564, it is ordered, ‘That the font be not removed, nor that the
curate do baptize in any parish in a basin, nor in any other form than is
already prescribed. When Christianity was first planted, the hath structures
were turned into temples, and the Piseinas’ or cold baths were called
Baptisteria by Pliny, Jr., and in them they baptized frequently. And the Saxons,
who succeeded the Romans, brought in the German custom of washing in rivers for
preserving of their healths; and that made them receive the baptismal immersion
in rivers and fountains without any scruple ... That I may farther convince all
my countrymen that immersion in baptism was very lately left off in England, I
will affirm that there are yet persons living who were so immersed, for I was
informed by Mr. Berisford that his parents immersed not only him, but the rest
of his family at his baptism. He is now about 60 years old, which by the date of
the letter must be about 1640.” [Note: Crosby’s Hist. of Bap., vol. 2, pp.
46-54.] Dr. Cutting says:

“No known service book of the English church gave authority to substitute
something else for dipping, down to the period of the Reformation ... Simpson,
in his excellent work on Baptismal fonts, says: ‘Not one of the rituals which we
have examined (he is alluding to those preceding the prayer book of Edward VI.)
contains any permission to use pouring or sprinkling when the child is brought
to the church.’ ... In the prayer book of Edward VI. the exceptional allusion
was first put into the rubrick ... ‘This,’ says Simpson, ‘was the first instance
of pouring being allowed in public baptism.’”[Note: Cutting’s History
Vindications, pp. 78, 79.]

Dr. Wall says:

“The offices of liturgies for public baptism in the Church of England, did all
along, as far as I could learn, enjoin dipping without any mention of pouring or
sprinkling. And John Frith, writing in the year 1533, a treatise on baptism,
calls the outward part of it the plunging down into the water, which he often
mentions without ever mentioning sprinkling and pouring.” [Note: Wall’s Hist.
Int. Bap., vol. 1, p. 350] Says Dr. Schaff:

“King Edward and Queen Elizabeth were immersed. The first prayer book of Edward
the VI., 1594, directs the priest to dip the child in the water ... In the
second prayer book, 1552, the priest is simply directed to dip the child
discreetly and warily, and permission is given, for the first time in Great
Britain, to substitute pouring, if the godfathers and godmothers certify that
the child is weak. During the reign of Elizabeth, says Dr. Wall, ‘Many fond
ladies and gentlewomen first, and then by degrees the common people, would
obtain the favor of the priests to have their children pass for weak children,
too tender to endure the dipping in the water.’ The same writer traces the
practice of sprinkling to the period of the Long Parliament and the Westminster
Assembly. This change in England and other Protestant countries from immersion
to pouring, and from pouring to sprinkling, was encouraged by the authority of
Calvin, who declared the mode to be a matter of no importance, and by the
Westminster Assembly of Divines, 1643-1652, which decided that pouring or
sprinkling is ‘not only lawful but also sufficient.’”[Note: Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles, pp. 5l, 52.]

Says Dr. Wall:

“As for sprinkling, properly so called, it seems it was, in 1625, just then
beginning and used by very few. It must have begun in the disorderly times after
1641, for Mr. Blake had never used it, nor seen it used.” [Note: Wall’s Hist.
Int. Bap., vol. 2, p. 311.] Dr. Wall also says:

“France seems to have been the first country in the world in which baptism by
affusion was used ordinarily to persons in health, and in the public way of
administration ... From France it spread, but not until a good while after, into
Italy, Germany, Spain, etc., and last of all, into England.” [Note: Idem, vol.
1, pp. 576, 577.] As late as John Wesley’s time, 1736:

“He refused to baptize, otherwise than by dipping, the child of Henry Parker,
unless the said Henry Parker and his wife could certify that the child was weak
and not able to bear dipping; and added to his refusal that, unless the said
parents would consent to have it dipped, it might die a heathen.” [Note: Life
and Times of John Wesley, by Tyerman, vol. 1, pp. 156, 157.] To the universality
of immersion in the Episcopal church, up to and at the Reformation, like
testimonies can be added almost ad infinitum. Surely, these, which no authority
contradicts, must be superabundant. Any one desiring more testimonies is
referred to Conant’s Baptizein, Robinson’s History of Baptism, Edinburgh
Encyclopedia, J.T. Christian on Baptism, etc. In view of the foregoing, to say
the Baptists of England, before, up to and at the time of John Smyth, were not
immersionists, involves the following incredible things: First, that, though
claiming to follow only the Bible, they were not as obedient to it as the
creed-ridden Episcopalians, who never permitted affusion for adults, but only
for sickly infants. Second, that we have the strange somersaults of Baptists,
who were then affusionists, becoming immersionists, while Episcopalians, who
were then immersionists, have become affusionists! We, therefore, find the
writers and others, who were contemporaneous with the Baptists of England, in
the sixteenth century, universally, whenever they mention the matter, speaking
of them as:

“Dippers.” Dr. Featley, one of their bitterest enemies, who eagerly seized on
anything he could to make them opprobrious, and who lived between 15821645, and
who wrote the bitter work entitled, “The Dippers Dipt; or, the Anabaptists
Plunged Over Head and Ears,” at a disputation in Southwark, between 1641-1645 —
in the language of Dr. Armitage —

“Never accuses the English Baptists of substituting dipping, or some other
practice which they had previously followed. He gives not one hint that in
England they had ever been anything else but ‘Dippers,’ an unaccountable silence
if they had practiced something else there within the previous fifty years.”
[Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 458.]

Fuller knew the English Baptists only as immersionists. He says: “These
Anabaptists, for the main, are but ‘Donatists’ new dipped” [Note: Fuller’s Ch.
Hist. of Britain, cent. 16, sec. 5, 11.] Of John Smyth’s baptism, which bears on
the point before us, Armitage says:

“Those who wrote against the Baptists after 1640, make no distinction on the
matter of immersion between the Baptists of that period and those who had
continued down from 1610, nor report any change among them, from affusion, or
perfusion, to dipping. On the contrary, they speak of them as one stock, from
Smyth downward ... Uniformly in contempt they call them ‘Dippers,’ Barbone says
in his Discourse: They want a ‘Dipper’ that had authority from heaven.’ Featley
bitterly complains that they ‘Flock in multitudes to their Jordans, and both
sexes enter the river and are dipped after their manner.’ ... There is not a
particle of evidence that Smyth affused himself, and it is a cheap caricature to
imagine that he disrobed himself, walked into a stream, then lifted handfuls of
water, pouring them liberally upon his own shoulders and chest. We have the same
reason for believing that he immersed Helwys, as much as that he dipped
himself.” [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., pp. 457-459.]

Mason writes: “Heluissies’ folk differed from the Independents generally on the
subject of infant baptism and dipping.” He thinks that Busher was a member of
that: “congregation” in 1614, the man who described a baptized person as one
“dipped for the dead in the water.” [Note: Idem, p. 459.]

Wilson’s History of Dissenting Churches, (pages 29-30) says of Smyth: “He saw
grounds to consider immersion as the true and only meaning of the word baptism.”
[Note: Idem, p. 459.] Neal says that Smyth” plunged himself.” [Note: Neal’s
History Puritans, vol. 1, p. 243.] That the English Baptists were closely
related to the Dutch and German Baptists is well known to the historian. The
Dutch and German Anabaptists being immersionists is assurance of the English
Baptists practicing only immersion. Of Smyth’s time Evans says: “There were
Baptists in Holland, those who administered the ordinance of immersion .” [Note:
Idem, Ibid.]

Evans thus quotes from the editor of John Robinson’s works: “The Dutch Baptists,
by whom they were surrounded, uniformly administered baptism by immersion,” and
Evans adds: “There was a portion of the Dutch Baptists who uniformly
administered baptism by immersion.” [Note: Evans’ Early Eng. Bap., vol. 1, p.
203.] Hence, Rev. W.W. Everts, Jr., says: “The English Baptists practiced
immersion and the first of them came from the continent.” That any early English
Baptist church ever changed from affusion to immersion there is not even a
shadow of proof. In the name of all reason I ask: Who can believe that they
could have made so great a change without leaving one mark of it on history’s
page? That the genuine early English Baptists were exclusive immersionists is
beyond all’ reasonable doubt. (The italics of this chapter are mine.)


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 21: THE ANABAPTISTS AND THE MUNSTER DISORDERS.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 18. — THE ANABAPTISTS AND THE MUNSTER DISORDERS. In the consideration of
the Anabaptists and the Munster disorders:

(1.) There were several kinds of Anabaptists at the time of the Munster
troubles. Says Hase:

“These Anabaptists ... were ... a class of enthusiasts resembling each other,
but very unlike each other in moral and religious character ... Some of them
were persons who renounced the world, and others were slaves of their own lusts;
to some of them marriage was only an ideal religious communion of spirit; to
others it resolved itself into a general community of wives; some did not differ
from the reformers with respect to doctrine, but others rejected original sin
and the natural bondage of the will, denied that we are to be justified by the
merits of Christ alone, or that we can partake of his flesh and maintained that
our Lord’s body was from heaven, and not begotten of the virgin.” [Note: Hase’s
Hist. Chr. Ch., p. 431.]

Mosheim:

“It is difficult to determine, with certainty, the particular spot which gave
birth to that seditious and pestilential sect of Anabaptists. It is most
probable that several persons of this odious class made their appearance at the
same time in different countries ... The first Anabaptist doctors of any
eminence were, almost all, heads and leaders of particular sects. For it must be
carefully observed, that though all these projectors of a new, unspotted and
perfect church were comprehended under the general name of Anabaptists, on
account of their opposing the baptism of infants, and their rebaptizing such as
had received the sacrament in childhood in other churches, yet they were, from
their very origin, subdivided into various sects which differed from each other
in points of no small moment. The most pernicious faction of all those that
composed this motley multitude, was that which pretended that the founders of
the new and perfect church, already mentioned, were under the direction of a
divine impulse, and were armed against all opposition, by the power of working
miracles. It was this detestable faction which began its fanatical work in the
year 1521, under the guidance of Munzer, Stubner, Storck and other leaders of
the same furious complexion, and excited the most unhappy tumults and commotions
in Saxony and other adjacent countries.” [Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 16,
sec. 3, ch. 3, sec. 4.]

They were called Anabaptists, not because they were the same denomination, but
solely because they rejected all baptisms not administered by themselves. Just
as all immersionists of the United States are often, in books and newspapers,
classed as Baptists, though radically different. Some who believed in infant
baptism were classed as Anabaptists.

Says Dr. Ludwig Keller, the Munster archivist, a Lutheran, than whom there is no
higher authority on this subject:

“The name Anabaptist, which is used to designate alike all the South German
societies, generally awakens the conception of a party homogeneous and of like
religious views. The conception, however, is an entirely erroneous one. It has
been usual since the time of Luther to designate as Anabaptists, Catabaptists,
or fanatics, all those who renounced the Catholic church, but would not become
Lutherans. Indeed, Luther at the very outset designated Zwingli and his
followers as the party associates of those who held views in reference to infant
baptism that were different from his own. It is susceptible of proof that not
even in reference to the last mentioned doctrine, which was the occasion of the
designation of Anabaptist was there a perfect agreement among the so-called
Baptists. Much less was this the case on other points which possessed a greater
significance for a religious party than that special dogma. It were the more
correct, therefore, when the reference is to the religious conflicts of the
period of the reformation in general, to speak not of the spread of the
Anabaptists, but of the anti-Lutheran parties in Germany ... Among the so-called
Anabaptists, retaining here the usual designation, we must distinguish three
principal parties which come upon the scene in three epochs, under the
preponderating influence of different personalities. These three groups were not
the only ones into which the party were divided — indeed, not less than forty
are enumerated by their contemporaries — but there were three parties which in
the number of their followers and in the importance of their leaders, were
especially prominent in the whole movement. All other groups were only
degenerate, independent interests of ephemeral and limited influence.” [Note:
Preussische Jahrbucher, Sept. 1892—translated by Rev. H. S. Burrage, D. D., in
Bap. Quar. Rev., vol. 7, pp. 33, 34.] From the statement, that there were
different kinds of Anabaptists, no reliable historian or well read and honest
person, upon this subject will dissent.

While the absurdity and the injustice, therefore, of branding Baptists with the
disgrace of the Munster riots, simply because they were then known under the
word Anabaptists, is apparent, from the foregoing, yet, as so many Baptist
opponents resort to this injustice, I will next notice the verdict of those who
have carefully and honestly investigated the charge.

(2.) Historians and other writers exonerate Baptists from the disgrace of taking
any part in the Munster riots.

Says Burrage, alluding to a conference between Thomas Munzer, Grebel and Mantz:

“Nor do we find that the Swiss radicals had any subsequent dealings with him. As
Grebel’s letter shows, he and his associates were not in agreement with Munzer
in reference to baptism. They did not believe in the use of the sword as he did.
Doubtless, they now found that in purpose they and the Saxon reformer differed
widely. Munzer’s aims were social and political chiefly.” [Note: The Anabaptists
of Switzerland, p. 89.] Says Mosheim, whom, we have seen, clearly recognizes
different sects of Anabaptists:

“It would betray, however, a strange ignorance, as an unjustifiable partiality,
to maintain, that even all that professed, in general, this absurd doctrine,
were chargeable that with furious and brutal extravagance, which has been
mentioned, as the character of too great a part of their sect. This was by no
means the case; several of these enthusiasts discovered a milder and more
pacific spirit, and were free from any other reproach than that which resulted
from the errors they maintained, and their too ardent effort of spreading them
among the multitude. It may still further be affirmed with truth, that MANY of
those who followed the wiser class of Anabaptists, nay, some who adhered to the
most extravagant factions of that sect, were men of upright intentions and
sincere piety, who were seduced into this mystery of fanaticism and iniquity, by
their ignorance and simplicity on the one hand, and by a laudable desire of
reforming the corrupt state of religion on the other ... those who had no other
marks of peculiarity than their administering baptism to adult persons only, and
their excluding the unrighteous from the external communion of the church ought
undoubtedly to have net with milder treatment than what was given to those
seditious incendiaries, who were for unhinging all government and destroying all
civil authority ... It is true, indeed, that MANY Anabaptists suffered death,
not on account of their being considered rebellious subjects, but merely because
they were judged to be incurable heretics, for in this century the error of
limiting the administration of baptism to adult persons only, and the practice
of re-baptizing such as had received that sacrament in a state of infancy, were
looked upon as most flagitious and in-tolerable heresies ... A HANDFUL, of
madmen who got into their heads the visionary notion of a new and spiritual
kingdom,” were the madmen of Munster. [Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 16,
sec. 3, chap. 3, sec. 5, 6, 7.]

Says Armitage: “Gieseler says that ‘no traces of Anabaptist fanaticism were
seen’ in the Peasants’ War.” [Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., p. 366.]

“Some individual Anabaptists were drawn into the contest, as at Muhlhausen;
under the lead of Munzer, who was not, in any proper sense of the term, an
Anabaptist himself. On the contrary, Keller, in his late work on the
Reformation, (p. 370), says that Cornelius has shown that in the chief points
Munzer was opposed to the Baptists’ [Note: Idem, Ibid.] “But differing from
Baptists, he practiced infant baptism twice a year, christening all born in his
congregation. In 1522, at Alstedt, he threw aside the Latin liturgy and prepared
one in German, in which he retained the formula for infant baptism ... It is,
therefore, a singular perversity that so many writers should have attempted to
palm him off as a Baptist, and the father of them. Dr. Rule, in his ‘Spirit of
the Re-formation,’ says: ‘He performed a ceremony on baptized persons which they
mistook for baptism, and with his followers received the designation
Anabaptist.’ But Ulhorn says that he did not practice rebaptism, and did not
form a congregation.” [Note: Idem, pp. 367, 368.]

“Few writers have treated this subject with greater care and clearness than
Ypeij and Dermout in their ‘History of the Netherland Churches.’ They say of the
Munster men that while they are known in history as ‘Anabaptists,’ they ought by
no means to be known as Baptists. ‘Let the reader,’ they request, ‘keep this
distinction in mind in the statement which we now make respecting them. Since
the peculiar history of the Anabaptists and Baptists has exerted so powerful an
influence on the reformation of the church in this country, the nature of our
historical work requires that we present in its true light the whole matter from
its origin. After speaking at length of the Munster men and their excesses,
especially of their leaders, they say of Mathiesen: ‘He laid as the foundation
of his new system of doctrine, that teaching respecting the holy ordinance of
baptism which, in part, had long before been maintained by the Baptists. He
considered infant baptism not to be of the least advantage to the religious
interests of the Christian. In his opinion baptism should be delayed to years of
discretion, and after a profession of faith on the part of the baptized.
Therefore everyone who passed over to the community of which he was the head
must first be baptized, even if he had been baptized into another society at an
adult age. When he renounced his confession of faith he renounced also his
baptism ... It can now be easily understood how the followers of the Munster
leaders received the name of Anabaptists, or re- baptizers. So far as their
views of baptism are concerned, these could be easily tolerated and they need
not have been hated by reasonable persons on account of these. But besides
these, they taught doctrines fraught with important errors, partly founded on
Pelagianism, [Note: “Pelagianism,” “Unitarianism” are held by Campbellites in
general, to a greater or less extent. Pelagianism is the boldest Arminianism.
Hence the Munster disorders are chargeable to Campbellite principles and to
Arminiansm as otherwise held.] partly Unitarianism, partly Mysticism, and partly
impure principles. Yet, with all these opinions they could have been suffered to
exist had they behaved themselves properly as members of society ... Since the
enlisting of the rebel Anabaptists happened in this manner, it is sufficiently
evident that the great majority cannot be supposed to have been Baptists in
belief. They were people of every variety of religious beliefs, and many of them
of no religion at all in heart, although they aided the Protestant cause. From
the nature of the case the majority of Romanists knew no difference between the
various Protestant parties and sects, and would make no distinction. Hence, the
abhorrence only deserved by some of the Anabaptists was bestowed upon all
Protestants. The honest Baptist suffered most severely from their prejudice,
because they were considered by the people to be the same, and were called by
the same name. On this account the Baptists in Flanders and in Friesland
suffered the most terrible persecutions ... We have nowhere seen clearer
evidence of the injurious influence of prejudice; nowhere have we met with more
obstinate unwillingness to be correctly informed, and a more evident disposition
to silence those who better understood the truth of the matter. Prejudice, when
once deeply imbibed, blinds the eye, perplexes the understanding, silences the
instincts of the heart, and destroys the love of truth and rectitude ... Their
religious teachings were pure and simple and were exemplified in their daily
conduct.’” [Note: Idem, pp. 369, 370.]

“Brandt attributes them to some ‘enthusiastic Ana-baptists,’ but is careful to
add: ‘Not to the well meaning. Baptists.’ ‘Schaff pronounces it the greatest
injustice to make the Anabaptists, as such, responsible for the extravagances
that led to the tragedy at Munster.’ Uhlhorn says that ‘sedition, or a call to
sedition, is not chargeable against the Anabaptists of Southern Germany at this
time; I have found no trace of any fellowship with the seditious peasants.’ But
their contemporaries who knew them well, bear the same testimony. Capito, their
stern opponent at Strasburg, says that he must ‘openly confess’ that most of
them manifest ‘godly fear and pure zeal. Before God I testify that I cannot say
that their contempt for life springs from blindness rather than from a divine
impulse.’ Wetzel, the Catholic, declared that ‘Whosoever speaks of God and a
Christian life, or earnestly strives after personal improvement passes as an
arch Ana-baptist.’ And Frank, who wrote in 1531, says of them: ‘They teach love,
faith and the cross. They are long suffering and heroic in affliction. The world
feared they would cause an uproar, but they have proved innocent everywhere. If
I were emperor, pope or Turk, I would not fear revolt less from any people than
this ... All the Baptists oppose those who fight for the gospel with the sword.
Some object to war or any use of the sword, but the most favor self-defense and
justifiable war.’ Bayle tells us that Turenne remonstrated with Van Benning for
tolerating them, when he replied: ‘They are good people, and the most commodious
to a State in the world, because they do not aspire to places of dignity ...
They edify the people by the simplicity of their manners, and apply themselves
to arts and business without dissipating their substance in luxury and
bebauchery.’ Nay, Bayle himself says that their great enemy, De Bres, says
nothing to insinuate that the Anabaptist martyrs suffered death for taking up
arms against the State, or for stirring up the subjects to rebel, but represents
them as a harmless sort of people ... ‘Tis certain many of them who suffered
death for their opinions had no thought of making an insurrection ... Cornelius
sums up the whole matter, covering the time from 1525 onward, when he says:
‘Anabaptism and the Peasants’ War had no conscious connection.’ The two
movements were generally distinct. The Baptists in the Schleitheim Articles,
Article VI, said: ‘Scandal has been brought in amongst us by certain false
brethren, so that some have turned from the faith, imagining to use for
themselves the freedom of the Spirit and of Christ. But such have erred from the
truth and have given themselves (to their condemnation) to the wantonness and
freedom of the flesh; and have thought faith and love may do and suffer all
things, and nothing would injure or condemn them because they believed. They
warn that ‘faith’ does not thus prove itself, does not bring forth and do such
things as these false brethren and sisters do and teach ... Beware of such, as
they serve not our father, but the flesh, with its lusts and longings.’” [Note:
Armitage’s Bap. Hist., pp. 373, 374.]

One of the Baptist martyrs, Dryzinger, in 1538, only three years after the
craze, was examined as to whether he and his brethren approved of these vile
proceedings. He answered: “They would not be Christians if they did.” Hans of
Overdam, another martyr, complained of these false accusations of violence.

He said: “We are daily belied by those who say that we defend our faith with the
sword, as they of Munster did. The Almighty defend us from such abominations.”
Young Dosie, a beautiful character, who was a prisoner to the Governor of
Friesland, and endured cruel slaughter for his love to Christ, was asked by the
governor’s wife if he and his brethren were not of the disgraceful people who
took up the sword against magistrates. With the sweet innocence of a child he
replied:

“No, madam; those persons greatly erred. We consider it a devilish doctrine to
resist the magistrates by the outward sword and violence. We would much rather
suffer persecution and death at their hands and whatever is appointed us to
suffer.’ All this is no more than Erasmus said of them in 1529: ‘The Anabaptists
have seized no churches, have not conspired against the authorities, nor
deprived any man of his estate and goods.’ They had no sturdier foe than
Bullinger, yet he renders this verdict: ‘Say what we will of the Baptists, I see
nothing in them but earnestness, and I hear nothing of them except that they
will not take an oath, will not do any wrong, and aim to treat every man justly.
In this, it seems to me, there is nothing out of the way.’ But Cornelius tells
us plainly: ‘All these excesses were condemned and opposed wherever a large
assembly of the brethren afforded an opportunity to give expression to the
religious consciousness of the Baptist membership.’ ... No one outside of their
number has better described their advanced position as a people in all respects
than Fusslin, in his preface to volume II of Beitrage:

‘The reformers rejected the superstitious abuses attached to the sacraments; the
Anabaptists restored the sacraments themselves to memorials for believers. The
reformers preached against unnecessary bloodshed; the Anabaptists denounced war
of every kind. The reformers protested against Catholic tyranny; the Anabaptists
denied to any civil power authority in matters of religion. The reformers
decried public vices; the Anabaptists excluded [Note: In this strict church
discipline the German Baptists of today agree with these. Baptist churches of
the United States surely need a revival of discipline.] the immoral from their
fellowship. The reformers sought to limit usury and covetousness; the
Anabaptists made them impossible by their practice of communion. The reformers
educated their preachers; the Anabaptists looked for the inner anointing. The
reformers condemned the priests for simony; the Anabaptists made every preacher
dependent on the labor of his own hands and the free gifts of [Note: Thus, as
Baptists of today—when people were able they supported their pastors; when they
were unable their pastors supported themselves. They had educated men among them
who were educated before they left the Church of Rome, but their persecuted
condition prevented them from educating those who were raised among them.] the
people ... There was a great difference between Anabaptists and Anabaptists.
There were those among them who held strange doctrines, but this cannot be said
of the whole sect. If we should attribute to every sect whatever senseless
doctrines two or three fanciful fellows have taught, there is no one in the
world to whom we could not ascribe the most abominable errors.’ Grebel tells us
that two hundred moral and moderate Baptists in Munster heroically withstood the
iniquity, and it was not established until forty-eight of that number had been
put to a bloody slaughter for their resistance. So that in the struggle nearly
fifty Baptists fell martyrs to purity in the German Sodom ; and at last the
ministers and most of the people yielded to the clamor for polygamy under this
reign of terror. While this handful of madmen had not been educated in visions,
violence and indecency by the Baptist leaders of Switzerland and Germany, others
had impregnated them with these doctrines from the cradle. For centuries these
teachings and practices had filled the air. The doctrine of wild visions, both
of God and the devil, was taught in the monastic institutions, and wonders of
this sort were blazoned abroad by bishops, cardinals and popes everywhere. The
Catholic communion believed then and still believes in new revelations from God.
Saints innumerable are mentioned who heard voices from heaven, had visits from
the Virgin and Father, the Son and angels — as Ignatius Aquinas, Teresa, Felix
and Anthony. Francis was not only inspired to read men’s minds and consciences
as well as their faces, but he received the rules of his new order of monks
direct from God. Like John of Leydon, he appointed twelve apostles, and one of
them hanged himself to boot. He also prophesied that be should be a ‘great
prince,’ and be adored over the whole earth. Bridget, Catharine and Rosa, with
endless nuns, were prophetesses. Teresa took the crucified Christ by the hand,
was espoused to him, and went up to heaven in the shape of a white dove. The
Munster men never had such dreams, raptures, apparitions, phantasms and
ecstacies as the canonized saints of Rome. Neither did Luther help the lunatics
to sounder doctrine, when he saw the devil in the form of ‘dog,’ a ‘whisp of
straw,’ a ‘wild boar,’ and a ‘star;’ nor when he threw the ink-stand at his
head. As to violence, Catholics and Protestants taught them that tradition,
reason and Scripture made it the pious duty of saints to torture and burn men as
heretics out of pure love for their holiness and salvation ... Who educated
these fanatics in Christian love and gentleness? The law of their times was to
repel force with force. When the Munster men came into power they applied the
reasonings of their tutors in atrocity, saying: ‘Our bounden duty is to rid the
earth of Christ’s enemies and ours, as they would rid it of us.’ And who will
say that all these murderers did not stand on the same plane of outrage and
barbarity in this respect? As to immoralities — every pure mind shrinks from the
indecencies of Munster. And who had set them this example? They practiced
polygamy; but ten long years before this, 1524, Luther had written: ‘The husband
must be certified in his own conscience and by the word of God that polygamy is
permitted to him. As for me, I avow that I cannot set myself in opposition to
men marrying several wives, or assert that such a course is repugnant to Holy
Scripture.’ About the same time he preached his famous sermon on ‘Marriage,’
which chastity may well pass in silence, beyond this one expression: ‘Provided
one has faith, adultery is no sin.’ And what better example had the Catholics
set the Munster men in that line of purity? From the ninth century down, as
Bowden says in his ‘Life of Hildebrand,’ ‘The infamies prevalent among the
clergy are to be alluded to, not detailed.’ The open licentiousness of the popes
was appalling. The popes of the fifteenth century were profligate and debased
beyond belief. Innocent III. Publicly boasted of the number of his illegitimate
children. Alexander was a monster of iniquity, who gave dispensations for crimes
that cannot be written.

Baronius says that the vilest harlots domineered in the papal see, at their
pleasure changed sees, appointed bishops, and actually thrust into St. Peter’s
chair their own gallants, false popes. Take the simple case of John XII. Bowden
wrote: ‘The Lateran palace was disgraced by becoming a receptacle for
courtesans; and decent females were terrified from the pilgrimages to the
threshold of the Apostles by the reports which were spread abroad of the lawless
impurity and violence of the representative and successor of two others equally
vile.’ But these were no worse than Sixtus, who entered a house of ill-fame in
Rome, the inmates of which, according to Justin, paid his holiness a weekly tax,
which amounted sometimes to twenty thousand ducats a year. The purest spirits in
the hierarchy blush to tell the hard narrative of monastic life in the sixteenth
century, although it made pretensions to spotless virtue. Archbishop Morton,
1490, accused the abbot of St. Albans with emptying the nunneries of Pray and
Sapnell of modest women and filling them with vile females. The clergy kept
concubines openly from the popes down ... For centuries the fanaticism of Rome
had immersed all people in a state of nudity ... Rome practiced the same
indecencies in flagellation, borrowed from the heathen feast of Lupercale, in
which, according to Virgil and Plutarch, young noblemen walked through the
streets naked, cutting themselves with whips and rods, in austerity, while
sacrifices were burning to their gods. The same barbarity was practiced by
Christian woman of France, Mezeray being authority. For two centuries this
flagellation madness ran through Bavaria, Austria, the Upper Rhine and Italy,
nay through Saxony itself. These morbid fanatics practiced all stages of
undress, formed a brotherhood, swept in thousands through these lands, singing
hymns, having revelations from angels and the Virgin, and with a letter from
Christ himself, which they exhibited in their pilgrimages. Motley calls the
Munster men ‘Furious fanatics, who deserve the madhouse rather than the
scaffold;’ and how much better were Catholics and Protestants in practicing the
same things?” [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., pp. 366, 378.] Says Vedder, who is
too ready to credit slanders on the ancient Baptists:

“Fanatical outbreaks in South Germany had no connection with Hoffman. Their
chief leader, if not instigator, was Thomas Muntzer. He is invariably called an
Anabaptist, but in reality he never belonged to that body. It is true that he
wrote and spoke against the baptism of infants, but he regularly practiced it,
and was therefore a Pedobaptist. The disorders of his leadership cannot be laid
to the charge of the Anabaptists.” [Note: Vedder’s Hist. Bap., p. 98.] Says
Prof. Geo. P. Fisher, D.D., of the Anabaptists:

“The church they insisted must be composed exclusively of the regenerate, and
they insisted, it is not a matter to be regulated and managed by civil rulers.
Under the name of Anabaptists are included different types of doctrine and
Christian life. It is a gross injustice to impute to all of them the wild
destructive fanaticism with which a portion of them are chargeable ... This
fanatical class are first heard of under Thomas Munzer, as a leader ... Grebel
and other Anabaptists ... were enthusiasts but not fanatics. They were peaceful
in their spirit, and, as it would appear, sincerely devout.” [Note: Fisher’s
Hist. Chr. Ch., p.] The new American Encyclopedia is quoted: “There was another
class of Anabaptists, widely different from those who have been described” as
the Munster men.

Fessendens’ Encyclopedia — a work quoted with approbation by Daubigne, is
quoted:

“Anabaptists: The English and Dutch Baptists do not consider the word as
applicable to their sect. It is but justice to add that the Baptists of Holland
and England and the United States are to be regarded essentially distinct from
those seditious and fanatical individuals.” The New American Encyclopedia is
quoted:

“It is certain that the disturbances in the city of Munster were begun by a
Pedobaptist minister of the Lutheran persuasion, that he was assisted in his
endeavors by other ministers of the same persuasion.”

Says Keller:

“Nothing can be more false than the assertion that any casual connection existed
between these revolutionary efforts and the teachings of Denck and the better
part of the Anabaptists generally.” [Note: Quoted from p. 200 Ein Apostel Der
Weldertaufer, by Dr. Burrage.] In the Examiner and Chronicle, Dr. William
Whitsitt, says:

“I believe that we cannot avoid accepting the testimony of Sebastian Frank, to
the effect that Munzer, though at one time he rejected infant baptism, like many
other men of a ‘like sentiment in that age, never went to the length of adopting
Anabaptism.’ Frank says: ‘He himself never baptized any, as I am credibly
informed. Erkbam, 495, note.’”

Daubigne is quoted concerning the Munster troubles, as saying they came out of
the bosom of the Reformation:

“Confusion and ruin had taken hold of the city. The Reformation had seen an
enemy spring up from its own bosom more formidable than all the popes and
emperors. It was on the very verge of the abyss.” [Note: Hist. Ref., vol. 3, p.
53.]

Luther himself distinguished between the Anabaptists and the Munsterites. He
said: “I have got over three cruel storms — Munzer, the Sacramentarians and the
Anabaptists.” [Note: Michelet’s Life of Luther, p. 72-quoted by E. T. Winkler,
D. D.] In The Independent, the lamented specialist in Baptist history, Dr.
Buckland, of Rochester Theological Seminary, refuting the Munster slander,
called attention to the fact that Hase, Gerard, Gieseler, Fusslin, Brandt,
Dorner, and indeed, that the concensus of candid, critical historians clear the
Anabaptists of the Munster slander.

He adds:

“That kingdom has attracted the attention of writers in a remarkable degree
because of its excesses; still it was a mere episode of the Reformation, lasting
from February, or more strictly, from December, 1534, to the 22d of June, 1535,
or about six months in its full organization. But the peaceable Anabaptists —
who made it a religious principle to bear no weapons, use no force, love their
enemies and suffer all things unresistingly — existed by many tens of thousands,
during and after the time in Switzerland, Germany, Moravia, and the low
countries. In these distinctive principles they were identical with the
Waldenses before them and the noble Mennonites after them.” The late Dr. Philip
Schaff, Presbyterian Professor in Union Theological Seminary, and the most
prominent church historian of the United States:

“The history of the Anabaptists of the Reformation period has yet to be written
from an impartial, unsectarian standpoint. The polemical attitude of the
reformers against them has warped the judgment of historians. They were cruelly
treated in their lifetime by Romanists and Protestants, and misrepresented after
their death as a set of heretical and revolutionary fanatics who could not be
tolerated in a Christian state. The excesses of a misguided faction have been
charged upon the whole body. They were made responsible for the peasant’s war
and the Munster tragedy, although the great majority of them were quiet, orderly
and peaceful citizens, and would rather suffer persecution than do an act of
violence. The Mennonites and regular Baptists of America are the true successors
of the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century, and help us to understand and
appreciate the latter. The official reports of the proceedings against the
Anabaptists are from their enemies, and are more or less colored. The works of
Anabaptists are few and scarce.” [Note: In The Bap. Quar. Rev., vol. 12, No.
43.] Of Roger Williams’ departure to America and of the Baptists Palfry, one of
the bitter enemies to Baptists, says:

“The Baptists many years before his departure had stated and maintained’ the
doctrine of religious liberty in the most unqualified terms.” [Note: Palfry’s
Hist. New Eng., vol. 1, p. 414.] May says of the Baptists: “Renouncing all
connection with the State ... separation and isolation were the very foundation
of their creed.” [Note: May’s Const. Hist. Eng., vol. 2, p. 269.]

Froude says of them: “In their deaths they assisted to pay the purchase money of
England’s freedom.” [Note: Froude’s Hist. Eng., vol. 2, p. 358.] Bancroft says
of them:

“The plebeian sect of the Anabaptists, ‘the scum of the Reformation,’ with
greater consistency than Luther applied the doctrine to the Reformation to the
social relations of life and threatened an end to kingcraft spiritual dominion,
tithes and vassalage. They were trodden under foot with foul reproaches and most
arrogant scorn; and its history is written in the blood of myriads of the German
peasantry; but its principles, safe in their immortality, escaped to
Providence.” [Note: Bancroft’s Hist. U.S., vol. 2, p. 457—old ed.]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 22: THE BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY LINE, OR LINES FROM THE APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE PAULI...
========================================================================

CHAPTER 19. — THE BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY LINE, OR LINES FROM THE APOSTOLIC
AGE TO THE PAULICIANS, AND INCLUDING THEM. In the previous chapters of this book
we have seen that there were Baptist churches in all the ages from the apostolic
age to the seventeenth century. This we have seen demonstrated by the doctrine
and the practice of the churches which we have examined. The doctrine and the
practices of Baptists, from the seventeenth century to the present, being too
well known to call for examination — save as to “who are the old Baptists” — as
to the Perpetuity of Baptist churches, I now proceed to show the historical
connection of the Baptist churches which the previous chapters have examined.
[Note: Every Baptist church is a complete church. No Baptist church is united to
any other Baptist church by church organization. From the point of church
organization no Baptist church is connected with any other Baptist church. Just
as each man is as completely a man as if there were no other man in existence,
so each Baptist church is as completely a church as if no other church existed.
The only connection, therefore, that Baptist churches have to each other is that
of likeness, spirit and mutual relation and obligation to their Lord and to His
cause. Much confusion in examining Baptist Church Perpetuity grows out of the
mind being prepossessed by the Romish doctrine of the church being made of all
the congregation? and their hierarchy, all in one organization, and thus
connected by outward organization. I mean only by historical connection of
Baptist churches that they are connected by the bond of spiritual brotherhood
and service to their Lord, by identity of doctrine and practice and by one being
the production of another, as one college produces another, or as offspring is
the production of parent.]

Though the Perpetuity of Baptist churches is shown in the continuity of their
doctrine and practice, and, thus, the purpose of this book accomplished, yet, to
give the reader some conception of the abundance of proof sustaining the
position, that Baptist churches have an existence from the time of Christ to the
present, I will, also, demonstrate Baptist Church Perpetuity from the connection
which history shows that these churches sustained to the first churches and to
each other.

First. The historical relation of Montanists, Novatians and Donatists. That
Montanists, Novatians and Donatists, were in doctrine and practice, essentially
identical, appears in the previous chapters.

Neander, says of Novatian:

“His principles admit of so natural an explanation from the sternness of his
Christian character, and he was acting in this case so entirely in the spirit of
a whole party of the church in his time.” [Note: Neander’s Hist. Chr. Ch, vol.
1. p. 239.]

Robinson says:

“They tax Novatian with being the parent of an innumerable multitude of
congregations of Puritans all over the empire; and yet he had no other influence
over any than what his good example gave him. People saw everywhere the same
cause of complaint and groaned for relief, and when one man made a stand for
virtue the crisis had arrived, people saw the propriety of the cure and applied
the same means to their own relief. They blame this man and all these churches
for the severity of their discipline; yet, this severe moral discipline, was the
only coercion of the primitive churches, and it was the exercise of this, that
rendered civil coercion unnecessary.” [Note: Robinson’s Eccl. Resh., p. 127.]

Moller:

“Condemned in Rome, Montanism found a new home in North Africa and its most
prominent representative Tertullian.” [Note: Schaff Herzog Ency., vol. 2, p.
1582.]

Naturally the Baptists, who were persecuted under the stigma of Montanists,
found refuge in North Africa with their brethren who were stigmatized Donatists.
The Montanists were so strong that Tertullian tells us the corrupt party felt
inclined to recognize their claims in order for peace.” [Note: Schaff-Herzog
Ency., vol. 2, p. 1562.] Says Adolph Harnack:

“According to Philostorgius, Novatian was a native of Phrygia. Probably,
however, this notion arose from the circumstance that he found many adherents in
Phrygia; or, perhaps it was purposely manufactured in order to insinuate a
connection between him and the Montanists.” [Note: Idem, vol. 2, p. 1670.]

Admit Novatian was a native of Phrygia, and we see in the admission his early
Montanist education manifest after his conversion. Deny he was Phrygian, and we
have in the denial the explanation of the cause of the extraordinary prosperity
of Novatian on Phrygian soil, in that Montanism had educated the people there
into Novatian belief and practice. Deny both, and we have the story as proving
that Baptist enemies recognized Montanists and Novatians as really or
essentially the same people. Harnack farther says of the Novatians:

“The schism gradually assumed very dangerous proportions, in the East, the views
of Novatian finding many adherents in Egypt, Armenia, Pontus, Bithynia,
Cappadocia, Syria, and Mesopotamia.” [Note: Idem, vol. 2, p. 1671.]

Hase says: Montanism was “an excitement which originated in Phrygia, and
extended over all the churches of Asia Minor.” [Note: Hase’s Hist. Chr. Ch., p.
66.] Of the locality where the Donatists controversy originated, in giving
account of its rise, Guericke says:

“In Northern Africa the fanatical spirit of Montanism had propagated itself here
and there.” [Note: Guericke’s Ch. Hist., vol. l, p. 278.] Prof. Geo. P. Fisher,
says:

“The controversy concerning church discipline, which had been maintained in the
former period by the Novatians, was revived again by the Donatists.” [Note:
Fisher’s Hist. Chr. Ch., p. 109.] Rase says of the Novatians:

“They withdrew all fellowship from the Catholic church and rebaptized all who
came from it to them ... In other countries also a similar uncertainty with
respect to the true idea of a church and strict discipline produced similar
divisions.” [Note: Base’s Hist. Chr. Ch. p. 67] Of the Novatians, W.W. Everts,
Jr., Says:

“They extended throughout the Roman Empire, from Armenia to Numedia, in Spain.
They were especially strong in Phrygia, where the Montanists fused with them,
and in the great cities, Constantinople, Alexandria, Carthage, and Rome.” [Note:
Baptist Layman’s Book. p. 17.] Gieseler, says of the Novatians:

“This party was widley extended and continued for a long time. In Phrygia they
united with the remnant of the Montanists.” [Note: Gleseler’s Ch. Hist., vol. 1,
p. 255; see also Socrates’ Eccl. Hist., Book 4, Ch. 28.] Schaff, says of the
Novatians:

“In Phrygia it combined with the remnants of the Montanists.” [Note: Schaff’s
Hist. Chr. Ch. vol. 1, p. 451.]

Harnack, says:

“After the Decian persecution, the church of the Cathari.” i, e. Novatians — and
probably Donatists — “became consolidated. Many Montanist congregations joined
it, especially in Phrygia.” [Note: Schaff-Herzog Ency., vol. 2, p. 1672.] From
the statements of the historians, we see that Montanists and Novatians were
“united” together in church fellowship, that they excluded the so-called
Catholics instead of first being excluded themselves; and that instead of
Novatian being the founder of the Novatians, he was only the leader of
multitudes of churches which withdrew fellowship from the disorderly ones. The
Donatists holding the same doctrine and practice that the Montanists and the
Novatians held, and withdrawing fellowship from the corrupt part of the
churches, on the same complaint on which the Montanists and Novatians withdrew
from it, and to a great extent, contemporaneous and occupying the same territory
with them, could but have been in church fellowship with them. While, like
American and foreign Baptists, they may have possibly differed in minor matters,
they were evidently the same people.

Second. The Montanists, the Novatians and the Donatists perpetuated in the
Politicians.

Says Schaff:

“A remnant of the Donatists, as we learn from the letters of Gregory II,
perpetuated itself into the seventh century.” [Note: Schaff’s Hist. Chr. Ch.,
vol. 2, p. 365.]

Hase says:

They “struggled and suffered on till some time in the seventh century, and had
shown the prodigious power which even a mistaken faith may exert over sincere,
vigorous and gloomy dispositions.” [Note: Hase’s Hist. Chr. Ch., p. 158.]
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia:

“They had not become extinct when in the seventh century the Saracens occupied
the territory and destroyed the African church.” [Note: Vol. 1, p. 660.]

Guericke:

“Relics of this great party continued to exist until about the year 600,
evincing even in their fragments the power of a mistaken belief, and the wrongs
of ecclesiastical, civil persecution.” [Note: Guericke’s Ch. Hist., vol. l, p.
283.] Of Africa, A.D. 427, Wadington says:

“When it was discovered by Belisarius, more than a hundred years afterwards,
after 427, the sect of the Donatists was still found to exist there as a
separate communion. We are told that it dwindled into insignificance about the
end of the sixth century, but it is not improbable that the Saracen invaders of
Numidia found thorn some few years later, the remnant of a sect not ill disposed
to favor any invader, nor unmindful of the sufferings of their ancestors.”
[Note: Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p. 153.] The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says:

“In the fifth century the Novatians had many churches the party lived on until
the sixth or seventh century.” [Note: Vol. 2, p. 1672.]

Kurtz says:

“Owing to the moral earnestness of their principles, even those bishops who took
a different view from theirs were disposed to regard them more favorably; and
almost throughout the Roman Empire Novatian communities sprang up, of which
remnants existed as late as the sixth century.” [Note: Kurtz’s Ch. Hist., vol.
1, pp. 134, 135.]

Socrates, in his Ecclesiastical History tells us of many Novatian churches
existing in Rome in the fifth century. Books V, section XIV; VII, sections IX
and XIV.: “Many of whose churches;”: “their assemblies within the city” are some
of the phrases which Socrates uses of the Donatists.

Wadington:

“They subsisted until the fifth century throughout Christendom.” [Note:
Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p. 79.]

Schaff says:

“In spite of strong opposition the Novatian sect, by virtue of its moral
earnestness, propagated itself in various provinces of the West and East to the
fifth century.” [Note: Schaff’s Hist. Chr. Ch., vol. 1, p. 451.] Of the
Montanists Kurtz says:

“Still the sect of the Tertullianists continued in Africa for a long time.”
[Note: Kurtz’s Chr. Hist., vol. l, p. 133.]

Guericke:

“The Montanists maintained themselves as a distinct sect down to the sixth
century, bearing beside their usual names the names of Cataphrygians (ὀι κατα
Φύγασς), Pepuzians and many other names of local or contemptuous signification.”
[Note: Guericke’s Ch. Hist., p. 192.]

Gieseler says:

“The Montanists in Asia continued down to the tenth century. [Note: Gleseler’s
Ch. Hist., vol. l, pp. 143-144.]

Thus we see that the Montanists, the Novatians and the Donatists were not only
identical in doctrine, practice and the complaint on which they excluded the
so-called Catholics from their church fellowship, but that they were seen in
church fellowship with each other, taking and being known by the same name or
names. To believe that a people of such: “moral earnestness,” of such
unconquerable, unflagging and propagating zeal, of such vast numbers and
occupying almost universal territory, and with God on their side against a false
church, ceased to exist as the distinguishing names by which they were known in
their early history drop from history — saying nothing of God’s promises to his
church is certainly far more difficult than to believe that they were
perpetuated under other names. In the case of the Anabaptists losing their name
in the names Mennonite and Baptist and the various Baptist bodies, in the
history of the Baptists of the United States, merging into but one body and
afterwards known by but one name, we have illustrated the historical tendency
which we should expect to often see operating in the Baptists of the remotely
past ages. We have just seen, by the testimony of Guericke, that the Montanists,
before the name Paulician appears, were given the names: “Cataphrygians,
Pepuzians and many other names of a local or contemptuous signification.”
Throughout the history of the various Baptist bodies which church historians in
deference to the Romish church, call “sects” and “heretics” and which Revelation
calls the: “Mother of Harlots,” we see them all given names, from their
localities, their leaders and other things connected with their history. Thus,
though as old as the Christian age, from Montanus, their first great leader,
after the first century, called: “Montanists;” from Tertullian, their next great
leader: “Tertullianists;” from Novatian, another great leader: “Novatians;” from
Donatus, another great leader: “Donatists;” from Waldo, another great leader,
and the valleys: “Waldenses;” from Peter de Bruis, another great leader:
“Petrobrussians;” from ‘Henry, another great leader, “Henricians: “from Arnold,
another great leader, “Arnoldists;” from Meno, another great leader:
“Mennonites.” In the seventh century, when the names Montanists, Novatians and
Donatists are retiring from historical view appears the name Paulician. This
name appears in its application to churches which in doctrine and practice — see
previous chapters — were essentially identical with the Montanists, the
Novatians and the Donatists, which names are here dropped out of history. It
appears in application to churches which occupied the same territory which these
occupied. The name Paulician appears when Montanists, Novatians and Donatists,
instead of being extinct, must have numbered many hundred thousands of members.
This, therefore, forms so strong a presumption that Paulicians were only
Montanists, Novatians and Donatists, under another name, that, in the absence of
any clear historical evidence to the contrary, we must conclude that Paulician
is but a new label for the good old wine. The name is as strong contrary
evidence as can be produced. But we have just seen that names originate from so
many things which do not effect the identity of these churches that they are of
no evidence as to their origin or identity.

(The reader here turn to and read the first part of Chapter 11 of this book.)
The following, from Neander, illustrates the great and significant uncertainty
and confusion in which all who claim the Paulicians were of post-apostolic
origin are involved:

“It is an hypothesis of both the authors to whom we are indebted for the most
important information which we possess respecting this sect, though neglected by
all succeeding writers, that this sect was an offshoot of Manichaeism; and that
it took its origin from a woman, Callinice by name, who lived in the district of
Samosata, somewhere about the fourth century, and whose two sons, Paul and John,
were considered as the founders of the sect. From the former of these, it is
said, moreover, that the sect took its name; and it was the opinion of one party
that the name Paulicians was derived from a combination of the names of both
founders, in the form παυλοιωάνναι. But we have strong reason for doubting the
whole account.” [Note: Neander’s Hist. Chr. Ch., vol. 8, p. 244.] This Neander
rejects, and Gieseler calls it a “later Catholic fiction ... given to them on
account of the high value they attached to Paul.” [Note: Gleseler’s Ch. Hist.,
vol. 2, p. 21.] Rejecting this early Romish explanation of the origin of the
Paulicians, Neander, Gieseler, Kurtz and others fall back on Constantine, of the
neighborhood of Samosata, about A.D. 660, as the Paulician founder. But in view
of what we have seen, as to the disappearance of the names Montanists, Novatians
and Donatists from view and the great power of the Paulicians immediately after
this assumed origin, this explanation of the origin of the Paulicians must be
rejected as being as utterly groundless as the Romish explanation, for which it
is the substitute.

Others, seeing the groundlessness of either of the two just now mentioned
explanations of the origin of the Paulicians, resort to the equally groundless
hypothesis that they were originated by an “Armenian named Paul, who lived under
Justinian II” — near a century before Constantine of Samosata. [Note: Universal
Knowledge, vol: 11, p. 39.] But Wadington, having little or no confidence in any
of these explanations of the origin of the Paulicians, and attempting to make
none of his own, says:

“The origin of these heretics have been the subject of much controversy; for
while some suppose their errors to have been indigenous in Europe, there are
some who derive them in a direct line from the heart of Asia.” [Note:
Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p. 289.]

Rejecting as groundless and as destructive to each other all the explanations of
the origin of the Paulicians which would make them of human and of post-
apostolic origin, the laws of evidence demand that we see the Paulicians but the
perpetuity of Montanists, Novatians and Donatists. Only this interpretation of
the facts of the disappearance from history of the names Montanists, Novatians
and Donatists, when in great numbers and in the same territory [Note: Harnack
says of the Novatians: “In the East, however, the party lived until the sixth or
seventh century.”— Schaff-Herzog Ency., vol. 2, p. 1672 And Wadington speaks of
“Armenia the province of “ the Paulician “birth” -Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p. 478;
Fisher’s Hist. Chr. Ch., p. 162. We have seen that the Montanists, the Novatians
and the Donatists numbered their converts “ throughout the Roman Empire.”] where
the name Paulicians came into use as designating, at first, a powerful body of
Christians, of like faith and practice to that of the Montanists, the Novatians
and the Donatists, can be made to conform to the facts of history. With this
explanation of the Paulician origin we readily account for the disappearance of
the Montanists, the Novatians and the Donatists and the appearance of the
Paulicians. Thus we have the true explanation of Guericke’s statement, that
this: “remarkable sect” arose “out of old elements of a preceding time.” [Note:
Guericke’s Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p. 76.] Instead of making Constantine the founder
of the Paulicians, Guericke recognizes him as the great leader: “It is
historically certain that some time after the middle of the seventh century the
Paulicians had for an able leader a man named Constantine.” [Note: Idem, p. 78.]
The statement of Robinson — a historian of extensive and original research —
covers the disappearance of the names Montanists, Novatians, Donatists,
Paulicians and other names by which the same churches were known from the second
century to the Reformation. Speaking of the Novatians, he says:

“When penal laws obliged them to lurk in corners and worship God in private,
they were distinguished by a variety of names, and a succession of them
continued until the Reformation.” [Note: Robinson’s Eccl. Resh., pp. 126, 127.]
[Note: The Campbellite, plea that names indicate Scriptural or un-scriptural
character, and that perpetuity must be traced by names, has no basis in reason,
history or Scripture.]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 23: THE BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY LINE, OR LINES, THROUGH THE PAULICIANS TO THE ANAB...
========================================================================

CHAPTER 20. — THE BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY LINE, OR LINES, THROUGH THE
PAULICIANS TO THE ANABAPTISTS. Of the thirteenth century, Wadington says:

“The heresy of the Paulicians and Cathari, another religious faction, had at
that time considerable prevalence, which under the various names of Cathari, for
Catharists, Puritans, Gazari, Patereni, Paulicians or Publicans, Bulgari or
Bugari was more particularly charged with Manichaean opinions. The origin of
these heretics has been the subject of much controversy, for while some suppose
these errors to have been indigenous in Europe, there are others who derive them
in a direct line from the very heart of Asia.” [Note: Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p.
286.]

Hase says: “The Paulicians under the name of Euchites ... had before” 1115
“become numerous among the Bulgarians among which they were commonly called
Bogomiles ... Small communities of Bogomiles were found among the Bulgarians
through the whole period of the middle ages, and Paulicians have continued to
exist under many changes in and around Philopopolis and in the valleys of the
Haemus until the present day.” [Note: Hase’s Hist. Chr. Ch. p. 262.]

Says Fisher:

“Certain sects arose in the south of France which with a zeal for purity of life
and in opposition to the claims of the priesthood, as well as to ecclesiastical
abuses in general, combined peculiar doctrinal beliefs which were somewhat akin
to the dualistic ideas prevalent in the East. They were called Catharists, and
because they were numerous in and near the city of Albi were named Albigenses.
Their tenets threatened the very foundation of the hierarchical system.” [Note:
Prof. Geo. P. Fisher’s Hist. Car. p. 194.]

Schmidt:

“A sect which from the beginning of the eleventh century spread rapidly and
widely in Southern France and maintained itself until in the middle of the
thirteenth century, received its name from the city of Albi, Latin, Albiga, the
present capitol of the department Tarn, which was one of their seats. The name
does not occur, however, until the time of the Albigensian crusade. Before that
time the sect was spoken of as the Publicants or Publicani, probably a
corruption of the name Paulicians, which the crusaders had brought back to
Western Europe ... Of the Cathari, the Bogomiles, Patoreni, Albigenses, etc.,
were only individual developments. In general they all held the same doctrines
... the same organization ... The severe moral demands made impression because
the example of the preachers corresponded to their words.” [Note: Schaff-Herzog
Ency., vol. 1, p. 47.] Again, says Schmidt:

“They spread during the middle ages over all Europe, more especially in the
Southern part ... Even as late as the fourteenth century the inquisition in
Italy was busy persecuting the Cathari ... Their name in Italy was not Cathari,
however, but Patereni, from Patari, an obscure street in Milan, the headquarters
of the rag-pickers, where they held their secret assemblies. Their principle
seat in Western Europe the Cathari had in Southern France, where they were known
as Albigenses. Thence they penetrated into the northern provinces of Spain where
they numbered many adherents in the thirteenth century. To Germany they came
partly from the East, from the Slav countries, partly from Flanders and Campagne
... The sect lived in the regions along the Rhine, especially in Cologne and
Bonn. In England the Cathari found very little sympathy. They came over in 1159
from Holland, and in 1210 some are said to have been discovered in London. This
system was based upon the New Testament of which they possessed a translation,
probably derived from the Orient and deviating considerably from the Vulgate.”
[Note: Idem, p. 420]

Kurtz:

“The principal centers of the Cathari were in Lombardy and in the South of
France, but numerous communities also existed in Belgium, Germany and Spain. The
liturgy lately discovered by Kunitz dates from the thirteenth century, and gives
a more favorable opinion of them than had formerly been entertained.” [Note:
Kurtz’s Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 455.]

“The great stronghold of the numberless sects which were designated as Cathari,
Bulgarians, Manichaeaus, etc., was in the South of France, where they had
secured the protection of Raymond the VI, Count of Toulouse, and of other
powerful vassals. The little town of Albi, in the district of Albigeois, was
regarded as the great center of the party; whence the name Albigenses, by which
these sects were designated.” [Note: Idem, pp. 46I, 462.]

Says Hase:

“Paterini, the name Catharists, by which this sect was generally designated,
shows what were their ordinary pretentious. A similar opposition prepared the
way for the influences exerted by the Paulicians who had been transferred into
the western countries of Europe (hence called Publicani Bugari). The accounts we
have of them are almost exclusively from their enemies. All agree, however, in
describing them as universally and absolutely opposed to the Catholic church and
all its pomp, in consequence of which they professed to be in immediate
communication of the Holy Ghost, exalting them [Note: The “laws” which they
ignored were evidently the laws of Romish ecclesiastical government. Nowhere did
this people ever repudiate legitimate rule of any government.] above all
conscious necessity of ecclesiastical or civil laws.” [Note: Hase’s Hist. Chr.
Ch., p. 252.] That the reader may better understand how the Baptists of past
ages have been known by so many names I will here give but few of the many
examples of how liberal the Romish church was in naming its opponents:

“Haeriticus est omnis non orthodoxus ... Manichaei ad imam usque scelerum
necquitiam pervenerunt. Manichaeos seu, vel Donatistas meritissama severitate
persequimur. Huic itaque homnium generi nihil ex moribus, nihil ex legibus
commune sit cum caeteris. Ariani, Macedoniani, Pneumatomachi, Apolinariani,
Novatiani, Eunomiani, Tetraditiae, Valentiani, Pauliani, Papiansitae,
Montanistae, seu Pricillianistae, vel Phryges, vel Pepuzitae, Marcionistae,
Borboritte, Messiliani, Euchitae, sive Enthousiastae, Donatistae, Audiani,
Hydroparastataee, Tascodrogitae, Batrachitae, Hermogeniani, Photaniani,
Marcelliani, Ophitae, Encratistae, Carpocratitae, Saccophori, Manichae,
Haeretici, Acephali, Sabelliani, Eutychiani.”

These names, with the above denunciation of all to whom they were applied as
immoral, as without any merit and as deserving persecution to death, Robinson
has copied from an ancient law concerning heretics — “Cod. De haereticus” [Note:
Robinson’s Eccl. Resh. p. 166.]

Wadington copies from Limborchs’ History of the Inquisition, another Romish list
of names for the “heretics,” of the thirteenth century. Here they are, with the
curses:

“Catharos, Paterenos, Speromistas, Leonistas, Arnoldistas, Circumcisos,
Passaginos, Josephinos, Garatenses, Albaneses, Franciscos, Beghardos, Commissos,
Valdenses, Romanolos, Communellos, [Note: Would not the Campbellites who propose
to find the true church by its name have a sweet time with these names.]
Varinos, Ortulenos, cum illis de aqua nigra, et omnes hereticos ... damnamus.”
[Note: Wadington’s Ch. Hist. p. 288.]

Gieseler says:

“The number of names of the heretics in this period is far greater than that of
new parties.” [Note: Gleseler’s Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p. 574.] In this great
avalanche of names, and probably, at most, not more than three or four kinds of
dissenters from the Romish church, we see the folly of attempting to identify
any of the: “sects” or trace Baptists, in history, by any name or names. Yet,
strange to say, church historians are greatly influenced — yea, led by the names
of these dissenters!

Kurtz says that after the beginning of the twelfth century those who continued
to entertain the Paulician: “views probably joined the Euchites and the
Bogomils.” [Note: Kurtz’s Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 2T3.] But who were the Euchites
and the Bogomils? Evidently, a people of the same belief and practice as the
Paulicians with which they were consolidated; or, more correctly ex-pressed, the
Paulicians themselves under these names. In either case the Baptist line is
unbroken. The very fact of: “consolidation” is primafacie evidence of identity
of faith and practice.

Mosheim says of Henry, the Henrician leader: “Several writers affirm that he was
one of the disciples of Peter de Bruys.” [Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 12,
part. 2, chap. 5, sec. 8.] On page 287 of his church history, Wadington shows
the groundlessness of Mosheim’s theoretical objection to Henry having been a
disciple of Peter de Bruys.

Wadington says:

“It is certain that a very powerful sect named Paulicians ... spread very widely
throughout the Greek provinces of Asia during the eighth century. It is equally
true that after a merciless persecution of about one hundred and fifty years,
their remnant, still numerous, was permitted to settle in Bulgari and Thrace.
Thence, it is believed by Muratori, Mosheim and Gibbon, they gradually
immigrated towards the West; at first as occasions of fear or commerce or
mendacity (another name for the pilgrimage) might be presented; and latterly in
the returning ranks of the crusaders. It is asserted that their first migration
was into Italy; that so early as the middle of the eleventh century many of
their colonies were established in Sicily, in Lombardy, Insubria and principally
at Milan; that others led a wandering life in France, Germany and in other
countries; and that they everywhere attracted by their pious books and austere
demeanor, excited the admiration and the respect of the multitude.” [Note:
Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p. 289.]

Kurtz:

“At the commencement of the eleventh century the Euchites (Messelians,
Enthusiasts,) attracted the attention of the government, their opinions having
widely spread in Thracia ... The Emperor Tzimisces transported the Paulicians to
that province.” [Note: Kurtz’s Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 240.] Kurtz further says of
the Catharists:

“Probably, however, the movement issued again from the East, in all likelihood
from Bulgaria, where since the time the Paulicians had settled in that district
Gnostic and Manichaean views had been zealously propagated. The most general
designation was that of Cathari (καθαροι) but they were also called Bulgari ...
Several of the charges preferred against them may have arisen from
misunderstanding or calumny. The Paulician or Bogomile opinions which they had
embraced” were “of a practical rather than of a speculative character, and
variously modified or kept in check” [Note: Kurtz’s Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 453.]
Brockett, one of the best authorities on this subject, says:

“The Perfecti and Credentes are mentioned by all writers on the Bogomils and the
sects with which they were affiliated; and it was one of the many evidences of
the substantial identity with the Albigenses, Paterenes, Vaudois, Catharists,
Ketzers, Publicans, Waldenses, etc., etc., that the same classes under
equivalent names existed in all these sects of alleged heretics.” [Note: The
Bogomllleg, p. 121.]

Armitage:

“The Bogomiles were a branch of the Cathari. Herzog thinks ... they were an
offshoot from the Paulicians.” [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 278.] Of the
Paulicians, Armitage says:

“The empress Theodora issued fresh edicts against them and between A.D. 832 and
846 one hundred thousand of them were put to death in the most barbarous manner.
Infuriated with their persecutors, they took up arms in self defense, and the
contest continued in one shape and another until in 973 large numbers of them
were transported to Phillippopolis, south of the Balkan mountains, in what is
now called Bulgaria. For more than a century the Paulicians stood with unbroken
fortitude, which the sword was unable to suppress. Like men they defended their
rights to home, religion and liberty under the holy sanctions of rebellion
against intolerable tyranny. And now they were accorded full religious liberty
in their transportation, on condition that they would guard the borders against
the pagans. But the conflict between them and the Greeks continued till the
twelfth century. Alexius Comnenus put forth some kind efforts to reclaim them
but failed, and they finally took refuge in Europe, where we shall meet them
again amongst the Albigenses.” [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 240.] The
Encyclopedia Britannica says:

“The Paulicians continued to exist in Thrace until at least in the beginning of
the thirteenth century, as did also the Euchites, afterwards Bogomilles, who had
been attracted to that locality by the toleration of Tzimisces. Meanwhile branch
societies of the Paulicians established themselves in Italy, France, and appear
under different names, such as Bulgaria, Patereni, Cathari and Albigenses.”
[Note: Vol. 18, p. 434—9th Ed.] Hallam says, the Albigenses came from one of the
seats of Paulician power:

“The derivation of these sects from Bulgaria is sufficiently proved.” [Note:
Hallam’s Middle Ages p. 505] Well, therefore, says the Revised Edition of the
Encyclopedia Britannica:

“The sect of the Albigenses may be traced with tolerable distinctness from the
Paulicians.” [Note: Vol. 1, p. 164.] In the foregoing is demonstrated that the
Cathari, under its various names, are the Paulicians. Of course, there may have
been, under the various names, some who were not Baptists. But the facts
demonstrate that, in the main, they were essentially Baptists.

Gieseler says:

“The Cathari, or as they were now commonly called, the Albigenses or Bulgarians
... maintained in all lands a very close connection with each other.” [Note:
Gieseler’s Ch. Hist., vol. 2, pp. 576, 578.]

Again;

“With few exceptions all Cathari stood in close connection with each other, as
also in their practical principles and customs they quite agreed.” [Note: Idem,
pp. 582, 583.]

Prof. William Whitsitt, D.D., says: “The Catharists were as thick as hops and
they — the Waldenses — joined them ... Not much difference between Waldenses and
Catharists.” [Note: Lect. to his classes.]

Therefore, when, as Kurtz says, the Roman Catholic: “church made no distinction
between different sectaries, and one and the same sentence was pronounced on
Cathari and Waldenses, on Petrobrussians, Arnoldists,” its judgment as to their
identity was mainly correct; and, with all his prejudice, Kurtz concedes:

“Indeed, so far as their opposition to the papacy and hierarchy was concerned,
they were all at one,” [Note: Kurtz’s Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 461.] Says Prof. AH.
Newman, D.D., LL.D.:

“Keller has been accused of utterly confounding the mediaeval parties, with
treating Waldenses, Cathari, evangelical Beghards, Brethren of the Common Life,
Friends of God, Taborites, Bohemian Brethren, etc., as essentially one party.
What are the facts? It must be borne in mind that Keller is far more intent on
proving the prevalence of a type of life and doctrine than on establishing the
organic connection of the various parties among themselves. He lays little
stress upon the special sect names, maintaining that they were net, as a rule,
used by the evangelical Christians with reference to themselves, but that they
were commonly applied to them by their opponents.” [Note: Recent Resh.
Concerning Medlaeval Sects, p. 173.]

Remember that the very nature of Baptist church polity renders: “organic
connection” of Baptist churches an impossibility.

Again, says Prof. A.H. Newman, D.D., LL.D.:

“It would not be difficult to suppose that evangelical dissent persisted, even
though we had no record of the fact, during the thirty-two years that intervened
between the death of Henry and the appearance of Peter Waldo. It is in itself
highly probable that Peter Waldo himself was influenced to a greater or less
extent by antecedent evangelical life. It is highly probable that the followers
of Peter de Bruys and Henry of Lausanne were driven beyond the regions in which
these teachers labored. Northern Italy was at that time in close relation with
Southern France, and the Cathari of the two regions sustained a lively
intercourse. It is probable that evangelical heresy was likewise freely
interchanged. The Waldenses who began their work at Lyons soon crossed the
mountains to Lombardy and established relations, as we shall see hereafter, with
evangelical Christians of a more pronounced type than themselves.

“These were, no doubt, in part, the result of the labors of Arnold of Brescia;
but it is not by any means unlikely that Arnold himself was influenced by the
teachings of Peter de Bruys, and it is highly probable that these great teachers
were subject to substantially the same evangelizing influences and reached
substantially the same views as to the evils of the time and the remedy
therefor. In Cologne we find, about 1446, before the death of Henry, evangelical
Christians of the Petrobrussian type, side by side with Cathari and vigorously
opposing them.” [Note: Idem, p. 188.]

Dollinger, the great Romish historian, argues the indentity of these: “sects.”
First, because “the Cathari are known to have existed in considerable numbers in
the territory in which Peter and Henry labored;” second: “these regions were
soon overrun with Manichaean or Catharistic heretics;” third: “there is no
evidence that the followers of Peter and Henry persisted as a party distinct
from the Cathari during the succeeding century;” fourth: “that to suppose Peter
and Henry to have been other than Catharistic would be to admit the existence of
a party and a set of views, for the origin and the subsequent disappearance of
which we cannot account” [Note: Idem, p. 186.] Says Brockett, one of the highest
authorities:

“The substantial identity of these sects, which under so many different names
were spread over all Western Europe and their origin from the Protestants of
Bulgaria and Bosnia was strongly suspected by others than Regnier even in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Perhaps the earliest writer who gives positive
testimony on this point is William Little, of Newbury, A.D. 11361220.” [Note:
The Bogomiles, by Brockett, p. 127.]

Again:

“Evans in his recent monograph on the history of Bosnia, has with great labor
and research made an exhaustive study of the subject, and brought the most
conclusive proofs of all these early Protestants from a common source and that
source the Bogomiles of Bosnia and Bulgaria. Jirecek, a recent Bohemian writer
on Bosnia and Bulgaria, and Hilferding, a Russian historian of Servia and
Bulgaria, under which he includes Bosnia, both adduce official evidence of the
affiliation of the Bogomiles with the Waldenses, the Bohemians, and the
Moravians, as well as their identity with the ‘Poor men of Lyons,’ the Vaudois,
the Henricians and the so-called heretics of Toulouse, the Patarines of Dalmatia
and Italy, the Petrobrussians, the Bulgares or Bourgres and the Catharists of
Spain. Matthew Paris, Roger of Hoveden and Ralph, of Coggeshale, three of the
most renowned of the early British chroniclers, testify to their presence in
large numbers at this period in Toulouse, in Provence, in Flanders, and in
England, and that they were called in the latter two countries Publicani or
Poplicani, a corruption of Paulicians. All these writers trace them directly or
indirectly to their origin in Bosnia.” [Note: The Bogomiles, by Brockett, pp.
69-70.] Again, says Brockett:

“A careful and critical examination of the civil and ecclesiastical histories of
this period in England, France and Germany affords abundant corroborative
evidence of the origin of all these sects from the Bosnian churches, and of the
complete identity of the doctrines professed by them all. Under the fierce
persecutions instituted against the Waldenses, Catharists, etc., of Western
Europe by the popes in the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth
centuries, we have the testimony of the popes themselves that very many of the
Waldenses, Paterines, Publicans, etc., took refuge with their brethren in
Bosnia, which at that time was protected by the good Ban Culin.” [Note: Idem, p.
71.] Of the Bogomiles, Gieseler says:

“In their peculiar doctrines and customs, they agree so marvelously with the
Cathari of the Western world, that the connection of the two parties, for which
there is historical testimony, cannot fail to be recognized.” [Note: Gieseler’s
Ch. Hist., vol. 2, pp. 614-615.]

Cramp says:

“The fact is, that the numerous names and descriptions found in imperial edicts
and decrees of councils refer to parties who held substantially the same views.”
[Note: Cramp’s Hist. Bap., p. 99.] The foregoing statements show, first, that
the best part of the mentioned sects were essentially identical in doctrine and
practice; second, that they were of Paulician origin. in other words, that they
were Paulicians under other names. That they were Baptists was demonstrated in
preceding chapters. Of the abundant and uncontradictory evidence of their
perpetuity in the sixteenth century — to the times of the Anabaptists — the
following is but an illustration. We have seen the Paulicians were the Novatians
perpetuated under another name. Robinson says of the Novatians: “They were
distinguished by a variety of names and a succession of them continued until the
Reformation.” [Note: Robinson’s Eccl. Resh., pp 126-127.]

Hase says:

“Small communities of Bogomiles were found among the Bulgarians through the
whole of the middle ages and Paulicians have continued to exist, under many
changes ... until the present time.” [Note: Hase’s Hist. Chr. Ch., p. 262.]

Wadington says:

“It is equally certain that, from the time of Peter de Bruis to that of Luther,
there have subsisted from some quarter or other of the Western community various
bodies of sectaries, who were at open or secret variance with the church of
Rome.” [Note: Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p. 553.] For more proof of the continuance
of these “sects” to the Reformation, see Chapter III.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 24: THE WALDENSES OF APOSTOLIC ORIGIN.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 21. — THE WALDENSES OF APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. For the conviction of those who
are not satisfied of the identity of the Paulicians and the Waldenses, as to
origin, this chapter is written. The Penny Encyclopedia, at great expense,
published by one of the most learned societies of Europe, called: “The Society
for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge,” says of the Waldenses:

“This little community is remarkable for having from time immemorial kept itself
separate from the church of Rome, in ages when that church is generally
considered as having been the only existing church in the West. We have
memorials of the doctrines of the Vaudois, written in the early part of the
twelfth century ... The ‘Nobla Leycon,’ a poem written in the Vaudois dialect,
records in the text its having been composed in the twelfth century, the
translation of which is: ‘O, brethren, hear a noble lesson. We ought often to
watch and pray, for we see this world approaching its end.’ Eleven hundred years
are fully completed since it was written: ‘The end of all things is at hand.’
... The last sentence ... fixes the date of the Nobla Leycon to within the first
half of the thirteenth century or thereabouts. The text goes on to say that it
was easy to see the sign of the accomplishments of the prophecy of evil in its
increase and in the decrease of good, the perils of which the evangelist and
Paul have mentioned. The poem is a sort of an abridgment of the history and
doctrines of the Old and New Testaments. It speaks of the missions of the
Apostles and of the primitive church and of certain practices that were
introduced afterwards in its bosom, of simony, the institution of masses and
prayers for the dead, of absolution and other tenets of the church of Rome which
it rejects.

“In one place it speaks of censure of the practice of all the popes which have
been from Sylvester to the present time, and in another says: ‘Now after the
Apostles, were certain teachers who went on teaching the way of Jesus Christ,
our Savior, some of whom are found at the present day, but they are known to a
very few,’ and after describing the life and conversation of such teachers, the
text proceeds: ‘Such a one is called a Vaudois.’ There is also a confession of
faith of the Waldenses, bearing date A.D. 1120, acknowledging the Apostle’s
creed and the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, recognizing no
other mediator between God the Father and man but Jesus Christ; denying
purgatory, administering only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s supper, as
signs or visible forms of the invisible grace; discarding the feasts and vigils
of saints, the abstinence of flesh on certain days, the mass, etc.

“Another MS. dated 1100, speaks of the Waldenses as having continued the same
doctrines from time immemorial, in continued descent from father to son, even
from the times of the Apostles. Besides these there are two controversial
treatises, one entitled ‘Of Antichrist,’ and the other upon ‘The Intercession of
the Saints,’ which seem to bear this internal evidence of their antiquity, that
in enumerating the various tenets of the Roman church, which the Waldenses
reject, they speak of the doctrine of the real presence and of the adoration of
the Virgin Mary and all the saints, but in so doing they do not use the words,
transubstantiation,’ and ‘canonization.’ Now the terms ‘transubstantiation’ and
‘canonization,’ were just introduced under Pope Innocent and confirmed in the
council of Lateran, A.D. 1215, and the first Papal Bull in which the word
‘canonization’ occurs is dated 1165. Nor do these treatises speak of the
devotional exercises of the Rosary, introduced by St. Dominie, nor of the
Inquisition which began in the thirteenth century. Had these institutions
existed when the treatises were written, they could hardly have escaped the
notice of the writer. MS. copies of these and other ancient documents relative
to the Vaudois, amounting to twenty-one volumes, were brought to England by Sir
Samuel Moreland who was sent by the Protector Cromwell as envoy to the Duke of
Savoy in 1655, and were by him presented in 1658 to the library of the
University of Cambridge. Moreland wrote a history of the Evangelical churches of
the valleys of Piedmont, London, 1658, giving a transcript and English
translation of the Nobla Leycon. P. Allix,D., who published Remarks upon the
Ecclesiastical history of the ancient churches of Piedmont,’ in 1690, notices
the MS. brought by Moreland. But now only 14 or 21 are existing in the
University library and nobody can tell what has become of the rest. The Nobla
Leycon is one among those which are missing.

“In 1669, Jean Leger, a pastor of the Valences, published at Leyden, ‘Historic
Generale des Eglises Evangelisques des Valleys du Piedmont,’ in two books, the
first of which treats of the early date and continuity of their doctrine, and he
gives transcripts of several of the manuscripts brought to England by Moreland.
Speaking of the Nobla Leycon, the Vaudois confession, and other manuscripts of
which he has just been speaking, he says: ‘There is, however, farther evidence
brought forth for the antiquity of the Vaudois doctrines ... We find allusions
as early as the ninth century to the existence of nonconformist churches in the
borders of Italy. Jonas bishop of Orleans, in his work, ‘De Cultu Imaginum,’
addressing Charles the Bald, A.D. 840, speaks of Italian churches which he
accuses of heterodoxy because they refused to worship images, and he charges
Claudius, bishop of Turin, with encouraging the people of his diocese in their
separation from the Catholic unity ... About 1230 Reinerus, a Dominican, who
states that he had been himself a heretic, wrote a treatise against heretics ...
The Waldenses: Reinerus begins by saying that these were the most pernicious of
all sects for the reason:

(1.) because they were the most ancient, more ancient than the Manichaeans or
Arians, dating their origin according to some from the time of PopeSylvester,
314 to 335 A.D. and according to others from the time of the apostles;

(2.) because they are more universally spread;

(3.) because they have the character of being pious and virtuous, as they
believe in the Apostles’ creed and are guilty of no other crime than that of
blasphemy against the Roman church and clergy. He also states that they were in
all the States of Lombardy and Provence.’”

Here I have shown abounded Paulicians called Albigenses, etc., — another proof
of their identity with Waldenses.

“The heretics have more schools [Note: They were not anti-mission Baptists.]
than the theologians and more auditors; they hold public disputations and
convoke the people to solemn discussions.

... They have translated the Old and New Testaments into other tongues. [Note:
All along we find Bibles which were not in Romish hands and were not preserved
by Rome.] I myself have seen and heard a clownish layman who could repeat the
whole of the book of Job by heart and many who were perfectly acquainted with
the whole of the New Testament. They reject whatever is not demonstrated by a
text in the New Testament; and then he goes on enumerating places where the
heretics have churches and schools; all of which shows that dissent was very
widely spread in North Italy and the South of France in the thirteenth century,
and it corroborates the traditions of the Waldenses, that their doctrines spread
at one time over many districts on both sides of the Alps. The book of Reinerus
is very important, but we must refer those who wish for further information to
the ‘Vaudois of Piedmont,’ 1831, section 3, where the author has placed in
parallel columns passages from Reinerus’ text, the corresponding opinions of
Italian writers previous to the thirteenth century and those of the ancient and
modern Waldenses cencerning the same topics. John Marcus Aurelius Rorenco, grand
prior of Brorch, was sent by Duke Charles Emanuel, about the middle of the
thirteenth century to make inquiries concerning the Vaudois. He reports that
those apostolicals, as they call themselves, were of an origin of which nothing
certain can be said, further than that bishop Claudius might have detached them
from the church in the eighth century and that they were not a new sect in the
ninth and tenth centuries. And the monk of Belvidere who went to the Cottian
Alps on a similar inquiry reported that heretics had been found in the valley of
Angrogna in all periods of history.

“Claudius Seissel, archbishop of Turin, A.D. 1200, spoke of them as the Vaudois
sect which originated with Leon, a devout man in the time of Constantine the
Great.” [Note: Penny Ency., vol. 25, pp. 163-164.] The following, from the same
page, shows, as I have done in Chapter XVI, on Waldensian faith and practice,
how that, by association with the sixteenth century reformers many of the
Waldenses departed from the faith

“But after the spreading of the reformation in the sixteenth century, they began
to correspond with Geneva and other places and invited some Protestant divines
to come among them.” The arsenal of Germany, which furnishes the source of the
so-called “higher criticism,” against the Bible, shows itself equally adapted to
the work of furnishing weapons against Waldensian history. In Germany, in 1851,
A. Wilh. Dieckhoff sends out his:

“Die Waldenser im Mittelalter; Zwei historical Untersuchungen von A. Wilh.
Dieckhoff Licentiaten und Privatdocenten der Theologie Zu Gottingen.”

While, like the works of the: “higher critics” against the Bible, this work
manifests valuable research and learning, yet, like them, it manifests equally
intemperate, reckless and wild criticism, in-temperately charging forgery and
falsification upon the authors of much of Waldensian ancient documents, and
attempting to refute the claim of Waldenses to apostolic historical descent. In
1853 this was followed by another equally learned work, not so wild, but of the
same nature, by Dr. Herzog, entitled:

“Die Romanischen Waldenser, ihre vorreformatorischen Zustande und Lehren, ihre
Reformation im 16. Jahshundert und die Ruckwirkungen derselben, Haupsachlich
nach ihren eigenen schriften (108) dargestellt Halle.”

Five years previous, at Halle, Herzog had issued a similar, but not so thorough
a work, entitled:

“De Origene et Pristino Statu Waldensium Secundum Antiquissma eorum scripta cum
libris Catholicorum ejusdem aevi collata.”

There is room for but a glimpse at these and other works. The learned Dr.
Montgomery’s characterization of Dieckhoffs criticism may well apply to much of
the conclusions of both Herzog and Dieckhoff:

“He applied to it the innere Kritik — a powerful weapon, certainly, but one
which requires cautious handling ... With like confidence, and on similar
grounds, his countrymen fix dates to different portions of Isaiah’s prophecies,
assigning some of them, therefore, to one author, and some of them to another;
although indeed, they differ a little in the opinions which they so confidently
advance.”

Until some other method be adduced to bring down the date of the Noble Lesson to
the thirteenth century, we may be content to learn a little from it as to the
state of things before that period. In refusing to accept the date 1100, which
so many have imagined that they found in the text of the ancient poem itself,
Dieckhoff also proceeds upon what he deems the ascertained historic fact of the
Vaudois from Valdo, concerning which he thinks himself bound to accept the
testimony of the ‘Catholic’ witnesses. But he refuses to adopt the method
adopted by Gieseler, Neander and Herzog, of dealing with the date of the poem
itself. He cannot believe that the eleven hundred years are to be reckoned from
any other period than from the beginning of the Christian era; he rejects this
as an unnatural interpretation of the line. ‘Eimnal namlich wird die Rechnung
auf Weise viel zu kunstlich.’ Moreover, he adopts, as of great weight upon this
point the argument of Muston, from the descripton of the Vaudois given in the
poem, that it cannot have been composed within aim years of the origin of the
sect and agrees with him that if it could be proved to have been composed, as
Gieseler, Neander and Herzog suppose, in the end of the twelfth century, it
would evince the existence of the Vaudois long before the time of Valdo. [Note:
Israel of the Alps, by Muston, vol. 2, p. 530.]

“Romish writers are the main witnesses Dieckhoff arrays against Waldensian
antiquity. To this Dr. Montgomery well replies: Herzog “blames Dieckhoff,
however, for accepting so completely and unhesitatingly the accounts given of
them by their Catholic adversaries. For although, as to the relation of the
Vaudois to Valdo, Dr. Herzog still proceeds upon the testimony of these authors,
as when he wrote the Academic Programma he does not think it right to receive as
perfectly accurate all their statements concerning the doctrines and character
of these heretics whom they so cordially hated ... and contradicts the assertion
of Bossuet, so often made by popish writers, that they had more in common with
Catholicism than with Protestantism.” [Note: Israel of the Alps, vol. 2, pp.
534-535.]

Again:

‘We have seen already by what a fallacious argument it is that Dr. Herzog
persuades himself to receive the testimony of the popish authors, who assert
Valdo to have been the founder of the Vaudois.”

Dieckhoff is also driven to concede that Romish writers are “liable to much
suspicion.” [Note: Idem, p. 518.] Yet, in the face of this, on the uncertain
theories of Dieckhoff and Herzog, together with, that of Todd and like critics,
some histories, encyclopedias, and certain professors of church history, having,
in servility to the spirit by which some American scholars ape “higher critics”
of Germany on their criticisms on the Bible, swallowed the statements: “feathers
and all,” that Valdo originated the Waldenses, we are asked to believe that:
“late researches” have demonstrated that the antiquity of the Waldenses is a:
“mere fable” and that Baptists are but of Rome — as other sects. Thus, dear
reader, the chip is lifted off the: “bug” which some highly reputed authorities
(?) have made many think was death to Baptist Church Perpetuity; and that: “bug”
turns out to be a composition of so-called: “higher criticism” and Romish
slanders — a humbug!

Let us farther examine the origin of the Waldenses:

(1.) These assailants of Waldensian history, like the witnesses against the
resurrection of Christ, are not agreed among themselves. Dieckhoff made the line
in the Noble Lesson, proving the antiquity,of the Waldenses, an interpolation.
But Herzog: “in his anxiety to maintain the descent of the Vaudois from Valdo,
would evidently be glad to accept Dieckhoff s theory of an interpolation of the
two troublesome lines. But this he does not find himself warranted in doing, as
the lines are certainly present in all existing copies of the poem, in print and
MS., and thus certainly appear not to have been interpolated since the
Reformation. He maintains, indeed, that the Noble Lesson is certainly of Vaudois
origin, in opposition to Dieckhoff, who in a long note sets forth reasons for
thinking that it may have been originally a production of the Bohemian
brethren.”

Todd farther differs and concedes: “Since we admit (until duly advised to the
contrary) that the verse is genuine, and acquit its author of any dishonesty.”
[Note: The Books of the Vaudois, pages 183, 126, 184.]

(2.) In relying on Romish testimony against Waldensian antiquity these
assailants of Waldensian history have very unfairly rejected a greater number of
Romish writers which, against their own side, testify in favor of the antiquity
of the Waldenses. As witnesses when testifying against their own side are
rightly regarded as much more worthy of belief than when testifying for it, the
Romish writers in favor of Waldensian antiquity are entitled to much greater
credit than are those against it.

Pilchendorf, a Romish author of the fourteenth century, in his: “Contra Haeresin
Waldensium” acknowledges their origin may be traced back in the early part of
the fourth century. He reproaches the Vaudois for concealing themselves, to
which one of them replies:

“Non possum esse talis Lucerna publica, propter instantes persecutiones, quia
vacant me haereticum — I am not able to be the light of the world because of
continuous persecution; because they call me a heretic.” [Note: Idem, p. 413.]

Polichdorf says, instead of the Waldenses acknowledging Waldo their founder,
that “dicentes sectam eorum durasse a temporibus Sylvestri papae” — they teach
their sect, continues to Pope Sylvester. [Note: Idem, p. 511]

Moneta:

“a celebrated Romish professor of the University of Bologna, A.D. 1244,” while
opposing the claim of the Waldenses to antiquity, unwittingly gives up his case,
in challenging them: “But if the Vaudois assert that their way existed before
Waldo, let them prove it,” which, he adds: “they can by no means do.” [Note:
Idem, p. 510]

If they originated with Waldo, as Moneta lived near Waldo’s time, their origin
must have been so clearly recent as to have excluded all controversy as to its
time.

Reynerus, who is called Reineri, Reinerius Saccho, Reiner Saccho, was a native
of Plascenza, a Waldensian during the first seventeen years of his life, then,
under Pope Alexander VI., A.D. 1261, turned preaching friar and became one of
the ablest Romish advocates of his day, who is as much entitled to be heard as
anyone and whose testimony, considering so little is to the contrary, should be
conclusive, wrote of the Waldensians:

“Inter omnes has sectas, quae nunc aunt, vel fuerunt, non eat perniciosior
Ecclesiae quam Leonistarum. Et hoc tribus de causis. Prima eat quia eat
diuturnior. Aliqui enim dicunt quod duraverit a tempore Sylvestri; aliqua a
tem-pore apostolorum. Secunda quia est generalior. Pere enim nulla est terra in
qua haec secta non sit.”

Translated: Among all the sects which are now or have been, no sect is more
pernicious than the church of Leonists. And this for three causes — first,
because it is of longer endurance, some, indeed, saying it has endured from the
time of Sylvester; others, from the time of the Apostles. Second, because it is
more general. There being certainly — enim — almost no country — nulla terra —
in which this sect does not exist. On this Dr. Montgomery with Wadington, [Note:
Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p. 280.] well remarks:

“Reynerus remains a witness that in his day their claim to antiquity was well
known, which popish writers will now fain represent as a novelty of modern
times. nd, moreover, it may be fairly taken for granted that if Reynerus, who
wrote a little more than a century after the days of Waldo, had regarded the
claim to antiquity as utterly unfounded, he would not have failed to exclaim
loudly against those who had the audacity to advance it. The writers of his time
do not err on the side of excessive gentleness. Nor does M. Charvaz himself,
notwithstanding his pretensions in that way, when he calls Leger a liar for
asserting as on the authority of Polichdorf, the prevalence of an opinion among
the Vaudois of his time that they had existed, at least, from the sixth
century.” [Note: Israel of the Alps, vol. 2, p. 513.] Reinerus farther says of
them:

“Unlike all other sects, which infuse horror by the enormity of their
blasphemies against God, these Lyonese retain a great appearance of piety, all
the more as they live uprightly before the eyes of men, and believe only that
which is good about God, they also believe the entire articles of the symbolica,
apostolic creed; only that they abhor the church of Rome and her priesthood, to
accept which the mass of the laity are readily inclined.” [Note: Wadington’s Ch.
Hist., p. 590, Biblotheca Patrum, apud Lenfants Guerre dea Hussites, 54:2, sec.
5.] Again, St. Bernard, born 1091, one of the ablest Romish advocates, said:

“There is a sect which calls itself after no man’s name, which pretends to be in
direct line of apostolic succession; and which, rustic and unlearned though it
is, contends that the church is wrong, and that itself alone is right. It must
derive its origin from the devil, since there is no other extraction which we
can assign to it.” [Note: Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p. 290.] Of A.D. 1025, says
Robinson:

“Atto, bishop of Vercelli, had complained of such people eighty years before and
so had others before him, and there is the highest reason to believe that they
had always been in Italy.” [Note: Robinson’s Eccl. Researches, p. 408, on
testimony of Uchelli Ital. Sac. torn, IV Vercellences Epis. ep. xiiv.]

Bernard de Fontcaud, of the twelfth century, in his work, Contra Valdenses et
Arianos, says but little of the Waldenses, but in his preface says: “Valdenses
dicti sunt nimirum a valle densa” — the Waldenses are called from the dense
valley. [Note: Israel of the Alps, vol. 2, p. 414.] This is sufficient to show
that they were not originally named from Waldo, and strongly implies they
antedated him. Nowhere in his book does he mention Valdo. Living in Waldo’s age
and writing against the Waldenses, to have made no mention of their origin or of
Waldo is utterly irreconcilable with the notion that they originated with Waldo.
In A.D. 1096 Pope Urban issued a bull in which he mentions the French side of
the same valleys as infested with heresy. [Note: Idem, p. 484.]

A. D. 1119 the Council of Toulouse decrees the Inquisition against heretics
dwelling in Italy and partly in France. [Note: Idem, Ibid.]

A. D. 1192: “Statuta synodalia Odinis Episcopoi Tullensis, de haeriticis ... qui
vocantur Vadoys” — synodical laws against those called Vaudois. The immense
numbers of the Waldenses, calling forth so many curses of Romanism, demonstrate
Waldo not their founder, as this is too early for them to have attained such
strength and influence. Claude Seyssel, Archbishop of Turin, who visited the
Waldenses of the Piedmontese valleys in 1517, who was in the valleys before the
Reformation, “informs us (vol. v.) that the heretics of the valleys had all
along been ascribing an antiquity to their sect similar to that which, according
to Reiner, was claimed by the Leonists.” [Note: Or. Gllly, In Todd’s Books o(
the Vaudols, p. 170.]

I have now shown that Romish expressions, from the sixteenth to the tenth
century are overwhelming testimony to the Waldenses existing long before Waldo.
Thus, one of the main pillars of Dieckhoffs and Herzog’s building is gone. I
think I could here safely leave their antiquity as made out. But, as certain
professors of church history are dishing out to young ministers Dieckhoff and
Herzog, the ancient dialect of the Waldenses, says Muston:

“The patois of the Vaudois valleys has a radical structure far more regular than
the Piedmontese idiom. The origin of this patois was anterior to the growth of
Italian and French — antecedent even to the Romance language. The existence of
this patois is, of itself, a proof of the high antiquity of the mountaineers,
and of their constant preservation from foreign intermixture and changes. Their
popular idiom is a precious monument.” [Note: Israel of the Alps, vol. 2, p.
406.] This demonstrates that the Waldenses never came from France, which the
theory of their origin with Peter Waldo of Lyons, requires to be true.

(2.) Testimony of Waldensian manuscripts proves their antiquity. Says Dr. Gilly,
a specialist on their history, and generally recognized of high authority —
pronounced by Muston: “one of the most voluminous, learned and interesting of
all modern authors who have written on the subject of the Vaudois:” [Note: Idem,
p. 428.] “In the Grenoble MS. the year is denoted by Arabic characters, a mode
of notation which was not commonly used in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries;
but it was introduced by the Moors and Saracens into the Sub-Alpine and
Pyrenaean regions long before ... There is no difficulty in believing that the
Grenoble Codex is a MS. of the thirteenth century, and that the version it
contains may have been of a still older date.” [Note: Todd’s Book of the
Vaudois, pp. 192-183.]

Metivier, writing to Dr. Gilly — Dr. Gilly places the Noble Lesson in the early
part of the twelfth century — says of it: “The irregularity of the metres favors
your hypothesis of the early date.” [Note: Idem, p. 156.] Muston observes, of
the Noble Lesson:

“In the inequality of the measure and the simple assonance of the rhymes these
verses bear the marks of high authority.” [Note: Israel of the Alps, vol. 2, p.
470.] Muston further remarks:

“Let us suppose the Noble Leyczon to have been composed not in the year 1100,
but in the year 1200 and let us see if it could be the work of the disciples of
Valdo. The poem is in the Romance language; it was not in the language of Lyons
... The disciples of Valdo left the city between 1180 and 1190. Would they not
require some years to acclimatize them in a new country, and is it to be
supposed that in so short a time they could have learned a new language so as to
produce in it most perfect works (most perfect for that time at least); and that
amidst the difficulties of their settlement they could have had leisure for the
composition of a poem of such length? Could they immediately after their arrival
in these mountains exhibit the character of extension already acquired, of firm
establishment and tranquility and duration which this poem ascribes to the
Vaudois? It appears to me that any impartial mind will find much more difficulty
in admitting all these things without evidence, as those are obliged to do who
maintain that the Vaudois are descended from Valdo — than in admitting that they
were anterior to him on the testimony of this work, dated in the year 1100 and
of the authors of the twelfth century, whom we have quoted. The difficulty
becomes an impossibility if we hold to the date of the Nobla Leycon, and there
is nothing to set it aside, or if we merely admit it was composed before 1180;
for nothing at that period can explain the production of it by the disciples of
Valdo. The latter is not only not named in it, but there is not the least
allusion which can be supposed to refer to him. This ... is very extraordinary
if its composition was owing to his direct influence, and if it was produced by
his disciples.” [Note: Israel of the Alps, vol. 2, p. 459.]

Herzog, Gieseler, Neander, Todd, et al, put the Noble Lesson at the end of the
twelfth century. [Note: See Todd’s Books of the Vaudois, p. 184.] But both
Dieckhoff and Muston say this: “would evince the existence of the Vaudois long
before the time of Valdo.” [Note: Idem, pp. 530,459.] Nor does Dieckhoff agree
to the method of dealing with the Noble Lesson, by which Herzog, Neander,
Gieseler, Todd and others attempt to get rid of its earliest date.

“He cannot believe that the eleven hundred years are to be reckoned from any
other period than the beginning of the Christian era; he rejects this as an
unnatural interpretation of the line.” [Note: Israel of the Alps, vol. 2, p.
530.]

Dieckhoffs words are: Rechnung auf diese viel zio kunstlich — the reckoning of
this is much too artful. Kunstlich is from kunst which means ‘trick.’ I,
therefore, here submit, first, admitting that the Noble Lesson was not written
in or about A.D. 1100 — that it was not written as Todd, Neander, Gieseler, M.
Schmidt and others claim — but Herzog finally dated that 1400 — until about a
century later, it demonstrates the existence of the Waldenses before Waldo’s
history. But, second, Dieckhoff himself being witness that the method of dating
the Noble Lesson on the latter part of the twelfth century is but artificial, a
trick — kunstlich — we have the date of that poem, as once near universally
claimed, showing the Waldenses to have existed before Waldo’s time. Herzog also,
“maintains that the Noble Lesson is certainly of Vaudois origin in opposition to
Dieckhoff.” [Note: Idem, p. 539.] Because a copy of the Noble Lesson was found
to have the date 1400, the term four being partially erased, Herzog gave up the
date of about 1200 and accepted Dieckhoffs position, that no Waldensian
literature can be given a date earlier than 1400. [Note: Dr. A. H. Newman, in
Bap. Quart. Bev., July 1885, p. 307.] But Todd was not convinced that this MS.
date of 1400, is correct, but held it as undecided. [Note: Todd’s Books of the
Vaudols, Preface, p. 14.] His forgetting that other copies should have weight,
illustrates how such men as Herzog have drawn their conclusions. Just as this
conclusion had been formed came Preger, of Munich, another specialist in this
department of history, with a genuine Waldensian document of the early part of
the thirteenth century. Thus, the destructive critics on Waldensian literature
illustrate their brethren on Biblical literature.

Prof. Albert H. Newman, well says:

“Dieckhoff doubtless went further than the facts in his possession, warranted in
his rejection of Waldensian testimony and in his respect for that of Roman
Catholic inquisitors.” [Note: Dr. Newman, in Bap. Quart. Rev., July 1885, p.
305.] Of this same poem, after a thorough examination of both sides of the
question, Leger says: “La date I’an 1100 qu’on lit dans ce poema merite toute
confiance” — the date 1100 which is given the poem is worthy of all confidence.
[Note: Todd’s Books of the Vaudols, p. 126.] Gilly, a more reliable authority
than Leger, says:

“For my own part, I believe the Noble Lesson to be of more ancient date than the
British Magazine and its correspondents are inclined to allow, even of the early
part of the twelfth century.” [Note: Todd’s Books of the Vaudols, p. 152.]

Dr. Montgomery well concludes his discussion, after thoroughly considering the
discussions of Dieckhoff, Herzog and others:

“The date in the Noble Lesson, not affixed, but embodied in the poem, seems so
to resist all attempts made against it; that of itself, it may be held
sufficient proof of the existence of the Vaudois under their present name in the
beginning of the twelfth century.” [Note: Israel of the Alps, vol. 2, p. 540.]

Herzog concludes that instead of their being of Hussite origin numbers of the
Waldensian MS. “must be older than the time of the Hussite influence” — from
1298 to 1415 A.D. [Note: Idem, p. 538.] Owing to the attempt to impute the
Waldensian writings to the “Hussite influence,” and, thus, get them out of the
way as proof of Waldensian antiquity, I call special attention to this
concession of Herzog. In speaking of the Noble Lesson, do not forget that, while
not so strong evidence as it is, other Vaudois manuscripts prove the antiquity
of the Waldenses. Dieckhoff is forced to concede that: “there is abundant
evidence of the existence of Vaudois books at an early date.” [Note: Israel of
the Alps, vol. 2. p. 525.] Dieckhoffs attempting to weaken the force of this
concession by proving these manuscripts had become very rare by the end of the
sixteenth century, proves only that a drowning man will readily catch at a
straw, since there are sufficient copies of them to attest Waldensian antiquity.
While, to an extent deserved, frequent characterization of some alleged
Waldensian manuscripts and some Waldensian writers as
“falschungf“falscherf“absichtsvolle Falschung’ — falsifying, forged, full of
intentional falsifying — is thus well animadverted on by Dr. Montgomery:

“The authority of the dates assigned to the Vaudois documents by Leger, he has
of course little difficulty in overthrowing; and when he censures Leger’s use of
manuscript documents as uncritical, his judgment may be admitted as in all
probability as quite just; but when he imputes to the persecuted Vaudois
minister the tricks of a literary imposter, it is not easy to repress a feeling
of indignation that such a charge should be advanced and sustained as it is by
proofs so ridiculously slender. ...

... So anxious is he to make out a dishonest intention that he forgets the
possibility of honest quotation with reference to a particular point, whilst
what has no immediate bearing on that point is omitted ... The object of all
this labor to make out charges of dishonesty is to throw discredit upon every
quotation made by Vaudois historians from old Vaudois documents, and to create a
suspicion of forgery concerning the existing documents themselves.” [Note: Idem,
p. 525.] As but one illustration of Dieckhoffs reckless criticisms, Dr. Gilly
says and proves it true of one Vaudois writer whom he attempts to impeach:

“I think it right to re-mark that I have found proof of his credibility in
several points where his veracity has been doubted.” [Note: The Books of the
Vaudois, by Todd, p. 169.] As another illustration:

“And here it may be incidentally noticed as somewhat strange, that with Morels’
letter before him, Dieckhoff should have represented the opinion of the
existence of the Vaudois as anterior to Valdo as a post-Reformation tradition;
for, in that letter, their high antiquity is twice asserted.”

Morels’ letter was written to Bucer and Oecolampadius in 1530. [Note: Idem, p.
524.] But the antiquity of the Waldenses does not essentially depend — as
Herzog, Dieckhoff and some others think — on the question of literary criticism
or upon the Waldenses having been called Waldenses before Waldo’s day. Far from
it. We can omit all the argument from literary criticism in the foregoing and
concede Dieckhoffs, Herzog’s and Todd’s criticisms and conclusions on and from
Waldensian manuscripts and yet prove the existence of Waldenses long before the
time of Waldo.

(1.) The testimony of Romish writers of and near Waldo’s time clearly proves the
Waldenses existent long before that.

(2.) The testimony of Waldensian tradition proves that Waldenses existed long
before Waldo’s day. That they taught long before the Reformation period, they
had a continuous existence to or near the time of the Apostles, we have seen.
All the Romish attempts to make this out a claim which originated since the
Reformation is certainly baseless. As well deny that the traditions of such
Biblical events as the flood are of value as testimony to the facts of those
events as to deny that traditional testimony to Waldensian antiquity is of great
value. While tradition is worthless as to the truth of doctrine and opinion,
yet, as to alleged historical facts its value is incalculably great. In
controversy with the Romish church, Protestants have often overlooked the
difference between tradition as to opinion and doctrine and tradition as to
fact; then rushed as far to one extreme as to the value of tradition as the
Romish party has gone to the other. I do not hesitate to say that the testimony
of tradition to the antiquity of the Waldenses is far stronger than all the
testimony of the so called: “higher criticism” and of the few Romish
controversionalists whom Dieckhoff and company array against Waldensian
antiquity. Of course, tradition can be overthrown by undeniably historical facts
which contradict it. But no conscientious historian will claim there is as much
as one such fact unmistakably against the antiquity of the Waldenses.

(3.) On the contrary, the facts are on the side of the antiquity of the
Waldenses. When pressed to the wall by Muston, M. Schmidt, rather a specialist
as a historian on this point, acknowledged:

“I have never maintained that there were no manifestations of anti-catholic
spirit before the days of Valdo ... Even admitting that the heresy in question
was analogous to the Vaudois doctrines, this would prove only that before Valdo
there were persons holding something similar to what he after-wards believed.”
[Note: Idem, p. 3.]

Says Muston:

“The reader will observe that M. Schmidt grants almost all I desire, for it is
by no means necessary to prove that Valdo was descended from the Vaudois; it is
enough if the Vaudois be acknowledged to have existed before his time.” [Note:
Idem, p. 3.]

Says Muston:

“About the middle of the sixth century a part of the bishops of Upper Italy
refused to adhere to the decision of the Council of Chalcedon, held in 553; and
in 590, nine of them separated from the Roman church, or rather they solemnly
renewed their protestation of independence of it. The bishops being then elected
by the people of their diocese, we may presume without doing any violence to
history, that the later were imbued with the same doctrines and the same spirit.
The truth of this state of things in Upper Italy, is attested in the seventh
century by a new bishop of Milan, Mansuetus, A.D. 677. To combat the opinion
that the pope is the head of the church he directs attention to the fact that
the Councils of Nice, Constantinople and many others had been convoked by the
emperors and not by the pope. This bishop himself was not afraid to condemn Pope
Honorius as a Monothelite. And this gives us a new proof of the independence
then enjoyed by the diocese of Milan, across which the Vaudois named, would have
been obliged to pass, in order to reach Rome. The kingdom of Lombardy was itself
solicitous for the preservation of this independence. Thus everything
contributed to its maintainence; and it may be supposed that satisfied with the
first successes obtained in the towns, Rome thereafter paid less regard to the
relics of independence which might still subsist in the mountains. We know,
however, that ancient manners and ancient liberties have at all times been less
easily eradicated from such situations. However we are not reduced to the
necessity of supporting this idea by mere inferences, and the eighth century
still presents us examples of resistance to the pretentions of the Papal See in
Upper Italy. As these pretentions are more strongly urged we find the resistance
becoming all the more vigorous in the following centuries, and we can follow its
traces quite on to the twelfth century, when the existence of the Vaudois is no
longer doubted by any one ... But the grasping ambition of the church of Rome,
overcoming by degrees the resistance made in quarters nearest to its center of
action, forced back toward the chain of the Alps, the limits, still becoming
narrower, of that independence inherited from past ages, which had at first
opposed it over the whole of Upper Italy. This independence was defended in the
ninth century by Claude of Turin, in whom, at the same time, we behold the most
distinguished advocate of evangelical doctrines whom the age produced. Whilst
the bishop of Milan contented himself with the deploring condition of the Roman
church, by which he had been reduced to subjection, but in whose iniquities he
did not take part, the bishop Turin boldly declared against the innovations
which she had sought to long introduce into the sphere of his influence and
power. The numerous works of this prelate on different books of the Bible, had
prepared him for defending it against the attacks of popery; and strong in the
might of truth, Claude of Turin owned Jesus Christ as the sole Head of the
church, attached no value to pretended meritorious works, rejected human
traditions, acknowledged faith [Note: The Baptist position.] alone as securing
salvation, ascribed no power to prayers made for the dead, maintained the
symbolical character of the Eucharist, and, above all, opposed with great energy
the worship of images, which he, like his predecessors, regarded as absolute
idolatry. Thus the doctrines which characterized the primitive church and which
still characterize the Vaudois church at the present day have never remained
without a witness in the countries inhabited by the Vaudois. Rendered distinct
by her isolation their church found her own pale a separate one for this reason
only, that she herself had never changed. But as they did not form a new church;
they could not receive a new name; because they inhabited the valleys they were
called Vaudois.” [Note: Israel of the Alps, vol. 1, pp. 7-10.] In his work on
the Vaudois, Bert in 1849 — a good authority — from pp. 386, 390, throws “light
upon the autonomy of the diocese of Milan, to which the Vaudois valleys at an
early period belonged,” remaining “completely independent of the Romish church
so-called.” [Note: Idem, vol. 2, p. 406.]

Wadington: In “the valleys of Piedmont” Waldo “found a people of congenial
spirits. They were called Vaudois or Waldenses — (men of the valleys); and, as
the preaching of Peter may probably have confirmed their opinions and cemented
their discipline, he acquired and deserved his surname by residing among them.
At the same time their connection with Peter and his real Lionese disciples
established a notion of their identity; and the Vaudois, in return for the title
which they had bestowed, received the reciprocal appellation of Lyonnese; such,
at least, appears the most probable among the many varying accounts. There are
some who believe the Vaudois to have enjoyed the uninterrupted integrity of the
faith even from the apostolic ages; others suppose them to have been disciples
of Claudius Turin, the evangelical prelate of the ninth century. At least, it
may be pronounced with great certainty that they had been long in existence
before the visit of the Lionese reformer.” [Note: Wadington’s Ch. Hist., p.
290.] Of Claude of Turin, Neander says:

“The interest of practical Christianity stands foremost in all his commentaries.
Grace, the source of genuine sanctification; the temper and disposition, the
main thing to be regarded in the disposition of moral worth; a disposition of
love to God, purified from all reference to reward, the essence of the genuine
Christian temper, worship of God in the spirit, the characteristic of all true
piety ... And it is easy to understand, therefore, in what sort of a relation he
must have been placed to the reigning sensuous element in the religious tendency
of his age ... From this ethical point of view, he would necessarily be led to
dispute many of the marks by which his contemporaries were accustomed to judge
respecting good works. Thus, to the merit of good works, according to monkery,
he opposed St. Paul’s doctrine of grace ... He saw with extreme pain how the
essence of Christianity was here placed in making pilgrimages to Rome, in
adoring images and relics, in various species of out-ward works; how men were
taught to trust in the intercession of the saints, to the neglect of earnest
moral efforts of their own.: “He beheld a superstition which bordered closely on
paganism, obtaining in the worship of saints, of images, of the cross, and of
relics ... He disclaimed violently against superstition; he banished from the
churches the images and crosses, which seemed to have become objects of
religious adoration. He says himself on the subject: ‘When I was induced to
undertake the office of pastor, and came to Italy, I found, contrary to the
doctrine, all the churches full of the lumber of consecrated gifts; and because
I began alone pulling down what all adored I was calumniated by all, and unless
the Lord had helped me, they would, perhaps, have swallowed me up alive.’ Pope
Paschal expressed displeasure at his conduct. But it is remarkable that though
popes countenanced the fanaticism of the multitude this expression of
displeasure had no farther injurious effect on Claudius ... In general he denied
that St. Peter possessed any continuous power to bind and to loose. The ‘title
to an apostolicus does not belong to him who administers a bishopric’ founded by
an Apostle, but to him who fulfils the apostolic vocation; to those who occupy
the place without fulfilling the vocation should be applied the passage in
Matthew 23:12.’ As may be inferred from the language of one of his opponents,
Claudius was cited to appear before an assemblage of bishops; but he did not
present himself, as he could easily see that it would be impossible for him to
come to any understanding with the bishops of this country; and perhaps in the
contempt which he expressed for them, he yielded too much to his indignation
against superstition.” [Note: Neander’s Ch. Hist., VoL 3, pp. 432, 433, 437,
439; also Schaff-Herzog Ency., vol. l, p. 491.]

Claudius, having been sent to his field by “Lonious the Pious,” [Note: Kurtz’s
Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 369.] and possessing a powerful protector in the Frank
emperor, [Note: Meanders’ Hist. Chr. Ch., vol. 3, p. 433.] was, with his field
independent of popery. The first church instead of building up several small
churches in one locality, extended its work throughout that territory by
missions. In this plan there were many pastors to the same church, so as to
secure pastoral care of each mission. But these missions and their pastors
continued under the care of the mother church. This gave the pastor of the
mother church a pastoral care over all the missions and their pastors. This is
the case now in quite a number of Baptist churches. Yet, as arbitrary or
executive the authority was in the mother church; its pastor had only moral
authority. Consequently, there was nothing in this resembling any heirarchal or
Episcopal government. By the pastor of the mother church, by degrees, stealing
the authority of his church, after a few centuries he became what is now known
as a diocesan bishop. Of course, this became the case in some localities much
sooner than in others. While the Turin churches were not yet popish, when Claude
went among them they were certainly rapidly on the road there. This prepares us
to see how it was that Claudius when called to account for his Scriptural
course, by bishops and pope, treated them all with contempt. It also prepares us
to understand that the church government of Turin was not Episcopal diocesian in
the sense these terms now imply. Robinson observes of the Turin bishop: “The
bishop was little more than a rector. He had no suffragan bishops and no secular
power in the valleys.” [Note: Robinson’s Eccl. Resh., p. 462.]

Thus, there is a strong reason to believe that the Waldenses, in the Turin
diocese, had continued from apostolic times, and that the Lord had Claudius sent
among them in the time to save them from wandering so far as to lose their
apostolic character. Nor does the conclusion follow that they were fully
identified with the Turin diocese, even had it been a modern Episcopal diocese.
As Episcopal government is unknown in pure Waldensian history, had the Turin
government been Episcopal, the conclusion would naturally be that the Waldenses
were not, in full, ecclesiastically identified with the bishop of Turin [Note:
Had the Bishop of Turin and his diocese been Romish, and the Waldenses had their
membership in his churches, it would not follow that they were not Baptists;
since, in different ages, Baptists, to escape persecution, probably while in
secret, maintaining their own organizations, have been, yet, members of the
Romish or of some persecuting Protestant church. Even today this is the case.
Thus, Rev. Edmund F. Merriam, Editorial Secretary of the American Baptist
Missionary Union, in The Watchman of Boston, January 4, 1894, of the Baptist in
Sweden, under Lutheran persecution, writes; “In accordance with the peculiar
laws, they stilt remain as nominal numbers of the State church, but are almost
everywhere permitted the free and untrammeled exercise of their own religious
worship. In former times there was much persecution.” This may serve as the
answer to the objection: “Waldenses and other dissenters could not have been
Baptist churches because they were, sometimes, members of the Romish church,
even permitting their infants to be baptized.” Of course, the right or the wrong
of it is a wholly different question, to which there are two sides.] but that
from time immemorial they had made his diocese their refuge, because his freedom
from popery or non-subjection to it, with his great evangelical feeling, assured
them a refuge and home. The point of this argument is not necessarily that the
bishop of Turin and his diocese were Waldenses — I think they were — but that
genuine Waldenses existed there long before Waldo’s day. Nor is it the point
that they were called Waldenses long before Waldo, but that they were, in
teaching and practice, Waldenses. As we have demonstrated, the names are no
conclusive evidence of identity. They, themselves, says Keller, repudiated:
“during many centuries the name of Waldenses.”

Says Dr. Allix, in Chapter XI of his Remarks on the Churches of Piedmont:

“Here, then, we have found a body of men in Italy before the year one thousand
and twenty-six who believed contrary to the opinions of the church of Rome and
who condemned their errors.” [Note: In Idem, p. 408.]

Gilly says:

“It is certain that when Waldo fled from Lyons, he and his ‘poor men of Lyons’
took refuge among the mountaineers of Provence and Lombardy, whom he found to
be, and not whom he caused to be, impugners of Romish errors.” [Note: Todd’s
Books of the Vaudois, p. 194.] Again, says Gilly:

“That this region was infected with what was heresy before Waldo went thither
appears first on the evidence of Peter Clugny, who, distinctly speaking of that
locality, wrote in the year 1127 and 1143 against heretics ... secondly, of a
passage in Vol. 3 of ‘Historiae Patriae Monumenta,’ which states that the whole
of that mountain territory was infected with heresy in 1164.” [Note: Idem, p.
203.]

Armitage, an intemperate opposer of Baptist Church Perpetuity, while generally
ready to cast doubt on it, and admitting it only when no way to get out of doing
so, claiming the evidences of Waldenses existing before Waldo, is: “too scanty
and fragmentary to be used with confidence for historical purposes” finds the
proof so strong that he feels forced to concede: “There is ground for the belief
that an evangelical people lived in the isolated Cottion Alps before the twelfth
century.” He adds:

“Some Waldensian writers think they can trace their origin back to the days of
Constantine and even to the Apostles.” [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 284.] In
Limborch’s History of the Inquisition, Amsterdam, 1692, there is recorded, from
the year 1311, the following confession of a woman, a member of a weaver family,
which had for generations belonged to the Waldenses:

“The Waldenses belong to the number of those disciples which descended from the
Disciples and Apostles of Christ; from those Apostles upon whom Christ
transferred the power to bind and to loose; and these Waldenses retain that
potency even as Christ gave it to St. Peter and others. The chaplains and monks
know the meaning of the Holy Scriptures well enough, and also the divine law,
but they do not desire that the people should understand it, in order to
establish their own power over the people; for if they with clearness and
without concealment would teach the law of God as Christ revealed it then they
would not receive that which they require.” As Dr. Grimmell remarks on this:

“When it is remembered that is a confession of a woman — Jaqueta Textrix de
Cumba Rotgir — the suspicion of a studied invention fails; but if it be taken
into account that a like tradition is repeated throughout the different
countries of Europe, wherever Waldenses were found, the pristine root of the
same will appear unmistakably.” [Note: Essay Before the New York Baptist
Ministers’ Conference.] Dr. Grimmell farther says:

“That Peter Waldo was not the founder of the sect is clear from the records of
the synod held at Bergamo, 1218, where the ‘Poor men of Italy’ claimed a history
independent of Waldus, who flourished about the year 1170. The ‘Italian
Brethren’ are doubtless identical with the Arnoldists of Lombardy, named after
Arnold of Brescia in 1155.”

Dr. Newman observes:

“We can hardly escape the conviction that the Italian Brethren arose
independently of Waldo. They do not recognize his authority and they have no
special reverence for his name.” [Note: Bap. Quart Rev., July, 1885, p. 317.]
Says Dr. Newman:

“During the early years of the twelfth century, sixty years before Waldo began
to teach, Southern France and Northwestern Italy were permeated with a far more
evangelical teachings of Peter de Bruis and Henry of Lausanne. The views of
these teachers are well known to have been substantially Baptists. It is not
possible that the influence of this teaching should have become completely
extinct by Waldo’s time. There is much evidence of the persistence of
evangelical teaching in Italy from the earliest time. The Humilati of the
twelfth century and the followers of Arnold of Brescia may well have been the
proudest of early evangelical influences. They probably were ... Herzog and
Dieckhoff attached far more importance to the proof that Waldo was the founder
of the Waldenses than it deserved. To be sure it was worthwhile to know the
facts. But these when arrived at prove very little with regard to the great
evangelical party of the Middle Ages — commonly known by the name Waldenses.
This name was undoubtedly derived from Waldo of Lyons. The immediate followers
of Waldo were known by various names, ‘Waldenses’ and ‘Poor men of Lyons’ being
among the most common ... But to say that the whole evangelical movement
originated with Waldo, because the term Waldenses is applied to them by Roman
Catholic writers, is a very different thing, and is al variance with the facts
of history ... It is Dr. Ludwig Keller’s great merit to have traced the history
of the old evangelical party through the dark ages of persecution, and to have
exhibited, in a masterly manner, the relations of this party to the great
religious, industrial, social and scientific movements of the Middle Ages ...
These results are in the highest degree gratifying to evangelical Christians in
general and especially to Baptists. Keller insists throughout that the old
evangelical party was fundamentally Baptist.” [Note: Bap. Quart. Rev., July,
1885, pp. 321-322.]

Dr. Brockett who has made this study a specialty says as we have seen, that the
Waldenses, Paulicians, etc., were identical. The Paulicians: “planted the
standard of the cross in northern Italy, south of France; and from the good seed
sown by these faithful souls, who, under the guise of peddlers or traveling
merchants, scattered the word of God everywhere, there sprang up congregations
of the Albigenses, the Vaudois, the Cathari (an old name of the Paulicians), the
Waldenses and the Paulicani, a corruption of the name by which they were best
known.” [Note: Idem, vol. 4, p. 427.] In a letter to the author, Dr. W.W.
Everts, Jr., says:

“I think the Waldenses, Albigenses, Petrobrussians and Henricians, etc., all
stood on the shoulders of the Paulicians.”

Muston says:

“The Vaudois were ‘more probably’ holding ‘some connection’ with the
Petrobrussians.” [Note: Israel of the Alps, vol. 2, p. 417.] The Petrobrussians
and the Waldenses were so clearly one that, to get rid of the Waldensian
documents to Waldensian antiquity, the great Romish controversionalist, Bishop
Bossuet — ascribed them to Peter de Bruis. [Note: Idem, p. 443.] Says Muston of
1165, before Waldo’s day:

“A numerous detachment of Albegeois, leaving the south of France, took refuge in
the valleys of Piedmont, whereby they united themselves with the Vaudois both in
doctrine and worship.” [Note: Idem, p. 484; Morrison’s Hist. Ref., p. 35.]

A.D. 1119: “Council of Toulouse; decrees of the Inquisition against the heretics
who existed partly in Italy and partly in France.” [Note: Idem, p. 484, from
Galllos’ Hist. del Iniquis, pp. 81, 83, 84.] The Romish opponent, Father
Stephen, almost a contemporary of Waldo, says the: “Poor men of Lyons” — Waldo’s
followers — “joined with other heretics of Provence and Lombardy whose errors
they have adopted and propagated.” (“Postea in provincial terra et Lombardiae
cum aliis haereticis se admiscentes, et errorem cerrorem bibentes et serentes.”)
[Note: Idem, p. 510.] Muston quotes a personal letter from M. Gieseler:

“Indeed it cannot he doubled that before the days of Waldo Peter de Bruis and
Henry condemned the errors of the Catholic church ... Nor is it improbable that
Peter sowed the seed of his doctrine in his native valley and left followers
there; and thus we can explain how Pope Urban found the valley full of heretics.
And it is also likely enough that of the remaining disciples of Peter and Henry
many joined the Valdenses, in whom they found the same zeal for the doctrine of
the Bible; and thus it probably came to pass that no trace of the Petrobrussians
and Henricians appear at any subsequent period.” [Note: Idem, vol. 1, p. 3.]
Consequently Neander says:

“It was not without some foundation of truth that the Waldenses of this period
asserted the high antiquity of their sect, and maintained that from the time of
the secularization of the church — that is, as they believed from the time of
Constantines’ gift to the Roman bishop Silvester — such an opposition as finally
broke forth in them, had been existing all along.” [Note: Neander’s Hist. Chr.
Ch., vol. 4, p. 605.] Says Wadington of the Waldenses:

“Their origin is not ascertained by any authentic record; and being immemorial,
it may have been coeval with the introduction of Christianity. Among their own
traditions there is one, which agrees well with their original and favorite
tenet, which objects to the possession of property by ecclesiastics. It is this
— that their earliest fathers, offended at the liberality of with which
Constantine endowed the church of Rome, and at the worldliness with which Pope
Sylvester accepted these endowments, seceded into the Alpine solitudes; that
they there lay concealed and secure for so many ages through their
insignificance and their innocence. This may have been so — it is not even very
improbable that it was so ... If on the other hand we should identify those
dissenters (as some have done) with the Cathari, the Gazari, Patereni,
Publicani, and others of the same age, who were collateral branches of the
Paulician family, and others of the same age, we are not, indeed, any longer at
a loss to trace their succession to a very high antiquity.” [Note: Wadington’s
Ch. Hist., pp. 554-555.]

I conclude the discussion of the Waldenses — leaving out much other matter on
the subject — with the following summary of facts and conclusions:

(1.) Whether the Waldenses were ecclesiastically one with Claude of Turin is
immaterial. If not so, they found shelter under his wing.

(2.) As he was anti-papal, and was not a bishop in the modern sense, the
Waldenses may have been ecclesiastically one with him.

(3.) In either case the Waldenses of Turin and vicinity have an antiquity to
apostolic times.

(4.) The Waldenses of Turin may have been one wing of the Paulicians or they may
have been descended from the Apostles by another line — perhaps some of them
there existed from century one.

(5.) Whether the Turin Waldenses had their continuity through the Paulician
line, or by having remained there from the first century or by still another
line, is immaterial, as in either case, they have apostolic perpetuity.

(6.) While Waldo may have been the founder of a party he certainly did not
originate the Waldenses.

(7.) If Waldo did found a party it probably was absorbed and assimilated by the
previously existing Waldenses and others like them.

(8.) Even if Waldo’s party had never been absorbed and corrected by the others,
since the Waldenses whence Baptists are descended are the great and original
body of the Waldenses, which were never a part of the Romish church, the
apostolic continuity line is in no way disturbed. As we have seen, Waldo’s party
— if he founded one — joined the others.

(9.) The Waldenses were but Petrobrussians, Henricians, Arnoldists, Catharists,
Albigenses and Paulicians. In doctrine, organization and practice they were
essentially the same. Whether they were all of one line of descent from the
Apostles is a question of no practical importance; though most of them probably
descended through the Paulician line.

(10.) While there is much direct evidence proving the mass of Waldenses were
ecclesiastically, [Note: A favorite and deceptive method of assaulting the
apostolic origin of the Waldenses and others is to prove that many of them—
including, in many cases, their leaders, as in the cases of Waldo, Arnold.
Grebel— came out of the Romish church, and, in some cases, were soon after found
with Romish trumpery. But since many thousands, in past ages and the present,
thus leave the Romish church for the true church such cases have no bearing on
the origin of the party with which they finally identified themselves. As near
all the first converts to Christianity, made by the Apostles, were from the Jews
this fallacious method could thus be made, prove the church was thus then
originated.] from the very first, in no way a part of the Romish church, the
discussion of this subject in this and the previous chapter, has incidentally
furnished other proof of this.

(11.) While Dieckhoff and Herzog have rendered service in examining and sifting
Waldensian literature and have shown that unauthorized dates, etc., have been
assigned certain documents, yet their adoption of the wildness of the: “higher
critics” and reliance on a class of bitter and uncandid Romish writers render
their conclusion unreliable, especially, in view of the overwhelming proof to
the contrary.

(12.) The blind apishness and the assumption with which some writers and
professors of church history, and some others, have adopted Dieckhoffs and
Herzog’s conclusions, that Valdo originated the Waldenses, has a parallel in
those writers and professors who, because of the “higher criticism” from
Germany, have swallowed its conclusion on the Old Testament — much learning;
very little common sense and original judgment.

(13.) Admit all of Dieckhoffs and Herzog’s positions on the manuscripts of the
Waldenses, yet by overwhelming proof, we have evangelical life and Waldenses
running back in unbroken line to apostolic times.

(14.) After all discussions and assaults on Waldensian history, the very latest
scholarship supplies sufficient material for proof that the Waldensian history,
as understood in the days of Gilly, Leger, Allix, etc., is substantially
correct.

(15.) Thus: “there is no bug under the chip” which any believer in: “Baptist
succession” needs fear — the evidence supplied by these assailants and their
concessions itself being sufficient assurance.

(16.) I have given this especial discussion, under the head of Waldenses, only
because that name figures so much in church perpetuity.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 25: THE WALDENSES PERPETUATED IN THE ANABAPTISTS AND BAPTISTS.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 22. — THE WALDENSES PERPETUATED IN THE ANABAPTISTS AND BAPTISTS.

Inasmuch as Hussites — the evangelicals of Bohemia — figure so much in the
period to be now noticed, I here stop a moment to notice them as finally
becoming one with the Waldenses. Being prepared by the work of the Waldenses,
Albigenses, etc., finally through intercourse with them, they became one with
them. Hase says:

“The Waldenses were connected with the Hussites by fraternal ties, recognized
finally in the Reformation, the very objects which their ancestors had been
obscurely seeking.” [Note: Hase’s Chr. Ch., p. 610.]

Dr. Montgomery calling attention to the “connection” exhibited by Dieckhoff
“between the Vaudois literature and that of the Bohemian churches” observes:

“That a connection subsisted, in times previous to the Reformation, between the
Vaudois or Waldenses of the Alps and the Bohemian Christians, (who were often
called Waldenses,) has indeed been long known. But this is well deserving of
more investigation than it has yet received.” [Note: Israel of the Alps, vol. 2,
p. 526.]

Thus we have seen Waldensian influence and Waldensian organization swallow up
the Hussites. Mr. H. Haupt, a German specialist, in this line, has recently,
with Preger, another recent and like German specialist, found the:

“Waldenses strongly rooted in Bohemia and Moravia long before the outbreak of
the Hussite revolution, and Waldensianism of a type that would naturally lead to
the peculiar type of Taborism.” [Note: Recent Researches concerning Medieval
Sects, by Dr. A. H. Newman, p. 208]

“Between this Taborite production and that of the Vaudois documents Dieckhoff
points out correspondences which unquestionably are not accidental. Several
Vaudois works are found to agree very closely in matter, even often in words,
with the parts of this Taborite Confession. The Vaudois Treatise on Purgatory
contains quotations from the sermons of John Huss.” [Note: Idem, p. 527.] Dr.
A.H. Newman, says:

“We have evidence of the great influence and aggressiveness of Waldenses of the
most pronounced or anti-Romanist type in Bohemia throughout the entire
fourteenth century.” [Note: Idem, p. 170.]

Wattenbach in his: “Ueber die Inquisition gegen die Waldenser in Pommern und der
Mark Brandenburg, Berlin, 1886,” shows that “intimate relations,” at a very
early time, by the Waldenses “had been established with the Taborites, the
Bohemian brethren, etc., of Bohemia, and the names of Wickliff and Huss were
known and honored.” [Note: Idem, p. 176.]

“Matthias Flacius Illyricus, who, in the sixteenth century, surpassed all his
contemporaries in scientific historical investigation and who studied the
mediaeval sects to more purpose than any of his successors until the present
century, on the basis of manuscript sources, some of which are lost and some of
which are still available, reached the conclusion that the entire evangelical
movement in Bohemia, including the work of the well-known precursors of Huss
(such as Conrad of Waldhansen, Miltz of Kremsier, Matthias of Janow, etc.,) the
Hussite movement, the Taborite movement, the Unitas Fratrum, etc., was deeply
indebted to the earlier Waldensian movement.” [Note: idem, p. 206.]

“It is interesting to know that the old evangelical party, represented by the
Waldenses and the Bohemian brethren, were not only the first to prepare a good
German version of the Scriptures, but that they were, after the invention of
printing, among the first to utilize this art in the dissemination of
evangelical views, through versions of the Scriptures and through religious
works, of their own composing.” [Note: Idem, p. 220.]

Turning more directly to the subject, that the Ana-baptists are the continuation
of the Waldenses and of others which were Waldenses under other names, H. Haupt,
just referred to, says Dr. A.H. Newman:

“Has incidentally shown that the relation between the Romanic and the German
Waldenses was more intimate than has been supposed by Herzog, Dieckhoff and
Preger, and that they were practically identical in faith and practice ... Haupt
has also demonstrated the fact that all German Bibles printed before the
reformation were derived from this Waldensian version, three of the editions
having been completely Waldensian, and the fourth a Catholic recension of the
Waldensian version. Even this Catholic recension, and its successors, had no
Episcopal authorization and were probably set forth by those who were under
Waldensian influence. To the Waldenses, therefore, Germany was indebted for the
translation and the circulation of the Scriptures, and so for the great
religious movement which the so-called Reformation probably hindered more than
it forwarded.” [Note: Baptist Quart. Rev., Oct.. 1885, p. 526.]

“Herzog compares the track of the Waldensian history to that of a mole, emerging
now and then from the hidden recesses of the earth into the light, but incapable
of being continuously traced.” [Note: Idem, July 1885, p. 301.] This Herzog
illustration of Baptist history may well be accepted, remembering that the
“mole” has made so many upheavals and they so near together that we can readily
follow its course. Says Prof. Geo. P. Fisher, D.D.:

“There had been opposition to infant baptism in.earlier days among the Waldenses
and other sects, as well as from individuals like Peter of Bruges, and Henry of
Clugny.”

Peter de Bruis and Henry —

“But this one tenet was not the soul characteristic of the Anabaptists in which
we find the continuance or reproduction of former ideas and tendencies.” [Note:
Fisher’s Hist. Chr. Ch., pp. 424, 425.] Of the Waldenses, says Kurtz:

“They were most numerous in the south of France, in the east of Spain and in the
north of Italy; but many of their converts were also found in Germany, in
Switzerland, and in Bohemia. They gradually retired from France, Spain and Italy
into the remote valleys of Piedmont and Savoy.” [Note: Kurtz’s Ch. Hist., vol.
1, p. 459.] The Anabaptists being consequently, few in Italy and France, these
countries did not have the Reformation; while Germany, Switzerland and Bohemia,
being the seats of the Anabaptists, were its origin — the Anabaptists the
continuance of the Waldenses.

“Universal Knowledge” — Chamber’s Encyclopedia — of the Waldenses, says:

“They were subject to persecutions in 1332, 1400 and 1478 and driven into many
parts of Europe, where their industry and integrity were universally remarked.
So widely had the sect been scattered that it was said a traveler from Antwerp
to Rome could sleep every night in the house of one of their brethren. In
Bohemia many of them had settled, and they, without forsaking their own
community, had joined the Hussites, Taborites and Bohemian brethren.” [Note:
Vol. is, p. 132.] The reader will please read this quotation in connection with
the first part of this article, where he will see how the Waldensians, the
Bohemians, Hussites and the Taborites were thus united.

Again, of the Anabaptists and infant baptism:

“Opposition to this doctrine was kept alive in the various so-called heretical
sects that went by the general name, Cathari (i. e., purists) such as the
Waldenses, Albigenses, etc. Shortly after the beginning of the reformation the
opposition to infant baptism appeared anew among the Anabaptists.” [Note: Idem,
vol. 1, p. 347.]

Lemme, in his review of Keller’s: “Van Stanpitz,” discussing in a judicial way
the character of the Waldenses, says:

“In calling the pre-reformatory Waldensian churches evangelical Keller
necessarily raises the question as to their evangelical standpoint; because in
recent times it has been maintained that the Waldenses were essentially medieval
and monkish ... The classing of the apostolic life as the Waldenses cherished it
with the monkish life ideal is, as a matter of fact, not a result of scientific
investigation, but is dogmatic prepossession ... They are evangelical in making
the Scriptures the sole authority, and with respect to the conception of the
church, in the rejection of ecclesiastical authority, and the vindication of the
universal priesthood ... This impulse to set up externally churches of the
saints could not feel content with Luther’s reformation and turned aside into
Anabaptism.” [Note: Recent Researches Concerning Mediaeval Sects, p. 204.] Says
Vedder: Herberle writes in the Jahrbucher fur Deutsche Theologie (1858, p. 276
seq.) of the Anabaptists:

“It is well known that just these principles are found in the sects of the
middle ages. The supposition is very probable that between these and the
rebaptizers of the Reformation there was an external historical connection. The
possibility of this as respects Switzerland is all the greater, since just here
the traces of these sects, especially the Waldenses, can be followed down to the
end of the fifteenth century: But a positive proof in this connection we have
not ... In reality the explanation of this agreement NEEDS NO PROOFof a real
historical union between Anabaptists and their predecessors, for the abstract
Biblical standpoint upon which the one as well as the other place themselves is
sufficient in itself to prove a union of the two in the above-named doctrines.”
[Note: A Short History of Baptists, by Vedder, pp. 73-74.]

Notwithstanding Vedder’s antipathy to “succession” he concedes, “a moral
certainty exists of a connection between the Swiss Anabaptists and their
Waldensian and Petrobrussian predecessors, sustained by many significant facts,
but not absolutely proved by historical evidences. Those who maintain that the
Anabaptists originated with the Reformation have some difficult problems to
solve, among others, the rapidity with which the new leaven spread and the wide
territory that the Anabaptists soon covered. ...

Though the Anabaptist churches appear suddenly in the records of the time,
contemporaneously with the Zwinglian Reformation, their roots are to be sought
farther back.” [Note: Idem, pp. 73-75.] Again Vedder says:

“It is a curious and instructive fact that these Anabaptists’ churches were most
numerous precisely where Waldenses of a century or two previous had most
flourished, and where their identity as Waldenses had been lost. That there was
intimate relation between the two movements few doubt who have studied this
period and its literature. The torch of truth was handed on from generation to
generation, and though if often smouldered and was even apparently extinguished,
it needed but a breath to blaze up again and give light to all mankind.” [Note:
Idem, p. 71.] Says Dr. William R. Williams:

“Amid the sufferers under Alva, when the Netherlands were so drenched with human
gore, multitudes were of our faith; and they had their share in that land in
early versions of the Scriptures for the general use of the faithful. ...
Indeed, many of the Holland Mennonites hold the Waldenses to have been the first
propagandists on Holland soil, of these views, in their flight northward from
persecution in France and Italy. It has been said by one of the early Mennonite
writers that the oldest families of the Mennonites, in certain towns of Holland,
had names of Waldensian origin, and claimed to be the progeny of such exiled
forefathers. Venema, himself a Pedobaptist, living in Holland, a theologian and
scholar of such eminence that Adam Clarke said of his ... Commentary on the
Psalms, that it was a Goliath’s sword as described by David, ‘There is none like
it;’ — this eminent scholar, beyond the reach of denominational bias, and
speaking of the ancient history of his own country, ascribes to the Baptists of
Holland an origin earlier than the time of the Munster orgies, where too many
would cradle them.” [Note: William R. Williams’ Lect. on Bap. Hist., pp.
127-128.]

Bishop Latimer, ... speaking of some Ana-baptist martyrs from Holland ... makes
the remark: “that these glad sufferers at the stake were but like those old
heretics, the Donatists of early ages.” [Note: Idem, p. 129.] Venema, above
quoted, says:

“The immediate origin of the Mennonites is, in my judgment, more justly to be
traced to the Waldensians and to those of the Ana-baptists who wished a renewal
of the innocence and purity of the primitive church, and that the reformation of
the church should be carried farther than Luther and Calvin had arranged it. The
Waldensians, apart from the question as to the origin of Christ’s human nature,
in the chief articles had, in almost all things, like views with the Mennonites,
as is evident from their history as I stated it in the twelfth century ... To
find other beginnings as the source of Mennonism is needless, much less those
inviduous ones, placing them in fellowship with the men of Munster and other
like fanatics. From these they cleared themselves, both in old time, and now
through a long space of years have so vindicated and justified themselves, in
life and institutions that longer to confound them with that class can be done
only by notable injustice and gravest insult.” [Note: Idem, pp. 144-145.] Again
says Dr. Williams:

“In 1500, at the opening of the century, when Martin was ignorant as yet of the
Bible and soon to enter an Augustinian monastery, the Moravian brethren
possessed two hundred places of worship. They were the inheritors of the labors
of Huss and Jerome, of British Lollards, of Wickliffe and Waldo and laborers yet
earlier than these and whose rewards are safe with God.” [Note: Idem, pp.
144-145.]

Again: “There were Anabaptists and Anabaptist martyrs in Holland before Menno
himself had left the Roman communion.” [Note: Idem, p. 146.]

Says Armitage:

“The great Baptist movement on the Continent originated with no particular man
nor in any one place. It seems to have sprung up in many places about the same
time, and its general growth was wonderful, between 1520 and 1526, half a
century.” [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 329.]

“There was, however, a remarkable association between the Waldensians of the
Dispersion and the Baptists of the sixteenth century, both in doctrine and
practice.” 1700

Goebel, in his History of Christian Life in the Rhine Provinces, says that
“wherever in Germany, before the Reformation, there were large bodies of
Waldensians there during the Reformation large bodies of Anabaptists sprang up.
[Note: Idem, p. 304.]

Dr. Armitage, with all his antipathy to Church Perpetuity, is thus forced into
line, in part, with many church historians: “Indeed in some cases, the Baptists
evidently sprang from the Waldensians,” [Note: Idem, p. 304.] T. J. Morgan,
D.D., when Professor of Church History in the Chicago Baptist Theological
Seminary, said:

“We further assert our principles, more or less clearly proclaimed, have found
advocates in all ages. The Donatists in the fifth and sixth centuries resisted
the interference of the State in ecclesiastical affairs. The Paulicians and
Bogomiles, the Albigenses, the Waldenses, and the much stigmatized Anabaptists
preached, protested and suffered in behalf of principles more or less clearly
Baptistic.” [Note: In The Standard, Chicago.] Bullinger, in his preface to his
sermons on the book of Revelations, (1530,) says of the Waldenses:

“What shall we say, that for four hundred years or more in France, Italy,
Germany, Poland, Bohemia, and other countries throughout the world, the
Waldenses have sustained their profession of the gospel of Christ; and in
several of their writings as well as by continual preaching, they have accused
the pope as the real anti-Christ, foretold by the apostle John, and whom
therefore we ought to avoid. Although it has been often attempted by the most
powerful kings and princes, instigated by the pope, it has been found impossible
to extirpate them, for God hath frustrated their efforts.” [Note: Jones’ Ch.
Hist., p. 354.]

“Thomas Walden, who wrote against Wickliff, says the doctrine of Peter Waldo was
conveyed from France into England, and among others, Wickliff received it. In
this opinion he is joined by Alphonsus de Castro who says that Wickliff only
brought to life again the errors of the Waldenses. Cardinal Bellarmine also is
pleased to say that ‘Wickliff could add nothing to the heresy of the
Waldenses.’” [Note: Idem, p. 357.] The first editor of the complete book of
Reinerius was Father Gretzer, in 1613, who in the book said of the Waldenses:
“Vera effigies hereticorum nostrae aetatis prasertim Anibaptistarum” — This is a
true picture of the heretics of our ageEspeciallyof the Anabaptists. [Note:
Idem, p. 358.] Dr. Limborch, Professor in the University of Amsterdam, at the
Reformation period, said:

“To speak candidly what I think, of all the modern sects of Christians the Dutch
Baptists mostly resemble the Albigenses and the Waldenses.’” [Note: Limborch’s
Hist. Inq., vol. 1, chap. 8; in Jones’ Ch. Hist., p. 358, in Armitage’s Bap.
Hist., p. 304.] Zwinglius, of the same age: —

“The institution of Anabaptism is no novelty, but for thirteen hundred years
past has caused great disturbance in the church, and has such a strength that
the attempt to contend against it in this age appeared for a time futile.”

Bullinger further says:

“Let others say what they will of the German Anabaptists; I see nothing in them
but gravity; I hear nothing but we must not swear, must not do any one injury,
etc. The Donatists and the Anabaptists held the same opinions ... The Baptists
display their ignorance when they assert that no constraint should be used in
regard to religion or faith, they are similar in every particular to the old
Baptists, the Donatists.” In 1522 Luther says: “The Anabaptists have been for a
long time spreading in Germany.” [Note: Michelet’s Luther, p.99] The late E.T.
Winkler, D.D., quoting the above, says:

“Nay, Luther even traced the Anabaptists back to the days of John Huss, and
apologetically admits that the eminent reformer was one of them.”

Dr. Ludwig Keller, the Munster archivist, a Lutheran, a specialist on this
subject, an expert authority and who has done more to clear up this subject than
probably any other writer, in the Preussische Jahrbucher for Sept. 1882, says:

“There were ‘Baptists’ long before the Munster rebellion, and in all the
centuries that have followed, in spite of the severest persecutions there have
been parties which as Baptists or ‘Mennonites’ have secured a permanent position
in many lands ... A contemporary, who was not a Baptist has this testimony
concerning the beginning of the movement: ‘The Ana-baptist movement was so rapid
that the presence of Baptist views was speedily discoverable in all parts of the
land. The Baptists obtained a large number of adherents. Many thousands were
baptized, and they attracted to themselves good hearts.’ ... A contemporary
chronicler estimates that already, in 1531, the number of executions in the
Tyrol and Gortz was nearly a thousand. At Ensisheim, the seat of the father
Austrian government Sebastian Franck puts the number at six hundred. In Linz, in
six weeks, seventy-three persons were burned, drowned and beheaded. An
Anabaptist chronicler, whose statements in general are regarded as very
trustworthy, states that in the Palatinate, about the year 1529, ‘the Palsgrave
Ludwig, in a short time, put to death on account of their faith, between one
hundred and fifty and two hundred.’ “He goes on, mentioning many similar cases
of their great numbers shown in their persecutions.” In Moravia, where the
Baptists for a long time found protectors, persecution began in 1528 ... A
recent opponent of the Baptists, the Church historian, Carl Hase, expresses his
opinion concerning these events in these word:

“The energy, the capacity for suffering, the joy in believing, which
characterized the Christians of the first centuries of the church reappeared in
the Ana-baptists.’ Indeed, one can not but be astonished at the steadfastness of
these men, who so joyfully went to death, and disdained to purchase life by a
word of recantation. Only once, at the time of Roman persecution of the
Christians, does the entire history of the Christian church furnish an example
of such slaughter ... Not to speak of the Netherlands, where at the beginning of
1530, according to the words of a contemporary, there was hardly a village or a
city in which the danger of revolution on the part of the Baptists did not seem
to be imminent. Let us now turn our attention to the German provinces. The more
I examine the documents of that time, at my command, the more I am astonished at
the extent of the diffusion of Anabaptist views, an extent of which no other
investigator has any knowledge. In all the cities in the archbishopric, with
scarcely one or two exceptions, there were Anabaptists, and even in the country
towns and villages. The same was true of the neighboring districts. Many Baptist
churches cannot be enumerated for the reason that their existence was a profound
secret. For the details I refer to original documents cited by me in another
place, and will here only refer to the fact, that in the evangelical cities,
Bremen, Hamburg, Lubec, Wisemar, Rostock, Stralsund, Brunswick, Hanover,
Lunebury, etc., it can be proved that there were either fully established
churches, or, at least, individual Baptists (and that, too, many among the
clergy). It is not to be doubted, also, that in the progress of scientific
invention still farther traces will be brought to light.

Much rather can it be proved that in the lands mentioned Baptist churches
existed for many decades and EVEN CENTURIES.” [Note: Translated by Henry S.
Burrage, D. D., in Bap. Quart. Rev., vol. 7, pp. 28-33.] Dr. A.H. Newman, a high
authority on this subject, says:

“It may be permitted to the writer to say that he is in thorough sympathy with
Keller’s general view of the old evangelical party and of the Reformation of the
sixteenth century. [Note: Recent Researches concerning Mediaeval Sects, p. 171.]
The reader will please especially not over-look the latter part of Keller’s
statement, in my last quotation from him, that instead of saying that like other
non-Catholic sects, Baptists are the children of the Reformation, he says and
has given ample proof of the statement, of their great prevalence when the
Reformation began: ‘Baptist churches existed for many decades and even
centuries’ before the Reformation.”

Dr. E.T. Winkler says:

“It is well known that the Anabaptists of Holland disclaimed any historic
connection with the fanatical Anabaptists of Germany, but claimed a descent from
the Waldenses.” [Note: Dr. Winkler refers to Moehier’s Symbolism, p. 4.] Dr.
Howard Osgood:

“In Switzerland and in Germany it has been found impossible to decide when the
Baptists first appeared, or which were the first churches of Baptists in these
lands; and it is quite as difficult to decide the question about the Baptists of
England” [Note: In The Standard, Chicago.] In the same paper, Dr. Osgood says of
the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century: “The persecution of centuries had
taught them concealment,” plainly implying their existence centuries before the
days of Luther. ...

“When they first appeared in the Netherlands cannot be decided. Ypeij and
Dermout say Anabaptists were according to the archives of Groningen expelled
thence in 1517.”

Here, Dr. Osgood quotes from Prof. Van Oesterzee, in Herzog Encyclopedia 9, p.
346 —

“They are peculiar to the Netherlands and are older than the Reformation, and
therefore must by no means be confounded with the Protestantism of the sixteenth
centuries, for it can be shown that the origin of the Baptists reaches much
farther back and is more venerable.”

Dr. Osgood, in the same paper, says:

“Long before Menno was converted and became a Baptist, Baptists were found in
the Netherlands and were united in churches from the borders of France to the
northern bounds of Friesland and witnessed a good confession.”

Dr. G.C. Lorimer in the same paper, of the Baptists and the Reformation, says:

“Their existence antedates it by centuries ... In 1518, six years before Luther
appeared before the Diet of Worms, a letter was addressed to Erasmus from
Bohemia, describing a people who never had any affinity with Rome. Two of these
brethren waited on Luther and Erasmus to congratulate them on their secession
from Rome, but the same were declined because they were Anabaptists ... It may
be possible to show, as I think it is, that primitive Christianity perpetuated
itself in the Novatian communities which, according to Kertz, prevailed ‘almost
throughout the Roman empire and which were subsequently known as Donatists,
Montanists, bodies of believers who are classed together by Alzog, Abrard,
Herzog, Jacobi and Frike and with whom the Baptists of our day are in
substantial accord ... All this could be very likely substantiated and an
unbroken succession established.”

Cardinal Hossius, President of the Council of Trent, which met Dec. 15, 1545,
and one of the most learned Romanists of his day, said:

“If you behold the cheerfulness in suffering persecutions the Anabaptists run
before all other heretics. If you will have regard to their number it is like
that in multitude. They would swarm above all others if they were not grievously
plagued and cut off with the knife of persecution. If you have an eye to outward
appearance of godliness, both the Lutherans and Zwinglians must grant that they
far surpass them. If you will be moved by the boasting of the word of God, those
be not less bold than Calvin to preach, and their doctrine must stand above all
the glory of the world; must stand invincible above all power, because it is not
their word, but the word of the living God. Neither do they cry less boldly than
Luther that with their doctrine they shall judge angels, and surely, however, so
many have written against this heresy whether they were Catholics or heretics or
reformers, they were able to overthrow it, not so much by the testimony of
Scripture as by the authority of the church.” [Note: Hatchett’s Heresies,
translated by B. Shacklock, vol. 48, edition of 1565. Underhill, pp. 88-89.]
Hossius farther says:

“If the truth of religion were to be judged of by the readiness and cheerfulness
which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of
no sect can be truer and surer than that of the Anabaptists, since there have
been none, for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more generally
punished, or that have more steadfastly under-gone, and even offered themselves
to the most cruel sorts of punishment than these people ... The Anabaptists are
a pernicious sect, of which kind the Waldensian brethren seem to have been. Nor
is this heresy a modern thing, for it existed in the time of Austin” [Note:
Ree’s Reply to Wall, p. 20—In Trilemma, p. 132.]

Thus this great Romanish scholar concedes the sameness of the Waldenses and
Anabaptists, and that they already existed in 354, the time of Austin. The
Romish Bishop Baltes, of Alton, Ill., indirectly concedes the apostolic descent
of the Baptists, when he thus concedes he cannot find any human head for them:

“If you go to the dictionaries of religion you will find the name of the founder
of every other denomination than the Catholic. The only objection I have met
with as to this proposition is a Baptist; he contended that you could not find
any one who founded the Baptist denomination.” The Bishop did not so much as
venture to deny this statement. [Note: In the Globe-Democrat of 1878; see also
Chapter VI for other Romish testimony.]

Hase:

“The Waldenses were, reduced in numbers because they had been burned by their
persecutors, but some congregations still remained in the south of France and in
the secluded valleys of Piedmont ... In the commencement of the fifteenth
century heretical congregations of almost every kind were scattered and broken
up. But it was only in secret that those forms of opposition were maintained or
organized which in the sixteenth century came forward under the name of
Anabaptists.” [Note: Hase’s Hist. Chr. Ch., pp. 342-343.] As explanatory, says
Armitage:

“A word here may be necessary as to the proper naming of this interesting
people; were they Baptists or Anabaptists? They are commonly characterized as
‘Anabaptists’ by friends and foes; yet this name was especially offensive to
them, is it charged them with re-baptizing those whom they regarded as
unbaptized and because it was intended as a stigma. By custom their most
friendly historians call them ‘Ana-baptists,’ yet many of their candid
historians speak of them as ‘Baptists.’ The Petrobrussians complained that Peter
of Clugny ‘slandered them by calling them ‘Ana-baptists,’ so did their Swiss and
German brethren after them. The London Confession, 1646, protests that the
English Baptists were ‘commonly, though unjustly, called Anabaptists.’” [Note:
Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 327.]

Mosheim:

“The true origin of that sect which required the denomination of, Anabaptists,
by their administering anew the rite of baptism to those who came over to their
communion ... is hid in the remote depths of antiquity, and is, of consequence,
extremely difficult to be ascertained. This uncertainty will not appear
surprising when it is considered that this sect started up all of a sudden in
several countries at the same point of time, under leaders of different talents
and different intentions, and at the very period when the first contest of the
reformers with the Roman pontiffs drew the attention of the world ... It may be
observed that the Mennonites are not entirely mistaken when they boast of their
descent from the Waldenses, Petrobrussians and other sects, who are usually
considered as witnesses of the truth in the times of universal darkness and
superstition. Before the rise of Luther and Calvin there lay concealed in almost
all the countries of Europe, particularly in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland and
Germany, many persons who adhered tenaciously to the following doctrine which
the Waldenses, Wickliffites and Hussites had maintained, some in a more
disguised, and others in a more open and public manner, viz: that the kingdom of
Christ or the visible church was an assembly of real saints and ought,
therefore, to be inaccessible to the wicked and unrighteous, and also exempt
from all those institutions which human prudence suggests, to oppose the
progress of iniquity, or to correct and reform transgressors. This maxim is the
true source of all the peculiarities that are to be found in the religious
doctrine and discipline of the Mennonites; and it is most certain that the
greatest part of these peculiarities were approved by many of those, who, before
the dawn of reformation, entertained the notion already mentioned relating to
the visible church of Christ ... The drooping spirits of these people who had
been dispersed through many countries and persecuted everywhere with the
greatest severity, were revived when they were informed that Luther, seconded by
several persons of eminent piety, had successfully attempted the reformation of
the church.” [Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., cent. 16, sec. 3, chaps. 3,1-2.]

Jones quotes a part of this from perhaps a better rendering. Maclaine,
translator of the edition from which I quote, says he has: “sometimes taken
considerable liberties with my author,” thus:

“Before the rise of Luther and Calvin there lay concealed, in almost all the
countries of Europe, persons who held tenaciously to the principles of the
modern Dutch Baptists.” [Note: Jones’ Ch. Hist, p. 358.]

“Religions of the World,” by fifteen eminent scholars, whose names are given,
all, or near all, being Pedobaptists and Romanists, published by Gay Bros. Co.,
14 Barclay street, New York, 1884, says:

“Baptists claim a higher antiquity than the eventful era of the Reformation.

They offer proof in that their views of the church and the ordinances may be
traced through the Paterines, the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Vaudoise, the
Cathari, and the Poor Men of Lyons, the Paulicians, the Donatists, the
Novatians, to the Messahians, the Montanists and the Euchites of the second and
closing part of the first century to the Apostles and the churches they founded
... Their claim to this high antiquity it would seem is well founded, for
historians, not Baptists, and who could have no motive except fidelity to facts,
concede it.” [Note: Pages 405-406.] Samuel Schmucker says of the Baptists:

“As a sect they never existed ... until the rise of Peter Waldo in the twelfth
century who established [Note: This links the Baptists to the Waldenses. In
Chapter XXII we have proved the Waldenses have a continuity from Apostolic
times.] the sect of the Waldenses among the mountains of Piedmont. One of the
most prominent doctrines of him and his followers was the impropriety of the
baptism of infants and necessity of immersion to the validity of baptism.”
[Note: Schmuchers’ Hist. of All Religions, pp. 36-38.] The Athenian Society, of
England, over two hundred years ago, and made up wholly of Pedobaptists, a
Society pronounced equal to the famous Royal Society of which it is said:

“All the endeavors of great men, of all nations and ages, from the beginning of
learning till this time, have not contributed so much to the increase of
learning as the Athenian Society.”

They commenced previous to 1790 a weekly periodical, called the Anthenian
Gazette which name was subsequently changed to the Athenian Oracle. This work
was conducted by a committee of twelve of their most competent men, selected
from the learned professions. Their volumes are quoted with confidence as
authorities by Hannah Adams and other distinguished writers. In 1691 this
society was thrown into controversity with the Baptists, respecting the
antiquity of their church, and they affirmed that: “there never was a separate
and distinct congregation of Baptists until about three hundred years after our
Savior.” [Note: Supplement to Ath. Ora., vol. 4, p. 161—In Howell on Corn., p.
255.]

Let it not be forgotten that I have proved the Waldenses did not originate with
Waldo, and that when Baptist churches are conceded to have existed as early as
A.D. 300 and since that, the side of Baptist opponents is virtually surrendered.

The: “New Royal Encyclopedia,” edited by Wm. Hall, with other learned men of
London, begun in 1788 and completed in three volumes, says in its article:
“Anabaptists.”

“It is to be remembered that the Baptists or Mennonites in England and Holland
are to be considered in a very different light from the enthusiasts we have been
describing; and it appears equally uncandid and invidious to trace their
distinguished sentiments, as some of their adversaries have done, to those
obnoxious characters and then to stop in order as it were, to associate them
with the idea of turbulence and fanaticism, with which it certainly has no
natural connection. Their connection with some of those oppressed and infatuated
people in denying baptism to infants, is acknowledged by the Baptists, but they
disavow the practice which the appelation of Anabaptist implies; and their
doctrines seem referable to a more ancient origin. They appear to be supported
by history in considering themselves the descend-ants of the Waldenses, who were
so grievously oppressed and persecuted by the despotic heads of the Romish
hierarchy.” [Note: In Trilemma, p. 137.] Sir Isaac Newton:

“The modern Baptists formerly called Anabaptists are the only people that never
symbolized with the papacy.” [Note: Life of Whiston.] In his debate with Bishop
Purcell, Campbell said:

“Every sect and individual is passive in receiving a name ... The disciples of
Christ are the same race, call them Christians, Nazarenes, Gallileans,
Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Protestants or what you
please. A variety of designations affects not the fact which we allege; we can
find an unbroken series of Protestants — a regular succession of those who
protested against the corruptions of the Romish church and endeavored to hold
fast the faith once delivered to the saints from the first schism in the year
250, A.D., to the present day; you may apply to them what description or
designation you please.” [Note: Quoted, from p. 77.]

Again:

“The Baptist denomination [Note: Notice that Mr. Campbell is not here speaking
of only “principles and practices,” but he is speaking of organized churches —
“denomination.”] in all ages and all countries has been, as a body, the constant
asserters of the rights of man and the liberty of conscience. They have often
been persecuted by Pedobaptists; but they never politically persecuted, though
they have had it in their power.” [Note: Quoted, from A. Campbell on Baptism, p.
449, “Copyrighted, 1851.”] Mr. Burnett, one of the most ardent Campbellite
editors, says:

“The Baptists have connection with the Apostles through their line of
succession, which extends back three hundred and fifty years, where it connects
with the Waldensian line, and that reaches to the apostolic day. This is not a
Baptist line but the Baptists have connection with this line, and through it
have connection with the Apostles. We were talking about successional
connection. Baptists also have connection with the Apostles in what they teach
and practice.” [Note: Christian Messenger, Dec. 8,1886.]

Challenging one of his own brethren, Mr. Burnett — on the position that if the
Baptists are not from apostolic times — says: “But he should march right up to
the difficulty and show us where the church was seventy-five years ago.” [Note:
Christian Messenger, March 9,1887.] [Note: To the Campbellite attempt to evade
the force of this, by saying: “But Brother Burnett meant that the Hard Shell
Baptists have the succession and the missionaries are a young sprout from them.”
I leave the chapter in this book on who are the Old Baptists as sufficient
reply. If Mr. Burnett or any of the Campbellites are sincere in saying that the
Anti-mission Baptists are the successors of the Apostles why don’t they join
them!]

Though these testimonies can easily be multiplied, I deem it amply enough to
conclude them with the testimony of Drs. Dermout and Ypeij. Says Dr.

William R. Williams:

“Ypeij held an ecclesiastical professorship and was a voluminous author on
historical themes, and his various works are yet largely cited. Dermout, his
associate in the history, was a Reformed church preacher at the Hague ... the
Hague being the city of the royal residence. Sepp, ... a scholar of reputation,
in his essay — which in 1860 obtained the prize of the Teyler Society — on the
theologians of Holland from the close of the eighteenth to the middle of the
nineteenth century rates Dermout among the most powerful of the nation’s
preachers in his own age ... C.M. Van Der Kemp,” another German scholar,
“describes ... Ypeij as professor of theology in connection with the Reformed
Church in a distinguished university in our land,” and Dermout, as: “by his
position the regular teacher in one of our most distinguished churches, court
chaplain to His Majesty, and secretary and permanent member of the Supreme
Reformed Church Synod.”

Sepp says:

“Borger, one of Holland’s most brilliant scholars, ... was accustomed to rate
Dermout, as being above even Van der Palm, who as a scholar, writer and
preacher, has won a reputation, not only pervading Holland, but reaching Great
Britain and our own country also.” With the archives of Europe before them, Drs.
Ypeij and Dermout wrote: “Gerchied de Nederl, Hervormde Kerk,” in which they
say:

“We have already seen that the Baptists — those who in former times were named
Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites — were originally Waldenses, the men
who in the history of the church, in time so far back, have obtained a
well-deserved renown. In consequence, the Baptists may be regarded as being from
of old the only religious denomination that have continued from the times of the
Apostles, as a Christian society who have kept the evangelical faith pure
through all the ages hitherto. The constitution, never perverted internally or
externally, of the society of the Baptists, serves them as a proof of that
truth, contested by the Romish church, that the reformation of religion, such as
was brought about in the sixteenth century, was necessary, was indispensable,
and serves, too, as the refutation, at the same time, of the Roman Catholic
delusive fancy, that their own is the oldest church society.” [Note: In Dr.
William R. Williams’ Lect. on Bap. Hist., pp. 172-173] The title of this work in
English is: “History of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands.” It was
published 1819, at Breda.

If history can demonstrate anything this chapter has demonstrated that the
Anabaptists of the sixteenth century are the successors of the Waldenses — are
the genuine Waldenses.

We have now seen that through the Montanists, the Novatians, the Donatists, the
Paulicians, the Albigenses, the Cathari, the Arnoldists, the Petrobrussians, the
Henricians and the Waldenses — all essentially identical — the Anabaptists, or
Baptists of the sixteenth century have a Church Perpetuity to the church of the
first century. In the language of Dr. Armitage, as his noble soul arose above
his antipathy to Church Perpetuity: “Let us at least respect our ancestry enough
to join the latest and best continental writers in calling them Baptists,”
[Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 328.] In succeeding chapters what little
grounds to doubt the Baptists of to-day being the Anabaptists of Reformation
times is removed.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 26: BAPTIST CHURCHES IN ENGLAND LONG BEFORE, UP TO AND AT THE TIME OF JOHN SMYTH.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 23. — BAPTIST CHURCHES IN ENGLAND LONG BEFORE, UP TO AND AT THE TIME OF
JOHN SMYTH.

Rev. Francis Thackeray, A.M., formerly of Benbrooke College, Cambridge, from his
Researches Into the Ecclesiastical and the Political State of Great Britain, is
quoted:

“We have reason to believe that Christianity was preached in both countries,
Gaul and Britain, before the close of the first century. The result of my
investigations on my own mind has been the conviction that about 60, A.D., in
the time of St. Paul, a church existed in Britain.”

There are authorities of great weight who maintain that the gospel was
introduced at an earlier period than the one mentioned by Mr. Thackeray. As
Christianity was certainly introduced very early into Britain, so far as the
perpetuity question is concerned, the exact date is immaterial. Inasmuch as
Baptists understand that the first churches were Baptist churches, to stop to
prove to them that the first churches in Britain were Baptist churches, is
unnecessary. Immersion continued in England, as Dr. Wall informs us, until. the
Reformation period, except in sickness, and this at a late day exception. Of
A.D. 627, Bede says, describing baptism: “He washed them with the water of
absolution in the river Glen.” [Note: Bede’s Eccl. Hist, book 2, chap. 14.]

“He baptized in the river Swale, which runs by the village cataract; for as yet
oratories or fonts could not be made in the early infancy of the church in these
parts. [Note: Bede’s Eccl. Hist., book 2, cbap. 14.]

“A man of singular veracity informed him that he himself had been baptized at
noon day ... in the presence of King Edwin, with a great number of people, in
the river Trent.” [Note: Idem, chap. 16.]

Bede says:

“The Britains preserved the faith which they had received uncorrupted and entire
in peace and tranquility until the time of the Emperor Diocletian.”

Diocletian died A.D. 313. [Note: Idem, book 1, chap. 4.] Of this persecution
Bede says:

“When the storm of persecution ceased the faithful Christians, who, during the
time of danger, had hidden themselves in woods and deserts and secret caves,
appearing in public, rebuilt the churches which had been leveled to the ground,
etc.” [Note: Idem, chap. 8.] There is no record of Baptists having ever become
non-existant in England. The earliest dawn of the Reformation finds Baptists in
England. Of the beginning of the eleventh century in England, Crosby says:

“Though the baptism of infants seems now to be pretty well established in this
realm, yet the practice of immersion continued many years longer; and there were
not persons wanting to oppose infant baptism. For in the time of William the
Conqueror and his son William Rufus, it appears that the Waldenses and their
disciples, out of France, Germany and Holland had their frequent recourse and
residence, and did abound in England. Mr. Danvers cites Bishop Usher, who, he
says, tells us, ‘that the Berengarian or Waldensian heresy, as the chronologer
calls it, had about that time, viz., A.D. 1080, generally corrupted all France,
Italy and England. And further, the said bishop tells us, out of Guitmond, a
popish writer of that time, that not only the meaner sort of the country
villages, but the nobility and gentry in the chiefest towns and cities were
infested therewith; and therefore doth Lanfrank, who was Archbishop of
Canterbury, in the time of both these kings, about the year 1087, write a book
against them.’

“In the time of Henry I. and King Stephen the said Bishop Usher tells us, out of
Pepliner’s History of France, that the Waldenses of Acquiain did, about the year
1100, spread themselves and their doctrines all Europe over, whereof he mentions
England in particular. About the year 1158, there came about thirty persons of
the Waldensian sect over into England and endeavored to disseminate their
doctrines here: these are supposed to reject infant baptism; the two chief of
them were Gerburdus and Dulcinus ... Mr. Danvers cites Rodger Hovedon, who, in
his annals upon the year 1182, saith: ‘That Henry the II. was then favorable to
the Waldensian sect in England; for, whereas, they burnt them in some places of
France, Italy and Flanders by great numbers, he would not in the least suffer
any such thing here, he being in his own wives’ right possessed of Aquina,
Poictou, Guien, Gascoyn, Normandy, etc., the principle places which the
Waldenses and Albigenses inhabited, and who, being his subjects in France, had
the freer egress into his territories here.’ In the time of Richard I. and King
John we read of no opposition made against them ... In the time of Henry III.,
about the year 1235, as saith Bishop Usher, out of Matth., Paris, ‘the orders of
the Friers Minorites came into England to suppress the Waldensian heresy.’ In
the time of King Edward the II., about the year 1315, Walter Lollard, a German
preacher, a man of great renown among the Waldenses, came into England. He
spread their doctrines very much in these parts, so that afterwards they went by
the name of Lollards.” [Note: Crosby’s Hist. Eng. Bap., vol. 2, pp. 43-46—of
preface.]

Fuller:

“By Lollards, all know the Wickliffe’s are meant; so that from Walter Lollardus,
one of their teachers in Germany ... and flourishing many years before
Wickliffe, and much consenting with him in agreement.” [Note: Fuller’s Ch. Hist.
Great Britain, cent. 15, book 4, secs. 17-18.]

Fuller points [Note: Idem, cent. 14, book 4, sec. 6.] out sixty-two differences
between Wickliffe’s views and Romanism. No less than eighteen of them
distinguish Baptists from Methodism, Campbellism and other forms of Arminianism;
while several of them distinguish Baptists from Presbyterianism. I have room for
only the following: (1.): “Those are heretics who say that Peter had. more power
than the rest of the Apostles.” (9.): “The pope is ‘anti-Christ.’”(12.)
“Bishop’s benedictions, confirmations, consecration of churches, chalices, etc.,
be but tricks to get money.” (14.): “That in the times of the Apostles there
were only two orders, namely, priests and deacons. That a bishop doth not differ
from a priest.” (18.) “He defined a church to consist only of persons
predestinated.” (26.): “That general councils, etc., have no authority.” (28.):
“That men are not bound by vigils or canonical hours.” (30.): “That to bind men
to set and prescript forms of prayers doth derogate from that liberty God hath
given them.” (31.): “That chrism and such other ceremonies are not to be used in
baptism.” (34.): “That those are fools who affirm that infants cannot be saved
without baptism; and also that he denied that all sins are abolished in baptism.
That baptism doth not confer, but only signifies grace, which was given before,”
(43) “That religious sects confound the unity of Christ’s church who instituted
but one order of things,” (44.) “That he denied all sacred initiation into
orders as leave no character behind them.” (56.) “That God loved Peter and David
as dearly when they grievously sinned as he doth now when they are possessed of
glory.” (59.) “That all things come to pass by fatal necessity” — a
misrepresentation of the Bible doctrine of election as held by the Wickliffites,
which Arminians now make against Baptists. Looking over these thirteen charges
of heresy against Wickliffe we find Numbers 9, 12, 14 are condemnations of every
form of episcopacy; that 26 condemns Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian and
other ecclesiastically legislative bodies; that 34 condemns infant baptism and
water salvation; that 56 affirms the final preservation of saints; that 59 and
18 teach election, etc.; that 18 teaches a church is made of only the
professedly regenerate; and that 43 teaches that God is not the originater of
different denominations, but that He has but one church. No one acquainted with
Baptist views needs to be, informed that these are distinctively Baptist
principles. As to the action of baptism, Wickliffe was certainly a Baptist.

Says Armitage:

“He always retains the preposition ‘in’ and never with ‘in water,’ ‘in Jordan.’”
[Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 316.]

Says Armitage:

“Froude finds a resemblance between some of Wickliff s views, and others have
claimed him as a Baptist.” [Note: Idem, p. 315.] William R. Williams, says:

“Rastell, one of the judges of England in the days of Queen Mary, has preserved
in his Entrees legal documents, coming down, some of them, from his grandfather,
Sir John More, a justice of the King’s Bench, and father of the illustrious
chancellor, Sir Thomas More. In this volume, Rastell has preserved a Latin writ,
sending over to the bishop for judgment, according to the canon law, three
several groups of Lollards who all rejected infant baptism ... One who had
personally known Wickliffe and sympathized with early Lollardism in England, but
afterwards left that communion, gave as the reason, that among other errors the
Lollard followers of the Great Reformer at Lutterworth rejected the baptism of
infants.” [Note: Lect. on Bap. Hist., by William R. Williams, pp. 126-127] Of
early English and other Baptists:

“They were the inheritors of the labors of Huss and Jerome, of British Lollards,
of Wickliffe and Waldo, and laborers yet earlier than these, whose memories and
whose rewards are safe with God whom they meekly and faithfully served, and then
went down unrecorded by their followers to a forgotten or a dishonored grave.”
[Note: Idem. pp. 145-146.]

Whether Wickliffe was a full fledged Baptist may be a little doubtful; but that
he inherited the doctrine and the life of previous and contemporaneous Baptists,
and gave them a great movement forward is clear, filling England with Baptist
views and true Baptists. As Neal remarks:

“If Wickliffe himself did not pursue the consequence of his own doctrine so far,
yet many of his followers did, and were made Baptists by it ... All our
historians agree in affirming that the doctrine of Wickliffe spread very
extensively throughout the country; inasmuch that according to Knighton, a
contemporary historian, ‘more than half the people of England embraced them and
became his followers.’” [Note: Neal’s Hist. Pur , vol. 2, p. 253.] This is
almost the equivalent to saying “more than half the people of England,”
following Wickliffe’s teachings to the consequences, became Baptist churches.

“That the denial of the rite of infants to baptism was a principle generally
maintained among the Lollards or followers of Wickliffe, is abundantly confirmed
by the historians of those times. Thomas Walden, who wrote against Wickliffe,
terms this reformer ‘one of several heads who arose out of the bottomless pit
for denying infant baptism, that heresies of the Lollards of whom he was the
ringleader.’” [Note: Idem, p. 354] Neal shows how Wickliffe received his
doctrine by succession from the Baptists before him:

“Walsingham, another writer says, ‘it was in the year 1381 that the damnable
heretic, John Wickliffe, received the cursed opinions of Berengarius,’ one of
which unquestionably was the denial of infant baptism.” [Note: Idem, p. 354]
Collier says that in 1538:

“Some few who were Dutch Baptists — three men and a woman — had faggots tied to
their backs at Pauls’ Cross; and one woman and one man of the same sect were
burnt at Smithfield. Cranmer ... with some others, had a commission from the
king to try some Anabaptists; which by comparing the dates of the commission
with that of the execution we may conclude the trial passed upon the persons
above mentioned.” [Note: Collier’s Eccl. Hist. Great. Britain, vol. 4, p. 429.]
Of this same commission, Collier says:

“They had likewise an authority to seize all Ana-baptist books, to forbid the
reading of them, to burn and destroy them as they thought fit.” [Note: Idem,
vol. 9, p. 162.]

May, 1575:

“On Easter day ... a conventicle of Dutch Baptists was discovered at a house
without the bars at Oldgate. Twenty-seven of them were seized and committed.”
[Note: Collier’s Eccl. Hist. Great Britain, vol. 6, p. 543.] Bishop Thomas
Vowler Short says, that in 1549:

“Complaints had been brought to the council of the prevalence of Anabaptists ...
To check the progress of these opinions a commission was appointed.” [Note:
Bishop Vowler Short’s Hist. Ch. of Eng., p. 92.] Of the Baptists in England,
Cramp says:

“Ten were burned by pairs in different places in 1535, and fourteen more in
1536. In 1538, six Dutch Baptists were detected and imprisoned; two of them were
burned. Bishop Latimer refers to these circumstances in a sermon preached before
Edward the VI., in the year 1549. ‘The Anabaptists,’ said he, ‘that were burnt
here in divers towns in England — as I heard of credible men, I saw them not
myself — went to their death even intrepid, as you will say, without any fear in
the world, cheerfully. Well, let them go.’” [Note: Bishop Latimer’s Ser., p.
160, in Cramps’ Bap. Hist., p. 932.]

“There is some reason to believe that a Baptist church existed in Cheshire at a
much earlier period. If we may credit the traditions of the place, the church at
Hill Cliffe is five hundred years old. A tombstone has been lately dug up in
that burial ground, belonging to that church, bearing date 1357. The origin of
the church is assigned in the ‘BaptistManual’ to the year 1523. This, however,
is certain that Mr. Warburton, pastor of the church died there in ‘591. How long
the church had then been in existence, there are no written records to testify.”
[Note: Cramp’s Bap. Hist., p. 232.] “Henry the VIII had a keen scent for
heresy.” He continued the bitter persecution against the Baptists.

“The hatred to Baptists was farther shown in excepting them from the general
acts of pardon. Such acts were published in 1538, 1540 and 1550, but those who
held that ‘infants ought not to be baptized were excluded from the benefit.
Thieves and vagabonds shared the king’s favor, but Baptists were not to be
tolerated ... Among the ‘Articles of Visitation’ issued by Ridley in his own
diocese, in 1550, was the following: Whether any of the Anabaptist sect, or
other, use notoriously any unlawful or private conventicles, wherein they use
the doctrines of the administration of sacraments, [Note: This shows they were
not Baptists in only “sentiment” or “principle,”but that they were Baptists
organized into Baptist churches.] separating themselves from the rest of the
parish.” [Note: Cramp’s Bap. Hist., pp. 232-234.] Quoting from Cardwell’s
Documentary Annals of the Church of England, vol. 1, p. 91:

“A royal commission was issued by Edward the VI, empowering thirty-one persons
therein named, Cranmer at the head and Latimer as one of its members, to proceed
against all heretics and condemners of the Book of Common Prayer. The ‘wicked
opinions’ of the Baptists are specifically mentioned.” [Note: Idem, p. 235.]

“But they could not put down the Baptists, who grew and flourished in spite of
them. Congregations were discovered in Essex, at Feversham, in Kent, and other
places ... They met regularly for worship and instruction; the ordinances of the
gospel were attended to , [Note: This shows they were not Baptists in only
“sentiment” or “principle,”but that they were Baptists organized into Baptist
churches.] contributions were made for the support of the cause, and so great
was their zeal that those who lived in Kent were known to go, occasionally, into
Essex to meet the brethren there — a journey of four score miles, which in the
sixteenth century was no small undertaking ... This, however, is clear, that
they were Anabaptists.”

“There were many Baptists among the sufferers in Queen Mary’s reign. Some
endured painful imprisonments, and some passed to heaven through the fire.”
[Note: Benedict’s Hist. Bap., p. 305.] Under Queen Elizabeth,

“Bishop Jewell ... writing to Peter Martyr, under date of November 6, 1560,
said: ‘We found at the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth a large and
auspicious corps ... of Anabaptists, ... which I know not how, but as mushrooms
spring up.’ Many Baptists continued to elude the proclamation, to depart from
the country. ‘Persons holding these views were still in the realm. And they
continued to seek shelter in England from persecution, but the Queen and her
minions were indefatigable in their attempts to ferret them out and drive them
away. Permitted or not, however, they were there and they were neither idle nor
unsuccessful.’ Collier, the ecclesiastical historian, says: ‘The Dutch
Anabaptists held private conventicles in London, and perverted a great many.’”
[Note: Ivimey’s Hist. Eng. Bap., vol. 1, p. 55.] In the ancient town of
Leicester, England, in the upper part of an old town hall, is a library in which
are some very ancient works. Several years ago was discovered a MS. against the
Baptists, on the title page of which is: “Imprinted at London, by G.B. Deputie
to Christopher Barker, printer to the Queen’s most excellent majesty, 1589.” It
reads:

“The Anabaptistical sect were very bold of late. They pressed into her majesty’s
presence; they complained to her highness of great persecution — how justly your
lordship knows — which by the queen’s commandment did examine and commit them.”
— Robert Some.

Says Benedict, quoting Jones:

“Towards the middle of the twelfth century, a small society of these Puritans,
as they were called by some, or Waldenses, as they were termed by others, or
Paulicians, as they are denominated by an old monkish historian — William of
Newbury — made their appearance in England. This latter writer speaking of them,
says: They came originally from Gascoyne, where being as numerous as the sand of
the sea, they sorely infested all France, Italy, Spain and England.” [Note:
Benedict’s Hist. Bap., p. 305.] On the page whence this quotation is made,
Benedict puts these down as: “Baptists.” In former articles I have demonstrated
them Baptists. Ivimey says:

“The archbishop farther informs us, on the authority of Matthew Paris, of
Westminster, that ‘the Berengarian or Waldensian heresy had, about the year
1180, generally infected all France, Italy and England.”Guitmond, a popish
writer of that time, also says that, ‘not only the weaker sort of the country
villages, but the nobility and gentry in the chief towns and cities were
infected therewith; and therefore Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, who held
this seat, both in the reigns of William the Conqueror, and his son, William
Rufus, wrote against them in the year 1087.’ The arch-bishop adds from Poplinus’
history of France, that ‘the Waldenses of Aquitain did about the year 1100,
during their reign of Henry I, and Stephen, kings of England, spread themselves
and their doctrines all over Europe,’ and mentions England in particular.”
[Note: Ivimey’s Hist. Eng. Bap., vol. 1, p. 55.] Says the Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia: “During the reigns of Elizabeth and James, a large number of
Baptists fled from Holland and Germany, to England.” [Note: Schaff-Herzog Ency.,
vol. 1, p. 211.] Says the Penny Encyclopedia:

“Little is known of the Baptists in England before the sixteenth century. Their
name then appears among the various sects which were struggling for civil and
religious freedom. Their opinions at this early period were sufficiently popular
to attract the notice of the national establishment, as is evident from the fact
that at a convocation, held in 1536, they were denounced as detestable heretics,
to be utterly condemned. Proclamations allowed to banish the Baptists from the
kingdom, their books were burnt, and several individuals suffered at the stake.
The last person who was burnt in England was a Baptist” [Note: Vol. 3, pp.
416-417.] Of the times before John Smyth, Froude says of the English Baptists:

“History has for them no word of praise; yet they were not giving their blood in
vain ... In their deaths they assisted to pay the purchase money of England’s
freedom.” [Note: Froude’s Hist. Eng., vol. 2, p. 359.]

“On them the laws of the country might take their natural course and no voice
was raised to speak for them.” [Note: Idem, p. 358.] Says Dr. John Clifford:

“The Waldenses, some of whom held Baptist views, abounded in England,, in the
days of William the Conqueror, and bishop Lanfranc wrote against the heretics,
in 1087. It is likely that a church formed on Baptist lines existed at Hill
Cliffe, a mile and a half from Warrington, as early as 1357, and it is certain
that John Wickliffe, who was born in 1324 and died in 1384, was not far from the
Baptist faith, while it is notorious that many of the Lollards held and
practiced it with great daring and burning zeal A large accession of force
actually found living expression in a few Baptist societies in the fourteenth,
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, as at Hill Cliffe, in Cheshire; Boking, in
Essex; Feversham and Eyethorne, in Kent; and Epworth and Crowle, in Axholme. But
the times were not favorable to the organizing of these churches into a compact,
coherent, and aggressive unity; nor yet to the creation of any means by which
they might report their existence and doings to subsequent generations. Even in
the days of Elizabeth, to bp a Baptist was to be a criminal. The hour had not
yet dawned for the emancipation of the human conscience. But it was coming; and
the persecuted Baptist was permitted to take a momentous part in ushering in the
sublime hour in the history and progress of the human race.” [Note: The Origin
and growth of Eng. Bap., by Dr. John Clifford, pp. 6-8.]

“At Crowle, in Lincolnshire, a few miles from Gainesborough, there was,
according to an old church book, a Baptist society as early as 1599. To that
rural community, Smyth went in 1604, and ‘debated nearly all night with Elders
Henry Hiliwise and John Morton, who defended our cause.’” [Note: Idem, pp.
15-16.] Barclay, in his comprehensive account of the Inner Life of heligious
Societies of the Commonwealth, declares (p. 12):

“We have strong reasons for believing that on the continent of Europe, small
hidden societies, who have held many of the opinions of the Anabaptists, have
existed from the time 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 the Roman
church.” [Note: Idem, p. 9-of “Notes.”] Even Vedder — a bitterly prejudiced
opponent to succession — is driven to concede:

“We are entitled to affirm with regard to Baptists in England that traces of
them appear in historical documents early in the sixteenth century.” [Note: A
short Hist. Of Bap., p. 108.] The late C.H. Spurgeon, in Ford’s Christian
Repository, years ago, said:

“We care very little for the ‘historical church’ argument, but if there be
anything in it at all, it ought not to be filched by the clients of Rome, but
should be left to that community, which all along held by ‘one Lord, one faith
and one baptism.’ ... The afflicted Anabaptists, in their past history, have had
such fellowship with their suffering Lord, and have borne such pure testimony,
both to truth and freedom, that they need in nothing be ashamed.

It would not be impossible to show that the first Christians who dwelt in the
land were of the same faith and order as the churches now called Baptists ...
The rampant ritualist, W.J. E. Bennett, of Frome, in his book upon ‘The Unity of
the Church Broken,’ says: ‘The historian Lingard tells us there was a sect of
fanatics who infested the north of Germany, called Puritans; Usher calls them
Waldenses; Spelman, Paulicians (the same as Waldenses). They gained ground and
spread over all England; they rejected all Romish ceremonies, denied the
authority of the pope, and more particularly refused to baptize infants. Thirty
of them were put to death for their heretical doctrines near Oxford; but the
remainder still held on to their opinions in private until the time of Henry the
II., 1550; and the historian, Collier, tells us that wherever the heresy
prevailed, the churches were either scandalously neglected or pulled down and
infants left unbaptized.’ We are obliged to Mr. Bennett for this history, which
is in all respects authentic, and we take the liberty to remark upon it, that
the reign of Henry the II. is a period far more worthy of being called remote
than the reign of Henry the VIII. and if Baptists could trace their pedigree no
further, the church of Thomas Crammer could not afford to sneer at them as a
modern sect. All along our history from Henry II. to Henry VIII. there are
traces of the Anabaptists, who are usually mentioned in connection with the
Lollards, or as coming from Holland ... All along there must have been a great
hive on the Continent of these ‘reformers before the Reformation,’ for despite
their being doomed to die almost as soon as they landed, they continued to
invade this country to the annoyance of the priesthood and the hierarchy. During
the Reformation, and after it, the poor Anabaptists continued to be the victims
... The only stint allowed to persecution in the lower countries was contained
in a letter to the Queen, Dowager Mary of Hungary, ‘care being only taken that
the provinces were not entirely depopulated.’ ... Latimer, who could not speak
too badly of the Baptists, nevertheless bears witness to their numbers and
intrepidity. Here I will tell you what I have heard of late, by the relation of
a credible person and a worshipfy man, of a town in this realm of England, that
hath above five hundred heretics of this erroneous opinion in it. Bishop Burnett
says that in the time of Edward the VI. Baptists became very numerous, and
openly preached their doctrines, that ‘children are Christ’s with-out water.’
...

Among the ‘Articles of Visitation,’ issued by Ridley in his own diocese in 1550,
was the following: ‘Whether any of the Anabaptist sect and others use
notoriously any unlawful or private conventicles wherein they do use doctrines
or administration of sacraments, separating themselves from the rest of the
parish.’ It may be fairly gathered from the ‘Articles of Visitation’ that there
were many Baptist CHURCHESin the kingdom at the time. This is also clear from
the fact that the Duke of Northumberland advised that Mr. John Knox should be
invited to England and made a bishop, that he might aid in putting down the
Baptists in Kent.: “Marsden tells us that in the days of Elizabeth ‘the
Anabaptists were the most numerous, and, for some time, by far the most
formidable opponents of the church. They are said to have existed in England
since the days of the Lollards.’ In the year 1575 a most severe persecution was
raised against the Anabaptists of London, ten of whom were condemned, eight
ordered to be banished and two to be executed ... Neither front Elizabeth, James
or Charles the I. had our brethren any measure of favor. No treatment was
thought to be too severe for them; even good men execrated them as heretics for
whom the severest measures were too gentle. Had it been possible to destroy this
branch of the true vine, assuredly the readiest means were used without
hindrance or scruple. Yet it not only lives on, but continues to bear fruit a
hundred fold ... When Charles the I. was unable any longer to uphold episcopacy,
liberty of thought and freedom of speech were somewhat more common than before,
and the Baptists increased very rapidly. Many of them were in Cromwell’s army
... The time will probably arrive when history will be re-written.”

Says Robinson:

“I have seen enough to convince me that the present English dissenters,
contending for the sufficiency of Scripture, and for primitive Christian liberty
to judge of its meaning, may be traced in authentic manuscripts to the
Nonconformists, to the Puritans, to the Lollards, to the Vallences, to the
Albigenses, and, I suspect, through the Paulicians and others to the Apostles.”
[Note: Robinson’s Claude, vol. 2, p. 63; in Evans’ Hist. Early Eng. Bap., vol.
1, p. l.]

Thus, an eminent secular historian says that he is convinced of the succession
from the apostles of those whom my previous articles have proved were Baptist
churches.

Evans:

“Dissidents from the popular church in the early ages ... were found everywhere.
Men of apostolic life and doctrine contended for the simplicity of the church
and the liberty of Christ’s flock in the midst of great danger. ... The
Novatians, the Donatists and others that followed them are examples ... That
these early separatists taught doctrines now held by the Baptists, might be made
to appear from their own works and the statements of their adversaries ... A
succession of able and intrepid men taught the same great principles in
opposition to a corrupt and affluent State church, and many of these taught
those peculiar views of Christian life and doctrine which are special to us as
Baptists. Beyond all doubt such views were inculcated by the Paulicians, the
primitive Waldenses and their brethren. Over Europe they were scattered and
their converts were very numerous long before the Reformation.” [Note: Evans’
Hist. Early Eng. Bap., vol. 1, pp. 1-2.] In 1538, under Henry the VIII., there
were so many Baptists as to bring upon themselves the fiercest hatred. [Note:
Idem, p. 51.] In 1549: “the mild Cranmer, Ridley and others felt as much, nay,
more horror struck at an Anabaptist heretic than a dozen papal advocates.” “An
ecclesiastical commission in the beginning was issued out for the examination of
Anabaptists.” [Note: Evans’ Hist. Early Bap., vol. p. 69.] “To stamp the
character and principles of these troublers of the commonwealth, the
Legislature, closing its session in 1551, exempted the Baptists from the pardon
which was granted to those who had taken part in the late rebellion.” [Note:
Idem. p. 79.] This was in the reign of Edward VI. Not long after this, under the
reign of Queen Mary:

“Intense as the hatred to the Reformers was, it did not diminish in intensity
when it hunted the Anabaptists from their seclusion. Nowhere were they safe.
Spies everywhere haunted their steps.” [Note: Idem, p. 97.]

Under Queen Elizabeth, in 1557, Bishop Cox wrote that “sectaries are showing
themselves mischievous and wicked interpreters. Of this kind are the
Anabaptists’’ [Note: Idem, p. 147.] Dr. Parker in his letter declining the
Archbishopric of Canterbury says: “They say that the realm is full of
Anabaptists” [Note: Idem, p. 148.] This was about 1560:

“In the fourth year of her reign a proclamation was issued by the Queen
commanding the Anabaptists and such like heretics which had flocked to the coast
towns of England and had spread the poison of their sects in England, to depart
the realm in twenty days.” [Note: Idem, p. 149.] Of Marsden, Evans says:

“One of the latest, and, we are bound to say, one of the calmest and most candid
writers on the Puritanic history, says: ‘But the Anabaptists were the most
numerous, and for sometime the most formidable opponents of the church. They are
said to have existed in England since the days of the Lollards.’” [Note: Idem,
p. 147.]

“Dr. Wall seems anxious to persuade his readers that there were no Baptists in
England when Henry the VIII, ascended the throne at the commencement of the
sixteenth century, A.D. 1511. But upon that supposition it is not easy to
account for the sanguinary statutes which in the early part of this reign were
put forth against the Anabaptists ... If the country did not abound with
Baptists at this time why were those severe measures enforced against them? ...
In 1536 the sect of the Anabaptists is specified and condemned. In fact it is
easy to trace the Baptists in England at least a hundred years prior to the time
mentioned by Fuller”— at least to 1438.: “In the year 1539 ... we find certain
legal documents promulgated, one of which was” against the: “Anabaptists.” ...
“From this it appears that the Baptists not only existed in England, but that
they were in the habit of availing themselves of the art of printing ... in the
defense of their peculiar and discriminating tenets ... Bishop Burnet informs us
that at this time,” 1547, “there were many Baptists in several parts of England”
[Note: Neal’s Hist. Pur., vol. 2, pp. 354-355.]

“It happened on Easter, the third of April, A.D. 1557, that thirty Anabaptists
of both sexes had assembled together in a house near Alligator ... for the
purpose of mutual exhortation and prayer; but being detected by the neighbors,
they were nearly all taken to prison.” [Note: Idem, p. 160.]

Quoting an enemy of the Baptists: “For the Dutch Anabaptists held private
conventicles in London and perverted a great many.” [Note: Idem, p. 166.] Their
churches were called “conventicles.”

“In 1589 the same fact is admitted by Dr. Some in his reply to Barrow, etc.

‘He affirms that there were several Anabaptist conventicles in London and other
places.’ They were not Dutchmen, certainly not exclusively so, for he says:
‘Some persons of these sentiments have been bred at our universities.’” [Note:
Neals’ Hist. Pur., p. 166.]

“A Romish writer charges Elizabeth, in an infamous work, published in 1538, with
making the country a place of refuge for ... Anabaptists.” [Note: Idem, p. 167.]
Commenting on Dr. Some’s words, quoted above, Ivimey says:

“It seems then that the Baptists had, at this early period, formed distinct
churches of persons of their own sentiments, both in London and in different
parts of the country.” [Note: Ivimey’s Hist. Eng. Bap., vol. 1, p. 108.] A large
ecclesiastical convocation, in 1536, condemns the “Anabaptists.” [Note: Fuller’s
Ch. Hist. of Britain, cent. 16, book 5. secs. 34-35.] Fuller says of 1538-39:

“These Anabaptists, for the main, are but ‘Donatists new dipped,’ and this year
their name first appears in the English chronicles, for I read that four
Anabaptists, three men and one woman, all Dutch, bore fagots at Paul’s Cross,
Nov. 24th, and three days after, a man and a woman of their sect was burned at
Smithfield.” [Note: Idem, cent. 16, book 5, sec. 11.] Of 1575, Fuller says:

“Now began the Anabaptists wonder-fully to increase in the land. For on
Easterday, April 3rd, was disclosed a congregation of Dutch Ana-baptists without
Aldgate in London.” [Note: Idem, cent. 16, book 9, secs. 12-13.]

Says Ivimey:

“There were some good honest dissenters, who are mentioned as a new sect newly
sprung up in Kent, in the year 1552. Of this sect were Joan Boacher, Joan of
Kent, who, we are sure, was a Baptist. It is highly probable therefore that they
were all Baptists of whom Mr. Pierce speaks. If so the churches of Kent can
boast of great antiquity ... It has been already mentioned that there is
traditionary evidence that the general Baptist church of Canterbury has existed
250 years; and that the church of Eyethorn is nearly of as early an origin. In a
letter from the present pastor of that church I am informed that ‘more than 220
years ago persons of the general Baptist denomination met for the worship of God
at Eyethorn.’” [Note: Ivimey’s Hist. Eng. Bap. vol. 2, pp. 216-217.] As the
volume which I quote was written in 1814, this would date the Canterbury church
as already existing in 1564 and the Eyethorn church in 1594. Here, existing in
Kent, is one church in 1552, the Canterbury in 1564 and the Eyethorn in 1594.
How long these three churches existed before we had record of their existence no
one can tell. Goadby says:

“The church at Eyethorn, Kent, owes its origin to some Dutch Baptists who
settled in the country in the time of Henry VIII ... According to a long
prevalent tradition, (‘uninterrupted and uncontradicted, says one authority,’)
Joan Boucher, or Joan of Kent, was a member of the Baptist church of Eyethorn.”
[Note: Goadby’s Bye Paths to Bap. Hist., p. 23.]

“In the Calendar of State Papers, (Domestic Series, 1547-1580,) under date of
Oct. 28th, 1552, we have the entry: ‘Northumberland, to Sir William Cecil.
Wishes the king would appoint Mr. Knox to the Bishopric of Rochester. He would
be a whetstone to the archbishop of Canterbury and a confounder of the
Anabaptists lately sprung up in Kent.’ ... One singular fact, perhaps without a
parallel in the history of this ancient General Baptist church at Eyethorn,
deserves to be mentioned; the names of the pastors from the close of the
sixteenth to the last quarter of the seventeenth century, were John Knott. The
first John Knott became the pastor of the Eyethorn church somewhere between 1590
and 1600 and the last John Knott removed to Chatham in 1780.” [Note: Goadby’s
Bye Paths to Bap. Hist., pp. 24-25.] Writing of this, before 1876, Goadby
remarks:

“It is worthy of record that the church of Christ in this little village
continued more than three hundred years without a single unfriendly division and
with a steadfast adherence to the faith and practice of the Primitive church.”
[Note: Idem, p. 26.] This dates it before 1576.

“The Booking Braintree church-book, still in existence, carries back the
authentic records of the church for more than two hundred years, but there is no
question but the origin of the church itself dates back to the days of Edward
VI.” — between 1547 and 1648. [Note: Idem, p. 28.]

Queen Elizabeth reigned from 1558 to 1603. Goadby says: “Tiverton church is said
to have existed since the last years of Queen Elizabeth,” [Note: Idem, p. 28.]

‘We have reliable evidence that a Separatist, and probably a Baptist church, has
existed for several centuries in a secluded spot of Cheshire, on the borders of
Lancashire, about a mile and a half from Warrington. No spot could be better
chosen for concealment than the site on which this ancient chapel stood. Removed
from all public roads, enclosed by a dense wood, affording ready access into two
counties, Hill. Cliffe was admirably suited for the erection of a ‘conventicula
illicita,’ an illegal conventicle. The ancient chapel built on this spot was so
constructed that the surprised worshipers had half a dozen secret ways of
escaping from it, and long proved a meeting place suited to the varying fortunes
of a hated and hunted people. Owing to the many changes inseparable from the
eventful history of the church at Hill Cliffe, the earliest records have been
lost. But two or three facts point to the very early existence of the community
itself. In 1841 the then old chapel was enlarged and modernized; and in digging
for the foundation, a large baptistry of stone, well cemented, was discovered.
How long this had been covered up, and at what period it was erected, it is
impossible to state; but as some of the tombstones in the graveyard adjoining
the chapel were erected in the early part of the sixteenth century, there is
some probability for the tradition that the chapel itself was built by the
Lollards who held Baptist opinions. One of the dates on the tombstones is 1357,
the time when Wickliffe was still a fellow at Merton College, Oxford; but the
dates most numerous begin at the period when Europe had just been startled by
Luther’s valliant onslaught upon the papacy.

Many of these tomb-stones, and especially the oldest, as we can testify from a
personal examination, look as clear and as fresh as if they were engraved only a
century ago ... Hill Cliffe is undoubtedly one of the oldest Baptist churches in
England ... The earliest deeds of the property have been irrecoverably lost, but
the extant deeds, which go back considerably over two hundred years, described
the property as being ‘for the Anabaptists.’” [Note: Goadby’s Bye Paths to Bap.
Hist., pp. 22-23.] Of the Hill Cliffe church Rev. D.O. Davis, of Rockdale,
England, who attended the Southern Baptist convention in Birmingham, Ala., in
1891, as a representative of the English Baptists, says:

“The oldest Baptist church in this country is Hill Cliffe ... Tradition declares
that church is 500 years old. A tombstone was recently discovered in the burial
ground of. the place bearing date of 1357. In digging the foundation to enlarge
the old chapel a large baptistry was discovered which was made of stone and well
cemented. The baptistry must have belonged to a previous chapel. Oliver Cromwell
worshiped in this church. It is one of the pre-historic churches, and a regular
Baptist church.” [Note: Shackelford’s Comp. of Bap. Hist., p. 274.] Of Henry
VIII, from 1509-1547, Goadby says: “Bitterly as he hated the Papist party ... he
revealed a still more bitter hatred for all Baptists, English and Continental.”
He gave them ten days to leave England, burnt them and issued a fourth
proclamation “appointing Cranmer and eight others to make diligent search for
Anabaptist men, books and letters.” [Note: Goadby’s Bye Paths to Bap. Hist., pp.
72-73.]

Under this, Goadby says: “Like the Israelites in Egypt, ‘the more they were
afflicted the more they multiplied and grew.’” [Note: Idem, p. 74.] Under the
reign of Edward VI, 1537-1548, Goadby says that in spite of their persecutions
“their numbers increased.” Strype tells us that “their opinions were believed by
honest meaning people;” and another writer affirms that the articles of religion
issued just before the king’s death “were principally designed to vindicate the
English Reformation from the slur and disgrace which the Anabaptists’ tenets had
brought upon it, a clear proof that the Baptists were at that period neither few
nor unimportant.” [Note: Idem, p. 75.] Remember this was before John Smyth’s
baptism. Of the English Baptists, of the seventeenth century, Goadby says:

“All these are scions of this stock of Anabaptism that was transplanted out of
Holland in the year 1535, when two ships laden with Anabaptists fled into
England, after they had missed the Enterprise at Amsterdam.” [Note: Idem, p.
105.] To add many other testimonies to the existence of Baptist churches in
England long before and at the time of John Smyth’s baptism is an easy task.
There is, to this, a most superabundantly overwhelming mass of proof. But I
rather owe an explanation for having already produced such an avalanche of
proof. That explanation is: Owing to John Smyth being so persistently thrown up
to the Baptists as the founder of English Baptist churches, I have given this
vast amount of refuting proof to silence forever every honest man who has been
throwing John Smyth’s baptism up against Baptists. In other words: This mass of
testimony is given because so many think the English Baptists, of the early part
of the seventeenth century, were the first Baptist churches in England since
very early times.

There remain two objections or evasions. The first is: Is there proof that the
Baptists who antedated Smyth were organized into churches and that these
churches were in existence in England when he was baptized?

Notwithstanding that the foregoing shows this can be answered only in the
affirmative, to not leave any possible room for doubt, I add the following:

(1.) Just as the principles of a political party, of any secret society
necessarily bring into organization their adherents, so Baptist principles
organized their adherents into Baptist churches.

(2.) Just as the principles of anything are dependent on organization for their
perpetuity operation and dissemination, so the perpetuity and the dissemination
of Baptist principles are the demonstration of the existence of Baptist
churches.

(3.) In all times of which we have the history of Baptists in particular and
fully, where there were many Baptists, there have been Baptist churches.

(4.) The New Testament provision for the church to preach, administer the
ordinances and the discipline of the kingdom, and to preserve the gospel
institutions, guarantee the continuity of the church — of the preserver as much
as of the things to be preserved. These four premises furnish the conclusion
that the existence of Baptists in England, previous to and at the time of John
Smyth’s baptism, are sufficient assurance of the then existence of Baptist
churches.

(5.) But, their “conventicles” are synonymous with “churches.”

Says the late E.T. Winkler, D.D., a great scholar, of very extensive research in
church history:

“Conventicle ordinarily occurred as the synonym of ‘a church so called.’ It was
applied to the assembly, the place and the organization, just as the word church
(ecclesia) was among early Christians, or as the word ‘meeting’ is in New
England. To use an impressive term of John Stuart Mill, it connoted a church.
The Baptist conventicles were for the most part Baptist churches. ... The term
is from the Latin ‘conventiculum,’ which signifies a ‘little assembly.’ It was
commonly used by the ancient writers to indicate a church. Thus Lactantius
(5:11) relates that a certain persecutor in the age of Diocletian, ‘burnt a
whole people together with their conventiculum (church) where they all met
together. ‘Arnobius (Contra Gent. 4:352) complains: ‘Why are our churches,
(conventicula) where the supreme God is worshipped, pulled down?’ And
Ambroisiaster says that ‘wherever the church extends local congregations are
established (conventicula) and elders and other officers are ordained in these
churches’” [Note: Dr. Winkler In Ala. Bap. and Relig. Herald, 1875.] Webster
defines conventicle:

“An assembly or gathering. An assembly for religious worship, and, opprobiously
such an assembly held by nonconformists or dissenters from the established
church of England.” [Note: Unabridged Dictionary.]

“Now, as conventicles were the name of disgrace cast on, schools was the term of
credit owned by the Wicklivites for their place of meeting.” [Note: Fuller’s Ch.
Hist. Britain, cent. 15, book 4, secs. 17-18.] Thus, we see how even the term
“schools” was applied to churches. Universal Knowledge — Chambers’ Encyclopedia
— says:

“Conventicle was first given as an appellation of reproach to the assemblies of
Wickliffe’s followers, and was after applied to the meetings of the English and
Scottish nonconformists.” [Note: Volume 4, p. 568.] The laws prohibiting
conventicles clearly imply that they were often churches. Thus they read:

“That if any person, upwards of sixteen years, shall be present at any assembly,
conventicle or meeting under colour or pretence of any exercise of religion, in
any other manner than according to the liturgy and practice of the Church of
England ... the offender shall pay five shillings for the first offence.” [Note:
Neal’s History Puritans, vol. 2, p. 266.]

Perkins, the leading Puritan writer of the Elizabethan age, says: “The church of
the Papists, of the ... Anabaptists ... are no churches of God.” [Note: Perkins’
Works, vol. 3, p. 286—quoted by Dr. Winkler; also Burrils’ Law Die., vol. 1, p.
281; Hook’s Ch. Direc., p. 167, referred to by Dr. Winkler.] Thus Perkins says
that the conventicles claimed that they were genuine churches. Says Dr. Winkler:

“Owen says (Works, vol. 13, p. 184.) ‘The Donatists rebaptized those who came to
their societies because they professed themselves to believe that all
administration of ordinances not in their assemblies was null, and that they
were to be looked upon as no such thing. Our Anabaptists do the same thing.’”

Owen having lived from 1616 to 1683, Dr. Winkler adds:

“Should any one object to the late date or the pertinency of Owen’s testimony,
we commend to his consideration the contemporaneous description of the
conventicles of Essex and Kent, which were prosecuted by the orders of the
council in the year 1550. ‘These congregations,’ says Underhill, ‘were supported
by the contributions of their members; (Struggles and Triumphs of Religious
Liberty, p. 113) mutual instruction was practiced and the fellowship of the
gospel regularly maintained.’”

(6.) The name “Anabaptist” inevitably implies Baptist church organization.
Baptist means one who baptizes. The name “Anabaptists” was given to Baptists
because all who joined them from other denominations were received into their
churches by “rebaptism.” The very name Anabaptist, therefore, so clearly and
inevitably implies church organization that only the reluctance to admit the
existence of Baptist churches, long before and up to Smyth’s day, seems
sufficient explanation for the resort to the evasion, that while there was a
continuity of Baptists long before and up to the time of John Smyth, they were
not churches! Baptist persecutors of those bloody times would have been glad had
they been Baptist only in name — that they were not churches. Thus, in 1550,
occurred the visitation in the diocese of Ridley, wherein the officers were to
ascertain “whether any of the Anabaptist sect or others use notoriously any
unlawful and private conventicles wherein they do use doctrine or administration
of sacraments separating them-selves from the rest of the parish.” [Note: Quoted
by Dr. Winkler, in Ala. Bap.]

(7.) Laying all this aside, I have already proved that the Hill Cliffe and other
churches have a history far back of the time of John Smyth; and that two years
before Smyth organized his church he spent nearly all night “in debate with
elders” of the Crowle church, which existed in 1599, how long previous, no one
knows.

Thus, I have inconfutably demonstrated that there were Baptist churches, and
many of them, in England long before and up to Smyth’s time. Hence, Dr. Howard
Osgood, one of the most eminent authorities on Baptist history, says:

“If we would make the first Baptist church to appear under Helwise, in 1614,
then we must deny the historical evidence of the conventicles of Baptists in the
previous century. If we make the church founded in London in 1633 the first
Calvinistic Baptist church in England, we assume that all the Baptists and
Baptist churches of the sixteenth century were Arminian in their views, which
has never been shown, and is contrary to all probability. Baptists were found in
the north and west but principally in the east of England. Under the dreadful
persecution of the Tudors, the churches knew little of each other, unless they
were situated near together. [Note: Here we see why Baptist churches are so hard
to trace in history. Being often concealed and unknown to their contemporaries
and their hooks burned, that we have so much evidence of their existence can but
be a wonderful providence, for which we ought to be thankful. Baptists, being
thus concealed, their very existence was necessarily often unknown to each
other. This is why that, though there were Baptist churches in England at the
beginning of the seventeenth century, they were unknown by those who sent to
Holland to get true baptism.] We hear more of the Calvinistic church formed in
1633, because it was situated in London and performed an important work in the
following years. Joan Bucher, who was a member of the Baptist church in
Eyethorne, Kent, burned by order of Henry VI, held this doctrine.” [Note: In The
Standard of Chicago, 1875.]

If any one set up the claim that persecution had rid England of Baptists before
Smyth’s time, let him turn back and read the previous part of this chapter, in
which he will see that instead of this being true, it was, as with the churches
of the first three centuries, that “Semen est sanguis Christianorem” — the blood
of martyrs is the seed of the church — they lived in spite of persecutions. As
Dr. Osgood remarks: “No persecution was severe enough to extirpate the Baptists
from England, though it caused them to keep their meetings and their views very
quiet. [Note: See note to p.345.] Banishment, whipping, or death at the stake
awaited any public exhibition of their ‘conventicles.’ [Note: See note to
p.345.] Before hand was laid to the reformation of the established churches in
England, Baptists were numerous in the kingdom, and the reigns of Henry VIII,
Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth are blotted with the blood of martyred Baptists.”
[Note: In The Standard, of Chicago, 1875.] Universal Knowledge — Chamber’s
Encyclopedia — says of the Baptists:

“This denomination of Christians refuse to acknowledge any great name as the
founder of their sect. They trace their origin to the primitive church itself,
and refer to the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, as, in their opinion,
affording incontestable evidence that their leading tenents had the sanction of
inspiration. When Christianity became corrupted by the rise of anti-Christ, they
point to the maintainance of their Scripture practice among the Cathari and the
Albigenses and other sects of the middle ages, who, in the midst of surrounding
darkness, continued to hold fast the apostolic testimony. They sprang into
notice in England under Henry the VIII and Elizabeth. They were persecuted under
both reigns.” [Note: Vol. 1, p. 341.]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 27: JOHN SMYTH’S BAPTISM AND THE ORIGIN OF ENGLISH BAPTISTS.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 24. — JOHN SMYTH’S BAPTISM AND THE ORIGIN OF ENGLISH BAPTISTS.

Inasmuch as the alleged self-baptism of John Smyth has been used to the
discredit of Baptists, it is thought best to devote this chapter to its
treatment and to the explanation of its alleged relation to them.

(1.) Instead of that baptism being the origin of English and American Baptists
it was not even done in England. This alleged baptism was done in Amsterdam, in
Holland, in 1608. [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., pp. 453-454.]

(2.) Smyth never had any connection with the Regular or Particular Baptists, of
which denomination are American Baptists.

Though but poorly informed on the differences between the Particular and the
General Baptists of England, Mosheim was sufficiently informed to know they were
different religious bodies. He says:

“The sect in En and which rejects the custom of baptizing infants, are not
distinguished by the title of Anabaptists, but by that of Baptist. It is
probable that they derive their origin from the German and Dutch Mennonites. The
English Baptists differ in many things ... They are divided into two sects.

One of which is distinguished by the denomination of General or Arminian
Baptists, on account of their opposition to the doctrines of absolute and
unconditional decrees; and the other by that of Particular or Calvinistic
Baptists, from the striking resemblance of their system to that of the
Presbyterians, who have Calvin for their chief.” [Note: Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist.,
cent. 16, sec. 3, chap. 3, 21.]

Armitage and other historians recognize the difference between these two bodies.
[Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., pp. 464, 460, comp.]

(3.) Admitting Smyth as the founder of English Baptists, the report that he
baptized himself is so far from being proved true that the contrary is more
probably true. Cramp says:

“There has been much dispute respecting the manner in which they proceeded, some
maintaining that Smyth baptized himself and then baptized others. It is a thing
of small consequence ... The probability is that one of the brethren baptized
Mr. Smyth, and that he then baptized the others.” [Note: Cramps’ Hist. Bap., p.
287.] Armitage notices the rumor:

“Smyth and his congregation met in a large bakery for a time, but he soon saw
his mistake in his hasty see baptism, and offered to join the Dutch congregation
of Baptists ... Part of his congregation under the leadership of Helwys would
not unite with Smyth in this movement, but excluded him from their fellowship
and warned the Dutch church not to receive him.” [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap.,
p. 454.]

Armitage enters upon an extended discussion of “whether Smyth dipped himself,”
“whether he was poured,” etc. [Note: Idem, pp. 457-463.] Refuting some slanders
against Smyth, Armitage says:

“There is not a particle of evidence that he affused himself, and it is a cheap
caricature to imagine that he disrobed himself, walked into a stream, then
lifted handfuls of water, pouring them liberally upon his own head, shoulders
and chest.” [Note: Idem, p. 459.]

“Some time before Smyth’s death he frankly retracted his error in baptizing
himself and them.” [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 463.] In view of all this,
well does Armitage, agreeing with Cramp, say: “Whether he dipped himself is not
clear,” [Note: Idem, p. 457.] These accounts, are so far obscure and
contradictory that, to use them as conclusively proving that Baptist churches
originated in self baptism, comes nearer proving the cause of the one who uses
them hard pressed than it comes to proving a discreditable origin of Baptist
churches.

(4.) The proof is very strong that the charge of self baptism and of a new
baptism among Smyth’s followers is a slander. Crosby, than whom there is no
higher authority on this period of Baptist history, says:

“I do not find any Englishman among the first restorers of immersion in this
latter age accused of baptizing himself but only the said John Smyth; and there
is ground to question the truth of that also. Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Jessop, and
some others, do indeed charge him with it; but they write, as has already been
observed, with so much passion and resentment, that it is not unlikely such men
might take up a report against him on slender evidence, and after one had
published it, the others might take it from him without any inquiry into the
truth of it. The defenses which he wrote of himself are not to be met with; and
in the large quotations that his adversaries take out of them I do not find one
passage wherein he acknowledges himself to have done any such thing, or attempts
to justify any such practice; which, surely, had there been such, would have
hardly escaped his notice. ...”

Says Mr. Smyth:

“A man cannot baptize others into a church, himself being out of the church, or
being no member. Here are two principles laid down by Mr. Smyth which contradict
the account they give of him. That upon the supposition of the true baptism
being lost for some time, through the disuse of it, ‘tis necessary there should
be two persons who must unite in the revival of it, in order to begin the
administration thereof; and that the first administrator be a member of some
church, who should call and empower him to administer it to the members thereof.
Now it is reason-able to conclude, that his practice was conformable to this”
[Note: Crosby’s Hist. Eng. Bap., vol. 1, pp. 97-99.]

Ivimey adopts Crosby’s argument. [Note: Ivimey’s Hist. Eng. Bap., vol. 1, p.
119.] That any reasonable person can see its force, I feel sure.

Dr. Cutting, when professor of history in Rochester University, wrote:

“The biographers of Mr. Smyth, and the Baptist historians, Crosby and Ivimey,
have been entirely skeptical in regard to this alleged self-baptism. It has been
argued that the charge proceeded from enemies only, and that if there had been
any truth in it, some intimation of the propriety of such an act would have been
found somewhere in the writings of Mr. Smyth, or in those of his friends.”
[Note: Cutting’s Hist. Vindications, p. 58.] Noticing the statement, made by Mr.
Robinson, that Smyth baptized himself, Prof. Cutting says:

“Was Mr. Robinson mistaken? He was not an eye witness, he was in Amsterdam for a
brief time only, and then went to Leyden. He ‘heard’ the manner of establishing
the new church narrated. Did he understand correctly what he heard?”

Or, did he misinterpret instituting baptism among themselves, by supposing that
to mean self-baptism? The controversy seems to be narrowed down to this single
question. ...

“On the supposition that Mr. Robinson misinterpreted what he heard, the
circumstances of the case render it easy enough to suppose that the statement
might pass to history uncontradicted.” [Note: Cutting’s Hist. Vindications, p.
58.]

“Mr. Smyth was already dead, and Mr. Helwisse, if still alive, was in England.
It is not certain, however, that Mr. Helwisse was still living.” [Note:
Cutting’s Hist. Vindications, p. 58.]

Thus, the story, of which Baptist enemies make so much, rests mainly on the
testimony which Mr. Robinson received of Mr. Smyth’s enemies, which he may have
misunderstood and which was thus started on foot after Mr. Smyth’s death, after
Mr. Helwisse was probably dead, but if living, had left the country, and which
was never noticed by Mr. Smyth or any of his friends!

(5.) The latest, and seemingly the true statement, is by Dr. John Clifford, one
of the most scholarly and prominent of living English Baptist ministers. Before
me lies a complimentary copy from himself, of his excellent work, entitled: “The
Origin and Growth of the English Baptists.” From pages 15-16 I copy the
following on this point:

“At Crowle, in Lincolnshire, a few miles from Gainsborough, there was, according
to an old Church Book, recently copied, a Baptist society as early as 1550. To
that rural community Smyth went in the year 1604, and ‘debated nearly all night
with Elders Henry Helwisse and John Morton, who defended our cause well.’ Not
yet, however, was he convinced, but after three months’ reflection, his mind had
advanced beyond the position of the Separatists. He had, says the Church Book,
‘consulted the Scriptures and admitted that he was deceived in the way of
Pedobaptistry,’ and ‘so, embraced the faith in a true christian and apostolic
baptism,’ and on the 24th of March, 1606, at midnight, to avoid the satellites
of the persecuting Church, and under the glare of the torchlight, ‘he was
baptized by Elder John Morton, in the River Don, and then walked to Epworth, a
distance of two miles in his wet clothes.’”

Dr. Clifford says:

“The church book from whence this statement is taken about John Symth’s baptism,
belonged to the church at Epworth and Crowle, in Lincoln-shire. The Rev. Jabez
Stuttered, minister at Epworth and Crowle, heard his deacons speak of the
existence of this work; and being interested, found that it was in the
possession of Rev. Smith Watson, a minister at Butterwick, hard by. He obtained
a sight of it, and discovered that it consisted of a few moth eaten leaves,
which had been given to Mr. Smith Watson by an old Baptist family of the
district, who met with it in an old chest many years before. Mr. Stuttered
thought the pages might be of value, and the opinion of an expert a skilled
antiquarian, of the district, was sought and he reported as follows:

‘November 9th, 1866.

‘As keeper of the Manor Charts of North Lincoln-shire, I have examined the old
Baptist Records, and believe them to refer to the last days of Queen Elizabeth
and James the First. And recommend the friends connected with the Baptist cause,
to quickly copy them or they will surely vanish away.’

‘F. CHAPMAN, Antiquarian.’” The book was guarded with jealous care, but at the
request of the deacons, and with their aid, Mr. Stuttered made a number of
extracts, and after some time forwarded them to me. I was surprised at their
contents, and especially at the statement concerning John Smyth’s baptism, and
asked to see the original; meanwhile Smith Watson had deceased, and the book
could not be found. Search has been made again and again, but, at present in
vain. The following document bears date December the 16th, 1879:

“We, the undersigned deacons of the Baptist church at Butterwick, Epworth,
Crowle, having seen and handled the Old Records of seven or eight loaves, long
before Rev. J. Stuttered came into the country, and at our request and desire,
and with our assistance he copied the same moth-eaten records, We, as a church,
tendered him our sincere thanks and requested him to send them to the editor of
the General Baptist Magazine for insertion. When copied they were taken back to
Butterwick, and consigned to the care of the late Rev. Smith Watson, and now we
cannot, at present, place our hands on the document, or it would have been sent
for Mr. Clifford’s inspection.

ANDERSON HIND, PETER GLOSSOP, JOHN CHAPMAN, BENJAMIN BATTY, GEORGE SINCLAIR,
THOMAS SMITH, WM. CHAMBERLAIN. [Note: The Origin and Growth of the Eng. Bap., by
Dr. John Clifford, pp. 10-12.]

(6.) Were we to admit this slander on John Smyth, and that the error was not
corrected it effects but few of the Baptists:

(a.) Because there were Baptists in England before the time of Smyth.

(b.) Because, at the time of his baptism, there were Baptist churches near him.

Armitage says that the “Dutch Baptists of London rallied around Helwys and John
Murton, his successor” — Smyth’s successors. [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p.
454.] By the way, who can believe the Dutch Baptists would have given this help
to Smyth’s church had it originated as Baptist enemies allege? Of the origin of
what is generally regarded the Particular Baptists of England, Neal’s History of
the Puritans says: “When, after long search, and many debates, it appeared to
them that infant baptism was a mere innovation, and even a profanation of a
divine ordinance, they were not brought to lay it aside without many fears and
tremblings ... They were persuaded that believers were the only proper subjects
of baptism, and that immersion or dipping the whole body into water was the
appointed rite. But as this was not practiced in England” — a great mistake of
Mr. Neal, originating with the little then known of Baptists — “they were at a
loss for an administrator to begin with. After often meeting together to pray
and confer about this matter, they agreed to send over into Holland Mr. Richard
Blount, who understood the Dutch language, to a Baptist church there; he was
kindly received by the society and their pastor and upon his return he baptized
Mr. Samuel Blacklock, a minister; these two baptized the rest of the company, to
the number of fifty-three. Some few others of this persuasion were among the
original planters of New England.” [Note: Neal’s Hist. Pur., vol. 2, p. 361.]

Thus an eminent Pedobaptist historian established the “succession” of English
Baptists through the Baptists of Holland who were the original Waldenses and
their descendants. Vedder, notwithstanding all his prejudice, admits this
account as true, and pronounces the baptism of the English Baptist as henceforth
correct. [Note: Short Hist. Bap., p. 117; also, Cutting’s Hist. Vind., p. 36.]

W. W. Everts, Jr., a very high authority on church history, severely criticises
Dr. Dexter for giving so little attention to this, which was in order to
discredit the Baptists through John Smyth, and says, of one of his false
statements: “I cannot account for such a statement except by supposing an animus
in the writer that delights to make early Baptists out a disorderly set.” [Note:
In The Standard, Chicago.] Inasmuch as they would not have sent to Holland
unless they believed the Holland Baptists were in the Continuity Line we have,
here, incidental evidence of the Holland Baptists then being well and widely
known as historical successors of the apostolic church.

Crosby thus narrates it:

“This agrees with an account given in the matter in an ancient manuscript, said
to be written by William Kiffin, who lived in those times.”

Crosby, after giving the account, just quoted from Neal, concludes:

“So that those who followed this scheme did not derive their baptism from the
afore-said Mr. Smyth, or his congregation at Amsterdam, it being an ancient
congregation of foreign Baptists in the Low Countries to whom they sent.” [Note:
Crosby’s Hist. Eng. Bap., vol. 1, pp 101-103.]

Some have misunderstood the above accounts to be of Smyth’s alleged rebaptism
and church. But Orchard is correct in saying:

“The Particular Baptist church in London, at its formation’, A.D. 1633, deputed
Mr. Blount to visit a church in Holland, and receive from a Waldensian Baptist,
scriptural immersion. The Baptists are the only Christians that can prove a
scriptural immersion and order descended to them from the days of John the
Baptist.” [Note: Orchard’s Hist. Bap., vol. 1, p. 261.]

Armitage says the “church referred to in the above account was that of which
Messrs. Jacob and Lathrop had been pastors.”

“A number of this society came to reject infant baptism, and were permitted to
form a distinct church, Sept. 12th, 1633, with Spilsbury for their pastor ... In
1638, William Kiffin, Thomas Wilson and others, left Lathrop’s independent
church, then under charge of Mr. Jessey, and united with Spilsbury’s church.”
[Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap.]

Orchard says:

“Mr. Spilsbury’s name not being mentioned by Kiffin, suggested to previous
writers, that his account was of another church, erected about the same time,
yet as Mr. Kiffin joined a church at Wapping, it is natural to conclude he gave
a statement of the rise of his own community. Mr. Spilsbury might have been
selected as a teacher only during their infancy; and Blacklock, or some other
minister, might have succeeded him. Edwards, saying this was one of the first,
admits of more existing at the same time.” [Note: Orchard’s Hist. Bap., vol. 2,
p. 262.] That the reader may not be confused by Spilsbury’s church being
mentioned in London and Kiffin belonging to it in Wapping, I will here inform
him that Wapping, at that time was a pleasant suburb of London.” The Wapping and
London church is identical. [Note: Goadby’s Bye Paths to Bap. Hist., p. 35.]

Orchard’s suggestion, that Spilsbury was pastor during only the infancy of the
church, is unnecessary since Blacklock having been baptized by Blount and then
baptizing the others do not necessarily imply Spilsbury was not pastor at that
time. As now, owing to sickness or other causes, pastors have others baptize for
them, so Blacklock may have baptized for Spilsbury, after baptizing him. But
however this may be — of which the scantiness of the records leaves doubt — it
in no way effects the scriptural perpetuity of baptism.

Finally, concluding the John Smyth affair, and the Spilsbury church, do not
forget that this is the account of only two churches and their successors, while
I have proved there were at that time many other Baptist churches in England. As
Armitage says of the Spilsbury church:

“The fact that a part of this congregation did not know that the immersion of
believers had been practiced in England cannot he accepted as decisive proofs
that the Baptists were strangers to that practice, still less that it had never
been known in England before 1641.” [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 440.]

Benedict says:

“The account of Mr. Spilsbury is said, in the margin, to have been written from
the records of that church; but from anything that appears there is nothing to
justify the conclusion of Mr. Crosby that this was the first Baptist church, as
the account relates simply to the origin of that particular church — to state
which, it is probable, was Mr. Kiflin’s design, rather than to relate the origin
of Baptist churches in general and which he must certainly have known were in
existence previous to that period.” [Note: Benedict’s Hist. Bap., p. 337.]
Benedict after saying:

“It must be admitted that some obscurity hangs over the history of the oldest
Baptist communities in this kingdom,” in a note, says: “From all the fragments
of history, I am inclined to believe that Baptist churches, under various
circumstances, have existed in England from the time of William the Conqueror,
four or five centuries prior to those of which any definite accounts have come
down to us ... Here churches in persecuting times are mere household affairs
which must of necessity be hid from public view. More than three centuries had
elapsed before the Baptists in England had any knowledge that a church of their
order existed in Chesterton in 1457. Mr. Robinson brought the facts to light by
examining the manuscript records of the old bishop of Ely.” [Note: Benedict’s
Hist. Bap., p. 337.] Goadby, of the English Baptists of the seventeenth century
says:

“All these are scions of that stock of Anabaptism transplanted out of Holland in
the year 1535, when two ships laden with Anabaptists fled into England.” [Note:
Goadby’s Bye Paths to Bap. Hist., p. 106.]

Armitage says:

“All these are scions of what was transplanted out of Holland in the year 1535,
when two ships laden with Anabaptists fled into England ... here it seems they
have remained ever since.” [Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., pp. 445-446.] This is
an adopted quotation from a “History of Anabaptists of High and Low Germany,”
written in 1642, “now among the Kings’ Pamphlets.” Barclay also reports that in
1536 ‘Anabaptist societies in England sent a delegation to a great gathering of
their brethren in Westphalia. It appears, therefore, that the origin of English
Baptists, as a distinct sect, is to be found among the English Baptist refugees
who were driven from the Netherlands” [Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., pp.
445-446.]

Here see my previous chapter on English Baptists before and at the time of John
Smyth, which proves Baptists in England long before and up to 1535.

Crosby says of Smyth:

“If he were guilty of what they charge him with, it is no blemish on the English
Baptists, who neither approved of any such method, nor did they receive their
baptism from him,” [Note: Crosby’s Hist. Eng. Bap., vol. 1, p. 99.]

Dr. Smith, editor of The Standard at Chicago, formerly Lecturer on Church
History to the Chicago Baptist Theological Seminary, says:

“As we have said on former occasions, John Smyth is not counted on as one of the
founders of the Baptist denomination.” [Note: In The Standard, Chicago.]

Well did “Hercules Collins, a Baptist minister of Wapping,” England, in a work
published in 1691, say of the English Baptists having received their baptism
from John Smyth:

“It is absolutely untrue, it being well known to some who are yet alive how
false this assertion is; and if J.W. will but give a meeting to any of us, and
bring whom he pleases with him, we shall sufficiently show the falsity of what
is asserted by him in this matter, and in many other things which he hath
unchristianly asserted.” [Note: Ivimey’s Hist. Eng. Bap., vol. l, p. 140.]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 28: THROUGH WELSH BAPTISTS, BAPTISTS HAVE A CONTINUITY FROM APOSTOLIC TIMES TO THE P...
========================================================================

CHAPTER 25. — THROUGH WELSH BAPTISTS, BAPTISTS HAVE A CONTINUITY FROM APOSTOLIC
TIMES TO THE PRESENT.

Armitage quotes from Thomas’ History of the Welsh Baptists:

“The first Baptist church in Wales, AFTERthe Reformation, was found at Ilston,
near Swansea, in Glamorganshire, in 1649 ... It was under the commonwealth that
Vavasor Powell, Jenkin Jones and Hugh Evans formed the first Open Communion
Baptist churches in Wales, and that John Miles formed the first Strict Communion
churches there. The first Welsh Baptist association was organized in 1651.”
[Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., pp. 599-600.]

These words, so carelessly chosen, have given an excuse for Baptist opponents to
claim that this was the origin of Welsh Baptists. But, in connection with this
statement, Armitage says:

“Davis, Bishop of Monmouth, finds a wide difference between the christianity of
the ancient Britons and that of Austin in 596. The first followed the word of
God, the other was mixed with human tradition. Dr. Fulk denied that Austin was
the apostle of England, and charged him with corrupting the true christianity
which he found in Britain, by Romish admixture. Fabin, himself a Catholic, shows
that he imposed sundry things upon the Britons, which were refused as contrary
to the doctrine which they had at first received. Bede says that the Culdees
followed the Bible only and opposed the superstitions of Rome. Culdee, from
Culdu, is a compound Welsh word, cul, thin, du, black; and means a thin, dark
man, as their mountaineers, who were noted for their godliness. The monks got
possession of the Culdee colleges by degrees, and continued to preach without
forming churches. Some claiming that the Welsh Baptists sprang from the sturdy
stock; for individuals are found in Glamorgan, the Black Mountains, Hereford and
Brecon counties, who walked apart from Rome before the Reformation. Stephens,
the late antiquarian of Merthyr, thought that the bards of Chavi of Glamorgan
kept up a secret concourse with the Albigenses. This is probable, as some of
them were conversant with the Italian poets.

“‘Holy Rhys,’ famous in 1390, was learned, and his wife was of the new faith,’
(Lollard), for his son, Ieuan, was expelled from the Margam Monastary for
holding their opinions, or ‘on account of his religion.’ His grandson also was
imprisoned by Sir Cradoe for being of the ‘new faith’ ... The Lollards swarmed
in Wales, where Old Castle hid for four years after escaping from the Tower. He
was a native of the Welsh Cottian Alps, the Black Mountains, having been born at
Old Castle about 1360.

“It is a disputed point as to where and when Baptists first appeared in Wales.
There are presumptive evidences that individuals held their views from the
opening of the seventeenth century, and some have thought that the first Baptist
church was formed at Olchon, 1633. Joshua Thomas, of Leominster, perhaps the
most reliable authority on the subject, doubts this. He leans to the belief that
there were Baptists then at that date,” — and here comes in the quotation made
in the beginning of this chapter.” [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 598.] The
reader will see that instead of Armitage dating the origin of Welsh Baptists in
the seventeenth century, he says the “first after the Reformation” meaning the
first of which we have a clear account of its origin, while he gives strong
evidence of Welsh Baptists existing many centuries previous to the seventeenth
century, leaving it a “disputed point as to when and where Baptists first
appeared in Wales.” Considering that Dr. Armitage is so ready to slur
“Succession,” this is no insignificant concession in favor of Church Perpetuity.

Considering that the Romish church has always opposed rendering the Scriptures
into the language of the people and that she has done so only when forced by
increasing light to do so; and, further, that such versions are exclusively the
trophy of Baptists, the following, from Dr. Armitage, is presumptive evidence
for Welsh Baptists having continued in Wales throughout the dark ages:

“Portions of the Scriptures were translated into manuscript before the
Reformation, but some of them were lost. Taliesin, a bard of note, in the sixth
century, gave paraphrase in verse of a few passages, and it is said that there
was a manuscript translation of the gospels in the thirteenth century in the
library of St. Asaph’s cathedral. In the thirteenth century it was already
looked upon as old, and the Archbishop of Canterbury allowed the priests to
exhibit it as a sacred thing ... Dafydd Ddu, another bard, wrote a poetical
paraphrase in the fourteenth century on a part of the Psalms, the song of
Zecharias, the angels’ greeting to Mary, and the song of Simeon, found in Luke’s
Gospel. Some other fragments of Scripture were given by others.” [Note:
Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 598.] The statement that there was no Bible in Wales
at the time of the Reformation, except in cathedrals, in view of the foregoing
and of the undoubted existence of evangelical Christians there and of their
history being known only by occasional glimpses, should be taken with much
allowance.

Including Wales, Bede says the Britains were converted to Christianity in the
second century and that they “preserved the faith, which they had received
uncorrupted and entire, in peace and tranquility, until the time of Diocletian,
A.D. 286.” [Note: Bede’s Eccl. Hist., Book l. Chap. 4.] In the year 603,
Augustine, called also Austin, was sent to convert the Welsh Baptists to the
Romish church. Bede records that they met him, charging him with pride,
contradicted all he said, and that he proposed to them:

“You act in many particulars contrary to our custom, or rather the custom of the
universal church, and yet, if you will comply with me in these three points,
viz.: to keep Easter at the due time; to administer baptism, by which we are
again born to God, according to the custom of the Roman Apostolic Church; and
jointly with us preach the Word of God to the English nation, we will readily
tolerate all the other things you do, though contrary to our custom.” [Note:
Idem, book 2, chap. 2.]

Bede says: To this “they answered, they would do none of these things, nor
receive him as their archbishop; for they alleged among themselves that ‘if he
would not rise up to us, how much more will he condemn us, as of no worth, if we
shall begin to be under his subjection?’ To whom the man of God, Augustine, is
said in a threatening manner, to have foretold, that in case they would not join
in unity with their brethern, they should be warred upon by their enemies; and
if they would not preach the way of life to the English nation, they should at
their hands, undergo the vengeance of death. All which, through the dispensation
of divine judgment, fell out exactly as he had predicted.” [Note: Bede’s Eccl.
Hist., book l, chap. 4.] But Bede states that fifty of their ministers “escaped
by flight” from the slaughter of “twelve hundred” of their ministerial brethren.
[Note: Bede’s Eccl. Hist., book l, chap. 4.] These were amply sufficient to
propagate the true gospel; thus, preserving the perpetuity line to the
Reformation.

Fabian, who died in the year 1512, states that Augustine’s proposition to those
Welsh Baptists was: “That ye give Christendom to children.” Thus read the
editions of 1516, 1533, 1542. The last edition, which is not so correct an
edition, made in 1811, reads: “That ye administer baptism ... as to the manner
of the church of Rome,” as evidently meaning, as Danvers, Davye, Ivimey and
“several Cambro Americans maintain” the same as to baptize infants. [Note:
Evan’s Hist. Early Eng. Bap., vol. 1, pp. 5-6.] Of Augustine’s time, Goadby
says:

“A large and flourishing body of British Christians were now living in Wales,
whither they had sought refuge from the cruelties of the Saxons. Undisturbed in
their liberties and their worship in the fastnesses of Wales, they had waxed
stronger and stronger. At Caerleon, in the south, and at Bangor Is-y-Coed, in
the north, large and flourishing monasteries, or, more properly speaking,
missionary stations, were established. Bangor alone could number, in association
with it, over two thousand ‘brethren.’ These societies had little in common with
Romanish monasteries. The greater part of the ‘brethren’ were married laymen,
who followed their worldly callings, and those among the m who showed aptitude
for study and missionary work were permitted to give themselves to the reading
of the Scriptures and holy services. All were maintained out of a common fund,
and yet a large surplus was distributed in the shape of food and clothing.”
[Note: Goadby’s Bye Paths to Bap. Hist., pp. 3-4.] Here Goadby follows with an
account, substantially that of Bede and Evans, quoted in the foregoing.

Crosby says:

“It was in the year 469 that the Saxons invaded England. They made a complete
conquest, overthrew Christianity and set up the heathen idolatry. But those
Christians which escaped fled into Cornwall and Wales, where they secured
themselves and maintained the true Christian faith and worship, Jeffrey, of
Monmouth, in his book, De Brittanorum Gestis, Lib. IV, cap. 4, as cited by Mr.
Danvers, tells us that in the country of the Britains Christianity flourished,
which never decayed, even from the Apostles’ time. Amongst whom, he says, was
the preaching of the gospel, sincere doctrine and living faith, and such form of
worship as was delivered to the churches by the Apostles themselves; and that
they, even to death itself, withstood the Romish rites and ceremonies.” [Note:
Crosby’s Hist. Eng. Bap., vol. 2, pp. 14-15 of preface.]

Crosby strengthens this statement with the testimony of other authorities, too
numerous and lengthy to here cite. Crosby, here, also repeats the fore-going
account of Austin’s attempt to convert the Welsh Baptists, of his bringing on
them persecution, because they continued in the faith and of fifty of their
ministers escaping from the massacre to continue the pure gospel.

Benedict says:

“The Welsh Baptists have the fullest confidence that their sentiments always
have lived in the mountainous retreats, from the apostolic age to the present
time, although the people were not always congregated in churches. Their
country, in their estimation, was another Piedmont, where the witnesses for the
truth found shelter and concealment in times of universal darkness and
superstition ... My impressions are very strong in favor of a high antiquity of
the Baptist order in Wales. With the first dawn of returning light, long before
the ecclesiastical changes on the continent, or England, we see the Welsh
Baptists among the first reformers; and they did not appear to be novices in the
business, but entered into the defence of their sentiments, and the carrying out
of the usual operations of the denomination, as to churches and associations,
like those who had been familiar with their principles.” [Note: Benedict’s Hist.
Bap., pp. 344-345.] In this connection Benedict mentions the churches which are
so mentioned by Armitage as to be used by Baptist opponents to prove they were
the first Baptist churches in Wales, he having mentioned them as “the oldest in
Wales of whose origin any DISTINCT information has come down to us.” [Note:
Idem. p. 345.] Speaking of Wales as a refuge of ancient Welsh Baptists, Armitage
says:

“The vale of Olchon is difficult of access, and there the first Welsh dissidents
found the most ready converts, who sheltered themselves in the rocks and dens.
The Darren Ddu, or Black Rock, is a terribly steep and rough place, in which the
Baptists took refuge, rich and poor, young and old, huddled together.” [Note:
Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 600.]

Davis’ History of Welsh Baptists is an abridged translation of Thomas’ History
of Welsh Baptists, of which Mr. Davis says: “We have collected all we deem
necessary from every other author on the subject” and added it to it; and
Armitage says: “Thomas is, perhaps, the most reliable authority on the subject.”
[Note: Armitage’s Bap. Hist., p. 599.]

Davis says:

“About fifty years before the birth of our Savior the Romans invaded the British
Isle, in the reign of the Welsh king, Cassibellan; but having failed, in
consequence of other and more important wars, to conquer the Welsh nation, made
peace and dwelt among them. many years. During that period many of the Welsh
soldiers joined the Roman army and many families from Wales visited Rome, among
whom there was a certain woman named Claudia, who was married to a man named
Pudence. At the same time Paul was sent a prisoner to Rome and preached there in
his own hired house for the space of two years, about the year of our Lord 63.
Pudence and Claudia, his wife, who belonged to Caesar’s household, under the
blessing of God on Paul’s preaching, were brought to the knowledge of the truth
as it is in Jesus, and made a profession of the christian religion. Acts 28:30;
2 Timothy 4:21. These, together with other Welshmen, among the Roman soldiers,
who had tasted that the Lord was gracious, exhorted them in behalf of their
countrymen in Wales, who were at that time vile idolators ... The Welsh lady
Claudia, and others, who were converted under Paul’s ministry in Rome, carried
the precious seed with them, and scattered it on the hills and valleys of Wales;
and since that time, many thousands have reaped a glorious harvest.

... We have nothing of importance to communicate respecting the Welsh Baptists
from this period to the year 180 when two ministers by the name of Faganus, and
Damicanus, who were born in Wales, but were born again in Rome, and became
eminent ministers of the gospel, were sent from Rome to assist their brethren in
Wales. In the same year, Lucius, the Welsh king, and the first king in the world
who embraced the christian religion, was baptized.

About the year 300, the Welsh Baptists suffered most terrible and bloody
persecution, which was the tenth persecution under the reign of Dioclesian ...
Here, as well as in many other places, the blood of martyrs proved to be the
seed of the church.” [Note: Davis’ Hist. Welsh Bap., pp. 6-9.] Of A.D. 600,
Davis says:

“Infant baptism was in vogue long before this time in many parts of the world,
But not in Brittain. The ordinances of the gospel were then exclusively
administered there according to the primitive mode. Baptism by immersion,
administered to those who professed repentance [Note: They were not
Campbellites; but they followed the New Testament in putting repentance before
faith.] toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Welsh people
considered the only baptism of the New Testament. That was their unanimous
sentiment as a nation, from the time that the christian religion was embraced by
them in the year 63, until a considerable time after the year 600. They had no
national religion; they had not connected church and State together; for they
believed that the kingdom of Christ is not in this world.” [Note: Idem, p. 14.]
Here Davis gives the account quoted in the foregoing, of Augustine’s attempt to
convert them to infant baptism and to the Romish church and of the persecution
ensuing from his failure to do so. From this persecution Davis says: “The
majority of the Welsh people submitted to popery; at that time more out of fear
than love. Those good people that did not submit, were almost buried in its
smoke; so that one knew but little of them from that time to the Reformation.”

“Since the above was written we find that Theopholis Evans, in his Drych y prif
oesoedd, or Looking Glass of the Ancient Ages, could see the remnant of the
Welsh Baptists through the darkness of popery, to the year 1,000. And Peter
Williams, a Methodist preacher, who wrote an exposition of the Old and New
Testaments in Welsh, has followed them through thick clouds till they were
buried out of sight in the thick smoke, in the year of our Lord, 1115. However,
it is a fact that cannot be controverted, that from this lime to the Reformation
there were many individuals in Wales whose knees had never bowed to Baal of
Rome.” [Note: Davis’ Hist. Welsh Bap., p. 15.]

“The vale of Carleon is situated between England and the mountains of Wales,
just at the foot of the mountains. It is our valley of Piedmont, the mountains
of Merthyn Tydfyl, our Alps; and the crevices of the rocks, the hiding places of
the lambs of the sheep of Christ, where the ordinances of the gospel to this day
have been administered in the Primitive mode, without being adulterated by the
corrupt church of Rome. It would be no wonder that Penry, Wroth and Erbury,
commonly called the first reformers of the Baptist denomination in Wales, should
have so many followers at once, when we consider the field of their labors was
the vale of Carleon and its vicinity. Had they, like many of their countrymen,
never bowed the knee to the great Baal of Rome, nor any of the horns of the
beast in Britain, it is probable that we should not have heard of their names;
but as they were great and learned men, belonging to that religion, (or rather
irreligion) established by law, and particularly as they left that establishment
and joined the poor Baptists, their names are handed down to posterity, not only
by their friends, but also by their foes, because more notice was taken of them
than those scattered Baptists in the mountains of the Principality. As this
denomination has always existed in this country from the year 63, and had been
so often and severely persecuted, it was by this time an old thing ... The vale
of Olchon, also, is situated between mountains almost inaccessible. How many
hundred years it had been inhabited by Baptista before William Erbury ever
visited this place, we cannot tell ... It is a fact that cannot be controverted
that there were Baptists here at the COMMENCEMENTof the Reformation; and no man
on earth can tell where the church was formed, and who began to baptize in this
little Piedmont. Whence came these Baptists? It is universally believed that it
is the oldest church, but how old none can tell. We know that at the Reformation
they had a minister named Howell Vaughn, quite a different sort of a Baptist
from Erbury, Wroth, Vavasor Powell and others, who were the great reformers, but
had not reformed so far as they should have done, in the opinion of the Olchon
Baptists. And that was not to be wondered at; for they had dissented from the
church of England, and probably brought some of her corruptions with them, but
the mountain Baptists were not dissenters from that establishment. We know that
the reformers were for mixed communion, but the Olchon Baptists received no such
practices. In short, these were plain, strict apostolical Baptists. They would
have order and no confusion — the word of God their only rule. The reformers, or
reformed Baptists, who had been brought up in the established church, were for
laying on of hands on the baptized, but these Baptists whom they found on the
mountains of Wales were no advocates of it ... The Olchon Baptists ... must have
been a separate people, maintaining the order of the New Testament in every
generation from the year 63 to the present time.” [Note: Davis’ Hist. Welsh
Bap., pp. 19-20.]

“But a Baptist has not the least trouble about what is called a lineal or
apostolical succession. His line of succession is in faithful men, and it is a
matter of indifference with them, when or where they lived, by what name they
were called, or by whom they were baptized or ordained.” [Note: Idem, p. 171.]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 29: AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES ORIGINATED INDEPENDENTLY OF ROGER WILLIAMS. ROGER WILL...
========================================================================

CHAPTER 26. — AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES ORIGINATED INDEPENDENTLY OF ROGER
WILLIAMS. ROGER WILLIAMS A BAPTIST ONLY IN PART, AND NEVER A MEMBER OF ANY
BAPTIST CHURCH. TWO BAPTIST CHURCHES ORGANIZED IN AMERICA BEFORE WILLIAMS’
SO-CALLED BAPTIST CHURCH WAS IN EXISTENCE. The claim that Roger Williams
originated the first Baptist church in America has no historical foundation.
Isaac Backus, whom Neander highly regarded as a historian, of the records of the
first church of Providence, which are the foundation of this claim, says:

“The diversity of sentiments mentioned in this volume ... brought such darkness
over their affairs that no regular records before 1770 are now found therein.”
[Note: Backus’ Hist. Bap., vol. 2, p. 285.] This leaves the first church of
Providence, during the first one hundred and twenty years of its claimed
existence, with no “regular records,” “No records of their society or church
remain. Mr. Benedict gave twelve names, and his error has been widely copied
without questioning” [Note: Bap. Quart., vol. 10, p. 199.]

“The church at Providence never has had any creed or any covenant; till the year
1700 it had no meeting house, but in fine weather worshipped in a grove and,
when inclement, in private houses; nor till the year 1775 had it any regular
records.” [Note: Adlams’ “First Bap. Ch. in Am.,” p. 24.] No wonder at Benedict
saying: “The more I study on this subject, the more I am unsettled and
confused.” [Note: Benedict’s Hist. Bap., p. 443.] Of the uncertainty as to the
early state of things in Providence, Backus says:

“It was difficult for one to give an exact account of their religious affairs in
that colony that did not live among them. It is certain that “Mr. Hubbard” and
the Governor were both mistaken in calling those of Providence ‘all
Anabaptists.’” [Note: Backus’ Hist. Bap., vol. 1, p. 87.]

“In view of so grave a mistake as to who were Baptists at the time when it is
claimed Roger Williams founded the first Baptist church in America, pray tell us
how we can be certain Williams ever organized any Baptist church, and, if so,
how we can know when? Consequently, those who say Roger Williams organized the
first Baptist church in America concede they know nothing as to the truth or
falsity of their statement.”

Says Cramp:

“A church was immediately formed, of which Mr. Williams became pastor. But he
soon vacated the office; some think after the lapse of only a few months, while
others are of the opinion that he resigned when he embarked for England to
procure a charter for the colony, and that it was on that occasion that Mr. Chad
Brown was chosen his successor.” [Note: Cramp’s Hist. Bap., p. 461.]

Says Vedder:

“Whether the first church of Providence is the lineal successor of this church
founded by Roger Williams is a difficult historical question, about which a
positive opinion should be expressed without diffidence. Tradition maintains
that the line of succession has been unbroken, but the records to prove this are
lacking.” [Note: Vedder’s Short Hist. Bap., p. 55.]

Armitage says: “It is difficult to know how far the so-called [Note: Armitage’s
Bap. Hist., p. 663.] ‘records’ of the Providence church may be relied upon.”
Armitage concedes that from the timewhen Williams lost faith in the legality of
his so-called church,

“The early history of the church becomes a perplexing confusion; if any minutes
were kept they cannot be found. In fact, during the so-called King Philip’s war,
in 1676, most if not all the houses in Providence were destroyed by the Indians,
and the records, if there were any, of course, perished in the flames. About a
century ago Rev. John Stanford preached for a year to the first Baptist church
in Providence, and made an honest attempt to collect the most reliable
information that he could command and formulated a Book of Records ... It was
impossible for him to construct a reliable history without authentic material.
All that he had was tradition, and a few fragments, and he thus complains of his
scanty supply: ‘No attention to this necessary article has been paid;’ and he
farther says that he attempted this collection ‘under almost every discouraging
circumstance.’ After doing the best he could, his supposed facts are so
fragmentary as to leave gaps unfilled, with their value so impaired that few
careful writers feel at liberty to follow them entirely. They contain so many
contradictions which the Doctor was unable to explain, and which perplex all
calm investigators; for example, they state that Williams was pastor of the
church four years instead of four months; that it is not known when Thomas Olney
was baptized or ordained, and that he came to Providence in 1654; whereas, in
another place they state that he was in the canoe with Williams when the Indians
saluted him with ‘what cheer.’ ... Prof. Knowles complains of these errors; also
Dr. Caldwell, a most candid and careful writer, says in his history of this
church, that this record ‘contains many errors, which have been repeated by
later writers, and sometimes as if they had the authority of the original
records.’ Of the above contradictions he re-marks: ‘Mr. Stanford, in the
records, confounding Mr. Olney with his son, makes the following statement,
which is an almost unaccountable mixture of errors.’ Where such serious defects
abound in records it is clear that little firm reliance can be placed upon their
testimony, and this without reflection on the compiler, who stated only what he
found and attempted no manufacture of facts to complete his story. We are
obliged to consult sidelights and outside testimony, therefore, and take it for
what it is worth, according to the means of information enjoyed by
contemporaneous and immediately succeeding witnesses. These are not numerous in
this case, nor are they very satisfactory, because their testimony does not
always agree, nor had they equal means of knowing whereof they spoke. Hence,
several different theories have been put forth on the subject.” [Note:
Armitage’s Bap. Hist., p. 664.] In view of the foregoing, I will conclude the
point, as to the records, in the language of the Journal and Messenger, of
Cincinnati:

“It will be seen from such accounts that it is very difficult to establish
anything of this history, beyond a peradventure and that it is taking a good
deal for granted to admit the claims of a church which kept no records for over
one hundred years. In order that the First Baptist church of Providence may be
regarded as the first in America, we have to proceed upon the Catholic system of
fixing dates, etc., and argue that there must have been a first church, and
since we cannot certainly fix upon any other as that one, then this was the
best, and the indisputable claim. But we are not quite ready to adopt this
method of settling historical claims.” The claim of the Williams church to have
been the first Baptist church in America, is a late claim. Says Prof. J.C. C.
Clarke, of Shurtleff College, in a most masterly review of the subject, after a
thorough examination of the original records of these times:

“A Mr. Lechford, having visited Providence about 1640, wrote: ‘At Providence
lives Master Williams and his company of divers opinions; most are Anabaptists.
They hold there is no true, visible church in the Bay, nor in the world, nor any
true ministry.’ A hundred years later, the oldest residents of Providence were
ignorant of any tradition that Roger Williams was the founder or a member of the
Baptist church there.” [Note: Bap. Quart. Rev., vol. 10, p. 200.]

Thus we see that even the tradition upon which the claim of the Providence
church rests is perfectly worthless, in that it originated over a century after
the time in which it is claimed Williams originated that church, and that the
claim of that church originated a century later than the disputed dates of
origin for the Providence and Newport churches. Mr. Adlam, one of the highest
authorities on this subject, says:

“The general opinion of Roger Williams being the founder and pastor of the first
Baptist church, is a modern theory; the farther you go back, the less generally
it is believed; till coming to the most ancient times, to the men who knew
Williams, they are such entire strangers to it, that they never heard that he
formed the Baptist church there. The first, and the second and the third, and
almost the fourth generation must pass away before men can believe that any
others than Wickenden, Brown, etc., were the founders of that church.” [Note:
Adlams’ “First Bap. Ch. in Am.,” p. 14.]

Facts as to Roger Williams and his so-called church. First. Williams, while a
Baptist in some points, was not a Baptist in so many others, that he never was a
Baptist in an ecclesiastical sense. Instead of any orderly Baptist church
recognizing any one as a Baptist, who had let an unbaptized man who was a member
of no church, baptize him, and then, he in turn, had baptized his baptizer, and,
thus originated a church, it would unhesitatingly refuse him any church
fellowship, and disown his acts. Yet this is the history of Roger Williams’
baptism and socalled church. If possible, Williams’ course is still more
inexcusable in view of the fact that Baptist administrators could more easily
have been procured from England than the charter he assisted John Clarke to get
from there. Why did he not, if he was a Baptist, do like Spilsbury’s church of
London, or Oncken, of Germany — send off and get the true baptism? Yea, worse
and worse, why did he not get John Clarke or Hansard Knollys to baptize him, as
they were on the ground? Cramp says:

“Hansard Knollys was then preaching at Dover ... and was one of the ‘godly
Anabaptists’ mentioned by Cotton Mather.” [Note: Cramp’s Bap. Hist., p. 461.]

Knollys was a graduate of the University of Cambridge. As a Baptist minister of
London, after returning there, often preaching to an audience. of one thousand
hearers. Of Knollys’ coming to America, Backus says:

“Persecuted in England he fled to America. Forbidden at once to remain in
Massachusetts he went to Piscataqua, soon afterwards called Dover. Here he met
with immediate opposition, but according to Winthrop (vol. 1, p. 326) ‘he
gathered some of the best minded into a church body and became their pastor.’”
[Note: Backus’ Hist. Bap., vol. 1, p. 82.]

Rev. C.E. Barrows says: “We are informed that there were Baptists among the
first settlers of Massachusetts Bay,” [Note: Semi-Centennial Discourse of R. I.,
in 1875.] This statement is made on the authority of Cotton Mather. As we have
seen, in the case of Williams, Clarke and Knollys, Baptists, to escape
persecution for their opposition to infant baptism, fled to Rhode Island, where
they had liberty. Settling in Newport, Clarke would find Baptist material which
his faithfulness as a preacher must have immediately organized into a Baptist
church.” [Note: Semi-Centenni a Discourse of E. I, In 1875, p. 36.] “Mr. Hansard
Knollys was minister there from the spring of 1638 to the fall of 1641.” [Note:
Backus’ Hist. Bap., vol. 1, p. 83: Crosby’s Hist. Bap., vol. 1, p. 120; Cramp’s,
p. 436.] The church was traduced from without and was rent with dissension
within, and its pastor returned to England.” [Note: Ibidem.] Cramp, after
confirming the above, adds:

“It is observable that Mr. Knollys’ arrival was in the spring of 1638. Roger
Williams’ baptism did not take place till the winter of that year.” [Note:
Cramp’s Bap. Hist., p. 436.] He was a Particular or Calvinistic Baptist.”

Prof. A.C. Lewis, D.D., of the McCormick Theological Seminary, of Chicago, says:

“There were Baptists in New England before Roger Williams. Of this Cotton Mather
informs us distinctly ... Numbers of them came with the early colonists ...
Hansard Knollys was one of their number.” [Note: Recent Letter to the Author.]

Coming from one who asserts that Williams organized the first American Baptist
church, this statement is the more valuable in refuting Baptist opponents.

Prof. Paine, Professor of Church History in Bangor Theological Seminary, says:
“There were Baptists in America before Roger Williams. [Note: Recent Letter to
the Author.] While the future of Knollys church after its first three years
history, is uncertain, yet its three years’ existence, before he returned to
England, was amply sufficient for it to have given valid baptism or the
“succession” to others. At the same time John Clark, another Baptist minister,
was on the ground. Prof. J.C. C. Clarke says:

“That Clarke brought with him the doctrine of the English ‘Particular Baptist
church,’ is probable from many indications. He was a preacher in Rhode Island in
1638, but was never a preacher except according to the early Baptist practice of
eldership. No change of his views is known to have occurred. His doctrinal
writings preserved were very clear, and are in accord with the Baptist
confessions of faith. The church which he established on Rhode Island was early
in correspondence with Mr. Spilsbury’s church in London.

Governor Winthrop records that Mr. Clarke was a preacher on the Island in 1638
... In another reference he calls him their minister.” [Note: Baptist Quart.
Rev., vol. 10, pp. 187-188-194, compared.]

Confirmatory of John Clarke having come to this country a Baptist minister, Rev.
C.E. Barrows says: “Clarke was certainly never a member of John Cotton’s church
in Boston.” [Note: Semi-Centennial Discourse of R. I., 1875, p. 37, note.] Had
he not come over here a Baptist he would have probably joined Cotton’s church on
his arrival in America.

Second. William’s history, after he organized his so-called Baptist church, is
irreconcilable with his Baptist claim. Speaking of Williams organizing his
society, Vedder says:

“Soon after arriving at the conclusion that his baptism by one who had not
himself been baptized in an orderly manner, was not valid baptism, he withdrew
himself from the church, and for the rest of his life was unconnected with any
religious body, calling himself a ‘seeker.’” [Note: Vedder’s Short Hist. Bap.,
p. 155.]

Armitage says:

“In view of the fact that Williams remained with the Baptists but three or four
months, some have seriously doubted whether he formed a church there after that
order at all.” [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 662.] Prof. J.C. C. Clarke says:

“If Mr. Williams formed a Baptist church, no clear evidence of such act
remains.” [Note: Baptist Quart. Rev., vol. 10, p. 200.] Dr. Dexter, a historical
critic, who was a Congregationalist, says:

“But the denomination of Christians, known as Baptists, having canonized him,
although never such a Baptist as they are, and for but a very short period of
time a Baptist at all, have manifested great reluctance to give due
consideration to a large portion of the evidence bearing upon the case, etc.”
[Note: Quoted from Roger Williams, by Dexter, p. 1.]

Notice that only such a Baptist as is essentially the Baptist denomination is a
Baptist, and, that Dr. Dexter says that Williams was not that kind. No wonder
that Benedict says: “Many of the accounts of him would make him more of a Quaker
than anything else” — even though he wrote against the Quakers and was never
recognized as one of them. [Note: Benedict’s Hist. Bap., p. 444.] S. Adlam, than
whom no man has given this subject more investigation, says:

“I can see no evidence that Roger Williams, in the ordinary acceptation of the
term, established a Baptist church in Providence.” [Note: Adlams’ “First Bap.
Ch. in Am.”, p. 32.] Prof. J.C. C. Clarke says:

“Early in 1639 occurred Roger Williams brief and irregular assumption of the
Baptist name.” [Note: Baptist Quart. Rev., vol. 10, p. 199.]

Mr. Williams’ organization, soon after its origin, came to nothing.’ Cotton
Mather, who was Williams’ contemporary, says:

“He turned Seeker and Familist, and the church came to nothing.” [Note: Mathers’
Eccl. Hist. New Eng. in Backus’ Hist. Bap., vol. 1, p. 90.] Armitage concedes:

“What became of Williams’ ‘society’ after he left is not very clear.”

Cotton Mather says:

“Whereupon his church dissolved themselves;” and Neal that “His church hereupon
crumbled to pieces.” [Note: Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 663.]

Armitage concedes that the authority for the belief that Williams’ church did
not dissolve when he left it is the fabulous Church Records and a doubtful
expression of Mr. Scott, who was one of them.

Adlam:

“That the church which Williams began to collect fell to pieces soon after he
left them is what we should expect, and is, as far as I can learn, the uniform
declaration of the writers of that day.” [Note: Adlam’s First Bap. Ch. in Am.,
p. 32.] Backus, who hesitates which position to take says:

“Many New England historians ... represent that the church soon broke up,
because Mr. Williams did not long walk with it.” [Note: Backus’ Hist. Bap., vol.
1, p. 88.]

Mr. Adlam says:

“There is one writer whose testimony is of the highest value on this subject; I
allude to Thomas Lechford, who was in New England from 1637, until about August
1641, and among other places, he visited Providence, somewhere I judge about the
close of 1640, or the beginning of 1641. He inquired with great diligence into
the ecclesiastical affairs of the country, and gave a faithful account. Against
the Baptists he had no special prejudices, more than against the
Congregationalists, for he was an Episcopalian. But whatever were his own
convictions, I have gained, in many respects, a more exact view of New England
during these four years from him, than from any other person. When speaking of
Providence he says: ‘At Providence, which is twenty miles from the said island,
(Rhode Island, which he had visited), lives Master Williams and his company of
divers opinions; most are Anabaptists; they hold there is no true visible church
in the Bay, nor in the world, nor any true ministry.’ ... Lechford, then, a
purely unexceptional witness, confirms what others have said — that Roger
Williams’ church, after he left them, crumbled to pieces. We have seen from
Callendar, that in his day, the oldest men, those who knew him, and were
unacquainted with many of the most ancient inhabitants, never heard that Roger
Williams was the founder of the Baptist church there! So soon and so completely
was that church dissolved.” [Note: Adlam’s First Bap. Ch. in Am., pp. 35-36;
Crosby’s Hist. Eng. Bap., vol. 1, p. 117.] So Drs. W.E. Paxton, J.R. Graves,
S.H. Ford, Prof. J.C. C. Clarke and a host of other authorities. Historians are
generally agreed that Williams soon left his so-called Baptist church. How
anyone could expect it to not dissolve when Williams left it, remembering the
boundless influence he had over it, is more than I can conjecture. [Note: In
view of (l,) that Williams’ society, because of essential defects, could not now
be recognized by any true Baptist church as Baptists; (2,) Mr. Letchford’s
testimony, after a personal Investigation in Rhode Island, that Williams’
society had dissolved; (3,) of the most ancient Inhabitants of Providence never
having heard there was any Baptist church in Providence originated by Williams —
see p. 384 of this book; (4,) of Brown University being built on the present
site “because it was the home of Chad Brown, the first minister of the Baptist
church;” (5,) of the tablet of its bell not even mentioning Williams as the
founder of the Baptist church; (6,) of the most ancient inhabitants of
Providence understanding that Brown, Wickenden, Olney, Tillinghurst, originated
the first Baptist church of Providence; (7,) of the Congregationalists passing
Providence to go the greater distance to Newport, in 1650, to join a Baptist
church which they would not have done had there been a Baptist church in
Providence; (8,) of, as Backus said of the early New England historians, — “many
New England historians represent that the (Williams) church soon broke up;” (9,)
of Cotton Mather’s statement — he was Williams’ contemporary — that “his church
soon dissolved;” (10,) of the improbability of its surviving the great influence
of its unscriptural formation and the example of Williams leaving it, (11,) of
Prof. Whitsitt’s concession, that late investigators hold that Williams’ society
dissolved soon after he left it; (12,) of Dr. Dexters, statement — he is one of
Prof. Whitsitt’s highest authorities — that Williams never was such a Baptist as
Baptists of America are — in view of these twelve points against Williams’
society not having dissolved soon after he left it, Prof. Whitsitt’s attempt to
revive the fabulous concern of Williams and to palm it off as a Baptist church,
and one continuing for eighty years. Is to say the very least, exceedingly weak
and as bold in making history as it is weak. Prot. Whitsitt starts out to prove
the Williams claim by the utterly groundless assertion, that; “Evidences of the
existence of the church founded by Roger Williams for about eighty years are
numerous!” Indeed! How strange that Backus, Adlam, Callender ,Cotton Mather,
Prof. J. C. C. Clarke, Prof. David Westun, Dexter, Armitage, Ford, Graves,
etc..etc., and the oldest inhabitants of Rhode Island, never found out the
“numerous” evidences! Yea, how strange that Prof. Whitsitt himself, after this
assertion, falls back, mainly, on the bitter, hasty and inconsiderate letter of
Mr. Scott, which says nothing more on the disputed point than that Williams left
the society. It says nothing as to how long it continued after he left it. With
all Armitage’s antipathy to Church Perpetuity and sympathy for the Williams
claim, this Scott letter has so little bearing on the subject that he concedes
it utterly uncertain as to “what became of his society after he left
it”—Armitage’s Bap. Hist., p. 663. Prof. Whitsitt’s statement, that “there were
two distinct Baptist churches in Providence for many years after 1652,” has no
bearing on the subject.” No one denies this. It is about as good proof (?) for
Prof. Whitsitt s position as the existence of more than two now in Providence is
for It. Prot. Whitsitt’s attempt to evade the force of Cotton Mather’s positive
testimony, by saying that Mather’s grandfather knew nothing of the existence of
Clarke’s church, is against him, since Cotton Mather’s not recording any
non-existence of Clarke’s church while he did the non-existence of Williams’
proves he investigated the facts instead of blindly following his grandfather.
Prof. Whitsitt virtually surrenders the question when he says, “Roger Williams
was never a Baptist. …I do not think he was very much of a Baptist a day in his
life.” “I do not suppose that Williams was very much of a Baptist. He founded a
Baptist church simply because there was no other sort to be found, there was
nothing else for them to do. He had never had anything to do with Baptists any
time in his life. He formed a church now simply because he was in that
particular situation. He had no particular leading that way; he never was a
Baptist at heart. I do not reckon there was any body in that colony who was a
Baptist. I have a notion they formed a Baptist church simply because they had
nothing else to do.” — Lect. to his class. Now, Prof. Whitsitt, or any one else,
is welcome to all Baptist claims he can get out of any such a thing of any such
origin as he concedes to the Williams affair. See pp. 381, 882, 384, 385, 386 of
this book.] Give Roger Williams whatever is due him for advocating the great
Baptist position of Liberty of Conscience; but in the name of all principle, all
order, ecclesiastical precedent, of the Bible and of history, cease calling him
a Baptist, or his little disorderly and fourmonths-old society a Baptist church!
No church or minister ever originated with the Roger Williams’ so-called Baptist
church. This is evident from the immediate disbanding of the Williams society.
Thomas Olney, whose name is on the list of the society, organized by Williams,
on its reorganization, became its pastor. Owing to absence of records no one
knows when or how that church was reorganized; but it was not probably
reorganized before 1650. We can only infer its reorganization from its having
been dissolved and from its being in existence in 1652. Commenting on facts,
accepted by all, Adlam says:

“These statements prove that in 1652, ‘53 or ‘54, two distinct Baptist churches
existed in Providence the six principle was under the care of Wickenden, Brown
and Dexter, while the five principle church was under the charge of Thomas
Olney. They also prove that Olney’s was the original, and Wickenden’s, Brown’s
and Dexter’s six principle, the seceding church. First. Every writer, including
the records, mentions Brown, Wickenden and Dexter as former pastor of that
church. Second. The present church from 1652 to 1770, was known only as a six
principle, while Olney’s was the five principle church. From this it follows
that the existing church in Providence was not founded in 1639, but in 1652; it
was not the first in the State, for it came out of an older church.” [Note:
Adlam’s First Bap. Ch. in Am., pp. 10-11.] Callender, in 1738, says:

“The most ancient inhabitants now alive, some of them above eighty years old,
who personally knew Mr. Williams, and were well acquainted with many of the
original settlers never heard that Mr. Williams formed the Baptist church there,
but always understood that Brown, Wickenden, Dexter, Olney, Tillinghurst, etc,
were the first founders of that church.” [Note: Adlam’s First Bap. Ch. in Am. p.
13.]

Adlam says:

“Two other things deserve passing notice.

(1.) The college in 1770 was built on the present site, ‘because it was the home
of Chad Brown, the first minister of the Baptist church.’

(2.) On the bell and on the tablet, Roger Williams is not mentioned as the
founder of the Baptist church.” [Note: Adlam’s first Bap. Ch. in Am. p. 14.]
Instead of the Olney church swarming, Backus says:

“The diversity of sentiments mentioned in this volume, p. 1-4, brought such
darkness over their affairs, that no regular records before 1770 are now found
therein.” [Note: Backus’ Hist. Bap., vol. 2, pp. 285,290-291.]

Adlam says:

“A melancholy interest invests the last notice we have of this ancient church.
It continued till early in the last century when it became extinct, leaving no
records, and but few events in its history behind. The fullest information I
have found is in a note by Callender, on the 115 page of his discourse.

Speaking of this church he adds below: ‘This last continued till about twenty
years ago, when becoming destitute of an elder, the members were united with
other churches ... This was written in 1738. The church had then been extinct
about twenty years; that is it lost its visibility about 1718 ... And thus
passed away the original church, and the waves of time have almost obliterated
its remembrance from the minds of men.’” [Note: Adlam’s First Bap. Ch. in Am.,
pp. 16-17.]

Adlam says:

“When Olney’s church was formed I cannot tell; but as Comer, dating the Newport
church no farther back than 1644, says it was the first of the Baptist
denomination in America, Olney’s church could not have been formed until after
that period. I think it could not have been formed until about the year 1650 My
reasons are, I find no trace of a Baptist church in Providence, after the
failure of Roger Williams, till after that year. The first intimation of a
church there, I find in the fall of 1651, when Holmes, after being scourged in
Boston, returning home says: ‘The brethren of our town (Rehobeth,) and
Providence, having taken pains to meet me four miles in the woods, we rejoiced
together. This occurred in September, 1651. That it was as late as I have fixed
appears also from another circumstance. I have not been able to find a single
individual, out of Providence, who united with that church until 1652; but every
Baptist up to that time, known to belong to a church, live where he may,
belonged to the church at Newport. We know that in the year 1651 the Newport
church had members in Lynn, and in Rehobeth, in Mass., and that persons came
from Connecticut to unite with it. The case of the brethren in Rehobeth is
peculiarly in point. In 1650 they left the Congregationalists and became
Baptists. If at that time a church had existed in Providence, a neighboring
town, how naturally they should unite with it, so near and easy of access, and
not go all the way down to Newport to unite with the church there. The only way
to account for this is that there was no church in Providence, and no
administrator there to whom they could apply. If before 1644 a church did exist
in Providence, how is it, that neither friend nor foe” (meaning of ancient
times) “has noticed her, that every Baptist passed by her, even her nearest
neighbors, and hurried down to Newport.” [Note: Adlam’s first Bap. Ch. in Am.,
pp. 36-39.] The following, from an able writer, gives the matter in a nutshell:

(1.) “The church which Williams formed came to nothing or was dissolved soon
after he left.

(2.) It was reorganized, or another was formed under Thomas Olney as its pastor,
who was one of the eleven baptized by Roger Williams. Olney continued to be
pastor of this church until his death in 1682, somewhat over thirty years.

(3.) In 1653, or 1654, which was a few years after the formation of Olney’s
church, there was a division in that church on the question of laying on of
hands ... and a separate church was formed ... under the pastorate of Chad
Brown, Wickenden and Dexter ... This church is now the First Baptist church of
Providence.

(4.) The parent church, under Olney, gradually dwindled away, and became extinct
about the year 1718, some seventy years from its origin.

(5.) No church was formed from. Olney’’ s after the division already mentioned,
and no ministers are known to have gone out from it. Olney’s baptism, whether
valid or invalid, was not propagated.

(6.) Nearly a century passed before the church formed from Olney’s began to
colonize, in 1730.

(7.) None of its ministers, or the ministers of the churches formed from it,
received their baptism from Williams, or from any one whose baptism descended
from his.

(8.) The Baptist churches of America could not have descended from Roger
Williams, or from the temporary society which he formed.” By relying on what I
have shown all concede to be unreliable — the records of the first church of
Providence — Benedict attributes to the old Williams and Olney organizations
what is true of only the church established by Wickenden, Brown and Dexter,
viz., the honor of being the “prolific mother of many Baptist communities.” As
J.R. Graves wrote:

“It cannot be shown that any Baptist church sprang from the Williams affair. Nor
can it be proved that the baptism of any Baptist minister came from Williams’
hand.” [Note: Trilemma, p. 13.]

Reuben A. Guild, L.L. D., Librarian of Brown University, and one of the most
reliable historians of Baptist affairs in Rhode Island, says:

“In regard to whether churches have gone out from the First Church of Providence
by letters of dismission, I cannot say. In the early days everything; was
primitive. For near seventy years the church had no meeting house ... kept no
records, etc., etc.”

Dr. Guild being an ardent advocate of the First Church claims this is a virtual
concession that no one can show that any church or preacher ever originated with
Roger Williams and his society. [Note: Letter to Author of this book, dated Apr.
25, 1893.] In April, 1889, Dr. Caldwell, pastor of the First Church of
Providence said: “We celebrate, after all, an unknown day; there is no record of
the exact date of our beginning.” Adlam says:

“Comer, the first and for the earliest history of our denomination, the most
reliable of writers, ascribes distinctly and repeatedly this priority to the
Newport church. He had formed the design, more than a hundred and twenty years
ago, of writing the history of American Baptists; and in that work, which he
only lived to commence, but which embraces an account of his church, he says in
one place: ‘That it is the first of the Baptist denomination,’ and, closing his
history of it, says: ‘Thus I have briefly given some account of the settlement
and progress of the first Baptist church on Rhode Island, in New England, and
the first in America.’” [Note: Adlam’s First Bap. Ch. in America, p. 19.]

Adlam adds:

“This was written in 1730; and to those acquainted with Comer, nothing need be
said of the value of his testimony. For others, I will add from Benedict a brief
notice of his character: ‘He began his education in Cambridge, and finished it
in New Haven. He bid fair to be one of the most eminent ministers of his day;
his character was unspotted, and his talents respect-able and popular; he had
conceived the design of writing the history of the American Baptists, and for
the purpose of forwarding it, traveled as far as Philadelphia, (a great
undertaking at that day), opened a correspondence with persons in the different
colonies, and also in England, Ireland, etc.’ This excellent man, who took
unwearied pains to procure for his history the most correct information, was
especially distinguished for the extreme accuracy of his dates, was, when he
wrote the above, himself a six principle Baptist; was intimately acquainted with
the church at Providence and had advantages for knowing its early history that
no other historian has since possessed. From the way in which he asserts it, the
priority of the Newport church must have been a universally conceded fact ...
Besides his carefulness, he was, when he wrote the above, on the most favorable
terms with the church in Providence, while a difficulty had occurred between him
and the Newport church which caused him the most painful feelings. Now, it was
while suffering from the above cause, when, if ever, he was under temptation to
suppress the truth, that he most unhesitatingly affirms the Newport church to be
the first of the Baptists in America.” [Note: Adlam’s First Bap. Ch. in Am., pp.
19-21; Backus’ Hist. Bap., vol. 1, p. 497.]

Armitage says:

“Comer’s testimony carried great weight with these authors, and justly, for he
was a most painstaking man, possessing a clear and strong mind under high
culture, ranking with the first men of his day ... Morgan Edwards says of him:
‘He was curious in making minutes of every remarkable event, which swelled at
last into two volumes ... He gathered many facts from Samuel Hubbard and Edward
Smith, both contemporary with the events which they related to him.” [Note:
Armitage’s Hist. Bap., p. 665.] On Comer’s testimony, taken in connection with
the foregoing facts of this chapter, the priority of the New-port church ought
to be considered as settled. But I am not done. Backus says of the Newport
church:

“The first certain date in their church records is taken from a manuscript of
Mr. Samuel Hubbard in 1648, which says the church was formed about the year
1644, and by what I have quoted from Winthrop and Hubbard, it appears as likely
to be earlier as later than that time. The entry of the first Baptist church in
Newport, here referred to, was made by John Comer as late as 1725, and is as
follows: ‘Having found a private record of Mr. Samuel Hubbard, who was a member
of the church, by which I find that the church was in being as far back as
October 16, 1648, (but how long before justly I can’t find by any manuscript,
but by private information it was constituted in 1644.)” [Note: Backus’ Hist.
Bap., vol. l, p. 125.]

Prof. Weston, the editor of this edition of Backus’ History, in a note, says of
Callender having given 1644 as the date for the origin of the Newport church:

“There is probably no evidence that Callender or any subsequent writer who has
given the above date, had any authority for it beyond the tradition preserved by
Comer. Backus represents that an earlier date is possible. Many regard the
weight of evidence in its favor. Some have placed it as far back as 1638,
supposing that the church was founded by Clarke and his company on their arrival
in Rhode Island. They reason from the improbability that the inhabitants of
Rhode Island would remain four years without an organized church, and from the
testimony of Winthrop in 1641, that ‘divers of them turned professed
Anabaptists,’ and that there arose a contention and schism among them. These
indications are not without force.” [Note: Backus’ Hist. Bap., vol. 1, p. 125.]
A note to the minutes of the Philadelphia Association, p. 455, reads: “When the
first church of Newport, Rhode Island, was one hundred years old, in 1738.” This
dates the beginning of the Newport church 1638.

Both the Newport and the Providence churches were members of the Warren
Association. Prof. Weston informs us, on the authority of its minutes of 1840,
that that Association regarded 1638 as the origin of the Newport church.” [Note:
Idem, vol. 1, p. 125.] The inscription on John Clarke’s tombstone reads that:

“He, with his associates, came to this Island from Massachusetts, in March,
1638, and on the 24th of the same month obtained a deed thereof from the
Indians. He shortly after gathered the church aforesaid and became its pastor.”
[Note: Adlam’s “First Bap. Ch. in America,” p. 36.] The statement of this stone
accords with that of Governor Winthrop of that time, who says that

“Mr. Clarke was a preacher on the Island in 1638, but does not call him pastor,
although in another reference he calls him their minister. Governor Winthrop
also says that a church was formed at Newport in 1639 in a disorderly way.
[Note: Bap. Quart. Rev., vol. 10, p. 191— Prof. J. C. C. Clarke.] [Note: This
“disorderly” way, evidently, is what he calls the Baptist way.] J. R. Graves,
after an extended investigation of this subject, concludes:

“After all the investigations I have made, I have come to the conclusion that
the date of the Newport church is 1638, and any other date is altogether
arbitrary.” [Note: Adlam’s “First Bap. Ch. In America,” p. 45.] The Canadian
Baptist, of August, 1885, says:

“The church in Newport is probably the oldest Baptist church in the United
States. It is now known that a church was in. existence there in 1638, of which
John Clarke was pastor.” The Newport Daily News says:

“The first positive date we have in the history of the first Baptist church of
Newport is 1648, with a reference to the fact that certain persons were members
of the church in 1644. There is no reason to suppose that if this was the date
of the organization of the church it would not have been mentioned in this
connection. There is no record of the demise of Dr. Clarke’s church or of the
formation of any other in these years. There is every reason to believe that the
present church is the one founded by Dr. Clarke in 1639, or, perhaps, 1638. The
first meeting house was built very soon after the organization of the church at
the place now known as the ‘Green End.’” The Central Baptist, of St. Louis:

“It now appears from the histories of the first Baptist church, New-port, Rhode
Island, and the First Baptist church, Providence, the one prepared by Rev. C.E.
Barrows, pastor of the Newport church, and the other by Dr. Caswell, that the
former church was founded in 1638 ... These histories are the most authentic yet
prepared, and seem to demonstrate that Roger Williams was not the founder of the
first Baptist church in America.”

I will now notice only a few of the many fountains of American Baptist streams,
which were independent of Roger Williams. Morgan Edwards thus gives the origin
of Delaware Baptists:

“To come to the history of this modern church we must cross the Atlantic and
land in Wales, where it had its beginning in the following manner: In the spring
of the year 1701, several Baptists, in the communities of Pembroke and
Caermarthen, resolved to go to America; and as one of the company, Thomas
Griffith, was a minister, they were advised to be constituted into a church;
they took the advice; the instrument of their confederation was in being in
1770, ... the names of their confederates follow: Thomas Griffith, Griffith
Nicholas, Evan Richmond, John Edwards, Elisha Thomas, Enoch Morgan, Richard
David, James David, Elizabeth Griffith, Lewis Edmond, Mary John, Mary Thomas,
Tennet David, Margaret Mathias and Tennet Morris. These fifteen people may be
styled a church emigrant.” [Note: Benedict’s Hist. Bap., p. 626.]

Thus, Delaware Baptists originated from an emigrant Baptist church from Wales.
Massachusetts Baptist churches thus began in Boston: “Some Baptist friends from
England” had a “meeting” called, “the church was formed, consisting of” — and
here follow the names. [Note: Idem, p. 383.] Only two of these names are
mentioned by Benedict as not being Baptists up to the formation of this church.
Speaking of a number of those who went into this church Backus says: “Goodall
came recommended from Mr. Kiflin’s church in London; Turner and Lambert from Mr.
Stead’s church in Dart-mouth, having been regular walkers in the Baptist order
before they came to this country.” [Note: Backus’ Hist. Bap., vol. 1, p. 288.]
The first Baptist church in Virginia, and, “in some sense, the mother of all the
rest,” was constituted under the pastoral care of Rev. Dutton Lane, and by Rev.
“Daniel Marshall,” who got his baptism in regular order from a regular Baptist
church in the Philadelphia association. [Note: Semple’s Hist. Va. Bap., pp. 5,
370, comp.] The first Baptist church in Pennsylvania thus originated:

“In 1684 Thomas Dungan removed from Rhode Island. This Baptist preacher and
pioneer was probably accompanied with associates of his own faith. Here he
founded a church of his own order, which in the end was shortly absorbed by the
next company I shall name.” [Note: Benedict’s Hist. Bap., p. 595.] The next
company, absorbing the church first named, was “Welsh emigrants, who settled in
Pennepeck, or Lower Dublin, 1686.” This church was made up of regular Baptist
members. [Note: Idem, p. 596.] The first Baptist church in Philadelphia was
organized in 1698, of English Baptists, some of whom were of Hansard Knollys’
church “in London.” [Note: Idem, p. 601.]

Maryland Baptist churches were begun in 1742, by “Henry Sator, a layman ... Soon
after his settlement in this colony he invited Baptist ministers to preach in
his house, by which means a few, from time to time, were proselyted to his
sentiments, and after many years a church was gathered in his neighborhood.”
[Note: Idem, p. 681.] [Note: Thus it has often been the case that one Baptist
has been the instrument in God’s hand in originating a Baptist church. One of
the best churches of which the author was ever pastor originated in a similar
effort, from a Bro. Stewart. Baptist reader, if there is no Baptist church in
your community, “go thou and do likewise;” and the Lord will be with you. No
well-informed and true Baptist will put his or her membership into a non-Baptist
church.] In North Carolina the first Baptist “church which ever existed was
gathered by one Paul Palmer, about the year 1727 ... Mr. Palmer is said to be a
native of Maryland, was baptized at Welsh Tract, in Delaware, by Owen Thomas,
the pastor of the church in that place.” [Note: Idem, p. 681.] South Carolina
Baptist churches began thus:

“Of the early settlers of South Carolina, a considerable portion were Baptists.
They came in separate colonies about the year 1683, partly from the west of
England ... and partly from Piscataqua, in the district of Maine. Of the former
some settled at Ashley and Cooper Rivers, others about the mouth of the Edisto
River. The latter settled at a place called Summerton, situated on Cooper River,
and a short distance from Charleston. Here they were formed into a church under
the care of Rev. William Screven. Among the settlers from England, the wife of
Mr. Blake ... and her mother, Lady Axtell, were members of the Baptist church.
Those who came from Piscataqua in Maine were led hither by Rev. William Screven,
who, with a considerable number of his brethren, fled from the intolerant laws
of the Pedobaptists of New England. Charleston church, founded in 1683. This
ancient community was formed by the united labors of these two classes of
settlers, under the supervision of the distinguished man who presided over it,
to the end of his long and useful life ... Rev. William Screven, the founder of
this church, became its first pastor.” [Note: Benedict’s Hist. Bap., pp.
701-702.]

We have seen that Massachusetts Baptists began according to the Baptist way of
beginning. In the following appears the origin of Maine Baptists, in which we
see where Mr. Screven, who originated the first church of South Carolina
Baptists, began his work in America.

“Kittery, the oldest town in the province, incorporated 1647, was selected as
the first place to raise a Baptist standard ... It was soon known that in
Kittery were several persons professing to be Baptists. From whence they came,
is now unknown. In the course of events, an opportunity offered to them the
privilege of church communion, agreeable to their own theological views. The
nearest Baptist church was at Boston, Mass., over which Rev. Isaac Hull then
presided. At the advice of Mr. Hull, these Baptists of Kittery united with his
church. William Screven, an early emigrant from England, was one of their
number. Being a man of more than common talents, and devoutly pious, he
officiated as leader in their worship. The brethren at Kittery and in Boston
were satisfied that the great Head of the Church had designed and called him to
preach the gospel of Christ. He was accordingly licensed by the church in Boston
to ‘exercise his gifts in Kittery, or elsewhere, as the providence of God may
cast him.’ The Baptists in Kittery, being now blessed with a minister and
situated at so great a distance from Boston, deemed it expedient for their own
spiritual advantage, and for the cause of Christ in new settlements, to unite in
a separate church.” [Note: Benedict’s Hist. Bap., p. 506, and Backus’ Hist.
Bap., vol. 1, p. 400.] Backus says: “A Baptist church was also formed this year
from that of Boston, at Newbury.” [Note: Backus’ Hist. Bap., vol. 1, p. 405.]
The first Baptist church in New York, of which we have any certain knowledge,
was organized by Rev. Valentine Wightman “about 1712.” [Note: Benedict’s Hist.
Bap., p. 541.] Mr. Wightman was from the North Kingston church in Maine, thus:
“From North Kingston” he “went and settled at Groton,” and from Groton he went
to New York. [Note: Backus’ Hist. Bap., vol. 1, p. 466; vol. 2, p. 516;
Benedict’s Hist. Bap., p. 541, comp.] The North Kingston church originated in a
revival in 1710, held by Elder Baker, from Newport. [Note: Backus’ Hist. Bap.,
vol. 2, p. 505.] Thus, New York Baptist churches originated from Newport
Baptists, in the regular succession line.

Georgia Baptists thus began, in the regular succession from South Carolina
Baptists:

“In the year 1751, Mr. Nicholas Bedgegood ... embraced the distinguishing
sentiments of the Baptists; this gentleman went over to Charleston, S.C., about
the year 1757, and was baptized and united to the Baptist church in that city,
then under the pastoral care of the Rev. Mr. Hart. He soon discovered talents
for usefulness, and was licensed to preach; his ordination to the gospel
ministry took place in the year 1759. And it appears his labors were not in vain
in the Lord; for in 1763, he had the happiness to baptize several persons ... to
whom, with a few other Baptists, (probably a branch of the Charleston Baptist
church) he administered the Lord’s Supper. This was the first semblance of a
Baptist church — this the first Baptist communion ever held in the State.”
[Note: History Georgia Bap. Ass., p. 1, by Jesse Mercer; Benedict’s Hist. Bap.,
p. 722.]

I have now shown that in the States which were the great fountains of the many
Baptist streams, running out into the new States, Baptists, instead of beginning
with Roger Williams, began in the regular continuity line.

Take even Rhode Island. Were we to admit that the present Providence church is
the Roger Williams church, yet we would have Rhode Island Baptists, to a very
great extent, originating from other churches. Of John Clarke’s church in
Newport, Backus says; “Mr. Richard Dingley,” its second pastor “in 1694, left
them and went to South Carolina.” [Note: Backus’ Hist. Bap., vol. 2, p. 498.]
Thus, through Dingley, South Carolina inherited baptisms from the John Clarke
church. John Comer, another of Clarke’s successors to the Newport pastorate,
removed and gathered the first Baptist Church in Rehoboth” [Note: Backus’ Hist.
Bap., vol. 2, p. 498.] John Clarke’s church, about 1729, “increased to a hundred
and forty-two members, being the largest church then in the colony.’’” [Note:
Idem, p. 499.] Of the John Clarke church, and others, Backus says:

“On June 21st, 1729, they had the largest association of Baptist ministers and
churches that had ever been seen in America.” [Note: Backus’ Hist. Bap., p.
499.] “The first Baptist church in Connecticut was formed in Groton about 1705.

Elder Valentine Wightman came from North Kingston, and settled in Groton, and
was the first pastor of this church.” [Note: Idem, p. 516.]

Having shown the Kingston church a daughter of John Clarke’s church, thus, we
see Connecticut Baptists originated from it.

Why do not Baptist opponents call attention to the swarms of Baptists from the
Newport church? Why do they not call attention to other churches, also, being
the fountain head of American Baptist churches? Simply because they could not
close the people’s eyes against Baptist church claims; or, in many cases,
because of ignorance and thoughtlessness. Of the first Baptist church in
Swansea, Massachusetts, Davis says:

“In 1663, John Miles came over from Wales, and began the church which has
continued to this day.” [Note: Davis’ Hist. Welsh Bap., pp. 39-40.]

Samuel Jones, a Baptist minister of Wales, came to America about 1686, settling
in Pennsylvania. John Phillips, a Welsh Baptist minister came to America about
1692. Thomas Griffiths, a Baptist minister of Wales, emigrated to America “in
the year 1701, and fifteen of the members of the church in the same vessel.”
[Note: Idem, pp. 67-71-72.] Morgan Edwards, a Baptist minister of more than
usual learning “from Wales” “arrived here May 23rd, 1761, and shortly after
became pastor of a Baptist church.” [Note: Idem, pp. 77-78.]

John Thomas, a Baptist minister, came from Wales to America in 1703. [Note:
Davis’ Hist. Welsh Bap., p. 88.] David Evans, a Welsh Baptist minister, arrived
in America in 1739. [Note: Idem, p. 98. ] Several of the members of the Rehobeth
church in Wales “went to America, and formed themselves into a church at a place
called Montgomery, Pennsylvania, early in the eighteenth century.” [Note: Idem,
p. 114. ] Benjamin Griffiths, a Baptist minister of Wales, became their pastor.
Nathaniel Jenkens, also, was a member and pastor of this church. [Note: Idem, p.
114. ] Thomas Davis, a Welsh Baptist minister, left Wales for Long Island, about
1713. Cape May church had its foundation “laid in 1675, when a company of
emigrants, from England, arrived in Delaware. [Note: Idem, p. 115.] Abel Morgan,
a Baptist minister, came from Wales early in the eighteenth century. [Note:
Idem, p. 68. ] In 1737, thirty members of a Baptist church in Wales with“their
minister, came to Pennsylvania and organized the Welsh Tract church.” [Note:
Idem, p. 125]

“Richard Jones, a native of Wales, arrived in America, and became pastor of the
church at Burley, Virginia, in 1727.” [Note: Idem, p. 134.] Caleb Evans, a
Baptist minister of finished education, of Wales, “went to America and settled
in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1768.” [Note: Idem, p. 138.]

Here, then, are fourteen Welsh ministers and some churches, in the regular
succession line from Europe. From these, of course, have come hundreds of
American Baptist churches, and thousands of Baptists, and many Baptist
ministers. Yet these are but a few examples of American Baptist churches and
ministers in the Baptist Perpetuity line from Europe. Davis says:

“Wales has been a nursery of Baptists ... Many of the American churches were
founded, either wholly or in part, by Welsh Baptists. There are several Welsh
churches in America. Wales has supplied the American churches with many useful
ministers ... Indeed, most of the Baptists in the State of Pennsylvania, for a
great number of years from the beginning ... were either emigrants from Wales or
their descendants.” [Note: Davis’ Hist. Welsh Bap., pp. 157-158.] The late and
lamented E.T. Winkler, D.D., of Alabama, said:

“The Baptist church (if that be the name for it) did not commence with Roger
Williams, but with a more illustrious personage, in the beginning of the
Christian era ... He had little ecclesiastical prominence. He was pastor of the
newly formed church in Providence only a few months. And there were other
Baptists scattered among the various colonies, who had no historical connection
with him. Indeed, it is affirmed with confidence that no Baptist church in our
country traces its descent from Roger Williams. Thus, for example, the Baptist
church at Swansea, in Massachusetts, came from Swansea in Wales, and brought
their records with them across the Atlantic. [Note: Backus’ Hist. of New Eng.,
p. 117.] In Great Britain we have had churches from the immemorial antiquity.”
The Journal and Messenger, Cincinnati, says:

“He ought to know that no one professes or believes, except it be some one
ignorant of all the important facts, that Roger Williams was the founder of the
Baptist church. The most that has ever been claimed for Roger Williams is that
he founded a Baptist church, but it cannot be proven that the church he founded
was at all what a Baptist church is to -day, or that the church that he founded
continued to exist more than four months to a year, without an essential change
of character, or that from it ever sprang any other church, which has, in turn,
propagated its kind, or that Roger Williams ever baptized any one, who in turn
became a baptizer, unless we except Ezekiel Holliman, whose only subject was
Williams himself, so that nothing can be more absurd than that Roger Williams
founded the Baptist church.” In another issue the same paper says:

“The position of American Baptists is not effected by the answer to the question
as to Roger Williams. The more intelligent Baptists of this country do not look
upon Williams as the founder of their denomination ... It is quite certain that
Williams never was a Baptist in the present acceptation of the term. Moreover it
is quite as certain that he never baptised any one who transmitted his baptism.
His baptism, whatever it was, began and ended with himself and his few
companions ... Very few Baptists in this country trace their ecclesiastical
organization to Rhode Island and none to Roger Williams.”

Another editorial in the same paper, of May 2, 1877, says:

“In our judgment the facts are these: Roger Williams was the founder of a church
resembling in some respects, a Baptist church ... But in four months he became
dissatisfied with his own baptism, and renounced it as invalid, because it was
not administered by one who had been baptized himself. For a time, consequently,
there does not appear to have been any organized church in Providence, and
inasmuch as no records were kept by that which is now the first Baptist church
in Providence, for more than one hundred years it is quite difficult to fix upon
the time of its organization. It is quite certain that the Baptists of this
country did not originate with Roger Williams; for many of them were Baptists
when they came from England. And these formed churches, a second in Newport, in
1656; in Swansea, Mass., in 1653; in Boston, in 1665; in Middleton, N.J., in
1686; in Lower Dublin, Pa., in 1689; in Philadelphia, in 1698; and in several
others previous to the year 1700. And no one of these traces its origin to Roger
Williams, to the church that he founded, or to any of those baptized by him. It
is an error, therefore, to speak of Roger Williams as the father of American
Baptists.” The Standard, of Chicago, says of the history of the Williams church:

“It is the most complicated and difficult tissue of facts and conclusions and
inferences and probabilities that was ever woven probably in American
ecclesiastical annals.” In 1877, when pressed, Prof. John Clarke Ridpath, a
Methodist historian, wrote to the American Baptist Flag:

“There is a vast difference between the statement that Roger Williams was the
founder of the first Baptist church in America, and the statement that he was
the founder of the Baptist denomination. The latter statement I have never
made.” The Roman Catholic bishop of New Orleans, speaking of the statement that
the Baptist churches of America originated with Roger Williams, says: “This is
saying too much; he was prominent among them.” [Note: Recent Letter to the
Author.] H.W. D., President of the Campbellite College at Bethany, Va., says:
“Cannot say that the American Baptist church originated with Roger Williams.”
[Note: Recent Letter to the Author.] As admitting all any one claims for the
Roger Williams’ affair, as being the first Baptist church in America, would
effect but few Baptists of America, Benedict, in derision exclaims:

“I have lately seen an intimation, in a tract put forth by an opposer of
Baptists that all the denomination of America sprang from this old Roger
Williams’ church, which commenced its operations with lay baptism; and of
course, no soul of the denomination has been regularly baptized, or has any
claim to apostolic succession,” [Note: Benedict’s Hist. Bap., p. 459—note.]
[Note: As an illustration of the cloud of conjectures which imagination and
opposition to Baptists have gathered over the Williams affair and over C1arke’s
church, swallowing Dr. Dexter’s — Dexter was a scholar but a most Utterly
prejudiced Baptist opponent — statement, that Baptists, In 1638 and 1639, did
not practice exclusive immersion — a baseless fabrication which I lave exposed
in a previous chapter. Dr. Whitsitt says that Williams never was immersed and
that “there is no reason to suppose that the baptism administered by Mr. Clarke
at Newport was any different from the one administered at Providence; and,
possibly, Williams went there and sprinkled them over again. I do not know. If
the Baptists at Newport adopted the same mode of baptism that was practiced at
Providence, it must have been sprinkling. I am inclined to think that they
sprinkled in each case.” The reader will see that this is purely guess work,
dished out to young ministers as historical instruction! And all on the baseless
guess work of the bitter Baptist opponent — Dr. Dexter! It would look like such
guessers should easily guess out a “Baptist succession,” even were there no
history proving it. But, strange to say, the guessing seems to be all done
against Baptist history! Now, as to the facts: (1.) As to Williams’ case. Prof.
Reuben A. Guild, LL. D., librarian of Brown University, with the original
documents before him wrote me, April 25,1893: “Winthrop, under date of March 16,
1639, says that Williams was rebaptized by one Holliman. Then Mr. Williams
rebaptlzed him and ten more.” Governor Winthrop was a dear friend and
correspondent if Williams and knew what he was writing about. …Perhaps Prot.
Whitsitt makes the point that rebaptism was not immersion. It has always been so
regarded in these parts from the beginning. Williams himself has placed Himself
on record as a believer in dipping. In the Winthrop papers (Mass. Hist.
Collections, fourth series, vol. 6), under date of 1649, more than ten years
after his ’rebaptism,’ bespeaks of John Clarke as dipping believers at Seekonk,
and adds: “I believe this practice comes nearer the practice of our treat
Founder, Jesus Christ, than other practices of religion do.’“ Prof. Albert H.
Newman, D. D., L. L. D. a specialist in Baptist history, wrote me, December
13,1892: “It seems highly probable that Roger Williams was immersed though I
once was of the contrary opinion. Coddington, who seems to lave witnessed the
ceremony, described it sometime afterward as immersion.”

(2.) As to John Clarke, I have shown by Prof. J.C.C. Clarke, who has given the
original records of Rhode Island the most thorough investigation, that he came
to America a Baptist preacher. Prof. Reuben A. Guild, LL. D., after proving that
Williams was immersed — in the letter from which this note quotes — adds: “As to
John Clarke, I have already answered your question. He was pastor of the First
Baptist church of Newport, and he ’dipped’ believers at Seekonk. Would he
administer this rite to others and be a Baptist pastor and preacher when he had
not been dipped or immersed himself? I think not. He was a scholarly and common
sense man. The tradition and belief is that he was baptized in England.” Prof.
Albert Newman, in the letter quoted in the foregoing, says: “It is certain from
Mr. Williams’ own account of Clarke’s church that Clarke practiced immersion,
and we may infer from this that he was himself immersed.”

Prof. Whitsitt attempts to prove John Clarke was a Congregationalist, by
assuming that he was made a freeman in Massachusetts and that no man could
there, at that time, be a freeman without, at the same time, being a
Congregationalist. But the Professor is wrong again. The John Clarke of whom he
speaks as having been made a freeman, is not the John Clarke who organized the
Newport church. Prof. David Weston editor of Backus’ Church History and the
lamented critical Professor of Church History in Hamilton Theological Seminary,
says: “The John Clarke who was admitted a freeman in Boston, May, 1635, must
have been a different person from the founder of the Rhode Island plantation.
The latter writes in the ’Narrative’ — ’In the year ’37 I left my native land,
and in the ninth month of the same I (through mercy) arrived in Boston. I was no
sooner on shore than there, appeared some differences among them concerning the
covenants.’ …Mass. Historical Collections, fourth series, vol. 2. p. 72. The
date thus given in the ’Narrative’ is verified by the fact that the difficulty
on the question of covenants, which Clarke found in the colony as soon as he was
on shore, does not seem to have arisen till 1836.” — Note to Backus’ Hist. Bap.,
vol. 1, pp. 70-71. To this must be added, since the John Clarke who organized
the Newport church did not arrive in America till 1637, he could not possibly
have been the John Clarke who “was admitted a freeman” in 1635! Prof. Whitsitt
is a good brother and valuable historian, but, in attempting to follow Dexter
and to maintain the exploded Williams claim. he has but involved himself in
inextricable confusion, absurdities and contradictions.]

Concluding this chapter; I have shown that there were Baptists among the first
immigrants into New England; that both the Dover and Newport Baptist churches
were existing when Roger Williams organized his society; that Williams proved
himself not a Baptist by preferring baptism from an unbaptized man to getting
either of these or Baptists in England to baptize him; that he showed himself
not a Baptist by living and dying out of a Baptist church; that the society he
organized soon dissolved; that it never perpetuated or propagated itself in any
way; that the first church of Providence is not the Williams church, but was
organized, probably, about 1652; that the John Clarke and Dover churches were
the first Baptist churches ever organized in America; that no one, or scarcely
any one, claimed that the first church of Providence was the first Baptist
church in America until near a century after Williams’ time; that early history
shows the Newport and Dover churches organized before Williams’ church; that the
advocates of the first church of Providence being the oldest in America concede
their case exceedingly doubtful; that the John Clarke church swarmed with
numerous churches and ministers; that, inasmuch as Baptist churches of America
originated generally from European immigration we could admit the first church
of Providence to be the Williams and the oldest American Baptist church, without
implying it is the mother of American Baptist churches to any noticeable extent.
The “Christian Messenger,” a most bitter Campbellite paper, concedes

‘We have never considered that Roger Williams’ baptism had any material effect
upon Baptist succession. The baptist churches of America did not originate with
the Roger Williams church, nor receive their baptism from it, at least the great
mass of them did not.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 30: THE REGULAR BAPTISTS, OFTEN CALLED MISSIONARY BAPTISTS, ARE THE “OLD” OR PRIMITI...
========================================================================

CHAPTER 27. — THE REGULAR BAPTISTS, OFTEN CALLED MISSIONARY BAPTISTS, ARE THE
“OLD” OR PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS.

Unable to meet the overwhelming testimony for Baptist Church Perpetuity, Baptist
opponents attempt to “darken counsel” by asking: “But who are the ‘old
Baptists?’ “Some of them, when meeting the Regular Baptists, affirm “the
Anti-missionary Baptists are the oldest;” when meeting the Anti-missionary
Baptists, they affirm the “Regular Baptists are the oldest!!”

Inasmuch as Baptist history demonstrates that in every age, in non-essential
matters, Baptists have differed from Baptists of other ages, by such matters we
are not to identify Baptist churches of the present with those of the past.
Thus, speaking of 1691, Crosby says: “If I am not mistaken this was the first
church of the Baptists that practiced the holy ordinance” of singing in public
worship. [Note: Crosby’s Hist. Eng. Bap., vol. 1, p. 299.] In the early history
of American Baptists whenever a preacher changed his field he was reordained.
When a preacher “got out of his parish he was nobody.” [Note: Prof. Whitsitt’s
Lect. to his Classes.] In the latter half of the last century protracted
meetings were unknown among Baptists.’ In 1840, Baptists protracted meetings
often continued a year.’ [Note: Prof. Whitsitt’s Lect. to his Classes.] [Note:
Why does not some opponent of Church Perpetuity attempt to prove, by these
different customs, that Baptists of the nineteenth century are not the
successors of Baptists of the eighteenth!] Church houses, singing books,
associations, and many other things to which Baptists hold, are not mentioned in
the Bible and have been unknown to ages of Baptist history. While the
constitution and the organization of the churches is, in the New Testament, in
particulars, prescribed and described their methods of work and most of the
forms of their worship are left to be decided by the spirit of the gospel and
sanctified common sense. Missionary boards, like associations, hymn books, etc.,
are of comparatively modern origin. Like associations, etc., missionary boards,
are mere Baptist expediencies, not being essential to the existence of Baptist
churches. Anti-missionary Baptists had as well — because they have associations,
hymn books, and many other customs which ancient Baptists did not have — deny
that they themselves are the “Old Baptists” as to deny that the Regular Baptists
are the “Old Baptists,” because they have missionary boards. Since the
Anti-mission Baptists have neither missions, pastors’ support, nor educational
enterprises, the question, dividing the two, Is Really Not Plans Of Missions, Of
Education, But It Is Missions Or No Missions, And Education Or No Education, And
Ministerial Or No Ministerial Support.It is whether the churches shall do any
missionary and educational work and support their ministers.

Regular Baptists do all this. Anti-missionary Baptists not only do not this, but
they bitterly oppose it — so bitterly that they would exclude from their
fellowship any who should do these obligations. [Note: They sometimes make
little gifts to their preachers. But they would so starve them out that I have
never known one of them whom the church, by supporting, freed from the
entanglements of the world.] That the churches, when able to do so, should so
support their ministers as to leave them free from all worldly care, is, from
the following Scriptures as clear as that Christ is the Son of God: “The laborer
is worthy of his hire.” — Luke 10:7.

“Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially
those who labor in word and doctrine. For the Scripture saith: ‘Thou shalt not
muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And the laborer is worthy of his
reward.’”— 1 Timothy 5:17-18.

“Who goeth a warfare at his own charges? [Note: The Anti -missionary Baptist
preachers do.] Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof?
[Note: The Anti -missionary Baptist preachers do.] Or who feedeth a flock and
eateth not of the milk thereof? [Note: The Anti -missionary Baptist preachers
do.] Say I these things as a man, or saith not the law the same also? [Note:
Thus, we see that Paul teaches that gospel ministers are to be as well supported
as were the Jewish.] For it is written in the law of Moses: ‘Thou shalt not
muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.’ Doth God take care for
oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt this is
written. If we have sown to you in spiritual things is it a great thing if we
should reap your carnal things? ... Even so HATH THE LORD ORDAINED THAT THEY Who
Preach the Gospel Should live of the Gospel.” — 1 Corinthians 9:7-11; 1
Corinthians 9:14.

Paul, in order that he should not prejudice the heathen, in planting the
Corinthian church, charged nothing for his services, but says: “I robbed other
churches, taking WAGES from them to do you service.” — 2 Corinthians 11:8.
[Note: The word, here rendered “wages,” Thayer’s Lex., defines: “A soldier’s
pay, allowance that part of a soldier’s pay given to soldiers in place of pay,
(i. e; rations) and the money in which he is paid.” Here is express authority
for “salaried preachers.” But it is no authority for the wickedness of making
money the object und motive of preaching.] Therefore, Paul says it is as
unlawful for a preacher to make his living as for a soldier to do so — “no man
that warreth, entangleth, himself with the affairs of this life, that he may
please him who chose him to be a soldier. And if a man strive for masteries, yet
is he not crowned except he strive lawfully. The husbandman that laboreth must
first be partaker of the fruits.’ — 2 Timothy 2:4-6.

Turning to history, we find that during ages persecution prevented Baptists from
building educational institutions and conducting missions on as extensive a
scale as to-day, or supporting their pastors as well as to-day. But, such
opportunities as they had for this work were often improved. The Waldenses,
etc., were pre-eminently a missionary church, their missionaries so widely
scattering the gospel seed as to revolutionize Europe, produce the Reformation,
and, consequently, the liberty and the Christianity of our own times. Whittier
has put into verse the story of a secret possessor of a precious Biblical
manuscript, a traveling Waldensian merchant, who guardedly unfolds his treasure
to a noble lady, to whom he had been exhibiting his costly silks

“Oh lady fair. I have yet a gem, which purer lustre flings Than the diamond
flash of the jewelled crown on the lofty brow of kings; A wonderful pearl of
exceeding price, whose virtue shall not decay, Whose light shall be as a spell
to thee and a blessing on thy way? The cloud went off from the Pilgrim’s brow as
a small meagre book, Unchased with gold or gem of cost, from his flowing robe he
took.

Here, lady fair, is the pearl of price, may it prove as much to thee. Nay, keep
thy gold, I ask it not, for the Word of God is free.” The reader here turn to
and read pages 189-190 of this book — the statements of Professors Osgood and
Everts as to the ancient Baptists being missionary Baptists.

But, the split between the Regular Baptists and the Anti-missionary Baptists
having occurred in the early part of the nineteenth century I will come to a
later and more historical period. The London Confession, “put faith by the
elders and brethren of many congregations of Christians (baptized upon a
profession of their faith) in London and the country,” A.D. 1689, which both
sides recognized and both used as their main confession before the split, reads:

“The work of pastors being constantly to attend the service of Christ, in his
churches, in the ministry of the word and prayer, with watching for their souls
as those who must give an account to him; it is incumbent on the churches to
whom they minister, not only to give them all due respect, but ‘also to
communicate to them in all good things, according to their ability, so that they
may have a comfortable supply; without being themselves entangled in secular
affairs; and may also be capable of exercising hospitality towards others; and
this is required by the law of nature, and by the express order of our Lord
Jesus Christ, who hath ordained that they that preach the gospel should live of
the gospel.” [Note: London Confession of 1689, chap. 26. sec. 10; in Cutting’s
Hist. Vindication, p. l6; Crosby’s Hist. Baptists, vol. 3, p. 102; Goadby’s Bye
Paths to Baptist History, p. 228.] The General Association of “Particular” or
“Calvinistic” Baptists of England and Wales — the one which adopted the
Confession, just quoted, which was first [Note: Crosby’s Hist. Baptists, vol. 3,
p. 258.] published in 1677 — which met “to consult of proper means to advance
the glory of God and the well being of their churches,” raised a fund of money:

(1.) “To communicate thereof to those churches that are not able to maintain
their own ministry; and that their ministers be encouraged wholly to devote
themselves to the great work of preaching the gospel.

(2.) To send ministers that are ordained, or at least, solemnly called to preach
the gospel in both country and city where. the gospel hath or hath not yet been
preached, and to visit churches.

(3.) To assist those members that shall be found in any of the aforesaid
churches, that are disposed to study, have an inviting gift, and are found in
fundamentals, in attaining to the knowledge and understanding of the languages,
Latin, Greek and Hebrew.” [Note: Crosby’s Hist. Baptists, vol. 3, pp. 251-252,
Ivimey’s Hist. Eng. Baptists, vol. 1, pp. 491-493; Goadby’s Bye Paths to Bap.
Hist., p. 205.] The ministers and messengers of thirteen churches, “in and about
London, in assembly, in 1704, recommended;”

“That it would be highly useful, that a fund of money be settled and maintained,
either by subscriptions or collections, as each church shall think most
expedient, for the education of pious young men for the better fitting of them
for the work of the ministry; and also, for the furnishing of others, who have
not time to attain the knowledge of tongues and some other parts of useful
learning, with such English books as may be thought most proper, for their
assistance and improvement. And that this be recommended to each particular
church.” [Note: Crosby’s Hist. Eng. Bap., vol. 4, p. 7; Goadby’s Bye Paths to
Bap. Hist., p. 216.] Of ministers supporting themselves:

“In some places this was occasioned through the necessity, the people being
poor, and few in number, and exposed to many hardships by persecution, for that
they were obliged to it for the support of themselves and families; and when it
is thus no one can justly blame either the minister or the people. [Note: The
position of “Missionary Baptists.”] Upon the glorious Revolution in 1688,
whereby not only the nation in general was delivered from popery and slavery,
but the Protestant Dissenters from their hardships which they had long suffered
from the established church, they endeavored to effect a reformation in this
matter; [Note: A Reformation many of our churches are suffering for.] and having
now their liberty secured them by law, they hoped to maintain a more regular
ministry, and provide better for their maintenance. And the first thing they
proposed in order to this, was to publish a treatise in vindication of this
rite, and there-fore fixed on Mr. Keach as the most proper person to do it.
Accordingly a small treatise was prepared, in which Mr. Keach effectually proves
it to be the duty of every congregation, if capable of it, to maintain their
minister. And that this treatise might come forth with the more authority, and
tend the better to answer the good design of its being published, it is
recommended to all the congregations of baptized believers in England and Wales
by several of the ministers, thus: ‘Beloved Brethren, we having read and
considered this ensuing treatise, and do conclude it may be of great profit to
the churches of Jesus Christ. “We fearing some congregations have not so duly
weighed and considered the matter of their indispensable duty to the ministry,
in respect of providing such a maintenance for those who labor amongst them, and
are over them in the Lord, as they ought to do, by which means it may be feared
that many of them may be hindered or obstructed in attending to their work, in
serving Christ and his people, as the nature of their sacred employment and
office requires; and the present day especially calls for, and as the Lord
himself hath ordained. Therefore our earnest desires are, that our brethren,
both ministers and members, would be pleased to get this little book, and both
read and well weigh what is said therein.” [Note: Crosby’s Hist. Eng. Baptists,
vol. 4, pp. 293-295.] This was in July, 1688. An act of a General Assembly of
these same Baptists, hold in London, from May the 3d to May the 24th, 1692,
reads:

“That all churches make quarterly collections, in what method they think best
for the encouragement of the ministry, by helping those ministers that are poor,
and to educate brethren that may be approved, to learn the knowledge of those
tongues, wherein the Scriptures are written.” [Note: Crosby’s Hist. Eng.
Baptists, vol. 3, p. 265, Goadby’s Bye Paths to Bap. Hist., p. 209.] Says Ivimey
of the English Baptist church of this period:

“Their example, too, is worthy of imitation, as they strove to promote General
Association of the churches who were agreed in doctrine and discipline; in
providing the advantages of literature for young ministers; and in catechising
the children of the congregation. The weekly money subscription ... was adopted
and recommended by a general assembly of the ministers and messengers of more
than one hundred churches in London in 1689.” [Note: Ivimey’s Hist. Eng. Bap.,
vol. 2, p. 10; of its introduction.] In the beginning of the last century Thomas
Hollis, a London merchant, and whom Crosby calls “a Baptist by profession “and
who wrote of himself,” who profess myself a Baptist,” [Note: Crosby’s Hist. Eng.
Bap., vol. 4. p.206; Backus’ Hist. Bap., vol. 1, p. 510.] in the Harvard College
founded two professorships, one for divinity, the other for mathematics and
material and experimental philosophy. Out of the incomes as interest of his
donations, he ordered four score pounds per annum in our money to each of the
professors, and ten pounds apiece per annum to ten poor scholars of laudable
character, designed for the work of the gospel ministry, as, a help to defray
the charge of their education” [Note: Crosby’s Hist. Eng. Bap., vol. 4, p. 229;
Backus’ Hist. Bap., vol. 1, pp. 495-512.] [Note: Crosby’s last volume of History
was published A. D.1740; Ivimey’s in 1830. Crosby’s was published long before
the split; Ivimey’s when it was occurring. About 1792 —long before the “split”
was thought of or an Anti-mission Baptist existed — the “Particular Baptist
Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Heathen” was organized.] The
Somerset Association, in England, at its meeting in 1655, recommended that the
churches “follow after largeness of heart in the maintenance of those who
dispense the word unto you, that such dispensers may give themselves wholly unto
the work.” [Note: Goadby’s Bye Paths to Bap. Hist., p. 184.] The Midland
Association, in England, at its meeting in 1655, made a similar recommendation,
and that, by money, the churches enter into “a joint carrying on of any part of
the work of the Lord.” [Note: Idem, p. 187; Andrew Fuller’s Works, vol. 1, p.
52.] On Mr. Hardcastle, accepting the call of the Broadmead church, 1671, we
read:

“They subscribed every one according to their ability ... to be delivered twenty
pounds [Note: This was $397.26 per year — a much better support than pastors now
generally receive.] each quarter to the said pastor. And that it might be paid,
it was ordered that every person bring in their quarterage a month before every
usual quarter of the year. And so they all that could give came one after
another into the said room, and told what they were of themselves free to pay,
and then straightway returned out of the room into the meeting again ... It
pleased the Lord to stir up their hearts to raise the said sum of eighty pounds
per annum; for some servants subscribed ten shillings [Note: About $2.40. Think
of this as the life of the genuine “Old Baptist,” when we have men in our
churches owning fine farms who do not give this much!] per year, others six
shillings; other members mean in the world, but rich in grace, gave ten
shillings, others twenty, some thirty shillings, some others forty shillings,
some fifty shillings, some three pounds, some four pounds per annum, one five
pounds, and another six pounds per annum. Of those who subscribed to the
pastor’s maintenance there is to be observed the grace of God in some.

One aged brother, named Henry Pierce, a very mean poor man to appearance, in
person and habit, and by profession or trade but a journeyman or shoemaker, that
lived up in a cock-loft, yet his heart was so enlarged for and by the Lord that
he would subscribe, and did pay, not less than twenty shillings per annum. And
one other member, a sister named Margaret Webb, that had two children to
maintain, that lived very near, and took great care to carry the world about, to
live therein honestly toward all and labored very hard so to do, yet she would
subscribe towards the carrying on of the gospel, and did pay forty shillings per
year. Which example did provoke, if not shame, [Note: Let this have the same
effect on the illiberal soul who reads this. This amount was about $10.60.]
others.” [Note: Broadmead Becords, pp. 162-163; Goadby’s Bye Paths to Baptist
History, p.229.] Eight years after this, this good sister died, and the records
of this church read:

“Sister Webb, one of the deaconesses, was interred after the meeting was done at
Walbarrows. She was about sixty-four years of age ... She left a good savour
behind her; did much good with her little. She labored hard in her way of
distilling waters, and gave constantly while she lived forty shillings a year
for the pastor and left fifty pounds for the use of the congregation.” [Note:
Idem, p. 404; Goadby’s Bye Paths to Baptist History, p. 240.] Goadby says of
English Baptists of the early part of the seventeenth century:

“It was a standing rule in most of their churches that all absent members should
send their weekly contribution to the church’s treasury.bookmark360 [Note: This
rule all our churches ought to adopt and enforce. By it “absent” members would
not only continue to help, but would, in many cases, be prevented from
carelessness and backsliding.] There are not many indications in the middle of
the seventeenth century that the Baptists had any great need to spur the
flagging generosity of their members.

It is toward the close of that century that we first meet with symptoms of the
decline of their fervor and benevolence ... By and by we begin to find minutes
about ‘the increase of covetousness.’” [Note: Goadby’s Bye Paths to Baptist
History, p, 308.] Turning more to the history of the Welsh Baptists of the
seventeenth century, we read:

“In the Association held at Abergavenny, this church proposed to revive the old
plan of supporting ministers in weak and destitute churches. William Thomas was
appointed home missionary for six months and received from Swansea five pounds;
Llantrisaint, two pounds and ten shillings; Carmarthen, two pounds and ten
shillings ... Our Welsh brethren were great advocates for the ancient order of
things. They adopted the old plan of supporting missionaries. The gospel through
the channel of missions has made its way to many parts of the world.” [Note:
Davis’ History Welsh Baptists, p. 31.]

August, 1711, the Blaenaugwent church resolved “Never to grieve their ministers,
who should labor among them in word and doctrine, but cheerfully to assist them
in temporal things,” [Note: Idem, p. 69.] The churches of the Welsh Association
“doubled’ their contributions to missions. [Note: Idem, p. 85.]

“In the year 1654 there were several young men in this church — Llanwenarth
church — who were exercising their gifts as public speakers and as the church
had increased considerably they contributed thirty pounds for the support of
their minister that year.” [Note: Idem, p. 98.]

“The Welsh ministers received money from the London fund.” [Note: Idem, p. 98.]
In the Llanwenarth church “James Edwards commenced the work of the ministry in
1750. He also went to the same college ... Morgan Harris ... went to Bristol
College in 1776.” [Note: Davis’ Hist. Welsh Bap., p. 100.] “John Phillips was
baptized in 1720. Having exercised his gifts for some time he went to Bristol
College ... He returned to Wales and preached at Usk for some time.” [Note:
Idem, p. 111.]

Speaking of the Welsh Baptists at the time when the “split” occurred, [Note:
There has been no split outside of the United States. The “Missionary Baptists”
being yet in line with their brethren of Europe is presumptive proof that they
are the “Old Baptists.”] Davis says:

“The traveling preachers received a staled sum, so that a man of a strong
constitution, who can preach twice every day, as Christimas Evans, John Elias
and others do, would receive a considerable sum for his services. For this
purpose the churches have a fund or treasury.” [Note: Idem, p. 202.] [Note: The
following from the London Freeman, of 1892, corrects a report which is almost
received as history: “The assertion which has appeared in print several times
recently that the Rev. John Ryland, Sr., M. A., father of Dr. Ryland, said to
Dr. (then Mr.) Carey, when the latter suggested at a meeting of ministers at
Northampton, in 1785 or 1786, the duty of sending the gospel to the heathen:
’Young man, sit down; when God wishes to convert the heathen he will do it
without your help or mine,’ is not true. Dr. Ryland in his Life of Andrew
Fuller, says in afoot note on page 112, sec. ed., that his father had left
Northampton before the minister’s meeting of 1876, and that he (Dr. Ryland) well
remembered both of the discussions which took place at the minister’s meeting in
1785 in which ’no room was left for that ill natured anecdote.’ Dr. Ryland also
says: ’I never heard of it until I saw it in print and I cannot credit it. No
man prayed and preached about the latter day glory more than my father, nor did
I ever bear such sentiments proceed from his lips as are here attributed to him.
It is true he admitted the idea of a personal reign of Christ upon the earth
between the first and second resurrection, and supposed that this period is
properly to be styled the millennium; but he also expected that long before this
the gospel would be spread all over the world and I never remember his
expressing an expectation of miraculous gifts being granted for that end.’ Mr.
Ryland, Sr., died July 24, 1792. Dr. Rippon preached his funeral sermon, in
which he says among the last things Mr. Ryland read, ’and with which he was much
pleased’ was his son’s circular letter to the Northampton Association of that
year. The subject of the letter was ’Godly Zeal,’ and in it Mr. Ryland, Jr.,
specially recommends to serious attention ’the sketch which Bro. Carey has
lately given of the state of the heathen world, and proceeds in moving terms to
invoke compassion, prayer and a tion. In the face of this testimony to the
baselessness of the anecdote ought the memory of a devoted and energetic servant
of God to be blackened by an imputation so utterly out of keeping with the
writings he has left behind and with all family traditions of his sayings?” A
LINEAL DESCENDANT OF JOHN RYLAND.] The missionary and the educational work of
European Baptists was, by Baptist immigrants, and otherwise, carried into the
United States of America. The Philadelphia Baptist Association, was organized in
1707, the Charleston, in 1751, and the Warren, in 1767. These three associations
figure more in the early history of American Baptists than do any others. The
Philadelphia association is the oldest of American Baptist associations. In the
first century and a quarter of its history it did probably more in giving type
to the Baptists of America than all other associations within that time did. In
1764, the Philadelphia association “agreed to inform the churches to which we
respectfully belong, that inasmuch as a charter is obtained in Rhode Island
government, toward erecting a Baptist college, the churches should be liberal in
contributing towards carrying the same into execution.” [Note: Minutes
Philadelphia Association, p. 91.] At its meeting in 1766, it “agreed to
recommend warmly to our churches the interests of the college, for which
subscription is opened all over the continent. This college hath been set on
foot upwards of a year, and has now in it three promising youths under president
Manning.” [Note: Idem, p. 99.] At its meeting in 1767 it “agreed that the
churches should be requested to forward the subscription for Rhode Island
college” [Note: Idem, r. 101.] In the minutes of 1769, we read:

“We receive pleasing accounts from Rhode Island college ... The colony has
raised 1,200 pounds towards the building, which will begin early in the spring.
About 1,000 pounds lawful currency of New England, have been sent us from home
towards making up a salary for the president; and all [Note: Not an
Anti-missionary Baptist preacher in this mother of American Baptist
associations.] the ministers of the association have explicitly engaged to exert
themselves in endeavoring to raise money for the same purpose. Voted that
fourteen pounds Jersey currency be given Mr. Thomas Eustick, towards defraying
[Note: What so-called “Old Baptist” association ever raised a dollar to educate
a young man for the ministry.] his expenses at college.” [Note: Minutes
Philadelphia Association, p. 109-110.] In its minutes of 1774, we read:

“The minutes and letters from Charleston association, South Carolina, were read.
The plan adopted by them respecting Rhode Island college recommended to us.
Agreed to recommend the same to the churches we stand respectively related unto;
and whoever shall see good to contribute to the money so gathered, agreeable to
the plan to be remitted ... or brought unto next association.” [Note: Idem, p.
135.] At its meeting of 1774, it says: “The money raised for increasing the fund
of Rhode Island college is as follows,” etc.: [Note: Idem, p. 142.] Prof.
Whitsitt says:

“Why didn’t they found the college at Philadelphia? I suppose the motive that
sent them to Rhode Island was the desire to do a work for the Baptists in that
part of the world. And I presume this was the best way of capturing Rhode
Island.” [Note: Prot. Whitsitt’s Lect. to his Classes.]

Thus Brown University Stands As Most Conclusive Proof That The Regular Baptists
— often called Missionary Baptists — Are The “Old Baptists.”

We have seen that the Philadelphia association at its meeting in 1769, raised
money to educate Thomas Eustick for the ministry. At its meeting in 1790, it
says:

“As it appears expedient that Mr. Silas Walton should continue another year
under the tuition of Dr. Jones, and as Mr. Carter, of Virginia, has generously
given five pounds towards his assistance, it is agreed that we will be
accountable for twenty pounds in addition thereto.” [Note: Minutes Philadelphia
Association, p. 254.] In the minutes of 1791, we read:

“Voted that the money raised last year, remaining in the treasury’s hands, be
allowed on the usual terms, to brother David Stout, who is a candidate for the
ministry.” [Note: Idem, p. 271.] In its minutes of 1792:

“Elders Patten, Chugan and Vaughn, agree to travel for three months in the
ensuing year to preach the gospel to the destitute; and this association
recommend that a sufficient sum be subscribed by the churches, and paid
immediately into the hands of Col. Samuel Miles, to bear their expenses.” [Note:
Idem, p. 283. ] In its minutes of 1722 we read:

“It was proposed for the churches to make inquiry among them-selves, if they
have any young persons hopeful for the ministry, and inclinable for learning,
and if they have to give notice of it to Mr. Able Morgan ... that he might
recommend such to the academy on Mr. Hollis’ account.” [Note: Idem, p. 27.] In
its minutes of 1800 we read:

“It is recommended to our churches that a sermon be annually preached among
them, and after it a collection be made, the amount to be forwarded to the
association at their subsequent meeting, in order to augment the fund for the
education of such pious young men as appear promising for usefulness in the
ministry of the gospel.” [Note: Idem, p. 350.] At its meeting in 1794 it said:

“In consequence of information communicated to this association by brother
William Rogers, it is desired that all donations for the propagation of the
gospel among the Hindoos, in the East Indies, be forwarded to him.” [Note: Idem,
p. 298.] In the minutes of 1795 we read: “Agreed that the church be advised to
make collections for the missionaries to the East Indies.” [Note: Minutes
Philadelphia Association, p. 307.] At its meeting in 1800 it

“Resolved, that it be particularly urged on our churches, that, as stewards of
God, and influenced by a strong desire to spread the cause of our blessed
Redeemer, they endeavor to raise, as early as possible, and to maintain a fund
for the assistance of such ministers as may be called to supply destitute
churches, or otherwise publish the gospel in their connection. The church of
Philadelphia having presented a query on the propriety of forming a plan for
establishing a missionary society: This association, taking the matter into
consideration, think it would be most advisable to invite the general committee
of Virginia and different associations on the continent to unite with us in
laying a plan for forming a missions y society, and establishing a fund for its
support, and for employing missionaries among the natives of our continent.”
[Note: Idem, p. 350.] In its minutes of 1803 we read:

“The plan of a missionary society was read, and with some alteration approved
and recommended. It also recommended that sermons be preached for the education
and mission funds.” [Note: Idem, p. 381.]

Silas Hart, 1795, died and left to the Philadelphia association, by will,
“property sufficient to yield an annuity of fifty pounds, to be kept in the
hands of trustees and applied to the education of young preachers.” [Note:
Semple’s History Virginia Baptists, pp. 192-193.]

Living at that time, Semple says: “This is certainly an important case to the
Baptists of Virginia.” [Note: Semple’s History Virginia Baptists, pp. 192-193.]

Roanoke association of Virginia, at its meeting in May, 1809, had before it “the
erection of Baptist seminaries of learning’ as among the subjects “of the
greatest importance to which it attended.” [Note: Semple’s History Virginia
Baptists, p. 234.] At its meeting in 1807, “considerable agitation of mind was
excited in consequence of a query introduced from the church at Charlotte:
Whether it was a maxim established among the Baptists, that ‘human learning is
of no use.’ ‘This query arose out of an illiberal assertion, contained in a
letter to Mr. Rice, a Presbyterian preacher, of Charlotte, to the chairman of
the committee of missions, and which was published in the assembly’s Missionary
Magazine, [Note: The reader will here see that this association not only had a
“Committee of Missions,” but that it published a magazine in their interests.]
of May, 1807; in which Mr. Rice declares, that, among Baptists of this
neighborhood, it is a maxim very firmly established, that human learning is of
no use. The association took up the business and appointed a committee of
certain brethren to answer and explain the subject. The answer which was strong
and energetic, composed by Mr. Kerr, was printed. No reply [Note: Had these been
Anti-missionary Baptists, Mr. Rice could but have received their thanks instead
of the “strong and energetic” silencing reply.] or attempt to establish the
assertion has been made by Mr. Rice as yet.” [Note: Idem, p. 246.] At the
“general meeting of correspondence,” in 1808, representing “Dover, Goshen,
Albemarle, Appomattox, Roanoke and Meherrin associations,” of Virginia, we read:

“It also appeared from several publications that the Baptists of Virginia had
been misrepresented, as to their sentiments respecting human learning. It was
determined at this meeting to rebut this [Note: The reader will here see that
this association not only had a “Committee of Missions,” but that it published a
magazine in their interests.] calumny, by publishing a few remarks on the
subject in the form of a circular letter, which was accordingly done.” [Note:
Idem, p. 88.] This body, at its next meeting — next year — favorably considered
“the establishment of some seminary or public school, to admit young preachers
to acquire literary knowledge.” [Note: Semple’s Hist. Virginia Bap., p. 89. ]
The Dover association of Virginia, at its meeting in 1790, “answered in the
negative” the question: “Is a minister in duty bound to serve a church who do
not [Note: An Anti-Mission Baptist preacher taking this position would be
disfellowshipped by all so-called “Old Baptists.”] support him?” [Note: Idem, p.
94. ] The New River association of Virginia, at its meeting in 1804, answering
the question: “Are the poor bound by the gospel to give to the rich for
preaching the gospel?” Answered: “The Lord loveth the cheerful giver, according
to what he hath, and not according to what he hath not.” [Note: Idem, p. 271.]
Commenting on this, Semple well says: “All things considered, a better answer
could not probably have been given.” [Note: Idem, p. 271.] In its circular
letter, the Middle District association, in 1791, said:

“We fear covetousness and want of reasonable support of the ministry, is one
great reason why we are so languish in religion. [Note: Here Is the explanation
of the languishing condition of many of our present churches.] When our
ministers ought to be out and working in God’s vineyard, behold they are forced
to leave the flock, hungering for the bread of life, while they are struggling
to provide necessaries for their families.” [Note: Idem, p. 196.] Commenting on
this, Semple says:

“When we consider the many publications upon this subject, as well as the clear
and obvious manner in which it is laid down in the Scriptures, it is somewhat
astonishing that this duty is still so little attended to. What is man at his
best estate?” [Note: Idem, p. 196.] The Ketocton association of Virginia, at its
meeting in 1791, had before it the question “as to the propriety of it church’s
requiring of each of her members to contribute to the expenses of the church
according to their property,” in answer to which “the association determined
that a regulation of that kind in a church was lawful, and that persons that
would not submit to it deserved exclusion from the privileges of the church ...
the correctness of which cannot be doubted upon right principles.” [Note:
Semple’s History of Virginia Baptists, p. 303.]

“The Georgia association was organized in 1784. In 1801 a letter was addressed
to this body on the propriety and expediency of forming a Missionary Society in
this State for the purpose of sending the gospel amongst the Indians, bordering
on our frontiers, which was unanimously and cordially approbated,’ on which
Jesse Mercer remarks: ‘The ministers of those times had too much of the spirit
of the Apostles in them to be afraid of missions.’” [Note: Mercer’s History of
Georgia Baptists, p. 40.] Of its meeting in 1814 its minutes say:

“According to a suggestion in the letter from the Whateley’s Mill church,
Brother Mercer presented and read the circular letter and constitution of the
‘Savannah Baptist Society for Foreign Missions and then moved for the
approbation of the association, which was given most willingly and unanimously —
whereupon it was thought proper to recommend the subject for its evident
importance, to the consideration of the churches ... The glorious effort to
evangelize the poor heathen in idolatrous lands.” [Note: Idem, p. 55.] In its
minutes of 1815 we read:

“Received from the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions for the United States,
through its agent, Rev. Luther Rice, the report of the Board, accompanied by
letters desiring the aid of this body in their laudable exertions, to spread the
gospel of Christ among the heathen in idolatrous lands. The association [Note:
Baptists, at this time, wholly Missionary Baptists.] unanimously agreeing to
co-operate in the grand design ... resolved itself into a body for missionary
purposes.”

Jesse Mercer says, at that time, “No complaint was ever heard [Note: Baptists,
at this time, wholly Missionary Baptists.] of’ these missionary resolutions and
acts. [Note: Mercer’s Hist. of Georgia Bap., p. 56.] At its meeting in 1808,
answering the question, “Should a brother be continued in fellowship, who,
though able, will not assist in supporting the gospel?” it answered: “We are of
the opinion where the ability is obvious on the one hand, and the unwillingness
positive on the other, and the brother cannot be brought to his duty by proper
means, he ought to be excluded.” [Note: Idem, p. 132.] Writing, about. 1838,
Jesse Mercer says:

“It will be seen by a reference to these reports, etc., that the missionary
operations of those times greatly interested the feelings of those who have
entered into their rest before us. It will be seen, too, with how much truth and
justice the missionary enterprise is now assailed as something new under the
sun. Then prejudices, now powerful, were unknown. Then strife and opposition,
now rampant, showed not their deformed heads.” [Note: Introduction to Mercpr’s
Hist. Georgia Bapt., p. 7.]

Turning now to the associations which the Anti-mission Baptists claim we find
that they were originally Missionary Associations. The Kehukee association, of
North Carolina, was organized in 1765. The churches composing it “adopted the
Baptist confession of faith, published in London, in 1689 ... upon which the
Philadelphia and Charleston associations were founded.” [Note: Burkitt’s and
Read’s Hist. Kehukee Association, p. 33.] In this chapter we have seen that the
English Baptists who first adopted this Confession were strictly Missionary
Baptists and that “in educational and missionary work” the Philadelphia and
Charleston associations were in closest fellowship. The churches of this
association, before they were organized into it, by missionary work of Mr. Gano,
as missionary of the Philadelphia association, were reclaimed from Arminianism,
and from a languishing condition. [Note: Benedict’s Hist. of Baptists, p. 682;
Burkitt’s and Read’s Hist. Kehukee Association, pp. 32-33.] The churches of the
Kehukee association covenanted “to be ready to communicate to the defraying of
the churches expenses, and for the support of the ministry” [Note: Burkitt’s and
Read’s Hist. Kehukee Association, p. 35.] At this association in 1787 the
question was asked:

‘What measures shall a deacon take who sees the necessity of the ministers
support and his conscience bids him do his duty, in consequence of which he
frequently excites the brethren to their duty; yet, after all, to his daily
grief, he finds they neglect their duty?” To this question the association
answered:

“It is our opinion that it is the members duty voluntarily to contribute to
their minister’s support, and if the deacon discovers any remiss in their duty,
that he shall cite him to the church; and if the church find him negligent in
his duty, we give it as our advice, that the church should deal [Note: Think of
a “Hard Side” Baptist church or Association giving this answer!] with him for
covetousness.” [Note: Burkitt’s and Head’s Hist. Kehukee Association, p. 94.] At
its meeting in 1788 this association

(1.) “Do recommend to the consideration of the different churches for their
approbation or disapprobation,” the “raising a fund in the first place by their
own contribution.

(2.) By public contributions from the inhabitants, twice in the year at least.
Which money so collected and deposited in the hands of some person, and subject
to the orders of the church, to be appropriated to the aid of any traveling
preacher, whom they shall judge to be sent of God to preach.” [Note: Burkitt’s
and Read’s Hist. Kehukee Association, pp. 95-96.] In the circular letter to this
association, in 1791, we read:

“We proceed, in our circular letter, at this time, to make a few observations on
the necessary support of gospel ministers; although we are sorry that there
should be the least occasion to write or speak on that, subject. Ministers have
a divine right to maintenance from the people.” [Note: Idem, pp. 161-162.] T.H.
Pritchard, D.D., one of our most scholarly and critical writers, says:

“I shall now prove from unquestionable historical facts that the associations
which are now anti-missionary were in favor of foreign missions up to the year
1826, ‘27 and ‘30, and hence have no claim to the title of the Old School
Baptists.

“I will begin with the Baltimore association, perhaps the most famous body of
this modern sect in the United States. Their minutes for 1814 contain the
following record: ‘Received a corresponding letter from Bro. Rice, one of our
missionary brethren, on the subject of encouraging missionary societies.’ This
Bro. Rice was Luther Rice, who was then just from Burmah, where he had gone as a
missionary with Adoniram Judson.

“In 1816 these minutes in their circular letter say: ‘The many revivals of
religion which are witnessed in various parts of the country — the
multiplication of Bible societies, missionary societies and Sunday schools, both
in our own and foreign countries, are viewed by us as showing indications of the
near approach of that day when the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth.’
The minutes of the same year state that ‘the standing clerk was instructed to
supply the corresponding secretary of the Foreign Mission Board with a copy of
our minutes annually.’ In 1817 ‘Bro. Luther Rice presented him-self as the
messenger of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions and was cordially received.’

“Elder James Osborne was a member of this body, which cordially received a
foreign missionary and at this very session was appointed a home missionary.
This man Osborne, who was a leader in the anti-mission secession, both in
Maryland and North Carolina, I remember to have seen in Charlotte when I was a
small boy. He was a handsome, dressy man, full of conceit, and very fond of
talking of himself and of selling his own books.

“From the same authentic source, the minutes of the Baltimore association, we
learn that in 1828 they called themselves ‘Regular Baptists,’ just as we do now;
the same year they express their joy at the intelligence of the conversion of
the heathen, and as late as 1827 the association expressed, by formal
resolutions, their sorrow at the death of Mrs. Ann H. Judson and their great
interest in the mission with which she was connected, and it was not till 1836,
when the association met with the Black Rock church, and then by a vote of
sixteen to nine, that fellowship was withdrawn from churches favoring foreign
missions, Sunday schools, etc.” To come back now to North Carolina, I can prove
that the Kehukee and Country Line Associations, two of the most influential of
the anti-mission party, were once missionary bodies. In Burkitt and Read’s
History of the Kehukee Association it is stated on page 139, that in 1794, a
special day was appointed to pray God for a revival of religion, and on page 145
that it was the custom of ministers of that date to invite penitents to come
forward and kneel down to be prayed for, just as we do in our revival meetings
now. In Bigg’s History of the Kehukee Association, page 162, it appears that
this association appointed delegates to meet at Cashie Church, Bertie County, in
June, 1805, with delegates from the Virginia, Portsmouth and Neuse associations,
and at this meeting arrangements were made to collect money for missionary
purposes. That it appears that the Kehukee was not only in fellowship with the
Portsmouth and other missionary Baptist associations, but that the very first
missionary society ever organized in the State, was in the bounds of this body.
In 1812 this association sent $3, in 1813 $5, and in 1814 $5, to the general
meeting of correspondence of North Carolina, which was an organization of the
Missionary Baptists. The same history of the association shows that in 1817 it
was in correspondence with the General Convention of the Baptists which met that
year in Philadelphia and which was supporting Judson and other foreign
missionaries, and it was not till 1827 that this association took a decided
anti-missionary ground. The evidence to show that the Country Line Association
was a missionary body up to the year 1832 is perfectly overwhelming. Its minutes
show that in 1816, ‘17 and ‘18 that body sent delegates to the general meeting
of correspondence, and in 1816 Elder George Roberts, one of the ministers of
this association, was the Moderator of the general meeting of correspondence of
which Robert T. Daniel was the agent, and which developed into the North
Carolina Baptist State Convention. In 1818 this association sent $32-45 to the
North Carolina Missionary Society by the hands of Bro. John Campbell. And what
is still more remarkable, there was a very prosperous Woman’s Mission Society in
this Association, the minutes of which, kept by John Campbell, show that the
“Hyco Female Cent Society” was formed at Tynch’s Creek meeting house, in County
Caswell, in October, 1816; in March, 1817, it met at Bush Arbor meeting house;
in March, 1818, it met at the same place; in 1819 at Grave’s meeting house, and
the fifth annual meeting was held in September, 1820, at Arbor; all of these
churches are now anti-mission, but were then missionary bodies, and the persons
who preached the annual sermons, R. Dishong, J. Landus, Barzillar Graves, Abner
W. Clopton and S. Chandler, were all Missionary Baptist ministers- In 1832 the
County Line Association was in regular correspondence with the Flat River and
Sandy Creek associations, both of which were then and still are missionary
bodies. In 1832 James Osborne, of Baltimore, visited this association, and under
his presence it was induced to withdraw fellowship from the Missionary Baptists.

Now, from this brief statement of unvarnished facts we see that the Missionary
Baptists are just where the Apostles were and where all of the name were till
1827-8 when a new set arose, calling themselves, according to Elder Bennett’s
Review, page 8, at first, The Reformed Baptists in North Carolina, and then the
Old Baptists, the Old Sort of Baptists, Baptists of the Old Stamp, and finally
adopted the name of the Primitive Baptists.

There are many things about these brethren which I like, and I would not
needlessly call them by an offensive name, but I cannot style them either Old
School or Primitive Baptists, for in so doing I should falsify the facts of
history, and acknowledge that I and my brethren have departed from the faith of
the Apostles and Baptist fathers. In no invidious sense, therefore, but from
necessity, I am obliged to call them New School or Anti-missionary Baptists.
[Note: In Biblical Recorder.] After years of pretty thorough and careful reading
I have been unable to read the name of even one church, association or writer
that ever opposed missions or education before about 1810. As there is no
difference in doctrine between what are called Missionary Baptists and what are
called Anti-mission Baptists, I notice only that which really divides them —
missions, education, support of pastors and other religious enterprises. To be
sure, the Anti-mission Baptists have often run the doctrine of Divine
Sovereignty and Election into fanaticism and other errors. But the Regular
Baptists, by the Arminians among them, have equalled their errors. So neither
can well throw up errors of doctrine to the other.

I conclude this part of the chapter in the language of David Benedict, “a
leading Baptist historian:”

“Old School and Primitive Baptists are appellations so entirely out of place
that I cannot, as a matter of courtesy, use them without adding, so-called, or
some such expression. I have seen so much of the missionary spirit among the old
Anabaptists, Waldenses and other ancient sects — so vigorous and perpetual were
the efforts of those Christians, whom we claim as Baptists, in the early, middle
and late ages, to spread the gospel in all parts of the world, among all nations
and languages where they could gain access, that it is plain that those who
merely preach up predestination, and do nothing, have no claim to be called by
their name.” [Note: Benedict’s History of the Baptists, pp. 935-936.] [Note: To
add to the foregoing testimony would be easy. Thus, in the eleventh century,
“the Albigenses had congregations and schools of their own.” — Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia, vol. 1, p. 47. Long before the Reformation the Baptists of Bohemia
kept a school for young ladies, and their mode of education and the purity of
their manners were in such high repute that the daughters of a very great part
of the nobility of Bohemia were sent thither to be educated.” — Robinson’s
Ecclesiastical Researches, p. 632. Dr. Ray quotes from Perrin’s History
Waldenses, p. 117: “In the year 1229 the Waldenses had already spread themselves
in great numbers throughout all Italy. They had schools in Valcamonica alone,
and they sent money from alt parts of their abode in Lombardy for the
maintenance and support of said schools.” — Baptist Succession, p. 40. “ Bristol
College, England, was founded in 1710 for the education of Baptist ministers.
This was more than a century before the origin of the anti-missionary Baptists.
Before their origin it had educated many preachers.” — Cramp’s History of the
Baptists, p. 491.] [Note: Benedict says of the Anti-mission Baptists: “A large
amount of their documents are before me which contain the resolutions and
decrees of their churches and association …From these It appears that it any of
their members shall unite with any society for the promotion of the cause of
benevolence or moral reform, they shall, ipso facto, be expelled from their
fellowship and communion; the missionary, Bible, tract and Sunday school and
temperance societies are especially named; and generally a sweeping clause is
added, embracing the •so-called benevolent institutions of the day! These
prohibitions extend not only to actual membership in these bodies, but to any
contributions of their own personal funds for their support! No collection for
any of these objects can be made in any of the churches where they have the
control, nor are their members allowed to cast in their mites when the box goes
around in any neighboring congregation in which they may be present. This, I
believe, is a picture of what are called the non-fellowshipping resolutions of
the anti-mission party. This is a yoke we may well suppose could not set easy on
the necks of independent Baptists; many for peace sake may submit to it for
awhile, but it will not be long endured by any but those who have thoroughly
Imbibed, esprit du corps, the spirit of the party.” — Benedict’s History of the
Baptists, p. 936.]

Turning to the Freewill “Baptists,” in the foregoing chapters we have seen that
Baptists of past ages have been what are denominated “Calvinistic” Baptists.
[Note: These views are the Bible teaching. Calvin held some extreme views on
this line which Baptists have never believed or professed. But as “Calvinism”
has come to be the term by which the views of Baptists on divine sovereignty,
atonement and election are commonly known, I use the term. ] The “Communion
Question” being one fundamental difference between the Freewill “Baptists” and
the Regular Baptists, I will briefly notice it. The Baptist Confession, of 1643,
printed in London, Anno 1646 “reads that, disciples” ought to be baptized, and
after to partake of the Lord’s Supper.” [Note: Article 39—in Cutting’s
Historical Vindication, p. 122.] The Confession of 1689 reads:

“Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign
institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only law giver, to be continued in
is church to the end of the world ... to be administered by those who are
qualified and thereunto called according to the commission of Christ” [Note:
Chapter 28 — In Cutting’s Hist. Vindication, p. 171.]

Replying to an open communionist, an anonymous critical historian, [Note: I
think, Dr. Buckland.] in the Examiner, near twenty years ago, said:

“They cannot bring a single Confession of Faith from all Baptist history before
the rise of the Free-will Baptists, about one hundred years ago,” to prove that
Baptists were formerly open communionists.

“They can bring only one in all that history which appears to prove it, and that
one excluded Arminians from communion, hence would exclude the authors or the
main author of these assertions. All the Continental Baptist bodies from 1521
onwards ... practiced strict communion. English General Baptists, from the
beginning of their history in 1610, were strict. Their Confessions published in
1611, 1660, 1663 and 1678 plainly require baptism before communion. Their
churches would not even allow attendance upon other worship. They said, ‘The
whole Scripture is against such Balaamitic and wavering actions.’ They were
never open communion until in the last century they became Socinians. The
Confessions of Faith of the Particular Baptists in England are emphatic for
strict communion ... The same is true of all the Confessions that can be found
in Baptist history until 1688. Then the Century Confession of London which is
always pleaded for open communion appeared ... This confession itself makes
communion a church ordinance, and puts it after immersion; but as these brethren
avowed their aim to show how little Baptists differed from Presbyterians and
Congregationalists they granted an appendix that while most of the churches
adhered to strict communion some few did not; and they recognized this fact and
would not impose conditions upon these.”

Rev. Dr. Underwood, [Note: Goadby’s Bye Paths to Baptist History, p. 52.] of
Chilwell College, Nottinghamshire, in a paper, read before the English Baptist
Union, at Birmingham, Oct., 1864, said:

“In the matter of communion our churches are far from being uniform. Until
within a very few years nearly all our churches were close and strict.” In the
language of Rev. Porter S. Burbank, one of the most representative Freewill
Baptist defenders: “The Freewill Baptist connection in North America commenced
A.D. 1780, in which year its first church was organized” [Note: Religious
Denominations of the United States, p. 74.] . From history and its own
confession the Free-will Baptist sect is certainly of modern origin. The Six
Principle “Baptists” are of the seventeenth century — Rev. A.D. Williams, their
representative, beingwitness. [Note: Idem, p. 88.] They being Arminian in
showing Baptists have ever been Calvinists, the foregoing chapters, have
demonstrated them not in the line of Church Perpetuity. The so-called “German
Baptists” or Tunkers thus originated in Germany, in 1708:

“The first constituents were Alexander Mack and wife, John Kipin and wife,
George Grevy, Andreas Bhony, Lucas Fetter and Joanna Nethigum. They agreed to
read the Bible together, and edify one another in the way they had been brought
up, for as yet they did not know there were any Baptists in the world. However,
believers’ baptism and a Congregational church soon gained on them, insomuch
that they were determined to obey the gospel in these matters. They desired
Alexander Mack to baptize them, but he deemed himself in reality unbaptized,
refused, upon which they cast lots to find who should be the administrator; on
whom the lot fell hath been carefully concealed. However, baptized they were in
the river Eder, by Schwartzenau, and then formed themselves into a church,
choosing Alexander Mack as their minister.” [Note: Religious Denominations, p.
92.]

So, without looking into their other errors, we can safely set aside the
so-called “German Baptists” as Tunkers from all claim to Church Perpetuity. The
German Seventh Day Baptists were originated in Germany, in 1728, by Conrad
Beissel, one of the Tunkers. It is, therefore, a split off the Tunker sect.
[Note: Idem, p. 109.] The origin of the Seventh Day English Baptists as a church
is thus given by Rev. G.B. Utter, one of the most eminent representatives of
that sect:

“The Seventh Day Baptists in America date from about the same period that their
brethren in England began to organize churches.”

Then he dates its American rise in 1671. [Note: Benedict’s Hist. of Baptists, p.
921.] Prof. W.W. Everts, Jr., writes me that the ancient Baptists observed the
first day of the week as the day of rest and worship. Save among Judaizers, who
practiced circumcision and other such errors there were no scattered advocates
of the seventh day, nor any permanent organization in its interest, until the
rise of these so-called Seventh Day Baptists. Seventh Day “Baptists” certainly
are a modern sect.

Religious Denominations in the United States and Great Britain,” published by
“Charles Desilver,” is probably the best book in its line. I have now examined
all the different “Baptists” which it mentions — six beside the Regular Baptists
— and have found that not one of them has any true claim to be the New Testament
Baptists in the Church Perpetuity line.

Let It Be Emphasized, That: All This Talk About There Being Twenty-Seven
Different Kinds Of Baptists, And That We Can’t Know Which Of Them Is The Old
Baptist Church, Originates In Ignorance, Or In Pure Hatred To The Baptist Church
And Disregard For veracity And Is “Darkening Of Counsel.”

Like the fable of the dog on the hay, bitter and unscrupulous Baptist
assailants, knowing their own churches are but modern sects, and that they
cannot appropriate Church Perpetuity are determined to leave “unturned no stone”
to make the people believe that “Baptists are in as bad a fix as we are.” [Note:
In their avowing, in one breath, that, “it is not necessary that any church
should have been perpetuated from apostolic times; that a modern origin is no
discredit to any church;” then, in the next, trying to overthrow Baptist claims
on the people, by denying their claim to Church Perpetuity, these
controversalists clearly demonstrate themselves insincere !] Owing to this
attempt to mislead honest men and women I have given the question, Who are the
Old Baptists? much more space than it deserves.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 31: BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY TESTED BY THE FRUITS OF BAPTIST CHURCHES.
========================================================================

CHAPTER 28. — BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY TESTED BY THE FRUITS OF BAPTIST
CHURCHES.

[The reader read this chapter in connection with the Introduction to this book.]
Christ says: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Matthew 7:20. In
fruit-bearing Baptist churches of to-day need dread no comparison with Baptist
churches of the apostolic age (1.) The life and the influence of Baptist
churches for a spiritual church.

Rejecting all inherited church membership, rejecting bringing people into the
church in infancy, rejecting bringing them in on motives of policy and rejecting
bringing them in anyway or for any reason before they are born of God, and
contending for exclusion of all known unregenerate persons from church
fellowship; among the great denominations Baptists to-day, as in all the past,
stand alone. Thus, they stand alone for a church of only spiritual persons. On
other churches Baptists have exerted an inestimable influence for good. In 1863
the adherents of the Heidleberg Catechism celebrated its three hundredth year
and published of it a handsome tercentenary edition, edited by prominent divines
and with an elaborate historical introduction. These learned writers say: This
Catechism assumes that “the baptized children of the church are sealed and set
over to the service of God by the sanctifying and separating act of baptism
itself, and that they belong to the congregation and the people of Christ ... In
this respect, however, it was only in keeping .with the general thinking and
practice of the church in the age of the Reformation; and it is not difficult to
see that the entire catechetical system in particular of the sixteenth century,
owed its whole interest and vigor and success to the same theory of christianity
and no other. It is not intelligible on any other ground; and with the giving
away accordingly of the old belief in BAPTISMAL GRACEand educational religion we
find that it has in a large measure lost its hold upon the practice of our
modern churches, in large measure altogether.” [Note: Tercentenary Edition of
the Heldleberg Catechism, pp. 112-113.]

Listen to these writers tell what has, in such a great measure rooted out the
Romish doctrine of infant church membership and baptismal grace, on which the
writers say the sixteenth century Reformers built modern churches:

“The BAPTIST PRINCIPLE, as it may be called, has entered widely into their
theology and church life, bringing them to make large concessions practically;
so that they find it hard to bear up against its assumptions and pretensions,
and are more and more in danger of being swept away by it from their ancient
moorings, and driven forth into the open sea of spiritual fanaticism and
unbelief. This unquestionably is the great reason why in certain quarters within
these communions such small stress has come to be laid on infant baptism. We are
surrounded now, as we have just seen, with a wholly different practice which is
the fruit and evidence of a wholly different faith. What that faith is, or
rather what it is not, has been mentioned already in general terms. It is the
absence of a belief in that side of christianity which is represented to us in
the idea of the church being in any way the organ and medium of grace for the
children of men. In this respect our modern sects are generally of one mind ...
They are all of them thus constitutionally Baptistic; having no power to see in
the church membership of infants and young children anything more than an empty
form, and never daring to make any practical earnest with the thought of their
sanctifcation to God. Such has come to be the reigning habit of thought, it is
but too plain with our American christianity in general at the present time.”
[Note: Tercentenary Edition of the Heldleberg Catechism, pp. 118-119.]

Thus, these great Pedobaptist scholars lamentably concede that Baptist
principles have almost wholly converted the Pedobaptist world from infant
baptism, from baptismal grace and from a consequent unspiritual church — they
concede that Baptist influence has led them to abandon the infant baptism part
of the old catechism, which was “at once cordially welcomed by all but Romanists
and extreme Lutherans,” and which “was speedily translated into many different
languages,” and which “is, virtually, the platform occupied at the present day
by the largest portion of the Protestant church, especially in regard to its
moderate Calvanistic and sacramental doctrines.” [Note: Kurtz’s Church History,
vol. 2, p. 152.] [Note: The Christian Register (Unitarian) says: “We believe
that no branch of the Christian church has done more to uproot a superstitious
belief in the pernicious doctrine of baptismal regeneration than the Baptists.
It is just here that a sharp line has divided them from the Romanists, Lutherans
and the old-time Episcopalians.”] Before the British Congregational Union, Dr.
Bonner, the Moderator, in 1858, said:

“The preeminence given by the Baptists to the personality[Note: This is the
principle that rejects inherited Christianity and Infant baptism.] of the
christian character and profession becomes a valuable force arrayed on the side
of scriptural evangelism against human traditions, sacredotal and ecclesiastical
pretensions. It is the direct antidote and antagonist to the official virtue and
authority upon which the church of Rome has based the grand apostasy. ... On
this principle, perhaps, we may account for a new reformation in Germany, being
apparently identified with the diffusion of Baptist sentiments in so many
States, and for the virulence with which those who teach them and those who
adopt them are so persecuted and oppressed by governments inspired by
ecclesiastical jealousies and alarm.”

Froude, an eminent English historian, not a Baptist, in his Life of Bunyan,
says:

“The Baptists, the most thoroughgoing and consistent of all Protestant sects.

If the sacrament of baptism is not a magical form but is a personal act, in
which the baptized person devotes himself to Christ’s service, then to baptize
children at an age when they cannot understand what they have done may well seem
irrational if not impious.”

Joseph Cook, Congregationalist: “I remember where I am speaking; I know what
prejudices I am crossing; but I know that in this assembly, assuredly nobody
will have objection to my advocacy, even at a little expense of consistency with
my own supposed principles, of the necessity of a spiritual church membership,
if I say that “the Baptists have” been of foremost service in bringing into the
world, among all the Protestant denominations an adequate idea of the importance
of a spiritual church membership. I know that no generous heart or searching
intellect will object to this statement.” Again, says Mr. Cook: “I thank the
Baptists for having compelled other denominations to recognize the necessity of
a converted membership.” [Note: That “other denominations,” especially
Methodists, to a deplorable degree, yet retain the doctrine of an unconverted
church membership must not be overlooked. Southern Methodists are more Romish
than are Northern Methodists.] (2.) In Baptists remaining faithful to the great
evangelical trusts we have their scriptural fruit. A mispronunciation of a word
led to the slaughter of the gallant six hundred in the charge of Bal-a-kla-va. A
slight error in information left Napoleon ignorant of the sunken road at
Waterloo, which lost him the battle upon which his destiny depended. The great
Romish apostasy began and reached its full development by underestimating the
importance of contending for the great principles and the particulars of church
ordinances and church constitution. This is but the logical and inevitably final
result of calling anything which is in God’s word “non-essential.” [Note: The
reader please distinguish between essentials for salvation and essentials for
the preservation of the gospel and full obedience to Christ.] Thus, giving his
reasons for leaving the Baptist for a Pedobaptist church, a prominent New
England minister said:

“I no longer regard the Scriptures as final authority in any such precise and
formal matters as I have heretofore done. I believe them to be divine, but
divine in the sense of revealing principles of action rather than precise
examples. I have come to regard christianity as a growth almost as much as a
revelation, and that very nearly as much attention is to be paid to its
development as to its establishment. Arising from this view of the Scriptures, I
have felt a growing indifference to theological distinctions. Forms of doctrines
and modes, both as they relate to the organization and the ordinances, appear to
me of less moment. Baptism itself is of less consequence to me, and, as I now
think, a change might occur in the form when in the judgment of good men it
might be wise and necessary.” On the same line Mr. Daugherty, formerly pastor of
the Stoughton Street Baptist church of Boston, on leaving the Baptists, said:

“I was born and brought up a Baptist and in due time entered Andover Theological
Seminary and commenced my ministry a conscientious Baptist. But have come
gradually to feel the narrowness of my faith, or, at least, the intense
literalness of the interpretation of that faith ... While I have no doubt that,
philologically and historically, baptism by immersion was the primitive mode, I
consider it to-day among the non-essential things of the Christian church. I
cannot be conscientiously any longer tied to the intense literalness of the
sect. So I join the Congregationalists.” [Note: The Standard, of Chicago.] This
reminds us of John Calvin’s words, when he was originating the Presbyterian
church and substituting the change of “men” for God’s plain word:

“Whether the person who is to be baptized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice
or once, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him is of no
importance; churches ought to be left at liberty in this respect, to act
according to the difference of countries. The very word baptize, however,
signifies to immerse; and it is CERTAINthat immersion was the practice of the
ancient church.” [Note: Calvin’s Institute of Christian Religion, book 4,
chapter 15, section 19,] A writer well says:

“A Pedobaptist minister, the other day, asked the writer why Baptists were so
orthodox on the question of eternal punishment, and other questions now
agitating the churches, while Congregationalists and others were becoming so
loose and unsound. The question is a suggestive one. The only Baptist minister
in in this vicinity, so far as we know, who has favored Universalism and other
errors is an open communion Baptist. The answer is not a difficult one. We
believe in the Word of God as the supreme authority. We dare not put our wish in
the place of. God’s word. We dare not talk of essentials and non-essentials. We
bow before every commend of the Lord Jesus. If men make light of one command,
why not of another? If in any particular we place our authority above Christ’s
why not in every particular? If a man will say, ‘Yes, Christ commands baptism on
a profession of faith, but I think something else will do, then the foundation
of all authority is taken away. Our only hope is unquestioning loyalty to the
divine word.” At the faithfulness of Baptists to the truth, without being
constrained by ecclesiastical authority over the churches, Baptist opponents
stand in admiration and wonder — not seeing that this is the logical result of
the Baptist starting point, faithfulness to God’s word. Dr. Charles Hodge once
said to a Baptist preacher:

“It has always appeared to me a remarkable fact in providence that, although
your church organization allows such freedom to the several congregations, your
ministers and people have ever been so distinguished for adherence to sound
doctrine. The experience of Congregationalists in New England is very different
from yours.”

Before the Congregational Union, Henry Ward Beecher said:

“Among all the churches whose flag, red with the blood of Calvary, has never
lowered or trailed in the dust of defection, who while the Congregational church
suffered eclipse, while the Presbyterians in England suffered eclipse, stood
firm, testifying to the truth as it is in Jesus, none deserve more love and more
gratitude than the Baptist churches of America. In that church the faith of our
fathers has never received a shock, nor been moved. Faithful in the field,
enterprising, and for the last quarter of a century, with growing enterprise
towards education, and now affording some of the ripest scholars in Biblical
literature, which the world knows, and thousands of ministers that are second to
none in zeal and success,”

J. L. Winthrow, D.D., of Chicago, one of the most prominent of American
Presbyterians:

“I suppose there is not a denomination — I speak in no fulsome praise but
literally — I think there is not a denomination of Evangelical christians that
is thoroughly as sound theologically as the Baptist denomination. I believe it.
After carefully considering it I believe I speak the truth. Sound as my own
denomination is, sound as some others are, and I do not cast unfriendly
reflections upon any particular denomination, I do say, in my humble judgment,
there is not an Evangelical denomination in America to-day that is as true to
the simple, plain gospel of God, as it is recorded in the Word of God, as the
Baptist denomination.”

John Hall, D.D., who is perhaps the most prominent Presbyterian preacher in
America, not long ago, said:

“There is a tendency to heap censure on the Baptists of this country, because of
their views. generally held and acted upon regarding the Lord’s Supper. ‘Close
Communion’ is being assailed by many in the interests of Catholicity. It is a
doubtful Catholicity to raise a popular cry against a most valuable body of
people, who honestly and consistently go through what they deem an important
principle. Our love for our brethren should surely include the Baptist brethren.
And it is doubtful considering the lengths to which liberal ideas in this
country have been carried, if there be not some gain to the community as a whole
from a large denomination making a stand at a particular point, and reminding
their brethren that there are church matters which we are not bound, and not
even at liberty, to settle according to popular demand, as we would settle the
route of a railroad.”

Baptists by taking their “stand” where, in crying “non-essential,” the enemy
makes his opening assaults on the faith, have thus guarded the precious gospel
and been of inestimable blessing to all churches, and to the whole world. Thus
Baptist influence on other denominations is more than ample justification for
their existence.

(3.) As to freedom, Baptist fruit has ever been only good. Starting from their
great principles, that religion is a personal matter between the soul and God
only, and that every Christian is a priest to God, Baptists have always and
inevitably, opposed parent, church or State, making the spiritual choice for any
souls. Hence they, as does the New Testament, have always left every believer as
a free man or woman in Christ Jesus. This constitutes every believer a ruler in
God’s kingdom and every citizen a ruler in the State. In a former chapter we
have seen that Baptists have given the world religious freedom. In a recent
volume, entitled “The Puritan in Holland, England and America,” Douglas
Campbell, A.M. LL. B., member of the Historical Association, says:

“No words of praise can be too strong for the service which the English Baptists
have rendered the cause of religious liberty ... They have never lost their
influence as a leaven in the land. In purity of life and in substantial
Christian work, they have been surpassed by the members of no other religious
body. Having been the first British denomination of Christians to proclaim the
principles of religious liberty, they were also the first to send out
missionaries to the heathen ... In fact, taking their whole history together, if
the Anabaptists of Holland had done nothing more for the world than to beget
such offspring they would have repaid a thousandfold all the care shown for
their liberties.” The Nonconformist and Independent, of London, the ablest
Pedobaptist paper in the world, is thus quoted by The Standard, of Chicago:

“To the Baptists must be credited the proud distinction first of doctrinal
relationship to the earliest christians in Great Britain; and secondly, their
priority in asserting the principle of liberty of conscience. Their essential
doctrine was held firmly by the Christian communions which St. Augustine found
in England when he arrived on his missionary enterprise, and no efforts of his
could convert the Baptists to the ecclesiastical polity of the church of Rome.
Coming to a more historical period, ‘it is,’ says Mr. Skeats, in his ‘History of
Free Churches,’ ‘the singular and distinguished honor of the Baptists to have
repudiated from their earliest history all coercive power over the conscience,
and the actions of men with reference to religion ... They were the
prolo-evangelists of the voluntary principle ... From the remote period referred
to above, the principles of the Baptists have more or less permeated and
leavened the religious life of England. The Lollards are said to have held their
views. And Wickliffe is claimed as one of the early adherents of their theory of
Christ’s teaching ... They have had to endure imprisonment, pain and death, for
their rejection of the supremacy of the crown, and their assertion of a doctrine
which cut at the very root of priestism.’” The New York Tribune recently said:

“The Baptists Have Solved The Great Problem. They combine the most resolute
conviction, the most stubborn belief in their own special doctrines with the
most admirable tolerance of the faith of other Christians.” [Note: Recently,
Romanists and their apes, in the face of Rome having only a red garment, of her
principles being persecution, and of Romish priests and bishops being set to
persecute “heretics” are presenting Maryland as proof that Rome is entitled to
the credit of giving religious liberty to the world. Acting under a Protestant
sovereign Lord Baltimore could not persecute other religionists. But listen what
law he did pass: “Whosoever shall blaspheme God, or shall deny that the Holy
Trinity, or any or the person thereof, shall be punished with DEATH.” —
Bancroft’s Hist. U.S., vol. 1, p. 256. Death to Unitarians, Jews and Infidels.
If Rome is in favor of freedom why did she at that time, every where else
persecute; and why does she persecute today, wherever she has the power to do
so; and why does she frequently mob opposition speakers in “free America”?]
George Washington wrote to the Baptists:

“I recollect with satisfaction that the religious society of which you are
members, have been throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously the firm
friends of civil liberty, and the persevering promoters of our glorious
revolution.” [Note: Washington’s Life, vol. 12, p. 155.]

Everywhere Baptists have opposed any union of church and State. Founding Rhode
Island, they welcomed all to find refuge under their banner of freedom. Judge
Story says of the Baptist founding of Rhode Island:

“In the code of laws established by them we read for the first time since
Christianity ascended the throne of the Caesars, that conscience must be free.”
[Note: Taylor on Religious Liberty, p. 23.]

Bancroft says Rhode Island “is the witness that naturally the paths of the
Baptists are the paths of pleasantness and peace.” [Note: Bancroft’s History
United States, vol. 2, p. 459—old edition.] The article on religious liberty in
the American Constitution, “was introduced into it by the united efforts of the
Baptists in 1789.” [Note: New American Encyclopedia.]

Early in this century, the king of Holland proffered the Baptists State
financial aid. This, of course, they refused. In Virginia, in 1784, when
Baptists, in their struggle for the separation of church and State had well nigh
conquered, Pedobaptists proposed the compromise of taxing the people to support
all denominations. This compromise they vehemently rejected. [Note: See Curry on
Religious Liberty and the Baptists, p. 45; also, Taylor on the same subject, pp.
23-24; Bitting on the same subject, p. 52.]

Through the influence of Episcopalians in Georgia, in 1785, a law was passed to
establish churches — union of church and State. It gave all denominations equal
privileges. But the year it was passed Baptists sent messengers to the
legislature and finally procured its repeal.

Thus, that the United States would have been a union of church and State, had it
not been for Baptists — for Baptist principles nipping it in the bud — is clear.
In various parts of Europe, England, Scotland, Sweden, Germany, etc.,
Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians and Lutherans, are united with the
State. In the United States, near all the leading Protestant denominations, with
the Romish church, receive government aid for their Indian missions. The
Protestant Standard says:

“During three years, the Methodists have received from the government, for
Indian missions, $33,345; in six years, the Presbyterians, $286,000; the
Congregationalists, $183,000; the Friends, $140,000; the Episcopalians,
$102,000; and the Romish church the modest sum of one million, nine hundred and
eighty-nine thousand dollars.” Not knowing Baptist principles this paper says:

“We are surprised to learn that the Baptists have not received anything from the
government for the work among the Indians.”

President Eliott, of Harvard University, is quoted by Dr. Lorimer, as saying:
“The chief gain of three centuries has been freedom of thought;” and Bancroft
says that “freedom of conscience, unlimited freedom of mind, was from the first
the trophy of the Baptists.” The German philosopher, Gervinus, in his
“Introduction to the History of the Nineteenth Century,” says of the Baptist of
Rhode Island:

“Here in a little State the fundamental principle of political and
ecclesiastical liberty prevailed before they were even taught in Europe ... But
not only have these ideas and these forms of government maintained themselves
here, but precisely from this little Stale have they extended themselves
throughout the United States. They have confused the aristocratic tendencies in
Carolina, New York, the high church in Virginia, the theocracy in Massachusetts,
and the monarchy in all America. They have given laws to a continent and through
their moral influence they are at the bottom of all democratic movements now
shaking the nations of Europe”[Note: See a little work by the author of this
book, entitled “Liberty of Conscience and the Baptists,” published by the
“National Baptist publishing Co.,” St. Louis.] [Note: See substantially the same
statement from Dr. Philip Schaff, on p. 195 of this book.] Thus with their
motto, freedom for all, and their spirit:

“They are slaves who fear to speak

For the fallen and the weak;

They are slaves who will not choose Hatred, scoffing and abuse, Rather than in
silence shrink For the truth they needs must think;

They are slaves who dare not be In the right with two or three.” With this motto
and spirit, by the cost of their liberty, of slander, of their blood and their
lives, Baptists have bequeathed the world its religious and civil liberty.

(4.) Baptist fruits are gloriously manifest in giving the Bible to the people in
their own language. The first Bible Society for the world was originated in
1807, by a Baptist — Joseph Hughes. The Romish church has always opposed giving
the Bible to the people in their own tongues. Only when the light of
Christianity made it necessary to give the people the Bible in their own
tongues, to save them to their church, did the Romish rulers ever consent to do
so. Then they must not interpret it for themselves. Under that condition reading
the Bible is so much disencouraged by the Romish rulers that comparatively few
Romanists, speaking the English language, own a Bible. Excepting into the Latin
and English languages the Romish church has made but few if any versions of the
Bible. Among “Protestants” the only Bible society that has ever existed to
render the Bible into the English language according to the meaning of all the
original words, was a Baptist Bible Society — the American Bible Union. Its
rules required every translator, according to the world’s unsectarian
scholarship, to render every word of the originals into the English. Under these
rules the American Bible Union employed translators of different denominations.
It assigned to Pedobaptist scholars parts of the New Testament in which baptizo
occurs. In answer to my question:

“Does any Greek Lexicon which is a standard authority with scholars define
baptizo by sprinkle, pour, or any word meaning affusion?”

I have the following letters: Prof. Thayer, author of Thayer’s New Testament,
Lexicon — a Lexicon which is of all Lexicons in English, pre-eminently the
standard authority on New Testament Greek — wrote me: “See Thayer’s N.T. Lex.”
Turning to Thayer’s Lexicon, under baptizo, I read:

“BAPTIZO — (1.) To dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge. (2.) To cleanse by
dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water; in the mid. and the I
aor. pass. to wash one’s self, bathe; so Mark 7:4; Luke 11:38; 2 Kings 5:14.
(3.) Metaph. to overwhelm, and alone, to inflict great and abounding calamities
on one; to be overwhelmed with calamities of those who must bear them. II. In
the New Testament it is used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution, first
instituted by John the Baptist, afterwards by Christ’s command received by
Christians and adjusted to the contents and nature of their religion, viz.: an
immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin. …With
prepositions; eis, to mark the element into which the immersion is made, to mark
the end, to indicate the effect; en with dat. of the thing in which one is
immersed.”

Having quoted the standard New Testament Lexicon on baptizo, I will also stop to
quote the standard Classical Lexicon on it — Liddell’s and Scott’s. I will quote
from the English edition which Prof. Fowler, of the Texas State University, says
is the Lest. To him I am indebted for this quotation:

“BAPTIZO. To dip in or under water, of ships, to sink or disable them; to draw
wine by dipping the cup into the bowl; to baptize.” In defining baptizo the
American edition does not differ essentially from the English.

Prof. M. L. Dooges, Professor of Greek in Michigan State University, answers the
question: “Does any Greek Lexicon, which is a standard with scholars, define
baptizo by sprinkle, pour, or any word meaning affusion?” “None.”

Prof. Ezra Abbott, Professor of New Testament interpretation in Harvard
University — recently deceased — who was a Bible translator and Biblical scholar
of international reputation, answers: “I know of no standard Greek Lexicon which
defines baptizo by the words to sprinkle, pour or bedew.”

Prof. Van Name, Librarian of Harvard University, answers: “None; so far as I am
aware.”

Prof. W. W. Goodwill, senior Professor of Greek in Yale University, author of
several Greek text books for our colleges and universities, answers: “I have
never seen any such definitions as those to which you refer.”

Prof. Lewis L. Paine, of Bangor Theological Seminary, Maine, answers:
“Originally immersion was the practice of the first churches.”

Prof. A. H. Buck, Professor of Greek in the great Methodist University of
Boston, Mass.: “I can find no trace of any such lexicon and I have no reason to
believe that any such exists. I suppose that such meanings as those you have
noted in your question are confined to commentaries and DENOMINATIONAL works and
would not be recognized as having any authority OUTSIDE.” In answer to my
question: “Does the world’s unsectarian scholarship sustain you in your answer?”
Prof. Louis L. Paine says: “Yes.” In answer to my question: “Do you, as a Greek
scholar, agree with the Professors of Greek in Yale, Harvard, Michigan and
Boston Universities, etc., in saying: I know of no standard Greek Lexicon which
defines baptizo by some word meaning affusion?” Prof. Fowler, Professor of Greek
in the Texas State University says: “Yes.”

These are all, I believe, Pedobaptist scholars. Yale, Harvard, Boston
Universities and Bangor Theological Seminary are leading Pedobaptist
institutions. To add pile on pile of such Pedobaptist testimonies, representing
both European and American Pedobaptist scholars, is easy. But, surely, these are
sufficient to satisfy any unprejudiced person. In the testimony just quoted,
without long study, research and much expense, the reader has before him the
decision of the world’s unsectarian scholarship as to the meaning of baptiso. In
it, that only immersion is the act which Christ commanded for baptism, is as
clear and certain as that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. To render baptizo into
the English would destroy all churches which practice affusion for baptism.
Consequently, as does the Romish church, all denominations that practice
affusion dare not give the people a full translation of the Bible. They transfer
instead of translate baptizo into the English. Into some heathen languages,
where they are not so much exposed to the criticisms of scholars as they are in
English-speaking countries, they translate it into ambiguous terms which they
can easily pervert into the interest of sectarianism. They have ever opposed
with all vehemence, strategy and bitterness, the true rendering of baptizo. To
say this about professed Christians gives me great pain at heart. But the people
should know the facts. That I do not misrepresent the facts let the following
editorial of The Independent, of New York, — the leading American Pedobaptist
paper — witness:

“In the early years of the American Bible Society the Baptists, as well as
others, contributed their money [Note: I have not the figures at hand. But as
well as I remember, the Baptists had before this put a large amount of money
into this society.] to its support. In 1835 a by-law was passed by the society
discriminating against certain versions made, by Baptist missionaries, and the
Baptists, all but a very few, considering themselves unjustly excluded from
common rights in the society, withdrew from its support. We remember how
earnestly Dr. Leavitt and others, not Baptists, opposed this action of the
society. Four years ago, in a revision of the rules, this by-law was omitted.
This action was regarded by many as an abandonment by the society of its
previous position, and a circular was issued by certain prominent Baptists
declaring that, in their view, no reason existed why Baptists should not resume
their former position in support of the society; but to test the matter, an
application was made for aid to circulate the Burmese translation of the Bible
by Dr. Judson. After some delay, this application has be directly refused, the
society adhering to the principle of the by-law of 1835. The anticipated reunion
is, therefore broken off, Dr. Howard Osgood, the Baptist member of the society’s
Committee on Versions, resigns his position; and the alienation of the Baptists
from cooperation with the society may now be considered permanent. We are glad
to say that again a strong and able minority was opposed to the decision.

“The Burmese version of Dr. Judson, who was a man of scholarship as well as
Christian zeal, is admitted by the English bishop of Rangoon to be ’a model of
idiomatic rendering and of faithful and painstaking labor.’ The society condemns
it merely on the ground that it translates the Greek word for baptise by a
Burmese word meaning immerse.

“That this is a mistranslation the society does not declare. That it is not a
legitimate rendering no true scholar would assert. When the late Dean Stanley
declared that ’on philological ground it is quite correct to translate John the
Baptist by John the Immerser,’ he gave the opinion of the real scholars of all
sects. The latest standard lexicons — as Cremer’s, Wilk’s and that of Sophocles
— define baptism as immersion and they all give it no other meaning.

“The officials of the society do not charge that Dr. Judson’s translation is
unscholarly, they condemn it SIMPLY BECAUSE IT is A TRANSLATION. They declare
that the Greek word shall not be rendered into the vernacular but must be
transferred from the one language to the other, simply transliterated into the
Burmese sentence. They do not say that there is no word in the Burmese to
express the act of Naaman and of John, an act so common that one can hardly
conceive a language so meager as not to have a word of its own therefore; they
do not say that some other Burmese word would present the Greek idea better than
the word Dr. Judson has chosen; they say that the Greek word must not be
rendered into Burmese at all, but simply transferred so that its original
meaning may not be expressed. To be consistent, they should forbid anything to
be made known of John’s place of baptizing at Enon, near to Salim, except that
’there was hudata polla there,’ and of Philip and the Eunuch it should be
reticently divulged merely that ’they katebased eis the water’ and ’anebased ek
the water.’ If it be wrong to give the exact meaning of the words denoting a
certain act, we ought to becloud the mention of the attending circumstances,
lest they disclose the nature of the act.

“No translator like Judson claims, and no scholar stands forth to deny, that the
Greek word is adequately rendered by a certain Burmese word; for the society say
that the vernacular term shall not be used, but that the Greek word, which of
course, to the native will be utterly meaningless, must be transferred to the
Burmese page, is to say that the New Testament shall not be placed before the
Burman as clearly as it is before the eyes of the Greek peasant, [Note: This is
exactly the way the English speaking and other peoples are treated in baptizo
not being rendered into their languages.] The society is guilty of the most
outrageous obscurantism. It binds its vast powers to the work of suppressing a
complete knowledge of the meaning of Holy Writ. IT PLANTS ITSELF SQUARELY ON THE
POSITION OF THE CHURCH OF ROME — THE POSITION THAT THE COMMON PEOPLE SHALL NOT
BE allowed every word of the Scripture’s page, to read if with their own eyes
and draw from it what conclusions they think reasonable; BUT THAT A PORTION, AT
LEAST, OF THE SACRED ORACLES SHALL MERELY BE DOLED OUT TO THEM BY THEIR
SPIRITUAL GUIDES. The Society says that the meaning of this Greek word shall not
be given the Burman through an equivalent word of the vernacular. It must be
imparted to him only through the explanations of the missionary. This is not the
Protestant but only the ROMAN CATHOLIC SYSTEM OF Bible translation. [Note: In
this the Independent is correct only in part. Protestant Pedobaptist Bible
societies and boards of Bible translators, without exception, notwithstanding
the demands of scholarship, of loyally to God or of the needs of the people,
have never done otherwise than refuse to let the people have baptizo in their
own language!] There may be weighty reasons in the case of this Greek word for
transferring it to the Burmese, as there may be for preferring the transferred
denarius and presbyter to fifteen cents and elder; but none are evident except
sectarian ones and our objection is that the society should stringently forbid a
legitimate translation and require a transfer.

“The officials of the Bible society are guilty of real sectarianism. It is vain
to deny that the only objection they have to Judson’s translation is that it may
have a certain effect in certain controversies. But what has the Bible society
to do with sectarian controversies? If a certain translation is incorrect, let
them condemn it. But what have they to do with the question how will it effect
this or that dispute. [Note: In this the Independent concedes that Pedobaptlst
scholars know the very life and existence of Pedobaptists sects depend on
keeping the people from knowing God’s command. To save their sects, like Rome,
they all decided the people shall not have God’s word in their own language —
save where it does not destroy their sects. Having come out from Rome they are
the Reformation incomplete. Hence their Romish course.] If a certain translation
seems to be scholarly, they should publish it, no matter what effect it may have
on ecclesiastical conflicts. The officials of the society abandon the majestic
neutrality of scholarship and the love of truth which asks merely whether a
given version is correct. They stoop to inquire how it will affect the interests
of contending sects. Gentlemen of the big brick house, it is not a right thing
to do. The only question you have a right to ask is whether the translation of
Dr. Judson is faithful to the Greek. If it is not, condemn it; if it is, then
publish it, no matter what parties of controversialists be helped or hindered
thereby. You were not appointed, gentlemen, to watch the interests of contending
sects; but to circulate correct translations of the Scriptures; and for you to
refuse to circulate a given version, NOT BECAUSE IT is INCORRECT; but because it
may have a certain effect on certain controversies is a violation of the solemn
trusts committed to your charge.”

Baptize, in all the Chinese versions published by Baptist missionaries, is
translated by Tsiny, to immerse, to dip, to put into water. This term gives no
uncertain sound. Says M. T. Yates, “When I had completed the translation of two
of the gospels into the Shanghai vernacular, I asked the agent of the American
Bible Society in China for means to publish them. He replied: ’I will publish
all your translations if you will not translate baptizo.’ I asked by what
authority he could demand of me to have any portion of God’s word untranslated?
He replied: ’Such are my instructions.’ But the answer of the American Bible
Society’s agent will seem very extraordinary when it is known that no word can
be transferred into the Chinese, and all words must be translated, and that
baptiso is actually translated by the word see-lee, the washing ceremony, in all
the versions in Chinese, which have been published by the American Bible
Society, and the British and Foreign Society. As the term see-lee never means to
sprinkle or pour — other and entirely different words being used to express
these ideas — it conveys no definite idea to a Chinese mind. A Chinese wishing
baptism once with only this word to guide him, and seeing that Christ was
baptized in a river, went into a river and gave the region around his heart a
good scrubbing; and not being satisfied with this and supposing that perhaps he
ought to receive the washing from heaven, stood out in a heavy rain till washed
from head to foot. These great Bible societies are determined, if possible, to
hide the true reading of God’s word, in regard to this ordinance, from the
heathen.”

M. T. Yates and A. B. Cabaniss are authority for these statements. [Note: Yates
is yet a foreign missionary in China, and Cabaniss was formerly one.]

“As a member of the Madras Revision Committee, Dr. Jewett had up till 1872 been
engaged on the Old Testament only. In that year he was asked to unite in the
revision of the New Testament, as it was most needed. He declined at first, but
consented, on condition that when the version was published, if not satisfactory
to Baptists, our mission would have the right to revise it and publish its own
version at its own expense. In 1880 the Madras version was published. It was
found to be a version Baptists could not circulate. The word for baptism was
snanamu. Respecting this word Mr. Loughridge says: ’It is a very unfair
statement of the case to say that snanamu means merely ablution or bath. True,
missionaries speak of making their snanamu daily for bodily cleanliness, but
ordinary Telugus do not so use the word.’ I hope this does not imply that
missionaries do not know the meaning of the word, or that they use a word that
’ordinary Telugus’ would not use in the same connection. But I have never heard
any one say that snanamu meant ’merely’ ’ablution or bath.’ It does mean that,
but it may mean more. It may mean and sometimes does mean immersion, but not, as
Mr. Loughridge affirms, ’nine cases out of ten’ when used as a religious rite. A
Telugu pundit, whom Dr. Jewett declares to be the best he has ever known, told
me that Hindus make snanamu, every day, but they immerse the whole body but once
a week; so that snanamu instead of being immersion ’nine cases out of every
ten,’ is not immersion six cases out of every seven. When the question of a word
for baptism was put to the vote of the mission, nine-tenths of the brethren
repudiated snanamu and adopted a word which means immersion, and never means
ablution, bath, sprinkling or pouring. But it is a mistake to suppose that
snanamu was the only objection to the Madras version. A far greater objection
was the fact that it REVERSED the order of Christ’s great commission, making it
plainly teach that baptism preceded discipleship. Beside these there were
numerous errors of translation which we felt bound to correct.”

“Here is another fact of great significance. The British and Foreign Bible
Society, which ever since 1832 has refused to aid in the circulation of our
foreign Baptist version, has directed its missionaries to insert the word
‘immerse’ in the margin of their translations, and this important action of that
society has received the approval of the distinguished prelate just referred to,
the Archbishop of Canterbury. In his address at the anniversary of the British
and Foreign Biblical Society he took occasion to say with reference to this
action of the society: ’I thank them very much for having put the word ’immerse’
in the margin of their translations. I must say I think they were justified in
taking this step; and do not doubt that this conclusion, based upon the real
root meaning of the word, will have its effect.[Note: A missionary in The
Watchman, Boston.] According, then, to the testimony of this distinguished
scholar, the ’real root meaning’ of the word baptize is immerse, and the English
missionaries ’were justified in putting it in the margin.’” [Note: The Watchman,
Boston.]

Quoting from the Herald of Truth: “In view of the refusal of the American Bible
Society to aid in circulating the Burmese version of the Bible translated by Dr.
Judson, a refusal which more than all others necessitated the action of Baptists
at Saratoga, in May last, the Christian Union, a leading Pedobaptist paper,
says: ‘In the actual posture of things the American Bible Society is in the
wrong. That wrong should be corrected.’” [Note: Texas Baptist and Herald.] In
Baptist growth is great encouragement. The following table on Baptist growth in
the United States, is worth preserving and consulting:

A. D.

1770

Churches 77

1774

Churches 421

Ministers 424

Members 38,101

1792

Churches 891

Ministers 1,166

Members 66,345

1812

Churches 2,164

Ministers 1,605

Members 172,692

1832

Churches 6,320

Ministers 3,618

Members 384,926

1840

Churches 7,771

Ministers 5,288

Members 571,291

1851

Churches 9,552

Ministers 7,393

Members 770,839

1860

Churches 12,279

Ministers 7,773 Members 1,016,134

1875

Churches 21,288 Ministers 13,170 Members 1,846,300

1894

Churches 38,122 Ministers 26,354 Members 3,496,988 In 1893 there were 176,077
persons in the United States baptized into Baptist churches. As showing that
Christ is a blessing to our physical bodies the death rate of Baptists is far
below that of the population of the United States. Baptist net gain in the
United States for 1893 was 113,828 — being a net gain in one year of more
Baptists than there were in the United States ninety-three years ago. There is,
in the United States, an average daily increase of 310 Baptists. The Baptist
increase in the United States is 160 per cent., while that of its population is
73. A careful estimate shows that for the last decade Congregationalists have
increased at the rate of 42 per cent.; Presbyterians at 55 per cent.; Methodist
Episcopal church at the rate of 82 per cent.; Baptists at the rate of 99 per
cent.; Campbellites at a less per cent. than any of them, while in a number of
States they have rather lost. In the United States Baptists have 54 charitable
institutions; 7 theological seminaries; 35 colleges and universities; 32 female
seminaries; 47 academies for both sexes. In the theological seminaries there are
54 teachers and 776 pupils, all but four of whom are preparing for the ministry.
In the universities and the colleges are 701 teachers and 9,088 pupils. In the
female seminaries are 388 teachers and 3,675 pupils. In the academies are 369
teachers and 5,250 pupils. The property of the theological seminaries is valued
at $3,401,618; of the universities and the colleges at $19,171,045; of the
female seminaries at $4,211,906; of the academies at $3,787,793; of the
charitable institutions at $1,360,021.

There are in the United States also 31 Baptist institutions for the education of
Negroes and Indians, with 176 teachers, 5,177 pupils and property estimated at
$1,380,540.

Under the head of education the grand total is: One hundred and fifty-two
institutions, 1,791 teachers, 23,966 pupils and property worth $31,866;902. The
entire number of pupils preparing for the ministry in the different kinds of
schools is 2,223. The value of Baptist church property in the United States is
$78,605,759. In the United States the aggregate reported of Baptist
contributions for salaries of pastors, education, mission and miscellaneous
objects in 1893 is $12,560,713.95. In the United States are, in 1893, 20,838
Baptist Sunday schools, with 143,765 officers and teachers and 1,430,933 pupils.

Advocating all these interests are one hundred and twenty-five periodicals.
Being the originators of foreign missions Baptists therein are in the lead. The
Missionary Review, a Pedobaptist periodical, some time ago gave the following
figures for foreign missions:

CONGREGATIONALISTS:

Missionaries 416 Native preachers 567 Missionary membership 17,165 Expenditures
$627,861.98

PRESBYTERIAN:

Missionaries 384 Native preachers 220 Missionary membership 12,607 Expenditures
$420,427.00

METHODIST:

Missionaries 191 Native preachers 666 Missionary membership 26,702 Expenditures
$299,174.00

BAPTIST:

Missionaries 162 Native preachers 1,052 Missionary membership 85,308
Expenditures $274,961.91

Thus, Presbyterians, Methodists and Congregationalists spend annually on foreign
fields $1,347,462.98, while Baptists annually spend but $274,961.91. Thus, for
less than one-fourth of the missionary money that these leading Pedobaptist
churches expend, Baptists have near twice the number of converts on foreign
fields that they have. When we consider that every one of these Baptist converts
has professed regeneration, while a large proportion of theirs came into their
churches without that profession, these figures make the number of souls saved
by Baptist missions far more than double that of theirs! [Note: I have Methodist
authority that Methodists, in some foreign work, where there is no Baptist
opposition, like the Romish church, have taken the heathen in by whole villages
at a time !!] In Great Britain, for thirty years, the Baptist increase has been
122 per cent., the Methodist 114, Independent 43. The following from the Baptist
Year Book of 1894 is… A BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF THE BAPTISTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

To summarize some Baptist fruits:

1. Baptists have been truer to the great truths of Christianity than has any
other church.

2. Baptists principles have kept and keep the monument of the death and the
resurrection of Christ — burial in baptism — before the world, ever since Christ
walked this earth.

3. Of all the leading denominations, Baptists are the only church which has kept
and keeps before the world the blood before the water, Christ in possession
before Christ in profession; and are the only church which has, consequently,
ever been and are the great bulwark against baptismal regeneration.

4. Of all the leading denominations, Baptists are the only church which has
never believed and does not believe that baptism is any part or any condition of
salvation to either the infant or the adult. Consequently, they have never been
even tinged by the doctrine of infant damnation, which has colored infant
baptism throughout its history. As Dr. Philip Schaff, the leading American
church historian, and he a Presbyterian, says: “The Baptist and Quakers were the
first Christian communities which detached salvation from ecclesiastical
ordinances and taught the salvation of unbaptized infants and unbaptized but
believing adults.”[Note: “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” p. 56, by Dr.
Schaff.]

5. Of all the great religious bodies, Baptists are the only church which has
always taught and teaches there can be no proxy Christianity, by infant baptism,
etc., but, that salvation, its conditions and requirements are a strictly
personal matter, between only God and the individual soul.

6. Among all great denominations, Baptists are, consequently, the only church
which has always stood and stands for only a professedly regenerate or spiritual
church.

7. Among all great denominations, Baptists are the only churches which contend
and have ever contended for excluding from their church fellowship all known
non-spiritual persons.

8. So far as only a spiritual church is the doctrine and the practice of the
leading denominations it is due to the standing Baptist testimony, and the
persistent Baptist uncompromising war on an inherited and unregenerate church
membership.

9. Of all leading denominations which have not been originated within the
present century, Baptists are the only churches which have never been united
with the State, and which have never persecuted.

10. Baptist churches are the only churches which have, during the Christian era,
and until the present century, contended for separation of church and State and
for absolute liberty of conscience.

11. By their principles of liberality, of freedom of conscience and of every
Christian being a priest to God and Christian ruler, Baptists have given the
United States their religious freedom. This they have done at the cost of their
property, their good name, their liberty and their lives. This, too, in the face
of not only Romish but of Protestant Pedobaptist union of church and State, and
of persecution. As Hallam, a secular historian, of Protestant Pedobaptists, well
says: “Persecution is the deadly original sin of the reformed churches; that
which cools every honest man’s zeal for their cause, in proportion as his
reading becomes extensive.”[Note: Hallam’s Const. Hist. of England, p. 63, also
Wilson’s Outlines of Hist., p. 769; May’s Const. Hist. of England, vol. 2, p.
203.]

Dr. Leonard Bacon, a Pedobaptist, in “Genesis of the New England Churches,”
remarks of the Baptists: “It has been claimed for these churches, that from the
Reformation they have been always foremost and always consistent in maintaining
the doctrine of religious liberty. Let me not be understood as calling in
question their right to so great an honor.”

12. As Guizot, in his “History of Civilization,” shows that the despotical and
oppressive civil governments of Europe originated from the government of the
Romish church, so Gervinus, Philip Schaff and other historians have shown that
the free church government principles of Baptists have “extended themselves
throughout the United States,” “have given laws to a continent” and are “at the
bottom of all democratic movements now shaking the nations of Europe.”

13. Rhode Island, the first absolutely free government of the Christian era, was
a Baptist government.

14. A Baptist originated the marginal references to our English Bible — John
Canne, in 1673. Baptist loyalty to the Bible, Baptist study of it and comparison
of Scripture with Scripture, naturally led to the meeting of the necessity of
these references.

15. The first public free school from which has originated the excellent free
school system of the United States, was conceived and originated by Dr. John
Clarke — a Baptist preacher — in Rhode Island, in 1675.

16. While the Romish, the Episcopal and the Methodist — the Methodist was not
then separated from the Episcopal, but was a party to it — churches were almost
solidly with Great Britain against the American colonists, in their struggle for
independence, Baptists were the foremost promoters of the glorious Revolution,
and the name of but one Baptist is given who was a Tory.

17. Bible Societies were originated by a Baptist — Joseph Hughes — being the
prime mover of the British and Foreign Bible Society. This is the natural result
of the Baptist preeminent love to all the teaching of the Bible and loyalty to
all its commands.

18. The first church which was organized in what was then called the
“Northwestern Territory,” was at Columbia, now a part of Cincinnati, which was a
Baptist church. This was in 1790.

19. The originator of what is called “Modern Missions,” was William Carey — a
Baptist. This was in 1792. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian church of
Scotland, by a large majority, put on record, in 1796, the following resolution
— says Zions Advocate: “That to spread the knowledge of the gospel among
barbarous and heathen nations, seems highly preposterous, in so far as it
anticipates, nay, even reverses the order of nature.” As we have seen in a
previous chapter, no Baptist church or general Baptist meeting ever tarnished
its fair name by such a resolution.

20. The Baptists have near twice more converts to Christ in heathen lands than
have all the other leading denominations; that, too, when the others have taken
many of them into their churches, as only nominal Christians.

23. Baptist foreign missions cost less than one fourth the money that those of
leading Protestant Pedobaptists cost.

24. The International Uniform Sunday School Lesson Service was originated by a
Baptist — B. F. Jacobs. This is the natural result of the preeminent Baptist
love of Bible study and Bible obedience.

25. The world’s greatest preacher since the Reformation was a Baptist — C. H.
Spurgeon. The purer the gospel, the greater its preacher.

26. The first organized society for the much needed revision of King James’
version of the Bible was the American Bible Union — a Baptist society. This was
the natural result of Baptist love and loyalty to the Bible.

27. Out of the American Bible Union agitation and work originated the Episcopal
organization, resulting in the Revised Version of 1881, on which was employed
European and American representative scholars. The revisions of the American
Bible Union and its successors are of incalculable value to the world.

28. The only Bible Society which has ever existed for the translation of “every
word” of the Bible into the English, according to the world’s unsectarian
scholarship, was the American Bible Union — a Baptist Bible Society. In this it
is measurably succeeded by the American Baptist Publication Society.

29. By their Bible translation enterprises Baptists have proved themselves the
only leading denomination that has thoroughly rejected the Romish doctrine of
keeping the Bible out of the language of the people; and in rendering every
doctrinal or practical word, they have, wherever and whenever they have made a
translation of the Bible, not “shunned to declare all the counsel of God.”

30. In the language of the New York Tribune: “The Baptists have solved the great
problem. They combine the most resolute conviction, the most stubborn belief in
their own special doctrines, with the most admirable tolerance of the faith of
other Christians.”

Before the Evangelical Alliance, of Chicago, but a little while before his
death, Dr. Schaff, the great Presbyterian church historian, said: “The Baptist
is a glorious church; for she bore, and still bears testimony to the primitive
mode of baptism, to the purify of the congregation, to the separation of church
and State, and the liberty of conscience, and has given the world the ’Pilgrim’s
Progress’ of Bunyan, such preachers as Robert Hall and Charles H. Spurgeon and
such missionaries as Judson.” The lines:

“For modes of faith let graceless bigots fight,

His must be right whose life is in the right.”

…are very misleading. From the foregoing that life is the fruit of loyalty to
all things Christ has commanded is the inevitable conclusion. Not that Baptist
human nature has made Baptists better than others but their many peculiar
scriptural principles, doctrines and practices have done so.

Looking over Baptist fruits we see that Baptists, standing ALONE for most
important practical principles and doctrines their abandonment or compromise of
these principles and this doctrine can but work disaster to the world, to
Christians of other churches, to themselves and great dishonor to our precious
Christ. Thus Baptist fruits attest Baptists as the only true successors of
Christ, of His Apostles and of their being the true witnesses from the apostolic
to the present age.

Now, that the liberty of the age presents an open field for Baptists to push the
great New Testament “fight of faith” to the final victory, as Prof. G.D.B.
Pepper, D.D., has so well said, for them to not do so would be to prove
themselves unworthy of the great trust committed to them, recreant to their
duty, dishonoring to the blood of Baptist martyrs which has bequeathed this
opportunity to them and disloyal to God. With Christian love to all blood-washed
souls — whatever their creed — with a joyful recognition of the broken and mixed
fragments of truth held by others and the good fruits they bear, let us work and
pray for the blessed time when all others will have planted themselves on the
whole truth and nothing but the truth as it is plainly in the New Testament. To
this end let us cultivate more vital piety, more liberality of heart and
fervency of prayer for true pastors and all other faithful preachers, for home
and foreign missions, for educational and charitable institutions, less
conformity to the world, stricter discipline in our churches, less compromise
with the false liberality of an infidel and immoral age, more consecration and
faithfulness of the ministry, and a more eager and loving hastening and “LOOKING
FOR THAT BLESSED HOPE, AND THE GLORIOUS APPEARING OF THE GREAT GOD AND OUR
SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 32: ST PATRICK A BAPTIST
========================================================================

CHAPTER 29 — ST. PATRICK A BAPTIST The following summarizes the facts as to St.
Patrick, and proves he was a Baptist: [Note: The recent volume, “The Ancient
British and Irish churches, including the Life and Labors of St. Patrick,” by
William Catchcart, D. D., so ably and fully treats this subject that I give it
but a brief notice. Any one wanting more on it send to the American Baptist
Publication Society, $1.50 for Dr. Catchcart’s work.] The year of St. Patrick’s
birth is variously assigned to the years 377 and 387, the latter being the more
probable date. His original name is said to have been Succat Patricus, being the
Roman appelative by which he was known. The exact place of his birth is
uncertain. It was somewhere in Britain. In the sixteenth year of his age, while
on his father’s farm, with a number of others, he was seized and carried by a
band of pirates into Ireland, and there sold to a petty chief. In his service he
remained six years. At the expiration of this time he succeeded in escaping. He
was “brought up in a Christian family in Britain, and the truth which saved him
when a youthful slave in pagan Ireland was taught him in the godly home of
Deacon Calpurnius, his father, and in the church of which he was a member and
officer.” On his escape from Ireland he was twenty-one years of age. Being a
stronger Christian the Lord soon called him back to Ireland as the missionary
for that blinded country. About this time, or before it, a missionary named
Coleman, established a church in Ireland. Some think that “in the south of
Ireland, from some very remote period,” “Christian congregations had existed.”
Usher puts Patrick’s death at A. D. 493 — making his life a long and useful
life, and his age, at the time of his death, over one hundred years. The
Bellandists make his death earlier — A. D. 460. Dr. Todd inclines to Usher’s
date. According to accounts of his Irish biographers, he, with his own hands,
baptized 12,000 persons and founded 365 churches.

Within the last few years antiquarian scholars have succeeded in stripping his
history of much of the Romish fables. The more this has been done, the more he
stands out as a Baptist.

Among others I mention the following points of history:

1. At the time of St. Patrick the Romish church was only en embryo.

2. In St. Patrick’s time the authority of the bishop of Rome was not generally
recognized.

3. There is no history to sustain the Romish claim that Patrick was sent to
Ireland by “Pope Celistine.” (1.) Bede never mentions it. (2.) Patrick never
mentions it. (3.) Facts are against the claim. (4.) Throughout his life Patrick
acted wholly independent of Rome. [Note: Neander says: “If Patrick came to
Ireland as a deputy from Rome, it might naturally be expected that in the Irish
church a certain sense of dependence would always have been preserved towards
the mother church. But we find, on the contrary, in the Irish church a spirit of
church freedom, similar to that in Britain, which struggled against the yoke of
Roman ordinances. We find subsequently among the Irish a much greater agreement
with the ancient British than with Roman ecclesiastical usages. This goes to
prove that the origin of the church was Independent of Rome, and must be traced
solely to the people of Britain. …Again, no indication of his connection with
the Romish church Is to be found In his confession; rather everything seems to
favor the supposition that he was ordained bishop in Britain Itself.” —
Neander’s History Christian Church, vol. 2, p. 123. An anonymous Irish scholar
says: “Leo II. was bishop of Rome from 440 to 461, A. D. and upwards of one
hundred and forty of his letters to correspondents in all parts of Christendom
still remain, and yet he never mentions Patrick or his work or in any way
intimates that he knew of the great work being done there. The Council or
Chalons-sur-Saone, held A. D. 813, resolved not to admit the presbyters and
deacons admitted by the Irish church to the ministry. The Council of Celeyth,
held in England in 816, A. D., adopted a still more sweeping resolution. The
Anglician fathers decreed that none should receive even baptism or the eucharist
from Irish clergymen, because, said they, we cannot tell by whom they have been
ordained, or whether they have been ordained at all. We know that it is enjoined
in the canons, that no bishop or presbyter should attempt to enter another
parish without the consent of its own bishop. So much the more is it to be
condemned to accept the ministrations of religion from those of other nations
who have no order of metropolitans and who have no regard for such
functionaries. When the pope sent Palladius to Ireland lo establish there a
hierarchy. Patrick refused to recognize him, and in the Laebhar Braec (published
in Dublin, 1874-5,) the best and oldest Irish manuscript relating to the
ecclesiastical history of the Island, it is recorded that Palladius was sent by
Pope Celestine with a gospel for Patrick to preach to the Irish. “It suggests
that the representative of the pope was seeking to enter into another man’s
labors, and to reap the fruits of a field which a more skillful workman had
already cultivated. Christianity had ere this taken root in the island, and
Celestine sent Palladius to found a hierarchy devoted to the papal interests.
The stranger sought to conciliate the Irish missionary. …But the attempt proved
a signal failure and Palladius, after a short residence, was obliged to take his
departure. Overwhelmed with disappointment, he embarked to North Britain, where
not long afterwards, he died with a fever.’” See also “Ancient British and
Irish. Churches,” pp. 176-177.] 4. Patrick was a Baptist.

(1.) He baptized only professed believers. (2.) He baptized by only immersion.
In a former chapter has been proved that the ancient Britons were Baptists. Dr.
Catchcart says: “There is absolutely no evidence that any baptism but that of
immersion of adult believers existed among the ancient Britons, in the first
half of the fifth century, nor for a long time afterwards.” [Note: Ancient
British and Irish churches, p. 60.]In St. Patrick’s “letter to Crocius” lie
describes some of the persons whom he immersed as “baptized captives,” baptized
handmaidens of Christ, “baptized women distributed as rewards” and then as
“baptized believers.” [Note: Idem, p. 152.] “Patrick baptized Enda, and he
offered his son, Cormac, [to Patrick] who was born the night before, together
with the ninth ridge of the land.”[Note: Idem, p. 153.]If Patrick had been a
Pedobaptist he surely would have baptized this infant. As well claim the “ridge”
was here offered for baptism as to claim the child was offered for it. (3.) In
church government St. Patrick was a Baptist. Though this appears in the note to
this (the previous) page, I will add proof to it.

“Patrick founded 365 churches and consecrated the same number of bishops, and
ordained 3,000 presbyters.” [Note: Ancient British and Irish churches, p. 282;
Universal Knowledge, vol. 2,p. 28.] “Stillingfleet refers to an account of a
great council of Brevy, Wales, taken from the manuscript of Urecht which
represents one hundred and eighteen bishops at its deliberations.” [Note:
Ancient British and Irish churches, p. 281.] Considering that this great number
of bishops of this little island greatly exceeds the number of bishops of any
Episcopal organization outside of the Romish or the Greek church, has throughout
the world if St. Patrick’s church was not Baptist, but Romish his church must
have come near going to seed — in bishops. No wonder that Bishop Stillingfleet
attempts to throw doubt at the number of bishops at the Council of Brevy,
“though he admits that Colgan defends the large representation of bishops.”
[Note: Ancient British and Irish Churches, p. 282; Smith’s Dictionary of
Christian Antiquities, vol. 2, p. 1270.] Dr. Catchcart, says: “If we take the
testimony of Nennius, St. Patrick placed a bishop in every church which he
founded; and several presbyters after the example of the New Testament churches.
Nor was the great number of bishops peculiar to St. Patrick’s time; in the
twelfth century St. Bernard tells us that in Ireland ‘bishops are multiplied and
changed almost every church had a bishop.’ …Prof. George T. Stokes declares that
prior to the synod of Rathbresail, in A. D. 1112, ‘Episcopacy had been the rule
of the Irish church; but dioceses and diocesan episcopacy had no existence at
all.’ ‘Scotland,’ as Collier relates, ‘in the ninth century was not divided into
dioceses, but all the Scottish bishops had their jurisdiction as it were at
large and exercised their function wherever they came. And this continued to the
reign of Malcom III,’ who was crowned in A. D. 1057. When Collier speaks of
jurisdiction, we must remember they had no jurisdiction in the proper sense; the
early Scottish bishops were like their brethren in Ireland, without dioceses and
without jurisdiction. Eminent writers like Dr. Todd, of Trinity College, Dublin,
freely assert this.” [Note: Ancient British and Irish Churches; 282; Smith’s
Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. 2, p. 1270.]

Dr. Carew, of Maynooth, in his ecclesiastical history of Ireland — perhaps
unwittingly — admits that a bishop was simply the pastor of one congregation:
“In effect the system which the Irish church adopted with regard to Episcopal
Sees, was entirely similar to that which was followed in these churches which
were founded immediately after the times of the Apostles. According to this
system every town where the converts were numbered, was honored by the
appointment of a bishop, who resided permanently here and devoted his pastoral
solicitude exclusively to the care of the inhabitants. This ancient usage the
fathers of the Council of Sardicia thought it necessary to modify. To maintain
the respectability of the Episcopal elder, the Council ordered that, for the
time to come, bishops should take up their residence in the most important
towns.” [Note: Quoted by “ An American Irish Baptist.”] (4.) In independence of
creeds, councils, popes and bishops Patrick was a Baptist. “Patrick recognized
no authority in creeds, however venerable, nor in councils, though composed of
several hundred of the highest ecclesiastics, and many of the most saintly men
alive. He never quotes any canons and he never took part in making any,
notwithstanding the pretended canons of forgers.” [Note: Ancient British and
Irish Churches, p. 159.] (5.) In doctrine Patrick was a Baptist. He says Christ
who “gave his life for thee is He who speaks to thee.” He has poured out upon us
abundantly the Holy Spirit, the gift and assurance of immortality, who CAUSES
men to believe and become obedient that they might be the sons of God and joint
heirs with Christ.” [Note: Ancient British and Irish Churches, pp. 315-316.]

Comgall, of Bangor, Ireland, in the sixth century writes: “Religion does not
consist in bodily [Note: This excludes all kinds of penances.] efforts, but in
humility of heart.” It is stated by Muirchu that when Patrick appeared before
his distinguished assembly Dubthac, the chief poet, alone among the Gentiles
arose in his honor; and “first on that day [Note: This excludes baptism, and all
others works as saving.] believed in God and it was imputed to him for
righteousness.” [Note: Idem, p. 318.] (6.) The Supper was taken, as among all
Protestants, in both kinds. “Loeghaire, king of Ireland in Patrick’s time, had
two daughters converted under his instructions. When they asked Patrick ‘to see
Christ’s face,’ (as they had previously seen their idols) he said to them: ‘Ye
cannot see Christ unless you first taste of death, or unless you receive
Christ’s body and his blood’” — both elements. [Note: Idem, p. 322.] (7.)
Instead of Patrick believing in transubstantiation, Dr. Catchcart says: “In all
the descriptions of the Eucharist quoted there is no evidence that it is the God
of glory in every particle of its consecrated bread and wine.” [Note: The
Ancient British and Irish Churches, p. 322.] (8.) In the later or Romish meaning
of the term, there is no indication of Monastacism in Patrick’s writing or in
the history of the first Irish church. “Monastacism, in the proper sense of the
word, cannot be traced beyond the fourth century.” [Note: Smith’s Dictionary
Christian Antiquities, vol. 2, p. 1219.] Catchcart: “It is difficult to fix the
date when the first monastery was established in Ireland. It is certain that
Patrick was long in his grave before it took place. …Bangor, in Ireland, was
founded by Comgall. Bingham states that it was about A. D. 520, and this date is
apparently the true one. He informs us that it was the most ancient monastery in
Ireland, as the famous monastery of Bangor was the oldest in Britain. [Note: The
Ancient British and Irish Churches, p. 292.] “The monks are frequently termed
‘the philosophers’ and the monastery their ‘school of thought.’” [Note: Smith’s
Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. 1219.] “The monastery was often a
nursery or training college for the clergy. …The illiterate clergy looks
naturally to the nearest monastery for help in the composition of sermons.”
[Note: Idem, p. 1225.] Neander says: “The Irish monasteries were still the seats
of science and art, whence, for a longtime afterwards …teachers in the sciences
and useful arts scattered themselves in all directions, …In the Irish
monasteries not only the Latin but also the free spirited Greek fathers, the
writings of an Origin were studied; so it naturally came about that from that
school issued a more original and free development of theology than was
elsewhere to be found, and was thence propagated to other lands.” [Note:
Neander’s History Christian Church, vol. 3, pp. 460-461.]

Catchcart says: “Marriage probably existed, not in, but in connection with, most
of the British and Irish monasteries. We see no reason to doubt the statement of
Michelet, that ‘the Culdees of Ireland and Scotland permitted themselves
marriage, and were independent, even when living under the rule of their order.’
But the mania that celibacy possessed soon spread over the world, and many of
St. Patrick’s religious, Bible-loving descendants were caught in its delusive
snare.” [Note: The Ancient British and Irish Churches, p. 311.]

Guericke: “From the Irish cloisters missionaries went out into various regions
and particularly to the Picts in Scotland.” [Note: Guericke’s Church History, p.
262; Kurtz’s Church History, vol. 1, p. 298; Lecky’s History European Morals,
vol. 2, p. 261; Smith’s Dictionary Christian Antiquities, vol. 2, p. 1270.]

Thus, first, Irish monasteries were originated after Patrick’s death; second,
even then exclusive celibacy in them was not their first rule; third, in their
earliest history these monasteries differed but little from our educational
institutions.

Thus, in only believer’s baptism; in only immersion; in church government; in
salvation by only the blood; in justification by faith only; in rejecting
penance; in knowing nothing of transubstantiation; in giving both the bread and
the wine to the laity; in being independent of Rome, St. Patrick was a Baptist
and the first Irish churches were Baptist churches. To this may be added: St.
Patrick and the first Irish churches knew nothing of priestly confession and
priestly forgiveness; of extreme unction; of worship of images; of worship of
Mary; of the intercession of Mary or of any departed saint; of purgatory; of
persecution of opposers of the church — nothing of any of the Romish
distinguishing peculiarities. Were Patrick not turned to dust, and were the body
able to hear and turn, he would turn over in his coffin at the disgrace on his
memory from the Romish church claiming him as a Roman Catholic.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/jarrel-wa-baptist-church-perpetuity-or-history/
========================================================================