The Perpetuity of the Church
ARTICLE VII Before I quote one thing or word from an uninspired writer, let me quote a few scriptures from the inspired Book of God. "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John."--John i. 6. Now, let me read Matt. xi. 11: "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist." Baptist must have been his religious name. The first text says his name was John, the second scripture calls him "John the Baptist." Now, let us read Matt. iii. I: "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea." John was the Primitive Baptist preacher. If you deny this, mention one before him. Jesus Christ was baptized by this Primitive Baptist preacher. Jesus Christ used those baptized by this Primitive Baptist minister in organizing His Church. This I know to be true, for John was sent to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. This he did by baptizing them. This first Church of Christ was a Baptist Church. I intend to prove first by a Missionary Baptist that the first Church, organized by the Son of God, was not a Missionary Baptist church, but an Old Baptist Church. "Waco, Texas, September 18, 1893--You ask me if I regard baptism administered by Primitive or 'Hard-shell' Baptists as valid. This is a question of great and growing importance; and for years I have given it earnest and prayerful study, weighing everything carefully on both sides, and my deliberate conclusion is that baptism administered by Primitive or 'Hard-shell' preachers in good standing, to a converted believer, is as valid as if administered by John the Baptist, the Apostle Paul, John A. Broadus or Jas. H. Stribling. My reasons are: First, a mistake from honest conviction or prejudice about preaching the gospel to the heathen does not invalidate baptism. If so, the baptism of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, and the twelve thousand during the first revival at Jerusalem, would be invalid. For nothing is clearer in the New Testament than that Peter and all the apostles were at first Anti-Missionary or 'Hard-shell Baptists.' And the whole church at Jerusalem were so intensely Anti-Missionary or 'Hard-shell' that as soon as Peter returned from his first foreign mission tour the church arraigned him for trial. The third reason is that our Primitive or 'Hard-shell' brethren have never rejected any ordinance or doctrine of the Baptist Church, as founded by Christ and the apostles one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two years ago on the banks of Jordan. It is a mournful fact that while some of our 'Hard-shell' brethren have become fatalists, scores of our Missionary Baptists are only immersed Methodists in the Baptist Church. I repeat, our Primitive brethren have not rejected any doctrine or ordinance of Christ; but with wonderful tenacity they cling, as we do (oh, my!--Joe) to all the doctrines and ordinances as they came from heaven, pure, simple, holy, sublime."--R. C. Burleson, in Baptist and Reflector, April 28, 1892. To be sure, the first Church Christ organized was the Church of Christ, but a Primitive Baptist preacher did all the baptizing, and Christ and the apostles organized the Church; therefore, it was the Church of Christ, organized by the Primitive Baptists. I have in my hand a debate between Walker and Alexander Campbell, June 19 and 20, 1820, from which I will quote as Providence may dictate. Page 262 he says: "The Baptists can trace their origin to apostolic times, and produce unequivocal testimonies of their existence in every century down to the present time" (1820). Again. same page: "I now proceed to show that the Baptists have existed in every century from the Christian era to the present day." It was in 1820 he said this. Once more, "First century, Anno Domini 33, we read, in a well attested history, of a large Baptist Church which was formed and exhibited as a grand model, by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit. On the day of Pentecost three thousand souls were illumined, led to repentance, converted, baptized, and added to the Church." On page 263 we have this statement, "The second church planted on earth was also composed of men and women who professed faith before baptism; consequently, a Baptist Church." On same page he says, "The third church of note, and in order of time, was the church at Caesarea, a church interesting to us, inasmuch as it was a Gentile church, or a Gentile people composed it. This church was evidently a Baptist Church." On page 264 we have this language, "The testimonies of God are the foundation on which our faith and practice rests; therefore, when we quote other authorities, it is not as foundations, on which the faith of any should rest, either in whole or part, but to put to silence the ignorance of foolish men, who ignorantly assert that the Baptist sentiments are novel, or that the sect is of modern date." In speaking of the second century, Mr. Campbell said, p. 265, "There is no difference in the practice of the Church in this century from the preceding. Most of the distinguished men, who lived at the beginning of it, had seen and heard the apostles, consequently amongst the churches, there was yet no great falling off in the external ordinances. Justin Martyr's public defense of the Christians of the second century is a sufficient document to show that the Baptist sentiments at that time universally prevailed." On page 277 Mr. Campbell says, "Thus I have shown that even in England, the Baptists have continued from the apostolic times to the present day, as also that there have been in every century advocates for Baptist principles." And "That the Baptists commenced on the day of Pentecost and have continued from that time till now." Mr. T. R. Burnett, in his debate with D. B. Ray, p. 7, says, "With Alexander Campbell, we say the kingdom was with the Baptists before he and his coadjutors started the reformation, and (they) are yet a part of that kingdom, though entangled in some errors." Accepting Campbell as authority, the Old Baptists started on the day of Pentecost as a people, and as the Churc5 of Christ and it continued with them for one thousand eight hundred and twelve years. I will allow Mr. Burnett to tell us how Alexander Campbell and those with him took the Church from the Baptists. Ray-Burnett Debate, p. 47: "Our confession that the Old Baptist Church of A. Campbell’s day (not the Missionary sprout) was a part of the kingdom, seems to trouble him greatly. He would like for us to assert that those Old Baptists were not in the kingdom at all, and that Alexander Campbell was not; then he would have some reason to say that a new church was set up. We cannot accommodate him. This old body (not the Missionary sprout) was a part of the kingdom, and A. Campbell was a member of it, and was never excluded from it, but reformed the best portion of it and moved it back to the Bible." We will let Mr. Burnett speak once more "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 Pine, and through it have connection with the apostles. We were talking about successional connection. The Baptists also have connection with the apostles in what they teach and practice."--Christian Messenger. Dec.8, 1886. I will quote once more from once more from Campbell: "Hence, it is that the Baptist denomination, in all ages and in all countries, has been, as a body, the constant asserters of the rights of man and of liberty of conscience. They have often been persecuted by Pedo-Baptists; but they never politically persecuted, though they have had it in their power." --Christian Baptism, p. 409. On page 406 he says: "In the year 1300, and for several centuries before, all the citizens of Germany, France, Spain, England, and, indeed, the whole western Roman Empire, with the exception of a few Baptists, were initiated into what has been called the Church, as soon as the parents could have the rite performed." The base calumny that is constantly heaped upon the Old Baptists suggests to me the propriety of modestly making a succinct and brief excursion into their history and proving by their religious opponents that when they assert their claims to being the Church of Jesus Christ, they are doing no more than they often do themselves. When any man asserts that the Primitive Baptists are of modern origin, that they were born in 1832, or that they started with John Smythe in 1607, or with the Munsterites, or with Roger Williams, you may know that that man is absolutely ignorant of the facts of history, or he has no respect for his word. I will quote from Church Perpetuity, page 59. John C. Ridpath, a Methodist, said, "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." Professor of history in Boston University, H. C. Sheldon, who was a Methodist, said, "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." It would be impossible for Baptists to appear at any time or place if they were not there. The professor of church history in the Gettysburg Lutheran theological seminary, said, "The Baptists were originated by some Swiss, about 1523." We will now allow H. M. Scott, professor of church history in the Congregational theological seminary, in Chicago, to tell us about the Baptist Church: "It arose in Zwickaw, Saxony, A. D. 1520, under the Zwickaw prophets, Storch and others." We will now ask Prof. A. C. Lewis, the historian in the Presbyterian seminary in Chicago to speak: "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." The president of the Campbellite College of Bethany says: "The Baptists first appeared in Switzerland. Who founded the first Baptist Church that ever existed cannot be determined." We will hear A. P. Cobb, the pastor in 1894, of the first Campbellite Church of Springfield, II1., testify: "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., says, "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." WAS PETER THE FIRST POPE? I have recently been asked about the claims of the Catholics that Peter was the first pope. The Catholics tell us that the pope is the head of the Church, and that the pope is infallible in his interpretations of the Bible, and that the Catholic church has never committed an error. The Bible does not say one word about Peter being a pope, or having more authority than did the other apostles. Neither does the Bible say one word about the Church being founded on Peter, as the: Catholics say it was. The Bible says nothing about Peter being the head of the Church. The pope of Rome has construed certain scriptures to teach that the Church was founded upon Peter and that Peter was the first pope. If Peter was the first pope, then the corrupt and wicked people that killed Peter, years after that developed into what is now known as the Catholic church. The pope was a matter of prophecy, and this prophecy was not fulfilled until years after the Catholic church material had killed Peter. Paul had reference to the pope of Rome, the head of the Catholic church, when he said, "Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." Paul asked the Church to remember what he had told her about the pope of Rome, "Whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs of lying wonders, with all deceivableness of unrighteousness." Jeremiah told us about this woman. "Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lord's hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad."--Jer, li. 7. This is not only true in the United States, but in the entire known world. Catholicism is prospering in the United States as it never has before. As the mystery of iniquity is at work, as it has been for fifty years or more in the United States, Catholic principles are gaining ground by leaps and bounds. The whole religious, political and financial world are drunken on the wine of her fornication. The kings of the earth have committed fornication and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. John saw this whorish woman that some of our people have been flirting with, sitting upon a "scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colors, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness, of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the .earth. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." The Old Baptists did not come out of the Catholic church; and for that reason, they are not a Protestant church. The Old Baptists excluded, in 253 A. D., a corrupt element, that had worked itself into the Church, which afterwards became what is now known as the Catholic church. The Catholic church did not exist in Peter's day, and for this reason he did not belong to it, and could not have been its head and founder.--The Primitive Baptist, June 9, 1932.
|
