Chrysostom,writing abouta. d.398, as cited by Suicerus, says, “It is impossible without baptism to obtain the kingdom,” and as cited by Wall he says: “If sudden death seize us before we are baptized, though we have a thousand good qualities, there is nothing to be expected but hell.”Suicer., Thesaur. Eccl., Vol. I., p. 3.
Waddington,in his Church History, says, in reference to thethirdcentury: “A belief was gaining ground among the converts and was inculcated among the heathen, that the act of baptism gave remission of all sins committed previously.”Hist. of Church, Ch. II., p. 53.
Professor Fishersays: “Very early baptism was so far identified with regeneration as to be designated by that term. This rite was considered essential to salvation. A virtue was believed to reside in the baptismal water itself.”Hist. Christ. Ch., p. 83.
Do its advocates and supporters hold the same view now? Do parents and ministers still believe that the baptism of unconscious infants secures, or makes more sure, their salvation? If not, why do they practice it?
Professor Lange’swords are weighty, and should be carefully pondered by Protestant defenders of this Papal emanation. He says: “Would the Protestant Church fulfill and attain to its final destiny, the baptism of new-born children must of necessity be abolished. It has sunk down to a mere formality, without any meaning for the child.”History of Protestantism, p. 34.
Many good people, familiar with infant baptism and surrounded by its influences, have naturally learned to reverence it as of Divine appointment, and some of them really believe it is taught or sanctioned by the New Testament. But Baptists are right in rejecting it as something utterly without foundation in the Word of God.
household baptisms
Much stress is laid by some of the advocates of infant baptism on that fact that inthe Acts of the Apostles several cases of household baptism are mentioned. And it is asked with an air of assurance: “If entire households were baptized, must there not have been children among them? And were they not baptized also?” To this it is sufficient to reply, that nothing is said of children, and we have no right to put into the Scriptures what we do not find in them. All inference that such households contained infants, and that such infants were baptized, is the purest fiction in the world. If Christian institutions could be built on so slight a foundation as that, we could bring in all the mummeries of the Greek or the Roman Church, and all the ceremonies of the Mosaic ritual.
One thing is certain: If in those households any children were baptized, they were old enough to receive the Gospel and to believe on Christ, and were thus suitable subjects for the ordinance, and for church fellowship. For it is said,“They believed, and gladly received the Word.”There are thousands of Baptist churches into whose fellowship whole households have been baptized—parents and children and perhaps others connected with them. But all were old enough tobelieveand to makeprofessionoftheir faith. So evidently it was in these households.
The more prominent of these households are that of Lydia, mentioned in Acts 16; that of the Philippian jailer, mentioned also in Acts 16; and that of Stephanas, mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1. Now note what a few distinguished Pedobaptist scholars say on these cases.
Doctor Neandersays: “We cannot prove that the Apostles ordained infant baptism; from those places where the baptism of a whole family is mentioned, we can draw no such conclusion.”Planting and Training, p. 162, N. Y. Ed., 1865.
Professor Jacobisays: “In none of these instances has it been proved that there were little children among them.”Kitto’s Bib. Cyc., Art. Bap.
Doctor Meyersays: “That the baptism of children was not in use at that time appears evident from 1 Cor.7:14.”Comment. on Acts16:15.
Doctor De Wettesays: “This passage has been adduced in proof of the apostolical authority of infant baptism: but there is no proof here that any except adults were baptized.”Com. New Test., Acts16:15.
Doctor Olshausensays: “There is altogether wanting any conclusive proof-text for the baptism of infants in the age of the apostles.”Com. on Acts16:15.
Bishop Bloomfieldsays of the jailer: “It is taken for granted that his family became Christians as well as himself.”Com. on Acts16:15.
Calvin, Doddridge, Henry, and other commentators declare that in this case the household all believed, and therefore were baptized and did rejoice. MacKnight considers the case of the household of Stephanas as giving no countenance to the baptism of infants. And with him agree Guise, Hammond, Doddridge, and others.
As to the argument used by some, that baptism came in the place of circumcision, it is too weak and puerile, too far-fetched and destitute of reason, to claim the serious regard of intelligent and candid minds.
church government
A Christian church is a society with a corporate life, organized on some definite plan, adapted to some definite purpose, which it proposes to accomplish. It has, therefore, its officers and ordinances, its laws and regulations, fitted to administer its government and carry out its purposes. The question then arises, What is the true and proper form of church organization and government? We do not care to inquire as to the various and contradictory forms, as we see them about us in the different denominations, but what was the organic form and government of the first churches, planted by and molded under the hands of Christ’s inspired Apostles.
There arethreespecial and widely different forms of church government which have gained prevalence in Christian communities during past age, and which are still maintained with varied success, each of whichclaims to have been the original primitive form:
1. Theprelatical,in which the governing power resides in prelates, or diocesan bishops, and the higher clergy; as in the Roman, Greek, English, and most Oriental churches.
2. Thepresbyterian,in which the governing power resides in assemblies, synods, presbyteries, and sessions; as in the Scottish Kirk, the Lutheran, and the various Presbyterian churches.
3. Theindependent,in which the body is self-governing, each single and local church administering its own government by the voice of the majority of its members; as among Baptists, Congregationalists, Independents, and some other bodies.
Now which of these modes of church life and administration is taught in the New Testament, if either? or which best accords with the constitution and government of the Apostolic churches?
Baptists hold that each separate, local church is an independent body, governing itself according to the laws of Christ, as found in the New Testament; that eachsuch church is independent of all other churches, and of all other persons, so far as administration is concerned, owing comity and fellowship to all, but allegiance and submission to none. The government is administered by the body of the members, where no one possesses a preeminence of authority, but each enjoys an equality of rights, and in which, in matters of opinion, the majority decides.
That this style of church structure is according to the New Testament appears evident from a study of the sacred records themselves. The Apostles treated the churches as independent bodies. Their epistles were addressed to the churches as such; they reported their doings to them; enjoined upon them the duty of discipline; exhorted, instructed, and reproved them as independent and responsible bodies. They recognized the right of the churches to elect their own teachers and officers, a primary and fundamental right, which, when conceded supposes all other rights and powers necessary to a self-governing community acting under Divinely given laws.
Neander,the distinguished historian, says of the first age: “The churches were taughtto govern themselves.” “The brethren chose their own officers from among themselves.” “In respect to the election of church officers, the ancient principle was still adhered to: that the consent of the community was necessary to the validity of every such election, and each one was at liberty to offer reasons against it.”Introd. Coleman’s Prim. Christ’y, p. 19; Ch. Hist., Vol. I., p. 199; Plant. and Train., p. 156.
Mosheimsays of the first century: “In those primitive times, each Christian Church was composed of thepeople,the presidingofficers,and the assistants, ordeacons.These must be the component parts of every society. The principal voice was that of thepeople,or of the whole body of Christians.” “The assembled people, therefore, elected their own rulers and teachers.” Of the second century, he adds: “One president, or bishop, presides over each church. He was created by the common suffrages of the people.” “During a great part of this century, all the churches continued to be, as at first,independentof each other. Each church was a kind of small, independent republic, governing itself by its own laws, enacted, or at least sanctioned, by the people.”Eccl. Hist., Cent. 1, Part 1, Ch. 2, Sec. 5, 6; Cent. 2, Ch. 2, Sec. 1, 2.
Colemansays: “These churches, wherever formed, became separate and independent bodies, competent to appoint their own officers and administer their own government without reference or subordination to any control, authority or foreign power. No fact connected with the history of the primitive church is more fully established or more generally conceded.”Prim. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 4, Sec. 4, p. 95.
Archbishop Whately, Doctor Barrow, Doctor Burton, Doctor Waddington—all of them Church of England Divines—fully agree with this testimony, and confirm the evidence cited:
Geiseler,the historian, says, concerning early changes: “Country churches, which had grown up around some city, seem, with their bishops, to have been usually, in a certain degree, under the authority of the mother church. With this exception, all the churches were alike independent, though some were especially held in honor, on such grounds as their Apostolic origin, or the importance of the city in which they were situated.”Ch. Hist., Period 1, Div. 1, Ch. 3, Sec. 52.
Further discussion on this subject is not needed. The point is proved, and the independent form of church government is manifestly primitive and apostolic, as advocated and practiced by Baptists.
church officers
How many, and what are the Scriptural officers of a Christian church? For a church, being a society, must have not only laws, but officers to execute them. How many orders are there in the ministry? These are questions which have at times greatly divided the Christian world.
Baptists assert that the officers of a church aretwo,—and of right, can be no more,—pastoranddeacons.In this opinion agree some other denominations, while the various Episcopal sects insist that there should be three sets—deacons, priests,andbishops,to which the Church of England adds archbishops. Others add to this number indefinitely; and the Romish Church carries the list up to ten or twelve, ending with the pope. Now it is not so much what this church preaches or practices, but on what basis were the primitive churches—the churches of inspiration—organized. OurLord did not live to shape, and model, and put in order all things for the full equipment of His people, that they might be thoroughly furnished unto all good works, but He did give to His Apostles a spirit of wisdom by which they should be able to do all this, and carry out His plans, in the organization of His kingdom after He had left them. We assume that the first churches were organized on the Divine plan, and seek to ascertain what that plan was.
In the New Testament, the wordsbishop, presbyter, elder,are used to designate church officers. They all, however, designate the same office, and therefore officially mean the same thing; indeed, they are not infrequently applied to the same individual. The bishop—called also the presbyter, or elder—was thepastor,or overseer of the spiritual flock, watching, guiding, and feeding it, as the shepherd does his sheep. Thedeaconswere chosen to attend to the temporal interests of the church, as appears by the election of the seven, recorded in the sixth chapter of Acts. This was done in order that the Apostles might be free from the temporal cares, and thus able to give their attention more exclusively to the spiritual welfare of the people. The worddeaconmeans aminister,aservant.It is sometimes applied to the Apostles, and even to Christ himself, in the general sense as one who “came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Some of the first deacons were also efficient preachers of the Gospel, but their work as deacons pertained to other services in the churches. While, therefore, the deacon is a church officer, his office does not constitute an order in the ministry at all, its functions belonging to temporal concerns, and not to a spiritual service. The service usually performed by clerks, trustees, and the like, it may be presumed, so far as such service was needed in the first churches, was devolved on the deacons.
Pastors, by whatever name they may have been known, had the same service, and were of the same grade, dignity, and authority. In the first churches there were no high orders of clergy placed over lower grades, and over the churches ruling with superior authority. All were equals among equals, and all equally ministered to the churches. If in the same church there might chance to be several to whom the titlesbishop, presbyter,orelderwere applied, they were all of equal rank or authority,though one might be selected to serve as the pastor of the church, and devote himself to its local interests; while the others might give themselves to more general missionary work.
Neandersays: “The wordpresbyter,orelder,indicates rather the dignity of the office, since presbyters among the Jews were usually aged and venerable; whilebishop,orepiscopos,designated the nature of their work as overseers, or pastors of the churches. The former title was used by Jewish Christians as a name familiar in the synagogue; while the latter was chiefly used by the Greek and other Gentile converts, as more familiar and expressive to them.” “They were not designed to exercise absolute authority, but to act as presiding officers and guides of an ecclesiastical republic: to conduct all things, with the cooperation of the communities, as their ministers and not as their masters.”Introd. to Cole., Prim. Ch., p. 20; Ch. Hist., Vol. 1., p. 184; Plant. and Train., p. 147.
Mosheimsays: “The rulers of the churches were denominated sometimespresbyters,orelders,a designation borrowed from the Jews, and indicative rather of thewisdom than the age of the persons, and sometimes alsobishops:for it is most manifest that both terms are promiscuously used in the New Testament of one and the same class of persons.” “In these primitive times, each Christian church was composed of thepeople,the presidingofficers,and the assistants, ordeacons.These must be the components of every society.”Eccl. Hist., Cent 1., p. 2; Ch. 2, Secs. 5, 8.
Gieselerasserts: “The new churches everywhere formed themselves on the model of the mother church at Jerusalem. At the head of each were theelders(presbyter, bishop), all officially of equal rank, though in several instances a peculiar authority seems to have been conceded to some one individual from personal considerations.”Ch. Hist., Part 1, Div. 1, Ch. 2, Sec. 29.
Waddingtondeclares: “It is also true that in the earliest government of the first Christian society,—that of Jerusalem,—not theeldersonly, but the ‘whole church,’ were associated with the Apostles; and it is even certain that the termsbishopandelder,orpresbyter,were in the first instance and for a short period, sometimes used synonymously, and indiscriminately applied to thesame order in the ministry.”Hist. Christ. Church, Ch. 2, Sec. 2.
Archbishop Ushersays that “bishopandpresbyterdiffered only in degree, and not in order.” SeeCole., Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 8, Sec. 6.
Bishop Burnettsays: “As for the notion of distinct offices ofbishopandpresbyter,I confess it is not so clear to me.”Vindic. Ch. of Sects, p. 366.
Doctor Colemansays: “It is generally admitted by Episcopal writers on this subject, that in the New Testament, and in the earliest ecclesiastical writings, the termsbishopsandpresbyters,or elders, are synonymous, and denote one and the same office.” “The office ofpresbyterwas undeniably identical with that ofbishop,as has been shown above.” “Onlytwo ordersof officers are known in the church until the close of the second century. Those of the first are styled eitherbishopsorpresbyters;of the second,deacons.”Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 8, Sec. 6; Ch. 6, Sec. 5.
This author cites many of the early Christian Fathers who bore the same testimony, among whom are Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Jerome,Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others. Many prelatical writers, besides these above quoted, frankly admit the same facts.
The Apostle Paul, it is stated (Acts20:17,18), called together theelders(presbyters) of the Ephesian Church. But in verse 28 he calls these officersoverseers(episcopos). Here the termspresbuterosandepiscoposwere certainly used interchangeably.
Paul and Timothy, in their address to the Philippian Christians, specify three classes as evidently constituting the entire body of disciples. They say, “To all thesaintsin Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with thebishopsanddeacons.” Saints, bishops, and deacons embraced the whole church.
Timothy was instructed by Paul as to the qualifications of pastors to be placed over the churches. (1 Tim.3:1.)Particular directions are given as to bothbishopsanddeacons,but no mention is made of elders—clearly because they were the same as bishops.
Titus is likewise enjoined to secure pastors for the church in Crete. (Titus1:5,7.) These pastors are calledeldersin verse 5 andbishopsin verse 7.
Pastorsanddeacons,therefore, are two orders, and these officers simply were known or needed in the Apostolic churches. In this, also, the views held by Baptists are in harmony with the customs of the churches in the first and purest age of Christian history.
baptist history
It is sometimes asked: “When and where did the Baptists originate? Who were their founders? What is their history?” These are questions of interest; but a more important one would be: “Are they right? Is their faith according to the teachings of the New Testament?” Many things which are old are not true. Creeds and sects may boast a venerable antiquity, while the Word of God utterly condemns them. Any organization that cannot reasonably claim Christ for its founder has small right to the name of a Christian church, no matter how old it may be.
Baptists claim to be built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief Corner-Stone. If this claim be well founded, whether they have a written history of one century or of twenty, matters little. Yet whatever of the past belongs to any, it may be well to know.Any Baptist history constitutes one of the most interesting chapters in the records of Christianity.
During the Apostolic age even, the doctrines of the Gospel became corrupted, and its ordinances soon after. Both Jewish and Gentile converts brought into the churches many of their old religious notions, and incorporated them with the faith of Christ. These, together with the many philosophical ideas of the times and the perversions to which the truth is always exposed from the ignorance and selfishness of men, very early turned the churches aside from the faith once delivered to the saints. Still there were many who in simplicity and humility maintained the doctrines and customs in their original purity. Those churches which were strongest and most prosperous were most exposed to corruption by alliances with the world.
When at length the period of martyrdom and persecution terminated; when a nominal Christianity took possession of a throne, and Church and State became united, then religion, in its prevailing forms, lost its simplicity, its spirituality, and its power, and a temporal hierarchy took the place of the church of Christ. This was the great apostasyof the early times. But all the churches and all disciples did not follow in the wake of this sad departure from the truth. Many congregations and communities of true worshipers kept the doctrines of the Gospel, and practiced its ordinances, nearly, or quite in their primitive purity. And this they continued to do through all the ages of darkness and corruption which followed. They were never identified with the Roman or Greek churches; they never were in alliance with States; never formed hierarchies. As independent congregations, or small communities, with no other bond of union than a common faith, fellowship, and sympathy, often obscure and unobtrusive, taking the Word of God as their guide, they sought to realize the idea, not of a temporal, but a spiritual kingdom in the Gospel dispensation.
These religious communities were by the dominant hierarchies calledsects,and stigmatized asheretics.As such they were traduced and persecuted continually. And though they may have had their errors, they were the best and purest defenders of the Christian faith, and the truest representatives of the first disciples of Christ then existing. The State churches were theheretics; while those so-called sects were the true successors of the first Christians.
They were defamed and oppressed, calumniated and martyred because they bore witness to the truth of God and testified against the errors and vices of the so-called churches. History has never done them justice, and perhaps never will; because history has been too much written in the interest of their enemies, or from their standpoint. Tortured and tormented by those who should have been their defenders, crowns and miters alike pledged to their destruction, they could do nothing but suffer. And this they nobly did as Christ’s faithful witnesses. They were known by various names in different ages and in different lands, but retained the same general characteristics.
In thefirstandsecondcenturies, Messalians, Montanists, Euchites, were terms which distinguished some of these sects.
In thethird, fourth,andfifthcenturies arose the Novatians. Increasing with exceeding rapidity, they quite overspread the Roman empire, in spite of the cruel and destructive persecutions which they suffered.
In thefourthcentury the Donatists appeared, as a new form of existing sects, ora new phase of the old faith. They multiplied rapidly, spread extensively, and long survived.
In theseventhcentury appeared the Paulicians, attracting much attention, and calling down upon themselves the wrath of the Romish Church. Still they increased greatly, notwithstanding their many persecutions.
That these Christian communities should have been faultless could not be supposed. But they were the best of the ages in which they lived, and maintained the purest forms of Gospel truth and practice. Without the advantage of organization and association, they differed somewhat among themselves.
But in general they all professed to take the New Testament as the rule of their faith and practice. They held to a spiritual church-membership, and received only professedly regenerated persons to the ordinances. Denying the orthodoxy of the Romish Church, they rebaptized persons received from that body, and hence were calledAnabaptists.Infant baptism they rejected, according to Allix, Mosheim, Robinson, and other historians. Baptism they administered by immersion, as indeed didall Christians during those ages. Robinson calls them “Trinitarian Baptists.” It is said that the Empress Theodora, after having confiscated their property, caused to be cruelly put to death no less than one hundred thousand Paulicians, for no other fault or offense than their religious faith.
About the close of thetenthcentury appeared the Paterines; substantially the same people, no doubt as had previously existed under other names. They too rejected infant baptism, and protested against the corruptions of the Romish Church; in consequence of which they suffered long and severe persecution.
In theeleventhcentury, and the ages following, were the Waldenses, Albigenses, Vaudois, Cathari, and Poor Men of Lyons. These were new names, and names usually given by their enemies. They increased, even under their persecutions, to a wonderful extent, and attracted the notice, if not the sympathy, of all Europe.
It is not pretended that these ancient sects were known by the name as Baptists; but in general they held the more prominent and distinctive principles which have always characterized the Baptists; thus: 1. Theydeclared and defended the rights of faith and conscience and the freedom of worship. 2. They denied the authority of popes and the right of kings and States to interfere with the people in matters of religion. 3. They rejected infant baptism. 4. They baptized by dipping. 5. They held the Bible to be the only rule and authority in concerns of religious faith and practice. 6. They admitted to the churches none except such as professed to be regenerated and godly persons.
Now it is conceded by all historians of note that such churches and communities did exist, separate from and persecuted by, the prevailing State churches and civil authorities during all the ages from the Apostles to the Reformation.
When the Reformation under Luther and his coadjutors broke out, these sects to a great extent fraternized with, and were lost in, the multitude of the reformers. Such as continued their separate existence, as the Waldenses of Piedmont, yielding to the influence of the reformers, did from sympathy what the persecutions of the Papists had never been able to compel them to do—abandon dipping for sprinkling in baptism, adopted infant baptism, and took thegeneral forms of religious life, into which Pedobaptist Protestantism grew.
the welsh baptists
Few denominations have a better claim to antiquity than the Welsh Baptists. They trace their descent directly from the Apostles and urge in favor of their claim arguments which have never been confuted.
When Austin, the Romish monk and missionary, visited Wales, at the close of thesixthcentury, he found a community of more than two thousand Christians, quietly living in their mountain homes. They were independent of the Romish See, and wholly rejected its authority. Austin labored hard to convert them—that is, to bring them under the Papal yoke; but entirely failed in the effort. Yielding things in general, he reduced his demand upon them to three particulars: 1. That they should observe Easter in due form, as ordered by the Church. 2. That they should give Christendom, or baptism, to their children. 3. That they should preach to the English the Word of God, asdirected.[1]
These demands of Austin prove that they neither observed the Popish ordinance of Easter, nor baptized their children. They, however, rejected all his overtures, whereupon he left them with threats of war and wretchedness. Not long after, Wales was invaded by the Saxons, and many of these inoffensive Christians cruelly murdered, as was believed, at the instigation of this bigoted zealot, the exacting Austin.
the dutch baptists
The Baptists of Holland have a history that reaches back to a very remote period, if not to the Apostolic age, as some confidently assert. And this antiquity is conceded by historians who have no sympathy with their denominational sentiments.
Mosheim,in his Church History, says, “The true origin of that sect which acquired the name Anabaptistis hid in the remote depths of antiquity,and is consequently extremely difficult to be ascertained.”Eccl. Hist., Vol. IV., p. 427, Mac. Ed., 1811.SeeIntrod. Orchard’s Hist. Bap., p. 17.
Zwingli,the Swiss Reformer, contemporarywith Luther, declares: “The institution of Anabaptism is no novelty but forthirteen hundred yearshas caused great disturbance in the church.”Introd. Orchard’s Hist. Bap., p. 17.Thirteen hundred years before his time would have carried it back to within two centuries of the death of Christ.
Doctor Dermont,chaplain to the king of Holland, and Doctor Ypeij, professor of theology at Groningen, a few years since received a royal commission to prepare a history of the Reformed Dutch Church. That history, prepared under royal sanction, and officially published, contains the following manly and generous testimony to the antiquity and orthodoxy of the Dutch Baptists. “We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and have long in the history of the church received the honor of that origin. On this account,the Baptists may be considered the only Christian community which has stood since the Apostles, and as a Christian society, which has preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel through all ages.” Hist. Ref. Dutch Ch., Ed. Breda, 1819.SeeEncy. Relig. Knowledge, Art. Mennonites.
Mosheimsays of the persecutions of this people in the sixteenth century, “Vast numbers of these people, in nearly all the countries of Europe, would rather perish miserably by drowning, hanging, burning, or decapitation, than renounce the opinions they had embraced.” And their innocency he vindicates thus: “It is indeed true that many Anabaptists were put to death, not as being bad citizens, or injurious members of civil society, but as being incurableheretics,who were condemned by the old canon laws. For the error ofadult baptismwas in that age looked upon as a horrible offense.” That was their only crime.Eccl. Hist., Cent. 16, Sec. 3. Part 2, Ch. iii. Fuller’s Ch. Hist., B. 4.
This testimony is all the more welcome, because it comes from those who have no ecclesiastical sympathies with Baptists, but who, in fidelity to history, bear honest testimony to the truth which history teaches. The circumstances under which their evidence was produced give it additional force.
Cardinal Hossius,chairman of the council at Trent, says: “If the truth ofreligion were to be judged of by the readiness and cheerfulness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer or surer, than those of theAnabaptists;since there have been none, for thesetwelve hundred years past,that have been more grievously punished.”Orchard’s Hist. Bap., Sec. 12, part 30, p. 364.
Many thousands of the Dutch Baptists, called Anabaptists, and Mennonites, miserably perished by the hands of their cruel persecutors, for no crime but their refusal to conform to establishedchurches.[2]
the english baptists
At what time the Baptists appeared in England in definite denominational form, it is impossible to say. But from thetwelfthto theseventeenthcentury, many of them suffered cruel persecutions, and death by burning, drowning, and beheading, besides many other, and sometimes most inhuman tortures. And this they suffered both from Papists and Protestants, condemned by both civil and ecclesiastical tribunals, only becausethey persisted in worshiping God, according to the dictates of their consciences, and because they would not submit their religious faith and worship to the dictates of popes andprinces.[3]In 1538, royal edicts were issued against them, and several were burnt at the stake in Smithfield.
Brandewrites that: “In the year 1538, thirty-one Baptists, that fled from England, were put to death at Delft, in Holland; the men were beheaded, the women were drowned.”Hist. Reformers.SeeBenedict’s Hist. Bap., p. 303. Neal’s Hist. Puritans, Vol. I., p. 138. Note, Vol. II, p. 355, Sup.What crime had they committed to merit such treatment as this?
Bishop Latimerdeclares that, “The Baptists that were burnt in different parts of the kingdom went to death intrepidly, and without any fear, during the time of Henry VIII.”Lent Sermons. Neal’s Hist. Purit., Vol. II, p. 356.
Under the rule of the Popish Mary, they suffered perhaps no more than under that of the Protestant Elizabeth. During the reign of the latter a congregation of Baptists wasdiscovered in London, whereupon several were banished, twenty-seven imprisoned, and two burnt atSmithfield.[4]
Doctor Featley,one of their bitter enemies, wrote of them, in 1633: “This sect, among others, hath so far presumed upon the patience of the State, that it hath held weekly conventicles, rebaptizing hundreds of men and women together in the twilight, in rivulets and in some arms of the Thames, and elsewhere, dipping them all over head and ears. It hath printed divers pamphlets in defense of their heresy; yea, and challenged some of our preachers to disputation.”Eng. Bapt. Jubilee Memor., Benedict’s Hist. Bapt., p. 304.
Baileywrote, in 1639, that: “Under the shadow of independency they have lifted up their heads, and increased their numbers above all sects in the land. They haveforty-six churchesin and about London. They are a people very fond of religious liberty, and very unwilling to be brought under bondage of the judgment of others.”Benedict’s History, p. 304.
The first book published in the Englishlanguage on the subject of baptism was translated from the Dutch, and bears date 1618. From this time they multiplied rapidly through all parts of the kingdom. The first regularly organized church among them, known as such in England, dates from 1607, and was formed in London by a Mr. Smyth, previously a clergyman of the Established Church.
In 1689, the Particular Baptists, so called, held a convention in London, in which more than one hundred congregations were represented, and which issued a confession of faith, still in use and highly esteemed.
The last Baptist martyr in England was Edward Wightman, of Burton upon Trent, condemned by the Bishop of Coventry, and burnt at Litchfield, April 11,1612.[5]
american baptists
The history of American Baptists runs back a little more than two and a quarter centuries. In this country, as elsewhere, they were cradled amidst persecution, and nurtured by the hatred of their foes. This has been their fortune in every age, and in every land.
Roger Williams,a distinguished and an honored name, was identified with the rise of the denomination in America. He has been called their founder, because he organized the first church, and was intimately connected with their early history. Williams was born in Wales, 1598, educated at Oxford, England, came to America in 1630, and settled as minister of the Puritan church in Salem, Massachusetts. Not long after, he adopted Baptist views of doctrine and church order, on account of which he was banished by his fellow Puritans, and driven out of Massachusetts, in the depths of a rigorous winter, in a new and inhospitable country. Having wandered far and suffered much, finding the savage Indians more generous and hospitable than his fellow Christians, he finally reached and fixed his future home at what is now Providence, R. I. Here, with a few associates of like faith, he founded a new colony, calling both the city and the colonyProvidence,in recognition of the Divine guidance and protection, which he had in so remarkable a manner experienced.
In 1639, Mr. Williams received baptism from one of his associates, there being no minister to perform that service. He in turn baptized his associates, and a churchwas organized, of which he was chosen pastor. He was also appointed first Governor of Rhode Island. Full liberty was granted in matters of religion. Thus Roger Williams became the first ruler, and Rhode Island the first State which ever gave entire freedom to all persons to worship God, according to their own choice, without dictation or interference from civil or ecclesiastical authorities.
On account of this unrestricted liberty many Baptists, as well as other persecuted religionists from other colonies, and from Europe, collected in considerable numbers at Providence, and spread through the colony.
It is a mistake to suppose that all the Baptist churches in America grew out of the one which Roger Williams founded. It is even doubtful whether any single church arose as an outgrowth of that. As immigration increased, other churches grew up, having no connection with that; and with considerable rapidity the sentiments of Baptists spread into adjoining colonies, particularly west and south. For a long time, however, they were sorely persecuted, especially in Massachusetts and Connecticut; persecuted even by those who had themselvesfled from persecution in their native land, to find freedom and refuge in these distant wilds.
In 1644, the present First Church in Newport, R. I., was organized. But whether the present First Church in Providence was constituted before this date is still a disputed point. Both claim priority. In 1656, the Second Church, Newport, was formed. Then followed in order of time the church in Swansea, Massachusetts, 1663; First, Boston, 1665; North Kingstone, R. I., 1665; Seventh Day Church, Newport, 1671; South Kingstone, R. I., 1680; Kittery, Me., 1682; Middletown, N. J., 1688; Lower Dublin, Pa., 1689; Charleston, S. C., 1690; Philadelphia, Pa., 1698; Welsh Tract, Del., 1701; Groton, Ct., 1705. Others, not mentioned, arose within this period in these and other colonies. With the increase of population, Baptists rapidly increased and widely spread over the country.
Edward’s Tablesgives the number of American Baptist Churches in 1768, as only 137.
Asplund’s Registerfor 1790, reported 872 churches, 722 ordained ministers, with 64,975 members.
Benedict’s Historystates that in 1812, there were 2,633 churches, 2,143 ordained ministers, and 204,185 members.
Allen’s Registerfor 1836, puts them at 7,299 churches, 4.075 ordained ministers, and 517,523 members.
The Baptist Year-Bookgives the following figures:
The Year-Bookgives the Sunday school statistics for 1930, as follows: For the United States, schools, 46,132; total enrollment 5,143,056.
The figures given in all these cases are probably less than the actual facts warrant, since full reports from associations, churches, and schools can never be obtained.
other baptists
Besides the regular Baptist Brotherhood, there are in the United States very manyother and smaller denominations, which practice immersion, but are not in fellowship with, or reckoned as a part of, the great Baptist family.
The Seventh Day Baptists, so called on account of their observing Saturday, or the seventh day of the week, as their Sabbath, on the ground that the Jewish Sabbath was never abrogated. They are estimated at about 7,000.
The Free Will Baptists, who take their name from their views as to the freedom of the human will and practice open communion, number about 66,000. In the North the Free Will Baptist churches have generally united with the Northern Convention, and their membership is reckoned with that of the regular Baptist body.
The Six Principle Baptists, so called because their doctrinal confession is based on the six points mentioned in Hebrews6:1,2, are estimated at about 300.
The Anti-Mission Baptists, or rather Primitive Baptists, found chiefly in the Southwest, do not believe in missions, Sunday schools, or other reform movements lest they should seem to interfere with the Divine decrees. They are said to number 43,000.
The Disciples of Christ, sometimes called Campbellites, or Christians, number about 1,200,000.
The Winebrennerians, or the General Eldership of the Churches of God in North America, are estimated at about 30,000.
The Tunkers, or Dunkards, of all groups number about 126,000, and the United Brethren, about 330,000.
baptists elsewhere
In North America, aside from the United States, but including the provinces of British America, Central America, Mexico, and the West Indies, Baptists numbered in 1930 about 249,809.
In Europe there were in 1930 about 1,639,656.
In Asia, about 361,800.
In Australasia, about 35,113.
In Africa, about 83,041.