perpetuity is, as the word implies, a study of the continuity of the Lord’s churches. It is better known under the designation of Church History. The study of church history is very profitable, and the neglect of it is the cause of much of the doctrinal laxity of the present day. However, the belief that there has been a continuity of true churches through the ages is not a popular belief.

Hatred of church perpetuity by some "Baptists" is an incongruous thing. If these were really Baptists they would rejoice in the evidence that the Lord Jesus spoke truthfully in Matthew 16:18; 28:20, and that Jude 3 is justified. These texts declare that Jesus’ churches will not be overcome, but will continue to the end of the age, and that "The Faith" which was once for all delivered unto the saints is likewise to be around in every age, so that it will not need to be reintroduced by some latter day prophet.

Many have been convinced to trust only in "empirical evidence" of the continued existence of true churches in every century from the first to the present. In the light of the Lord’s promises in these verses and elsewhere, such a desire for "empirical evidence" is manifest unbelief, for it denies, in effect, that Jesus spoke the truth when He spoke these words. This depending upon empirical evidence is a putting of more stock in human writings than in the Word of Him Who cannot lie. Who can justify such an attitude while claiming to be a believer in the Saviour.

It is indeed commonly denied that there is such evidence of the continued existence of the Lord’s churches in every century of this age. But to do so is to say that Jesus either lied, or was in gross ignorance, neither of which any faithful Christian can hold.

But who denies that there is empirical evidence of the existence of Baptist churches throughout the centuries? Two groups only, both of which have great self-interest in making this denial. Protestantism denies this, but Protestantism itself has no such perpetuity, for it has all come into existence since 1517, and so, having no such perpetuity, is shown to not be the Lord’s churches, to which He promised an age-spanning perpetuity, and so, Protestantism is manifested to be but manmade competitors with the Lord’s churches. Second, Catholicism denies this, but while it antedates Protestantism by many centuries, it is still a late comer by almost five hundred years, and it has never tolerated any rivals, but has viciously persecuted unto the death all who were more faithful than she, and has sought to destroy all evidences of the existence of these true churches.

What Baptist then dares to join these two groups in their denial of the Saviour’s promise that He will preserve His people in actual assemblies? God pity the deceived soul that does so.

But in point of fact, there actually is a great deal of evidence of the existence of sound Baptist Churches in every age since the First Century, and most of this evidence comes from the persecutors themselves. After they did all in their power to destroy all Baptist writings that testified of their faith and practice, the persecutors themselves testify against themselves as history well shows, and as we will subsequently show.

When one diligently studies the history of the Lord’s churches down through the centuries, he will find many things that are today held to be almost basic principles, which were innovations only a .hundred years or so ago. At the same time, it is to be confessed that imperfections are to be found in all churches, including those in the New Testament. One of this writer’s professors in seminary has the following to say of this.

Not only will a study of church history manifest innovations for what they really are, but it will also show the principles which our spiritual ancestors considered worth dying for, and which they preserved for us at the cost of their lives and fortunes. Any professing Christian who can read a history of the sufferings and martyrdoms of true Christians of the past without having a feeling of guilt for the present doctrinal and devotional laxity, must be as blind as Bartimaeus or as hard-hearted as Pharaoh, or both.

When we speak of the perpetuity of the church, we must be understood as using the term in its limited sense of a continuity for an indefinite period of time. The Lord’s churches in their present state and form are not to continue for ever, but only until the second advent of Christ, for the very work which has been committed to the churches will not exist in eternity.

It is not to be doubted that the Lord is to have a congregation of His people in eternity, for we find all the necessary ingredients for such set forth in Rev. 21 and 22. There is: (i) A prepared people—redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. (2) A prepared place—a redeemed earth with the New Jerusalem as its capital. (3) A particular purpose-to praise the Lord and to serve Him. (4) Prescribed prerequisites for admittance—only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

A proof of this coming congregation of the resurrected and glorified saints is to be found in Ephesians 5:27: "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." That this has nothing to do with any presently existing church is evident from the fact that this church is without any sort of blemish, something that is not true of any church in this dispensation. Also, the Greek tenses and construction make this a thing designed to be in the future, as opposed to being a present fact.

This passage does not stand alone in teaching the future existence of a "glorious church," for there are numerous others, both Old and New Testament, which look forward to the Lord’s congregation in Glory. Several of the Psalms have this application, but all of this is aside from our present purpose to consider the perpetuity of the New Testament church.

Many people have a bias toward church perpetuity because they do not understand what is meant by this terminology, and so, it shall not be amiss to express what is not meant by the term "church perpetuity," and this we do in the words of another.

In undertaking the study of church history, one is beset by several problems which affect the search for the truth to a great extent. The first of these is The Lack of Original Documents from which to draw information of the early churches’ doctrines and practices. This lack is because of several things.

(a) There is much of history which has never been committed to paper. Multitudes of churches existed in their own times whose names were never recorded by historians. The same may be said of men who were locally imminent for their piety, wisdom and ability. In such cases as these, had we all the facts, we might be greatly surprised at the great number, even in the most corrupt times, of those who held to the primitive faith.

(b) At the same time, the extreme persecution under which many of the early churches existed prevented much valuable information as to belief and practice from ever being written. The question that has sometimes been sneeringly asked as to why we find no more historical documents attesting the existence of such primitive Christians, if so be that they existed in such great numbers, is absurd in the extreme when it is remembered that it was often all these people could do to preserve their lives from the cruel and ferocious persecutors, and they were a great deal more interested in remaining concealed from their persecutors, than in wantonly throwing away their lives by deliberately revealing themselves and their doctrines.

(c) The original documents which did exist were often wantonly destroyed by the persecutors in an endeavor to abolish from the face of the earth all trace of those who maintained a pure doctrine and practice. Nothing condemns the ungodliness of the earthly and sensual, though religious, man, like a devout and obedient life of a true believer; and multiplied millions of Christian martyrs were put to death and their writings destroyed just so there would be no such condemnatory evidence.

(d) At the same time, there were also many original documents which were lost through the process of natural decay. While the climate of many parts of the ancient world was ideally suited to the preservation of the materials used for writing, yet others were not so conducive to this end. Even where the climate was conducive to this end, other factors often entered in and caused the destruction of them. To cite but one example: Tischendorf found many ancient copies of the text of the Bible being used to start fires by the ignorant monks in a monastery on Mount Sinai.

(e) When we consider the number of ancient and valuable manuscripts which have been brought to light in the last one hundred and fifty years, we may safely conclude, and earnestly hope, that there are many more documents which may yet be found which shall shed light on the ancient churches and their practices.

A second problem facing the student of church history is The Questionableness of those Documents which have come down to us, for there is always the danger of spurious matter and interpolation creeping into the original text.

(a) It is not to be denied that there were many forgeries in the early centuries of the Christian era. One of the quickest ways in which a man could draw the attention of the masses to his own doctrines was to attribute the doctrine, either through oral or written tradition, to one of the apostles or to some prominent disciple in the Bible. Thus do we have, to mention only a few, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, The Apostolical Constitutions, and a host of other apocryphal writings, all of which are ascribed to this or that apostle or disciple, yet all of which are so puerile as to be obviously spurious.

(b) There are also many documents which may have originally given a clear view of the practices of the early churches, but which have been so interpolated by later popish writers as to now be almost beyond a true understanding of what was originally intended to be set forth. It was the practice of the monks of the middle ages to change any documents which came under their eyes, so that the original was made to harmonize with the current practices.

(c) If the foregoing was done sometimes innocently and only with a view of "correcting" earlier errors (?), there were at other times outright perversions of existing documents in order that a slanted view of the writer and his party might be presented. It must not be forgotten that there was no level too low for the medieval popish writers to stoop in order to blacken the name of an opponent, and to exalt self and party over him. It was an established maxim that "The end—the glory of the Catholic Church justifies the means—whatever this might be conceived to be."

(d) The extreme superstition of those early ages also make the existing documents sometimes of doubtful value, for acts and words were often attributed to this or that Christian leader in order to make him appear all the more marvelous and exalted. And the enemy, though he might have been eminently pious and doctrinally correct, sometimes had actions or characteristics attributed to him that would blacken his character simply because he was not a member of the "orthodox" party. Such character assassination was often the result of superstitious regard for party without consideration of the right or wrong of the individuals involved.

A third problem involves the Interpretation of the Reproaches and Revilings Heaped Upon Those Who Were Not Of The Orthodox Party by their enemies. The testimony of an avowed enemy is of great value, but at the same time, care must be taken in the interpretation of the charges made by an enemy. One who is an avowed enemy may be presumed not to concede more in favor of his opponent than he absolutely has to, but he may be guilty of concealing part of the truth, or of diluting or perverting it for party’s sake.

(a) We have mentioned before the gross exaggerations and outright perversions made by the enemies of true believers. The aspersions of medieval writers must be taken with great care, and believed only when there is other substantiating evidence. For instance, the common practice during the middle ages was to denominate any person who denied the real presence of Christ in the mass, as an Arian. Hence, many who were guilty of nothing more than repudiating the idolatry of the mass, were slanderously called Arians, a term they in no wise deserved.

(b) The writings of the enemies of true believers were often for the purpose of malignance, and hence, were seldom trustworthy as witnesses of the characters of those against whom they were written. Name-calling is the common subterfuge of those whose doctrine and practice is thrown into an evil light by the truth. An example may suffice. The ancient Waldenses were claimed by their enemies to be born with black throats, covered all over with hair, and to be monsters from their very births. This aspersion was made by their enemies to one of the civil rulers that an order might be obtained for their extermination, but that ruler, investigating for himself, found the charge baseless, and the Waldenses indeed to be the best people in his realm.

(c) The enemies and persecutors of the true Christians often confused two or more groups for a single one, equating them all as the worst of them. For example, they often called the Paulicians and other sounder groups by the name of Manicheans, an extremely heretical sect.

(d) Sometimes it is necessary to move upon supposition when an avowed enemy’s writings carry the suggestion of a truth, but when that truth is not expressly declared. This is especially so when the suppression of that truth would be in the interests of that writer. Some might simply omit a truth which would otherwise clarify many erroneous conceptions. Such, if it could be logically inferred from the context of the writings, would be legitimate.

A fourth problem concerns Geographical and Linguistic Matter affecting the study of church history.

(a) It is often the case that churches in widely separated areas appear at the same time, having no apparent connection, but so constituted doctrinally and devotionally, and with such a background as to be highly suggestive of a common origin. Where such a condition exists, and if the evidence warrants it, a succession may be legitimately assumed.

(b) It is also the case sometimes that a group of Christians residing in one location may, because of persecution or some other adversity, remove to another location, and there be known by a different name. Such might give rise to mistaken ideas about their origin or their succession from other churches. To illustrate: there were groups of Christians during the Middle Ages which were called Waldenses in the Valleys of the Alps. In France, they were called Albigenses. In Armenia, some of these same people were called Paulicians. Yet, there seems little doubt that they had a common origin, faith and practice. Their major differences being their locations and names. Baptists have never claimed to trace their spiritual lineage by names only.

(c) Occasionally a fact in the study of church history may turn upon the meaning of a word, or the usage of that word in another language, or upon a meaning which is of later development. Again to cite an example: Paul wrote: "Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks (Greek eucharistia)" (1 Cor. 14:16). Because the Lord’s Supper came to be called "The Eucharist" several centuries later, some have tried to prove that the Liturgy of the Episcopal Church was what Paul referred to in the above passage. See J. J. Blunt’s Christian Church in the First Three Centuries, p. 32.

(d) The language used may sometimes be ambiguous and it may be a difficult matter to discern which of two or more meanings was in the mind of the writer. Anciently, religious writings were written first in Greek, then in Latin, and these were then translated into numerous other languages.

These are but a few of the numerous problems which confront the one who searches into the history of the Lord’s churches. There are many things that have been lost which would have greatly aided this study. At the same time, many others have been corrupted. Nevertheless, there are still enough materials for us to be convinced of the perpetuity of the Lord’s true churches. History is quite clear about the exact date of the founding, the place of origin, and the founder, of every denominational church but two. An exact date when the Catholic church began is hazy because it gradually developed through many and varied corruptions and changes beginning in the Third Century or earlier, and coming to a recognizable completeness by 590 A.D. under Pope Gregory the Great. The other is the denomination now known as Baptist, which has had its representatives in every century since the First, as is acknowledged in essence by many non-Baptist historians. Surely this is significant! To determine the true, all one has to do is to eliminate all those which are proven to be false by their doctrines and practices and their late origin.

But even if there were no historical proof of the perpetuity of the Lord’s churches, believers would be compelled to believe that the Lord has had people and churches in every age since He ascended back into heaven because of His own declaration to this effect in Matt. 28:20, which literally reads in the inspired original language: "And Lo, I, myself, am with you all the days, even to the consummation of the age."

Believing, then, as we do, that the Lord declared that there would be a succession of churches corresponding in kind to the Jerusalem church, to which Matt. 16:18 and Matt. 28:20 were spoken, our present endeavor shall be to seek for traces of this succession through the ages. However, our faith does not rest upon any historical evidence, but rather upon the Word of Him Who cannot lie. Nevertheless, history reveals traces of this church succession in every century since the first, and seeming breaks in the continuity do not make the words of the Lord untrue. A river does not always flow on the surface of the ground. Sometimes it disappears from the surface but travels through subterranean passages only to appear again at another place on the surface. And if we should find such a river, here visible to the eye, then disappearing from the surface, and if we should place a quantity of red dye in that river where it disappears, and then should we find, many miles away, and some time later, another river suddenly appearing on the surface, and it bearing a red dye, would we not justly conclude that they were one and the same river, even though we could not trace the continuity? The same holds true of church succession.

In this study of church perpetuity, there are several propositions which shall be maintained throughout this search in order to make no mistakes about what are true churches. These are the following:

That there has been a continuity of Baptist churches spanning the centuries from the first to the present time, is the candid admission of many individuals who were not Baptists, and who had no reason to want to establish the perpetuity of Baptists. Their admissions were made because honesty to historical truth compelled them to do so. Therefore, it shall be our design before we get to the study proper of the history of the Lord’s churches, to notice some of these admissions.

Cardinal Hosius, (Roman Catholic) who presided at the Council of Trent, A.D. 1545-1563, makes the following remarkable concession:

This "twelve hundred years" taken from the date of the writing of this in about 1550 A.D., puts the existence of the Baptists, or Anabaptists, as they have been more commonly called until recent centuries, back to the middle of the Fourth Century. The reason why they are only dated back as far as the Fourth Century is that this is when they began to be "punished" by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, for it first began to rear its ugly head at that time, and to persecute all who dissented from its proud pretensions. The Cardinal does not say that these came on the scene at that time, but only that they began to suffer persecution at that time.

Alexander Campbell, the founder and first head of the so-called Disciples of Christ, or Church of Christ, who was no friend of sound Baptists, although for a brief time, he was considered a Baptist by some, until he was excluded for his heresies, makes this declaration:

Dr. Ypeij, Professor of Theology in Gronigen, and Dr. Dermout, chaplain to the King of the Netherlands, were commissioned to prepare a history of the Dutch Reformed Church of which they were both members. The following extract is from their findings on the historical existence of the Baptists, many of whom then lived in the Netherlands, where they sometimes enjoyed more freedom from persecution than they did in other places.

This was a self-denying admission to make to the King, but these men held truth above personal feelings and party spirit, and as a result of this report, the Netherlands government offered state patronage to the Baptists, which they politely declined, it being contrary to their basic principles to unite church and state. J. L. von Mosheim, the celebrated Lutheran historians also concedes that:

Robert Barclay (Quaker) adds his testimony to that which we have already considered when he says:

F. C. Conybeare, formerly Fellow of University College, Oxford, who was probably the foremost authority on the ancient sect of the Paulicians, after a great deal of study on the eastern sects, declared:

Sir Samuel Moreland (Reformed Church) was the special envoy from Oliver Cromwell to Turin to investigate the persecutions of the Waldenses, and to distribute money which had been collected to help alleviate their suffering. He was there during some of the persecutions in the 1650’s, and his book on the subject was printed in 1658. He says of the Waldenses, whom we have already seen admitted to be the forerunners of modern Baptists by Mosheim, and Ypeij and Dermout, and which we shall afterward more clearly show:

It is certain that the Baptists descended from the Waldenses through the Lollards, and here is the concessions of the enemies of the Waldenses that they had existed in the valleys of the Alps at least from the Fourth Century, if not indeed from the days of the apostles.

John Clark Ridpath (Methodist), the author of Ridpath’s History of the World, in a personal letter to W. A. Jarrell, whose Baptist Church Perpetuity, has so clearly shown our age spanning history, 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." And Sir Isaac Newton, the noted English philosopher said: "The Modern Baptists, formerly called Anabaptists, are the only people who have never symbolized with the Papacy." Zwingli, the Swiss reformer, and co-worker with Luther and Calvin, who was a bitter opponent of Baptists, said: "The institution of the Anabaptists, is no novelty, but for thirteen hundred years has caused great trouble to the church." He wrote this in 1525, which would put the existence of Baptists back as far as 225 A.D., the very times when they separated from the other churches because of the corruption and laxity that had come to pass in the other churches, and began to rebaptize all converts from the other churches. This is why they were called Anabaptists, which signifies rebaptizers.

The Edinburgh Cyclopedia, a Presbyterian publication, also concedes the following:

Tertullian was born about fifty years after the death of the last of the apostles, and he lived and wrote in the Second and Third Centuries. He was a member of the sect called the Montanists, who were anabaptists in practice.

The antiquity of the Baptists was also admitted by Dr. Ludwig Keller, a member of the Reformed Church, who was, at different times, in charge of the Archives at Munster and Berlin. He says:

Other testimonies could be given, but these will suffice as a sampling to show that Baptists do not conceitedly stand against the whole world in their claim of a perpetuity spanning the centuries. Baptist claims of a continuity of faith and practice are candidly conceded by a number of prominent scholars and historians of other denominations, and this is almost tantamount to conceding that Baptists churches are the only successors of New Testament churches. This also explains why many, who feel that this claim is justified, will not admit it. Of all the major "Christian" religious denominations in the world, only two even claim to have a perpetuity dating back to the First Century. These two are the Catholics and the Baptists, and the most simple minded person can see that Catholicism has long since apostatized from New Testament belief and practice. The most rudimentary study of the Scriptures proves this to be true.

It is sadly true that there are numerous modern Baptists who do not believe in Baptist church perpetuity, but their ignorance and their desire to be nothing more than Protestants does not invalidate the claim. Some repudiate Church Perpetuity because it is an unpopular doctrine, for if only one claimant to scriptural churchhood is able to establish a succession of belief and practice dating from the First Century, then all other claimants are immediately and automatically unchurched. But any reflection that is involved is only the reflection that truth casts upon falsehood and pretension. It is no mark of true charity to encourage one in falsehood, and compromise has never been an indication of love either for the Lord or for His truth.

We do not wish to be misunderstood in this matter. We happily acknowledge that there are true saints to be found in other religious denominations, and some that are in no denomination, but sainthood is not equivalent to churchhood, and while we recognize that genuine piety is to be found in members of other denominations, yet we cannot recognize their churches as scriptural when they have departed from the New Testament pattern.

In endeavoring to discover this succession of New Testament churches, we may view the subject from the five aspects suggested by G. P. Fisher, who says:

With these introductory thoughts in mind, we may go into a search for the evidences of a continuity of New Testament churches, for if the church which Jesus promised to build would never be overcome by the gates of Hades, then there must be churches in every generation which correspond in type to that first one.

We will not be long occupied with this section inasmuch as all of the information for this period is biblical, and the interested reader has but to look to the New Testament. However, a few observations will be in order.

The Book of Acts is the only Divinely inspired church history book, and it deals with only two churches in detail, the Jerusalem and the Antioch churches. The Epistles of Paul give considerable information about other early churches, yet when we take all of the information in the New Testament, we still have only a very small portion of the history of the apostolic churches. There is not a complete history of even the church at Jerusalem:

The members of the Jerusalem church were commanded by Jesus to wait at Jerusalem until they were empowered for the work that they were to do, Acts 1:4-8. And this they did, and the Holy Spirit empowered them upon the day of Pentecost for this work. The missionary history of the church begins at this time, and that which is recorded is nothing more than a bare sampling of what must have transpired in many directions from that time forth.

The apostles did not remove from Jerusalem for several years, and even when persecution scattered the church at Jerusalem, the apostles still remained there, Acts 8:1. This persecution, seemingly a calamity at the time, was oven-Wed by the wise providence of God to His glory, for, "Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word," Acts 8:4. These who were scattered by the persecution were, for the most part, the lay members of the church, and one group of these traveled along the Phoenician coast as far north as Antioch, and as far West as the island of Cyprus. The Lord crowned their labors with special success in Antioch, with the result that a group of believers was gathered there, Acts 11:19-21. The Jerusalem church, hearing of the success of this venture, sent Barnabas down to help in the organizing and establishing of this new church, Acts 11:22ff.

Thus began the second great missionary church in the New Testament, and which, though it only had two apostles as opposed to the twelve in the Jerusalem church, yet it came not a whit behind the Jerusalem church in its missionary work. Indeed, more of the New Testament church history is given over to the Antioch church’s extension of the Gospel, than to the work of the Jerusalem church.

During the several years interim since Pentecost, other missionaries had gone out from the Jerusalem church, and even Peter, who had been divinely appointed as pastor at Jerusalem after the resurrection, John 21:15ff, later resigned as pastor and did extensive mission work along the Phoenician plain and either established new churches, or, where he found them already existing, strengthened them in the faith.

Some four or five years after the founding of the Antioch church, the Holy Spirit called upon the church to set apart two of its members to do mission work, and this was done, Acts 13:1-4. And from this time forth, this mission work dwarfs all other activities in the New Testament. From this beginning the establishment of scores of churches in as many towns on the East and North of the Mediterranean Sea was brought about, and these churches in turn established others.

The Book of Acts closes with Paul imprisoned for preaching the Gospel, yet with freedom to live in his own rented house and to continue to preach and teach the Gospel, Acts 28:30-31. From this, we might assume that Paul closed his life in prison, or at least that he never had liberty to go upon any more missionary journeys. However, a few glimpses in some of his last epistles indicates otherwise. Conybeare and Howson observe:

That he was released from his first imprisonment at Rome seems to be implied in II Tim. 4:16-17 where he speaks of his "first answer" (Greek apologia—verbal defense) which resulted in him being "delivered out of the mouth of the lion," which probably refers to his deliverance from Caesar. Not only so, but at his first imprisonment at Rome, when he wrote the Epistle to the Philippians, Timothy was with him, yet his second Epistle to Timothy makes evident that Timothy was not with him during this imprisonment, which must have been one subsequent to the first. Conybeare and Howson have given this subject considerable study, and we believe that their conclusions speak for themselves.

Paul, in the passage cited in Romans 15:24-28, did not express any doubts about his planned trip into Spain, and it seems all but certain that he was able to fulfill that intention. Indeed, he declares that this was the purpose of his being released in 2 Timothy 4:17: "Notwithstanding the Lord stood by me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might heat and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion." In any case, Paul’s life closes, but not the history of the churches, for the early chapters of the Book of Revelation give us our last New Testament view of the primitive churches.

These seven churches set forth the historical condition of primitive Christianity in the end of the First Century, and it is with this that we are concerned primarily. However, it is held by many that these seven churches also set forth a prefigurement of the seven ages of the church dispensation until the Lord returns, and there is much to commend this view. Let the thoughtful reader compare what is said of these churches with the events of the last nineteen hundred years, and he will find some striking similarities.

Of these seven churches, some were commended and some were condemned. Some had great faith, and some had great faults. Some were diligent while others were negligent, but they were all recognized as the Lord’s churches. However, one-the Ephesian church-was threatened with the removal of its candlestick, Rev. 2:5, and another was so terribly indiff rerent to the Lord that He pronounced it sickening to Him, Rev. 3:15-16. Thus, error had begun to creep into the churches long before the end of the apostolic age. Paul constantly warned of this.

The Judaizing Christians attempted, and succeeded to a degree in some places, in overturning grace and making salvation a matter of works. For "certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved," Acts 15:1. What was this but sacramentalism—human works for salvation, which has always been man’s corrupt hope. It was but the "way of Cain" come to town again. Change but one word—circumcision-and replace it with baptism or church membership or some other human work, and you have the history of most of the religious world. But the Jerusalem church, which was responsible for these men, held a council and condemned this heresy once for all time, Acts 15, and this divine decision will stand for ever as a witness against such false hopes of faithless men.

But there were other errors creeping into the churches also. Paul warned the Ephesians of certain proud and ambitious men who would try to creep into the churches, Acts 20:28-30. And John condemned one such church dictator in 3 John. Jude also spoke of "certain men crept in unawares," Jude 4. Not only so, but in both Paul’s and John’s Epistles one may glean warnings against those who professed to possess some sort of higher knowledge (Greek gnosis) than the ordinary believer, so that we are shown that even in the apostolic age those who later came to be called Gnostics were already at work, corrupting the truth wherever they could.

But as we draw near to the end of the apostolic age, we find that the truth of the Gospel had spread throughout almost all of the civilized world, and that churches had been planted in many quarters, which would continue to propagate the truth long after the death of the last apostle. The following list of churches will reveal the surprising number of churches which had been established by the end of the First Century, yet most of these were founded largely through the labors of only a half dozen or so men. We have no way of knowing how many others were founded by other equally faithful disciples.

There can be no doubt that there were other churches established in the First Century, for the New Testament is not meant to be a complete history of primitive Christianity. The New Testament only records the work of one apostle in any detail, and it isn’t complete in dealing with Paul’s life and labors. If none but the other twelve apostles labored in establishing churches, though we know certainly that many ordinary ministers, and a great number of lay Christians also labored fervently, and if the twelve only accomplished half so much individually as Paul did, this would still account for another two hundred and fifty or more churches than what we have listed. Therefore, we must recognize that those churches which we find in the New Testament are but a bare sampling of the churches that existed by the end of the First Century. In our later studies we shall find a number of churches which were probably founded before the end of the First Century, but of which we read nothing before the Second Century. The inserted Diagram of Church Spread suggests the probable, and in many instances, the certain, spread of Christianity by means of the many churches that were being continuously organized by the Lord’s people.

Suffice it to say, as Paul did to the church at Rome, that the faith of Christians was "spoken of throughout the whole world" (Rom. 1:8), by the end of the First Century. And even if we take this as meaning only the civilized world, the Roman Empire, as "world" often meant, yet it still bespeaks a wide outreach of the Gospel. It has been estimated by some that the number of Christians had approached the half million mark by the close of the First Century of this era.

This phenomenal growth was in spite of a great deal of persecution. The Jews were the first who persecuted the Christians, but after the destruction of the Temple, and the loss of national sovereignty, such as it was, in 70 A.D., they were greatly hindered from molesting the Christians. However, Satan never carries all his eggs in one basket, and he had already arranged for other persecutors to come on the scene before these were diminished.

The first of the Ten Pagan persecutions began with Nero after the city of Rome was fired (as many believed, by Nero himself), and he put the blame upon the Christians. Great numbers of harmless Christians were put to death in every conceivable manner solely for the entertainment of a crude and barbaric people.

This persecution began in A.D. 67, and it is thought by many that in its course the Apostles Peter and Paul were martyred. Tradition also lists a number of other eminent Christians who died in this persecution. See Fox’s Book of Martyrs.

Domitian came to the Imperial throne in A.D. 81, and occupied it until A.D. 96. He was a naturally cruel man, and he demanded that divine honors be paid to him, and persecuted the Christians as well as the Jews for refusing to worship him. He called Christians "Atheists" because they worshipped an unseen God, without visible representation, figure, symbol, image or altar. Fortunately, he did not launch this persecution against the Christians until late in his reign, and when he was succeeded by Nerva in A.D. 96, the edicts of persecution were revoked.

With the accession to the Imperial throne of Trajan in A.D. 98, the apostolic age drew to a close, but not so the persecution, for this emperor, though he commanded that the Christians were not to be officially sought for, yet commanded that all such as were convicted of being Christians were to be put to death as wicked citizens. The pagan priests and the crude populace were often the instigators of persecution against the Christians. This persecution under Trajan is accounted the third pagan persecution.

It was to this emperor that Pliny the younger, Governor of Bithynia, wrote, asking how he should deal with the Christians, for with the exception of their refusal to sacrifice to the gods, said he, he found them to be good citizens, who worshipped Christ as God, prohibited adultery, murder, fraud, and other such crimes. See Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., Book III, Chap. 33, p. 119.

The fourth pagan persecution came about during the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, who donned the Imperial purple in A.D. 161. This emperor was a philosopher, and is celebrated by many for his extraordinary wisdom and virtue, yet he allowed great suffering to be inflicted upon Christians, so that, as is often the case, his philosophy was antichristian.

During this persecution many churches were all but annihilated. The churches at Lyons and Vienne were persecuted particularly bitterly, and of the former, it is recorded that from its formation until early in the Third Century, a period of about one hundred years, it lost twenty thousand members to martyrdom. Both of these churches were formed later in the First Century or early in the Second, and these severities doubtless drove many of their members into the valleys of the Alps and Pyrenees, and will account for the early existence in the valleys of Piedmont of those Christians who later came to be called Waldenses.

Two of the eminent martyrs of this persecution were Justin Martyr and Polycarp. The latter, the venerable pastor of the church at Smyrna, had been acquainted with the apostle John, and is thought by some to have been baptized by him. Upon hearing that the authorities were seeking him, Polycarp first escaped, then having a dream which he interpreted to mean that he was to give up his life in the flames, he allowed himself to be captured. The authorities sought to persuade him to revile Christ by swearing by Caesar, but he refused and was taken into the stadium where once more the proconsul endeavored to persuade him to revile Christ. Polycarp’s answer was, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and he never did me wrong. And how can I now blaspheme my King that has saved me?" He was put to death by the sword, and his body burned. This took place in A.D. 166 or 167, when he was ninety years of age.

The fifth pagan persecution began in A.D. 202 under the Emperor Severus, who seemed at first to have favored the Christians, but was prevailed upon by the multitudes to put into effect the obsolete persecution edicts of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius which had never been repealed. At least three of the pastors at Rome, Victor, Catistus and Urban, suffered martyrdom during this persecution, as did Leonidus, the father of the celebrated "Church Father," Origin.

Severus died in A.D. 211, and from this time until Maximus came to the Imperial throne in A.D. 235, the condition of Christians was in some places prosperous, and in all tolerable. However, in A.D. 235 all this changed.

The sixth pagan persecution was a brief one, lasting only the three years of the reign of Maximus from A.D. 235 to A.D. 238. This persecution was directed especially against the pastors of the churches whom the new emperor knew had been favored by the previous emperor. From the death of Maximus until A.D. 249 when Decius became emperor, the Christians were generally favored, and the emperors Gordian and the two Philips are thought by some to have themselves become Christians, although the evidence of this is quite meager.

The seventh pagan persecution broke out in A.D. 249 under Decius, who determined to wholly extirpate Christians, or at least force them to return to the worship of the pagan deities. At this time, many who had joined the churches because it was the popular thing to do during the years of tranquility under Gordian and the Philips, now apostatized rather than suffer persecution, giving clear evidence that in most cases there had been no genuine experience of salvation, and so no real love for the Lord. This brought about one of the first great rents within the Christian ranks, yet one that was necessary, of which we will speak more fully at a later time.

This persecution continued in the reign of the emperor Gallus, A.D. 251-253, and that of Valerian, A.D. 253-259, though the persecution under the latter emperor is generally accounted the eighth pagan persecution, for there was a time of some five years in the beginning of Valerian’s reign in which persecution was relaxed to a degree. This persecution raged until A.D. 260 when Valerian was succeeded by his son Gallienus, who, with a few exceptions, granted peace to Christians.

The tenth pagan persecution began in A.D. 303 and continued for ten years under the emperor Diocletian, who was moved to persecution by his adopted son Galerius, who, in addition to his own hatred of Christians, was further provoked by his mother, who was a bigoted pagan. This ten year period of persecution is thought by some Bible expositors to be the "tribulation ten days" of Revelation 2:10. Yet others believe that this refers prophetically to the whole ten persecutions.

In the course of this ten year period there were 144,000 martyred in Egypt alone, and of those who were banished, 700,000 died. In one month alone some 17,000 were martyred. In some provinces scarcely a Christian was left (Thomas Armitage, History of the Baptists, p. 196).

Four edicts were enacted against the Christians in the years 303 and 304, the first ordering the churches to all be pulled down, and all the Christian writings burned, and the civil rights and privileges of Christians taken away. Many who had professed to be Christians, including several ministers, surrendered all the sacred books in their possession in order to escape persecution. These were consequently called traditors, or traitors. The second edict was directed against the ministers, who were ordered to be cast into prison. And the third edict ordered these ministers to be tormented in every way possible in order to induce them to renounce their profession. The fourth and final edict was directed against all Christians without regard to age, rank or sex. All were to be forced by torment to apostatize, (Mosheim, Eccl. Hist., Cent. IV, Part I, Chap. 1, sects. 2-4).

The Imperial power finally fell into the hands of Licinius and Constantine in A.D. 312, and they immediately granted respite to Christians, which respite was officially set forth in an edict in the following year, which, to all practical purposes ended the pagan persecutions. Jewish persecution and Pagan persecution had failed to destroy Christianity. Henceforth Satan would use professing, but unsaved, Christians to do most of his persecution work.

These pagan persecutions, however, did not effect the destruction of the Christian religion. Rather they had the salutary effect of weeding out the pseudo-believers, and manifesting those who were true saints. During these persecutions, the watchword came to be ‘Me blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church," and persecution only served to spread the faith. Again, though, Satan had another device ready and operative for the destruction of the truth. This was the corruption of the doctrine of Christ’s person and work, and the corruption of the constituency and polity of the churches.

Already in the apostolic age we have seen how error was beginning to creep into the churches and to dilute the truth of the Gospel. And in the age immediately following that of the apostles, this cancer quickly spread, and would have completely destroyed the Christian religion but for the providence of Almighty God.

However, the leaven of a sacramental salvation was working in the apostolic age when men began to teach that circumcision was necessary to salvation, Acts 15:1. This was refuted by the apostles and elders of the Jerusalem church, but in another form it began to work its way insidiously into the churches soon after the death of the last apostle, so that by the end of the Third Century the heresy of baptismal regeneration had become full blown, and there were few churches which were not corrupted by it.

When men began to trust in the baptismal waters to save them, they immediately ceased trusting in Christ to do so, and this shortly produced whole churches which were comprised of unregenerate and unbelieving persons. Such unspiritual churches would naturally gravitate more and more to carnal things and innovate flesh-pleasing doctrines and practices. Tertullian, who was of the sect known as the Montanists, was one of the few prominent writers of that age who did not believe in baptismal regeneration. However, in endeavoring to confute those who taught that if baptism did not save, there was no profit in observing it at all, he set forth some things which, at first glance, appear to teach this heresy. This was not his belief, however, for he clearly sets forth the view held by Baptists today.

A study of the ancient creeds of the early churches reveals this progression from justification by simple faith in Christ’s atoning work, to a dependence upon baptism and good works to save. The Old Roman Creed (Second or Third Century), which is generally considered the parent of all the developed forms either Eastern or Western (Ency. Brit., Article: Creeds, 11th Edition), says simply: "I believe...in the remission of sins." The Creed of Antioch (Third Century) also says: "I believe...in the remission of sins." The Creed of Eusebius (A.D. 325) in Caesarea, omits any reference to baptism or the remission of sins, as does also the Creed revised by the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325). Both of these say only, concerning salvation, that "We believe...in one Lord Jesus Christ...Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made incarnate, and was made man, and suffered, and rose the third day, ascended into heaven, is coming to judge quick and dead..." The Creed of Jerusalem (A.D. 348) says, "I believe...in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." The Revision by Cyril, (A.D. 362), the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) and the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) all say: "We acknowledge one baptism for remission of sins."

The progressive development of the baptismal regeneration heresy is easily seen from these creeds. Even as early as the Second Century, Christian writers, in an endeavor after eloquence, often applied metaphors to baptism which gave rise to mistaken ideas of the efficacy of the rite. These, in but a generation or two, came to be considered the true meaning of baptism, and the heresy was complete. In early writings one often runs across such metaphors for baptism as "the font of life," "the laver of regeneration," "the great illumination," etc., so that carelessness of interminology became the cause of the damnation of millions. How careful, therefore, ought every teacher and preacher to be with what he says. The present writer is greatly distressed to hear people using the terminology "got saved," for this is not only unscriptural language—never appearing in the Bible-but taken literally, it is a damnable heresy. Biblically, "saved" is used in but two ways: where man is involved it is always used passively—he "was saved," or "is saved," he never "got saved." Where God is mentioned, it is always used used actively-God saves, for He alone is the Saviour, without any help from man. This is so because "get" or the past tense form "got" is a word of active signification, and this phrase literally means "I saved myself," which no truly saved person believes. However, the man of the world, grasping at any straw to keep from having to humble himself and trust solely and wholly in Christ, will take this literally and believe that somehow he does indeed save himself. And the common failure to teach that a saving faith is always a work of grace (Acts 18:27f), and the gift of God (Eph: 2:8), "obtained" from outside the individual (2 Pet. 1:1), will easily lead one to believe that he saved himself by his own self-produced faith. It remains to be seen what the deleterious effects of the common usage of the erroneous terminology of "got saved" will be on our generation.

In the brief period of time between the death of the last apostle, and the Council of Nicea, the majority of the professing Christian world completely lost sight of the true way of salvation by grace through faith alone, and substituted in its place a system of human works.

However, error in regard to the plan of salvation was not the only corruption which was brought into the Christian ranks at this time, for the depths of heresy were also plumbed in regard to the Person of Christ during this period. The sect of the Ebionites arose in the age following the death of the last apostle, and these people, while known by a number of names, such as Nazarenes and Essenes, were judaizers after the sort of those who so bitterly resisted Paul. They accepted the Lord Jesus as only a man, though they considered Him as the last and greatest of the prophets, and they taught that keeping the Law was necessary for salvation.

Another of the heretical groups which arose during this period was that of the Gnostics, who boasted of a higher knowledge or gnosis, than the ordinary person, and it was from this that they derived their name. G. P. Fisher says of them:

These did not believe that the God of the Jews was the Supreme Being, and they associated all matter with evil, and being not able to reconcile the existence of evil in the world with the Supreme Being, they conceived of an almost infinite succession of beings or "aeons" between the two extremes. They believed that the historical Christ was a mere man, and that He was merely used as a vehicle by the "heavenly Christ," yet without ever becoming incarnate in Him. There were numerous divisions of these Gnostics, the more well known ones being called, from their leaders, the Cerinthians, the Basilidians, the Valentinians, the Manicheans, etc.

That these Gnostic heretics had their beginnings in the apostolic age is evident by the fact that both Paul and John often use what were key Gnostic terms, but the apostles showed what these terms rightly signified and thereby refuted the errors of these early heretics.

However, besides these heretical groups, which were, for the most part, simply pagan philosophies with some Jewish and Christian elements mixed in, many of the so-called Orthodox Christians held some very unorthodox views of the Person and work of Jesus Christ. However, inasmuch as this is not intended to be a history of heresies, we will focus our attention rather on the progression of The Faith.

For several centuries there continued scattered individuals and churches who remained true to the "Faith once delivered to the saints," Jude 3, and these were generally known simply as "Christians." At the same time, there were others who had other names given to them in derision. One of the earliest were the Montanists, who derived their name from one of the earliest leaders of their sect, one Montanus. These were later absorbed by other groups who held to the truth.

The Montanists first arose in the village of Pepuza in Phrygia about A.D. 156 as a result of the extreme laxity of life among professing Christians. Montanism was a reaction against this laxity, and was the expression of a desire to return to the primitive simplicity of the New Testament, and a more spiritual Christianity. The Montanists were widely assailed by the "Orthodox" Christians, yet no charges of heresy were ever brought against them. They were slanderously denominated "fanatics," and "schismatic," and were charged with being uncharitable toward other Christians, but these are the usual charges that are brought against spiritual persons by those whose lax conduct is condemned by the lives of spiritual persons.

That the Montanists were entirely orthodox is admitted by all who have given them a fair hearing, and therefore they cannot be justly be called heretics, as some have done. That they departed from main-line Christianity in practice is freely admitted, but they did this only after most of the Christian world had departed from New Testament practice. Anyone who has studied the spiritual condition of most of Christianity in the Second Century will see that there was a great need for a return to primitive Christianity in morals and conduct.

About A.D. 200 the renowned Tertullian became a Montanist, and much of what we know of them is derived from his prolific writings. Tertullian was born about A.D. 150, and was first a presbyter or elder, either at Rome or Carthage, having been ordained about A.D. 192. But in A.D. 199, due to the ill treatment of the Roman clergy, he withdrew to become a Montanist, and continued with this group the rest of his life. Though admitted to be one of the foremost theologians and writers, yet Tertullian is to this day still repudiated by the Catholic church for no other reason than that he was a Montanist. This is bigotry in its truest sense. Soundness is made secondary to party spirit. For further information, see Tertullian Against Marcion, Introductory Notice, p. xvi, note, in the Antenicene Christian Library.

The following resume of the beliefs and practices of the Montanists will reveal how close an affinity these people had with Baptists, and further study will reveal that they were the spiritual ancestors of later Baptists.

1. They were strict Trinitarians, Tertullian Against Praxeam, C. 2, sect. 13.

2. They believed in the total depravity of man, McGiffert, History of Christian Thought, Vol. II, pp. 18-19.

3. They believed in a regenerate church membership, and would not receive infants for baptism, Tertullian, De Penitenia, p. 6. De Baptismo, p. 18.

4. They demanded a strict and pious life for believers, McGiffert, History of Christian Thought, Vol. I, p. 169.

5. Consequently they exercised a vigorous church discipline upon all those of their number living ungodly lives, believing that Christians ought to live like Christians, McGiffert, ibid.

6. They put much emphasis upon the indwelling and leadership of the Spirit. So much, in fact, that many misunderstood this as a claim to actually be the Spirit by the Montanist leaders, or else were slanderously accused of holding this, McGiffert, Vol. I, pp. 166, 168-170.

7. They received the entire Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, as the rule of their faith and practice, Epiphanius, Antidote Against All Heresy, 48, 1.

8. They believed that the ordinances were for the saved alone, McGiffert, Vol. II, p. 20, note. They rebaptized those who had lapsed from the faith and later came to them for admission to their church. Consequently, they were called Anabaptists, Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, p. 427. They also held other doctrines in common with the later Anabaptists.

9. They maintained the independency of the local churches as is evident from the fact that each church chose its own officers, even in one or two instances by putting a woman into the office of pastor or "superintendent" as they called it. Several historians mention this oddity.

10. Total separation of church and state was another of their beliefs and practices, McGiffert, Vol. I, p. 171.

11. They were a missionary people, and spread their tenets throughout North Africa, Asia Minor and much of the Roman Empire, McGiffert, Vol. I, p. 170.

12. They were pre-millennial in their eschatology, and looked for the soon return of the Lord Jesus from heaven, McGiffert, Vol. I, pp. 174, 166.

The similarity of these to Baptists of this day cannot be denied, yet, we do not wish to white-wash these so as to make them appear otherwise than what history has recorded them to be. There were some irregularities among the Montanists, but no more so than among any other Christian sect, and certainly none such as would invalidate their church status. Among other things may be mentioned: (1) Their belief in the catholic or universal church, which was just beginning to be held in the early part of the Third Century, J. C. L. Gieseler, Eccl. Hist., Vol. I, p. 158. (2) Their acceptance in two or three instances of women as pastors in their churches. However, this probably was not so common as some have tried to make out. Only three such cases have been mentioned so far as we can determine from history. (3) They encouraged celibacy, but did not make it obligatory, and the primary reason for encouraging it was the belief that the world would soon end. (4) Their belief in the continuation of inspired utterances being given by the Spirit, although they did not believe even this to consist in the giving of further revelations, nor did they claim to have an uninterrupted succession of such prophets and prophetesses, Gieseler, Vol. I, p. 148, note 7.

The Montanists continued for several centuries, a few still being in existence as late as A.D. 722, but for the most part they were absorbed by the Novatianists and Donatists of the two following centuries. While they existed, they had a great deal of influence upon the Christian world, and were instrumental in leading many to return to the apostolic purity of practice.

The Novatianists came on the scene about A.D. 250, and they arose from the same circumstances as the Montanists—the laxity and wickedness in the churches, and especially among the clergy—and the resurgence of a desire to return to the purity and simplicity of primitive Christianity. From A.D. 211 to 249 when Decius came to the Imperial throne, there had been comparatively little persecution except the three years under Maximus from 235 to 238. During this time many had flocked into the churches, often without having had a genuine experience of salvation. Consequently, they had no real love for the Lord, and did not have the indwelling Spirit of God to enable them to endure, and so, these apostatized at the first danger of persecution, some of the clergy even voluntarily surrendering the churches’ copies of the Scriptures, and other properties.

When the persecution was somewhat relaxed in A.D. 251, these lapsi, as they were called, returned and desired to take up again their places in the churches as if nothing had happened. Cornelius, one of the presbyters in the church at Rome advocated leniency in the treatment of those who had apostatized, and when he was chosen bishop of Rome immediately after the Decian persecution, the stricter party in this church withdrew and elected Novatian as bishop.

Many people flocked to Novatian and his party, for there still remained many genuine Christians who lamented the great corruption which had befallen most of the churches. Even Cyprian, bishop of Carthage from A.D. 248-258, who did more than any other single individual to corrupt the faith from its primitive simplicity, admitted the sad condition which had befallen the churches. He said:

Cyprian taught that the bishop owes his appointment to God alone, and could not be called to account by the church, but was absolutely sovereign. He followed Callixtus, bishop of Rome, in claiming the right to forgive sins. And, he taught that there is but one Catholic church throughout the world, and that the local congregations are but parts of this "Church," and that outside this church there is no salvation to be had no matter how orthodox a person may be, nor how much faith he may have.

Nor was Cyprian alone in holding these presumptive views. There were many throughout the Roman Empire which held these things, many assuming that "The Church" was the kingdom, and since the Roman Empire was considered to be a universal kingdom, so "The Church" must be also. It was in protest against these things that Novatian and his party seceded from the church of Rome, obeying in doing so the Scripture injunction to "Come out from among them, and be ye separate," II Cor. 6:17.

As in the case of the Montanists, there was no difference in point of doctrine between the Novatians and the Catholics. The chief difference lay in the desire of the Novatian party for a return to the simplicity and purity of primitive Christianity. Their secession from the Catholic churches evidenced a belief that the local congregations were sovereign and autonomous bodies, and that the Catholic church was not the sole repository either of saving grace, or of the true faith.

However, it may be questioned whether the name Cathari, or Puritan, was chosen by the Novatians, or whether it was given to them by their enemies as a term of reproach. There is evidence that this was where this term originated. Certainly, their beliefs and practices, as cited by Dr. Mosheim above, give clear evidence of their affinity to the stricter Baptists of the present day.

Of Novatian himself it must be honestly admitted that he did not have a scriptural baptism, having been poured around and upon him when he was thought to be near death, as the practice then was. He was consequently called a clinici, or one baptized when supposedly upon his death-bed. Already by the Third Century, men had begun to teach that baptism was in some way necessary to salvation, and therefore when a person was thought to be dying, and unable to be immersed, it came to be the practice to pour water copiously on and around him in the hopes that this would suffice for baptism in case he died. However, when such a person recovered, his baptism was considered defective, as in truth it was. But though Novatian had a defective baptism, it in no way affected the scripturality of the Novatian group, for baptism does not come from an individual, but from a church, and the Novatians did not receive their baptism from Novatian himself. Many of them were already scripturally baptized when they united with him. Those who were subsequently baptized, were baptized on the authority of the churches, not on the authority of any individual.

That the Novatian schism, so-called, was no insignificant thing is evident from the rapid and wide-spread influence that it had. There were still great numbers of people who desired a return to the primitive simplicity of the gospel, and many of these united with the Novatians in an endeavor to effect this result.

The Novatians were greatly persecuted by the catholic party as soon as the latter had received from Constantine the civil authority to do so, which was given shortly after 325 A.D., and they confiscated their church buildings, furniture, and the property of the bishops, and even refused them the liberty of assembling publicly, John Jortin, Remarks Upon Ecclesiastical History, Vol. II, pp. 86-87, 96-97.

The Novatians continued until at least the sixth or seventh centuries, after which they were absorbed by other similar groups. Some historians even trace their existence up to the Reformation, and doubtless they did continue this long, but not under the name of Novatians. Most of them were absorbed in the Fourth Century by those known as the Donatists, of which a sketch will be given later.

The following resume of the beliefs and practices of the Novatians reveal that they too had a close affinity with the sounder Baptists of the present day, and that The Faith was continued for at least seven centuries by those who were scorned, slandered and maligned, yes, and even persecuted to the death by the so-called "Orthodox" catholic Christians.

The Novatians differed but little from the Montanists, and probably absorbed most of them during the Third and following Centuries. It is to be honestly confessed that a part of the Novatians succumbed to the current belief in baptismal regeneration. It is possible that Novatian himself believed this, but there were a great many others, however, who continued to hold to the scriptural doctrine of justification by faith alone: And even among the Catholic churches a few were found still adhering to this belief. However, a large majority of Third Century Christianity was fearfully corrupt.

Coming to the Fourth Century, our attention is engaged by another dissenting group—the Donatists, who were so-called from one of the leaders of the movement. Thomas Armitage says:

This rupture came about in 311 when Caecelian was elected successor to Mensurius as bishop of Carthage. Both of these men had considered the giving up of one’s life in martyrdom as fanaticism, and Caecelian had surrendered the church’s sacred writings to the persecutors rather than suffer martyrdom, and had treated the confessors and martyrs cruelly during the persecution. He was therefore called by the opposing party a traditor, and denounced as unfit to occupy the office of bishop. However, he was elected to this office by the party of the late Mensurius, and was hurriedly consecrated to office by Felix, bishop of Aptunga, before the bishops of Numidia, who were to have part in the election, arrived. The Numidian delegation, upon learning of this action, promptly elected Majorinus as counter-bishop, and the schism was complete. Two years later, Donatus succeeded Majorinus as bishop, and the stricter party came to be called by his name.

An appeal was made to the Emperor Constantine to settle this difference, and while it is uncertai