Baptism:
Preacher of Church Ordinance?
Second Treatise

Baptism is vitally important. Every believer or regenerate person is commanded to be baptized (Acts 10:48). Therefore, it is incumbent upon all who would be baptized to make absolutely sure they are baptized by the proper authority. Baptism is either of man or of God’s appointed agency, which agency resides exclusively in the Lord’s churches.

"The ordinances of baptism and the Supper were not entrusted to the ministry to administer to whomsoever they deem qualified, but to the churches, to be observed by them "as they were delivered unto them" (1 Cor. 11:2). (J.R. Graves - PILLARS OF ORTHODOXY Pg. 217 - Pub, by B.M. Bogard).

Brother J.M.C. Breaker and the venerated J.R. Graves are often poles apart on the doctrine of Landmarkism, and never more apparent than on the question of authority in baptism. Bro. Breaker says: "The intimation is plain, that the practice of baptizing belonged exclusively to the ministry" (Pg. 249, ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM). Note the word "exclusively" as used by Bro. Breaker in the above quote, it Is a strong term, and as used in the quote makes the authority of the ministry superior to that of the church. Brother Graves says; "To each local church is committed the sole administration and guardianship of the ordinances. This will not be questioned, save by a few who hold that baptism, at last was committed to the ministry as such; that they alone are responsible for its proper administration" (THE LORD’S SUPPER A CHURCH ORDINANCE, Pg. 11).

Baptist perpetuity does not mean there has never been a day since John the Baptist wherein there was not a Baptist preacher (although I doubt there has been such a day), but that there has not been a day since Christ established His church in Jerusalem while on earth, wherein there has not been the same kind of a church somewhere in the earth. When Christ said, "I will build my church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18), He plainly meant that His church would triumph against all the forces of evil which would assail it, and would be found faithful unto the end of the age. It is the perpetuity of the church which is divinely mandated, and this mandate includes baptism, for without baptism a church cannot come into being, nor exist indefinitely. But it is not so with the ministry, for many a church has been organized without even a prospect of a pastor, and churches may endure an extended hiatus without a pastor, but they cannot long survive without administering the ordinance of baptism.

Let us pray that God will give all of His churches pastors, for a God given pastor greatly enhances the maturity of the church (Eph. 4:11-12). But let us not deny nor negate the baptismal authority of a pastor-less church, and thereby consign the already handicapped church to a slow, but sure death.

Again I quote J.M.C. Breaker, whom Brother Cockrell contends is a staunch Landmarker, and whom he commends to readers of the B.B.B. Breaker says: "The law of baptism, thus far considered, and which we have seen requires the administrator to be the accredited agent of a gospel church, IS INTENDED TO APPLY WHERE SUCH A CHURCH IS TO BE FOUND, or where access can be had to such a church, and to such an administrator; BUT WE MAY SUPPOSE A CASE (as that of Roger Williams and his friends) where persons desire to receive the rite, and WHERE THERE IS NO QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATOR to perform it. CAN IT BE LAWFULLY ADMINISTERED UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES? I THINK IT CAN, and for the following reasons; John the Baptist was not baptized, and yet the rite was lawfully administered by him . . . under certain circumstances, then, I THINK BAPTISM BY AN UNBAPTIZED AND UNACCREDITED PERSON WOULD BE VALID; that is, (1,) where there is no true church or minister; (2,) where it is impossible for the parties desiring it to obtain the services of a qualified administrator from abroad, or where there is no knowledge, on their part of such an administrator; (3,) where the intention of those receiving the rite is thereby to form themselves into a gospel church; and (4,) where the person thus administering the ordinance does so in good faith, and in practical submission to the teaching of Christ, that is, he must be one of the number forming the church, and as such must himself receive the rite in turn which John the Baptist would have done, had not his peculiar mission, prevented" (ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM, Pages 261-263 - Caps mine).

Beloved Baptists, can we say the above statement by Bro. Breaker is merely a "weak statement," and yet be honest with our churches, and what we have taught them concerning Landmarkism? Is Breaker’s Landmarkism, your brand? Do you consider Breaker’s statement quoted above to be of no serious nature, or do you consider it to be heresy? One of the best ways to teach is to ask questions which contain the answer or part of the answer. To ask the questions posed in this paragraph of an informed Landmarker is to imply the absence of ignorance in the matter on the part of the Landmarker. The questions are asked to further highlight the grievous error Brother Breaker glaringly propagates in the statement. Re-read the statement, and rejoice that God has delivered you from deep water Protestantism.

Bro. Breaker says on page 245 of his article referred to above, "It is certain that the commission to baptize was addressed exclusively to the eleven." If so then, the commission to baptize was co-terminus with the lives of the "eleven," and the Quakers are correct in contending baptism ceased with the death of the apostles. Or the Roman Catholic church is right in contending for apostolic succession. But it is not so, Baptists have never been faced with such an unreasonable dilemma, for the simple reason, the commission was not given "exclusively to the eleven," but to the whole church at Jerusalem. The commission was not given to the "eleven" as apostles whereby general authority was granted them to act independently of the church. The "eleven" at the time the commission was given were meeting in official church capacity, or they were official representatives of the church. Either way, the commission with its ordinance of baptism belongs to the local independent landmark church, and the importance of this truth cannot be overemphasized.

Baptism is not a nose of wax, which can be modified to fit every circumstance. Baptism, as respects regeneration has no merit, but it is yet a high and lofty ordinance, and is crucial to holy living, or proper dedication unto God. So it is, we should give serious attention to the doctrine of baptism, and make sure our baptism is the "one baptism" which God honors.

"The practical evil that is cropping out of the theory, in some quarters, to the great disturbance of the churches, is that ministers claiming to be officers of the kingdom are assuming control of baptism, and baptizing whom they please, whether in a Baptist Church as was the immersion of Dr. Weaver, of Louisville, Ky., by Prof. Jas. P. Boyce, without consulting the church,—or fifty miles away. But the unscripturalness of this is evident from the fact that the ordinances, both, or all, were delivered to the churches and not to the ministry; and ministers, therefore, have no more authority to administer baptism, to whom they please, and where they please, than to administer the Supper to whom and where they please. It is presumptuous and unscriptural assumption of power that does not belong to them. Our churches should be admonished that "Eternal vigilance is the price of their safety," in this regard, as well as others" (J.R. Graves, PILLARS OF ORTHODOXY Pg. 223 - Pub. By Ben M. Bogard).

Graves says in referring to the three thousand who were baptized on the day of Pentecost, "There were more than twelve administrators, for it is written that in that upper chamber at Jerusalem there were "an hundred and twenty" present, and on the day of Pentecost "they were all with one accord and in one place" (Same Work as quoted from above, Pg. 191). It is plain to see, Bro. Graves did not believe baptism was shut up to the ministry, and his position is amply supported by the scriptures and Baptist history.

"There are a number of questions which may be asked in relation to the two ordinances, such as these: What is the proper method of observing baptism and the Lord’s supper? Who is qualified to administer them? Who are fit subjects or recipients of them? And to whom does the responsibility for their proper observance or administration belong? These questions will be answered variously according to the different interpretations of the passages upon which the answers are based. Suffice it for us to say in general that these are church ordinances and are therefore not to be administered or observed in promiscuous assemblies, and according to the pattern furnished by the Lord Jesus Christ. The church is the custodian of the two ordinances, and is responsible for their administration" (ELEMENTAL THEOLOGY By E.H. Bancroft - Pg. 243).

"We believe that all Christian converts under regular process were baptized. But, it seems under Christ and the apostles, the underlings did the baptizing in the main. Christ did not baptize personally. The apostle Paul baptized only a few . . . Peter commanded the household of Cornelius to be baptized, but did not do it himself. The Eunuch was baptized by Phillip, one of the seven deacons on an Evangelistic tour. In the remainder of the instances of baptisms, it is not stated who did the baptizing. It seems to me, in view of the above facts, to confine the right to baptize to the bishops or elders and such as they may deputize, is a reversal of the apostolic order. Are not apostolic practices safe?" (CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, fly W.O. Baker -Pg. 18 - 1893).

As to Brother J.M.C. Breaker’s article — Administrator of Baptism. It cannot with any degree of certainty be determined where he is coming from in his treatise, or to where he is going, but contradictions galore arise in the process. At one point and then another it appears as if he is pro- Landmarkism, and it is "full steam ahead," but then as you read on, there is discovered in his arguments a gaping hole like that in the side of the Titanic, and he proceeds to sink his own ship. He quotes Scripture, and then later on out argues them a hundred fold. In the over-all article Brother Breaker renders a grave disservice to Landmarkism and the Lord’s churches, for the heaven given authority regulating baptism is left in utter disarray. The quotations taken from the article as given in this book should suffice in convincing the reader that Brother Breaker is not a dependable guide in the matter of baptism. Nevertheless, Brother Cockrell promotes the article, and says that his variances with Bro. Breaker were not "serious".

Baptism is an extremely serious matter, so much so that omniscience sent a vanguard in the person of John the Baptist to prepare by baptism the people whom Christ would later form His church from. The same absolute or unalterable prerequisites divinely fixed to safeguard John’s baptism are in place today, only the authority has changed from John to the Lord’s churches. The Lord’s churches by undeviating adherence to the baptismal pattern given them by their Head through the Scriptures, has provided heaven with more martyrs than all else combined.

Can Baptists of today, who have so great an history and heritage, say as Bro. Breaker does without dangerously diminishing the importance of baptism; that Philip did not baptize the Eunuch into a church, but baptized him with the hope he would whenever the opportunity presented itself join a church? I THINK NOT! Or in circumstances like those faced by Roger Williams, who knowingly had an unbaptized man (Ezekiel Holliman) to administer immersion to him, and he in turn immersed Holliman and ten others? I THINK NOT! This is Breaker’s kind of Landmarkism, but it is most certainly not Baptistic. It is the kind of practice which Bro. Cockrell says, is of no "serious" consequence. (Ibid). Baptism is important, for hinged on it is intimate fellowship with Christ, His church, bride-ship, and the coveted "well done" at the mercy seat of Christ.