It is recorded that "John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim,
because there was much water there" (John 3:23). Why need much water
except for dipping, or burying candidates in the act of baptism?
JOHN CALVIN, the great theologian, scholar, and commentator, whom
Scaliger pronounced the most learned man in Europe, says: "From the
words of John (chap. 3:23) it may be inferred that baptism was
administered by John and Christ, by _plunging_ the whole body under
water." _Com. on John 3:23._
POOLE says: "It is apparent that both Christ and John baptized by
dipping the whole body in the water, else they need not have sought
places where had been a great plenty of water." _Annot. John 3:23._
WHITBY says: "Because there was much water there in which their whole
bodies might be dipped." _Crit. Com. John 3:23._
With these agree Bengel, Curcælleus, Adam Clarke, Geikie, Stanley, and
others.
PHILIP AND THE EUNUCH
"And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch,
and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the
Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip" (Acts 8:38). Why go down into
the water, both, or either of them, if not for an immersion?
VENEMA, the ecclesiastical historian, says: "It is without controversy,
that baptism in the primitive church was administered by _immersion_
into water, and not by sprinkling; seeing that John is said to have
baptized in Jordan, and where there was much water, as Christ also did
by His disciples in the neighborhood of those places. Philip also going
down into the water baptized the eunuch." _Eccl. Hist., chap. I., sec.
138._
To this may be added Calvin, Grotius, Towerson, Poole, and others to
the same effect.
THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS
Great men are not always wise. Our search should be for the _truth_
wherever found; and though our final appeal in these matters is to the
New Testament, still we are glad to use the testimony of distinguished
scholars where it affirms the teachings of the Scriptures and confirms
our position on the baptismal question. Especially so, as these
scholars are not of our own, but of other denominations.
ZANCHIUS, the learned Roman Catholic professor of Heidelberg, whose
opinion De Courcy declared, "is worth a thousand others," said: "The
proper signification of _baptize_ is to _immerse,_ plunge under,
overwhelm in water." _Works, Vol. VI., p. 217. Geneva, 1619._
LUTHER, the great German Reformer, says: "The term _baptism_ is Greek;
in Latin it may be translated _mersio:_ since we _immerse_ anything
into water, that the whole may be covered with the water." _Works, Vol.
I., p. 71. Wit. ed., 1582._
MELANCHTHON, the most scholarly and able co-laborer with Luther, says:
"Baptism is _immersion_ into water, with this admirable benediction."
_Melanc. Catec. Wit., 1580._
CAVE, in his able work on Christian Antiquities, says: "The party to be
baptized was _wholly immersed,_ or put under water." _Prim. Christ., P.
I. Chap. X. p. 320._
BEZA, the learned translator of the New Testament, says: "Christ
commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain _immersion_ is
signified." _Annot. on Mark 7:4._
MEDE, the distinguished English scholar and Divine, says, "There was no
such thing as _sprinkling_ used in the Apostles' days, nor for many
ages after them." _Dis. on Titus 3:5._
GROTIUS, who his biographer calls one of the most illustrious names in
literature, politics, and theology says: "That baptism used to be
performed by _immersion,_ and not by pouring, appears by the proper
signification of the word, and by the places chosen for the
administration of the rite." _Annot. on Matt. 3:6; John 3:23._
ADAM CLARK, the great Methodist commentator, says: "Alluding to the
_immersions_ practiced in the case of adults, wherein the person
appeared to be _buried_ under the water as Christ was buried in the
heart of the earth." _Com. on Col. 2:12._
FREDERICK MEYER, one of the ablest and most accurate exegetes of the
present age, says: "_Immersion,_ which the word in classic Greek and in
the New Testament ever means." _Com. on Mark 7:4._
DEAN ALFORD says: "The baptism was administered by _immersion_ of the
whole person." _Greek Testament, Matt. 3:6._
BISHOP BOSSUET, the celebrated French Catholic bishop, orator, and
counselor of state, says: "To baptize, signifies to _plunge,_ as is
granted by all the world." See _Stenett ad Russen, p. 174._
DOCTOR SCHAFF, the well-known church historian, says: "_Immersion,_ and
not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original form. This is shown by
the very meaning of the words _baptizo, baptisma,_ and _baptismos_ used
to designate the rite." _Hist. Apos. Ch., p. 488. Merc. ed., 1851. Also
see Noel on Bap., Ch. 3, sec. 8._
DEAN STANLEY, the distinguished scholar, and historian of the Oriental
Church, says: "The practice of the Eastern Church, and the meaning of
the word, leave no sufficient ground for question that the original
form of baptism was _complete immersion_ in the deep baptismal waters."
_Hist. Eastern Church, p. 34._
PROFESSOR FISHER, of Yale College, the accomplished scholar and
historian, says of the Apostolic age: "The ordinary mode of baptism was
by _immersion._" _Hist. Christ. Church, p. 41._
PROFESSOR RIDDLE says: "There is no doubt that the usual mode of
administering baptism in the early church, was by _immersion,_ or
plunging the whole body of the person baptized under water." _Christ.
Antiq., p. 502._
Add to the above the testimony of Bishops Taylor and Sherlock, Witsius,
Poole, Vitringa, Diodati, Calvin, Samuel Clark, Bloomfield, Scholz,
Neander, and many others to the same effect, none of whom were Baptists.
APOSTOLICAL ALLUSIONS
What idea could the Apostle have had as to the nature of baptism, when
in two of his epistles he alludes to it as a _burial_ except that it
was a dipping or burial in water? To the Romans he says: "Therefore we
are _buried_ with him, by baptism, into death" (Rom. 6:4). To the
Colossians, in nearly the same language, "_Buried_ with him in baptism"
(Col. 2:12). No one can misunderstand the meaning of these words.
Neither sprinkling, pouring, washing, cleansing--nothing but a complete
submersion--can represent a burial. And no candid mind could
misunderstand such language, unless blinded or biased by prejudice,
education, or sophistical reasoning from others.
ARCHBISHOP TILLOTSON makes this comment: "Anciently those who were
baptized were _immersed_ and _buried_ in the water, to represent their
death to sin; and then did rise up out of the water, to signify their
entrance upon a new life. And to this custom the Apostle alludes."
_Works, Vol. I., p. 170._
JOHN WESLEY, the celebrated founder of Methodism, says: "Buried with
him, alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by _immersion._" _Note
on Rom. 6:4._
CONYBEARE says: "This passage cannot be understood unless it be borne
in mind that the primitive baptism was by _immersion._" _Life and
Epist. St. Paul, Rom. 6:4._
BLOOMFIELD says: "Here is a plain allusion to the ancient custom of
baptizing by _immersion,_ and I agree with Koppe and Rosenmüller, that
there is reason to regret it should ever have been abandoned in most
Christian churches; especially as it has so evident a reference to the
mystical sense of baptism." _Recens. Synop., Rom. 6:4._
WHITEFIELD says: "It is certain that in the words of our text (Rom.
6:4) there is an allusion to the manner of baptizing which was by
_immersion._" _Eighteen Sermons, p. 297._
MEYER says: "The candidate says to himself, Now I enter into fellowship
with the death of Christ; I am to be buried with Christ in the
_immersion,_ and in the _emersion_ I rise with Christ to newness of
life." _Com. on Rom. 6:4._
Add to these the names of Bishop Fell, Doctor Doddridge, Adam Clark,
Estius, Maldonatus, Fritsche, Benson, Diodati, Turretin, Zwingli,
Whitby, Samuel Clarke, with others equally good in authority, and what
no one ought to question seems to be put beyond doubt.
THE WITNESS OF HISTORY
Learned and devout men have studied with care the early records of
Christianity, and have written histories of the doctrines and customs
of the churches, during the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles.
What do they tell us as to the use of baptism during the first
centuries after Christ?
BARNABAS, the companion of St. Paul; Hermas, writing about A. D. 95;
Justin Martyr, about A. D. 140; Tertullian, about A. D. 204;
Hippolytus, about A. D. 225; Gregory, about A. D. 360; Basil, about
A. D. 360; Ambrose, about A. D. 374; Cyril, about A. D. 374;
Chrysostom, about A. D. 400; all speak of being _dipped,_ or _buried,_
or _immersed,_ or _plunged_ in the water in baptism; and none of them
make the least allusion to any application of water to the person for
baptism by sprinkling, pouring, washing, or any other mode whatsoever.
DOCTOR WALL, whose learned and laborious researches in connection with
his exhaustive work on the _History of Infant Baptism_ left little for
others to discover in this field of scholarship, says: "The Greek
Church in all its branches does still use _immersion,_ and so do all
other Christians in the world, except the Latins. All those nations
that do now, or formerly did submit to the Bishop of Rome, do
ordinarily baptize their children by pouring or sprinkling. But _all
other Christians in the world,_ who never owned the Pope's usurped
power, do and ever did _dip_ their infants in the ordinary use. All the
Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one-third in Europe are of
the last sort." _Hist. Inf. Bap., Vol. II., p. 376, 3d ed._
BINGHAM, in his _Origines,_ the ablest work we have in English on
Christian Antiquities, says: "The ancients thought that immersion, or
_burying under water,_ did more lively represent the death, burial, and
resurrection of Christ, as well as our own death to sin and rising
again unto righteousness." _Christ. Antiq., B. XI., Ch. XI._
MOSHEIM says: "In this century (_the first_) baptism was administered
in convenient places, without the public assemblies, and by _immersing_
the candidate wholly in water." _Eccl. Hist., Cent. I., Part. II., Ch.
4._
NEANDER says: "In respect to the form of baptism, it was in conformity
to the original institution, and the original import of the symbol,
performed by _immersion,_ as a sign of entire baptism into the Holy
Spirit, of being entirely penetrated with the same." _Ch. Hist., Vol.
I., p. 310._ Also, _Plant. and Train., Vol. I., p. 222._
SCHAFF says: "Finally, so far as it respects the mode and manner of
outward baptizing, there can be no doubt that _immersion,_ and not
sprinkling was the original normal form." _Hist. Christ. Ch., p. 488._
PRESSENSÉ says: "Baptism, which was the sign of admission into the
church, was administered by _immersion._ The convert was plunged
beneath the water, and as he rose from it he received the laying on of
hands." _Early Years of Christianity, p. 374._
KURTZ says: "Baptism took place by a complete _immersion._" _Church
History, p. 41._
KRAUS says: "Baptism was performed by _immersion_ in the name of the
Trinity." _Church History, p. 56. 1882._
ELLICOTT says: "Jewish ablutions arrived at a ceremonial purity in the
Levitical sense, and had nothing in common with the figurative act
which portrayed through _immersion_ the complete disappearance of the
old nature, and by the _emerging_ again, the beginning of a totally new
life." _Life of Christ, p. 110._
FOR THIRTEEN CENTURIES
It is proved that not only was immersion practiced for baptism by
Christ and His Apostles, but that for many ages after nothing else was
known as baptism: and that for _thirteen hundred years_ it was the
common and prevailing form over the whole Christian world, with only
exceptional departures, hereafter to be noticed. And that though the
Latin or Roman Church did finally adopt sprinkling, claiming the right
to change ordinances, the Greek and all the Oriental churches retained
dipping, as they do to this day.
DOCTOR STACKHOUSE says: "Several authors have shown and proved that
this manner of _immersion_ continued, as much as possible, to be used
for _thirteen hundred years_ after Christ." _Hist. Bible, B. 8, Ch. 1._
BISHOP BOSSUET says: "We are able to make it appear, by the acts of
councils and by ancient rituals, that for _thirteen hundred years_
baptism was thus administered [by immersion] throughout the whole
church, as far as possible." _Cited, Stennet ad Russen, p. 176._
HAGENBACH says: "From the _thirteenth century_ sprinkling came into
more general use in the West. The Greek Church, however, and the church
of Milan still retained the practice of _immersion._" _Hist. Doct. Vol.
II., p. 84, note 1._
VAN OOSTERZEE says: "This _sprinkling,_ which appears to have first
come generally into use in the _thirteenth century_ in place of the
entire _immersion_ of the body, in imitation of the previous baptism of
the sick, has certainly the imperfection that the symbolical character
of the act is expressed by it much less conspicuously than by complete
immersion and burial under the water." _Christ. Dogmat., Vol. II., p.
749._
COLEMAN says: "The practice of immersion continued even until the
_thirteenth or fourteenth_ century. Indeed, it has never been formally
abandoned." _Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 19, Sec. 12._
To the same effect is the testimony of Doctors Brenner, Von Cölln,
Winer, Augusti, Bingham, and others.
AS TO THE GREEK CHURCH
It is a notable fact and worthy of record in this discussion, that the
Greek Church has always retained immersion in baptism. This church
extends over Greece, Russia, Arabia, Palestine, Abyssinia, Siberia, and
other Oriental countries. Like the Latin Church, it has corrupted the
primitive purity of Gospel doctrine and practice with many absurd
glosses and superstitious rites. It practices infant baptism, yet it is
by _dipping,_ even in the severe climate of Siberia; and it uses
_trine_ immersion, or dipping the candidate three times, one to each of
the names in the sacred Trinity. But in all its branches immersion is
retained.
THE EDINBURGH ENCYCLOPEDIA says: "The Greek Church, as well as the
Schismatics in the East, retained the custom of _immersing_ the whole
body; but the Western Church adopted, in the _thirteenth century,_ the
mode of sprinkling, which has been continued by the Protestants,
Baptists only excepted." _Ency. Edin., Art. Baptism._
These statements are fully confirmed by Stourdza, Ricaut, Deylingius,
Buddeus, Wall, King, Broughton, Stanley, Coleman and others, who have
written on the state and history of the Greek Church.
THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM
What was baptism intended to represent? As a religious rite it meant
something, had some symbolic force, and represented some moral or
spiritual fact or truth. Its meaning was clearly this: to show forth
the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, who died for our sins,
and rose again for our justification. And every believer who receives
this ordinance, professes thereby to have faith in the merits of
Christ's death as the ground of his own hope of Salvation; to have
fellowship also with His sufferings, and makes a declaration of his own
death to sin, and rising to a new life in Christ. It also typifies the
washing of regeneration; it further declares the candidate's hope of a
resurrection from the dead, even as Christ, into the likeness of whose
death he is buried, was raised up by the glory of the Father. Chiefly
_death, burial,_ and _resurrection:_ the great facts of redemptive
grace are by it set forth. Immersion in baptism does teach all this,
and immersion alone can teach it. Careful students of the New Testament
have clearly seen this, and very generally confessed it, whatever may
have been their practice.
BISHOP NEWTON says: "Baptism was usually performed by _immersion,_ or
dipping the whole body under water, to represent the death, burial, and
resurrection of Christ, and thereby signify the person's own dying to
sin, the destruction of its power, and his resurrection to a new life."
_Pract. Expos. Cate., p. 297._
Bloomfield, Barnes, Schaff, Poole, Hammond, Barrows, Baxter, MacKnight,
Olshausen, Grotius, Saurin, Buddeus, Pictetus, Frankius, Wall,
Towerson, Adam Clark, Tyndale, and others, bear similar testimony as to
the design of the ordinance, and how it is answered in immersion only.
A SUFFICIENCY OF WATER
There have been found persons so ignorant, or so weak, or so perverse
in their opposition to immersion, as to assert that the Jordan was a
small stream, so nearly dry in the summer, that it had not sufficient
depth of water for the immersion of the multitudes of the disciples of
John and of Jesus said to have been baptized in it; and also that
Jerusalem had no sufficient accommodation for the immersion of the
thousands of converts at the Pentecost, and on subsequent occasions.
People are becoming more intelligent, and more candid, and it is
possible that such puerile objections are no more heard. But it may be
well to give passing notice to the facts.
DR. EDWARD ROBINSON, at that time professor in the Union Theological
Seminary, New York City, in 1840, made a careful survey of Palestine,
including the Jordan valley and river. His published statements
corroborate those of others previously made, as to the abundant supply
of water, both in the Jordan, and in the city of Jerusalem. He cites
the published statements of earlier explorers, whose works are known to
the reading public: Seetzen, who visited that country in 1806;
Burkhardt, who explored it in 1812; Irby and Mangles, in 1818; and
Buckingham, who traveled through it about the same time. See
_Robinson's Bib. Researches, Vol. II., Sec. 10, pp. 257-267._
LIEUTENANT LYNCH, of the United States Navy, was, in 1848, sent out by
our government in charge of an expedition to explore the river Jordan
and the Dead Sea. Doctor Thomson, for a quarter of a century missionary
in Syria and Palestine, traversed the land in 1857, and Dean Stanley in
1853, and others more recently. For a complete refutation of such
puerile objections as those above mentioned, and a confirmation of
Baptist claims, see the following works: Robinson's "Biblical
Researches," Vol. II, Sec. 10, pp. 257-267; Lynch's "Dead Sea
Expedition," Ch. 10 and 11; Thomson's "The Land and the Book," Vol.
II., pp. 445-6; Stanley's "Syria and Palestine," Ch. 7, pp. 306-7;
Barclay's "The City of the Great Kings," ch. 10; and other citations in
"Baptist Church Directory."
THE RISE OF SPRINKLING
The question will naturally arise and very properly, When did
sprinkling for baptism first come into use? And how came it to pass,
that a human device superseded and took the place of a Divine
institution? These questions are fully and satisfactorily answered by
Pedobaptist scholars themselves, whose testimony we accept as a
justification of Baptist views.
For _two hundred and fifty years_ after Christ we have no evidence of
any departure from the primitive practice of immersion. At length the
idea came to prevail that baptism possessed saving virtue, and had
power to purify and sanctify the soul, making its salvation more
secure. It was consequently thought unsafe to die unbaptized. Here was
the germ of the pernicious dogma of "baptismal regeneration," the
foundation alike of infant baptism and of sprinkling instead of
immersion.
The first authenticated instance of _sprinkling_ occurred about the
middle of the third century, or A. D. 250. This was the case of
Novatian. The historian Eusebius gives this case, and Doctor Wall in
his laborious researches could find no earlier instance; good evidence
that no earlier existed. Novatian was dangerously sick, and believing
himself about to die, was anxious to be baptized. The case seemed
urgent, and as he was thought to be too feeble to be _immersed,_ a
substitute was resorted to; water was poured profusely over him as he
lay in bed, so as to resemble as much as possible a submersion. The
word used to describe this action (_perichutheis, purfusus_) has
usually been rendered _besprinkle;_ it rather means to pour profusely
over and about one. This it was thought might answer the purpose in
such an emergency.
From this time onward pouring and sprinkling were resorted to at times
of extreme illness, or feebleness, where persons could not leave their
beds, and hence was termed _clinic_ baptism, from _clina,_ a couch. But
it was always regarded as a substitute for baptism, rather than baptism
itself; and its validity was doubted. Novatian himself having recovered
from his sickness, was objected to when his friends proposed to make
him bishop, because, it was said, he had never been properly baptized.
It was not, however, until the seventeenth century that sprinkling
became common in Europe, in France first, and then extending through
those countries over which the pope held sway. At length, accepted by
Calvin and the Genevan Church, it extended into Scotland, by John Knox,
and other Scotch refugees, who had found in Geneva a shelter from the
persecution to which they had been exposed in their native country;
then into England: and in 1643 it was adopted as the exclusive mode of
baptism by a majority of one of the Westminster Assembly of Divines,
and sanctioned by Parliament the next year. All of which is verified by
Eusebius, Valesius, Wall, Salmasius, Venema, Taylor, Towerson, Grotius,
"Ency. Brit.," "Edin. Ency.," and other reliable historical
authorities.[1]
+FOOTNOTES:+
[1] For more numerous citations on this subject, see the "Star Book
on Christian Baptism," and "The Baptist Church Directory."
+CHAPTER XI+
THE LORD'S SUPPER
The Lord's Supper, called also the "Eucharist," and the "Communion," is
the most sacred act of Christian worship, and the highest expression of
the mysteries of our holy religion. It is a service in which bread and
wine--the _loaf_ and the _cup_--are used to represent the body and the
blood of Christ, the Lamb of God, slain for us. The bread is _broken,_
distributed, and eaten; the wine is _poured,_ distributed, and drunk by
the members of the assembled church, to show the sacrifice of Christ,
His body broken, and His blood shed for their redemption; and that by
His death they have life. Being begotten of God through the operation
of the Spirit, their new life is sustained and nourished by mystically
feeding on Him who is the Bread of God, which came down from heaven to
give life to the world. He said: "This do in remembrance of Me." "As
oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's
death, till He come." "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and
drink His blood, ye have no life in you." "Whoso eateth My flesh and
drinketh My blood hath eternal life." "He that eateth My flesh, and
drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him." It is a Divine
reality, though a sublime mystery.
OPEN AND CLOSE COMMUNION
The controversy between Baptists and other denominations, so far as the
Lord's Supper is concerned, has no reference to its nature, the purpose
for which it was instituted, the manner of its administration, or the
effect of the elements on the participants. It has reference simply to
the proper _subjects_ for participation in the privilege. Who may, and
who may not properly and of right come to the Lord's Table? On the
question of what are the Scriptural qualifications of participants,
Baptist and Pedobaptists differ--differ not as to the general rule to
be applied, but as to its particular application. And this particular
application leads to the controversy on what is called _"close
communion,"_ as practiced by Baptists, and to what is called _"open
communion,"_ as practiced by Pedobaptists.
_What is open communion? Open,_ free or mixed communion is, strictly
speaking, that which allows any one who desires, and believes himself
qualified, to come to the Lord's Table, without any questions being
asked, or conditions imposed by the church in which the ordinance is
observed. But ordinarily the term is applied to the practice of the
greater part of the Pedobaptist churches, which hold that _sprinkling_
is lawful baptism, and invite, not all persons, but members of all
evangelical churches, whatever be their view of church order and
ordinances; holding them all as being baptized because they have been
sprinkled.
_What is close communion? Close,_ strict, or restricted communion is,
properly speaking, that which does not invite all indiscriminately to
the Lord's Table, but restricts the privilege to a particular class.
But ordinarily the term is applied to the practice of Baptist churches,
which invite only baptized believers, walking in orderly fellowship in
their own churches. And by baptized believers, they mean, of course,
immersed believers; not admitting sprinkling to be baptism at all.
ONE AND THE SAME RULE
_Observe further:_ That Baptists and Pedobaptists have one and the same
rule in theory as to the proper qualification for participants, namely,
they all hold that baptism is a prerequisite. That unbaptized persons
have no legal right to the Lord's Supper, and cannot consistently be
invited to it. Pedobaptists would not invite unbaptized persons to the
Lord's Table, however good Christians, since such could not become
church-members, and the Supper is for those within the church, not for
the outside world. For though there are a few churches and a few
pastors, who in their extreme liberality might be disposed to invite
everybody to the sacred ordinance yet such a course would be contrary
to their denominational standards, and opposed to the usages of their
churches generally.
_Further observe:_ They all practice a restriction since they restrict
the privilege to a particular class: namely, baptized believers,
walking in orderly church fellowship. But Baptists and Pedobaptists
differ as to what constitutes _baptism,_ the one rejecting, and the
other accepting the validity of sprinkling. Thus Baptists' custom is
more _"close,"_ and Pedobaptists' is more _"open,"_ by the difference
between their views of baptism; and by that difference only.
_Therefore,_ it is manifest that the question so called of "close" and
"open" communion is really not a question of "communion" at all, but of
what constitutes Scriptural baptism. Let that be settled, and the
controversy as to the restriction of the Lord's Supper will cease.
THE BAPTIST POSITION
Baptists hold that there are _three_ imperative conditions precedent to
the privileges of the Lord's Supper: 1. _Regeneration._ No unconverted
person can with propriety, or of right, eat and drink at that sacred
feast, in commemoration of Christ's death. They must be persons dead to
sin, and alive to God; born again, through the operation of the Spirit.
2. _Baptism._ Buried with Christ in baptism on a profession of faith in
Him. No person, however good, and however manifestly regenerate, is
prepared without baptism, according to the Divine order, to receive the
Supper. Without baptism he cannot enter the fellowship of the church,
where the Supper alone is to be enjoyed. 3. _An orderly walk is
necessary._ An upright and consistent Christian walk, and godly
conversation among the saints, and before the world. For though one may
be truly regenerate, and properly baptized, yet if he be a disorderly
walker, violating his covenant obligations, living in sin, and bringing
reproach on the Christian profession, he has no right to sit at the
Lord's Table.
The ordinances are a sacred trust which Christ has committed to the
churches as custodians, and which they are to watch and guard from all
profane intrusion, and improper use, with the most sedulous fidelity.
Baptists believe that in order to maintain the purity and spirituality
of the churches, it is necessary to maintain the ordinances pure; and
especially necessary to restrict the Supper to regenerate and godly
persons, baptized on a profession of their faith, into the fellowship
of the saints. To adopt any other rule, or to allow any larger liberty,
would break down the distinction between the church and the world;
would bring in a carnal and unconverted membership, and transfer the
sacred mysteries of the body and the blood of Christ from the temple of
God to the temple of Belial. This would be disloyalty to Christ.
The Apostolic plan was as follows: Those who _believed_ and _gladly
received the Word,_ were _baptized._ Then they were _added to the
church._ Then they continued steadfastly in the _Apostles' doctrine,_
and fellowship, and in _breaking of bread,_ and in _prayer._
_Notice,_ they were not baptized till they had received the Word and
believed. They were not added to the church till they had believed and
been baptized. They did not engage in the breaking of bread (that is,
the Supper,) till they had believed, been baptized, and were added to
the church. This is the Divine order; and this is the order which
Baptists maintain and defend.
PEDOBAPTIST CLOSE COMMUNION
It has already been shown that Pedobaptists themselves practice a
restricted or close communion, limiting the privilege to baptized (as
they call them) members of evangelical churches, and that their
communion is more liberal than that of the Baptists only, and only by
so much as their baptism (so-called) is more liberal than that of
Baptists.
But in some respects Pedobaptists practice a "close communion,"
restrictive in its conditions, far beyond anything known to Baptists
whose illiberality they are accustomed to magnify. They exclude a large
class of their own members from the Lord's Table--namely, _baptized
children!_ Baptists do not deny the Lord's Supper to their own members
in good standing. If children are suitable subjects for baptism, it
seems most unreasonable and unjust to deny them the Supper. If they can
be benefited by one ordinance, can they not be equally benefited by the
other? If they can receive the one on the faith of sponsors, can they
not receive the other in the same way? Who has authorized parents or
ministers to give baptism to unconverted and unconscious children, and
refuse them the Lord's Supper? By denying the Supper to baptized
children, Pedobaptists act contrary to the traditions of the ancient
churches, which they are accustomed to cite with so much assurance, in
defense of infant baptism. Do they not know that those ancient churches
(not the primitive churches) gave the Lord's Supper to infants for many
centuries? And the Greek Church, through all its branches, continues
still the same practice.
DOCTOR COLEMAN says: "After the general introduction of infant baptism,
in the _second and third centuries,_ the sacrament continued to be
administered to all who had been baptized, whether infants or adults.
The reason alleged by Cyprian and others for this practice was, that
age was no impediment. Augustine strongly advocates the practice. The
custom continued for several centuries. It is mentioned in the third
Council of Tours, A. D. 813; and even the Council of Trent, A. D. 1545,
only decreed that it should not be considered essential to salvation.
It is still scrupulously observed by the Greek Church." _Anc. Christ.
Exemp., Ch. 22, Sec. 8; Bing., Orig., B. 15, Ch. 4, Sec. 7. Many other
writers bear the same testimony._
THE POWER OF SYMPATHY
There is a small class of Baptists who are at times inclined to desire,
and it may be, to seek a wider liberty at the Lord's Table than they
find accorded in their own churches. The one prevailing argument with
them is _sympathy._ To them it seems kindly and fraternal to invite all
who say they love our common Lord and Saviour to unite in commemorating
His death in the Supper. Even if they have not been baptized, they
themselves believe they have, and they are good Christian people. "Why
stand upon a technicality?" they say. To such the service is merely a
sentimental service; a kind of love feast to show Christian fellowship,
rather than an instituted commemoration of their dying Lord. They have
neither Scripture, logic, expediency, the scholarship, nor the
concurrent practice of Christendom, either past or present, to sustain
their position. But _sympathy_ influences them; yet sympathy should not
control conduct in matters of faith, or in acts of conscience. It is a
grave perversion when affection for his disciples sways us more than
fidelity to our Lord. We should not be so kind to _them_ as to be
untrue to _Him._ Sincere Christians will honor those who are loyal to
Christ, even though they differ in opinion.
THREE FACTS EXPLAINED
Baptists give the following reasons in justification of their course in
the following cases:
1. They do not invite Pedobaptists to the Lord's Supper with them,
because such persons are not baptized, as has been shown, they being
simply sprinkled. They may be true converts, and have the spiritual
qualifications, but they are destitute of the ceremonial
qualification--baptism. The "buried in baptism" comes before the
"breaking of bread."
2. They do not accept the invitation of Pedobaptist churches to eat at
the Lord's Table with them, for the same reason; they are not baptized
Christians. And while the appreciate their Christian fellowship, they
could not accept their church fellowship, and sit at the Lord's Table
with them, without accepting their sprinkling and indorsing their
baptismal errors.
3. They do not invite immersed members of Pedobaptist churches to the
Lord's Supper with them, because such persons, though they may be truly
regenerate and properly baptized, are walking disorderly by remaining
in and giving countenance to churches which hold and practice serious
errors as to both the ordinances. These churches use sprinkling for
baptism and administer the ordinance to infants, both of which are
unscriptural. And yet such persons, by remaining in them, encourage and
support these errors, instead of protesting against them by leaving
them. They insist on immersion for themselves, and yet by a strange
inconsistency give their fellowship and influence to perpetuate and
sanction sprinkling for others. This is inconsistent and disorderly
Christian walking; and, therefore, very properly, Baptists decline to
invite them to the Lord's Supper.
PEDOBAPTIST WITNESSES
In further proof that the position of Baptists as to the Lord's Supper
is correct and Scriptural; that the difficulty lies with baptism, and
not with the Supper; and that they must still continue to restrict the
ordinance to baptized believers, or else admit that sprinkling is
baptism, we cite the concessions of distinguished Pedobaptist scholars
and Divines in evidence on our side.
JUSTIN MARTYR, one of the early Christian Fathers, says of the Supper:
"This food is called by us the Eucharist, of which it is not lawful for
any one to partake but such as believe the things taught by us to be
true, and have been baptized." _Apol. I, C. 65. 66. See Schaff's Church
Hist., Ch. 2. p. 516._
MOSHEIM, in his Church History, says: "Neither those doing penance, nor
those not yet baptized, were allowed to be present at the celebration
of this ordinance." _Eccl. Hist., Cent. 3, Part 2, Ch. 4, Sec. 3._
NEANDER, the great church historian, says: "At this celebration, as may
be easily concluded, no one could be present who was not a member of
the Christian Church, and incorporated into it by the rite of baptism."
_Ch. Hist., Vol. 1., 327. Boston, 1849._
CAVE, one of the ablest writers on Christian antiquities, says the
participants in the primitive church were those "that had embraced the
doctrine of the Gospel, and had been baptized into the faith of Christ.
For, looking upon the Lord's Supper as the highest and most solemn act
of religion, they thought they could never take care enough in the
dispensing of it." _Prim. Christ., Part I., Ch. 11, p. 333._
BINGHAM, in his able work on the Antiquities of the Christian Church,
says of the early Christians: "As soon as a man was baptized he was
communicated"--that is, admitted to the communion. Baptism, therefore,
essentially preceded the Supper.--_Christ. Antiq., B. 12, Ch. 4, Sec.
9, B. 15, Ch. 3._
DOCTOR WALL, who searched the records of antiquity for facts
illustrating the history of the ordinances, says: "No church ever gave
the communion to any persons before they were baptized. Among all the
absurdities that were ever held, none ever maintained that any person
should partake of the communion before he was baptized." _Hist. Inf.
Bap., Part II., Ch. 9._
DOCTOR COLEMAN says of the early churches: "None indeed but believers
in full communion with the church were permitted to be present." "But
agreeably to all the laws and customs of the church, baptism
constituted membership with the church. All baptized persons were
legitimately numbered among the communicants as members of the church."
_Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 21, Sec. 8._
DOCTOR SCHAFF says: "The communion was a regular part, and, in fact,
the most important and solemn part of the Sunday worship, . . . in
which none but full members of the church could engage." _Ch. Hist.,
Vol. I., p. 392. New Work, 1871._
DOCTOR DODDRIDGE says: "It is certain that so far as our knowledge of
primitive antiquity reaches, no unbaptized person received the Lord's
Supper." _Lectures, pp. 511, 512._
DOCTOR DICK says: "An uncircumcised man was not permitted to eat the
Passover; and an unbaptized man should not be permitted to partake of
the Eucharist." _Theol., Vol. II., p. 220._
DOCTOR BAXTER says: "What man dares go in a way which hath neither
precept nor example to warrant it, from a way that hath full current of
both? Yet they that will admit members into the visible church without
baptism do so." _Plain Scripture Proof, p. 24._
DOCTOR DWIGHT, President of Yale College, and author of "Systematic
Theology," says: "It is an indispensable qualification for this
ordinance that the candidate for communion be a member of the visible
church in full standing. By this, I intend that he should be a man of
piety; that he should have made a public profession of religion, and
that he should have been baptized." _Syst. Theol., Ser. 160, B. 8, Ch.
4. Sec. 7._
DOCTOR GRIFFIN, one of the fathers of New England Congregationalism,
says: "I agree with the advocates of close communion on two points:
1. That baptism is the initiatory ordinance which introduces us into
the visible church; of course, where there is no baptism, there are no
visible churches. 2. That we ought not to commune with those who are
not baptized, and of course not church-members, even if we regard them
as Christians." _Letter on Baptism, 1829, cited by Curtis on Com., p.
125._
DOCTOR HIBBARD, a leading Methodist scholar and Divine, says: "In one
principle Baptist and Pedobaptist churches agree. They both agree in
rejecting from communion at the table of the Lord, and in denying the
rights of church fellowship to all who have not been baptized." And
with admirable frankness, he adds: "The charge of _close communion_ is
no more applicable to the Baptist than to us [Pedobaptists]; insomuch
as the question of church fellowship with them is determined by as
liberal principles as it is with any other Protestant churches, so far,
I mean, as the present subject is concerned--i.e., _it is determined by
valid baptism._" _Hibbard on Christ. Bap., P. II., p. 174._
DOCTOR BULLOCK, another Methodist Divine, says: "Close communion, as it
is generally termed, is the only logical and consistent course for
Baptist churches to pursue. If their premises are right, their
conclusion is surely just as it should be." And he commends the
firmness of Baptists in not inviting to the communion those whom they
regard as unbaptized. He says: "They do not feel willing to countenance
such laxity in Christian discipline. Let us honor them for their
steadfastness in maintaining what they believe to be a Bible precept,
rather than criticize and censure because they differ with us
concerning the intent and mode of Christian baptism, and believe it to
be an irrepealable condition of coming to the Lord's Table." _What
Christians Believe._
THE INDEPENDENT, one of the most widely circulated, and perhaps the
most influential Pedobaptist paper in the country, in an editorial,
says: "Leading writers of all denominations declare that converts must
be baptized before they can be invited to the communion table. This is
the position generally taken. But Baptists regarding sprinkling as a
nullity--no baptism at all--look upon Presbyterians, Methodists, and
others, as unbaptized persons." "The other churches cannot urge the
Baptists to become open communionists till they themselves take the
position that all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, the unbaptized as
well as the baptized, may be invited to the communion table."
_Editorial, July, 1879._
THE CONGREGATIONALIST, the organ of the New England Congregational
Churches, in an editorial, says: "Congregationalists have uniformly,
until here and there an exception has arisen of late years, required
baptism and church-membership as the prerequisite of a seat at the
table of the Lord. It is a part of the false 'liberality' which now
prevails in certain quarters, to welcome everybody 'who thinks he loves
Christ' to commune in His body and blood. Such a course is the first
step in breaking down that distinction between the church and the
world, which our Saviour emphasized; and it seems to us it is an unwise
and mistaken act for which no Scriptural warrant exists." _Editorial,
July 9, 1879._
THE OBSERVER, of New York, the oldest and leading Presbyterian journal
of this country, said: "It is not a want of charity which compels the
Baptist to restrict his invitation. He has no hesitation in admitting
the personal piety of his unimmersed brethren. Presbyterians do not
invite the unbaptized, however pious they may be. It is not
uncharitable. It is not bigotry on the part of Baptists to confine
their communion to those whom they consider the baptized."
THE INTERIOR, of Chicago, the organ of Western Presbyterians, said:
"The difference between our Baptist brethren and ourselves is an
important difference. We agree with them, however, in saying that
unbaptized persons should not partake of the Lord's Supper. Their view
compels them to think that we are not baptized, and shuts them up to
close communion. Close communion is, in our judgment, a more defensible
position than open communion, which is justified on the ground that
baptism is not a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. To charge Baptists
with bigotry because they abide by the logical consequences of their
system is absurd."
THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE, of New York, the leading journal of American
Methodists, said: "The regular Baptist churches in the United States
may be considered today as particularly a unit on _three points_--the
non-use of infant baptism, the immersion of believers only upon a
profession of faith, and the administration of the holy communion to
such only as have been immersed by ministers holding these views. In
our opinion the Baptist Church owes its amazing prosperity largely to
its adherence to these views. In doctrine and government, and in other
respects, it is the same as Congregationalists. In numbers, the regular
Baptists are more than six times as great as the Congregationalists. It
is not bigotry to adhere to one's convictions, provided the spirit of
Christian love prevails."
THE EPISCOPAL RECORDER said: "The close communion of the Baptist
churches is but the necessary sequence of the fundamental idea out of
which their existence has grown. No Christian Church would willingly
receive to its communion even the humblest and truest believer in
Christ who had not been baptized. With Baptists, immersion only is
baptism, and they therefore of necessity exclude from the Lord's Table
all who have not been immersed. It is an essential part of the
system--the legitimate carrying out of the creed."
BISHOP COXE, of the Episcopal diocese of Western New York, says: "The
Baptists hold that we have never been baptized, and they must exclude
us from their communion table, if we were disposed to go there. Are we
offended? Do we call it illiberal? No; we call it _principle,_ and we
respect it. To say that we have never become members of Christ by
baptism seems severe, but it is a conscientious adherence to duty, as
they regard it. I should be the bigot, and not they, if I should ask
them to violate their discipline in this, or in any other particular."
_On Christ. Unity, in "Church Union," July, 1891._
+CHAPTER XII+
INFANT BAPTISM
One of the customs held and upheld by Pedobaptist churches, which
Baptists seriously condemn, is infant baptism. It is practiced by both
Roman Catholics and Protestants as a religious institution; and though
not held as sacredly, or practiced as widely as formerly, it still
prevails to a wide extent throughout the Christian world. And yet it
was not instituted by Christ, nor practiced by His Apostles, nor known
in the primitive churches, and has neither sanction nor recognition in
the Word of God. It is for this reason that Baptists utterly reject and
condemn the custom, as not simply useless and without authority, but as
a most pernicious and hurtful usage; that it is injurious both to the
child that receives it, and to the church which allows it, can be
easily shown. Baptism before faith, and without a profession it,
contradicts and does violence to all New Testament teaching.
NOT OF SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY
Now, that infant baptism is not of Scriptural authority, and was not
known in the first Christian ages, nearly all its advocates and
defenders have with considerable candor admitted. Only a few of their
historians and scholars can be cited here.
DR. WILLIAM WALL, a learned Divine of the English Church, who wrote the
"History of Infant Baptism," a work so able that the clergy in
convocation assembled gave him a vote of thanks for his defense of the
custom, says: "Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by
the Apostles, there is no express mention of any infants." _Hist. Inf.
Bap., Intro., pp. 1, 55._
THOMAS FULLER, the historian, says: "We do freely confess there is
neither express precept nor precedent in the New Testament for the
Baptism of Infants." _Infants' Advoc., pp. 71, 150._
LUTHER says: "It cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant
baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians
after the Apostles." _Vanity of Inf. Bap., Part II., p. 8._
NEANDER says: "Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men
were accustomed to conceive of _baptism_ and _faith_ as strictly
connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from
Apostolic institution." _Ch. Hist., Vol. I., p. 311; Plant. and Train.,
Vol. I., p. 222._
PROFESSOR LANGE says: "All attempts to make out infant baptism from the
New Testament fail. It is totally opposed to the spirit of the
Apostolic age, and to the fundamental principles of the New Testament."
_Inf. Baptism, p. 101._
PROFESSOR JACOBI says: "Infant baptism was established neither by
Christ, nor by the Apostles." _Art. Bap., Kitto's Cycl. Bib. Lit._
DOCTOR HANNA says: "Scripture knows nothing of the baptism of infants."
_North Brit. Review, Aug., 1852._
PROFESSOR HAGENBACH says: "The passages from Scripture cited in favor
of infant baptism as a usage of the primitive church are doubtful and
prove nothing." _Hist. Dict., pp. 190, 193._
Bishop Burnett, Baxter, Goodwin, Limborch, Celarius, Field, and many
others bear similar testimony.
WHEN DID IT RISE?
Since the New Testament knows nothing of infant baptism, and since it
was neither instituted by Christ, nor practiced by His Apostles, what
was its origin, and when did it come into use?
TERTULLIAN is the first who mentions the custom, and he opposes it.
This was at the close of the second century, or about A. D. 200. His
opposition to it proves two things: _First,_ that it was in occasional
use, at least. _Second,_ that it was of recent origin, since had it
been long used some earlier record if it could be found. _Neander, Ch.
Hist., Vol. I., p. 311._
BINGHAM could find no earlier allusion to it than that of Tertullian,
though he believed it arose earlier. It must, therefore, as is
generally agreed, have had its origin about the beginning of the _third
century._
CURCELLÆUS says: "The baptism of infants in the _two first_ centuries
after Christ was altogether unknown; but in the _third_ and _fourth_
was allowed by some few. In the _fifth_ and following ages it was
generally received." _Inst. Christ. Religion, B. I., Ch. 12._
SALMASIUS says: "In the _first two_ centuries no one was baptized,
except, being instructed in the faith and acquainted with the doctrines
of Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer." _Hist. Bapt.
Suicer. Thesaur., Vol. II., p. 1136._
Such testimony is conclusive, and quite sufficient, though much more of
a similar character might be added.
_But observe:_ That when the baptism of children began, it was not that
of unconscious infants at all, as is now practiced, but, as Bunsen
declares, of "little growing children, from six to ten years old." And
he asserts that Tertullian "does not say one word of new-born infants."
Cyprian, an African bishop, at the close of the _third_ century, urged
the baptism of infants proper, because of the saving efficacy of the
ordinance; and he is called the inventor, or father, of infant baptism.
_Bunsen's Hippol. and His Age, Vol. III., pp. 192-5._
WHY DID IT RISE?
There is even less difficulty in tracing the cause than in finding the
origin of infant baptism. It originated in a perversion of Christian
doctrine, and was itself the perversion of a Christian ordinance.
All students of ecclesiastical history know that at an early period
corruptions perverted Christian faith and practice. Among these, one of
the earliest was that of an undue efficacy attributed to baptism. Its
sanctity was so exalted that it was believed to have power to wash away
sins, and cleanse the soul for heaven. By it the sick were supposed to
be prepared for death, and salvation made more certain by its efficacy.
Anxious parents therefore desired their dying children to be thus
prepared--"washed in the laver of regeneration," as it was termed--that
they might be sure of salvation. And here came in that pernicious error
of "baptismal regeneration," which gave rise to infant baptism, and
which has through all these ages clung with more or less pertinacity to
the clergy and laity of all churches which have practiced it.
SALMASIUS says: "An opinion prevailed that no one could be saved
without being baptized; and for that reason the custom arose of
baptizing infants." _Epist. Jus. Pac. See Booth's Pedo. Exam., Ch.
III., Sec. 3._
VENEMA declares that "the ancients connected a regenerating power with
baptism." He cites Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clemens, Tertullian, and
Cyprian as holding that opinion. _Eccl. Hist., Vol. 4, p. 3., Secs. 2,
3, 4._
CHRYSOSTOM, writing about A. 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 the _third_
century: "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 FISHER says: "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'S words 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 in the 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 to
_believe_ and to make _profession_ of their 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 NEANDER says: "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 JACOBI says: "In none of these instances has it been proved
that there were little children among them." _Kitto's Bib. Cyc., Art.
Bap._
DOCTOR MEYER says: "That the baptism of children was not in use at that
time appears evident from 1 Cor. 7:14." _Comment. on Acts 16:15._
DOCTOR DE WETTE says: "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., Acts 16:15._
DOCTOR OLSHAUSEN says: "There is altogether wanting any conclusive
proof-text for the baptism of infants in the age of the apostles."
_Com. on Acts 16:15._
BISHOP BLOOMFIELD says of the jailer: "It is taken for granted that his
family became Christians as well as himself." _Com. on Acts 16:15._
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.
+CHAPTER XIII+
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 are _three_ special 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
which claims to have been the original primitive form:
1. The _prelatical,_ 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. The _presbyterian,_ 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. The _independent,_ 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 each such 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 taught to 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._
MOSHEIM says of the first century: "In those primitive times, each
Christian Church was composed of the _people,_ the presiding
_officers,_ and the assistants, or _deacons._ These must be the
component parts of every society. The principal voice was that of the
_people,_ 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,
_independent_ of 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._
COLEMAN says: "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.
+CHAPTER XIV+
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 are _two,_--and of right,
can be no more,--_pastor_ and _deacons._ In this opinion agree some
other denominations, while the various Episcopal sects insist that
there should be three sets--_deacons, priests,_ and _bishops,_ 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. Our Lord 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 words _bishop, 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 the _pastor,_ or overseer of the
spiritual flock, watching, guiding, and feeding it, as the shepherd
does his sheep. The _deacons_ were 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 word _deacon_ means a _minister,_ a _servant._ 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 titles
_bishop, presbyter,_ or _elder_ were 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.
NEANDER says: "The word _presbyter,_ or _elder,_ indicates rather the
dignity of the office, since presbyters among the Jews were usually
aged and venerable; while _bishop,_ or _episcopos,_ 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._
MOSHEIM says: "The rulers of the churches were denominated sometimes
_presbyters,_ or _elders,_ a designation borrowed from the Jews, and
indicative rather of the wisdom than the age of the persons, and
sometimes also _bishops:_ 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 the _people,_ the presiding _officers,_ and the assistants, or
_deacons._ These must be the components of every society." _Eccl.
Hist., Cent 1., p. 2; Ch. 2, Secs. 5, 8._
GIESELER asserts: "The new churches everywhere formed themselves on the
model of the mother church at Jerusalem. At the head of each were the
_elders_ (_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._
WADDINGTON declares: "It is also true that in the earliest government
of the first Christian society,--that of Jerusalem,--not the _elders_
only, but the 'whole church,' were associated with the Apostles; and it
is even certain that the terms _bishop_ and _elder,_ or _presbyter,_
were in the first instance and for a short period, sometimes used
synonymously, and indiscriminately applied to the same order in the
ministry." _Hist. Christ. Church, Ch. 2, Sec. 2._
ARCHBISHOP USHER says that "_bishop_ and _presbyter_ differed only in
degree, and not in order." See _Cole., Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 8, Sec.
6._
BISHOP BURNETT says: "As for the notion of distinct offices of _bishop_
and _presbyter,_ I confess it is not so clear to me." _Vindic. Ch. of
Sects, p. 366._
DOCTOR COLEMAN says: "It is generally admitted by Episcopal writers on
this subject, that in the New Testament, and in the earliest
ecclesiastical writings, the terms _bishops_ and _presbyters,_ or
elders, are synonymous, and denote one and the same office." "The
office of _presbyter_ was undeniably identical with that of _bishop,_
as has been shown above." "Only _two orders_ of officers are known in
the church until the close of the second century. Those of the first
are styled either _bishops_ or _presbyters;_ 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 (Acts 20:17, 18), called together the
_elders_ (_presbyters_) of the Ephesian Church. But in verse 28 he
calls these officers _overseers_ (_episcopos_). Here the terms
_presbuteros_ and _episcopos_ were 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 the _saints_ in Christ Jesus, which are at
Philippi, with the _bishops_ and _deacons._" 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 both _bishops_ and _deacons,_ 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.
(Titus 1:5, 7.) These pastors are called _elders_ in verse 5 and
_bishops_ in verse 7.
_Pastors_ and _deacons,_ 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.
+CHAPTER XV+
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 apostasy of
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 called
_sects,_ and stigmatized as _heretics._ 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 the heretics; 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 the _first_ and _second_ centuries, Messalians, Montanists,
Euchites, were terms which distinguished some of these sects.
In the _third, fourth,_ and _fifth_ centuries 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 the _fourth_ century the Donatists appeared, as a new form of
existing sects, or a new phase of the old faith. They multiplied
rapidly, spread extensively, and long survived.
In the _seventh_ century 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 called
_Anabaptists._ Infant baptism they rejected, according to Allix,
Mosheim, Robinson, and other historians. Baptism they administered by
immersion, as indeed did all 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 the _tenth_ century 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 the _eleventh_ century, 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. They
declared 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 the general 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 the _sixth_ century, 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, as
directed.[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 Anabaptist _is hid in the remote depths of
antiquity,_ and is consequently extremely difficult to be ascertained."
_Eccl. Hist., Vol. IV., p. 427, Mac. Ed., 1811._ See _Introd. Orchard's
Hist. Bap., p. 17._
ZWINGLI, the Swiss Reformer, contemporary with Luther, declares: "The
institution of Anabaptism is no novelty but for _thirteen hundred
years_ has 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._ See _Ency. Relig. Knowledge, Art. Mennonites._
MOSHEIM says 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 incurable _heretics,_ who were condemned by
the old canon laws. For the error of _adult baptism_ was 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
of religion 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 the
_Anabaptists;_ since there have been none, for these _twelve 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 established churches.[2]
THE ENGLISH BAPTISTS
At what time the Baptists appeared in England in definite
denominational form, it is impossible to say. But from the _twelfth_ to
the _seventeenth_ century, 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 because they 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 and
princes.[3] In 1538, royal edicts were issued against them, and several
were burnt at the stake in Smithfield.
BRANDE writes 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._ See _Benedict'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 LATIMER declares 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 was discovered in London, whereupon several
were banished, twenty-seven imprisoned, and two burnt at Smithfield.[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._
BAILEY wrote, 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 have _forty-six churches_ in 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 English language 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 colony _Providence,_ 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 church was 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 themselves fled 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 Tables_ gives the number of American Baptist Churches in
1768, as only 137.
_Asplund's Register_ for 1790, reported 872 churches, 722 ordained
ministers, with 64,975 members.
_Benedict's History_ states that in 1812, there were 2,633 churches,
2,143 ordained ministers, and 204,185 members.
_Allen's Register_ for 1836, puts them at 7,299 churches, 4.075
ordained ministers, and 517,523 members.
_The Baptist Year-Book_ gives the following figures:
Date Churches Ministers Members
1840 7,771 5,208 571,291
1860 12,279 7,773 1,016,134
1880 26,080 16,569 2,296,327
1890 33,588 21,175 3,070,047
1900 43,427 29,473 4,181,086
1910 49,045 33,909 5,266,369
1920 53,866 42,121 7,504,447
1930 53,888 49,907 8,915,785
_The Year-Book_ gives 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 many other 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 Hebrews 6:1, 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.
+FOOTNOTES:
[1] See Benedict's Hist. Bap., p. 343, and authorities there cited.
[2] Benedict's Hist. Baptists, Ch. IV. Neal's Hist. Puritans, Vol.
II.; p. 355. Supplement, Fuller's Ch. Hist., B. 4.
[3] See histories of Baptists, by Crosby, Ivimey, Danvers, and
Benedict.
[4] Wall, cited by Neal, Hist. Puritans, Vol. I., p. 137. Vol. II.,
p. 358. Supplement.
[5] Eng. Bap. Jubilee Memor., Benedict's Hist. Bap.
+Transcriber's Notes+
- The break between pages 3 and 4 is in the word "missionaries":
mission|aries. In this and all subsequent cases, the whole word
was moved to the earlier page.
- The break between pages 4 and 5 is in the word "thousand":
thou|sand.
- The break between pages 5 and 6 is in the word "admitted":
ad|mitted.
- Page 6, apply reverential capitalization (RC) to "Divine."
- The break between pages 9 and 10 is in the word "general":
gen|eral.
- Page 10, apply RC to "Divine," "Divinely," and "Word." Change
"practise" to "practice."
- Page 11, apply RC to "Apostolic,", "Divinely," "His Gospel," and
"His."
- Page 12, apply RC to "Gospel" (twice); change "fulfil" to
"fulfill"; apply RC to "Him" and "He." Note 1, apply RC to
"Gospel"; change "fulfils" to "fulfills" and "practise" to
"practice." Note 2, apply RC to "His Word" and "His"; change
"practise" to "practice"; apply RC to "His."
- Page 15, note 2, apply RC to "Divine."
- Page 18, apply RC to "Divine," "Word," "Divine," "His" (twice),
and "He."
- Page 19, apply RC to "His" (twice).
- Page 20, Note 6, apply RC to "Me" and "Him." Note 7, apply RC to
"Divinely."
- The break between pages 20 and 21 is in the word "baptismal":
bap|tismal.
- Page 21, Note 8, apply RC to "His."
- Page 23, change "practise" to "practice."
- Page 24, Note 2, change "practise" to "practice."
- The break between pages 28 and 29 is in the word "possibly":
pos|sibly.
- Page 31, Note 1, apply RC to "Divine."
- Page 34, Note 1, apply RC to "His" (twice).
- The break between pages 37 and 38 is in the word
"ecclesiastical": ecclesias|tical.
- Page 46, Voting, point 1, change "deliberatively" to
"deliberately."
- The break between pages 47 and 48 is in the word "services":
ser|vices.
- The break between pages 53 and 54 is in the word "importance":
impor|tance.
- Page 56, change "practise" to "practice."
- Page 57, apply RC to "Divine."
- Page 58, change "practise" to "practice"; add comma to "Britain
Baptists"; apply RC to "Divinely."
- Page 59, note 2, apply RC to "His" and "He." Note 3, apply RC to
"My." Section II, apply RC to "Persons" and "Divine." Note 2,
apply RC to "Thee."
- Page 60, note 1, apply RC to "His" apply RC to "He."
- Page 61, apply RC to "Divine," "His" (twice), "He," "His,"
"Divine," and "He." Note 2, apply RC to "He," "His," and "Him."
Note 3, apply RC to "Himself" and "Him." Note 4, apply RC to "He,"
"Him," and "His." Note 5, apply RC to "He," "Him," and "He," and
"Him."
- Page 62, apply RC to "Gospel," "Him," and "His." Note 1, apply RC
to "His." Note 2, apply RC to "Him." Note 3, apply RC to "His" and
"Him." Note 4, apply RC to "One."
- Page 63, apply RC to "Gospel" (twice). Note 3, apply RC to "Me."
Apply RC to "Divine" and "Gospel."
- Page 64, note 1, change "Rev. 8:7-9" to "Rev. 3:7-9." Note 5,
change "Eph. 8:14-21" to "Eph. 5:14-21." Apply RC to "Prophet,"
"Priest," "King," and "Him."
- Page 65, note 1, apply RC to "Gospel"; change "Eph. 2:3" to "Eph.
2:8" and change "ye are" to "are ye" to match the quotation. Note
2, change "Acts 11:38" to "Acts 2:38" to match the quotation. Note
3, apply RC to "Him." Point IX, apply RC to "He." Note 1, apply RC
to "Gospel."
- Page 66, note 1, change "a holy calling" to "an holy calling."
Note 2, apply RC to "He" and "Gospel." Note 4, change "elects
sake" to "elect's sakes" and "Chris" to "Christ." Note 5, change
"1 Thess. 4:10" to "1 Thess. 1:4." Apply RC to "His" and "Word."
- Page 67, change "practise" to "practice." Note 1, change "Thess
4:3" to "1 Thess. 4:3." Note 3, change "Phil. 1:12, 13" to "Phil.
2:12, 13" to match the quotation. Point XI, note 1, apply RC to
"My" (twice). Note 2, change "John 2:19" to "1 John 2:19" to match
the quotation.
- Page 68, Note 3, apply RC to "His." Section XII, apply RC to
"Gospel." Note 4, change "Rom. 8:2, 4" to "Rom. 8:2-4" to match
the quotation; apply RC to "His."
- Page 69, apply RC to "Gospel," "His" (twice), "Word," and
"Scriptural." Note 4, change "John 1#:15" (where # represents a
poorly printed sort), to "John 13:15."
- Page 70, apply RC to "His." Note 2, change "Matt. 18:19" to "Matt.
28:19" to match quotation. Note 3, change "raised from the dead"
to "raised up from the dead." Note 4, apply RC to "Apostles'."
- Page 71, apply RC to "His," "Him," and "His." Note 1, apply RC to
"He," "My," "Me," and "My"; change "1 Cor. 11:27-30" to "1 Cor.
11:22-30." Note 2, apply RC to "He." Note 3, apply RC to "My"
(four times) and "Me."
- Page 72, note 2, change "Ps. 113:24" to "Ps. 113:2-4." Note 3,
apply RC to "My" and "Him"; change "then shall thou delight" to
"then shalt thou delight." Note 4, apply RC to "Word." Point XVII,
apply RC to "Divine."
- Page 73, note 4, change "Rev. 19:14" to "Rev. 19:16" to match
quotation. Point XVIII, apply RC to "His" (twice). Note 2, apply
RC to "He" and "Him."
- Page 74, note 2, apply RC to "Him." Note 5, change "Matt.
25:35-41" to "Matt. 25:31-46." Note 6, apply RC to "He" and "Him."
- Page 75, apply RC to "Divine," "Him" (twice), "His" (thrice),
"Divine."
- Page 76, apply RC to "Gospel," "Him," and "His."
- The break between pages 78 and 79 is in the word "expressed":
ex|pressed.
- Page 79, apply RC to "Gospel." Change "practise" to "practice."
- Page 82, apply RC to "His Apostles."
- Page 85, apply RC to "His" (twice), "He," and "His."
- Page 86, apply RC to "He," "Him," and "He."
- Page 88, apply RC to "His."
- Page 89, change "Malancthon" to "Malanchthon" and "colaborer" to
"co-laborer."
- Page 90, capitalize "Divine" as referring to a churchman. Change
"practised" to "practiced."
- Page 91, change "practise" to "practice."
- The break between pages 91 and 92 is in the word "sufficient":
suf|ficient.
- Page 92, apply RC to "Apostle."
- The break between pages 93 and 94 is in the word "immersion":
immer|sion.
- Page 95, apply RC to "Apostles."
- The break between pages 96 and 97 is in the word "original":
origi|nal.
- Page 98, change "practised" to "practised"; apply RC to "His
Apostles."
- Page 99, change "practise" to "practice" (twice).
- Page 100, apply RC to "Gospel." Change "practise" to "practice"
and "practises" to "practices."
- Page 101, apply RC to "His."
- Page 102, change "practise" to "practice."
- Page 104, apply RC to "Divine."
- Page 105, change "practise" to "practice."
- The break between pages 106 and 107 is in the word "Parliament":
Par|liament.
- Page 108, apply RC to "His" (thrice) and "Me."
- Page 109, apply RC to "He," "His," "My" (four times), "Me," and
"Divine."
- The break between pages 109 and 110 is in the word "practiced"
(changed from "practised"): prac|ticed.
- Page 110, change "practised" to "practiced" and "practise" to
"practice" (twice).
- Page 111, change "practise" to "practice."
- Page 112, apply RC to "Him."
- Page 113, apply RC to "Divine."
- Page 114, apply RC to "Apostolic," "Word," "Apostles'," "Word,"
and "Divine." Change "practise" to "practice."
- Page 115, change "practise" to "practice."
- The break between pages 115 and 116 is in the word "infants":
in|fants.
- Page 116, change "practise" to "practice" (thrice).
- Page 117, apply RC to "His"; change "practise" to "practice";
apply RC to "Him."
- Page 118, change "practise" to "practice."
- The break between pages 118 and 119 is in the word "remaining":
re|maining.
- Page 119, capitalize "Divines" as referring to churchmen.
- Page 120, apply RC to "Gospel."
- Each of pages 123 and 124, capitalize "Divine" as referring to a
churchman.
- Page 124, apply RC to "Lord's Table."
- Page 125, apply RC to "His."
- Page 129, change "practised" to "practiced" (thrice). Apply RC to
"His Apostles" and "Word."
- Page 130, capitalize "Divine" as referring to a churchman; apply
RC to "Apostles."
- Page 131, apply RC to "Apostolic" and "Apostles."
- Page 132, change "practised" to "practiced." Apply RC to "His
Apostles."
- Page 133, change "practised" to "practiced."
- Page 134, change "practise" to "practice" and "practised" to
"practiced."
- Page 136, change "practise" to "practice." Apply RC to "Divine"
and "Word."
- Page 137, apply RC to "Gospel" and "Word."
- Page 138, apply RC to "Apostles."
- Page 140, apply RC to "Apostles."
- Page 141, apply RC to "Apostolic."
- Page 142, apply RC to "Apostles" and "Divinely."
- The break between pages 143 and 144 is in the word "people":
peo|ple.
- Page 144, capitalize "Divines" as referring to churchmen; apply RC
to "Apostolic." Add "Ch. Hist." to the Geiseler citation.
- Page 145, change "practised" to "practiced."
- Page 146, change "practises" to "practices."
- Page 147, apply RC to "His," "He," "His Apostles," "His" (twice),
"He," "Divine," and "Apostles."
- The break between pages 147 and 148 is in the word "minister":
min|ister.
- Page 148, apply RC to "Apostles," "His," and "Gospel."
- The break between pages 148 and 149 is in the word "authority":
author|ity.
- Page 149, change "later" to "latter."
- Page 150, apply RC to "Apostles."
- Page 152, apply RC to "Apostle"; change _"episcopous"_ to
_"episcopos"_ for consistency.
- Page 153, apply RC to "Apostolic."
- Page 154, apply RC to "Word," "Apostles," and "Himself."
- Page 155, apply RC to "Gospel."
- The break between pages 155 and 156 is in the word "apostasy":
apos|tasy.
- Page 156, apply RC to "Gospel,"; change "practised" to "practiced"
apply RC to "Word" and "Gospel."
- Page 158, apply RC to "Gospel." Change "practise" to "practice"
(twice).
- Page 160, change "practise" to "practice"; apply RC to "Apostles."
- Page 161, apply RC to "Apostles" and "Word."
- The break between pages 162 and 163 is in the word "contemporary":
contempo|rary.
- Page 163, apply RC to "Apostles" and "Gospel."
- Page 164, change "offence" to "offense."
- The break between pages 165 and 166 is in the word "because":
be|cause.
- Page 166, remove extraneous right double quotes after
"Smithfield"; change "suffered perhaps more" to "suffered perhaps
no more."
- Page 167, change "defence" to "defense."
- Page 169, add comma to "after he"; apply RC to "Divine."
- The break between pages 170 and 171 is in the word "themselves":
them|selves.
- Page 173, change "practise" to "practice" (twice); apply RC to
"Divine."