to promote the growth of the whole body in Christian knowledge,
holiness, and comfort; to the end that we may stand perfect and
complete in all the will of God.
“That, to promote and secure this object, we will uphold the
public worship of God and the ordinances of his house, and hold
constant communion with each other therein; that we will
cheerfully contribute of our property for the support of the poor,
and for the maintenance of a faithful ministry of the gospel among
us.
“That we will not omit closet and family religion at home, nor
allow ourselves in the too common neglect of the great duty of
religiously training up our children, and those under our care,
with a view to the service of Christ and the enjoyment of heaven.
“That we will walk circumspectly in the world, that we may win
their souls; remembering that God hath not given us the spirit of
fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind, that we are
the light of the world and the salt of the earth, and that a city
set on a hill cannot be hid.
“That we will frequently exhort, and, if occasion shall require,
admonish, one another, according to Matthew 18th, in the spirit of
meekness; considering ourselves, lest we also be tempted; and
that, as in baptism, we have been buried with Christ, and raised
again, so there is on us a special obligation henceforth, to walk
in newness of life.
“And may the God of peace, who brought again from the dead our
Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of
the everlasting covenant, make us perfect in every good work to do
his will; working in us that which is well pleasing in his sight,
through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory forever and ever. AMEN.”
(See Matt. 3:5, 6, 11, 13-16; 20:22, 23; 21:25; 28:19. Mark 1:4,
5, 8, 9, 10; 11:30; 16:15, 16. Luke 3:3, 7, 12, 16, 21; 7:29, 30;
12:50; 20:4. John 1:28, 31, 33; 3:22, 23; 4:1, 2. Acts 1:5,2 2;
2:38, 41; 8: 12, 13, 36-39; 9:18; 10:37, 47, 48; 13:24; 16:15, 33;
18:8, 25; 19:4, 5; 22:16. Rom. 6:3, 4. 1 Cor. 1: 13-17; 10:2;
12:13; 15:29. Gal. 3:27. Eph. 4:5. Col. 2:12. Heb. 6:2. 1 Pet.
3:31.)
-------------------------------------
“This denomination claims an immediate descent from the apostles,
and asserts that the constitution of their churches is from the
authority of Jesus Christ himself, and his immediate successors.
Many others, indeed, deduce their origin as a sect from much later
times, and affirm that they first sprang up in Germany in the
sixteenth century. This denomination of Christians is
distinguished from others by their opinions respecting the mode
and subjects of baptism. Instead of administering the ordinance by
sprinkling or pouring water, they maintain that it ought to be
administered only by immersion: such, they insist, is the meaning
of the Greek word _baptizo_, to wash or dip, so that a command to
baptize is a command to immerse. They also defend their practice
from the phrase _buried with him in baptism_, from the first
administrators’ repairing to rivers, and the practice of the
primitive church, after the apostles.
“With regard to the _subjects_ of baptism, this denomination
alleges that it ought not to be administered to children or
infants at all, nor to adults in general; but to those only who
profess repentance for sin and faith in Christ. Our Savior’s
commission to his apostles, by which Christian baptism was
instituted, is to _go and teach all nations, baptizing them_, &c.,
that is, not to baptize all they meet with, but first to examine
and instruct them, and whoever will receive instruction, to
baptize in the _name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost_. This construction of the passage is confirmed by
another passage—‘_Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel
to every creature; he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be
saved._’ To such persons, and to such only, this denomination
says, baptism was administered by the apostles and the immediate
disciples of Christ; for those who were baptized in primitive
times are described as repenting of their sins, and believing in
Christ. (See Acts 2:38, 8:37, and other passages of Scripture.)
“They further insist that all positive institutions depend
entirely upon the will and declaration of the institutor; and
that, therefore, reasoning by analogy from previous abrogated
rites is to be rejected, and the express commands of Christ
respecting the mode and subjects of baptism ought to be our only
rule.
“They observe that the meaning of the word _baptizo_ signifies
immersion or dipping only; that John baptized in Jordan; that he
chose a place where there was _much_ water; that Jesus came up
_out of_ the water; that Philip and the eunuch went down both
_into_ the water; that the terms _washing_, _purifying_, _burying
in baptism_, so often mentioned in Scripture, allude to this mode;
that immersion _only_ was the practice of the apostles and the
first Christians; and that it was only laid aside from the love of
novelty, and the coldness of our climate. These positions, they
think, are so clear from Scripture, and the history of the church,
that they stand in need of but little argument to support them.”
There are some interesting facts connected with the history of the
Baptists in America. In 1631, the Rev. Roger Williams, who had been a
clergyman of the church of England, but, disliking its formalities,
seceded, and ranged himself with the Nonconformists, fled to America from
the persecutions which then raged in England. The great principles of
civil and religious liberty were not then understood in the western world,
and, as Mr. Williams was a man of intrepid firmness in advocating those
principles, we are not surprised at the excitement and opposition which
his doctrines awakened. He settled first in Salem, New England, the
magistracy of which condemned his opinions, and subsequently sentenced him
to banishment. Under that cruel act of legislation, he was driven from his
family, in the midst of winter, to seek for refuge among the wild Indians.
After great sufferings, having conciliated the Indians, he commenced the
formation of a colony, to which he gave the name of _Providence_, situate
in Rhode Island, a name which it still bears.
Thus he became the founder of a new order of things. Several of his
friends afterwards joined him, and in that infant settlement he sustained
the twofold character of minister and lawgiver. He formed a constitution
on the broad principle of civil and religious liberty, and thus became the
first ruler that recognized equal rights. Nearly a century and a half
after that, when the Americans achieved their independence, thirteen of
the states united in forming a government for themselves, and adopted that
principle; thus America became, what the little colony of Providence had
been before, a refuge for the persecuted for conscience sake. It has been
well observed that the millions in both hemispheres who are now rejoicing
in the triumph of liberal principles, should unite in erecting a monument
to perpetuate the memory of ROGER WILLIAMS, the first governor who held
liberty of conscience, as well as of person, to be the birthright of man.
In the year 1639, Mr. Williams formed the _first_ Baptist church in
America, at Providence. Throughout succeeding years, few changes,
comparatively, were experienced in the movements of the Baptist
denomination on this vast continent. Baptist churches multiplied
exceedingly, until they assumed a leading attitude among the religious
communities of America. They have amply provided for an efficient and
learned ministry, and the extraordinary revivals with which they have been
frequently favored, invest them with a moral strength and glory which
cannot be contemplated but with astonishment and admiration.
ANABAPTISTS.
Those who maintain that baptism ought always to be performed by immersion.
The word is compounded of _ana_ “new,” and _baptistes_, “a Baptist,”
signifying that those who have been baptized in their infancy, ought to be
baptized _anew_. It is a word which has been indiscriminately applied to
Christians of very different principles and practices. The English and
Dutch Baptists do not consider the word as at all applicable to their
sect, because those persons whom they baptize they consider as never
having been baptized before, although they have undergone what they term
the ceremony of sprinkling in their infancy.
FREE-WILL BAPTISTS.
The first church gathered, of this order, was in New Durham, N. H., in the
year 1780, principally by the instrumentality of Elder Benjamin Randall,
who then resided in that town. Soon after, several branches were collected
which united with this church; and several preachers, of different
persuasions, were brought to see the beauties of a _free salvation_, and
united as fellow-laborers with Elder Randall.
They believe that, by the death of Christ, salvation was provided for all
men; that, through faith in Christ, and sanctification of the
Spirit,—though by nature entirely sinners,—all men may, if they improve
every means of grace in their power, become new creatures in this life,
and, after death, enjoy eternal happiness; that all who, having actually
sinned, die in an unrenewed state, will suffer eternal misery.
Respecting the divine attributes of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they
in substance agree with other Orthodox Christians. They hold the holy
Scriptures to be their only rule of religious faith and practice, to the
exclusion of all written creeds, covenants, rules of discipline, or
articles of organization. They consider that elders and deacons are the
officers of the church designed in the Scriptures, and maintain that
piety, and a call to the work, are the essential qualifications of a
minister, without regard to literary attainments.
SEVENTH-DAY BAPTISTS, OR SABBATARIANS,
Are those who keep the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. They are to
be found principally, if not wholly, among the Baptists. They object to
the reasons which are generally alleged for keeping the first day, and
assert that the change from the seventh to the first was effected by
Constantine, on his conversion to Christianity, A. D. 321. The three
following propositions contain a summary of their principles as to this
article of the Sabbath, by which they stand distinguished:—
1. That God hath required the seventh or last day of every week to be
observed by mankind, universally, for the weekly Sabbath.
2. That this command of God is perpetually binding on man till time shall
be no more.
3. That this sacred rest of the seventh-day Sabbath is not by divine
authority changed from the seventh and last to the first day of the week,
and that the Scripture doth nowhere require the observation of any other
day of the week for the weekly Sabbath, but the seventh day only. They
hold, in common with other Christians, the distinguishing doctrines of
Christianity.
SIX-PRINCIPLE BAPTISTS.
This appellation is given to those who hold the imposition of hands,
subsequent to baptism, and generally on the admission of candidates into
the church, as an indispensable prerequisite for church membership and
communion. They support their peculiar principle chiefly from Heb. 6:1,
2—“Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go
on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from
dead works, and faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptism, and of
laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal
judgment,” As these two verses contain six distinct propositions, one of
which is the laying on of hands, these brethren have, from thence,
acquired the name of _Six-Principle Baptists_, to distinguish them from
others, whom they sometimes call _Five-Principle Baptists_. They have
fourteen churches in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
QUAKER BAPTISTS, OR KEITHIANS.
A party from the society of Friends, in Pennsylvania, separated in the
year 1691. It was headed by the famous GEORGE KEITH. They practised
baptism, and received the Lord’s supper, but retained the language, dress,
and manners, of the Friends, or Quakers.
PEDOBAPTISTS.
Are those who practise the baptism of children, without regard to personal
faith.
Pedobaptists, in common with all others, claim for their practice an
apostolical origin; and, although they differ much in theological
opinions, in forms of church government, and modes of worship, yet they
all adopt substantially the same mode of reasoning in their defence of
pedobaptism. They say that the church, under both the old and new
dispensations, has ever been the same, although under a different form;
that infants, as well as parents, were admitted into the church under the
earlier dispensations, the rite of circumcision being the sign of their
introduction, into it; and that the Christian dispensation (as the Savior
came not to destroy, but to fulfil, the law and the prophets) did not
annul or abridge any of the privileges of the church that were possessed
under the dispensations of former times. But as the right of children, who
are bound to their parents by the strongest natural tie, to be solemnly
and visibly dedicated to God, and to come within the pale and under the
watch of the church, is a blessing and a privilege, we are entitled to ask
for the passages in the New Testament which require its abandonment. We
take it for granted, that children are to be publicly dedicated to God,
now, as in former times, unless some positive directions can be shown to
the contrary. It appearing, therefore, that children may be dedicated to
God, by their parents, in some public and visible way, and there remaining
no outward ceremony, under the Christian dispensation, suitable to that
purpose, but baptism, we infer that baptism is designed to take the place
of circumcision, and that children may be baptized. And these views are
thought to be encouraged by the affectionate saying of Christ, “Suffer
little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the
kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:14.)
A second argument in favor of infant baptism is derived from the repeated
accounts, in the Acts, of the baptism of whole families. The families
referred to are those of Lydia, a seller of purple in the city of
Thyatira, of the jailer, in the same city, and of Cornelius, the
centurion, of Cæsarea. Instances of this kind are not to be considered as
conclusively proving the Scripture authority of infant baptism of
themselves; but they form a presumptive argument, in its favor, of great
weight.
And, further, it may be shown, from ecclesiastical history, that the
baptism of infants was practised in the time of the primitive Christians.
This being the fact, the conclusion seems to follow irresistibly, that
they received the practice from the apostles, and that it was, therefore,
known and recognized by the Savior himself; and, if it were known and
recognized by him, or even introduced, subsequently and solely, by those
he commissioned, it must be received, in either case, as the will of
Christ, and as a law of the Christian dispensation.
Again, they say that the particular mode of baptism can not be determined
from the meaning of the word _baptizo_, which may mean either to immerse
or to lave, according to the particular connection in which it is found.
(See Mark 7:4. Heb. 9:10.)
None of the accounts of baptism, which are given in the New Testament,
necessarily imply that it was performed by immersion. It is true the
Savior and the eunuch, when they were baptized, went up out of, or rather
_from_, the water, but the inference that they went _under_ the water,
which is sometimes drawn from these expressions, does not appear to be
sufficiently warranted.
The circumstances attending the baptism of the jailer and his family are
of such a nature as to render the opinion of its being performed by
immersion improbable. The baptism was evidently performed at midnight, and
within the limits of the prison,—a time and a situation evidently implying
some other mode than plunging. Similar views will hold in respect to the
baptism of the three thousand at the season of Pentecost.
As, therefore, there are no passages of Scripture which positively require
immersion, but various scriptural considerations against it, besides its
being always inconvenient, and not unfrequently impracticable, the
Pedobaptists have ever thought it fit and requisite, as a general rule, to
practise baptism by sprinkling or laving.
The Greek church, in all its branches,—whether in the frozen regions of
Siberia, or in the torrid zone,—practise trine immersion. All Pedobaptists
require of adults, who seek for baptism, a personal profession of their
faith, and so far agree with the Baptists. They also, with the Baptists,
allow immersion to be valid baptism; but, in opposition to them, the
Baptists deny that any other mode of administering this rite is valid.
(See Exod. 14:22. Isa. 44:3. Matt. 3:11; 19:13. Mark 7:4. Acts 2:39; 19:2,
5. Rom. 4:11; 11:17. 1 Cor. 7:14; 10:2. Eph. chap. 2. Heb. 9:10, 13, 14.)
The term _Pedobaptist_ is derived from two Greek words—_pais_, a child,
and _baptismos_, baptism. This mode of baptism is practised by nearly the
whole Christian world, except the Baptists and Friends.
ANTI-PEDOBAPTISTS.
A name given to those who object to the baptism of infants. The word is
derived from the Greek words signifying _against_, _a child_, and _I
baptize_.
UNITARIANS.
Those Christians who are usually designated by this name in the United
States, and who are also called _Liberal Christians_, are mostly
Congregationalists, and are found principally in New England.
They acknowledge no other rule of faith and practice than the holy
Scriptures, which they consider it the duty of every man to search for
himself, prayerfully, and with the best exercise of his understanding.
They reject all creeds of human device, as generally unjust to the truth
of God and the mind of man, tending to produce exclusiveness, bigotry, and
divisions, and at best of doubtful value. They regard, however, with favor
the earliest creed on record, commonly called the Apostles’, as
approaching nearest to the simplicity of the gospel, and as imbodying the
grand points of the Christian faith.
They adopt the words of St. Paul, (1 Cor. 8:6,) “_To us there is but one
God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him._” They make great account
of the doctrine of God’s paternal character and government, and
continually set it forward as the richest source of consolation, and the
most powerful motive to repentance and improvement.
Receiving and trusting in Christ as their Lord, Teacher, Mediator,
Intercessor, Savior, they hold in less esteem than many other sects, nice
theological questions and speculations concerning his precise rank, and
the nature of his relation to God. They feel that by honoring him as _the
Son of God_, they honor him as he desired to be honored; and that by
obeying and imitating him, they in the best manner show their love.
They believe that the Holy Ghost is not a distinct person in the Godhead,
but that _power of God_, that _divine influence_, by which Christianity
was established through miraculous aids, and by which its spirit is still
shed abroad in the hearts of men.
They advocate the most perfect toleration. They regard CHARITY as the
crowning Christian grace,—the end of the commandment of God. They consider
a pure and lofty morality as not only inseparable from true religion, but
the most acceptable service that man can render to his Maker, and the only
indubitable evidence of a believing heart.
They believe that sin is its own punishment, and virtue its own rewarder;
that the moral consequences of a man’s good or evil conduct go with him
into the future life, to afford him remorse or satisfaction; that God will
be influenced in all his dealings with the soul by mercy and justice,
punishing no more severely than the sinner deserves, and always for a
benevolent end. Indeed, the greater part of the denomination are
Restorationists.
Unitarians consider that, besides the Bible, all the Ante-Nicene
fathers—that is, all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth
of Christ—give testimony in their favor, against the modern popular
doctrine of the Trinity. As for _antiquity_, it is their belief that it is
really on their side.
In the _First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians_, which was written
towards the close of the first century,—and the evidence for the
genuineness of which is stronger than for that of any other of the
productions attributed to the apostolical fathers,—the supremacy of the
Father is asserted or implied throughout, and Jesus is spoken of in terms
mostly borrowed from the Scriptures. He is once called the “sceptre of the
majesty of God;” and this highly-figurative expression is the most exalted
applied to him in the whole Epistle.
Justin Martyr, the most distinguished of the ancient fathers of the
church, who flourished in the former part of the second century, and whose
writings (with the exception of those attributed to the _apostolic_
fathers) are the earliest Christian records next to the New Testament,
expressly says, “We worship God, the Maker of the universe, offering up to
him prayers and thanks. But, assigning to Jesus, who came to teach us
these things, and for this end was born, the ‘_second place_’ after God,
we not without reason honor him.”
The germ and origin of the doctrine of the Trinity, the Unitarians find in
the speculations of those Christianized philosophers of the second
century, whose minds were strongly tinctured with the Platonic philosophy,
combined with the _emanation system_, as taught at Alexandria, and held by
Philo. From this time they trace the gradual formation of the doctrine
through successive ages down to Athanasius and Augustine; the former of
whom, A. D. 362, was the first to insist upon the equality of the Holy
Ghost with the Father and the Son; and the latter, about half a century
afterwards, was the first to insist upon their numerical unity.
In all ages of the church, there have been many learned and pious men who
have rejected the Trinity as unscriptural and irrational. The first
attempt, at the council of Nice, to establish and make universal the
Trinitarian creed, caused disturbances and dissensions in the church,
which continued for ages, and produced results the most deplorable to
every benevolent mind which exalts _charity_ over faith.
Soon after the reformation, the Unitarian faith was avowed by Martin
Cellarius, who was then finishing his studies at Wittenberg, where Luther
was professor. In 1546, the Unitarian opinions made a considerable
movement in Italy, and several persons of learning and eminence were put
to death. In 1553, Michael Servetus was burned for this heresy, at Geneva.
The elder Socinus made his escape from this persecution, and spread his
views throughout several countries of Europe, more particularly in Poland,
where a large part of the Reformed clergy embraced them, and were
separated, in 1565, from the communion of the Calvinists and Lutherans.
In England, the number of Unitarians was considerable, according to
Strype, as early as 1548; and in 1550, he represents the Unitarian
doctrine as spreading so fast that the leading Churchmen were alarmed, and
“thought it necessary to suppress its expression by rigid measures.” These
“rigid measures,” such as imprisonment and burning, were successful for a
time. But afterwards, the “heresy” gained new and able supporters, such as
Biddle, Firmin, Dr. S. Clarke, Dr. Lardner, Whiston, Emlyn, Sir Isaac
Newton, &c., and has been spreading to this day.
In the north of Ireland, the Unitarians compose several presbyteries.
There are also congregations of Unitarians in Dublin, and in other
southern cities of the kingdom.
In Scotland, there are chapels of this character in Edinburgh, Glasgow,
and other principal places.