========================================================================
  WRITINGS OF JEREMIAH JETER
  by Jeremiah Jeter
========================================================================

A collection of theological writings, sermons, and essays by Jeremiah Jeter,
compiled for study and devotional reading.

  Chapters: 33

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 01.00.0. Baptist Principles Reset
    2. 01.00.1.     Preface
    3. 01.00.2.     Introduction
    4. 01.01.01.     Part 1 Chapter 01 A Spiritual, or Regenerate, Church Membership.
    5. 01.01.02.     Part 1 Chapter 02 Baptism A Condition Of Church Membership
    6. 01.01.03.     Part 1 Chapter 03 Believers the Only Subjects of Baptism.
    7. 01.01.04.     Part 1 Chapter 04 Believers the Only Subjects of Baptism.
    8. 01.01.05.     Part 1 Chapter 05 Believers the Only Subjects of Baptism.
    9. 01.01.06.     Part 1 Chapter 06 Only Immersion is Baptism.
   10. 01.01.07.     Part 1 Chapter 07 Only Immersion is Baptism.
   11. 01.01.08.     Part 1 Chapter 08 Only Immersion is Baptism.
   12. 01.01.09.     Part 1 Chapter 09 Only Immersion is Baptism.
   13. 01.01.10.     Part 1 Chapter 10 Communion at the Lord’s Table Confined to Churches
   14. 01.01.11.     Part 1 Chapter 11 Communion at the Lord’s Table Confined to Church Members
   15. 01.01.12.     Part 1 Chapter 12 Is Open Communion Demanded for the Edification of the Churches?
   16. 01.01.13.     Part 1 Chapter 13 Incidental Points Pertaining to Close Communion.
   17. 01.01.14.     Part 1 Chapter 14 Religious Freedom.
   18. 01.01.15.     Part 1 Chapter 15 Obligation of Baptists to Their Principles.
   19. 01.02.01.     Part 2 Chapter 01 Regenerate Church Membership.
   20. 01.02.02.     Part 2 Chapter 02 The Subjects of Baptism.
   21. 01.02.03.     Part 2 Chapter 03 The Case for Immersion at Present.
   22. 01.02.04.     Part 2 Chapter 04 Archaeology of Baptism-The Bath, Under The Old Testament.
   23. 01.02.05.     Part 2 Chapter 05 Baptism the Door to the Lord’s Supper.
   24. 01.02.06.     Part 2 Chapter 06 Baptism the Door to the Lord’s Supper.
   25. 01.02.07.     Part 2 Chapter 07 Baptism the Door to the Lord’s Supper.
   26. 01.02.08.     Part 2 Chapter 08 Baptists And Religious Liberty.
   27. 01.02.09.     Part 2 Chapter 09 Obligations of Baptists to Teach Their Principles.
   28. 01.03.01.     Part 3 Chapter 01 What Baptist Principles Are Worth to the World.
   29. 01.03.02.     Part 3 Chapter 02 Why I Became A Baptist.
   30. 01.03.03.     Part 3 Chapter 03 Candid Scholarship.
   31. 01.04.     Part 4 Appendix
   32. S. Campbellism Examined
   33. S. THE EVILS OF GAMING.

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 01.00.0. BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET
========================================================================

Baptist Principles Reset Jeremiah B. Jeter

Part I:

Preface

Introduction Chapter 1: A Spiritual, or Regenerate, Church Membership.

Chapter 2: Baptism a Condition of Church Membership.

Chapter 3: Believers the only Subjects of Baptism.

Chapter 4: Believers the only Subjects of Baptism.

Chapter 5: Believers the only Subjects of Baptism.

Chapter 6: Only Immersion is Baptism.

Chapter 7: Only Immersion is Baptism.

Chapter 8: Only Immersion is Baptism.

Chapter 9: Only Immersion is Baptism.

Chapter 10: Communion at the Lord’s Table Confined to Churches.

Chapter 11: Communion at the Lord’s Table Confined to Members.

Chapter 12: Is Open Communion Demanded for the Edification of the Churches?

Chapter 13: Incidental Points Pertaining in Close Communion.

Chapter 14: Religious Freedom Chapter 15: Obligation of Baptists to Their
Principles.

Part II:

Chapter 1: Regenerate Church Membership-Henry G. Weston Chapter 2: The Subjects
of Baptism-Alvah Hovey Chapter 3: The Case for Immersion at Present-Edgar Y.
Mullins Chapter 4: Archaeology of Baptism-The Bath, Under the Old
Testament-Howard Osgood Chapter 5: Baptists the Door to the Lord’s
Supper-Franklin Johnson Chapter 6: Baptists the Door to the Lord’s
Supper-Franklin Johnson Chapter 7: Baptists the Door to the Lord’s
Supper-Franklin Johnson Chapter 8: Baptists and Religious Liberty-Benjamin O.
True Chapter 9: Obligations of Baptists to Teach Their Principles-J. B. Gambrell

Part III:

Chapter 1: What Baptist Principles Are Worth to the World-A. E. Dickinson
Chapter 2: Why I Became A Baptist-Madison C. Peters Chapter 3: Candid
Scholarship-Madison C. Peters, W. R. I. Smith Appendix: Sunday Observance and
Religious Liberty-R. H. Pitt


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 01.00.1.     PREFACE
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET

PART 1-PREFACE

Dr. J. B. Jeter died February 18, 1880. In the autumn of 1876, In execution of a
purpose formed long before, he began In the Religious Herald, of which he was
then senior editor, a series of articles on "Distinctive Baptist Principles." He
was at this date, had been for many years, and continued till his death the
first among his brethren. His mind was not only rich in the accumulated stores
of information, well digested, but it was characterized by a manly vigor and a
most uncommon candor, which commanded the respect and admiration of all who knew
him. Dr. Jeter was a model controversial writer. Scrupulously fair in his
statement of an opponent’s views, he never descended from the high plane of
courteous debate to indulge in personalities. He was Incapable of subterfuge or
indirection. He took no short cuts in discussion. The articles from his pen
which we print In this volume illustrate these characteristics. No word of
bitterness will be found in them? They are not marred by any attempt at
smartness. They are never extravagant, never hysterical. They are marked by a
sober and conscious strength, ‘which makes them very convincing. It Is only just
to Dr. Jeter to say that these papers were prepared for the general reader.
While not a technical and professional scholar, he was well acquainted with the
conclusions of the best scholarship, and these are embodied in his articles. But
we venture the opinion that the reader will find no obscure sentence, nothing
abstruse or recondite. They are plain, clear, coherent. Moreover, let no one
neglect the papers under the impression that they will be dull and lifeless. The
writer’s remarkable command of his mother tongue, his kindly humor, his style,
marked by vivacity as well as sobriety, most of all his clear and well-reasoned
convict4on ox tne unshakable truth of his contention, will give growing interest
to the series.

While these articles were reappearing in the Religious Herald, the editors
determined to follow them with another series, written by the ablest and most
representative of our living Baptist brethren. Accordingly the articles which
are found in Part II. of this volume were, at our request, prepared, and we were
permitted to print them in the Religious Herald. Dr. Henry G. Weston, President
of Crozer Theological Seminary-vigorous, clear, scholarly-contributes the first
article, on that fundamental tenet of Baptists, "A Regenerate Church
Membership." Dr. Alvah Hovey, President Emeritus of Newton Theological Seminary,
who through his long, useful, and distinguished life has been growing "in the
grace and knowledge" of his Lord-a most judicious interpreter of the
Scriptures-compresses a most remarkable article on "The Subjects of Baptism"
within very brief limits.

It is distinguished company into which our young and gifted President Mullins,
of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, comes; but he is worthy to take
his place with these venerated and experienced teachers. His article, on "The
Case for Immersion at Present," is one of the best. In Dr. Jeter’s fine series
one aspect of the baptismal question was not discussed-its archaeology. it is
not extravagant to say that there is no living man more competent to deal with
that matter than Dr. Howard Osgood, who is among the very foremost conservative
scholars of our day and time. His article on "Archaeology of Baptism-The Bath
Under the Old Testament" is intensely interesting and highly informing. When
President Harper was gathering around him his great corps of teachers for the
University of Chicago, he brought to the Divinity School Dr. Franklin Johnson.
Dr. Johnson had already given evidence of his intellectual power-notably in a
volume meeting and combating the destructive criticism which was attacking the
Bible. When his strong and stalwart articles on "The Lord’s Supper’ appeared in
the Herald, competent judges declared that he had covered the ground with
surpassing skill. We do not know of any argument on the whole question so
simple, strong, and conclusive.

Dr. Benjamin O. True, of Rochester Theological Seminary (Church History), one of
the most accurate and sympathetic students of history, has brought us all
greatly in debt to him by the fine and comprehensive glimpse which he has given
of "Baptists and Religious Liberty." He makes us all long for more.

Then, to complete this remarkable series and to round out this distinguished
company, we laid violent hands on our Baptist commoner, our
philosopher-preacher; Dr. J. B. Gambrell, at Present of Texas, but in spirit, in
the sweep of sympathy and intelligence, a real "citizen of the world."

Now the Religious Herald, in printing the articles by the revered and lamented
Jeter, and in adding these by seven of the most distinguished and representative
Baptist scholars and leaders in the world, modestly maintains that this volume
is unique. Among all the treatises on denominational teaching that have
appeared, we know of none like this. Dr. Jeter’s articles were first published
nearly a quarter of a century ago. They set forth views which had been formed
probably twenty-five years earlier. In the first part of this volume, then, we
have the product of one mind, thinking his theme through from start to finish.
The articles in Part II. have been printed within the past few months. Seven
men-one in Massachusetts, one in Pennsylvania, two in New York, one in Illinois,
one in Kentucky, and one in Texas-furnish them. They write wholly independent of
one another. Each develops his theme without considering how his discussion will
fit in with those of his brethren.

Now, then, we come out upon a most remarkable result. First, they do make a
singularly consistent and harmonious whole. The Jeter articles do not fit one
another more perfectly than these. Secondly, they harmonize entirely with the
articles by Dr. Jeter. Probably fifty years lie between the Jeter articles and
these by our living brethren. They have, too, been years of theological
change-in some respects change that has been almost revolution. Great
denominations have been rent and great institutions have been alienated from
denominational control by theological controversies. The seminaries have been
hot-beds of heresy. But every important Baptist theological seminary in the
land, except one, is represented in this series, and Drs. Jeter and Gambrell
fitly represent the many who have not taught or learned in these schools of the
prophets. Still, with no authoritative formulary, with no doctrinal court to
settle differences, the Baptists continue to think and believe alike. Thus this
book illustrates, in a way all the more impressive because unintentional, that
solidarity of doctrine is best preserved where human formularies have no voice
of authority, and the true secret of denominational and of Christian unity is a
free and reverent approach to Christ, the center of our hopes and the object of
our faith. May God bless the book to the honor of his name and the spread of the
truth!

R. H. Pitt.

Religious Herald Office, Richmond, Va., February 25, 1901.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 01.00.2.     INTRODUCTION
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 1-INTRODUCTION

We promised a series of articles on this subject, so soon as we could dispose of
other matters claiming our attention. The time has come for us to begin to
redeem that pledge. An elaborate discussion of the various points comprehended
in our scheme must not be expected. We can attempt nothing beyond a brief and
simple statement of Baptist principles, and the main arguments by which they are
defended. Our statements or arguments may not be satisfactory to all our
readers; but, in presenting them, we will endeavor to be candid, courteous, and
fair. We shall earnestly aim so to write that, if any person should be offended,
the fault shah be his, and not ours. We are so firmly convinced of the soundness
of our principles that we can well afford to discuss them with calmness and
good-will to all men.

Before we enter on an examination of the distinctive principles of Baptists, it
is proper that the points regarding which they are in full and hearty accord
with most Protestant Christians should be stated. The Baptists are united in the
support of what is generally known as Evangelical Christianity. This system
embraces the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures-their sufficiency as a rule
of faith and practice; the existence of God in three persons-Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost; the perfection of the divine law in its precepts and in its penalty;
the apostasy and guilt of man; his utter inability to attain to righteousness or
justification by deeds of law or good works; the Incarnation, obedience,
sufferings, and death of the Son of God; his resurrection, ascension, and
assumption of universal empire; salvation by grace through his atoning blood;
the necessity of the Holy Spirit’s influence in the regeneration of the soul;
free justification by faith in Christ; the necessity of good works as the fruit
and evidence of faith; the resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the
unjust; the general judgment; the eternal blessedness of the redeemed and the
eternal punishment of the wicked.

We have presented these points, not as exhaustive of the evangelical system, but
as comprehending its main articles. These constitute the fundamental, vital,
soul-saving facts and teachings of the gospel. In their support and diffusion,
Baptists are happy to unite with Christians of every name and party. We rejoice
that they are received by most Protestant sects, and that, wherever they are
heartily embraced, they bring forth the fruits of righteousness. We are ready to
concede, too, that these points are far more numerous and important than those
concerning which we differ from them it may be proper to add that Baptists
generally hold to what may be termed, for the sake of distinction, "moderate
Calvinism." They are far from acknowledging Calvin as authority in matters of
religion; but the system of doctrine which bears his name, as it has been
modified by the study of the Scriptures, is now commonly accepted by Baptists.
Fifty years ago, they mostly adhered to high Calvinism, as maintained by Dr.
John Gill, of Landon. Since that time their views have been considerably
changed, through the writings of Andrew Fuller and others. These differences of
views, however, have not disturbed their harmony or hindered their co-operation,
except with a small dissenting party, whose Antinomian views led them to
proclaim their hostility to missions and to all liberal efforts for the
diffusion of Christianity.

Before we enter on a discussion of Baptist principles, it may be proper to state
them briefly, that the reader may see the ground which we propose to traverse. A
spiritual church membership lies at the foundation of all Baptist peculiarities.
In harmony with this principle, Baptists maintain that only believers, or
regenerated persons, are proper subjects of baptism; that only immersion on a
profession of faith is true baptism; that only baptized believers are entitled
to the privileges of church membership, and consequently that only church
members should be admitted to the Lord’s table. The last-named principle is
held, not by all Baptists, but a large majority of them.

There are some principles held by Baptists in common with other Christian
denominations, and to which Baptists give peculiar prominence. Among these may
be mentioned the sufficiency of the Scriptures for guidance in religious
matters, and the independence of the churches, under Christ, in the exercise of
discipline. All Protestant sects, so far as we know, except those of
rationalistic tendency, adopt the first of these principles, though many of them
seem to us to -be sadly- swayed, in -the interpretation of the Scriptures, by
tradition, creeds, and ecclesiastical relations. The second principle is held as
firmly by the Independents of England, the Congregationalists of this country,
and other minor sects, as by Baptists: though, perhaps, the latter give it
greater prominence, and follow it more fully to its logical consequences than
others do. These principles, however warmly they may be cherished by Baptists,
cannot be classed among their distinctive views. The peculiar principles of
Baptists, while they do not constitute the main doctrines of Christianity,
deeply affect the progress, and triumph of the kingdom of Christ. If these views
are erroneous, Baptists are more profoundly interested than any other people to
discover the error. If they are deceived, they are exerting-unintentionally, but
most unfortunately-a disturbing influence among the disciples of Christ. As we
do not claim to be infallible, we should cultivate a candid spirit, diligently
search the Scriptures, earnestly pray for divine guidance, and be ready to
sacrifice reputation for truth. If these views, however, are true, it is the
solemn duty of those who receive them to expound, defend, and proclaim them in
such manner as shall best secure their prevalence and final triumph. The
differences between Baptists and Pedobaptists are not a mere question as to
whether much or little water shall be used in baptism. They fundamentally affect
church organization. They are all concentrated in this enquiry: Shall churches
be composed only of believers, who profess their faith in the divinely appointed
way, and prove their sincerity by lives in harmony with the gospel of Christ? To
us, it seems that conformity to this method would free Christianity from more
than half the evils by which it is brought into reproach and its progress and
final triumph are hindered. It is clear that its adoption would deliver the
world from all hierarchies, all connections between Church and State, except
that created by mutual good-will, all pontiff s and lordly ecclesiastics, all
persecution for conscience’ sake, and all the immense expenditures lavished in
support of the palaces and splendors of princely prelates; and the true friends
of Christ would be left to support and extend his cause by the sanctity of their
lives, the purity of their doctrine, the faithfulness of their labors, their
liberal sacrifices, and the divine blessing on their efforts. Would not this be
a gain?

It is to be lamented that Christians cannot discuss their differences with
equanimity, fairness, and affection. They serve a common Lord, and he is the God
of truth. He takes no pleasure in error, however plausibly it may be defended.
They have a common interest to promote, and that is the extension of the kingdom
and the manifestation of the glory of their Redeemer. It is only by the
knowledge and the diffusion of divine truth that they can promote the end for
which they were translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son. It is vain,
however, to hope that the discussion of controverted religious questions, except
in rare instances, will be conducted with a simple desire to discover and to
maintain truth. The pride of opinion, the desire of victory, sectarian zeal, the
prejudices of education, and personal interests, are likely to give more or less
inspiration and heat to religious controversy, by which its proper end is, in a
great measure, defeated. As our arguments will be based chiefly on the common
version of the Scriptures, it is proper to notice a few things concerning it. It
was made, not by Baptists, but by Pedobaptists. The translators were instructed
by King James to retain the "old ecclesiastical words" found in the existing
versions. Whether baptism belonged to this category, we need not decide. Certain
it is that the translators did not render baptize and its derivatives into
English, but merely gave them an English termination and spelt them with Latin
letters. The English reader is left to infer their meaning from their connection
and the circumstances of the act which they denote. The reader must perceive
that a version made by Pedobaptist scholars, under such a restriction, can have
no unfair leaning to Baptist principles; and yet we expect to show, by a proper
use of it, their soundness.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 01.01.01.     PART 1 CHAPTER 01 A SPIRITUAL, OR REGENERATE, CHURCH MEMBERSHIP.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 1-CHAPTER 1 A Spiritual, or Regenerate, Church
Membership. A spiritual, or regenerate, church membership, as already stated,
lies at the foundation of all Baptist peculiarities. On this point, Baptists and
the few small sects that agree with them differ from the whole Christian world.
If numbers were an infallible sign of truth, we should be constrained to abandon
our principles. But they are not. On this supposition, Protestantism would be
compelled to yield to Romanism, and Christianity itself to paganism. The oracles
of God are the only infallible test of truth. To these we appeal. The
Israelitish theocracy, or commonwealth, differed widely from the Christian
church, or, more properly, churches. That institution-a politico-religious
organization-consisted only of the descendants of Abraham, in the line of Jacob,
or Israel, with such foreigners as chose, by submission to a painful and bloody
rite, to become incorporated with the nation. Citizenship in the commonwealth
was hereditary, and was maintained, not by regeneration and a life of piety, but
by the observance of various costly rites. The government was designed and
admirably adapted to preserve the nation from commingling with the neighboring
heathen. To the Israelites were committed the oracles of God and the honor of
maintaining his worship amid the gloom of surrounding idolatry. From that
favored race the Messiah was to descend, in whom all nations were to be blessed.
In the fullness of time, Jesus of Nazareth made his appearance. He claimed to be
the promised Messiah, and confirmed his title to the office by the wisdom of his
words and the number and greatness of his miracles. He came, not to establish or
to modify the "commonwealth of israe1," but to introduce a new dispensation, or
order of things. After a brief, but most instructive, ministry, terminating in
his sacrificial death, he endowed his apostles with plenary inspiration and the
power of working miracles, and entrusted to them the duty of carrying into
effect his gracious and sublime mission. In the execution of the plan, the
apostles organized churches, first in Judea, then in Samaria and Galilee, and
afterwards among the heathen nations throughout the Roman empire. These churches
were not a continuation of the Jewish hierarchy. They differed from it widely in
members, doctrine, rites, worship, and discipline. No man was entitled to a
place in a Christian church because of his connection with a synagogue.
Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, could not share in the blessings of the new
kingdom without regeneration. Under the changed order of things, circumcision,
which was a passport to the privileges of the synagogue, availed nothing. All
the rites and ceremonies of the Levitical economy were abolished under the new
dispensation. The truth, which had been symbolically and dimly revealed to the
Jews, was clearly taught in the churches. Repentance, faith, regeneration, were
conditions of admission to their fellowship, and holy lives were essential to
its continuance. Instead of the blood sacrifices of the Jews, the churches
offered up "spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." in fine,
the commonwealth of Israel was a hierarchy; but the churches are voluntary
associations. That was typical, preparatory, and temporary; these are spiritual
and permanent.

Having made these general remarks, we will now proceed to prove their
correctness. John the Baptist, the morning star of the new dispensation, was an
eminent reformer. He preached repentance and the necessity of godly lives, laid
the axe at the root of the trees which did not bear good fruit, and proclaimed
that descent from Abraham, which secured all the benefits of Judaism, would
avail nothing under the reign of the Messiah. He baptized the penitent for the
remission of sins; but he organized no church among his disciples. His mission
was to prepare the way of the Messiah, by awaking an expectation of his coming,
making ready a people to receive him, and introducing him into his public
ministry; and, having done these things, his work was ended (Mat 3:1-12; Mark
1:1-11; Luk 3:2-22; John 3:28-31). The personal ministry of Jesus was
preparatory to the constitution of churches. His preaching was eminently
searching, and fitted to reform men and make them spiritual and devout; but
during his life no church was organized, and his disciples were subject to no
discipline, and their labors, except so far as they were directed by his
personal attention, were without concert. On the day of Pentecost. after the
ascension of Jesus, the apostles, by the descent of the Holy Spirit, were fully
qualified to carry forward and complete the work that John and Jesus had begun.
The first church was formed in Jerusalem, and this soon became the mother of
other churches in various countries. We have at present no concern with them,
but to show that they were composed exclusively of believers-converts to
Christianity-or persons who made a credible profession of piety. The mother
church was clearly a spiritual one. The 120 disciples who held a continuous
prayer meeting in Jerusalem were its nucleus (Acts 1:14-15). To these were added
3,000 believers on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41). Additions were daily made
to the church, but only of such as were saved (Acts 2:47). To this company was
added Joses, surnamed Barnabas, who signalized his conversion by his liberality
to the cause of Christ (Acts 4:36-37). After the death of Ananias and Sapphira,
the ungodly were deterred from joining the church; "but believers were the more
added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women" (Acts 5:13-14). After the
appointment of deacons, "The word of God increased, and the number of disciples
multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were
obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7). This was the true church. Are we not
justified in affirming that it was composed of believers, and of believers only?
There is not the slightest trace in the copious inspired record that, in this
large, primitive, model church, there were unconverted seekers, or infants or
hereditary members. The church was organized under the immediate guidance of the
Holy Spirit and according to the will of Christ, and we have a full and
infallible account of its membership, for the instruction of church builders in
all ages. Is it possible that, on the Pedobaptist theory of church construction,
there should have been no reference to its infant members? Among the thousands
of believers added to the church, did none claim the covenant blessing for their
children? Or did the faithful historian fail to mention so important a fact? Can
anybody believe that, if Pedobaptists were favored with such a wonderful
increase of members, their account of it would contain no allusion to the
reception of the infant offspring of the converts into the church? Had we no
other proof that the primitive churches were composed exclusively of believers,
the history of the church at Jerusalem should fully satisfy us on that point. It
is perfectly fair to conclude that all the churches were conformed, in their
membership, as in other things, to the mother church. On this point, however,
evidence is ample, ‘1’he second church was probably organized in Samaria. We
have not so full an account of its constitution as we have of that at Jerusalem,
but quite enough to guide us to a right conclusion. After the persecution of the
disciples consequent on the death of Stephen, "Philip went down to Samaria and
preached Christ unto them." Many of the Samaritans gave heed to his words and
were joyfully converted. "When they believed Philip preaching the things
concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized,
both men and women" (Acts 8:12). We have no definite account of the organization
of the church, but there can be no reasonable doubt that these believing men and
women were its constituent members. Children were not among the baptized, nor
can we reasonably suppose that they were admitted into the church. In the Acts
of the Apostles, covering a period of more than thirty years, and recording the
labors of the apostles and their assistants in founding and edifying churches in
a large part of the Roman empire, there is not the slightest evidence, or shadow
of evidence, except that supposed to be furnished by household baptisms, (which
will be hereafter examined), that any persons were admitted to membership in the
churches except on a credible profession of faith, or retained in them, by
apostolic sanction, without lives in harmony with their profession. The proof
furnished by the apostolic epistles in favor of the spiritual membership of the
primitive churches is quite as conclusive as that drawn from their inspired
history. Let us briefly examine it.

Paul addressed his first epistle in the canon, "To all that be in Rome, beloved
of God, called to be saints," and thanked God that their faith was "spoken of
throughout the world" (Rom 1:7-8). If the church contained other members, either
adults or infants, the fact does not appear in the long letter. Human ingenuity
has not been able to find in all its chapters a single allusion, or shadow of
allusion, to any other than a regenerate membership. The next epistle in course
was directed by the apostle "Unto the church of God in Corinth"; but, that there
might be no mistake as to its membership, he adds. "to them that are sanctified
in Christ Jesus, called to be saints" &c. (1Co 1:2). The second epistle was
addressed by Paul and Timothy, "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with
all the saints which are in all Achaia" (2Co 1:1). We think that it is
impossible to find in these letters, copious as they are in instruction, the
slightest sanction of an unregenerate church membership. The next epistle was
addressed by Paul, not to a single church, but to the churches of the large
province of Galatia. "Grace be to you and peace," he said, "from God the Father,
and from our Lord Jesus Christ." The apostle did not use such language as this
to the unconverted. Only believers are the recipients of grace and peace. Of the
unbelieving his language was: "if any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let
him be anathema maranatha." We can find in this epistle no trace of infant
church membership.

We must abridge our labors on this point. The epistle to the Ephesians was
addressed "to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ
Jesus" (Eph 1:1). The letter to the Philip-plans was directed "to all the saints
in Christ Jesus" &c. (Php 1:1). The epistle to the Colossians was addressed "to
the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse" (Col 1:2). if
there were unconverted seekers or infants in the apostolic churches, is it not
strange and inexplicable that the apostle in his epistles should have taken no
notice of them? They must have constituted a large and important part of the
churches. Many questions must have arisen concerning the relations which they
bore to the churches and the responsibilities arising from them. Were they
members in full fellowship or only nominal members? Were they entitled to
partake of the Lord’s supper? Were they subject to discipline as other members?
Should they be formally expelled from the churches, if they furnished no
evidence of piety? if they ceased to be members by lack of piety, at what age
and under what circumstances did their membership terminate? These and similar
questions have greatly perplexed modern Pedobaptists. Is it possible that these
difficulties should not have arisen in the primitive churches, if they contained
infant members? How is it to be explained that the Spirit of inspiration, so
full of light and love, left the churches in utter ignorance on questions so
vitally affecting their interests?

All these difficulties are obviated and all these questions are explained by a
spiritual church membership. The primitive churches were composed of believers,
and of believers only, and all the facts recorded in the inspired history and
all the instructions in the inspired epistles are in perfect harmony with this
fundamental principle of church organization.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 01.01.02.     PART 1 CHAPTER 02 BAPTISM A CONDITION OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 1-CHAPTER 2.

Baptism A Condition Of Church Membership

Baptism is a Christian ordinance. It originated in the wisdom, goodness, and
authority of God. John was divinely commissioned to baptize (John 1:3). Jesus
honored the ordinance of baptism by receiving it at the hands of John (Mat
3:16-17). When Jesus entered on his public ministry, he continued the
administration of baptism, through the agency of his disciples (John 4:2-3). The
ordinance occupies an important place in the great commission which Jesus, after
his resurrection, gave to the apostles for evangelizing the world (Mat
28:19-20). No man can intelligently and candidly read the New Testament without
perceiving that baptism is of solemn import, and designed to exert a momentous
influence in the kingdom of Christ.

It has been already shown that the first church was organized in the city of
Jerusalem, after the ascension of Jesus, and was composed entirely of believers.
This church was formed exclusively of Jews. No Gentile was admitted, or could
have been admitted for some years after its constitution, to a participation of
its privileges. The Jews were not received into it in virtue of their descent
from Abraham, or their interest in the covenant that God made with him, or their
circumcision, or their good standing in the hierarchy. Still more, they were not
admitted into it simply because of their repentance, faith, and regeneration.
Peter, standing in the midst of the great Pentecostal assembly, with a cloven
tongue of fire upon him, to symbolize his plenary inspiration, said: "Repent and
be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins" (Acts 2:38). Repentance was an indispensable duty-it implied faith. and,
the, new birth-a great moral change; but it was not enough to secure a
participation in the privileges of the church then in the process of formation.
It was a visible body, and a divinely prescribed outward act, in confession of
repentance, faith, and the remission of sins, through the name of Jesus Christ,
was an essential condition of a formal union with it. To this inspired order the
converts all conformed. "Then they that gladly received" Peter’s "word were
baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand
souls" (Acts 2:41). There is no misconceiving the meaning of this language. The
converts were baptized before they entered the church. Of the multitudes, on
that day of excitement and of wonders, not one was added to the church without
baptism.

We must notice briefly the significance of this transaction. Jesus, after he was
risen from the dead, remained forty days with his apostles, "speaking of those
things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:2). We cannot doubt that his
instructions were comprehensive and minute. The apostles were liable, however,
to misunderstand or forget his teaching; but, to preserve them from the
possibility of error, they were commanded to remain until they "should be endued
with power from on high;" that is, receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Luk
24:49; Acts 1:5). Are we not bound to believe that the Apostles, on the day of
Pentecost, having been "endued with power from on high," said and did just what
was according to the will of Christ, and designed to be for the guidance of his
disciples in all ages? What they required of the Jews on the day of Pentecost.
In order to admission into the church, was required of them at all places, at
all times, and under all circumstances, for the same purpose.

If baptism was demanded of the Jews as a prerequisite of church membership, we
may reasonably conclude that the Gentiles were not admitted to the privilege
except on the same condition. The Jews, as some Pedobaptists maintain, were
already members of the church, and had received the rite of circumcision, for
which baptism is merely a substitute; and yet the Jews-even rulers of the Jews,
and priests, though they had been circumcised and were devout-could not be
admitted into the church at Jerusalem, or into any other church, without
baptism. Certainly, then, the heathen, ignorant of God and his worship, were not
received into the churches without this divinely appointed, public, solemn, and
impressive acknowledgment of the authority of Christ and the enjoyment of the
remission of sins through his blood.

We are not, however, left to any uncertain inference on this momentous subject.
We have definite scriptural information concerning it. Peter, instructed by a
vision from heaven, went from Joppa to Caesarea, where he found Cornelius, a
Roman officer and a Gentile, who had been directed by a holy angel to assemble
"his kinsmen and near friends," all Gentiles, to hear the words of the apostle.
Peter preached the gospel to them; and while he was speaking, "the Holy Spirit
fell on all them that heard the word." It was a renewal of the wonders of the
day of Pentecost. The Christian Jews accompanying Peter were astonished at this
effusion of the Holy Ghost on the Gentiles. They had not anticipated such a
display of divine grace on behalf of the heathen. The miracle, however, was
undeniable, and Peter, guided by the Spirit of inspiration, promptly saw and
admitted all its consequences. He did not say: God has received these Gentiles,
and they may dispense with baptism; they have received the baptism of the Holy
Ghost, and water baptism can do them no good; as God has accepted them, the
church also is hound to accept them. No; the events of the Pentecostal
reformation had not faded from his memory. He recollected the divine order
concerning’ the Jews, and, seeing that it was applicable to the Gentiles, said:
"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have
received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Their baptism was not a matter of
choice, or taste, or convenience, but a solemn duty. "He commanded them to be
baptized in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:24-48).

There can be no good reason to suppose that, as these first Gentile converts
were baptized under the immediate direction of the Holy Spirit, preparatory to
church membership, other Gentiles were admitted into the churches without
baptism. There surely can be no solid reason furnished why the ordinance, which
was obligatory on the first and most favored converts from heathenism, is not
the duty of all Gentile believers. The apostolic churches, so far as we have
definite information of their constituency, were all composed of baptized
believers. Paul, writing to the saints at Rome, and classing himself among them,
said: "We are buried with him (Christ) by baptism into death" (Rom 6:4). Paul
preached the gospel in Corinth, and "many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed
and were baptized" (Acts 18:8). These baptized believers doubtless constituted
the church in that city. Writing to them afterwards, and reproving them for
their divisions, he inquired, "Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" He takes
it for granted as well that they had been baptized as that they had not been
baptized in the name of Paul. He had baptized Crispus and Galus and the
household of Stephanas; but there is no cause to conclude that, as these members
were baptized by the apostle, other members were left without the ordinance (1Co
1:13-16). Moreover, Paul, in writing to the church in Corinth, after enumerating
the gross vices prevalent among the Gentiles, says: "And such were some of you;
but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of
the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1Co 6:11). In this passage,
"washed" is generally supposed by commentators to mean "baptized"; and, indeed,
as distinguished from "sanctified" and "justified," we do not see what else it
can mean. We may fairly conclude, then, that the church in the city of Corinth
was composed exclusively of baptized persons. Lydia and her household, and the
jailer and his family, who constituted the nucleus of the church at Philippi,
were all baptized; and there is no ground to conclude that the other members of
the church did not submit to the ordinance (Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33). To the
church in Colosse the apostle wrote: "Ye are…buried with him (Christ) in
baptism" (Col 2:12). As both Jews and Gentiles were admitted into the church by
baptism, as several of the churches we know were composed wholly of baptized
members, and as all the churches were under the same Lord and the same law, it
is clear that baptism was a condition of membership in the primitive churches.

Baptism is not essential, to salvation, but is in many cases essential to
obedience, and obedience is essential to salvation. "The Pharisees and lawyers
rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not being baptized with the
baptism of John" (Luk 6:30). Those who reject the counsel of God cannot be wise
or in safety, and the apostolic baptism is not less the counsel of God than was
that of John (John 15:14). Christ has made it obligatory on all who would enter
his church, and that is enough to control the conduct of those who love him.

We have perhaps, unnecessarily extended this argument. No evidence, or semblance
of evidence, can be furnished from the Scriptures that any person was ever
received into an apostolic church without baptism, indeed, there is no point
concerning which Christians of all denominations and parties are more united
than in maintaining the necessity of baptism to church membership. There is no
large and settled church or sect that does not make baptism a condition of
admission to its privileges.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 01.01.03.     PART 1 CHAPTER 03 BELIEVERS THE ONLY SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 1-CHAPTER 3.

Believers the Only Subjects of Baptism.

If, as we have shown, the churches of Christ were composed exclusively of
believers who had been voluntarily baptized, we may reasonably expect to find
the ordinance restricted to believers. Our knowledge on the subject must be
derived wholly from the New Testament. As the rite is peculiar to the new
dispensation, the Scriptures of the Old Testament contain no allusion to it. Let
us come, then, to the common version of the New Testament, and examine it
honestly and carefully, that we may learn what it teaches concerning the
subjects of baptism. That the baptism of John was restricted to the penitent is,
so far as we know, unquestioned. "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach
the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." In our opinion, the
differences between the baptism of John and that of the apostles, after the
ascension of Jesus, were circumstantial, and not fundamental. The discussion of
this question, however, would lead us too far from our purpose, and it is not
necessary for its accomplishment. We have introduced the subject to make a
single remark. If John’s baptism and the baptism of Christ’s disciples, before
his crucifixion, were limited to penitent believers, and the apostolic baptism,
after his resurrection from the dead, was extended to the unconverted children
of baptized believers, is it not strange and inexplicable that so radical a
change should have taken place in the administration of the ordinance without
any distinct mention of it, or even a slight reference to it? If there was no
such change, the omission is easily understood.

Baptism is a positive or legal institution. It is of no obligation except from
the divine will, and as that will is revealed to us. The question concerning it
should be-not, What thinkest thou? but, How readest thou? It is what God wills
it to be-nothing more and nothing less. Let us turn, then, to the law of
Christian baptism? (Mat 28:19-20): "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." All
positive laws must be strictly construed. The command to make disciples and
baptize them differs widely from the command to baptize persons and then make
disciples of them. How did the apostles understand their grand commission?
"Teach all nations, baptizing them"-not nations in the gross, good, bad, and
indifferent, but the taught, disciples; "teaching them"-the baptized
disciples-"to observe all things," &c. This was the plain construction of the
language. How would the training of the apostles lead them to understand it?
They were not ignorant on the subject of baptism. They had attended on the
ministrations of John and seen that his baptisms were limited penitents, who
brought forth the fruits of repentance. Some of them certainly, probably all of
them, had received baptism at his hands (John 1:37; John 1:40). They and their
fellow-laborers had baptized more disciples than John. They knew nothing of any
baptism except the baptism of disciples. How is it possible, then, that they
should have understood their commission except in its plain sense? it changed
the formula, but not the subjects of the rite! The interpretation which the
apostles put on the language of their commission we may learn clearly and
certainly from their practice. They proceeded, in a few days, under the
infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, to the execution of their sacred trust.
On the day of Pentecost-the most memorable day in the history of Christian
churches-only those were baptized who "gladly received his (Peter’s) word"; that
is, who heartily embraced the gospel (Acts 2:41). In every subsequent account of
the administration of baptism (except in the cases of household baptisms, which
will receive timely consideration), it is clear that the rite was limited to
believers. Philip was the first evangelist who carried the Gospel beyond the
limits of Judea. He went down to Samaria and preached Christ with great success.
"The people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake."
"There was great joy in that city" Now surely we shall learn how the Apostles
and their fellow-disciples understood the law of baptism. The evangelist
followed the example of the pentecostian laborers. "When they (the Samaritans)
believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name
of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women" (Acts 8:12).

It is not necessary to mention at length the baptism of the Ethiopian treasurer
(Acts 8:36-38), of Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:18), of Cornelius and his friends, the
first Gentile converts (Acts 10:47), and the Corinthians (Acts 18:8), who,
according to the terms of the commission and the practice of the apostles,
before and after the resurrection of Jesus, were all baptized after they were
made disciples.

We will close this argument with the statement of an interesting event
illustrative of it. Rev. Luther Rice was one of the most clear-headed men that
we have ever known. He was sent by the Congregationalists as a missionary to
India. It was his lot to make the voyage in company with two English Baptist
missionaries. With one of them, a man of some learning and acuteness, he
frequently discussed the subject of baptism. Rice found no difficulty in
replying to his arguments, and took great pleasure in perplexing him by
questions. One evening, at the close of a protracted discussion, the other
Baptist missionary, a plain, sensible man, who had listened silently to the
debate, said: "If a man had never heard of infant baptism, he might read through
the New Testament without ever thinking of it." Rice hastily thought of the
Scriptures relating to baptism, but felt a little disconcerted at his inability
to remember a text that certainly had reference to the practice. The remark
haunted him. He resolved to examine the Scriptures more carefully on the
subject. The more he searched them, the more painfully he was convinced of their
silence concerning infant baptism. He had no doubt but that they taught it; but
just where or how he could not perceive. He had great confidence in the learning
and astuteness of Judson, who had preceded him in the voyage to India. He
resolved to postpone the investigation of the subject until he could have the
aid of his able fellow-missionary. On reaching his destination and meeting
Judson, he proceeded at length and very carefully to state his difficulties
regarding infant baptism. Judson, having heard him patiently, quietly replied
that his objections were unanswerable. Rice was confounded at the concession,
and greatly grieved to find that .Judson was on the point of being immersed on a
profession of his faith.

Rice resolved at once to dismiss the subject from his mind. He had been sent out
by the Congregationalists, and was dependent on them for support. His defection
would hinder the success of the mission, or might even destroy it. Whatever
might be true in regard to baptism, it would be unwise to pursue a course
fraught with so many evil consequences. Thus he reasoned; but his conscience was
truer than his head. Meditation and prayer brought him to the conclusion that it
is better to please God than men, and that the way to be useful is to do right.
So soon as he was willing to follow the convictions of his conscience, his
doubts and difficulties were all dissipated. The path of duty was straight and
plain before him. He was baptized, returned to the United States, awakened the
Baptist denomination on the subject of missions and of education, and
contributed more than any man, dead or living, to their prosperity, growth,
influence, and usefulness.

Let us not lose sight of the argument in our interest in the story. If infant
baptism is a divine ordinance, it is obligatory on all Christian parents. The
Scriptures were written for their instruction in righteousness. Is it not
strange that they should contain no clear information concerning the rite? The
duty of the Israelitish parents to circumcise their children, and of all
believers to be baptized, is plain enough-a child may see it written as with a
sunbeam; but the duty of parents to have their children baptized can be found
only by diligent search and ingenious interpretations of Scripture, and
multitudes cannot find it at all.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 01.01.04.     PART 1 CHAPTER 04 BELIEVERS THE ONLY SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 1-CHAPTER 4.

Believers the Only Subjects of Baptism.

Pedobaptists are not agreed as to the reasons for baptizing infants. Some
baptize them because they are holy and worthy to receive it, and others because
they are sinful and need its influence. Some derive their right to the ordinance
from household baptisms, and others from the Abrahamic covenant and
circumcision. Many, admitting that it is not of divine authority, practice it
because it is a beautiful, appropriate, and useful ceremony. We must notice some
of these pleas for the rite.

Before entering on an examination of the baptized households, we must offer a
few general remarks. First, then, all families do not contain children, and
particularly young children. In every neighborhood, houses may be found in which
there are no infants. To base a positive Christian institution on the
possibility or probability-for certainty there cannot be-that there were little
children in the three or four families of whose baptism we read in the
Scriptures, and that these children were baptized, is quite adventurous. Statute
law is specific and positive, not inferential, and surely leaves no place fur
conjecture. Moreover, families are frequently spoken of in distinction from
infants or without regard to them. If it is affirmed that a man has an
intelligent or a pious family, nobody concludes that he has no infants in his
household, or that they are intelligent or pious. The remark is naturally and
universally supposed to refer to that part of the family of whom intelligence or
piety may be reasonably predicated. The person who should infer from the
statement that the family contained infants, and that they were distinguished
for their knowledge or godliness, would prove himself to be a sophist, or
something more unfortunate.

How would the baptism of households be understood by the primitive Christians?
The command was to baptize disciples, and all the early baptisms, if household
baptisms be excepted, were in harmony with the command. How natural, then, was
it for them to understand by household baptisms the baptism of such members of
the families as were capable of complying with the prescribed conditions of the
ordinance-such as had been instructed, and, under the influence of instruction,
had repented and believed the gospel. They could hardly have imagined that these
baptisms set aside the divine law of baptism and disregarded the example of the
apostles, given under circumstances of so great solemnity in Jerusalem and
Caesarea. Surely nothing short of inspired testimony could have convinced them
that household baptisms differed so widely from baptisms administered by the
apostles under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, and on occasions of
the most profound interest.

Let us now examine the household baptisms in detail, that we may see what light
they shed on infant baptism. We have an account of the baptism of four
households in the New Testament-those of Cornelius, Stephanas, the Jailer, and
Lydia. We will notice them in the order in which we have named them. The baptism
of the family of Cornelius, the Roman centurion, is not definitely mentioned;
but the fact is unquestionable. By divine direction, lie sent to Joppa for
Peter, to learn what he ought to do. Cornelius waited for the apostle in
Caesarea, and "called together his kinsmen and near friends" to hear him. Peter
preached to them the gospel. It was the first sermon delivered to the Gentiles,
and God accompanied it with an extraordinary demonstration of his favor. "The
Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word," and they spake "with tongues
and did magnify God;" and the apostle "commanded them to be baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus." That the family of Cornelius were all included among the
converts, there is no ground to question. They would surely have been called
with his other kindred to hear so important a message, under circumstances of
such thrilling interest; especially as we are informed that the centurion
"feared God, with all his house." This household baptism offers no support to
infant baptism, but is in perfect harmony with the law of baptism and the
apostolic practice on the day of Pentecost. Cornelius was the head of a family
that reverenced the true God, heard the gospel, received the gift of the Holy
Ghost, glorified God, and were baptized in the name of Jesus. We are decidedly
in favor of the baptism of all such households (Acts 10:2; Acts 10:24; Acts
10:44; Acts 10:46-48).

"I baptized," said Paul, "the household of Stephanas" (1Co 1:16). The apostle
visited Corinth about A. D. 54 or 55, where he remained "a year and six months,
teaching the word of God among them" (Acts 18:11). During this time, he baptized
Stephanas and his family. In the year A. D. 59, or thereabouts, he wrote his
first letter to "the church of God" in that city. In the epistle he makes
special reference to the house of Stephanas. "I beseech you, brethren," said he,
"(ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and
that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) that ye
submit yourselves unto such," &c. (1Co 16:15-16). Several points are worthy of
notice in this text. The family of Stephanas were "the first fruits of Achaia."
This term is applied to the regenerate. "Of his own will begat he us with the
word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures" (Jas
1:18. See, also, Rev 14:4). The word is never used, so far as we know, to denote
unconscious or unregenerate infants. This family, in four or five years after
their baptism, devoted "themselves to the ministry of the saints," whether in
preaching the word or supplying the wants of the poor, we do not know. It was a
benevolent, noble service, commended by the Spirit of inspiration. If they were
infants baptized by Paul, four or five years previously, they were the most
precocious children that we have read of. Nor is this all. The apostle besought
the Corinthian saints, renowned throughout the world for their spiritual gifts
(1Co 1:7), to "submit" themselves "unto such" as "the house of Stephanas." They
were not only the benefactors of the church, but fitted to bear rule in it. They
were not infants, not children; nor were they at the time of their baptism. It
ought in fairness to be conceded that the baptism of the house of Stephanas
yields no support to infant baptism, but lends its full weight to the exclusive
baptism of believers.

We must now notice the baptism of the household of the Philippian jailer,
recorded in Acts 16:24-34. Paul, divinely guided, passed for the first time into
Europe, and commenced his ministrations at a Roman post called Philippi. Here
several persons were converted and baptized, and a great persecution was
commenced against Paul and Silas. They were arrested, scourged, and committed to
the hands of the jailer, under strict charge to keep them safely. He cast them
into the dungeon and made their feet fast in the stocks. They were delivered
from their bondage by divine interposition, and the jailer was saved from
suicide by the friendly counsel of Paul. We shall notice the narrative only so
far as it relates to the point under discussion. The jailer brought Paul and
Silas into his house, and "they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all
that were in his house" (Acts 16:32). We might infer, from the excitement and
importance of the occasion, that all the jailer’s family were present; but there
is no room left for conjecture. The historian tells us positively that the word
was preached "to all that were in the house." What was the result of this
instruction? The jailer, in the "same hour of the night, . . . was baptized, he
and all his, straightway" (Acts 16:33). That there might be no possible plea for
infant baptism found in this narrative, the inspired writer adds: "He (the
jailer) brought them (Paul and Silas) into his house, . . . and rejoiced,
believing in God, with all his house" (Acts 16:34). It is incomprehensible to us
that any man of intelligence and candor should doubt that the jailer’s family
were converts to Christianity. There is precisely the same evidence of their
conversion that there is of his. Did he hear the word of the Lord? So did they.
Did he believe in Christ? So did they. Was he baptized? So were they. The whole
narrative corresponds with the apostolic commission and practice in Jerusalem
and Caesarea. The order observed was instruction, faith, baptism. The ingenious
reasoner who can derive authority for infant baptism from this narrative can
find it anywhere.

Only the baptism of Lydia’s household remains to be considered (Acts 16:14-15):
"A certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which
worshipped God, heard us; whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto
the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her
household," &c. Were there infants in Lydia’s family? The burden of proof lies
on the advocates of pedobaptism, who would derive authority for their practice
from this passage. We have shown incontrovertibly, as it seems to us, that in
three baptized households there were no children, or that they were not included
among the baptized. Does not this fact create a strong presumption that there
were none in Lydia’s house? We will perform, however, a work of supererogation.
While we cannot positively prove that Lydia had no infant children, we can show
the extreme improbability that she had any. She was a dealer in purple goods, of
the city of Thyatira, in the province of Asia, several hundred miles distant
from Philippi. She was probably an adventurer, with no permanent home. She, it
is likely, had no husband. She said to Paul and Silas, "Come into my house and
abide." If she had a husband, he seems to have been of no importance in the
family. If she were married, there is no proof that she had children; and if she
had children, there is no evidence that they were infants or minors. Her family
probably consisted of the servants and helpers in her mercantile shop. When Paul
and Silas were released from prison, and forced hastily to leave the city, they
"entered into the house of Lydia; and when they had seen the brethren, they
comforted them and departed" (Acts 16:40). Who were these brethren in Lydia’s
house? They were not infants or young children, but persons capable of receiving
religious consolation and encouragement. If there were nothing to bias the mind,
it would be almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that the brethren referred
to were Lydia’s baptized household. If infant baptism has no better foundation
than the probability that there were infants in the family of Lydia, and that
they were baptized, it ought to be abandoned.

Let us test the strength of the argument drawn from the baptism of households in
support of infant baptism by a parallel case. There were believing as well as
baptized households. Of the nobleman of Cana it is said: "Himself believed, and
his whole house" (John 4:53). We read: "Crispus the chief ruler of the
synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his house" (Acts 18:8). What would we
think of the acumen of a logician who should reason after this manner: We read
in the Scriptures of believing families; infants are found in most families;
therefore, in the apostolic times, infants believed the gospel. The conclusion
is a manifest absurdity, and consequently nobody reasons in that way; but the
argument is quite as logical and the inference quite as conclusive as that which
attempts to deduce infant baptism from the baptism of households. The argument
in favor of infant baptism derived from household baptisms proves quite too much
for those who employ it. If families are to be baptized on the faith of their
parents, why should the baptisms be limited to infants? Are not adult children,
as well as servants, as often found in families as infants? If families are to
he baptized, why not baptize the whole of them? By what authority the ordinance
limited to infants and little children? The jailer "was baptized-he and all
his." If family connection is a plea for baptism, why should it not avail for
adults as well as infants?

Perhaps it will be said that faith is required of adults, in order to their
baptism. Certainly it is, of those who act on their own responsibility; but
households, according to the Pedobaptist theory, are baptized on the faith and
by the authority of the parents. If households are to be baptized in virtue of
their relation to their pious heads, why should any portion of the family be
excluded from the privilege? The Israelites were required to circumcise all the
males in their families, free and bond, at the age of eight days; but if, from
any cause, the rite was neglected, it was proper to perform it at any period of
life (Gen 17:13; Jos 5:8). Circumcision was a family institution, and all its
male members were entitled to its benefits. Baptism is supposed by the advocates
of the infant rite to be a substitute for circumcision. By what plea, then, do
they limit the baptism of households to the baptism of infants? That is not
household baptism. It is the baptism of a part, usually a small part, and that,
too, the least important part, of the family; and the discrimination, so far as
we can discern, is arbitrarily made.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 01.01.05.     PART 1 CHAPTER 05 BELIEVERS THE ONLY SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 1-CHAPTER 5.

Believers the Only Subjects of Baptism. A popular argument in support of infant
baptism is drawn from the Abrahamic covenant and the rite of circumcision. It is
said: God entered into covenant with Abraham, and required him to have his male
children circumcised as a sign or token of the covenant; that it is still in
force; that baptism, under the new dispensation, is the sign of the covenant, as
circumcision formerly was; that the sign should be applied to the children of
believers, as circumcision was applied to Abraham and his descendants; and that
baptism should be administered to female as well as male children, because the
ordinance is suited to both sexes.

Let us examine this subject. When Abram was ninety years old, God entered into a
covenant with him. Among its provisions, on God’s part, Abraham was to have a
numerous progeny-to be "a father of many nations;" kings were to come of him;
the covenant was to be established with his seed, to be "an everlasting
covenant;" the land of Canaan, in which he was a stranger, was to be given to
him and to his seed "for an everlasting possession," and that God would be their
God. Abram-whose name was then changed to Abraham-was, on his part, bound to
walk before God and be perfect, and, in token of the covenant, to circumcise
every male child, eight days old, born in his house or bought with his money
(Gen 17:1-14). This sign or seal was to be perpetuated in the family of Abraham.
It was a visible, enduring mark in the flesh, testifying what God had promised
to the patriarch, and what he required of him and his posterity. Is baptism a
token of this covenant? Does it certify that Abraham should have a numerous
progeny? that kings should descend from him? that his posterity should possess
the land of Canaan? If we did not know that pious and intelligent men have
insisted that baptism is a token of this covenant, we should suppose that the
opinion did not come within the range of human credulity.

Let us consider this matter further, Moses incorporated circumcision among the
statutes that he gave to Israel (Lev 12:3). The rite has been observed by the
descendants of Israel, in the line of Judah-that is, the Jews-down to the
present time. it is maintained by them as a family distinction, and a token that
they worship the God of Abraham. Is baptism a substitute for this family or
national rite? The Scriptures give us no intimation of the substitution. No Jew
was admitted to Christian privileges in virtue of his circumcision. There are
great and irreconcilable differences between circumcision and baptism. Their
subjects are different. Circumcision was administered only to the male
descendants of Abraham and to the male slaves born in their families or bought
with their money; baptism was administered to penitent believers, of all nations
and of both sexes. The time of their administration differed. Circumcision was
administered to infants, by express command, when eight days old; baptism was
administered to its subjects at any age and when convenience permitted (Acts
8:36; Acts 8:38). Circumcision was administered, not officially by priests, but
by parents or masters; baptism was administered, not by parents, but by apostles
or ministers of the gospel. No moral quality was required in order to
circumcision (Jos 5:1-2); repentance and faith were the invariable prerequisites
of baptism (Mat 3:7; Mat 3:9). The design of the two rites was entirely
different. Circumcision was a token in the flesh of the covenant in which God
promised to Abraham and his posterity both temporal and spiritual blessings, on
condition of their devotion to his service; baptism is a symbol of the
resurrection of Christ and of the remission of sins (Rom 6:4; Acts 22:16). In
short, circumcision belonged to the ceremonial dispensation, and passed away
with its various sacrifices and bloody rites; and baptism is a gospel ordinance,
to be perpetuated to the end of time (Mat 28:19-20). That there may be
resemblances traced between circumcision and baptism, need not be denied. There
are not two things in nature which do not bear a likeness to each other. There
are no two rites in all the systems of religion,, true or false, which do not
have a resemblance to each other. But what of that? Water and fire resemble each
other; but one cannot be substituted for the other. Various resemblances may be
pointed out between circumcision and baptism; but the latter differs so widely
from the former in all its essential characteristics that, to infer the subjects
of baptism from those of circumcision, is illogical and fallacious. The onus
probandi lies on those who affirm that baptism is a substitute for circumcision.
We are not required to prove a negative. We will, however, in this case, come as
near to doing it as possible to miss it. No subject caused the early churches so
much perplexity and trouble as the introduction of Gentile converts into them
without circumcision. The Jewish Christians were very zealous in support of the
rite. They had received it from the fathers, it was incorporated among their
national ceremonies, and was held in the highest estimation by all the
Israelites. The introduction of Gentiles into the churches without this sacred
and venerated rite seemed to these Jewish Christians to be a desecration and an
cutrage. They taught that, except men were circumcised after the manner of
Moses, they could not be saved. Repentance, faith, baptism, holy lives, could
avail them nothing, without circumcision. There was dissension and disputation
among the brethren on this subject. A council was called in the city of
Jerusalem to consider the matter and give their opinion concerning it, for the
guidance of the churches. The convention consisted of the apostles, and elders,
and the whole church. The believing Pharisees maintained "that it was needful to
circumcise" the Gentile converts, "and to command them to keep the law of
Moses." The subject underwent a full discussion, in which Peter (the apostle,
not Pope), Barnabas, Paul, and James participated. The council reached the
conclusion that circumcision was not obligatory on Gentile believers. It was a
burden which God had not laid upon them. The discussion and the decision of the
council contained not the slightest reference to the substitution of baptism for
circumcision. We will not affirm that, admitting the substitution was divinely
required, it was impossible that the discussion should have occurred without an
allusion to it. We know not the limit of possibilities. We will, however, say
that, under the circumstances, it seems to us extremely improbable, conceding
the divine authority of the substitution, that it was not mentioned as an
important element in the settlement of the matter. Consider the facts of the
case. The question was whether it was necessary to circumcise the Gentile
converts. They had been baptized, and, if baptism was a substitute for
circumcision, they had been virtually circumcised. This explanation would have
satisfied the Gentiles, and, at least, have silenced the Pharisees. Indeed, it
was absolutely necessary to an understanding of the matter in debate. is it
reasonable to suppose, does it come within the scope of credibility, that Peter
and Barnabas, Paul and James, should have publicly discussed this perplexing
subject without the slightest reference to the principle that would have freed
it from all difficulty? We do not believe that they did. The matter is all plain
when we suppose that the council, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, knew
nothing of the substitution of baptism for circumcision. They could not have
learned it from the Scriptures, and, if they learned it from direct inspiration,
they failed to record it for the benefit of future generations.

Several passages of Scripture have been quoted in support of infant baptism,
which we need not examine. A careful attention to their contexts will show their
irrelevancy to the subject; or an examination of the comments of candid and
learned Pedobaptists will usually disclose the same truth. These texts do not
mention infant baptism, or refer to it, or reveal any principle which can
logically lead to it.

Infant baptism seems to be a harmless rite. It appeals strongly to parental
affection, is invested with poetic charms, and refers for its support to a
venerable antiquity, and to the number, learning, and respectability of its
advocates. What harm, it is asked, can a rite so simple, appropriate, and
beautiful do to the child or its parents? The influence of pedobaptism, in this
country, has been greatly modified by the prevalence of Baptist views. in many
places and some religious sects it has fallen greatly into desuetude. If the
rite is not neglected, it is observed as an empty ceremony. It has no
regenerating and no sin-cleansing efficacy. In four-fifths of the Christian
world, however, infant baptism is viewed in a very different light. It is held
and practiced as a regenerating, sin-purifying ordinance. This doctrine is
taught without equivocation and without reservation. Infants, born in sin, are
supposed to be renewed in nature and delivered from guilt by the application of
a few drops of water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, by a duly
qualified priest, or, in cases of necessity, by parents, physicians, or nurses.
The regenerated child is made a member of the mystical body of Christ and an
inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. He grows up in the church. His membership is
perpetuated by the rite of confirmation. To this system we have grave and
weighty objections. It finds no countenance in the oracles of God. We read,
indeed, in a book containing many excellent truths and precepts, that by baptism
infants are regenerated, made members of the mystical body of Christ, and
inheritors of the kingdom of heaven; but we find no such teaching in the
Scriptures. The tendency of this doctrine has been, in all ages and in all
countries, to obliterate the distinction between the church and the world. In
almost every land where pedobaptism has enjoyed uncontrolled sway, the limits of
the church and the world have been coextensive. All the infidelity, corruption,
and blasphemy of the people have been within the church. Its discipline has been
overthrown, or exercised only in regard to those who have questioned its
authority. The Romish and Grecian hierarchies, wherever they have been
established, have confirmed these statements; and Protestant hierarchies, though
restrained by the influence of dissent in their tendency, have quite clearly
exemplified the same remarks. The influence of the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration is even worse on individuals than on communities. Persons who grow
up under the persuasion that they are regenerated, children of God, and
inheritors of his kingdom, are laboring under a perilous delusion. They
misconceive the plan of human redemption. They cherish a hope that neither
Scripture nor reason can sanction. They vainly imagine that they have some claim
to divine mercy, some advantages for securing salvation, that others have not.
Will not this persuasion inevitably beget a false peace, inspire a deceptive
hope, and tend to prevent repentance unto life? Parents, too, must have less
solicitude for the salvation of their children, as they have been placed within
the limit of the covenant and made heirs of the heavenly kingdom.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 01.01.06.     PART 1 CHAPTER 06 ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 1-CHAPTER 6.

Only Immersion is Baptism. The inspired writers use only one term, with its
derivatives, to denote the act required by the ordinance under consideration.
That word, it has been elsewhere stated, as expressed in Roman letters and
changed in form to suit the English idiom, is baptize. What does it mean?

Some writers maintain, and multitudes of people believe, that baptize signifies
equally to sprinkle, to pour, or to immerse. We will not affirm that a word
might not be employed with a meaning so comprehensive and yet so indefinite. We
have no knowledge of any such term. There is certainly no such word in the
English tongue. If there is any such term in any language, modern or ancient, it
has not come to our knowledge. We do not perceive what use could be made of so
vague a word. Sprinkling, pouring, and immersing are entirely distinct acts, and
are never confounded in human conception. Terms to express these different acts
are needed in the intercourse of society, and are found, we doubt not, in all
languages; but a word denoting them all would not only be a nondescript, but
tend merely to confuse or mislead. If baptize means sprinkle or pour, it does
not mean immerse.

Other persons insist that baptize signifies neither sprinkle, pour, nor immerse,
but wash or cleanse; that it denotes an effect, not an act. This definition will
be found to be utterly irreconcilable with the inspired use of the term.

We maintain that baptize means immerse or dip, and that, like these terms,
though it may be used in a figurative sense, it invariably has reference to its
primary import. To learn the meaning of the word, let us go, not to lexicons,
but to the common version of the Scriptures. We decline an appeal to lexicons,
not because we have any dread of the result, but because we wish to present an
argument in support of our views that may be fully understood and appreciated by
every intelligent reader of the Scriptures.

It must be borne in mind that the translators of the English version were
Pedobaptists, and, either from the order of King James or their own views of
propriety, failed to translate the Greek term baptizo, with its cognates, used
in the Scriptures to denote the act required by the ordinance.

We must, therefore, learn its meaning from its various connections in the New
Testament. We may infer the import of baptism from the places of its
administration. John, having received his commission to baptize from heaven,
commenced preaching "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins"; and
"then went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were
all baptized of him in the river Jordan" (Mark 1:5). No intelligent person,
reading this passage with an unbiased mind; would have any doubt that these
multitudes were immersed in the river. To suppose that they went into the stream
merely to have water sprinkled or poured upon them, is, in our view, a puerility
undeserving a reply.

Read again: "John was baptizing in Ænon, near to Salim, because there was much
water there; and they came and were baptized" (John 3:23). The necessity of
"much water" for the purpose of immersing is quite plain; but it was not needed
for sprinkling or pouring. It is said, however, by the advocates of sprinkling,
that great multitudes attended the ministry of John, and that "much water" was
needed to quench their thirst and that of their beasts. This is not what the
evangelist says. His words are, not that John was preaching or encamped at Ænon,
because there was "much water" there, but that "John was baptizing in Ænon,
because there was much water there." If language can make anything clear, it is
plain that John baptized in Ænon on account of its furnishing an ample supply of
water for the purpose.

It is sometimes said that these passages refer to John’s baptism, and not to
Christian baptism. This is true; but we are simply inquiring for the meaning of
the word baptize. The thing which John did, Christ commanded his apostles to do.
If he immersed, they immersed. It can hardly be supposed that the meaning of the
word "baptize" was changed in the short period from the commencement of John’s
ministry to the beginning of the apostolic ministry. The baptism of the jailer
and his family, at Philippi, is supposed by some to furnish proof that the rite
was administered by sprinkling or pouring. He was baptized, it is said, in the
prison, at night, without previous preparation for the administration of the
ordinance, and it is not probable that there was any convenience in the jail for
immersion. This argument cannot rise above probability. There might have been
ample means for immersion. If the word "baptize" means immerse, there is nothing
in this case to create the slightest doubt that the jailer and his family were
immersed. On the contrary, the recorded facts furnish strong probability in
favor of their immersion. The jailer, alarmed by an earthquake, brought Paul and
Silas "out"-doubtless out of the "inner prison"-and inquired for the way of
salvation. -‘And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were
in his house." This teaching clearly occurred in the jailer’s house-probably a
portion of the prison set apart for his occupancy. In the same horn- or the
night, he "was baptized, he and all his, straight-way." Now, notice, after the
baptism, he "brought them into his house." Why had they left it? If the baptism
had been sprinkling or pouring, there would have been no need for going out of
it. Immersion, in all probability, rendered it necessary to leave the jailer’s
house, and, the ordinance having been administered, the company very naturally
returned to the house for refreshments (Acts 16:25-34). The meaning or the word
"baptize" is clearly indicated by the import of the prepositions used in
connection with it. Notice the following passages: "Baptized in Jordan"- Mat
3:6; "Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water"- Mat
3:16; "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," &c. The prepositions
used in these texts are in perfect harmony with the practice of immersion, but
are utterly discordant with that of sprinkling or pouring. The unbiased mind, in
reading these passages, would never imagine that baptism was anything but
immersion. The attempt has been made to weaken the force of this argument by
appealing to the ambiguity of the Greek prepositions contained in these
Scriptures. That they were used with considerable latitude and indefiniteness
need not be denied. It must be conceded, however, that the best Pedobaptist
scholars have translated the prepositions as we have them in the above passages.
So far as we know. there is not a respectable version of the Scriptures in the
English tongue in which these prepositions are not rendered substantially as in
the common version.

There is, however, in this version a notable exception to the rendering of the
preposition under consideration. We read in Mat 3:11 : "I indeed baptize you
with water unto repentance." This preposition cannot be well construed with
immerse. It would be awkward and bad English to say, "I immerse with water." The
language, "I sprinkle you with water," sounds well; but it would be intolerable
to say, "I pour you with water."

It seems strange that the Greek preposition en, which in Mat 3:6 is rendered
in-"in Jordan"-should in Mat 3:11 be translated with-"with water." Uniformity of
translation is desirable, if not forbidden by the sense of Scripture. In these
passages, there is nothing to prevent a uniform rendering. It would be
incongruous to say "with Jordan;" but it is in perfect harmony and good taste to
translate the passages "in Jordan" and "in water." Dr. George Campbell, of
Edinburgh, a learned Presbyterian divine, and president of Marischal College,
not only translates the passage "in water and in the Holy Ghost," but makes the
following comments on the subject:

"All the modern translations from the Greek which I have seen render the words
as our common version does, except Le Clerc, who says, dans 1’ eau-dans le Saint
Esprit. I am sorry to observe that the Popish translators from the Vulgate have
shown greater veneration for the style of that version than the generality of
Protestant translators have shown for that of the original; for in this the
Latin is not more explicit than the Greek. Yet so inconsistent are the
interpreters last mentioned that none of them have scrupled to render en to
Jordane, in the 6th verse, in Jordan, though nothing can be plainer than that,
if there be any incongruity in the expression in water, this in Jordan must be
equally incongruous. But they have seen that the preposition in could not be
avoided there, without adopting a circumlocution, and saying with the water of
Jordan, which would have made their deviation from the text too glaring. The
word baptizein (baptize), both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to
dip, to plunge, to immerse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the
Latin fathers, lingere; the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion.
It is always construed suitably to this meaning. Thus it is en udati (in water),
en to Jordane (in Jordan). But I should not lay much stress on the preposition
en . . . which may denote with as well as in, did not the whole phraseology in
regard to this ceremony concur in evincing the same thing. . . . When the Greek
word baptizo is adopted, I may say, rather than translated, into modern
languages, the mode of construction ought to be preserved, so far as may conduce
to suggest its original import. It is to be regretted that we have so much
evidence that even good and learned men allow their judgments to be warped by
the sentiments and customs of the sect which they prefer. The true partisan, of
whatever denomination, always inclines to correct the diction of the Spirit by
that of the party."- "The Four Gospels," Boston Edition, Vol. IV., pages 23, 24.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: 01.01.07.     PART 1 CHAPTER 07 ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 1-CHAPTER 7.

Only Immersion is Baptism.

Another proof of our proposition may be derived from the incidental and
figurative references to baptism in the Scriptures. Several of these claim our
notice.

Baptism is a burial. "We are," says Paul, "buried with him (Jesus Christ) by
baptism into death" (Rom 6:4). This language is figurative; but it must have
reference to the import of the word "baptism." There is a resemblance between
immersion and a burial, clear to every intelligent mind. In either case the body
is covered, concealed. A burial by sprinkling is a thing unknown. It would,
indeed, be possible to bury a body by the sprinkling of earth; but how could it
be buried by the sprinkling of water? A conception so unnatural and grotesque
surely never found a lodgment in the brain of the pupil of Gamaliel. A burial by
pouring water is little less wild and improbable; while a burial by washing or
cleansing is a simple absurdity. But, supposing-what Dr. Doddridge says it is
the part of candor to admit-that there is in the language "an allusion to the
manner of baptizing by immersion,, as most usual (universal, as we maintain) in
these early times," the figure is plain, striking, and impressive.

It is asserted by some, in their efforts to weaken the argument drawn from this
text in favor of immersion, that the baptism referred to was not literal, but
spiritual. Our only present use for the text is to prove that baptism is
immersion. It serves our purpose quite as well whether it be interpreted
literally or spiritually. Paul, who was a master of language, and guided by the
Spirit of inspiration, called baptism a burial; which figure is clear,
pertinent, and instructive, if baptism means immersion, but forced, meaningless,
and misleading, if it signifies sprinkling, pouring, or cleansing.

Washing is an effect of baptism. "Arise," said Ananias to Saul of Tarsus, "and
be baptized, and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16). Washing is not an effect of
sprinkling. The conception of washing by sprinkling is unnatural. It may be used
to moisten or soften, but not to wash. Washing may be an effect of pouring; but
the text cannot be construed in harmony with this term. It is an obvious
absurdity to say: "Arise, and be poured, and wash away thy sins." A man can be
poured upon, but only liquids or solids in dust or grains can be poured. The
language, "Arise, and be immersed, and wash away thy sins," is in perfect
harmony with our conceptions of the effect of immersion. We immerse for the
purpose of washing. The removal of filth is the usual consequence of immersion.

Baptism denotes overwhelming distress and suffering. "I have," said Jesus,. "a
baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened (or pained) till it be
accomplished!" (Luk 12:50). It is evident from the context that the Saviour had
reference in this language to his approaching sufferings and death. He calls
them, figuratively, a baptism-an immersion. The figure is natural, common, and
impressive. We speak of overwhelming sufferings, of being drowned in sorrow, and
of being immersed in cares. Everybody perfectly understands the language. Jesus
called his sufferings a baptism because of their severity. The same conception
of sufferings is expressed by the Psalmist in different language: "Then the
waters had overwhelmed us, the stream had gone over our soul; then the proud
waters had gone ever our soul" (Psa 124:4-5). Dr. Campbell, the learned
Pedobaptist already referred to, thus translates the text: "I have an immersion
to undergo; and how am I pained till it be accomplished!" The thought is solemn
and affecting. The Saviour said, in anticipation of his sufferings on the cross:
"I have an immersion to undergo"-I am to be overwhelmed in sorrow and in
sufferings; and I am "pained"-filled with anxiety and grief-till the fearful
trial is over. How tame and unmeaning, not to say incongruous, does the text
become, if it be rendered: "I have a pouring, or sprinkling, or cleansing to
undergo." Who would think of representing the sufferings of the Saviour by
sprinkling a few drops of water on the face., or pouring a cupful of water, on.
the head? To call the sufferings of Christ a washing or cleansing, would be a
grievous offence against taste.

Some writers, to evade the force of this passage in favor of immersion, have
maintained that the Saviour was baptized by his own sweat and blood. His
sufferings are, in several passages of Scripture, described as the shedding of
his blood (Mat 26:28; Heb 9:22). By a common figure of speech, a part is put for
the whole, or the effect for the cause. The shedding of Christ’s blood was a
notable part of his sufferings, and the cause, or one of the causes, of his
death. It would not have been strange, if, in anticipation of his sufferings, he
had described them as a blood-shedding; but to call them a sprinkling or a
pouring has no sanction, so far as we are informed, from analogy, and greatly
weakens and obscures the sense of the passage. How much more in accordance with
its intent and force is the comment of Lange: "To be baptized-An image of the
intensity of his suffering, like a baptism performed by immersion."

Baptism is a covering. "Our fathers . . . were all baptized unto Moses in the
cloud and in the sea" (1Co 10:2). This was not a literal, but a figurative
baptism. There was a resemblance between the passage of the children of Israel
through the Red Sea and immersion. It is plain to every discerning mind. In both
cases there was a covering up, a shutting in. Dr. Whitby, an Episcopalian, who
cannot be suspected of any partiality for Baptist views, describes it: "They
were baptized unto Moses in the cloud; i.e., into the doctrine taught by Moses;
for the cloud was not only for direction but for a covering over them, according
to the words of the Psalmist, ‘He spread out the cloud for a covering’ (Psa
105:29). And in the sea-for theywere covered with the sea on both sides (Exo
14:22). So that both the cloud and the sea had some resemblance to our being
covered with water in baptism. Their going into the sea resembled the ancient
rite of going into the water."

Dr. McKnight, the learned Scotch commentator, though less explicit in his
language than Dr. Whitby, evidently put the same interpretation on the passage.
He says: "In the cloud and in the sea. Because the Israelites, by being hid from
the Egyptians under the cloud, and by passing through the Red Sea, were made to
declare their belief in the Lord and in his servant Moses (Exo 14:31), the
apostle very properly represents them as ‘baptized unto Moses in the cloud and
in the sea.’" This sense of the passage commends itself to the enlightened and
impartial mind. Another interpretation, however, is given to it, in the interest
of sprinkling or pouring. The Israelites, it is maintained, were baptized by the
sprinkling or pouring of water from the cloud, and by spray from the sea. This
exposition demands the change of the common rendering of the Greek preposition
en from in to by-a change which it admits, but which is sanctioned by no
translator within our reach. This change, however, will avail the advocates of
sprinkling but little. The interpretation is inconsistent with the history of
the case. God wrought a miracle to deliver his people from the power of the
Egyptians. "The Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead
them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day
and night" (Exo 13:21). The cloud and fire were a symbol of the divine presence,
designed to cover and guide, and not to sprinkle, the escaping Israelites. Nor
were they moistened by the spray of the sea. "The Lord caused the sea to go back
by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters
were divided" (Exo 14:22). It would certainly have derogated from the
completeness of the miracle and the glory of God, had they reached the eastern
shore of the sea drenched with showers and bedraggled with mud. The miracle was
dishonored by no such imperfection. "The children of Israel walked upon dry land
in the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall unto them on their right
hand and on their left" (Exo 14:29). This was undoubtedly a dry baptism, but a
figurative one. The person who can find sprinkling, pouring, or cleansing in
this baptism will have no difficulty in finding it anywhere. The servant of
James Hervey, the author of "Meditations Among the Tombs," said his master could
make a sermon out of a pair of tongs, and no doubt he could. It does not,
however, require half the ingenuity to make a sermon on a pair of tongs that is
demanded to extract water baptism from the pillar of a cloud and the sea walls
that protected the Israelites in their escape from Egypt.

We will notice a passage, of the class of Scriptures under consideration, relied
on by many in the defence of sprinkling or pouring. "He (Jesus) shall baptize
you with the Holy Ghost and fire" (Mat 3:11). Nothing, beyond a fair
translation, is needed for the understanding of this text. The attentive reader
has already seen that Dr. Campbell not only renders the language "in the Holy
Ghost and fire;" but expresses his surprise that the translators of King James
should have abandoned the ordinary sense of the preposition (en), which they
were compelled to accept in Mat 3:6. The best, we think, that can be said in
favor of the common version is that the particle may be rendered with. In Mat
1:1-25, Mat 2:1-23, Mat 3:1-17, Mat 4:1-25, Mat 5:1-48, Mat 6:1-34, Mat 7:1-29,
Mat 8:1-34, Mat 9:1-38, Mat 10:1-42, en occurs about ninety-five times. In
seventy-four places it is rendered in, or by terms of equivalent import; in
sixteen passages it is translated by other words, and only in five places by
with. The almost uniform import of the preposition seems to have made it
obligatory on the translators not to depart from it without necessity. In Mat
3:11 the necessity did not exist. Lange, in his commentary, agrees with Dr.
Campbell as to its proper rendering. He says: (Mat 3:11), "He shall baptize, or
immerse, you in the Holy Ghost and in fire." The language is figurative; but its
import is clear. When it is affirmed that a man is immersed in cares, or
politics, or debt, or trouble, nobody has any doubt as to the meaning of the
words. A man is immersed in cares when they absorb his thoughts and occupy his
time. A man is immersed in the Spirit when he is fully under the influence of
the Spirit-is enlightened, strengthened, guided, and endowed with extraordinary
gifts by him. Baptism in the Spirit denotes that wonderful communication of the
Spirit by which the apostles and their colaborers were fitted for their
important mission.

It is maintained by the advocates of pouring and sprinkling that the baptism of
the Holy Ghost was by pouring. In support of this view, several passages are
quoted: "Having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he (Jesus)
hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear" (Acts 2:33). "On the Gentiles
was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 10:45). "The Holy Ghost fell on
them, as on us at the beginning" (Acts 11:15). These expressions, "shed forth,"
"poured out," and "fell on," denote the manner of the copious communication of
the Spirit and his gifts; but they do not describe the baptism of the Spirit.
That was the result of this abundant communication of the Spirit. He was "shed
forth," "poured out," "fell," in such great measure that those who received the
gift were not only filled with the Spirit, but immersed in him-brought entirely
under his influence, as a body covered with water is saturated with it. The
baptism of the Holy Ghost has no reference to the manner of his communication,
whether it be by shedding, pouring, or falling; but to his abundant influence.
The apostles were immersed in the Holy Spirit just as a guinea would be immersed
in a vessel filled by water poured into it.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: 01.01.08.     PART 1 CHAPTER 08 ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 1-CHAPTER 8.

Only Immersion is Baptism. The word "immerse" and its derivatives may be
substituted for "baptize" and its derivatives in every place where they occur in
the New Testament, making good sense, without the slightest incongruity or
violence to the language and this is not true of the term "sprinkling. pouring,
washing, or cleansing." When we insert a key in a lock, and it fits every ward
and easily turns the bolt, we know that we have the right key. Just so it is in
the definition of a word. If it is properly defined, the definition may be put
in every place in which the word is rightly used, without force or bad taste;
but, if the definition is incorrect, while it may be substituted in many
sentences for the original term without obvious inaccuracy, it cannot be so
substituted in an extensive use of the term without bad taste, ambiguity, or
nonsense. To this principle of language, so far as we know, there is no
exception. Let us subject the definitions of the word "baptize" to this test.
The process may lead to the repetition of statements made in preceding articles;
but its importance will justify the operation.

"And were all baptized of him in the river Jordan." (Mark 1:5). It is obvious
that pouring candidates in the river is not good English. That word must stand
aside.

"Buried with him in baptism" (Col 2:12). Buried in sprinkling, or in pouring, or
in washing, or in cleansing, are all barbarisms. These substitutes for baptism
must be ruled out.

"Be baptized and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16). To be sprinkled for the
purpose of washing is incongruous; but to be washed or cleansed for that object
is simply preposterous.

"By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" (1Co 12:13). "As many of you
as have been baptized into Christ" (Gal 3:27). To be sprinkled, or poured, or
washed, or cleansed into a body, or into Christ, is language that no scholar, or
writer of clear conceptions, would employ. By the laws of language, sprinkling,
pouring, washing, and cleansing are equally excluded as substitutes for baptism.
Immersion is the key that fits all the wards of the philological lock, by which
so many commentators and critics have been needlessly perplexed. Immersion and
its cognates will substitute baptism and its cognates, through all their moods,
tenses, and declensions, without obscurity, confusion, or the slightest violence
to the prepositions and other terms used in connection with them. On this point
the reader may find conclusive evidence in the Revised Version of the New
Testament, published by the American Bible Union.

Immersion was so evidently practiced by the early Christian churches, except in
cases of sickness or of supposed necessity, it seems strange that an intelligent
person should deny it. Any number of credible witnesses on this point might
easily be furnished; but it will be sufficient to present two or three
quotations-which, for the sake of convenience, we copy from the "Star Book," a
valuable little treatise on baptism:

Mosheim: "In this century [the first], baptism was administered in convenient
places, without the public assemblies, and by immersing the candidates wholly in
water."

Neander: "In respect to the form of baptism, it was, in conformity with the
original institution and the original import of the symbol, performed by
immersion, as a sign of entire baptism into the Holy Spirit, and of being
entirely penetrated by the same."

Waddington: "The sacraments of the primitive church were two-that of baptism and
the Lord’s supper. The ceremony of immersion, the oldest form of baptism, was
performed in the name of the three persons of the Trinity."

Schaff: "Finally, so far as it respects the mode and manner of baptizing, there
can be no doubt that immersion, and not sprinkling, was the original normal
form." Star Book, pages 37, 38. Not only was immersion practiced by the early
Christian churches, but it has been continued by the Greek church, next to the
Roman Catholic, the largest of all the Christian sects, and containing the
people who have inherited the language in which the New Testament was written,
down to the present time. Every well-informed person is acquainted with this
fact; but we will quote a single testimony in proof of it:

Coleman: "The Eastern church has uniformly retained the form of immersion as
indispensable to the validity of the ordinance; and repeat the rite, whenever
they have received to their communion persons who have been baptized in another
manner." Star Book, page 45. The Greek church practices Trine Immersion, which
we consider a corruption of the apostolic baptism; but this fact does not weaken
its testimony in favor of immersion. The repetition of the act might easily grow
out of an erroneous interpretation of the command, "baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; but we see no reason for
changing sprinkling into immersion. All the motives of convenience, comfort, and
taste draw in the opposite direction. The Roman Catholic church continued
immersion, except in extreme cases, to the close of the thirteenth century. On
this point the most abundant testimony can be furnished. We need quote but two
authorities:

Dr. Brennen: "Thirteen hundred years was baptism generally and originally
performed by the immersion of the person. under water, and only in extraordinary
cases was sprinkling or affusion permitted. These latter methods were called in
question, and even prohibited."

Augusti: "Immersion in water was general until the thirteenth century among the
Latins. It was then displaced by sprinkling, but retained by the Greeks." Star
Book, pages Matthew, 41. The English Episcopal church, in its rubric on baptism,
strictly enjoins that the child shall be dipped, unless it be duly certified
that it is sickly or weak and unable to endure dipping; and in that case,
pouring or sprinkling may suffice. The baptisteries still preserved in Italy and
in the East furnish conclusive evidence that immersion was the practice of the
early Christian centuries. These buildings, some of them dating as far back as
the third or fourth century, were erected at great expense, and were furnished
with ample conveniences for immersing adults, as well as infants. The fonts are
in the center of the buildings, circular in form, three or four feet deep, and
sufficiently spacious for the immersion of half a dozen adults at one time.
These structures furnish proof, not only that immersion was practiced, but of
the great importance attached to it. No modern church or sect has furnished
proof of their zeal for immersion comparable in strength with that given by the
early Christians in the erection of their baptisteries.

If sprinkling was not the primitive baptism, it may very properly be asked when
and how was it introduced. On this subject we quote from the Edinburgh
Encyclopaedia,. which cannot be suspected of any partiality for Baptists:

"It is impossible to mark the precise period when sprinkling was introduced. It
is probable, however, that it was invented in Africa, in the second century, in
favor of clinics. But it was so far from being approved by the church in general
that the Africans themselves did not account it valid. The first law for
sprinkling was obtained in the following manner: Pope Stephen III., being driven
from Rome by Astulphus, king of the Lombards, in 753, fled to Papin, who, a
short time before, had usurped the crown of France: Whilst he remained there,
the monks of Cressy, in Brittany, consulted him whether, in a case of necessity,
baptism performed by pouring water on the head of the infant would be lawful.
Stephen replied that it would. But, though the truth of this fact should be
allowed, which some Catholics deny, yet pouring or sprinkling was only admitted
in cases of necessity. It was not till 1311 that the legislature, in a council
held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In this
country (Scotland), however, sprinkling was never practiced, in ordinary cases,
until after the Reformation; and in England, even in the reign of Edward VI.
trine immersion-dipping first the right side, secondly the left side, and last
the face of the infant-was commonly observed. But, during the persecution of
Mary, many persons, most of whom were Scotsmen, fled from England to Geneva, and
there greedily imbibed the opinions of that church. In 1556, a book was
published at that place, containing ‘The form of prayers and ministration of the
sacraments, approved by the famous and godly learned man, John Calvin,’ in which
the administrator is enjoined to take water in his hand and lay it upon the
child’s forehead. These Scottish exiles, who had renounced the authority of the
Pope, implicitly acknowledged the authority of Calvin; and, returning to their
own country, with Knox at their head, in 1559, established sprinkling in
Scotland. From Scotland this practice made its way into England, in the reign of
Elizabeth, but was not authorized by the Established church. In the Assembly of
Divines, held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly debated whether immersion or
sprinkling should be adopted. Twenty-five voted for sprinkling and twenty-four
for immersion; and even this small majority was obtained at the earnest request
of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in that assembly. Sprinkling
is, therefore, the general practice of this country. Many Christians, however,
especially the Baptists, reject it. The Greek church universally adhere to
immersion."-Art. Baptism. The origin of sprinkling and pouring for baptism is of
historical interest, and tends to confirm the position that "only immersion is
baptism." They are clearly of post-apostolic origin. Our chief reliance,
however, for the support of immersion is on the import of the word "baptize," as
its meaning is disclosed in the Scriptures and confirmed by the highest
lexicographical authority. If, as Moses Stuart says-and this country has
produced no scholar more eminent than he was-"all lexicographers and critics of
any note are agreed" that "baptizo (baptize) means to dip, plunge, or immerse
into any liquid," then to baptize by sprinkling or pouring is a gross solecism.
The incongruity of the language appears, if we substitute immerse for baptize.
To immerse by sprinkling is an absurdity. To immerse by pouring is equally
impossible, if the pouring is not sufficiently. copious to overwhelm. How can a
man be immersed by pouring a cup of water on his head?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: 01.01.09.     PART 1 CHAPTER 09 ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 1-CHAPTER 9.

Only Immersion is Baptism.

Admitting that baptism means immersion, and never sprinkling or pouring-that the
apostolic baptism was immersion; that immersion was practiced, except in cases
of supposed necessity, for several centuries, and that it was generally
practiced till the beginning of the fourteenth century-it is maintained by some
that it is not essential to the validity of the ordinance. The dispensation, it
is said, is spiritual; ceremonies are of little importance; baptism is symbolic
of a moral cleansing, and is equally expressive, whether the candidate lie
immersed or water be applied to him in some other way. Immersion is good, but
not better than sprinkling or pouring, as a sign of purification. We have not
the work of Professor Moses Stuart on baptism before us; but, if our memory is
not at fault, the above is substantially the ground which he occupied in regard
to baptism. In our view, this is the most plausible argument in favor of
sprinkling or pouring. It is plausible, but not sound. The Greek language had a
copious variety of words, denoting sprinkling, pouring, washing, purifying,
wetting, and the like; and yet Jesus chose baptize, meaning, as conceded in the
argument, immerse. Why did he select this word to signify the act required in
the ordinance? There must have been a reason for it, and a good one. He was
infinitely wise, and righteous, and kind, and comprehended perfectly the design
of the institution, and all the abuses that would be made of it. It is
noticeable, too, that neither evangelists nor apostles ever employ any other
term but this or its cognates, with reference to the rite. Immersion, also, is
suited to all climates, all countries, and all times. The notion that there are
habitable countries so dry as to furnish no water for immersion, or that there
are regions so cold that water can neither be found nor prepared for that use,
is unworthy of refutation. Immersion may be inconvenient, and involve some
expense and trouble; but what of that? Jesus traveled from Galilee to Judea,
sixty or seventy miles, probably on foot, to be baptized of John in the river
Jordan; and shall we set aside his command because it is not according to our
convenience, or because we imagine that something else would suit us better?

Christ has made no provision for changing the ordinance. Neither churches, nor
synods, nor general assemblies, nor ecumenical councils, nor pontiff s, nor any
earthly power, have the shadow of authority for altering it. It is their
province to obey, not to legislate. "Ye are my friends," said Jesus, "if ye do
whatsoever I command you." Roman Catholics changed the rite from immersion to
sprinkling-and, with their views of church power, acted consistently; but
Protestants, or Christians who take the Bible as their standard of practice, can
have no apology for making such an alteration.

Even supposing that churches had authority for changing the ordinance, why
should they do it? Are they wiser than their Lord? Sprinkling and pouring, it is
said, symbolize moral purification. Do they do it better than immersion?
Cleansing is not all that is symbolized by baptism. It represents the death and
the resurrection of Christ, and conversion under the idea of a resurrection.
"Know ye not," says Paul, "that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ
were baptized into his death? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into
death; that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection" (Rom 6:3-4). All
commentators not writing in the defence of sprinkling and pouring agree with
Archbishop Tillotson in their interpretation of this passage: "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 these customs the apostle alludes" (Star Book, page 29).
Now, we ask whether sprinkling or pouring, by any stretch of the imagination,
can be made to symbolize a death and resurrection. The only reason for changing
the ordinance would be simply this: Christ deemed immersion proper, and
commanded its observance; but we consider it inconvenient, if not
indelicate-unsuited to the taste and refinement of the age-and, therefore, we
"abridge somewhat its form."

We have a few plain and candid general remarks to make to sincere believers in
Christ:

Immersion is certainly baptism. This has been conceded by all the Christian
world, so far as we are informed, excepting a few Presbyterians of the present
century. On this point they confront the learning and authority of Christendom.
Roman Catholics and members of the Greek church, Protestants, Lutherans,
Episcopalians, Calvinists, Methodists, Congregationalists-all sects, orthodox
and heterodox, with the exception mentioned, not only concede that immersion is
"permissible" baptism, but, at least, of equal validity with sprinkling or
pouring. The Greek church, of more than 60,000,000, deny that sprinkling or
pouring is baptism. The English church, with all its learning, enjoins dipping,
and considers pouring, in exceptional cases, merely "permissible." All sects of
Baptists maintain the exclusive validity of immersion. Roman Catholics, with
perfect unanimity, accept sprinkling or pouring for baptism on a ground on which
every consistent Protestant must reject it. Now, we ask any candid believer why
he should receive sprinkling or pouring for baptism, of whose validity there is
so much reason to doubt, and reject immersion, whose scripturalness is conceded
by all Christendom, except a few modern polemics? In regard to his worldly
interests; he would not so act. He would surely be governed by the commanding
probability. Should he be less anxious to pursue the right course when the honor
of his Master and the interests of his kingdom are at stake? We think not.

Baptism is not essential to salvation, and, therefore, it is maintained by some,
the manner of its observance is of no great importance. We do not believe in the
essentiality of baptism to salvation. On this point Baptists have been much
misunderstood and misrepresented. In former times, they were censured for
conceding the possibility of salvation without baptism; and in the present day,
they are blamed for giving it undue prominence and importance. The rite may be
over-estimated or under-estimated with facility. We should aim to give it the
precise position that it holds in the Sacred Scriptures. While we admit that
baptism is not essential to salvation, we maintain that obedience is. Christ is
"the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him"; and only unto
such (Heb 5:9). Baptism is a divine commandment, obligatory on all believers. It
is enforced, not only by the supreme authority, but by the winning example of
the Son of God. Of persons ignorant, or mis-instructed, or in doubt, or dilatory
in regard to the ordinance, we say nothing. We leave them in the hands of a
righteous Judge. Suppose, however, a person professing to trust in Christ
believes immersion to be divinely commanded, and deliberately and persistently
refuses to submit to it; call he be ‘saved? We judge not. He will be lost, not
for the lack of baptism, but because his disobedience will demonstrate his want
of faith, and consequently his unregeneracy. His rejection of baptism proves his
disloyalty to the King of kings. On this point we do not speak from conjecture,
but follow the teaching of the divine oracles. "The Pharisees and lawyers," we
are told, "rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of
him" (John) (Luk 7:30). John’s baptism was "the counsel of God," and those who,
in their pride and self-sufficiency, rejected it, set themselves in opposition
to God. The guilt and danger of the rejection were doubtless proportionate to
their light and obstinacy. Are they less guilty, and exposed to less peril, who
willfully reject the baptism commanded by Christ, enforced by his example, and
administered amid the wonders of the day of Pentecost? It is wisest and safest
and best to obey Christ in all things.

We have never known a Baptist dissatisfied with the manner of his baptism. We
have been acquainted with some who were troubled with doubts as to their fitness
for the reception of the rite, and many more who had cause to lament that their
lives had been so little in accord with the vows made in its reception; but not
one, among the multitudes who, during a ministry of more than fifty years, have
consulted us concerning their spiritual perplexities and troubles, has ever
expressed any question as to the validity of immersion. Every pious Baptist
knows that he has been baptized. He remembers the time, place, and circumstances
of his baptism, and found in it "the answer of a good conscience toward God."
With Pedobaptists the case is very different. Many of them are harassed with
doubts and fears all their lifetime as to the validity of their infant
sprinkling. Some are sensitive on the subject, and carefully avoid all
discussion of it. Others seek relief from their troubles in reading treatises in
favor of infant baptism and in listening to the reasonings of their pastors. Not
a few, after enduring for years the accusations of an. tin-quiet conscience,
break away from their early and loved religious associates and follow Christ
into the Jordan.

We have a question to put to sprinkled believers. We do not use this term in
disrespect. For many of them we entertain the highest regard, and shall continue
that regard, whatever may be their course concerning baptism. Our question is
this: If you knew that your salvation depended on your being baptized precisely
according to the command and example of Christ, would you trust your sprinkling
in infancy, or even in your mature age? Many, doubtless, would; but multitudes,
we are persuaded, would not. We once conversed with a young lady, converted
under our ministry, on the subject of baptism. She had been sprinkled in
childhood; but her conscience was ill at ease. Before making up her mind as to
her duty, she desired, very naturally, to see her pastor. After a few months, we
saw her again, and inquired: "Miss, have you settled the question as to your
baptism?" "I am perfectly satisfied with it," was her reply. "If your
salvation," we added, "depended on your being baptized according to the will of
Christ, would you be satisfied with it?" "I do not believe that my salvation
depends on that," she promptly answered. "Very well," we said; "but suppose it
did; would you be satisfied?" With increased emphasis, she repeated: "I do not
believe that it does." It was quite clear, had she believed that her salvation
depended on the exact conformity of her baptism to the will of Christ, she would
not have been satisfied.

Baptists have great confidence that their views of baptism are plainly presented
in the Scriptures. It is quite common for them to refer young converts to the
Bible to learn their duty in regard to baptism. The common version of the New
Testament, prepared by Pedobaptists, is the best book for guiding plain, honest
inquirers in reference to the ordinance. Do the advocates of sprinkling ever
direct inquirers for information on the subject of baptism to read the
Scriptures? We have never heard of such a case. We doubt whether one can be
cited. We judge that it would be decidedly impolitic and unsafe for the
advocates of sprinkling and pouring to refer young converts to the Scriptures
for the solution of their doubts and the guidance of their conduct in regard to
the rite of baptism.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: 01.01.10.     PART 1 CHAPTER 10 COMMUNION AT THE LORD’S TABLE CONFINED TO CHURCHES
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 1-CHAPTER 10.

Communion at the Lord’s Table Confined to Churches

Baptism and the Lord’s supper are alike in being instituted or positive rites,
deriving their authority solely from the will of the Lawgiver. Their observance
is required, not because they are essentially right, but they are right because
they are divinely required. They differ widely, however, in several respects.
Baptism is an individual duty. The command is: "Repent and be baptized every one
of you." The Lord’s supper is a social or ecclesiastical duty. This is indicated
by the term "communion," or joint participation, by which it is expressed. "The
cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"
Baptism is a duty not to be repeated. Churches may celebrate the Lord’s supper
as often as time and opportunity may permit, and inclination may prompt. There
is no law prescribing how frequently it shall be observed. "As often as ye eat
this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come."
Baptism is preparatory to church membership, as we showed in another article.
The Lord’s supper follows baptism. To this rule there is no exception. No
unbaptized person, so tar as the Scriptures testify, ever partook of the Lord’s
supper. It was never spread but in the Lord’s house, and never approached except
by those formally admitted into his family.

Information concerning the observance of the Lord’s supper in the primitive
churches is not very full, but quite sufficient to guide the humble and docile.
The feast was instituted by the Lord Jesus on the night previous to his
crucifixion. Only the apostles, who constituted the church in its incipiency,
partook of it. That they were baptized by John, or by the disciples acting under
Christ’s authority (John 4:1-2), there can be no reasonable doubt. It is not
essential to the validity of our argument, however, to show that they were
baptized. The first baptizer was necessarily unbaptized. In the introduction of
Christianity, there might have been more than one unbaptized administrator of
the ordinance, though we do not suppose there were. In the organization of the
churches there might have been, and doubtless there were, measures adopted, from
the necessity of the case, which were not intended to be perpetuated in the
regularly constituted churches. The place of the Lord’s supper in the divine
economy is clearly indicated in the apostolic commission. Teaching, faith,
baptism, instruction in all Christian duties, is the divinely prescribed order
of service. Faith should precede baptism. The first public duty enjoined on a
believer is baptism; but faith does not more certainly precede baptism than does
baptism precede church membership and communion at the Lord’s table. This order
is clearly prescribed, and assuredly should be followed, unless some obvious and
solid reason can be furnished for departing from it. On two points we may be
certain: The apostles understood their commission, and they executed it. Their
example is, therefore, an authoritative exposition of it. The first church was
organized in the city of Jerusalem, and we have a pretty full account of its
formation and worship furnished by the Spirit of inspiration, for the guidance
of the churches in all ages. Preaching, repentance, baptism, church membership,
the Lord’s supper, worship, was the order followed. "Then they that gladly
received his (Peter’s) word were baptized-were added unto them (the disciples in
Jerusalem)-continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship (in
the teaching of the apostles and in cooperation with the church)-and in breaking
of bread (communing at the Lord’s table, called breaking of bread, as that was a
noticeable part of the service; Acts 20:7)-and in prayers," or the public
worship of God. Can there be any reasonable doubt that in this primitive, true,
model church baptism preceded church membership, and church membership the
breaking of bread? In other words, the Lord’s table was placed within the
church, and the unbaptized had no access to it. The only other place in which
the Lord’s supper is mentioned in the inspired history is Acts 20:7 : "Upon the
first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul
preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow." We have here merely an
incidental allusion to the Lord’s supper. It is, however, perfectly accordant
with what we learn of the ordinance from the Scriptures. "The
disciples"-doubtless the church-"at Troas"-the ancient Troy-"came together to
break bread," or partake of the Lord’s supper. It is fair to conclude that this
church was composed, as were all the churches of whose membership we are
informed, of baptized believers.

There is no distinct reference to the observance of the Lord’s supper in the
apostolic epistles, except in the first letter to "the church of God" at
Corinth. There had been in that church an abuse of the ordinance. It had not
only been converted into a common feast, but into an occasion of excess. "When
ye come together into one place," said Paul, "this is not to eat the Lord’s
supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper; and one is
hungry and another is drunken." Their feast was no longer "the Lord’s supper,"
but a bacchanalia. The church was reproved in sharp terms for permitting this
shameful desecration of the ordinance. "What?" said the indignant apostle; "have
ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame
them that have not (that is, the poor)? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you
not." This language implies more than it expresses. The apostle not only did not
praise, but sternly rebuked this profanation of s sacred institution. The
apostolic judgment was divinely approved; for on account of this perversion many
among the Corinthian Christians were "weak and sickly," and many slept or died.
The church could not have been justly held responsible for this desecration of
the supper, if it had not been authorized to exercise full control over the
communicants.

It may be noticed that the apostle says to individual church members: "Let a man
examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." It is
not only the duty of the church collectively to maintain the purity of its
communion, but of its members individually to partake of it with due
self-examination and reverence. It should be borne in mind, however, that this
exhortation was addressed to members of the church in Corinth; and we have
elsewhere shown that it was composed exclusively of baptized believers. It was
not, then, to men of the world, not to unbelievers, not to pious persons without
the pale of a church, but to church members-baptized believers-that the
injunction was given to partake of the Lord’s supper with self-examination (1Co
11:17-34). The authority for the communion of church members at the Lord’s table
is clear and indisputable; but, as already stated, in all the Scriptures no
instance can be found of its administration, except within a church, and to
regularly admitted church members. These unquestionable truths convinced the
Christian world for eighteen centuries that baptism is a prerequisite to
communion at the Lord’s supper. On no one point, until quite recently, have
Christians been so united in opinion as on this. Catholics. Greeks, Protestants,
sects, orthodox and heterodox, disagreeing on almost all other articles of
faith, were united on this. Baptists, in defending their close communion, had
only to avail themselves of the argumentum ad hominem. They could say to their
Pedobaptist friends: You require baptism as a condition of communion at the
Lord’s table; we do the same. The only difference is that you admit infant
sprinkling to be valid baptism; we do not. Our difference respects the nature of
baptism, not the terms of admission to the Lord’s table. In the early part of
the present century, the eloquent Robert Hall, of England, in the advocacy of
open communion, took the ground that there is no connection between baptism and
the Lord’s supper; that the supper may as well precede baptism as baptism the
supper. This is certainly the point on which the question of free communion
hinges. This Hall admits: "If we supposed there were a necessary, unalterable
connection between the two positive Christian institutes, so that none were
qualified for communion who had not been previously baptized, we could not
hesitate for a moment respecting the refusal of Pedobaptists, without renouncing
the principles of our denomination" (Vol. I., page 403). We have shown that
baptism preceded the supper in the order prescribed by the apostolic commission;
that the supper was administered in the primitive churches, and that they were
composed exclusively of baptized believers; that all instructions concerning the
administration of the ordinance were directed to a church and its members; and
that these facts convinced the Christian world for eighteen centuries that
baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord’s supper; and we now submit that the onus
probandi lies on those who claim the right of the unbaptized to partake of it.
It is a divinely instituted feast. Only those can properly share in it whom
Christ has invited to it. If the unbaptized-persons having no church
connection-claim the privilege of partaking of it. let them show divine
authority in its support. In what chapter and verse is it recorded? Let us have
the law, or the precedent, or the principle, or the logical inference to confirm
their right. We repeat that in all the oracles of God there is neither proof nor
semblance of proof that the Lord’s supper was ever administered but within a
church and to its baptized members.

It may be replied that partaking of the Lord’s supper is not more dependent on
the previous performance of baptism than are prayer, praise, and other religious
duties. This is a mistake. These are moral duties, obligatory on all men, at all
times, and in all places. They were practiced before the institution of baptism
and after its institution, by those who had not as well as those who had
received it. The Lord’s supper was instituted within and for the church, and
none were admitted to its privileges without baptism.

We submit, then, that those who partake of the Lord’s supper without baptism do
so without divine warrant, on their own authority, and on terms that would lead
to the abrogation of all church order and discipline.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: 01.01.11.     PART 1 CHAPTER 11 COMMUNION AT THE LORD’S TABLE CONFINED TO CHURCH MEMBERS
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 1-CHAPTER 11.

Communion at the Lord’s Table Confined to Church Members

We have briefly stated our reasons for holding what is popularly called "close
communion"; and we desire to make an appeal to the candid judgment of all who
maintain the opposite view. It is not strange that there should be differences
of opinion among sincere Christians on this subject. Human judgments are so
imperfect, and are warped by so many influences of education, interest,
association, and taste, that we need not be surprised that they reach diverse
conclusions. The primitive churches, under the instruction and supervision of
the apostles, fell into many serious errors. Indeed, liability to mistakes on
religious, as well as on other subjects, is inseparable from human ignorance,
and enters into man’s earthly probation. We say these things, not to extenuate
the evils of error, but to inspire the erring with the spirit of candor.

Suppose, then, that the Scriptures do teach-as we have endeavored to show that
they do-that the apostolic churches were composed exclusively of baptized
believers; that baptism was uniformly immersion; that none but the baptized were
admitted into the fellowship of the churches, and that the Lord’s supper was
administered within the churches, and only to their members-what is the duty of
Christians, having a clear and settled conviction that that was the divinely
established order? Shall they adhere to it, or shall they, in deference to the
views and feelings of brethren whom they love, and whom they would not willingly
offend, depart from it?Shall they be governed by their own views or by the
opinions of others in a matter so grave and important? Let us examine the
subject with care.

It is evident that no church or churches, no association or convention, no
prelate or pontiff, has a right to annul an ordinance of Christ or to revoke an
order which he has ordained. If Christ has made immersion a prerequisite to
church member. ship and placed communion within the church, then it is plainly
the duty of his disciples, if they understand his arrangement, to give the
weight of their example and their influence to its support. On this point there
surely should be no difference of opinion among those who acknowledge the
supreme headship of Jesus.

Among the disciples of Christ there are wide differences of opinion as to the
order mentioned. Some persons believe that sprinkling or pouring, as well as
immersion, is baptism; others that the sprinkling of an infant is Christian
baptism. Some that baptism is not a Christian ordinance, and others that baptism
is not a prerequisite of church membership or of a participation in the Lord’s
supper. This conflict of views brings up new questions for the consideration of
Christians-questions unknown in apostolic times, and consequently not
specifically decided in the Scriptures. What is to be done in this exigency?
Certainly no party can reasonably claim that its opinions are infallible, and
that persons who dissent from them are either ignorant or bigoted. The obvious
duty of all Christians, arising from this diversity of views, is not to reproach
or persecute each other, but to confess their liability to err, study the
Scriptures with greater diligence and candor, give to others full credit for
their intelligence and piety, and follow the convictions of their own
understandings. Believing, as we do, that immersion is a prerequisite to
partaking of the Lord’s supper, we feel bound, not only to follow that rule, but
to do what we can to extend its authority; but we do not condemn or dislike
Christians who dissent from our views. We think they are erring brethren, and
would gladly reclaim them from their error; but we love them for the truth which
they hold and the many Christian virtues which they display.

We have somewhat against our open communion brethren, whether they be Baptists
or Pedobaptists. They go too far for the truth, but not far enough for
consistency. There is no conscientious bar to the fellowship of intercommuning
churches. Whatever may be their differences of opinion concerning doctrine or
church organization and discipline, they are not such as to interfere with their
fellowship and communion at the Lord’s table. They have one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, and one communion table. Why should they have different churches? It
may be said, that it is said, that they prefer different forms of church
government and modes of discipline, and there is no good reason why they should
not indulge their preference. Episcopalians like prelacy and liturgical
services; Presbyterians hold to an eldership and presbyterial form of church
government, and Methodists must have an itinerant ministry and love feasts; but
these differences involve no breach of fellowship or communion. They are all
substantially of one church. They are, as it is often said, different regiments
in the same great army, and under the same invincible Commander.

Now, this friendly diversity appears very well; but let us look a little more
carefully into it. Where it leads to no unholy rivalry, and secures a brotherly
and efficient cooperation, it is quite consistent with the principle of free
communion. But take the case of a town with a population of fifteen hundred. It
would make an admirable parish for a single pastor. He might be generously
supported, and all his powers would find sweet and constant employment in
feeding his flock. Such towns and villages are scattered all over the land. Yet
you will scarcely find one in which there is not a Methodist, a Presbyterian,
and an Episcopal church, and sometimes several other intercommuning churches.
All the congregations are small, feeble, struggling for existence, and perhaps
supported in part by the contributions of their wealthier sister churches of the
cities. They maintain three or four or five pastors, to do what one could do as
well, or even better. They go to the expense of erecting and keeping in repair
as many houses of worship as they have churches and pastors, when one could
conveniently accommodate all the worshippers. Nor is this all, nor the worst.
Constituted as human nature is, there must be rivalry, and, in many cases,
antagonism and irritation between the different sects. The Episcopalian eagerly
seeks proselytes, because his church is the true church and has the genuine
apostolic succession; the Presbyterian pleads for the extension of his church,
on the ground that its government is according to the scriptural pattern; and
the Methodist is quite sure that all believers, and seekers, too, will find
through his church the plainest, straightest, and safest way to heaven. We do
not censure them for holding these views, provided they have been received after
due examination and are maintained with becoming modesty. We have great respect
for conscientious convictions. The point we make is this: These different
opinions present no bar to communion. Those who hold them have no conscientious
scruples about entering into a common fellowship and communion. It surely will
not be maintained that persons who commune together occasionally cannot do so
statedly and continuously; or that those who can consistently commune together
cannot belong to a common church and submit to a common discipline. They may
prefer certain forms of ecclesiastical government and certain modes of worship;
but their preferences lie not in the way of their fellowship and communion.
Love, candor, and a desire for the glory of Christ could easily adjust these
differences. All might join the oldest, or the strongest, or the most convenient
church, and manifest their zeal for the unity of the church and the honor of
their common Lord by holding their peculiar views in abeyance; or they might
organize a church: retaining some of the distinctive tenets and practices of the
several sects uniting in its formation. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Now, when our intercommuning Pedobaptist brethren shall follow out their own
principles-blending the feeble churches of the towns and villages into a common
body, to promote their efficiency and to save expense-shall, in short, show more
solicitude to unite the discordant churches than to build up their several
sects-we shall be strongly impressed with their consistent zeal for Christian
union. While, however, they keep up, at vast labor and expense, their sectarian
folds in our towns and villages, we must conclude that either their logic or
their love is defective.

It may be asked: Are not the Baptists equally eager to maintain churches in
towns where the people are already amply supplied with Pedobaptist preaching?
Perhaps they are. They certainly ought to be. The cases, however, are widely
different. The Pedobaptist churches are of a common communion-they are branches
of a common church-their members are kept apart by no conscientious convictions.
Baptists occupy entirely different ground. They differ from their Pedobaptist
brethren on church organization and Christian ordinances, and these differences
are deemed, whether wisely: unwisely, of sufficient moment to justify and to
demand a breach of ecclesiastical fellowship and communion. Baptists having, as
they conceive, scriptural views of the formation and discipline of churches,
which are of great importance to the progress and final triumph of the kingdom
of Christ, deem it their duty, without any abatement of their love to their
Christian brethren who dissent from these opinions, to maintain and propagate
them, not only by tongue and pen, but by pursuing a course in perfect
consistency with them. They do not hesitate, therefore, to found and support
churches in towns or neighborhoods well supplied with Pedobaptist churches and
pastors, because it is considered their duty-at least, the duty of such of their
members as truly believe in Christ-to be baptized and unite with Baptist
churches. This conviction is neither bigotry nor intolerance. Do not
Pedobaptists believe that Baptists should have their children baptized and
become members of Pedobaptist churches? If they do not, they are not loyal to
their own creeds; and we are pleased to say that Baptists, certainly with very
few exceptions, have a firmer conviction of the truth of their distinctive
principles. It all comes to this: If our principles are true, we are right in
maintaining them, and all Pedobaptists-that is, all believers-should accept and
be governed by them; and if, on the other hand, pedobaptism and open communion
are scriptural, then Baptists and all other persons should accept these
principles and govern themselves accordingly. If our readers should be led to a
candid, thorough, and God-fearing examination of these subjects, in the light of
divine revelation, our end will have been gained.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: 01.01.12.     PART 1 CHAPTER 12 IS OPEN COMMUNION DEMANDED FOR THE EDIFICATION OF THE CHURCHES?
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 1-CHAPTER 12. Is Open Communion Demanded for the
Edification of the Churches? The Scriptures furnish no certain example of the
intercommunion of churches. The nearest approach to it was the case of Paul
breaking bread with the disciples at Troas. He was a divinely authorized founder
of churches; but whether he was a member of any local church, in the sense in
which the phrase is now understood, is very doubtful. If he was a member of any
church, we do not know which it was. If intercommunion was practiced by the
members of the primitive churches, it was, we suppose, granted as a courtesy,
and not claimed as a right. There was no law requiring it, and no example, if
the doubtful one of Paul above referred to be omitted, encouraging it. It might
have prevailed-its prevalence, so far as we can discern, would have been
consistent with the constitution and discipline of the churches-it was simply a
matter of choice and of courtesy. We may reasonably take it for granted that,
had it been necessary or even desirable for the edification of the churches and
the increase of brotherly, love, the Scriptures would contain some precept, or
example, or intimation for its enforcement. For the joint participation of the
Lord’s supper by members of the same church, they furnish ample authority; but
on the intercommunion of churches they maintain a profound silence.

What, in the light of observation, is the value of open communion? It is, we
think, but little prized by those Christians who accept it as an article of
their creed. In discussing the subject with Baptists, they lay great stress on
it; but practically they attach little importance to it. In the cities, the
members of the different Pedobaptist sects rarely commune with one another. Why
should they do it? They have regular communions in their respective churches,
and do not need to go beyond them to secure the benefits of the Lord’s supper.
In country churches, where religious worship is held infrequently, and the
Christian sects are more thrown together, instances of the intercommunion of the
members of different denominations are more likely to occur; but, even in these
cases, we have yet to learn that the privilege is much prized or productive of
much benefit.

Why, then, do Pedobaptists plead so earnestly for open communion? We wish not to
be uncharitable; but we cannot close our eyes to the principles which govern
human nature. Doubtless there are many who plead for open communion with a
catholic spirit, believing that it is promotive of brotherly love; but this
cannot be said of all its advocates. It answers several purposes besides those
which charity would accomplish. It has a great semblance of liberality, which,
we have shown, is in many cases a mere semblance. It contrasts very favorably
with what is represented to be the narrowness and bigotry of close
communionists. We, it is said, place no bar to the Lord’s supper-we invite all
his friends to it-all who desire to do so may partake of it; but it is left to
be inferred that close communionists are governed by a very different
spirit-they surround the Lord’s table with unwarrantable barriers, claim for
themselves peculiar privileges, and unchristianize people as good as themselves.
Nor is this the only use made of the doctrine of open communion. Baptists
maintain that all believers, even those baptized in infancy, should be immersed
on a profession of their faith. Young converts, with the New Testament in their
hands, if they have not received a thorough Pedobaptist drilling, are almost
sure to conclude that they should go to the water, and not that the water should
be brought to them, for baptism. The baptizing by John "in the river Jordan,"
and the going down of both Philip and the eunuch into the water for baptism,
quite satisfy the minds of warmhearted, obedient new converts that baptism is
immersion: and it is not easy, in some cases, to efface this conviction. Close
communion, however, is an admirable weapon to combat the supposed error. Are you
willing to be shut out from comn-1union with your kindred and friends, and to
confine your Christian fellowship to a sect whose views on the subject of
communion fall, in liberality and freedom, so far below those of other Christian
denominations? This is an appeal to young converts which strongly impresses
their feelings. Their sympathies are warm and lively, and they would be pleased
to commune with the whole world. They have yet to learn that, not their own
feelings, but the Word of God, should be their guide in religious matters-that
"charity rejoiceth in the truth." While the duty of baptism is in no wise
dependent on the terms of communion, it is fair to conclude that thousands have
been turned away from immersion on a profession of faith by the impression that
immersionists are narrow and illiberal in regard to communion at the Lord’s
table.

Open communion, on the part of Baptists, is not only unauthorized, but impolite.
If it were divinely required, there should be an end to all controversy on the
subject. If it were merely permitted, churches should be left to the exercise of
their own taste and judgment in deciding on the expediency of its adoption. We
believe that it is substantially forbidden; but that, if it were not, it would
be impolite for Baptists, with their responsibilities and aims, to practice it.
They believe that on them devolves the duty of restoring the ordinances of
Christ to their primitive simplicity, design, and order, and of promoting the
organization of churches according to the apostolic model. This is their
mission, and they should avoid, whatever tends to defeat it. Open communion
clearly leads in this direction. The experience of the English Baptists has shed
much light on the influence of open communion on the prosperity of churches. The
practice is advocated mainly on the ground that it promotes brotherly affection
and cooperation among evangelical Christians, and a candid examination of
Baptist principles. These are certainly very important ends to gain; but let us
inquire in what degree they are secured by the measure. We will ignore the fact
that these objects might quite as easily, and, as we think, far more
scripturally, be secured by the abandonment of infant sprinkling and a return to
the primitive practice of immersion. Conceding that for their attainment
Baptists shall adopt the practice of open communion, what will be the result?

Mixed church membership follows open communion by a logical necessity. Communion
at the Lord’s table is a test of church fellowship. If Christians commune
together, they may surely cooperate in whatever is needed to support and extend
the communion. The adoption of open communion brings, not peace, but discord, to
Baptist churches. It opens the question of mixed church membership, by which
many of the English Baptist churches have been agitated and rent asunder. Of
these churches, some are close communion, some are open communion, some are of
mixed membership, and not a few are battling over the subject of mixed
membership.

Yielding on the question of open membership- as yield they must, if they accept
open communion, and are capable of feeling the force of an argument-the churches
are met by the inquiry whether their officers shall be limited to Baptists. Why
should they be, if the churches are composed of Baptists and Pedobaptists,
immersionists and sprinklers? It is unreasonable, unjust, and offensive, if a
church is composed of a mixed membership, to insist that its officers shall all
be of one party. Such unfairness cannot be maintained. As a matter of fact,
Baptist churches, adopting mixed membership, soon accept Pedobaptist deacons and
pastors.

Even this concession does not put an end to controversy. The question
necessarily arises: Why should a church, composed partly of Baptists and partly
of Antibaptists, and having officers of either party, be called a Baptist
church? The name is false, misleading, and cannot be reasonably defended for a
moment. With the distinctive principles of Baptists, their name must take its
departure. We know not how many, but certainly quite a number, of English
Baptist churches, under the influence of open-communion principles, have ceased
to be Baptist churches. The church in Bedford, to which John Bunyan ministered,
is a notable instance of the transforming power of open communion. The influence
of open communion and mixed membership is decidedly unfavorable to the progress
of Baptist principles. They are not adapted to a carnal and worldly taste. They
are accepted only on divine authority, and that authority, to exert its proper
influence, must be frequently held up to the attention and pressed on the
consciences of men. They are pleasing to the humble, self-denying, and devout;
but they are distasteful to the proud, the gay, and the fashionable. These would
peril their salvation sooner than they would be publicly and. solemnly immersed
in attestation of their loyalty to Jesus. It is not so with pedobaptism. It
strongly appeals to parental affection, does not offend the most delicate taste,
is recommended by the graces of poetry and the charms of painting, and is
practiced by thousands as a beautiful and seemly ceremony, who do not admit its
divine authority. It is entrenched in the creeds and honored in the practice of
the most numerous, respectable, and influential Christian sects. It needs no
advocates. Its history and associations give it influence and secure its
perpetuity. The obvious effect of mixed communion and mixed church membership is
to stop the mouths of Baptist ministers concerning their distinctive principles.
Suppose a minister is pastor of a mixed church. He derives his support partly
from those who believe and partly from those who reject his peculiar principles.
His influence, his happiness, and his usefulness depend on his securing the
confidence, affection, and cooperation of the members of his church, of all
parties. Can he be expected to preach plain, pointed sermons on the duty of all
believers to be immersed, and on the evils of infant baptism? Why, the very act
of receiving Antibaptists into the communion of the church is a public and
solemn admission that Baptist principles are of little worth and need not be
contended for. A few ministers of deep conviction and of great boldness may rise
above these embarrassments, and give faithful utterance to their principles; but
it is contrary to all the motives that govern human action to imagine that the
number of such preachers could be great, or that the bravest would not be
hampered by their associations. That such is the perplexing and restraining
influence of mixed church membership, we were fully convinced by our
observations on English Baptist meetings. Their leaders, men of learning,
eloquence, and power, were constrained, by the courtesy due to a mixed
membership, to avoid any vigorous utterance of distinctive Baptist principles.

If these be the influence and results of open communion, it is not surprising
that persons who believe that the peculiar views of Baptists are erroneous
should favor the practice. They are governed by sound policy. They pursue the
wisest course to counteract the influence of Baptist principles. With their
views, they act consistently. We only question the validity of their claim to
any special liberality in their course. That Baptists are unwilling to adopt a
practice whose logical results are open church membership and a renunciation of
their distinctive principles and name, especially when in doing so they forsake
the order of the primitive churches, is surely not wonderful. If their
principles are scriptural, it is their plain and solemn duty to avoid all
measures that tend to hinder their influence, and employ the most suitable means
to secure their spread and triumph.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: 01.01.13.     PART 1 CHAPTER 13 INCIDENTAL POINTS PERTAINING TO CLOSE COMMUNION.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 1-CHAPTER 13.

Incidental Points Pertaining to Close Communion.

We are often asked by persons, heartily accepting Baptist principles in the
main, why the immersed members of Pedobaptist churches and the members of
churches practicing immersion are not invited to commune in Baptist churches. We
admit, say they, that baptism is a prerequisite to communion; but these
believers have been immersed, and some of them by duly qualified Baptist
ministers-why, then, should they not be admitted to the Lord’s table? The
question is important, and deserving of candid consideration.

Faith and baptism are conditions precedent of a participation or the Lord’s
supper; but they are not the only terms of admission to it. We have endeavored
to show that the supper is a feast within, and not without, a church, designed
for all its members, and only for its members, or for members of other churches
maintaining the same terms of communion. The exercise of discipline and the
privilege of communion are coextensive. In the apostolic churches, none were
permitted to commune who were not subject to ecclesia8tical discipline. Paul, in
the exercise of his apostolic authority, required the church at Corinth to put
away from among them the incestuous member; and afterwards, when he furnished
proofs of his repentance, to restore him to their fellowship (1Co 5:1-5; 2Co
2:5-8). This transgressor was, for a time, excluded from a participation of the
Lord’s supper (1Co 4:11). By common consent, this act of exclusion from a church
is called excommunication; that is, expulsion from communion. So thoroughly is
this truth embedded in the popular mind, that communion and church membership
are expressions used interchangeably. A member of a Presbyterian or an Episcopal
church is called a communicant of the church.

Piety and baptism do not constitute one a member of a Baptist church. He must,
in order to become a member of it, seek admission into it, adopt its essential
principles, and submit to its discipline. To continue a member of it, he must
walk in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, if not without blame, at
least without gross and persistent departures from them. "Now we command you,
brethren," said Paul, to "the church of the Thessalonians," "in the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh
disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us" (2Th 3:6). To
walk "disorderly" is to live in vice, or in willful transgression. By
"tradition" the apostle meant the doctrine or teaching which he and his
associates had received from Christ and imparted to the Thessalonians. To walk
"disorderly" is, we judge, to walk "not after the tradition" received from the
apostles. The latter phrase is explanatory of the former. No command can be more
imperative than that laid on churches to withdraw from disorderly walkers, who
respect not the teaching of the apostles. "We command you," said Paul and his
companions, not in their own names, but "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly," &c.
This withdrawal was to extend to "every brother"-rich or poor, high or low,
kinsman or stranger-who walked "disorderly"; that is, persistently pursued a
course contrary to the apostolic teaching. No plea of friendship, ignorance, or
expediency can set aside this law.

We must now inquire whether the connection of immersed believers with
Pedobaptist churches, or with other religious bodies, deemed unsound in doctrine
or irregular in practice, is disorderly walking and contrary to apostolic
teaching. In this argument, we must take for granted the truth of Baptist
principles. Conceding that churches should be composed exclusively of immersed
believers, and that communion at the Lord’s table should be restricted to church
members, is the course of Baptists in uniting with Pedobaptist churches, or with
other bodies, not sound in faith and practice, orderly and according to
apostolic "tradition"? We think not. Their course is not in harmony with the
admitted principles. They voluntarily withdraw themselves from a church
scripturally organized, and give their influence and labors to the support of
principles which they admit to be false. In principles, they are Baptists; in
profession and influence, they are Pedobaptists. Clearly it is their duty to
support and disseminate the principles which they admit to be true. We believe,
say they, that only believers are proper subjects of baptism, and nothing is
baptism but immersion; but their example is at war with their convictions. In
short, they concede that Christ has established one order for the constitution
of his church, and they, for convenience or respectability, or from indifference
to his authority; follow another. Such a course could not have been pursued in
the apostolic times without incurring the charge of walking "disorderly," and
"not after the tradition" received by the Spirit of inspiration.

It may be pleaded, in behalf of these inconsistent Baptists, that they are
pursuing the course dictated by their consciences. We are not considering
specially what is their duty, but what is the duty of the churches in regard to
them. We do not judge these irregular Baptists. We consider them in error; but
what allowance is to be made for their lack of information, their temperaments,
their associations, and their peculiar circumstances, we know not. Their Master
will judge them. Let them have due respect for their conscientious convictions.
These may govern their own conduct; but they are no guide for the churches. They
should be controlled by the Scriptures, honestly and intelligently interpreted
and faithfully applied. If these teach that communion should be limited to
churches, that churches should withdraw from all disorderly walkers, and that
those walk disorderly who abandon churches scripturally constituted, to support
those that are defective and irregular in their formation, then the duty of
Baptist churches regarding these erring brethren is clear and imperative.

It is a pity that all Christians cannot commune together. We have no sympathy
with those who believe that divisions among churches are good. They are evil,
and are fraught with incalculable mischiefs. It is certainly to be deplored that
all Baptists cannot commune together, according to the inspired order. Their
identity of principles, interests, and aims should draw them together; and we
wish to address some remarks to Baptists unconnected with regular Baptist
churches.

There can be no union and communion between these parties without a yielding on
one side or the other. The mountain must go to Mohammed, or Mohammed must come
to the mountain. The denomination cannot yield its principles. They are grounded
in its convictions, incorporated in its literature, and are the bond of its
union. No man nor set of men, no arguments nor influence, can swerve it from its
long-cherished doctrines. The mountain cannot go to Mohammed. There can
scarcely, however, be any insuperable obstacle to the union of individual
Baptists with Baptist churches. These irregular Baptists may deem it their
privilege-they can hardly consider it their duty-to commune with Pedobaptists.
There is no divine law requiring them to commune in churches whose baptisms they
consider invalid. It is their duty to partake of the Lord’s supper in the
prescribed order; but surely there is neither precept nor example binding them
to commune in Pedobaptist churches. Admitting, for the sake of the argument,
that it is their right to do so, still they would violate no law, sacrifice no
principle, and do no injury in declining to exercise it. Mohammed can come to
the mountain. As matters stand in this country, a Baptist cannot commune,
however much he may desire it, in both Baptist and Pedobaptist churches. He must
make his election between them. Either he must unite with Pedobaptists, and give
his example, influence, and labors, indirectly, at least, to the support of
pedobaptism, or he must join the Baptists and enlist his energies in support of
their principles. It is strange that he should hesitate for a moment in making
his choice. With Baptists he differs on a single point-the terms of admission to
the Lord’s table; from Pedobaptists he dissents on the conditions of church
membership and on the subjects and act of Christian baptism-Principles deeply
affecting the form and prosperity of the churches. A Pedobaptist church is no
home for a Baptist. Many years ago, we were conversing with a minister of
another denomination, a most fiery advocate of open communion. We said to him:
"If I were a member of your church, holding the principles that I do, and
deeming it my duty to maintain and make proselytes to them, what would you do
with me?" He promptly replied: "We should expel you." "That would be according
to your discipline," said I; "but should I unite with a Baptist church, and
propose to commune with you, would you admit me to your communion?" He frankly
answered: "It would seem to be inconsistent." The truth is, no earnest Baptist
can long remain in a Pedobaptist church. It is only by ignoring his principles
or keeping them in abeyance that he can be received into such a church. If he is
intelligently convinced of their truth and importance, and deems it his duty-as
undoubtedly he should- to disseminate them, he will soon find that he is an
unwelcome member. The church will have no use for him, if he speaks in
disparagement of infant baptism and pleads for the immersion of believers. They
would excommunicate him, as a teacher of false doctrine and a disturber of the
peace of the church. There is but one consistent course for a Baptist, and that
is to be a member of a Baptist church, and labor, lovingly and faithfully, by
all the means within his power, to defend and diffuse his principles.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 17: 01.01.14.     PART 1 CHAPTER 14 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 1-CHAPTER 14.

Religious Freedom.

We cannot close this discussion of Baptist principles without a reference to
religious freedom. The liberty to worship God according to the dictates of
conscience, is the dearest of all human rights. That it should ever have been
denied is one of the strongest proofs of human fallibility. Certain it is,
however, that, a little more than two centuries ago, almost all religionists,
Catholic, Greek and Protestant, maintained that either the civil or the
ecclesiastical power had the right to regulate the public worship of God, and
that all persons subject to its jurisdiction were bound, under pain of fines,
imprisonment, and death itself, in its most appalling forms, to comply with the
prescribed regulations. In the early ages, Christians suffered severely from
their heathen rulers, because they persistently worshipped Christ and labored to
bring the world into subjection to his authority. After Christianity gained the
ascendency and the churches were consolidated into a hierarchy and invested with
secular authority, or were able to control it through its subservient minions,
the acceptance of its creed and conformity to its rites, worship; and decrees,
were enforced with an intolerance and severity which exceeded even pagan
ferocity. The history of Romanism is a heart-rending record of spiritual
tyranny-of chains, dungeons, tortures, and fires. When the churches of Northern
Europe threw off the papal yoke, along with many and important reforms which
they introduced, they retained the intolerant views and spirit of their recent
rulers. Romanists, claiming infallibility, had the plea of consistency for their
persecutions; while Protestants, admitting their inability to err, had not that
poor defense for their relentless cruelties to those who called in question
their spiritual authority or dissented from their religious creeds. The
Protestant sects of the sixteenth century-Lutherans, Presbyterians, and
Episcopalians-invested with civil authority, or able to influence secular
rulers, were intolerant, and carried their tyranny not only to fines and
confiscation, but to imprisonment, torture, and blood. Even the Independents,
who fled from the persecutions of the English Episcopalians to the wilds of
America, deemed it their duty to cherish the spirit and imitate the example of
their oppressors.

We can hardly claim belief in religious liberty as being now a distinctive
Baptist principle. A great change has taken place in the views and spirit of the
Christian world on this subject, especially the Protestant portion of it, within
the last two centuries, and more particularly since the beginning of the present
century. In all Protestant countries, there is, at present, religious
toleration, if not full freedom. In most Roman Catholic countries, dissenters
are tolerated, or, at least, treated with less severity than in former times.
The fires of the Inquisition have been extinguished, and that ecclesiastical
court, so fiendish in its spirit and so fearful in its works of darkness and of
blood, has everywhere been overthrown or stripped of its power for mischief.

Baptists, under all the names which they have borne, in different countries and
in different centuries, have been unswervingly loyal to the principles of
religious liberty. Whatever may have been their faults-and they have neither
been infallible in judgment nor irreproachable in conduct-they have been free
from the guilt of persecution. They have not only been the earnest advocates of
religious liberty, but they have supported it in its fullest extent. They have
not only claimed it for themselves, but have accorded it to others-Jews and
pagans, as well as Christians.

It must be conceded that Baptists, with scarcely an exception, have been a
minority under civil governments. Minorities, especially when oppressed and
persecuted, are always favorable to extending the limits of freedom. It would be
impossible that they should not desire liberty in regard to the matters which
subject them to reproach and punishment. It must also be admitted that small and
persecuted sects have deep sympathy for each other in their trials, and are
easily led to make common cause in the defense or for the extension of the
freedom in which they have a common interest.

We claim for Baptists, however, not merely that they have been the steadfast
friends of religious liberty, but that their distinctive principles necessarily
compel them to maintain this position. They cannot be consistently Baptists and
not advocates of soul liberty. Before they can persecute for conscience sake,
they must renounce, or, at least, ignore their distinctive principles. They may
not be free from the spirit of bigotry and intolerance; but it is directly
antagonistic to their doctrines.

Let us carefully examine this matter, even if, in doing so, we must retrace
ground already trodden. According to Baptist views, no man can become a church
member who does not voluntarily accept Christ as his Master, and who does not
willingly receive baptism in attestation of this submission. Moreover, having
freely become a member, he cannot retain his place in the church, unless his
life is in harmony with his profession. In short, faith and baptism are
essential prerequisites to church membership, and a godly life is necessary to
the continuance of the connection. If these principles are maintained, neither
birth, nor baptism, nor education, nor wealth, nor office, nor profession, can
secure a place in a Baptist church; nor can one retain his place in it without
imbibing the spirit and imitating the example of the Redeemer. It is obvious
that a church organized on these principles cannot be a persecuting body. For
what purpose could it persecute? Not to force members to join it; for none can
be admitted to its membership without qualifications which no persecution can
secure. Not to keep members within it; for it can retain only such as love its
members, doctrine, ordinances, and discipline, and force cannot produce these
fruits. The conquests of such a church must be made, not by the sword of the
executioner, but by "the sword of the Spirit." Other churches may employ carnal
weapons, and inflict pains and penalties, to promote their prosperity; but
Baptist churches, if they flourish, must succeed by moral suasion and the grace
of God.

Hierarchies-churches established by law, and supported by civil, and, if
necessary, by military power-have been the greatest curse of Christendom. They
are utterly at variance with the spirit and doctrine of Jesus. His kingdom is
not of this world. He came, not to destroy men’s lives, but to save their souls;
and, to fulfil his mission, he employed, not swords and spears, but truth and
reason and kind persuasion. He established no hierarchy, and gave no authority
for its establishment. The connection between Church and State is adulterous,
and equally corrupting to the church and pernicious to the State. A hierarchy
cannot be supported without a hereditary membership, the obliteration of the
line of demarcation between the godly and the ungodly, and the limitation of
discipline to dissent from the established faith and resistance to spiritual
authority. As a matter of history, all hierarchies have been composed of the
population in their respective territories, regardless of their moral qualities.
In England, until quite recently, no man could hold office who was not a
communicant In the Established church; and it may be easily seen how strong was
the temptation to hypocrisy and the profanation of the Lord’s supper among the
aspirants for political and official preferment.

Pedobaptism, though not necessarily associated with a hierarchy, is adapted to
encourage it, readily lends its aid to support it, and is essential to its
development. No State church has ever existed, or ever can exist, without its
help. According to the Pedobaptist theory, children of church members are born
in the church or are regenerated and inducted into it by baptism. They grow up
in it, with whatever of selfishness, impurity, and unbelief may be developed in
them. In most such churches, they are, at a certain age, without any profession
of conversion, confirmed in their membership, by appropriate ceremonies-remain
in their connection, regardless of their impiety, to the end of their lives-and
are then buried in consecrated ground, in proof of their good ecclesiastical
standing. It is easy to perceive that infant baptism is "the ground and pillar"
of the system. Without it, hierarchies would soon tumble and disappear. "as the
baseless fabric of a vision."

Baptists have an honorable record on the subject of religious liberty. If they
were not the first, they were certainly among the first to proclaim it as the
indefeasible right of man. Roger Williams, a Baptist, founded the State of Rhode
Island, the first government in which full religious liberty was ever secured.
Of him Bancroft says: "He was the first person in modern Christendom to assert
in its plenitude the doctrine of the liberty of consciences the equality of
opinions before the law, and in its defense he was the harbinger of Milton, the
precursor and the superior of Jeremy Taylor." Dr. S. S. Cutting, in his
introduction to the Struggles and Triumphs of Religious Liberty, by E. B.
Underhill LL. D., of London, speaking of this testimony of Bancroft, says: "The
truth, however, is that the contest in the colony of Massachusetts Bay was an
imported contest. it came, with all its distinctively recognized principles,
across the Atlantic, in the breasts of men who had fought the same battles in
Holland and England. John Cotton and Roger Williams had had their teachers in
such men as John Robinson and Thos. Helwys"-both Baptists. Largely through the
influence of Baptists, the religious establishment of Virginia was overthrown,
and perfect soul freedom guaranteed in the State. This, so far as we know, was
the first instance in the history of Christendom in which a hierarchy was
dissolved, except to be succeeded by another of a different creed, with an
unchanged spirit of intolerance and tyranny. Baptists took an active, and, no
doubt, influential part in procuring an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States securing religious freedom to all its citizens. How much their
efforts have contributed to the progress and triumphs of religious liberty, it
is impossible accurately to estimate. It is cause, however, for congratulation
that they were, not only the first to assert it in its plenitude, but that they
have been its consistent and earnest advocates for centuries; have heroically
suffered persecution from most Protestant sects, but have persecuted none; and
have been permitted to see the steady progress of the doctrine which they once
held almost alone and under reproach, until almost the whole Christian world has
been constrained to admit its truth, and govern its course accordingly.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 18: 01.01.15.     PART 1 CHAPTER 15 OBLIGATION OF BAPTISTS TO THEIR PRINCIPLES.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 1-CHAPTER 15.

Obligation of Baptists to Their Principles.

These principles having been stated and briefly defended, need not be here
repeated. If they are false, their prevalence is to be deplored, and none are so
profoundly interested in their refutation as Baptists. We do not deprecate, but
invite, their discussion. If they are unsound, we shall be deeply indebted to
any polemic who can expose their rottenness and deliver us from our delusion.
We, however, firmly believe them to be revealed in the Scriptures, and reason
and conscience require that we should be governed by our belief. Accepting them
as true, what obligations do they impose on us?

These principles, if divinely revealed, may be comparatively overestimated. All
truth is precious, but all is not equally precious. The Saviour distinguished
between the least and the greatest commandments (Mat 5:19; Mat 22:38). Some
truths are vital. The knowledge of them is essential to salvation (John 17:3).
Others are promotive of piety and usefulness, but they are not fundamental in
the Christian system. The principles for which we are contending are important,
but not supremely important. A spiritual church membership is a divine
arrangement of great moment to the prosperity of the Redeemer’s kingdom; but one
may be spiritual without belonging to any visible church. Immersion is
important, but it is far less important than the resurrection of Christ and the
regeneration of a soul, which it symbolizes. Whatever may be said in
commendation of the Lord’s supper, its value is not to be compared to the
atonement of Christ, which it sets forth, in our view, those who make baptism a
regenerating ordinance misconceive its design, and assign to it an agency and an
honor due only to the Holy Spirit; and those who make it a sin remitting
institution mistake the symbol for the substance, and ascribe to the water what
is due only to faith in the blood of Christ. It cannot be doubted by any
intelligent and unbiased reader of history that great injury has been done to
Christianity by the unscriptural and extravagant importance attached to its
ordinances and to ecclesiastical authority and discipline. By multitudes the
church has been substituted for Christ, and churchianity for Christianity. On
the other hand, Baptistic principles, if true, should not be undervalued. They
are a part of a divine system, of transcendent importance, and are essential to
its harmony and perfection. A church composed exclusively of spiritual members,
or of persons who make a credible profession of piety, is the fittest symbol of
heaven and the most suitable school in which to train the enjoyment of its bliss
and glory. The change of immersion to sprinkling deprives the ordinance of its
fitness to represent the death unto sin and the resurrection unto life,
experienced by every proper subject of it, and of the copious measure of the
Spirit in which the apostles and the early Christians were baptized. In short,
these principles were, we think, designed, and are pre-eminently adapted, to
prevent the union of the church and the world-one of the sorest curses under
which mankind have groaned.

There is no cause to be ashamed of these principles. They are not congenial to
the taste of the world. In most nations and in most communities they are
unpopular. Immersion especially is held in undisguised contempt by many,
particularly among the upper classes of Society. If, however, these principles
are divine, they are wise, beneficent, and noble-worthy of our confidence and
respect. Let men despise, if God approves them. It was through reproach and
fierce opposition that the gospel gained its early and its most glorious
triumphs. Our fathers maintained their principles amid scorn, persecution, and
sufferings; and we should prove ourselves degenerate Sons, if we were ashamed of
truths in which they gloried and for which they extorted respect from a
gainsaying and reluctant world.

Believing these principles, Baptists are solemnly bound to defend them. They
have always had, and probably to the dawn of the millennium will continue to
have opponents. Learning, eloquence, wealth, fashion, taste the interests and
influence of large and powerful Christian denominations, and the authority and
resources of hierarchies venerable for age and renowned for their works, are
arrayed against them in serried ranks; while their advocates are comparatively
few, poor, and feeble. If these principles had not been indestructible, they had
long ago perished. It is ordained by the God of truth that they who know it
shall defend it. "Contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered unto
the saints" (Jude 1:3) was an inspired direction to the primitive disciples-an
injunction obligatory on Christians to the present day. They should contend, not
harshly, inopportunely, or indiscreetly, but bravely, kindly, candidly, wisely,
and persistently, for "the faith once delivered unto the saints"-for every
article of it, with due regard to its comparative value.

Baptists are bound, not only to defend, but to disseminate their principles.
Christianity is in its very nature aggressive. It is in essential antagonism
with the maxims, customs, aims, and practices of the world. "If any man love the
world, the love of the Father is not in him." The command of the risen Jesus to
his apostles was: "Go, teach all nations." That law is of wide import. It
requires that all mankind shall be instructed in the doctrine and precepts of
Christianity; and in the faithful performance of this service, the inculcation
of the important principles under consideration cannot be omitted. This is an
abiding law of Christ. The gospel was given to the apostles, in trust for their
successors-not their official successors, for they had none but their successors
in faith, spirit, aims, labors, and usefulness-their true successors-"alway,
even to the end of the world." Baptists should teach their distinctive
principles in their families, in their Sunday schools, in their pulpits, and in
the world-by pen, and by tongue, and by type, and by every means which Divine
Providence may place within their reach.

Especially are Baptists bound to exemplify and commend their principles in their
lives and in the discipline of their churches. The whole value of these
principles lies in their power to make individual Christians more spiritual and
churches more devout, liberal, and efficient if, tried by tests, they are found
wanting, it is sad for those who boast of them. Baptists and Baptist churches
are not what they ought to be, and not what, under better culture, we trust they
will become; but their principles present an insuperable barrier to that
blending of the church and the world, which abolishes all wholesome
ecclesiastical discipline, secularizes the church, and converts it into an
agency for the promotion of worldly ambition and the indulgence of intolerant
bigotry. No hierarchy can be organized on Baptist principles. Those who have
been immersed on a solemn profession of their death to sin and their
resurrection to a new life should so walk, in sobriety, righteousness, and
piety, as to prove the genuineness of their profession. A selfish, worldly,
undevout Baptist is a disgrace to his name. Baptist churches should be careful
to maintain a scriptural discipline, making due allowance for ignorance and
infirmity, but by no means tolerating a persistence in sin. They should remember
and put in force the solemn admonition of the apostle: "But I have written unto
you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or
covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with
such an one no not to eat" (1Co 5:11.) This prohibition had reference to church
fellowship, as appears by the limitation made to it in the context: "I wrote
unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators; yet not altogether with
the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with
idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world" (1Co 5:9-10.) Christians
should eschew ecclesiastical association with the ungodly, but cannot wholly
avoid social intercourse with them.

What ground, it may be asked, is there to hope for the ultimate triumph of
Baptist principles? None, if they be not true; but, if true, their final success
is secured by the immutable purpose and the unfailing promise of the living God.
Truth is mighty and will prevail. We are permitted, however, to see signs of
their progress and of their increasing influence. Wherever there is an open
Bible and religious toleration, there Baptist principles, to a greater or less
extent, prevail. They are written, as with a sunbeam, by the Spirit of
inspiration. By means of ingenious translations, learned commentaries, plausible
arguments, and the force of early religious training, they may be concealed or
perverted; but many who read the Scriptures with their own eyes, and with
earnest prayer for divine guidance, will retch the conclusion that these
principles are revealed in the Scriptures and are worthy of cordial acceptance.
Their prevalence among Pedobaptist denominations is a pleasing indication of
their progressive power. Many intelligent and estimable members of Pedobaptist
churches refuse to have their children baptized, and the supposed duty cannot be
enforced by ecclesiastical authority. In spite of all the efforts made to cast
odium on immersion, almost all Pedobaptist denominations are compelled to take
their converts, to satisfy their consciences, to rivers, ponds, or Baptist
fonts, for the administration of the ordinance. Nor is this tendency checked by
an occasional instance of an irreverent and awkward administration of immersion,
adapted, if not designed, to cast reproach on it. We think it a favorable
indication of the progress of these principles that some Pedobaptists have run
to the extreme of denying that immersion is baptism at all. It is an opinion
contrary to the learning, history, and practice of the Christian world in all
past ages, to which the advocates of pedorantism have been driven by their
logical necessities. We decidedly prefer to combat the error on that line. It is
a change of front, and indicative of conscious weakness on their part. Our hope
is, not that all the world will formally become Baptists but that the
distinctive principles for which they plead will gradually permeate all
Christian sects, and that there will be a universal return to apostolic
principles in regard to Christian ordinances and church organization. Suppose
all the evangelical sects were gradually to abandon infant baptism, return to
the ancient practice of immersion, and adopt a discipline suited to spiritual
churches-would it not be a great gain to the cause of truth? Many questions
would doubtless arise in such a religious revolution that would perplex and
trouble the most honest and earnest inquirers after truth and duty; but we need
not discuss them now. All approximation to right principles and practices among
the religious denominations should be hailed with delight, and receive due
encouragement from the friends of an unadulterated Christianity.

Baptists should remain united, maintain their principles firmly and charitably,
pray for the divine blessing on their efforts to advance his cause, and
patiently wait for their dismission from the Master’s service.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 19: 01.02.01.     PART 2 CHAPTER 01 REGENERATE CHURCH MEMBERSHIP.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 2-CHAPTER 1.

Regenerate Church Membership. BY HENRY G. WESTON, IL. D., PRESIDENT OF CROZER
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. The conditions of membership in a New Testament church are
determined by the nature of the church, its purpose, character, and functions.
Our Lord Jesus Christ became incarnate that he might redeem man and his
dwelling-place from the dominion of Satan and establish a kingdom in which the
will of God should be done on earth as it is in heaven. The approach of the
kingdom was formally and officially announced by John the Baptist, the divinely
appointed herald, who bade the people prepare for the coming Messiah. The
religious and civil authorities rejected the counsel of God against themselves,
refused to be baptized by John, and finally put him to death (Luk 7:30). It was
apparent that the same fate was reserved for Jesus. In view of this, he withdrew
from the metropolis, gathered a band of followers in Galilee, to whom he no
revealed himself by his words, his works, and his life that they saw that he was
the Son of God, the manifestation of the Father, and they accepted and
acknowledged him as such. When this was accomplished, he made known to them that
he was about to establish a church composed of those to whom the Son had been
divinely revealed by the Father; that to this church the keys of the kingdom
would be entrusted;[1] that the way to the throne was by death on the cross; and
that those who are to follow him must partake of his death and life (Mat
16:13-28).

We have now to do with the first of these great truths-the church. Its name
(ecclesia) indicates that its note is selection and separation; its members are
chosen and sanctified. This is explicitly stated by our Lord: "if ye were of the
world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I
have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you" (John 15:19).
Peter, to whom, as the representative and spokesman of the apostles, Christ
declared his purpose to build a church, interprets his words as meaning what I
have indicated. He describes the church as "an elect race, a holy nation, its
members as living stones built on the living stone, a spiritual house to offer
up spiritual sacrifices" (1Pe 2:5-10). Holiness is everywhere ascribed to the
church, as righteousness is to the kingdom, and these characteristics are never
interchanged. The members of the church are both holy and righteous, but the
distinguishing characteristic of the church is holiness; its members are "the
saints." In that wonderful chapter, John 17:1-26, which might be entitled the
report which Christ makes to the Father of his earthly work, he describes the
nature of that eternal life which he gives to all whom the Father has given him.
It culminates in that divine unity which finds expression in the words, "I pray
that they all may be one; as thou, Father, in me and I in thee, that they also
may be in us"-words that are often interpreted to mean the union of Christians
in an external organization. They have an infinitely deeper meaning. It is unity
of which Christ speaks-that unity in the Father and the Son which has been
produced by the manifestation of the divine nature to the men given to Christ
out of the world (John 17:6). It is frequently said that the prayer of Christ is
as yet unanswered. Can we conceive of such a thing-that the prayer of God’s Son,
uttered at such a time, should be unanswered? It was answered; it is answered;
and it is because of that answer that there has been any recognition in the
world of the claims of Christ-"that the world may believe that thou didst send
me." What are called the evidences of Christianity have done very little in
inducing men to submit to Christ. It is when men see Christ in the Christian,
the glory which the Father gave to Christ and which Christ gave to his
disciples, as he says-"the glory which thou gayest me I have given them, that
they may be one as we are one"-it is then that men are won to the Saviour. To
the same purport are those wonderful words of Peter, addressing those who have
obtained an equally precious faith with us: "To whom he has given exceeding
great and precious promises, that through these ye might become partakers of the
divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world" (2Pe
1:4). This identification of the people of Christ with their Lord, this unity
with the Father and the Son, finds continual expression in the Epistles.
Believers are said to be in Christ, and Christ is said to be in them; they have
died with him, so that, if any one be in Christ, he is a new creation; if any
man, no matter what he is or has been, wise or ignorant, moral or immoral, if he
be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things have passed away, all things are
become new. The change when one becomes a Christian is no reformation, no
evolution; it is a new creation. This unity of life, of spirit, and of nature
makes the church the body of Christ. A body is that by which the spirit acts on
the world. All the proper acts and functions of Christ on the world are
performed by means of his body-the church. He is he head, inspiring, directing,
ruling, but doing all things through his body. "And gave him to be head over all
things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who filleth all in
all" (Eph 1:22). "All this grace and fulness must find means of expression and
dispensation through the church." Through the church his redeeming and saving
purposes are fulfilled; for it is through those who believe that he, the source
of life, becomes the source of life to others. "He that believeth on me, as the
Scriptures have said, out of him shall flow rivers of living water" (John 7:30).
They are partakers in his death and resurrection; they have died to sin and
risen to newness of life, and, although this death and life are not yet
consummated, and will not be until the complete and final triumph over death at
the resurrection at the last day, they have been so united to Christ that they
bring forth the fruit of the vine of whose life they partake.

It would seem unnecessary to discuss farther the place which regeneration holds
in the divine economy. The scriptural definition of a Christian, the nature of a
Christian life, the relation of the church to Christ, the office and functions
of the church, the uniform and abundant teachings of the Epistles, the example
of our Lord, who in his revelation of heavenly things begins with the absolute
necessity of regeneration, all bear testimony to the great fundamental truth.
And in this all evangelical churches agree. For that matter, the great majority
of nominal Christians, whether evangelical or not, unite in asserting the
absolute necessity of regeneration; the difference between them lies in the
method of regeneration. The sacramentalists teach that "in baptism we were made
members of Christ, the children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of
heaven." Evangelicals say that the church and its ordinances are for those who
have been born again by the Holy Spirit, and that a church should be composed of
the regenerate. This is abundantly declared in their official documents and by
their acknowledged representatives. I quote only from those authorities which
happen to be in my library.

Dr. Henry M. Dexter is the acknowledged exponent of American Congregationalism.
His works are standard. In his treatise on Congregationalism, in his definition
of a true church, he says: "A true church must be composed of those who believe
themselves to be and publicly profess to be Christians." He argues this by a
citation of those texts which (1) describe the church as being a holy body; (2)
those which describe the vital union between Christ and the church; (3) those
which announce the design which Christ has in regard to the church; (4) those
which affirm a radical distinction between the church and the world; (5) those
which require such preparation for the reception of church ordinances as only
believers can have; (6) those which require the discipline of unworthy members.
Dr. Ross, in his lectures on Congregationalism, delivered before the Andover
Theological Seminary, says (page 104): "The local, particular church should be
composed of believers, or holy persons"; and to the proof of this devotes six
octavo pages. The venerable Dr. Charles Hodge has an elaborate article in the
Princeton Review (1853) on "The Idea of the Church," in which he argues at great
length that "the church must consist of true believers." About the year 1842,
Dr. Hodge gave to the public a book, published by the American Sunday-School
Union, entitled, "The Way of Life." It was prepared for "those who are anxious
to know what they must believe and what they must experience in order to be
saved." The first sentence in the preface is: "It is one of the clearest
principles of divine revelation that holiness is the fruit of truth"; and the
book is in accord with that sentence. It is full of evangelical truth, admirably
expressed. His statements concerning the ordinances of the church are in exact
harmony with our contention that a church should be composed of the regenerate.
Witness the following, from page 267: "The Scriptures teach that the ordinances
are not appointed to convey in the first instance pardon and sanctification, but
to be signs and seals of these blessings to the penitent believer; and that to
him, and to him only, are they efficacious means of grace." Again (page 279):
"Thus a knowledge of the truth concerning God, concerning sin, atonement, and
regeneration is essential to a proper participation of the ordinance of
baptism." A dozen similar statements might be quoted from the chapter on
"Profession of Religion." In the British and Foreign Evangelical Review,
October, 1860, is an article by Principal Cunningham, principal and professor of
Church History, New College, Edinburgh, on "Zwingli and the Doctrine of the
Sacraments." The article, with others from the same author, has been republished
in a volume entitled, "The Reformers and Theology of the Reformation." Principal
Cunningham argues that "the Reformers, in preparing their confessions of faith,
proceeded on the assumption that those partaking in the ordinances were duly
qualified and rightly prepared; and more particularly that the persons baptized,
in whom the true and full operation of baptism was exhibited, were adults-adult
believers." In support of this position he quotes Martin Vitringa’s "complete
and comprehensive summary of the doctrine of the Reformed churches upon this
point; that the sacraments have been instituted only for those who have already
received the grace of God-the called, the regenerate, the believing, the
converted, those who are in covenant with God" (page 264). Vitringa has produced
his evidence at length. His quotations fill about twenty pages, and are
certainly amply sufficient to establish his position. They prove that the
quotation we have cited contains a correct summary of the doctrine of the
Reformed churches in regard to the proper subjects of the sacraments. Vitringa
gives extracts from eight or ten of the confessions of the Reformation period,
and from about fifty of the most eminent divines of that and the succeeding
century (pages 265, 266). Two or three of his authorities we quote. Samuel
Rutherford: "Baptism is not that whereby we are entered into Christ’s mystical
and invisible body as such, for it is presupposed we be members of Christ’s body
and our sins pardoned already, before baptism comes to be a seal of sin
pardoned" (page 279). Thomas Boston: "Thesacraments are not converting, but
confirming, ordinances; they are appointed for the use and benefit of God’s
children, not of others; they are given to believers as believers, so that none
others are capable of the same before the Lord" (page 282). Dr. John Erskine,
"probably the greatest divine in the Church of Scotland in the latter part of
the last century": "Baptism, then, is a seal of spiritual blessings; and
spiritual blessings it cannot seal to the unconverted" (page 283).

How the positions thus avowed can be reconciled with the practice of infant
baptism is not for me to say. Principal Cunningham says: "The views we have set
forth on this subject may, at first sight, appear to be large concessions to
those who deny the lawfulness of the baptism of infants," and he devotes two or
three pages to the endeavor to show that these concessions are only in
appearance. He says that infant baptism holds a peculiar place, and the
ignorance or disregard of this fact has introduced much error and confusion into
men’s views upon this whole subject. "The peculiarity is that infant baptism
really occupies a sort of subordinate and exceptional position."

We have probably said enough by way of establishing our proposition. History
illustrates the importance of adhering to the scriptural position and practice
in this matter. New England was settled by a people who held evangelical
doctrine above all price. To attain it and retain it, they sacrificed
everything. In an evil hour their descendants lost sight of the true nature of
the church, adopted what was styled "The Half-way Covenant," and admitted to
church membership those who gave no evidence of regeneration. The natural result
followed. In the beginning of the present century, the pulpits which once
resounded with the gospel preached by the Mathers, the Eliots, the Shepards,
were occupied by men of an alien faith. With a single exception, every old
Puritan pulpit in Boston and vicinity was in the possession of men who scorned
the evangelical creed. Preaching by the Baptists of the truth, "Ye must be born
again," awoke men from the slumbers of spiritual death and dotted New England
hills with Baptist churches. The various sections which bear the Christian name
are discriminated by the respective need of human nature to which they specially
appeal and for which they specially provide. One appeals to the religious
nature; another to the intellectual; another to the spiritual. The question and
test of the first is, Do you conform to the religious requirements of the
church? Of the second, Do you adhere to the doctrinal confessions and standards?
In the third, the first question always asked of applicants for admission to the
church or ministry is, Are you regenerate?

ENDNOTES:

[1] The identification of the church with the kingdom is one of the fatal errors
of the Roman Catholic Church. It has given the keys of the church to Peter, an
interpretation which destroys the relation of the church to the kingdom, but
which is in strict accord with the theory of that church’s relation to the
world. If any one is disposed to acquiesce in this identification, let him
substitute "church" for "kingdom" in the passages in the New Testament in which
the latter word occurs, beginning with the first, "Thy kingdom come," and ending
with the last (except the Apocalypse), "For so will be richly supplied to you
the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," and
see what sense he will make.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 20: 01.02.02.     PART 2 CHAPTER 02 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 2-CHAPTER 2. The Subjects of Baptism. BY ALVAH
HOVEY, D. D., LL.D.

I may as well begin with a confession of personal faith, which is: That the only
proper subjects of Christian baptism are persons who trust in Jesus Christ as
their Redeemer and Lord; not believers in Christ, together with their
households, including servants; nor believers in Christ, together with their
children, of whatever age; nor believers in Christ, with their helpless babes;
but solely believers in Christ, who thereby confess their allegiance to him.
This is the creed of Baptists in respect to the proper subjects of the first
Christian ordinance. And, to the best of my knowledge, they have always held.
and do now hold with undiminished confidence, this article of their faith, to be
supported, first, by the narrative and expository references to baptism in the
New Testament; secondly, by the nature of the Christian religion itself; and,
thirdly, by the history of Christendom in so far as it pertains to this subject.

First, then, the narrative and expository references to baptism in the New
Testament show that it was administered to persons who repented of sin or
believed in Christ; and, in the case of those who hoard the gospel, repentance
and faith were inseparable; every believer began his life of trust in the Lord
Jesus by repentance towards God. Thus on the day of Pentecost the people who
"were pierced in their heart," and "received the word of Peter, were baptized."
In like manner, when Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached to
them the Christ, those who "believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning
the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ were baptized, both men and
women." Equally plain is it that Saul of Tarsus was already a believing man,
willing to obey the Lord Jesus, who appeared to him on the way to Damascus,
before he was baptized by Ananias. The same was also true of Cornelius, the
Roman centurion; of Lydia, the seller of purple, and her household; of the
Philippian jailer and all his; and of the twelve disciples whom Paul rebaptized
at Ephesus, evidently because they had not by their previous baptism confessed
their intelligent faith in Christ as the giver of the Holy Spirit and the head
of a spiritual kingdom. Indeed, we find no instance of the giving of baptism
intentionally to any but persons having faith in Christ. And there is good
reason to think that the apostle would not have rebaptized the twelve disciples
at Ephesus, if they had heard and understood all that John the Baptist had
taught respecting One mightier than himself, who would baptize them in the Holy
Spirit.

It will be remembered at the same time that the baptism of John, whatever may
have been its relation to that commanded by Christ, was offered by him to none
but those who were called to repentance and confession of their sins. Mark says
that "they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins."
Thus the first use of this significant rite in connection with the new order of
things was apparently limited to persons who sought it of their own accord, and
by it professed to enter upon a new and inward religious life. And if proselyte
baptism was in use before the time of Christ, which is very doubtful, I am not
aware of any evidence that it was administered to any class of people, old or
young, as a substitute for circumcision. Thus the narrative references to
baptism in the New Testament support our conviction that its proper subjects are
persons who trust in Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and Lord.

It is true, however, that there are three instances of the baptism of
households, or families, mentioned in the New Testament-namely, those of Lydia,
of the Philippian jailer, and of Stephanas; but an impartial study of the
narratives fails to discover in them the slightest evidence of an infant or
unbelieving member in any of these households. It requires a creative
imagination, like that of the late distinguished Horace Bushnell, to make such a
discovery. A few years ago, the pastor of our church at Newton Centre, Mass.,
found that it had on its roll of members the names of not less than thirty
entire families, all of them having been baptized on profession of faith in
Christ. They comprised, in fact, about one-third of the whole church. The
doctrine of believer’s baptism is also supported by expository references to
this ordinance in the New Testament. Peter’s answer to the question of those who
were pierced in their heart and said, "Brethren, what shall we do?" was this:
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, unto
remission of your sins"-language which certainly gives a leading place to the
action of the subjects of baptism in submitting to that ordinance. In striking
agreement with this is Paul’s account of what Ananias said to him in Damascus:
"And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins,
calling on his name." To the same effect is the apostle’s word to the Galatians:
"For ye are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus; for all ye who were
baptized into Christ did put on Christ." The ritual and symbolic confession of
their union with Christ was as much their own act as was their faith in him. And
no less clearly does Peter, in his First Epistle, refer to the moral
participation of the subjects of baptism in the act performed. The saving
efficacy of baptism is ascribed to its relation to conscience; not the
conscience of parents, of sponsors, or of administrators, but the conscience of
the persons baptized. In all these and some other passages forgiveness of sins,
union with Christ, or being saved, is connected with baptism, either because the
new life begins with baptism or because its beginning is normally expressed by
baptism, the sign being put for the thing signified. We believe the latter
explanation to be correct; for the apostle Paul claims to have been the
spiritual father of the Corinthian saints, saying: "I write not these things to
shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For if ye have ten
thousand tutors in Christ, yet not many fathers; for in. Christ Jesus, through
the gospel, I begat you." The gospel, not baptism, was the means of their
conversion; for Paul, in the first chapter of this very Epistle, disclaims
baptizing them, with the exception of a very few, and rejoices in the fact that
he had been sent, not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.

Secondly, our conviction that the only proper subjects of Christian baptism are
persons who trust in Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and Lord is supported by the
nature of the Christian religion. If there is anything which is taught with
absolute clearness by the Saviour and his apostles, it is the personal and
spiritual nature of our religion. This religion is neither national nor tribal,
neither Semitic nor Greek. Pedigree is of no account without faith, and faith is
a personal act. The history of Ishmael and Esau, of Absalom and Manasseh, proves
that hereditary grace is a fiction. The scientific facts of heredity may,
indeed, suggest that religious character is transmissible from parents to
children; but the history of mankind disproves the reality of this transmission,
and the words of Christ, "Unless a man be born anew he cannot see the kingdom of
God," confirm that disproof. When we think of the gospel as a message of
religious truth to beings of a religious nature, we at once perceive its fitness
to arouse thought and feeling, thus leading to action and affecting their
spiritual condition. There is no disparity between the means and the end. We
assent to the testimony of Paul that the gospel is the power of God unto
salvation to every one that believes; but we perceive no such adaptation of
means to ends in the baptism of infants. For them the rite has no illuminating
or convincing power. Its pictorial impressive testimony to an inward change, or
even to the need of an inward change, is not made or appropriated by them. They
are simply passive subjects, unconscious of any spiritual meaning in what is
done. If the Spirit of God words at all through the medium of consecrated water,
it must work in a merely physical way, utterly foreign to the spiritual
character of the Christian religion as this is described in the New Testament.

Thirdly, our conviction, that the only proper subjects of baptism are persons
who trust in Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and Lord, is supported by the
history of Christendom. This proposition cannot be fully justified in a brief
article. A thorough discussion of the events which are believed to justify it
would fill more than one respectable volume. But the principle on which the
argument for our proposition rests is obvious and sound-namely, that a rule for
Christian action in church life, which has been found conducive to purity in
that life, is presumably founded on the will of Christ. And if any important
modification of the rule can be shown to have marred the peace or spirituality
of that life in its corporate manifestations, this fact will also go to confirm
the rule as an expression of the Lord’s will.

Now, it may be said, in brief, that the practice of restricting baptism to
believers in Christ has always been a protest against the dogma of baptismal
regeneration, and, by parity of reason, against the whole theory of sacramental
grace. It has also been an obstacle to the union of Church and State and to the
use of civil power in support of religion. There were a few Munsterites among
the Anabaptists of Germany, but most of the Anabaptists were peaceable citizens,
dying for their faith, but not fighting for it. And so it has been everywhere
with Christians who have rejected infant baptism. They have been often subject
to persecution, but have consistently refused to persecute others. And this has
been the logical outcome of their position as to the proper subjects of
baptism-a position which puts upon every soul of man the responsibility of
deciding for himself concerning the service of God.

It has been truly said that ideas in the long run bear rule, that the beliefs of
men determine their conduct. It is, therefore, of the first importance that our
belief concerning the proper subjects of baptism should agree, first, with a
true conception of the Christian religion; secondly, with a true conception of
Christian churches as groups of men and women united together of their own
choice for the service of Christ; and, thirdly, with a true conception of the
relation of both these to the State, which is entrusted by the will of God with
civil authority. And if, as the writer seriously holds, the Baptist position is
the only safe and defensible one, it must be maintained with the utmost firmness
and charity.

Newton Centre, Mass.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 21: 01.02.03.     PART 2 CHAPTER 03 THE CASE FOR IMMERSION AT PRESENT.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 2-CHAPTER 3. The Case for Immersion at Present. BY
E. Y. MULLINS, D. D., LL. D., PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY, LOUISVILLE, KY. For one man to shout, "it is!" and another to shout
back, "it is not!"-a reiterated affirmation on the one hand and a reiterated
denial on the other-is a see-saw of contradiction, rather than a logical
process. It must be confessed that the long-drawn baptismal controversy
Sometimes seems to degenerate into such a contradiction, issuing in little
progress towards unanimity, or other fruits of the Spirit. The careful observer,
however, will find evidences of an awakening conscience in many quarters on this
subject, and it cannot be in vain for Baptists, in all charity, to continue to
affirm their Strong conviction on a matter which so large a portion of the
Christian world seems determined to ignore.

"The Case for immersion at Present" is the theme assigned to me. An adequate
statement of "the case will require some space, and some patience on the part of
the reader. The Meaning of the Word. The case for immersion, as based upon the
meaning of the Greek word translated "baptize" in our English Bible, is as
convincing as it is possible for evidence to make it. The purposes of this
article require a brief presentation of this evidence. Liddell & Scott’s Greek
Lexicon is a universally accepted standard among scholars. It gives immersion,
and immersion only, as the meaning of the Greek word baptizo. This applies to
classic as well as New Testament Greek. Grimm’s Wilke’s Lexicon of New Testament
Greek says the word means to submerge, to wash by submerging. In the New
Testament the word means "an immersion in water, intended as a sign of sins
washed away, &c." This lexicon gives no other meaning of the word. Cremer’s
Lexicon says the word means "submerge," and in the New Testament "submersion for
a religious purpose." Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, which
is a translation, revision, and enlargement of Grimm’s Wilke’s Lexicon, gives an
extended definition of bapti,zo in its various New Testament connections, and it
is uniformly the same as in the lexicons named above-to submerge, to dip, to
plunge. The figurative uses of the word are all based upon the same meaning.
Testimony from other lexicons might be given. I will only add that of Professor
Sophocles, in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine period, from B.C. 140
to A.D. 1100. He gives the meaning which is found in all the standard
lexicons-to dip, plunge, submerge. In addition, he cites Ignatius, Justin
Martyr, Gregory, Epiphanius, Origen, Cyril, and others of the earthly fathers,
in proof of this meaning. The testimony of the fathers is well-nigh universal in
favor of immersion for over 400 years. Modern Greeks regard the translation of
the word baptizo, "to sprinkle," as absurd. Dr. Broadus quotes a modern Greek
scholar as saying:

"The church of the West commits an abuse of words and of ideas in practicing
baptism by aspersion, the mere statement of which is itself a ridiculous
contradiction." The above position is abundantly sustained on the authority of
the reformers of the sixteenth century, as well as by evidence from great
numbers of modern scholars. Martin Luther advocated a return to immersion as the
New Testament form of baptism. John Calvin admitted that immersion only was the
original mode, but that the form was a matter of indifference. Dr. Doellinger, a
Roman Catholic scholar of very high standing, has said that, as to the mode of
baptism, "the Baptists are, from the Protestant standpoint, unassailable, since
for their demand of baptism by submersion they have the clear Bible text."
innumerable modern scholars of all denominations maintain the position that
immersion only was the New Testament form of baptism. In Germany, two names of
interest are Meyer, the great commentator, and Harnack, the great historian. The
latter wrote, some years ago, a very interesting letter to Dr. C. E. W. Dobbs,
in reply to questions about the meaning of the Greek word, and especially as to
whether a "sacred sense" of the word baptizein is ever to be understood,
allowing sprinkling instead of immersion. Dr. Harnack wrote, in part, as
follows: "Baptizein undoubtedly signifies immersion. No proof can be found that
it stgnifies anything else in the New Testament, and in the most ancient
Christian literature. The suggestion regarding a sacred sense is out of the
question. There is no passage in the New Testament which suggests the
supposition that any New Testament author attached to the word any other sense
than to immerse." Dr. Harnack wrote the above as a statement on "the present
state of opinion among German scholars."

Besides the above, practically all the great names of scholars of the Church of
England who have expressed themselves on the point might be quoted in support of
the view that immersion, and immersion only, was the form of baptism taught by
the New Testament. In view of the above array of evidence, it would seem that
"the case for immersion at present" is closed, if we confine our view to the
meaning of the Greek word of which it is the translation. The "Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles." The above document revived interest in the baptismal
controversy upon its publication, some seventeen years ago. Being a witness
raised up out of its grave, so to speak, in the Jerusalem library, and dating
from about the middle of the second century, its testimony as to baptism was
examined with great eagerness by all parties. Both immersionists and
anti-immersionists claimed the document in confirmation of their respective
views. Baptists have every reason for the claim that in no degree does the
"Teaching of the Twelve" weaken their position as to the teaching of the New
Testament. Its instructions on the subject of baptism are pronounced in favor of
immersion. In brief, it directs that baptism shall be "in living water; and if
this be not convenient, in other water; and if not in cold water, baptize in
warm." Finally, if water in sufficient quantity for immersion be not found, then
"pour water thrice upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost." it is perfectly clear from the testimony of the "Teaching" that its
writer held to immersion as the original and proper mode of baptism. The fact
that pouring as an alternative mode in certain contingencies is prescribed does
not destroy the force of the teaching as to immersion. The only open question
which is left by this document is whether or not the direction about pouring
was, in the mind of its author, based upon apostolic example and precept, or
upon other considerations. The evidence in favor of the latter view is
overwhelming. The following facts shed light on the point. Cyprian (A.D.
200-257) wrote a tract in defense of clinical baptism (i.e., baptism of sick
people), against those who denied its validity. It was commonly held about this
time that, although in certain cases of sickness pouring was allowable as a
substitute for immersion, it was defective baptism and disqualified for the
priesthood. Moreover, Schaff says it was probably because Novatian had been
baptized by aspersion, when on a sick-bed, that he failed of re-election to the
see of Rome, and that this fact became "the occasion of a subsequent schism
which attended his name." As to the existence in the age after the apostles of
substitutes for immersion, Baptists do not make denial. But the very fact that
the substitutes are never adhered to as resting on scriptural authority, and the
further fact that they are dealt with and treated as departures from the
customary mode, and especially because it was necessary to defend them against
many who rejected them, the conclusion is unavoidable that they arose after
apostolic times: The adequate cause for their introduction is found in the
exaggerated importance attached to baptism, and the supposed peril of unbaptized
persons at the point of death. The Greek word employed in "The Teaching" to set
forth the three-fold pouring which is admitted as a last resort is a word never
once used in the New Testament in connection with baptism. The Witness of
History.

Let us glance at the case for immersion as witnessed by Christian history. The
briefest survey is all that is possible within the limits of this article. The
following are the facts: First of all, there is no shred of evidence that the
New Testament form of baptism (immersion) was ever departed from in New
Testament times. At an early date, however, clinic baptisms by pouring or
sprinkling came into vogue. These clinic baptisms were not the rule, but the
exception, and were practiced for the benefit of the sick, and were never urged
on direct scriptural grounds. Immersion continued to be the usual and the
preferred mode for over a thousand years. In the Greek church, immersion has
ever been and is still the practice. The longer catechism of the Russian church
declares that "trine immersion in water is most essential." Similar witness is
borne by Professor Philaret Bapheidos, of the Russian church, and author of a
Church History, and many other living writers testify to the same effect. In the
Roman church, immersion continued the rule until the thirteenth century. In the
Anglican church, there is abundant evidence in favor of immersion as the ancient
and biblical form of baptism. In theory, the church of England still holds to
immersion, as is evidenced by the Prayer Book and other authorities. In the
rubric of the Church of England we read, as to the baptism of infants: "Shall
dip the child in water; but, if they certify that the child is weak, it shall
suffice to pour water upon it" The witness of Christian history is, therefore,
conclusive as to the original mode of baptism. The admission of other forms was
due to circumstances and expediency, and not to Scripture teaching. The
Protestant world which practices sprinkling, therefore, must maintain it on
grounds which are at variance with the fundamental principle of Protestants-the
Bible alone the authority in matters of faith and practice.

Immersion Viewed in its Relations.

Baptism, when viewed in its relations, strongly reinforces our contention for
immersion as distinguished from all other so-called modes of baptism. This
ordinance is not to be viewed apart from its connections in the Christian
system. For one thing, it is related in its very form to most vital Christian
doctrine. Death, burial, and resurrection are strikingly symbolized by the act
of baptism. A complete purification and cleansing from sin are also thus set
forth. A death to the old, a resurrection to a new life, are among the truths
which receive graphic portrayal in the baptismal act of obedience to Christ.
Rev. William Sandy, D. D., LL. D., author of a very able recent commentary on
Romans, says, in connection with Rom 6:1-14 : "Baptism expresses symbolically a
series of acts corresponding to the redeeming acts of Christ: Immersion-death;
submersion-burial (the ratification of death); emergence-resurrection." Now, so
far from being unimportant because a mere external form, is baptism, its real
importance arises from the fact that it is a form. Now, we do not exalt the
ordinance of baptism over against the truth of the atonement or other great
doctrines, and declare them of equal importance. Such comparisons are
unnecessary. To set forms against doctrines, or doctrines against forms, is a
thing unwarranted by Scripture. To arrive at an understanding of the importance
of a form, we must inquire what use it subserves as a form, and what authority
enjoins the form. As to the latter, Christ has spoken. This must suffice for all
who accept him as Lord. As to the former, baptism as a symbol must remain
unchanged in form. Symbols, in the nature of the case, cannot save. They can
only represent pre-existing spiritual life. As a symbol, form is everything.
This is true because only forms can serve as symbols. Truths cannot be
symbolized by other truths. Abstract teachings cannot be symbolized by other
abstractions. The fitness of the form to shadow forth truth is the determinative
principle in the institution of forms. The ritualistic system of the Old
Testament illustrates this at every point. Hence it follows that in its symbolic
form it is all-important. Understand me; I do not say form is all-important in
itself, or as compared with doctrine and life, but form, when employed as a
means of setting forth truth-form utilized as a symbol-is all-important. This is
true because form as a symbol is a "mould of doctrine." The doctrine is
contained in the symbol as water is contained in a vessel. To mar the form is to
destroy the doctrine, so far as the agency of the form is concerned, just as to
break the vessel is to spill the water. Its utility as a symbol is gone the
moment you alter its form. Then, too, to change baptism from immersion to
sprinkling, when we remember the symbolic uses of the ordinance, is really to
make less of doctrine than of form; for it is to make doctrine wait on form,
rather than form on doctrine. If doctrine is important in comparison with form,
then we should begin with doctrine, and make the symbol conform to the
requirements of doctrine. When we alter the form, we compel the doctrine to take
its chances for adequate representation in a mutilated form. Doctrine is the
jewel, form is the casket. Caskets are made for jewels, not jewels for caskets.
Who ever heard of a dealer manufacturing a set of handsome jewel-cases, and then
casting about for jewels to fit them? Baptists desire that the jewel of doctrine
shall abide in its pristine beauty, and that the casket of a symbol shall match
it in form, as in the beginning.

Another thought related to the foregoing is that Jesus always viewed things in
their totality, and not in fragments. He enjoins truth and its expression. The
tree is vindicated by its fruits; words are made good by deeds; life is
authenticated by conduct. So, also, faith ripens into expression. The internal
and the external are required to complete the Christian act. Baptism is the
outward expression of the inward change. Baptism by immersion is not only the
fitting expression of the inner life, it is the necessary complement to the
Lord’s supper. The two ordinances shadow forth the supreme facts of the gospel.
Christ’s death is symbolized in the supper, his burial and resurrection in the
ordinance of baptism. Thus, in their relations to the Christian system, baptism
and the supper occupy a position of unique value. They serve as a medium for the
exhibition in striking form of the chief fundamental and vital facts as to
Christ and the Christian. Was not this comprehensiveness a part of the design of
Christ in instituting the Ordinances? Is it not evident that he meant these
forms to serve as visible instrumentalities for thus setting forth before the
eyes of men a complete gospel? If this completeness of representation was a part
of Christ’s original design, can we depart from the forms, which are necessary
to the symbolic completeness, without violating Christ’s will? We must find
Christ’s point of view in leaving the ordinances to his churches, as well as
seek to understand their significance; and, having found his point of view, we
must adopt it as our own. The owner of certain grounds desired a landscape
gardener’s services to lay them out with a view to a given effect from the
portico of his residence, which stood on an elevation in the midst of the
grounds. The gardener, during an absence of the owner, discovered what he
regarded as a better effect from a different point of view, and laid out the
grounds accordingly. But he was summarily dismissed upon the owner’s return,
because of his disobedience, and because his new point of view left out of
account the chief item in the owner’s plan-viz., the effect from the portico of
his residence. The ordinances of baptism and the supper constitute a ceremonial
survey of the landscape of Christian fact and doctrine, comprehending the chief
vital facts. To break the form of baptism is to eliminate a part of its
doctrinal significance. Sprinkling cannot symbolize burial and resurrection. The
ordinance is thus left a mere fragmentary representation. Thenceforth the
ordinances cease to give the completeness of representation which Christ
designed. We thus lose his point of view.

It thus appears that an ordinance even must be viewed in its relations before it
can be understood. As a mere form, it is nothing. As a form employed to
symbolize vital truth, and as a supplement to another form symbolically setting
forth other truth, and as a part of an arrangement for the complete exhibition
of a group of truths, prescribed by a supreme will, it is much. A very minute
wheel lying on a jeweler’s table is an insignificant thing; as a part of the
machinery of a watch, it is indispensable; for without the tiny wheel the watch
would not run, and would cease to nave utility as a timepiece. The Other Side.

Various arguments and objections have been urged against the Baptist position. I
can scarcely do more than name some of the more popular of these, and then
briefly reply to the more important. The old claim that the scarcity of water in
Jerusalem must have prevented the immersion of 3,000 converts in one day by
twelve men is met by the well-known fact that Jerusalem was amply provided with
large pools and a water supply which sustained it through numerous sieges of
several months duration, and when the supply was exhausted on the outside, it
was abundant inside the city; and by the further demonstration, in the immersion
of our Telugu converts, of the ability of twelve men to perform the above task.
The claim for a "sacred sense" of the word baptizo in the Scriptures has never
been made out, and is distinctly negated by the consensus of German scholarship,
as represented by Professor Harnack, as well as the great mass of scholars of
all Christian nations. The plea for sprinkling, on the ground that immersion is
not always "practicable," is met by the explanation that what is "impracticable"
is what cannot be done, and that what cannot be done is never commanded. The
force of the argument based on the rigors of the colder climates is neutralized
by the fact that in cold England immersion continued much longer than in Spain
and some of the warmer climates of the south. The fact that many learned and
good men have believed in sprinkling, which is a solace to some, should not
stand a moment as an excuse for personal investigation on the part of all, and
personal obedience to the commands of Christ. Few of the errors of Christian
history in doctrine and life are without learned and good men as their
advocates. It was often thus that they originated. Over against this fact is
another, far more significant-viz., that there is an increasing demand for
immersion on the part of the common people, with their English Bible in their
hands. This demand is witnessed to a greater or less extent in every Protestant
community. It has reached such proportions in the Church of England that more
than 100 baptisteries, according to The Freeman, have been erected in recent
years for the baptism of adults, and others are in process of construction. The
truth is that, although the word "baptize" is not a translation, but a
transference of the Greek original-thus obscuring its meaning-nevertheless, the
act of baptism as described in the English Bible, and as expounded especially in
the Epistles, is convincing in itself as to mode. The passages describing the
baptism of Jesus in Jordan and the baptism of the Ethiopian, as well as other
Scriptures, leave no escape for the plain reader from the conclusion that
immersion is the baptism commanded in the New Testament.

There are two really important arguments against our position-important not in
themselves, but in their prevalence and power over men. The first is that the
church has the power to alter the form of baptism. This is the view of Roman
Catholics. I need not delay to reply to it in detail. It raises the larger
question as to the authority of the church. Baptists can never admit that any
church is coordinate in authority with Christ himself. The Protestant world is
guilty of a gross inconsistency whenever it admits the principle for a moment.
The Bible, and the Bible only, as Christ’s revealed will, is authority for
Protestants in matters of religion. Hence the clear-cut deliverance of Dr.
Doellinger, as given earlier in this article. Roman Catholics grasp this vital
distinction better than some who claim to oppose them. The second of these
important arguments is that based on Christian liberty. Among the scholars and
the well-informed laity of today in all denominations which do not practice
immersion this is the final and sufficient ground, consciously or unconsciously
held, for adherence to another mode. The case for immersion as the original New
Testament teaching and practice has been so completely made out that another
position has become necessary. "If you retain the essence," they say, "you are
not obliged to do more in matters of form; Christian liberty relieves you from
slavish obedience in externals." The sufficient Baptist reply is not far to
seek. In the first place, Christian liberty never admits of departure from
positive commands which are of permanent obligation. In the application of
general principles to specific cases which may arise, it is true that Christian
liberty sometimes allows room for variation in conduct. But not in definite,
positive commands. Now, those who practice sprinkling maintain that baptism is
an ordinance of permanent obligation, and binding because commanded by Christ.
As a symbol it sets forth certain doctrines. To retain the "essence" of the
symbol, we must retain its form, as has already been shown. To alter the form so
as to deprive it of power to symbolize death, burial, and resurrection, is to
rob it of a part of its "essence" as a symbol. If Christian liberty is to be
pleaded in the case, the Quakers alone represent the consistent position; for
liberty to alter a form implies liberty to reject it entirely. Indeed, in this
case, to alter is to reject in part, because to alter the form is in part to
destroy the meaning. To reject in part involves liberty to reject altogether.
The Quakers do this. If to the Quaker it should seem allowable, in the name of
liberty, to reject baptism as a symbol of purification, burial, and
resurrection, why should it seem allowable for a Methodist in the name of
liberty to retain it as a symbol of purification, and reject it as a symbol of
burial and resurrection? Why split the ordinance into parts, and deal with one
part on the principle of obedience, and with the other on the principle of
liberty? There is no middle ground between Baptists and Romanists on the issue
as to the relative authority of the Scriptures and the church, and there is no
middle ground between Baptists and Quakers on the issue as to the principle of
Christian liberty in the matter of baptism. Our survey of "the case for
immersion at present" brings us to the following conclusion: That, in view of
the classical and New Testament meaning of the Greek word for baptize, as
learned from standard lexicons; in view of the testimony of the Christian
fathers of the early centuries; in view of the "Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles"; in view of the testimony of Christian history; in view of the
symbolic significance of baptism and the relation of its form to truth, to the
Lord’s supper, to the will of Christ; and in view of the authoritativeness of
the Bible, and of any proper interpretation of Christian liberty, the case for
immersion seems abundantly proved.

Reader, have you obeyed your Lord in his appointed ordinance? Have you the
witness of a conscience void of offence in this matter? Do you know the joy of
obedience, which is vouchsafed to all who take up their cross and follow their
Lord into the experience which he knew as he entered the waters of Jordan,
saying, "Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness"?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 22: 01.02.04.     PART 2 CHAPTER 04 ARCHAEOLOGY OF BAPTISM-THE BATH, UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 2-CHAPTER 4.

Archaeology of Baptism-The Bath, Under The Old Testament. BY HOWARD OSGOOD,
ROCHESTER, N. Y.

Bread and wine, the symbols of the support of life, were brought forth by
Melchizedeck to greet Abraham; they were constant symbols on the golden table in
the tent and temples, and the invariable accompaniment of the Passover feast.
These simplest of all symbols were filled with deeper meaning than they had ever
borne when Christ made them the memorials of his broken body and his blood
poured out. The custom of dipping the person in water, common from the earliest
times in Israel as a religious rite of impressive and spiritual import, was made
by God the witness of Christ in his all-comprehending life and death and
resurrection for us.

One of the unexpected revelations of the countless Egyptian monuments, by their
inscriptions and pictures, is that, for at least a thousand years before Moses,
they were a people of excessive and minute cleanliness, especially with regard
to religious services. The laws concerning cleansing, given by God through
Moses, were not something far off from the thought of that age. These laws are
far stricter in this matter of cleanliness than any of our present codes.
Cleanliness of person, of dress, of house, of furniture, of utensils, of habits,
of food, was prescribed with minute insistence. The Israelite who from the heart
strove to be true to the teaching of God was, in consequence, an excessively
clean man. No priest and no others could take part in the sacrifices and
services of the temple or even in the Passover with any uncleanness upon him,
under the penalty of being cut off from his people. There were less and greater
uncleanness. Some of these rendered unclean for a day only. Others could only be
put away by ceremonies continued through a week. The greater bodily uncleanness
were contracted by being in the house of a dead person, touching any dead body
or a bone of a man or a grave, by leprosy, etc. Of course, these were typical,
and the cleansing was merely "unto the cleanness of the flesh," for the greatest
of all uncleanness, that which by the teaching of God defiled soul and body with
utter abomination, was turning from the heart worship of the only God to serve
idols, the work of men’s hands. That is the uncleanness that sends its poison
through every nerve and vein. The lesser uncleanness was put away by washing the
clothes and bathing, immersing the body in water. But the greater uncleanness
could be put away only by ceremonies continued through a whole week. That which
concluded them all was the immersion of the body in water, the bath, which
immediately preceded the sacrifice offered on the eighth day. From the very
numerous causes of defilement, seen and unseen, no Israelite could be sure of
his being ceremonially clean. And hence the bath was a constant religious
necessity, frequently repeated, and always taken before offering sacrifice. Its
high importance in the service of the temple is marked on the greatest of all
the high days of Israel, the day of atonement, when the high priest, though he
had bathed before, was required during those supreme services to "bathe his Mesh
in water" when he exchanged his usual dress for the holy linen garments, and
again when he put off the holy linen to take his usual dress.

What the form of this washing (bath) was, how it was clearly understood in
Western Asia, is plain from Elisha’s direction to Naaman the Syrian, "Go and
wash in the Jordan seven times." "Then went he down and dipped himself seven
times in the Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God." The New
Testament terms these various washings, baths, "various dippings," "baptisms"
(Heb 9:10). And when Pedobaptist Hebrew scholars of the first class, like the
Lutheran Delitzach, and Salkinson, translate the New Testament into its
corresponding Hebrew, they must use for baptism and these various washings the
Old Testament terms signifying washing, dipping. The authoritative Jewish
writings on these subjects from New Testament days teach that these ceremonial
washings were complete immersion. The great Christian writers for five centuries
after Christ use the terms "washing" and "bath" for baptism quite as often as
they use the specific New Testament term. And in this they are only following
the example of the New Testament (Acts 22:16; 1Co 6:11; Eph 5:26; Tit 3:5; Heb
9:10; Heb 10:22). That this ritual washing, dipping, bath, was understood in its
spiritual typical import by spiritually-minded men under the Old Testament is
shown by the cry out of the depths from Israel’s king returning from his long
and foul uncleanness: "Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity and cleanse me from
my sin." And, referring especially to the cleansing from the greater uncleanness
by sprinkling from a bunch of hyssop twigs the ashes of the red heifer (Num
19:8; Num 19:19): "Cleanse me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I
shall be whiter than snow." The presumptuous are warned away by God: "Wash you,
make you clean," for Zion’s dawn shall not appear till "the filth of her
daughters has been washed away." Our eyes and our thoughts have been so far
restricted to the one word "baptism" and its significance after Christ that we
have overlooked the same fact under another term, "washing," "bathe," with its
spiritual significance under the Old Testament. But the New Testament does not
overlook it. The Epistle to the Hebrews applies that older ceremony in both its
parts with vivid realism to the new condition: "Let us draw near with a true
heart in fulness of faith; having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience
and our body washed with pure water." To the Corinthians, befouled with all the
uncleanness of heathenism, Paul says: "Such were some of you, but ye washed
yourselves, but ye were sanctified," etc. And, in the Epistles to the Ephesians
and to Titus, Paul uses the term "bath" with plain reference to the custom of
the Old Testament applied to the New; and still further in that beautiful word
painting of Christ’s bringing the church to himself (the washing and renewing of
the garments was always prescribed with the bath)

"As Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify
it, having cleansed it by the bath of water with the word, that he might present
the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such
thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."

It has been assumed, against the facts, that there was no ceremony ordained by
the law of God for the reception of proselytes from the heathen. But the law
certainly provided for the reception of slaves purchased from the heathen, as
well as for captives by war. And the Pentateuch tells us of one foreigner who
became eminent in Israel, Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite. The
succeeding books tell us of Rahab the Canaanitess, the Hivites who became
servants of the house of God, Othniel the son of Kenaz, Heber a Midianite, the
lovely Moabitess Ruth, and others. Was the only rite of reception for men? Was
then no ceremony for the reception of Rahab and Ruth? The mistake in assuming
that the law did not provide for the reception of converts from the heathen has
arisen from a forgetfulness of the reiterated statute of the law, that there
shall be one and the same law for the home-born Israelite and for the alien who
would come near to sacrifice to God (Exo 12:49; Lev 17:16; Lev 24:22; Num 9:14;
Num 15:14-16; Num 15:29-31; Num 19:10). The Israelite could be cleansed from the
greater uncleanness only by certain ceremonies. The alien coming to take refuge
under the wings of Jehovah could be cleansed from his uncleanness just as Israel
was from his. The bath and the sacrifice, the bath and the sacrifice-these were
the two rites that stood out most prominently in their reception. It is to these
ceremonies of cleansing, the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer, to be
followed by the bath and the sacrifice, that God himself refers when, in his
glowing prophecy of bringing back his people from all the uncleanness of their
idolatry in Babylon, he says: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye
shall be clean; from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse
you" (Eze 36:25). As is so frequent in the Bible, a part of the week’s ceremony
is here put for the whole. If Israel-that was said by God to be more defiled by
idolatry than Sodom or Assyria or Egypt-could be so cleansed, surely those with
lesser uncleanness upon them could be cleansed in like manner.

Until the appearance of John the Baptist, the dipping of the person in water was
the absolute prerequisite under the law for every man and woman who would enter
the inner court to take part in the worship. It was as common as sacrifice. Its
spiritual meaning was known and felt by every one taught by the Spirit-as David,
the prophets, Joseph and Mary, Zacharias and Elizabeth, Simeon and Anna, and all
who "were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem."

It is not at all surprising, therefore, that, when John came dipping, baptizing
in living, running water. there should be no query by the Jews as to the
well-known custom. Their only query was as to John himself: "Who art thou? Art
thou the Christ? Art thou Elijah? Art thou the prophet?" The great sacrifice,
"once for all time," was about to take place, and it was in exact accordance
with the law and the promise that those who repented of their sins should be
dipped, baptized, "unto remission of sins"; that is, that they might enter in
and have part in that final really atoning sacrifice. "John baptized with the
baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him
who should come after him; that is, on Jesus." They were baptized in expectation
and hope of that sacrifice. We are baptized because we know it has taken place
and we trust in it. That the baptism (dipping) enjoined in the New Testament was
a complete immersion is now so fully acknowledged and taught by those most
familiar with the language, customs, and history of that time that it is not
needful to add to this discussion.

Baptism After the Time of Christ From Justin Martyr (A.D. 150) onwards for 700
years there is the united testimony of literature and art that baptism was a
dipping, immersion of the candidate. There are a few minor councils that, with
Cyprian of Carthage, advocated a sprinkling of the body of a dying man, in case
he had not received baptism; but none of the great authors or the numerous
rituals or the great councils acknowledged this exception, even in the case of
the dying. With united voice they teach that immersion, most frequently repeated
thrice-that is, at each name of the Trinity-is the only baptism, and
anathematize all who would teach differently. The Egyptian ritual, A.D. 200-300;
the Roman ritual, A.D. 250; the Apostolic Constitutions, A.D. 350-400; the
church of Palestine, A.D. 386; the Milanese church, A.D. 397; Chrysostom, the
Gregories, Augustine, about A.D. 400; Dionysius, A.D. 450, and many lesser
authorities, all agree that all around the Mediterranean, in Europe, Asia, and
Africa, there was but one baptism, trine immersion. But for trine immersion
there is no warrant in the New Testament.

What the "washing" of the Jews at this date was we know from the twelve
treatises on purification in the heart of the Talmud, the Mishna. Every one,
even with any of the lesser uncleannesses upon him, must dip his body wholly
under water, and the least quantity of water sufficient for this purpose was put
at eighty gallons. No exception is allowed to this requirement. That the Jewish
washing and Christian baptism were the same in form is proved by Tertullian’s
(A.D. 220) argument that the difference consisted in the secret power of God
conveyed in baptism. From A.D. 450 there is a long series of pictorial
representations of baptism, found in churches, catacombs, manuscripts, etc.,
etc. They all follow closely one type-the baptism of Jesus by John in the
Jordan. The Savior stands in the water, John stands on the bank and extends his
hand over the head of Jesus. There are no representations for 800 years after
Christ of the baptizer being in the water with the candidate, and the literature
on this point is very decided-the baptizer is outside the baptistery.

What, then, was the action of the baptizer and of the candidate? Here the
literature, Christian and Jewish, comes in to confirm the uniform representation
in art. The candidate entered the baptistery, either alone or attended by a
friend, the minister placed his hand upon the head of the candidate, pronouncing
the words, and the candidate bowed his head forward beneath the water. In this,
literature and rituals agree. There can be no doubt that this was the usual,
though not exclusive, action in New Testament times and for hundreds of years
afterwards. To baptize one’s self and to be baptized are expressions found in
the New Testament, and more frequently in Christian writers of the following
centuries. For Instance, in Acts 22:16, Ananias says to Paul, "Arise and
baptize, immerse thyself" (though it is wrongly put in the old and new versions,
"be baptized"). So in 1Co 6:11, "Ye washed yourselves" (in the old and new
versions, "Ye are, were washed"). The following witnesses, among many others,
show the custom in their days: The Christian church in Rome (A.D. 250) observed
the following custom: "Then the candidate descends into the water, but the elder
(`who stands above the water’) places his hand upon his head and asks him in
these words: ‘Dost thou believe in God the Father almighty? The candidate
answers: I believe. Then for the first time he is immersed in the water. Again
he asks him in these words: Dost thou believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
whom the virgin bore by the Holy Spirit, who came to save men, who was crucified
for us under Pontius Pilate, who died and arose from the dead on the third day
and ascended to heaven and sits at the right hard of the Father, and will come
to judge the living and the dead? He answers: I believe; and the second time he
is immersed in the water. He is asked the third time: Dost thou believe in the
Holy Spirit, the Comforter, proceeding from the Father and the Son. He answers:
I believe; and the third time he is immersed in the water. At each of these
times he (the elder) says: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Canons of Hippolytus, sections 123-133. And in
accord with this, Hippolytus, in his "Divine Theophany," tells us: "Christ bowed
his head, to be baptized by John."

Gregory Thaumaturgus (A.D. 279) sets before us his idea of the hesitation of
John to, touch the head of Jesus to baptize him. "How shall I dare to touch
thine immaculate head? How shall I extend my servant fingers over thy divine
head?" And Jesus is said to reply: "Lend me, O Baptizer. thy right hand for the
present dispensation. Touch my head. Baptize me." "The Baptizer obeyed the
divine command, and, stretching out his gently trembling and rejoicing right
hand, he baptized the Lord."

Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 386): "Even Simon Magus dipped his body in water."
Gregory Nyssen (A.D. 395): "Coming to the water, we hide ourselves in it."

Ambrose of Milan (A.D. 397) : "Thou wart asked. Dost thou believe in God the
Father Omnipotent? Thou saidst, I believe, and thou didst dip thyself; that is,
wast buried. Again thou wast asked, Dost thou believe in our Lord Jesus Christ
and in his cross? Thou saidst, I believe, and thou didst dip thyself; and so
thou wast buried with Christ. The third time thou wast asked, Dost thou believe
in the Holy Spirit? Thou saidst, I believe; and the third time thou didst dip
thyself."

Chrysostom (A.D. 407): "For when we Immerse our heads," etc. "It is easy for us
to dip anti lift our heads again." Augustine (A.D. 407): "After you promised to
believe, we thrice dipped your heads in the sacred fountain."

It is this custom of standing in the water and bowing the head beneath the water
that explains the peculiar usage of the Syrians in their very early translation
of the New Testament and in their literature, where "to stand," "standing," is
always the translation of "to baptize," "baptism," etc. The candidate stood up
to confess Christ, and his baptism was standing up for Christ.

Baptism, then, was not merely the dipping of the head beneath the water, but the
dipping of the head art the same time that the minister laid his hand upon the
head and pronounced the words of baptism. That this custom in baptism-standing
and bowing the head, while the baptizer placed his hand upon the head of the
candidate and pronounced the words of baptism-was the universal custom of early
Christianity, is the united testimony of ritual, literature, and art. It is
simple, dignified, safe. The present custom generally observed in our churches
is the invention of very recent centuries.

T o the apostle of Burma, Adoniram Judson, who returned to the ancient custom of
baptism, and who united the refinement and fire of Greek Christian culture with
absorbing gratitude and love to Christ his Savior, we are indebted for the noble
lines with which I close this paper.

"Come, Holy Spirit, Dove divine, On these baptismal waters shine; And teach our
hearts in highest strain To praise the Lamb for sinners slain.

"We love thy name, we love thy laws, And joyfully embrace thy cause;

We love thy cross, the shame, the pain, O Lamb of God, for sinners slain.

We sink beneath thy mystic flood:

O bathe us in thy cleansing blood!

We die to sin and seek a grave With thee beneath the yielding wave. And as we
rise, with thee to live, Oh, let the Holy Spirit give The sealing unction from
above- The breath of life, the fire of love."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 23: 01.02.05.     PART 2 CHAPTER 05 BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD’S SUPPER.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 2-CHAPTER 5.

Baptism the Door to the Lord’s Supper. BY FRANKLIN JOHNSON, D. D., LL.D., OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.

It is my purpose to consider in this paper the proposition that all Christians
ought to be baptized before they come to the Lord’s supper. Since baptism is the
immersion of a believer "into the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost," the proposition may take another verbal form, and affirm that all
Christians ought to be immersed before they come to the Lord’s supper. Some of
my brethren proceed further, and teach that, not only immersion, but membership
in a Baptist church, is prerequisite. Some proceed even further than this, and
require membership in the particular Baptist church by which the supper is
announced. To consider all these propositions would demand more space than I
have at my disposal, and hence I limit myself to the first. This, after all, is
the decisive one. If it is left in doubt, the others must fall; if it is
established, they will occasion but little difficulty, and will be treated as
questions of administration, to be decided in the affirmative or in the negative
without affecting the essential principle that baptism should precede the Lord’s
supper. Dr. Norman Fox has given me an additional reason for the limitation of
my study to the one proposition in his recent statement ("The Invitation to the
Breaking of Bread," page 13) that "it has never really been discussed among
Baptists," by whom "it has been thought sufficient to say, ‘All other churches
hold this view."’ The Nature of the Evidence.

If I say that the evidence in favor of the proposition is inferential, I do not
disparage it. Inferential evidence is often of the strongest kind; it is that
circumstantial evidence upon which the gravest cases in our courts of law are
decided. Many great truths of our religion are known to us only by inference.
The Christian Sabbath, as distinguished from the Mosaic, is known to us only by
inference. The doctrine of the Trinity is proved only by inference. The argument
of our Lord against divorce (Mat 19:3-6) is purely Inferential. So, also, is his
proof of the resurrection (Mat 12:26-27). That there should be a Lord’s supper
at all, as distinguished from the common meal, is proved only by inference. The
Baptist is not alone when he consults inferential evidence to ascertain who may
properly partake of the Lord’s supper; he has the entire Christian world with
him, as all denominations appeal exclusively to this evidence. If we shall make
any proposition whatsoever concerning the terms of admission, we shall be
compelled to support it solely by inferential evidence, for there is no other
that can be produced. Three pastors-one a Baptist, another a Presbyterian, and
the third a Methodist-once conversed on this subject somewhat as follows:

Presbyterian to Baptist-"What passage of Scripture commands you to limit your
invitation to the supper to baptized believers?"

Baptist-"There is no explicit command:’

Presbyterian-"I do not think that there should be any limitation for which a
‘Thus saith the Lord’ cannot be adduced."

Methodist to Presbyterian-"I quite agree with you." .

Baptist to Presbyterian-"What invitation do you give?"

Presbyterian-"I invite all members of evangelical churches."

Baptist "And where do you find-"Thus saith the Lord’ for that?"

Methodist, after a moment of silence-"But I invite all who love Christ, whether
they are members of evangelical churches or not."

Baptist-"And where do you find a ‘Thus saith the Lord’ for that?"

Baptist, after some moments of silence-"It appears that each of you establishes
a limitation, and that neither of you can find an express warrant in scripture
for the limitation which he establishes. If either of you should attempt to
support his limitation, his argument would be inferential. It is the same with
the Baptist, except that his Inferential evidence is cogent, while that which
could be adduced for either of the limitations you have mentioned would be
feeble and easily set aside." This parable may suffice to convey my thought
concerning the nature of the arguments with which I shall support the
proposition that all Christians ought to be baptized before they come to the
Lord’s table. The Argument From the Importance of Baptism

If baptism were an ordinance of small importance, it might not be worth while to
maintain its position as a prerequisite to the Lord’s supper. Granting that it
appears in this honorable station in the New Testament, this might have been the
result of chance, or of temporary convenience, or of some conception peculiar to
the apostolic age, and of no permanent value. But when we observe the vast
importance which the New Testament attaches to baptism, and the vast importance
of the function of baptism in the history of the individual soul, and hence of
the church, we perceive at once that the position of precedence assigned to it
in the New Testament cannot be the result of accident or of passing
circumstances. Our Lord was baptized at the very beginning of his ministry, and
at the very close of his ministry he left a formal command to baptize every
disciple; and thus he interwove the ordinance with his solemn inauguration as
the suffering Messiah, and again with his solemn inauguration as the reigning
Messiah. The heavens were opened to approve his baptism, and immediately after
his proclamation of the law of baptism they were, opened. again to receive him
up into glory, thus making his last words more impressive than any others. When
the Holy Spirit distinguished the day of Pentecost with the overwhelming display
of his regenerating grace, all those who repented under his influence were
baptized, and the work of the Spirit began, as the work of Christ had begun, in
the observance of this rite. The New Testament often speaks of baptism in such
an emphatic manner as almost to identify it with the work of God in the soul, of
which it is a symbol; that is, with spiritual washing, with death to sin and
resurrection from it, and with the removal of guilt by pardon. "Verily, verily,
I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5). "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away
thy sins" (Acts 22:16). "He saved us through the washing of regeneration and
renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Tit 3:5). "Which also after a true likeness doth
now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but
the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of
Jesus Christ" (1Pe 3:21). If we find any difficulty with these expressions, is
it not because we have accustomed ourselves to regard baptism as a mere
ceremony, a vague emblem, setting forth certain indefinite phases of the divine
life, but not ministering nourishment to it?

Thus in every way the New Testament affirms the importance of baptism, and does
so even at the risk of creating the impression in some minds that the rite
contains an occult spiritual power to save the soul, a danger which the Holy
Spirit of inspiration evidently deemed less hurtful than that of undervaluing
the ordinance.

It is sometimes said that the apostle Paul esteemed baptism lightly, and his
statement to the Corinthians (1Co 1:17) that "God sent him to preach, and not to
baptize," is offered in evidence. This opinion is always heard, when it is heard
at all, from persons who belong to denominations which have reduced baptism to a
drop of water applied to the forehead of an infant as a symbol of the desire of
the parents and friends that it may be saved. As these persons reduce baptism to
a rite without much meaning or utility, it is natural for them to attribute
their low estimate of it to the apostle, whose bodily infirmities may well have
compelled him to arrange that it should be administered by his assistants.
Christ himself baptized by the hands of his disciples, and yet, as we have seen,
he assigned to the ordinance a lofty position in his example and his
instructions to his church; and if the apostle Paul, under the compulsion of
infirmity, had baptism administered by his assistants, he thought as little as
did his Master of disparaging the holy ordinance. The apostle does not say that
those to whom he wrote had not been baptized; indeed, the contrary is implied;
and he merely expresses his gratification that as events had turned out, the
ordinance had been administered by others, lest some of the Christians at
Corinth, in the heat of partisan strife, should declare that he had baptized
into his own name. So far is the apostle Paul from depreciating baptism, that he
exalts it as few other writers of the New Testament do. "Are ye ignorant that
all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were
buried, therefore, with him through baptism into death; that, like as Christ was
raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in
newness of life" (Rom 6:3-4). "Having been buried with him in baptism, wherein
ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him
from the dead" (Col 3:12). It will be observed that in these passages the
apostle, who is supposed to think lightly of baptism, associates it not only
with the greatest truths of the gospel, the death and resurrection of Christ,
but also with the greatest duty of the believer, to live in a manner worthy of
his holy calling. But why is baptism exalted in the Scriptures to this lofty
position? God is infinite reason, and he has not done this thing arbitrarily. He
is infinite love, and his reasons for this act have reference to the salvation
of men. The lofty position conferred upon baptism by Christ and his apostles and
by the Spirit of inspiration is explained when we consider the functions of the
ordinance in the history of the individual soul, and hence of the church.

1. As a means of publishing the gospel to the world, it is excelled only by the
living preacher. Wherever it is administered, it proclaims the great central
truths of our religion. First, in an emotional picture, in an action of
incomparable appropriateness and beauty, it sets forth the Saviour of mankind in
the two moments around which thought and feeling chiefly cluster; in the moment
of his burial, deserted by his disciples, and rescued from nameless indignities
only by the intervention of one who had not been numbered with them, and in the
moment of his resurrection-the first a moment the contemplation of which plunges
us into tears, the second a moment the contemplation of which exalts us to a
heaven of joy and triumph. But, next, the ordinance sets forth the death of the
soul to sin and its resurrection to a new life of holiness. If the first truth
is the greatest of all concerning Christ, the second is the greatest of all
concerning the Christian. But, still further, the ordinance sets forth our
assurance of a future resurrection after death has done its worst against us. If
the first and second truths are the greatest concerning Christ and the
Christian, the third is the greatest of which we can think in connection with
our destiny after our earthly career is closed. Now, these are the central
truths of our religion. They are mighty when they are proclaimed by a faithful
ministry, but they receive additional might when they are illustrated in the
graphic action of baptism. Hence many thousands of happy Christians attribute
their first favorable impressions of Christianity to the overwhelming influence
of baptism, as they have witnessed its administration to others.

2. Not only the world, but also the church, has need of this preaching.
Sometimes her living teachers err. They may lay the chief emphasis upon the
incarnation of Christ and remand his cross to a secondary position. They may
deny the reality of his resurrection. They may deny the essential sinfulness of
the soul and its need of a radical change in regeneration. They may deny the
future resurrection of the body. But baptism, where it is faithfully preserved
and administered, continues to proclaim these great central truths, and to
admonish those who forget them by its silent, but impressive, witness. Hence any
perversion of it is a calamity. The church which substitutes effusion for it
rules out of court a volume of testimony to the chief doctrines of the gospel
which Christ himself has produced, and thus renders the task of its misleaders
far more easy.

3. Baptism is of inestimable value to the disciple just born again and just
entering upon a new course of life. His old habits of thought and feeling and
action are broken, but not destroyed. He has within him a celestial life, but it
is only pushing its shoots above the soil, and is exposed to drought and frost
and the trampling of herds, and it needs nourishment and shelter. At the
beginning of any new and trying course of life, a moving ceremony, which
surrounds the opening of the pathway with strong and attractive associations,
which can never be forgotten, is a ministering angel. Every student of the mind
recognizes the wisdom of making the greatest possible impression upon it when it
forsakes some evil and determines to practice some virtue hitherto untried. Thus
Bain ("The Emotions and the Will," page 453) says: "If we can only strike a blow
with such power as to seize possession of a man’s entire thoughts and voluntary
dispositions for a certain length of time, we may succeed in launching him on a
new career, and in keeping him in that course until there is time for habits to
commence, and until a force is arrayed in favor of the present state of things
able to cope with the tendencies and growth of the former life." James
("Psychology," I., p. 123) refers to this passage, and adds: "We must take care
to launch ourselves with as strong and decided an initiative as possible.
Accumulate all the possible circumstances which shall reinforce the right
motives; put yourself assiduously in conditions that encourage the new way; make
engagements incompatible with the old; take a public pledge, if the case allows;
in short, develop your resolution by every aid you know."

If this teaching of the psychologists needs any further confirmation, let us
consider that we are accustomed to start men on new and trying courses of life
with solemn ceremonies. Thus we have an inaugural ceremony when a civil officer
assumes his new position, and we cannot doubt that kings and presidents and
judges are often aided to bear faithfully their heavy burdens and to live above
the temptations which plead with them to swerve from the highway of honor, at
least a little and in secret, by calling to mind the oath which they swore in
the beginning and the assembled multitudes of spectators who witnessed it. Nor
can we doubt that the care which we lavish upon the marriage ceremony aids the
young husband and wife, but partially adapted to each other, and but partially
fitted for their new duties and responsibilities, to have patience, and to
acquire those habits of yielding and unselfishness which the home demands. They
look back at the marriage service, and picture the faces of friends gathered
together to hear their vows of love and fidelity, and grow ashamed of the petty
and exacting tempers which might mar their peace or destroy it altogether. Our
Savior, who created the soul and knows it perfectly, did his first miracle to
aid in rendering a marriage service successful. As he began his ministry by
putting the supreme seal of his approval on the ceremony of baptism, so he began
his miracles by putting the supreme seal of his approval on the ceremony of
marriage. He performed this divine act in order to approve the married life and
the home. But let us not pause when we have said this. The most obvious feature
of the act was .the solicitude of Christ to bless the ceremony itself and to
make it complete, so that his young friends, when they should remember it in
after years, should not associate it with distress and humiliation, but should
find in it a source of toy and a sweet constraint to all the domestic virtues.
We are following Christ when we make the ceremony of marriage impressive and
helpful. Let us imagine a society in which it should be reduced to a few cold
words or should be wholly abolished. Such a society would be either angelic, and
in no need of aid to overcome sin, or else bestial, incapable of gentleness, and
unrestrained by love or conscience from the indulgence of all base passions.

We are now prepared to understand in some small measure the divine utility of
holy baptism. In saving the soul, God works both directly and indirectly, both
by the immediate contact of the Holy Spirit and by mediate external agencies.
Hence we speak not only of the sovereignty of grace, but also of the means of
grace. Were the means of grace unimportant, we might dispense with preaching,
with the study of the Bible, with the counsels of Christian friends, and with
the hallowed associations of the church. Now, baptism, a powerful depiction of
the burial and resurrection of Christ, of the death and resurrection of the
soul, and of our future blessed resurrection, standing at the very beginning of
the new life, is a most precious means of grace. Its n,, its mighty appeal to
the intelligence, to the imagination, to the emotions, and thus to the will,
render it most effectual in producing the greatest possible initial impression,
which, the psychologists tell us, is so necessary at the beginning of a new
course. To apply it in unconscious infancy, or to alter its form and thus to
blot out its testimony concerning the great central truths of Christianity, is
to render it nugatory.

4. But more than this should be said. Baptism is a much-needed aid to the
disciple, not merely because it is a moving ceremony. It is an act of faith on
his part, "the interrogation of a good conscience toward God." Now, every act of
faith leads to a gracious manifestation of God to the soul. The highest acts of
faith-like those of the martyrs, for example-often lead to overwhelming
manifestations of God to the soul, and hence many Christians who have "given
their bodies to be burned" have broken forth into singing in the midst of the
flames. Among the most decisive acts of faith we must reckon this holy
ordinance, in which the new disciple puts on Christ before an assembled world.
It is common, therefore, for new disciples to receive in it a vast influx of
spiritual power. The Holy Spirit responds to faith and communicates abundance of
peace and joy and power, testifying of cleansing and pardon, of the gracious
smiles of the Heavenly Father, sand of the inheritance of glory, and giving
unusual influence to the words and deeds with which the soldier of the cross,
but just enlisted in the service, seeks "to destroy the works of the devil." So
common is this experience that, when I was a pastor, I counted upon it as one of
my most valuable auxiliaries, and never in vain. In every community there are
good, but discouraged, Christian people who, humbly conscious of their faults,
hesitate to enter the church as members. All who know them hold them to be
Christians, though of the timid and shrinking class, but they themselves stand
in doubt, "waiting for the waters to be moved," with some emotional assurance
that they are accepted. I was accustomed to promise these excellent and modest
children of God that they would receive the light for which they longed, if they
would obey Christ and be baptized; I led many of them into the church, and I
never knew my prediction to fail. Their act of faith was met by the Holy Spirit
with a corresponding act of grace.

Let no one misrepresent this view by calling it sacramentarianism. It is as far
from sacramentarianism as the east is from the west. Sacramentarianism affirms
that the sacraments are channels of grace; but I affirm that faith is the sole
channel of grace. Sacramentarianism affirms that, since the sacraments are
channels of grace, the reception of them is the usual condition upon which grace
is conferred; but I affirm that faith is the sole condition upon which grace is
conferred. After having guarded myself in this manner, I may surely insist,
without being misunderstood, that baptism is an act of faith, and hence a means
of grace, and that, as it was appointed for all his followers by the Son of God,
the Spirit of God honors it by conferring light and comfort and strength on
those who receive it in faith.

These are some of the effects of baptism in the economy of grace. To the
Baptists chiefly has been granted the honor of restoring this holy ordinance to
the Christian world. Were it a mere form, it would not matter whether it was
placed before or after the Lord’s supper. But it is an agency of infinite
practical value in launching the new disciple upon his new way, and its place of
utility is at the beginning of his discipleship; and, since infinite wisdom has
assigned it this position, the Baptists should keep it there. Nor should they
recognize as baptism the christening of infants, or sprinkling or pouring
administered to older persons-ceremonies containing nothing of the signifcance
and power of the Christian ordinance. But unrestricted communion is a
recognition of these ceremonies as baptism, and a recognition in action, which
is far more decisive and impressive than any words. It would be vain for the
Baptists to hope to bring baptism back to the place from which these ceremonies
have thrust it, if they should practice unrestricted communion. in spite of all
verbal protests, they would be understood to recognize Infant christening and
sprinkling and pouring as valid baptism, and in the end they themselves would
come to feel that these ceremonies are in some sense valid. This would not be a
misfortune if baptism were a light thing; but, since the New Testament has
charged it with the weightiest meanings and appointed it to the weightiest
functions, the Baptists have no right to pursue a course which would silence its
voice and smite its beneficent power with paralysis.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 24: 01.02.06.     PART 2 CHAPTER 06 BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD’S SUPPER.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 2-CHAPTER 6.

Baptism the Door to the Lord’s Supper. BY FRANKLIN JOHNSON, D. D., LL.D., OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. The Argument From The Importance of the Lord’s Supper.

Some of-those, who teach that baptism need not precede the Lord’s supper do so
because they hold a view of the Lord’s supper quite different from that of the
New Testament. Thus Professor Seeley (in his "Ecce Homo") has told us that our
Lord instituted a sort of "club dinner," in which his friends were asked to
remember him. The theory requires us to forget much that our Lord said at the
last supper-as, for example, "This is my body," and "This is my blood"; but
Professor Seeley found no serious difficulty here. Many other writers join him
in presenting the Lord’s supper in this secular light. In order to do so, they
trim away some of our Lord’s expressions recorded in the Gospels as not
genuine-that is, as not convenient-and pronounce some expressions of the other
books of the New Testament later accretions, of no authority for us. Now, if I
believed that our Lord intended to institute a mere club dinner, I should not
regard baptism as prerequisite to it. The chief prerequisites to a club dinner
are those social qualities which render a person "clubable" and a good appetite.

Dr. Norman Fox (in his two booklets, "Christ in the Daily Meal" and "The
Invitation to the Breaking of Bread"; so, also, McGiffert, "The Apostolic Age,"
pages 69, 70) is an able representative of the view that our Lord, at the last
supper, intended to make all meals commemorative of his person and his death,
and not to institute a special commemorative meal. Dr. Fox infers from this
premise that baptism cannot be a prerequisite to the Lord’s supper, for every
meal, partaken in a proper spirit, is to him the Lord’s supper. The conclusion
may be granted if the premise is proven, for it is difficult to think of our
Lord as wishing to make baptism a prerequisite to every meal. Had he done so, it
would be necessary to compel every convert to fast until baptism could be
administered. But the premise does not appear to me to rest on any solid
support.

It is the purpose of Dr. Fox to bring all meals up to the level of the Lord’s
supper, and not to depress the Lord’s supper to the ordinary level of the
present daily meal. But this is impossible. The mind is so constituted that it
seeks to attend to certain definite things at certain definite seasons, and we
cannot force it to attend to all things at all seasons. The holiest mind
distinguishes the common and the uncommon, the secular and the religious, the
material and the spiritual, in our duties and observances. If a man should try
to make every day a commemoration of the Declaration of Independence, he would
end by having no Independence Day. If a man should try to make every day a New
Year’s Day, he would end by having no New Year’s Day. It has been proposed to
abolish the Sabbath by making every day a Sabbath; but no one has ever succeeded
in carrying the proposition into practice, and the effort, were it made, would
result only in the secularization of the Sabbath, and not in the sanctification
of the other days of the week. A poet has sung that "every place is holy
ground"; but we cannot make every place holy in the sense in which Galilee and
Jerusalem and Calvary are holy, except as we cease to think of them as holy.
Even so, the effort to make all our meals suppers of the Lord would leave us
without any Lord’s supper.

Moreover, the New Testament clearly gives us a special meal in the Lord’s
supper. Our Lord instituted it, not at a common meal, but at the paschal supper,
a very uncommon meal. He has suggested to us thus the analogy between the
paschal supper and the Lord’s supper, the one pointing forward to "the Lamb
slain from the foundation of the world," and the other pointing back to "the
Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world," and both meeting in harmony
"in the night in which he was betrayed." Moreover, the apostle Paul
distinguishes sharply between the common meal and the Lord’s supper: "What! have
ye not houses to eat and to drink in?" "‘If any man is ‘hungry, let him eat at
home." But many, who do not agree with Professor Seeley or Dr. Norman Fox, deem
the Lord’s supper of relatively slight importance, and regard it as "a mere
ceremony," "a mere emblem." I think that a large share of the sentiment in favor
of unrestricted communion springs from the feeling that the communion, after
all, is not of very great consequence. Thousands of good Christians have
recoiled from the papal doctrine of transubstantiation and the awe with which
the Roman Catholic beholds the wafer, to the opposite extreme of easy apathy in
the presence of the holy bread and wine. In answer to these three typical views,
which tend to unrestricted communion, I present the Lord’s supper, as I have
presented baptism, as a ceremony, but not "a mere ceremony"; as an emblem, but
not "a mere emblem." Between these inadequate views and sacramentarianism, which
I abhor, there is a wide continent of rich truth, which we should by no means
overlook. I, therefore, present the Lord’s supper as containing elements of
spiritual truth and power similar to those which I found in baptism. 1. It
preaches the cross: "Ye proclaim the Lord’s death." 2. It offers to the believer
a touching memorial of the entire person and work of Christ, and especially of
his sacrificial atonement: "Do this in remembrance of me." "This is my blood of
the new covenant, which is shed for many unto the remission of sins." 3. It is a
symbol of God’s covenant with his people: "This is my blood of the new
covenant." 4. It presents Christ as the nourishment and life of the soul: "Eat
all ye of it"; "Drink all ye of it." 5. It is a prediction of the second coming:
"Ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come." 6. It is a prediction of our future
glory with Christ: "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until
that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom." 7. It is a symbol
of the fraternal unity of those who partake of it: "We, who are many, are one
bread, one body; for we all partake of the one bread." This ordinance,
therefore, contains a precious freightage of Christian truth.

Moreover, in partaking of the Lord’s supper, the Christian performs in act of
faith and receives a refreshing of his faith, a brighter manifestation of God to
his soul, since God always manifests himself to men in proportion to their
faith. As I said of baptism, so I say of the Lord’s supper-that, while it is
neither a channel of grace nor a condition of grace, it is a means of grace.
Faith is the only channel of grace and the only condition of grace; but faith
leads to action, and all acts of faith are means of grace. Nor do I deem it
unreasonable to suppose that Christ makes a special and abundant manifestation
of himself to those who partake of his supper in faith. Is it not natural to
expect that he will honor with a special display of his presence the memorial
meal which he founded, and at which he is the host and his people the guests?

There is a doctrine of "the real presence" which the Baptist may hold, because
it sets forth his personal experience. The phrase "the real presence" has been
used to affirm the real presence of the flesh and blood of Christ in the bread
and wine. But there is no reason for limiting its use in this manner. The
Baptist, who rejects with loathing the doctrine of the physical presence of
Christ in the supper, knows of his spiritual presence; and that, after all, is
the only "real presence" for which he is concerned. There are two kinds of
spiritual presence of Christ of which the Scriptures speak. First, there is his
omnipresence as God, his immanence in his universe, so that he is in every
place, even where we forget him and see Him not. But, again, there is a presence
of manifestation. He is everywhere; but often, like Jacob, we awake from some
carnal slumber and say: "Surely Jehovah is in this place, and I knew it not." At
other times he is so manifest that "our hearts burn within us." It is for this
presence of manifestation that we pray when we ask him to be with us. It is this
that he has promised his assembled people: "Where two or three are gathered
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." It is of this that the
disciple is conscious at the Lord’s supper:

" How sweet and awful is the place With Christ within the doors, where
everlasting love displays The choicest of her stores." The disciple, therefore,
need only consult his own experience to find an answer to those who plead for
unrestricted communion on the ground that the Lord’s supper is a mere club
dinner, a mere daily meal, or a mere vague emblem. The Argument From the Natural
Relation of the Two Ordinances to One Another.

Dr. Norman Fox, deeming every daily meal the Lord’s supper, not unnaturally
denies that baptism logically precedes it: "Is there in fact any logical
relation between baptism and the memorial eating? The breaking of bread is in
order to-an assistance towards-a remembrance of Christ. Like kneeling in prayer
or lifting the voice in praise, it is a physical act to assist the spiritual
exercise. Now, if it be proper, for an unbaptized person to remember Christ, why
should he not break bread to assist such remembrance? Why should lack of baptism
forbid one’s breaking bread in order to remembrance of Christ, any more than it
would forbid his kneeling in prayer or his playing on a harp to assist his soul
to praise? Baptism has no logical antecedence to the breaking of bread, any more
than to kneeling or singing." If I believed the premise which Dr. Fox urges-that
Christ intended to institute no memorial meal other than the daily meal, and
that he intended it to do nothing more than to bring him to the thoughts of his
disciples-I should conclude that "baptism has no logical antecedence to the
breaking of bread, any more than to kneeling or singing."

But, we have already found in the Lord’s supper special characteristics which
set it apart from the daily meal and elevate it into the class of Christian
ordinances. Now, things which belong together as members of s class are related
in thought to the other members of the same class as they cannot be to objects
belonging to other classes. Jupiter is related in thought to Mercury as it is
not to the Sultan of Turkey or to Mount Hood. The Capitol at Washington is
related in thought to the houses of Parliament as it is. not to a pine tree or a
bottle of rose-water. The President of the United States is related in thought
to the President of France as he is not to the Atlantic Ocean or the Alhambra.
If we should try never so earnestly to follow Dr. Norman Fox in his effort to
give baptism only such a relation to the Lord’s supper as that which it sustains
to preaching, to praying, and to singing, we should succeed only as he has
succeeded, by forgetting the unique character of the ordinances as ordinances,
or else by blinding ourselves to a necessary law of classification. We should
probably not succeed at all. The moment we should classify the two as ordinances
and as forming a group by themselves, we should see that baptism necessarily
sustains a relation to the Lord’s supper which it does not sustain to preaching,
praying, and singing; and having determined this point, we should readily
perceive that the logical relation of baptism to the Lord’s supper is that of
precedence.

We have found already that the two ordinances have a large body of meaning in
common, while yet each presents some special phases of truth, and also presents
the truth common to both in a light of its own. In general, baptism sets forth
the beginning of the Christian life, and the Lord’s supper its sustenance. The
key thought of baptism, so far as it relates to the recipient, is a burial to
sin and a resurrection to holiness; the key thought of the Lord’s supper, so
far, as it relates to the recipient, is the perpetuation of the Christian life
by feeding on "the Bread of Heaven." As Dr. Alvah Hovey well says: "The former
speaks of change from one spiritual condition to another, from moral pollution
to moral purity, while the other speaks of growth, progress, power, in a present
condition. ‘For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on
Christ.’ ‘As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the
Lord’s death till he come.’"

Hence, in the New Testament, baptism is administered to each disciple but once,
while the Lord’s supper is administered many times; for life begins but once,
while it requires many reinforcements of food for its furtherance.

Hence; also, in the New Testament, baptism is linked to faith as the first
formal and ceremonial expression of it, while the Lord’s supper never has this
position. Thus in the great commission we are directed to "make disciples of all
the nations, baptizing them." Observe here the intimate association of
discipleship with baptism as the confession of discipleship. The practice of the
disciples was strictly in keeping with this feature of the commission, and they
always administered baptism as the first formal symbolical act of the believer,
while the Lord’s supper followed it. On the day of Pentecost, "they that gladly
received his word were baptized." Afterwards "they continued steadfastly in the
apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and the prayers."
The people of Samaria, "when they believed Philip preaching good tidings, were
baptized, both men and women." Such was the universal rule, exemplified in the
case of Cornelius, of Saul of Tarsus, of Lydia and her household, of the jailer
and his household, of Crispus and his household, and of "many of the
Corinthians" who believed with him; when these persons believed, they were
baptized. The rule has no exceptions. We do not read that any persons believed
and received the Lord’s supper. To quote the words of Dr. A. N. Arnold ("The
Scriptural Terms of Admission to the Lord’s Supper"): "In no case is it said,
‘Then they that gladly received the word came together to break bread’; or, ‘Who
can forbid bread and wine, that these should not east the Lord’s supper, who
have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?’ or, ‘Believing in God with all his
house, he sat down at the table of the Lord, he and all his straightway’; or,
‘Repent and receive the Lord’s supper; every one of you’; or, ‘When they
believed the preaching concerning the kingdom of God, they broke bread, both men
and women.’ In no case are they described as receiving the Lord’s supper
immediately after their conversion, or as receiving the Lord’s supper first and
baptism afterwards."

If this precedence of baptism to the Lord’s supper were a mere accident or an
adjustment of practice to local and temporary circumstances, it would not
necessarily be a guide to us. But it is based upon a profound reason. It is
based upon the significance of baptism as related to the significance of the
Lord’s supper. For us to reverse the divine order would be to reverse the
meaning of one ordinance or of both. We might do it lightly, if we regarded
baptism as the mere dedication of a babe by means of a drop of water, or a mere
initiation of an older person into the church by the same means. We might do it
lightly, if we regarded the Lord’s supper as a mere club dinner, or a mere daily
meal, or a mere vague religious emblem, with no special message for the
observers or the participants. But so long as we recognize in baptism and the
Lord’s supper that which the Scriptures find in them, we shall not willingly
change the order of precedence which the Scriptures establish.

It may be said, in answer to these biblical proofs of a definite order of
precedence, that the eleven apostles who were present at the last supper may
have been unbaptized, since the Gospels contain no express record of their
baptism. To grant this would not disturb my argument. Baptism must have been
instituted by some unbaptized man or men. It must have had a beginning. The
apostles were appointed for the express purpose of laying the foundations of
Christianity, "Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." If,
therefore, it could be shown that they were unbaptized, because baptism did not
yet exist, and that they were the divinely commissioned administrators of both
baptism and the Lord’s supper, this would render only more remarkable the fact
that they themselves established and maintained the logical and reasonable order
of the ordinances, and always placed baptism at the beginning of the new
Christian life, and the Lord’s supper after it, because the one is the symbol of
the beginning of the new life, and the other of its sustenance. But it is not
probable that they were unbaptized. Two of them, at least, had been disciples of
John the Baptist, and probably all the rest came from his school. He was sent to
prepare a people for the fuller revelation and the greater demands to be made by
the Messiah, and when we observe the alacrity with which they left all and
followed the new Teacher, we cannot avoid the inference that their souls had
thus been prepared. But John baptized his disciples, and also pointed them to
Him who was to come. Christ himself was baptized by John, "in order to fulfill
all righteousness," and it is in the highest degree probable that he would
instruct them to follow his example, if they had not been baptized already.
Moreover, he heal them baptize his own disciples, and this would render it
reasonable to suppose that they had been baptized. The words of Peter, in which
he describes the mean to be chosen in the place of Judas, are quite in
accordance with these indications: "Of the men, therefore, which have companied
with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning
from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these
must one become a witness with us of his resurrection."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 25: 01.02.07.     PART 2 CHAPTER 07 BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD’S SUPPER.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 2-CHAPTER 7.

Baptism the Door to the Lord’s Supper. BY FRANKLIN JOHNSON, D. D., LL.D. The
Argument From The General Understanding Of Christians. With but very few
exceptions, all Christians have understood the New Testament to teach that
baptism should precede the Lord’s supper. In the "Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles," possibly the earliest Christian writing after the apostolic age, we
read this direction: "Let no one eat of your Eucharist except those baptized
into the name of the Lord." Similar to this is the testimony of Justin Martyr,
who died about 160: "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, and
have been baptized." From those earliest times to the present the limitation has
been maintained by almost all denominations. If it is relaxed today by a few in
the Baptist and the evangelical Pedobaptist denominations, it is still
maintained with practical unanimity by the Christian world. This is admitted by
all, and by none more clearly than by Dr. Norman Fox, who says: "Pedobaptists
will not invite to the table one who has been neither immersed, sprinkled, nor
poured upon; they declare that only baptized persons should be admitted. When,
therefore, they claim that a Baptist church should admit them, they demand that
Baptists shall recognize them as baptized persons." Again: "The Pedobaptists
stoutly maintain that baptism is an essential prerequisite to the breaking of
bread. In a review of ‘Christ in the Daily Meal,’ the Evangelist, of New York,
which is by no means the most unprogressive of Presbyterian papers, criticized
the, book for Its doctrine that the unbaptized should be invited to the church
supper. While among Pedobaptists there could doubtless be found individual
ministers who would consent to admit the unbaptized to the table, it would
certainly be impossible to carry through the Presbyterian General Assembly or
the Congregational National Council or the Methodist General Conference a
declaration that it is proper to invite to the church supper all true believers,
irrespective of baptism."

I might establish this well-known fact by a thousand’ testimonies from the
highest Pedobaptist sources, were further evidence necessary.

Dr. Fox supposes that this unanimity of the Christian world grows out of the
doctrine of baptismal regeneration, from the effects of which, according to him,
even the Baptists have not freed themselves. He urges, therefore, that the
Baptists cast off this last vestige of a great error, and invite all Christians,
whether baptized or no. He is somewhat severe towards those Baptists who would
Invite Pedobaptists and yet believe that baptism should precede the communion,
and towards those Pedobaptists who wish the Baptists to admit that they are
baptized by inviting them; and he would solve the entire difficulty by denying
that baptism has any logical relation to the Lord’s supper, and by inviting all
the unbaptized as unbaptized.

I quite agree with him that the only tenable ground of unrestricted communion,
other than the validity of sprinkling and pouring, is the denial that baptism
has any logical relation to the Lord’s supper. But we have seen that the denial
itself has no ground upon which to stand.

Moreover, I do not suppose that we should advance in the good opinion of our
Pedobaptist brethren, if we should make them clearly understand that we invited
them as unbaptized. Nor should we ourselves be able to rest in the opinion,
should we adopt it, for the evidences against it are too cogent.

Some of these we have already examined. But another, which well deserves to be
weighed, is precisely this general understanding of the Christian world which
Dr. Fox sets forth so clearly. It is possible for the Christian world to go
astray and to persist in error for centuries. But this was easier when no
dissent was permitted. The present division of the Christian world into many
denominations, each interested more or less in the discovery of truth and the
abandonment of mere tradition, renders unanimity in a gross error exceedingly
improbable. Moreover, all denominations deny that they acre influenced by
tradition in making baptism a prerequisite to the Lord’s supper, and affirm that
they are influenced solely by the teaching of the New Testament. I present this
unanimous judgment of the Christian world ass an argument worthy of respect. The
Argument From Profit and Loss. The opponent of these views often tells us that
they hinder the growth of. our. denomination. It is true that they have cost us
the adherence of some noble ministers, whom we should have been glad and proud
to retain. It is true, also, that they have kept many from coming to us. We
regret all this, and shall ever continue to love those who thus refuse to walk
with us. But let us suppose that the loss were even far more serious than it is.
Would that prove our position wrong, or justify us in abandoning it? On the
contrary, it is our duty to accept and teach the truth in love, without too much
selfish care for our own growth. Are we doing good by our teaching? Are we
saving other denominations from superstition, from sacramentarianism, from the
greater abuses of infant baptism, and hence from spiritual weakness? These are
some of the questions that should give us concern. If we can answer them in the
affirmative, we should rejoice and press on our way, even if we were reduced to
numerical significance by our fidelity to the truth.

Now, no one can become acquainted with the history of the Baptists in England
and America without recognizing the mighty influence they have wielded against
infant baptism and in favor of the spirituality of the church, of the separation
of Church and State, and of religious liberty. No one can examine the work they
are doing today on the continent of Europe without perceiving that it is a most
beneficent leaven there, as it is in England and this country. The larger part
of the Christian world, though profoundly affected by its views, is still
reluctant to admit their justice, and its mission is not yet at an end. What if
it were a small and despised denomination, with such a record of usefulness, and
such a field of action?

But, after all, our maintenance of restricted communion seems to have ministered
to our numerical strength, rather than to have diminished it. It appears to have
brought to us a multitude of adherents for every one whom it has repelled. About
1820, Robert Hall, the famous English Baptist preacher and writer, attacked
restricted communion, and attributed the slow growth of the English Baptists to
it. His influence, combined with other causes, led the majority of them to
abandon it. The result has not been favorable. They have pursued a wavering
course, and their increase has been meager. Their practice of unrestricted
communion has led them necessarily to low views of baptism. Dr. A. N. Arnold
thus sketches the effects of the movement from which Robert Hall anticipated so
much: "The administration of believer’s baptism on a week-day evening, to avoid
giving offence to the Pedobaptist members of the church; the reception, without
baptism, of persons who have renounced their belief that the ceremony performed
upon them in infancy was valid; the manifest disposition to give unbaptism as
non-essential, where the cause of peace and union is supposed to demand this
sacrifice; the banishment of scriptural teaching on this subject from the
pulpit; and even from the private conversation of the minister with his people,
as a stipulated condition of the continuance of the pastoral relation; the
discipline and exclusion of members for the offence of propagating Baptist
sentiments; the relaxation of all scriptural church discipline; and, after all,
unpleasant collisions with Pedobaptist churches-these legitimate logical
consequences and certified actual results of mixed communion are more than
enough to stamp it as a practice at war with truth, purity, liberty, and union."
With such a lack of denominational spirit, there could not to a rapid
denominational growth. The influence of the denomination upon other
denominations has been relatively feeble, and the denomination has shown a
constant tendency to melt away and dissolve.

We have only to look at the Baptists of this country, to perceive the beneficial
effects of restricted communion in creating denominational self-respect and
vigor, in making us courteously aggressive, in building up our numbers, and in
attracting to all our views the keen attention of the Christians about us. The
Baptist who studies this contrast attentively will not ask that his denomination
adopt the practice of unrestricted communion as a means of growth in numbers. A
similar conclusion will be reached by those who study the Free Baptists, who
practice unrestricted communion, and yet achieve but little increase. The
Argument From Christian Love.

There are Pedobaptists who say to the Baptists: "I grant that we. like you,
require baptism as a prerequisite to the Lord’s supper. But we have a practical
advantage over you. As our definition of baptism is broader than yours, we are
able to invite to the supper all who will probably care for our invitation, and
thus to satisfy the cravings of Christian love. You cannot do this. Your logic
is without fault, but it brings you into an embarrassment which ire escape.
Moreover, the majority of men and women deem us more charitable than you, for
they care little for the argument on either side, and judge mainly by the
practice. Perhaps they would not understand your argument, if it were presented
to them; but they understand your practice." In a measure this is true.

There are Baptists who may be tempted to judge the question at issue in the same
manner. They may say: "We grant that your logic is sound. But we do not care
much for the logic of the head. The heart has a logic of its own. Christian
love, as well as abstract reason, has its rights. Your argument seems to us
cold, remote from the heart, a sort of mathematical demonstration. But
Christianity is not one of the exact sciences; it is love. We refuse to be moved
by your reasons, and we do not care even to try to answer them."

Perhaps there are few Baptist ministers to whom this antagonism of reason and
love has not suggested itself at one time or another. It is true that our
practice is in some sense a cross, and I do not envy the man who can carry it
jauntily and boastfully. But are Christian reason and Christian love ever really
opposed to each other? Over against this attitude of mind, which in fact is
chiefly one of Christian sentimentality, rather than Christian sentiment, I
place my appeal to a reasonable Christian love.

1. The Baptist ought to love his brethren of other denominations very warmly. He
ought to esteem them very highly for their works’ sake. He ought to manifest his
affection for them, and to seek their friendship, that they may learn to love
him in return. Fortunately, there are a thousand ways in which he can do this,
not only without coming into conflict with reason, but according to the most
earnest urgings of reason. He need not leave his heart hungry for Christian
fellowship with any part of the Christian world.

2. Love to Christ, as well as to his people, should be consulted in this matter.
Christ has made known his will concerning the holy ordinance of baptism. The
Baptist has been led to know and to respect that will. Others have not yet made
the discovery of it. The Baptist does not judge them; he loves them and judges
himself. His love for Christ should lead him to a high regard for the will of
Christ, which he has learned, and should debar him from doing anything which
might tend to make that will ineffectual. Over against a sentimental love for
the Christian I place a profound and obedient love for the Lord of the
Christian.

3. Is there, then, a conflict between love for Christ and a proper love for his
people? There should be none. Nor should there ever be a conflict between
Christian love and Christian duty. But there is a short-sighted love, which may
be brought into conflict with the best and holiest sentiments of the soul and
the best and holiest determinations of the will. Short-sighted love in a mother
may bring her into violent conflict with the dictates of a wise love, of good
sense, of duty, and may lead to the injury of the child. Short-sighted love
always works mischief. No love which acts at variance with reason is far-sighted
or is worthy the name by which it calls itself. Now, a prudent love for the
Christian world will lead the Baptist to see what a calamity infant christening
is, and how great a blessing the restoration of baptism would be. In proportion
to his wise love for his fellow Christians will be his longing to give them this
added power; and he will recoil from any course which could hinder him from
bestowing it upon them. How great the blessing would be. the Baptist will see,
if he will pause a moment to consider the evils of infant christening. These
have been well presented by Dr. Alvah Hovey, under the following heads: 1.
Infant christening takes away from the Christian ordinance the larger part of
its meaning by making it no longer a confession of faith, but, on one hand, a
regenerating rite, or, on the other, a mere vague ceremony; and, still further,
by altering its form from immersion to sprinkling or pouring, thus divesting it
of its power to preach Christ crucified and risen. 2. Infant christening
ascribes to the ordinance an imaginary virtue, keeps alive in the greatest
denominations the fatal delusion of baptismal regeneration, and in some others a
vague conviction that God will be more favorable to infants which have been
baptized, should they die. 3. Infant christening mars the constitution of the
church by introducing unconverted persons into it. 4. Infant christening
facilitates the union of Church and State, with all its terrible results. 5.
Infant christening divides the followers of Christ. The mission to which the
Baptist denomination is called is high and holy. The happiness and the success
of the Christian world are bound up with it. A. prudent love, a far-sighted
love, should lead the Baptist to firm fidelity to the truth committed to him.

4. Yet further. His love for other denominations should not make the Baptist
inattentive to the claims of love for his own. Was he brought up under Baptist
influences? Then he owes his spiritual life to the Baptist denomination, and he
should not be ungrateful. Was he brought up under Pedobaptist influences? Then
he was guided and enlightened by the Baptist denomination, or he would not have
entered it, and he should not be ungrateful. Is he one of its ministers? Then he
was educated largely by the Baptist denomination, and was entrusted by it with
its dearest interests and called to its highest honors, and he should not be
ungrateful. But it is committed to the practice of restricted communion, and the
agitator, who admits the conclusive cogency of its argument and yet rends it
asunder on the plea of Christian love, has but little of the love which he
pleads. The Obligation Imposed on the Baptists by this Restriction. The sole
purpose of Christ in establishing his religion among men was to implant and to
nourish Christian character. Every constituent element of Christianity is of use
in the production of Christian character, and the loss of any constituent
element is a loss to the forces which produce Christian character. Our
restriction of the Lord’s Supper to baptized believers is based on the truth
that baptism was instituted to render service in the production of Christian
character, and that, in fact, it does render this service, where it is preserved
in its integrity. But does it render this service to us who have received it?
That is what the Christian world asks of the Baptist, when he teaches the
doctrine of Christian baptism. The Baptist must answer by pointing to its
observed effects. "By their fruits ye shall know them." These effects should be
exhibited in his own character and in his own denomination. The Baptist should
be able to point to his denomination as an object lesson, and to prove three
things by it: 1. That baptism, where it is observed faithfully, tends to produce
the most complete Christian character known-stronger to resist temptation, more
thoughtful for others, more brave, more courteous, more sympathetic, more wisely
helpful. 2. That it tends to produce a wide variety of admirable Christian
characters of the types most esteemed and most efficient, and is not operative
within a single narrow range of qualities. It must produce a better type of
wifehood, of motherhood, of fatherhood, of childhood, of magistrates, of
soldiers, of merchants, of teachers, of lawyers, of physicians, of employers,
and of the employed. It must adapt itself to various natural dispositions, and
produce a meditative piety in some, an active piety in others, an emotional
piety in some, and a merely military and obedient piety in others. 3. That,
since it tends to produce such effete as these, it also tends to produce men and
women more successful than others in winning the world to Christ and in building
up the kingdom of God in tae world. Such is the obligation. It will not do for
the Baptist to pride himself on the mere observance of a prescribed rite,
without regard to its meaning and power; that is what the Pharisees did. The
Baptist must be able to show that his obedience has done something for his
character. And since the Baptists are compelled by their consciences to preserve
Christian baptism to the Christian world at the cost of a restriction not in
itself agreeable, they should give much of their energies to the Christian
culture of those who come to them for guidance. They have not been insensible to
this obligation. They have paid great attention to evangelization, on the one
hand, and to education, on the other. They are now organizing their young people
for the express purpose of cultivating them in knowledge and in varied
usefulness. But "there remaineth very much land to be possessed." Do we give a
disproportionate emphasis to conversion, and too little emphasis to growth? Do
we employ a great variety of means to nurture the souls committed to us, so that
all kinds of disposition and temperament find help from us? Or do we have a
single mould in which we place all alike, misshaping many and repelling many? Do
we ask reverent souls to come to us, and then shock them by irreverence? Do we
ask shrinking souls to come to us, and then force them into a publicity from
which their finest instincts recoil? Do we ask the imaginative, the esthetic,
the poetic, to come to us, and then wound them by inexcusable crudenesses? We
have broad fields of toil out in the glare of the sun; have we any shade for the
weary, the wounded, the sick, the despondent, the fearful? Or are we courting
the rich, the educated, the refined, and forgetting the poor, the ignorant, and
the crude, among whom the Redeemer, passed his earthly life, and for whom our
fathers labored most earnestly? If in any of these respects we are lacking, the
remedy is not to be found in the abandonment of baptism as the door of the
Lord’s house, but in such a care of the house as shall render it befitting the
majestic entrance which the Lord has provided and committed to the care of his
people.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 26: 01.02.08.     PART 2 CHAPTER 08 BAPTISTS AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 2-CHAPTER 8.

Baptists And Religious Liberty. BY BENJAMIN O. TRUE, D. D., PROFESSOR OF CHURCH
HISTORY IN ROCHESTER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. The struggle of Baptists for
religious liberty is a long and a complicated story. The details cannot be
recounted in a brief article, but there are certain features of the conflict
which are of fundamental importance. These have found place on the continent of
Europe, in England, and in America, where three phases of a common struggle have
been enacted. From the fourth to the sixteenth century, civil rulers, generally
in alliance with ecclesiastical officials, assumed authority to dictate to their
subjects forms of doctrine, polity, and worship, and to enforce uniformity of
creeds, rites, and liturgies. The civil magistrate and the church official, one
or both, practically exercised this power from the time of Constantine the Great
until the historic protests of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. These reformers
appealed from the Pope, from councils, and the Roman church, to the Scriptures
as the final and supreme authority in matters of religious faith and practice.
But not one of these great men, or the movements which they directed,
consistently recognized the proper separation of Church and State, the rightful
autonomy of the church, or the complete rights of the individual conscience. All
these leaders strenuously advocated the continued union of Church and State.
They desired to supplant the religious influence of the mediaeval emperor and
civil rulers by the authority of local princes in Germany, of the council at
Zurich, and of magistrates at Geneva. Leading types of Protestantism-Lutheran,
Zwinglian, Calvinian, and Anglican-agreed in the repudiation of papal authority,
but all retained a State church, without adequate provision for the permanent
freedom of the church from secular control, or for the sacred and inalienable
rights of the individual conscience. The supreme authority of the Scriptures was
declared to be the formal principle of the Protestant Reformation, but
Protestants disagreed in the application of this principle. Some held that
customary forms of worship, not expressly forbidden by the Scriptures, might
properly be retained; others strenuously held that many practices of the old
church were superfluous and misleading, and that nothing in the constitution or
worship of the church ought to be inculcated which is not explicitly authorized
by the Scriptures. To those who believed in the final and supreme authority of
the Scriptures their authoritative interpretation became "a question of
urgency." On this subject there were three conceivable positions. The organized
church might be regarded as the proper interpreter of the Scriptures, through
its councils and higher officials, priests, bishops, and theologians, and, by
those who held to the papal primacy, through the Pope, as the visible head of
the church. The prerogative of interpreting the Scriptures might be attributed
to the State, through its legislators and magistrates, or through the expressed
will of local rulers. The effort was actually made among the numerous States of
Germany, when the conflict between Romanists and Protestants Was intense, to
have the religion of every State determined by its civil ruler. It was soon
found, however, that the prince could decide only what religion should be
established by law. He could not compel intelligent subjects by force or
convince them against their will. Thus dissenters might easily outnumber the
cordial adherents of the State church. Moreover, the interpretations of
Scripture by either civil or ecclesiastical officers in different States were
variant and discordant. Often they were manifestly modifications, rather than
expositions or applications of the Scripture-the mere expression of personal
preferences or partisan prejudice. The natural and inevitable tendency of
Protestantism increasingly favored the interpretation of the Scriptures by the
individual believer. This was the right of private interpretation, and it
involved an obligation commensurate with the privilege. It was, indeed,
desirable that all believers should be intelligent and conscientious, but in the
last analysis it was felt that every man must have personal dealings with the
Almighty. Whoever held to this right of private judgment could not consistently
permit either civil magistrates or ecclesiastical officials to dictate or
control his personal religious convictions or practices.

Out of these two principles-the supreme authority of the Scriptures in matters
of religion and the right of private judgment-have arisen the historic and
repeated protests which have been made in continental Europe, England, and
America against unscriptural creeds, polity, and rites. and against the
unwarranted assumption of religious authority over other men’s consciences by
either priests or civil rulers.

Scarcely had Luther and Zwingli denied the validity of papal indulgences before
men in Germany and Switzerland, and a little later in the Low Countries,
declared that infant baptism was not supported by Scriptures, and that the
inability of the infant to exercise personal faith rendered such an act
priestly, or at best parental, and therefore invalid because it was not the
personal and voluntary act of the subject. It therefore had no place in the
Christian dispensation and was not an indication of the personal faith of the
child. Zwingli was at first disposed to accept this view. Melancthon was greatly
troubled to explain the consistency of infant baptism with justification by
faith, the material principle of the Reformation. But Zwingli had been called to
Zurich by the civic council. He had never known a church separate from the
State. When he realized that the rejection of infant baptism involved the
restriction of church membership to professed believers and the organization of
churches without State support, he drew back from such consequences, and
insisted upon the continued practice of infant baptism. He soon withdrew all
sympathy with anti-pedobaptists, and became one of their most bitter and
persistent persecutors. Largely through his influence, multitudes who discarded
infant baptism were imprisoned and banished. Not less than six anti-pedobaptists
were put to death by the Reformed at Zurich.

Meanwhile, numerous churches of professed believers who rejected infant baptism
came into existence, while refugees of the same faith carried their views to
remote parts of Europe. Among the continental anti-pedobaptists of his time, no
one was more notable or more worthy of remembrance than Balthasar Hubmaier. He
was born at Friedburg, banished from Zurich after painful imprisonment, and
finally burned at the stake by Romanists at Vienna, March 10, 1528. in his
tractate, "Concerning Heretics and Those Who Burn Them," written about 1524,
Hubmaier made one of the most emphatic early protests against the prevalent
infringement of religious liberty. "A Turk or a heretic," he wrote, "is not to
be overcome by fire or sword, but by patience and instruction. The burning of
heretics is an apparent confession, but an actual denial of Christ." The
Mennonites of the Low Countries, like the so-called Anabaptists of Germany and
Switzerland, suffered severely for their repudiation of infant baptism. They
have been denounced for refusing to serve as magistrates, but as a body they
were pure and peaceable men, and utterly repudiated the fanatical lawlessness
which prevailed at Munster. When we remember that civil magistrates were called
to execute laws and edicts which banished, imprisoned, and even put to death,
godly citizens for their fidelity to their consciences, it is manifest that
refusal to serve as magistrates did not necessarily imply opposition to
magistracy or civil order. Men like Felix Mantz, Balthasar Hubmaier, and Menno
Simons were not anarchists, but good citizens, faithful to God and true to their
fellowmen. They insisted that Christian faith is a personal matter; that every
man sustains direct personal relations to God; and that private judgment is a
natural and an inalienable right. They denied the right of the State through its
magistrates, or of any organized church by its priests, to intervene between the
believer and his Lord, and thus assume to compel religious opinions or worship.
They held that true religion cannot be compulsory, but trust be voluntary, and
in this contention they were undoubtedly right.

It is understood that the early English Baptists, either in their native country
or during their banishment to Holland, early in the seventeenth century, were
led to adopt the views of the Dutch anti-pedobaptists. During the reign of James
I., in 1612, Edward Wightman rejected infant baptism, and was burned as a
heretic. He was the last person who suffered capital punishment in England for
his religious opinions. During that same reign, many from London and the north
of England fled to Holland, as exiles, where some boldly advocated religious
liberty. John Smyth, in his famous confession, written a year before Wightman’s
death, declares that "the magistrate is not to meddle with religion or matters
of conscience, nor to compel men to this or that form of religion, because
Christ is the King and Lawgiver of the conscience." In 1614, Leonard Busher
wrote a noble work, far in advance of the prevalent views of his countrymen,
entitled, "Religious Peace; or, A Plea for Liberty of Conscience." In it he
pleads for the rights of Jews and Romanists, not only to speak, but to write and
to print any views of religion for which scriptural authority may be claimed.
"It is not only unmerciful, but unnatural and abominable-yea, monstrous-for one
Christian to vex and destroy another for difference and questions of religion."
The confession of the seven. Baptist churches in London, issued in 1643, is the
first complete and comprehensive statement of religious liberty adopted by
associated churches. It declares: "We cannot do anything contrary to our
understanding, and consciences, neither can we forbear the doing of that which
our understanding and consciences bind us to do." From this time on, in
treatises and confessions, English Baptists have urged religious liberty and the
restriction of the magistrate’s functions to their legitimate sphere.

It is abundantly manifest that, when Roger Williams declared to the Puritans of
Massachusetts Bay that the civil magistrate had no right to punish men for the
violation of the first table-that is, the first four commandments of the
Decalogue-he advanced a principle which had been held more than a hundred years
earlier by Hubmaier and had been urged by his own countrymen when Williams was a
mere youth. Yet to Roger Williams, without doubt, belongs the distinguished
honor, accorded to him by Judge Story, of having established a State in whose
"code of laws we read, for the first time since Christianity ascended the throne
of the Caesars, that conscience should be free and men should not be punished
for worshipping God as they were persuaded he required."

Apart from the Quakers in Pennsylvania, no other colonial government in America
adopted and retained such generous provision for civil and religious liberty as
did Rhode Island, and it should be remembered that the early English Quakers
were historically connected with those same early English Baptists, who, as we
have seen, were powerfully influenced by Dutch anti-pedobaptists, "We are
compelled," says Barclay, in his "Inner History of the Religious Societies of
the Commonwealth," "to view George Fox as the unconscious exponent of the
doctrine, practice, and discipline of the ancient and stricter party of the
Dutch Mennonites." The long and painful struggle for religious liberty in the
Puritan colonies of New England did not cease in Connecticut until the new
Constitution was adopted, in 1818, and religious equality was not attained in
Massachusetts until 1834. In Virginia, the Episcopalian church was
disestablished and practical religious liberty was secured, largely through the
determined efforts of the Baptists, soon after the American Revolution, after a
period of prolonged, provoking, and at times cruelly severe persecution. It
seems strange that the Puritan founders of Massachusetts, who sought for
themselves an asylum from the persecution which they despaired of escaping in
the Old World, should have failed to recognize that to worship God according to
the dictates of conscience is an inherent and an inalienable right-a right as
valuable to others as to themselves.

It seems strange that men who counted not their lives dear in their determined
effort to secure their own religious freedom should have refused to grant to
others that which they so highly prized for themselves. Their descendants were
slow to learn the lesson which the fathers failed to understand; but we may
confidently hope that this fundamental principle of Protestantism has at last,
in this country at least, been well learned. Dr. Lyman Beecher says, in his
"Autobiography," of the agitation which resulted in the adoption of the new
Constitution in Connecticut in 1818, with its article in favor of religious
liberty, that he "suffered what no tongue can tell’ for what he afterwards came
to regard as "the best thing that ever happened to the State of Connecticut."

Thanks to the vigilant foresight of Virginia Baptists, the first amendment to
the Constitution prohibits, we may hope forever, any establishment of a national
religion in the United States. Writing of "the establishment of the American
principle of the non-interference of the State with religion and the equality of
all religious communions before the law," Dr. Leonard Woolsey Bacon, in his
"History of American Christianity" (page 221), says: "So far as this was a work
of intelligent conviction and religious faith, the chief honor of it must be
given to the Baptists. Other sects, notably the Presbyterians, had been
energetic and efficient in demanding their own liberties; the Friends and the
Baptists agreed in demanding liberty of conscience and worship and equality
before the law for all alike. But the active labor in this cause was mainly done
by the Baptists. It is to their consistency and constancy in the warfare against
the privileges of the powerful "Standing Order" of New England, and of the
moribund establishments of the South, that we are chiefly indebted for the final
triumph in this country of that principle of the separation of Church from State
which is one of the largest contributions of the New World to civilization and
to the church universal."

We have seen that the early English Baptists, like many who repudiated infant
baptism on the Continent, were earnest advocates of religious liberty. There
have been repeated acknowledgments of this service by writers not themselves
Baptists such as Dr. John Stoughton, Professor David Masson, and Principal A. N.
Fairbairn. In the Old World, the rapid growth of the democratic spirit has
greatly modified, though it has not altogether removed, the injustice which is
always involved in the establishment of a religion by the State. The logic of
Protestantism tends irresistibly to favor civil and religious liberty, but every
form of hierarchy demands priestly rule in the church and is naturally allied to
oligarchical or a monarchical rule in the State. Therefore, it is idle to claim
that the Roman Catholic church has been or can be favorable to real democracy or
to genuine religious liberty.

Probably that church is today the most complete organization and can wield the
most masterful worldly power of any organized agency on earth. Those greatly err
who suppose that the loss of temporal power in Italy restricted the Roman church
to the performance of strictly spiritual functions. Her social, economic, and
political influence is still manifold and far-reaching: It is almost alike
potent in monarchies and republics, in Protestant Germany and Roman Catholic
Austria, in the republic of France and in portions of the United States. This
unequalled organization is historically the product of imperial sacerdotalism, a
combination of the methods and polity of the old Roman empire, the greatest
secular power of the ancient world, and of sacerdotalism, partly Jewish and
partly pagan. The child, like each of its parents, is the historic and mortal
enemy of true historic freedom. The votaries of the Roman organization boast
that their church does not change; that it is everywhere and always the same.
The two forces from which it sprung, imperialism and sacerdotalism, are foreign
to the spirit of the New Testament. Like the singularly strong organization
which they produced, they antagonize the inherent rights of men.

Roman. imperialism held that man exists for the State, not the State for man. It
pitilessly destroyed the happiness and needlessly sacrificed the lives of
multitudes in order to extend the limits of the empire and increase the glory of
the State. Sacerdotalism obtrudes a class of functionaries between the ordinary
man and his Maker. A distinctive mediatorial priesthood assumes to monopolize
the application of saving and efficient grace, and so denies every man’s
fundamental right and duty to have direct personal dealings with the Almighty.
The Roman church magnifies the externals of religion, and, by the most cruel
persecution and inquisitorial torture, it has attempted to enforce outward
uniformity of doctrine, worship, and polity. Between this system of imperial
sacerdotalism and the demand of the New Testament that every man shall sustain
direct personal relation to a personal God there is wide divergence. Every
branch of Christendom and every intelligent Christian man is called to choose
between these opposing systems, whose antagonism is radical and irreconcilable.
Every young man who enters upon the work of the Christian ministry must decide
whether he will be a priest or a preacher; whether he will assume to be a
distinctive channel of saving and efficient grace or will strive to hold forth
"the word of life" as a teacher sent of God to his fellowmen.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 27: 01.02.09.     PART 2 CHAPTER 09 OBLIGATIONS OF BAPTISTS TO TEACH THEIR PRINCIPLES.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 2-CHAPTER 9.

Obligations of Baptists to Teach Their Principles. BY REV. J. B. GAMBRELL, D. D.

Speaking of a Christian, an able writer says: "It is by the truths of the divine
word that he is to expand and strengthen his intellect; it is these which he is
to convert into principles, that are to form the substratum and basis of his
character; that are to purify his heart and regulate his conduct."

These apt and forceful words furnish a good text for a discourse on the
importance of exegetical preaching. It is the design of the Scriptures to
furnish truths which will, if received, expand the intellect, enrich the heart,
formulate doctrines, settle the foundations of life, regulate the conduct, and
mould the character. Character is the end of the process, the ripe fruit of all
teaching and all grace. It is a powerful proof of the divinity of the Bible
that, amid the conflicts of the ages, even with all the indifferent handling of
priests and partisans, it has steadily advanced every people who have given it a
chance to elevate and guide them. The Bible is today the very core of the
highest civilization the world knows. It is the fountain-head of all that is
best in literature, in art, in song, in law, in sociology, in human life,
whether in the palace or the cottage. It holds the same place in civilization
given it by Burns in that noblest of all the poems in the English tongue, "The
Cotter’s Saturday Night." The burden of revelation is Jesus Christ. From the
fall onward, the pages of the Bible are illuminated with promises, all pointing
to the coming of the Restorer of all things. The scheme of restoration, evolved
with more and more clearness through the ages, contemplates the elevation of man
to kinship with God. This elevation was to come through the acceptance of truth,
which is the world’s only liberator. But truth was to be evermore connected, not
with the intellect only, but with the spirit also. God seeketh such to worship
him as worship in spirit and truth. Not spirit alone, not truth alone, but both
together, binding heart and mind to God. A proper study of this divine method of
delivering the race from the slavery of error into real liberty must deeply
impress us with the necessity of spiritual preaching, as well as of the
transcendent importance of doctrinal preaching. In some quarters there has grown
up a strong and hindering prejudice against the preaching of "dry doctrine." The
trouble does not lie in the doctrine, but in the dry preaching of it. Dry
preachers have turned the very bread of heaven into stones, and not a few have
found no better use for the stones after they are made than to cast at their
theological adversaries. Much of the doctrinal preaching is not only
distastefully dry, but distressingly gritty. We can scarcely wonder that hungry
souls turn away from a ministry which preaches predestination without pathos,
election without grace, baptism without its sublime spiritual meaning, communion
without sensibility, and all duty without beauty. A Deplorable Reaction The
reaction from what has just been described is no better, possibly some degrees
worse. There be many who discredit doctrine entirely. They have gone away into
the mists of mere sentimentalism. Feeling is everything, teaching nothing. This
notion is at the bottom of modern revivalism of the sensational order. It
abounds in clap-trap, and after a community has been swept by it, by-and-by,
when the revivalist has gone, nothing substantial remains. There is no
substratum of truth upon which the converts can stand. I do not undervalue
evangelism.. The true evangelist is a gift from Christ, and two signs go with
him-he preaches in the Spirit and he preaches God’s revealed truth. By these
signs he may be known with infallible certainty. The cure for both evils named
is a return to biblical preaching, both as to spirit and substance. And this it
behooves Baptists to do, even more than other people; for Baptists are nothing
without the Bible, and will go to nothing, if they have not the unifying and
guiding power of the Spirit among them. They are committed unreservedly to the
voluntary principle in religion. They have no human authority over them. Their
only hope of unity is in the spirit and the truth.

Leading up to the main features of the discussion in hand, as a kind of
background for what is to follow, I here enter a plea for doctrinal preaching in
the spirit of Christ and the apostles. Perhaps it would be well to enter a plea
for a return to such preaching, for many pulpits have followed the drivel of the
age a long way from the solid teaching of the New Testament. In the first place,
there needs to be created in many Baptist churches a spiritual hospitality for
doctrinal teaching. There is in not a few churches a truce with surroundings.
Alliances with peoples of defective and alien doctrinal views have become a real
hindrance to honest, thorough-going New Testament teaching on doctrines about
which there are differences of opinion. It has come to pass that some preachers
are following public opinion. rather than teaching and leading it. There is
scarcely a sorrier spectacle in the world than a man, with a commission from the
King Eternal to herald his everlasting truth, secretly taking counsel of Mrs.
Grundy as to what he shall say. It is preeminently the function of the pulpit to
mould and lead thought, so that the thoughts of the people shall be God’s
thoughts. Until people think right, they will not act right. As Baptist
principles are peculiar to Baptists, every Baptist church, with all its
appointments, from preacher to Sunday-school teacher, ought to stand, in the
community where it holds forth the word, for something different from any other
congregation. When a Baptist church thinks of itself as just one of the churches
in a community, with no mission above others, it has become a very weak affair.

We may invigorate our faith and renew our courage by reflecting that divine
power has always attended the preaching of doctrine, when done in the true
spirit of preaching. Great revivals have accompanied the heroic preaching of the
doctrines of grace, predestination; election, and that whole lofty mountain
range of doctrines upon which Jehovah sits enthroned, sovereign in grace as in
all things else. God honors the preaching that honors him. There is entirely too
much milk-sop preaching nowadays, trying to cajole sinners to enter upon a trace
with their Maker, quit sinning, and join the church. The situation does not call
for a truce, but for a surrender. Let us bring out the heavy artillery of
heaven, and thunder away at this stuck-up age as Whitfield, Edwards, Spurgeon,
and Paul did, and there will be many slain of the Lord raised up to walk in
newness of life.

People, after all, want to hear preaching with substance in it. The truth was
made for human hearts as certainly as bread was made for human mouths. A
ministry strong and tender, true to the Word of God, will never be a slighted
ministry. I am deeply convinced that there should be a return to doctrinal
preaching, taking care to keep clear of the faults of the professional religious
pugilist. This is true with respect to doctrine in general; it is specially true
of doctrines which Baptists are peculiarly bound to hold aloft before the world.

Truth A Trust

Truth is a trust. Whoever has it has it, not for himself simply, but for the
world. Paul regarded himself a trustee of the gospel. The whole world were
beneficiaries of the trust. From his day till now there has been a succession in
the trusteeship. The apostle, with a spiritual thrift and economy taught him by
the Spirit of God, committed the truth to faithful men, with instructions for
them, in their turn, to do likewise, that the truth might never fail among men
to the end of time. Baptists are peculiarly in the succession of trusteeship.
When they were few and despised, without papers, colleges, or even the common
rights of men, they felt the solemn obligations of trusteeship. They saw, under
the gloom of spiritual ignorance surrounding them, certain great principles
taught in the Word of God, held them aloft amid the dust and smoke of mighty
spiritual conflicts, and sealed their devotion to diem in martyr fires. These
principles spring out of the New "Testament, and are for the guidance of the
race to the highest destiny fixed in the mind of God.

All real progress in the world is along the line of these principles. They are
intended and are suited to develop the highest type of manhood. They greaten the
individual, by forming his character after that of Jesus Christ, who was the
world’s one complete man, its most perfect gentleman, its truest and best
citizen. Great States cannot be constructed of little people. A little man,
narrow in his views of human rights and possibilities, narrow in his sympathies,
without noble thoughts, can never make a great anything. And an aggregation of
such people will make a State no better than the average of them. Herein lies
the explanation of the differences between Catholic and Protestant countries.
Nations have progressed as they have given hospitality to the great principles
for which Baptists stand. That is only another way of saying that nations have
risen in proportion as they have become genuinely Christian, and they have
become Christian as they have accepted the teachings of the New Testament.

Rapid Progress

Within the last hundred years the world has made more progress than in 1,000
before. The century just closing has been preeminently a Baptist century. During
this time, the principles for which they stand have had something like fair
play, and have been widely, and in many cases unconsciously, accepted. They
have, like leaven, worked a change in the thought of ail the leading nations of
the earth. They have emancipated the minds of men and opened the door of
knowledge to all mankind. They have put out the martyr fires over nearly the
whole world. Those who do not yet accept them in full feel the passion of their
power as they work their way to the seat of power everywhere-the conscience of
the masses. That was a splendid tribute to the power of the masses, enlightened
and blessed by the Word of God, the London Times inadvertently paid when it
opposed taking President Kruger a prisoner. This exponent of public opinion and
Tory politics said: "The Non-conformist conscience of England would revolt at
the picture of President Kruger a prisoner, sitting with the Bible open on his
knee." Keeping clear of the political aspects of the case, the Times is to be
congratulated on its clearness of vision. That open Bible is properly associated
with the whole history of human freedom. Before Luther or Calvin or Knox, before
modern Protestantism was born, Baptists stood for the right of a man to have a
Bible open on his knee, and for the further right to read it, and, looking to
God for guidance, walk in its commandments, as he understood them. The right to
read the Scriptures, the right to interpret them, the right to obey them,
Baptists have always held to be inalienable rights, belonging to every human
being alike. This doctrine lies at the fountain-head of all modern enlightenment
and progress. It correlates with the principle of individualism in religion, and
this principle has its application in many directions. It finds expression in
the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees religious liberty to
every one. It goes to the very, foundations of the vast superstructure of proxy
religion, and is rapidly working the destruction of the whole vicious system.
Individualism means that every one must read, think, and act for himself.
Sponsors are passing away, with many other inventions of Rome. Infant baptism
must and will go down before the great principle of individualism taught in the
New Testament and held by Baptists; for, if it is the believer’s duty to be
baptized, it is not somebody’s, business to have him baptized nolens volens,
when he knows nothing. With the destruction of infant baptism, the corner-stone
of popery disappears, and the religious life of humanity is rid of an enormous
incubus.

Individualism and the Priesthood of Believers.

Individualism correlates with the priesthood of all believers. Let it be known
that every man may for himself, at all times, anywhere, come to a throne of
grace and find pardon, peace, and life eternal, and the whole vast system of
priestcraft receives its death blow. Freedom to read God’s Word, freedom to
worship God as he feels he should, freedom to act for himself in religious
matters, freedom to go to God for himself for wisdom and all spiritual blessing
without the intervention of a human priest or preacher, complete the
disenthrallment of the man and put him in the shining way of all blessings. The
value of these principles goes further. The disappearance of the priest makes
way for the preacher, whose business is to open the Scriptures to the minds and
hearts of men. His work is to educate the conscience and move the heart to obey
the commands of God. The preacher is the mightiest human force in the world. He
is the forerunner of civilization. He is the most effective reformer known to
men. His power lies in his message. The word of God, which is quick and
powerful, he lays on the hearts of the people. When the priest, with all his
flummery, retires, the preacher has an open field for his great work, and the
priest has nothing to do, when the doctrine of individualism is accepted.

I will not go into other phases of the subject at any great length. The
all-sufficiency of the Scriptures as a guide in religion is a cardinal principle
with Baptists. This eliminates the authority of councils, popes, synods,
conferences, bishops, etc. It gives no place to history as a supplement to the
teaching of the Bible. It shuts the world up to take the law from the mouth of
God. Here we stand, and on this principle will settle all questions. Baptists
are immersionists, not for the sake of immersion, but because it is a command.
They are close communionists, not because they do not love other people, but
because the Scriptures fix the place and order of the table. They are
congregationalists, because the Scriptures fix the nature and order of New
Testament churches. The world wants and sorely needs a center of unity. That
center is the Word of God. The more it is preached in its fullness, the quicker
will Christian union be realized.

I must not prolong the discussion. Our obligations to teach the principles long
held by Baptists grow out of our obligation to God, and also to men. God has put
His highest glory among men in his word. The first purpose of the gospel is to
glorify God. The angels first sang "Glory to God in the highest." Every
principle of the gospel reflects the glory of its author. If we would honor God,
we must stand for his truth. As trustees of his truth, we are under every
obligation known to the redeemed to see that the truth is faithfully preached.
Our obligations are to men, also. Their highest good is wrapped up in the
principles of the gospel. The more truth one has, the richer he is. The more he
walks in the truth, the happier and more useful he is. Error is not good enough
for any one. We bless the world in proportion as we disseminate sound
principles. To fail in this is to default in a trust. The marvelous progress of
Baptist principles during the last 100 years ought to inspire us to renewed
faithfulness in proclaiming them. They have been largely accepted by other
denominations, though they still maintain a separate line of policy, but with
ever-increasing weakness. Few Methodists now will defend some of the early
teachings of Wesley. The conservative Presbyterians, repudiate some of Calvin’s
doctrines. Infant baptism is gradually passing away. The Romish reason for it,
though strong traces of it are found in Pedobaptist standards, is now generally
reprobated. The great Baptist principle of religious liberty is taking the
world, and its correlative, separation of Church and State, is following in its
wake. Individualism in religion has made wonderful progress even in Catholic
countries and in the Catholic communion, while it has nearly completed its
conquest in some Protestant communions. The work, so encouraging today, ought to
be pressed to a finish. We live in tremendous times. The truth never had so fair
a field for conquest. Baptists were never so well equipped to wage an aggressive
campaign. In the language of another, "with malice toward none, with charity for
all," let us complete the work we are in and fulfil our solemn obligations to
God and to men.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 28: 01.03.01.     PART 3 CHAPTER 01 WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE WORTH TO THE WORLD.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 3-CHAPTER 1.

What Baptist Principles Are Worth to the World. BY A. E. DICKENSON, D. D.,
EDITOR OF THE RELIGIOUS HERALD, RICHMOND, VA. The subject chosen is by no means
trivial. It is worthy of the candid and prayerful study of all Christians of
every name and denomination. It is as much every other person’s duty to
ascertain what is true about these matters as it is yours and mine.

I shall not put forward unwarranted and exaggerated claims for the Baptists, nor
underestimate what other Christian people have done. In speaking of what
Baptists have done, and of what their principles are worth, I hope not to use a
word to which any of God’s dear children not of this fold can rightly take
exception. May great grace rest upon all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in
sincerity, here and everywhere, now and evermore! In the very beginning, I must
frankly confess that Baptists have accomplished for the human family scarcely a
tithe of what they might have done and ought to have done. We are summoned to
the profoundest humiliation in reviewing the failures and follies which have
almost everywhere and always marred the force and beauty of our principles. Many
a time have these blunders brought us into disrepute among great masses of good
people. You know that the worst enemies to any good cause are those who profess
to be its champions, and yet, in their teaching and living, misrepresent its
spirit and aims.

Whenever the Spirit of Christ departs from a Baptist church, whenever such a
church turns from its God-given mission, it dies-dies surely, dies completely,
and often dies speedily. The bones of such a church soon become as "exceeding
dry" as were those of which Ezekiel had a vision "in the open valley." No amount
of excited breath expended in Baptist brag and brazen boastings, no fierce
indictments of other Christian denominations, no iron bands of
organization-nothing can keep alive a Baptist church which turns its eyes from
its high and holy mission and fees them upon low and groveling aims and
purposes. Such a church soon wastes away and gives up the ghost, and the sooner
it does this the better.

CARICATURING OUR VIEWS

Whenever Baptists give their chief and almost exclusive attention to emphasizing
the points of difference between them and others, they place their denomination
at a frightful disadvantage. Multitudes, who might be won to our faith but for
this distorted view, because of it are driven into organized and unrelenting
opposition to us, and they in turn make thousands more our enemies, who might as
well have been our friends. While this unwise advocacy of our views-this
caricature of them, I might better say-has often damaged us immensely in the
eyes of other good people and the world at large, such so-called Baptist
champions have often not stopped there, but have turned their guns upon their
own citadel. Not content with the ruin inflicted upon their own denomination by
their unwise methods in attacking others, they have too often found additional
vent for their pugnacious impulses in keeping up a lively fight at home within
their own lines. There is nothing such Baptists like so well as hot water-the
hotter, the better for them. If necessary, to make things lively, they will
invent new tests of Baptist orthodoxy, of which our Baptist fathers never so
much as dreamed. Anything is to their liking, if it serves to foster and foment
dissensions and distract and destroy feeble churches, which, but for some
unworthy leadership, might soon become great and glorious exponents of the true
Baptist faith. Had Baptists been as loyal to the command to go into all the
world and disciple all nations as they have been to keeping the ordinances as
they were delivered, long before this all Christendom might have accepted the
truth as we hold it, and the kingdoms of this world might have been brought into
loving subjection to Him whose we are and whom we serve. In other particulars,
also, we have often, in antagonizing unscriptural views and practices, gone too
far in the opposite direction. If others have had too much machinery, often we
have had too little. Their cast-iron polity, their wheels within wheels, should
not have deterred us from having all the wheels we really need that are in
keeping with the necessities laid upon us for doing our work and in line with
Scripture teaching. In exalting our New Testament doctrine of church
independency, putting the supreme power and authority in the local church, where
they belong, it is not necessary that we let our great resources run to waste.
That doctrine does not hinder, but rather calls for such combination and
concentration of these little Christian republics as may be for the good of each
and all.

If others have sought too exclusively the patronage of the more influential
classes, have we not too often satisfied ourselves with evangelizing the
neglected masses, while overlooking others, whose wealth, learning, and position
we might have brought into active cooperation with us in the defense and
diffusion of our denominational views? If knowledge is power in other
directions, is it any less so here? Had we been wiser, we might more diligently
and generously have fostered institutions of learning and have led others
instead of being led by them, in this and in many more great Christian
movements. Because of these and many more Baptist blunders (which, with becoming
humility, let us all now confess and deplore), Baptist principles have not had a
fair chance in the world. The victories they have gained have been won largely
in spite of their advocates.

It is not the fault of the Baptist idea that it has not been worth a thousand
times more to the world. It is not the fault of good seed that they fail to
produce a good harvest when they are not properly planted and wisely cultivated.
A medicine may be ever so good, but it may fail of producing the desired
effects, when diluted or improperly administered. McCormick’s best reapers fail
to gather the waving harvests, if those in charge do not know how to use them.
Baptist principles are not responsible for Baptist follies. As we become wiser
and learn better how to wield this old Jerusalem blade, we shall secure results
which will fill us with wonder anal rejoicing. We shall then probably accomplish
as much in a year as we now do in a century.

Even now we see, here and there, how mightily the wise use of our resources
tells. Often you will and one single Baptist accomplishing as much as dozens of
his brethren, all told, equally gifted in many respects with himself. Such an
one may chance to go into a community where there are no Baptists, and where the
tide is all against them, and yet, in a year or two, by a wise and loving
presentation of our views, he will capture almost the entire population. Under
his leadership, men, women, and children, with all they have, in head and heart
and purse, turn joyfully to the Baptists. Indeed, there is nothing under heaven
which unprejudiced people take to so readily and hold to so firmly as to Baptist
principles, when they are rightly put before them in the voice and life. The
chief, if not the only reason, why Baptist principles have not long ago gained a
thousand-fold stronger hold upon Christendom is to be found in Baptist blunders.
Not Pedobaptist logic, but Baptist living, has kept us in the background. With
these preliminary remarks, I come now to consider WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE
WORTH TO THE WORLD.

And, first, it may be well to indicate what are Baptist principles. Baptists
hold to certain views and practices which are distinctive and peculiar, and are
held by no others on earth. They regard these as immensely important worth
living for and worth dying for. And hence, when it is proposed in the name of
Christian union to merge all denominations into one general organization, it
seems to us but idle talk. Such a union may suit those who have nothing in
particular to stand for; but it does not commend itself to us, who have great
doctrines which can be maintained only by our continued separate existence. None
desire more than we that all God’s people may be really and truly one in faith
and practice. We pray daily for the coming of the time when all who love Christ
shall be one, even as he and the Father are one. But, starting out with the
principle that the New Testament is our ultimate and only authority as to church
order and church action, the question of church organization is settled for us
for all time. The inspired Epistles emphasize the importance of holding firmly
to gospel order, leaving nothing to the caprice and ever-changing whims of poor,
fickle mortals. The inspired volume does not contain a line which indicates that
anything will do for baptism; that if you think a thing is right, it is right to
you. You search the Book of God in vain to find that baptism means this, that,
or the other thing, or nothing, just as one may choose to have it. You will find
no line there which so much as remotely intimates that this ordinance is for any
but penitent believers. Nor will you find anything there which could give the
faintest idea that the supper was ever to come before baptism. The india-rubber
system of our Pedobaptist brethren has millions of advocates in this world, but
no whisper is heard in its behalf in the Book of God. That those who can so
readily set aside inspired command and example should keep up their own separate
ecclesiastical organizations, is something we do not understand. Surely nothing
less than the demands of conscience, enlightened and guided by the Word of God,
can justify the continued separation of Christian denominations. If it is a mere
question of church government, for example, between two ecclesiastical bodies,
neither of which tries to fund a scriptural basis for its polity, then such
bodies ought to coalesce, and as soon as possible. Unity is desirable-unity of
form as well as unity of spirit; and hence every denomination of Christians is
perpetually challenged for the reason of its existence. If it has no distinctive
principles, it has no right to live, nor does it deserve to live if its
principles are comparatively valueless. Without a "Thus saith the Lord" for what
is peculiar in its teachings, as its Christian basis, a religious denomination
has no right to exist, and the sooner it disbands and unites with a denomination
which has such authority for its existence, the better for all parties.
Continued separation from other Christian workers, under such circumstances, is
schismatic, injurious, and un-Christian.

We are not disposed to avoid the issue here raised. We will not be disloyal to
our convictions by asking that, the Baptists be relieved from the test herein
involved. Baptists are not exempt from the application of these principles. They
have no right to maintain a separate existence, unless they stand for great New
Testament doctrines which are peculiar and distinctive. Ordinarily, we have not
been slow to accept this challenge. THE BAPTIST MONOPOLY

There are certain things in Christian doctrine and practice of which we have a
monopoly. No one else is manifesting any special concern about these views and
practices of ours, except to oppose them, and, if possible, to banish them from
the world. This is the sect now, as it has ever been, everywhere spoken against.
However our brethren of other persuasions may differ among themselves, they are
solidly one in opposing Baptist principles; and hence it is manifest that there
is something peculiar, as well as provoking, in our position and principles. And
yet to all charges of creating schism and division Baptists may lift their hands
to heaven and cry: "These hands are clean!" We simply stand by the old rules-as
old as the New Testament. If others come in with new rules, upon them must rest
the responsibility which comes with warring sects. From the peace which is
bought at the expense of truth, may the good Lord deliver us? One particle of
truth, in God’s sight, is more precious than all earth’s glittering treasures.
Union in the truth is the only union worth the name.

Baptists from the days of John the Baptist, have given the most emphatic
testimony to their conception of the value of their denominational tenets. In
maintaining them, they have accepted imprisonment, stripes, and death itself. If
the noble army of Baptist martyrs, who joyfully welcomed all the ills that earth
could inflict rather than abandon their advocacy of Baptist views, were not
greatly deceived, there is something wrapped up in this Baptist idea of
priceless value. Roger Williams knew what he was doing when he plunged into the
wilderness, and for days went without bread or water (he says, "For fourteen
weeks I knew not what bed or bread did mean"), in his zeal for soul liberty,
which was then as peculiar and distinctive a Baptist principle as believers’
baptism is now. But Roger Williams was only one of a great multitude-we might
almost say a multitude which no man can number-who proved their appreciation of
what Baptist principles are worth by enduring fierce persecution in their
behalf. It might quicken the zeal of Baptists for them to recall the sufferings
endured by their fathers, to bear in mind at what cost this liberty they now
enjoy was obtained, and how joyfully their fathers paid that price in the
dungeon and at the whipping-post. They counted life itself a thing of no value,
when called to abandon Baptist principles. The man who does not see anything
worth living for or dying for in Baptist doctrines is a man immensely unlike
Obadiah Holmes, who, after a term in jail, was tied to a public whipping-post,
his clothes stripped off, and received thirty lashes; "the executioner striking
with all his might, and spitting upon his hands three times, that he might do
his utmost. His flesh was so torn and cut that for weeks afterward he could only
rest upon his hands and knees, even in his bed." It was his profound conviction
of the value of Baptist principles which cheered and sustained him through it
all. He calmly accepted the situation, believing that the coming ages would
prove that his sufferings were wisely endured. And so thought the old Virginia
Baptists, who laid the foundation of our faith in this old Commonwealth, as
their songs of praise to God rang out from many an old jail.

Adoniram Judson and Luther Rice did not stop to count the cost when, far from
home and friends, in a heathen land, they gave up their only guaranteed support,
as soon as they discovered that Baptist principles were simply New Testament
principles, and cast their lot in with the Baptists. They did not stop to ask as
to the social position or the wealth and worldly influence of the Baptists. They
did not once raise such inquiries. As soon as they discovered that the Baptists
had Scripture authority for the points on which they differ from others, Judson
and Rice were ready, at any and every sacrifice, to espouse their cause. What a
rebuke to all who desert the old Baptist banner because their lot happens to be
cast in a community where it is not popular to be a Baptist, or because they
happen to be associated with those who would be pleased to have them abandon
these principles! NO ROOM FOR COMPROMISE.

It nothing is ever settled until it is settled right, loyalty to conscience and
to the Word of God must always rank higher than any mere sentimental desire for
the union of Baptists with other denominations. There is no room for compromise
left us. It is not a mode of baptism that Baptists plead for, but the thing
itself. No immersion, no baptism. Nor do we put baptism above other commands and
teachings of Christ. Underlying our denominational position on all these
questions there is one great cardinal, basal principle, the bed-rock of Baptist
faith and practice. That principle is that the sacred Scriptures are the only
and the absolute authority in religion. The object to the phrase "paramount
authority," and we are not quite satisfied with the phrase "all sufficient." The
Word of God is the sovereign, and this sovereign has no parliament and no prime
minister. It is a matter of no earthly interest to us, as modifying in any way
our beliefs, what councils, popes, cardinals, bishops, canons or deans, or even
district associations, may proclaim. The Word of God-what does that teach? is
the only question which concerns a true Baptist.

Along this line Baptists have been working through the centuries, and their
labors have not been in vain. Baptists have been worth something to the world.
They have stood for soul liberty, for converted church membership, for loyalty
to Christ as the only King in Zion. They have kept the ordinances as they were
delivered. With them there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. No one has a
right to say two or three; God excludes all but his own "one." He has a right to
dictate as to his own gospel and its ordinances, and we have no more right to
undertake to change them than we have to change the physical laws which he has
appointed to govern the material universe. There would be no more presumption in
attempting to abolish the law of gravitation than the law of baptism. We read:
"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Again:
"If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not." And
yet again: "Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you,
let him be accursed." "Behold! To obey is better than sacrifice."

No, friends, it is not that we are bigots-not that we are lacking in love for
you and in appreciation of all the good that is in your heart and life; but
because we dare not be disloyal to Him who has loved us and given himself for
us. If he counts the immersion of the penitent believer baptism, then nothing
else in the universe is baptism. If he has put baptism before the supper, no one
in earth, heaven, or hell, should dare to change that order. If he has put the
governing power in the local church, you have no right to put it anywhere else.

BAPTISM NOT THE CHIEF DOCTRINE.

After all that has been said about Baptists unduly magnifying baptism, we do not
hesitate to affirm that baptism is far from being the chief doctrine of the
Baptists. If the other so-called modes of baptism could be shown to have
scriptural authority, we would not hesitate to adopt them. The very principle
which makes us immerse would, in that case, make us conform to scriptural
precept and precedent, whatever that might be shown to be. The reason for the
existence of Baptist churches would scarcely be weakened by so startling and
improbable a discovery. They might have to change their practice, but their
controlling principle would remain intact. We count as the small dust in the
balance any question of much water or little water. Whether a goblet or a gulf,
would make little difference to a Baptist, who understands that the ground of
separation lies much deeper than that.

There are great differences between Baptists and all other denominations apart
from the ordinances. We differ as to the first principles. They have one idea of
the constitution of a Christian church, and we have quite a different idea. They
start out with the old Abrahamic idea, and they say the church is for our
children as much as for us, their parents; the Baptist begins with asserting
that every human being that is born into the world is dead in sin-conceived in
sin, born dead-and that nothing but the Almighty Spirit of God can infuse life
into that dead soul, and that until that is done it is the supremest folly to
think of bringing it into the church. Only those who have received Jesus, and to
whom he has given the privilege of becoming sons of God, "who are born, not of
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," have,
according to our principles, any right to the church and its ordinances. Thus,
if ail others were to adopt immersion as baptism, and stop there, they and we
would be as far apart as the poles. In holding to immersion in water as
essential to the act of baptism, the Baptists have saved to the world one of the
only two great symbolic ordinances instituted by the Head of the church, and the
other they have kept just where the New Testament placed it. We have also made
prominent the principle of unquestioned obedience to the Word of God, placing it
not only above, but infinitely above, all questions of custom or conscience, all
decisions of ecclesiastical courts and councils; so that these latter are not
thought of as having any authority whatever.

Baptism symbolizes some of the most precious truths of our holy religion. It
tells us that we are dead and buried and raised to a new life-that our sins have
been washed away-buried out of sight. It points to a blissful resurrection and a
glorious immortality. It assures us that, having been planted in the likeness of
his death, we shall also partake of the likeness of his resurrection. Baptism
proclaims what no tongue can speak. One may in the most eloquent language
explain what the Lord has done for him, but his words are cold and lifeless
compared with the pathos and power which accompany the silent submission to this
symbolic ordinance. We have seen vast crowds melted to tears as they gazed upon
this expressive and beautiful picture-God’s own picture-and we have known men
converted by the sight, when all else had failed to move them. As long as
Baptists hold to their baptism, so long they will secure to the world this
precious symbol, rich in soul-saving truth. As long as our baptism stands as an
expression of obedience to Christ (and it grows more absolutely clear every day
that it is), we exalt the Word of God, and everything that exalts God’s Word and
authority is something that the world needs. "The Bible, the Bible alone, the
religion of the Protestants," was the famous dictum of Chillingworth. But it is
lamentably true that the most serious and insidious-serious because
insidious-attacks upon the Bible have, in recent years, come from Protestants.
The few Baptists who have shared in this unholy crusade have found themselves
quickly and surely shorn of all influence. The great Baptist body has had
sufficient spiritual health to dispose of them effectually and promptly, without
the slow and factitious aid of ecclesiastic courts. The principle which
expresses itself in our baptism and communion and church polity has made this
possible. This literalism, for which we are often mercilessly criticized, has
done the world good service, and will render far more service in the future,
unless we misread the signs of the times.

Baptists not only cleave to the act of baptism, as given in the sacred
Scriptures, but they also adhere to the Scripture authority as to the subjects
of the ordinance. We baptize none but such as make a personal confession of
faith. Here, as elsewhere, we maintain not only the supremacy, but the absolute
sovereignty of the sacred Scriptures. The failure of others to do this, the
abolition of the scriptural prerequisite for baptism, has as a matter of history
led, and does as a matter of fact lead, and will as a matter of logic continue
to lead, in the direction of the union of Church and State.

INFANT REGENERATION.

Many who practice infant baptism affirm that infants are "regenerated, made
members of the mystical body of Christ, and inheritors of the kingdom of
heaven." This rite gives Romanists an unanswerable argument against Protestants.
A Roman Catholic catechism asks: "Can Protestants prove to Baptists that the
baptism of infants is good and useful?" "No," replied the same catechism, "they
cannot, because, according to Protestant principles, such baptism is useless."
An eminent Romanist recently said to a Baptist: "Either your people or mine are
right. You are at one end of the line, we are at the other. Infant baptism, if
anything, is all we claim for it."

Infant baptism lays the foundation for national hierarchies, and, where
universally practiced, surely and speedily abolishes all distinction between the
church and the world. For the legitimate fruits of any such practice we must
look where that practice has had ample scope for working out its results, and
not where it, is hedged in by opposing influences. If you would know what are
the inherent tendencies of this "part and pillar of popery," inquire in the
countries where for ages it has had uninterrupted and complete sway. There you
will find great hierarchies crushing out the spirit and teachings of the gospel
of Christ, and, with their imposing ritual and numberless and meaningless rites
and ceremonies, ruling with despotic power over the bodies as well as the souls
of its subjects, the partner and the patron of Caesar. This ghostly delusion of
the papacy has in it the germ of persecution. The infant is not consulted. His
baptism is a question of mere physical force, rather than of religious faith. If
he is the child of Pedobaptists, and, upon coming to years of responsibility,
wishes to be immersed, but desires to hold his membership in the church of his
parents, it cannot be done. The act performed on him without his consent has
logically, though most unjustly, robbed him of the right of choice. It is easy
to see how the State naturally comes at last to take the place of church and
parent.

Infant baptism is the egg out of which all this confusion and perversion of
God’s truth are hatched. It removes and abolishes the line of separation which
God designed should ever stand between the church and the world, paves the way
for a union of Church and State, and of this adulterous union a numerous progeny
is born-persecution lighting its lurid fires through the dark centuries, the
church hunting rather than comforting, multiplying rather than dividing the
sorrows of humanity, killing when it ought to have been saving. And whence came
all this? It grew, as all the world knows, though all the world may not
acknowledge it, out of this union of Church and State, against which Baptists
have always and everywhere protested. They stand today, as they have ever stood,
the natural enemies of every principle which would enslave the soul. NO MERE
ACCIDENT.

Baptists did not stumble upon religious liberty. It is no mere accident that
wherever Baptist views have prevailed, and to the extent to which they have
prevailed, men have been left to worship God according to the dictates of their
own conscience, with none to molest or to make them afraid. Soul freedom as
surely comes with the adoption of Baptist principles as day comes with the
rising sun it is the inevitable, logical outgrowth of the doctrine that each
must hear for himself, repent for himself, believe for himself, confess Christ
for himself, and be baptized for himself-that as we come one by one into the
world, so we must go to Christ one by one for mercy, and at last go one by one
out of the world, to be judged according to the deeds done in the body. The
doctrine of regenerated church membership, with its basis in the written Word,
like the light of the sun, goes everywhere, and everywhere opens the way for the
highest civil and religious liberty. Our form of church government has been of
unspeakable value to the world. With us the function of the local church, our
only ecclesiastical authority, being exceedingly simple and its authority very
limited, there is room for the development of liberty of thought and speech,
while the very basis of the organization being in the Scripture model, that fact
supplies all needful restraint. If Baptists have ever failed to be in line with
all movements looking to human freedom and progress, then in every such case
they have gone counter to their own foundation principles. In their own
ecclesiastical organization (the local church) there is a decided and perpetual
protest against every form of tyranny in religious matters, and in the equality
among its membership there is a suggestion of that civic freedom which is
beginning in some measure to be realized. If it be the true theory of the
republic that "that community is governed best," which is governed least," then
it is a truth which finds striking exemplification in our simple, but
effective-and effective because simple-church polity. In emphasizing what
Baptists have done for the world, often sufficient attention has not been given
to this free-and-easy church polity of ours. More and more men of strong
episcopal church governments are looking on with amazement at the organized
power of these thousands of Baptist churches in America. They do not see how we
manage to combine, and concentrate the power of the denomination as we do in,
great philanthropic movements; nor can they see how it is that so easily and
quietly we rid ourselves of the heretics and impostors who spring up among us.

We have only to answer that all this proves that the great Head of the church
made no mistake in laying down the church polity to which the Baptists cling.
Some one has said that "it is no discredit to a Christian organization that it
cannot succeed without Christianity." As the Baptists obtain more of the spirit
of Christ and more Christian education, as they grow in grace and in knowledge,
this church polity will work so well that all the world will see that it is of
God, and, abandoning their great ecclesiastical church governments, they will
adopt this, which has no machinery to drive-no great driving-wheels which will
keep the concern rolling on when Christian love and holy zeal have departed from
it. A Baptist church dies when there is no more consecration of heart and life
left to it-of course, it dies then; there’s nothing to keep it going a day
longer. But these strong aristocratic churches run on centuries after the Spirit
of Cod has left them. Their machinery-wheels within wheels-drives them on long
after the divine power has left them.

BAPTIST INFLUENCE ON PEDOBAPTISTS. In estimating the value of Baptist
principles, we must not fail to take into the account their influences upon
other Christian denominations-how they hold back Pedobaptists from the ruinous
extremes to which they would inevitably go but for such restraining power.
Nothing hinders the baptism and church membership of every infant except the
Baptists. But for them, every babe would as surely come into the church as it
comes into the world.

Wherever Baptists are not found, there infant baptism goes unchallenged among
Protestants and Roman Catholics, and is universally practiced. You have only to
turn your eyes to Europe, Mexico, and South America to see what sad work it does
when left to do its worst. Even over the lands where Martin Luther’s Reformation
won its brilliant victories this evil has spread desolation and ruin. Baptists
are now reforming Luther’s work, by taking from it the fatal error of birthright
church membership. Where will you find a spot on the map of this earth where
Christianity has anything more than a name, if on that spot infant baptism, has
not been held in check by the Baptist protest? That rite, as our friends call
it, carries with it a dead formalism, which, as surely as an effect follows its
cause, works evil, and only evil, and that continually. The reason it does not
work out such results in this country is to be found in the prevalence of
opposing influences. Baptists here keep Pedobaptist errors from running to seed;
or, to change the figure, we put down the brakes and hold back the Pedobaptist
car from the frightful precipices over which it would plunge, if left to itself.

Every godly Pedobaptist minister is doing far greater good because of the
Baptist influence upon him and upon his people. He and they may not be conscious
of it-indeed, they may be very unfriendly to us-but that does not alter the fact
that Pedobaptists are a thousand times more useful because of the Baptists. And
hence, before you can tell what Baptist principles are worth to the world, you
will have to work upon this problem. You will have to ascertain what pedobaptism
would be if its position as to the order of ordinances of the gospel were
everywhere as fully accepted and practiced among us as they are in some other
countries, before you can tell what Baptist principles are worth. Close these
Baptist churches, silence these Baptist pulpits, cast aside all our Baptist
agencies for spreading our principles, and what then? In a few decades you could
not find in all this broad land an unbaptized infant. They would all be in the
church, and once there they would remain there in the same enclosure with their
parents, and as truly church members as they. With such a universal acceptance
of this "rite," surely and speedily all distinction between the church and world
would vanish, and pedobaptism would be left to do for our fair land what it has
done for every other land where it has had full and undisputed sway. We say
these things in no boastful spirit, and certainly with no desire to misrepresent
our Pedobaptist brethren. This is no time for self-admiration among Baptists.
Nor is it a time-nor can there ever come a time-for placing our brethren of
opposing creeds at a disadvantage. God knows that I love with a full heart
Christians who do not wear the Baptist name. If feet-washing were now in vogue
among us as a religious ceremony, I should desire no higher honor than to wash
the feet of some of the very men who most bitterly oppose our views. They may
not love us, but they love Christ, our Master, and I hope and pray that in time
they may come to love our Baptist principles. Learned theologians of all faiths
seem to be more favorable to us than formerly, and there is among Protestants a
constant approximation to our views. Positions that a hundred years ago were
distinctly and peculiarly Baptist, and for which thousands of our people
suffered stripes and imprisonment, are now firmly held by millions who do not
wear the Baptist name.

LEAVENING THE LUMP.

Thank God, Baptist leaven is spreading throughout the whole lump in this, our
"Baptist America," and we are mercifully saved from that dead formalism which
otherwise would rest like a nightmare upon us. "The Goddess of Liberty" stands
upon our shores, and with uplifted torch is "enlightening the world." With the
blessing of God, Baptist principles will more and more prevail in this, our
loved land, and they will be preached and adopted in all lands. Some day in the
coming years-God hasten that day! -the sun in his journey will not look down
upon any section of this globe of ours unblessed by these principles.

Baptist principles, when rightly held, lead to a life of consecration to God’s
service and to a worldwide philanthropy. One cannot take this Baptist idea into
his heart without taking with it all else that is good. He is false to his
burial with Christ, if there is in him no resurrection to a new life. He must
feel, as Paul felt, that this world has been put upon his shoulders, that he may
lift it up to God; that every human being has a claim upon his best energies;
that his commission is to each and every being on earth. Nothing less than such
a consecrated life does the Baptist idea demand, and nothing less will it
accept. And here let me say that, as a matter of fact, Baptists have led in
agencies for the world’s redemption. Were not Carey and Thomas, the pioneers in
foreign missions, Baptists? Was not the first Foreign Mission Society of modern
times formed by English Baptists in 1792? Were not Adoniram Judson and Luther
Rice among the first to go from America to the heathen? Were not the first
Christian churches organized in India and Burmah, and China and Siam, Baptist
churches? And are not more than one-third of all the converts from heathenism
Baptists? And have not the Baptists ever been the true and fast friends of
education? Have they not sought everywhere to enlighten the masses, reaching
down to the lowest and up to the highest? Who but Baptists made the earliest
translations of God’s Word into heathen tongues? Was not the first Bible Society
called into being under the leadership of Joseph Hughes, a Baptist minister? And
does not a Baptist deacon share with Robert Raikes the honor of originating the
Sunday school? In every great movement for the evangelization of the world
Baptists have held no mean place. Nor is this strange. The very principles
underlying our system bind us to go into all the world and preach the gospel to
every creature. That Baptist would better never have been born into the world
who refuses to do all in his power to save the world, and that Baptist church
which knows nothing of this sense of responsibility to save the perishing
nations of earth can do for the Baptist name no nobler service than to lay that
name aside and wear it no more. No word of mine can do the subject justice. I
cannot tell-no man living can tell-what Baptist principles are worth to this
poor, sinning sorrowing world of ours. The world is bad enough as it is, but who
can tell how much worse it would be but for these principles? Who can tell what
this uplifting of the word and authority of God has been worth to humanity? Who
knows what a calamity it would have been, had the ordinances of the gospel been
lost to the world, and these two great monumental pillars in the house of our
God been torn to pieces and forever cast aside? Where is there under the blue
arch of heaven a man who has more than the faintest conception of what religious
liberty is worth to the world? Who can tell how much of the good done by other
Christian denominations comes from the influence, direct or indirect, of this
Baptist idea upon their heads and hearts?

No, brethren, I beg to be excused. You might as well ask me to tell you what the
shining sun in mid-heavens is worth. It cannot be done; life is too short to
tell it all. A greater calamity than the overthrow of Baptist principles one can
scarcely conceive. If any are seeking to bring this to pass, they know not what
they do. To succeed would be to wreck and forever overthrow the beautiful and
symmetrical system as given by Christ and his apostles, and snatch from a
perishing world its brightest-I might almost say its only-hope.

BEST OF ALL, GOD IS WITH US.

But, brethren; you need not fear any such catastrophe. The God of providence is
our God. He has often turned the bitterest enemies of the Baptists into their
most helpful friends. Many of the greatest names in Baptist history are names
that have come to us from other denominations. How often, in searching for
arguments against us, have men and women found that the Baptists have a "Thus
saith the Lord," and gone forth frankly confessing that our position must stand
while the inspired record stands.

If Baptists could have been overthrown, it would have been done long ago. Almost
every weapon has been tried against them, and with what result? Since our Lord
bade us go into all the world and disciple all nations, baptizing them into the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, there has never dawned a day when the
prospect for the Baptists was brighter than it is this day, and the morrow will
be for them brighter still. These principles of ours are yet to be
laurel-crowned. To use the words of a celebrated Baptist martyr: "Divine truth
is immortal. It may be scourged, crucified, and for a season entombed, but on
the third day it will rise again victorious, and rule triumphant forever." That
Baptist martyr did not overstate the great fact; for back of these Baptist
principles is the Almighty throne, and it is pledged to their complete triumph.
If there were but one Baptist on the earth, he might throw his banner to the
breeze with a full and unquestioning faith that it will surely and completely
win in the great coming struggle.

"Every plant which my Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up."
Multitudes in other denominations believe as we do, and the number of such
increases daily. Their preachers may preach some other baptism, but more and
more their people are practicing ours, and daily they are seeing more clearly
that infant baptism is without divine authority.

Let us gird ourselves for the conflict. Today one of the chief points of attack
is the integrity of the inspired Word. The enemies of Christianity are gathering
at this point as never before, and the very atmosphere around us seems to be
laden with skepticism. The mission of the Baptists is hardly yet begun. Theirs
is the post of honor in the conflict for God’s Word. Clad in God’s armor, they
must more than ever stand in serried phalanx where the fight is hottest. It is a
most comforting paradox that as we defend the Bible it furnishes us with
weapons, defensive and offensive. THE BRIGHTER DAYS.

If God has wrought so mightily through the Baptists in the past, with all their
lack of faith, and zeal, and tact, and toil, what may we not hope for in the
better days that are ahead of us, when we shall realize as never before the
weighty responsibilities which press upon us-in the coming days, when we shall
see that having more truth than others devolves upon us the solemn obligation to
live a more holy, a more consecrated life? We are Christ’s witnesses, and his
only witnesses, for the great distinctive principles he has committed to us.
Shall he look in vain to us to witness aright for him?

There can be but one issue of the struggle, unequal as it is, with all the
mighty forces arrayed against us. He who is for us is mightier than they who are
against us. "As we have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so let us walk in him."
Let us teach these Baptist principles to all the people, and in doing that let
us not forget our own children. And let us cultivate fraternal relations with
other Christian denominations. Let us give them full credit for all the good
they are doing, and rejoice with them in it all. Often their holy zeal and
Christian endurance will put us to the blush, and cause impartial observers to
say that, while Baptists have the doctrine, others have the practice. Let us
seek to profit by all this, and then, at last, when the crowning day shall come,
it will appear to all that not only have Baptist principles been valuable to the
world, but invaluable.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 29: 01.03.02.     PART 3 CHAPTER 02 WHY I BECAME A BAPTIST.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 3-CHAPTER 2.

Why I Became A Baptist. BY MADISON C. PETERS, D. D., OF NEW YORK.

[In the year 1900, Dr. Madison C. Peters, of New York, one of the most popular
and prominent Pedobaptist preachers in that great city, resigned his flourishing
pastorate and announced his purpose to unite with the Baptists. This he promptly
did, and was duly baptized by Dr. R. S. MacArthur. Shortly afterwards, a
representative of the Religious Herald sought him out and secured from him the
following interview, which was printed in the Herald of June 7, 1900. As setting
forth the views and opinions of a trained Pedobaptist preacher on whom the light
has broken, the paper is of unique and remarkable value. -R. H. Pitt.] Question:
How long were you in the Presbyterian and Reformed ministry?

Answer: I entered the ministry of the Reformed church in Indiana when twenty
years of age, preaching in both the English and German languages. After two
years, I concluded that I could be more useful if I gave myself to preaching to
an entirely English congregation. I determined, therefore, to leave a church of
over 1,000 members, and entered the Presbyterian ministry at Terre Haute, Ind.,
starting a new enterprise in an abandoned Methodist church. I may say that going
from the Reformed to the Presbyterian church can hardly be called a
denominational change, as in all matters of faith and practice they are
essentially one, and ministers transfer from one to the other as though they
were one and the same. In about six months we had perfected an organization,
known as the Greenwood Presbyterian church, now known as the Washington Avenue
Presbyterian church. I came to this church as a "supply," and when the
organization was complete and the church ready to call a minister, feeling that
I might be more useful somewhere else, Rev. Thomas Parry, now of Pittsburgh,
called my attention to the Presbyterian church at Ottawa, Ill., a church which
had been closed for several years, and which had long been considered a forlorn
hope. The very desperateness of the condition attracted me. There were just
twenty-seven people left in the membership, and these seemed only too glad to
give me a chance. I shall never forget the look on Mr. S. S. Scott’s face, the
elder of the church, and one of the leading merchants of the city. My enthusiasm
seemed to take his breath away. I began to preach, after the steps of the
church, which had rotted away, were repaired. The. city had a population of
about 10,000. I at once began a systematic canvass of the town, and before long
I had shaken hands with nearly all the men and women in the town, and was on
good terms with the babies. The audiences began to gather, and during the
fifteen months of my ministry 143 joined the church. One of my printed sermons
fell into the hands of an old minister in Philadelphia, who handed it to one of
the elders of the old First Northern Liberties Presbyterian church,
Philadelphia. An invitation to preach followed. A call was extended. This old
down-town church had long been given up as a forlorn hope. Hotels,
boarding-houses, schools, and colleges abounded in the neighborhood. I studied
by day and visited by night. The crowds began to gather, and before long I was
compelled to preach to overflowing meetings in the basement. Five hundred joined
the church in five years. At twenty-nine, I received a call to the Bloomingdale
Reformed church, Broadway and Sixty-eighth street, New York. This church had
been in the slough of despond. A congregational meeting was called to elect a
minister. Eleven gathered, and I am pleased to say that I received all the
eleven votes. Inherited wealth enabled a small congregation to build one of the
handsomest church edifices in this city, with a fifty-feet-front parsonage
adjoining on Broadway.

Question: What was the character of the congregation you gathered in New York?

Answer: The Reformed church in New York has a small constituency. She has
enormous wealth in what is known as the Collegiate church. I found, after a
thorough canvass of my section of the city, that there were not more than two or
three families who were Dutch Reformed, either by birth or education. To build
up a church along denominational lines wan, therefore, out of the question.
Beginning with sixty-four members, composed of various denominations, a
congregation of less than 100, and a Sunday school of twenty-one, I had at the
time of my resignation a communicant membership of 600, a Sunday school of 650,
and a congregation crowding our large auditorium. For no one thing am I more
grateful than that I was permitted to bring God’s truth to such various minds
and souls as constantly gathered to hear me. My membership was composed of
eleven different denominations of Protestants, while scores of Jews and
Catholics were in constant attendance upon my ministry.

Question: What led you to become interested in the matter of "infant baptism"?

Answer: The superstitious regard with which Pedobaptists hold infant baptism was
always repulsive to me. That repulsiveness grew until I became filled with
insufferable disgust. In eleven years in New York, I never preached on baptism,
and practiced infant baptism in public ones, only. I never did-and I know very
few Presbyterian ministers who do-use the prescribed form, which declares that
baptism is not only a "sign," but a "seed of engrafting into Christ, of
regeneration, of remission of sins." "The Reformed church declares that the
christened baby is "sanctified in Christ."

Question: What is the basis of the remark sometimes made that there are many
ministers, not Baptists, who do not believe in infant baptism?

Answer: For fully three months before I became a Baptist I talked with scores of
my brethren on infant baptism, and nearly all of them declared that they looked
upon it as a dedication, a consecration of both the child and the parents. I
believe that the majority of baby-sprinklers do not in their hearts consider it
baptism; very few, except the Episcopalians, use the prescribed form.

Question: Is infant baptism lessening its hold on the minds of persons not
connected with Baptist churches?

Answer: Infant baptism is undoubtedly dying out among intelligent Christians. It
is now practiced almost exclusively by the ignorant and superstitious. I have
had women to drag their weary frames to my house hundreds of times, with babes
from ten to fourteen days old, "to get them christened," for "fear they wouldn’t
have any luck." It may not be known that "baby-christening" is a source of
revenue. Many German preachers derive a large part of their income from "infant
baptism." It may be that Pedobaptist preachers fight so hard against "infant
baptism" dying out because "it pays."

Question: Did you have any experiences in connection with infant baptism which
produced a crisis in your attitude towards it?

Answer: About two years ago, one of my Episcopalian parishioners asked me to
"baptize" her baby, and requested that I use the Episcopal service. When I got
to that part in the Book of Common Prayer which reads, "Seeing now, dearly
beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate and grafted into the body of
Christ’s church," I began to sweat. I stood condemned a hypocrite and liar. I
knew different; every sensible man does. I was handed a splendid fee for the
performance of the "rite," as is the custom. I went home feeling that the whole
thing was a farce, a fraud perpetrated on am innocent babe. Infant baptism got
its death knell with me on that day.

Question: Why did it take so long for you to reach your present convictions?

Answer: There is a difference between a man having a conviction and the
conviction having the man.

Question: What does it cost a man in his feelings and prospects and ideals to
make such a change?

Answer: I can assure you it is not a comfortable position to take, in which you
not only confess to thousands, who have for eleven years believed all you told
them about divine things, that yon have been wrong ail your life, and also
pronounce thereby an unwilling judgment upon others, who remain where you have
been. I had a happy pastorate-a people whose kindly counsel and generous support
made my work among them delightful. It was a position of power and influence,
and, taken all in all, one which ought to have filled the cup of any man’s
ambition. I had a life position, a palatial home, a good salary, and perquisites
galore. For months I passed sleepless nights, debating whether I should stand by
people who for eleven years had stood by me, and go on smothering my
convictions, or be an honest man and preach what I could practice and practice
what I could preach, and, though the saddest day of my life, it was the
happiest, when I made answer of "a good conscience toward God;" resigned my
church, and went down into the baptismal waters and was baptized in Christ’s
appointed way. And now at forty, I start life over again, ready to begin once
more at the bottom.

Question: What were the Scripture reasons for rejecting "infant baptism"?

Answer: I am glad you say "Scripture reasons" for "rejecting," as there are none
for practicing "infant baptism." Our Lord baptized disciples. He blessed babies.
The Lord’s great commission enjoins baptism only on those who believe. Peter
baptized those who "gladly received his word." The Samaritans were baptized
"when they believed." It was when the Ethiopian could say that he "believed in
Christ with all his heart" that he was baptized. Not until Paul had been "filled
with the Holy Ghost" was he baptized. It was not until they were "taught" and
"believed" and "received the Holy Ghost" that Cornelius and his friends were
baptized. It was when Crispus and his house "believed in the Lord" that they
were baptized. Paul tells us that those only are fit subjects for baptism who
are ready to bury the old sinful life and lead a new and holy life. Peter tells
us that baptism is "the answer of a good conscience towards God." On all
occasions in the New Testament the apostles required repentance before baptism.
There is not a single instance in the New Testament but baptism was a matter of
choice by those who were baptized.

Question: How do you get around the households mentioned in Scripture as having
been baptized?

Answer: 1. That of the Philippian jailer; but to his household the word was
first spoken, and all of them, we are told, were believing in God. 2. That of
Stephanus, of whose household it is said that they "addicted themselves to the
ministry of the saints." 3. That of Lydia. To prove infant baptism by Lydia and
her household, you must prove three things: (1) That Lydia had a husband; (2)
that she had children; (3) that the children were babies. It would seem from the
story that Lydia was a single woman at the head of a household, and her
household were her servants, who helped her in the dyeing business. I rejected
infant baptism because it was unscriptural, because it implies a libel on God-it
implies that baptism is a saving ordinance, and most people who have their
babies baptized, it they do not believe in the horrible doctrine of infant
damnation, yet secretly fear that without "baptism" their darling babe might be
lost. "Infant baptism" nourishes the idea in people that something has been
performed towards their salvation, and that somehow they will be saved because
they are within the church.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 30: 01.03.03.     PART 3 CHAPTER 03 CANDID SCHOLARSHIP.
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET PART 3-CHAPTER 3.

Candid Scholarship. BY MADISON C. PETERS, D. D., OF NEW YORK. BY W. R. L. SMITH,
D. D., RICHMOND, VA.

It is safe to say that Hastings’ "Dictionary of the Bible" and "The
International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures," when completed, are
likely to contain the finest body of biblical learning in the English-speaking
world. While these work’s are not radical, they do candidly accept many of the
decisions of recent critical research. Their spirit is perfectly loyal and
reverent, while their method is constructive, and not destructive. Of course,
they must be read with care and caution. Having on our shelves two installments
of the first work and five of the latter, we have naturally sought to discover
their quality of scholarly fairness by examination of their treatment of New
Testament baptism. The inspection has been of the most gratifying and assuring
character. Controversial evasions, shifts, and dodges are abjured as irreverent
and contemptible in its eyes. The calm, dispassionate, impartial spirit of
scientific inquiry has at last seemed to enter victoriously into the realm of
biblical study.

It will be useful and interesting to set in order, briefly, their learned
testimonies on the subject of baptism.

HASTINGS.

"The simple verb ‘baptein’ in the Old and New Testaments is frequent in the
sense of ‘dip’ or ‘immerse:’"

"The verb is sometimes followed by a preposition, indicating either the element
into which or in which the immersion takes place."

Speaking of proselyte baptism, it is said: "His sponsors took him to a pool, in
which he stood up to his neck in water; and he plunged beneath the water, taking
care to be entirely submerged."

Again: "Scripture tells us that repentance and faith are requisite for baptism."
"Not only is there no mention of the baptism of infants, but there is no text
from which such baptism can be securely inferred." Yet, strange to say, right in
the face of these brave admissions, the writer goes on to make the usual
impotent pleas for infant baptism-such as the silence of Scripture, household
baptisms, the naturalness of it, &c. But it is the witness of his scholarship in
the revealed word that concerns us, and not his confessedly unwarranted
conjectures.

Coming to the great Commentary, let us take

GOULD ON MARK.

Mark 1:4 -The baptism of repentance: "This rite of immersion in water signified
the complete inward purification of the subject."

PLUMMER ON LUKE.

"Baptizo is intensive from bapto. Bapto, ‘I dip’; baptizo, ‘I immerse."‘ "It is
only when baptism is administered by immersion that its full significance is
seen."

SANDAY ON ROMANS.

"Baptism expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding to the redeeming
acts of Christ.

Immersion-Death.

Submersion-Burial.

Emergence-Resurrection."

Commenting on Rom 6:4, he says: "When we descended into the baptismal water,
that meant that we died with Christ-to sin. When the water closed over our
heads, that meant that we lay buried with him, in proof that our death to sin,
like his death, was real."

Thus these men, learned, reverent, and conscientious, speak of our Lord’s sacred
institution. They are all Pedobaptists, and yet not one of them seems to have
heard that any man ever tried to fix "affusion" or "sprinkling" as a definition
of bapto, or baptizo. The candor of these scholars on this long belabored and
stubbornly contested doctrine has given us a delightfully comfortable confidence
in their intellectual honesty. This is a great point gained, and alas for the
teacher or writer who fails to inspire it!

BEYSCHLAG’S TESTIMONY. This profound and illustrious German theologian has the
following in his recent book on New Testament Theology: "It is the symbolism of
baptism, of immersion and burial in the water, that causes Paul, in Rom 6:1-23
and Col 2:1-23, to connect the being dead with Christ with baptism rather than
with faith." "There is no mention in his (Paul’s) writings, or in any part of
the New Testament, of a baptism of children." "All that has been read into the
Acts of the Apostles about the baptism of children is pure fancy."

Here is the unequivocal, unqualified statement of another great Pedobaptist
scholar. It is a good sign. There has never been a time when biblical learning
was nearly so masterful or so fearlessly honest as it is today. Its massive
intelligence impatiently overwhelms the tiresome and outworn discussions of
"pouring" and "sprinkling." Real learning knows nothing, absolutely nothing, of
either in the New Testament. And yet a great and reputable body of American
Christians solemnly stated, not long ago, to an intelligent world, that
immersion is not Christian baptism? It was a courageous thing to do, but it does
not enhance respect for the intellectual powers of the human race. It is a
terrible thing to have the Bible against you.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 31: 01.04.     PART 4 APPENDIX
========================================================================

BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET

APPENDIX Sunday Observance and Religious Liberty. BY B. H. PITT, D. D., EDITOR
OF THE RELIGIOUS HERALD, RICHMOND VA.

[The following paper, omitting certain local and occasional matter. which has
been for obvious reasons edited but, was prepared by me, at the request of Drs.
J. B. Hawthorne, Thomas S. Dunaway, and J. B. Hutson, and Rev. M. Ashby Jones,
who served with me on a committee of the Baptist Ministers’ conference of
Richmond and Vicinity, and later was adopted unanimously by the Conference. It
is printed here out of deference to the, perhaps, too partial judgment of my
brethren, who deem it worthy of permanent preservation. If it has any merit, it
is in the fact that it discusses briefly, and, I venture to hope, with some
discrimination, the application of the doctrine of religious liberty to a very
practical question. We have much valuable literature telling of the struggle for
the establishment of this doctrine, but scarcely any showing its application to
the practical questions which are continually rising: -R. H. Pitt.]

We feel constrained to put on record our cordial and steadfast belief that the
State has no right to legislate concerning Sunday as a holy or religious day,
and that, when the civil arm is invoked for the protection of that day, it must
not be on the ground that the day is a Christian institution, but on the ground
that certain physical and economic laws, which have been disclosed and verified
by the experience of mankind, render cessation from ordinary labor necessary one
day in seven, and it falls in with the convenience of the public, for obvious
reasons, to fix the first day in the week as that period. If the State is to
protect the day as a religious day, as an institution of the Christian religion,
then why limit legislation to the mere matter of cessation from ordinary labor?
As a Christian institution, the duties of worship and of active Christian work
are not less obligatory on that day than the duty of rest. Indeed, it may be
safely maintained that, in passing from the old Sabbath to the new Lord’s-day,
the emphasis was changed. Rest was the main idea of the seventh, worship and
Christian work are the chief features of the first day. It would be singular,
indeed, to appeal for protective legislation for the day as a Christian
institution, and yet neglect in such legislation the chief Christian features of
the day-to enforce the Jewish idea of rest and ignore the Christian ideas of
religious work and worship! And this, too, while the ground on which such
legislation is urged is that the day is a Christian institution, and ours is a
Christian nation. The emphasis which has been laid upon this statement, that "we
are a Christian nation," and the insistent assertion that we have therefore the
right to enact general Christian legislation, to discriminate in favor of the
Christian religion as against any other, though not to discriminate in favor of
any special sect of Christians, seems to make it necessary to travel over
somewhat familiar ground and to restate some fundamental principles.

We are a Christian people, in the sense that the great majority of our people
are either actively or nominally sympathetic with some form of the Christian
religion; we are not a Christian nation, in the sense that we have a right to
impose by law distinctively Christian duties upon others. The ethical principles
which Christianity presents in their most complete form, and which are reflected
to a gratifying degree in our laws, are not true because they are taught by
Christ and his inspired followers. Christ taught them because they were true,
and they would have been true if he had never taught them. They are eternally
and unchangeably true. For this reason, and not because Christ taught them, are
they inwrought in our laws. Of course, this by no means implies that
Christianity has not put added emphasis on many of these principles and made it
possible to give them full recognition in the laws of the State. That the State
depends for its safety and stability upon the prevalence of pure religion among
its constituents is certainly true; that the State cannot properly administer in
religion is equally true.

We can easily test for ourselves the validity of the new and modified doctrine
of. the separation of Church and State, which, we regret to say, has gained
currency recently, and against which we earnestly protest. If ours is "a
Christian nation," in the sense that we may properly invoke State support for
Christianity or for its institutions, then why for one Christian institution and
not for another? Why for Christian Sunday, and not for Christian baptism? If for
Sunday, which commemorates the resurrection, why not for Good Friday, which a
large portion-indeed, a large majority-of the Christian world holds peculiarly
sacred as the anniversary of the crucifixion?

It is somewhat vaguely set out that, while the State may not discriminate among
the various sects of Christians so as to favor one at the expense of another, it
may enact a sort of general Christian legislation. But the moment the State
undertakes to support and protect distinctively Christian Institutions by law,
because they are Christian, it is surely guilty of unjust discrimination in two
directions. First, and most obvious, is the discrimination against
non-Christians. They are compelled at once to the extent of this protective
legislation to support the institutions of a religion in which they do not
believe. This is utterly subversive of personal liberty and abhorrent to the
foundation principles of the Christian religion, which never proposes to get
itself established or propagated by the sword or the civil arm. But, supposing
that the unbelievers are for one reason or another a negligible quantity, there
is inevitable discrimination among believers; for, if the State undertakes to
support a Christian institution as such, it must define it, it must interpret
it. And when it begins its work of definition and interpretation, it will be
confronted with an embarrassment of riches. Whose definition shall be regarded
as orthodox? In the most conservative community, the prevalent views of the
Lord’s-day, of its relation to the Jewish Sabbath and the fourth commandment, of
how far the restrictions surrounding the old apply to the new day, are as
various as the individuals who hold them. Whose views shall prevail? Shall we
settle these matters of religion by a majority vote? Besides, what would we do
with that small, but devoted, body of Christians who hold that the ancient
Sabbath remains, and that it is their sacred duty to observe it?

Over against all this crudity and confusion we may put a few sentences from the
immortal "Memorial and Remonstrance" drawn by James Madison, and submitted to
the Virginia General Assembly in 1785. The occasion was the anticipated
consideration of the "General Assessment Bill," which had been introduced at a
previous session. This was not a bill to establish any one sect as against
others, but to establish "provision for the teachers of the Christian religion,"
of whatever name-just the sort of legislation which, we are now told, we have a
right as a "Christian nation" to enact. Against this bill the famous
remonstrance was written. Here are some of its sentiments: "The religion, then,
of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man, and it
is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is, by
its nature, an unalienable right." . . ."We maintain, therefore, that in matters
of religion no man’s right is abridged by the institution of civil society, and
that religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance." . . ."The bill implies
either that the civil magistrate is a competent judge of religious truths or
that he may employ religion as an engine of civil policy. The first is an
arrogant pretention, falsified by the extraordinary opinion of rulers in all
ages and throughout the world; the second, an unhallowed perversion of the means
of salvation." This "Memorial" argues that such. legislation as was proposed
corrupted Christianity, was unnecessary for the support of the civil government,
"departed from the generous policy which" offered "an asylum to the persecuted
and oppressed," destroyed the "moderation and harmony" which prevailed then
among the sects, was "adverse to the diffusion of Christianity," and finally
that this invasion of an inalienable right imperiled all other civil liberties,
which had been won at such frightful cost. It need not be added that the General
Assessment Bill never saw the light. It died in committee.

We are at pains to quote thus freely for two reasons: First, these views of
Madison were fully shared by Thomas Jefferson and George Mason. The former drew
the "Act to Establish Religious Freedom," which, offered by Mr. Madison, was
adopted by the General Assembly of Virginia, December 16, 1785, and which
provided "That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious
worship, place, or ministry whatsoever; nor shall be enforced, restrained,
molested, or burthened is his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on
account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to
profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and
that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil
capacities." The latter (Mr. Mason) was the author of the Virginia Bill of
Rights, while James Madison himself moved the adoption of the first amendment to
the Constitution of the United States, which declares that "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof." Hence Mr. Madison’s "Remonstrance" helps us-if, indeed, we need any
help-to interpret his amendment. And Mr. Jefferson’s and Mr. Mason’s sympathy
with Mr. Madison shed light on the significance of the "Act to Establish
Religious Liberty" and the Bill of Rights, of which they were respectively the
authors. But we are giving attention to this matter for another reason. The
principle with whose advocacy Baptists are historically and doctrinally
identified is on trial in various ways. We are told that the courts have decided
against it. As a fact, the decisions of the courts have varied touching this, as
they have concerning all other questions, but the tendency of the decisions has
been toward the full recognition of the principle. And, if we were careful to
quote human authorities, it might be said, in answer to any decisions that
looked in the other direction, that Congress has in recent years had the whole
question of the relation of the State to religion exhaustively debated, with the
result that by an overwhelming majority appropriations to sectarian schools in
the Indian Territory have been abandoned, and on the distinct ground that these
appropriations were in support of religion. But, as Baptists maintained this
principle when courts, legislatures, and popular opinion were all against it, it
would be strange indeed if an occasional court decision seemingly out of
sympathy with it should break their allegiance. It goes without saying that
courts and legislatures have frequently invaded the principle and perverted the
doctrine of separation of Church and State. Some of the customs and traditions
which prevailed in the days of the Establishment still linger among us. They are
not of great importance, but we hope to see the day when every trace of the old
and hateful tyranny has disappeared. The principle is on trial, too, in Cuba and
the Philippines. Among the many perplexing questions arising in connection with
our new colonial policy is this constantly recurring one of Church and State. It
is not the time to palter with this great doctrine of the separation of the two.
If our fathers, speaking through Mr. Madison, could "take alarm at the first
experiment upon their liberties," surely we, who know how hardly the battle was
won, and who know from how many unexpected directions it has been and is being
assailed, ought now to be ceaselessly vigilant.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 32: S. CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED
========================================================================

Campbellism Examined By Jeremiah B. Jeter Profile of Alexander Campbell

Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) was a U.S. religious leader and one of the
founders of the Disciples of Christ and Churches of Christ. Born in County
Antrim, Ireland, he was the son of Thomas Campbell (1763-1854), a Presbyterian
minister who urged Christian unity. In 1807 Thomas Campbell emigrated to
America, where he formed the Christian association of Washington, Pennsylvania,
to promote "simple evangelical Christianity" as the way to church union.
Following a breach with Presbyterianism he produced a Declaration and Address
for the association in 1809. Alexander Campbell, after a year at the University
of Glasgow, emigrated with the rest of the family in 1809 to join his father.
Like his father, he espoused Christian unity and emerged as the leader of a
movement for religious reform. He began preaching, without a salary, in 1810 and
married in 1811, settling in what is now Bethany, West Virginia. Biblical study
led him and his followers to adopt baptism by immersion in 1812, and in 1813
they joined the Baptists; but tension on other issues led him to break with the
Baptists in 1830. In 1832 Campbell’s followers, known as Disciples, or
Christians (nicknamed Campbellites), joined Kentucky "Christians" under Barton
W. Stone (q.v.) to form the Disciples of Christ, or Christian Church.

Influenced by John Locke’s theory of knowledge, Campbell presented a
rationalistic and deliberative Christianity based on the New Testament but
opposed alike to speculation and emotional revivals. He exercised his leadership
through preaching, addresses and debates with the Roman Catholic bishop John
Purcell of Cincinnati, the secularist Robert Owen of Scotland and others.

Campbell’s major writing and publishing began with a periodical, the Christian
Baptist, in 1823, continued as the Millennial Harbinger after 1830. He wrote or
edited over 60 volumes, including The Living Oracles, a version of the New
Testament first issued in 1826, and a hymnal. Thomas Campbell gave his son
extensive editorial assistance. Alexander Campbell was a member of the
constitutional convention of Virginia in 1829. He founded Bethany college in
1840, and was its president till his death. In 1849 he became the first
president of the first national convention and missionary society of the
Disciples of Christ. Managerial ability and scientific methods of farming
brought him wealth, and his home, with much original furniture and decoration,
still stands, open to the public.

INTRODUCTION The term Campbellism is used in this treatise, not as a term of
reproach, but of distinction. No other word denotes the system which it is
proposed to examine. Mr. Alexander Campbell, of Bethany, Virginia, and the party
embracing his views, have assumed several appellations. They have styled
themselves "Reformers," "Christians," and "Disciples." Without discussing their
exclusive claim to these titles, it is clear that from neither of them can any
tern be derived which will fairly distinguish their system of doctrine. The word
Reformation has been appropriated, by common consent, to denote that great moral
revolution, of which Luther and Calvin were the prime agents. The term
Christianity can never be wrested from its universally established import, to
express the views of any sect or party, however good, wise or great. From the
word Disciple, indefinite as an appellative, no term can be derived to signify
the views of his claim, it may be observed that the inquiries now to be made
have reference not to the Ancient Gospel, recorded in the writings of the
evangelists and apostles, but to the speculations of Mr. Campbell, contained in
his voluminous works, concerning this gospel, and which have been received as
true by friends of the "Current Reformation." To call these speculations the
Ancient Gospel, would be a manifest misnomer. I am then under the necessity of
employing some indefinite term, a tedious circumlocution, or the word
Campbellism to denote the system under discussion, and the last course seems
preferable. This system is with great propriety termed Campbellism. Systems of
philosophy, science, and religion, have usually been designated after their
discoverers, first promulgators, or most distinguished advocates. Mr. Campbell
is the author, and most eminent proclaimer of the peculiar doctrines, which,
within the last thirty years, have spread in the Southern and Western states,
under the title of "The Reformation." No other man has added an article to the
system, subtracted one from it, or materially modified it. Many truths are
taught by Mr. Campbell in common with other Christians; very few of the
principles for which he pleads are strictly new; but having revived, modified,
and placed in new combinations some antiquated sentiments, and added to them a
few original speculations, he is fairly entitled to all the honor, and obnoxious
to all the censure which his system merits.

... I design, therefore, to discuss with as much care and fullness as the
prescribed limits of my treatise may permit, a few of the distinctive, and most
objectionable Principles of Campbellism. THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN
CONVERSION. This subject is one of vital importance in the Christian system. The
admission or denial of the reality and efficiency of this influence constitutes
the main difference between evangelical and rationalistic theology—between
intelligent living piety, and heartless, self-sufficient formalism. Almost every
Christian sect, holding grossly erroneous principles, has included among its
errors the denial or perversion of the doctrine of the spirit’s influence. Mr.
Campbell in his debate with Rev. N.L. Rice, admitted that the subject is "of
transcendent importance to the Christian" [page 611]. I would, therefore, enter
on its investigation, profoundly conscious of my liability to err, and earnestly
seeking wisdom "of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not."
On no subject have the opponents of Mr. Campbell, and the Christian public
generally, found it so difficult to understand and represent his views as on
this important point.

... I shall, for the present, confine my remarks to its principal error - viz.,
that all the converting power of the Holy Spirit is in the written word, which
he has indicted and confirmed.

It is desirable to divest this subject of all extraneous matter. I fully concur
with Mr. Campbell in the opinion that a moral change is necessary to the
salvation of men. With all that he has written of the inspiration and importance
of the Scriptures, and of their adaptation to promote the salvation of men, I
heartily agree. I do not think, more than he, that any new faculty is given, or
any old faculty (understanding by the term physical , not moral power,) is
repaired in conversion. It is freely admitted that the Spirit operates through
the word in the conversion and sanctification of men. But I understand Mr.
Campbell to maintain that the influence of the Spirit in the work of conversion
is limited, and of necessity, to the simple presentation of arguments, motives,
truth, to the minds of men, by means of words, and other signs—that all the
power of the Spirit in the conversion of men is in moral suasion. This he does
explicitly teach, if words have any definite import. By physical power we
operate on matter—by moral power on mind. "All the moral power which can be
exerted on human beings, is, and of necessity must be, in the arguments
addressed to them." The illustration employed by Mr. Campbell would seem to
preclude the possibility of misunderstanding his views. The influence of an
orator over his hearers is not exerted, by the entrance of his spirit into them,
but "by words uttered by the tongue; by ideas communicated to" their minds. Of
precisely the same nature is the influence ascribed by Mr. Campbell to the
Spirit in the conversion of men. "As the moral power of man is in his arguments,
so is the moral power of the Spirit of God in his arguments." The Spirit of God
exerts a moral influence in conversion exactly like that which men exert in
controlling the actions or emotions of one another, but stronger in proportion
as his arguments are clearer, fuller, weightier, and more pertinently expressed.
But the Spirit can do no more than reason, expostulate, and present motives.

"If the New and Old Testament contain all the arguments which can be offered to
reconcile man to God, and to purify them who are reconciled, then all the power
of the Holy Spirit which can operate on the human mind is spent; and he that is
not sanctified and saved, cannot be saved by angels or spirits, human or
divine."

I should deem it needless to labor this point so carefully, did I not know that
Mr. Campbell and his friends have almost constantly charged his opponents with
falsely stating his views on this very subject. These were the views of "the
agency of the Holy Spirit" against which the "Dover Decree" was leveled. Elder
A. Broaddus in the "Appendix" to the "Extra Examined," published in 1831, thus
wrote: —"In few words, then, Mr. Campbell’s view, in regard to Divine influence,
appears to me to be in substance as follows—The canon of Scripture being closed,
the actual work of the Spirit is done; but the word of truth being dictated by
the Holy Spirit—the influence of that word may be termed the influence of the
Spirit: and this is all the Divine influence that is exerted. And then, God’s
Spirit, which is a Holy Spirit, being in his word, as my spirit (for example) is
in my writings—in receiving the word we receive a holy spirit: and this is all
the Holy Spirit that is received: [p.48]. Such were the views entertained by
this astute and ingenuous writer, of Mr. Campbell’s doctrine on the influence of
the Spirit. This "Appendix" was noticed by the Editor of Harbinger in several
Nos. of the Dialogue on the Holy Spirit, between Timothy and Austin; and, for a
wonder, Mr. B.’s statement of the doctrine was not called in question.

Mr. Campbell maintains, or did maintain, that all the converting power of the
Holy Spirit is in the arguments or motives which he presents to the mind in the
written Word. On this point I take issue with him. I maintain that there is an
influence of the Spirit, internal, mighty, and efficacious, differing from moral
suasion, but ordinarily exerted through the inspired Word, in the conversion of
sinners. Whether this influence shall be called moral, from the effect which it
produces, physical, from the energy which is put forth in it; or spiritual, from
the nature of the agent who exerts it, I have no wish to decide. It is for the
reality and importance of this influence, not for its name, that I contend. The
principal argument adduced by Mr. Campbell in support of his theory of
conversion, is purely metaphysical. All power, he says, is either physical or
moral—by physical power we operate on matter, and by moral power on mind. A
physical power cannot produce a moral effect. "And when we think of the power of
the Spirit of God exerted upon minds or human spirits, it is impossible for us
to imagine, that that power can consist in any thing else but words or
arguments." The gist of Mr. Campbell’s logic seems to be this—We cannot
comprehend any power of the Spirit of God in conversion, except that consisting
in words or arguments: therefore, it does not exist. What is this, but to deduce
a most unwarrantable conclusion from his own ignorance? It were a sufficient
reply to this reasoning, to quote the words of the Saviour—"The wind bloweth
where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence
it cometh, nor whither it goeth, so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
John 3:8. But we have more to say on this subject. To affirm, as Mr. Campbell
does, "that if the Holy Spirit has spoken all its arguments,. . . then all the
power of the Holy Spirit which can operate upon the human mind is spent," is a
bold assumption. When a man has uttered all his arguments and persuasions to
influence his fellow, his power may be exhausted; but when the Infinite Spirit
has spoken all his arguments and persuasions for reconciling proud, perverse and
stupid men to Christ, is his power spent? Is there nothing more that he can do?
Are his resources exhausted? Has he thus limited himself? Has Mr. Campbell any
authority for prescribing this limit to his power? The truth is, this assumption
is as unphilosophical as it is unscriptual. God created the human spirit—has
access to it—is perfectly acquainted with all its springs of emotion and of
action—and can, in ways unknown to us, and without contravening the laws of its
being, influence, impress, and guide it. He that made, can certainly renew the
spirit of man, with means, or without them, as he pleases. It is no less the
dictate of reason than of revelation, that "the king’s heart," and consequently
the heart of every other man, "is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of
water; he turneth it whithersoever he will." The assumption that the Spirit can
operate on the soul of man in conversion only by arguments, or words, is, not
only unphilosophical, but contrary to divinely recorded facts. It is not true
that physical power cannot produce a moral effect. God created man, not by
arguments or words, but by the direct exercise of physical power, in his "own
image" — which image comprehended "righteousness and true holiness." Was not
this a moral effect produced by a physical cause? Christ was created holy. "The
Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," said the angel to Mary, "and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore that holy thing which shall be born of
thee, shall be called the Son of God" (Luk 4:35). Was not the holiness of the
infant Redeemer a moral quality? And was not this effect produced, not by
arguments, persuasion, or words, but by the "power," the physical "power of the
Highest?" The assumption under consideration is incompatible with the salvation
of infants. They enter into the world, as Mr. Campbell admits, with depraved
hearts. Dying before they attain to years of intelligence, they must enter
heaven with their moral natures unchanged, which is impossible; they must be
renovated by death, which is a mere figment; they must be renewed by the Holy
Spirit without the Word, the possibility of which Mr. Campbell cannot conceive;
or, they must be lost. I do not charge him with admitting this consequence; but
it appears to be logically deduced from the position which he assumes, and all
his ingenuity has not enabled him to escape from it.. .

I will now proceed to offer direct arguments against Mr. Campbell’s theory of
conversion.

1. It overlooks, or at least, underestimates, the inveteracy of human depravity.
The Spirit of inspiration has drawn the picture of man’s moral corruption in
gloomy colors. He is utterly depraved—fleshly, sensual and impure. "That which
is born of the flesh is flesh" (John 3:6). He is without spiritual life, without
holiness, without moral worth—"dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:1). He is
alienated from God, and opposed to his law, and consequently to truth and
righteousness. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not
subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (Rom 8:7). This depravity
pervades, and controls the whole man—blinding the mind, perverting the
affections, stupefying the conscience, making rebellious and obstinate the will,
and prostituting the members of the body as the instruments of sin. And this
moral corruption of human nature is universal. "For all have sinned and come
short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23).

It is proposed to make man, thus corrupt, obstinate and debased, a friend of
God, humble, obedient, and meet for heaven—in short, "a new creature," from whom
"old things have passed away," and to whom "all things have become new" (2Co
5:17). I do not charge Mr. Campbell with denying the doctrine of human
depravity; but his theory of conversion does not provide for the accomplishment
of a moral renovation, at once so difficult, and so important.

How, according to his scheme, is this great moral change to be effected? Simply
by the presentation of arguments, truth, and persuasion, to the mind by words,
or other signs, When the Spirit has presented all his arguments, he has spent
all his power. Of this scheme several things may be observed.

First. It is oblivious of the chief difficulty in conversion. Mr. Campbell
maintains that "the arguments which are written in the New Testament" must be
"understood" in order to exert their influence on the human mind [Chn’ty.
Restored, p. 350]. To understand these arguments requires attention, candor, and
a spiritual discernment. Men attend readily to what they delight in, and believe
easily what is congenial with their tastes; but the "natural man," the
unrenewed, sinful—has a deep-rooted aversion to divine truth. This aversion is
an element and a proof of his depravity. He may hear or read the arguments
contained in the Scriptures, through curiosity, politeness, or a captious
spirit; but to expect of him a candid, serious, docile and obedient attention to
them, is to expect to "gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles." "For every
one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his
deeds should be reproved." If divine truth must be understood in order to be
efficacious; and if it must be candidly examined, before it can be understood;
and if every evil doer, hating the light, or divine truth, refuses to come to
it, or consider it, how, on Mr. Campbell’s theory, can any soul of man be saved?
But the scheme which I advocate—the Spiritual scheme—makes provision for
overcoming this difficulty. God, by the gracious inward, efficacious influence
of his Spirit, prepares the heart for the reception of the Gospel. "Whose
heart," that is, Lydia’s heart, "the Lord opened, that she attended unto the
things which were spoken of Paul" (Acts 16:14). This woman "worshipped God," as
did all the Jews, and Jewish proselytes; but there is not the slightest proof
that she was pious. The very reverse is clear. Her heart was closed against the
Gospel, else there had been no need for God to open it. She hated the light,
neither would come to it. "The Lord opened or inclined, her "heart" to attend
"to the things which were spoken of Paul." Mr. Campbell is of opinion that the
Lord opened Lydia’s heart by the miracles which were wrought in confirmation of
the Gospel [Chn’ty Restored, p. 354]. Of this there is neither proof nor
probability. There was no miracle wrought on the occasion. Miracles were utterly
insufficient to awaken an obedient and saving attention, like that which Lydia
gave, to the Gospel (John 11:47). The Lord opened the heart of this woman of
Thyatira—really and effectively opened her heart, by a process which is not
explained. As the result of this process she attended, promptly, honestly, and
obediently to Paul’s Gospel; and but for this process, the apostle, though he
had spoken as an angel, had spoken without success.

Secondly. Suppose this great difficulty obviated, the sinner’s attention
arrested, and truth brought clearly before his mind, would knowledge of divine
truth, without the special influence of the Spirit, secure his conversion? If
ignorance is the only evil with which the Gospel has to contend, then obviously
the illumination of the mind is all that is necessary for its removal. But
ignorance, though it may be in itself criminal, is rather the effect than the
cause of man’s depravity. There is a corrupt disposition which blinds the
understanding. "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and
men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John
3:19). The love of darkness—which signifies ignorance or error—is the very root
of man’s depravity. This love implies an aversion to light, truth, and holiness,
and is the cause of the prevalent ignorance of divine things in the world.
Conversion includes a cordial approbation of divine truth (2Th 2:10). Now, can
arguments, however clear and weighty—persuasion, however earnest and tender—and
words, however fitly chosen and expressive, change the tastes and dispositions
of the soul? Man hates Christ, not because of the contrariety in their tastes
and dispositions; and it is proposed to change this hatred into love, simply by
giving man clearer views of the qualities which excite his aversion. Man is
opposed to the divine law, because it is pure, spiritual, and inflexible; and it
is proposed to overcome this opposition by revealing to him more fully its hated
qualities. Man is averse to the light; and it is proposed to subdue this
aversion by increasing its splendor. I cannot but suspect the inefficacy of this
scheme of conversion. Sinful man needs something more than light—more than
arguments, persuasion, words—for his moral renovation. "The wicked . . will not
listen to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely" (Psa 58:5).

Thirdly. The theory under discussion is contradicted by numerous well
authenticated facts. If all the converting power of the Spirit is in the
arguments addressed by him in words to the mind; then it follows that every
minister of the word must be successful in converting souls to Christ, in
proportion to the distinctness with which he presents the arguments of the
Spirit to the minds of his hearers. The same measure of power must, under
similar circumstances, produce similar results. But does this conclusion agree
with the experience and observation of Christian ministers? But I need not
appeal in this argument to questionable evidence. Christ was an unrivalled
preacher of the Gospel (Mark 1:1). Never man spake as he did. For the weight of
his arguments, the clearness of his illustrations, the simplicity and force of
his style, the fervency of his spirit, the dignity of his manner, the adaptation
of his discourses to the circumstances and necessities of his hearers, indeed,
for every excellence which could render his ministry attractive, luminous, and
successful, he stands alone. Prophets and apostles gave him homage as the "Light
of the world." If all the converting power of the Spirit is in moral suasion, we
might certainly infer that such a teacher as Christ would be eminently
successful in winning souls. But what was the result of his ministry? It was
unsuccessful—not wholly so—but it produced no such results, as from his
preeminent qualifications might have been expected—no great moral revolution,
and no extensive revival of true religion. His ministry seems to have been less
effective than that of John the Baptist (Mat 3:5-6). More persons were probably
converted by the preaching of Peter and the other apostles, on the day of
Pentecost, than by the ministry of Jesus during its whole period. The Apostle
Paul quotes from Isa 65:2, a prediction of the manner in which the Messiah’s
ministry would be treated among the Jews. "But to Israel he saith, All day long
I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people" (Rom
10:21). This prophecy was strikingly fulfilled in the history of Jesus. He was
earnest and diligent in teaching. "All day long I have stretched forth my
hands." He uttered such arguments as should have convinced, and such entreaties
as should have moved, his hearers; but they were "disobedient and gainsaying."
The arguments, motives, and words of the Saviour, were eminently suited for
their conversion; but the converting power of the Spirit was not present—was
withheld in wisdom and righteous judgment.

2. Mr. Campbell’s theory of the Spirit’s influence is incompatible with prayer
for the conversion of sinners.

I do not charge him with denying, or questioning, the propriety of such prayer.
On the contrary, he insists that it is obligatory, and practices it. Still his
theory and his practice are inconsistent. If all the converting power of the
Spirit is in the written Word, then all that can be done for the conversion of
sinners is to place the Word before their minds. The Spirit indicted and
confirmed the Word, and in that Word put forth all his moral or converting
power. On Christians now devolves the duty of presenting the arguments, truths,
and motives, contained in the written Word, to the minds of sinners. When all
the arguments contained in the Old and New Testaments are brought before their
minds, "then all the power of the Holy Spirit which can operate upon" them "is
spent," and if they are "not sanctified and saved by these," they "cannot be
saved by angels or spirits, human or divine." Why then pray for the conversion
of sinners? Will the Spirit reveal the Word to their minds? or incline their
hearts to receive it? Can any thing be added by the Spirit to its power and
efficiency? Prayer for any blessing implies the power of God to bestow it. When
we pray for our daily bread, it is implied that God so governs the seasons as to
send rain or drought, fruitfulness or famine. When we pray that the sick may be
healed, it is implied that God has such a control over man’s physical nature,
that he can, without a miracle, cure his diseases. So when we pray for the
conversion of sinners, if we pray intelligently, we ascribe to the Holy Spirit
the power to convert them. And this power is not inherent in the Word, any more
than the power that wields a sword, is inherent in the sword. The Word is the
instrument, but the Spirit is the agent of conversion. The Spirit gives
efficiency to the Word, opening the mind to receive it, impressing it on the
heart, and developing its excellence in the life.

3. Mr. Campbell’s theory of conversion is inconsistent with the introduction of
the Millennium.

I will permit him to define what I mean by the Millennium. "There is reason,
clear, full, and abundant, to justify the expectation that the reign of favor,
or the government of Jesus Christ, shall embrace, under its most salutary
influences, the whole human race; or that there are plain, literal, and
unfigurative, as well as figurative and symbolic representations, in both
Testaments, which authorize us to expect a very general, if not a universal
spread of evangelical influences, so that the whole race of men, for a long
period of time, shall bask in the rays, and rejoice in the vivifying power of
the Sun of Righteousness" [Mill. Har. vol 1, p. 54]. This consummation,
described in the glowing language of prophecy, has been the grand object of the
hopes, prayers, and labors of the saints in all ages. Whatever contributes to
hasten this glorious period must, if its tendency is perceived, awaken universal
delight among the lovers of Christ. Every principle, theory, or practice, which
is harmonious with its introduction is erroneous. So Mr. Campbell very properly
teaches. "In detecting the false Gospels, nothing will aid us so much as an
examination of their tendencies, and a comparison of their effects with what the
Millennium proposes. The gospel of no sect can convert the world. This is with
us a very plain proposition; and if so the sectarian gospels are defective, or
redundant, or mixed" [Mill. Har. vol 1, p. 7]. With the sectarian gospels I have
now no concern: I wish to inquire whether the "ancient Gospel," furnishes any
ground to hope for the introduction of the Millennial glory. I propose to try it
by the rule which Mr. Campbell himself has prescribed. The Scriptural canon was
completed nearly eighteen centuries ago. Christianity was clearly revealed,
perfect in all its parts, and confirmed by indubitable testimonies. The inspired
record, according to the teaching of the Bethany Reformer, contains all the
arguments of the Holy Spirit for reconciling men to God; in this all his moral,
or converting power is exhibited. Christ commissioned his apostles to go into
all the world, and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. From the apostolic
times to the present day, the servants of Christ, with the Old and New
Testaments in their hands, have been laboring to convert the world to Christ.
What has been the success of their efforts?

Three-fifths of the world are still shrouded in the gloom of paganism.
Muhammadanism sways its hundred millions of intelligent, immortal beings. The
ignorance, superstition, and spiritual domination of Popery overspread the half
of Christendom. The Greek church, little less corrupt and intolerant than the
Romish, divides the remaining half with Protestantism. The various sects of
Protestants, in the estimation of Mr. Campbell, stand in not much less need of
conversion than the heathen. Such was the moral condition of the world when the
"current reformation" began. Then Mr. Campbell and his associates, disinterred
the "ancient Gospel" from the accumulated rubbish of past ages. "About the
commencement of this century," this is his account of the matter, "finding that
notes and comments, that glosses and traditions, were making the word of God of
little or not effect. . .

5. The theory of conversion advocated by Mr. Campbell, is inconsistent with the
plainly revealed, and fairly conceded influence of the Holy Spirit in believers
after baptism. That the Spirit of God dwells in the saints, or believers, as in
a temple, to refresh and invigorate them, to quicken their devotions, and to
make them fruitful in good works, is a truth so clearly taught in the
Scriptures, and so generally admitted among Christians, that it is unnecessary
to attempt to prove it. I will merely refer the reader to a few out of many
Scripture proofs of it (Lev 11:13; Rom 8:9; 1Co 6:19; Eph 5:5; Php 2:13; Gal
5:22-23).

Mr. Campbell admits, and maintains the efficacious influences of the Holy Spirit
in believers—an influence differing not in degree, but kind, from that by which
a sinner is converted. . . .

I do not, I trust, misunderstand Mr. Campbell on this vital subject. He teaches
that all that is done in us before regeneration—which in the Bethany dialect
means "born of water,’ or immersion—"God our Father,’ not the Holy Spirit,
"effects by the Word;" —but after our new birth, "the Holy Spirit is shed on us
richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; of which the peace of mind, the love,
the joy, and the hope of the regenerate is the proof." The illustration employed
by Mr. Campbell seems to preclude the possibility of misunderstanding his views.
What the atmosphere is to animal life, the influences of the Holy Spirit are to
the new life. As the animal, after its birth, is sustained by respiration; so
after we are "born of water," or immersed, we live—our new life is maintained—by
"the influences of the Holy Spirit."

What religious teachers those are who "contend more for the work of the Spirit
in conversion, than for the work of the Spirit in sanctification," I do not
know. I do not think that Mr. Campbell can name a single orthodox divine, of
reputation, who does not believe that the influence of the Spirit is equally and
indispensably necessary in conversion and sanctification. The question whether
that influence is more needed in the one process or the other, could have
originated only from such metaphysical, vague and barren speculations as abound
in the writings of Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Campbell’s last remark, concerns the honor of the Holy Spirit. The theory
which I am opposing represents the infinite Spirit as condescending to carry on,
and complete a work, which was commenced, and passed through its most difficult
stage, without his influence. Man without any agency except the force of
argument, contained in the written Word, is converted. He attends to the Word,
is enlightened by it, sorrows for his sins, abandons them, believes in Christ,
or heartily receives him as a Saviour, devotes himself before men, braves scorn,
persecution and death in his cause, and is baptized in his name; and them, this
easy part of the work, as Mr. Campbell deems it, but most difficult according to
the Scriptures, having been performed, the Holy Spirit actually and powerfully
assists him in his mighty struggles for eternal life. What is this but to wrest
from the Spirit the chief glory of his work?

Mr. Campbell, in his great zeal to steer clear of all speculative theology,
maintains that all theories of the Spirit’s influence in conversion are equally
inefficacious and worthless. He thus writes—"But who can live on essential oils?
Or will the art of speculating or inferring; or will the inferences when
drawn—that the Spirit without the Word, or the Word without the Spirit, or the
Spirit and Word in conjunction, regenerates the human soul; I ask, will the act
of drawing these inferences, of these inferences when drawn, save the soul? If
they will not, why make them essential to Christianity, beneficial to be
taught?" [Chn. Bap., p.269]. I am no more an advocate of mere speculation and
empty theory, than Mr. Campbell. The subject of the Spirit’s influence has been
a fruitful source of profitless theorizing and vain jangling. I fully concur
with him in the opinion that preaching the influence of the Spirit, is not
preaching the Gospel; and that much mischief has arisen from insisting on this
influence to the neglect of the duty of repentance and faith. But whether men
are converted by the Spirit without the Word, or the Word without the Spirit, or
the Word and Spirit in conjunction, are not questions of mere speculation, but
grave, weighty, and practical. Whatsoever is legitimately inferred from the
Scriptures is a part of Divine revelation, and profitable for instruction. The
belief of it may not be essential to salvation; and yet it may contribute to the
growth, happiness, and efficiency of the disciples of Christ. The influence of
the Holy Spirit in the conversion of sinners is not a mere theory, but a
revealed truth, the belief of which is intimately connected with the progress of
the Redeemer’s kingdom. . . .

First. —Are the statements of Mr. Campbell concerning the influence of the Holy
Spirit contradictory? In my judgment they are. Whether his views on the subject
were confused, or differed at different times, or were carelessly and vaguely
expressed, I will not say; but they appear to me to be inconsistent. "The only
power," says Mr. Campbell, "which one spirit can exert over another is in its
arguments." If this is not the "word alone system," I would gladly be informed
what that system is. I repeat, I must be permitted to doubt whether any man ever
has taught, or ever can teach the system, if Mr. Campbell did not inculcate it
in his Christianity Restored. And yet he affirms in his Debate with Rice, "There
is the Word alone system, and there is the Spirit alone system. I believe in
neither. . . .

Secondly, Are the last recited extracts from the writings of Mr. Campbell to be
interpreted in harmony with the theory of conversion by moral suasion? Are we to
understand all that he has said of the cooperation of the Spirit and Word—of
religion "begun, carried on, and completed by the personal agency of the Holy
Spirit" —of his "actually and personally" working through the Word on "man’s
moral nature" —as meaning nothing more than that the Spirit addresses arguments,
through the written Word, to sinners, to persuade them to be converted; and that
having done this his resources are exhausted, his power is spent? In other
words, is the actual, personal agency of the Spirit, pleaded for by Mr.
Campbell, to be resolved into mere moral suasion? If so, the system has been
already examined, and the reader must decide whether it has been satisfactorily
refuted. But if Mr. Campbell rejects the doctrine of conversion by moral
suasion, or by the mere presentation of the arguments of the Holy Spirit to the
mind, then I remark,

Thirdly, —That Mr. Campbell’s teaching is in substantial agreement with the
popular evangelical doctrine of conversion through Divine influence. There is no
middle ground between the "Word alone," or moral suasion system, and that which
ascribes conversion to the personal agency of the Spirit through the Word. This
latter system is the popular evangelical system—the system is the popular
evangelical system—the system universally taught, when Mr. Campbell commenced
his Reformation, except by a few ultra-Calvinists, and low Armenians and
formalists—the system which permeated almost all our Biblical and theological
literature; our commentaries, Bible dictionaries, bodies of divinity, and
popular sermons—in fine, the system which maintained a quiet, undisputed, and
controlling influence in all the orthodox churches of the land. . . .

. . . Mr. Campbell believes as the great body of evangelical ministers in all
the Christian sects, believes, that sinners are converted by the personal agency
of the Holy Spirit, through the Gospel. But, surely, since the world began, have
there never been so many labored arguments, so much learned criticism, so much
toil, debate and strife, such a waste of ink and paper, and such a
multiplication of essays, pamphlets and books, to prove what scarcely any body
doubted. The public mind was excited, the Christian world was agitated, the
Baptist denomination, in several states, was thrown into confusion, many of the
churches were rent asunder, a new sect was formed, and the aid of earth and
heaven was invoked in the contest; and for what? Why, simply because Mr.
Campbell taught, what was almost universally admitted that the Spirit in
conversion operates through the Word. But what then becomes of the boasted
Reformation, of which the peculiar teaching on the influence of the Spirit
constituted so important and article? It turns out, if the supposition under
discussion is true, that the Reformation, on this important point, is no
Reformation at all. We cannot avoid being reminded of a well known fable.
Surely, there were never in any previous case, such sore travail, such mighty
heavings, such piteous moanings, and such swelling expectations, in a simple
case of abortion.

Before I conclude my remarks on this subject, I must venture on a conjecture,
which will, I fear, not prove very acceptable to Mr. Campbell and his admirers.
It is this—When he commenced his career as a Reformer, his religious views were
undefined and crude. His first object was to bring into disrepute the "mystic
theology" of the "populars," or "clergy." He found it necessary, for the
accomplishment of his purpose, to publish some theory at variance with the
popular doctrine of the Spirit’s influence in conversion. This new theory began
to be developed about the year 1826, and was consummated, and fully revealed, in
the year 1831, when Austin taught the docile Timothy, that "every Spirit puts
forth its moral power in words; that is, all the power it has over the views,
habits, manners, or actions of men, is in the meaning and arrangement of its
ideas expressed in words; or in significant signs addressed to the eye or ear."
[Christianity Restored, p. 348]. But after the Reformation resulted in an
organized party, Mr. Campbell, to avoid the odium of his peculiar notions of the
Spirit’s influence, or because he found it easier to defend the popular
doctrine, began gradually to modify his views, and to glide out of the theory of
conversion by moral suasion, into the doctrine that conversion is by the actual,
personal agency of the Holy Spirit. This modification of his views began to
appear in a discussion of the subject with the Rev. J. M. Peck, and was still
more apparent in his Debate with the Rev. N.L. Rice. But for Mr. Campbell to
acknowledge that he had erred in the fundamental principle of his Reformation,
and that after all his wanderings, and denunciations of the "popular clergy," he
had been compelled to admit the truth of their teaching on this vital point,
would have demanded a degree of humility and moral heroism, which the
high-spirited Reformer did not possess.

I do not intend to impeach the motives of Mr. Campbell. With their moral
qualities I have nothing to do. Men are influenced by considerations of which
they have little knowledge. Mr. Campbell has quite a fair share of human nature
in him. He does not rise above the laws which govern other frail mortals. I have
simply, and, I trust, kindly sketched what appears to me to have been his course
in regard to the agency of the Spirit in conversion, and the motives that
probably shaped it; and the intelligent and candid reader must form his own
judgment.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 33: S. THE EVILS OF GAMING.
========================================================================

THE EVILS OF GAMING. A LETTER TO A FRIEND IN THE ARMY. BY REV. J. B. JETER,
D.D., RICHMOND, VA. MY DEAR FRIEND: Learning that GAMING is prevalent in the
Army, I have concluded to address you a letter on its EVILS. I hardly need to
assure you that I am actuated in this determination by the most sincere desire
to guard you against a fascinating amusement which may issue in your ruin. I
fully persuade myself that you will listen to the counsel of one who loves you,
who feels a deep solicitude for your welfare, and whose age and experience
qualify him to offer you wholesome instruction and warning. That gaming is a
sinful practice, you will readily admit. It is, like many other sins, not
expressly but virtually prohibited in the scriptures. It is utterly at variance
with their spirit and tenor. It springs from the inordinate love of money, "the
root of all evil." This insatiable desire plunges the gamester "into temptation
and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts," by which he is in dander
of being drowned "in destruction and perdition." He violates the law of love:
"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to
them." Were this divine rule universally understood, loved and obeyed, it would
banish gaming, and its attendant evils, from the world. The life of the gambler
exemplifies the remark of Solomon, "He that maketh haste to be rich shall not be
innocent." Not content with the slow and steady gains of industry and economy,
the gamester seeks to grasp the golden prize, reckless of the means of attaining
it. He cannot pray, without mocking his Maker, "Lead me not into temptation."
The petition implies a desire to escape, and an obligation to resist temptation;
but the gamester courts, knowingly and fearlessly, the most dangerous
temptations. Good men, in all countries, and in all ages, and almost without an
exception, agree in the condemnation of gaming. Most civilized nations have
enacted stringent laws to suppress the vice as a nuisance and curse to society.
Even gamblers themselves admit that the practice is wrong. An estimable man? a
reformed sportsman? once said to me, "I would rather a gambler should warn my
son against gaming than you should: he knows the evils of it from experience,
and you do not." Gaming is a most seductive vice. The path that leads to this
dangerous precipice is strewed with flowers. "There is no harm," says the
tempter, "in gaming for amusement." Perhaps, there is none. A game of chance or
skill for relaxation or diversion seems to be innocent. It violates no express
law of God or man. But the sport creates an agreeable excitement; and the
fondness for this excitement grows by indulgence. At first the game is resorted
to merely to fill up an idle hour, or to relax the mind from grave and wearisome
pursuits; but soon it encroaches on the business of life, and the seasons of
devotion. The pleasurable emotion is increased by small stakes; and there is no
more evil, it is plausibly maintained, in betting than in playing for amusement.
To keep up or to augment the excitement, the stakes are gradually and
indefinitely increased. The amount staked becomes an object of desire, and the
utmost skill and exertion are put forth to win it. Success allures to continued
and bolder, and failure to deeper and more reckless gaming; and thus by winning
and by losing the excitement is kept up, and the hopeful or the despairing
adventurer presses forward in his career. The gamester has now reached a crisis
at which secrecy becomes necessary to screen him from suspicion and reproach;
and he will find haunts suited to his purpose?rooms splendidly furnished, barred
and guarded, accessible only to the initiated, or to the candidates for
initiation, where he is invited to partake of the richest fare, "without money
and without price." In these gambling " hells," as they are appropriately
called, he will meet, not merely with the low and the mean, but with the rich,
the refined, the gay and the great. Cheered by the presence and the example of
persons so numerous and respectable, he pursues his course, and soon becomes
confirmed in the habit of gaming. Now arguments, warnings and entreaties are
addressed to him in vain?the loss of property and character cannot deter him,
nor can the miseries, tears and pleadings of his wife and children win him, from
the path of ruin on which he has entered. Gaming is a most pernicious vice. I
cannot better illustrate its evils than by giving a simple statement of the
career and doom of a gambler whom I knew well, but who shall be nameless in this
letter. He was of respectable parentage and connexions, and of a most amiable
and generous nature. He grew up a promising, noble young man, the admiration of
his friends, and the pride of his family. He, early in life, evinced an aversion
to steady employment, and became the victim of artful, selfish and unscrupulous
gamesters. His patrimony was soon spent, and he found it necessary to resort to
gaming, and its usual arts of deception and swindling, to supply his wants. He
quickly became a confirmed gamester. Removing to a large city, he entered
regularly into the gambling business. His associates were gamblers, and
sharpers, and their dupes, of various degrees of guilt. From virtuous and
respectable society, such as he had known in his youth, he was, of course,
excluded. From the Christian sanctuary, and all its sacred privileges, he
habitually excluded himself. His noble nature, aided by the upright principles
instilled into his mind by his pious mother, long resisted the corrupting
influences of his business and his associations. He retained a warm attachment
to his kindred, who were happily ignorant of his degradation, and from his
ill-gotten gains made generous contributions for their support. He was accounted
honorable among gamblers, for they have a code of honor among themselves. A
gamester who does not swindle according to established rules is deemed a
disgrace to their fraternity, and is liable to be expelled from it. But the
subject of this sketch was conscientious, so far as conscientiousness can be
affirmed of one whose business is pursued in violation of the laws of man and of
God. Repeatedly he made efforts to abandon his occupation, tear himself away
from his associates, and regain his position in reputable society. But poor man!
what could he do? Without employment, without the means of support, without kind
and faithful friends, and without encouragement to reform, after a few fitful
struggles, he would relapse into his inveterate habit. He had entered into a
society in which the Bible was not respected, the Sabbath was not known, and
piety was ridiculed; and nothing much short of a miracle could have extricated
him from the bad and potent influences that were hurrying him to destruction.
Over the door of the gambler’s retreat might be appropriately inscribed, in
letters of lurid flame, "This is the way to hell; going down to the chambers of
death." But few of the multitudes who enter these haunts of dissipation, crime
and infamy, ever make their escape to the circle of virtuous society, or become
heirs of heaven; and the man of our story was not one of the flavored few. After
every failure at reformation, he sunk to lower depths of vice and degradation.
Gambling is rarely, or never, a solitary vice. Profanity, drunkenness,
debauchery, swindling, and such like evils, spring up spontaneously in the
gambler’s hell, and reach an early and fearful maturity. The unfortunate
gamester was not exempt from the vices so common to his profession. He was, I
know, addicted to drunkenness, and it is probable that he was the victim of all
its kindred sins. The way of transgressors is always hard, and usually short.
The poor gambler was doomed not to live out half his days. His drunkenness was
followed by delirium tremens; and in a fit of this horrible disorder, he leaped
from the third story of his wretched abode upon the paved street, and was found
at early dawn by the watchmen of the city, a mangled, unconscious and dying man.
I attended his funeral. It was a solemn and instructive scene. But few of his
accomplices in crime, and his companions in degradation, were present. They
avoided a sight which must have painfully reminded them of their guilt, infamy
and approaching doom. As I attended his body to the grave, two of his associates
testified that their lives had been preserved in a time of fatal epidemic, and
general panic, by his kind, assiduous and skilful nursing. The gambler, drunkard
and suicide was laid in a solitary, unblessed and dishonored grave. I often
notice it in passing with a sad heart. No stone marks the spot where rest his
mortal remains?no flowers blossom on his tomb?but the place is barren and
desolate?a fit emblem of his life and doom. In the story of this unfortunate
man, you have, my dear friend, the history, omitting circumstantial variations,
of every professional gambler. This numerous class are all on the high road to
ruin. They have lost their virtue, their character, and their happiness. They
are wasting their time, prostituting their talents, corrupting the youth of the
country, deceiving and swindling the unfortunate victims of their arts, setting
thorns in their death pillows, and preparing their souls for eternal
destruction. It is questionable whether they are not the most hardened, the most
reckless, and the most godless class of persons on the earth. "The finished
gambler," said Dr. Nott, "has no heart?he would play at his brother’s funeral?he
would gamble upon his mother’s coffin." Truly as I love you, my friend, and
earnestly as I desire your earthly welfare, I would rather see you an inmate of
the poor house than an occupant of the most splendid gambler’s hell, and in the
most successful course of accumulating wealth by the base and infamous arts of
gaming. Thus far I have portrayed the evils of gaming on professional
gamesters?let us now notice the effects of the vice on the dupes and victims of
these sharks in human form. It is surprising that any man, of sane mind, not
initiated into the swindling arts of the profession, should venture to play with
a practiced gamester. There is no equality in the contest. It is simplicity
contending with cunning?inexperience contending with skill. The uninitiated can
never win, except as they are permitted to do so, or the purpose of encouraging
them to bet more largely. Success does not depend on chance, or even so much on
skill as on the arts of deception and swindling. Some years ago, I was present
in a select company before which a reformed gambler exhibited the various
contrivances and arts by which the ignorant and unsuspecting are cheated of
their money. To the unpracticed these means seemed little less than miraculous.
Cards are usually manufactured by gamblers, and by marks that escape the notice
of the novice, they are known as readily by their backs as by their faces. In
shuffling, cutting and dealing a pack of cards, the skillful player can, without
the danger of detection, secure for himself any card, or just such a hand as he
chooses. Nor is it so surprising that astute gamblers, stimulated by the intense
desire of gain, and devoting their time and powers to the art of playing and
deceiving, should attain to great skill in their business. They learn of one
another, and quicken one another’s ingenuity; and they are restrained in their
tricks by no regard to law, justice or humanity. They belong to a realm from
which conscience is banished. Gamblers generally travel and operate in company,
that they may the more successfully seduce and fleece the unwary. These sharpers
play with each other so as to attract attention. One seems to be in luck, and
winning rapidly. He allures into partnership with him some simpleton, who hopes
soon to reap a golden harvest. But the tide of luck quickly changes; and the
miserable dupe is stripped of all his treasures, and left to bear his loss and
his shame as best he can. The execrable swindlers when alone divide their
ill-gotten gains, and continue their heartless robberies. By these, and similar
arts, multitudes are every year deprived of their honest gains, or their
patrimonial estates. It is by such victims that gamblers live, grow rich, and
dwell in splendor. I knew a plain, industrious, honest and worthy man, who, from
a thirst for gaming, went every Saturday evening to squander at the gaming
table, among professional harpies, his hard earnings, until he had lost twenty
thousand dollars. He knew that he would lose in every visit to the gaming table,
and yet such was his infatuation, that no argument, no entreaty, and no motive
could induce him to forego the pleasure of the sport. But in the face of all
these facts and considerations, gamblers, the lowest and the meanest of men,
still find victims of their arts, and derive their profits, not merely from the
thoughtless and the dissipated, but from the intelligent, the wealthy and the
respectable. Year after year, thousands are reduced, by the nefarious arts of
gaming, to poverty and ruin. Their families, in many instances, stripped of the
means of comfort and support, are disheartened, grieved and humbled. If then, my
friend, you would preserve your virtue, your character, and your happiness?if
you would not prostitute your powers, prove a curse to the world, and a grief to
your fond parents?if you would not plant thorns in your dying pillow, bar the
gate of heaven against yourself, and force your passage to destruction, shun the
gambler, and the gambler’s hell, as you would the plague. Gamesters are not fit
to be your associates. They are debased in their sentiments, corrupt in their
principles, vicious in their practices, and baleful in their influence. They
may, indeed, be polished in their manners, and warm in their professions of
friendship; but they seek your money and your ruin. You cannot touch them
without contamination. To be acquainted with them is to be dishonored. You
cannot enter their haunts without peril to all your best interests. If there
were no sin and no reproach in gambling, it would be the greatest stupidity to
risk your money on games with the most skillful, the most unscrupulous, and the
most dishonest of sharpers. You had better throw your money into the fire; for
in gaming you are simply giving it to the most selfish and the meanest of human
kind?to harpies, who are seeking to cheat you not only out of your money, but
out of your virtue and of your soul. The honest man who stakes his property at
the table of a professional gamester is simply a fool. He shuts his eyes that he
may suffer himself to be cheated. He richly deserves to be fleeced, and put to
confusion and shame; and happy will it be for him, if he learns from his first
lesson his folly and his danger. Beware of gaming even for amusement. It is not
necessary for purposes of relaxation and diversion. Fortunately, there is no
lack of recreations, innocent in their nature, and refining in their tendency.
Conversation, reading, walking, riding, athletic sports, and numerous simple
diversions, may be resorted to in the intervals of toil or study, to refresh and
invigorate the body, or to unbend the mind. But gaming is an amusement fraught
with peril. It nourishes a habit that may prove the wreck of property, the bane
of virtue, the blight of happiness, the ruin of the soul, and the curse of
eternity. Abstain then from an indulgence that yields little pleasure and no
profit, and is pregnant with such fearful peril. He that enters this flowery,
downhill, slippery road, knows not where he will stop. Thousands who begin by
playing for pleasure end by playing for gain. Thousands who play honestly in the
beginning, in the end, resort to all the tricks and frauds of the profession. I
need not repeat, my young friend, how sincerely I desire your welfare. You are
the comfort, the pride and the hope of your parents. They anxiously, as I know,
trained you in the ways of virtue and piety; and their earnest prayers have
accompanied you to the camp. You are nobly engaged in your country’s service. I
have confidence that, guided by the principles taught you in your youth,
sustained by the prayers of your friends, shielded by the knowledge you have of
the dangers that encompass you, and humbly trusting in God, and animated by the
prospect of a bright reward, you will pass uncorrupted through the temptations
of a soldier’s life, and return to your home, to be the support and solace of
your parents, the delight of your friends, and an ornament of society. Your very
sincere

WELL WISHER.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/writings-of-jeremiah-jeter/
========================================================================