{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_61084/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_61084","id":"gutenberg_61084","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61084","summary":null,"tags":["Baptists -- Doctrines","Baptists -- Government","Category: Encyclopedias/Dictionaries/Reference","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"+Transcriber's Notes+\n\n - This book is set forth as a reference for Baptist churches to\n   discuss their history, organization, polity, and operations. The\n   book itself has a small form factor, suitable to be carried in a\n   suit coat pocket.\n - The author's perspective is quite partisan; many arguments are\n   introduced in favor of his preferred methods and against\n   alternatives.\n - Detailed information on the Transcriber's changes are listed after\n   the text.\n\nTHE\n\nSTANDARD MANUAL\n\nFOR\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES\n\n_By_\n\nEDWARD T. HISCOX, D.D.\n\nAuthor of\n\"The Baptist's Short Method,\" \"Star Book for Ministers,\"\n\"The Star Book Series,\" \"Pastors' Manual,\" etc.\n\nPHILADELPHIA\n\nTHE AMERICAN BAPITST\nPUBLICATION SOCIETY\n\nCHICAGO   KANSAS CITY   LOS ANGELES   SEATTLE\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------\nEntered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1890, by\nTHE AMERICAN BAPITST PUBLICATION SOCIETY\nIn the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nPRINTED IN U.S.A.\n\n\nPREFACE\n\nIt is now thirty years since the \"Baptist Church Directory,\" prepared\nby the writer, was first published. That work was designed to be\nsomewhat of a _consensus_ of the opinions of those best able to judge\nin matters of Baptist church polity and usage, especially as to what\nconcerns administration and discipline. It might thus prove a help to\nboth pastors and members, particularly in perplexing cases liable to\narise. Thus it was hoped it might help to rectify the order and customs\nof our churches through our widely extended ranks. This hope has been\nrealized. More than fifty thousand copies of that book have been\ncirculated in this country. It has also been translated, more or less\nfully, into six or seven different languages by our missionaries, for\nuse in our missions and foreign fields.\n\nBut many of the churches desired a smaller and less expensive manual,\nwhich they could put into the hands of all their members. To meet this\nwant, sixteen years ago, the writer prepared the little \"Star Book on\nBaptist Church Polity,\" which many churches have adopted, furnishing\ntheir members and candidates for membership with them freely. This has\nhad a circulation of over thirty thousand copies; and both this and the\n\"Directory\" are in as great demand as at any previous time.\n\nIt is something more than twenty years since the \"Baptist Short\nMethod,\" by the same author was published. The purpose of this manual\nwas to give a concise view of those distinctive features which mark the\ndifference between Baptists and other denominations, especially as to\nthe ordinances and church order; and also to furnish the proofs by\nwhich our position in these respects is justified. About ten thousand\ncopies of this book have found their way into circulation.\n\nThe preparation of the present manual was undertaken at the request of,\nand by an arrangement with the pastor, R. S. MacArthur, D.D., on behalf\nof Calvary Baptist Church, New York City, for the special use of that\nchurch. Something was desired smaller than the \"Directory,\" and more\nfull than the \"Star Book,\" embracing certain features of the \"Short\nMethod.\" When completed, it was thought to be, on the whole, so much\nsuperior to anything ever before prepared, as a manual for general use\nin Baptist churches, that by mutual consent, it was decided to have it\npublished for general circulation, rather than confine it to the use of\na single church.\n\nTo both ministers and members, such a manual, it is hoped, will prove a\nvaluable helper in the interest of church order, and of denominational\nunity and prosperity. Especially for the younger members, so many\nthousands of whom are yearly admitted to the fellowship of the\nchurches, with an unlimited franchise, while but imperfectly instructed\nas to either doctrines or order, it should prove a most valuable\nassistant. Concise and accurate in statement of facts, transparent in\narrangement of matters, convenient in form, and cheap in cost, pastors\nwill find it to their own advantage, as well as to that of their\nmembers, to see that their churches are liberally supplied with copies.\nThe pastor of one of our very largest and most prosperous churches, for\nwhose use its preparation was undertaken, shows his estimate of its\nvalue, and sets other pastors a wise and worthy example, by ordering in\nadvance of publication, _one thousand copies_ for his church.\n\nMay the Divine blessing make this, as other works have been made, a\nmeans of furthering good order, spiritual vitality, and efficient\nservice for Christ, in the churches for which it is designed.\n\nE. T. H.\nMOUNT VERNON, N. Y.\nJanuary 24, 1890.\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\nCHAPTER I\nA CHRISTIAN CHURCH\n\nCHAPTER II\nCHURCH OFFICERS\n\nCHAPTER III\nCHURCH ORDINANCES\n\nCHAPTER IV\nCHURCH-MEMBERSHIP\n\nCHAPTER V\nCHURCH DISCIPLINE\n\nCHAPTER VI\nCASES OF APPEAL\n\nCHAPTER VII\nCHURCH BUSINESS\n\nCHAPTER VIII\nCHRISTIAN DOCTRINE\n\nCHAPTER IX\nOPTIONAL STANDING RESOLUTIONS\n\nCHAPTER X\nBAPTISM CONSIDERED\n\nCHAPTER XI\nTHE LORD'S SUPPER\n\nCHAPTER XII\nINFANT BAPTISM\n\nCHAPTER XIII\nCHURCH GOVERNMENT\n\nCHAPTER XIV\nCHURCH OFFICERS\n\nCHAPTER XV\nBAPTIST HISTORY\n\n\n+STANDARD MANUAL FOR\nBAPTIST CHURCHES+\n\n+CHAPTER I+\n\nA CHRISTIAN CHURCH\n\nThe word \"church\" is, in common language, used with large latitude of\nmeaning. It is applied to a building used for Christian worship, to a\ncongregation of Christian worshipers, to a religious establishment, to\na given form of ecclesiastical order, to the aggregate of all Christian\nbelievers, and to a local company of Christian disciples associated in\ncovenant for religious purposes. The latter is its common use in the\nNew Testament.\n\nThe Greek word _ekklesia,_ rendered \"church,\" is derived from a word\nmeaning \"called out,\" and is used to indicate a company called out from\na larger and more general assembly or concourse of people. In the free\nGreek cities, it designated a company of persons possessed of the\nrights of citizenship, and charged with certain important functions of\nadministration in public affairs, summoned, or called out, from the\ncommon mass of the people. In the New Testament, the _ekklesia_ is a\ncompany of persons called out and separated from the common multitude\nby a Divine calling, chosen to be saints, invested with the privileges,\nand charged with the duties of citizenship in the kingdom of Christ.\n\nA Christian Church, therefore, according to the New Testament idea, is\na company of persons Divinely called and separated from the world,\nbaptized on a profession of their faith in Christ, united in covenant\nfor worship and Christian service, under the supreme authority of\nChrist, whose Word is their only law and rule of life in all matters of\nreligious faith and practice.\n\nSome Christian denominations include all their congregations in one\ncomprehensive society, or ecclesiastical system, under some central\nauthority, which legislates for and controls the whole. This\ncomprehensive society they call the church. Thus we speak of the Roman\nCatholic Church, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church--where\nthe word \"church\" stands for the aggregate of all their local\nsocieties. With Baptists it is different. They speak of Baptist\nchurches, but not of the Baptist Church, when the entire denomination\nis meant. The Baptist Church would mean some one local congregation of\nbaptized believers.\n\nThus was it in Apostolic times. There was \"the church in Jerusalem,\"\n\"the church of the Thessalonians,\" \"the church of Babylon,\" \"the church\nof the Laodiceans\"; but \"the churches of Macedonia,\" \"the churches of\nAsia,\" \"the churches of Judea.\" A church, therefore, is not a system of\ncongregations confederated under a general government, but a single\nlocal congregation of Christian disciples associated in covenant and\nmeeting together for worship. In this sense the word is commonly,\nalmost uniformly, used in the New Testament.\n\nChurches are Divinely instituted to be \"the light of the world\" and\n\"the salt of the earth.\" They are ordained for the glory of God, as\n\"the ground and pillar of the truth,\" in the proclamation of His Gospel\nand the establishment of His kingdom in the world. They are\ncommissioned to preach the Gospel to men, and to live the Gospel before\nmen, that Christ may be honored and sinners saved. They should,\ntherefore, be constantly striving to realize the grand purpose of their\nexistence and fulfill the mission of their high calling. That church\nwhich does the most to honor Christ and save man will be the most\nhonored by Him, and the most influential and prosperous in all that\npertains to the true functions of a church. And since a church, as a\nbody, is what its individual members are in their religious life and\ninfluence, therefore each member should strive to become in holy living\nwhat He desires the church to be.\n\nNOTE 1.--A body of Christian disciples may fail to meet some of the\nrequirements of the Gospel, and still be a true church of Christ,\nproviding it fulfills the fundamental conditions of a Scriptural faith\nand practice.\n\nNOTE 2.--But when a body ceases to acknowledge and submit to Christ as\nits Supreme Ruler, and to receive His Word as its supreme law, then it\nceases to be a true church, and is simply a religious society, though\nit may still accept some of His doctrines and practice some of His\nprecepts.\n\nNOTE 3.--A church is not a legislative, but an executive body. It\ncannot make laws, but only obey and administer those which Christ has\ngiven in the New Testament. He is the only Lawmaker in Zion.\n\nNOTE 4.--But in matters pertaining to order and methods of\nadministration, merely optional and discretionary, not involving\nfundamental principles, the church is to exercise its liberty, so long\nas it does not contravene Scriptural teaching or infringe the rights of\nits members.\n\nNOTE 5.--And still further, while a church cannot become an\nauthoritative expounder of either truth or duty, to bind the\nconsciences even of its members, yet it does possess a judicial\nfunction for the interpretation and the enforcement of the laws of\nChrist for itself as a body, and, therefore, for its members, so far as\ntheir relation to the compact is concerned.\n\nNOTE 6.--Each church owes courtesy and comity, fellowship and\nfraternity, to all others; but it owes subjection and allegiance to\nnone, and is under authority to Christ alone.\n\nNOTE 7.--In matters of business and in the exercise of its authority in\nadministration, the will of the church is expressed by a majority vote\nof its members. But the nearer that majority approaches to unanimity,\nthe more satisfactory and emphatic are its decisions.\n\nNOTE 8.--Councils may be called, presbyteries convened, or committees\nof reference chosen for advice in cases of moment, but they are all\n_advisory_ only, and in no case authoritative. There is no higher, and\nno other court of appeal in ecclesiastical affairs, than the individual\nchurch.\n\n\n\n+CHAPTER II+\n\nCHURCH OFFICERS[1]\n\nThe Scriptural officers of a church are _bishops_ and _deacons._\nBishops are in the New Testament also called \"presbyters,\" \"elders,\"\nand \"overseers.\" Their duties and services have mainly reference to the\nspiritual interests of the body, though they properly have the\noversight of all its concerns. The deacons have principal charge of the\ntemporalities of the church, so as to relieve the pastor in that\ndepartment of labor. They are, however, to be counselors and helpers of\nthe pastor in all departments of his work. The qualifications for both\noffices are set forth in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.\n\nNOTE 1.--Pastors and deacons, as teachers and leaders of the flock,\ncannot be selected for and imposed upon the churches by any external\nauthority whatever, either civic or religious; but are elected and\nchosen by the free suffrages of the members, without compulsion or\nrestraint, from among themselves, or those who are to become identified\nwith them in fellowship.\n\nNOTE 2.--In the election of either a pastor or deacon, notice of such\nelection should be given from the pulpit for at least two Sundays\npreceding the time for the same. The election should be by ballot, and\nat least _three-quarters_ of the votes cast should be necessary for the\nelection of a pastor, and _two-thirds_ for the election of a deacon.\nSuch election should be preceded by prayer for Divine direction, and\nconducted without partisan devices or personal strife.\n\nNOTE 3.--Both pastors and deacons are properly elected for unlimited\nterms of service, the relation to continue so long as there shall be\nmutual satisfaction. Such a course tends less to depreciate and make\nservile the officers and their duties in the estimation of the people,\nand of those who bear them, than a limited and specified time, though\ndeacons are sometimes, and perhaps properly, chosen for a limited term\nof service, subject to reelection, at the option of the church.\n\nNOTE 4.--The church is to fix on the amount of salary necessary to a\ngenerous support of the pastor, and hold itself obligated by every\nconsideration of Christian honor for the prompt and regular payment of\nthe same. To fail in this is as dishonorable to the church as it is\nunjust and vexatious to the pastor.\n\nNOTE 5.--The call to a pastor issues from the _church_ as a body, which\nalso designates the amount of salary to be paid. It is in some sections\nusual, though not essential, to have subsequently a meeting of the\nentire congregation or society to approve or confirm the call. In some\nStates it is necessary for the trustees, as the legal representatives\nof the corporation, to confirm the action officially, so far as the\nsalary is concerned, before it can become legal.\n\nNOTE 6.--The number of deacons is optional with the church. It is\nusually from _three_ to _seven._ Let it be so many as the church needs\nand can find suitable as candidates for the office. But they should\nnever be elected simply to fill the office, and never unless they be\npersons whose fitness for the office is generally conceded.\n\nNOTE 7.--The relations between pastor and the church may be dissolved\nat the option of either, by giving _three months'_ notice; or\notherwise, by mutual consent. Between the deacons and the church, the\nrelations may be dissolved at the option of either without previous\nnotice.\n\nNOTE 8.--A church _clerk_ is elected annually, at a business meeting,\nby a majority vote. It is an office of convenience, for keeping the\nminutes and preserving the records of the body. Also _trustees_ are\nelected by the church, or if the law so requires, by a _society._ Their\nduties are the care of the property and the management of finances. But\nthese are not considered Scriptural church officers; deacons might\nproperly discharge all the functions of these offices.[2]\n\nNOTE 9.--The offices of trust and service in a church should be as\nwidely distributed among the members as possible, consistently with the\nwelfare of the body. This rule should seldom be disregarded. No one man\nshould hold more than one office at the same time, unless the interests\nof the body absolutely demand it. If offices are honors, they should be\nwidely dispensed; if they are burdens, they certainly should be. For\nthe same man to hold two or three offices is as unjust to him as it is\nto his brethren.\n\nNOTE 10.--A church cannot unite in any corporate capacity with other\norganizations for religious, benevolent, moral reform, or other\npurposes; but it may cooperate with these for any good object, and give\nto such societies its moral support, sympathy, and pecuniary aid.\n\nNOTE 11.--But members of churches can, as individuals, unite with\noutside organizations, for any purpose, not inconsistent with their\nprofession as Christians, and not injurious to their church relations\nand duties.\n\nNOTE 12.--Churches cannot alienate their responsibilities, nor delegate\ntheir authority to any man, or to any body of men, to act officially\nfor them. But they can appoint persons to bear messages, and to perform\nservices for them, under instruction, and to report their action to the\nbody.\n\n+FOOTNOTES:+\n\n[1] This and several of the following sections are consistent\n    with the \"Star Book on Baptist Church Polity,\" on the same topics.\n\n[2] In some States the laws do not recognize the church, that being a\n    spiritual body, but incorporate a _society,_ as it is called,\n    consisting of all persons of full age who attend and support the\n    worship. This society has charge of the financial affairs of the\n    church, holds and keeps in repair its property, and conducts its\n    secular concerns. It elects a specified number of _trustees,_ as\n    provided for by law, who are the legal representatives of the\n    corporation. The members of the society, and the trustees elected,\n    may or may not be members of the church. This whole society\n    arrangement is a relic of the old New England parish system of the\n    standing order, and is inconsistent with the freedom of church\n    action, and antagonistic to Baptist Church independence. It is\n    anti-Baptistic and anti-Scriptural. A church should be allowed to\n    manage its own affairs, both temporal and spiritual: and should be\n    protected by law in doing so. The society system has been abrogated\n    in most of the States.\n\n\n\n+CHAPTER III+\n\nCHURCH ORDINANCES\n\nChristian ordinances, in the largest sense, are any institutions, or\nregulations of Divine appointment, established as means of grace for\nthe good of men, or as acts of worship for the honor of God. In that\nsense, not only are baptism and the Lord's Supper ordinances, but\npreaching, prayer, hearing the Word, fasting, and thanksgiving are also\nordinances, since all are of Divine appointment. But, in a narrower\nsense, it is common to say that _baptism_ and the _Lord's Supper_ are\nthe only ordinances appointed by Christ to be observed by His churches.\nThese are the only emblematic and commemorative rites enjoined upon His\ndisciples, by which they are to be distinguished, and He is to be\nhonored. They are the two symbols and witnesses of the New Covenant,\nthe two monuments of the New Dispensation.\n\n_Baptism_ is the immersion, or dipping, of a candidate in water, on a\nprofession of his faith in Christ and on evidence of regeneration; the\nbaptism to be ministered in, or into, the name of the Father, the Son,\nand Holy Spirit. It represents the burial and resurrection of Christ,\nand in a figure declares the candidate's death to sin and the world,\nand his rising to a new life. It also proclaims the washing of\nregeneration, and professes the candidate's hope of a resurrection from\nthe dead, through Him into the likeness of whose death he is buried in\nbaptism.\n\n_The Lord's Supper_ is a provision of bread and wine, used to represent\nthe body and the blood of Christ, partaken of by members of the church\nassembled for that purpose; in which service they commemorate the love\nof Christ exhibited in His death for them, and profess their faith and\nparticipation in the merits of His sacrifice, as the only ground of\ntheir hope of eternal life.\n\nNOTE 1.--No person can rightfully or properly become a church-member\nexcept he be first baptized, as the distinguishing mark and profession\nof his discipleship.\n\nNOTE 2.--The Supper is a church ordinance, and therefore is the\nprivilege of church-members only. Therefore, also, since baptism\nprecedes church-membership, it must precede and be prerequisite to the\nLord's Supper.\n\nNOTE 3.--Since the Supper is distinctively a church ordinance, it is to\nbe observed by churches only, and not by individuals; neither in\nprivate places, nor in sick-rooms, nor on social occasions, and not by\ncompanies of disciples other than churches. But a church may by\nappointment, and in its official capacity, meet in a private house, a\nsick-room, or wherever it may elect, and there observe the Supper.\n\nNOTE 4.--Both ordinances are ordinarily and properly administered by\nordained and accredited ministers; but both would be equally valid if\nadministered by unordained persons, should occasion require and the\nchurch so direct. As to the qualifications of the administrator, the\nNew Testament is silent, except that he should be a disciple.\n\nNOTE 5.--As to the time, place, and frequency of the ordinances, no\nScriptural directions are given. These are left optional with the\nchurches. They are usually observed on Sundays, but not necessarily. As\nto the Supper, our churches have very generally come to observe it on\nthe first Sunday of each month.\n\nNOTE 6.--The participation of the elements in the Supper should be done\naccording to the special direction of Christ, the Head of the body.\n\"This do in remembrance of _Me._\" It is not, therefore, a test or token\nof Christian fellowship, except incidentally. All thought and sympathy\nin the service should be centered on Him who is \"the living bread,\" and\nnot fixed on others.\n\nNOTE 7.--The ordinances are not _sacraments,_ as taught by some,\nconveying effectual grace to the soul and imparting spiritual life. But\nas Divinely appointed means of grace, their importance must not be\nundervalued. They cannot be neglected without suffering serious harm\nand incurring the gravest responsibility.\n\nNOTE 8.--Baptism is not essential to salvation, for our churches\nutterly repudiate the dogma of \"baptismal regeneration\"; but it is\nessential to obedience, since Christ has commanded it. It is also\nessential to a public confession of Christ before the world, and to\nmembership in the church which is His body. And no true lover of his\nLord will refuse these acts of obedience and tokens of affection.\n\n\n\n+CHAPTER IV+\n\nCHURCH-MEMBERSHIP\n\nIt is most likely that in the Apostolic age when there was but \"one\nLord, one faith, and one baptism,\" and no differing denominations\nexisted, the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a\nmember of the church, and at once endowed him with all the rights and\nprivileges of full membership. In that sense, \"baptism was the door\ninto the church.\" Now, it is different; and while the churches are\ndesirous of receiving members, they are wary and cautious that they do\nnot receive unworthy persons. The churches therefore have candidates\ncome before them, make their statement, give their \"experience,\" and\nthen their reception is decided by a vote of the members. And while\nthey cannot become members without baptism, yet it is the vote of the\nbody which admits them to its fellowship on receiving baptism.\n\nThere are _three classes_ of candidates, and modes of reception to\nmembership.\n\n1. _By baptism._--The church having listened to the religious\nexperience of the candidate, and being satisfied with the same, and\nwith his Christian deportment, votes to receive him to its fellowship,\n\"on being baptized.\"\n\n2. _By letter._--The candidate presents a letter of dismission and\nrecommendation from some other Baptist church with which he has been\nconnected, for the purpose of transferring his membership to this. The\nchurch, being satisfied, votes to receive him into fellowship.\n\n3. _By experience._--Persons having been baptized, but for some reason\nbeing without membership in any church, wish to be received. They,\ngiving satisfactory evidence of Christian character, and substantial\nagreement in matters of faith and practice, are received by vote, as in\nother cases.\n\nNOTE 1.--Persons cannot be received to membership on the credit of\nletters from other denominations. Such letters are, however, accepted,\nas certificates of Christian character, and of church standing.\n\nNOTE 2.--While the churches do not require candidates to sign any\ncreed, confession, or articles of faith, yet they do expect a\nsubstantial agreement in matters of faith and practice on their part as\nessential both to the comfort of the individual, and the harmony of the\nbody.\n\nNOTE 3.--Should any member object to the reception of a candidate, such\nreception should be deferred, in order to consider the reasons for the\nobjection. Objections judged groundless or unreasonable should not\nprevent the reception of a suitable candidate; yet no one should be\nreceived except by a unanimous or nearly unanimous vote.\n\nNOTE 4.--It is customary for candidates, after their experience or\nletters have been presented, to retire while the church deliberates and\nacts upon their case.\n\nNOTE 5.--Any member in good standing, is entitled, at any time, to a\nletter of dismission, in the usual form, with which to unite with\nanother church of the same faith and order.\n\nNOTE 6.--Letters are usually made valid for _six months_ only, during\nwhich time they must be used, if used at all. But if held longer, they\nmay be renewed by the church, if satisfactory reasons are given for\ntheir non-use.\n\nNOTE 7.--Each one receiving a letter is still a member of the church,\nand under its watchcare and discipline, until his letter is actually\nreceived by another church.\n\nNOTE 8.--Letters cannot be given to members for the purpose of uniting\nwith churches with which we are not in fellowship. But any member is\nentitled, at any time, to receive a certificate of standing, and\nChristian character.\n\nNOTE 9.--No member can _withdraw_ from the church, or have his name\n_dropped,_ or at his own request be _excluded_ from the fellowship of\nthe body without due process of discipline.\n\nNOTE 10.--Nor can a member have a letter voted and forced upon him\nwithout his wish and consent. Such would be a virtual expulsion from\nthe body. If worthy to receive a letter, he cannot be forced out of the\nchurch against his will.\n\nNOTE 11.--Members living remote from the church are expected to unite\nwith some Baptist church near their residence; or give satisfactory\nreasons for not doing so. When they cannot so unite, they are expected\nto report themselves to the church at least _once each year,_ and\ncontribute to its support, till they cease to be members.\n\nNOTE 12.--Letters of dismission may be revoked, at any time before\nbeing used, if, in the judgment of the church, there be sufficient\ncause for such action.\n\nNOTE 13.--Church fellowship will be withdrawn from members who unite\nwith other denominations; because, however excellent their character,\nor sincere their intentions, they have broken covenant with the church,\nand by such act have placed themselves beyond the limits of its\nfellowship.\n\nNOTE 14.--Persons excluded from other churches are not to be received\nto membership, except after the most careful investigation of all the\nfacts in the case, and not unless it be manifest that the exclusion was\nunjustifiable, and that the church excluding persistently refuses to do\njustice to the excluded member.\n\nNOTE 15.--A letter is usually asked for and addressed to the particular\nchurch. This is proper, but not always necessary. It may in certain\ncases be asked for, and given \"to the church of the same faith and\norder.\" Or if directed to one, it may be presented to, and received by\nanother.\n\nNOTE 16.--It is expected that all pecuniary liability to the church\nwill be canceled, and all personal difficulties in the church will be\nsettled by a member, should such exist, before he shall receive a\nletter of dismission.\n\nNOTE 17.--Each member, without exception, is expected to fill his place\nin the church, by attendance on its appointments, as Providence may\nallow, and also to contribute of his means for the pecuniary support of\nthe body, according to his ability. If in either of these respects he\nfails, and refuses, he becomes a covenant-breaker, and is subject to\nthe discipline of the body.\n\nNOTE 18.--Persons excluded from the church may be again received to its\nfellowship on satisfactory evidence of fitness. This is called\nreception by _restoration,_ and is usually so entered on the records,\nand in associational reports.\n\nNOTE 19.--It is neither a Christian nor an honorable course for a\nchurch to grant an unworthy member a valid letter, and send him to\nanother church as one in good and regular standing, in order to be rid\nof a disturber of the peace, or to avoid the trouble of a course of\ndiscipline.\n\nNOTE 20.--No church is _obliged_ to receive a person to membership,\nsimply because he brings a valid letter from another church. Each\nchurch is to be sole judge of the qualifications of persons to be\nreceived to its fellowship.\n\n\n\n+CHAPTER V+\n\nCHURCH DISCIPLINE\n\nChurch-members are supposed to be regenerate persons bearing the image\nand cherishing the spirit of Christ, in whom the peace of God rules,\nand who walk and work in \"the unity of the Spirit, and the bond of\npeace.\" But unhappily, even the saints are sanctified only in part, and\ntroubles sometimes arise among brethren. The evil passions of even good\nmen may triumph over piety, and partisan strife may destroy the peace\nand the prosperity of the body of Christ. All this should, if possible,\nbe avoided. Corrective discipline seeks to heal offenses; but it is\nbetter to _prevent_ them, than to _heal_ them. It is, however, better\nto heal and remove, than to endure them.\n\nNow these offenses and occasions of dissension in the churches arise\nfrom various causes, and are largely preventable. Most frequently they\ncome by the following means:\n\n1. Because of the too suspicious and sensitive disposition of some who\nimagine themselves wronged, neglected, or in some way injured; the\nmatter being chiefly imaginary, and without any real foundation in fact.\n\n2. Because the pastor, deacons, and influential members do not\ncarefully and constantly enough watch the beginnings of strife, and\nrectify the evil before it becomes serious.\n\n3. Because evil-doers by delay become more persistent in evil, while\nothers are drawn into the strife, and contentious parties insensibly\nare formed, which tend to divide the church into hostile factions.\n\n4. Because that when the difficulty becomes chronic and deep-seated,\nthe church is likely to undertake the discipline with judicial\nseverity, and not in the spirit of meekness, in which the spiritual\nshould restore the erring.\n\n5. Because that a case of discipline undertaken under excitement is\nalmost certain to be wrongly conducted. Even if the result reached be\njust and right, the method by which it is reached is likely to be\nunwise, unjust, and oppressive to individuals, possibly producing more\nserious and more lasting evils than it has removed.\n\n_Offenses_ calling for discipline are usually considered as of _two_\nclasses: _private_ or personal, and _public_ or general. These terms do\nnot very accurately express the nature of the offenses, but they are in\ncommon use, and capable of being understood. In the administration of\n_corrective discipline,_ the following rules and principles constitute\na correct and Scriptural course of proceeding:\n\n\nPRIVATE OFFENSES\n\n_Private offenses_ pertain to personal difficulties between\nindividuals, having no direct reference to the church as a body, and\nnot involving the Christian profession at large. In such cases, the\ncourse prescribed by our Saviour (Matt. 18:15-17) is to be strictly\nfollowed, without question or deviation.\n\n1. _First step._--The member who considers himself injured must go to\nthe offender, tell him his grief, and between themselves alone, if\npossible, adjust and settle the difficulty. \"If thy brother shall\ntrespass against thee, go and tell him his fault, between thee and him\nalone.\" This must be done, not to charge, upbraid, or condemn the\noffender, but to win him. \"If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy\nbrother.\"\n\n2. _Second step._--If this shall fail, then the offended member must\ntake one or two of the brethren with him as witnesses, seek an\ninterview with the offender, and, if possible, by their united wisdom\nand piety, remove the offense and harmonize the difficulty. \"But if he\nwill not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the\nmouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be established.\"\n\n3. _Third step._--If this step should prove unavailing, then the\noffended member must tell the whole matter to the _church,_ and leave\nit in their hands to be disposed of, as to them may seem wisest and\nbest. \"And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church.\" He\nhas done his duty and must abide by the decision of the body which\nassumes this responsibility.\n\n4. _The result._--If this course of kindly Christian labor proves\nfinally ineffectual, and the offender shows himself incorrigible,\nexcision must follow. He must be cut off from fellowship in the church\nwhose covenant he has broken, and whose authority he disregards. \"And\nif he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen\nman, and a publican.\" However painful the act, the church must be\nfaithful to its duty, and to its God.\n\nNOTE 1.--While this Divine rule makes it obligatory on the offended\nmember to go to the offender and seek a reconciliation, yet much more\nis it obligatory on the offender who knows that a brother is grieved\nwith him, to seek such an one, and try to remove the difficulty.\n\nNOTE 2.--The matter is not to be made public until these three steps\nhave been fully taken, and have failed; and then to be made public only\nby telling the church, and no others.\n\nNOTE 3.--When the case comes before the church, it must not be\nneglected nor dropped, but judiciously pursued until the difficulty be\nadjusted, the offense removed, or else the offender be\ndisfellowshipped, and put away.\n\n\nPUBLIC OFFENSES\n\n_Public offenses_ are not against any one person more than another, but\nare such as are supposed to be a dishonor to the church of which the\noffender is a member, and a reproach to the Christian profession. They\nconstitute a violation of the code of Christian morals, if not of our\ncommon worldly morals.\n\nThe more common causes of this class of offenses are the following:\nFalse doctrine (Gal. 1:9, 2 John 10), disregard of authority (Matt.\n18:17; 1 Thess. 5:14), contention and strife (Rom. 16:17), immoral\nconduct (1 Cor. 5:11), disorderly walk (2 Thess. 3:6, 9), covetous\nspirit (Eph. 5:5; 1 Cor. 5:11), arrogant conduct (3 John 9), going to\nlaw (1 Cor. 6:6).\n\nThe following constitutes a proper and Scriptural course of treatment\nfor such cases:\n\n1. The first member who has knowledge of the offense should, as in the\ncase of private offenses, seek the offender, ascertain the facts, and\nattempt to reconcile or remove the difficulty. Not till he has done\nthis should he make it public, or bring it before the church.\n\n2. But if no one will, or can, pursue this course of personal effort,\nor if such a course proves unsuccessful, then any member having\nknowledge of the facts should confer with the pastor and deacons as to\nthe best course to be pursued.\n\n3. The pastor and deacons should, by the best method they are capable\nof devising, labor to adjust the matter without bringing it into the\nchurch, or otherwise making it public.\n\n4. But if their efforts fail, or if the case be already public, and a\nreproach and scandal to religion, then they should bring it to the\nchurch, and it should direct a proper course of discipline.\n\n5. The church, thus having the case before it, should either appoint a\ncommittee to visit the offender, or cite him before the body to answer\nthe charge. He should be allowed to hear the evidence against him, know\nthe witnesses, and be permitted to answer for himself.\n\n6. If the accused disproves the charges, or if he confesses the wrong,\nmakes suitable acknowledgment, and, so far as possible, reparation,\nwith promise of amendment, in all ordinary cases, this should be deemed\nsatisfactory, and the case be dismissed.\n\n7. But if, after patient, deliberate, and prayerful labor, all efforts\nfail to reclaim the offender, then, however painful the necessity, the\nchurch must withdraw its fellowship from him, and put him away from\nthem.\n\n8. If the case be one of flagrant immorality, by which the reputation\nof the body is compromised and the Christian name scandalized, on being\nproved or confessed, the hand of fellowship may be at once withdrawn\nfrom the offender, notwithstanding any confessions and promises of\namendment; but not without a trial.\n\nThe church's good name and the honor of religion demand this testimony\nagainst evil. He may be subsequently restored, if suitably penitent.\n\nNOTE 1.--All discipline should be conducted in the spirit of Christian\nmeekness and love, with a desire to remove offenses and win offenders.\nIt must also be done under a deep sense of responsibility to maintain\nthe honor of Christ's name, the purity of His church, and the integrity\nof His truth.\n\nNOTE 2.--If any member shall persist in bringing a private grievance\nbefore the church, or otherwise make it public before he has pursued\nthe course prescribed in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, he becomes\nhimself an offender, and subject to the discipline of the body.\n\nNOTE 3.--When private difficulties exist among members which they\ncannot, or will not settle, the church should consider them as public\noffenses, and as such dispose of them, rather than suffer the perpetual\ninjury which they inflict.\n\nNote 4.--When a member refers to the church any private difficulty,\nwhich he has been unable to settle, he must submit it wholly to the\ndisposition of the body, and abide by its decision. If he attempts to\nrevive and prosecute it beyond the decision of the church, he becomes\nan offender, and subject to discipline.\n\nNOTE 5.--Any member tried by the church has the right to receive copies\nof all charges against him, the names of his accusers, and the\nwitnesses, both of whom he shall have the privilege of meeting face to\nface, hearing their statements, bringing witnesses on his side, and\nanswering for himself before the body.\n\nNOTE 6.--Every member on trial or excluded, shall have furnished at his\nrequest, authentic copies of all proceedings had by the church in his\ncase, officially certified.\n\nNOTE 7.--No member under discipline can have the right to bring any\nperson, not a member, before the church as his advocate, except by\nconsent of the body.\n\nNOTE 8.--In every case of exclusion, the charges against the member,\nand the reasons for his exclusion, should be accurately entered on the\nrecords of the church.\n\nNOTE 9.--If at any time it shall become apparent, or seem probable to\nthe church that it has for any reason dealt unjustly with a member, or\nexcluded him without sufficient cause, it should at once, and without\nrequest by concession and restoration, so far as possible, repair the\ninjury it has done him.\n\nNOTE 10.--The church should hold itself bound to restore to its\nfellowship an excluded member when, ever he gives satisfactory evidence\nof repentance and reformation consistent with godliness.\n\nNOTE 11.--The church will exercise is legitimate authority, and\nvindicate its honor and rectitude in the administration of discipline,\neven though the member should regard such discipline as unjust or\noppressive.\n\nNOTE 12.--Nothing can be considered a just and reasonable cause for\ndiscipline, except what is forbidden by the letter of the spirit of\nScripture. And nothing can be considered a sufficient cause for\ndisfellowship and exclusion, except what is clearly contrary to\nScripture, and what would have prevented the reception of the person\ninto the church, had it been known to exist at the time of his\nreception.\n\n\n\n+CHAPTER VI+\n\nCASES OF APPEAL\n\nCases of difficulty and discipline do sometimes occur, so aggravated in\ntheir nature or so complicated in their treatment that it is found\nimpossible to make a satisfactory settlement by ordinary methods;\nespecially so if discipline has ended in exclusion. The excluded member\nwill be almost sure to think he has been dealt with unjustly, and will\nwish for some redress; and if the case has been of long standing and\nmuch complicated, he will be equally sure to have others sympathize\nwith him and condemn the action of the church. Now, although the\n_presumption_ is that the church has done right, and is justified in\nits action, the _possibility_ is that the church has done wrong, and is\ncensurable for its action.\n\nWhat can be done in such a case?\n\nNOTE 1.--On the New Testament theory of church government, the action\nof this individual local church is final. There is no power either\ncivil or ecclesiastical, that can reverse its decision or punish it for\nwrong-doing. It may make mistakes, but no human tribunal has authority\nto compel it to confess or correct them.\n\nNOTE 2.--Councils, if appealed to for redress, have _no authority;_\nthey are simply, always, and everywhere _advisory_--that, and nothing\nmore. They can express an opinion, and give advice; but they have no\nauthority to issue decrees, and would have no power to enforce them if\nthey should.[1]\n\nNOTE 3.--Any person who believes himself wronged by church action has\nthe inalienable right to appeal to the church for a new hearing, and,\nfailing in this, to ask the counsel and advice of brethren, should he\nsee fit to do so.\n\n_Now observe_--If an excluded member believes himself unjustly dealt\nby, and wishes redress the following is the proper course for him to\npursue:\n\n1. Apply to the church which excluded, and ask a rehearing. State to\nthem the grounds of his complaint and the evidence on which he thinks\nhe can satisfy them, if a fair opportunity for being heard be given him.\n\n2. If they refuse him a rehearing, let him appeal to them to unite with\nhim in calling a _mutual council,_ before which the whole case shall be\nplaced, all parties to abide by its decision.\n\n3. If a mutual council be declined by the church, he would be fully\njustified, should he feel so inclined, in calling an _ex-parte_\ncouncil, before which he should place the facts and seek its advice.\n\n4. Or, instead of calling an _ex-parte_ council, he could apply to some\nother church to be received to its fellowship, on the ground that he\nhad been unjustly excluded. Should he be received to another church,\nthat would give him church standing and fellowship again, and vindicate\nhim so far as any ecclesiastical action could vindicate him.\n\n5. If all these resorts fail, there is nothing left but for him to wait\npatiently, and bear the burden of his wrong until Providence opens the\nway for his deliverance. He may, after all, conclude that he himself\nwas more in fault than he at first supposed, and the church less so.\n\nNOTE 4.--An _ex-parte_ council should not be called in such a case of\ndifficulty until all efforts have failed to secure a _mutual_ council;\nas such a council, if called, would probably do nothing more than\nadvise a mutual council and adjourn.\n\nNOTE 5.--Any church can well afford to grant a rehearing to an excluded\nmember. It would be in the interest of peace, justice, and\nreconciliation. If the church be right, it can afford to be generous.\n\nNOTE 6.--Any church has the right to receive a member excluded, from\nanother church, since each church is sole judge of the qualification of\npersons received to its fellowship. But any church so appealed to would\nuse great caution, and with due regard to its own peace and purity,\nascertain all the facts in the case before taking such action.\n\nNOTE 7.--If a mutual council be called, one-half the messengers and\nmembers are to be chosen by the church and one-half by the aggrieved\nparty; but the _letters missive_ calling the council are to be sent out\nby and in the name of the church, and not of the aggrieved party. But\nthese facts, as to the mutual call, are to be stated in the letters.\n\nNOTE 8.--A church excluding a member has no just cause of complaint\nagainst another church for receiving such an excluded member, since the\none church is just as independent to receive one whom it judges worthy\nof fellowship, as the other is to exclude one whom it judged unworthy\nof fellowship.\n\n+FOOTNOTES:+\n\n[1] For a more comprehensive discussion of councils--what they can,\n    and what they cannot do, how to call, and how to use them--see the\n    \"Star Book on Baptist Councils.\"\n\n\n\n+CHAPTER VII+\n\nCHURCH BUSINESS\n\nThe business meetings of a church should be conducted as much as\npossible in the spirit of devotion, and under a sense of the propriety\nand sanctity which attaches to all the interests of the kingdom of\nChrist. Meetings for business should not be needlessly multiplied, nor\nshould they be unwisely neglected. It may not be wise to insist too\nrigidly on the observance of parliamentary rules, yet it is still worse\nto drift into a loose unbusinesslike way, which wastes time,\naccomplishes little, and does wrongly much that is done.\n\n\nORDER OF BUSINESS\n\n1. The meetings to be opened with reading the Scriptures, singing, and\nprayer.\n\n2. The reading, correction, and approval of the minutes of the\npreceding meeting.\n\n3. Unfinished business, or such as the minutes present, including\nreports of committees taken in order.\n\n4. New business will next be taken up. Any member may call up new\nbusiness. But important matters should not be presented, except on\nprevious consultation with the pastor and deacons.\n\nNOTE 1.--The pastor is, by virtue of his office, moderator of all\nchurch business meetings. If he be not present, or do not wish to\nserve, any one may be elected to take the place.\n\nNOTE 2.--All business meetings, both regular and special, should be\nannounced from the pulpit one Sunday, at least, before they are held.\n\nNOTE 3.--Special meetings for business may be called at any time, by\nconsent of the pastor and deacons, or by such other methods as the\nchurch itself may direct.\n\nNOTE 4.--Though a majority usually decides questions, yet in all\nmatters of special importance a unanimous, or nearly unanimous, vote\nshould be secured.\n\nNOTE 5.--Members may be received, and letters of dismission granted,\neither at the business church meeting, the covenant meeting, or the\nregular weekly prayer meeting, the church so directing. Some fixed\nmethod should be observed.\n\nNOTE 6.--Candidates for admission to membership will be expected to\nretire from the meeting when action is taken on their reception.\n\nNOTE 7.--No persons, except members, will be present during the\ntransaction of church business. If present, they may be asked to retire.\n\nNOTE 8.--Although the church should endeavor to do nothing which its\nmembers will be ashamed or afraid to have known by others, yet every\nmember is bound, by the honor of a Christian, not to publish abroad,\nnor disclose to those without, the private affairs and business\ntransactions of the body.\n\n\nRULES OF ORDER\n\nThe following constitute the generally accepted rules of order for\nchurches and other deliberative bodies in business proceedings:\n\n\n_Motions_\n\n1. All business shall be presented by a _motion,_ made by one member,\nand seconded by another, and presented in writing by the mover, if so\nrequired.\n\n2. No discussion can properly be had until the motion is made,\nseconded, and stated by the chairman.\n\n3. A motion cannot be withdrawn after it has been discussed, except by\nthe unanimous consent of the body.\n\n4. A motion having been discussed, must be put to vote, unless\nwithdrawn, laid on the table, referred, or postponed.\n\n5. A motion lost should not be recorded, except so ordered by the body\nat the time.\n\n6. A motion lost cannot be renewed at the same meeting, except by\nunanimous consent.\n\n7. A motion should contain but one distinct proposition. If it contains\nmore, it must be divided at the request of any member, and the\npropositions acted on separately.\n\n8. Only one question can properly be before the meeting at any one\ntime. No second motion can be allowed to interrupt one already under\ndebate, except a motion to _amend,_ to _substitute,_ to _commit,_ to\n_postpone,_ to _lay on the table,_ for _the previous question,_ or to\n_adjourn._\n\n9. These subsidiary motions just named cannot be interrupted by any\nother motion; nor can any other motion be applied to them except that\nto _amend,_ which may be done by specifying some _time, place,_ or\n_purpose._\n\n10. Nor can these motions interrupt or supersede each other; only that\na motion to _adjourn_ is always in order, except while a member has the\nfloor, or a question is being taken, and in some bodies even then.\n\n\n_Amendments_\n\n1. Amendments to resolutions may be made in three ways: By _omitting,_\nby _adding,_ or by _substituting_ words or sentences.\n\n2. An amendment to an amendment may be made, but is seldom necessary,\nand should be avoided.\n\n3. No amendment should be made which essentially changes the meaning or\ndesign of the original resolution.\n\n4. But a _substitute_ may be offered, which may change entirely the\nmeaning of the resolution under debate.\n\n5. The amendment must first be discussed and acted on, and then the\noriginal resolution as amended.\n\n\n_Speaking_\n\n1. Any member desiring to speak on a question should rise in his place\nand address the moderator, confine his remarks to the question, and\navoid all unkind and disrespectful language.\n\n2. A speaker using improper language, introducing improper subjects, or\notherwise out of order, should be called to order by the chairman, or\nany member, and must either conform to the regulations of the body, or\ntake his seat.\n\n3. A member while speaking can allow others to ask questions, or make\nexplanations; but if he yields the floor to another, he cannot claim it\nagain as his right.\n\n4. If two members rise to speak at the same time, preference is usually\ngiven to the one farthest from the chair, or to the one opposing the\nquestion under discussion.\n\n5. The fact that a person has several times arisen, and attempted to\nget the floor, gives him no claim or right to be heard. Nor does a call\nfor the question deprive a member of his right to speak.\n\n\n_Voting_\n\n1. A question is put to vote by the chairman having first distinctly\nrestated it, that all may vote intelligently. First, the _affirmative,_\nthen the _negative_ is called; each so deliberately as to give all an\nopportunity of voting. He then distinctly announces whether the motion\nis _carried,_ or _lost._\n\n2. Voting is usually done by \"aye\" and \"no,\" or by raising the hand. In\na doubtful case by standing and being counted. On certain questions by\nballot.\n\n3. If the vote, as announced by the chairman, is doubted, it is called\nagain, usually by standing to be counted.\n\n4. All members should vote, unless for reasons excused; or unless under\ndiscipline, in which case they should take no part in the business.\n\n5. The moderator does not usually vote, except the question be taken by\nballot; but when the meeting is equally divided, he is expected, but is\nnot obligated to give the casting vote.\n\n6. When the vote is to be taken by ballot, the chairman appoints\n_tellers,_ to distribute, collect, and count the ballots.\n\n\n_Committees_\n\n1. Committees are nominated by the chairman, if so directed by the\nbody, or by any member; and the nomination is confirmed by a vote of\nthe body. More commonly the body directs that all committees shall be\n_appointed_ by the chairman, in which case no vote is needed to confirm.\n\n2. Any matter of business, or subject under debate, may be _referred_\nto a committee, with or without instructions. The committee make their\n_report,_ which is the result of their deliberations. The body then\ntakes action on the report, and on any recommendations it may contain.\n\n3. The report of a committee is _accepted_ by a vote, which\nacknowledges their services, and takes the report before the body for\nits action. Afterward, any distinct _recommendation_ contained in the\nreport is acted on, and may be adopted or rejected.\n\n4. Frequently, however, when the recommendations of the committee are\nof a trifling moment or likely to be generally acceptable, the report\nis _accepted_ and _adopted_ by the same vote.\n\n5. A report may be _recommitted_ to the committee, with or without\ninstructions; or that committee discharged, and the matter referred to\na new one, for further consideration, so as to present it in a form\nmore likely to meet the general concurrence of the body.\n\n6. A committee may be appointed _with power_ for a specific purpose.\nThis gives them power to dispose conclusively of the matter, without\nfurther reference to the body.\n\n7. The first named in the appointment of a committee is by courtesy\nconsidered the _chairman._ But the committee has the right to name its\nown chairman.\n\n8. The member who moves the appointment of a committee is usually,\nthough not necessarily, named its chairman.\n\n9. Committees of arrangement, or for other protracted service, _report\nprogress_ from time to time, and are continued until their final\nreport, or until their appointment expires by limitation.\n\n10. A committee is _discharged_ by a vote, when its business is done,\nand its report accepted. But usually, in routine business, a committee\nis considered discharged by the acceptance of its report.\n\n\n_Standing Committee_\n\nA committee appointed to act for a given period or during the recess of\nthe body is called a _standing committee._ It has charge of a given\ndepartment of business assigned by the body, and acts either with\npower, under instructions, or at discretion, as may be ordered. A\nstanding committee is substantially a minor board, and has its own\nchairman, secretary, records, and times of meeting.\n\n\n_Appeal_\n\nThe moderator announces all votes, and decides all questions as to\nrules of proceeding, and order of debate. But any member who is\ndissatisfied with his decisions may _appeal_ from them to the body. The\nmoderator then puts the question, _\"Shall the decision of the chair be\nsustained?\"_ The vote of the body, whether negative or affirmative, is\nfinal. The right of appeal is undeniable, but should not be resorted to\non trivial occasions.\n\n\n_Previous Question_\n\nDebate may be cut short by a vote to take the _previous question._ This\nmeans that the original, or main, question under discussion be\nimmediately voted on, regardless of amendments and secondary questions\nand without further debate. Usually a _two-thirds_ vote is necessary to\norder the previous question.\n\n1. If the motion for the previous question be _carried,_ then the main\nquestion must be immediately taken, without further debate.\n\n2. If the motion for the previous question be _lost,_ the debate\nproceeds, as though no such motion had been made.\n\n3. If the motion for the previous question be _lost,_ it cannot be\nrenewed with reference to the same question, during the same session.\n\n\n_To Lay on the Table_\n\nImmediate and decisive action on any question under discussion may be\ndeferred, by a vote to _lay on the table_ the resolution pending. This\ndisposes of the whole subject for the present, and ordinarily is in\neffect a final dismissal of it. But any member has the right\nsubsequently to call it up; and the body will decide by vote whether,\nor not, it shall be taken from the table.\n\n1. Sometimes, however, a resolution is laid on the table for the\npresent, or until a specified time, to give place to other business.\n\n2. A motion to lay on the table must apply to a resolution, or other\npapers. An abstract subject cannot be disposed of in this way.\n\n\n_Postponement_\n\nA simple _postponement_ is for a specified time or purpose, the\nbusiness to be resumed when the time or purpose is reached. But a\nquestion _indefinitely postponed_ is considered as finally dismissed.\n\n\n_Not Debatable_\n\nCertain motions, by established usage, are _not debatable,_ but when\nonce before the body, must be taken without discussion.\n\nThese are: The _previous question,_ for _indefinite postponement,_ to\n_commit,_ to _lay on the table,_ to _adjourn._\n\nBut when these motions are modified by some condition of _time, place,_\nor _purpose,_ they become debatable, and subject to the rules of other\nmotions; but debatable only in respect to the time, place, or purpose\nwhich brings them within the province of debate.\n\nA body is, however, competent, by a vote, to allow debate on all\nmotions.\n\n\n_To Reconsider_\n\nA motion to _reconsider_ a motion previously passed must be made by one\nwho voted _for_ the motion when it passed.\n\nIf the body votes to reconsider, then the motion or resolution being\nreconsidered, stands before them as previous to its passage, and may be\ndiscussed, adopted, or rejected.\n\nA vote to reconsider should be taken at the same session at which the\nvote reconsidered was passed, and when there are as many members\npresent.\n\n\n_Be Discussed_\n\nIf, when a question is introduced, any member objects to its\ndiscussion, as foreign, profitless, or contentious, the moderator\nshould at once put the question, _\"Shall this motion be discussed?\"_ If\nthis question be decided in the negative, the subject must be dismissed.\n\n\n_Order of the Day_\n\nThe body may decide to take up some definite business at a specified\ntime. That business therefore becomes the _order of the day,_ for that\nhour. When the time mentioned arrives, the chairman calls the business,\nor any member may demand it, with or without a vote: and all pending\nquestions are postponed in consequence.\n\n\n_Point of Order_\n\nAny member who believes that a speaker is out of order, or that\ndiscussion is proceeding improperly, may at any time _rise to a point\nof order._ He must distinctly state his question or objection, which\nthe moderator will decide.\n\n\n_Privileges_\n\nQuestions relating to the _rights_ and _privileges_ of members are of\nprimary importance, and, until disposed of, take precedence of all\nother business, and supersede all other motions, except that of\nadjournment.\n\n\n_Rule Suspended_\n\nA rule of order may be _suspended_ by a vote of the body, to allow the\ntransaction of business necessary, but which could not otherwise be\ndone without a violation of such rule.\n\n\n_Filling Blanks_\n\nWhere different members are suggested for filling blanks, the _highest\nnumber, greatest distance,_ and _longest time_ are usually voted on\nfirst.\n\n\n_Adjournment_\n\n1. A simple motion _to adjourn_ is always in order, except while a\nmember is speaking, or when taking a vote. It takes precedence of all\nother motions, and is not debatable.\n\n2, In some deliberative bodies, a motion to adjourn is in order while a\nspeaker has the floor, or a vote is being taken, the business to stand,\non reassembling, precisely as when adjournment took place.\n\n3. A body may adjourn to a specific time; but if no time be mentioned,\nthe fixed, or usual time of meeting, is understood. If there be no\nfixed, or usual time of meeting, then an adjournment without date is\nequivalent to a dissolution.\n\n\n\n+CHAPTER VIII+\n\nCHRISTIAN DOCTRINE\n\nAll evangelical churches profess to take the Holy Scriptures as their\nonly and sufficient guide in matters of religious faith and practice.\nBaptists, especially, claim to have no authoritative creed except the\nNew Testament. It is common, however, for the churches to have\nformulated statements of what are understood to be the leading\nChristian doctrines, printed and circulated among their members. These\nare not uniform among the churches, but are in substantial agreement as\nto the doctrines taught. Indeed, each church is at liberty to prepare\nits own confession, or have none at all; no one form being held as\nbinding and obligatory on the churches to adopt. Members, on being\nreceived to fellowship, are not required to subscribe or pledge\nconformity to any creed-form, but are expected to yield substantial\nagreement to that which the church with which they unite has adopted.\n\nThere are two Confessions which have gained more general acceptance\nthan any others, and are now being widely adopted by the churches over\nthe country. As to substance of doctrine, they do not essentially\ndiffer. That known as the New Hampshire Confession is commonly used by\nthe churches North, East, and West; while that known as the\nPhiladelphia Confession, is very generally in use in the South and\nSouthwest. The former is much more brief and for that reason preferred\nby many. The other is substantially the London Confession of Faith,\npublished by English Baptists in 1689. It is much more full in\nstatement than the other, and is higher in its tone as to the doctrines\nof grace.\n\nAmerican Baptists are decidedly Calvinistic as to substance of\ndoctrine, but moderately so, being midway between the extremes of\nArminianism and Antinomianism. Though diversities of opinion may\nincline to either extreme, the \"general atonement\" view is for the most\npart held, while the \"particular atonement\" theory is maintained by not\na few. The freedom of the human will is declared, while the sovereignty\nof Divine grace, and the absolute necessity of the Spirit's work in\nfaith and salvation are maintained. They practice \"strict communion,\"\nas do their mission churches in foreign lands. In Great Britain,\nBaptists are sharply divided between \"strict and free communion,\" and\nbetween the particular and the general atonement theories.\n\nThe New Hampshire Confession, with a few verbal changes, is here\ninserted. But some of the proof-texts usually accompanying these\narticles are, for want of space, omitted.[1]\n\n\nARTICLES OF FAITH\n\nI. THE SCRIPTURES\n\nWe believe that the Holy Bible was written by men Divinely inspired,\nand is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction;[1] that it has God\nfor its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of\nerror for its matter;[2] that it reveals the principles by which God\nwill judge us;[3] and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the\nworld, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by\nwhich all human conduct, creeds and opinions should be tried.\n\n[1] 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and\nis profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for\ninstruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect,\nthoroughly furnished unto all good works. Also, 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Sam.\n23:2; Acts 1:16.\n\n[2] Prov. 30:5, 6. Every word of God is pure. Add thou not unto His\nwords, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Also, John\n17:17; Rev. 22:18, 19; Rom. 3:4.\n\n[3] Rom. 2:12. As many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by\nthe law. John 12:47, 48. If any man hear My words--the word that I have\nspoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. Also, 1 Cor. 4:3, 4;\nLuke 10:10-16; 12:47, 48.\n\n\nII. THE TRUE GOD\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that there is one, and only one, living\nand true God, an infinite, intelligent Spirit, whose name is JEHOVAH,\nthe Maker and Supreme Ruler of Heaven and Earth:[1] inexpressibly\nglorious in holiness,[2] and worthy of all possible honor, confidence,\nand love;[3] that in the unity of the Godhead there are three Persons,\nthe Father, the Son, and the Holy  Ghost;[4] equal in every Divine\nperfection, and executing distinct but harmonious offices in the great\nwork of redemption.\n\n[1] John 4:24. God is a spirit. Ps. 147:5. His understanding is\ninfinite. Ps. 83:18. Thou whose name alone is JEHOVAH art the Most High\nover all the earth. Heb. 3:4; Rom. 1:20; Jer. 10:10.\n\n[2] Exod. 15:11. Who is like unto Thee--glorious in holiness? Isa. 6:3;\n1 Peter 1:15, 16; Rev. 4:6-8.\n\n[3] Mark 12:30. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,\nand with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy\nstrength. Rev. 4:11. Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and\nhonour, and power. Matt. 10:37; Jer. 2:12, 13.\n\n[4] Matt. 28:19. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them\nin the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. John\n15:26; 1 Cor. 12:4-6.\n\n\nIII. THE FALL OF MAN\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that man was created in holiness, under\nthe law of his Maker;[1] but by voluntary transgression fell from that\nholy and happy state;[2] in consequence of which all mankind are now\nsinners[3] not by constraint but choice; being by nature utterly void\nof that holiness required by the law of God, positively inclined to\nevil; and therefore under just condemnation,[4] without defense or\nexcuse.[5]\n\n[1] Gen. 1:27. God created man in His own image. Gen. 1:31. And God saw\neverything that He had made, and behold, it was very good. Eccl. 7:29;\nActs 17:26; Gen. 2:16.\n\n[2] Gen. 3:6-24. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for\nfood, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to\nmake one wise; she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and gave\nunto her husband with her, and he did eat. Rom. 5:12.\n\n[3] Rom. 5:19. By one man's disobedience many were made sinners. John\n3:6; Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:15-19; 8:7.\n\n[4] Eph. 2:3. Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past\nin the lusts of our flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of\nthe mind; and were by nature the children of wrath even as others.\n\n[5] Ezek. 18:19, 20. The soul that sinneth it shall die. Rom. 1:20. So\nthat they are without excuse. Rom. 3:19. That every mouth may be\nstopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Gal. 3:22.\n\n\nIV. THE WAY OF SALVATION\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that the salvation of sinners is wholly\nof grace;[1] through the mediatorial offices of the Son of God;[2] who\naccording to the will of the Father, became man, yet without sin;[3]\nhonored the Divine law by His personal obedience, and by His death made\na full atonement for our sins;[4] that having risen from the dead, He\nis now enthroned in heaven; and uniting in His wonderful person the\ntenderest sympathies with Divine perfections, He is every way qualified\nto be a suitable, a compassionate and all-sufficient Saviour.[5]\n\n[1] Eph. 2:5. By grace ye are saved. Matt. 18:11; 1 John 4:10; 1 Cor.\n3:5-7; Acts 15:11.\n\n[2] John 3:16. For God so loved the world that He gave His only\nbegotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but\nhave everlasting life.\n\n[3] Phil. 2:6-7. Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to\nbe equal with God; but made Himself of no reputation, and took on Him\nthe form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.\n\n[4] Isa. 53:4, 5. He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised\nfor our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and\nwith His stripes we are healed.\n\n[5] Heb. 7:25. Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost\nthat come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession\nfor them. Col. 2:9. For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead\nbodily.\n\n\nV. JUSTIFICATION\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that the great Gospel blessing which\nChrist[1] secures to such as believe in Him is justification;[2] that\njustification includes the pardon of sin,[3] and the gift of eternal\nlife on principles of righteousness; that it is bestowed, not in\nconsideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but\nsolely through faith in Christ; by means of which faith His perfect\nrighteousness is freely imputed to us by God;[4] that it brings us into\na state of most blessed peace and favor with God, and secures every\nother blessing needful for time and eternity.[5]\n\n[1] John 1:16. Of His fulness have all we received. Eph. 3:8.\n\n[2] Acts 13:39. By Him all that believe are justified from all things.\nIsa. 3:11, 12; Rom. 5:1.\n\n[3] Rom. 5:9. Being justified by His blood, we shall be saved from\nwrath through Him. Zech. 13:1; Matt. 9:6; Acts 10:43.\n\n[4] Rom. 5:19. By the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.\nRom. 3:24-26; 4:23-25; 1 John 2:12.\n\n[5] Rom. 5:1, 2. Being justified by faith, we have peace with God,\nthrough our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith\ninto this grace wherein we stand and rejoice in hope of the glory of\nGod.\n\n\nVI. THE FREENESS OF SALVATION\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that the blessings of salvation are\nmade free to all by the Gospel:[1] that it is the immediate duty of all\nto accept them by a cordial, penitent, and obedient faith;[2] and that\nnothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth but his\nown determined depravity and voluntary rejection of the Gospel;[3]\nwhich rejection involves him in an aggravated condemnation.[4]\n\n[1] Isa. 55:1. Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye in the waters.\nRev. 22:17. Whosoever will; let him take the water of life freely.\n\n[2] Acts 17:30. And the times of this ignorance God winked at, but now\ncommandeth all men everywhere to repent. Rom. 16:26; Mark 1:15; Rom.\n1:15-17.\n\n[3] John 5:40. Ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life. Matt.\n23:37; Rom. 9:32.\n\n[4] John 3:19. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into\nthe world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds\nwere evil. Matt. 11:20; Luke 19:27; 2 Thess. 1:8.\n\n\nVII. REGENERATION\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that in order to be saved, men must be\nregenerated, or born again;[1] that regeneration consists in giving a\nholy disposition to the mind;[2] that it is effected in a manner above\nour comprehension by the Holy Spirit, in connection with Divine\ntruth,[3] so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the Gospel;[4] and\nthat its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance,\nfaith, and newness of life.[5]\n\n[1] John 3:3. Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born\nagain, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:6, 7; 1 Cor. 1:14; Rev.\n3:7-9; Rev. 21:27.\n\n[2] 2 Cor. 5:17. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Ezek.\n36:26; Deut. 30:6; Rom. 2:28, 29.\n\n[3] John 3:8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the\nsound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it\ngoeth, so is every one that is born of the Spirit. John 1:13; James\n1:16-18; 1 Cor. 1:30; Phil. 2:13.\n\n[4] 1 Peter 1:22-25. Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth\nthrough the Spirit. 1 John 5:1; Eph. 4:20-24; Col. 3:6-11.\n\n[5] Eph. 5:9. The fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and\nrighteousness, and truth. Rom. 8:9; Gal. 5:18-23; Eph. 5:14-21; Matt.\n3:8-10, 7:20; 1 John 5:4, 18.\n\n\nVIII. REPENTANCE AND FAITH\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that repentance and faith are sacred\nduties, and also inseparable graces, wrought in the soul by the\nregenerating Spirit of God;[1] whereby being deeply convinced of our\nguilt, danger, and helplessness, and of the way of salvation by\nChrist,[2] we turn to God with unfeigned contrition, confession, and\nsupplication for mercy; at the same time heartily receiving the Lord\nJesus as our Prophet, Priest, and King, and relying on Him alone as the\nonly and all-sufficient Saviour.[3]\n\n[1] Mark 1:15. Repent ye, and believe the gospel. Acts 11:18. Then hath\nGod also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. Eph. 2:8. By\ngrace are ye saved, through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is\nthe gift of God. 1 John 3:1.\n\n[2] John 16:8. He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness,\nand of judgment. Acts 2:38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be\nbaptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission\nof sins. Acts 16:30, 31.\n\n[3] Romans 10:9-11. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord\nJesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the\ndead, thou shalt be saved. Acts 3:22, 23; Heb. 4:14.\n\n\nIX. GOD'S PURPOSE OF GRACE\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that election is the eternal purpose of\nGod, according to which He graciously regenerates, sanctifies, and\nsaves sinners;[1] that being perfectly consistent with the free agency\nof man, it comprehends all the means in connection with the end;[2]\nthat it is a most glorious display of God's sovereign goodness;[3] that\nit utterly excludes boasting, and promotes humility;[4] that it\nencourages the use of means; that it may be ascertained by its effects\nin all who truly accept of Christ;[5] that it is the foundation of\nChristian assurance; and that to ascertain it with regard to ourselves\ndemands and deserves the utmost diligence.[6]\n\n[1] 2 Tim. 1:8, 9. But be thou partaker of the afflictions of the\ngospel, according to the power of God: who hath saved us and called us\nwith an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his\nown purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the\nworld began.\n\n[2] 2 Thess. 2:13, 14. But we are bound to give thanks always to God\nfor you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the\nbeginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit\nand belief of the truth; whereunto He called you by our Gospel, to the\nobtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.\n\n[3] 1 Cor. 4:7. For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what\nhast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it,\nwhy dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it? 1 Cor. 1:26-31;\nRom. 3:27.\n\n[4] 2 Tim. 2:10. Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes,\nthat they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with\neternal glory. 1 Cor. 9:22; Rom. 8:28-30.\n\n[5] 1 Thess. 1:4. Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.\n\n[6] 2 Peter 1:10, 11. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to\nmake your calling and election sure. Phil. 3:12; Heb. 6:11.\n\n\nX. SANCTIFICATION\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that sanctification is the process by\nwhich, according to the will of God, we are made partakers of His\nholiness;[1] that it is a progressive work;[2] that it is begun in\nregeneration; that it is carried on in the hearts of believers by the\npresence and power of the Holy Spirit, the Sealer and Comforter, in the\ncontinual use of the appointed means--especially the Word of\nGod--self-examination, self-denial, watchfulness and prayer;[3] and in\nthe practice of all godly exercise and duties.[4]\n\n[1] 1 Thess. 4:3. For this is the will of God, even your\nsanctification. 1 Thess. 5:23. And the very God of peace sanctify you\nwholly. 2 Cor. 7:1; 13:9; Eph. 1:4.\n\n[2] Prov. 4:18. The path of the just is as the shining light, which\nshineth more and more, unto the perfect day.\n\n[3] Phil. 2:12, 13. Work out your own salvation with fear and\ntrembling, for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of\nhis good pleasure. Eph. 4:11, 12; 1 Peter 2:2; 2 Peter 3:18; 2 Cor.\n13:5; Luke 11:35; 9:23; Matt. 26:41; Eph. 6:18, 4:30.\n\n[4] 1 Tim. 4:7. Exercise thyself unto godliness.\n\n\nXI. PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that such as are truly regenerate,\nbeing born of the Spirit, will not utterly fall away and perish, but\nwill endure unto the end;[1] that their preservering attachment from\nChrist is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial\nprofessors;[2] that a special Providence watches over their welfare;[3]\nand that they are kept by the power of God through faith unto\nsalvation.[4]\n\n[1] John 8:31. Then said Jesus, If ye continue in My word, then are ye\nMy disciples indeed. 1 John 2:27, 28.\n\n[2] 1 John 2:19. They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if\nthey had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but\nthey went out that it might be made manifest that they were not all of\nus.\n\n[3] Rom. 8:28. And we know that all things work together for good unto\nthem that love God, to them who are the called according to His\npurpose. Matt. 6:30-33; Jer. 32:40.\n\n[4] Phil. 1:6. He who hath begun a good work in you will perform it\nuntil the day of Jesus Christ. Phil. 2:12, 13.\n\n\nXII. THE LAW AND GOSPEL\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that the law of God is the eternal and\nunchangeable rule of his moral government;[1] that it is holy, just,\nand good;[2] and that the inability which the Scriptures ascribe to\nfallen men to fulfill its precepts arises entirely from their sinful\nnature;[3] to deliver them from which, and to restore them through a\nMediator to unfeigned obedience to the holy law, is one great end of\nthe Gospel, and of the means of grace connected with the establishment\nof the visible church.[4]\n\n[1] Rom. 3:31. Do we make void the law through faith? God forbid. Yea,\nwe establish the law. Matt. 5:17; Luke 16:17; Rom. 3:20; 4:15.\n\n[2] Rom. 7:12. The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and\ngood. Rom. 7:7, 14, 22; Gal. 3:21; Ps. 119.\n\n[3] Rom. 8:7, 8. The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not\nsubject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are\nin the flesh cannot please God.\n\n[4] Rom. 8:2-4. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath\nmade me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not\ndo, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in\nthe likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh;\nthat the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk\nnot after the flesh, but after the Spirit.\n\n\nXIII. A GOSPEL CHURCH\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that a visible Church of Christ is a\ncompany of baptized believers,[1] associated by covenant in the faith\nand fellowship of the Gospel;[2] observing the ordinances of Christ;[3]\ngoverned by His laws;[4] and exercising the gifts, rights, and\nprivileges invested in them by His Word;[5] that its only Scriptural\nofficers are bishops or pastors, and deacons,[6] whose qualifications,\nclaims, and duties are defined in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.\n\n[1] Acts 2:41, 42. Then they that gladly received his word were\nbaptized; and the same day there were added to them about three\nthousand souls.\n\n[2] 2 Cor. 8:5. They first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto\nus by the will of God.\n\n[3] 1 Cor. 11:2. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all\nthings, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you.\n\n[4] Matt. 28:20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have\ncommanded you. John 13:15.\n\n[5] 1 Cor. 14:12. Seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.\n\n[6] Phil. 1:1. With the bishops and deacons. Acts 14:23, 15:22. 1 Tim.\n3, Titus 1.\n\n\nXIV. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that Christian baptism is the immersion\nin water of a believer in Christ,[1] into the name of the Father, and\nSon, and Holy Ghost;[2] to show forth in a solemn and beautiful emblem\nhis faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, with its effect,\nin His death to sin and resurrection to a new life;[3] that it is\nprerequisite to the privileges of a church relation, and to the Lord's\nSupper.[4]\n\n[1] Acts 8:36-39. And the eunuch said, See, here is water: what doth\nhinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all\nthy heart, thou mayest. . . . And they went down into the water, both\nPhilip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. Matt. 3:5, 6; John 3:22,\n23; 4:1, 2; Matt. 28:19.\n\n[2] Matt. 28:19. Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the\nSon, and of the Holy Ghost. Acts 10:47, 48; Gal. 3:27, 28.\n\n[3] Rom. 6:4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death;\nthat like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the\nFather, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Col. 2:12.\n\n[4] Acts 2:41, 42. Then they that gladly received his word were\nbaptized, and there were added to them, the same day, about three\nthousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles'\ndoctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.\nMatt. 28:19, 20.\n\n\nXV. THE LORD'S SUPPER\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that the Lord's Supper is a provision\nof bread and wine, representing Christ's body and blood, partaken of by\nthe members of the church assembled for that purpose,[1] in\ncommemoration of the death of their Lord,[2] showing their faith and\nparticipation in the merits of His sacrifice, their dependence on Him\nfor spiritual life and nourishment,[3] and their hope of life eternal\nthrough His resurrection from the dead; its observance to be preceded\nby faithful self-examination.[4]\n\n[1] Luke 22:19, 20. And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake, and\ngave unto them, saying, This is My body, which is given for you; this\ndo in remembrance of Me. Likewise the cup after supper, saying, This\ncup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you. Mark\n14:26-28; Matt. 26:27-30; 1 Cor. 11:22-30; 1 Cor. 10:16.\n\n[2] 1 Cor. 11:26. For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup,\nye do show the Lord's death until He come. Matt. 28:20.\n\n[3] John 6:35, 54, 56. Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life.\nWhoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life. He that\neateth My flesh and drinketh My blood dwelleth in Me, and I in him.\n\n[4] 1 Cor. 11:28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of\nthat bread, and drink of that cup. Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11.\n\n\nXVI. THE LORD'S DAY\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that the first day of the week is the\nLord's Day,[1] and is to be kept sacred to religious purposes[2] by\nabstaining from all secular labor, except works of mercy and\nnecessity;[3] by the devout observance of all the means of grace, both\nprivate and public;[4] and by preparation for that rest that remaineth\nfor the people of God.\n\n[1] Acts 20:7. On the first day of the week, when the disciples came\ntogether to break bread, Paul preached to them.\n\n[2] Exod. 20:8. Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Rev. 1:10. I\nwas in the Spirit on the Lord's Day. Ps. 113:2-4.\n\n[3] Isa. 58:13, 14. If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from\ndoing thy pleasure on My holy day: and call the Sabbath a delight, the\nholy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour Him, not doing thine own\nways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words;\nthen shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, and I will cause thee to\nride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage\nof Jacob. Isa. 56:2-8.\n\n[4] Heb. 10:24, 25. Not forsaking the assembling of yourselves\ntogether, as the manner of some is. Acts 13:44. The next Sabbath Day\ncame almost the whole city together to hear the Word of God.\n\n\nXVII. CIVIL GOVERNMENT\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that civil government is of Divine\nappointment, for the interest and good order of human society;[1] and\nthat magistrates are to be prayed for, conscientiously honored, and\nobeyed;[2] except only in things opposed to the will of our Lord Jesus\nChrist,[3] who is the only Lord of the conscience, and the Prince of\nthe kings of the earth.[4]\n\n[1] Rom. 13:1-7. The powers that be are ordained of God. For rulers are\nnot a terror to good works, but to the evil.\n\n[2] Matt. 22:21. Render therefore unto C\u00e6sar the things that are\nC\u00e6sar's, and unto God the things that are God's. Titus 3:1; 1 Peter\n2:13; 1 Tim. 2:1-8.\n\n[3] Acts 5:29. We ought to obey God rather than man. Matt. 10:28. Fear\nnot them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Dan.\n3:15-18; 6:7, 10; Acts 4:18-20.\n\n[4] Matt. 23:10. Ye have one Master, even Christ. Rev. 19:16. And he\nhath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS AND\nLORD OF LORDS. Ps. 72:11; Ps. 2; Rom. 14:8-13.\n\n\nXVIII. RIGHTEOUS AND WICKED\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that there is a radical and essential\ndifference between the righteous and the wicked;[1] that such only as\nare regenerate, being justified through faith in Jesus Christ and\nsanctified by the Spirit of God, are truly righteous in His esteem;[2]\nwhile all such as continue in impenitence and unbelief are, in His\nsight, wicked and under the curse;[3] and this distinction holds among\nmen, both in and after death.[4]\n\n[1] Mal. 3:18. Ye shall discern between the righteous and the wicked:\nbetween him that serveth God and him that serveth him not. Prov. 12:26;\nIsa. 5:26; Gen. 18:23; Jer. 15:19; Acts 10:34, 35; Rom. 6:16.\n\n[2] Rom. 1:17. The just shall live by faith. 1 John 2:29. If ye know\nthat He is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness\nis born of Him. 1 John 3:7; Rom. 6:18, 22; 1 Cor. 11:32; Prov. 11:31; 1\nPeter 4:17, 18.\n\n[3] 1 John 5:19. And we know that we are of God, and the whole world\nlieth in wickedness. Gal. 3:10. As many as are of the works of the law,\nare under the curse. John 3:36; Isa. 57:21; Ps. 10:4; Isa. 55:6, 7.\n\n[4] Prov. 14:32. The wicked is driven away in his wickedness, but the\nrighteous hath hope in his death. Luke 16:25. Thou in thy lifetime\nreceivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now\nhe is comforted, and thou art tormented. John 8:21-24; Prov. 10:24;\nLuke 12:4, 5; 11:23-26; John 12:25, 26; Eccl. 3:17.\n\n\nXIX. THE WORLD TO COME\n\nWe believe the Scriptures teach that the end of the world is\napproaching;[1] that at the last day Christ will descend from\nheaven,[2] and raise the dead from the grave for final retribution;[3]\nthat a solemn separation will then take place;[4] that the wicked will\nbe adjudged to endless sorrow, and the righteous to endless joy;[5] and\nthat this judgment will fix forever the final state of men in heaven or\nhell on principles of righteousness.[6]\n\n[1] 1 Peter 4:7. But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore\nsober, and watch unto prayer. 1 Cor. 7:29-31; Heb. 1:10-12; Matt. 24:35.\n\n[2] Acts 1:11. This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven,\nshall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.\n\n[3] Acts 24:15. There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the\njust and unjust. 1 Cor. 15:12-58; Luke 14:14; Dan. 12:2.\n\n[4] Matt. 13:49. The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from\namong the just. Matt. 13:37-43; 24:30, 31; 25:31-33.\n\n[5] Matt. 25:31-46. And these shall go away into everlasting\npunishment, but the righteous into life eternal. Rev. 22:11. He that is\nunjust, let him be unjust still; and he which is filthy, let him be\nfilthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and\nhe that is holy; let him be holy still. 1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Mark 9:43-48.\n\n[6] 2 Thess. 1:6-12. Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to\nrecompense tribulation to them who trouble you and to you who are\ntroubled, rest with us . . . when He shall come to be glorified in His\nsaints, and to be admired in all them that believe. Heb. 6:1, 2; 1 Cor.\n4:5; Acts 17:31; Rom. 2:2-16; Rev. 20:11, 12; 1 John 2:28; 4:17;\n2 Peter 3:11, 12. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved,\nwhat manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and\ngodliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God?\n\n\nCOVENANT\n\nHaving been, as we trust, brought by Divine grace to embrace the Lord\nJesus Christ, and to give ourselves wholly to Him, we do now solemnly\nand joyfully covenant with each other TO WALK TOGETHER IN HIM, WITH\nBROTHERLY LOVE, to His glory, as our common Lord. We do, therefore, in\nHis strength, engage--\n\nThat we will exercise a Christian care and watchfulness over each\nother, and faithfully warn, exhort, and admonish each other as occasion\nmay require:\n\nThat we will not forsake the assembling of ourselves together, but will\nuphold the public worship of God and the ordinances of His house:\n\nThat we will not omit closet and family religion at home, nor neglect\nthe great duty of religiously training our children, and those under\nour care, for the service of Christ and the enjoyment of heaven:\n\nThat, as we are the light of the world, and the salt of the earth, we\nwill seek Divine aid to enable us to deny ungodliness and every worldly\nlust, and to walk circumspectly in the world, that we may win the souls\nof men:\n\nThat we will cheerfully contribute of our property according as God has\nprospered us, for the maintenance of a faithful and evangelical\nministry among us, for the support of the poor, and to spread the\nGospel over the earth.\n\nThat we will in all conditions, even till death, strive to live to the\nglory of Him who hath called us out of darkness into His marvelous\nlight.\n\n\"And may the God of peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord\nJesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the\neverlasting covenant, make us perfect in every good work to do his\nwill, working in us that which is well pleasing in his sight through\nJesus Christ, to whom be glory, for ever and ever. Amen.\"\n\n+FOOTNOTES:+\n\n[1] For a fuller account of these Confessions, see the \"Baptist Church\n    Directory.\"\n\n\n\n+CHAPTER IX+\n\nOPTIONAL STANDING RESOLUTIONS\n\nA Christian church should be the uncompromising friend of all virtue,\nand the determined enemy of all vice. Public morality and social purity\nshould find in it an open and earnest advocate and defender. Churches\nshould bear in mind that Christian morality, which constitutes their\nrule of life, claims a much higher standard than the morality of\nworldly society about them. Therefore their deportment should be such\nas to have a good report of them that are without, and command the\nrespect of the world. In all this the pastor should be the wise but\ndecided and courageous teacher, leader and exemplar for his people.\n\nThere are certain questions of moral reform and social recreation with\nreference to which the churches are often much perplexed, but with\nreference to which they should have settled convictions, and hold a\nwell-defined attitude. It is not wise to put definitions and\nrestrictions touching intemperance, card-playing, theater-going,\ndancing, and the like, into covenants or articles of faith. A better\nway is for the church, after due consideration, to pass _standing\nresolutions_ on the subject, to be placed on its records as a guide to\nfuture action. Something like the following, to be varied at the option\nof the body, would serve as a declaration of principles:\n\n1. _Resolved,_ That this church expects every member to contribute\nstatedly for its pecuniary support, according to his ability, as God\nhas prospered him, and that a refusal to do this will be considered a\nbreach of covenant.\n\n2. _Resolved,_ That this church will entertain and contribute statedly\nto Home and Foreign Missions, and to other leading objects of Christian\nbenevolence, approved of and supported by our denomination.\n\n3. _Resolved,_ That the religious education of the young and Bible\nstudy as represented in Sunday school work commend themselves to our\nconfidence, and we will, to the extent of our ability, give them our\nsympathy and our aid, by both our personal cooperation and\ncontributions and expressed appreciation of all their legitimate aims\nand work.\n\n4. _Resolved,_ That in our opinion, the use of intoxicating drinks as a\nbeverage, and also the manufacture and sale of the same for such a\npurpose are contrary to Christian morals, injurious to personal piety,\nand a hindrance to Gospel truth, and that persons so using, making, or\nselling, are thereby disqualified for membership in this church.\n\n5. _Resolved,_ That we emphatically discountenance and condemn the\npractice of church-members frequenting theaters and other similar\nplaces of public amusements, as inconsistent with a Christian\nprofession, detrimental to personal piety, and pernicious in the\ninfluence of its example on others.\n\n6. _Revolved,_ That the members of this church are earnestly requested\nnot to provide for, take part in, or by any means encourage dancing or\ncard-playing; but in all consistent ways to discountenance the same as\na hindrance to personal godliness in their associations and tendencies,\nand an offense to brethren whom we should not willingly grieve.\n\n\n\n+CHAPTER X+\n\nBAPTISM CONSIDERED\n\nWhat is Christian baptism? This is the gravest question which enters\ninto the baptismal controversy. Other questions of moment there are in\nconnection with it, touching the design, the efficacy, and the\nsubjects. But it is of primary importance to know what constitutes\nbaptism.\n\nBaptists answer the question by saying that baptism is the immersion,\ndipping, or burying in water, of a professed believer in Christ, in the\nname of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.\n\nPedobaptists, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, answer the question\nby saying that baptism is either the sprinkling or pouring of water\nupon the candidate, touching the forehead with wet fingers, or dipping\nthe person wholly into water; in either case in the name of the Father,\nthe Son, and the Spirit; and that it may be administered to a candidate\non his profession of faith, or to an unconscious infant on the\nprofessed faith of parents or sponsors. This would make four kinds of\nbaptism, and two classes of subjects for its reception; and would\nconsist rather in the application of water to the person, than putting\nthe person into water.\n\nBaptists hold to a unity of the ordinance, as well as to a oneness of\nthe faith; insisting that as there is but one Lord, and one faith, so\nthere is but one baptism. And the dipping in water of a professed\ndisciple of Christ is that one baptism. Neither sprinkling a person\nwith water, nor pouring water upon him can by any possibility be\nChristian baptism. That this position is the true one, we appeal to the\nNew Testament, and the best extant historical and philological\nauthorities to establish.\n\nLet it be distinctly understood, however, that all the eminent names\nand learned authorities hereafter cited are Pedobaptists. Baptist\nauthorities are wholly omitted, not because they are less accurate or\nless valuable, but because we prefer to allow our opponents in this\ncontroversy to bear witness for us, rather than to testify in our own\nbehalf.\n\n\nTHE MEANING OF THE WORD\n\nThe word _baptize_ is, properly speaking, a Greek word (_baptizo_),\nadapted to the English language by a change in its termination. This is\nthe word always used by Christ and His Apostles to express and define\nthe ordinance. What does that word mean as originally used? For it is\ncertain that our Lord, in commanding a rite to be observed by believers\nof all classes, in all lands, and through all ages, would use a word of\npositive and definite import, and one whose meaning would admit of no\nreasonable doubt. What do Greek scholars say? How do the Greek lexicons\ndefine the word?\n\nSCAPULA says: \"To _dip,_ to immerse, as we do anything for the purpose\nof dyeing it.\"\n\nSCHLEUSNER says: \"Properly it signifies to _dip,_ to immerse, to\nimmerse in water.\"\n\nPARKHURST says: \"To dip, _immerse,_ or plunge in water.\"\n\nSTEVENS says: \"To merge, or _immerse,_ to submerge, or bury in water.\"\n\nDONNEGAN says: \"To _immerse_ repeatedly into liquid, to submerge, to\nsoak thoroughly.\"\n\nROBINSON says: \"To _immerse,_ to sink.\"\n\nLIDDELL AND SCOTT say: \"To _dip_ repeatedly.\"\n\nGRIMM'S LEXICON _of the New Testament,_ which in Europe and America\nstands confessedly at the head of Greek lexicography, as translated and\nedited by Professor Thayer, of Harvard University, thus defines\n_baptizo:_ \"(1) To dip repeatedly, to immerse, submerge. (2) To cleanse\nby dipping or submerging. (3) To overwhelm. In the New Testament it is\nused particularly of the rite of sacred ablution; first instituted by\nJohn the Baptist, afterward by Christ's command received by Christians\nand adjusted to the contents and nature of their religion, viz., an\n_immersion_ in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and\nadministered to those who, impelled by a desire for salvation, sought\nadmission to the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom. With _eis_ to mark\nthe element into which the immersion is made; _en_ with the dative or\nthe thing in which one is immersed.\"\n\nThe noun _baptisma,_ the only other word used in the New Testament to\ndenote the rite, GRIMM-THAYER thus define: \"A word peculiar to the New\nTestament and ecclesiastical writers: used (1) of John's baptism; (2)\nof Christian baptism. This, according to the view of the Apostles, is a\nrite of sacred _immersion_ commanded by Christ.\"\n\nAdd to those such authorities as Alstidius, Passow, Sch\u00f6ttgen,\nStockius, Stourdza, Sophocles, Anthon, Rosenm\u00fcller, Wetstein, Leigh,\nTurretin, Beza, Calvin, Witsius, Luther, Vossius, Campbell, and many\nothers who bear the same witness to the proper meaning of the word\n_baptize._ If at any time the word may have a secondary meaning, it is\nstrictly in accord with its primary meaning--to dip, or immerse. For\nboth classic and sacred Greek the same meaning holds.\n\nPROF. MOSES STUART, one of the ablest scholars America has produced,\ndeclared: \"_Baptizo_ means to dip, plunge, or _immerse_ into any\nliquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this.\"\n_Essay on Baptism, p. 51; Biblical Repository, 1833, p. 298._\n\n\"All lexicographers and critics, of any note, are agreed in this,\" says\none of the foremost scholars of the age, and he a Pedobaptist. What a\nconcession!\n\nThe Greek language is rich in terms for the expression of all positive\nideas, and all varying shades of thought. Why, then, did our Lord in\ncommanding, and His Apostles in transmitting His command to posterity,\nuse _always_ and _only_ the one word _baptizo,_ to describe the action,\nand that one word _baptisma,_ to describe the ordinance to which He\nintended all His followers to submit? The word _louo_ means to _wash_\nthe body, and _nipto_ to wash parts of the body; but these words are\nnot used, because washing is not what Christ meant. _Rantizo_ means to\n_sprinkle,_ and if sprinkling were baptism this would have been the\nword above all others; but it was never so used. _Cheo_ means to\n_pour:_ but pouring is not baptism, and so this word was never used to\ndescribe the ordinance. _Katharizo_ means to _purify,_ but it is not\nused for the ordinance. The facts are clear and the reasoning\nconclusive.\n\nSTOURDZA, the Russian scholar and diplomat, says: \"The church of the\nWest has then departed from the example of Jesus Christ; she has\nobliterated the whole sublimity of the exterior sign. Baptism and\nimmersion are _identical._ Baptism by _aspersion_ is as if one should\nsay _immersion_ by _aspersion,_ or any other absurdity of the same\nnature.\" _Considerations, Orthodox Ch., p. 87._\n\n\nTHE BAPTISM OF JESUS\n\nThe baptism of Jesus in the Jordan is thus described: \"And Jesus, when\nHe was baptized, went up straightway out of the water\" (Matt. 3:16).\nAnd again, it is recorded that Jesus \"was baptized of John in Jordan:\nand straightway coming up out of the water\" (Mark 1:10). He certainly\nwould not go down into Jordan to have water sprinkled on Him. Nobody\nbelieves He would. He was baptized _in_ Jordan, not _with_ Jordan.\nMoreover, he was _baptized,_ that is, _immersed,_ not _rantized,_ that\nis, _sprinkled._\n\nBISHOP TAYLOR says: \"The custom of the ancient churches was not\nsprinkling, but _immersion,_ in pursuance of the meaning of the word in\nthe commandments and the example of our blessed Saviour.\" _Commentary\non Matthew 3:16._\n\nMACKNIGHT says: \"Christ submitted to be baptized, that is, to be\n_buried_ under water, and to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of\nhis future death and resurrection.\" _Com. Epis., Rom. 6:4._\n\nAnd with these agree Campbell, Lightfoot, Whitby, Poole, Olshausen,\nMeyer, Alford, and many other commentators and scholars. All those whom\nJohn baptized he buried beneath the waters, and raised them up again.\n\n\nMUCH WATER NEEDED\n\nIt is recorded that \"John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim,\nbecause there was much water there\" (John 3:23). Why need much water\nexcept for dipping, or burying candidates in the act of baptism?\n\nJOHN CALVIN, the great theologian, scholar, and commentator, whom\nScaliger pronounced the most learned man in Europe, says: \"From the\nwords of John (chap. 3:23) it may be inferred that baptism was\nadministered by John and Christ, by _plunging_ the whole body under\nwater.\" _Com. on John 3:23._\n\nPOOLE says: \"It is apparent that both Christ and John baptized by\ndipping the whole body in the water, else they need not have sought\nplaces where had been a great plenty of water.\" _Annot. John 3:23._\n\nWHITBY says: \"Because there was much water there in which their whole\nbodies might be dipped.\" _Crit. Com. John 3:23._\n\nWith these agree Bengel, Curc\u00e6lleus, Adam Clarke, Geikie, Stanley, and\nothers.\n\n\nPHILIP AND THE EUNUCH\n\n\"And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch,\nand he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the\nSpirit of the Lord caught away Philip\" (Acts 8:38). Why go down into\nthe water, both, or either of them, if not for an immersion?\n\nVENEMA, the ecclesiastical historian, says: \"It is without controversy,\nthat baptism in the primitive church was administered by _immersion_\ninto water, and not by sprinkling; seeing that John is said to have\nbaptized in Jordan, and where there was much water, as Christ also did\nby His disciples in the neighborhood of those places. Philip also going\ndown into the water baptized the eunuch.\" _Eccl. Hist., chap. I., sec.\n138._\n\nTo this may be added Calvin, Grotius, Towerson, Poole, and others to\nthe same effect.\n\n\nTHE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS\n\nGreat men are not always wise. Our search should be for the _truth_\nwherever found; and though our final appeal in these matters is to the\nNew Testament, still we are glad to use the testimony of distinguished\nscholars where it affirms the teachings of the Scriptures and confirms\nour position on the baptismal question. Especially so, as these\nscholars are not of our own, but of other denominations.\n\nZANCHIUS, the learned Roman Catholic professor of Heidelberg, whose\nopinion De Courcy declared, \"is worth a thousand others,\" said: \"The\nproper signification of _baptize_ is to _immerse,_ plunge under,\noverwhelm in water.\" _Works, Vol. VI., p. 217. Geneva, 1619._\n\nLUTHER, the great German Reformer, says: \"The term _baptism_ is Greek;\nin Latin it may be translated _mersio:_ since we _immerse_ anything\ninto water, that the whole may be covered with the water.\" _Works, Vol.\nI., p. 71. Wit. ed., 1582._\n\nMELANCHTHON, the most scholarly and able co-laborer with Luther, says:\n\"Baptism is _immersion_ into water, with this admirable benediction.\"\n_Melanc. Catec. Wit., 1580._\n\nCAVE, in his able work on Christian Antiquities, says: \"The party to be\nbaptized was _wholly immersed,_ or put under water.\" _Prim. Christ., P.\nI. Chap. X. p. 320._\n\nBEZA, the learned translator of the New Testament, says: \"Christ\ncommanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain _immersion_ is\nsignified.\" _Annot. on Mark 7:4._\n\nMEDE, the distinguished English scholar and Divine, says, \"There was no\nsuch thing as _sprinkling_ used in the Apostles' days, nor for many\nages after them.\" _Dis. on Titus 3:5._\n\nGROTIUS, who his biographer calls one of the most illustrious names in\nliterature, politics, and theology says: \"That baptism used to be\nperformed by _immersion,_ and not by pouring, appears by the proper\nsignification of the word, and by the places chosen for the\nadministration of the rite.\" _Annot. on Matt. 3:6; John 3:23._\n\nADAM CLARK, the great Methodist commentator, says: \"Alluding to the\n_immersions_ practiced in the case of adults, wherein the person\nappeared to be _buried_ under the water as Christ was buried in the\nheart of the earth.\" _Com. on Col. 2:12._\n\nFREDERICK MEYER, one of the ablest and most accurate exegetes of the\npresent age, says: \"_Immersion,_ which the word in classic Greek and in\nthe New Testament ever means.\" _Com. on Mark 7:4._\n\nDEAN ALFORD says: \"The baptism was administered by _immersion_ of the\nwhole person.\" _Greek Testament, Matt. 3:6._\n\nBISHOP BOSSUET, the celebrated French Catholic bishop, orator, and\ncounselor of state, says: \"To baptize, signifies to _plunge,_ as is\ngranted by all the world.\" See _Stenett ad Russen, p. 174._\n\nDOCTOR SCHAFF, the well-known church historian, says: \"_Immersion,_ and\nnot sprinkling, was unquestionably the original form. This is shown by\nthe very meaning of the words _baptizo, baptisma,_ and _baptismos_ used\nto designate the rite.\" _Hist. Apos. Ch., p. 488. Merc. ed., 1851. Also\nsee Noel on Bap., Ch. 3, sec. 8._\n\nDEAN STANLEY, the distinguished scholar, and historian of the Oriental\nChurch, says: \"The practice of the Eastern Church, and the meaning of\nthe word, leave no sufficient ground for question that the original\nform of baptism was _complete immersion_ in the deep baptismal waters.\"\n_Hist. Eastern Church, p. 34._\n\nPROFESSOR FISHER, of Yale College, the accomplished scholar and\nhistorian, says of the Apostolic age: \"The ordinary mode of baptism was\nby _immersion._\" _Hist. Christ. Church, p. 41._\n\nPROFESSOR RIDDLE says: \"There is no doubt that the usual mode of\nadministering baptism in the early church, was by _immersion,_ or\nplunging the whole body of the person baptized under water.\" _Christ.\nAntiq., p. 502._\n\nAdd to the above the testimony of Bishops Taylor and Sherlock, Witsius,\nPoole, Vitringa, Diodati, Calvin, Samuel Clark, Bloomfield, Scholz,\nNeander, and many others to the same effect, none of whom were Baptists.\n\n\nAPOSTOLICAL ALLUSIONS\n\nWhat idea could the Apostle have had as to the nature of baptism, when\nin two of his epistles he alludes to it as a _burial_ except that it\nwas a dipping or burial in water? To the Romans he says: \"Therefore we\nare _buried_ with him, by baptism, into death\" (Rom. 6:4). To the\nColossians, in nearly the same language, \"_Buried_ with him in baptism\"\n(Col. 2:12). No one can misunderstand the meaning of these words.\nNeither sprinkling, pouring, washing, cleansing--nothing but a complete\nsubmersion--can represent a burial. And no candid mind could\nmisunderstand such language, unless blinded or biased by prejudice,\neducation, or sophistical reasoning from others.\n\nARCHBISHOP TILLOTSON makes this comment: \"Anciently those who were\nbaptized were _immersed_ and _buried_ in the water, to represent their\ndeath to sin; and then did rise up out of the water, to signify their\nentrance upon a new life. And to this custom the Apostle alludes.\"\n_Works, Vol. I., p. 170._\n\nJOHN WESLEY, the celebrated founder of Methodism, says: \"Buried with\nhim, alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by _immersion._\" _Note\non Rom. 6:4._\n\nCONYBEARE says: \"This passage cannot be understood unless it be borne\nin mind that the primitive baptism was by _immersion._\" _Life and\nEpist. St. Paul, Rom. 6:4._\n\nBLOOMFIELD says: \"Here is a plain allusion to the ancient custom of\nbaptizing by _immersion,_ and I agree with Koppe and Rosenm\u00fcller, that\nthere is reason to regret it should ever have been abandoned in most\nChristian churches; especially as it has so evident a reference to the\nmystical sense of baptism.\" _Recens. Synop., Rom. 6:4._\n\nWHITEFIELD says: \"It is certain that in the words of our text (Rom.\n6:4) there is an allusion to the manner of baptizing which was by\n_immersion._\" _Eighteen Sermons, p. 297._\n\nMEYER says: \"The candidate says to himself, Now I enter into fellowship\nwith the death of Christ; I am to be buried with Christ in the\n_immersion,_ and in the _emersion_ I rise with Christ to newness of\nlife.\" _Com. on Rom. 6:4._\n\nAdd to these the names of Bishop Fell, Doctor Doddridge, Adam Clark,\nEstius, Maldonatus, Fritsche, Benson, Diodati, Turretin, Zwingli,\nWhitby, Samuel Clarke, with others equally good in authority, and what\nno one ought to question seems to be put beyond doubt.\n\n\nTHE WITNESS OF HISTORY\n\nLearned and devout men have studied with care the early records of\nChristianity, and have written histories of the doctrines and customs\nof the churches, during the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles.\nWhat do they tell us as to the use of baptism during the first\ncenturies after Christ?\n\nBARNABAS, the companion of St. Paul; Hermas, writing about A. D. 95;\nJustin Martyr, about A. D. 140; Tertullian, about A. D. 204;\nHippolytus, about A. D. 225; Gregory, about A. D. 360; Basil, about\nA. D. 360; Ambrose, about A. D. 374; Cyril, about A. D. 374;\nChrysostom, about A. D. 400; all speak of being _dipped,_ or _buried,_\nor _immersed,_ or _plunged_ in the water in baptism; and none of them\nmake the least allusion to any application of water to the person for\nbaptism by sprinkling, pouring, washing, or any other mode whatsoever.\n\nDOCTOR WALL, whose learned and laborious researches in connection with\nhis exhaustive work on the _History of Infant Baptism_ left little for\nothers to discover in this field of scholarship, says: \"The Greek\nChurch in all its branches does still use _immersion,_ and so do all\nother Christians in the world, except the Latins. All those nations\nthat do now, or formerly did submit to the Bishop of Rome, do\nordinarily baptize their children by pouring or sprinkling. But _all\nother Christians in the world,_ who never owned the Pope's usurped\npower, do and ever did _dip_ their infants in the ordinary use. All the\nChristians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one-third in Europe are of\nthe last sort.\" _Hist. Inf. Bap., Vol. II., p. 376, 3d ed._\n\nBINGHAM, in his _Origines,_ the ablest work we have in English on\nChristian Antiquities, says: \"The ancients thought that immersion, or\n_burying under water,_ did more lively represent the death, burial, and\nresurrection of Christ, as well as our own death to sin and rising\nagain unto righteousness.\" _Christ. Antiq., B. XI., Ch. XI._\n\nMOSHEIM says: \"In this century (_the first_) baptism was administered\nin convenient places, without the public assemblies, and by _immersing_\nthe candidate wholly in water.\" _Eccl. Hist., Cent. I., Part. II., Ch.\n4._\n\nNEANDER says: \"In respect to the form of baptism, it was in conformity\nto the original institution, and the original import of the symbol,\nperformed by _immersion,_ as a sign of entire baptism into the Holy\nSpirit, of being entirely penetrated with the same.\" _Ch. Hist., Vol.\nI., p. 310._ Also, _Plant. and Train., Vol. I., p. 222._\n\nSCHAFF says: \"Finally, so far as it respects the mode and manner of\noutward baptizing, there can be no doubt that _immersion,_ and not\nsprinkling was the original normal form.\" _Hist. Christ. Ch., p. 488._\n\nPRESSENS\u00c9 says: \"Baptism, which was the sign of admission into the\nchurch, was administered by _immersion._ The convert was plunged\nbeneath the water, and as he rose from it he received the laying on of\nhands.\" _Early Years of Christianity, p. 374._\n\nKURTZ says: \"Baptism took place by a complete _immersion._\" _Church\nHistory, p. 41._\n\nKRAUS says: \"Baptism was performed by _immersion_ in the name of the\nTrinity.\" _Church History, p. 56. 1882._\n\nELLICOTT says: \"Jewish ablutions arrived at a ceremonial purity in the\nLevitical sense, and had nothing in common with the figurative act\nwhich portrayed through _immersion_ the complete disappearance of the\nold nature, and by the _emerging_ again, the beginning of a totally new\nlife.\" _Life of Christ, p. 110._\n\n\nFOR THIRTEEN CENTURIES\n\nIt is proved that not only was immersion practiced for baptism by\nChrist and His Apostles, but that for many ages after nothing else was\nknown as baptism: and that for _thirteen hundred years_ it was the\ncommon and prevailing form over the whole Christian world, with only\nexceptional departures, hereafter to be noticed. And that though the\nLatin or Roman Church did finally adopt sprinkling, claiming the right\nto change ordinances, the Greek and all the Oriental churches retained\ndipping, as they do to this day.\n\nDOCTOR STACKHOUSE says: \"Several authors have shown and proved that\nthis manner of _immersion_ continued, as much as possible, to be used\nfor _thirteen hundred years_ after Christ.\" _Hist. Bible, B. 8, Ch. 1._\n\nBISHOP BOSSUET says: \"We are able to make it appear, by the acts of\ncouncils and by ancient rituals, that for _thirteen hundred years_\nbaptism was thus administered [by immersion] throughout the whole\nchurch, as far as possible.\" _Cited, Stennet ad Russen, p. 176._\n\nHAGENBACH says: \"From the _thirteenth century_ sprinkling came into\nmore general use in the West. The Greek Church, however, and the church\nof Milan still retained the practice of _immersion._\" _Hist. Doct. Vol.\nII., p. 84, note 1._\n\nVAN OOSTERZEE says: \"This _sprinkling,_ which appears to have first\ncome generally into use in the _thirteenth century_ in place of the\nentire _immersion_ of the body, in imitation of the previous baptism of\nthe sick, has certainly the imperfection that the symbolical character\nof the act is expressed by it much less conspicuously than by complete\nimmersion and burial under the water.\" _Christ. Dogmat., Vol. II., p.\n749._\n\nCOLEMAN says: \"The practice of immersion continued even until the\n_thirteenth or fourteenth_ century. Indeed, it has never been formally\nabandoned.\" _Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 19, Sec. 12._\n\nTo the same effect is the testimony of Doctors Brenner, Von C\u00f6lln,\nWiner, Augusti, Bingham, and others.\n\n\nAS TO THE GREEK CHURCH\n\nIt is a notable fact and worthy of record in this discussion, that the\nGreek Church has always retained immersion in baptism. This church\nextends over Greece, Russia, Arabia, Palestine, Abyssinia, Siberia, and\nother Oriental countries. Like the Latin Church, it has corrupted the\nprimitive purity of Gospel doctrine and practice with many absurd\nglosses and superstitious rites. It practices infant baptism, yet it is\nby _dipping,_ even in the severe climate of Siberia; and it uses\n_trine_ immersion, or dipping the candidate three times, one to each of\nthe names in the sacred Trinity. But in all its branches immersion is\nretained.\n\nTHE EDINBURGH ENCYCLOPEDIA says: \"The Greek Church, as well as the\nSchismatics in the East, retained the custom of _immersing_ the whole\nbody; but the Western Church adopted, in the _thirteenth century,_ the\nmode of sprinkling, which has been continued by the Protestants,\nBaptists only excepted.\" _Ency. Edin., Art. Baptism._\n\nThese statements are fully confirmed by Stourdza, Ricaut, Deylingius,\nBuddeus, Wall, King, Broughton, Stanley, Coleman and others, who have\nwritten on the state and history of the Greek Church.\n\n\nTHE DESIGN OF BAPTISM\n\nWhat was baptism intended to represent? As a religious rite it meant\nsomething, had some symbolic force, and represented some moral or\nspiritual fact or truth. Its meaning was clearly this: to show forth\nthe death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, who died for our sins,\nand rose again for our justification. And every believer who receives\nthis ordinance, professes thereby to have faith in the merits of\nChrist's death as the ground of his own hope of Salvation; to have\nfellowship also with His sufferings, and makes a declaration of his own\ndeath to sin, and rising to a new life in Christ. It also typifies the\nwashing of regeneration; it further declares the candidate's hope of a\nresurrection from the dead, even as Christ, into the likeness of whose\ndeath he is buried, was raised up by the glory of the Father. Chiefly\n_death, burial,_ and _resurrection:_ the great facts of redemptive\ngrace are by it set forth. Immersion in baptism does teach all this,\nand immersion alone can teach it. Careful students of the New Testament\nhave clearly seen this, and very generally confessed it, whatever may\nhave been their practice.\n\nBISHOP NEWTON says: \"Baptism was usually performed by _immersion,_ or\ndipping the whole body under water, to represent the death, burial, and\nresurrection of Christ, and thereby signify the person's own dying to\nsin, the destruction of its power, and his resurrection to a new life.\"\n_Pract. Expos. Cate., p. 297._\n\nBloomfield, Barnes, Schaff, Poole, Hammond, Barrows, Baxter, MacKnight,\nOlshausen, Grotius, Saurin, Buddeus, Pictetus, Frankius, Wall,\nTowerson, Adam Clark, Tyndale, and others, bear similar testimony as to\nthe design of the ordinance, and how it is answered in immersion only.\n\n\nA SUFFICIENCY OF WATER\n\nThere have been found persons so ignorant, or so weak, or so perverse\nin their opposition to immersion, as to assert that the Jordan was a\nsmall stream, so nearly dry in the summer, that it had not sufficient\ndepth of water for the immersion of the multitudes of the disciples of\nJohn and of Jesus said to have been baptized in it; and also that\nJerusalem had no sufficient accommodation for the immersion of the\nthousands of converts at the Pentecost, and on subsequent occasions.\nPeople are becoming more intelligent, and more candid, and it is\npossible that such puerile objections are no more heard. But it may be\nwell to give passing notice to the facts.\n\nDR. EDWARD ROBINSON, at that time professor in the Union Theological\nSeminary, New York City, in 1840, made a careful survey of Palestine,\nincluding the Jordan valley and river. His published statements\ncorroborate those of others previously made, as to the abundant supply\nof water, both in the Jordan, and in the city of Jerusalem. He cites\nthe published statements of earlier explorers, whose works are known to\nthe reading public: Seetzen, who visited that country in 1806;\nBurkhardt, who explored it in 1812; Irby and Mangles, in 1818; and\nBuckingham, who traveled through it about the same time. See\n_Robinson's Bib. Researches, Vol. II., Sec. 10, pp. 257-267._\n\nLIEUTENANT LYNCH, of the United States Navy, was, in 1848, sent out by\nour government in charge of an expedition to explore the river Jordan\nand the Dead Sea. Doctor Thomson, for a quarter of a century missionary\nin Syria and Palestine, traversed the land in 1857, and Dean Stanley in\n1853, and others more recently. For a complete refutation of such\npuerile objections as those above mentioned, and a confirmation of\nBaptist claims, see the following works: Robinson's \"Biblical\nResearches,\" Vol. II, Sec. 10, pp. 257-267; Lynch's \"Dead Sea\nExpedition,\" Ch. 10 and 11; Thomson's \"The Land and the Book,\" Vol.\nII., pp. 445-6; Stanley's \"Syria and Palestine,\" Ch. 7, pp. 306-7;\nBarclay's \"The City of the Great Kings,\" ch. 10; and other citations in\n\"Baptist Church Directory.\"\n\n\nTHE RISE OF SPRINKLING\n\nThe question will naturally arise and very properly, When did\nsprinkling for baptism first come into use? And how came it to pass,\nthat a human device superseded and took the place of a Divine\ninstitution? These questions are fully and satisfactorily answered by\nPedobaptist scholars themselves, whose testimony we accept as a\njustification of Baptist views.\n\nFor _two hundred and fifty years_ after Christ we have no evidence of\nany departure from the primitive practice of immersion. At length the\nidea came to prevail that baptism possessed saving virtue, and had\npower to purify and sanctify the soul, making its salvation more\nsecure. It was consequently thought unsafe to die unbaptized. Here was\nthe germ of the pernicious dogma of \"baptismal regeneration,\" the\nfoundation alike of infant baptism and of sprinkling instead of\nimmersion.\n\nThe first authenticated instance of _sprinkling_ occurred about the\nmiddle of the third century, or A. D. 250. This was the case of\nNovatian. The historian Eusebius gives this case, and Doctor Wall in\nhis laborious researches could find no earlier instance; good evidence\nthat no earlier existed. Novatian was dangerously sick, and believing\nhimself about to die, was anxious to be baptized. The case seemed\nurgent, and as he was thought to be too feeble to be _immersed,_ a\nsubstitute was resorted to; water was poured profusely over him as he\nlay in bed, so as to resemble as much as possible a submersion. The\nword used to describe this action (_perichutheis, purfusus_) has\nusually been rendered _besprinkle;_ it rather means to pour profusely\nover and about one. This it was thought might answer the purpose in\nsuch an emergency.\n\nFrom this time onward pouring and sprinkling were resorted to at times\nof extreme illness, or feebleness, where persons could not leave their\nbeds, and hence was termed _clinic_ baptism, from _clina,_ a couch. But\nit was always regarded as a substitute for baptism, rather than baptism\nitself; and its validity was doubted. Novatian himself having recovered\nfrom his sickness, was objected to when his friends proposed to make\nhim bishop, because, it was said, he had never been properly baptized.\nIt was not, however, until the seventeenth century that sprinkling\nbecame common in Europe, in France first, and then extending through\nthose countries over which the pope held sway. At length, accepted by\nCalvin and the Genevan Church, it extended into Scotland, by John Knox,\nand other Scotch refugees, who had found in Geneva a shelter from the\npersecution to which they had been exposed in their native country;\nthen into England: and in 1643 it was adopted as the exclusive mode of\nbaptism by a majority of one of the Westminster Assembly of Divines,\nand sanctioned by Parliament the next year. All of which is verified by\nEusebius, Valesius, Wall, Salmasius, Venema, Taylor, Towerson, Grotius,\n\"Ency. Brit.,\" \"Edin. Ency.,\" and other reliable historical\nauthorities.[1]\n\n+FOOTNOTES:+\n\n[1] For more numerous citations on this subject, see the \"Star Book\n    on Christian Baptism,\" and \"The Baptist Church Directory.\"\n\n\n\n\n+CHAPTER XI+\n\nTHE LORD'S SUPPER\n\nThe Lord's Supper, called also the \"Eucharist,\" and the \"Communion,\" is\nthe most sacred act of Christian worship, and the highest expression of\nthe mysteries of our holy religion. It is a service in which bread and\nwine--the _loaf_ and the _cup_--are used to represent the body and the\nblood of Christ, the Lamb of God, slain for us. The bread is _broken,_\ndistributed, and eaten; the wine is _poured,_ distributed, and drunk by\nthe members of the assembled church, to show the sacrifice of Christ,\nHis body broken, and His blood shed for their redemption; and that by\nHis death they have life. Being begotten of God through the operation\nof the Spirit, their new life is sustained and nourished by mystically\nfeeding on Him who is the Bread of God, which came down from heaven to\ngive life to the world. He said: \"This do in remembrance of Me.\" \"As\noft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's\ndeath, till He come.\" \"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and\ndrink His blood, ye have no life in you.\" \"Whoso eateth My flesh and\ndrinketh My blood hath eternal life.\" \"He that eateth My flesh, and\ndrinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him.\" It is a Divine\nreality, though a sublime mystery.\n\n\nOPEN AND CLOSE COMMUNION\n\nThe controversy between Baptists and other denominations, so far as the\nLord's Supper is concerned, has no reference to its nature, the purpose\nfor which it was instituted, the manner of its administration, or the\neffect of the elements on the participants. It has reference simply to\nthe proper _subjects_ for participation in the privilege. Who may, and\nwho may not properly and of right come to the Lord's Table? On the\nquestion of what are the Scriptural qualifications of participants,\nBaptist and Pedobaptists differ--differ not as to the general rule to\nbe applied, but as to its particular application. And this particular\napplication leads to the controversy on what is called _\"close\ncommunion,\"_ as practiced by Baptists, and to what is called _\"open\ncommunion,\"_ as practiced by Pedobaptists.\n\n_What is open communion? Open,_ free or mixed communion is, strictly\nspeaking, that which allows any one who desires, and believes himself\nqualified, to come to the Lord's Table, without any questions being\nasked, or conditions imposed by the church in which the ordinance is\nobserved. But ordinarily the term is applied to the practice of the\ngreater part of the Pedobaptist churches, which hold that _sprinkling_\nis lawful baptism, and invite, not all persons, but members of all\nevangelical churches, whatever be their view of church order and\nordinances; holding them all as being baptized because they have been\nsprinkled.\n\n_What is close communion? Close,_ strict, or restricted communion is,\nproperly speaking, that which does not invite all indiscriminately to\nthe Lord's Table, but restricts the privilege to a particular class.\nBut ordinarily the term is applied to the practice of Baptist churches,\nwhich invite only baptized believers, walking in orderly fellowship in\ntheir own churches. And by baptized believers, they mean, of course,\nimmersed believers; not admitting sprinkling to be baptism at all.\n\n\nONE AND THE SAME RULE\n\n_Observe further:_ That Baptists and Pedobaptists have one and the same\nrule in theory as to the proper qualification for participants, namely,\nthey all hold that baptism is a prerequisite. That unbaptized persons\nhave no legal right to the Lord's Supper, and cannot consistently be\ninvited  to it. Pedobaptists would not invite unbaptized persons to the\nLord's Table, however good Christians, since such could not become\nchurch-members, and the Supper is for those within the church, not for\nthe outside world. For though there are a few churches and a few\npastors, who in their extreme liberality might be disposed to invite\neverybody to the sacred ordinance yet such a course would be contrary\nto their denominational standards, and opposed to the usages of their\nchurches generally.\n\n_Further observe:_ They all practice a restriction since they restrict\nthe privilege to a particular class: namely, baptized believers,\nwalking in orderly church fellowship. But Baptists and Pedobaptists\ndiffer as to what constitutes _baptism,_ the one rejecting, and the\nother accepting the validity of sprinkling. Thus Baptists' custom is\nmore _\"close,\"_ and Pedobaptists' is more _\"open,\"_ by the difference\nbetween their views of baptism; and by that difference only.\n_Therefore,_ it is manifest that the question so called of \"close\" and\n\"open\" communion is really not a question of \"communion\" at all, but of\nwhat constitutes Scriptural baptism. Let that be settled, and the\ncontroversy as to the restriction of the Lord's Supper will cease.\n\n\nTHE BAPTIST POSITION\n\nBaptists hold that there are _three_ imperative conditions precedent to\nthe privileges of the Lord's Supper: 1. _Regeneration._ No unconverted\nperson can with propriety, or of right, eat and drink at that sacred\nfeast, in commemoration of Christ's death. They must be persons dead to\nsin, and alive to God; born again, through the operation of the Spirit.\n2. _Baptism._ Buried with Christ in baptism on a profession of faith in\nHim. No person, however good, and however manifestly regenerate, is\nprepared without baptism, according to the Divine order, to receive the\nSupper. Without baptism he cannot enter the fellowship of the church,\nwhere the Supper alone is to be enjoyed. 3. _An orderly walk is\nnecessary._ An upright and consistent Christian walk, and godly\nconversation among the saints, and before the world. For though one may\nbe truly regenerate, and properly baptized, yet if he be a disorderly\nwalker, violating his covenant obligations, living in sin, and bringing\nreproach on the Christian profession, he has no right to sit at the\nLord's Table.\n\nThe ordinances are a sacred trust which Christ has committed to the\nchurches as custodians, and which they are to watch and guard from all\nprofane intrusion, and improper use, with the most sedulous fidelity.\nBaptists believe that in order to maintain the purity and spirituality\nof the churches, it is necessary to maintain the ordinances pure; and\nespecially necessary to restrict the Supper to regenerate and godly\npersons, baptized on a profession of their faith, into the fellowship\nof the saints. To adopt any other rule, or to allow any larger liberty,\nwould break down the distinction between the church and the world;\nwould bring in a carnal and unconverted membership, and transfer the\nsacred mysteries of the body and the blood of Christ from the temple of\nGod to the temple of Belial. This would be disloyalty to Christ.\n\nThe Apostolic plan was as follows: Those who _believed_ and _gladly\nreceived the Word,_ were _baptized._ Then they were _added to the\nchurch._ Then they continued steadfastly in the _Apostles' doctrine,_\nand fellowship, and in _breaking of bread,_ and in _prayer._\n\n_Notice,_ they were not baptized till they had received the Word and\nbelieved. They were not added to the church till they had believed and\nbeen baptized. They did not engage in the breaking of bread (that is,\nthe Supper,) till they had believed, been baptized, and were added to\nthe church. This is the Divine order; and this is the order which\nBaptists maintain and defend.\n\n\nPEDOBAPTIST CLOSE COMMUNION\n\nIt has already been shown that Pedobaptists themselves practice a\nrestricted or close communion, limiting the privilege to baptized (as\nthey call them) members of evangelical churches, and that their\ncommunion is more liberal than that of the Baptists only, and only by\nso much as their baptism (so-called) is more liberal than that of\nBaptists.\n\nBut in some respects Pedobaptists practice a \"close communion,\"\nrestrictive in its conditions, far beyond anything known to Baptists\nwhose illiberality they are accustomed to magnify. They exclude a large\nclass of their own members from the Lord's Table--namely, _baptized\nchildren!_ Baptists do not deny the Lord's Supper to their own members\nin good standing. If children are suitable subjects for baptism, it\nseems most unreasonable and unjust to deny them the Supper. If they can\nbe benefited by one ordinance, can they not be equally benefited by the\nother? If they can receive the one on the faith of sponsors, can they\nnot receive the other in the same way? Who has authorized parents or\nministers to give baptism to unconverted and unconscious children, and\nrefuse them the Lord's Supper? By denying the Supper to baptized\nchildren, Pedobaptists act contrary to the traditions of the ancient\nchurches, which they are accustomed to cite with so much assurance, in\ndefense of infant baptism. Do they not know that those ancient churches\n(not the primitive churches) gave the Lord's Supper to infants for many\ncenturies? And the Greek Church, through all its branches, continues\nstill the same practice.\n\nDOCTOR COLEMAN says: \"After the general introduction of infant baptism,\nin the _second and third centuries,_ the sacrament continued to be\nadministered to all who had been baptized, whether infants or adults.\nThe reason alleged by Cyprian and others for this practice was, that\nage was no impediment. Augustine strongly advocates the practice. The\ncustom continued for several centuries. It is mentioned in the third\nCouncil of Tours, A. D. 813; and even the Council of Trent, A. D. 1545,\nonly decreed that it should not be considered essential to salvation.\nIt is still scrupulously observed by the Greek Church.\" _Anc. Christ.\nExemp., Ch. 22, Sec. 8; Bing., Orig., B. 15, Ch. 4, Sec. 7. Many other\nwriters bear the same testimony._\n\n\nTHE POWER OF SYMPATHY\n\nThere is a small class of Baptists who are at times inclined to desire,\nand it may be, to seek a wider liberty at the Lord's Table than they\nfind accorded in their own churches. The one prevailing argument with\nthem is _sympathy._ To them it seems kindly and fraternal to invite all\nwho say they love our common Lord and Saviour to unite in commemorating\nHis death in the Supper. Even if they have not been baptized, they\nthemselves believe they have, and they are good Christian people. \"Why\nstand upon a technicality?\" they say. To such the service is merely a\nsentimental service; a kind of love feast to show Christian fellowship,\nrather than an instituted commemoration of their dying Lord. They have\nneither Scripture, logic, expediency, the scholarship, nor the\nconcurrent practice of Christendom, either past or present, to sustain\ntheir position. But _sympathy_ influences them; yet sympathy should not\ncontrol conduct in matters of faith, or in acts of conscience. It is a\ngrave perversion when affection for his disciples sways us more than\nfidelity to our Lord. We should not be so kind to _them_ as to be\nuntrue to _Him._ Sincere Christians will honor those who are loyal to\nChrist, even though they differ in opinion.\n\n\nTHREE FACTS EXPLAINED\n\nBaptists give the following reasons in justification of their course in\nthe following cases:\n\n1. They do not invite Pedobaptists to the Lord's Supper with them,\nbecause such persons are not baptized, as has been shown, they being\nsimply sprinkled. They may be true converts, and have the spiritual\nqualifications, but they are destitute of the ceremonial\nqualification--baptism. The \"buried in baptism\" comes before the\n\"breaking of bread.\"\n\n2. They do not accept the invitation of Pedobaptist churches to eat at\nthe Lord's Table with them, for the same reason; they are not baptized\nChristians. And while the appreciate their Christian fellowship, they\ncould not accept their church fellowship, and sit at the Lord's Table\nwith them, without accepting their sprinkling and indorsing their\nbaptismal errors.\n\n3. They do not invite immersed members of Pedobaptist churches to the\nLord's Supper with them, because such persons, though they may be truly\nregenerate and properly baptized, are walking disorderly by remaining\nin and giving countenance to churches which hold and practice serious\nerrors as to both the ordinances. These churches use sprinkling for\nbaptism and administer the ordinance to infants, both of which are\nunscriptural. And yet such persons, by remaining in them, encourage and\nsupport these errors, instead of protesting against them by leaving\nthem. They insist on immersion for themselves, and yet by a strange\ninconsistency give their fellowship and influence to perpetuate and\nsanction sprinkling for others. This is inconsistent and disorderly\nChristian walking; and, therefore, very properly, Baptists decline to\ninvite them to the Lord's Supper.\n\n\nPEDOBAPTIST WITNESSES\n\nIn further proof that the position of Baptists as to the Lord's Supper\nis correct and Scriptural; that the difficulty lies with baptism, and\nnot with the Supper; and that they must still continue to restrict the\nordinance to baptized believers, or else admit that sprinkling is\nbaptism, we cite the concessions of distinguished Pedobaptist scholars\nand Divines in evidence on our side.\n\nJUSTIN MARTYR, one of the early Christian Fathers, says of the Supper:\n\"This food is called by us the Eucharist, of which it is not lawful for\nany one to partake but such as believe the things taught by us to be\ntrue, and have been baptized.\" _Apol. I, C. 65. 66. See Schaff's Church\nHist., Ch. 2. p. 516._\n\nMOSHEIM, in his Church History, says: \"Neither those doing penance, nor\nthose not yet baptized, were allowed to be present at the celebration\nof this ordinance.\" _Eccl. Hist., Cent. 3, Part 2, Ch. 4, Sec. 3._\n\nNEANDER, the great church historian, says: \"At this celebration, as may\nbe easily concluded, no one could be present who was not a member of\nthe Christian Church, and incorporated into it by the rite of baptism.\"\n_Ch. Hist., Vol. 1., 327. Boston, 1849._\n\nCAVE, one of the ablest writers on Christian antiquities, says the\nparticipants in the primitive church were those \"that had embraced the\ndoctrine of the Gospel, and had been baptized into the faith of Christ.\nFor, looking upon the Lord's Supper as the highest and most solemn act\nof religion, they thought they could never take care enough in the\ndispensing of it.\" _Prim. Christ., Part I., Ch. 11, p. 333._\n\nBINGHAM, in his able work on the Antiquities of the Christian Church,\nsays of the early Christians: \"As soon as a man was baptized he was\ncommunicated\"--that is, admitted to the communion. Baptism, therefore,\nessentially preceded the Supper.--_Christ. Antiq., B. 12, Ch. 4, Sec.\n9, B. 15, Ch. 3._\n\nDOCTOR WALL, who searched the records of antiquity for facts\nillustrating the history of the ordinances, says: \"No church ever gave\nthe communion to any persons before they were baptized. Among all the\nabsurdities that were ever held, none ever maintained that any person\nshould partake of the communion before he was baptized.\" _Hist. Inf.\nBap., Part II., Ch. 9._\n\nDOCTOR COLEMAN says of the early churches: \"None indeed but believers\nin full communion with the church were permitted to be present.\" \"But\nagreeably to all the laws and customs of the church, baptism\nconstituted membership with the church. All baptized persons were\nlegitimately numbered among the communicants as members of the church.\"\n_Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 21, Sec. 8._\n\nDOCTOR SCHAFF says: \"The communion was a regular part, and, in fact,\nthe most important and solemn part of the Sunday worship, . . . in\nwhich none but full members of the church could engage.\" _Ch. Hist.,\nVol. I., p. 392. New Work, 1871._\n\nDOCTOR DODDRIDGE says: \"It is certain that so far as our knowledge of\nprimitive antiquity reaches, no unbaptized person received the Lord's\nSupper.\" _Lectures, pp. 511, 512._\n\nDOCTOR DICK says: \"An uncircumcised man was not permitted to eat the\nPassover; and an unbaptized man should not be permitted to partake of\nthe Eucharist.\" _Theol., Vol. II., p. 220._\n\nDOCTOR BAXTER says: \"What man dares go in a way which hath neither\nprecept nor example to warrant it, from a way that hath full current of\nboth? Yet they that will admit members into the visible church without\nbaptism do so.\" _Plain Scripture Proof, p. 24._\n\nDOCTOR DWIGHT, President of Yale College, and author of \"Systematic\nTheology,\" says: \"It is an indispensable qualification for this\nordinance that the candidate for communion be a member of the visible\nchurch in full standing. By this, I intend that he should be a man of\npiety; that he should have made a public profession of religion, and\nthat he should have been baptized.\" _Syst. Theol., Ser. 160, B. 8, Ch.\n4. Sec. 7._\n\nDOCTOR GRIFFIN, one of the fathers of New England Congregationalism,\nsays: \"I agree with the advocates of close communion on two points:\n1. That baptism is the initiatory ordinance which introduces us into\nthe visible church; of course, where there is no baptism, there are no\nvisible churches. 2. That we ought not to commune with those who are\nnot baptized, and of course not church-members, even if we regard them\nas Christians.\" _Letter on Baptism, 1829, cited by Curtis on Com., p.\n125._\n\nDOCTOR HIBBARD, a leading Methodist scholar and Divine, says: \"In one\nprinciple Baptist and Pedobaptist churches agree. They both agree in\nrejecting from communion at the table of the Lord, and in denying the\nrights of church fellowship to all who have not been baptized.\" And\nwith admirable frankness, he adds: \"The charge of _close communion_ is\nno more applicable to the Baptist than to us [Pedobaptists]; insomuch\nas the question of church fellowship with them is determined by as\nliberal principles as it is with any other Protestant churches, so far,\nI mean, as the present subject is concerned--i.e., _it is determined by\nvalid baptism._\" _Hibbard on Christ. Bap., P. II., p. 174._\n\nDOCTOR BULLOCK, another Methodist Divine, says: \"Close communion, as it\nis generally termed, is the only logical and consistent course for\nBaptist churches to pursue. If their premises are right, their\nconclusion is surely just as it should be.\" And he commends the\nfirmness of Baptists in not inviting to the communion those whom they\nregard as unbaptized. He says: \"They do not feel willing to countenance\nsuch laxity in Christian discipline. Let us honor them for their\nsteadfastness in maintaining what they believe to be a Bible precept,\nrather than criticize and censure because they differ with us\nconcerning the intent and mode of Christian baptism, and believe it to\nbe an irrepealable condition of coming to the Lord's Table.\" _What\nChristians Believe._\n\nTHE INDEPENDENT, one of the most widely circulated, and perhaps the\nmost influential Pedobaptist paper in the country, in an editorial,\nsays: \"Leading writers of all denominations declare that converts must\nbe baptized before they can be invited to the communion table. This is\nthe position generally taken. But Baptists regarding sprinkling as a\nnullity--no baptism at all--look upon Presbyterians, Methodists, and\nothers, as unbaptized persons.\" \"The other churches cannot urge the\nBaptists to become open communionists till they themselves take the\nposition that all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, the unbaptized as\nwell as the baptized, may be invited to the communion table.\"\n_Editorial, July, 1879._\n\nTHE CONGREGATIONALIST, the organ of the New England Congregational\nChurches, in an editorial, says: \"Congregationalists have uniformly,\nuntil here and there an exception has arisen of late years, required\nbaptism and church-membership as the prerequisite of a seat at the\ntable of the Lord. It is a part of the false 'liberality' which now\nprevails in certain quarters, to welcome everybody 'who thinks he loves\nChrist' to commune in His body and blood. Such a course is the first\nstep in breaking down that distinction between the church and the\nworld, which our Saviour emphasized; and it seems to us it is an unwise\nand mistaken act for which no Scriptural warrant exists.\" _Editorial,\nJuly 9, 1879._\n\nTHE OBSERVER, of New York, the oldest and leading Presbyterian journal\nof this country, said: \"It is not a want of charity which compels the\nBaptist to restrict his invitation. He has no hesitation in admitting\nthe personal piety of his unimmersed brethren. Presbyterians do not\ninvite the unbaptized, however pious they may be. It is not\nuncharitable. It is not bigotry on the part of Baptists to confine\ntheir communion to those whom they consider the baptized.\"\n\nTHE INTERIOR, of Chicago, the organ of Western Presbyterians, said:\n\"The difference between our Baptist brethren and ourselves is an\nimportant difference. We agree with them, however, in saying that\nunbaptized persons should not partake of the Lord's Supper. Their view\ncompels them to think that we are not baptized, and shuts them up to\nclose communion. Close communion is, in our judgment, a more defensible\nposition than open communion, which is justified on the ground that\nbaptism is not a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. To charge Baptists\nwith bigotry because they abide by the logical consequences of their\nsystem is absurd.\"\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE, of New York, the leading journal of American\nMethodists, said: \"The regular Baptist churches in the United States\nmay be considered today as particularly a unit on _three points_--the\nnon-use of infant baptism, the immersion of believers only upon a\nprofession of faith, and the administration of the holy communion to\nsuch only as have been immersed by ministers holding these views. In\nour opinion the Baptist Church owes its amazing prosperity largely to\nits adherence to these views. In doctrine and government, and in other\nrespects, it is the same as Congregationalists. In numbers, the regular\nBaptists are more than six times as great as the Congregationalists. It\nis not bigotry to adhere to one's convictions, provided the spirit of\nChristian love prevails.\"\n\nTHE EPISCOPAL RECORDER said: \"The close communion of the Baptist\nchurches is but the necessary sequence of the fundamental idea out of\nwhich their existence has grown. No Christian Church would willingly\nreceive to its communion even the humblest and truest believer in\nChrist who had not been baptized. With Baptists, immersion only is\nbaptism, and they therefore of necessity exclude from the Lord's Table\nall who have not been immersed. It is an essential part of the\nsystem--the legitimate carrying out of the creed.\"\n\nBISHOP COXE, of the Episcopal diocese of Western New York, says: \"The\nBaptists hold that we have never been baptized, and they must exclude\nus from their communion table, if we were disposed to go there. Are we\noffended? Do we call it illiberal? No; we call it _principle,_ and we\nrespect it. To say that we have never become members of Christ by\nbaptism seems severe, but it is a conscientious adherence to duty, as\nthey regard it. I should be the bigot, and not they, if I should ask\nthem to violate their discipline in this, or in any other particular.\"\n_On Christ. Unity, in \"Church Union,\" July, 1891._\n\n\n\n\n+CHAPTER XII+\n\nINFANT BAPTISM\n\nOne of the customs held and upheld by Pedobaptist churches, which\nBaptists seriously condemn, is infant baptism. It is practiced by both\nRoman Catholics and Protestants as a religious institution; and though\nnot held as sacredly, or practiced as widely as formerly, it still\nprevails to a wide extent throughout the Christian world. And yet it\nwas not instituted by Christ, nor practiced by His Apostles, nor known\nin the primitive churches, and has neither sanction nor recognition in\nthe Word of God. It is for this reason that Baptists utterly reject and\ncondemn the custom, as not simply useless and without authority, but as\na most pernicious and hurtful usage; that it is injurious both to the\nchild that receives it, and to the church which allows it, can be\neasily shown. Baptism before faith, and without a profession it,\ncontradicts and does violence to all New Testament teaching.\n\n\nNOT OF SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY\n\nNow, that infant baptism is not of Scriptural authority, and was not\nknown in the first Christian ages, nearly all its advocates and\ndefenders have with considerable candor admitted. Only a few of their\nhistorians and scholars can be cited here.\n\nDR. WILLIAM WALL, a learned Divine of the English Church, who wrote the\n\"History of Infant Baptism,\" a work so able that the clergy in\nconvocation assembled gave him a vote of thanks for his defense of the\ncustom, says: \"Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by\nthe Apostles, there is no express mention of any infants.\" _Hist. Inf.\nBap., Intro., pp. 1, 55._\n\nTHOMAS FULLER, the historian, says: \"We do freely confess there is\nneither express precept nor precedent in the New Testament for the\nBaptism of Infants.\" _Infants' Advoc., pp. 71, 150._\n\nLUTHER says: \"It cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant\nbaptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians\nafter the Apostles.\" _Vanity of Inf. Bap., Part II., p. 8._\n\nNEANDER says: \"Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men\nwere accustomed to conceive of _baptism_ and _faith_ as strictly\nconnected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from\nApostolic institution.\" _Ch. Hist., Vol. I., p. 311; Plant. and Train.,\nVol. I., p. 222._\n\nPROFESSOR LANGE says: \"All attempts to make out infant baptism from the\nNew Testament fail. It is totally opposed to the spirit of the\nApostolic age, and to the fundamental principles of the New Testament.\"\n_Inf. Baptism, p. 101._\n\nPROFESSOR JACOBI says: \"Infant baptism was established neither by\nChrist, nor by the Apostles.\" _Art. Bap., Kitto's Cycl. Bib. Lit._\n\nDOCTOR HANNA says: \"Scripture knows nothing of the baptism of infants.\"\n_North Brit. Review, Aug., 1852._\n\nPROFESSOR HAGENBACH says: \"The passages from Scripture cited in favor\nof infant baptism as a usage of the primitive church are doubtful and\nprove nothing.\" _Hist. Dict., pp. 190, 193._\n\nBishop Burnett, Baxter, Goodwin, Limborch, Celarius, Field, and many\nothers bear similar testimony.\n\n\nWHEN DID IT RISE?\n\nSince the New Testament knows nothing of infant baptism, and since it\nwas neither instituted by Christ, nor practiced by His Apostles, what\nwas its origin, and when did it come into use?\n\nTERTULLIAN is the first who mentions the custom, and he opposes it.\nThis was at the close of the second century, or about A. D. 200. His\nopposition to it proves two things: _First,_ that it was in occasional\nuse, at least. _Second,_ that it was of recent origin, since had it\nbeen long used some earlier record if it could be found. _Neander, Ch.\nHist., Vol. I., p. 311._\n\nBINGHAM could find no earlier allusion to it than that of Tertullian,\nthough he believed it arose earlier. It must, therefore, as is\ngenerally agreed, have had its origin about the beginning of the _third\ncentury._\n\nCURCELL\u00c6US says: \"The baptism of infants in the _two first_ centuries\nafter Christ was altogether unknown; but in the _third_ and _fourth_\nwas allowed by some few. In the _fifth_ and following ages it was\ngenerally received.\" _Inst. Christ. Religion, B. I., Ch. 12._\n\nSALMASIUS says: \"In the _first two_ centuries no one was baptized,\nexcept, being instructed in the faith and acquainted with the doctrines\nof Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer.\" _Hist. Bapt.\nSuicer. Thesaur., Vol. II., p. 1136._\n\nSuch testimony is conclusive, and quite sufficient, though much more of\na similar character might be added.\n\n_But observe:_ That when the baptism of children began, it was not that\nof unconscious infants at all, as is now practiced, but, as Bunsen\ndeclares, of \"little growing children, from six to ten years old.\" And\nhe asserts that Tertullian \"does not say one word of new-born infants.\"\nCyprian, an African bishop, at the close of the _third_ century, urged\nthe baptism of infants proper, because of the saving efficacy of the\nordinance; and he is called the inventor, or father, of infant baptism.\n_Bunsen's Hippol. and His Age, Vol. III., pp. 192-5._\n\n\nWHY DID IT RISE?\n\nThere is even less difficulty in tracing the cause than in finding the\norigin of infant baptism. It originated in a perversion of Christian\ndoctrine, and was itself the perversion of a Christian ordinance.\n\nAll students of ecclesiastical history know that at an early period\ncorruptions perverted Christian faith and practice. Among these, one of\nthe earliest was that of an undue efficacy attributed to baptism. Its\nsanctity was so exalted that it was believed to have power to wash away\nsins, and cleanse the soul for heaven. By it the sick were supposed to\nbe prepared for death, and salvation made more certain by its efficacy.\nAnxious parents therefore desired their dying children to be thus\nprepared--\"washed in the laver of regeneration,\" as it was termed--that\nthey might be sure of salvation. And here came in that pernicious error\nof \"baptismal regeneration,\" which gave rise to infant baptism, and\nwhich has through all these ages clung with more or less pertinacity to\nthe clergy and laity of all churches which have practiced it.\n\nSALMASIUS says: \"An opinion prevailed that no one could be saved\nwithout being baptized; and for that reason the custom arose of\nbaptizing infants.\" _Epist. Jus. Pac. See Booth's Pedo. Exam., Ch.\nIII., Sec. 3._\n\nVENEMA declares that \"the ancients connected a regenerating power with\nbaptism.\" He cites Justin Martyr, Iren\u00e6us, Clemens, Tertullian, and\nCyprian as holding that opinion. _Eccl. Hist., Vol. 4, p. 3., Secs. 2,\n3, 4._\n\nCHRYSOSTOM, writing about A. D. 398, as cited by Suicerus, says, \"It is\nimpossible without baptism to obtain the kingdom,\" and as cited by Wall\nhe says: \"If sudden death seize us before we are baptized, though we\nhave a thousand good qualities, there is nothing to be expected but\nhell.\" _Suicer., Thesaur. Eccl., Vol. I., p. 3._\n\nWADDINGTON, in his Church History, says, in reference to the _third_\ncentury: \"A belief was gaining ground among the converts and was\ninculcated among the heathen, that the act of baptism gave remission of\nall sins committed previously.\" _Hist. of Church, Ch. II., p. 53._\n\nPROFESSOR FISHER says: \"Very early baptism was so far identified with\nregeneration as to be designated by that term. This rite was considered\nessential to salvation. A virtue was believed to reside in the\nbaptismal water itself.\" _Hist. Christ. Ch., p. 83._\n\nDo its advocates and supporters hold the same view now? Do parents and\nministers still believe that the baptism of unconscious infants\nsecures, or makes more sure, their salvation? If not, why do they\npractice it?\n\nPROFESSOR LANGE'S words are weighty, and should be carefully pondered\nby Protestant defenders of this Papal emanation. He says: \"Would the\nProtestant Church fulfill and attain to its final destiny, the baptism\nof new-born children must of necessity be abolished. It has sunk down\nto a mere formality, without any meaning for the child.\" _History of\nProtestantism, p. 34._\n\nMany good people, familiar with infant baptism and surrounded by its\ninfluences, have naturally learned to reverence it as of Divine\nappointment, and some of them really believe it is taught or sanctioned\nby the New Testament. But Baptists are right in rejecting it as\nsomething utterly without foundation in the Word of God.\n\n\nHOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS\n\nMuch stress is laid by some of the advocates of infant baptism on that\nfact that in the Acts of the Apostles several cases of household\nbaptism are mentioned. And it is asked with an air of assurance: \"If\nentire households were baptized, must there not have been children\namong them? And were they not baptized also?\" To this it is sufficient\nto reply, that nothing is said of children, and we have no right to put\ninto the Scriptures what we do not find in them. All inference that\nsuch households contained infants, and that such infants were baptized,\nis the purest fiction in the world. If Christian institutions could be\nbuilt on so slight a foundation as that, we could bring in all the\nmummeries of the Greek or the Roman Church, and all the ceremonies of\nthe Mosaic ritual.\n\nOne thing is certain: If in those households any children were\nbaptized, they were old enough to receive the Gospel and to believe on\nChrist, and were thus suitable subjects for the ordinance, and for\nchurch fellowship. For it is said, _\"They believed, and gladly received\nthe Word.\"_ There are thousands of Baptist churches into whose\nfellowship whole households have been baptized--parents and children\nand perhaps others connected with them. But all were old enough to\n_believe_ and to make _profession_ of their faith. So evidently it was\nin these households.\n\nThe more prominent of these households are that of Lydia, mentioned in\nActs 16; that of the Philippian jailer, mentioned also in Acts 16; and\nthat of Stephanas, mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1. Now note what a few\ndistinguished Pedobaptist scholars say on these cases.\n\nDOCTOR NEANDER says: \"We cannot prove that the Apostles ordained infant\nbaptism; from those places where the baptism of a whole family is\nmentioned, we can draw no such conclusion.\" _Planting and Training, p.\n162, N. Y. Ed., 1865._\n\nPROFESSOR JACOBI says: \"In none of these instances has it been proved\nthat there were little children among them.\" _Kitto's Bib. Cyc., Art.\nBap._\n\nDOCTOR MEYER says: \"That the baptism of children was not in use at that\ntime appears evident from 1 Cor. 7:14.\" _Comment. on Acts 16:15._\n\nDOCTOR DE WETTE says: \"This passage has been adduced in proof of the\napostolical authority of infant baptism: but there is no proof here\nthat any except adults were baptized.\" _Com. New Test., Acts 16:15._\n\nDOCTOR OLSHAUSEN says: \"There is altogether wanting any conclusive\nproof-text for the baptism of infants in the age of the apostles.\"\n_Com. on Acts 16:15._\n\nBISHOP BLOOMFIELD says of the jailer: \"It is taken for granted that his\nfamily became Christians as well as himself.\" _Com. on Acts 16:15._\n\nCalvin, Doddridge, Henry, and other commentators declare that in this\ncase the household all believed, and therefore were baptized and did\nrejoice. MacKnight considers the case of the household of Stephanas as\ngiving no countenance to the baptism of infants. And with him agree\nGuise, Hammond, Doddridge, and others.\n\nAs to the argument used by some, that baptism came in the place of\ncircumcision, it is too weak and puerile, too far-fetched and destitute\nof reason, to claim the serious regard of intelligent and candid minds.\n\n\n\n+CHAPTER XIII+\n\nCHURCH GOVERNMENT\n\nA Christian church is a society with a corporate life, organized on\nsome definite plan, adapted to some definite purpose, which it proposes\nto accomplish. It has, therefore, its officers and ordinances, its laws\nand regulations, fitted to administer its government and carry out its\npurposes. The question then arises, What is the true and proper form of\nchurch organization and government? We do not care to inquire as to the\nvarious and contradictory forms, as we see them about us in the\ndifferent denominations, but what was the organic form and government\nof the first churches, planted by and molded under the hands of\nChrist's inspired Apostles.\n\nThere are _three_ special and widely different forms of church\ngovernment which have gained prevalence in Christian communities during\npast age, and which are still maintained with varied success, each of\nwhich claims to have been the original primitive form:\n\n1. The _prelatical,_ in which the governing power resides in prelates,\nor diocesan bishops, and the higher clergy; as in the Roman, Greek,\nEnglish, and most Oriental churches.\n\n2. The _presbyterian,_ in which the governing power resides in\nassemblies, synods, presbyteries, and sessions; as in the Scottish\nKirk, the Lutheran, and the various Presbyterian churches.\n\n3. The _independent,_ in which the body is self-governing, each single\nand local church administering its own government by the voice of the\nmajority of its members; as among Baptists, Congregationalists,\nIndependents, and some other bodies.\n\nNow which of these modes of church life and administration is taught in\nthe New Testament, if either? or which best accords with the\nconstitution and government of the Apostolic churches?\n\nBaptists hold that each separate, local church is an independent body,\ngoverning itself according to the laws of Christ, as found in the New\nTestament; that each such church is independent of all other churches,\nand of all other persons, so far as administration is concerned, owing\ncomity and fellowship to all, but allegiance and submission to none.\nThe government is administered by the body of the members, where no one\npossesses a preeminence of authority, but each enjoys an equality of\nrights, and in which, in matters of opinion, the majority decides.\n\nThat this style of church structure is according to the New Testament\nappears evident from a study of the sacred records themselves. The\nApostles treated the churches as independent bodies. Their epistles\nwere addressed to the churches as such; they reported their doings to\nthem; enjoined upon them the duty of discipline; exhorted, instructed,\nand reproved them as independent and responsible bodies. They\nrecognized the right of the churches to elect their own teachers and\nofficers, a primary and fundamental right, which, when conceded\nsupposes all other rights and powers necessary to a self-governing\ncommunity acting under Divinely given laws.\n\nNEANDER, the distinguished historian, says of the first age: \"The\nchurches were taught to govern themselves.\" \"The brethren chose their\nown officers from among themselves.\" \"In respect to the election of\nchurch officers, the ancient principle was still adhered to: that the\nconsent of the community was necessary to the validity of every such\nelection, and each one was at liberty to offer reasons against it.\"\n_Introd. Coleman's Prim. Christ'y, p. 19; Ch. Hist., Vol. I., p. 199;\nPlant. and Train., p. 156._\n\nMOSHEIM says of the first century: \"In those primitive times, each\nChristian Church was composed of the _people,_ the presiding\n_officers,_ and the assistants, or _deacons._ These must be the\ncomponent parts of every society. The principal voice was that of the\n_people,_ or of the whole body of Christians.\" \"The assembled people,\ntherefore, elected their own rulers and teachers.\" Of the second\ncentury, he adds: \"One president, or bishop, presides over each church.\nHe was created by the common suffrages of the people.\" \"During a great\npart of this century, all the churches continued to be, as at first,\n_independent_ of each other. Each church was a kind of small,\nindependent republic, governing itself by its own laws, enacted, or at\nleast sanctioned, by the people.\" _Eccl. Hist., Cent. 1, Part 1, Ch. 2,\nSec. 5, 6; Cent. 2, Ch. 2, Sec. 1, 2._\n\nCOLEMAN says: \"These churches, wherever formed, became separate and\nindependent bodies, competent to appoint their own officers and\nadminister their own government without reference or subordination to\nany control, authority or foreign power. No fact connected with the\nhistory of the primitive church is more fully established or more\ngenerally conceded.\" _Prim. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 4, Sec. 4, p. 95._\n\nArchbishop Whately, Doctor Barrow, Doctor Burton, Doctor\nWaddington--all of them Church of England Divines--fully agree with\nthis testimony, and confirm the evidence cited:\n\nGEISELER, the historian, says, concerning early changes: \"Country\nchurches, which had grown up around some city, seem, with their\nbishops, to have been usually, in a certain degree, under the authority\nof the mother church. With this exception, all the churches were alike\nindependent, though some were especially held in honor, on such grounds\nas their Apostolic origin, or the importance of the city in which they\nwere situated.\" _Ch. Hist., Period 1, Div. 1, Ch. 3, Sec. 52._\n\nFurther discussion on this subject is not needed. The point is proved,\nand the independent form of church government is manifestly primitive\nand apostolic, as advocated and practiced by Baptists.\n\n\n\n+CHAPTER XIV+\n\nCHURCH OFFICERS\n\nHow many, and what are the Scriptural officers of a Christian church?\nFor a church, being a society, must have not only laws, but officers to\nexecute them. How many orders are there in the ministry? These are\nquestions which have at times greatly divided the Christian world.\n\nBaptists assert that the officers of a church are _two,_--and of right,\ncan be no more,--_pastor_ and _deacons._ In this opinion agree some\nother denominations, while the various Episcopal sects insist that\nthere should be three sets--_deacons, priests,_ and _bishops,_ to which\nthe Church of England adds archbishops. Others add to this number\nindefinitely; and the Romish Church carries the list up to ten or\ntwelve, ending with the pope. Now it is not so much what this church\npreaches or practices, but on what basis were the primitive\nchurches--the churches of inspiration--organized. Our Lord did not live\nto shape, and model, and put in order all things for the full equipment\nof His people, that they might be thoroughly furnished unto all good\nworks, but He did give to His Apostles a spirit of wisdom by which they\nshould be able to do all this, and carry out His plans, in the\norganization of His kingdom after He had left them. We assume that the\nfirst churches were organized on the Divine plan, and seek to ascertain\nwhat that plan was.\n\nIn the New Testament, the words _bishop, presbyter, elder,_ are used to\ndesignate church officers. They all, however, designate the same\noffice, and therefore officially mean the same thing; indeed, they are\nnot infrequently applied to the same individual. The bishop--called\nalso the presbyter, or elder--was the _pastor,_ or overseer of the\nspiritual flock, watching, guiding, and feeding it, as the shepherd\ndoes his sheep. The _deacons_ were chosen to attend to the temporal\ninterests of the church, as appears by the election of the seven,\nrecorded in the sixth chapter of Acts. This was done in order that the\nApostles might be free from the temporal cares, and thus able to give\ntheir attention more exclusively to the spiritual welfare of the\npeople. The word _deacon_ means a _minister,_ a _servant._ It is\nsometimes applied to the Apostles, and even to Christ himself, in the\ngeneral sense as one who \"came, not to be ministered unto, but to\nminister, and to give His life a ransom for many.\" Some of the first\ndeacons were also efficient preachers of the Gospel, but their work as\ndeacons pertained to other services in the churches. While, therefore,\nthe deacon is a church officer, his office does not constitute an order\nin the ministry at all, its functions belonging to temporal concerns,\nand not to a spiritual service. The service usually performed by\nclerks, trustees, and the like, it may be presumed, so far as such\nservice was needed in the first churches, was devolved on the deacons.\n\nPastors, by whatever name they may have been known, had the same\nservice, and were of the same grade, dignity, and authority. In the\nfirst churches there were no high orders of clergy placed over lower\ngrades, and over the churches ruling with superior authority. All were\nequals among equals, and all equally ministered to the churches. If in\nthe same church there might chance to be several to whom the titles\n_bishop, presbyter,_ or _elder_ were applied, they were all of equal\nrank or authority, though one might be selected to serve as the pastor\nof the church, and devote himself to its local interests; while the\nothers might give themselves to more general missionary work.\n\nNEANDER says: \"The word _presbyter,_ or _elder,_ indicates rather the\ndignity of the office, since presbyters among the Jews were usually\naged and venerable; while _bishop,_ or _episcopos,_ designated the\nnature of their work as overseers, or pastors of the churches. The\nformer title was used by Jewish Christians as a name familiar in the\nsynagogue; while the latter was chiefly used by the Greek and other\nGentile converts, as more familiar and expressive to them.\" \"They were\nnot designed to exercise absolute authority, but to act as presiding\nofficers and guides of an ecclesiastical republic: to conduct all\nthings, with the cooperation of the communities, as their ministers and\nnot as their masters.\" _Introd. to Cole., Prim. Ch., p. 20; Ch. Hist.,\nVol. 1., p. 184; Plant. and Train., p. 147._\n\nMOSHEIM says: \"The rulers of the churches were denominated sometimes\n_presbyters,_ or _elders,_ a designation borrowed from the Jews, and\nindicative rather of the wisdom than the age of the persons, and\nsometimes also _bishops:_ for it is most manifest that both terms are\npromiscuously used in the New Testament of one and the same class of\npersons.\" \"In these primitive times, each Christian church was composed\nof the _people,_ the presiding _officers,_ and the assistants, or\n_deacons._ These must be the components of every society.\" _Eccl.\nHist., Cent 1., p. 2; Ch. 2, Secs. 5, 8._\n\nGIESELER asserts: \"The new churches everywhere formed themselves on the\nmodel of the mother church at Jerusalem. At the head of each were the\n_elders_ (_presbyter, bishop_), all officially of equal rank, though in\nseveral instances a peculiar authority seems to have been conceded to\nsome one individual from personal considerations.\" _Ch. Hist., Part 1,\nDiv. 1, Ch. 2, Sec. 29._\n\nWADDINGTON declares: \"It is also true that in the earliest government\nof the first Christian society,--that of Jerusalem,--not the _elders_\nonly, but the 'whole church,' were associated with the Apostles; and it\nis even certain that the terms _bishop_ and _elder,_ or _presbyter,_\nwere in the first instance and for a short period, sometimes used\nsynonymously, and indiscriminately applied to the same order in the\nministry.\" _Hist. Christ. Church, Ch. 2, Sec. 2._\n\nARCHBISHOP USHER says that \"_bishop_ and _presbyter_ differed only in\ndegree, and not in order.\" See _Cole., Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 8, Sec.\n6._\n\nBISHOP BURNETT says: \"As for the notion of distinct offices of _bishop_\nand _presbyter,_ I confess it is not so clear to me.\" _Vindic. Ch. of\nSects, p. 366._\n\nDOCTOR COLEMAN says: \"It is generally admitted by Episcopal writers on\nthis subject, that in the New Testament, and in the earliest\necclesiastical writings, the terms _bishops_ and _presbyters,_ or\nelders, are synonymous, and denote one and the same office.\" \"The\noffice of _presbyter_ was undeniably identical with that of _bishop,_\nas has been shown above.\" \"Only _two orders_ of officers are known in\nthe church until the close of the second century. Those of the first\nare styled either _bishops_ or _presbyters;_ of the second, _deacons._\"\n_Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 8, Sec. 6; Ch. 6, Sec. 5._\n\nThis author cites many of the early Christian Fathers who bore the same\ntestimony, among whom are Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr,\nIren\u00e6us, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others. Many prelatical\nwriters, besides these above quoted, frankly admit the same facts.\n\nThe Apostle Paul, it is stated (Acts 20:17, 18), called together the\n_elders_ (_presbyters_) of the Ephesian Church. But in verse 28 he\ncalls these officers _overseers_ (_episcopos_). Here the terms\n_presbuteros_ and _episcopos_ were certainly used interchangeably.\n\nPaul and Timothy, in their address to the Philippian Christians,\nspecify three classes as evidently constituting the entire body of\ndisciples. They say, \"To all the _saints_ in Christ Jesus, which are at\nPhilippi, with the _bishops_ and _deacons._\" Saints, bishops, and\ndeacons embraced the whole church.\n\nTimothy was instructed by Paul as to the qualifications of pastors to\nbe placed over the churches. (1 Tim. 3:1.) Particular directions are\ngiven as to both _bishops_ and _deacons,_ but no mention is made of\nelders--clearly because they were the same as bishops.\n\nTitus is likewise enjoined to secure pastors for the church in Crete.\n(Titus 1:5, 7.) These pastors are called _elders_ in verse 5 and\n_bishops_ in verse 7.\n\n_Pastors_ and _deacons,_ therefore, are two orders, and these officers\nsimply were known or needed in the Apostolic churches. In this, also,\nthe views held by Baptists are in harmony with the customs of the\nchurches in the first and purest age of Christian history.\n\n\n\n+CHAPTER XV+\n\nBAPTIST HISTORY\n\nIt is sometimes asked: \"When and where did the Baptists originate? Who\nwere their founders? What is their history?\" These are questions of\ninterest; but a more important one would be: \"Are they right? Is their\nfaith according to the teachings of the New Testament?\" Many things\nwhich are old are not true. Creeds and sects may boast a venerable\nantiquity, while the Word of God utterly condemns them. Any\norganization that cannot reasonably claim Christ for its founder has\nsmall right to the name of a Christian church, no matter how old it may\nbe.\n\nBaptists claim to be built on the foundation of the Apostles and\nprophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief Corner-Stone. If this\nclaim be well founded, whether they have a written history of one\ncentury or of twenty, matters little. Yet whatever of the past belongs\nto any, it may be well to know. Any Baptist history constitutes one of\nthe most interesting chapters in the records of Christianity.\n\nDuring the Apostolic age even, the doctrines of the Gospel became\ncorrupted, and its ordinances soon after. Both Jewish and Gentile\nconverts brought into the churches many of their old religious notions,\nand incorporated them with the faith of Christ. These, together with\nthe many philosophical ideas of the times and the perversions to which\nthe truth is always exposed from the ignorance and selfishness of men,\nvery early turned the churches aside from the faith once delivered to\nthe saints. Still there were many who in simplicity and humility\nmaintained the doctrines and customs in their original purity. Those\nchurches which were strongest and most prosperous were most exposed to\ncorruption by alliances with the world.\n\nWhen at length the period of martyrdom and persecution terminated; when\na nominal Christianity took possession of a throne, and Church and\nState became united, then religion, in its prevailing forms, lost its\nsimplicity, its spirituality, and its power, and a temporal hierarchy\ntook the place of the church of Christ. This was the great apostasy of\nthe early times. But all the churches and all disciples did not follow\nin the wake of this sad departure from the truth. Many congregations\nand communities of true worshipers kept the doctrines of the Gospel,\nand practiced its ordinances, nearly, or quite in their primitive\npurity. And this they continued to do through all the ages of darkness\nand corruption which followed. They were never identified with the\nRoman or Greek churches; they never were in alliance with States; never\nformed hierarchies. As independent congregations, or small communities,\nwith no other bond of union than a common faith, fellowship, and\nsympathy, often obscure and unobtrusive, taking the Word of God as\ntheir guide, they sought to realize the idea, not of a temporal, but a\nspiritual kingdom in the Gospel dispensation.\n\nThese religious communities were by the dominant hierarchies called\n_sects,_ and stigmatized as _heretics._ As such they were traduced and\npersecuted continually. And though they may have had their errors, they\nwere the best and purest defenders of the Christian faith, and the\ntruest representatives of the first disciples of Christ then existing.\nThe State churches were the heretics; while those so-called sects were\nthe true successors of the first Christians.\n\nThey were defamed and oppressed, calumniated and martyred because they\nbore witness to the truth of God and testified against the errors and\nvices of the so-called churches. History has never done them justice,\nand perhaps never will; because history has been too much written in\nthe interest of their enemies, or from their standpoint. Tortured and\ntormented by those who should have been their defenders, crowns and\nmiters alike pledged to their destruction, they could do nothing but\nsuffer. And this they nobly did as Christ's faithful witnesses. They\nwere known by various names in different ages and in different lands,\nbut retained the same general characteristics.\n\nIn the _first_ and _second_ centuries, Messalians, Montanists,\nEuchites, were terms which distinguished some of these sects.\n\nIn the _third, fourth,_ and _fifth_ centuries arose the Novatians.\nIncreasing with exceeding rapidity, they quite overspread the Roman\nempire, in spite of the cruel and destructive persecutions which they\nsuffered.\n\nIn the _fourth_ century the Donatists appeared, as a new form of\nexisting sects, or a new phase of the old faith. They multiplied\nrapidly, spread extensively, and long survived.\n\nIn the _seventh_ century appeared the Paulicians, attracting much\nattention, and calling down upon themselves the wrath of the Romish\nChurch. Still they increased greatly, notwithstanding their many\npersecutions.\n\nThat these Christian communities should have been faultless could not\nbe supposed. But they were the best of the ages in which they lived,\nand maintained the purest forms of Gospel truth and practice. Without\nthe advantage of organization and association, they differed somewhat\namong themselves.\n\nBut in general they all professed to take the New Testament as the rule\nof their faith and practice. They held to a spiritual\nchurch-membership, and received only professedly regenerated persons to\nthe ordinances. Denying the orthodoxy of the Romish Church, they\nrebaptized persons received from that body, and hence were called\n_Anabaptists._ Infant baptism they rejected, according to Allix,\nMosheim, Robinson, and other historians. Baptism they administered by\nimmersion, as indeed did all Christians during those ages. Robinson\ncalls them \"Trinitarian Baptists.\" It is said that the Empress\nTheodora, after having confiscated their property, caused to be cruelly\nput to death no less than one hundred thousand Paulicians, for no other\nfault or offense than their religious faith.\n\nAbout the close of the _tenth_ century appeared the Paterines;\nsubstantially the same people, no doubt as had previously existed under\nother names. They too rejected infant baptism, and protested against\nthe corruptions of the Romish Church; in consequence of which they\nsuffered long and severe persecution.\n\nIn the _eleventh_ century, and the ages following, were the Waldenses,\nAlbigenses, Vaudois, Cathari, and Poor Men of Lyons. These were new\nnames, and names usually given by their enemies. They increased, even\nunder their persecutions, to a wonderful extent, and attracted the\nnotice, if not the sympathy, of all Europe.\n\nIt is not pretended that these ancient sects were known by the name as\nBaptists; but in general they held the more prominent and distinctive\nprinciples which have always characterized the Baptists; thus: 1. They\ndeclared and defended the rights of faith and conscience and the\nfreedom of worship. 2. They denied the authority of popes and the right\nof kings and States to interfere with the people in matters of\nreligion. 3. They rejected infant baptism. 4. They baptized by dipping.\n5. They held the Bible to be the only rule and authority in concerns of\nreligious faith and practice. 6. They admitted to the churches none\nexcept such as professed to be regenerated and godly persons.\n\nNow it is conceded by all historians of note that such churches and\ncommunities did exist, separate from and persecuted by, the prevailing\nState churches and civil authorities during all the ages from the\nApostles to the Reformation.\n\nWhen the Reformation under Luther and his coadjutors broke out, these\nsects to a great extent fraternized with, and were lost in, the\nmultitude of the reformers. Such as continued their separate existence,\nas the Waldenses of Piedmont, yielding to the influence of the\nreformers, did from sympathy what the persecutions of the Papists had\nnever been able to compel them to do--abandon dipping for sprinkling in\nbaptism, adopted infant baptism, and took the general forms of\nreligious life, into which Pedobaptist Protestantism grew.\n\n\nTHE WELSH BAPTISTS\n\nFew denominations have a better claim to antiquity than the Welsh\nBaptists. They trace their descent directly from the Apostles and urge\nin favor of their claim arguments which have never been confuted.\n\nWhen Austin, the Romish monk and missionary, visited Wales, at the\nclose of the _sixth_ century, he found a community of more than two\nthousand Christians, quietly living in their mountain homes. They were\nindependent of the Romish See, and wholly rejected its authority.\nAustin labored hard to convert them--that is, to bring them under the\nPapal yoke; but entirely failed in the effort. Yielding things in\ngeneral, he reduced his demand upon them to three particulars: 1. That\nthey should observe Easter in due form, as ordered by the Church.\n2. That they should give Christendom, or baptism, to their children.\n3. That they should preach to the English the Word of God, as\ndirected.[1]\n\nThese demands of Austin prove that they neither observed the Popish\nordinance of Easter, nor baptized their children. They, however,\nrejected all his overtures, whereupon he left them with threats of war\nand wretchedness. Not long after, Wales was invaded by the Saxons, and\nmany of these inoffensive Christians cruelly murdered, as was believed,\nat the instigation of this bigoted zealot, the exacting Austin.\n\n\nTHE DUTCH BAPTISTS\n\nThe Baptists of Holland have a history that reaches back to a very\nremote period, if not to the Apostolic age, as some confidently assert.\nAnd this antiquity is conceded by historians who have no sympathy with\ntheir denominational sentiments.\n\nMOSHEIM, in his Church History, says, \"The true origin of that sect\nwhich acquired the name Anabaptist _is hid in the remote depths of\nantiquity,_ and is consequently extremely difficult to be ascertained.\"\n_Eccl. Hist., Vol. IV., p. 427, Mac. Ed., 1811._ See _Introd. Orchard's\nHist. Bap., p. 17._\n\nZWINGLI, the Swiss Reformer, contemporary with Luther, declares: \"The\ninstitution of Anabaptism is no novelty but for _thirteen hundred\nyears_ has caused great disturbance in the church.\" _Introd. Orchard's\nHist. Bap., p. 17._ Thirteen hundred years before his time would have\ncarried it back to within two centuries of the death of Christ.\n\nDOCTOR DERMONT, chaplain to the king of Holland, and Doctor Ypeij,\nprofessor of theology at Groningen, a few years since received a royal\ncommission to prepare a history of the Reformed Dutch Church. That\nhistory, prepared under royal sanction, and officially published,\ncontains the following manly and generous testimony to the antiquity\nand orthodoxy of the Dutch Baptists. \"We have now seen that the\nBaptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times\nMennonites, were the original Waldenses, and have long in the history\nof the church received the honor of that origin. On this account, _the\nBaptists may be considered the only Christian community which has stood\nsince the Apostles, and as a Christian society, which has preserved\npure the doctrines of the Gospel through all ages.\" Hist. Ref. Dutch\nCh., Ed. Breda, 1819._ See _Ency. Relig. Knowledge, Art. Mennonites._\n\nMOSHEIM says of the persecutions of this people in the sixteenth\ncentury, \"Vast numbers of these people, in nearly all the countries of\nEurope, would rather perish miserably by drowning, hanging, burning, or\ndecapitation, than renounce the opinions they had embraced.\" And their\ninnocency he vindicates thus: \"It is indeed true that many Anabaptists\nwere put to death, not as being bad citizens, or injurious members of\ncivil society, but as being incurable _heretics,_ who were condemned by\nthe old canon laws. For the error of _adult baptism_ was in that age\nlooked upon as a horrible offense.\" That was their only crime. _Eccl.\nHist., Cent. 16, Sec. 3. Part 2, Ch. iii. Fuller's Ch. Hist., B. 4._\n\nThis testimony is all the more welcome, because it comes from those who\nhave no ecclesiastical sympathies with Baptists, but who, in fidelity\nto history, bear honest testimony to the truth which history teaches.\nThe circumstances under which their evidence was produced give it\nadditional force.\n\nCARDINAL HOSSIUS, chairman of the council at Trent, says: \"If the truth\nof religion were to be judged of by the readiness and cheerfulness\nwhich a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinions and\npersuasions of no sect can be truer or surer, than those of the\n_Anabaptists;_ since there have been none, for these _twelve hundred\nyears past,_ that have been more grievously punished.\" _Orchard's Hist.\nBap., Sec. 12, part 30, p. 364._\n\nMany thousands of the Dutch Baptists, called Anabaptists, and\nMennonites, miserably perished by the hands of their cruel persecutors,\nfor no crime but their refusal to conform to established churches.[2]\n\n\nTHE ENGLISH BAPTISTS\n\nAt what time the Baptists appeared in England in definite\ndenominational form, it is impossible to say. But from the _twelfth_ to\nthe _seventeenth_ century, many of them suffered cruel persecutions,\nand death by burning, drowning, and beheading, besides many other, and\nsometimes most inhuman tortures. And this they suffered both from\nPapists and Protestants, condemned by both civil and ecclesiastical\ntribunals, only because they persisted in worshiping God, according to\nthe dictates of their consciences, and because they would not submit\ntheir religious faith and worship to the dictates of popes and\nprinces.[3] In 1538, royal edicts were issued against them, and several\nwere burnt at the stake in Smithfield.\n\nBRANDE writes that: \"In the year 1538, thirty-one Baptists, that fled\nfrom England, were put to death at Delft, in Holland; the men were\nbeheaded, the women were drowned.\" _Hist. Reformers._ See _Benedict's\nHist. Bap., p. 303. Neal's Hist. Puritans, Vol. I., p. 138. Note, Vol.\nII, p. 355, Sup._ What crime had they committed to merit such treatment\nas this?\n\nBISHOP LATIMER declares that, \"The Baptists that were burnt in\ndifferent parts of the kingdom went to death intrepidly, and without\nany fear, during the time of Henry VIII.\" _Lent Sermons. Neal's Hist.\nPurit., Vol. II, p. 356._\n\nUnder the rule of the Popish Mary, they suffered perhaps no more than\nunder that of the Protestant Elizabeth. During the reign of the latter\na congregation of Baptists was discovered in London, whereupon several\nwere banished, twenty-seven imprisoned, and two burnt at Smithfield.[4]\n\nDOCTOR FEATLEY, one of their bitter enemies, wrote of them, in 1633:\n\"This sect, among others, hath so far presumed upon the patience of the\nState, that it hath held weekly conventicles, rebaptizing hundreds of\nmen and women together in the twilight, in rivulets and in some arms of\nthe Thames, and elsewhere, dipping them all over head and ears. It hath\nprinted divers pamphlets in defense of their heresy; yea, and\nchallenged some of our preachers to disputation.\" _Eng. Bapt. Jubilee\nMemor., Benedict's Hist. Bapt., p. 304._\n\nBAILEY wrote, in 1639, that: \"Under the shadow of independency they\nhave lifted up their heads, and increased their numbers above all sects\nin the land. They have _forty-six churches_ in and about London. They\nare a people very fond of religious liberty, and very unwilling to be\nbrought under bondage of the judgment of others.\" _Benedict's History,\np. 304._\n\nThe first book published in the English language on the subject of\nbaptism was translated from the Dutch, and bears date 1618. From this\ntime they multiplied rapidly through all parts of the kingdom. The\nfirst regularly organized church among them, known as such in England,\ndates from 1607, and was formed in London by a Mr. Smyth, previously a\nclergyman of the Established Church.\n\nIn 1689, the Particular Baptists, so called, held a convention in\nLondon, in which more than one hundred congregations were represented,\nand which issued a confession of faith, still in use and highly\nesteemed.\n\nThe last Baptist martyr in England was Edward Wightman, of Burton upon\nTrent, condemned by the Bishop of Coventry, and burnt at Litchfield,\nApril 11, 1612.[5]\n\n\nAMERICAN BAPTISTS\n\nThe history of American Baptists runs back a little more than two and a\nquarter centuries. In this country, as elsewhere, they were cradled\namidst persecution, and nurtured by the hatred of their foes. This has\nbeen their fortune in every age, and in every land.\n\nROGER WILLIAMS, a distinguished and an honored name, was identified\nwith the rise of the denomination in America. He has been called their\nfounder, because he organized the first church, and was intimately\nconnected with their early history. Williams was born in Wales, 1598,\neducated at Oxford, England, came to America in 1630, and settled as\nminister of the Puritan church in Salem, Massachusetts. Not long after,\nhe adopted Baptist views of doctrine and church order, on account of\nwhich he was banished by his fellow Puritans, and driven out of\nMassachusetts, in the depths of a rigorous winter, in a new and\ninhospitable country. Having wandered far and suffered much, finding\nthe savage Indians more generous and hospitable than his fellow\nChristians, he finally reached and fixed his future home at what is now\nProvidence, R. I. Here, with a few associates of like faith, he founded\na new colony, calling both the city and the colony _Providence,_ in\nrecognition of the Divine guidance and protection, which he had in so\nremarkable a manner experienced.\n\nIn 1639, Mr. Williams received baptism from one of his associates,\nthere being no minister to perform that service. He in turn baptized\nhis associates, and a church was organized, of which he was chosen\npastor. He was also appointed first Governor of Rhode Island. Full\nliberty was granted in matters of religion. Thus Roger Williams became\nthe first ruler, and Rhode Island the first State which ever gave\nentire freedom to all persons to worship God, according to their own\nchoice, without dictation or interference from civil or ecclesiastical\nauthorities.\n\nOn account of this unrestricted liberty many Baptists, as well as other\npersecuted religionists from other colonies, and from Europe, collected\nin considerable numbers at Providence, and spread through the colony.\n\nIt is a mistake to suppose that all the Baptist churches in America\ngrew out of the one which Roger Williams founded. It is even doubtful\nwhether any single church arose as an outgrowth of that. As immigration\nincreased, other churches grew up, having no connection with that; and\nwith considerable rapidity the sentiments of Baptists spread into\nadjoining colonies, particularly west and south. For a long time,\nhowever, they were sorely persecuted, especially in Massachusetts and\nConnecticut; persecuted even by those who had themselves fled from\npersecution in their native land, to find freedom and refuge in these\ndistant wilds.\n\nIn 1644, the present First Church in Newport, R. I., was organized. But\nwhether the present First Church in Providence was constituted before\nthis date is still a disputed point. Both claim priority. In 1656, the\nSecond Church, Newport, was formed. Then followed in order of time the\nchurch in Swansea, Massachusetts, 1663; First, Boston, 1665; North\nKingstone, R. I., 1665; Seventh Day Church, Newport, 1671; South\nKingstone, R. I., 1680; Kittery, Me., 1682; Middletown, N. J., 1688;\nLower Dublin, Pa., 1689; Charleston, S. C., 1690; Philadelphia, Pa.,\n1698; Welsh Tract, Del., 1701; Groton, Ct., 1705. Others, not\nmentioned, arose within this period in these and other colonies. With\nthe increase of population, Baptists rapidly increased and widely\nspread over the country.\n\n_Edward's Tables_ gives the number of American Baptist Churches in\n1768, as only 137.\n\n_Asplund's Register_ for 1790, reported 872 churches, 722 ordained\nministers, with 64,975 members.\n\n_Benedict's History_ states that in 1812, there were 2,633 churches,\n2,143 ordained ministers, and 204,185 members.\n\n_Allen's Register_ for 1836, puts them at 7,299 churches, 4.075\nordained ministers, and 517,523 members.\n\n_The Baptist Year-Book_ gives the following figures:\n\nDate Churches Ministers   Members\n1840    7,771     5,208   571,291\n1860   12,279     7,773 1,016,134\n1880   26,080    16,569 2,296,327\n1890   33,588    21,175 3,070,047\n1900   43,427    29,473 4,181,086\n1910   49,045    33,909 5,266,369\n1920   53,866    42,121 7,504,447\n1930   53,888    49,907 8,915,785\n\n_The Year-Book_ gives the Sunday school statistics for 1930, as\nfollows: For the United States, schools, 46,132; total enrollment\n5,143,056.\n\nThe figures given in all these cases are probably less than the actual\nfacts warrant, since full reports from associations, churches, and\nschools can never be obtained.\n\n\nOTHER BAPTISTS\n\nBesides the regular Baptist Brotherhood, there are in the United States\nvery many other and smaller denominations, which practice immersion,\nbut are not in fellowship with, or reckoned as a part of, the great\nBaptist family.\n\nThe Seventh Day Baptists, so called on account of their observing\nSaturday, or the seventh day of the week, as their Sabbath, on the\nground that the Jewish Sabbath was never abrogated. They are estimated\nat about 7,000.\n\nThe Free Will Baptists, who take their name from their views as to the\nfreedom of the human will and practice open communion, number about\n66,000. In the North the Free Will Baptist churches have generally\nunited with the Northern Convention, and their membership is reckoned\nwith that of the regular Baptist body.\n\nThe Six Principle Baptists, so called because their doctrinal\nconfession is based on the six points mentioned in Hebrews 6:1, 2, are\nestimated at about 300.\n\nThe Anti-Mission Baptists, or rather Primitive Baptists, found chiefly\nin the Southwest, do not believe in missions, Sunday schools, or other\nreform movements lest they should seem to interfere with the Divine\ndecrees. They are said to number 43,000.\n\nThe Disciples of Christ, sometimes called Campbellites, or Christians,\nnumber about 1,200,000.\n\nThe Winebrennerians, or the General Eldership of the Churches of God in\nNorth America, are estimated at about 30,000.\n\nThe Tunkers, or Dunkards, of all groups number about 126,000, and the\nUnited Brethren, about 330,000.\n\n\nBAPTISTS ELSEWHERE\n\nIn North America, aside from the United States, but including the\nprovinces of British America, Central America, Mexico, and the West\nIndies, Baptists numbered in 1930 about 249,809.\n\nIn Europe there were in 1930 about 1,639,656.\n\nIn Asia, about 361,800.\n\nIn Australasia, about 35,113.\n\nIn Africa, about 83,041.\n\n+FOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] See Benedict's Hist. Bap., p. 343, and authorities there cited.\n\n[2] Benedict's Hist. Baptists, Ch. IV. Neal's Hist. Puritans, Vol.\n    II.; p. 355. Supplement, Fuller's Ch. Hist., B. 4.\n\n[3] See histories of Baptists, by Crosby, Ivimey, Danvers, and\n    Benedict.\n\n[4] Wall, cited by Neal, Hist. Puritans, Vol. I., p. 137. Vol. II.,\n    p. 358. Supplement.\n\n[5] Eng. Bap. Jubilee Memor., Benedict's Hist. Bap.\n\n\n\n+Transcriber's Notes+\n\n - The break between pages 3 and 4 is in the word \"missionaries\":\n   mission|aries. In this and all subsequent cases, the whole word\n   was moved to the earlier page.\n - The break between pages 4 and 5 is in the word \"thousand\":\n   thou|sand.\n - The break between pages 5 and 6 is in the word \"admitted\":\n   ad|mitted.\n - Page 6, apply reverential capitalization (RC) to \"Divine.\"\n - The break between pages 9 and 10 is in the word \"general\":\n   gen|eral.\n - Page 10, apply RC to \"Divine,\" \"Divinely,\" and \"Word.\" Change\n   \"practise\" to \"practice.\"\n - Page 11, apply RC to \"Apostolic,\", \"Divinely,\" \"His Gospel,\" and\n   \"His.\"\n - Page 12, apply RC to \"Gospel\" (twice); change \"fulfil\" to\n   \"fulfill\"; apply RC to \"Him\" and \"He.\" Note 1, apply RC to\n   \"Gospel\"; change \"fulfils\" to \"fulfills\" and \"practise\" to\n   \"practice.\" Note 2, apply RC to \"His Word\" and \"His\"; change\n   \"practise\" to \"practice\"; apply RC to \"His.\"\n - Page 15, note 2, apply RC to \"Divine.\"\n - Page 18, apply RC to \"Divine,\" \"Word,\" \"Divine,\" \"His\" (twice),\n   and \"He.\"\n - Page 19, apply RC to \"His\" (twice).\n - Page 20, Note 6, apply RC to \"Me\" and \"Him.\" Note 7, apply RC to\n   \"Divinely.\"\n - The break between pages 20 and 21 is in the word \"baptismal\":\n   bap|tismal.\n - Page 21, Note 8, apply RC to \"His.\"\n - Page 23, change \"practise\" to \"practice.\"\n - Page 24, Note 2, change \"practise\" to \"practice.\"\n - The break between pages 28 and 29 is in the word \"possibly\":\n   pos|sibly.\n - Page 31, Note 1, apply RC to \"Divine.\"\n - Page 34, Note 1, apply RC to \"His\" (twice).\n - The break between pages 37 and 38 is in the word\n   \"ecclesiastical\": ecclesias|tical.\n - Page 46, Voting, point 1, change \"deliberatively\" to\n   \"deliberately.\"\n - The break between pages 47 and 48 is in the word \"services\":\n   ser|vices.\n - The break between pages 53 and 54 is in the word \"importance\":\n   impor|tance.\n - Page 56, change \"practise\" to \"practice.\"\n - Page 57, apply RC to \"Divine.\"\n - Page 58, change \"practise\" to \"practice\"; add comma to \"Britain\n   Baptists\"; apply RC to \"Divinely.\"\n - Page 59, note 2, apply RC to \"His\" and \"He.\" Note 3, apply RC to\n   \"My.\" Section II, apply RC to \"Persons\" and \"Divine.\" Note 2,\n   apply RC to \"Thee.\"\n - Page 60, note 1, apply RC to \"His\" apply RC to \"He.\"\n - Page 61, apply RC to \"Divine,\" \"His\" (twice), \"He,\" \"His,\"\n   \"Divine,\" and \"He.\" Note 2, apply RC to \"He,\" \"His,\" and \"Him.\"\n   Note 3, apply RC to \"Himself\" and \"Him.\" Note 4, apply RC to \"He,\"\n   \"Him,\" and \"His.\" Note 5, apply RC to \"He,\" \"Him,\" and \"He,\" and\n   \"Him.\"\n - Page 62, apply RC to \"Gospel,\" \"Him,\" and \"His.\" Note 1, apply RC\n   to \"His.\" Note 2, apply RC to \"Him.\" Note 3, apply RC to \"His\" and\n   \"Him.\" Note 4, apply RC to \"One.\"\n - Page 63, apply RC to \"Gospel\" (twice). Note 3, apply RC to \"Me.\"\n   Apply RC to \"Divine\" and \"Gospel.\"\n - Page 64, note 1, change \"Rev. 8:7-9\" to \"Rev. 3:7-9.\" Note 5,\n   change \"Eph. 8:14-21\" to \"Eph. 5:14-21.\" Apply RC to \"Prophet,\"\n   \"Priest,\" \"King,\" and \"Him.\"\n - Page 65, note 1, apply RC to \"Gospel\"; change \"Eph. 2:3\" to \"Eph.\n   2:8\" and change \"ye are\" to \"are ye\" to match the quotation. Note\n   2, change \"Acts 11:38\" to \"Acts 2:38\" to match the quotation. Note\n   3, apply RC to \"Him.\" Point IX, apply RC to \"He.\" Note 1, apply RC\n   to \"Gospel.\"\n - Page 66, note 1, change \"a holy calling\" to \"an holy calling.\"\n   Note 2, apply RC to \"He\" and \"Gospel.\" Note 4, change \"elects\n   sake\" to \"elect's sakes\" and \"Chris\" to \"Christ.\" Note 5, change\n   \"1 Thess. 4:10\" to \"1 Thess. 1:4.\" Apply RC to \"His\" and \"Word.\"\n - Page 67, change \"practise\" to \"practice.\" Note 1, change \"Thess\n   4:3\" to \"1 Thess. 4:3.\" Note 3, change \"Phil. 1:12, 13\" to \"Phil.\n   2:12, 13\" to match the quotation. Point XI, note 1, apply RC to\n   \"My\" (twice). Note 2, change \"John 2:19\" to \"1 John 2:19\" to match\n   the quotation.\n - Page 68, Note 3, apply RC to \"His.\" Section XII, apply RC to\n   \"Gospel.\" Note 4, change \"Rom. 8:2, 4\" to \"Rom. 8:2-4\" to match\n   the quotation; apply RC to \"His.\"\n - Page 69, apply RC to \"Gospel,\" \"His\" (twice), \"Word,\" and\n   \"Scriptural.\" Note 4, change \"John 1#:15\" (where # represents a\n   poorly printed sort), to \"John 13:15.\"\n - Page 70, apply RC to \"His.\" Note 2, change \"Matt. 18:19\" to \"Matt.\n   28:19\" to match quotation. Note 3, change \"raised from the dead\"\n   to \"raised up from the dead.\" Note 4, apply RC to \"Apostles'.\"\n - Page 71, apply RC to \"His,\" \"Him,\" and \"His.\" Note 1, apply RC to\n   \"He,\" \"My,\" \"Me,\" and \"My\"; change \"1 Cor. 11:27-30\" to \"1 Cor.\n   11:22-30.\" Note 2, apply RC to \"He.\" Note 3, apply RC to \"My\"\n   (four times) and \"Me.\"\n - Page 72, note 2, change \"Ps. 113:24\" to \"Ps. 113:2-4.\" Note 3,\n   apply RC to \"My\" and \"Him\"; change \"then shall thou delight\" to\n   \"then shalt thou delight.\" Note 4, apply RC to \"Word.\" Point XVII,\n   apply RC to \"Divine.\"\n - Page 73, note 4, change \"Rev. 19:14\" to \"Rev. 19:16\" to match\n   quotation. Point XVIII, apply RC to \"His\" (twice). Note 2, apply\n   RC to \"He\" and \"Him.\"\n - Page 74, note 2, apply RC to \"Him.\" Note 5, change \"Matt.\n   25:35-41\" to \"Matt. 25:31-46.\" Note 6, apply RC to \"He\" and \"Him.\"\n - Page 75, apply RC to \"Divine,\" \"Him\" (twice), \"His\" (thrice),\n   \"Divine.\"\n - Page 76, apply RC to \"Gospel,\" \"Him,\" and \"His.\"\n - The break between pages 78 and 79 is in the word \"expressed\":\n   ex|pressed.\n - Page 79, apply RC to \"Gospel.\" Change \"practise\" to \"practice.\"\n - Page 82, apply RC to \"His Apostles.\"\n - Page 85, apply RC to \"His\" (twice), \"He,\" and \"His.\"\n - Page 86, apply RC to \"He,\" \"Him,\" and \"He.\"\n - Page 88, apply RC to \"His.\"\n - Page 89, change \"Malancthon\" to \"Malanchthon\" and \"colaborer\" to\n   \"co-laborer.\"\n - Page 90, capitalize \"Divine\" as referring to a churchman. Change\n   \"practised\" to \"practiced.\"\n - Page 91, change \"practise\" to \"practice.\"\n - The break between pages 91 and 92 is in the word \"sufficient\":\n   suf|ficient.\n - Page 92, apply RC to \"Apostle.\"\n - The break between pages 93 and 94 is in the word \"immersion\":\n   immer|sion.\n - Page 95, apply RC to \"Apostles.\"\n - The break between pages 96 and 97 is in the word \"original\":\n   origi|nal.\n - Page 98, change \"practised\" to \"practised\"; apply RC to \"His\n   Apostles.\"\n - Page 99, change \"practise\" to \"practice\" (twice).\n - Page 100, apply RC to \"Gospel.\" Change \"practise\" to \"practice\"\n   and \"practises\" to \"practices.\"\n - Page 101, apply RC to \"His.\"\n - Page 102, change \"practise\" to \"practice.\"\n - Page 104, apply RC to \"Divine.\"\n - Page 105, change \"practise\" to \"practice.\"\n - The break between pages 106 and 107 is in the word \"Parliament\":\n   Par|liament.\n - Page 108, apply RC to \"His\" (thrice) and \"Me.\"\n - Page 109, apply RC to \"He,\" \"His,\" \"My\" (four times), \"Me,\" and\n   \"Divine.\"\n - The break between pages 109 and 110 is in the word \"practiced\"\n   (changed from \"practised\"): prac|ticed.\n - Page 110, change \"practised\" to \"practiced\" and \"practise\" to\n   \"practice\" (twice).\n - Page 111, change \"practise\" to \"practice.\"\n - Page 112, apply RC to \"Him.\"\n - Page 113, apply RC to \"Divine.\"\n - Page 114, apply RC to \"Apostolic,\" \"Word,\" \"Apostles',\" \"Word,\"\n   and \"Divine.\" Change \"practise\" to \"practice.\"\n - Page 115, change \"practise\" to \"practice.\"\n - The break between pages 115 and 116 is in the word \"infants\":\n   in|fants.\n - Page 116, change \"practise\" to \"practice\" (thrice).\n - Page 117, apply RC to \"His\";  change \"practise\" to \"practice\";\n   apply RC to \"Him.\"\n - Page 118, change \"practise\" to \"practice.\"\n - The break between pages 118 and 119 is in the word \"remaining\":\n   re|maining.\n - Page 119, capitalize \"Divines\" as referring to churchmen.\n - Page 120, apply RC to \"Gospel.\"\n - Each of pages 123 and 124, capitalize \"Divine\" as referring to a\n   churchman.\n - Page 124, apply RC to \"Lord's Table.\"\n - Page 125, apply RC to \"His.\"\n - Page 129, change \"practised\" to \"practiced\" (thrice). Apply RC to\n   \"His Apostles\" and \"Word.\"\n - Page 130, capitalize \"Divine\" as referring to a churchman; apply\n   RC to \"Apostles.\"\n - Page 131, apply RC to \"Apostolic\" and \"Apostles.\"\n - Page 132, change \"practised\" to \"practiced.\" Apply RC to \"His\n   Apostles.\"\n - Page 133, change \"practised\" to \"practiced.\"\n - Page 134, change \"practise\" to \"practice\" and \"practised\" to\n   \"practiced.\"\n - Page 136, change \"practise\" to \"practice.\" Apply RC to \"Divine\"\n   and \"Word.\"\n - Page 137, apply RC to \"Gospel\" and \"Word.\"\n - Page 138, apply RC to \"Apostles.\"\n - Page 140, apply RC to \"Apostles.\"\n - Page 141, apply RC to \"Apostolic.\"\n - Page 142, apply RC to \"Apostles\" and \"Divinely.\"\n - The break between pages 143 and 144 is in the word \"people\":\n    peo|ple.\n - Page 144, capitalize \"Divines\" as referring to churchmen; apply RC\n   to \"Apostolic.\" Add \"Ch. Hist.\" to the Geiseler citation.\n - Page 145, change \"practised\" to \"practiced.\"\n - Page 146, change \"practises\" to \"practices.\"\n - Page 147, apply RC to \"His,\" \"He,\" \"His Apostles,\" \"His\" (twice),\n   \"He,\" \"Divine,\" and \"Apostles.\"\n - The break between pages 147 and 148 is in the word \"minister\":\n   min|ister.\n - Page 148, apply RC to \"Apostles,\" \"His,\" and \"Gospel.\"\n - The break between pages 148 and 149 is in the word \"authority\":\n   author|ity.\n - Page 149, change \"later\" to \"latter.\"\n - Page 150, apply RC to \"Apostles.\"\n - Page 152, apply RC to \"Apostle\"; change _\"episcopous\"_ to\n   _\"episcopos\"_ for consistency.\n - Page 153, apply RC to \"Apostolic.\"\n - Page 154, apply RC to \"Word,\" \"Apostles,\" and \"Himself.\"\n - Page 155, apply RC to \"Gospel.\"\n - The break between pages 155 and 156 is in the word \"apostasy\":\n   apos|tasy.\n - Page 156, apply RC to \"Gospel,\"; change \"practised\" to \"practiced\"\n   apply RC to \"Word\" and \"Gospel.\"\n - Page 158, apply RC to \"Gospel.\" Change \"practise\" to \"practice\"\n   (twice).\n - Page 160, change \"practise\" to \"practice\"; apply RC to \"Apostles.\"\n - Page 161, apply RC to \"Apostles\" and \"Word.\"\n - The break between pages 162 and 163 is in the word \"contemporary\":\n   contempo|rary.\n - Page 163, apply RC to \"Apostles\" and \"Gospel.\"\n - Page 164, change \"offence\" to \"offense.\"\n - The break between pages 165 and 166 is in the word \"because\":\n   be|cause.\n - Page 166, remove extraneous right double quotes after\n   \"Smithfield\"; change \"suffered perhaps more\" to \"suffered perhaps\n   no more.\"\n - Page 167, change \"defence\" to \"defense.\"\n - Page 169, add comma to \"after he\"; apply RC to \"Divine.\"\n - The break between pages 170 and 171 is in the word \"themselves\":\n   them|selves.\n - Page 173, change \"practise\" to \"practice\" (twice); apply RC to\n   \"Divine.\"","title":"The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":33723}