Chapter XV: Baptist History (3)

It is proved that not only was immersion practiced for baptism by Christ and His Apostles, but that for many ages after nothing else was known as baptism: and that for _thirteen hundred years_ it was the common and prevailing form over the whole Christian world, with only exceptional departures, hereafter to be noticed. And that though the Latin or Roman Church did finally adopt sprinkling, claiming the right to change ordinances, the Greek and all the Oriental churches retained dipping, as they do to this day.

DOCTOR STACKHOUSE says: "Several authors have shown and proved that this manner of _immersion_ continued, as much as possible, to be used for _thirteen hundred years_ after Christ." _Hist. Bible, B. 8, Ch. 1._

BISHOP BOSSUET says: "We are able to make it appear, by the acts of councils and by ancient rituals, that for _thirteen hundred years_ baptism was thus administered [by immersion] throughout the whole church, as far as possible." _Cited, Stennet ad Russen, p. 176._

HAGENBACH says: "From the _thirteenth century_ sprinkling came into more general use in the West. The Greek Church, however, and the church of Milan still retained the practice of _immersion._" _Hist. Doct. Vol. II., p. 84, note 1._

VAN OOSTERZEE says: "This _sprinkling,_ which appears to have first come generally into use in the _thirteenth century_ in place of the entire _immersion_ of the body, in imitation of the previous baptism of the sick, has certainly the imperfection that the symbolical character of the act is expressed by it much less conspicuously than by complete immersion and burial under the water." _Christ. Dogmat., Vol. II., p. 749._

COLEMAN says: "The practice of immersion continued even until the _thirteenth or fourteenth_ century. Indeed, it has never been formally abandoned." _Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 19, Sec. 12._

To the same effect is the testimony of Doctors Brenner, Von Cölln, Winer, Augusti, Bingham, and others.

AS TO THE GREEK CHURCH

It is a notable fact and worthy of record in this discussion, that the Greek Church has always retained immersion in baptism. This church extends over Greece, Russia, Arabia, Palestine, Abyssinia, Siberia, and other Oriental countries. Like the Latin Church, it has corrupted the primitive purity of Gospel doctrine and practice with many absurd glosses and superstitious rites. It practices infant baptism, yet it is by _dipping,_ even in the severe climate of Siberia; and it uses _trine_ immersion, or dipping the candidate three times, one to each of the names in the sacred Trinity. But in all its branches immersion is retained.

THE EDINBURGH ENCYCLOPEDIA says: "The Greek Church, as well as the Schismatics in the East, retained the custom of _immersing_ the whole body; but the Western Church adopted, in the _thirteenth century,_ the mode of sprinkling, which has been continued by the Protestants, Baptists only excepted." _Ency. Edin., Art. Baptism._

These statements are fully confirmed by Stourdza, Ricaut, Deylingius, Buddeus, Wall, King, Broughton, Stanley, Coleman and others, who have written on the state and history of the Greek Church.

THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM

What was baptism intended to represent? As a religious rite it meant something, had some symbolic force, and represented some moral or spiritual fact or truth. Its meaning was clearly this: to show forth the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, who died for our sins, and rose again for our justification. And every believer who receives this ordinance, professes thereby to have faith in the merits of Christ's death as the ground of his own hope of Salvation; to have fellowship also with His sufferings, and makes a declaration of his own death to sin, and rising to a new life in Christ. It also typifies the washing of regeneration; it further declares the candidate's hope of a resurrection from the dead, even as Christ, into the likeness of whose death he is buried, was raised up by the glory of the Father. Chiefly _death, burial,_ and _resurrection:_ the great facts of redemptive grace are by it set forth. Immersion in baptism does teach all this, and immersion alone can teach it. Careful students of the New Testament have clearly seen this, and very generally confessed it, whatever may have been their practice.

BISHOP NEWTON says: "Baptism was usually performed by _immersion,_ or dipping the whole body under water, to represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and thereby signify the person's own dying to sin, the destruction of its power, and his resurrection to a new life." _Pract. Expos. Cate., p. 297._

Bloomfield, Barnes, Schaff, Poole, Hammond, Barrows, Baxter, MacKnight, Olshausen, Grotius, Saurin, Buddeus, Pictetus, Frankius, Wall, Towerson, Adam Clark, Tyndale, and others, bear similar testimony as to the design of the ordinance, and how it is answered in immersion only.

A SUFFICIENCY OF WATER

There have been found persons so ignorant, or so weak, or so perverse in their opposition to immersion, as to assert that the Jordan was a small stream, so nearly dry in the summer, that it had not sufficient depth of water for the immersion of the multitudes of the disciples of John and of Jesus said to have been baptized in it; and also that Jerusalem had no sufficient accommodation for the immersion of the thousands of converts at the Pentecost, and on subsequent occasions. People are becoming more intelligent, and more candid, and it is possible that such puerile objections are no more heard. But it may be well to give passing notice to the facts.

DR. EDWARD ROBINSON, at that time professor in the Union Theological Seminary, New York City, in 1840, made a careful survey of Palestine, including the Jordan valley and river. His published statements corroborate those of others previously made, as to the abundant supply of water, both in the Jordan, and in the city of Jerusalem. He cites the published statements of earlier explorers, whose works are known to the reading public: Seetzen, who visited that country in 1806; Burkhardt, who explored it in 1812; Irby and Mangles, in 1818; and Buckingham, who traveled through it about the same time. See _Robinson's Bib. Researches, Vol. II., Sec. 10, pp. 257-267._

LIEUTENANT LYNCH, of the United States Navy, was, in 1848, sent out by our government in charge of an expedition to explore the river Jordan and the Dead Sea. Doctor Thomson, for a quarter of a century missionary in Syria and Palestine, traversed the land in 1857, and Dean Stanley in 1853, and others more recently. For a complete refutation of such puerile objections as those above mentioned, and a confirmation of Baptist claims, see the following works: Robinson's "Biblical Researches," Vol. II, Sec. 10, pp. 257-267; Lynch's "Dead Sea Expedition," Ch. 10 and 11; Thomson's "The Land and the Book," Vol. II., pp. 445-6; Stanley's "Syria and Palestine," Ch. 7, pp. 306-7; Barclay's "The City of the Great Kings," ch. 10; and other citations in "Baptist Church Directory."

THE RISE OF SPRINKLING

The question will naturally arise and very properly, When did sprinkling for baptism first come into use? And how came it to pass, that a human device superseded and took the place of a Divine institution? These questions are fully and satisfactorily answered by Pedobaptist scholars themselves, whose testimony we accept as a justification of Baptist views.

For _two hundred and fifty years_ after Christ we have no evidence of any departure from the primitive practice of immersion. At length the idea came to prevail that baptism possessed saving virtue, and had power to purify and sanctify the soul, making its salvation more secure. It was consequently thought unsafe to die unbaptized. Here was the germ of the pernicious dogma of "baptismal regeneration," the foundation alike of infant baptism and of sprinkling instead of immersion.

The first authenticated instance of _sprinkling_ occurred about the middle of the third century, or A. D. 250. This was the case of Novatian. The historian Eusebius gives this case, and Doctor Wall in his laborious researches could find no earlier instance; good evidence that no earlier existed. Novatian was dangerously sick, and believing himself about to die, was anxious to be baptized. The case seemed urgent, and as he was thought to be too feeble to be _immersed,_ a substitute was resorted to; water was poured profusely over him as he lay in bed, so as to resemble as much as possible a submersion. The word used to describe this action (_perichutheis, purfusus_) has usually been rendered _besprinkle;_ it rather means to pour profusely over and about one. This it was thought might answer the purpose in such an emergency.

From this time onward pouring and sprinkling were resorted to at times of extreme illness, or feebleness, where persons could not leave their beds, and hence was termed _clinic_ baptism, from _clina,_ a couch. But it was always regarded as a substitute for baptism, rather than baptism itself; and its validity was doubted. Novatian himself having recovered from his sickness, was objected to when his friends proposed to make him bishop, because, it was said, he had never been properly baptized. It was not, however, until the seventeenth century that sprinkling became common in Europe, in France first, and then extending through those countries over which the pope held sway. At length, accepted by Calvin and the Genevan Church, it extended into Scotland, by John Knox, and other Scotch refugees, who had found in Geneva a shelter from the persecution to which they had been exposed in their native country; then into England: and in 1643 it was adopted as the exclusive mode of baptism by a majority of one of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and sanctioned by Parliament the next year. All of which is verified by Eusebius, Valesius, Wall, Salmasius, Venema, Taylor, Towerson, Grotius, "Ency. Brit.," "Edin. Ency.," and other reliable historical authorities.[1]

+FOOTNOTES:+

[1] For more numerous citations on this subject, see the "Star Book
on Christian Baptism," and "The Baptist Church Directory."

+CHAPTER XI+

THE LORD'S SUPPER

The Lord's Supper, called also the "Eucharist," and the "Communion," is the most sacred act of Christian worship, and the highest expression of the mysteries of our holy religion. It is a service in which bread and wine--the _loaf_ and the _cup_--are used to represent the body and the blood of Christ, the Lamb of God, slain for us. The bread is _broken,_ distributed, and eaten; the wine is _poured,_ distributed, and drunk by the members of the assembled church, to show the sacrifice of Christ, His body broken, and His blood shed for their redemption; and that by His death they have life. Being begotten of God through the operation of the Spirit, their new life is sustained and nourished by mystically feeding on Him who is the Bread of God, which came down from heaven to give life to the world. He said: "This do in remembrance of Me." "As oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death, till He come." "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." "Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life." "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him." It is a Divine reality, though a sublime mystery.

OPEN AND CLOSE COMMUNION

The controversy between Baptists and other denominations, so far as the Lord's Supper is concerned, has no reference to its nature, the purpose for which it was instituted, the manner of its administration, or the effect of the elements on the participants. It has reference simply to the proper _subjects_ for participation in the privilege. Who may, and who may not properly and of right come to the Lord's Table? On the question of what are the Scriptural qualifications of participants, Baptist and Pedobaptists differ--differ not as to the general rule to be applied, but as to its particular application. And this particular application leads to the controversy on what is called _"close communion,"_ as practiced by Baptists, and to what is called _"open communion,"_ as practiced by Pedobaptists.

_What is open communion? Open,_ free or mixed communion is, strictly speaking, that which allows any one who desires, and believes himself qualified, to come to the Lord's Table, without any questions being asked, or conditions imposed by the church in which the ordinance is observed. But ordinarily the term is applied to the practice of the greater part of the Pedobaptist churches, which hold that _sprinkling_ is lawful baptism, and invite, not all persons, but members of all evangelical churches, whatever be their view of church order and ordinances; holding them all as being baptized because they have been sprinkled.

_What is close communion? Close,_ strict, or restricted communion is, properly speaking, that which does not invite all indiscriminately to the Lord's Table, but restricts the privilege to a particular class. But ordinarily the term is applied to the practice of Baptist churches, which invite only baptized believers, walking in orderly fellowship in their own churches. And by baptized believers, they mean, of course, immersed believers; not admitting sprinkling to be baptism at all.

ONE AND THE SAME RULE

_Observe further:_ That Baptists and Pedobaptists have one and the same rule in theory as to the proper qualification for participants, namely, they all hold that baptism is a prerequisite. That unbaptized persons have no legal right to the Lord's Supper, and cannot consistently be invited to it. Pedobaptists would not invite unbaptized persons to the Lord's Table, however good Christians, since such could not become church-members, and the Supper is for those within the church, not for the outside world. For though there are a few churches and a few pastors, who in their extreme liberality might be disposed to invite everybody to the sacred ordinance yet such a course would be contrary to their denominational standards, and opposed to the usages of their churches generally.

_Further observe:_ They all practice a restriction since they restrict the privilege to a particular class: namely, baptized believers, walking in orderly church fellowship. But Baptists and Pedobaptists differ as to what constitutes _baptism,_ the one rejecting, and the other accepting the validity of sprinkling. Thus Baptists' custom is more _"close,"_ and Pedobaptists' is more _"open,"_ by the difference between their views of baptism; and by that difference only. _Therefore,_ it is manifest that the question so called of "close" and "open" communion is really not a question of "communion" at all, but of what constitutes Scriptural baptism. Let that be settled, and the controversy as to the restriction of the Lord's Supper will cease.

THE BAPTIST POSITION

Baptists hold that there are _three_ imperative conditions precedent to the privileges of the Lord's Supper: 1. _Regeneration._ No unconverted person can with propriety, or of right, eat and drink at that sacred feast, in commemoration of Christ's death. They must be persons dead to sin, and alive to God; born again, through the operation of the Spirit. 2. _Baptism._ Buried with Christ in baptism on a profession of faith in Him. No person, however good, and however manifestly regenerate, is prepared without baptism, according to the Divine order, to receive the Supper. Without baptism he cannot enter the fellowship of the church, where the Supper alone is to be enjoyed. 3. _An orderly walk is necessary._ An upright and consistent Christian walk, and godly conversation among the saints, and before the world. For though one may be truly regenerate, and properly baptized, yet if he be a disorderly walker, violating his covenant obligations, living in sin, and bringing reproach on the Christian profession, he has no right to sit at the Lord's Table.

The ordinances are a sacred trust which Christ has committed to the churches as custodians, and which they are to watch and guard from all profane intrusion, and improper use, with the most sedulous fidelity. Baptists believe that in order to maintain the purity and spirituality of the churches, it is necessary to maintain the ordinances pure; and especially necessary to restrict the Supper to regenerate and godly persons, baptized on a profession of their faith, into the fellowship of the saints. To adopt any other rule, or to allow any larger liberty, would break down the distinction between the church and the world; would bring in a carnal and unconverted membership, and transfer the sacred mysteries of the body and the blood of Christ from the temple of God to the temple of Belial. This would be disloyalty to Christ.

The Apostolic plan was as follows: Those who _believed_ and _gladly received the Word,_ were _baptized._ Then they were _added to the church._ Then they continued steadfastly in the _Apostles' doctrine,_ and fellowship, and in _breaking of bread,_ and in _prayer._

_Notice,_ they were not baptized till they had received the Word and believed. They were not added to the church till they had believed and been baptized. They did not engage in the breaking of bread (that is, the Supper,) till they had believed, been baptized, and were added to the church. This is the Divine order; and this is the order which Baptists maintain and defend.

PEDOBAPTIST CLOSE COMMUNION

It has already been shown that Pedobaptists themselves practice a restricted or close communion, limiting the privilege to baptized (as they call them) members of evangelical churches, and that their communion is more liberal than that of the Baptists only, and only by so much as their baptism (so-called) is more liberal than that of Baptists.

But in some respects Pedobaptists practice a "close communion," restrictive in its conditions, far beyond anything known to Baptists whose illiberality they are accustomed to magnify. They exclude a large class of their own members from the Lord's Table--namely, _baptized children!_ Baptists do not deny the Lord's Supper to their own members in good standing. If children are suitable subjects for baptism, it seems most unreasonable and unjust to deny them the Supper. If they can be benefited by one ordinance, can they not be equally benefited by the other? If they can receive the one on the faith of sponsors, can they not receive the other in the same way? Who has authorized parents or ministers to give baptism to unconverted and unconscious children, and refuse them the Lord's Supper? By denying the Supper to baptized children, Pedobaptists act contrary to the traditions of the ancient churches, which they are accustomed to cite with so much assurance, in defense of infant baptism. Do they not know that those ancient churches (not the primitive churches) gave the Lord's Supper to infants for many centuries? And the Greek Church, through all its branches, continues still the same practice.

DOCTOR COLEMAN says: "After the general introduction of infant baptism, in the _second and third centuries,_ the sacrament continued to be administered to all who had been baptized, whether infants or adults. The reason alleged by Cyprian and others for this practice was, that age was no impediment. Augustine strongly advocates the practice. The custom continued for several centuries. It is mentioned in the third Council of Tours, A. D. 813; and even the Council of Trent, A. D. 1545, only decreed that it should not be considered essential to salvation. It is still scrupulously observed by the Greek Church." _Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 22, Sec. 8; Bing., Orig., B. 15, Ch. 4, Sec. 7. Many other writers bear the same testimony._

THE POWER OF SYMPATHY

There is a small class of Baptists who are at times inclined to desire, and it may be, to seek a wider liberty at the Lord's Table than they find accorded in their own churches. The one prevailing argument with them is _sympathy._ To them it seems kindly and fraternal to invite all who say they love our common Lord and Saviour to unite in commemorating His death in the Supper. Even if they have not been baptized, they themselves believe they have, and they are good Christian people. "Why stand upon a technicality?" they say. To such the service is merely a sentimental service; a kind of love feast to show Christian fellowship, rather than an instituted commemoration of their dying Lord. They have neither Scripture, logic, expediency, the scholarship, nor the concurrent practice of Christendom, either past or present, to sustain their position. But _sympathy_ influences them; yet sympathy should not control conduct in matters of faith, or in acts of conscience. It is a grave perversion when affection for his disciples sways us more than fidelity to our Lord. We should not be so kind to _them_ as to be untrue to _Him._ Sincere Christians will honor those who are loyal to Christ, even though they differ in opinion.

THREE FACTS EXPLAINED

Baptists give the following reasons in justification of their course in the following cases:

1. They do not invite Pedobaptists to the Lord's Supper with them, because such persons are not baptized, as has been shown, they being simply sprinkled. They may be true converts, and have the spiritual qualifications, but they are destitute of the ceremonial qualification--baptism. The "buried in baptism" comes before the "breaking of bread."

2. They do not accept the invitation of Pedobaptist churches to eat at the Lord's Table with them, for the same reason; they are not baptized Christians. And while the appreciate their Christian fellowship, they could not accept their church fellowship, and sit at the Lord's Table with them, without accepting their sprinkling and indorsing their baptismal errors.

3. They do not invite immersed members of Pedobaptist churches to the Lord's Supper with them, because such persons, though they may be truly regenerate and properly baptized, are walking disorderly by remaining in and giving countenance to churches which hold and practice serious errors as to both the ordinances. These churches use sprinkling for baptism and administer the ordinance to infants, both of which are unscriptural. And yet such persons, by remaining in them, encourage and support these errors, instead of protesting against them by leaving them. They insist on immersion for themselves, and yet by a strange inconsistency give their fellowship and influence to perpetuate and sanction sprinkling for others. This is inconsistent and disorderly Christian walking; and, therefore, very properly, Baptists decline to invite them to the Lord's Supper.

PEDOBAPTIST WITNESSES

In further proof that the position of Baptists as to the Lord's Supper is correct and Scriptural; that the difficulty lies with baptism, and not with the Supper; and that they must still continue to restrict the ordinance to baptized believers, or else admit that sprinkling is baptism, we cite the concessions of distinguished Pedobaptist scholars and Divines in evidence on our side.

JUSTIN MARTYR, one of the early Christian Fathers, says of the Supper: "This food is called by us the Eucharist, of which it is not lawful for any one to partake but such as believe the things taught by us to be true, and have been baptized." _Apol. I, C. 65. 66. See Schaff's Church Hist., Ch. 2. p. 516._

MOSHEIM, in his Church History, says: "Neither those doing penance, nor those not yet baptized, were allowed to be present at the celebration of this ordinance." _Eccl. Hist., Cent. 3, Part 2, Ch. 4, Sec. 3._

NEANDER, the great church historian, says: "At this celebration, as may be easily concluded, no one could be present who was not a member of the Christian Church, and incorporated into it by the rite of baptism." _Ch. Hist., Vol. 1., 327. Boston, 1849._

CAVE, one of the ablest writers on Christian antiquities, says the participants in the primitive church were those "that had embraced the doctrine of the Gospel, and had been baptized into the faith of Christ. For, looking upon the Lord's Supper as the highest and most solemn act of religion, they thought they could never take care enough in the dispensing of it." _Prim. Christ., Part I., Ch. 11, p. 333._

BINGHAM, in his able work on the Antiquities of the Christian Church, says of the early Christians: "As soon as a man was baptized he was communicated"--that is, admitted to the communion. Baptism, therefore, essentially preceded the Supper.--_Christ. Antiq., B. 12, Ch. 4, Sec. 9, B. 15, Ch. 3._

DOCTOR WALL, who searched the records of antiquity for facts illustrating the history of the ordinances, says: "No church ever gave the communion to any persons before they were baptized. Among all the absurdities that were ever held, none ever maintained that any person should partake of the communion before he was baptized." _Hist. Inf. Bap., Part II., Ch. 9._

DOCTOR COLEMAN says of the early churches: "None indeed but believers in full communion with the church were permitted to be present." "But agreeably to all the laws and customs of the church, baptism constituted membership with the church. All baptized persons were legitimately numbered among the communicants as members of the church." _Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 21, Sec. 8._

DOCTOR SCHAFF says: "The communion was a regular part, and, in fact, the most important and solemn part of the Sunday worship, . . . in which none but full members of the church could engage." _Ch. Hist., Vol. I., p. 392. New Work, 1871._

DOCTOR DODDRIDGE says: "It is certain that so far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity reaches, no unbaptized person received the Lord's Supper." _Lectures, pp. 511, 512._

DOCTOR DICK says: "An uncircumcised man was not permitted to eat the Passover; and an unbaptized man should not be permitted to partake of the Eucharist." _Theol., Vol. II., p. 220._

DOCTOR BAXTER says: "What man dares go in a way which hath neither precept nor example to warrant it, from a way that hath full current of both? Yet they that will admit members into the visible church without baptism do so." _Plain Scripture Proof, p. 24._

DOCTOR DWIGHT, President of Yale College, and author of "Systematic Theology," says: "It is an indispensable qualification for this ordinance that the candidate for communion be a member of the visible church in full standing. By this, I intend that he should be a man of piety; that he should have made a public profession of religion, and that he should have been baptized." _Syst. Theol., Ser. 160, B. 8, Ch. 4. Sec. 7._

DOCTOR GRIFFIN, one of the fathers of New England Congregationalism, says: "I agree with the advocates of close communion on two points: 1. That baptism is the initiatory ordinance which introduces us into the visible church; of course, where there is no baptism, there are no visible churches. 2. That we ought not to commune with those who are not baptized, and of course not church-members, even if we regard them as Christians." _Letter on Baptism, 1829, cited by Curtis on Com., p. 125._

DOCTOR HIBBARD, a leading Methodist scholar and Divine, says: "In one principle Baptist and Pedobaptist churches agree. They both agree in rejecting from communion at the table of the Lord, and in denying the rights of church fellowship to all who have not been baptized." And with admirable frankness, he adds: "The charge of _close communion_ is no more applicable to the Baptist than to us [Pedobaptists]; insomuch as the question of church fellowship with them is determined by as liberal principles as it is with any other Protestant churches, so far, I mean, as the present subject is concerned--i.e., _it is determined by valid baptism._" _Hibbard on Christ. Bap., P. II., p. 174._

DOCTOR BULLOCK, another Methodist Divine, says: "Close communion, as it is generally termed, is the only logical and consistent course for Baptist churches to pursue. If their premises are right, their conclusion is surely just as it should be." And he commends the firmness of Baptists in not inviting to the communion those whom they regard as unbaptized. He says: "They do not feel willing to countenance such laxity in Christian discipline. Let us honor them for their steadfastness in maintaining what they believe to be a Bible precept, rather than criticize and censure because they differ with us concerning the intent and mode of Christian baptism, and believe it to be an irrepealable condition of coming to the Lord's Table." _What Christians Believe._

THE INDEPENDENT, one of the most widely circulated, and perhaps the most influential Pedobaptist paper in the country, in an editorial, says: "Leading writers of all denominations declare that converts must be baptized before they can be invited to the communion table. This is the position generally taken. But Baptists regarding sprinkling as a nullity--no baptism at all--look upon Presbyterians, Methodists, and others, as unbaptized persons." "The other churches cannot urge the Baptists to become open communionists till they themselves take the position that all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, the unbaptized as well as the baptized, may be invited to the communion table." _Editorial, July, 1879._

THE CONGREGATIONALIST, the organ of the New England Congregational Churches, in an editorial, says: "Congregationalists have uniformly, until here and there an exception has arisen of late years, required baptism and church-membership as the prerequisite of a seat at the table of the Lord. It is a part of the false 'liberality' which now prevails in certain quarters, to welcome everybody 'who thinks he loves Christ' to commune in His body and blood. Such a course is the first step in breaking down that distinction between the church and the world, which our Saviour emphasized; and it seems to us it is an unwise and mistaken act for which no Scriptural warrant exists." _Editorial, July 9, 1879._

THE OBSERVER, of New York, the oldest and leading Presbyterian journal of this country, said: "It is not a want of charity which compels the Baptist to restrict his invitation. He has no hesitation in admitting the personal piety of his unimmersed brethren. Presbyterians do not invite the unbaptized, however pious they may be. It is not uncharitable. It is not bigotry on the part of Baptists to confine their communion to those whom they consider the baptized."

THE INTERIOR, of Chicago, the organ of Western Presbyterians, said: "The difference between our Baptist brethren and ourselves is an important difference. We agree with them, however, in saying that unbaptized persons should not partake of the Lord's Supper. Their view compels them to think that we are not baptized, and shuts them up to close communion. Close communion is, in our judgment, a more defensible position than open communion, which is justified on the ground that baptism is not a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. To charge Baptists with bigotry because they abide by the logical consequences of their system is absurd."

THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE, of New York, the leading journal of American Methodists, said: "The regular Baptist churches in the United States may be considered today as particularly a unit on _three points_--the non-use of infant baptism, the immersion of believers only upon a profession of faith, and the administration of the holy communion to such only as have been immersed by ministers holding these views. In our opinion the Baptist Church owes its amazing prosperity largely to its adherence to these views. In doctrine and government, and in other respects, it is the same as Congregationalists. In numbers, the regular Baptists are more than six times as great as the Congregationalists. It is not bigotry to adhere to one's convictions, provided the spirit of Christian love prevails."

THE EPISCOPAL RECORDER said: "The close communion of the Baptist churches is but the necessary sequence of the fundamental idea out of which their existence has grown. No Christian Church would willingly receive to its communion even the humblest and truest believer in Christ who had not been baptized. With Baptists, immersion only is baptism, and they therefore of necessity exclude from the Lord's Table all who have not been immersed. It is an essential part of the system--the legitimate carrying out of the creed."

BISHOP COXE, of the Episcopal diocese of Western New York, says: "The Baptists hold that we have never been baptized, and they must exclude us from their communion table, if we were disposed to go there. Are we offended? Do we call it illiberal? No; we call it _principle,_ and we respect it. To say that we have never become members of Christ by baptism seems severe, but it is a conscientious adherence to duty, as they regard it. I should be the bigot, and not they, if I should ask them to violate their discipline in this, or in any other particular." _On Christ. Unity, in "Church Union," July, 1891._

+CHAPTER XII+

INFANT BAPTISM

One of the customs held and upheld by Pedobaptist churches, which Baptists seriously condemn, is infant baptism. It is practiced by both Roman Catholics and Protestants as a religious institution; and though not held as sacredly, or practiced as widely as formerly, it still prevails to a wide extent throughout the Christian world. And yet it was not instituted by Christ, nor practiced by His Apostles, nor known in the primitive churches, and has neither sanction nor recognition in the Word of God. It is for this reason that Baptists utterly reject and condemn the custom, as not simply useless and without authority, but as a most pernicious and hurtful usage; that it is injurious both to the child that receives it, and to the church which allows it, can be easily shown. Baptism before faith, and without a profession it, contradicts and does violence to all New Testament teaching.

NOT OF SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY

Now, that infant baptism is not of Scriptural authority, and was not known in the first Christian ages, nearly all its advocates and defenders have with considerable candor admitted. Only a few of their historians and scholars can be cited here.

DR. WILLIAM WALL, a learned Divine of the English Church, who wrote the "History of Infant Baptism," a work so able that the clergy in convocation assembled gave him a vote of thanks for his defense of the custom, says: "Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the Apostles, there is no express mention of any infants." _Hist. Inf. Bap., Intro., pp. 1, 55._

THOMAS FULLER, the historian, says: "We do freely confess there is neither express precept nor precedent in the New Testament for the Baptism of Infants." _Infants' Advoc., pp. 71, 150._

LUTHER says: "It cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the Apostles." _Vanity of Inf. Bap., Part II., p. 8._

NEANDER says: "Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive of _baptism_ and _faith_ as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from Apostolic institution." _Ch. Hist., Vol. I., p. 311; Plant. and Train., Vol. I., p. 222._

PROFESSOR LANGE says: "All attempts to make out infant baptism from the New Testament fail. It is totally opposed to the spirit of the Apostolic age, and to the fundamental principles of the New Testament." _Inf. Baptism, p. 101._

PROFESSOR JACOBI says: "Infant baptism was established neither by Christ, nor by the Apostles." _Art. Bap., Kitto's Cycl. Bib. Lit._

DOCTOR HANNA says: "Scripture knows nothing of the baptism of infants." _North Brit. Review, Aug., 1852._

PROFESSOR HAGENBACH says: "The passages from Scripture cited in favor of infant baptism as a usage of the primitive church are doubtful and prove nothing." _Hist. Dict., pp. 190, 193._

Bishop Burnett, Baxter, Goodwin, Limborch, Celarius, Field, and many others bear similar testimony.

WHEN DID IT RISE?

Since the New Testament knows nothing of infant baptism, and since it was neither instituted by Christ, nor practiced by His Apostles, what was its origin, and when did it come into use?

TERTULLIAN is the first who mentions the custom, and he opposes it. This was at the close of the second century, or about A. D. 200. His opposition to it proves two things: _First,_ that it was in occasional use, at least. _Second,_ that it was of recent origin, since had it been long used some earlier record if it could be found. _Neander, Ch. Hist., Vol. I., p. 311._

BINGHAM could find no earlier allusion to it than that of Tertullian, though he believed it arose earlier. It must, therefore, as is generally agreed, have had its origin about the beginning of the _third century._

CURCELLÆUS says: "The baptism of infants in the _two first_ centuries after Christ was altogether unknown; but in the _third_ and _fourth_ was allowed by some few. In the _fifth_ and following ages it was generally received." _Inst. Christ. Religion, B. I., Ch. 12._

SALMASIUS says: "In the _first two_ centuries no one was baptized, except, being instructed in the faith and acquainted with the doctrines of Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer." _Hist. Bapt. Suicer. Thesaur., Vol. II., p. 1136._

Such testimony is conclusive, and quite sufficient, though much more of a similar character might be added.

_But observe:_ That when the baptism of children began, it was not that of unconscious infants at all, as is now practiced, but, as Bunsen declares, of "little growing children, from six to ten years old." And he asserts that Tertullian "does not say one word of new-born infants." Cyprian, an African bishop, at the close of the _third_ century, urged the baptism of infants proper, because of the saving efficacy of the ordinance; and he is called the inventor, or father, of infant baptism. _Bunsen's Hippol. and His Age, Vol. III., pp. 192-5._

WHY DID IT RISE?

There is even less difficulty in tracing the cause than in finding the origin of infant baptism. It originated in a perversion of Christian doctrine, and was itself the perversion of a Christian ordinance.

All students of ecclesiastical history know that at an early period corruptions perverted Christian faith and practice. Among these, one of the earliest was that of an undue efficacy attributed to baptism. Its sanctity was so exalted that it was believed to have power to wash away sins, and cleanse the soul for heaven. By it the sick were supposed to be prepared for death, and salvation made more certain by its efficacy. Anxious parents therefore desired their dying children to be thus prepared--"washed in the laver of regeneration," as it was termed--that they might be sure of salvation. And here came in that pernicious error of "baptismal regeneration," which gave rise to infant baptism, and which has through all these ages clung with more or less pertinacity to the clergy and laity of all churches which have practiced it.

SALMASIUS says: "An opinion prevailed that no one could be saved without being baptized; and for that reason the custom arose of baptizing infants." _Epist. Jus. Pac. See Booth's Pedo. Exam., Ch. III., Sec. 3._

VENEMA declares that "the ancients connected a regenerating power with baptism." He cites Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clemens, Tertullian, and Cyprian as holding that opinion. _Eccl. Hist., Vol. 4, p. 3., Secs. 2, 3, 4._

CHRYSOSTOM, writing about A. D. 398, as cited by Suicerus, says, "It is impossible without baptism to obtain the kingdom," and as cited by Wall he says: "If sudden death seize us before we are baptized, though we have a thousand good qualities, there is nothing to be expected but hell." _Suicer., Thesaur. Eccl., Vol. I., p. 3._

WADDINGTON, in his Church History, says, in reference to the _third_ century: "A belief was gaining ground among the converts and was inculcated among the heathen, that the act of baptism gave remission of all sins committed previously." _Hist. of Church, Ch. II., p. 53._

PROFESSOR FISHER says: "Very early baptism was so far identified with regeneration as to be designated by that term. This rite was considered essential to salvation. A virtue was believed to reside in the baptismal water itself." _Hist. Christ. Ch., p. 83._

Do its advocates and supporters hold the same view now? Do parents and ministers still believe that the baptism of unconscious infants secures, or makes more sure, their salvation? If not, why do they practice it?

PROFESSOR LANGE'S words are weighty, and should be carefully pondered by Protestant defenders of this Papal emanation. He says: "Would the Protestant Church fulfill and attain to its final destiny, the baptism of new-born children must of necessity be abolished. It has sunk down to a mere formality, without any meaning for the child." _History of Protestantism, p. 34._

Many good people, familiar with infant baptism and surrounded by its influences, have naturally learned to reverence it as of Divine appointment, and some of them really believe it is taught or sanctioned by the New Testament. But Baptists are right in rejecting it as something utterly without foundation in the Word of God.

HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS

Much stress is laid by some of the advocates of infant baptism on that fact that in the Acts of the Apostles several cases of household baptism are mentioned. And it is asked with an air of assurance: "If entire households were baptized, must there not have been children among them? And were they not baptized also?" To this it is sufficient to reply, that nothing is said of children, and we have no right to put into the Scriptures what we do not find in them. All inference that such households contained infants, and that such infants were baptized, is the purest fiction in the world. If Christian institutions could be built on so slight a foundation as that, we could bring in all the mummeries of the Greek or the Roman Church, and all the ceremonies of the Mosaic ritual.

One thing is certain: If in those households any children were baptized, they were old enough to receive the Gospel and to believe on Christ, and were thus suitable subjects for the ordinance, and for church fellowship. For it is said, _"They believed, and gladly received the Word."_ There are thousands of Baptist churches into whose fellowship whole households have been baptized--parents and children and perhaps others connected with them. But all were old enough to _believe_ and to make _profession_ of their faith. So evidently it was in these households.

The more prominent of these households are that of Lydia, mentioned in Acts 16; that of the Philippian jailer, mentioned also in Acts 16; and that of Stephanas, mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1. Now note what a few distinguished Pedobaptist scholars say on these cases.

DOCTOR NEANDER says: "We cannot prove that the Apostles ordained infant baptism; from those places where the baptism of a whole family is mentioned, we can draw no such conclusion." _Planting and Training, p. 162, N. Y. Ed., 1865._

PROFESSOR JACOBI says: "In none of these instances has it been proved that there were little children among them." _Kitto's Bib. Cyc., Art. Bap._

DOCTOR MEYER says: "That the baptism of children was not in use at that time appears evident from 1 Cor. 7:14." _Comment. on Acts 16:15._

DOCTOR DE WETTE says: "This passage has been adduced in proof of the apostolical authority of infant baptism: but there is no proof here that any except adults were baptized." _Com. New Test., Acts 16:15._

DOCTOR OLSHAUSEN says: "There is altogether wanting any conclusive proof-text for the baptism of infants in the age of the apostles." _Com. on Acts 16:15._

BISHOP BLOOMFIELD says of the jailer: "It is taken for granted that his family became Christians as well as himself." _Com. on Acts 16:15._

Calvin, Doddridge, Henry, and other commentators declare that in this case the household all believed, and therefore were baptized and did rejoice. MacKnight considers the case of the household of Stephanas as giving no countenance to the baptism of infants. And with him agree Guise, Hammond, Doddridge, and others.

As to the argument used by some, that baptism came in the place of circumcision, it is too weak and puerile, too far-fetched and destitute of reason, to claim the serious regard of intelligent and candid minds.

+CHAPTER XIII+

CHURCH GOVERNMENT

A Christian church is a society with a corporate life, organized on some definite plan, adapted to some definite purpose, which it proposes to accomplish. It has, therefore, its officers and ordinances, its laws and regulations, fitted to administer its government and carry out its purposes. The question then arises, What is the true and proper form of church organization and government? We do not care to inquire as to the various and contradictory forms, as we see them about us in the different denominations, but what was the organic form and government of the first churches, planted by and molded under the hands of Christ's inspired Apostles.

There are _three_ special and widely different forms of church government which have gained prevalence in Christian communities during past age, and which are still maintained with varied success, each of which claims to have been the original primitive form:

1. The _prelatical,_ in which the governing power resides in prelates, or diocesan bishops, and the higher clergy; as in the Roman, Greek, English, and most Oriental churches.

2. The _presbyterian,_ in which the governing power resides in assemblies, synods, presbyteries, and sessions; as in the Scottish Kirk, the Lutheran, and the various Presbyterian churches.

3. The _independent,_ in which the body is self-governing, each single and local church administering its own government by the voice of the majority of its members; as among Baptists, Congregationalists, Independents, and some other bodies.

Now which of these modes of church life and administration is taught in the New Testament, if either? or which best accords with the constitution and government of the Apostolic churches?

Baptists hold that each separate, local church is an independent body, governing itself according to the laws of Christ, as found in the New Testament; that each such church is independent of all other churches, and of all other persons, so far as administration is concerned, owing comity and fellowship to all, but allegiance and submission to none. The government is administered by the body of the members, where no one possesses a preeminence of authority, but each enjoys an equality of rights, and in which, in matters of opinion, the majority decides.

That this style of church structure is according to the New Testament appears evident from a study of the sacred records themselves. The Apostles treated the churches as independent bodies. Their epistles were addressed to the churches as such; they reported their doings to them; enjoined upon them the duty of discipline; exhorted, instructed, and reproved them as independent and responsible bodies. They recognized the right of the churches to elect their own teachers and officers, a primary and fundamental right, which, when conceded supposes all other rights and powers necessary to a self-governing community acting under Divinely given laws.

NEANDER, the distinguished historian, says of the first age: "The churches were taught to govern themselves." "The brethren chose their own officers from among themselves." "In respect to the election of church officers, the ancient principle was still adhered to: that the consent of the community was necessary to the validity of every such election, and each one was at liberty to offer reasons against it." _Introd. Coleman's Prim. Christ'y, p. 19; Ch. Hist., Vol. I., p. 199; Plant. and Train., p. 156._

MOSHEIM says of the first century: "In those primitive times, each Christian Church was composed of the _people,_ the presiding _officers,_ and the assistants, or _deacons._ These must be the component parts of every society. The principal voice was that of the _people,_ or of the whole body of Christians." "The assembled people, therefore, elected their own rulers and teachers." Of the second century, he adds: "One president, or bishop, presides over each church. He was created by the common suffrages of the people." "During a great part of this century, all the churches continued to be, as at first, _independent_ of each other. Each church was a kind of small, independent republic, governing itself by its own laws, enacted, or at least sanctioned, by the people." _Eccl. Hist., Cent. 1, Part 1, Ch. 2, Sec. 5, 6; Cent. 2, Ch. 2, Sec. 1, 2._

COLEMAN says: "These churches, wherever formed, became separate and independent bodies, competent to appoint their own officers and administer their own government without reference or subordination to any control, authority or foreign power. No fact connected with the history of the primitive church is more fully established or more generally conceded." _Prim. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 4, Sec. 4, p. 95._

Archbishop Whately, Doctor Barrow, Doctor Burton, Doctor Waddington--all of them Church of England Divines--fully agree with this testimony, and confirm the evidence cited:

GEISELER, the historian, says, concerning early changes: "Country churches, which had grown up around some city, seem, with their bishops, to have been usually, in a certain degree, under the authority of the mother church. With this exception, all the churches were alike independent, though some were especially held in honor, on such grounds as their Apostolic origin, or the importance of the city in which they were situated." _Ch. Hist., Period 1, Div. 1, Ch. 3, Sec. 52._

Further discussion on this subject is not needed. The point is proved, and the independent form of church government is manifestly primitive and apostolic, as advocated and practiced by Baptists.

+CHAPTER XIV+

CHURCH OFFICERS

How many, and what are the Scriptural officers of a Christian church? For a church, being a society, must have not only laws, but officers to execute them. How many orders are there in the ministry? These are questions which have at times greatly divided the Christian world.

Baptists assert that the officers of a church are _two,_--and of right, can be no more,--_pastor_ and _deacons._ In this opinion agree some other denominations, while the various Episcopal sects insist that there should be three sets--_deacons, priests,_ and _bishops,_ to which the Church of England adds archbishops. Others add to this number indefinitely; and the Romish Church carries the list up to ten or twelve, ending with the pope. Now it is not so much what this church preaches or practices, but on what basis were the primitive churches--the churches of inspiration--organized. Our Lord did not live to shape, and model, and put in order all things for the full equipment of His people, that they might be thoroughly furnished unto all good works, but He did give to His Apostles a spirit of wisdom by which they should be able to do all this, and carry out His plans, in the organization of His kingdom after He had left them. We assume that the first churches were organized on the Divine plan, and seek to ascertain what that plan was.

In the New Testament, the words _bishop, presbyter, elder,_ are used to designate church officers. They all, however, designate the same office, and therefore officially mean the same thing; indeed, they are not infrequently applied to the same individual. The bishop--called also the presbyter, or elder--was the _pastor,_ or overseer of the spiritual flock, watching, guiding, and feeding it, as the shepherd does his sheep. The _deacons_ were chosen to attend to the temporal interests of the church, as appears by the election of the seven, recorded in the sixth chapter of Acts. This was done in order that the Apostles might be free from the temporal cares, and thus able to give their attention more exclusively to the spiritual welfare of the people. The word _deacon_ means a _minister,_ a _servant._ It is sometimes applied to the Apostles, and even to Christ himself, in the general sense as one who "came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many." Some of the first deacons were also efficient preachers of the Gospel, but their work as deacons pertained to other services in the churches. While, therefore, the deacon is a church officer, his office does not constitute an order in the ministry at all, its functions belonging to temporal concerns, and not to a spiritual service. The service usually performed by clerks, trustees, and the like, it may be presumed, so far as such service was needed in the first churches, was devolved on the deacons.

Pastors, by whatever name they may have been known, had the same service, and were of the same grade, dignity, and authority. In the first churches there were no high orders of clergy placed over lower grades, and over the churches ruling with superior authority. All were equals among equals, and all equally ministered to the churches. If in the same church there might chance to be several to whom the titles _bishop, presbyter,_ or _elder_ were applied, they were all of equal rank or authority, though one might be selected to serve as the pastor of the church, and devote himself to its local interests; while the others might give themselves to more general missionary work.

NEANDER says: "The word _presbyter,_ or _elder,_ indicates rather the dignity of the office, since presbyters among the Jews were usually aged and venerable; while _bishop,_ or _episcopos,_ designated the nature of their work as overseers, or pastors of the churches. The former title was used by Jewish Christians as a name familiar in the synagogue; while the latter was chiefly used by the Greek and other Gentile converts, as more familiar and expressive to them." "They were not designed to exercise absolute authority, but to act as presiding officers and guides of an ecclesiastical republic: to conduct all things, with the cooperation of the communities, as their ministers and not as their masters." _Introd. to Cole., Prim. Ch., p. 20; Ch. Hist., Vol. 1., p. 184; Plant. and Train., p. 147._