Title: The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches
Author: Hiscox, Edward Thurston
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches" ***


+Transcriber's Notes+

 - This book is set forth as a reference for Baptist churches to
   discuss their history, organization, polity, and operations. The
   book itself has a small form factor, suitable to be carried in a
   suit coat pocket.
 - The author's perspective is quite partisan; many arguments are
   introduced in favor of his preferred methods and against
   alternatives.
 - Detailed information on the Transcriber's changes are listed after
   the text.

THE

STANDARD MANUAL

FOR

BAPTIST CHURCHES

_By_

EDWARD T. HISCOX, D.D.

Author of
"The Baptist's Short Method," "Star Book for Ministers,"
"The Star Book Series," "Pastors' Manual," etc.

PHILADELPHIA

THE AMERICAN BAPITST
PUBLICATION SOCIETY

CHICAGO   KANSAS CITY   LOS ANGELES   SEATTLE


------------------------------------------------------------
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1890, by
THE AMERICAN BAPITST PUBLICATION SOCIETY
In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington
------------------------------------------------------------

PRINTED IN U.S.A.


PREFACE

It is now thirty years since the "Baptist Church Directory," prepared
by the writer, was first published. That work was designed to be
somewhat of a _consensus_ of the opinions of those best able to judge
in matters of Baptist church polity and usage, especially as to what
concerns administration and discipline. It might thus prove a help to
both pastors and members, particularly in perplexing cases liable to
arise. Thus it was hoped it might help to rectify the order and customs
of our churches through our widely extended ranks. This hope has been
realized. More than fifty thousand copies of that book have been
circulated in this country. It has also been translated, more or less
fully, into six or seven different languages by our missionaries, for
use in our missions and foreign fields.

But many of the churches desired a smaller and less expensive manual,
which they could put into the hands of all their members. To meet this
want, sixteen years ago, the writer prepared the little "Star Book on
Baptist Church Polity," which many churches have adopted, furnishing
their members and candidates for membership with them freely. This has
had a circulation of over thirty thousand copies; and both this and the
"Directory" are in as great demand as at any previous time.

It is something more than twenty years since the "Baptist Short
Method," by the same author was published. The purpose of this manual
was to give a concise view of those distinctive features which mark the
difference between Baptists and other denominations, especially as to
the ordinances and church order; and also to furnish the proofs by
which our position in these respects is justified. About ten thousand
copies of this book have found their way into circulation.

The preparation of the present manual was undertaken at the request of,
and by an arrangement with the pastor, R. S. MacArthur, D.D., on behalf
of Calvary Baptist Church, New York City, for the special use of that
church. Something was desired smaller than the "Directory," and more
full than the "Star Book," embracing certain features of the "Short
Method." When completed, it was thought to be, on the whole, so much
superior to anything ever before prepared, as a manual for general use
in Baptist churches, that by mutual consent, it was decided to have it
published for general circulation, rather than confine it to the use of
a single church.

To both ministers and members, such a manual, it is hoped, will prove a
valuable helper in the interest of church order, and of denominational
unity and prosperity. Especially for the younger members, so many
thousands of whom are yearly admitted to the fellowship of the
churches, with an unlimited franchise, while but imperfectly instructed
as to either doctrines or order, it should prove a most valuable
assistant. Concise and accurate in statement of facts, transparent in
arrangement of matters, convenient in form, and cheap in cost, pastors
will find it to their own advantage, as well as to that of their
members, to see that their churches are liberally supplied with copies.
The pastor of one of our very largest and most prosperous churches, for
whose use its preparation was undertaken, shows his estimate of its
value, and sets other pastors a wise and worthy example, by ordering in
advance of publication, _one thousand copies_ for his church.

May the Divine blessing make this, as other works have been made, a
means of furthering good order, spiritual vitality, and efficient
service for Christ, in the churches for which it is designed.

E. T. H.
MOUNT VERNON, N. Y.
January 24, 1890.


CONTENTS

CHAPTER I
A CHRISTIAN CHURCH

CHAPTER II
CHURCH OFFICERS

CHAPTER III
CHURCH ORDINANCES

CHAPTER IV
CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP

CHAPTER V
CHURCH DISCIPLINE

CHAPTER VI
CASES OF APPEAL

CHAPTER VII
CHURCH BUSINESS

CHAPTER VIII
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

CHAPTER IX
OPTIONAL STANDING RESOLUTIONS

CHAPTER X
BAPTISM CONSIDERED

CHAPTER XI
THE LORD'S SUPPER

CHAPTER XII
INFANT BAPTISM

CHAPTER XIII
CHURCH GOVERNMENT

CHAPTER XIV
CHURCH OFFICERS

CHAPTER XV
BAPTIST HISTORY


+STANDARD MANUAL FOR
BAPTIST CHURCHES+

+CHAPTER I+

A CHRISTIAN CHURCH

The word "church" is, in common language, used with large latitude of
meaning. It is applied to a building used for Christian worship, to a
congregation of Christian worshipers, to a religious establishment, to
a given form of ecclesiastical order, to the aggregate of all Christian
believers, and to a local company of Christian disciples associated in
covenant for religious purposes. The latter is its common use in the
New Testament.

The Greek word _ekklesia,_ rendered "church," is derived from a word
meaning "called out," and is used to indicate a company called out from
a larger and more general assembly or concourse of people. In the free
Greek cities, it designated a company of persons possessed of the
rights of citizenship, and charged with certain important functions of
administration in public affairs, summoned, or called out, from the
common mass of the people. In the New Testament, the _ekklesia_ is a
company of persons called out and separated from the common multitude
by a Divine calling, chosen to be saints, invested with the privileges,
and charged with the duties of citizenship in the kingdom of Christ.

A Christian Church, therefore, according to the New Testament idea, is
a company of persons Divinely called and separated from the world,
baptized on a profession of their faith in Christ, united in covenant
for worship and Christian service, under the supreme authority of
Christ, whose Word is their only law and rule of life in all matters of
religious faith and practice.

Some Christian denominations include all their congregations in one
comprehensive society, or ecclesiastical system, under some central
authority, which legislates for and controls the whole. This
comprehensive society they call the church. Thus we speak of the Roman
Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church--where
the word "church" stands for the aggregate of all their local
societies. With Baptists it is different. They speak of Baptist
churches, but not of the Baptist Church, when the entire denomination
is meant. The Baptist Church would mean some one local congregation of
baptized believers.

Thus was it in Apostolic times. There was "the church in Jerusalem,"
"the church of the Thessalonians," "the church of Babylon," "the church
of the Laodiceans"; but "the churches of Macedonia," "the churches of
Asia," "the churches of Judea." A church, therefore, is not a system of
congregations confederated under a general government, but a single
local congregation of Christian disciples associated in covenant and
meeting together for worship. In this sense the word is commonly,
almost uniformly, used in the New Testament.

Churches are Divinely instituted to be "the light of the world" and
"the salt of the earth." They are ordained for the glory of God, as
"the ground and pillar of the truth," in the proclamation of His Gospel
and the establishment of His kingdom in the world. They are
commissioned to preach the Gospel to men, and to live the Gospel before
men, that Christ may be honored and sinners saved. They should,
therefore, be constantly striving to realize the grand purpose of their
existence and fulfill the mission of their high calling. That church
which does the most to honor Christ and save man will be the most
honored by Him, and the most influential and prosperous in all that
pertains to the true functions of a church. And since a church, as a
body, is what its individual members are in their religious life and
influence, therefore each member should strive to become in holy living
what He desires the church to be.

NOTE 1.--A body of Christian disciples may fail to meet some of the
requirements of the Gospel, and still be a true church of Christ,
providing it fulfills the fundamental conditions of a Scriptural faith
and practice.

NOTE 2.--But when a body ceases to acknowledge and submit to Christ as
its Supreme Ruler, and to receive His Word as its supreme law, then it
ceases to be a true church, and is simply a religious society, though
it may still accept some of His doctrines and practice some of His
precepts.

NOTE 3.--A church is not a legislative, but an executive body. It
cannot make laws, but only obey and administer those which Christ has
given in the New Testament. He is the only Lawmaker in Zion.

NOTE 4.--But in matters pertaining to order and methods of
administration, merely optional and discretionary, not involving
fundamental principles, the church is to exercise its liberty, so long
as it does not contravene Scriptural teaching or infringe the rights of
its members.

NOTE 5.--And still further, while a church cannot become an
authoritative expounder of either truth or duty, to bind the
consciences even of its members, yet it does possess a judicial
function for the interpretation and the enforcement of the laws of
Christ for itself as a body, and, therefore, for its members, so far as
their relation to the compact is concerned.

NOTE 6.--Each church owes courtesy and comity, fellowship and
fraternity, to all others; but it owes subjection and allegiance to
none, and is under authority to Christ alone.

NOTE 7.--In matters of business and in the exercise of its authority in
administration, the will of the church is expressed by a majority vote
of its members. But the nearer that majority approaches to unanimity,
the more satisfactory and emphatic are its decisions.

NOTE 8.--Councils may be called, presbyteries convened, or committees
of reference chosen for advice in cases of moment, but they are all
_advisory_ only, and in no case authoritative. There is no higher, and
no other court of appeal in ecclesiastical affairs, than the individual
church.



+CHAPTER II+

CHURCH OFFICERS[1]

The Scriptural officers of a church are _bishops_ and _deacons._
Bishops are in the New Testament also called "presbyters," "elders,"
and "overseers." Their duties and services have mainly reference to the
spiritual interests of the body, though they properly have the
oversight of all its concerns. The deacons have principal charge of the
temporalities of the church, so as to relieve the pastor in that
department of labor. They are, however, to be counselors and helpers of
the pastor in all departments of his work. The qualifications for both
offices are set forth in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.

NOTE 1.--Pastors and deacons, as teachers and leaders of the flock,
cannot be selected for and imposed upon the churches by any external
authority whatever, either civic or religious; but are elected and
chosen by the free suffrages of the members, without compulsion or
restraint, from among themselves, or those who are to become identified
with them in fellowship.

NOTE 2.--In the election of either a pastor or deacon, notice of such
election should be given from the pulpit for at least two Sundays
preceding the time for the same. The election should be by ballot, and
at least _three-quarters_ of the votes cast should be necessary for the
election of a pastor, and _two-thirds_ for the election of a deacon.
Such election should be preceded by prayer for Divine direction, and
conducted without partisan devices or personal strife.

NOTE 3.--Both pastors and deacons are properly elected for unlimited
terms of service, the relation to continue so long as there shall be
mutual satisfaction. Such a course tends less to depreciate and make
servile the officers and their duties in the estimation of the people,
and of those who bear them, than a limited and specified time, though
deacons are sometimes, and perhaps properly, chosen for a limited term
of service, subject to reelection, at the option of the church.

NOTE 4.--The church is to fix on the amount of salary necessary to a
generous support of the pastor, and hold itself obligated by every
consideration of Christian honor for the prompt and regular payment of
the same. To fail in this is as dishonorable to the church as it is
unjust and vexatious to the pastor.

NOTE 5.--The call to a pastor issues from the _church_ as a body, which
also designates the amount of salary to be paid. It is in some sections
usual, though not essential, to have subsequently a meeting of the
entire congregation or society to approve or confirm the call. In some
States it is necessary for the trustees, as the legal representatives
of the corporation, to confirm the action officially, so far as the
salary is concerned, before it can become legal.

NOTE 6.--The number of deacons is optional with the church. It is
usually from _three_ to _seven._ Let it be so many as the church needs
and can find suitable as candidates for the office. But they should
never be elected simply to fill the office, and never unless they be
persons whose fitness for the office is generally conceded.

NOTE 7.--The relations between pastor and the church may be dissolved
at the option of either, by giving _three months'_ notice; or
otherwise, by mutual consent. Between the deacons and the church, the
relations may be dissolved at the option of either without previous
notice.

NOTE 8.--A church _clerk_ is elected annually, at a business meeting,
by a majority vote. It is an office of convenience, for keeping the
minutes and preserving the records of the body. Also _trustees_ are
elected by the church, or if the law so requires, by a _society._ Their
duties are the care of the property and the management of finances. But
these are not considered Scriptural church officers; deacons might
properly discharge all the functions of these offices.[2]

NOTE 9.--The offices of trust and service in a church should be as
widely distributed among the members as possible, consistently with the
welfare of the body. This rule should seldom be disregarded. No one man
should hold more than one office at the same time, unless the interests
of the body absolutely demand it. If offices are honors, they should be
widely dispensed; if they are burdens, they certainly should be. For
the same man to hold two or three offices is as unjust to him as it is
to his brethren.

NOTE 10.--A church cannot unite in any corporate capacity with other
organizations for religious, benevolent, moral reform, or other
purposes; but it may cooperate with these for any good object, and give
to such societies its moral support, sympathy, and pecuniary aid.

NOTE 11.--But members of churches can, as individuals, unite with
outside organizations, for any purpose, not inconsistent with their
profession as Christians, and not injurious to their church relations
and duties.

NOTE 12.--Churches cannot alienate their responsibilities, nor delegate
their authority to any man, or to any body of men, to act officially
for them. But they can appoint persons to bear messages, and to perform
services for them, under instruction, and to report their action to the
body.

+FOOTNOTES:+

[1] This and several of the following sections are consistent
    with the "Star Book on Baptist Church Polity," on the same topics.

[2] In some States the laws do not recognize the church, that being a
    spiritual body, but incorporate a _society,_ as it is called,
    consisting of all persons of full age who attend and support the
    worship. This society has charge of the financial affairs of the
    church, holds and keeps in repair its property, and conducts its
    secular concerns. It elects a specified number of _trustees,_ as
    provided for by law, who are the legal representatives of the
    corporation. The members of the society, and the trustees elected,
    may or may not be members of the church. This whole society
    arrangement is a relic of the old New England parish system of the
    standing order, and is inconsistent with the freedom of church
    action, and antagonistic to Baptist Church independence. It is
    anti-Baptistic and anti-Scriptural. A church should be allowed to
    manage its own affairs, both temporal and spiritual: and should be
    protected by law in doing so. The society system has been abrogated
    in most of the States.



+CHAPTER III+

CHURCH ORDINANCES

Christian ordinances, in the largest sense, are any institutions, or
regulations of Divine appointment, established as means of grace for
the good of men, or as acts of worship for the honor of God. In that
sense, not only are baptism and the Lord's Supper ordinances, but
preaching, prayer, hearing the Word, fasting, and thanksgiving are also
ordinances, since all are of Divine appointment. But, in a narrower
sense, it is common to say that _baptism_ and the _Lord's Supper_ are
the only ordinances appointed by Christ to be observed by His churches.
These are the only emblematic and commemorative rites enjoined upon His
disciples, by which they are to be distinguished, and He is to be
honored. They are the two symbols and witnesses of the New Covenant,
the two monuments of the New Dispensation.

_Baptism_ is the immersion, or dipping, of a candidate in water, on a
profession of his faith in Christ and on evidence of regeneration; the
baptism to be ministered in, or into, the name of the Father, the Son,
and Holy Spirit. It represents the burial and resurrection of Christ,
and in a figure declares the candidate's death to sin and the world,
and his rising to a new life. It also proclaims the washing of
regeneration, and professes the candidate's hope of a resurrection from
the dead, through Him into the likeness of whose death he is buried in
baptism.

_The Lord's Supper_ is a provision of bread and wine, used to represent
the body and the blood of Christ, partaken of by members of the church
assembled for that purpose; in which service they commemorate the love
of Christ exhibited in His death for them, and profess their faith and
participation in the merits of His sacrifice, as the only ground of
their hope of eternal life.

NOTE 1.--No person can rightfully or properly become a church-member
except he be first baptized, as the distinguishing mark and profession
of his discipleship.

NOTE 2.--The Supper is a church ordinance, and therefore is the
privilege of church-members only. Therefore, also, since baptism
precedes church-membership, it must precede and be prerequisite to the
Lord's Supper.

NOTE 3.--Since the Supper is distinctively a church ordinance, it is to
be observed by churches only, and not by individuals; neither in
private places, nor in sick-rooms, nor on social occasions, and not by
companies of disciples other than churches. But a church may by
appointment, and in its official capacity, meet in a private house, a
sick-room, or wherever it may elect, and there observe the Supper.

NOTE 4.--Both ordinances are ordinarily and properly administered by
ordained and accredited ministers; but both would be equally valid if
administered by unordained persons, should occasion require and the
church so direct. As to the qualifications of the administrator, the
New Testament is silent, except that he should be a disciple.

NOTE 5.--As to the time, place, and frequency of the ordinances, no
Scriptural directions are given. These are left optional with the
churches. They are usually observed on Sundays, but not necessarily. As
to the Supper, our churches have very generally come to observe it on
the first Sunday of each month.

NOTE 6.--The participation of the elements in the Supper should be done
according to the special direction of Christ, the Head of the body.
"This do in remembrance of _Me._" It is not, therefore, a test or token
of Christian fellowship, except incidentally. All thought and sympathy
in the service should be centered on Him who is "the living bread," and
not fixed on others.

NOTE 7.--The ordinances are not _sacraments,_ as taught by some,
conveying effectual grace to the soul and imparting spiritual life. But
as Divinely appointed means of grace, their importance must not be
undervalued. They cannot be neglected without suffering serious harm
and incurring the gravest responsibility.

NOTE 8.--Baptism is not essential to salvation, for our churches
utterly repudiate the dogma of "baptismal regeneration"; but it is
essential to obedience, since Christ has commanded it. It is also
essential to a public confession of Christ before the world, and to
membership in the church which is His body. And no true lover of his
Lord will refuse these acts of obedience and tokens of affection.



+CHAPTER IV+

CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP

It is most likely that in the Apostolic age when there was but "one
Lord, one faith, and one baptism," and no differing denominations
existed, the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a
member of the church, and at once endowed him with all the rights and
privileges of full membership. In that sense, "baptism was the door
into the church." Now, it is different; and while the churches are
desirous of receiving members, they are wary and cautious that they do
not receive unworthy persons. The churches therefore have candidates
come before them, make their statement, give their "experience," and
then their reception is decided by a vote of the members. And while
they cannot become members without baptism, yet it is the vote of the
body which admits them to its fellowship on receiving baptism.

There are _three classes_ of candidates, and modes of reception to
membership.

1. _By baptism._--The church having listened to the religious
experience of the candidate, and being satisfied with the same, and
with his Christian deportment, votes to receive him to its fellowship,
"on being baptized."

2. _By letter._--The candidate presents a letter of dismission and
recommendation from some other Baptist church with which he has been
connected, for the purpose of transferring his membership to this. The
church, being satisfied, votes to receive him into fellowship.

3. _By experience._--Persons having been baptized, but for some reason
being without membership in any church, wish to be received. They,
giving satisfactory evidence of Christian character, and substantial
agreement in matters of faith and practice, are received by vote, as in
other cases.

NOTE 1.--Persons cannot be received to membership on the credit of
letters from other denominations. Such letters are, however, accepted,
as certificates of Christian character, and of church standing.

NOTE 2.--While the churches do not require candidates to sign any
creed, confession, or articles of faith, yet they do expect a
substantial agreement in matters of faith and practice on their part as
essential both to the comfort of the individual, and the harmony of the
body.

NOTE 3.--Should any member object to the reception of a candidate, such
reception should be deferred, in order to consider the reasons for the
objection. Objections judged groundless or unreasonable should not
prevent the reception of a suitable candidate; yet no one should be
received except by a unanimous or nearly unanimous vote.

NOTE 4.--It is customary for candidates, after their experience or
letters have been presented, to retire while the church deliberates and
acts upon their case.

NOTE 5.--Any member in good standing, is entitled, at any time, to a
letter of dismission, in the usual form, with which to unite with
another church of the same faith and order.

NOTE 6.--Letters are usually made valid for _six months_ only, during
which time they must be used, if used at all. But if held longer, they
may be renewed by the church, if satisfactory reasons are given for
their non-use.

NOTE 7.--Each one receiving a letter is still a member of the church,
and under its watchcare and discipline, until his letter is actually
received by another church.

NOTE 8.--Letters cannot be given to members for the purpose of uniting
with churches with which we are not in fellowship. But any member is
entitled, at any time, to receive a certificate of standing, and
Christian character.

NOTE 9.--No member can _withdraw_ from the church, or have his name
_dropped,_ or at his own request be _excluded_ from the fellowship of
the body without due process of discipline.

NOTE 10.--Nor can a member have a letter voted and forced upon him
without his wish and consent. Such would be a virtual expulsion from
the body. If worthy to receive a letter, he cannot be forced out of the
church against his will.

NOTE 11.--Members living remote from the church are expected to unite
with some Baptist church near their residence; or give satisfactory
reasons for not doing so. When they cannot so unite, they are expected
to report themselves to the church at least _once each year,_ and
contribute to its support, till they cease to be members.

NOTE 12.--Letters of dismission may be revoked, at any time before
being used, if, in the judgment of the church, there be sufficient
cause for such action.

NOTE 13.--Church fellowship will be withdrawn from members who unite
with other denominations; because, however excellent their character,
or sincere their intentions, they have broken covenant with the church,
and by such act have placed themselves beyond the limits of its
fellowship.

NOTE 14.--Persons excluded from other churches are not to be received
to membership, except after the most careful investigation of all the
facts in the case, and not unless it be manifest that the exclusion was
unjustifiable, and that the church excluding persistently refuses to do
justice to the excluded member.

NOTE 15.--A letter is usually asked for and addressed to the particular
church. This is proper, but not always necessary. It may in certain
cases be asked for, and given "to the church of the same faith and
order." Or if directed to one, it may be presented to, and received by
another.

NOTE 16.--It is expected that all pecuniary liability to the church
will be canceled, and all personal difficulties in the church will be
settled by a member, should such exist, before he shall receive a
letter of dismission.

NOTE 17.--Each member, without exception, is expected to fill his place
in the church, by attendance on its appointments, as Providence may
allow, and also to contribute of his means for the pecuniary support of
the body, according to his ability. If in either of these respects he
fails, and refuses, he becomes a covenant-breaker, and is subject to
the discipline of the body.

NOTE 18.--Persons excluded from the church may be again received to its
fellowship on satisfactory evidence of fitness. This is called
reception by _restoration,_ and is usually so entered on the records,
and in associational reports.

NOTE 19.--It is neither a Christian nor an honorable course for a
church to grant an unworthy member a valid letter, and send him to
another church as one in good and regular standing, in order to be rid
of a disturber of the peace, or to avoid the trouble of a course of
discipline.

NOTE 20.--No church is _obliged_ to receive a person to membership,
simply because he brings a valid letter from another church. Each
church is to be sole judge of the qualifications of persons to be
received to its fellowship.



+CHAPTER V+

CHURCH DISCIPLINE

Church-members are supposed to be regenerate persons bearing the image
and cherishing the spirit of Christ, in whom the peace of God rules,
and who walk and work in "the unity of the Spirit, and the bond of
peace." But unhappily, even the saints are sanctified only in part, and
troubles sometimes arise among brethren. The evil passions of even good
men may triumph over piety, and partisan strife may destroy the peace
and the prosperity of the body of Christ. All this should, if possible,
be avoided. Corrective discipline seeks to heal offenses; but it is
better to _prevent_ them, than to _heal_ them. It is, however, better
to heal and remove, than to endure them.

Now these offenses and occasions of dissension in the churches arise
from various causes, and are largely preventable. Most frequently they
come by the following means:

1. Because of the too suspicious and sensitive disposition of some who
imagine themselves wronged, neglected, or in some way injured; the
matter being chiefly imaginary, and without any real foundation in fact.

2. Because the pastor, deacons, and influential members do not
carefully and constantly enough watch the beginnings of strife, and
rectify the evil before it becomes serious.

3. Because evil-doers by delay become more persistent in evil, while
others are drawn into the strife, and contentious parties insensibly
are formed, which tend to divide the church into hostile factions.

4. Because that when the difficulty becomes chronic and deep-seated,
the church is likely to undertake the discipline with judicial
severity, and not in the spirit of meekness, in which the spiritual
should restore the erring.

5. Because that a case of discipline undertaken under excitement is
almost certain to be wrongly conducted. Even if the result reached be
just and right, the method by which it is reached is likely to be
unwise, unjust, and oppressive to individuals, possibly producing more
serious and more lasting evils than it has removed.

_Offenses_ calling for discipline are usually considered as of _two_
classes: _private_ or personal, and _public_ or general. These terms do
not very accurately express the nature of the offenses, but they are in
common use, and capable of being understood. In the administration of
_corrective discipline,_ the following rules and principles constitute
a correct and Scriptural course of proceeding:


PRIVATE OFFENSES

_Private offenses_ pertain to personal difficulties between
individuals, having no direct reference to the church as a body, and
not involving the Christian profession at large. In such cases, the
course prescribed by our Saviour (Matt. 18:15-17) is to be strictly
followed, without question or deviation.

1. _First step._--The member who considers himself injured must go to
the offender, tell him his grief, and between themselves alone, if
possible, adjust and settle the difficulty. "If thy brother shall
trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault, between thee and him
alone." This must be done, not to charge, upbraid, or condemn the
offender, but to win him. "If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy
brother."

2. _Second step._--If this shall fail, then the offended member must
take one or two of the brethren with him as witnesses, seek an
interview with the offender, and, if possible, by their united wisdom
and piety, remove the offense and harmonize the difficulty. "But if he
will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the
mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be established."

3. _Third step._--If this step should prove unavailing, then the
offended member must tell the whole matter to the _church,_ and leave
it in their hands to be disposed of, as to them may seem wisest and
best. "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church." He
has done his duty and must abide by the decision of the body which
assumes this responsibility.

4. _The result._--If this course of kindly Christian labor proves
finally ineffectual, and the offender shows himself incorrigible,
excision must follow. He must be cut off from fellowship in the church
whose covenant he has broken, and whose authority he disregards. "And
if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen
man, and a publican." However painful the act, the church must be
faithful to its duty, and to its God.

NOTE 1.--While this Divine rule makes it obligatory on the offended
member to go to the offender and seek a reconciliation, yet much more
is it obligatory on the offender who knows that a brother is grieved
with him, to seek such an one, and try to remove the difficulty.

NOTE 2.--The matter is not to be made public until these three steps
have been fully taken, and have failed; and then to be made public only
by telling the church, and no others.

NOTE 3.--When the case comes before the church, it must not be
neglected nor dropped, but judiciously pursued until the difficulty be
adjusted, the offense removed, or else the offender be
disfellowshipped, and put away.


PUBLIC OFFENSES

_Public offenses_ are not against any one person more than another, but
are such as are supposed to be a dishonor to the church of which the
offender is a member, and a reproach to the Christian profession. They
constitute a violation of the code of Christian morals, if not of our
common worldly morals.

The more common causes of this class of offenses are the following:
False doctrine (Gal. 1:9, 2 John 10), disregard of authority (Matt.
18:17; 1 Thess. 5:14), contention and strife (Rom. 16:17), immoral
conduct (1 Cor. 5:11), disorderly walk (2 Thess. 3:6, 9), covetous
spirit (Eph. 5:5; 1 Cor. 5:11), arrogant conduct (3 John 9), going to
law (1 Cor. 6:6).

The following constitutes a proper and Scriptural course of treatment
for such cases:

1. The first member who has knowledge of the offense should, as in the
case of private offenses, seek the offender, ascertain the facts, and
attempt to reconcile or remove the difficulty. Not till he has done
this should he make it public, or bring it before the church.

2. But if no one will, or can, pursue this course of personal effort,
or if such a course proves unsuccessful, then any member having
knowledge of the facts should confer with the pastor and deacons as to
the best course to be pursued.

3. The pastor and deacons should, by the best method they are capable
of devising, labor to adjust the matter without bringing it into the
church, or otherwise making it public.

4. But if their efforts fail, or if the case be already public, and a
reproach and scandal to religion, then they should bring it to the
church, and it should direct a proper course of discipline.

5. The church, thus having the case before it, should either appoint a
committee to visit the offender, or cite him before the body to answer
the charge. He should be allowed to hear the evidence against him, know
the witnesses, and be permitted to answer for himself.

6. If the accused disproves the charges, or if he confesses the wrong,
makes suitable acknowledgment, and, so far as possible, reparation,
with promise of amendment, in all ordinary cases, this should be deemed
satisfactory, and the case be dismissed.

7. But if, after patient, deliberate, and prayerful labor, all efforts
fail to reclaim the offender, then, however painful the necessity, the
church must withdraw its fellowship from him, and put him away from
them.

8. If the case be one of flagrant immorality, by which the reputation
of the body is compromised and the Christian name scandalized, on being
proved or confessed, the hand of fellowship may be at once withdrawn
from the offender, notwithstanding any confessions and promises of
amendment; but not without a trial.

The church's good name and the honor of religion demand this testimony
against evil. He may be subsequently restored, if suitably penitent.

NOTE 1.--All discipline should be conducted in the spirit of Christian
meekness and love, with a desire to remove offenses and win offenders.
It must also be done under a deep sense of responsibility to maintain
the honor of Christ's name, the purity of His church, and the integrity
of His truth.

NOTE 2.--If any member shall persist in bringing a private grievance
before the church, or otherwise make it public before he has pursued
the course prescribed in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, he becomes
himself an offender, and subject to the discipline of the body.

NOTE 3.--When private difficulties exist among members which they
cannot, or will not settle, the church should consider them as public
offenses, and as such dispose of them, rather than suffer the perpetual
injury which they inflict.

Note 4.--When a member refers to the church any private difficulty,
which he has been unable to settle, he must submit it wholly to the
disposition of the body, and abide by its decision. If he attempts to
revive and prosecute it beyond the decision of the church, he becomes
an offender, and subject to discipline.

NOTE 5.--Any member tried by the church has the right to receive copies
of all charges against him, the names of his accusers, and the
witnesses, both of whom he shall have the privilege of meeting face to
face, hearing their statements, bringing witnesses on his side, and
answering for himself before the body.

NOTE 6.--Every member on trial or excluded, shall have furnished at his
request, authentic copies of all proceedings had by the church in his
case, officially certified.

NOTE 7.--No member under discipline can have the right to bring any
person, not a member, before the church as his advocate, except by
consent of the body.

NOTE 8.--In every case of exclusion, the charges against the member,
and the reasons for his exclusion, should be accurately entered on the
records of the church.

NOTE 9.--If at any time it shall become apparent, or seem probable to
the church that it has for any reason dealt unjustly with a member, or
excluded him without sufficient cause, it should at once, and without
request by concession and restoration, so far as possible, repair the
injury it has done him.

NOTE 10.--The church should hold itself bound to restore to its
fellowship an excluded member when, ever he gives satisfactory evidence
of repentance and reformation consistent with godliness.

NOTE 11.--The church will exercise is legitimate authority, and
vindicate its honor and rectitude in the administration of discipline,
even though the member should regard such discipline as unjust or
oppressive.

NOTE 12.--Nothing can be considered a just and reasonable cause for
discipline, except what is forbidden by the letter of the spirit of
Scripture. And nothing can be considered a sufficient cause for
disfellowship and exclusion, except what is clearly contrary to
Scripture, and what would have prevented the reception of the person
into the church, had it been known to exist at the time of his
reception.



+CHAPTER VI+

CASES OF APPEAL

Cases of difficulty and discipline do sometimes occur, so aggravated in
their nature or so complicated in their treatment that it is found
impossible to make a satisfactory settlement by ordinary methods;
especially so if discipline has ended in exclusion. The excluded member
will be almost sure to think he has been dealt with unjustly, and will
wish for some redress; and if the case has been of long standing and
much complicated, he will be equally sure to have others sympathize
with him and condemn the action of the church. Now, although the
_presumption_ is that the church has done right, and is justified in
its action, the _possibility_ is that the church has done wrong, and is
censurable for its action.

What can be done in such a case?

NOTE 1.--On the New Testament theory of church government, the action
of this individual local church is final. There is no power either
civil or ecclesiastical, that can reverse its decision or punish it for
wrong-doing. It may make mistakes, but no human tribunal has authority
to compel it to confess or correct them.

NOTE 2.--Councils, if appealed to for redress, have _no authority;_
they are simply, always, and everywhere _advisory_--that, and nothing
more. They can express an opinion, and give advice; but they have no
authority to issue decrees, and would have no power to enforce them if
they should.[1]

NOTE 3.--Any person who believes himself wronged by church action has
the inalienable right to appeal to the church for a new hearing, and,
failing in this, to ask the counsel and advice of brethren, should he
see fit to do so.

_Now observe_--If an excluded member believes himself unjustly dealt
by, and wishes redress the following is the proper course for him to
pursue:

1. Apply to the church which excluded, and ask a rehearing. State to
them the grounds of his complaint and the evidence on which he thinks
he can satisfy them, if a fair opportunity for being heard be given him.

2. If they refuse him a rehearing, let him appeal to them to unite with
him in calling a _mutual council,_ before which the whole case shall be
placed, all parties to abide by its decision.

3. If a mutual council be declined by the church, he would be fully
justified, should he feel so inclined, in calling an _ex-parte_
council, before which he should place the facts and seek its advice.

4. Or, instead of calling an _ex-parte_ council, he could apply to some
other church to be received to its fellowship, on the ground that he
had been unjustly excluded. Should he be received to another church,
that would give him church standing and fellowship again, and vindicate
him so far as any ecclesiastical action could vindicate him.

5. If all these resorts fail, there is nothing left but for him to wait
patiently, and bear the burden of his wrong until Providence opens the
way for his deliverance. He may, after all, conclude that he himself
was more in fault than he at first supposed, and the church less so.

NOTE 4.--An _ex-parte_ council should not be called in such a case of
difficulty until all efforts have failed to secure a _mutual_ council;
as such a council, if called, would probably do nothing more than
advise a mutual council and adjourn.

NOTE 5.--Any church can well afford to grant a rehearing to an excluded
member. It would be in the interest of peace, justice, and
reconciliation. If the church be right, it can afford to be generous.

NOTE 6.--Any church has the right to receive a member excluded, from
another church, since each church is sole judge of the qualification of
persons received to its fellowship. But any church so appealed to would
use great caution, and with due regard to its own peace and purity,
ascertain all the facts in the case before taking such action.

NOTE 7.--If a mutual council be called, one-half the messengers and
members are to be chosen by the church and one-half by the aggrieved
party; but the _letters missive_ calling the council are to be sent out
by and in the name of the church, and not of the aggrieved party. But
these facts, as to the mutual call, are to be stated in the letters.

NOTE 8.--A church excluding a member has no just cause of complaint
against another church for receiving such an excluded member, since the
one church is just as independent to receive one whom it judges worthy
of fellowship, as the other is to exclude one whom it judged unworthy
of fellowship.

+FOOTNOTES:+

[1] For a more comprehensive discussion of councils--what they can,
    and what they cannot do, how to call, and how to use them--see the
    "Star Book on Baptist Councils."



+CHAPTER VII+

CHURCH BUSINESS

The business meetings of a church should be conducted as much as
possible in the spirit of devotion, and under a sense of the propriety
and sanctity which attaches to all the interests of the kingdom of
Christ. Meetings for business should not be needlessly multiplied, nor
should they be unwisely neglected. It may not be wise to insist too
rigidly on the observance of parliamentary rules, yet it is still worse
to drift into a loose unbusinesslike way, which wastes time,
accomplishes little, and does wrongly much that is done.


ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. The meetings to be opened with reading the Scriptures, singing, and
prayer.

2. The reading, correction, and approval of the minutes of the
preceding meeting.

3. Unfinished business, or such as the minutes present, including
reports of committees taken in order.

4. New business will next be taken up. Any member may call up new
business. But important matters should not be presented, except on
previous consultation with the pastor and deacons.

NOTE 1.--The pastor is, by virtue of his office, moderator of all
church business meetings. If he be not present, or do not wish to
serve, any one may be elected to take the place.

NOTE 2.--All business meetings, both regular and special, should be
announced from the pulpit one Sunday, at least, before they are held.

NOTE 3.--Special meetings for business may be called at any time, by
consent of the pastor and deacons, or by such other methods as the
church itself may direct.

NOTE 4.--Though a majority usually decides questions, yet in all
matters of special importance a unanimous, or nearly unanimous, vote
should be secured.

NOTE 5.--Members may be received, and letters of dismission granted,
either at the business church meeting, the covenant meeting, or the
regular weekly prayer meeting, the church so directing. Some fixed
method should be observed.

NOTE 6.--Candidates for admission to membership will be expected to
retire from the meeting when action is taken on their reception.

NOTE 7.--No persons, except members, will be present during the
transaction of church business. If present, they may be asked to retire.

NOTE 8.--Although the church should endeavor to do nothing which its
members will be ashamed or afraid to have known by others, yet every
member is bound, by the honor of a Christian, not to publish abroad,
nor disclose to those without, the private affairs and business
transactions of the body.


RULES OF ORDER

The following constitute the generally accepted rules of order for
churches and other deliberative bodies in business proceedings:


_Motions_

1. All business shall be presented by a _motion,_ made by one member,
and seconded by another, and presented in writing by the mover, if so
required.

2. No discussion can properly be had until the motion is made,
seconded, and stated by the chairman.

3. A motion cannot be withdrawn after it has been discussed, except by
the unanimous consent of the body.

4. A motion having been discussed, must be put to vote, unless
withdrawn, laid on the table, referred, or postponed.

5. A motion lost should not be recorded, except so ordered by the body
at the time.

6. A motion lost cannot be renewed at the same meeting, except by
unanimous consent.

7. A motion should contain but one distinct proposition. If it contains
more, it must be divided at the request of any member, and the
propositions acted on separately.

8. Only one question can properly be before the meeting at any one
time. No second motion can be allowed to interrupt one already under
debate, except a motion to _amend,_ to _substitute,_ to _commit,_ to
_postpone,_ to _lay on the table,_ for _the previous question,_ or to
_adjourn._

9. These subsidiary motions just named cannot be interrupted by any
other motion; nor can any other motion be applied to them except that
to _amend,_ which may be done by specifying some _time, place,_ or
_purpose._

10. Nor can these motions interrupt or supersede each other; only that
a motion to _adjourn_ is always in order, except while a member has the
floor, or a question is being taken, and in some bodies even then.


_Amendments_

1. Amendments to resolutions may be made in three ways: By _omitting,_
by _adding,_ or by _substituting_ words or sentences.

2. An amendment to an amendment may be made, but is seldom necessary,
and should be avoided.

3. No amendment should be made which essentially changes the meaning or
design of the original resolution.

4. But a _substitute_ may be offered, which may change entirely the
meaning of the resolution under debate.

5. The amendment must first be discussed and acted on, and then the
original resolution as amended.


_Speaking_

1. Any member desiring to speak on a question should rise in his place
and address the moderator, confine his remarks to the question, and
avoid all unkind and disrespectful language.

2. A speaker using improper language, introducing improper subjects, or
otherwise out of order, should be called to order by the chairman, or
any member, and must either conform to the regulations of the body, or
take his seat.

3. A member while speaking can allow others to ask questions, or make
explanations; but if he yields the floor to another, he cannot claim it
again as his right.

4. If two members rise to speak at the same time, preference is usually
given to the one farthest from the chair, or to the one opposing the
question under discussion.

5. The fact that a person has several times arisen, and attempted to
get the floor, gives him no claim or right to be heard. Nor does a call
for the question deprive a member of his right to speak.


_Voting_

1. A question is put to vote by the chairman having first distinctly
restated it, that all may vote intelligently. First, the _affirmative,_
then the _negative_ is called; each so deliberately as to give all an
opportunity of voting. He then distinctly announces whether the motion
is _carried,_ or _lost._

2. Voting is usually done by "aye" and "no," or by raising the hand. In
a doubtful case by standing and being counted. On certain questions by
ballot.

3. If the vote, as announced by the chairman, is doubted, it is called
again, usually by standing to be counted.

4. All members should vote, unless for reasons excused; or unless under
discipline, in which case they should take no part in the business.

5. The moderator does not usually vote, except the question be taken by
ballot; but when the meeting is equally divided, he is expected, but is
not obligated to give the casting vote.

6. When the vote is to be taken by ballot, the chairman appoints
_tellers,_ to distribute, collect, and count the ballots.


_Committees_

1. Committees are nominated by the chairman, if so directed by the
body, or by any member; and the nomination is confirmed by a vote of
the body. More commonly the body directs that all committees shall be
_appointed_ by the chairman, in which case no vote is needed to confirm.

2. Any matter of business, or subject under debate, may be _referred_
to a committee, with or without instructions. The committee make their
_report,_ which is the result of their deliberations. The body then
takes action on the report, and on any recommendations it may contain.

3. The report of a committee is _accepted_ by a vote, which
acknowledges their services, and takes the report before the body for
its action. Afterward, any distinct _recommendation_ contained in the
report is acted on, and may be adopted or rejected.

4. Frequently, however, when the recommendations of the committee are
of a trifling moment or likely to be generally acceptable, the report
is _accepted_ and _adopted_ by the same vote.

5. A report may be _recommitted_ to the committee, with or without
instructions; or that committee discharged, and the matter referred to
a new one, for further consideration, so as to present it in a form
more likely to meet the general concurrence of the body.

6. A committee may be appointed _with power_ for a specific purpose.
This gives them power to dispose conclusively of the matter, without
further reference to the body.

7. The first named in the appointment of a committee is by courtesy
considered the _chairman._ But the committee has the right to name its
own chairman.

8. The member who moves the appointment of a committee is usually,
though not necessarily, named its chairman.

9. Committees of arrangement, or for other protracted service, _report
progress_ from time to time, and are continued until their final
report, or until their appointment expires by limitation.

10. A committee is _discharged_ by a vote, when its business is done,
and its report accepted. But usually, in routine business, a committee
is considered discharged by the acceptance of its report.


_Standing Committee_

A committee appointed to act for a given period or during the recess of
the body is called a _standing committee._ It has charge of a given
department of business assigned by the body, and acts either with
power, under instructions, or at discretion, as may be ordered. A
standing committee is substantially a minor board, and has its own
chairman, secretary, records, and times of meeting.


_Appeal_

The moderator announces all votes, and decides all questions as to
rules of proceeding, and order of debate. But any member who is
dissatisfied with his decisions may _appeal_ from them to the body. The
moderator then puts the question, _"Shall the decision of the chair be
sustained?"_ The vote of the body, whether negative or affirmative, is
final. The right of appeal is undeniable, but should not be resorted to
on trivial occasions.


_Previous Question_

Debate may be cut short by a vote to take the _previous question._ This
means that the original, or main, question under discussion be
immediately voted on, regardless of amendments and secondary questions
and without further debate. Usually a _two-thirds_ vote is necessary to
order the previous question.

1. If the motion for the previous question be _carried,_ then the main
question must be immediately taken, without further debate.

2. If the motion for the previous question be _lost,_ the debate
proceeds, as though no such motion had been made.

3. If the motion for the previous question be _lost,_ it cannot be
renewed with reference to the same question, during the same session.


_To Lay on the Table_

Immediate and decisive action on any question under discussion may be
deferred, by a vote to _lay on the table_ the resolution pending. This
disposes of the whole subject for the present, and ordinarily is in
effect a final dismissal of it. But any member has the right
subsequently to call it up; and the body will decide by vote whether,
or not, it shall be taken from the table.

1. Sometimes, however, a resolution is laid on the table for the
present, or until a specified time, to give place to other business.

2. A motion to lay on the table must apply to a resolution, or other
papers. An abstract subject cannot be disposed of in this way.


_Postponement_

A simple _postponement_ is for a specified time or purpose, the
business to be resumed when the time or purpose is reached. But a
question _indefinitely postponed_ is considered as finally dismissed.


_Not Debatable_

Certain motions, by established usage, are _not debatable,_ but when
once before the body, must be taken without discussion.

These are: The _previous question,_ for _indefinite postponement,_ to
_commit,_ to _lay on the table,_ to _adjourn._

But when these motions are modified by some condition of _time, place,_
or _purpose,_ they become debatable, and subject to the rules of other
motions; but debatable only in respect to the time, place, or purpose
which brings them within the province of debate.

A body is, however, competent, by a vote, to allow debate on all
motions.


_To Reconsider_

A motion to _reconsider_ a motion previously passed must be made by one
who voted _for_ the motion when it passed.

If the body votes to reconsider, then the motion or resolution being
reconsidered, stands before them as previous to its passage, and may be
discussed, adopted, or rejected.

A vote to reconsider should be taken at the same session at which the
vote reconsidered was passed, and when there are as many members
present.


_Be Discussed_

If, when a question is introduced, any member objects to its
discussion, as foreign, profitless, or contentious, the moderator
should at once put the question, _"Shall this motion be discussed?"_ If
this question be decided in the negative, the subject must be dismissed.


_Order of the Day_

The body may decide to take up some definite business at a specified
time. That business therefore becomes the _order of the day,_ for that
hour. When the time mentioned arrives, the chairman calls the business,
or any member may demand it, with or without a vote: and all pending
questions are postponed in consequence.


_Point of Order_

Any member who believes that a speaker is out of order, or that
discussion is proceeding improperly, may at any time _rise to a point
of order._ He must distinctly state his question or objection, which
the moderator will decide.


_Privileges_

Questions relating to the _rights_ and _privileges_ of members are of
primary importance, and, until disposed of, take precedence of all
other business, and supersede all other motions, except that of
adjournment.


_Rule Suspended_

A rule of order may be _suspended_ by a vote of the body, to allow the
transaction of business necessary, but which could not otherwise be
done without a violation of such rule.


_Filling Blanks_

Where different members are suggested for filling blanks, the _highest
number, greatest distance,_ and _longest time_ are usually voted on
first.


_Adjournment_

1. A simple motion _to adjourn_ is always in order, except while a
member is speaking, or when taking a vote. It takes precedence of all
other motions, and is not debatable.

2, In some deliberative bodies, a motion to adjourn is in order while a
speaker has the floor, or a vote is being taken, the business to stand,
on reassembling, precisely as when adjournment took place.

3. A body may adjourn to a specific time; but if no time be mentioned,
the fixed, or usual time of meeting, is understood. If there be no
fixed, or usual time of meeting, then an adjournment without date is
equivalent to a dissolution.



+CHAPTER VIII+

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

All evangelical churches profess to take the Holy Scriptures as their
only and sufficient guide in matters of religious faith and practice.
Baptists, especially, claim to have no authoritative creed except the
New Testament. It is common, however, for the churches to have
formulated statements of what are understood to be the leading
Christian doctrines, printed and circulated among their members. These
are not uniform among the churches, but are in substantial agreement as
to the doctrines taught. Indeed, each church is at liberty to prepare
its own confession, or have none at all; no one form being held as
binding and obligatory on the churches to adopt. Members, on being
received to fellowship, are not required to subscribe or pledge
conformity to any creed-form, but are expected to yield substantial
agreement to that which the church with which they unite has adopted.

There are two Confessions which have gained more general acceptance
than any others, and are now being widely adopted by the churches over
the country. As to substance of doctrine, they do not essentially
differ. That known as the New Hampshire Confession is commonly used by
the churches North, East, and West; while that known as the
Philadelphia Confession, is very generally in use in the South and
Southwest. The former is much more brief and for that reason preferred
by many. The other is substantially the London Confession of Faith,
published by English Baptists in 1689. It is much more full in
statement than the other, and is higher in its tone as to the doctrines
of grace.

American Baptists are decidedly Calvinistic as to substance of
doctrine, but moderately so, being midway between the extremes of
Arminianism and Antinomianism. Though diversities of opinion may
incline to either extreme, the "general atonement" view is for the most
part held, while the "particular atonement" theory is maintained by not
a few. The freedom of the human will is declared, while the sovereignty
of Divine grace, and the absolute necessity of the Spirit's work in
faith and salvation are maintained. They practice "strict communion,"
as do their mission churches in foreign lands. In Great Britain,
Baptists are sharply divided between "strict and free communion," and
between the particular and the general atonement theories.

The New Hampshire Confession, with a few verbal changes, is here
inserted. But some of the proof-texts usually accompanying these
articles are, for want of space, omitted.[1]


ARTICLES OF FAITH

I. THE SCRIPTURES

We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men Divinely inspired,
and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction;[1] that it has God
for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of
error for its matter;[2] that it reveals the principles by which God
will judge us;[3] and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the
world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by
which all human conduct, creeds and opinions should be tried.

[1] 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect,
thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Also, 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Sam.
23:2; Acts 1:16.

[2] Prov. 30:5, 6. Every word of God is pure. Add thou not unto His
words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Also, John
17:17; Rev. 22:18, 19; Rom. 3:4.

[3] Rom. 2:12. As many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by
the law. John 12:47, 48. If any man hear My words--the word that I have
spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. Also, 1 Cor. 4:3, 4;
Luke 10:10-16; 12:47, 48.


II. THE TRUE GOD

We believe the Scriptures teach that there is one, and only one, living
and true God, an infinite, intelligent Spirit, whose name is JEHOVAH,
the Maker and Supreme Ruler of Heaven and Earth:[1] inexpressibly
glorious in holiness,[2] and worthy of all possible honor, confidence,
and love;[3] that in the unity of the Godhead there are three Persons,
the Father, the Son, and the Holy  Ghost;[4] equal in every Divine
perfection, and executing distinct but harmonious offices in the great
work of redemption.

[1] John 4:24. God is a spirit. Ps. 147:5. His understanding is
infinite. Ps. 83:18. Thou whose name alone is JEHOVAH art the Most High
over all the earth. Heb. 3:4; Rom. 1:20; Jer. 10:10.

[2] Exod. 15:11. Who is like unto Thee--glorious in holiness? Isa. 6:3;
1 Peter 1:15, 16; Rev. 4:6-8.

[3] Mark 12:30. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength. Rev. 4:11. Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and
honour, and power. Matt. 10:37; Jer. 2:12, 13.

[4] Matt. 28:19. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. John
15:26; 1 Cor. 12:4-6.


III. THE FALL OF MAN

We believe the Scriptures teach that man was created in holiness, under
the law of his Maker;[1] but by voluntary transgression fell from that
holy and happy state;[2] in consequence of which all mankind are now
sinners[3] not by constraint but choice; being by nature utterly void
of that holiness required by the law of God, positively inclined to
evil; and therefore under just condemnation,[4] without defense or
excuse.[5]

[1] Gen. 1:27. God created man in His own image. Gen. 1:31. And God saw
everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good. Eccl. 7:29;
Acts 17:26; Gen. 2:16.

[2] Gen. 3:6-24. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for
food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to
make one wise; she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and gave
unto her husband with her, and he did eat. Rom. 5:12.

[3] Rom. 5:19. By one man's disobedience many were made sinners. John
3:6; Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:15-19; 8:7.

[4] Eph. 2:3. Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past
in the lusts of our flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of
the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath even as others.

[5] Ezek. 18:19, 20. The soul that sinneth it shall die. Rom. 1:20. So
that they are without excuse. Rom. 3:19. That every mouth may be
stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Gal. 3:22.


IV. THE WAY OF SALVATION

We believe the Scriptures teach that the salvation of sinners is wholly
of grace;[1] through the mediatorial offices of the Son of God;[2] who
according to the will of the Father, became man, yet without sin;[3]
honored the Divine law by His personal obedience, and by His death made
a full atonement for our sins;[4] that having risen from the dead, He
is now enthroned in heaven; and uniting in His wonderful person the
tenderest sympathies with Divine perfections, He is every way qualified
to be a suitable, a compassionate and all-sufficient Saviour.[5]

[1] Eph. 2:5. By grace ye are saved. Matt. 18:11; 1 John 4:10; 1 Cor.
3:5-7; Acts 15:11.

[2] John 3:16. For God so loved the world that He gave His only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but
have everlasting life.

[3] Phil. 2:6-7. Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to
be equal with God; but made Himself of no reputation, and took on Him
the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.

[4] Isa. 53:4, 5. He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised
for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and
with His stripes we are healed.

[5] Heb. 7:25. Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost
that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession
for them. Col. 2:9. For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily.


V. JUSTIFICATION

We believe the Scriptures teach that the great Gospel blessing which
Christ[1] secures to such as believe in Him is justification;[2] that
justification includes the pardon of sin,[3] and the gift of eternal
life on principles of righteousness; that it is bestowed, not in
consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but
solely through faith in Christ; by means of which faith His perfect
righteousness is freely imputed to us by God;[4] that it brings us into
a state of most blessed peace and favor with God, and secures every
other blessing needful for time and eternity.[5]

[1] John 1:16. Of His fulness have all we received. Eph. 3:8.

[2] Acts 13:39. By Him all that believe are justified from all things.
Isa. 3:11, 12; Rom. 5:1.

[3] Rom. 5:9. Being justified by His blood, we shall be saved from
wrath through Him. Zech. 13:1; Matt. 9:6; Acts 10:43.

[4] Rom. 5:19. By the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.
Rom. 3:24-26; 4:23-25; 1 John 2:12.

[5] Rom. 5:1, 2. Being justified by faith, we have peace with God,
through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith
into this grace wherein we stand and rejoice in hope of the glory of
God.


VI. THE FREENESS OF SALVATION

We believe the Scriptures teach that the blessings of salvation are
made free to all by the Gospel:[1] that it is the immediate duty of all
to accept them by a cordial, penitent, and obedient faith;[2] and that
nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth but his
own determined depravity and voluntary rejection of the Gospel;[3]
which rejection involves him in an aggravated condemnation.[4]

[1] Isa. 55:1. Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye in the waters.
Rev. 22:17. Whosoever will; let him take the water of life freely.

[2] Acts 17:30. And the times of this ignorance God winked at, but now
commandeth all men everywhere to repent. Rom. 16:26; Mark 1:15; Rom.
1:15-17.

[3] John 5:40. Ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life. Matt.
23:37; Rom. 9:32.

[4] John 3:19. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into
the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds
were evil. Matt. 11:20; Luke 19:27; 2 Thess. 1:8.


VII. REGENERATION

We believe the Scriptures teach that in order to be saved, men must be
regenerated, or born again;[1] that regeneration consists in giving a
holy disposition to the mind;[2] that it is effected in a manner above
our comprehension by the Holy Spirit, in connection with Divine
truth,[3] so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the Gospel;[4] and
that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance,
faith, and newness of life.[5]

[1] John 3:3. Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:6, 7; 1 Cor. 1:14; Rev.
3:7-9; Rev. 21:27.

[2] 2 Cor. 5:17. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Ezek.
36:26; Deut. 30:6; Rom. 2:28, 29.

[3] John 3:8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the
sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it
goeth, so is every one that is born of the Spirit. John 1:13; James
1:16-18; 1 Cor. 1:30; Phil. 2:13.

[4] 1 Peter 1:22-25. Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth
through the Spirit. 1 John 5:1; Eph. 4:20-24; Col. 3:6-11.

[5] Eph. 5:9. The fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and
righteousness, and truth. Rom. 8:9; Gal. 5:18-23; Eph. 5:14-21; Matt.
3:8-10, 7:20; 1 John 5:4, 18.


VIII. REPENTANCE AND FAITH

We believe the Scriptures teach that repentance and faith are sacred
duties, and also inseparable graces, wrought in the soul by the
regenerating Spirit of God;[1] whereby being deeply convinced of our
guilt, danger, and helplessness, and of the way of salvation by
Christ,[2] we turn to God with unfeigned contrition, confession, and
supplication for mercy; at the same time heartily receiving the Lord
Jesus as our Prophet, Priest, and King, and relying on Him alone as the
only and all-sufficient Saviour.[3]

[1] Mark 1:15. Repent ye, and believe the gospel. Acts 11:18. Then hath
God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. Eph. 2:8. By
grace are ye saved, through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is
the gift of God. 1 John 3:1.

[2] John 16:8. He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness,
and of judgment. Acts 2:38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission
of sins. Acts 16:30, 31.

[3] Romans 10:9-11. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the
dead, thou shalt be saved. Acts 3:22, 23; Heb. 4:14.


IX. GOD'S PURPOSE OF GRACE

We believe the Scriptures teach that election is the eternal purpose of
God, according to which He graciously regenerates, sanctifies, and
saves sinners;[1] that being perfectly consistent with the free agency
of man, it comprehends all the means in connection with the end;[2]
that it is a most glorious display of God's sovereign goodness;[3] that
it utterly excludes boasting, and promotes humility;[4] that it
encourages the use of means; that it may be ascertained by its effects
in all who truly accept of Christ;[5] that it is the foundation of
Christian assurance; and that to ascertain it with regard to ourselves
demands and deserves the utmost diligence.[6]

[1] 2 Tim. 1:8, 9. But be thou partaker of the afflictions of the
gospel, according to the power of God: who hath saved us and called us
with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his
own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the
world began.

[2] 2 Thess. 2:13, 14. But we are bound to give thanks always to God
for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the
beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit
and belief of the truth; whereunto He called you by our Gospel, to the
obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[3] 1 Cor. 4:7. For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what
hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it,
why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it? 1 Cor. 1:26-31;
Rom. 3:27.

[4] 2 Tim. 2:10. Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes,
that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with
eternal glory. 1 Cor. 9:22; Rom. 8:28-30.

[5] 1 Thess. 1:4. Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

[6] 2 Peter 1:10, 11. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to
make your calling and election sure. Phil. 3:12; Heb. 6:11.


X. SANCTIFICATION

We believe the Scriptures teach that sanctification is the process by
which, according to the will of God, we are made partakers of His
holiness;[1] that it is a progressive work;[2] that it is begun in
regeneration; that it is carried on in the hearts of believers by the
presence and power of the Holy Spirit, the Sealer and Comforter, in the
continual use of the appointed means--especially the Word of
God--self-examination, self-denial, watchfulness and prayer;[3] and in
the practice of all godly exercise and duties.[4]

[1] 1 Thess. 4:3. For this is the will of God, even your
sanctification. 1 Thess. 5:23. And the very God of peace sanctify you
wholly. 2 Cor. 7:1; 13:9; Eph. 1:4.

[2] Prov. 4:18. The path of the just is as the shining light, which
shineth more and more, unto the perfect day.

[3] Phil. 2:12, 13. Work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling, for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of
his good pleasure. Eph. 4:11, 12; 1 Peter 2:2; 2 Peter 3:18; 2 Cor.
13:5; Luke 11:35; 9:23; Matt. 26:41; Eph. 6:18, 4:30.

[4] 1 Tim. 4:7. Exercise thyself unto godliness.


XI. PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS

We believe the Scriptures teach that such as are truly regenerate,
being born of the Spirit, will not utterly fall away and perish, but
will endure unto the end;[1] that their preservering attachment from
Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial
professors;[2] that a special Providence watches over their welfare;[3]
and that they are kept by the power of God through faith unto
salvation.[4]

[1] John 8:31. Then said Jesus, If ye continue in My word, then are ye
My disciples indeed. 1 John 2:27, 28.

[2] 1 John 2:19. They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if
they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but
they went out that it might be made manifest that they were not all of
us.

[3] Rom. 8:28. And we know that all things work together for good unto
them that love God, to them who are the called according to His
purpose. Matt. 6:30-33; Jer. 32:40.

[4] Phil. 1:6. He who hath begun a good work in you will perform it
until the day of Jesus Christ. Phil. 2:12, 13.


XII. THE LAW AND GOSPEL

We believe the Scriptures teach that the law of God is the eternal and
unchangeable rule of his moral government;[1] that it is holy, just,
and good;[2] and that the inability which the Scriptures ascribe to
fallen men to fulfill its precepts arises entirely from their sinful
nature;[3] to deliver them from which, and to restore them through a
Mediator to unfeigned obedience to the holy law, is one great end of
the Gospel, and of the means of grace connected with the establishment
of the visible church.[4]

[1] Rom. 3:31. Do we make void the law through faith? God forbid. Yea,
we establish the law. Matt. 5:17; Luke 16:17; Rom. 3:20; 4:15.

[2] Rom. 7:12. The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and
good. Rom. 7:7, 14, 22; Gal. 3:21; Ps. 119.

[3] Rom. 8:7, 8. The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not
subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are
in the flesh cannot please God.

[4] Rom. 8:2-4. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath
made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not
do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in
the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh;
that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


XIII. A GOSPEL CHURCH

We believe the Scriptures teach that a visible Church of Christ is a
company of baptized believers,[1] associated by covenant in the faith
and fellowship of the Gospel;[2] observing the ordinances of Christ;[3]
governed by His laws;[4] and exercising the gifts, rights, and
privileges invested in them by His Word;[5] that its only Scriptural
officers are bishops or pastors, and deacons,[6] whose qualifications,
claims, and duties are defined in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.

[1] Acts 2:41, 42. Then they that gladly received his word were
baptized; and the same day there were added to them about three
thousand souls.

[2] 2 Cor. 8:5. They first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto
us by the will of God.

[3] 1 Cor. 11:2. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all
things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you.

[4] Matt. 28:20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you. John 13:15.

[5] 1 Cor. 14:12. Seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

[6] Phil. 1:1. With the bishops and deacons. Acts 14:23, 15:22. 1 Tim.
3, Titus 1.


XIV. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM

We believe the Scriptures teach that Christian baptism is the immersion
in water of a believer in Christ,[1] into the name of the Father, and
Son, and Holy Ghost;[2] to show forth in a solemn and beautiful emblem
his faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, with its effect,
in His death to sin and resurrection to a new life;[3] that it is
prerequisite to the privileges of a church relation, and to the Lord's
Supper.[4]

[1] Acts 8:36-39. And the eunuch said, See, here is water: what doth
hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all
thy heart, thou mayest. . . . And they went down into the water, both
Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. Matt. 3:5, 6; John 3:22,
23; 4:1, 2; Matt. 28:19.

[2] Matt. 28:19. Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Acts 10:47, 48; Gal. 3:27, 28.

[3] Rom. 6:4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death;
that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Col. 2:12.

[4] Acts 2:41, 42. Then they that gladly received his word were
baptized, and there were added to them, the same day, about three
thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles'
doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Matt. 28:19, 20.


XV. THE LORD'S SUPPER

We believe the Scriptures teach that the Lord's Supper is a provision
of bread and wine, representing Christ's body and blood, partaken of by
the members of the church assembled for that purpose,[1] in
commemoration of the death of their Lord,[2] showing their faith and
participation in the merits of His sacrifice, their dependence on Him
for spiritual life and nourishment,[3] and their hope of life eternal
through His resurrection from the dead; its observance to be preceded
by faithful self-examination.[4]

[1] Luke 22:19, 20. And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake, and
gave unto them, saying, This is My body, which is given for you; this
do in remembrance of Me. Likewise the cup after supper, saying, This
cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you. Mark
14:26-28; Matt. 26:27-30; 1 Cor. 11:22-30; 1 Cor. 10:16.

[2] 1 Cor. 11:26. For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup,
ye do show the Lord's death until He come. Matt. 28:20.

[3] John 6:35, 54, 56. Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life.
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.

[4] 1 Cor. 11:28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of
that bread, and drink of that cup. Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11.


XVI. THE LORD'S DAY

We believe the Scriptures teach that the first day of the week is the
Lord's Day,[1] and is to be kept sacred to religious purposes[2] by
abstaining from all secular labor, except works of mercy and
necessity;[3] by the devout observance of all the means of grace, both
private and public;[4] and by preparation for that rest that remaineth
for the people of God.

[1] Acts 20:7. On the first day of the week, when the disciples came
together to break bread, Paul preached to them.

[2] Exod. 20:8. Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Rev. 1:10. I
was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day. Ps. 113:2-4.

[3] Isa. 58:13, 14. If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from
doing thy pleasure on My holy day: and call the Sabbath a delight, the
holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour Him, not doing thine own
ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words;
then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, and I will cause thee to
ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage
of Jacob. Isa. 56:2-8.

[4] Heb. 10:24, 25. Not forsaking the assembling of yourselves
together, as the manner of some is. Acts 13:44. The next Sabbath Day
came almost the whole city together to hear the Word of God.


XVII. CIVIL GOVERNMENT

We believe the Scriptures teach that civil government is of Divine
appointment, for the interest and good order of human society;[1] and
that magistrates are to be prayed for, conscientiously honored, and
obeyed;[2] except only in things opposed to the will of our Lord Jesus
Christ,[3] who is the only Lord of the conscience, and the Prince of
the kings of the earth.[4]

[1] Rom. 13:1-7. The powers that be are ordained of God. For rulers are
not a terror to good works, but to the evil.

[2] Matt. 22:21. Render therefore unto Cæsar the things that are
Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's. Titus 3:1; 1 Peter
2:13; 1 Tim. 2:1-8.

[3] Acts 5:29. We ought to obey God rather than man. Matt. 10:28. Fear
not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Dan.
3:15-18; 6:7, 10; Acts 4:18-20.

[4] Matt. 23:10. Ye have one Master, even Christ. Rev. 19:16. And he
hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS. Ps. 72:11; Ps. 2; Rom. 14:8-13.


XVIII. RIGHTEOUS AND WICKED

We believe the Scriptures teach that there is a radical and essential
difference between the righteous and the wicked;[1] that such only as
are regenerate, being justified through faith in Jesus Christ and
sanctified by the Spirit of God, are truly righteous in His esteem;[2]
while all such as continue in impenitence and unbelief are, in His
sight, wicked and under the curse;[3] and this distinction holds among
men, both in and after death.[4]

[1] Mal. 3:18. Ye shall discern between the righteous and the wicked:
between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not. Prov. 12:26;
Isa. 5:26; Gen. 18:23; Jer. 15:19; Acts 10:34, 35; Rom. 6:16.

[2] Rom. 1:17. The just shall live by faith. 1 John 2:29. If ye know
that He is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness
is born of Him. 1 John 3:7; Rom. 6:18, 22; 1 Cor. 11:32; Prov. 11:31; 1
Peter 4:17, 18.

[3] 1 John 5:19. And we know that we are of God, and the whole world
lieth in wickedness. Gal. 3:10. As many as are of the works of the law,
are under the curse. John 3:36; Isa. 57:21; Ps. 10:4; Isa. 55:6, 7.

[4] Prov. 14:32. The wicked is driven away in his wickedness, but the
righteous hath hope in his death. Luke 16:25. Thou in thy lifetime
receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now
he is comforted, and thou art tormented. John 8:21-24; Prov. 10:24;
Luke 12:4, 5; 11:23-26; John 12:25, 26; Eccl. 3:17.


XIX. THE WORLD TO COME

We believe the Scriptures teach that the end of the world is
approaching;[1] that at the last day Christ will descend from
heaven,[2] and raise the dead from the grave for final retribution;[3]
that a solemn separation will then take place;[4] that the wicked will
be adjudged to endless sorrow, and the righteous to endless joy;[5] and
that this judgment will fix forever the final state of men in heaven or
hell on principles of righteousness.[6]

[1] 1 Peter 4:7. But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore
sober, and watch unto prayer. 1 Cor. 7:29-31; Heb. 1:10-12; Matt. 24:35.

[2] Acts 1:11. This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven,
shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.

[3] Acts 24:15. There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the
just and unjust. 1 Cor. 15:12-58; Luke 14:14; Dan. 12:2.

[4] Matt. 13:49. The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from
among the just. Matt. 13:37-43; 24:30, 31; 25:31-33.

[5] Matt. 25:31-46. And these shall go away into everlasting
punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. Rev. 22:11. He that is
unjust, let him be unjust still; and he which is filthy, let him be
filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and
he that is holy; let him be holy still. 1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Mark 9:43-48.

[6] 2 Thess. 1:6-12. Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to
recompense tribulation to them who trouble you and to you who are
troubled, rest with us . . . when He shall come to be glorified in His
saints, and to be admired in all them that believe. Heb. 6:1, 2; 1 Cor.
4:5; Acts 17:31; Rom. 2:2-16; Rev. 20:11, 12; 1 John 2:28; 4:17;
2 Peter 3:11, 12. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved,
what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and
godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God?


COVENANT

Having been, as we trust, brought by Divine grace to embrace the Lord
Jesus Christ, and to give ourselves wholly to Him, we do now solemnly
and joyfully covenant with each other TO WALK TOGETHER IN HIM, WITH
BROTHERLY LOVE, to His glory, as our common Lord. We do, therefore, in
His strength, engage--

That we will exercise a Christian care and watchfulness over each
other, and faithfully warn, exhort, and admonish each other as occasion
may require:

That we will not forsake the assembling of ourselves together, but will
uphold the public worship of God and the ordinances of His house:

That we will not omit closet and family religion at home, nor neglect
the great duty of religiously training our children, and those under
our care, for the service of Christ and the enjoyment of heaven:

That, as we are the light of the world, and the salt of the earth, we
will seek Divine aid to enable us to deny ungodliness and every worldly
lust, and to walk circumspectly in the world, that we may win the souls
of men:

That we will cheerfully contribute of our property according as God has
prospered us, for the maintenance of a faithful and evangelical
ministry among us, for the support of the poor, and to spread the
Gospel over the earth.

That we will in all conditions, even till death, strive to live to the
glory of Him who hath called us out of darkness into His marvelous
light.

"And may the God of peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord
Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the
everlasting covenant, make us perfect in every good work to do his
will, working in us that which is well pleasing in his sight through
Jesus Christ, to whom be glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

+FOOTNOTES:+

[1] For a fuller account of these Confessions, see the "Baptist Church
    Directory."



+CHAPTER IX+

OPTIONAL STANDING RESOLUTIONS

A Christian church should be the uncompromising friend of all virtue,
and the determined enemy of all vice. Public morality and social purity
should find in it an open and earnest advocate and defender. Churches
should bear in mind that Christian morality, which constitutes their
rule of life, claims a much higher standard than the morality of
worldly society about them. Therefore their deportment should be such
as to have a good report of them that are without, and command the
respect of the world. In all this the pastor should be the wise but
decided and courageous teacher, leader and exemplar for his people.

There are certain questions of moral reform and social recreation with
reference to which the churches are often much perplexed, but with
reference to which they should have settled convictions, and hold a
well-defined attitude. It is not wise to put definitions and
restrictions touching intemperance, card-playing, theater-going,
dancing, and the like, into covenants or articles of faith. A better
way is for the church, after due consideration, to pass _standing
resolutions_ on the subject, to be placed on its records as a guide to
future action. Something like the following, to be varied at the option
of the body, would serve as a declaration of principles:

1. _Resolved,_ That this church expects every member to contribute
statedly for its pecuniary support, according to his ability, as God
has prospered him, and that a refusal to do this will be considered a
breach of covenant.

2. _Resolved,_ That this church will entertain and contribute statedly
to Home and Foreign Missions, and to other leading objects of Christian
benevolence, approved of and supported by our denomination.

3. _Resolved,_ That the religious education of the young and Bible
study as represented in Sunday school work commend themselves to our
confidence, and we will, to the extent of our ability, give them our
sympathy and our aid, by both our personal cooperation and
contributions and expressed appreciation of all their legitimate aims
and work.

4. _Resolved,_ That in our opinion, the use of intoxicating drinks as a
beverage, and also the manufacture and sale of the same for such a
purpose are contrary to Christian morals, injurious to personal piety,
and a hindrance to Gospel truth, and that persons so using, making, or
selling, are thereby disqualified for membership in this church.

5. _Resolved,_ That we emphatically discountenance and condemn the
practice of church-members frequenting theaters and other similar
places of public amusements, as inconsistent with a Christian
profession, detrimental to personal piety, and pernicious in the
influence of its example on others.

6. _Revolved,_ That the members of this church are earnestly requested
not to provide for, take part in, or by any means encourage dancing or
card-playing; but in all consistent ways to discountenance the same as
a hindrance to personal godliness in their associations and tendencies,
and an offense to brethren whom we should not willingly grieve.



+CHAPTER X+

BAPTISM CONSIDERED

What is Christian baptism? This is the gravest question which enters
into the baptismal controversy. Other questions of moment there are in
connection with it, touching the design, the efficacy, and the
subjects. But it is of primary importance to know what constitutes
baptism.

Baptists answer the question by saying that baptism is the immersion,
dipping, or burying in water, of a professed believer in Christ, in the
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Pedobaptists, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, answer the question
by saying that baptism is either the sprinkling or pouring of water
upon the candidate, touching the forehead with wet fingers, or dipping
the person wholly into water; in either case in the name of the Father,
the Son, and the Spirit; and that it may be administered to a candidate
on his profession of faith, or to an unconscious infant on the
professed faith of parents or sponsors. This would make four kinds of
baptism, and two classes of subjects for its reception; and would
consist rather in the application of water to the person, than putting
the person into water.

Baptists hold to a unity of the ordinance, as well as to a oneness of
the faith; insisting that as there is but one Lord, and one faith, so
there is but one baptism. And the dipping in water of a professed
disciple of Christ is that one baptism. Neither sprinkling a person
with water, nor pouring water upon him can by any possibility be
Christian baptism. That this position is the true one, we appeal to the
New Testament, and the best extant historical and philological
authorities to establish.

Let it be distinctly understood, however, that all the eminent names
and learned authorities hereafter cited are Pedobaptists. Baptist
authorities are wholly omitted, not because they are less accurate or
less valuable, but because we prefer to allow our opponents in this
controversy to bear witness for us, rather than to testify in our own
behalf.


THE MEANING OF THE WORD

The word _baptize_ is, properly speaking, a Greek word (_baptizo_),
adapted to the English language by a change in its termination. This is
the word always used by Christ and His Apostles to express and define
the ordinance. What does that word mean as originally used? For it is
certain that our Lord, in commanding a rite to be observed by believers
of all classes, in all lands, and through all ages, would use a word of
positive and definite import, and one whose meaning would admit of no
reasonable doubt. What do Greek scholars say? How do the Greek lexicons
define the word?

SCAPULA says: "To _dip,_ to immerse, as we do anything for the purpose
of dyeing it."

SCHLEUSNER says: "Properly it signifies to _dip,_ to immerse, to
immerse in water."

PARKHURST says: "To dip, _immerse,_ or plunge in water."

STEVENS says: "To merge, or _immerse,_ to submerge, or bury in water."

DONNEGAN says: "To _immerse_ repeatedly into liquid, to submerge, to
soak thoroughly."

ROBINSON says: "To _immerse,_ to sink."

LIDDELL AND SCOTT say: "To _dip_ repeatedly."

GRIMM'S LEXICON _of the New Testament,_ which in Europe and America
stands confessedly at the head of Greek lexicography, as translated and
edited by Professor Thayer, of Harvard University, thus defines
_baptizo:_ "(1) To dip repeatedly, to immerse, submerge. (2) To cleanse
by dipping or submerging. (3) To overwhelm. In the New Testament it is
used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution; first instituted by
John the Baptist, afterward by Christ's command received by Christians
and adjusted to the contents and nature of their religion, viz., an
_immersion_ in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and
administered to those who, impelled by a desire for salvation, sought
admission to the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom. With _eis_ to mark
the element into which the immersion is made; _en_ with the dative or
the thing in which one is immersed."

The noun _baptisma,_ the only other word used in the New Testament to
denote the rite, GRIMM-THAYER thus define: "A word peculiar to the New
Testament and ecclesiastical writers: used (1) of John's baptism; (2)
of Christian baptism. This, according to the view of the Apostles, is a
rite of sacred _immersion_ commanded by Christ."

Add to those such authorities as Alstidius, Passow, Schöttgen,
Stockius, Stourdza, Sophocles, Anthon, Rosenmüller, Wetstein, Leigh,
Turretin, Beza, Calvin, Witsius, Luther, Vossius, Campbell, and many
others who bear the same witness to the proper meaning of the word
_baptize._ If at any time the word may have a secondary meaning, it is
strictly in accord with its primary meaning--to dip, or immerse. For
both classic and sacred Greek the same meaning holds.

PROF. MOSES STUART, one of the ablest scholars America has produced,
declared: "_Baptizo_ means to dip, plunge, or _immerse_ into any
liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this."
_Essay on Baptism, p. 51; Biblical Repository, 1833, p. 298._

"All lexicographers and critics, of any note, are agreed in this," says
one of the foremost scholars of the age, and he a Pedobaptist. What a
concession!

The Greek language is rich in terms for the expression of all positive
ideas, and all varying shades of thought. Why, then, did our Lord in
commanding, and His Apostles in transmitting His command to posterity,
use _always_ and _only_ the one word _baptizo,_ to describe the action,
and that one word _baptisma,_ to describe the ordinance to which He
intended all His followers to submit? The word _louo_ means to _wash_
the body, and _nipto_ to wash parts of the body; but these words are
not used, because washing is not what Christ meant. _Rantizo_ means to
_sprinkle,_ and if sprinkling were baptism this would have been the
word above all others; but it was never so used. _Cheo_ means to
_pour:_ but pouring is not baptism, and so this word was never used to
describe the ordinance. _Katharizo_ means to _purify,_ but it is not
used for the ordinance. The facts are clear and the reasoning
conclusive.

STOURDZA, the Russian scholar and diplomat, says: "The church of the
West has then departed from the example of Jesus Christ; she has
obliterated the whole sublimity of the exterior sign. Baptism and
immersion are _identical._ Baptism by _aspersion_ is as if one should
say _immersion_ by _aspersion,_ or any other absurdity of the same
nature." _Considerations, Orthodox Ch., p. 87._


THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

The baptism of Jesus in the Jordan is thus described: "And Jesus, when
He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water" (Matt. 3:16).
And again, it is recorded that Jesus "was baptized of John in Jordan:
and straightway coming up out of the water" (Mark 1:10). He certainly
would not go down into Jordan to have water sprinkled on Him. Nobody
believes He would. He was baptized _in_ Jordan, not _with_ Jordan.
Moreover, he was _baptized,_ that is, _immersed,_ not _rantized,_ that
is, _sprinkled._

BISHOP TAYLOR says: "The custom of the ancient churches was not
sprinkling, but _immersion,_ in pursuance of the meaning of the word in
the commandments and the example of our blessed Saviour." _Commentary
on Matthew 3:16._

MACKNIGHT says: "Christ submitted to be baptized, that is, to be
_buried_ under water, and to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of
his future death and resurrection." _Com. Epis., Rom. 6:4._

And with these agree Campbell, Lightfoot, Whitby, Poole, Olshausen,
Meyer, Alford, and many other commentators and scholars. All those whom
John baptized he buried beneath the waters, and raised them up again.


MUCH WATER NEEDED

It is recorded that "John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim,
because there was much water there" (John 3:23). Why need much water
except for dipping, or burying candidates in the act of baptism?

JOHN CALVIN, the great theologian, scholar, and commentator, whom
Scaliger pronounced the most learned man in Europe, says: "From the
words of John (chap. 3:23) it may be inferred that baptism was
administered by John and Christ, by _plunging_ the whole body under
water." _Com. on John 3:23._

POOLE says: "It is apparent that both Christ and John baptized by
dipping the whole body in the water, else they need not have sought
places where had been a great plenty of water." _Annot. John 3:23._

WHITBY says: "Because there was much water there in which their whole
bodies might be dipped." _Crit. Com. John 3:23._

With these agree Bengel, Curcælleus, Adam Clarke, Geikie, Stanley, and
others.


PHILIP AND THE EUNUCH

"And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch,
and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the
Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip" (Acts 8:38). Why go down into
the water, both, or either of them, if not for an immersion?

VENEMA, the ecclesiastical historian, says: "It is without controversy,
that baptism in the primitive church was administered by _immersion_
into water, and not by sprinkling; seeing that John is said to have
baptized in Jordan, and where there was much water, as Christ also did
by His disciples in the neighborhood of those places. Philip also going
down into the water baptized the eunuch." _Eccl. Hist., chap. I., sec.
138._

To this may be added Calvin, Grotius, Towerson, Poole, and others to
the same effect.


THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS

Great men are not always wise. Our search should be for the _truth_
wherever found; and though our final appeal in these matters is to the
New Testament, still we are glad to use the testimony of distinguished
scholars where it affirms the teachings of the Scriptures and confirms
our position on the baptismal question. Especially so, as these
scholars are not of our own, but of other denominations.

ZANCHIUS, the learned Roman Catholic professor of Heidelberg, whose
opinion De Courcy declared, "is worth a thousand others," said: "The
proper signification of _baptize_ is to _immerse,_ plunge under,
overwhelm in water." _Works, Vol. VI., p. 217. Geneva, 1619._

LUTHER, the great German Reformer, says: "The term _baptism_ is Greek;
in Latin it may be translated _mersio:_ since we _immerse_ anything
into water, that the whole may be covered with the water." _Works, Vol.
I., p. 71. Wit. ed., 1582._

MELANCHTHON, the most scholarly and able co-laborer with Luther, says:
"Baptism is _immersion_ into water, with this admirable benediction."
_Melanc. Catec. Wit., 1580._

CAVE, in his able work on Christian Antiquities, says: "The party to be
baptized was _wholly immersed,_ or put under water." _Prim. Christ., P.
I. Chap. X. p. 320._

BEZA, the learned translator of the New Testament, says: "Christ
commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain _immersion_ is
signified." _Annot. on Mark 7:4._

MEDE, the distinguished English scholar and Divine, says, "There was no
such thing as _sprinkling_ used in the Apostles' days, nor for many
ages after them." _Dis. on Titus 3:5._

GROTIUS, who his biographer calls one of the most illustrious names in
literature, politics, and theology says: "That baptism used to be
performed by _immersion,_ and not by pouring, appears by the proper
signification of the word, and by the places chosen for the
administration of the rite." _Annot. on Matt. 3:6; John 3:23._

ADAM CLARK, the great Methodist commentator, says: "Alluding to the
_immersions_ practiced in the case of adults, wherein the person
appeared to be _buried_ under the water as Christ was buried in the
heart of the earth." _Com. on Col. 2:12._

FREDERICK MEYER, one of the ablest and most accurate exegetes of the
present age, says: "_Immersion,_ which the word in classic Greek and in
the New Testament ever means." _Com. on Mark 7:4._

DEAN ALFORD says: "The baptism was administered by _immersion_ of the
whole person." _Greek Testament, Matt. 3:6._

BISHOP BOSSUET, the celebrated French Catholic bishop, orator, and
counselor of state, says: "To baptize, signifies to _plunge,_ as is
granted by all the world." See _Stenett ad Russen, p. 174._

DOCTOR SCHAFF, the well-known church historian, says: "_Immersion,_ and
not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original form. This is shown by
the very meaning of the words _baptizo, baptisma,_ and _baptismos_ used
to designate the rite." _Hist. Apos. Ch., p. 488. Merc. ed., 1851. Also
see Noel on Bap., Ch. 3, sec. 8._

DEAN STANLEY, the distinguished scholar, and historian of the Oriental
Church, says: "The practice of the Eastern Church, and the meaning of
the word, leave no sufficient ground for question that the original
form of baptism was _complete immersion_ in the deep baptismal waters."
_Hist. Eastern Church, p. 34._

PROFESSOR FISHER, of Yale College, the accomplished scholar and
historian, says of the Apostolic age: "The ordinary mode of baptism was
by _immersion._" _Hist. Christ. Church, p. 41._

PROFESSOR RIDDLE says: "There is no doubt that the usual mode of
administering baptism in the early church, was by _immersion,_ or
plunging the whole body of the person baptized under water." _Christ.
Antiq., p. 502._

Add to the above the testimony of Bishops Taylor and Sherlock, Witsius,
Poole, Vitringa, Diodati, Calvin, Samuel Clark, Bloomfield, Scholz,
Neander, and many others to the same effect, none of whom were Baptists.


APOSTOLICAL ALLUSIONS

What idea could the Apostle have had as to the nature of baptism, when
in two of his epistles he alludes to it as a _burial_ except that it
was a dipping or burial in water? To the Romans he says: "Therefore we
are _buried_ with him, by baptism, into death" (Rom. 6:4). To the
Colossians, in nearly the same language, "_Buried_ with him in baptism"
(Col. 2:12). No one can misunderstand the meaning of these words.
Neither sprinkling, pouring, washing, cleansing--nothing but a complete
submersion--can represent a burial. And no candid mind could
misunderstand such language, unless blinded or biased by prejudice,
education, or sophistical reasoning from others.

ARCHBISHOP TILLOTSON makes this comment: "Anciently those who were
baptized were _immersed_ and _buried_ in the water, to represent their
death to sin; and then did rise up out of the water, to signify their
entrance upon a new life. And to this custom the Apostle alludes."
_Works, Vol. I., p. 170._

JOHN WESLEY, the celebrated founder of Methodism, says: "Buried with
him, alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by _immersion._" _Note
on Rom. 6:4._

CONYBEARE says: "This passage cannot be understood unless it be borne
in mind that the primitive baptism was by _immersion._" _Life and
Epist. St. Paul, Rom. 6:4._

BLOOMFIELD says: "Here is a plain allusion to the ancient custom of
baptizing by _immersion,_ and I agree with Koppe and Rosenmüller, that
there is reason to regret it should ever have been abandoned in most
Christian churches; especially as it has so evident a reference to the
mystical sense of baptism." _Recens. Synop., Rom. 6:4._

WHITEFIELD says: "It is certain that in the words of our text (Rom.
6:4) there is an allusion to the manner of baptizing which was by
_immersion._" _Eighteen Sermons, p. 297._

MEYER says: "The candidate says to himself, Now I enter into fellowship
with the death of Christ; I am to be buried with Christ in the
_immersion,_ and in the _emersion_ I rise with Christ to newness of
life." _Com. on Rom. 6:4._

Add to these the names of Bishop Fell, Doctor Doddridge, Adam Clark,
Estius, Maldonatus, Fritsche, Benson, Diodati, Turretin, Zwingli,
Whitby, Samuel Clarke, with others equally good in authority, and what
no one ought to question seems to be put beyond doubt.


THE WITNESS OF HISTORY

Learned and devout men have studied with care the early records of
Christianity, and have written histories of the doctrines and customs
of the churches, during the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles.
What do they tell us as to the use of baptism during the first
centuries after Christ?

BARNABAS, the companion of St. Paul; Hermas, writing about A. D. 95;
Justin Martyr, about A. D. 140; Tertullian, about A. D. 204;
Hippolytus, about A. D. 225; Gregory, about A. D. 360; Basil, about
A. D. 360; Ambrose, about A. D. 374; Cyril, about A. D. 374;
Chrysostom, about A. D. 400; all speak of being _dipped,_ or _buried,_
or _immersed,_ or _plunged_ in the water in baptism; and none of them
make the least allusion to any application of water to the person for
baptism by sprinkling, pouring, washing, or any other mode whatsoever.

DOCTOR WALL, whose learned and laborious researches in connection with
his exhaustive work on the _History of Infant Baptism_ left little for
others to discover in this field of scholarship, says: "The Greek
Church in all its branches does still use _immersion,_ and so do all
other Christians in the world, except the Latins. All those nations
that do now, or formerly did submit to the Bishop of Rome, do
ordinarily baptize their children by pouring or sprinkling. But _all
other Christians in the world,_ who never owned the Pope's usurped
power, do and ever did _dip_ their infants in the ordinary use. All the
Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one-third in Europe are of
the last sort." _Hist. Inf. Bap., Vol. II., p. 376, 3d ed._

BINGHAM, in his _Origines,_ the ablest work we have in English on
Christian Antiquities, says: "The ancients thought that immersion, or
_burying under water,_ did more lively represent the death, burial, and
resurrection of Christ, as well as our own death to sin and rising
again unto righteousness." _Christ. Antiq., B. XI., Ch. XI._

MOSHEIM says: "In this century (_the first_) baptism was administered
in convenient places, without the public assemblies, and by _immersing_
the candidate wholly in water." _Eccl. Hist., Cent. I., Part. II., Ch.
4._

NEANDER says: "In respect to the form of baptism, it was in conformity
to the original institution, and the original import of the symbol,
performed by _immersion,_ as a sign of entire baptism into the Holy
Spirit, of being entirely penetrated with the same." _Ch. Hist., Vol.
I., p. 310._ Also, _Plant. and Train., Vol. I., p. 222._

SCHAFF says: "Finally, so far as it respects the mode and manner of
outward baptizing, there can be no doubt that _immersion,_ and not
sprinkling was the original normal form." _Hist. Christ. Ch., p. 488._

PRESSENSÉ says: "Baptism, which was the sign of admission into the
church, was administered by _immersion._ The convert was plunged
beneath the water, and as he rose from it he received the laying on of
hands." _Early Years of Christianity, p. 374._

KURTZ says: "Baptism took place by a complete _immersion._" _Church
History, p. 41._

KRAUS says: "Baptism was performed by _immersion_ in the name of the
Trinity." _Church History, p. 56. 1882._

ELLICOTT says: "Jewish ablutions arrived at a ceremonial purity in the
Levitical sense, and had nothing in common with the figurative act
which portrayed through _immersion_ the complete disappearance of the
old nature, and by the _emerging_ again, the beginning of a totally new
life." _Life of Christ, p. 110._


FOR THIRTEEN CENTURIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


AS TO THE GREEK CHURCH

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

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

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


THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM

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

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

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


A SUFFICIENCY OF WATER

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

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

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


THE RISE OF SPRINKLING

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

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

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

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

+FOOTNOTES:+

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



+CHAPTER XI+

THE LORD'S SUPPER

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


OPEN AND CLOSE COMMUNION

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

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

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


ONE AND THE SAME RULE

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

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


THE BAPTIST POSITION

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

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

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

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


PEDOBAPTIST CLOSE COMMUNION

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

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

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


THE POWER OF SYMPATHY

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


THREE FACTS EXPLAINED

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

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

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

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


PEDOBAPTIST WITNESSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



+CHAPTER XII+

INFANT BAPTISM

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


NOT OF SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


WHEN DID IT RISE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


WHY DID IT RISE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



+CHAPTER XIII+

CHURCH GOVERNMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



+CHAPTER XIV+

CHURCH OFFICERS

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

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

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

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

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

MOSHEIM says: "The rulers of the churches were denominated sometimes
_presbyters,_ or _elders,_ a designation borrowed from the Jews, and
indicative rather of the wisdom than the age of the persons, and
sometimes also _bishops:_ for it is most manifest that both terms are
promiscuously used in the New Testament of one and the same class of
persons." "In these primitive times, each Christian church was composed
of the _people,_ the presiding _officers,_ and the assistants, or
_deacons._ These must be the components of every society." _Eccl.
Hist., Cent 1., p. 2; Ch. 2, Secs. 5, 8._

GIESELER asserts: "The new churches everywhere formed themselves on the
model of the mother church at Jerusalem. At the head of each were the
_elders_ (_presbyter, bishop_), all officially of equal rank, though in
several instances a peculiar authority seems to have been conceded to
some one individual from personal considerations." _Ch. Hist., Part 1,
Div. 1, Ch. 2, Sec. 29._

WADDINGTON declares: "It is also true that in the earliest government
of the first Christian society,--that of Jerusalem,--not the _elders_
only, but the 'whole church,' were associated with the Apostles; and it
is even certain that the terms _bishop_ and _elder,_ or _presbyter,_
were in the first instance and for a short period, sometimes used
synonymously, and indiscriminately applied to the same order in the
ministry." _Hist. Christ. Church, Ch. 2, Sec. 2._

ARCHBISHOP USHER says that "_bishop_ and _presbyter_ differed only in
degree, and not in order." See _Cole., Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 8, Sec.
6._

BISHOP BURNETT says: "As for the notion of distinct offices of _bishop_
and _presbyter,_ I confess it is not so clear to me." _Vindic. Ch. of
Sects, p. 366._

DOCTOR COLEMAN says: "It is generally admitted by Episcopal writers on
this subject, that in the New Testament, and in the earliest
ecclesiastical writings, the terms _bishops_ and _presbyters,_ or
elders, are synonymous, and denote one and the same office." "The
office of _presbyter_ was undeniably identical with that of _bishop,_
as has been shown above." "Only _two orders_ of officers are known in
the church until the close of the second century. Those of the first
are styled either _bishops_ or _presbyters;_ of the second, _deacons._"
_Anc. Christ. Exemp., Ch. 8, Sec. 6; Ch. 6, Sec. 5._

This author cites many of the early Christian Fathers who bore the same
testimony, among whom are Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr,
Irenæus, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others. Many prelatical
writers, besides these above quoted, frankly admit the same facts.

The Apostle Paul, it is stated (Acts 20:17, 18), called together the
_elders_ (_presbyters_) of the Ephesian Church. But in verse 28 he
calls these officers _overseers_ (_episcopos_). Here the terms
_presbuteros_ and _episcopos_ were certainly used interchangeably.

Paul and Timothy, in their address to the Philippian Christians,
specify three classes as evidently constituting the entire body of
disciples. They say, "To all the _saints_ in Christ Jesus, which are at
Philippi, with the _bishops_ and _deacons._" Saints, bishops, and
deacons embraced the whole church.

Timothy was instructed by Paul as to the qualifications of pastors to
be placed over the churches. (1 Tim. 3:1.) Particular directions are
given as to both _bishops_ and _deacons,_ but no mention is made of
elders--clearly because they were the same as bishops.

Titus is likewise enjoined to secure pastors for the church in Crete.
(Titus 1:5, 7.) These pastors are called _elders_ in verse 5 and
_bishops_ in verse 7.

_Pastors_ and _deacons,_ therefore, are two orders, and these officers
simply were known or needed in the Apostolic churches. In this, also,
the views held by Baptists are in harmony with the customs of the
churches in the first and purest age of Christian history.



+CHAPTER XV+

BAPTIST HISTORY

It is sometimes asked: "When and where did the Baptists originate? Who
were their founders? What is their history?" These are questions of
interest; but a more important one would be: "Are they right? Is their
faith according to the teachings of the New Testament?" Many things
which are old are not true. Creeds and sects may boast a venerable
antiquity, while the Word of God utterly condemns them. Any
organization that cannot reasonably claim Christ for its founder has
small right to the name of a Christian church, no matter how old it may
be.

Baptists claim to be built on the foundation of the Apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief Corner-Stone. If this
claim be well founded, whether they have a written history of one
century or of twenty, matters little. Yet whatever of the past belongs
to any, it may be well to know. Any Baptist history constitutes one of
the most interesting chapters in the records of Christianity.

During the Apostolic age even, the doctrines of the Gospel became
corrupted, and its ordinances soon after. Both Jewish and Gentile
converts brought into the churches many of their old religious notions,
and incorporated them with the faith of Christ. These, together with
the many philosophical ideas of the times and the perversions to which
the truth is always exposed from the ignorance and selfishness of men,
very early turned the churches aside from the faith once delivered to
the saints. Still there were many who in simplicity and humility
maintained the doctrines and customs in their original purity. Those
churches which were strongest and most prosperous were most exposed to
corruption by alliances with the world.

When at length the period of martyrdom and persecution terminated; when
a nominal Christianity took possession of a throne, and Church and
State became united, then religion, in its prevailing forms, lost its
simplicity, its spirituality, and its power, and a temporal hierarchy
took the place of the church of Christ. This was the great apostasy of
the early times. But all the churches and all disciples did not follow
in the wake of this sad departure from the truth. Many congregations
and communities of true worshipers kept the doctrines of the Gospel,
and practiced its ordinances, nearly, or quite in their primitive
purity. And this they continued to do through all the ages of darkness
and corruption which followed. They were never identified with the
Roman or Greek churches; they never were in alliance with States; never
formed hierarchies. As independent congregations, or small communities,
with no other bond of union than a common faith, fellowship, and
sympathy, often obscure and unobtrusive, taking the Word of God as
their guide, they sought to realize the idea, not of a temporal, but a
spiritual kingdom in the Gospel dispensation.

These religious communities were by the dominant hierarchies called
_sects,_ and stigmatized as _heretics._ As such they were traduced and
persecuted continually. And though they may have had their errors, they
were the best and purest defenders of the Christian faith, and the
truest representatives of the first disciples of Christ then existing.
The State churches were the heretics; while those so-called sects were
the true successors of the first Christians.

They were defamed and oppressed, calumniated and martyred because they
bore witness to the truth of God and testified against the errors and
vices of the so-called churches. History has never done them justice,
and perhaps never will; because history has been too much written in
the interest of their enemies, or from their standpoint. Tortured and
tormented by those who should have been their defenders, crowns and
miters alike pledged to their destruction, they could do nothing but
suffer. And this they nobly did as Christ's faithful witnesses. They
were known by various names in different ages and in different lands,
but retained the same general characteristics.

In the _first_ and _second_ centuries, Messalians, Montanists,
Euchites, were terms which distinguished some of these sects.

In the _third, fourth,_ and _fifth_ centuries arose the Novatians.
Increasing with exceeding rapidity, they quite overspread the Roman
empire, in spite of the cruel and destructive persecutions which they
suffered.

In the _fourth_ century the Donatists appeared, as a new form of
existing sects, or a new phase of the old faith. They multiplied
rapidly, spread extensively, and long survived.

In the _seventh_ century appeared the Paulicians, attracting much
attention, and calling down upon themselves the wrath of the Romish
Church. Still they increased greatly, notwithstanding their many
persecutions.

That these Christian communities should have been faultless could not
be supposed. But they were the best of the ages in which they lived,
and maintained the purest forms of Gospel truth and practice. Without
the advantage of organization and association, they differed somewhat
among themselves.

But in general they all professed to take the New Testament as the rule
of their faith and practice. They held to a spiritual
church-membership, and received only professedly regenerated persons to
the ordinances. Denying the orthodoxy of the Romish Church, they
rebaptized persons received from that body, and hence were called
_Anabaptists._ Infant baptism they rejected, according to Allix,
Mosheim, Robinson, and other historians. Baptism they administered by
immersion, as indeed did all Christians during those ages. Robinson
calls them "Trinitarian Baptists." It is said that the Empress
Theodora, after having confiscated their property, caused to be cruelly
put to death no less than one hundred thousand Paulicians, for no other
fault or offense than their religious faith.

About the close of the _tenth_ century appeared the Paterines;
substantially the same people, no doubt as had previously existed under
other names. They too rejected infant baptism, and protested against
the corruptions of the Romish Church; in consequence of which they
suffered long and severe persecution.

In the _eleventh_ century, and the ages following, were the Waldenses,
Albigenses, Vaudois, Cathari, and Poor Men of Lyons. These were new
names, and names usually given by their enemies. They increased, even
under their persecutions, to a wonderful extent, and attracted the
notice, if not the sympathy, of all Europe.

It is not pretended that these ancient sects were known by the name as
Baptists; but in general they held the more prominent and distinctive
principles which have always characterized the Baptists; thus: 1. They
declared and defended the rights of faith and conscience and the
freedom of worship. 2. They denied the authority of popes and the right
of kings and States to interfere with the people in matters of
religion. 3. They rejected infant baptism. 4. They baptized by dipping.
5. They held the Bible to be the only rule and authority in concerns of
religious faith and practice. 6. They admitted to the churches none
except such as professed to be regenerated and godly persons.

Now it is conceded by all historians of note that such churches and
communities did exist, separate from and persecuted by, the prevailing
State churches and civil authorities during all the ages from the
Apostles to the Reformation.

When the Reformation under Luther and his coadjutors broke out, these
sects to a great extent fraternized with, and were lost in, the
multitude of the reformers. Such as continued their separate existence,
as the Waldenses of Piedmont, yielding to the influence of the
reformers, did from sympathy what the persecutions of the Papists had
never been able to compel them to do--abandon dipping for sprinkling in
baptism, adopted infant baptism, and took the general forms of
religious life, into which Pedobaptist Protestantism grew.


THE WELSH BAPTISTS

Few denominations have a better claim to antiquity than the Welsh
Baptists. They trace their descent directly from the Apostles and urge
in favor of their claim arguments which have never been confuted.

When Austin, the Romish monk and missionary, visited Wales, at the
close of the _sixth_ century, he found a community of more than two
thousand Christians, quietly living in their mountain homes. They were
independent of the Romish See, and wholly rejected its authority.
Austin labored hard to convert them--that is, to bring them under the
Papal yoke; but entirely failed in the effort. Yielding things in
general, he reduced his demand upon them to three particulars: 1. That
they should observe Easter in due form, as ordered by the Church.
2. That they should give Christendom, or baptism, to their children.
3. That they should preach to the English the Word of God, as
directed.[1]

These demands of Austin prove that they neither observed the Popish
ordinance of Easter, nor baptized their children. They, however,
rejected all his overtures, whereupon he left them with threats of war
and wretchedness. Not long after, Wales was invaded by the Saxons, and
many of these inoffensive Christians cruelly murdered, as was believed,
at the instigation of this bigoted zealot, the exacting Austin.


THE DUTCH BAPTISTS

The Baptists of Holland have a history that reaches back to a very
remote period, if not to the Apostolic age, as some confidently assert.
And this antiquity is conceded by historians who have no sympathy with
their denominational sentiments.

MOSHEIM, in his Church History, says, "The true origin of that sect
which acquired the name Anabaptist _is hid in the remote depths of
antiquity,_ and is consequently extremely difficult to be ascertained."
_Eccl. Hist., Vol. IV., p. 427, Mac. Ed., 1811._ See _Introd. Orchard's
Hist. Bap., p. 17._

ZWINGLI, the Swiss Reformer, contemporary with Luther, declares: "The
institution of Anabaptism is no novelty but for _thirteen hundred
years_ has caused great disturbance in the church." _Introd. Orchard's
Hist. Bap., p. 17._ Thirteen hundred years before his time would have
carried it back to within two centuries of the death of Christ.

DOCTOR DERMONT, chaplain to the king of Holland, and Doctor Ypeij,
professor of theology at Groningen, a few years since received a royal
commission to prepare a history of the Reformed Dutch Church. That
history, prepared under royal sanction, and officially published,
contains the following manly and generous testimony to the antiquity
and orthodoxy of the Dutch Baptists. "We have now seen that the
Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times
Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and have long in the history
of the church received the honor of that origin. On this account, _the
Baptists may be considered the only Christian community which has stood
since the Apostles, and as a Christian society, which has preserved
pure the doctrines of the Gospel through all ages." Hist. Ref. Dutch
Ch., Ed. Breda, 1819._ See _Ency. Relig. Knowledge, Art. Mennonites._

MOSHEIM says of the persecutions of this people in the sixteenth
century, "Vast numbers of these people, in nearly all the countries of
Europe, would rather perish miserably by drowning, hanging, burning, or
decapitation, than renounce the opinions they had embraced." And their
innocency he vindicates thus: "It is indeed true that many Anabaptists
were put to death, not as being bad citizens, or injurious members of
civil society, but as being incurable _heretics,_ who were condemned by
the old canon laws. For the error of _adult baptism_ was in that age
looked upon as a horrible offense." That was their only crime. _Eccl.
Hist., Cent. 16, Sec. 3. Part 2, Ch. iii. Fuller's Ch. Hist., B. 4._

This testimony is all the more welcome, because it comes from those who
have no ecclesiastical sympathies with Baptists, but who, in fidelity
to history, bear honest testimony to the truth which history teaches.
The circumstances under which their evidence was produced give it
additional force.

CARDINAL HOSSIUS, chairman of the council at Trent, says: "If the truth
of religion were to be judged of by the readiness and cheerfulness
which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinions and
persuasions of no sect can be truer or surer, than those of the
_Anabaptists;_ since there have been none, for these _twelve hundred
years past,_ that have been more grievously punished." _Orchard's Hist.
Bap., Sec. 12, part 30, p. 364._

Many thousands of the Dutch Baptists, called Anabaptists, and
Mennonites, miserably perished by the hands of their cruel persecutors,
for no crime but their refusal to conform to established churches.[2]


THE ENGLISH BAPTISTS

At what time the Baptists appeared in England in definite
denominational form, it is impossible to say. But from the _twelfth_ to
the _seventeenth_ century, many of them suffered cruel persecutions,
and death by burning, drowning, and beheading, besides many other, and
sometimes most inhuman tortures. And this they suffered both from
Papists and Protestants, condemned by both civil and ecclesiastical
tribunals, only because they persisted in worshiping God, according to
the dictates of their consciences, and because they would not submit
their religious faith and worship to the dictates of popes and
princes.[3] In 1538, royal edicts were issued against them, and several
were burnt at the stake in Smithfield.

BRANDE writes that: "In the year 1538, thirty-one Baptists, that fled
from England, were put to death at Delft, in Holland; the men were
beheaded, the women were drowned." _Hist. Reformers._ See _Benedict's
Hist. Bap., p. 303. Neal's Hist. Puritans, Vol. I., p. 138. Note, Vol.
II, p. 355, Sup._ What crime had they committed to merit such treatment
as this?

BISHOP LATIMER declares that, "The Baptists that were burnt in
different parts of the kingdom went to death intrepidly, and without
any fear, during the time of Henry VIII." _Lent Sermons. Neal's Hist.
Purit., Vol. II, p. 356._

Under the rule of the Popish Mary, they suffered perhaps no more than
under that of the Protestant Elizabeth. During the reign of the latter
a congregation of Baptists was discovered in London, whereupon several
were banished, twenty-seven imprisoned, and two burnt at Smithfield.[4]

DOCTOR FEATLEY, one of their bitter enemies, wrote of them, in 1633:
"This sect, among others, hath so far presumed upon the patience of the
State, that it hath held weekly conventicles, rebaptizing hundreds of
men and women together in the twilight, in rivulets and in some arms of
the Thames, and elsewhere, dipping them all over head and ears. It hath
printed divers pamphlets in defense of their heresy; yea, and
challenged some of our preachers to disputation." _Eng. Bapt. Jubilee
Memor., Benedict's Hist. Bapt., p. 304._

BAILEY wrote, in 1639, that: "Under the shadow of independency they
have lifted up their heads, and increased their numbers above all sects
in the land. They have _forty-six churches_ in and about London. They
are a people very fond of religious liberty, and very unwilling to be
brought under bondage of the judgment of others." _Benedict's History,
p. 304._

The first book published in the English language on the subject of
baptism was translated from the Dutch, and bears date 1618. From this
time they multiplied rapidly through all parts of the kingdom. The
first regularly organized church among them, known as such in England,
dates from 1607, and was formed in London by a Mr. Smyth, previously a
clergyman of the Established Church.

In 1689, the Particular Baptists, so called, held a convention in
London, in which more than one hundred congregations were represented,
and which issued a confession of faith, still in use and highly
esteemed.

The last Baptist martyr in England was Edward Wightman, of Burton upon
Trent, condemned by the Bishop of Coventry, and burnt at Litchfield,
April 11, 1612.[5]


AMERICAN BAPTISTS

The history of American Baptists runs back a little more than two and a
quarter centuries. In this country, as elsewhere, they were cradled
amidst persecution, and nurtured by the hatred of their foes. This has
been their fortune in every age, and in every land.

ROGER WILLIAMS, a distinguished and an honored name, was identified
with the rise of the denomination in America. He has been called their
founder, because he organized the first church, and was intimately
connected with their early history. Williams was born in Wales, 1598,
educated at Oxford, England, came to America in 1630, and settled as
minister of the Puritan church in Salem, Massachusetts. Not long after,
he adopted Baptist views of doctrine and church order, on account of
which he was banished by his fellow Puritans, and driven out of
Massachusetts, in the depths of a rigorous winter, in a new and
inhospitable country. Having wandered far and suffered much, finding
the savage Indians more generous and hospitable than his fellow
Christians, he finally reached and fixed his future home at what is now
Providence, R. I. Here, with a few associates of like faith, he founded
a new colony, calling both the city and the colony _Providence,_ in
recognition of the Divine guidance and protection, which he had in so
remarkable a manner experienced.

In 1639, Mr. Williams received baptism from one of his associates,
there being no minister to perform that service. He in turn baptized
his associates, and a church was organized, of which he was chosen
pastor. He was also appointed first Governor of Rhode Island. Full
liberty was granted in matters of religion. Thus Roger Williams became
the first ruler, and Rhode Island the first State which ever gave
entire freedom to all persons to worship God, according to their own
choice, without dictation or interference from civil or ecclesiastical
authorities.

On account of this unrestricted liberty many Baptists, as well as other
persecuted religionists from other colonies, and from Europe, collected
in considerable numbers at Providence, and spread through the colony.

It is a mistake to suppose that all the Baptist churches in America
grew out of the one which Roger Williams founded. It is even doubtful
whether any single church arose as an outgrowth of that. As immigration
increased, other churches grew up, having no connection with that; and
with considerable rapidity the sentiments of Baptists spread into
adjoining colonies, particularly west and south. For a long time,
however, they were sorely persecuted, especially in Massachusetts and
Connecticut; persecuted even by those who had themselves fled from
persecution in their native land, to find freedom and refuge in these
distant wilds.

In 1644, the present First Church in Newport, R. I., was organized. But
whether the present First Church in Providence was constituted before
this date is still a disputed point. Both claim priority. In 1656, the
Second Church, Newport, was formed. Then followed in order of time the
church in Swansea, Massachusetts, 1663; First, Boston, 1665; North
Kingstone, R. I., 1665; Seventh Day Church, Newport, 1671; South
Kingstone, R. I., 1680; Kittery, Me., 1682; Middletown, N. J., 1688;
Lower Dublin, Pa., 1689; Charleston, S. C., 1690; Philadelphia, Pa.,
1698; Welsh Tract, Del., 1701; Groton, Ct., 1705. Others, not
mentioned, arose within this period in these and other colonies. With
the increase of population, Baptists rapidly increased and widely
spread over the country.

_Edward's Tables_ gives the number of American Baptist Churches in
1768, as only 137.

_Asplund's Register_ for 1790, reported 872 churches, 722 ordained
ministers, with 64,975 members.

_Benedict's History_ states that in 1812, there were 2,633 churches,
2,143 ordained ministers, and 204,185 members.

_Allen's Register_ for 1836, puts them at 7,299 churches, 4.075
ordained ministers, and 517,523 members.

_The Baptist Year-Book_ gives the following figures:

Date Churches Ministers   Members
1840    7,771     5,208   571,291
1860   12,279     7,773 1,016,134
1880   26,080    16,569 2,296,327
1890   33,588    21,175 3,070,047
1900   43,427    29,473 4,181,086
1910   49,045    33,909 5,266,369
1920   53,866    42,121 7,504,447
1930   53,888    49,907 8,915,785

_The Year-Book_ gives the Sunday school statistics for 1930, as
follows: For the United States, schools, 46,132; total enrollment
5,143,056.

The figures given in all these cases are probably less than the actual
facts warrant, since full reports from associations, churches, and
schools can never be obtained.


OTHER BAPTISTS

Besides the regular Baptist Brotherhood, there are in the United States
very many other and smaller denominations, which practice immersion,
but are not in fellowship with, or reckoned as a part of, the great
Baptist family.

The Seventh Day Baptists, so called on account of their observing
Saturday, or the seventh day of the week, as their Sabbath, on the
ground that the Jewish Sabbath was never abrogated. They are estimated
at about 7,000.

The Free Will Baptists, who take their name from their views as to the
freedom of the human will and practice open communion, number about
66,000. In the North the Free Will Baptist churches have generally
united with the Northern Convention, and their membership is reckoned
with that of the regular Baptist body.

The Six Principle Baptists, so called because their doctrinal
confession is based on the six points mentioned in Hebrews 6:1, 2, are
estimated at about 300.

The Anti-Mission Baptists, or rather Primitive Baptists, found chiefly
in the Southwest, do not believe in missions, Sunday schools, or other
reform movements lest they should seem to interfere with the Divine
decrees. They are said to number 43,000.

The Disciples of Christ, sometimes called Campbellites, or Christians,
number about 1,200,000.

The Winebrennerians, or the General Eldership of the Churches of God in
North America, are estimated at about 30,000.

The Tunkers, or Dunkards, of all groups number about 126,000, and the
United Brethren, about 330,000.


BAPTISTS ELSEWHERE

In North America, aside from the United States, but including the
provinces of British America, Central America, Mexico, and the West
Indies, Baptists numbered in 1930 about 249,809.

In Europe there were in 1930 about 1,639,656.

In Asia, about 361,800.

In Australasia, about 35,113.

In Africa, about 83,041.

+FOOTNOTES:

[1] See Benedict's Hist. Bap., p. 343, and authorities there cited.

[2] Benedict's Hist. Baptists, Ch. IV. Neal's Hist. Puritans, Vol.
    II.; p. 355. Supplement, Fuller's Ch. Hist., B. 4.

[3] See histories of Baptists, by Crosby, Ivimey, Danvers, and
    Benedict.

[4] Wall, cited by Neal, Hist. Puritans, Vol. I., p. 137. Vol. II.,
    p. 358. Supplement.

[5] Eng. Bap. Jubilee Memor., Benedict's Hist. Bap.



+Transcriber's Notes+

 - The break between pages 3 and 4 is in the word "missionaries":
   mission|aries. In this and all subsequent cases, the whole word
   was moved to the earlier page.
 - The break between pages 4 and 5 is in the word "thousand":
   thou|sand.
 - The break between pages 5 and 6 is in the word "admitted":
   ad|mitted.
 - Page 6, apply reverential capitalization (RC) to "Divine."
 - The break between pages 9 and 10 is in the word "general":
   gen|eral.
 - Page 10, apply RC to "Divine," "Divinely," and "Word." Change
   "practise" to "practice."
 - Page 11, apply RC to "Apostolic,", "Divinely," "His Gospel," and
   "His."
 - Page 12, apply RC to "Gospel" (twice); change "fulfil" to
   "fulfill"; apply RC to "Him" and "He." Note 1, apply RC to
   "Gospel"; change "fulfils" to "fulfills" and "practise" to
   "practice." Note 2, apply RC to "His Word" and "His"; change
   "practise" to "practice"; apply RC to "His."
 - Page 15, note 2, apply RC to "Divine."
 - Page 18, apply RC to "Divine," "Word," "Divine," "His" (twice),
   and "He."
 - Page 19, apply RC to "His" (twice).
 - Page 20, Note 6, apply RC to "Me" and "Him." Note 7, apply RC to
   "Divinely."
 - The break between pages 20 and 21 is in the word "baptismal":
   bap|tismal.
 - Page 21, Note 8, apply RC to "His."
 - Page 23, change "practise" to "practice."
 - Page 24, Note 2, change "practise" to "practice."
 - The break between pages 28 and 29 is in the word "possibly":
   pos|sibly.
 - Page 31, Note 1, apply RC to "Divine."
 - Page 34, Note 1, apply RC to "His" (twice).
 - The break between pages 37 and 38 is in the word
   "ecclesiastical": ecclesias|tical.
 - Page 46, Voting, point 1, change "deliberatively" to
   "deliberately."
 - The break between pages 47 and 48 is in the word "services":
   ser|vices.
 - The break between pages 53 and 54 is in the word "importance":
   impor|tance.
 - Page 56, change "practise" to "practice."
 - Page 57, apply RC to "Divine."
 - Page 58, change "practise" to "practice"; add comma to "Britain
   Baptists"; apply RC to "Divinely."
 - Page 59, note 2, apply RC to "His" and "He." Note 3, apply RC to
   "My." Section II, apply RC to "Persons" and "Divine." Note 2,
   apply RC to "Thee."
 - Page 60, note 1, apply RC to "His" apply RC to "He."
 - Page 61, apply RC to "Divine," "His" (twice), "He," "His,"
   "Divine," and "He." Note 2, apply RC to "He," "His," and "Him."
   Note 3, apply RC to "Himself" and "Him." Note 4, apply RC to "He,"
   "Him," and "His." Note 5, apply RC to "He," "Him," and "He," and
   "Him."
 - Page 62, apply RC to "Gospel," "Him," and "His." Note 1, apply RC
   to "His." Note 2, apply RC to "Him." Note 3, apply RC to "His" and
   "Him." Note 4, apply RC to "One."
 - Page 63, apply RC to "Gospel" (twice). Note 3, apply RC to "Me."
   Apply RC to "Divine" and "Gospel."
 - Page 64, note 1, change "Rev. 8:7-9" to "Rev. 3:7-9." Note 5,
   change "Eph. 8:14-21" to "Eph. 5:14-21." Apply RC to "Prophet,"
   "Priest," "King," and "Him."
 - Page 65, note 1, apply RC to "Gospel"; change "Eph. 2:3" to "Eph.
   2:8" and change "ye are" to "are ye" to match the quotation. Note
   2, change "Acts 11:38" to "Acts 2:38" to match the quotation. Note
   3, apply RC to "Him." Point IX, apply RC to "He." Note 1, apply RC
   to "Gospel."
 - Page 66, note 1, change "a holy calling" to "an holy calling."
   Note 2, apply RC to "He" and "Gospel." Note 4, change "elects
   sake" to "elect's sakes" and "Chris" to "Christ." Note 5, change
   "1 Thess. 4:10" to "1 Thess. 1:4." Apply RC to "His" and "Word."
 - Page 67, change "practise" to "practice." Note 1, change "Thess
   4:3" to "1 Thess. 4:3." Note 3, change "Phil. 1:12, 13" to "Phil.
   2:12, 13" to match the quotation. Point XI, note 1, apply RC to
   "My" (twice). Note 2, change "John 2:19" to "1 John 2:19" to match
   the quotation.
 - Page 68, Note 3, apply RC to "His." Section XII, apply RC to
   "Gospel." Note 4, change "Rom. 8:2, 4" to "Rom. 8:2-4" to match
   the quotation; apply RC to "His."
 - Page 69, apply RC to "Gospel," "His" (twice), "Word," and
   "Scriptural." Note 4, change "John 1#:15" (where # represents a
   poorly printed sort), to "John 13:15."
 - Page 70, apply RC to "His." Note 2, change "Matt. 18:19" to "Matt.
   28:19" to match quotation. Note 3, change "raised from the dead"
   to "raised up from the dead." Note 4, apply RC to "Apostles'."
 - Page 71, apply RC to "His," "Him," and "His." Note 1, apply RC to
   "He," "My," "Me," and "My"; change "1 Cor. 11:27-30" to "1 Cor.
   11:22-30." Note 2, apply RC to "He." Note 3, apply RC to "My"
   (four times) and "Me."
 - Page 72, note 2, change "Ps. 113:24" to "Ps. 113:2-4." Note 3,
   apply RC to "My" and "Him"; change "then shall thou delight" to
   "then shalt thou delight." Note 4, apply RC to "Word." Point XVII,
   apply RC to "Divine."
 - Page 73, note 4, change "Rev. 19:14" to "Rev. 19:16" to match
   quotation. Point XVIII, apply RC to "His" (twice). Note 2, apply
   RC to "He" and "Him."
 - Page 74, note 2, apply RC to "Him." Note 5, change "Matt.
   25:35-41" to "Matt. 25:31-46." Note 6, apply RC to "He" and "Him."
 - Page 75, apply RC to "Divine," "Him" (twice), "His" (thrice),
   "Divine."
 - Page 76, apply RC to "Gospel," "Him," and "His."
 - The break between pages 78 and 79 is in the word "expressed":
   ex|pressed.
 - Page 79, apply RC to "Gospel." Change "practise" to "practice."
 - Page 82, apply RC to "His Apostles."
 - Page 85, apply RC to "His" (twice), "He," and "His."
 - Page 86, apply RC to "He," "Him," and "He."
 - Page 88, apply RC to "His."
 - Page 89, change "Malancthon" to "Malanchthon" and "colaborer" to
   "co-laborer."
 - Page 90, capitalize "Divine" as referring to a churchman. Change
   "practised" to "practiced."
 - Page 91, change "practise" to "practice."
 - The break between pages 91 and 92 is in the word "sufficient":
   suf|ficient.
 - Page 92, apply RC to "Apostle."
 - The break between pages 93 and 94 is in the word "immersion":
   immer|sion.
 - Page 95, apply RC to "Apostles."
 - The break between pages 96 and 97 is in the word "original":
   origi|nal.
 - Page 98, change "practised" to "practised"; apply RC to "His
   Apostles."
 - Page 99, change "practise" to "practice" (twice).
 - Page 100, apply RC to "Gospel." Change "practise" to "practice"
   and "practises" to "practices."
 - Page 101, apply RC to "His."
 - Page 102, change "practise" to "practice."
 - Page 104, apply RC to "Divine."
 - Page 105, change "practise" to "practice."
 - The break between pages 106 and 107 is in the word "Parliament":
   Par|liament.
 - Page 108, apply RC to "His" (thrice) and "Me."
 - Page 109, apply RC to "He," "His," "My" (four times), "Me," and
   "Divine."
 - The break between pages 109 and 110 is in the word "practiced"
   (changed from "practised"): prac|ticed.
 - Page 110, change "practised" to "practiced" and "practise" to
   "practice" (twice).
 - Page 111, change "practise" to "practice."
 - Page 112, apply RC to "Him."
 - Page 113, apply RC to "Divine."
 - Page 114, apply RC to "Apostolic," "Word," "Apostles'," "Word,"
   and "Divine." Change "practise" to "practice."
 - Page 115, change "practise" to "practice."
 - The break between pages 115 and 116 is in the word "infants":
   in|fants.
 - Page 116, change "practise" to "practice" (thrice).
 - Page 117, apply RC to "His";  change "practise" to "practice";
   apply RC to "Him."
 - Page 118, change "practise" to "practice."
 - The break between pages 118 and 119 is in the word "remaining":
   re|maining.
 - Page 119, capitalize "Divines" as referring to churchmen.
 - Page 120, apply RC to "Gospel."
 - Each of pages 123 and 124, capitalize "Divine" as referring to a
   churchman.
 - Page 124, apply RC to "Lord's Table."
 - Page 125, apply RC to "His."
 - Page 129, change "practised" to "practiced" (thrice). Apply RC to
   "His Apostles" and "Word."
 - Page 130, capitalize "Divine" as referring to a churchman; apply
   RC to "Apostles."
 - Page 131, apply RC to "Apostolic" and "Apostles."
 - Page 132, change "practised" to "practiced." Apply RC to "His
   Apostles."
 - Page 133, change "practised" to "practiced."
 - Page 134, change "practise" to "practice" and "practised" to
   "practiced."
 - Page 136, change "practise" to "practice." Apply RC to "Divine"
   and "Word."
 - Page 137, apply RC to "Gospel" and "Word."
 - Page 138, apply RC to "Apostles."
 - Page 140, apply RC to "Apostles."
 - Page 141, apply RC to "Apostolic."
 - Page 142, apply RC to "Apostles" and "Divinely."
 - The break between pages 143 and 144 is in the word "people":
    peo|ple.
 - Page 144, capitalize "Divines" as referring to churchmen; apply RC
   to "Apostolic." Add "Ch. Hist." to the Geiseler citation.
 - Page 145, change "practised" to "practiced."
 - Page 146, change "practises" to "practices."
 - Page 147, apply RC to "His," "He," "His Apostles," "His" (twice),
   "He," "Divine," and "Apostles."
 - The break between pages 147 and 148 is in the word "minister":
   min|ister.
 - Page 148, apply RC to "Apostles," "His," and "Gospel."
 - The break between pages 148 and 149 is in the word "authority":
   author|ity.
 - Page 149, change "later" to "latter."
 - Page 150, apply RC to "Apostles."
 - Page 152, apply RC to "Apostle"; change _"episcopous"_ to
   _"episcopos"_ for consistency.
 - Page 153, apply RC to "Apostolic."
 - Page 154, apply RC to "Word," "Apostles," and "Himself."
 - Page 155, apply RC to "Gospel."
 - The break between pages 155 and 156 is in the word "apostasy":
   apos|tasy.
 - Page 156, apply RC to "Gospel,"; change "practised" to "practiced"
   apply RC to "Word" and "Gospel."
 - Page 158, apply RC to "Gospel." Change "practise" to "practice"
   (twice).
 - Page 160, change "practise" to "practice"; apply RC to "Apostles."
 - Page 161, apply RC to "Apostles" and "Word."
 - The break between pages 162 and 163 is in the word "contemporary":
   contempo|rary.
 - Page 163, apply RC to "Apostles" and "Gospel."
 - Page 164, change "offence" to "offense."
 - The break between pages 165 and 166 is in the word "because":
   be|cause.
 - Page 166, remove extraneous right double quotes after
   "Smithfield"; change "suffered perhaps more" to "suffered perhaps
   no more."
 - Page 167, change "defence" to "defense."
 - Page 169, add comma to "after he"; apply RC to "Divine."
 - The break between pages 170 and 171 is in the word "themselves":
   them|selves.
 - Page 173, change "practise" to "practice" (twice); apply RC to
   "Divine."





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.