b'\n<* \'\xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x80\xa2\xc2\xbb* <0 \n\n\n\no* \xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x80\xa2\xc2\xab "*b \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0&*\xe2\x80\xa2% \n\n\n\n\n\n\n*o \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n^ - \xe2\x96\xa0\'o\' \n\n\n\n:^ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\'i ^\xc2\xb0- \n\n\n\n9,0 % \n\n\n\n\nV > "V *-\' \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n*\xc2\xab . . * \n\n\n\n\n\n\n.U C< w . . . \xe2\x80\xa2 -\xe2\x96\xa0> \n\n0* .\xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x80\xa2\'.*\xc2\xa9. 4^ .."\'. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n/\\. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nP-k,. \n\n\n\n\nRev. J. B. Jeter, D, D. \n\n\n\nHELIOTYFE PRINTING CO., BOSTON. \n\n\n\nBAPTIST \n\n\n\nDOCTRINES: \n\n\n\nBEING AN EXPOSITION, IN A SERIES OF ESSAYS BY REP RE- \n\nSENTATIVE BAPTIST MINISTERS, OF THE \n\nDISTINCTIVE POINTS OF \n\n\n\nBAPTIST FAITH AND PRACTICE, \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEDITED BY \n\nREV. CHARLES A. JEXKESTS, \n\nOF NORTH CAROLINA. \n\n\n\n(taW I t \n\n\n\nST. LOUIS: \nCHANCY R. BARNS. \n\n1880. \n\n\n\nIt \n\n\n\n\'A \n\n\n\nCOPTEIGHT 1880. \nCHANCY R. BARNS. \n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0^ \n\n\n\n3 \n\n\n\nPREFACE. \n\n\n\nIn no spirit of controversy is this volume sent \nforth. Its aim is not to kindle strife, but to im- \npart truth. Every religious denomination, per- \nhaps, that wields a very extensive influence \namong men, has a formulated creed. The Mo- \nhammedans have their Koran; the Catholics, \ntheir long-established ritual ; the Episcopalians, \ntheir Book of Common Prayer ; the Methodists, \ntheir Discipline ; the Presbyterians, their Con- \nfession of Faith; and the Baptists, the Gos- \npel of their Lord. While Baptists have no \nrule of faith other than the Scriptures, and while \nthey point every inquirer after divine truth to \nthe Word of G-od as the ground of his belief, it \nhas, nevertheless, been deemed expedient to give \nprominence to those great truths which sepa- \nrate them, more or less widely, from the rest \nof mankind. \n\nTo further this end, an endeavor has been made \nto secure talent and learning second to none in \nthe denomination. How far the effort has met \nwith success, let others judge. \n\n\n\nIV. PREFACE. \n\nAs to the desirability of such a work, there \ncan be but one opinion among those who love the \ncoming of their Lord, and believe the Gospel of \nChrist to be the power of God unto salvation to \nevery one that believeth. The tendency to ignore \ndoctrinal teaching is too sadly prevalent; and \nhence, the rich instruction contained in the doc- \ntrines is lost to many. It is hoped, however, that \nthousands of Baptists, by reading these pages, \nmay be brought to rejoice in the faith once de- \nlivered to the saints, and to realize fully that \ntheir creed is from heaven. \n\nAll the articles, with the exception of two, have \nbeen obtained from the authors expressly for this \nWork. Spurgeon\'s Sermon on Baptismal Regen- \neration and Fuller\'s discourse on Predestination \nare taken by permission from their published \nSermons. \n\nIf, under the direction and blessing of the Great \nHead of the Church, this book shall prove the \nhumble means of establishing those whose faith \nis Scriptural, and of bringing many who are in \nerror to a knowledge of the truth as it is in \nJesus, the editor will not regret the anxiety \nit has caused him. \n\nC. A. JENKENS. \n\nFbanklinton, N. C, Jan. 1880. \n\n\n\nCONTENTS \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION; 9 \n\nBy Rev. C. A Jenkens, Franklinton, N. C. \n\nI. \nBAPTIST FAITH AND PRACTICE; .... 26 \nBy Rev. Thomas Armitage, D.D., New York City. \n\nH. \n\nTHE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES; . . 49 \n\nBy Rev. J. B. Jeter, D.D., Bichmond, Virginia, \n\nIH. \n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL; ... 70 \n\nBy Rev. Wm. Cathcart, D.D., Philadelphia, Pa. \n\nIV. \nWHY THE BAPTISTS DO NOT BAPTIZE THEIR \n\nINFANTS; 109 \n\nBy Rev. \\V. E. Hatcher, D.D., Bichmond, Va. \n\nV. \n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION; 114 \n\nBy Rev. C H. Spurgeon, London, England. \n\nVI. \nIMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO CHRISTIAN BAP- \nTISM; 151 \n\nBy Rev. H. S. Burrage, Portland, Maine. \n\n\n\nVI. CONTENTS. \n\nVII. \n\nCLOSE COMMUNION; 170 \n\nBy Kev. R. M Dudley, D.D., Georgetown, Ky. \n\nVIII. \nBAPTIST CHUECHES APOSTOLICAL; . . .198 \nBy Prof. Albert H. Newman, D.D. Bochester, N. Y. \n\nIX. \n\nTHE GOSPEL MINISTRY; 245 \n\nBy Rev. J. M. Stifler, D.D., New Haven, Ct. \n\nX. \n\nTHE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BAPTIST CHURCH \n\nAND ALL OTHER CHURCHES; .... 264 \nBy Rev. T. H. Pritchard, D.D., Wake Forest, N. C. \n\nXI. \n\nTHE MULTIPLICITY OF DENOMINATIONS AN \n\nEVIL; 283 \n\nBy Rev. J. B. Gambrell, D.D., Clinton, Miss. \n\nxn. \n\nMISSIONS, THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY; . . 301 \nBy Rev. J. B. Hartwell,D.D., San Francisco, Cal. \n\nXIH. \n\nBAPTISTS AND MISSIONS; 322 \n\nBy Rev. A. H. Burlingham, T>.T>.,New York City. \n\nXIV. \n\nSPECIAL PROVIDENCE; 345 \n\nBy Rev. Wayland Hoyt, D.D., Brooklyn, N. Y. \n\nXV. \n\nTHE TRINITY; . . .361 \n\nBy Rev. Alvah Hovey, D.D., Newton Centre, Mass. \n\n\n\nCONTENTS. VII. \n\nXVI. \n\nTHE DIVINITY OF CHRIST; 385 \n\nBy Rev. W. T. Brantly, D.D., Baltimore, Md. \n\nXVH. \n\nTHE ATONEMENT; 405 \n\nBy Rev. G. W. Samson, D.D., New York City. \n\nXVIII. \nTHE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT; . , 443 \nBy Rev. A. J. Gordon, D.D., Boston, Mass. \n\nXIX. \n\nREGENERATION ESSENTLvL TO SALVATION; . 457 \nBy Rev. E. G. Taylor. D.D., Providence, B. I. \n\nXX. \n\nPREDESTINATION; 479 \n\nBy Rev. Richard Fuller, D.D., late of Baltimore, \nMaryland. \n\nXXI. \n\nFINAL PERSEVERANCE; 515 \n\nBy Rev. T. T. Eaton, D.D., Petersburg, Virginia. \n\nXXII. \n\nFUTURE PUNISHMENT; 533 \n\nBy Rev. J. L. Burrows, D.D., Louisville, Ky. \n\nxxm. \n\nTHE RESURRECTION; 548 \n\nBy Prof. Norman Fox, New York City, \n\n\n\nLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. \n\n\n\nFacing Page. \n\n1. PORTRAIT OF EEV. J. B. JETER, D.D., late \n\nEditor of the " Religious Herald,\'\'\'\' Richmond, Va. 1 \n\n2. SECOND BAPTIST CHURCH, Philadelphia, Pa., \n\nRev. Wm. Cathcart, D.D., Pastor. . . 70 \n\n3. COLBY UNIVERSITY, Waterville, Me., Founded \n\n1820, Rev. Henry E. Robins, D.D., President. 151 \n\n4. ONE OF OUR PRIMITIVE CHUCH HOMES; The \n\nfirst Baptist Church ever erected in Missouri. 173 \n\n5. TREVOR HALL, ROCHESTER THEOLOGICAL \n\nSEMINARY, Rochester, N. Y., Founded 1851, \nRev. A. H. Strong, D.D., President. . . 225 \n\n6. SECOND BAPTIST CHURCH, St. Louis, Mo., \n\nRev. W. W. Boyd, D.D., Pastor. . . 337 \n\n7. NEWTON THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTION, New- \n\nton Centre, Mass., Rev. Alvah Hovet, D.D., \nPresident 361 \n\n8. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, Baltimore, Md\xe2\x80\x9e Rev. \nJ. W. M. Williams, D.D., Pastor for thirty \nyears. . . 385 \n\n9. DENISON UNIVERSITY, Granville, Ohio, Founded \n\n1831, Rev. Alfred Owen, D.D., President. 417 \n\n10. CROZER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Upland, \n\nPenn., Founded 1868, Rev. H. D. Weston, D.D., \nPresident . 481 \n\n11. WILLIAM JEWELL COLLEGE, Liberty, Missouri, \n\nFounded 1849, Rev. W. R. Rothwell, D.D., \nPresident 529 \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. \n\n\n\nBY REV. C. A. JENKENS, FRANKLINTON, N. C. \n\n\n\n44 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward." \n\xe2\x80\x94 Ex. xiv. 15. \n\nPossibly an overtasked and broken-hearted people \nhad well-nigh forgotten the gracious promise God \nhad made long years before to Abraham, their \nfather, saying: " I will make thee exceeding fruitful, \nand I will make nations of thee, and kings shall \ncome out of thee. And I will establish my covenant \nbetween me and thee and thy seed after thee in their \ngenerations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God \nunto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will \ngive unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land \nwherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, \nfor an everlasting possession ; and I will be their \nGod." As their backs smarted under the task- \nmaster\'s lash, or as they gathered straw in Egyptian \nfields, like Sarah, they may have laughed at the \npromise of Jehovah, and esteemed it but an idle tale \nthat they were ever to be an independent people, \nthe peculiar favorites of heaven, dwelling in a land \nevery way fitted to be a type of Paradise. But God \n\n\n\n10 BAPTIST DOCTKINES. \n\nis not slack concerning his promise, as some men \ncount slackness ; and to-day, fleeing in wild confu- \nsion, six hundred thousand effective men, besides \nold men, women, and children, have gathered on \nthe border of the Eed Sea. The vast moving \nthrong numbers hardly less than two million souls, \nand this day is the Lord\'s word gloriously fulfilled, \n" That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiply- \ning I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the \nheaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea \nshore." \n\nMeanwhile the Egyptians are not idle. Pharaoh \nand his servants, recovering somewhat from the \nshock of plagues, and determining still further to \ndefy the living God, go forth in hot pursuit of their \nformer slaves. Their serried ranks march on, \n" terrible as an army with banners," until the grating \nof their chariot wheels on distant rocks and the \nthundering tramp of their chargers arouse the \nIsraelites from their dreams of deliverance and \npeace. \n\nDestruction seemed inevitable to the chosen seed. \nTrembling age looks back upon the neighboring hills \ncrowned with foes, terrified children cling to no less \nterrified mothers in Israel, and even the stoutest \nhearts are dismayed at the approaching peril. The \npeople murmur against Moses and against God. \nEscape seemed impossible. On one hand rose a \ntreacherous mountain; on the other stretched a \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 11 \n\ndesert waste ; behind them marched an infuriated \nhost, headed by its king ; while before them rolled \nthe angry waves of an unbroken sea. To show, \nperhaps, the strength of his own arm and the glory \nof his own name, Jehovah commands Moses to \n" speak to the children of Israel that they go for- \nward." Go forward? How can it be \xe2\x80\x94 difficulties on \nevery side ! Half doubting, they obey the strange \ncommand, and march to the water\'s brink, when, lo, \nthe prophet of the Lord lifts his rod over the sea, \nand the waters rise on either side a perfect wall, \nthrough which a redeemed and happy people pass. \n\nHolding up the children of Israel as a type of \nthat Church the Son of God came to establish, I \nwish to impress upon the reader the following les- \nsons : \n\nI. Absolute obedience to God, the supreme necessity of \nthe Church. \n\nCicero, when asked what is the first thing in \noratory, replied, " Action." When asked what is \nthe second, he again said, " Action ; n and when asked \nwhat is the third thing, he still said, " Action." To \npilgrims in a land of sin and death, it matters not so \nmuch what are the essential elements of an evanes- \ncent art, but we do know that the first and last thing \nin the divine life of the soul and in the prosperity of \nthe Church, is obedience. The whole duty of the \nChurch, as well as of man, is to " fear God and keep \n\n\n\n12 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nhis commandments." Were it possible for a heaven- \nredeemed soul to cease to obey, it would also cease \nto live ; and if a church cease to obey, it also ceases \nto exist as a divine institution. Had the children of \nIsrael positively refused to go forward in obedience \nto the divine command, or had they presumptuously \nattempted to scale the mountain range on their \nright, or flee through the desert on their left, or to \nrepel the threatening hosts of Pharaoh at their back, \nthey must have forfeited their freedom and happiness, \nand suffered defeat and shame. \n\nIs it strange, then, that there should be found \nthroughout the history of the Church a people ready \nto walk in the statutes of the Lord, and willing to \nsuffer persecution and death rather than depart from \nhis law? Baptists are not unfrequently reminded \nthat they lay too great stress on literal obedience \nin ecclesiastical matters; but, knowing the fearful \nconsequences of disobedience recorded in the \nScriptures for the admonition of men, they do not \nsee how they can act otherwise, even if they desired \nto do so. Below will be given a few of the many \nreasons why Baptists cling so tenaciously to the \nWord of God in all points of a doctrinal character. \n\n1. Obedience is made by Jesus a test of love. In \nthat chapter of marvellous sweetness and heavenly \ntenderness in John\'s Gospel, our Lord says, " If ye \nlove me, keep my commandments." In another \nplace he makes compliance with his law a test of \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 13 \n\nfriendship, saying, "Ye are my, friends, if ye do \nwhatsoever I command you." Again, a priceless \npromise, a promise sacred and glorious to every \nbeliever, is connected with the observance of his \nword : " If ye keep my commandments, ye shall \nabide in my love." Believing, then, that submission \nto the will of our Lord is one of the loveliest graces \nof the renewed heart, we feel that we cannot depart \nfrom his commands without proving false to ourselves \nand false to him. \n\n2. On the other hand, disobedience is everywhere \nheld up in the inspired volume as one of the blackest \nvices of the human heart \xe2\x80\x94 a vice on which rest \nalike the unmingled displeasure and withering curse \nof Almighty God. In order to impress upon the \nhearts of men the " exceeding sinfulness " of diso- \nbedience, the apostle Jude penetrates another \nworld to adduce a fitting illustration. He says, \n" The angels which kept not their first estate, but \nleft their own habitation, he hath reserved in ever- \nlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of \nthe great day." Can language be more strong, or \ndoom more terrible ? \n\nAnother sad, but striking instance, may be found \nin the history of our first parents. Theirs was a \na happy lot \xe2\x80\x94 God their companion, Eden their home. \nFor them, birds sang, streams murmured, fruits \nripened, and flowers bloomed. But, at some evil \nhour, Satan suggested a rebellious act that resulted \n\n\n\n14 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nin the loss of all. As they pluck the fruit, it turns \nto ashes on their lips ; and as they gaze upon the \nflowers, they fade \xe2\x80\x94 fit symbols of their blasted \nhopes, The fatal effects of this one treacherous act \nare seen and felt wherever man lives. Sin has \npoisoned the entire race; for in Adam all die. \nEden! mystic name \xe2\x80\x94 at whose mention start into \nbeing a hundred thoughts \xe2\x80\x94 where to-day is Eden 1 \nThe traveller may surmise, men may guess, but no \nman knows. Its general locality may be ascertained, \nbut it is impossible to say with certainty, of any spot \non earth, " This is the Garden of the Lord." Thus \nhas Jehovah blotted out the earthly Paradise as a \nforceful expression of his wrath against man\'s first \ndisobedience. \n\nFruitful instruction may further be gathered from \nthe case of Moses. This was a man upon whom \nrested the dews of heaven, and to whom were \ngranted many and peculiar privileges. He was at \nonce the favorite of the Father and the type of the \nSon. On one occasion, however, Moses was betrayed \ninto an act of disobedience. The thirsty congrega- \ntion of Israel gathered about him, clamoring for \nwater, and the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, " Take \nthe rod and gather thou the assembly together, thou \nand Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock \nbefore their eyes, and it shall give forth his water." \nBut Moses regarded not the injunction of his Maker, \nand " lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 15 \n\nthe rock twice." For this unfaithfulness, the great \nlaw-giver was not permitted to enter the promised \nland. The difference between speaking to the rock, \nand smiting it, may have appeared small in the eyes \nof the servant of the Lord, but in the eyes of the \nLord himself, it was very great. \n\nI shall notice next the rash act of Uzzah. The law \ntouching the sanctuary and its vessels is recorded \nKuin. iv. 15, as follows : " And when Aaron and his \nsons have made an end of covering the sanctuary, \nand all the vessels of the sanctuary, as the camp is \nto set forward ; after that, the sons of Kohath shall \ncome to bear it : but they shall not touch any holy \nthing, lest they die." When the Israelites were \nbringing up the ark from Kirjath-jearim, "Uzzah \nand Ahio drove the cart." When they came to the \nthreshing-floor of Chidon, Uzzah put forth his hand \nto support the tottering ark, ." for the oxen stum- \nbled," thinking, perhaps, he was rendering timely \nand acceptable service, but at the same time forget- \nting the commandment of the Lord, that they shall \nnot touch any holy thing, lest they die." So God\'s \nanger was kindled against Uzzah, and he smote \nhim. \n\nA notable instance of God\'s abhorrence of disre- \ngard to his word, is presented in the life of Saul. \nThe king of Israel was commanded to go and smite \nAmalek, and utterly destroy all they had, and to \nspare them not ; but " to slay both man and woman, \n\n\n\n16 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ninfant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." \nSaul smote the Amalekites, but, contrary to the \ndivine command, preserved Agag and the best of \nthe spoil, "sheep, oxen, and the chief of the things." \nThe king declares to Samuel that his purpose was to \nsacrifice to the Lord; but the prophet replies, \n" Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings \nand sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord % \nBehold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to \nhearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as \nthe sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity \nand idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word \nof the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being \nking." \n\nThe last instance to be adduced in this connection \nis the history of Judas Iscariot. Singularly was \nthis apostle favored. He shared the instructions \nof the other apostles. He witnessed the miracles \nof his Lord. Jesus makes known to him, as to the \nrest, the unmistakable requirements of his law. In \nthe full blaze of divine truth, Judas determines to \nbetray the Bedeemer, and, violating the spirit of \nevery command God has given, sells for thirty pieces \nof silver his Saviour and his soul. \n\nBemember, then, that by disobedience angels lost \nheaven ; man, Eden ; Moses, the promised land ; \nUzzah, his life; Saul, his crown; and Judas, his \nsoul. \n\n3. Baptists are unwilling for their practices to \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 17 \n\nvary from the Scriptures, not only because fidelity \nto Christ demands it, but because they fear the \nexpansive power of error. Error is a subtle thing; \nonce begun, it is beyond the science of numbers to \ncompute its end. It is like artillery that shakes the \nsolid earth, and fills the heavens with its thunders, \nuntil neighboring hills and peaks and distant valleys \nare vocal with its echoes. Let me illustrate more \nfully. Once suffer human authority to be the gov- \nerning power in the Church, and that body will \nultimately have, as a vicar of Christ, a priest, a \nbishop, or a pope. Having a human head, it will also \nhave a human body. The moment man began to \ncontrol it, it ceased to be a Gospel Church. Admit \ninfant baptism, and the result will be the unchaste \nunion of Church and State, an unregenerate mem- \nbership, or, at all events, a disregard of the Scriptural \nmode of baptism. Thus u a little leaven leaveneth \nthe whole lump." \n\n4. Baptists hold that Jesus Christ is the founder \nof the true Church, and that he alone has the right \nto give it its ordinances and its laws. To undertake \nto make an improvement upon what he has done, is \nto impeach his wisdom and impugn his goodness. It \nis to say he knew not how to establish a church best \ncalculated to promote the interests of men and the \nglory of his name. If, however, it be admitted that \nhe had sufficient wisdom to found such a church, \nand did it not, the blasphemous conclusion must be \n\n2 \n\n\n\n18 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nreached, that the neglect is due to a want of good- \nness and love on his part. \n\nAgain, they are assured their churches are well \nfounded. Jesus says, " Upon this rock I will build \nmy church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail \nagainst it." Glorious truth, and precious promise ! \nI build my church ! Not Abraham, not Peter, not \nHenry VIII., not John Wesley, not Alexander \nCampbell, but Jesus Christ the Son of God. The \ntrue Church, then, cannot be traced to human \norigin. \n\n5. The last reason I shall assign for Baptists \nrefusing to depart from the New Testament church \nmodel is, that they have examined the creeds of \nother denominations, and have failed to discover \nanything camparable to their own faith. With pain, \nthey have observed the tendency of ecclesiastical \norganizations, not modelled after the Scriptures, to \nlose their spiritual power, and to be absorbed in the \nworld. What, for instance, is the spiritual force of \nthe Jews? What are they accomplishing for the \nglory of God, for the conversion of their own race, \nor for that of the world ? What has been the spiritual \ntendency of the Eomish Church? Let the blood of \nGod\'s martyred saints cry out. Let the enslaved \nnations speak. Give a tongue to ignorance, crime, \nand war, and they will testify that the Eoman Cath- \nolic Church has been the fruitful mother of vice and \nerror, opposing in every way possible the cause of \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 19 \n\ntruth aud heaven. The other pedobaptist churches \ndiffer, more or less widely, from the Eomish Hier- \narchy, but as a matter of history, they can be traced \nas branches of that prolific vine. Romish errors \nstill find a home in their creeds. They have inaugu- \nrated many reforms, and done many good works ; \nbut they have failed to erect a Scriptural church, or \ngive to the world a pure gospel. The Protestant \nchurches have not been able to contend successfully \nwith the mother church. As Dr. Curry observes, \n"Baptist principles are necessary in their totality \nfor the final overthrow of Romanisin." Again, \n" many candid Romanists admit that Baptists are the \nonly thorough antagonists of their creed." The \nsame author quotes Dr. Buckland as saying, " It was \ntruly said, in that day, that whenever the reformers \nwould find arguments to conquer Rome, they used \nthose of the Anabaptists ; and when they contended \nwith Anabaptists, they were compelled to use the \narguments of Rome, \xe2\x80\x94 the authority of the church, \nand the established customs and traditions of the \npast. They could not appeal successfully to the \nBible. This inconsistency was again and again \nurged upon them by Romanists, and it was declared \nthat there is not, cannot be, any middle ground \nbetween the Baptist faith and the faith of Rome." \n\n^Yhile other denominations are rising and falling, \nand while their history has, for the most part, been \na history of blunders and changes, the Baptists have \n\n\n\n20 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nheld on to the even tenor of their way, glorifying \nGod, and blessing the world. Though their churches \nare entirely separate and independent, they never- \ntheless harmonize in doctrine, because the Scriptures \nconstitute the bond of union. They are perfectly \nsatisfied with their creed, believing it to be of \nheavenly origin, and best suited to the wants of \nmen and the will of God. \n\nThrough persecution and ridicule they have come, \nhumbly walking in their Master\'s footsteps and \nhearkening to their Master\'s voice. Others may \nseek strange paths and delight in strange creeds, \nbut they will obey Jehovah\'s voice, and "go for- \nward." \n\nII. The second lesson we find in the narrative \nfrom which the text is taken, is that there are no non- \nessentials in the divine commands. Moses was not \nonly required to order the children of Israel to \nadvance, but first to lift up his rod, and stretch out his \nhand over the sea, and divide it. This was not a \nmere form or an unmeaning ceremony. It was a \nhigh and heavenly mandate, invested with the \nglorious dignity of divine authority. Many who are \naccustomed to select those truths that are congenial \nto their creed, and to despise the others, may dis- \ncover but slight connection between lifting a rod \nand dividing a sea. It is well to remember, however, \nthat the angry waters parted not, nor was deliverance \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 21 \n\neffected for an imperilled host until this minor com- \nmand was obeyed. Dr. Tucker forcibly remarks: \n"Is it conceivable that the great God could possibly \nlend the sanction of his authority to that which is \nnothing but emptiness ? or that he would command \nus to do that which might well be left undone u ? Does \ndisobedience of any part of his law make no change \nin our relations to him ? A mere form is an insignifi- \ncant thing and unworthy of respect. Has God \ncommanded anything that is insignificant or un- \nworthy of respect? Is any part of his law contempti- \nble ? The soul takes fright at the very thought. God\'s \ncommandment is exceeding broad ; each part of it \nis jealous of the honor of every other, and each is \ninvested with the majesty of all." \n\nIs there any part of God\'s Word that sanctions \ndisregard for even the smallest of his requirements ? \nOn the contrary, are there not abundant passages \nthat teach his displeasure at such disregard ? When \nLot was instructed to leave the doomed city of \nSodom, the angel\'s warning was : " Escape for thy \nlife ; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all \nthe plain ; escape to the mountain, lest thou be \nconsumed." As they were hastening across the \nplain, it may have appeared to Lot\'s wife a trivial \nmatter to look back toward the fated city, the scene \nof past associations, and the home of her children. \nNot hearkening to the angel\'s voice, she hesitates, \nturns, and looks ; and " she became a pillar of salt." \n\n\n\n22 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nOnly a look! yes, a look, but a disobedient look. \nAs it is true that there is life in a look, so it is true \nthat there is death in a look. " Bemeinber Lot\'s \nwife." Samson may not have conceived any essential \nrelation between his long hair and his great strength ; \nyet when he lost the one he also lost the other. \nWhat essential link is there between rams\' horns and \nthe destruction of a city ? Yet the walls of Jericho \nstood firm until the horns were sounded. \n\nAnd again : u Moses was admonished of God, \nwhen he was about to make the tabernacle : For, \nsee. saith he, that thou make all things according to \nthe pattern showed to thee in the mount." Heb. \nviii., 5. How minute the details \xe2\x80\x94 yet how important ! \neach one an essential part of the divine pattern. As \nthe tabernacle of the Father was constructed after \na pattern, so was the church of the Son. His \npattern was his own commandments: "teaching \nthem to observe all things whatsoever I have com- \nmanded you." Matt, xxviii., 20. Who will be bold \nenough to assert that the last instructions of our \nLord to his church embodied non-essentials\'? Bather \nlet every believer say with Dr. Gill : " Whatever is \ndone in a way of religious worship should be \naccording to divine rule; a church of Christ ought \nto be formed according to the primitive pattern, and \nshould consist, not of all that are born in a nation, \nprovince, or parish ; nor should all that are born of \nbelieving parents be admitted into it ; no unholy, \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 23 \n\nunbelieving and unconverted persons, only such as \nare true believers in Christ, and who are baptized \naccording as the word of God directs." \n\nJesus has set his people an illustrious example. \nHow careful he was of the minor points of the law. \nHe kept the ichole law, and deemed no prophecy of \nso small importance as not to attend, even amid the \npangs of the cross, to its fulfilment. " Christ also \nsuffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should \nfollow his steps." I. Peter ii. 21. \n\nTo teach that there are non-essentials in the Gos- \npel, is not only insulting to Jesus but dangerous to \nmen. Who is to decide what is, and what is not \nessential ? The whole matter is left necessarily to the \nwild caprice of misguided men. Men differ as to the \nimportance of the various doctrines of the Scrip- \ntures; they must have, then, different churches as \nthe expression of their faith. Creeds of every \ndescription are framed, confusion arises, and Christ- \nianity is dishonored. Who is to say that it makes \nany difference whether Christ or the Pope is head \nof the church ? Who shall condemn Episcopalians \nfor encouraging the unhallowed union of Church and \nState ? Who shall decide between Unitarians and \nTrinitarians, between Methodists and Mormons, be- \ntween Presbyterians and Campbellites J ? In other \nwords, who is to judge between truth and error ? \nPedobaptists answer, "I." Baptists answer, "Jesus." \nThere is no middle ground. We must receive the \n\n\n\n24 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ntruth, and the whole truth, as found in the inspired \nvolume. To do otherwise, is to plunge into mists \nand endless error. \n\nIII. God makes a way for Ms people. \n\nThis is the concluding lesson. Hedged in on \nevery side, humanly speaking, escape was impossible \nin the case of the children of Israel. But with God \nall things are possible. He looks down upon the \nbewildered people of his peculiar and unchanging \nlove, and through the depths of the sea he makes \na way for them to pass dry-shod. Strange way \xe2\x80\x94 but \nsafe and glorious ! and right joyfully did Moses and \nthe people sing a sweet song unto the Lord, saying : \n"And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were \ngathered, the floods stood upright as a heap, and \nthe depths were congealed in the heart of the sea. \nThe enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will \ndivide the spoil ; my lust shall be satisfied upon \nthem ; I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy \nthem. Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea \ncovered them; they sank as lead in the mighty \nwaters. Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the \ngods % Who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful \nin praises, doing wonders 1 n \n\nIn ways quite as wonderful has Jehovah led those \nwho have delighted to obey him. Enoch walked \nwith God; and by a path never trod before, entered \nthe gates of glory. When the stern prophet had \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 25 \n\nended his mission on earth, the Master honored him \nwith a chariot of fire and flaming horses ; and " Elijah \nwent up by a whirlwind into heaven." When sorrow \nhad filled Jacob\'s heart, and he cried in bitterness, \n"Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and ye will take \nBenjamin away; all these things are against me," \nstill, all things were working together for his highest \ngood, and a lovely providence was preparing a way \nfor him to enter a land of peace and plenty. The \nworld was corrupt and full of violence, and God \ndetermined to destroy our wicked race. One man, \nhowever, a preacher of righteousness, has found \nfavor in his sight. On Noah and his family rests the \ndivine love. When a guilty race is overwhelmed in \nruin, and the footprints of men have been blotted \nout from the earth, Noah rides on the universal \nwave, until the storms are hushed, the wrath of \nheaven appeased, and the rainbow of promise beams \nfrom the peaceful clouds. \n\nNo less remarkably has God preserved his Church. \nFrom its inception until now, it has not lacked \nenemies. Foes within and foes without have sought \neither to change or to destroy it. Early men began \nto transgress the commandments of God by their \ntraditions, and to make his word of none effect. \nSlight errors, and then grosser errors, crept into the \nearly churches. Slight deviations from apostolic \npractices resulted, at length, in bold subversion of \nthe divine arrangement. Thus arose the u man of \n\n\n\n26 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nsin," the Church of Eome. The true churches were \npersecuted and despised. Ecclesiastical authority \nwas blended with temporal power, and the civil arm \nwas raised to crush the gospel of God\'s beloved \nSon. Dark ages brooded over the nations, and over \nthe apostolic churches. It almost seemed that God \nhad forgotten to be gracious, and Jesus to remember \nhis promise, " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto \nthe end of the world." Liberty was crushed, and \nthere was scarcely a light to shine amid the unmin- \ngled gloom. The Lord Jesus had, however, faithful \nwitnesses and a peculiar people dwelling in mountain \ncaverns. The gospel light had burned low, but had \nnot been extinguished. Forces, divinely ordered, \nwere at work, which resulted eventually in the \nEeformation. While apostate churches were seek- \ning alliance with the State, and reposing in the un- \nchaste embrace of princes, the true church of Jesus \nnever bowed to temporal power, nor laid her virgin \nhead on the pillows of royalty. She repelled alike \nthe threats of priests and the flattery of kings. As \nthe heavenly influences of these churches began to \nspread, a few great minds caught the spirit of Chris- \ntianity, and, under divine guidance, inaugurated the \nEeformation. Thus did God make a way for his \nelect \xe2\x80\x94 a way that led through deserts, wildernesses, \npersecution, blood, and death. The reformers had \ntoo much of the spirit of the Eomish Church re- \nmaining in them to be altogether favorable to \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 27 \n\nchurches holding Baptist views. The heaven-taught \ndoctrine of religious liberty, so fondly cherished by \nthese churches, was strenuously opposed by the \nProtestants. Protestants, true to the spirit of the \nmother church, soon began to seek union with the \nState, or else to assume authority not delegated to \nmen. The Baptists were again in disfavor, and again \npersecuted and despised. Under Protestant sway, \nthere seemed to be no genial soil where a pure \ngospel could nourish. \n\nA brighter day was soon to dawn. There was a \nland, basking in the rays of the western sun, and \nwashed by western seas \xe2\x80\x94 a land whose forests as \nyet had never resounded with the glad tidings of \neternal love and the praises of Almighty God. \nAmerica, long reserved for a noble end, is now dis- \ncovered. Here liberty has built its temple, and a \npure gospel has made its home. Here the shackles \nof superstition fall from the captive\'s hand, and the \nblood-redeemed soul exults in conscious freedom. \nHere the humblest believer is taught that he is \nsuperior to priests and popes, and destined, under \nthe influences of immaculate love, to rise superior \nto ignorance and sin, and wear a crown brighter \nthan " flaming suns or shining constellations." \n\nThe passage of the children of Israel from a land \nof bondage, through the Red Sea, to the land of \npromise, is strikingly suggestive of the passage of a \npure Christianity from the spiritual bondage of Euro- \n\n\n\n28 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\npean superstition, across the ocean, to a land of \nliberty and peace. We know, at all events, that God \nhas made a way for his church, and that that church \nis destined to bless not only America, but the whole \nworld. Yes, blessed Jesus, thou hast built thy \nchurch upon a rock, and the gates of hell have not \nprevailed against it ! \n\nThe Baptists of America have done a noble work, \nand their influence is even now felt throughout this \nland. In numbers they have multiplied from thous- \nands into hundreds of thousands, and from hundreds \nof thousands into millions. But their power is not \nto be estimated by numbers ; they have taught free- \ndom of soul to this nation, and furnished a model \nfor its great government. Their influence extends \nfar beyond their own ranks. It is exerted unmis- \ntakably in other denominations. How many more \npersons are immersed in other communions than \nformerly. In many communities, where once the \ncustom prevailed, how seldom are infants baptized. \nOther changes might be noticed that are traceable \nto the same religious power; but it is unnecessary \nto relate them now. \n\nThen, " go forward," Church of the living God ; \n"ye are the light of the world." The Saviour\'s \nwords find a forceful illustration in an incident \nrelated by a distinguished traveller, and quoted by \nthe late Dr. Bichard Fuller. "Being at Calais," \nremarks the writer, " I climbed up into the light- \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 29 \n\nhouse and conversed with the keeper. \' Suppose,\' \nsaid I, \' that one of those lights should go out.\' \' Go \nout I impossible!\' he exclaimed, with a sort of con- \nsternation at the bare hypothesis. c Sir,\' he added, \npointing to the ocean, \'Yonder, where nothing can \nbe seen, there are ships going by to every part of the \nworld. If to-night one of my burners were to go \nout, within six months would come a letter, perhaps \nfrom India, perhaps from America, perhaps from \nsome place I never heard of, saying, on such and \nsuch a night, at such and such an hour, the light \nat Calais burned dim, the watchman neglected his \npost, and vessels were in danger. Ah, sir, some- \ntimes, in the dark nights, in stormy weather, I look \nout to sea, and feel as if the eye of the whole world \nwere looking at my lights. Let them go out? burn \ndim ? O never, never, never!\'" \n\nGo forward to greater attainments in grace and to \nnobler works of love ! Eemember that one is your \nMaster, even Christ. Eemember that it is his to \nbind the earth with fetters of ice, or wreathe it with \nthe flowers of spring\xe2\x80\x94 his " to kindle the fires of \nsuns or quench the light of stars " \xe2\x80\x94 his to frame a \nworld or found a church \xe2\x80\x94 his to command, ours to \nobey! \n\n\n\nBAPTIST FAITH A^D PEACTICE. \n\nBY REV. THOMAS AKMITAGE, D. D., N. Y. \n\n\n\n"We desire to hear from thee what thou thinkest, for as \nconcerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken \nagainst." Acts xxviii. 22. \n\nPaul had been brought to Borne, a prisoner in \nchains; he was poor and friendless, and charged \nwith being a ring-leader in " the sect of the Nazar- \nenes." His enemies had inveterate prejudices against \nhim, because he was an abettor of the claims of \nJesus. Still, knowing also his great intellectual \npower, his refinement of manner, purity of motive, \nand spotlessness of character, they professed a will- \ningness to hear him plead the cause of Christ before \nthey condemned it, or judged him. This seemed \nmanly. There is an air of equity, fairness and can- \ndor about their words, " we desire to hear from \nthee," which commends the men who uttered them. \nAnd this was all that the Apostle asked. Give him \nan impartial hearing, in order to a right judgment \nin the matter, and then, if they rejected both him \nand his religion, he could do no more. A man of \none religion pays a poor compliment to a man of \n\n\n\nBAPTIST FAITH AND PRACTICE 31 \n\nanother, and a poorer to his own, when he cannot, \nor dare not, investigate the religion of his fellow \nman; but to refuse him a frank hearing, betrays \nconscious weakness. \n\nThe Christians held tenets and practices in wide \ndistinction from both Jews and pagans, but what \ndifference did that make to either of them ? These \n" Nazarenes " injured no man, friend or foe, in his \nproperty, character or person. They were gentle in \nspirit, and harmless in life. They were not " forni- \ncators, or covetous, or railers, or drunkards, or \nextortioners." They were poor but not morose, and \ninstead of being dangerous, or even burdensome \nto the community, they went about doing good, and \nat the same time, " ministered to their own necessi- \nties n by hard labor. Why, then, were they " every- \nwhere spoken against?" Could not calumny and \nreproach let them alone? Why should hate be \nstirred to its depths, because truth and its supre- \nmacy sanctified the heart and life of its disciples ? \nCertainly, there was no cause here for the hiss of \nproscription, and men reproached them, either in \nignorance of their principles, or despite their better \nknowledge. In either case they were inexcusable. \nIf they were ignorant, they could have had light by \nasking for it, and if they knew better, then they did \nviolence to their own manhood. The fact is, that \nthey were not so ignorant as they seemed to be, but \nthe evidences of Christianity had silenced their \n\n\n\n32 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nreasoning, and overwhelmed them in shame ; so \nthat, in malice they came to berate that to which \nthey could not reply. This trick was considerably \nolder than themselves, and has long outlived them. \nSince the days of Paul, Christians are divided into \nsects quite as much as the Jews were in his day. \nThese in some principles and practices, are wide \napart. The lamentable consequence is, that aliena- \ntions have sprung up, which subject, sometimes one \nsect and sometimes another, sometimes one doctrine \nand sometimes another, to denunciation. Then fol- \nlows the unlovely and unlicensed charge of " bigot" \nand " fanatic,\' 7 " heretic " and " schismatic." All this \nis followed in turn by the unmitigated evil of mis- \nrepresenting and distorting each other\'s views and \npositions; of subjecting each other to unfounded \nreports and misrepresentations of opinion and prac- \ntice, descending sometimes, even to caricature, \ngreatly to each other\'s prejudice, if not to the point \nof direct falsehood. In all charity, this renders it \npretty evident that one body of Christians is con- \ntent to remain wilfully ignorant of the tenets and \npractices of others, and of their reasons therefor. \nIndeed, it is a very rare thing to find a man of one \nsect, who could, if he honestly tried, write a formula \nof the faith of another sect, which his Christian \nneighbor would be willing to subscribe to, as a cor- \nrect exhibit of his own principles and practices. \nNor can you wonder at this, when you consider how \n\n\n\nBAPTIST FAITH AND PRACTICE. 33 \n\nfew there are who can give an intelligent exposition \nof their own principles, and their reasons for cher- \nishing them. So, then, I am sorry to say, most of \nthe Christian denominations speak of each other, \neither in ignorance, or prejudice, in something, or \nsomewhere. ]N"ow, is there any sense or manliness, \nnot to say true religion, in this state of things % Can \nwe not frankly, without ill-natured controversy, \ncalmly, without disturbed passion, and freely, without \nrestraint, explain to each other what we hold, and \nwhy? And then, if we fail to see alike, we shall \nmutually respect each other\'s convictions. Let me \nmake an honest attempt to do this, on the Baptist \nside of the house. Of course it will be impossible \nfor me to give you all the reasons for what we believe \nand do, in one address ; this would require volumes. \nI must be content, therefore, with telling you what \nwe believe and do, without giving the reasons. \n\nYou all know, to begin with, that as a sect we have \nthe unenviable distinction of being " everywhere \nspoken against"; for we are not honored in one \nplace, and subjected to obloquy in another \xe2\x80\x94 the \ndetraction is pretty evenly spread. Perhaps it does \nus no injury, as " a prophet has no honor in his own \ncountry, " but that makes it no easier to bear; rather \na little harder, because a Baptist prophet has none \neither there or anywhere else. This may be a true \nsign of prophethood; I do not deny that, but I do \ndeny that we enjoy proscription because we find \n\n\n\n34 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthat it is refreshing. Even this prejudice makes lis \nthe more anxious to be understood by others, as we \nunderstand ourselves. We hold, then, to these three \ngreat foundation principles, namely : \n\n1. That the book called the Bible is given by the \ninspiration of God, and is the only rule of Christian \nfaith and practice. The consequence is, that we have \nno creeds, nor catechisms, nor decretals, which bind \nus by their authority. We think a creed worth noth- \ning, unless it is supported by Scriptural authority, \nand if the creed is founded on the word of God, we \ndo not see why we should not rest on that word \nwhich props up the creed; we prefer to go back \ndirectly to the foundation itself and rest there alone. \nIf it is able to sustain us, we need nothing else, and \nif it is not, then we cannot rest upon a creed to sup- \nport us when that creed has no support for itself. \nSome of our churches have what they call " Declar- \nations," or " Articles of Faith," which are mere \nstatements of what they think that the Bible teaches, \nbut they are not put forth by any theological or \necclesiastical authority, and therefore do not bind \nthe consciences of the churches. Some of our \nchurches have no such" Articles" or " Declarations," \nbecause they find no need for them, and those who \nuse them do not all use the same. Our churches \nhold that Jesus Christ is the only Law-giver, and the \nonly King in Zion ; that his law is laid down in the \nScriptures, and is perfect: and, therefore, they refuse \n\n\n\nBAPTIST FAITH AND PRACTICE. 35 \n\nto follow all forms of tradition and ecclesiastical \nordinations whatever, bowing only to the behests of \ninspired precept, and the recorded practices of the \napostolic churches, as their record is found in the \nScriptures. \n\n2. Baptists hold that God has given to every person \nthe right to interpret the Scriptures for himself. As \nwe cannot be Baptists without the Bible, we must \nknow personally for ourselves, what order of obedi- \nence it requires at our hands. To give up one of \nthese positions is to give up both. But do not \nmistake me here, as to what we mean by private \njudgment, as a divine right. We do not think that \nmen are at liberty to think of the Bible or not, to \nobey it or not, just as they please. But we think \nthat they are bound to use their judgment, and to \ngovern it, by the facts and truths of the Bible. The \nliberty that we claim, is not to follow our own fancies, \nor predilections, in investigating the Bible, not \nmerely to speculate upon it, and then diverge from \nits teachings if we choose to do so, because that \nwould be criminal trifling. The right to investigate \nthe truth does not carry with it the right to disobey \nit, or to doubt it, \xe2\x80\x94 that would convert the doctrine \niuto rebellion against its author, which is an evil, and \ncannot become a right. God allows every man to \ninterpret the Bible for himself, in order that he may \ndiscover its facts and truths, and then honestly follow \nthem in obedience. Hence, no church, or class of \n\n\n\n36 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nmen in the church, can step in between the personal \ninvestigations of the man and the Bible, to interpet \nit for him by authority. \n\n3. That a man is responsible to God, and to him \nonly, for his faith and practice, so far as the infliction \nof any punishment for disobedience to God is con- \ncerned. Eight here we deny the right of the civil \nmagistrate, or the State, either to prescribe a form \nof religion for us, or to punish us for not following \nany religion they may prescribe. This we call soul- \nliberty, a freedom which we have obtained at a great \nprice ; the rack, the dungeon, the " bloody tenet," \nthe stake and the gibbet. Baptists have ever resisted \nthe right of the State to establish the church by law, \nto tolerate the conformists of that church, and put \nits nonconformists under pains and penalties \xe2\x80\x94 or to \ninterfere with the free exercise of a man\'s religion, be \nit what it may. We may regret that all men are not \nChristians, and wish that they were, and we may \nwish that they held Christian principles as we hold \nthem, but we have no right to enforce our doctrines \nby law, and others have no right to force their \ndoctrines upon us by human statute. We hold that \nif a man chooses to be a Mohammedan, a Jew, a Pagan, \na Eoman Catholic, a Protestant or an Infidel, he has \na right to be that, so far as the civil law is concerned. \nTherefore, all persecution for the maintenance of \nthis or that religion is radically wrong. And where \nBaptists have founded a State, or been the most \n\n\n\nBAPTIST FAITH AND PRACTICE. 37 \n\nnumerous in a State, there has never been an act of \npersecution inflicted. The State of Rhode Island \nwas founded by Baptists 240 years ago, and in that \nState no man has yet been persecuted for his religion \nby the civil power. And the same liberty which we \nclaim for ourselves, we are bound to claim for others, \nfor if their rights can be taken away, ours may be \nalso. When a Baptist shall rob one man of soul-lib- \nerty, by statute, penalty and sword, he will cease to \nbe a Baptist for that reason* Baptists have ever \nsealed this great doctrine of soul-liberty with their \nblood. Their bones are bleaching everywhere in the \nAlpine valleys, amongst the eternal snows ; their \nashes have flitted over the pavements of Smithfield, \non the winds for centuries. The sighs and sob- \nbings of Baptist sufferers haunt the " coal hole n \nof Lambeth Palace, and the dungeons in Lollard\'s \nTower to this day. In the long list of martyrs, \nArnold of Bresica, the star of Italy, Jerome of \nPrague, the most accomplished man of his day, and \nHubmeyer of Ratisbon, sealed this doctrine with \ntheir blood. And then there followed them men in \nhumbler walks, the good Hans of Overdam, the \nbeautiful young Dosie of Leeuwarden, and Richard \nWoodman, the sturdy yeoman ; all these shed their \nblood as its witnesses. Baptist women also have \nsent up their shrill cry of martyrdom, till the blood \nof humanity has curdled at the heart. One sharp \nshriek after another comes, rending the air of the \n\n\n\n38 BAPTIST DOCTRINESo \n\nages, from these brides of Christ, Maria of Monjou, \nAnn Askew, from the nobility of the British realm, \nElizabeth Gaunt, a mother in Christian charity, and \nJoan Boucher, the heroine of Canterbury. Out of \ntheir very ashes, which crumbled at the stake, joint \nby joint and limb by limb, God has raised up modern \nBaptists, as from the dead, to re-assert the doctrine \nof soul-liberty. \n\nYou will readily see that out of these three great \nprinciples, spring up : \n\n1. The doctrine of church independency. Hence, \nthe Baptist denomination is not a church, but a body \nof churches. That is to say, each church or congre- \ngation is entirely independent of each other church \nor congregation, in all that relates to its government. \nEvery separate Baptist church chooses its own \nminister and other officers, receives and dismisses its \nown members, makes its own rules and regulations, \nand is sovereign in its self-control throughout. \nBaptists have no legislative, judicial, nor executive \nbody, known as a convocation, conference, council \nor synod. A body of churches voluntarily organize \nthemselves into an association, but simply for fra- \nternal and missionary purposes. Associations have \nno power over the churches, each church governing \nitself on democratic principles, and being as free \nfrom outside interference as so many private families, \nin this or any other city. The next result of these \nprinciples is : \n\n\n\nBAPTIST FAITH AND PRACTICE. 39 \n\n2. A regenerated church in ember ship. No person \ncan become a member of a Baptist church, till he \nprofesses to have found the remission of his sins, by \nfaith in the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ. Many \nfall into the mistake that, in some way or other, we \nare sacramentarians ; that is, that we associate the \nmoral renovation of the soul with baptism and the \nLord\'s Supper. This is a sad mistake. We believe \nthat man cannot be " born from above, or made a \nnew creature," excepting by the sovereign influence \nof the Holy Spirit on the heart, leading the sinner \nto accept the benefits of Christ\'s atonement, by faith, \nto the free justification of his soul. Then, when he \nis regenerated, or as the word means, generated \nagain, we accept him as a fit subject for baptism. \nIn that act, he professes his faith in Christ as his \npresent Saviour. So far from baptizing a man, in \norder that his soul may be regenerated thereby, we \nadminister it to him because he is already regen- \nerated by the Spirit of God. We say to him, " You \nhave no right to baptism till you are * born again,\' \ntill you have a new heart, and are made a temple of \nthe Holy Spirit. All the waters on the globe, and all \nthe religious services that may be used in connection \nwith water, cannot cleanse your soul of one stain or \nblot which sin has left. But now that you are regen- \nerated from above, it is your duty to be baptized, \nand your privilege to be baptized, and by that act to \ndeclare that you are already a renewed man. And \n\n\n\n40 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nbecause you are now \'dead indeed unto sin, and alive \nunto righteousness/ you \'must be buried with Christ \nin baptism :\' just as Christ was first buried in the \nwaters of the Jordan, and then in the tomb of \nJoseph ; that like as he was raised again by the \nglory of the father, even so should ye walk in \nnewness of life." This is the doctrine of baptism as \nPaul preaches it in the sixth chapter of Komans, and \nthis is the reason that we immerse men, because when \nmen are " buried," they are covered in the tomb. \nThis is what we understand by burying a believer \nu with Christ in baptism." You will see therefore, \nthat we must \n\n3. Reject infant baptism. An infant, we think, \ncannot be brought to the Lord\'s baptism, any more \nproperly than it can be brought to the Lord\'s supper. \nIt cannot discern the import of the Lord\'s baptism, \nany more than it can discern the Lord\'s body, there- \nfore, it cannot show forth the significancy of one, \nany more than it can the significancy of the other. \nIt is a subject for neither ordinance. On this point \nthe North British Review exactly expresses our views \nwhen it says : " Scripture knows nothing of the \nbaptism of infants. There is absolutely not a single \ntrace of it to be found in the New Testament. The \nrecognized baptism of the ancient church was that \nof adults." But we do not rest there, on this sub- \nject. Professor Lange, of Jena, who is not a \nBaptist, expresses our views more fully, when he \n\n\n\nBAPTIST FAITH AND PRACTICE. 41 \n\nsays : " Would the Protestant church fulfill and \nattain to its final destiny, the baptism of infants \nmust of necessity be abolished. " ^ T ow this \nlearned man thinks that infant baptism should be \nabolished, if Protestantism would reach its " final \ndestiny." But he does not give us his reasons for \nthinking so. Our own views on the same subject \nare these: \xe2\x80\x94 It seems to us that infant baptism is in \nconflict with the great doctrine of the atonement of \nChrist. We believe that if an infant dies, it is saved \nby the virtue of Christ\'s blood-shedding, and not by \na few drops of water, nor an ocean full. It looks to \nus, therefore, to be laying a great stress on water in \nsalvation^ to be christening the child in death, as \nwell as to foster superstition ; as if the death of \nJesus were not enough to save it, whereas in heaven, \nthe ransomed babe will sing glory, and ascribe sal- \nvation " unto him who has washed us in his blood," \nand not to him who christened us. Then we think \nthat infant baptism is a great evil and should be \n" abolished," because, if the christened child lives, \nhis christening has introduced him into the visible \nchurch, and thereby corrupted the gospel simplicity \nof the church relation. The whole of the State \nchurches of Europe are made up of persons who \nwere christened as infants. So wonder that they \nare corrupt churches. When infant baptism makes \nall the population members of the church, that act \nblots out all lines of distinction between a converted \n\n\n\n42 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nchurch, and an unconverted world. But in those \nchurches which are not established by law, but who \nstill think that "the church is composed of believers \nand their baptized children," infant baptism corrupts \nthe church relation. They do not pretend that the \nchristening so renewed the child\'s moral nature as \nto make him a saint. But they do claim that it \nintroduced him into the church. Yet, he is not \nunder church obligations and discipline, and he does \nnot share church privileges, such as the Lord\'s sup- \nper. So that infant baptism, as we see it, corrupts \nthe church by introducing another sort of members \ninto its fellowship, beside those who are converted \nto Christ. Then we hold that the christening of a \nchild inflicts a serious injury upon him. It leaves \nthe impression upon him, as he grows up, that in \nsome way, he cannot tell how, he is sealed in a cov- \nenant to Christ, as other children are not ; whereas, \nhe finds himself just as wicked as other children. \nAnd then, if he ever wishes to make a profession of \nreligion himself, it robs him of the right to that \nreligious freedom, by which he can follow his own \nconvictions of personal duty in baptism, without \nviolating the covenant which his parents made for \nhim, by repudiating their act of infant baptism. \nThese principles lead us to put forth the ordinances, \nbaptism and the Lord\'s supper \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n4. Just where the Lord Jesus left them. There is \nno point on which we are more grievously misrepre- \n\n\n\nBAPTIST FAITH AND PRACTICE. 43 \n\nsented, and on which we are more severely spoken \nagainst, than that of the supper. Scarcely any \nform of denunciation against us, on this subject, \nseems to be thought too severe, even by otherwise \nlovely Christian people. And we are sure that \nthese same persons would treat us very differently \nif we could get them to listen long enough to our \nviews to understand us. At any rate, they would \nrespect both our integrity and self-consistency in \nthe matter, whether they adopted our views or not. \nWhat are our views on this point ? \n\n1. The same as those of all regenerated churches, \nnamely : that the supper is to be received only by \nthose who have been converted and baptized. This \nis exactly our ground in common with them. But \nwhat they call baptism, we call a substitute for it, \nunless it be the burial of a believer upon his own \nconfession of faith. \n\n2. We hold that the eternal salvation of a man \ndepends no more on the supper than on baptism. \nBread and wine, taken in the supper, can bring no \nblessing to the soul that water in baptism fails to \nbring, and neither of them has anything to do with \nthe bestowment of special grace from God. They \nare both of equal authority, both of equal solemnity, \nboth of equal benefit, both symbolical acts, and \nnothing more. The first preaches Christ\'s burial \nand resurrection, the second " shows " his death till \nhe comes. As we obey him in submitting to the \n\n\n\n44 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nfirst, so we preach him in partaking of the second. \nThey are monuments of Christ\'s great work, but not \nrenovators of the soul. Only the blood of the \nLamb, and the Holy Spirit, can do that, and neither \nof the ordinances has anything to do with it \xe2\x80\x94 they \nare both for other purposes. The thief on the cross \nwas saved without either baptism or the supper. \n\n3. We hold that regeneration is the test of \nChristian character, and that that proves the unity \nof the real people of God, and not a place together \nat the Lord\'s table. No man could do a Baptist \ngreater injustice, than to say that he un christianizes \nall those with whom he cannot sit down at the table. \nA true Baptist believes that thousands and millions \nof his brethren, who belong to other churches, are \nholy in heart and life, nay, may be better than he is, \nin that respect. Bat he finds nothing in the Scrip- \ntures making a common seat at the table either a \na proof of love amongst brethren, or a test of \nChristian character. There have been thousands, \nfrom the days of Judas Iscariot down, who have \ntaken a seat at the table, without either love to \nChrist or his people, or the possession of Christian \ncharacter. If I believed that the supper was intended \nto be a test of Christian fellowship between regen- \nerated men, then I would go to the table with any \nconverted man, whether he had been baptized or \nnot. But I believe nothing of the sort. So far from \nit, I neither regard it as a duty or privilege to sit \n\n\n\nBAPTIST FAITH AND PRACTICE. 45 \n\ndown at the supper table with any other Baptist \nchurch, but that under whose watch-care I live. If \nwe held the Lord\'s table to be what other Christian \nbrethren who are not Baptists seem to regard it, \nwe should practice what they do in regard to its \nobservance, but we do not believe as they do about \nthe question. As we understand the matter, we \nneither Christianize those that we sit down with, \nnor unchristianize those that we do not sit down \nwith; but we simply preach Christ\'s death by a \nsymbolical act, as a church, just as an individual \nwould preach Christ verbally. Christian unity is \nshown when believers come to the "unity of the \nfaith," not the table. When they are baptized into \none body," and called in " one hope of their calling" \n\xe2\x80\x94 by regeneration, which adopts them into the family \nof God \xe2\x80\x94 or as Paul puts it, when they become mem- \nbers of Christ, "of his flesh, and of his bones "\xe2\x80\x94and \nnot when they sit side by side, and partake of bread \nfrom a harvest field, and wine from a vineyard. \nThat is a very easy way of showing your love to \neach other. Two strangers may sit side by side, at \nthe table, who never saw each other before, and \nnever pass a word to each other, and will never \nmeet again on earth. Bat what love have they \nshown to each other ? That is a very cheap sort of \nlove, I think. But the Christian love that the Bible \ntalks about, as the test of Christian character and \nfellowship, is, according to James, to feed and clothe \n\n\n\n46 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\n" a destitute brother or sister "; according to Paul, \n"to distribute to the necessities of saints, and in \nhonor to prefer one another," for the strong to \n"bear the infirmity of the weak," "to bear each \nother\'s burdens," and so fulfill the law of Christ,\xe2\x80\x94 to \n"pray for each other," "to forgive each other," "to \nedify each other" "to weep with them that weep, \nand rejoice with them that rejoice" \xe2\x80\x94 in a word, to \n"do good of every sort to them who are of the \nhousehold of faith." John puts the test even \nhigher than that, when he claims that we " ought to \nlay down our lives for the brethren," if need be. \nWhen a man can push these divine truths aside, and \nmeasure his love to Christians by his willingness to \ntake a sip of wine and a morsel of bread with them, \nit seems to be worth his while to ask on his knees, \nwhether it is setting up Christ\'s standard of disci- \npleship and fellowship, or his own. \n\nThese are the views that Baptists hold. What is \nthere in all this to justify men in speaking against \nus everywhere? I put that question to you in \ncandor. I am happy to say to you, that there are \nsome men who do not speak against us, and they are \nnot Baptists. John Locke ought to know what he \nwas talking about, when he said, "The Baptists were \nfrom the beginning, the firm advocates of absolute \nliberty \xe2\x80\x94 just and true liberty, equal and impartial \nliberty." Sir James Mcintosh says, " The Baptists \n\n\n\nBAPTIST FAITH AND PRACTICE. 47 \n\nsuffered more than any other, under Charles II, \nbecause they professed the principles of religious \nliberty." Jeremy Taylor says, " Freedom of con- \nscience, unlimited freedom of mind, was from the \nfirst the trophy of the Baptists." Our own Wash- \ning-ton used words just as affectionate; and in \nAugust, 1789, at the request of the Baptists, he \nrecommended to Congress that amendment to the \nConstitution which says that " Congress shall make \nno law respecting the establishment of religion, or \nprohibiting the exercise thereof." Bancroft, our \ngreat historian, and Judge Story, our great jurist, \nspeak of us in the same manner. I can assure you \nthat we never blush, when we remember that Milton \nand Bunyan, Sir Harry Vane and John Hampden, \nand Koger Williams, were all Baptist laymen. IS or \nwhen we think that John Gill and Andrew Fuller, \nAdoniram Judson and William Carey, Kobert Hall \nand Charles Spurgeon, Horatio Hackett and Thomas \nConant, were Baptist missionaries, scholars and \nministers. And as to other denominations ; I only \nwish that we used the Bible more in public worship, \nas Episcopalians do; that we had as learned a ministry \nas our Presbyterian brethren have \xe2\x80\x94 as much pathos \nand zeal as our Methodist brethren \xe2\x80\x94 as much sim- \nplicity as the Society of Friends \xe2\x80\x94 and as much self- \nsacrifice as the Roman Catholics\xe2\x80\x94 and a good deal \nmore heart-felt religion than either we or they have \nat present. God knows I love them all, and if they \n\n\n\n48 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nwould stop scolding us, and pray for us twice where \nthey speak unkindly of us once, they would be \nhappier and we should be better. God bless them \nall, I say. Amen. \n\n\n\nTHE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. \n\n\n\nBY REV. J. B. JETER, D. D., RICHMOND, VA. \n\n\n\n11 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."\xe2\x80\x94 2 Timo \nthy iii. 16. \n\nThere are among theologians various theories of \ninspiration ; but we shall notice only two of them. \nOne is that God communicated his truth to the \nminds of bis servants, prophets and apostles, and \nthey retained it in their memories, and expounded it \nin their discourses by the use of their natural facul- \nties, without divine aid or supervision. The other \xe2\x80\x94 \nthat generally held by evangelical Christians \xe2\x80\x94 is that \nGod not only communicated truth to the minds of his \nservants, but exercised over them an influence by \nwhich they were enabled to reveal it, by speech or \nwriting, without any mistake, and in the manner \nbest suited to secure the end of the revelation. It \nis to the examination of these theories that our arti- \ncle is devoted. \n\nThat God can inspire men to reveal his truth in- \nfallibly to the world, it is atheistic to deny. That \nplenary inspiration seems necessary to secure the \nend of the avowed purpose of the Scriptures \xe2\x80\x94 that \nmen may believe in Christ, and by believing secure \n\n\n\n50 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\neverlasting life \xe2\x80\x94 can hardly be questioned. Still it \nmust be conceded, that not only the reality, but the \nmeasure and manner of the inspiration of the Scrip- \ntures, must be learned from their own testimony. \nWhat do they teach on the subject? Did their \nwriters claim to be divinely inspired? Did they \nassume to be partially or fully inspired ? Did they \nsay or do anything incompatible with their full in- \nspiration % We should come to the Scriptures, with \nchildlike docility, to learn what they teach on these \npoints. \n\nMoses was the first of the inspired writers. His \ninspiration is proved by the present condition of the \nJews, accurately described in Deut. xxviii. The \nmanner of his inspiration is given in xviii. 18. The \nLord said unto Moses: "I will raise them up a \nprophet like unto thee, and will put my words in his \nmouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall \ncommand him." The prophecy relates to the Mes- \nsiah, and he was to have the words of God put into \nhis mouth, and in this plenary inspiration was to be \nlike unto Moses. David, the Psalmist, said : " The \nSpirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in \nmy tongue." 2 Sam. xxiii. 2. " The Lord spake thus \nto me, * * * and instructed me," is the language \nof Isa. viii. 11. His prophecies were a mere reitera- \ntion of the words of the Lord: "Thus saith the \nLord, behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone," \netc., xxviii. 16. Jeremiah begins one of his prophe- \n\n\n\nINSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 51 \n\ncies in these words : "The word that the Lord spake \nagainst Babylon and against the land of the Chal- \ndeans by Jeremiah the prophet.\' 7 50:7. In many \nother passages, he claimed that his words were the \nwords of the Lord. ix. 11, xiii. 15, etc. Amos pro- \nfessed to speak the very words of God : " Hear this \nword that the Lord hath spoken against yon, O house \nof Israel." hi. 1. Micah closes a prophecy with the \nwords: "The mouth of the Lord of hosts hath \nspoken it." iv. 4. " The Lord put a word in Balaam\'s \nmouth, and said, Return unto Balak, and thus shalt \nthou speak." Num. xxiii. 5. \n\nIt would be easy to multiply quotations of this \nkind ; but if the above passages do not establish the \nfact that the writers of the Old Testament claimed \nplenary inspiration, it is impossible for language to \ndo it. God spoke by the prophets. In a sense \ntheir words were their own ; but in a higher, truer \nsense they were the words of God. There was no \npossibility for them to err in their words, unless God \ncould be mistaken. \n\nWhen Christ appeared in the world, the writings \nof Moses and the prophets, called, by way of emi- \nnence, the Scriptures, were held in high estimation \namong the Jews. How did Christ respect them ? He \nwas " God manifest in the flesh," and knew perfectly \ntheir origin, history, contents and authority. He \ntreated them with the greatest reverence ; and never \nuttered a word to indicate that he deemed them \n\n\n\n52 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nhuman and fallible, as well as divine and inerrable. \nHe pronounced them the sure preservative from \nerror : " Ye do err," said he to the Jews, " not know- \ning the Scriptures." Matt. xxii. 29. Could this be \ntrue, if the Scriptures themselves abounded in \nerrors ! They might, in that case, have been seduced \ninto error by their knowledge of them. Listen \nfurther to the testimony of Jesus: "The Scripture \nmust be fulfilled." Mark xiv. 49. "The Scripture \ncannot be broken." John x. 35. If the Scriptures \n" must be fulfilled," it is because their predictions \nare true and accurate : if they " cannot be broken? it \nis because there is no defect or weakness in them. \nJesus, resting his claims to the Messiahship on the \ntestimony of the Scriptures, commended them to \nthe undoubting confidence and careful study of his \nhearers: "Search," said he, "the Scriptures; for in \nthem ye think ye have eternal life ; and they are they \nwhich testify of me." John v. 39. \n\nThe evangelist John furnishes incidentally the \nstrongest possible proof of his high estimate of the \nScriptures. He says: "The disciples believed the \nScripture, and the word which Jesus had said." \nJohn ii. 22. The apostle coupled the Scripture and \nthe word of Jesus as of equal credibility. Could he \nhave done this without dishonoring Jesus, if the \nScripture had partaken of the errors prevalent in \nthe ages of its several authors % \n\nLet us now examine the testimony of the apostles \n\n\n\nINSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 53 \n\non the inspiration of the Old Testament. Their own \ninspiration we shall now take for granted, and prove \nin another place. Peter, proposing to fill the vacancy \nin the apostleship caused by the apostasy and death \nof Judas, said: "Men and brethren, this Scripture \nmust needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy \nGhost by the mouth of David spake before concern- \ning Judas.\' 7 Acts i. 16. The apostle had reference \nto Psa. xii. 9. The text had not a very clear refer- \nence to Judas ; but Peter, himself inspired, declared \nthat it was spoken by the Holy Ghost, that the mouth \nof David was merely the organ for uttering the \nprophecy, and that its fulfilment was a matter of \nnecessity, ^o advocate for plenary, verbal inspira- \ntion has ever expressed it more clearly or strongly \nthan did Peter on this occasion. To the same effect \nwas the language of all the disciples, when Peter \nand John, released from imprisonment and the power \nof their enemies, "reported all that the chief priests \nand elders had said unto them." " They lifted up \ntheir voice to God with one accord," saying, " Thou \nart God, * \' \xe2\x80\xa2 * who by the mouth of thy ser- \nvant David hath said, Why did the heathen rage, and \nthe people imagine vain things % n Acts iv. 25. These \nwords were not David\'s, but God\'s. David uttered, \nbut God indited them; and filled them with a mean- \ning of which probably the Psalmist had but little \nconception. 1 Pet. i. 11, 12. On this subject the \nteaching of Paul is explicit and full : " All Scripture \n\n\n\n54 BAPTIST DOCTEINES. \n\nis given by inspiration of God ; and is profitable for \ndoctrine (teaching), for reproof, for correction, for \ninstruction in righteousness, that the man of God \nmay be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good \nworks." 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. The apostle affirms, not \nonly that Scripture, but that "all Scripture" is \nDivinely inspired. The language clearly means, not \nmerely that every book of Scripture, but that all the \ncontents of every book, historical, geographical, and \nscientific, as well as doctrinal, is inspired of God; \nand therefore infallible, and fitted to make the man \nof God perfect. As Paul teaches the measure, so \nPeter states the manner, of Divine inspiration. He \nsays : "Prophecy came not in old time (at any time. \nMar.) by the will of man ; but holy men of God spake \n(and doubtless also wrote) as they were moved by \nthe Holy Ghost." God employed holy men to reveal \nhis truth to the world. They did not speak or write \nby their own knowledge or will ; but as they were \nenlightened, guided and influenced by the Holy \nSpirit. Their messages were instructive, threaten- \ning, encouraging or consolatory, according to the \nDivine will. We think it an error to say that the \nScriptures do not teach the manner of inspiration. \nWe do not see how the manner of Divine inspiration \ncould be more clearly taught than in this language \nof the apostle Peter. The manner, too, is such as to \npreclude the possibility of error in the Scriptures. \nSurely the Holy Spirit, infinitely wise and good, can \n\n\n\nINSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. Ob \n\nmove holy men to teach only what is true, and pure, \nand adapted to subserve the ends of Divine reve- \nlation. \n\nHaving considered the inspiration of the Old \nTestament Scriptures, we propose now to examine \nthat of the New Testament writings. If Christianity \nis true and a consummation of the Mosaic economy, \nthe inspiration of the apostolic writings may be \nfairly inferred from that of the prophetic Scriptures. \nIt is unreasonable to suppose that the foundation of \nthe edifice was laid with Divine wisdom, and its \ncompletion left to human weakness and fallibility. \nThe Spirit of inspiration which commenced, we may \nbe quite sure, finished the volume of religious in- \nstruction to men. We are not left, however, to the \nuncertainty of conjecture or of logical deduction on \nthis subject. We have the most abundant evidence \nof the plenary inspiration of the writers of the New \nTestament. \n\nWhen Jesus sent out his apostles to announce the \napproach of the kingdom of heaven, he informed \nthem that they would be subjected to fierce perse- \ncutions, delivered up to councils, scourged in the \nsynagogues, and brought before governors and \nkings ; and for their encouragement and comfort, he \nsaid : " When they shall deliver you up, take no \nthought how or what ye shall speak ; for it shall be \ngiven you in that same hour what ye shall speak. \n\n\n\n56 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nFor it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your \nFather which speaketh in you." Matt. x. 19, 20. It \nis impossible to imagine an inspiration more full and \ncomplete than this promised to the apostles, extend- \ning to matter, language and manner. True, this \npromise had special reference to the apostles in their \npersecutions ; but we cannot reasonably suppose \nthat they had an inspiration less full and perfect for \nthe prosecution of their work, than they possessed \nto extricate them from the perils into which it \nbrought them. \n\nJesus, in his memorable farewell discourse to his \ndisciples, designing to comfort them under their \napproaching sorrow, and fit them for their great life- \nwork, said to them : " The comforter, which is the \nHoly Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, \nhe shall teach you all things, and bring all things to \nyour remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto \nyou. * * * Howbeit when he, the Spirit \nof truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth ; \nfor he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever \nhe shall hear, that shall he speak ; and he will \nshow you things to come. He shall glorify me ; \nfor he shall receive of mine, and shall show it \nunto you." John xiv. 26 ; xvi. 13, 14. We have \nnowhere so full an account of the manner and \nmeasure of Divine inspiration as in these pas- \nsages. Christ was to be the chief matter of revela- \ntion : " He (the Spirit) shall glorify me (Christ) ; for \n\n\n\nINSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 57 \n\nhe shall receive of mine, and s!<ow it unto you." \nThe apostles were not to be left to the unaided \nexercise of their fallible memories in reporting the \ntruth : He (the Spirit) shall "bring- all things to your \nremembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." \nThey were to have the fullest instruction for the \nprosecution of their mission : " He (the Spirit) shall \nteach you all things\xe2\x80\x94 shall guide you into all truth." \nThey were to be endowed with the gift of prophecy : \n" He (the Spirit) will show you things to come." \nThus equipped, they were to enter on the work \nwhich Christ commenced, and in the prosecution of \nwhich he sacrificed his life. \n\nWhen Jesus was risen from the dead, he commis- \nsioned his apostles to enter on their life-work, with \nthe promise : " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto \nthe end of the world." Matt, xxviii. 20. The pres- \nence which Jesus promised to his disciples was not \nhis personal presence, but the presence of his \nrepresentative. "It is expedient for you," he said, \n" that I go away ; for if I go not away the Comforter \nwill not come ; but if I depart, I will send him unto \nyou." John xvi. 7. They were commanded "not to \ndepart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of \nthe Father," which they had heard of him\xe2\x80\x94 the \npromise that they should " be endued with power \nfrom on high." Lu. xxiv. 49. The apostles obeyed \nthe command of their Lord, and continued in Jeru- \nsalem, with the other disciples, men and women, in \n\n\n\n5S BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nprayer and supplication. " When the day of Pente- \ncost was fully come, * * * they were all filled \nwith the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other \ntongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts \ni. 1, 4. The promise of their inspiration was most \nstrikingly fulfilled. They were not only filled with \nthe Spirit, but they spake as he gave them utterance, \nin languages which they had never learned. Their \ninspiration was clearly verbal, and must have in- \ncluded thoughts as well as words. Their utterances \nwere not senseless jargon ; but clear and convincing \nand impressive speech, piercing the hearts of them \nthat heard it, and extorting from them the cry : \xe2\x80\xa2\' Men \nand brethren, what shall we do 1 " \n\nPaul was not a participant in the Pentecostal \nbaptism. He was introduced into the apostolic \nministry by a special Divine arrangement. He said : \n" I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was \npreached of me, is not after men. For I neither \nreceived it of man, neither was I taught it, but by \nthe revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal. i. 11, 12. Paul, \nhaving received the gospel by direct revelation from \nheaven, was not left to the exercise of his unaided \npowers in its proclamation. To the Corinthians he \nwrote : " Now we have received, not the spirit of the \nworld, but the Spirit which is of God ; that we might \nknow the things that are freely given to us of God. \nWhich things also we speak, not in the words which \nman\'s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost \n\n\n\nINSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 59 \n\nteacheth." 1 Cor. ii. 12, 13. Iu this language Paul \nclaims for himself and others, not only to know the \nthings freely given to them of God\xe2\x80\x94 the things per- \ntaining to their salvation\xe2\x80\x94 by the revelation of the \nHoly Spirit ; but also that they spoke them in words \nwhich he taught them. \n\nThe apostles were inspired, not only to preach but \nto teach the gospel ; and they taught by their writ- \nings as well as by their voices. It is unreasonable \nto suppose that they were not equally inspired to \nteach by their writings and their oral addresses. \nThe apostle Peter classes the epistles of Paul, which \nform a large part of the New Testament, with the \nScriptures of the Old Testament, whose inspiration \nwe have already shown. He says : " Our beloved \nbrother Paul according to the wisdom given unto him \nhath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speak- \ning in them of these things ; in which are some things \nhard to be understood, which they that are unlearned \nand unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scrip- \ntures, unto their own destruction." 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16. \nThe epistles of Paul are not only classed with other \ninspired writings, but the peril of perverting them \nis clearly and strongly pointed out. If Paul\'s epistles \nwere divinely inspired, there can be no ground to \nquestion the inspiration of all the apostolic writings. \nThe apostles not merely claimed to be inspired ; but \nfurnished the most conclusive evidence of their \ninspiration. The author of the epistle to the He- \n\n\n\n60 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nbrews exhorted his brethren to give earnest heed to \nthe things which they heard, and not to neglect the \ngreat salvation, which at first began to be spoken by \nthe Lord, and was confirmed by them that heard him, \n(that is, the apostles), " God also bearing them wit- \nness, both with signs, and wonders, and with divers \nmiracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to \nhis own will.\' 7 Heb. ii. 1-4. It is easy to claim \nDivine inspiration. Impostors have done it in all \nages. Miracles are the seal and proof of inspiration. \nEven Jesus did not claim to be received on his own \ntestimony. " If I bear witness of myself," said he, \n"my witness is not true" \xe2\x80\x94 should not be regarded. \nf \'The works which the Father hath given me to \nfinish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, \nthat the Father hath sent me." John v. 31, 36. The \nministry and the messages of the apostles were con- \nfirmed by miracles which only God could enable \nthem to perform, and by signs and wonders which \nonly he could show. The words of an apostle, in the \nexecution of his commission, were of Divine author- \nity. " If any man think himself," said Paul, u to be \na prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the \nthings that I write unto you are the commandments \nof the Lord." 1 Cor. xiv. 37. \n\nIt would be interesting to show how the exact \ntruth of the writings of the New Testament is con- \nfirmed by the testimony of ancient and authentic \nhistory, by the monuments and coins which have \n\n\n\nINSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 61 \n\ndescended to us from the early times, and by the \noriginality and purity of the sacred Scriptures ; but \nthis is quite beyond the limit prescribed for this \narticle. \n\nObjections to plenary inspiration are founded, as \nfar as we have observed, not on any scriptural state- \nments on the subjects, but on supposed mistakes \nand errors in the sacred writings. These relate \nchiefly to the creation of the world \xe2\x80\x94 the origin of \nman \xe2\x80\x94 the misquotations and misinterpretations of \nthe Old Testament Scriptures by the writers of the \nXew. The full discussion of these subjects would \nfill a volume. A few points we may briefly notice. \n\nThe Scriptures were written in remote ages, by \ndifferent authors, in several languages, and among \npeople whose tastes, customs, institutions and modes \nof thought were widely different from ours. That \nthe interpretation of such documents, admitting \ntheir full inspiration and harmony, would be difficult, \nwe may reasonably suppose. The lack of a perfect \nknowledge of the languages in which they were \nwrittten would, of itself, present a formidable ob- \nstacle to a satisfactory exegesis. To this, however, \nmust be added the difficulties of interpretation \narising from ignorance of the history, modes of com- \nputing time and other things, prevailing opinions, \nand social and political customs, of the people for \nwhose immediate benefit these writings were de- \n\n\n\n62 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nsigned. Everybody knows that our laws, prepared \nby the wisest and most careful legislators, and \nwritten in our own language, are capable of various \ninterpretations, and lead to almost endless perplexi- \nties. Nothing short of a perpetual miracle could \nprevent the misunderstanding of the Scriptures, in \nmany cases, by modern expositors,, however clearly \nthey might have been understood by those to whom \nthey were originally addressed. \n\nWe should seek to harmonize these apparent con- \ntradictions of the Scriptures, not by denying their \ninspiration, or that of any portion of them ; but by \nsubjecting them to a fair and faithful application of \nthe laws of exegesis. These seeming inconsistencies \nusually vanish before candid investigation, as mist \nbefore the rising sun. If there be some which do not \nyield to exegetical laws and to our limited investiga- \ntions, it may be well for us to call to remembrance \nour own ignorance and liability to err. " We are but \nof yesterday, and know nothing." Certain it is that \nmany seemingly insurmountable obstacles in the \ninterpretation of the Scriptures have vanished be- \nfore patient investigation and increasing knowledge. \nWe mean to say that we should not infer from our \nignorance the fallibility of the Scriptures. The \nerror, to employ modern phraseology, may be sub- \njective and not objective. \n\nThe most plausible and prevalent objection to the \nentire inspiration of the Scriptures is based on the \n\n\n\nINSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. G3 \n\nMosaic account of the creation of the world. Sev- \neral things on the subject demand our attention. \nMoses was undoubtedly one of the greatest, if he \nwas not the greatest, of all the mere men who have \ndwelt on our planet. He was trained in the palace \nof Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the most learned of all \nthe early nations. He was instructed in all the arts \nand wisdom of that renowned people. He was the \nfounder and ruler of the most wonderful nation of \nthe earth. To him the world is more indebted for \nits civilization, laws and morality than to any other \nmere man. To this day he is exerting a moulding \ninfluence on all civilized peoples. His prophetic in- \nspiration cannot be disputed. He described 3,000 \nyears ago the present condition of the Jews, a most \nsingular people, with a precision that cannot be ex- \ncelled by any modern observer. When such a man, \nliving in the infancy of the world, with all the sources \nof historical and traditional information at command, \ngives an acoount of the origin of the world, it must, \napart from his claims to inspiration, be entitled to \nthe highest consideration. When that account pro- \nceeds from one who furnished the strongest proof \nof his inspiration, it should not be set aside without \nthe most conclusive evidence. \n\nThere are discrepancies between the popular in- \nterpretations of the Mosaic history and the theories \nof the earth\'s origin adopted by modern scientists. \nIt should be remembered, however, that science has \n\n\n\n64 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nbeen constantly changing its ground, and has not \nyet reached a permanent footing. It will be time \nenough when scientists attain to united and settled \nopinions, concerning the origin of the world 3 for \ntheologians to consider whether they are in harmony \nwith the teaching of Moses, or what change in the \ninterpretation of the Mosaic history is needed to \nconform it to the clear and established decisions of \nscience. We are friends of true science, and calmly \nawait its discoveries. It has been sarcastically \nasked whether the Mosaic history of creation has \nany settled meaning. We frankly confess that an \naccount so brief, relating to a subject so far beyond \nour experience and observation, and of which man- \nkind, and even the philosophers among them, are so \nprofoundly ignorant, is of very difficult and uncer- \ntain interpretation. Scientists, however, should re- \nmember that their theories of the origin of the \nworld have been quite as variable and unsatisfactory \nas have been expositions of the Mosaic history. \n\nNo portion of the Mosaic record is so frequently \nand confidently quoted to disprove its inspiration as \nthe account of the origin of man. According to \nthis record, man has not been an inhabitant of the \nearth more than 6,000 or 8,000 years. To this esti- \nmate we firmly cleave. Whether we consider the \nincrease of the race, the monuments of the past, or \nthe progress of arts and science within the historic \nperiod \xe2\x80\x94 some 3,300 years\xe2\x80\x94 we find not the slightest \n\n\n\nINSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 65 \n\nreason for giving to mankind an earlier origin. \nScientists generally assign to man an origin dating \nfrom 10,000 to many millions of years in the past. \nWe are not disturbed by such estimates. They cast \nno doubt on the inspiration of the Scriptures. Sup- \npose the bones and rude works of a biped resemb- \nling man may be found in the remote geological \nperiods ; there is not the slightest evidence, histori- \ncal, traditional or scientific, to connect the creature \nwith the Adamic race. Whether he was a rational \ncreature, or a moral agent, or more resembled man \nor a gorilla, science can give us no information. \n\xe2\x80\xa2That man \xe2\x80\x94 the intellectual, moral, religious, progres- \nsive being\xe2\x80\x94 has been an inhabitant of the earth only \na few thousand years, is a fact in harmony with the \nlaws of the increase of human population, and all \nthat can be gathered from history and tradition. \nRevelation relates to man, the present occupant of \nthe earth, and not to some being of remote antiquity, \nreal or imaginary. \n\nAnother objection to the full inspiration of the \nScriptures is derived from supposed misquotations \nor misunderstandings of the Old Testament by the \nwriters of the Xew. If they really misquoted or \nmisinterpreted the language of the Old Testament, \nthe fact would be decisive proof of their want of \nentire inspiration ; but we conclude that no such \nproof can be furnished. The full discussion of this \nsubject does not come within the range of our \n\n5 \n\n\n\nhb BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\narticle, or of a dozen such articles. It belongs ap- \npropriately to the department of scriptural exegesis ; \nand its thorough investigation might occupy a large \nvolume. We submit a few remarks on the subject. \nThe apostles and evangelists quoted from the \nSeptuagint translation of the Scriptures as well as \nfrom the Hebrew originals. Their quotations were \nnot made with verbal exactness, after the style of \nmodern quotations, but with great freedom, preserv- \ning the sense and modifying the phraseology of the \nScriptures according to their pleasure. Nothing is \nclearer than that many of the prophecies, even \nhistorical statements, of the Old Testament had a \ndouble meaning. They were literally fufilled or \nenacted in the days of the prophets; but they had \nanother and a higher accomplishment in later times. \nTake for an illustration of this statement, Hos. xi. 1 ; \n"I called my son out of Egypt." This is the state- \nment of a plain fact. God loved Israel and called \nhim out of Egyptian bondage. The statement was \nmore than a fact : it was a prophecy to be fulfilled \nin the life of Jesus. Joseph and Mary, the mother \nof Jesus, were providentially directed to go down \ninto Egypt "that it might be fulfilled which was \nspoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of \nEgypt have I called my son." Matt. ii. 15. We \nknow of no quotation from the Old Testament in the \nNew, in which the sense seems to be so clearly mis- \nunderstood ; and yet we cannot for a moment doubt \n\n\n\nINSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 0< \n\nthat the language of Hosea was designed by the \nHoly Ghost to have its fulfilment in the return of \nJesus from his exile in Egypt. In all other cases of \nlike character, it will be found, we judge, that the \nseeming misquotations from the Hebrew Scriptures \nby the writers of the New Testament, are interpreted \nby a higher inspiration than that possessed by their \nauthors. \n\nThe seeming contradictions between the inspired \nwriters vanish before enlightened investigation. \nTake a notable specimen of this class. Paul writes, 1 \nCor. x. 8 : " Neither let us commit fornication, as some \nof them (the Israelites) committed, and fell in one \nday three and twenty thousand." We turn to Num- \nbers xxv. 9, and read : " Those that died in the plague \nwere twenty and four thousand." Now, here is a \nseeming contradiction between Paul and Moses; but \nit is only seeming. It was not necessary for the \npurpose of Paul that he should state the exact num- \nber of the Israelites who perished in the wilderness. \nHe said there fell in one day three and twenty thou- \nsand. That is no contradiction of the statement of \nMoses that there died in the plague twenty and four \nthousand. Perhaps this number died in several days. \nTake another solution of the difficulty. Suppose the \nnumber who died was twenty-three thousand seven \nhundred and sixty-nine ; it would have been awkward \nand needless for Paul, under the guidance of the \nHoly Spirit, to mention the exact number. It was \n\n\n\n68 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nalso quite sufficient for Moses to state the number at \n(about) twenty-four thousand, as such round numbers \nare usually understood. This seeming inaccuracy \nof the inspired writers affords no proof of their lia- \nbility to error and mistakes. \n\nPaul says : " I thank God that I baptized none of \nyou, but Crispus and Gaius ; lest any should say I \nbaptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the \nhousehold of Stephanas ; besides I know not whether \nI baptized any other." 1 Cor. i. 14, 16. This passage \nis supposed to furnish evidence that the inspiration \nof Paul did not preserve him from errors of mem- \nory. We think the conclusion illogical. The Scrip- \ntures do not teach that inspired men knew or \nremembered everything, but that they were so \ntaught and their memories were so refreshed, that \nthey uttered and recorded only what was true. \nThey exercised their own understandings and mem- \nories; but were so superintended and guided in \ntheir exercise as to be free from mistakes. This lan- \nguage of Paul confirms rather than refutes this view. \nHe made no mistake. He reported what was true, \nand only what was true. He baptized Crispus, Gaius \nand the household of Stephanas ; and it was not \nnecessary for his purpose that he should remember \nwhether he had baptized any others. Had it been, \nwe may be quite sure that the Holy Spirit would have \nbrought them to his remembrance. John xiv. 26. \n\nOn the whole, the more carefully the Scriptures \n\n\n\nINSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 69 \n\nare examined, the more obviously their entire inspi- \nration appears. It is really wonderful to notice how, \namid the conflicting systems of science, philosophy \nand politics, the inspired writers steered their course, \nwithout falling into errors, which would have dis- \ncredited their inspiration. Such, for example, as \nabound in all the systems of heathen mythology. Let \nus, then, reverently receive the Scriptures as an au- \nthentic and perfect revelation from God, interpret \nthem by the laws which common sense and careful \nstudy supply, and live according to their directions, \nand we shall not fail to secure a blessed immortality. \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCKIPTUBAL. \n\n\n\nBY REV. WM. CATHCART, D.D., PHILADELPHIA, PA. \n\n\n\n"Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none \neffect by your tradition. Matt. xv. 6. \n\nThe baptism of the New Testament must be ad- \nministered in the name of the Trinity, and in this \nrespect it stands alone ; no other act of obedience \nmust be performed in the name of the Father, and \nof the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The Trinity took \npart in the baptism of Christ : the Saviour entered the \nJordan, the Spirit descended upon Him in the form \nof a dove, and the Father, through the parted heav- \nens, said : " This is my beloved Son in whom I well \npleased." Baptism is the most important duty a be- \nliever can perform; the Trinity has invested it with \nthe weightiest sanctions ; and it should receive the \nreverential obedience of the Saviour\'s earthly family. \nAnything which has for its object to pervert the \nbaptismal institution is a grievous affront to Jesus, \nand a great wrong to His people. The nullification \nof a gospel law aims a rebellious blow at the divine \nFounder of Christianity ; and as He cannot appoint \nanything useless, the removal of a gospel ordinance \nis a calamity. The Saviour looks in sorrow upon the \n\n\n\n\nSECOND BAPTIST CHURCH, PHILADELPHIA. \n\nKEV. VTM. CATHCAKT, D. D., PASTOF. \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL. 71 \n\nsprinkling of unconscious babes, and he feels about \nthose who receive and practice it, as he regarded \nthe persons about whom the text was uttered: Thus \nhave ye made the commandment of God of no effect \nby your tradition. \n\nWhen the Saviour arose from the dead He was \ninvested with the dominion of the Trinity over all \nworlds, and this special sovereignty He shall retain \nuntil His elect are all saved in their souls and bod- \nies; then the royal dignity bestowed immediately \nafter His resurrection shall be delivered to the First \nPerson of the Trinity, and Father, Son, and Spirit \nshall resume their eternal and equal empire over the \nuniverse. In Matt, xxviii. 18, 19, 20, the Saviour \nsays, "All power (authority) is given unto me in \nheaven and in earth ; go ye, therefore, and teach all \nnations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, \nand of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching \nthem to observe all things whatsoever I have com- \nmanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even \nunto the end of the world." This is the Saviour\'s \ninaugural address as He enters upon His revived \nlife, His new and exclusive sovereignty over the \nworlds. He never issued such an address before. \nThe authority He claims is not divine omnipotence, \xe2\x80\x94 \nthat He always had, and every other attribute of \nGod, \xe2\x80\x94 but the sole monarchy of all worlds ; and He \nnever commanded His disciples to teach all nations ; \nprevious to His death, His mission and the toils of \n\n\n\n72 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nHis servants were restricted to the lost sheep of the \nhouse of Israel. \n\nThe instruction to be imparted to the nations is \nabout the gospel and its facts, doctrines and pre- \ncepts; the death, resurrection, intercession, right- \neousness, and commandments of Christ. These les- \nsons are not for the unconscious infants of all na- \ntions; they would be incomprehensible to them. \nWhen it is said " The Germans are a nation of sol- \ndiers," the statement is understood at once, and no \none dreams that women and children have been \ndrilled and armed by the first military nation in the \nworld. The verb to "teach" is- "to make disciples," \nand the command of the Saviour is to baptize them, \nnot the nations, but the disciples ; the word trans- \nlated "them" in the Greek text, is in the masculine \ngender, and the word rendered " nations " in the \nneuter. There is to be no baptism before instruc- \ntion, unless we have a new revelation from heaven \nshowing that the Saviour was mistaken when He \ncommanded His apostles first to teach and then to \nbaptize. After the ambassadors of Christ have made \ndisciples and baptized them, they are then to teach \nthem to observe all things whatsoever He has com- \nmanded. This commission has nothing to do with \nunconscious infants, and as it is the only authority \nfor the practice of baptism in the Christian Church, \nthere is no pretence for the existence of infant bap- \ntism by divine appointment. The form of the com- \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL. 73 \n\nmission given by Mark \xe2\x80\x94 " Go ye into all the world, \nand preach the gospel to every creature ; but he that \nbelieveth and is baptized shall be saved ; he that be- \nheveth not shall be damned." \xe2\x80\x94 xvi. 15, 16, shows faith \nto be a prerequisite to baptism. Why faith should pre- \ncede baptism in the Saviour\'s words, unless it should \nexist in the disciple\'s heart before the baptism, we \ncannot tell. Unless He meant to mislead His apostles \nand the whole saved family on earth, faith is indis- \npensable to gospel baptism. The two forms of the \ncommission are agreed in leaving no lurking place \nfor infant baptism. And the commission is in strict \naccordance with the Baptist usages of His disciples \nwhile the Saviour walked with them in this world. \nJohn says, " When the Lord knew how the Phari- \nsees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more dis- \nciples than John; though Jesus himself baptized \nnot, but his disciples, he left Judea and departed \nagain into Galilee." Chap. iv. 1, 2, 3. Here the steps \nof entrance into the kingdom are clearly marked; \nthe first thing is to be "made a disciple," and \nthe next is to be baptized. Infinite wisdom could \nnot point out more clearly the qualifications for the \nsubjects of baptism. \n\nWhen the day of Pentecost was fully come, an im- \nmense multitude of people gathered around Peter \nand the other apostles, and Peter preached to them. \nThe throng was composed of Jews, many of whom \nhad come from distant countries; there were among \n\n\n\n74 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthem those who " with wicked hands had crucified \nand slain" Jesus; and as the memorable discourse \nwas delivered, the Holy Spirit applied it with great \npower to the hearts of the multitude, and they re- \nceived new hearts, leading them to lament their sins \nand to cry out, " Men and brethren, what shall we \ndo ? Then Peter said unto them, 4 Eepent and be \nbaptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus \nChrist for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive \nthe gift of the Holy Spirit; for the promise is unto \nyou and to your children, and to all that are afar off r \neven as many as the Lord our God shall call.\' Then \nthey that gladly received his word were baptized; \nand the same day there were added unto them about \nthree thousand souls." Acts ii. 37-41. This was the \nfirst baptism after the descent of the Spirit. It is a \nkey to the Comforter\'s interpretation of the Saviour\'s \ngreat commission, as he directed the proceedings of \nthe inspired apostles. The subjects of the baptism \nhad aided in the Saviour\'s death ; their grief of \nheart made them utter despairing cries ; they gladly \nreceived Peter\'s word about Christ\'s glorious gospel, \nand after that they were baptized ; they were disci- \nples who believed on Jesus as the commission re- \nquired. And though there were three thousand of \nthem, with unconscious infants in their families in \nmany cases, no doubt, yet all the baptized " received \nPeter\'s word gladly," and without this discipleship \nof the heart they could not have been buried with \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL. 75 \n\nChrist by immersion. When Peter says, u The pro- \nmise is unto you and to your children, and to all that \nare afar off, even so many as the Lord our God shall \ncalif 7 he means that remission of sins and the Holy \nSpirit will be given to the children of those whom \nhe addressed, and to others in distant places whom \n11 God should call n to repentance and faith in Jesus. \nThe call of God to repentance was never given to an \nunconscious infant ; it is only given to such " chil- \ndren" Of Israel, or of the Gentiles, as have reached \nresponsible years. \n\nWhen Philip went down and preached in Samaria r \n"they believed Philip preaching the things concern- \ning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus \nChrist, and they were baptized, both men and wom- \nen." Acts viii. 12. Here the persons baptized had \nbecome disciples by putting their trust in Jesus ; and \npersons of both sexes recieved the sacred rite. \nWhen Clovis, the first king of the Franks, was bap- \ntized, Hincmar, archbishop of Eheims, says, " More- \nover from his army three thousand men were bap- \ntized, without counting women and children ; " the \nchildren recieved the same trine immersion as the \nmen and women, and the historian of the event does \nnot forget them. Kor is there any reason to suppose \nthat Luke would have neglected the children, if \nPhilip had baptized them, since he particularizes the \ncandidates as men and women. \n\nSimon the sorcerer pretended to believe, and as \n\n\n\n76 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nan apparent believer he was baptized at the same \ntime and place. \n\nThe eunuch was baptized after he professed faith \nin Jesus, even though the verse be given up as an \ninterpolation, "And Philip said, If thou believest \nwith all thine heart thou may est" etc. The African \nroyal treasurer solicited baptism, and after receiving \nit, " went on his way rejoicing," as a forgiven disciple \nof Christ. \n\nWhen Paul was smitten down by the lightning and \nconvicted by the Spirit of God, he speedily put his \ntrust in the Saviour of whom he had heard much, \nand felt himself ready for any service demanded by \nthe divine Eedeemer. Ananias, commissioned by \nJehovah, commanded him to "arise and be baptized \nand wash away his sins calling on the name of the \nLord." Acts xxii. 16. Paul\'s theology had faith as \nits mainspring : "lam not ashamed of the gospel of \nChrist, for it is the power of God unto salvation to \nevery one that believeth." Eom. i. 16. According to \nPaul, faith grasped Christ, justified the soul before \nGod, gave it peace, and washed out every one of its \nsins. Baptism in a figure washed out the believer\'s \nsins, and consequently it only belonged to him, who \nhad put his trust in Jesus. The baptism adminis- \ntered to Paul is a testimony that he professed saving \nfaith in Jesus ; it was believer\'s baptism. \n\nThe household baptisms are regarded by some as \nstrongholds of infant sprinkling. The family of Cor- \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL. 77 \n\nnelius,the Romau centurion, is the first of these bap- \ntisms. Luke describes this soldier as a " devout man \nand one that feared God with all his house ; " and of \nthose under his roof, he says, " They of the circum- \ncision who believed were astonished, as many as \ncame with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also \nwas poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit; for they \nheard them speak with tongues and magnify God. \nThen answered Peter, \' Can any man forbid water r \nthat these should not be baptized, who have received \nthe Holy Spirit as well as we!\'" Acts x. 45-6-7. \nIf the household of Cornelius was baptized along \nwith himself and "his kinsmen and near friends,\' 7 \nthe household feared God, for Luke says that Cor- \nnelius was a devout man who feared God "with all \nMs house." And the people who were baptized re- \nceived the Holy Spirit, during Peter\'s sermon, and \nthe gift of speaking in strange tongues; and they \nmagnified God. These persons could not be uncon- \nscious infants ; they were true believers. Lydia, a \nJewess of Thyatira, was at Philippi, and going out of \nthe city to worship on the Jewish Sabbath, with her \ncountrymen by the river side, her heart was opened \nby the Lord "that she attended unto the things \nwhich were spoken of by Paul." And "she was \nbaptized and her household," evidently in the river. \nActs xvi. 13, 14, 15. From the account given by Luke, \nLydia herself had a new heart, and nothing what- \never is said about her household. To prove that \n\n\n\n78 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nan unconscious infant was in it is impossible, and \nconsequently no evidence for the baptism of such \npersons can be obtained from her record. It is ex- \ntremely probable that she was at the head of her \nfamily, and that it consisted of adults who aided in \nher business. The jailer at Philippi was roused at \nmidnight by an earthquake ; and at first he was bent \non killing himself, but the Spirit of God through the \nvoice of Paul arrested him, and soon, as Paul and \nSilas " spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to \nall that were in his house, he and they believed; \nand he took them the same hour of the night, and \nwashed their stripes, and he was baptized, he and \nall his, straightway; and when he had brought \nthem into his house, he set meat before them, and \nrejoiced, believing in God with all his house." Acts \nxvi. 32, 33, 34. There is nothing to show that \nthere was an unconscious infant in this household; \nthe two saintly prisoners " spake the word of the \nLord to him and to all that were in his house 71 ; \nand he "rejoiced, believing in God with all his \nhouse"; and the conclusion is very natural that \ninfant baptism can find no favorable testimony here. \nIt is said of Crispus that " he believed on the Lord \nwith all his house, and many of the Corinthians, hear- \ning, believed, and were baptized." Acts xviii. 8. It \nis very naturally judged that Crispus and his house- \nhold were baptized with the other Corinthian con- \nverts ; and if the father and his family were immersed, \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTUBAIi. 1 1) \n\nit is said that "lie believed on the Lord with all his \nhouse. 77 Here again there is nothing to favor the \nbaptism of unconscious infants. The household \nof Stephanas was baptized by Paul, and he says of \nthem : " Ye know the house of Steplanas that it is the \nfirst fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted \nthemselves to the ministry of the saints." 1 Cor. xvi. \n15. Here again there could be no baptized uncon- \nscious babe addicting itself to the ministry of the \nsaints. There is no evidence in any one of these \nhouseholds which gives the slightest support to infant \nbaptism; there is none in the commission; and as \nthat practice needs a solid foundation, we are sur- \nprised to discover that it is built on a baseless sup- \nposition. \n\nIf we had positive evidence that there was an \ninfant in every one of the households, we would \nknow from the commission that it was not bap- \ntized. And even the words " whole family," or \n"household" are often used svith a limitation that \nwould justify such a conviction. A resident of \nGloucester, Massachusetts, has several sons and \nsome very young daughters, and the sons are all en- \ngaged with himself in fishing, and the neighbors freely \ntell you that the whole family are employed in fishing. \nEvery one who hears the statement understands in a \nmoment that the mother and little children are ex- \ncepted. This use of the word household, or family, \nis common to all languages, and it occurs frequently \n\n\n\n80 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nin the Old Testament and in the New. Paul, in his \nepistle to Titus i. 11., speaking of the qualifications \nof a bishop, and warning him of certain vain talkers \nand deceivers, says, u whose mouths must be stopped, \nwho subvert whole houses (families ), teaching things \nwhich they ought not, for filthy lucre\'s sake." The \nword translated houses is the plural of the word \nused to describe the "household" of Lydia, and the \n" house " of the jailer. It is beyond a doubt that \nunconscious infants were not in the mind of the \ninspired writer when he put Titus on his guard about \ndeceitful talkers, whose tongues carried away whole \nhouses from the simplicity of the gospel of Christ. \nThere may have been infants in them, but the nature \nof Paul\'s advice showed that he did not include \nthem at that time in the " houses." And so in the \nbaptized households there may have been no chil- \ndren, or there may have been little ones, \xe2\x80\x94 we can \nonly entertain a supposition about it. The baptism \nof Christ required faith, and as Peter and Paul were \nfilled with inspiration and fidelity when they baptized \nthe households, it is absolutely certain that they bap- \ntized none but professed believers. \n\nIn Acts xix. 1-7, we have an account of twelve \nmen whom John baptized, and it is supposed by \nmany that Paul baptized them over again. Paul \nsaid to these men, "Have ye received the Holy \nGhost since ye believed? And they said unto \nhim \' We have not so much as heard whether there \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL. 81 \n\nbe any Holy Ghost.\' And he said, Unto what \nthen were ye baptized ? And they said, l Unto \nJohn\'s baptism.\' Then said Paul, John verily bap- \ntized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto \nthe people, that they should believe on him who \nshould come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." \nThen John baptized in the name of Jesus just as \nwe do. And dropping "this" in the fifth verse, \nwhich is not in the Greek, and supplying " that " \nwe have the true meaning : " And when they heard \nthat, they were baptized in the name of the Lord \nJesus (in John\'s baptism) and when Paul laid his \nhands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them and \nthey spake with tongues and prophesied." Paul did \nnot baptize these men, \xe2\x80\x94 he only put his hands upon \nthem, and then the Spirit\'s power to work miracles \ncame upon them, the regenerating might of the \nSpirit having changed their hearts before. But \nthese were men; no child was with one of them, and \ntwelve men, too. Likely enough some of them had \nchildren. This baptism should have been noticed in \nthe next list, but that Paul is thought by many to \nhave rebaptized the twelve. \n\nJohn\'s Baptisms. \xe2\x80\x94 We entirely concur in the opin- \nion of Calvin about John\'s baptism. He says : " The \nministry of John was precisely the same as that \nwhich was afterwards committed to the apostles ; \nfor their baptism was not different, though it was \n\n\n\n82 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nadministered by different hands ; but the sameness \nof their doctrine shows their baptism to have been \nthe same ; both baptized to repentance ; both to re- \nmission of sins ; both baptized in the name of Christ, \nfrom whom repentance and remission of sins pro- \nceed. John said of Christ: i Behold the Lamb of \nGod which taketh away the sin of the world/ thus \nacknowledging and declaring Him to be the sacrifice, \nacceptable to the Father, the procurer of righteous- \nness, and the author of salvation. What could the \napostles add to this confession ! Wherefore, let no \none be disturbed by the attempts of the ancient \nwriters to distinguish and separate one baptism from \nthe other." Calvin\'s Institutes, II. lib. iv., cap. 15, \nsee. 7. Matthew tells us that " there went out to John \nJerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round \nabout Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, \nconfessing their sins. ,,, iii. 5, 6. The parties whom \nJohn baptized were old enough to have committed \nsins, and to make confession of them. Mark i. 4, 5, \nstates that "John did baptize in the wilderness, and \npreach the baptism of repentance for the remission of \n$ins ; and there went out unto him all the land of \nJudea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized \n\xc2\xa9f him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." \nSimilar descriptions of John\'s baptism are elsewhere \nfound in the New Testament, but they all speak the \nsame language ; it was a baptism of repentance for \nthe remission of sins, in which the baptized confessed \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL. 83 \n\ntheir sins. Of this baptism no infant could be the \nsubject, and there is absolutely nothing in the New \nTestament which permits the most shadowy infer- \nence that any unconscious child ever received it. \n\nAllusions to Baptisms in the Xew Testament. \xe2\x80\x94 Paul \nsays, in Eomans vi. 4, "Therefore we are buried \nwith Christ by baptism into death, that like as Christ \nwas raised up from the dead by the glory of the \nfather, even so we also should walk in newness of \nlife." Here the subjects of baptism are represented \nas dead and buried with Christ, and as rising up to \nlead a holy life; they have newness of life which no \nunconscious infant ever had. In I. Cor., xii. 13, we \nread. " For by one spirit we are all baptized into one \nbody, whether we are Jews or Greeks, whether we \nbe bond or free, and have been all made to drink \ninto one spirit." Here the apostle teaches that all \nwho are the proper subjects of baptism are led to \nobserve the holy ordinance by the divine Spirit, and \nthrough the same rite they become members of \nChrist\'s body; and they are made to drink in one \nspirit ; that is, they become sharers in the graces of \nthe great Comforter. These statements are only \ntrue of believers. In I. Cor. xv. 29, Paul asks : \n" Else what shall they do who are baptized for the \ndead if the dead rise not at all ? Why are they then \nbaptized for the dead V 9 The apostle\'s idea is that by \nbaptism as a figure of death, burial, and resurrec- \n\n\n\n84 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ntion, men profess their faith in the resurrection of \nthe dead. This restricts baptism to those who have \nbeen made disciples. In Gal. iii. 26, 27, it is written : \n"For ye are all the children of God by faith in \nChrist Jesus ; for as many of you as have been bap- \ntized into Christ, have put on Christ." Here the \nbelieving children of God are spoken of, who have \nput on Christ before the world. In Colossians ii. \n11, 12, Paul says: " In whom, also, ye are circumcised \nwith the circumcision made without hands, in put- \nting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the \ncircumcision of Christ ; buried with him in baptism, \nwherein also ye are risen with him, through the \nfaith of the operation of God, who hath raised him \nfrom the dead." In these verses the apostle repre- \nsents circumcision as a figure of the work of Christ \non the heart, in which his spirit removes the body \nof the sins of the flesh. Our circumcision now is \nnot baptism, it is administered with hands, but it is a \nnew heart given without human effort by the Spirit \nof Jesus. By baptism, which has no connection \nwith circumcision, men rise with Christ through the \nfaith of the operation of God, and their baptism is \nthe immersion of believers. Peter, in his first epis- \ntle, iii. 21, says : " The like figure (the ark of Noah) \nwhereunto even baptism doth also now save us, not \nthe putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the \nanswer of a good conscience toward God, by the resur- \nrection of Jesus Christ." The answer of a good \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL. 85 \n\nconscience shows that Peter\'s baptism was not for \ninfants, who feel neither the pangs nor praises of \nconscience, nor for ungodly adults, but for faithful \nbelievers who have their hearts sprinkled from an \nevil conscience. \n\nSupposed Allusions to Baptism. \xe2\x80\x94 M Except a man be \nborn of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into \nthe kingdom of God." ^Tine-tenths of the Christian \nfamily, living and dead, have applied these words of \nJesus to baptism, the work of the Spirit in the \nheart, and the earthly church. The birth of water \nis the baptismal emersion, and the birth of the Spirit \nis the second birth produced by the Comforter \nthrough the truth ; and the subject of both births is \nnot an unconscious infant, but a person capable of \nunderstanding the truth, and of being "reproved of \nsin " by the Holy Spirit. Paul is supposed to refer \nto baptism in I. Cor. vi. 11, when he says : " And \nsuch were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye \nare sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the \nLord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." If the \nwashing of which Paul speaks was baptism, the sub- \njects of this baptism, in some cases, had been very \nwicked men, as we learn in the ninth and tenth \nverses, and were now sanctified, and justified, and, \nconsequently, intelligent believers. Paul is sup- \nposed to speak of baptism in Ephesians v. 25, 20. 27, \nwhere he savs : "Even as Christ also loved the \n\n\n\n86 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nChurch and gave himself for it, that he might \nsanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by \nthe word, that he might present it to himself a \nglorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any \nsuch thing." If this washing is water baptism, it \nmeans that the solemn vows, made in baptism, under \nthe guidance* of God\'s word, to die to sin and to \nrise up to holiness of life, are largely instrumental \nin the sanctification of men. But nothing is ex- \npressed which in the remotest degree refers to in- \nfant baptism. In Hebrews x. 21, 22, Paul is supposed \nto speak of baptism when he says : " Having a high \npriest over the house of God, let us draw near with \na true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our \nhearts sprinkled from an evil conscience (by Christ\'s \nblood), and our bodies washed with pure water (of \nbaptism). If this washing is baptism, those who en- \njoyed it were fit persons from their intelligence and \npiety for an apostle to exhort to draw near to God \nand to hold fast the profession of their faith without \nwavering. The persons described cannot be in- \nfants. \n\n. Reasons from Scripture for Infant Baptism, resting \nupon portions of the Word which make no allusion to it. \n\xe2\x80\x94 It is strange that the most potent arguments for \ninfant baptism come from statements of the Sacred \nBook which make no allusion to it ; and of the force \nof these reasons I judge, not from anything in them, \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL. 87 \n\nbut from the frequency and confidence with which \nmen have presented them. Augustine of Hippo, \nabout fifteen hundred years since, lent all the weight \nof his great name and extraordinary talents to \nestablish infant baptism. He was not its father, but \nit owes more, a thousand fold, to him for its exten- \nsion than to smy other mortal. He launches forth \nthe now familiar argument, " Infant baptism instead \nof circumcision,\' 7 with great confidence. This old \nweapon has done immense service in the ranks of \nTraditionists. It is based, of course, upon the \nScriptures. But what Scripture makes the declara- \ntion ? Not one. If it were said that the praises of \nthe glorified took the place of Jewish circumcision it \nwould be no more absurd. Circumcision repre- \nsented the cutting away of the guilty passions of the \nheart of a believer; it has no reference whatever to \nChristian baptism. If a million dollars were offered \nto the bishop of Hippo, or to any of the great cap- \ntains of the church militant who have seized his \nrusty old sword, for a text of Scripture stating that \ninfant baptism had taken the place of circumcision, \nor for a legitimate inference from any portion of the \nWord of God justifying such a doctrine, the reward \nwould never be given by impartial adjudicators. \nJohn the Baptist administered his immersion to mul- \ntitudes of circumcised Jews ; Jesus had both rites; \nthree thousand Israelites, who had the seal of the \nAbrahamic covenant, were baptized on the day of \n\n\n\n88 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nPentecost. Paul, like his Master, was both circum- \ncised and baptized. This was the law of baptism. \nIt recognized no relations with circumcision. If it \nhad come instead of circumcision the new rite would \nhave been for the uncircurncised, and never for those \nwho had the old rite, whose place it was supposed \nto take in all coming time. But until the substitu- \ntion is proved, and fifteen hundred years have failed \nto establish it, I take stronger ground than Dr. Hal- \nley, a celebrated and very able English defender of \ninfant baptism, who says, " The general opinion, that \nbaptism is substituted for circumcision, as a kind of \nhereditary seal of the covenant of grace, appears to \nbe ill-sustained by Scriptural evidence, and to be \nexposed to some very serious, if not absolutely fatal, \nobjections ;" and again, " I have, and I ought to con- \nfess it candidly, some serious objections to the \nacknowledgment of baptism as the substitute for \ncircumcision." The Sacraments, pp. 34, 47, London, \n1855. These are the utterances of one of the fore- \nmost enemies, in talent and fervor, of believer\'s \nimmerson, that ever lived, and as he stands alone \namong his brethren, he speaks with unusual mod- \nesty. I take more decided ground than this distin- \nguished writer, and I affirm that a more baseless \nassertion never was made on earth than the declara- \ntion that baptism came instead of circumcision. \n\nIn Matthew xix. 13, 14, 15, we find another Scrip- \nture often used to sustain infant baptism. It is there \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL. 89 \n\nwritten, "There were then brought unto him little \nchildren that he should put his hands on them and \npray; and the disciples rebuked them; but Jesus \nsaid, c Suffer little children and forbid them not to \ncome unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven 7 ; \nand he laid his hands on them." The advocates of \ninfant baptism regard the Saviour\'s kindness to the \nchildren, and his saying " of such is the kingdom of \nheaven" as unquestionable testimonies that little \nchildren should be baptized. It is worthy of notice \nthat the Saviour does not say of the little children, \n" Of them is the kingdom of heaven." If He had, the \ndoom of the adult unsaved world would have been \nsealed ; only children could have entered the king- \ndom of heaven. The meaning of the Saviour\'s dec- \nlaration can be easily seen by comparing it with his \nstatement in Matthew xviii. 3, 4, " Verily I say unto \nyou, except ye be converted, and become as little \nchildren, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of \nheaven. Whosoever, therefore, shall humble him- \nself as this little child [there was a child in the midst \nof them] the same is greatest in the kingdom of \nheaven." What is needed to enter the Saviour\'s \nkingdom is not the weeks or the years of a little \nchild, not its age, but its lowliness; in distrusting \nitself and in trusting a dear mother ; in feeling that \nit is not strong, and in keeping near its loving pro- \ntector; and in being speedily grieved by its own \nfaults, and seeking forgiveness. This is exactly the \n\n\n\n90 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nSaviour\'s thought when He says, "of such is the \nkingdom of heaven," not of them, but of those like \nthem in humility, of such persons as children in their \nbest qualities, Jerome, in the fourth century, beau- \ntifully expresses the Saviour\'s meaning, in his com- \nmentary on his own Vulgate, at Matt. xix. 14, " Sig- \nnificantly," the monk writes, " Jesus said, of such, not \nof them, to show that not age, but morals should rule, \nand that to those who had similar innocence and sim- \nplicity a reward was promised." This is the Saviour\'s \nidea exactly. The promise is not to children, but to \nsuch as children \xe2\x80\x94 those who have the innocence, \nsimplicity, and confiding faith of children \xe2\x80\x94 and con- \nsequently, it has nothing to do with infant baptism, \nor with adult immersion. The Saviour does not say, \n" can any man forbid water that these dear children \nshould not be baptized?" "They brought them to \nhim that he should put his hands on them and \npray," "and he laid his hands on them, and departed \nthence ; " and he neither baptized them, nor repre- \nsented them as subjects of baptism. He blessed \nthem as near relatives, distinguished servants of \nGod, and aged persons, have been accustomed to \ndo in all countries. And one would think, from the \nideas of our Pedobaptist brethren, that His disciples \nwould instantly have recognized the propriety of \ngiving the little children the new supposed seal \nof the covenant by plunging them in water; but \nthey knew nothing of the baptism of children, Jews \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM TJNSCRIPTURAL. 91 \n\nthough all of them were; and they rebuked the \nparents for bringing them to Jesus, and only per- \nmitted them to approach Him, when He said, " Suffer \nlittle children, and forbid them not to come unto me." \nNothing in this record favors infant baptism. \n\nIn I. Cor. vii. 12, 13, 14, there is another Scripture \nfrequently used to defend the baptism of children. \nIt reads, " If any brother hath a wife that believeth \nnot (an idolatress probably, or it might be a Jewess), \nand she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put \nher away. And the woman who hath a husband that \nbelieveth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, \nlet her not leave him; for the unbelieving husband \nis sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is \nsanctified by the husband ; else were your children \nunclean but now are they holy." It is argued that \nsince the children are holy, therefore, they ought to \nbe baptized. The holiness of the unbelieving wife \nand husband of which Paul speaks is a very curious \nquality: both parties probably served idols at Cor- \ninth; both parties certainly rejected Jesus, and yet \nthe unbelieving husband and wife were " sanctified," \nmade holy, by their companions. This was the legal \nholiness of the Jews of which Paul was speaking. \nIn Acts x. 28, Peter says, " Ye know how that it is an \nunlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep com- \npany, or come unto one of another nation ; but God \nhath showed me that I should not call any man com- \nmon or unclean." This doctine applied to married \n\n\n\n92 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nrelationships with more stringency than to any kind \nof intercourse between Jews and idolaters. The \napostle, to prevent this custom from separating hus- \nbands and wives, writes that, where either compan- \nion is a Christian united to an unbeliever, there shall \nbe no divorce on that account, that the union is holy, \nthat is, lawful, and so are the children. Some com- \nmentators state that the Hebrew equivalent of the \nGreek word, rendered holy, was used to designate a \nlawful marriage among the Jews, and that the sanc- \ntification of the husband simply means that his mar- \nriage was legal ; and so with the sanctification of the \nwife, and hence the children were holy or legal. \nAnd if they separated, it would be stripping their \nwedded relations of legal sanctions, and their chil- \ndren of a virtuous birth. That the holiness of such \nchildren is not from regeneration\'s unquestionable, \nfor the adjective describing it is from the same word \nas the verb which sanctifies the unbelieving husband \nand wife, and leaves them unholy in heart still. If \nthe holiness of children entitles them to baptism, it \ngives an equal claim to that holy ordinance to the \nidol-worshipping ivife of a godly husband, or to the \nJewish Christ-rejecting husband of a saintly wife. A \nmore preposterous claim to baptism was never urged \nby reasonable men than the supposed title of these \nchildren. The apostle\'s subject is not baptism for \neither infants or adults, but the enduring character \nof marriage ties between believers and unbelievers, \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL. 93 \n\nand the good name of the children of such mar- \nriages. \n\nPaul writes, "There is one body, and one spirit, \neven as ye are called in one hope of your calling : \none Lord, one faith, one baptism," Eph. iv. 4, 5 \nThis one baptism is the believer\'s ; there is no other \nin the Saviour\'s commission, nor in any of the bap- \ntisms recorded in the New Testament. Neither \ncould there be another, unless the spirit of inspira- \ntion was mistaken when he prompted Paul to write, \n" One Lord, one faith, one baptism." Even the \nstern Eeformer of Geneva, one of the greatest ene- \nmies the Anabaptists ever had, is compelled to admit \nthat there is no record of infant baptism among the \nactions of the apostles. His words are, " Nor is \nthere much plausibility in the objection that it is \nnowhere stated that even a single infant was bap- \ntized by the hands of the apostles. For though no \nsuch circumstance is expressly mentioned by the evan- \ngelist, yet on the other hand, as they are never exclu- \nded, when mention happens to be made of the bap- \ntism of any family, who can rationally conclude from \nthis, that they were not baptized?" Calvin admits \nthat Luke, the evangelist, who wrote the book of Acts, \ndoes not expressly mention such a tiling. There was \nno need to exclude the children where a family bap- \ntism was recorded, nor their playthings, for apostolic \nbaptism, like the commission, was believer\'s immer- \nsion. There is not in the Sacred Volume a single \n\n\n\n94 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nleaf, or the smallest part of a leaf, under which the \nbaptism of an unconscious infant can huddle, unless \nit can find shelter under that saying of Peter, in his \nfirst Epistle, ii. 13, " Submit yourselves to every ordi- \nnance of man for the Lord\'s sake.\' 7 \n\nThis is the Testimony of the First Two Centuries of \nChristianity. Our brethren have hailed the state- \nment of Dean Stanley with great admiration, which \ncan be found in The Nineteenth Century for October, \n1879, p. 39. " In the Apostolic Age, and in the three \ncenturies which followed, it is evident that, as a gen- \neral rule, those who came to baptism came in full age ; \nwe find a few cases of the baptism of children ; in \nthe third century we find one case of the baptism \nof infants." The Dean here makes a distinction \nbetween children and infants. And in the third cen- \ntury he first finds infant baptism. The Dean of West- \nminster is strictly correct \xe2\x80\x94 there is not a single in- \nstance of the baptism of an unconscious infant in the \nfirst two centuries. The Christian literature of that \nperiod has been searched by men whose scholarship \nand patristic information far surpass those of Dean \nStanley, and they have never pretended that these \ncenturies furnish any evidence of infant baptism. \nIf Tertullian\'s tract, De Baptismo, was written four \nor five years before the end of the second century, \nwe have evidence that the baptism of children, not \ninfants, was discussed for the first time in Christian \nliterature, and denounced by Tertullian in his ortho- \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL. 95 \n\ndox days. We feel no special gratitude to Dean \nStanley for his "concession." He could not have \ndone otherwise with the facts before him, if he made \nany statement on the subject. Baptism in the East \nwas first given to adults, then to youths, then to \nchildren of six or seven, and lastly, to unconscious \ninfants. Neander, vol. i. 311, Boston Ed., says: \n" Baptism, at first, was administered only to adults, \nas men were accustomed to conceive baptism and \nfaith as strictly connected. We have all reason for \nnot deriving infant baptism from apostolic institu- \ntion." During the first two Christian ages the mod- \nern substitute for the believer\'s baptism of Christ \nwas not in existence. The scholarly Bingham takes \ntwo men of remarkable learning, Salmasius and Sui- \ncerus, to task, for saying that " For the first two \nages, no one received baptism who was not first \ninstructed in the faith and doctrine of Christ, so as \nto be able to answer for himself that he believed, \nbecause of those words, \'He that believeth and is \nbaptized. \' " Book xi. chap. 4, sec. 5. And then he \nadduces several fathers who speak for the necessity \nof baptism, and he infers that they must have \nincluded infants in this needful baptism ; but he is \ncareful to perform no impossibility, by bringing for- \nward a case of infant baptism, or a positive account \nof the rite. \n\nTertullian says that "those who desire to dip them- \nselves holily in the water, must prepare themselves \n\n\n\n96 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nfor it by fastings, by watchings, by prayers, and by \nsincere repentance.\'\' Justin Martyr says, " As many \nas are persuaded and believe that the things which we \nteach and declare are true, and promise that they are \ndetermined to live accordingly, are taught to pray to \nGod, and to beseech Sim with fasting to grant them \nremission for their past sins, while we also pray and \nfast with them. We then lead them to a place where \nthere is water," &c, Patrologia Grseca, vol. vi. 240, \nMigne, Parisiis. These were the subjects of baptism \nin the second century, according to the two most \ndistinguished Christians of that period. The disci- \nples of the first two centuries were devotedly at- \ntached to the Scriptures, and lived near the days of \nthe apostles ; and, like our honored denomination, \nthey saw only the baptism of believer\'s immersion \nin the Word of God. \n\nThe Third and Fourth Centuries Knew Extremely \nLittle of Infant Baptism, Dean Stanley speaks of one \ncase in the third century. He refers, no doubt, to the \nCouncil of Carthage, held about A. D. 256. Fidus, an \nunknown country bishop, wrote to Cyprian, bishop of \nCarthage, to inquire at what period an infant might be \nbaptized. Fidus supposed that it might receive the \nrite as early as the eighth day, but he needed infor- \nmation on the novel question, and Cyprian, a lead- \ning bishop in Africa and among Christians every- \nwhere, was ignorant. A council of sixty-six bishops \ndecided the point, and decreed that one might be \n\n\n\ninfant baptism: unscriptural. 97 \n\nbaptized as soon as it was born. One of their rea- \nsons for the decision was that baptism took away the \nheavier sins of persons of years, and it could more \neasily remove the guilt of infants ; and another, that \nthe prophet, Elisha, placed his body upon the dead \nchild which lie restored, his mouth to its mouth, his \neyes to its eyes, and his hands to its hands, the spir- \nitual sense of which was, that infants are equal to \nmen, and consequently should have their baptism. \nThis is the first case of infant baptism in the records \nof Christianity. The ignorance of Fidus and Cyprian \nabout the laws of the rite, and the letter of the \nbishop, if it is genuine, show that infant baptism was \na novelty. The obscure council of Carthage, of \nA. D. 256, gave infant baptism no standing beyond \nthe ignorant Eoman colonists of North Africa. Nor \nhave we any reason to suppose that even among \nthem, either the authority of Cyprian\'s Council, or \nany other instrumentality, gave infant baptism pop- \nularity for a long period after the meeting of the \nsixty-sis bishops. The great Augustine, who was \nborn in A. D. 354, in North Africa, and whose \nmother, Monica, was an eminent Christian lady, was \nnot baptized till he was thirty-three years of age. \nHe received the ordinance from St. Ambrose, who \nwas not baptized until after his election to the See \nof Milan. There is no positive account of the bap- \ntism of unconscious infants in the third century, \nexcept the record preserved by Cyprian. Clemens \n\n7 \n\n\n\n98 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nAlexandrinus and Origen treat of the baptism of \nchildren, not infants. \n\nIn the fourth century, the greatest men in the \nChristian world reached adult years without baptism. \nWe have already named two of them, Augustine and \nAmbrose, and of the latter it is said that his family \nwere all Christians. In A. D. 381, Nectarius was \nelected archbishop of Constantinople, and though, \naccording to Sozomen, "he was of advanced age," \nand that it was by u the will of God that so mild and \nvirtuous and exemplary a man was elevated to the \npriesthood," he had not been baptized when chosen \nto the greatest ecclesiastical dignity in the world. \nGregory Nazianzen, who was born while his father \nwas bishop of Nazianzum, in Cappadocia, was bap- \ntized in his thirtieth year, and he was archbishop of \nthe great church of St. Sophia. The learned and \nillustrious John Chrysostom, whose parents were \nboth Christians, was baptized at twenty-eight, and \nhe lived to preside over the church of the chief city \nof the Christian world. Basil the Great, one of the \nmost distinguished prelates in Christendom, whose \nancestors were Christians for several generations, \nwas baptized in his twenty-eighth year, and he died \nA. D. 379. Jerome, the learned translator of the \nOld Testament, and reviser of the New, and the use- \nful commentator, was born of Christian parents \nA. D. 331, and about A. D. 366 he was baptized. \nThe emperor, Theodosius the Great, after subduing \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL. 00 \n\nenemies to his throne on the banks of the Danube, \nproceeded to Thessalonica, where he was baptized, \nA. D. 380, and Sozomen tells us that " his parents \nwere Christians, and they were attached to the Ni- \ncene doctrines." The bishops just noticed were not \nonly the leaders of the Christian world in their day, \nbut they stand unsurpassed in the ecclesiastical lit- \nerature of our times. \n\nThe baptism of the fourth century required the \ncandidates to be catechized before they received the \nordinance, and to profess faith in Jesus. Ambrose, \naddressing those about to be baptized, says, "Thou \nwast asked, \'Dost thou believe in God, the omnipo- \ntent Father, and thou saidst, \' I believe/ and thou \nwast immersed, that is, thou wast buried. Again, \nthou wast asked, \' Dost thou believe in our Lord \nJesus Christ and in His Cross 1 ? And thou saidst, \' I \nbelieve;\' and thou wast immersed, and therefore, \nthou wast buried with Christ. * * A third time, \nthou wast asked, \' Dost thou believe in the Holy \nSpirit V And thou saidst, \'I believe ;\' and a third \ntime thou wast immersed," Patrol. Lat. xvi. p. 448, \nMigne, Parisiis. With a variety of ceremonies and \nprofessions, the faith demanded by Ambrose was \nrequired everywhere at the baptisms of the fourth \ncentury. And masses of Christians were not bap- \ntized at all. They were waiting until death was not \nfar distant, that all their sins might be washed out \nat once. Xeander, speaking of this century, says, \n\n\n\n100 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\n"Infant baptism, though acknowledged to be neces- \nsary, yet entered so rarely and with so much diffi- \nculty into the church life during the first part of this \nperiod." " Hence many put off baptism until they \nwere reminded by mortal sickness, or some other \nsudden danger of approaching death. Hence it \nwas, that in times of public calamity, in earthquakes, \nin the dangers of war, multitudes hurried to baptism, \nand the numbers of the existing clergy scarcely sufficed \nfor the wants of all." Church History, ii. 319-20, Bos- \nton. The necessity, which in some cases was recog- \nnized, for the baptism of infants, was the new-born \ndelusion that baptism would wash out Adam\'s sin ; \nbut even in the limited number of cases where this \ndoctrine was accepted, it was only thought of in con- \nnection with the death of a child. \n\nThe clergy of the fourth century were continually \nappealing to their congregations to be baptized ; \nthey exhorted them, and entreated them, and showed \nthem the dangers of deferring so blessed a rite ; and \nthey felt a deep concern for multitudes of persons \nwhose parents never thought of baptizing them, and \nwho were not anxious to put on Christ by a public \nbaptism until they neared the end of life\'s journey. \nIt may be safely asserted that outside of North Af- \nrica the baptisms of unconscious infants in the fourth \ncentury were so few, that they scarcely deserve to \nbe named. What a commentary on the commission \nof Christ to his apostles ! \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL. 101 \n\nIn the very end of the fourth, and for thirty years \nin the fifth century, Augustine, bishop of Hippo, in \nNorth Africa, advocated infant baptism incessantly, \nand forged or furbished most of the weapons by \nwhich it is defended in our own times ; his great \nmind, burning zeal and boundless influence, carried \ninfant baptism over Christendom in the fifth century \n\xe2\x80\x94 but while it became common in that age, there is \nno reason to believe that it was generally observed ; \nand Dean Stanley is greatly mistaken in his declara- \ntion that " after the fifth century the whole Christ- \nian world * * have baptized children." \xe2\x80\x94 The Nine- \nteenth Century, p. 39, October, 1879. For centuries \nafter the fifth, the regular baptisms of the orthodox \nchurch in some of the great centres of the Christian \nworld were the baptisms of catechized persons who \nprofessed their own faith, not adults, but minors. \n\xe2\x80\x94 Kobinson\'s History of Baptism, p. 106, Nashville. \n\nInfant Baptism in All Ages has Required Faith \nBefore it was Administered, and so far it Testifies \nin Favor of the Commission. Augustine himself re- \nquired faith before he baptized infants ; he asked, \n" Doth this child believe in God u ? Doth he turn to \nGod ! 7 \' and he declares expressly in another place \nthat the sponsors answered for them ; Patrol. Lat. \nTom. xxxiii. 363 ; Parisiis. Without commenting on \nthe person who has the faith, Augustine, the grand \npropagator of infant baptism demanded it as a pre- \n\n\n\n102 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nrequisite to that rite. Martin Luther, in his Smaller \nCatechism p. 58, IN". Y., 1867, says, " I promised God \nin holy baptism that I would renounce the devil \nand all his works and ways, and believe in God, \nthe Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I made this \npromise in holy baptism, through my sponsors." \nThe Catechism of the Council of Trent, one of the \nhighest authorities in the Catholic Church, says: \n"It is not lawful to doubt but that children re- \nceive the sacraments of faith when they are bap- \ntized, not because they believe with the assent of \ntheir minds, but because of the faith of their parents, \nif they are believers ; but if not, to use the words \nof Augustine, they are fortified by the faith of the \nwhole body of saints.\'\' \xe2\x80\x94 Question 33, Pars II, p. 144, \nLipsiae, 1865. The Catholic Church demands faith \nfrom the child through sponsors before she baptizes \nit. In the Greek Church in Russia and elsewhere, \nbefore baptism the priest asks the infant, " \' Dost \nthou believe in Christ?\' and the sponsor answers, \nc I believe in Him as King and God,\' and then he \nrepeats the Creed." \xe2\x80\x94 King\'s Rites and Ceremonies of \nthe Greek Church in Russia, p. 161, London. The \nRussian, and all the Eastern Churches demand faith \nin baptism. So do the Episcopal Churches in Eng- \nland and America. The common Catechism of both \nbodies has this question and answer : " What is re- \nquired of persons to be baptized? Repentance \nwhereby they forsake sin ; and faith whereby they \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL. 103 \n\nsteadfastly believe the promises of God made to \nthem in that sacrament." These Churches demand \nrepentance and faith for their baptism, and both are \npromised by sponsors. \n\nCalvin seemingly thinks that infants have some \nkind of faith. He says, " As the Lord therefore will \nilluminate them (infants) with the full splendor of \nHis countenance in heaven, why may He not also, if \nsuch be His pleasure, irradiate them with some faint \nrays of it in the present life % Not that I would \nhastily affirm them to be endued with the same faith \nwhich we experienced in ourselves, or at all to pos- \nsess a similar knowledge, which I would prefer leav- \ning in suspense."\xe2\x80\x94 Institutes, vol. ii., lib. iv., cap. 19. \nHis idea is, probably, that infants have faith in the \ngerm. The Westminster Confession of Faith, speak- \ning for British and American Presbyterians, makes \nthe faith of the parents, or of one parent, a prerequi- \nsite to baptism. u Baptism," it says, " is not to be \nadministered to any that are out of the visible \nchurch, and so strangers from the covenant of prom- \nise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obe- \ndience to him ; but infants descending from parents, \neither both, or but one of them, professing faith in \nChrist and obedience to Him, are, in that respect, \nwithin the Covenant, and are to be baptized." Ques- \ntion 1G6, Larger Catechism. Here, again, baptism is \nprohibited without faith. \n\nIn Robinson\'s History of Baptism, p. 681, Nashville, \nhere is an account of an English Congregational \n\n\n\n104 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nbaptism, at which the minister stated that " not only \nthose that do actually profess faith in, and obedi- \nence unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both \nbelieving parents, were to be baptized." This is \nthe ground of the British Congregationalists now ; \nand it is no doubt the creed, on this question, of \ntheir brethren in the United States. \n\nWhen John Wesley visited this country, in 1738, \nhe adhered strictly to the baptism of the Episcopal \nChurch, as the following quotations from his journal \nwill show : " Saturday, February 21. \xe2\x80\x94 Mary Welsh, \naged eleven days, was baptized, according to the \ncustom of the first church, and the rule of the \nchurch of England, by immersion ; the child was ill \nthen, but recovered from that hour." " Wednesday, \nMay 5th.\xe2\x80\x94 I was asked to baptise a child of Mr. \nParker, second bailiff of Savannah, but Mrs. Parker \ntold me, i Neither Mr. Parker nor I will consent to \nits being dipped. 7 I answered, l If you certify that \nyour child is weak, it will suffice, the Eubric says, to \npour water upon it.\' She replied, \' Nay the child is \nnot weak, but I am resolved it shall not be dipped.\' \nThis argument I could not confute. So I went home \nand the child was baptized by another person." \xe2\x80\x94 \xe2\x96\xa0 \nWesley\' \'s Worts 1. 130-134, Philadelphia, 1826. In the \nservice for the baptism of infants in the Church of \nEngland, the minister addresses the godfathers and \ngodmothers, saying, among other things, " Dost thou \nbelieve in God the Father Almighty, maker of \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL. 105 \n\nheaven and earth? And in Jesus Christ, His o*nly \nbegotten son, oivr Lord ? * * * And dost thon \nbelieve in the Holy Ghost? * * * This is from \nthe service for the private baptism of children in \nhouses, the one probably used by Mr. Wesley when \nMary Welsh was immersed. Faith at this time was \na prerequisite to baptism with Mr. Wesley. \n\nThroughout Christendom there has been a general \nconviction that faith was indispensible to baptism. \nAmong those who have practiced infant baptism, faith \nhas been sternly demanded, as a prerequisite to the im- \nmersion or sprinkling of a child, from the very origin \nof that human rite. The Baptists have never ex- \nhibited greater urgency for faith, as a condition \nwithout which baptism could not be conferred, than \nPedobaptists. Dr. Halley, an English Congrega- \ntionalist, had his orthodoxy questioned by his own \nbrethren, and his opinions rejected, by delivering \nand publishing, about thirty years ago, lectures in \nwhich he tried to prove that the commission re- \nquired the apostles to teach all nations and baptize \nall nations; that faith had nothing to do with baptism; \nthat the command to baptize might have preceded \nthe order to teach without any impropriety. Prob- \nably Dr. Halley was the only man who ever seriously \nentertained such a doctrine. The whole Christian \nworld, except Br. Halley and men of QuaJcer opinions, \nhas ever held, and holds still, that the Baptist principle, \nwhich demands faith as a prerequisite to the initial \nordinance of the gospel, is a Scriptural doctrine. \n\n\n\n106 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nPedobaptists secure this faith in a way somewhat \ndifferent from Baptists. We hold that we must not \nborrow the loan of another\'s faith in order to be \nbaptized \xe2\x80\x94 that the candidate must have it himself. \nWe have heard of the formation of an insurance \ncompany, which required a certain amount of capi- \ntal ; the requisite sum was borrowed, to show the \nState examiner when he inspected its assets, and \nthen it was returned. But men of honor have \nnever approved of the integrity of borrowed bonds, \nor funds for such a purpose; and we are afraid that \nborrowed faith, in order to be baptized, however \ngood the intention may be, is an attempted imposi- \ntion upon man\'s Divine Friend. The Scriptures \nknow nothing of loaned faith. A personal faith is a \nprerequisite to baptism. \n\nThe believer\'s baptism of the first four centuries, \nand of multitudes for centuries later, has been \ncompletely set aside by the baptism of infants in all \nChristian communities, except Baptist Churches. \nIt is a mournful fact that this grand ordinance of \nthe Eedeemer, speaking of our death to sin, our \nunion with Christ in the merits of His death, our \nrising from the watery grave to lead a holy life, and \nour resurrection from the dead, should be in its mode \nand subjects as completely removed from a large \npart of Christendom, as if it had never existed. \nMy text is strikingly applicable to this usurping \nceremony and its administrators. "Thus have ye \n\n\n\nINFANT BAPTISM TJNSCRIPTURAL. 107 \n\nmade the commandment of God of none effect by \nyour tradition." \n\nThe Saviour has uttered words that inspire us \nwith great hope for our dear brethren of the Evan- \ngelical churches of our country and of other lands. \nHe says, Matt, xv., " Every plant which ray heavenly \nFather hath not planted shall be rooted up." This \nis surely one of the plants to which the Saviour\'s \nwords may be fitly applied. The Kev. John Robin- \nson, the father of New England Congregationalism, \nwhose flock sent the colony which came by the cel- \nebrated Mayflower, while earnestly defending the \nScriptural authority of infant baptism, says : "We \ngrant that the Scriptures nowhere say, in express \nterms, \' baptize infants,\' or that infants were bap- \ntized."\xe2\x80\x94 Works of Robinson, I. 416, London, 1851. \nIf there is no such command in the Scriptures in \nexpress terms, nor any such practice, we can readily \nsee, notwithstanding good John Robinson\'s strong \nreasons, that infant baptism is not Scriptural, and \nthat it is one of the plants which must be rooted up \nbecause our heavenly Father did not plant it. Kay, \nHe is pulling it up by the roots very actively just \nnow. The Evangelical churches of our country are \nevidently drawing nearer the Saviour\'s ways and \nspirit, and iti nothing is this more apparent than in \nthe disuse of infant sprinkling in Pedobaptist \nchurches. Twenty years ago, a reliable authority \nquoted by Professor Curtis says, " In one of the \n\n\n\n108 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\noldest (Congregational) churches in this State, there \nhad not been, a few years since, an instance of in- \nfant baptism for seven preceding years. Last year \nthere were seventy Congregational Churches in New \nHampshire that reported no infant baptisms. This \nyear ninety-six churches reported none. If this in- \ndifference continues, the ordinance will become ex- \ntinct in the Congregational Churches." Dr. Curtis \ncalculated that less than a third of the Presbyterian \nchildren born in a year, at the time he published his \nwork, were baptized, whereas a century ago they \nwere all baptized ; and that the infant rite was far \nless practiced among the Methodists. \xe2\x80\x94 Progress of \nBaptist Principles, pp. 132-136, Boston. There is every \nreason to believe that infant baptism is declining \nstill, and will continue to be observed less and less, \nuntil this plant, which our heavenly Father hath not \nplanted, disappears altogether, and the servants of \nJehovah cease forever to make the commandment \nof God of no effect by their tradition, and unite in \nreceiving one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. \n\n\n\nWHY THE BAPTISTS DO XOT BAPTIZE \nINFANTS. \n\n\n\nBY EEV. W. E. HATCHER, D.D., RICHMOND, VA. \n\n\n\nAs a fact, Baptists do not baptize their infants. If \nthere be any benefits springing from Infant Baptism, \nthe children of Baptists miss them. If Infant Bap- \ntism is necessary to the salvation of children, then \nthe children of Baptists are lost. \n\nThe motive of the Baptists in refusing baptism to \nchildren is no secret. They hardly consider it \nnecessary to say that it is from no want of kindness \nor religious solicitude for their children. They ex- \npect many things to be said against them, and are \nready to bear them, but can not believe that their \nworst enemies will seriously deny that they love their \nchildren and are concerned for their highest relig- \nious safety. \n\nNor does their refusal arise from an unwillingness \nto consecrate their children to the Lord. This, every \nsincere and intelligent Baptist does. Nor is it from \nany desire to be eccentric or singular ; but a deep \nconviction of duty which they cannot but regard. \n\nThe one sufficient reason the Baptists have for reject- \ning Infant Baptist is, that the Bible does not teach it. \n^Yith some this is nothing. They follow priests, \n\n\n\n110 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ncreeds and churches. But to the Baptists, the Bible \nis the end of controversy. They confess its author- \nity as supreme, and accept nothing as religious duty \nexcept that which it teaches. They do not find that \nit teaches Infant Baptism. But some say that the \nBible does teach it. It is there! Well, where? \nDreamy fancies that it is taught somewhere in the \nWord of God are worth nothing. Give the chapter \nand the verse where, by law or example, it is taught. \nIf your child\'s salvation depended on a passage in \nthe Scriptures that taught this doctrine, which would \nyou select % \n\nTrue, certain passages or incidents in the Bible are \npresented in support of Infant Baptism, but even \nthe friends of the doctrine differ widely concerning \nthem. Without attempting to notice all these texts, \nI will, as a matter of justice, select for notice those \nwhich are considered the strongest. Perhaps the \nmost popular proof passage is found in Mark x. 14- \n16. This to many is a tower of strength \xe2\x80\x94 a refuge \nin weakness, and quoted on all occasions. What are \nthe facts % Little children are brought to the Sav- \niour and he takes them in his arms and blesses them. \nThe surprise and displeasure of the disciples at the \npresentation of these children to Christ plainly indi- \ncated that the practice of Infant Baptism was not \nknown to them. It was certainly a capital oppor- \ntunity for instituting such an ordinance and explain- \ning its object; but nothing of the kind was done. \n\n\n\nWHY WE DO NOT BAPTIZE INFANTS. Ill \n\nThe silence of Jesus on the subject is itself a signi- \nficant argument against it. The fact that he said \nnothing about Infant Baptism, and did something \nquite different from it, turns this passage into a \nstrong proof-text against the practice. \n\nBut there are the Household Baptisms. It is \nclaimed that if whole families were baptized, there \nmust have been children among them. First in the \nlist is the family of Crispus. Paul baptized that house- \nhold. It is enough to say that it is expressly declared \nthat Crispus " believed in the Lord with all his house." \nActs xviii. 8. Next is the house of Stephanas, 1 Cor. i. \n13. Here Paul simply speaks of it as the baptism of \na household. Must there not have been infants ? \nNot unless it can be shown that there are no house- \nholds without infants. But observe that in 1 Cor. \nxvi. 15, Paul, in alluding to this family, calls them \n" the first fruits of Achaia," and says they " addicted \nthemselves to the ministry of the saints." Mac- \nknight is candid enough to admit that there could \nhave been no infants in the house of Stephanas. \n\nNext is the household of the Philippian jailer. Acts \nxvi. 29-34. In reading the account, you observe that \nthey spake the word of the Lord to all that were in \nthe house of the jailer \xe2\x80\x94 that the jailer rejoiced, be- \nlieving in God icith all his house." That is unanswer- \nably plain. Last in the list is the house of Lydia. \nActs xvi. 14, 15-40. Before an argument in favor of \nInfant Baptism can be wrung from this case, several \n\n\n\n112 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nimpossible propositions must be established : 1. That \nLydia was married. 2. That she had children. 3. \nThat any of these children were at that time infants. \n4. That these infants were baptized. 5. That the \nterm brethren in verse 40 is used independently of \nthese children. \n\nThere is also the argument from circumcision. It \nis claimed that Infant Baptism is the substitute for \ncircumcision. That such is the case is nowhere \nintimated in the Word of God. The Jews that had \nbeen circumcised, when converted to Christ were \nbaptized. Timothy was circumcised after he had \nbeen baptized. If baptism is the substitute for \ncircumcision, where is the fact stated ? \n\nSome who practice Infant Baptism do not claim \nclear Bible authority for it. They put it on the \nground that it is a " form of consecration "\xe2\x80\x94 " a beau- \ntiful ceremony " \xe2\x80\x94 " may do some good n and " can do \nno harm." That there is any wrong or injury in the \nsimple act of sprinkling a child with water and pray- \ning for its salvation, no one would be so foolish as to \nassert. But when this act is performed on the plea \nthat it is commanded by the word of God, it becomes \nan evil. It is to claim scriptural authority for what \nis not taught in the word of God. Besides, the ob- \nservance of this practice is a practical abolition of \nbeliever\'s baptism, which is clearly required by the \nlaw of Christ. \n\nIt is an injury to the child. It infringes his right \nof choice in the matter of baptism. It confuses his \n\n\n\nWHY WE DO NOT BAPTIZE INFANTS. 113 \n\nmind in regard to his relation to the Church. It \nleaves him in doubt as to his regeneration. It is cal- \nculated to foster in his mind false religious hopes. \n\nIt is an injury to the Church. The scriptural idea \nof a Church is that of a body of baptized believers. \nOnly those who have been pardoned and regenerated \nare entitled to membership. Upon the preservation \nof this idea of a spiritual membership is dependent \nthe purity of the churches. This idea is assailed by \nInfant Baptism, and the universal triumph of that \ndoctrine would be the introduction of all classes of \npersons within the ranks of some external church \xe2\x96\xba \nThe truth of this statement is abundantly proved by \nthe condition of the Lutheran Church in Germany, \nand that of the Established Church of England. \n\nIf it be true that Infant Baptism is not taught in \nthe word of God \xe2\x80\x94 that it is injurious to those who \nare its subjects, and unfriendly to the New Testament \nidea of a Church, then the Baptists are amply justi- \nfied in rejecting it. \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL EEGEHEKATION. \n\n\n\nBY REV. CHARLES H. SPURGEON, LONDON, ENGLAND, \n\n\n\n"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach \nthe gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is bap- \ntized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be \ndamned."\xe2\x80\x94 Mark xvi. 15, 16. \n\nIn the preceding verse our Lord Jesus Christ gives \nus some little insight into the natural character of \nthe apostles whom he selected to be the first minis- \nters of the Word. They were evidently men of like \npassions with us, and needed to be rebuked even as \nwe do. On the occasion when our Lord sent forth \nthe eleven to preach the gospel to every creature, \nhe " appeared unto them as they sat at meat, and \nupbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of \nheart, because they believed not them which had \nseen him after he was risen ; ** from which we may \nsurely gather, that, to preach the Word, the Lord \nwas pleased to choose imperfect men; men, too, who \nof themselves were very weak in the grace of faith, \nin which it was most important that they should \nexcel. Faith is the conquering grace, and is of all \nthings the main requisite in the preacher of the \nWord ; and yet the honored men who were chosen \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 115 \n\nto be the leaders of the divine crusade needed a \nrebuke concerning their unbelief. Why was this? \nWhy, my brethren, because the Lord has ordained \nevermore that we should have this treasure in earthen \nvessels, that the excellency of the power may be of \nGod, and not of us. If you should find a perfect \nminister, then might the praise and honor of his use- \nfulness accrue to man ; but God is frequently pleased \nto select for eminent usefulness men evidently hon- \nest and sincere, but who have some manifest infirm- \nity by which all the glory is cast off from them and \nlaid upon himself, and upon himself alone. Let it \nnever be supposed that we who are God\'s ministers \neither excuse our faults or pretend to perfection. \nWe labor to walk in holiness, but we cannot claim to \nbe all that we wish to be. We do not base the \nclaims of God\'s truth upon the spotlessness of our \ncharacters, but upon the fact that it comes from him. \nYou have believed in spite of our infirmities, and not \nbecause of our virtues. If, indeed, you had believed \nour word because of our supposed perfection, your \nfaith would stand in the excellency of man and not \nin the power of God. We come unto you often with \nmuch trembling, sorrowing over our follies and \nweaknesses ; but we deliver to you God\'s Word as \nGod\'s Word, and we beseech you to receive it, not \nas coming from us, poor, sinful mortals, but as pro- \nceeding from the eternal and thrice-holy God ; and if \nyou so receive it, and by its own vital force are \n\n\n\n116 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nmoved and stirred up towards God and his ways, \nthen is the work of the Word sure work, which it \ncould not and would not be if it rested in any way \nupon man. \n\nOur Lord having thus given us an insight into the \ncharacter of the persons whom he has chosen to \nproclaim his truth, then goes on to deliver to the \nchosen champions their commission for the holy war. \nI pray you mark the words with solemn care. He \nsums up in a few words the whole of their work, \nand at the same time foretells the result of it, telling \nthem that some would doubtless believe and so be \nsaved, and some on the other hand would not be- \nlieve and would most certainly, therefore, be damned ; \nthat is, condemned forever to the penalties of God\'s \nwrath. The lines containing the commission of our \nascended Lord are certainly of the utmost import- \nance, and demand devout attention and implicit \nobedience, not only from all who aspire to the work \nof the ministry, but also from all who hear the mes- \nsage of mercy. A clear understanding of these \nwords is absolutely necessary to our success in the \nMaster\'s work ; for if we do not understand the com- \nmission, it is not at all likely that we shall discharge \nit aright. To alter these words were more than im- \npertinence : it would involve the crime of treason \nagainst the authority of Christ and the best interests \nof the souls of men. Oh for grace to be very jeal- \nous here ! \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 117 \n\nWherever the apostles went they met with obsta- \ncles to the preaching of the gospel, and the more \nopen and effectual was the door of utterance, the \nmore numerous were the adversaries. These brave \nmen so wielded the sword of the Spirit as to put to \nflight all their foes ; and this they did, not by craft \nand guile, but by making a direct cut at the error \nwhich impeded them. Never did they dream for a \nmoment of adapting the gospel to the unhallowed \ntastes or prejudices of the people, but at once \ndirectly and boldly they brought down with both \ntheir hands the mighty sword of the Spirit upon \nthe crown of the opposing error. This morning, \nin the name of the Lord of Hosts, my helper and \ndefence, I shall attempt to do the same ; and if I \nshould provoke some hostility \xe2\x80\x94 if I should, through \nspeaking what I believe to be the truth, lose the \nfriendship of some and stir up the enmity of more \xe2\x80\x94 \nI cannot help it. The burden of the Lord is upon \nme, and I must deliver my soul. I have been loth \nenough to undertake the work, but I am forced to it \nby an awful and overwhelming sense of solemn duty. \nAs I am soon to appear before my Master\'s bar, I \nwill this day, if ever in my life, bear my testimony \nfor truth, and run all risks. I am content to be cast \nout as evil if it must be so ; but I cannot, I dare not, \nhold my peace. The Lord knoweth I have nothing \nin my heart but the purest love to the souls of those \nwhom I feel imperatively called to rebuke sternly in \n\n\n\n118 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthe Lord\'s name. Among my hearers and readers, \na considerable number will censure if not condemn \nme ; but I cannot help it. If I forfeit your love for \ntruth\'s sake I am grieved for you; but I cannot, \nI dare not, do otherwise. It is as much as my soul \nis worth to hold my peace any longer ; and, whether \nyou approve or not, I must speak out. Did I ever \ncourt your approbation I It is sweet to every one \nto be applauded ; but if for the sake of the comforts \nof respectability and the smiles of men any Christian \nminister shall keep back a part of his testimony, his \nMaster at the last shall require it at his hands. This \nday, standing in the immediate presence of God, I \nshall speak honestly what I feel, as the Holy Spirit \nshall enable me ; and I shall leave the matter with \nyou to judge concerning it, as you will answer for \nthat judgment at the last, great day. \n\nI find that the great error which we have to con- \ntend with throughout England (and it is growing \nmore and more), is one in direct opposition to my text, \nwell known to you as the doctrine of baptismal regen- \neration. We will confront this dogma with the asser- \ntion that baptism without faith saves no one. The text \nsays, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be \nsaved;" but whether a man be baptized or no, it \nasserts that "he that believeth not shall be damned:" \nso that baptism does not save the unbeliever ; nay, it \ndoes not in any degree exempt him from the common \ndoom of all the ungodly. He may have baptism, or \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 119 \n\nhe may not have baptism ; but if lie believeth not, he \nshall be in any case most surely damned. Let him be \nbaptized by immersion or sprinkling, in his infancy \nor in his adult age : if he be not led to put his \ntrust in Jesus Christ \xe2\x80\x94 if he remaineth an unbeliever \n\xe2\x80\x94 then this terrible doom is pronounced upon him, \nu He that believeth not shall be damned." I am not \naware that any Protestant church in England teaches \nthe doctrine of baptismal regeneration, except one, \nand that happens to be the corporation which, with \nnone too much humility, calls itself the Church of \nEngland. This very powerful sect does not teach \nthis doctrine merely through a section of its minis- \nters, who might charitably be considered as evil \nbranches of the vine, but it openly, boldly, and \nplainly declares this doctrine in her own appointed \nstandard, the Book of Common Prayer, and that in \nwords so express, that, while language is the chan- \nnel of conveying intelligible sense, no process short \nof violent wresting from their plain meaning can \never make them say anything else. \n\nHere are the words \xe2\x80\x94 we quote them from the Cat- \nechism which is intended for the instruction of youth, \nand is naturally very plain and simple, since it would \nbe foolish to trouble the youth with metaphysical \nrefinements. The child is asked its name, and then \nquestioned, iC Who gave you this name ? " " My god- \nfathers and godmothers in my baptism; wherein I was \nmade a member of Christ, the child of God, and an in- \n\n\n\n120 BAPTIST DOCTEINES. \n\nheritor of the "kingdom of heaven." Is not this definite \nand plain enough? I prize the words for their can- \ndor : they could not speak more plainly. Three times \nover the thing is put, lest there should be any doubt \nin it. The word regeneration may, by some sort of \njuggling, be made to mean something else ; but here \nthere can be no misunderstanding. The child is not \nonly made " a member of Christ," \xe2\x80\x94 union to Jesus is \nno mean spiritual gift, \xe2\x80\x94 but he is made in baptism \nu the child of God" also ; and, since the rule is, " if \nchildren, then heirs/\' he is also made " an inheritor \nof the kingdom of heaven." Nothing can be more \nplain. T venture to say that, while honesty remains \non earth, the meaning of these words will not admit \nof dispute. It is clear as noonday that, as the \nRubric hath it, " Fathers, mothers, masters and dames \nare to cause their children, servants and appren- \ntices," no matter how idle, giddy, or wicked they \nmay be, to learn the Catechism, and to say that in \nbaptism they were made members of Christ and \nchildren of God. The form for the administration \nof this baptism is scarcely less plain and outspoken, \nseeing that thanks are expressly returned unto Al- \nmighty God because the person baptized is regener- \nated : " Then shall the priest say, \' Seeing, now, dearly \nbeloved brethren, that this child is regenerate and graft- \ned into the body of Christ\'s church, let us give thanks \nunto Almighty God for these benefits\', and with one \naccord make our prayers unto Mm, that this child may \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 121 \n\nlead the res/ of his life according to this beginning.\'" \nNor is this all ; for, to leave no mistake, we have the \nwords of the thanksgiving prescribed : " Then shall \nthe priest say, \' We yield thee hearty thanks, most merci- \nful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this \ninfant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine oivn \nchild by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy \nchurch. 1 " \n\nThis, then, is the clear and unmistakable teaching \nof a church calling itself Protestant. I am not now \ndealing at all with the question of infant baptism : I \nhave nothing to do with that this morning. I am \nnow considering the question of baptismal regenera- \ntion, whether in adults or infants, or ascribed to \nsprinkling, pouring, or immersion. Here is a church \nwhich teaches every Lord\'s Day in the Sunday- \nschool, and should, according to the Eubric, teach \nopenly in the church, all children that they were \nmade members of Christ, children of God, and \ninheritors of the kingdom of heaven when they were \nbaptized ! Here is a professedly Protestant church, \nwhich, every time its minister goes to the font, de- \nclares that every person there receiving baptism is \nthere and then "regenerated and grafted into the \nbody of Christ\'s church." \n\n" B ut," I hear many good people exclaim, " there \nare many good clergyman in the church who do not \nbelieve in baptismal regeneration ! n To this my \nanswer is prompt \xe2\x80\x94 Why, then, do they belong to a \n\n\n\n122 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nchurch which teaches that doetrine in the plainest \nterms ? I am told that many in the Church of Eng- \nland preach against her own teaching. I know they \ndo, and herein I rejoice in their enlightenment, but I \nquestion, gravely question, their morality. To take \noath that I sincerely assent and consent to a doctrine \nwhich I do not believe, would to my conscience \nappear little short of perjury, if not absolute, down- \nright perjury; but those who do so must be judged \nby their Lord. For me to take money for defending \nwhat I do not believe \xe2\x80\x94 for me to take the money of \na church, and then to preach against what are most \nevidently its doctrines \xe2\x80\x94 I say for me to do this (I \nshall not judge the peculiar views of other men), for \nme or for any other simple, honest man to do so, \nwere an atrocity so great that, if I had perpetrated \nthe deed, I should consider myself out of the pale \nof truthfulness, honesty and common morality. Sirs, \nwhen I accepted the office of minister of this con- \ngregation, I looked to see what were your articles \nof faith. If I had not believed them I should not \nhave accepted your call; and when I change my \nopinions, rest assured that, as an honest man, I shall \nresign the office ; for how could I profess one thing \nin your declaration of faith, and quite another thing \nin my own preaching? Would I accept your pay, \nand then stand up every Sabbath-day and talk \nagainst the doctrines of your standards ? For cler- \ngymen to swear or say that they give their solemn \nassent to what they do not believe, is one of the \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 123 \n\ngrossest pieces of immorality perpetrated in Eng- \nland, and is most pestilential in its influence, since it \ndirectly teaches men to lie whenever it seems neces- \nsary to do so in order to get a living or increase \ntheir supposed usefulness : it is in fact an open testi- \nmony from priestly lips that, at least in ecclesiastical \nmatters, falsehood may express truth, and truth \nitself is a mere unimportant nonentity. I know of \nnothing more calculated to debauch the public mind \nthan a want of straightforwardness in ministers ; and \nwhen worldly men hear ministers denouncing the \nvery thing which their own Prayer-book teaches, \nthey imagine that words have no meaning among \necclesiastics, and that vital differences in religion are \nmerely a matter of tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, \nand that it does not much matter what a man does \nbelieve so long as he is charitable towards other \npeople. If baptism does regenerate people, let the \nfact be preached with a trumpet tongue, and let no \nman be ashamed of his belief in it. If this be really \ntheir creed, by all means let them have full liberty \nfor its propagation. My brethren, those are honest \nChurchmen in this matter who, subscribing to the \nPrayer-book, believe in baptismal regeneration, and \npreach it plainly. God forbid that we should cen- \nsure those who believe that baptism saves the soul, \nbecause they adhere to a church which teaches the \nsame doctrine. So far they are honest men; and in \nEngland, wherever else, let them never lack a full \n\n\n\n124 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ntoleration. Let us oppose their teaching by all scrip- \ntural and intelligent means, but let us respect their \ncourage in plainly giving us their views. I hate their \ndoctrine, but I love their honesty ; and as they speak \nbut what they believe to be true, let them speak it \nout, and the more clearly the better. Out with it, \nsirs, be it what it may, but do let us know what you \nmean. For my part, I love to stand foot to foot with \nan honest foeman. To open warfare, bold and fear- \nless hearts raise no objections but the ground of \nquarrel ; it is covert enmity which we have most \ncause to fear and best reason to loathe. That crafty \nkindness which inveigles me to sacrifice principle, is \nthe serpent in the grass\xe2\x80\x94 deadly to the incautious \nwayfarer. Where union and friendship are not ce- \nmented by truth, they are an unallowed confederacy. \nIt is time that there should be an end put to the flirt- \nations of honest men with those who believe one \nway and swear another. If men believe baptism \nworks regeneration, let them say so ; but if they do \nnot so believe it in their hearts, and yet subscribe, \nand yet more, get their livings by subscribing to \nwords asserting it, let them find congenial associates \namong men who can equivocate and shuffle, for hon- \nest men will neither ask nor accept their friendship. \nWe, ourselves, are not dubious on this point : we \nprotest that persons are not saved by being baptized. \nIn such an audience as this, I am almost ashamed to \ngo into the matter, because you surely know better \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 125 \n\nthan to be misled. Nevertheless, for the good of \nothers, we will drive at it. We hold that persons \nare not saved by baptism ; for we think, first of all, \nthat it seems out of character with the spiritual religion \nwhich Christ came to teach, that he should make salva- \ntion depend upon mere ceremony. Judaism might \npossibly absorb the ceremony by way of type into \nher ordinances essential to eternal life ; for it was a \nreligion of types and shadows. The false religions \nof the heathen might inculcate salvation by a phys- \nical process ; but Jesus Christ claims for his faith \nthat it is purely spiritual, and how could he connect \nregeneration with a peculiar application of aqueous \nfluid ? I cannot see how it would be a spiritual gos- \npel, but I can see how it would be mechanical, if I \nwere sent forth to teach that the mere dropping of \nso many drops upon the brow, or even the plunging \na person in water, could save the soul. This seems \nto me to be the most mechanical religion now exist- \ning, and to be on a par with the praying windmills \nof Thibet, or the climbing up and down of Pilate\'s \nstaircase to which Luther subjected himself in the \ndays of his darkness. The operation of water bap- \ntism does not appear, even, to my faith, to touch the \npoint involved in the regeneration of the soul. What \nis the necessary connection between water and the \novercoming of sin? I cannot see any connection \nwhich can exist between sprinkling, or immersion, \nand regeneration, so that the one shall necessarily \n\n\n\n126 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nbe tied to the other in the absence of faith. Used \nby faith, had God commanded it, miracles might be \nwrought; but without faith or even consciousness, \nas in the case of babes, how can spiritual benefits be \nconnected necessarily with the sprinkling of water ? \nIf this be your teaching, that regeneration goes with \nbaptism, I say that it looks like the teaching of a spu- \nrious church, which has craftily invented a mechan- \nical salvation to deceive ignorant, sensual, and grov- \nelling minds, rather than the teaching of the most \nprofoundly spiritual of all teachers, who rebuked \nScribes and Pharisees for regarding outward rites \nas more important than inward grace. \n\nBut it strikes me that a more forcible argument is, \nthat the dogma is not supported by facts. Are all per- \nsons who are baptized children of God ? Well, let us \nlook at the divine family. Let us mark their resem- \nblance to their glorious Parent ! Am I untruthful if \nI say that thousands of those who were baptized in \ntheir infancy are now in our gaols ? You can ascer- \ntain the fact, if you please, by application to prison \nauthorities. Do you believe that these men, many \nof whom have been living by plunder, felony, burg- \nlary, or forgery, are regenerate? If so, the Lord \ndeliver us from such regeneration. Are these vil- \nlains members of Christ? If so, Christ has sadly \naltered since the day when he was holy, harmless, \nundefiled, separate from sinners. Has he really \ntaken baptized drunkards and harlots to be members \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 127 \n\nof his body ? Do you not revolt at the supposition ? \nIt is a well-known fact that baptized persons have \nbeen hanged. Surely it can hardly be right to hang \nthe inheritors of the kingdom of heaven ! Our sher- \niffs have much to answer for when they officiate at \nthe execution of the children of God, and suspend \nthe members of Christ on the gallows ! What a \ndetestable farce is that which is transacted at the \nopen grave, when u a dear brother," who has died \ndrunk, is buried in a " sure and certain hope of the \nresurrection to eternal life," and the prayer that \nu when we shall depart this life we may rest in Christ, \nas our hope is that this our brother doth." He is a \nregenerate brother, who, having defiled the village \nby constant uncleanliness and bestial drunkenness, \ndied without a sign of repentance ; and yet the pro- \nfessed minister of God solemnly accords him funeral \nrites which are denied to unbaptized innocents, and \nputs the reprobate into the earth in " sure and cer- \ntain hope of the resurrection to eternal life." If old \nKome in her worst days ever perpetrated a grosser \npiece of imposture than this, I do not read things \naright; if it does not require a Luther to cry down \nthis hypocrisy as much as Popery ever did, then I \ndo not even know that twice two make four. Do we \nfind \xe2\x80\x94 we who baptize on profession of faith, and bap- \ntize by immersion in a way which is confessed to be \ncorrect, though not allowed by some to be absolutely \nnecessary to its validity \xe2\x80\x94 do we, who baptize in the \n\n\n\n128 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nname of the Sacred Trinity as others do, do we find \nthat baptism regenerates f We do not Neither in \nthe righteous nor the wicked do we find regeneration \nwrought by baptism. We have never met with one \nbeliever, however instructed in divine things, who \ncould trace his regeneration to his baptism ; and on \nthe other hand, we confess it with sorrow, but still \nwith no surprise, that we have seen those whom we \nhave ourselves baptized, according to apostolic pre- \ncedent, go back into the world and wander into the \nfoulest sin, and their baptism has scarcely been so \nmuch as a restraint to them, because they have not \nbelieved in the Lord Jesus Christ. Facts all show \nthat whatever good there may be in baptism, it cer- \ntainly does not make a man "a member of Christ, \nthe child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of \nheaven," or else many thieves, whoremongers, drunk- \nards, fornicators, and murderers are members of \nChrist, the children of God, and inheritors of the \nkingdom of heaven. Facts, brethren, are dead against \nthis popish doctrine; and facts are stubborn things. \nYet further, I am persuaded that the performance \nstyled baptism by the Prayer-Boole is not at all likely to \nregenerate and save. How is the thing done ? One is \nvery curious to know when one hears of an operation \nwhich makes men members of Christ, children of \nGod, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven, how \nthe thing is done. It must in itself be a holy thing, \ntruthful in all its details, and edifying in every por- \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 129 \n\nticm. Xow, we will suppose we have a company \ngathered round the water, be it more or less, and the \nprocess of regeneration is about to be performed. \nWe will suppose them all to be godly people. The \nclergyman officiating is a profound believer in the \nLord Jesus, and the father and mother are exem- \nplary Christians, and the godfathers and godmothers \nare all gracious persons. We will suppose this : it is \na supposition fraught with charity, but it may be cor- \nrect. What are these godly people supposed to say ? \nLet us look at the Prayer-Book. The clergyman is \nsupposed to tell the people, " Ye have heard also that \nour Lord Jesus Christ hath promised in his gospel to \ngrant all these things that ye have prayed for : which \npromise lie, for his part, will surely keep and perform. \nWherefore, after this promise made by Christ, this infant \nmust also faithfully, for his part, promise by you that \nare his sureties ( until he come of age to take it upon \nhimself) that he ivill renounce the devil and all his works, \nand constantly believe Godh Holy ivord, and obediently \nkeep his commandments." This small child is to prom- \nise to do this ; or, more truly, others are to be taken \nupon themselves to promise, and even vow that he \nshall do so. But we must not break the quotation, \nand therefore let us return to the Book : " I demand, \ntherefore, dost thou, in the name of this child, \nrenounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp \nand glory of the world, with all covetous desires of \nthe same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that \n\n9 \n\n\n\n130 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthou wilt not follow, nor be led by them ? " Answer : \n" I renounce them all." That is to say, in the name \nand behalf of this tender infant about to be baptized, \nthese godly people, these enlightened Christian peo- \nple, these who know better, who are not dupes, who \nknow all the while that they are promising impossi- \nbilities, renounce on behalf of this child what they \nfind it very hard to renounce for themselves, \xe2\x80\x94 " all \ncovetous desires of the world and the carnal desires \nof the flesh, so that they will not follow nor be led \nby them." How can they harden their faces to utter \nsuch a false promise, such a mockery of renunciation, \nbefore the presence of the Father Almighty ? Might \nnot angels weep as they hear the awful promise \nuttered ? Then in the presence of High Heaven they \nprofess on behalf of this child that he steadfastly \nbelieves the creed, when they know, or might pretty \nshrewdly judge, that the little creature is not yet a \nsteadfast believer in anything, much less in Christ\'s \ngoing down into hell. Mark, they do not say merely \nthat the babe shall believe the creed, but they affirm \nthat he does ; for they answer in the child\'s name, \n"All this we steadfastly believe." Not ice steadfastly \nbelieve, but J, the little baby there, unconscious of \nall their professions and confessions of faith. In \nanswer to the question, " Wilt thou be baptized in \nthis faith ? " they reply for the infant, " That is my \ndesire." Surely the infant has no desire in the mat- \nter, or at least no one has been authorized to declare \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 131 \n\nany desire on his behalf. But this is not all ; for then \nthese godly, intelligent people next promise on behalf \nof the infant that " he shall obediently keep all God\'s \nholy will and commandments, and walk in the same \nall the days of his life." Now, I ask you, dear friends, \nyou who know what true religion means, can you \nwalk in all God\'s holy commandments yourselves ? \nDare you make this day a vow on your own part, that \nyou would renounce the devil and all his works, the \npomps and vanities of this wicked world, and all the \nsinful lusts of the flesh f Dare you, before God, make \nsuch a promise as that? You desire such holiness; \nyou earnestly strive after it ; but you look for it from \nGod\'s promise, not from your own. If you dare make \nsuch vows, I doubt your knowledge of your own \nhearts and of the spirituality of God\'s law. But even \nif you could do this for yourself, would you venture \nto make such a promise for any other person ? \xe2\x80\x94 for \nthe best-born infant on earth ? Come, brethren, what \nsay you ? Is not your reply ready and plain ? There \nis not room for two opinions among men determined \nto observe truth in all their ways and words. I can \nunderstand a simple, ignorant rustic, who has never \nlearned to read, doing all this at the command of a \npriest and under the eye of a squire. I can even \nunderstand persons doing this when the Eeformation \nwas in its dawn, and men had newly crept out of the \ndarkness of Popery ; but I cannot understand, gra- \ncious, godly people standing at the font to insult the \n\n\n\n132 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nAll-gracious Father with vows and promises framed \nupon a fiction, and involving practical falsehood. \nHow dare intelligent believers in Christ to utter \nwords which they know in their conscience to be \nwickedly aside from truth ? When I shall be able \nto understand the process by which gracious men \nso accommodate their consciences, even then I shall \nhave a confirmed belief that the God of truth never \ndid and never will confirm a spiritual blessing of the \nhighest order in connection with the utterance of \nsuch false promises and untruthful vows. My breth- \nren, does it not strike you that declarations so ficti- \ntious are not likely to be connected with a new birth \nwrought by the Spirit of truth ? \n\nI have not done with this point : I must take \nanother case, and suppose the sponsors and others \nto be ungodly; and that is no hard supposition, for \nin many cases we know that godfathers and parents \nhave no more thought of religion than that idolatrous \nhallowed stone around which they gather. When \nthese sinners have taken their places, what are they \nabout to say ? Why, they are about to make the \nsolemn vows I have already recounted in your \nhearing ? Totally irreligious they are, but yet they \npromise for the baby what they never did, and never \nthought of doing, for themselves, \xe2\x80\x94 they promise on \nbehalf of this child, " that he will renounce the devil \nand all his works, and constantly believe God\'s Holy \nWord, and obediently keep his commandments." \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 133 \n\nMy brethren, do not think I speak severely here. \nEeally, I think there is something here to make \nmockery for devils. Let every honest man lament \nthat ever God\'s church should tolerate such a thing \nas this, and that there should be found gracious peo- \nple who will feel grieved because I, in all kindness \nof heart, rebuked the atrocity. Unregenerate sin- \nners promising for a poor babe that he shall keep all \nGod\'s holy commandments, which they themselves \nwantonly break every day ! How can anything but \nthe long-suffering of God endure this ? What ! not \nspeak against it ? The very stones in the street might \ncry out against the infamy of wicked men and women \npromising that another should renounce the devil \nand all his works, while they themselves serve the \ndevil and do his works with greediness ! As a cli- \nmax to all this, I am asked to believe that God \naccepts that wicked promise, and, as the result of it, \nregenerates that child. You cannot believe in regen- \neration, by this operation, whether saints or sinners \nare the performers. Take them to be godly, then \nthey are wrong for doing what their conscience must \ncondemn ; view them as ungodly, and they are wrong \nfor promising what they know they cannot perform ; \nand in neither case can God accept such worship, \nmuch less infallibly append regeneration to such a \nbaptism as this. \n\nBut you will say, " Why do you cry out against it ? " \nI cry out against it because I believe that baptism \n\n\n\n134 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ndoes not save the soul, and that the preaching of it \nhas a wrong and evil influence upon men. We meet \nwith persons who, when we tell them that they must \nbe born again, assure us that they were born again \nwhen they were baptized. The number of these \npersons is increasing, fearfully increasing, until all \ngrades of society are misled by this belief. How \ncan any man stand up in his pulpit and say "Ye \nmust be born again "to his congregation, when he \nhas already assured them, by his own " unfeigned \nassent and consent " to it, that they are themselves, \nevery one of them, born again in baptism. What \nhas he to do with them f Why, my dear friends, \nthe gospel then has no voice ; they have rammed \nthis ceremony down its throat, and it cannot speak \nto rebuke sin. The man who has been baptized or \nsprinkled, says, " I am saved ; I am a member of \nChrist, a child of God, and an inheritor of the \nkingdom of heaven. Who are you, that you should \nrebuke mef Call me to repentance? \xe2\x80\x94 call me to a \nnew life? What better life can I have? for I am a \nmember of Christ \xe2\x80\x94 a part of Christ\'s body. What ! \nrebuke mef I am a child of God. Cannot you see it \nin my face % No matter what my walk and conversa- \ntion is, I am a child of God. Moreover, I am an \ninheritor of the kingdom of heaven. It is true I \ndrink and swear, and all that, but you know I am an \ninheritor of the kingdom of heaven ; for when I die, \nthough I live in constant sin, you will put me in the \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 135 \n\ngrave, and tell everybody that I died \'in sure and \ncertain hope of the resurrection to eternal life.\' " \n\nXow, what can be the influence of such preaching \nas this upon our beloved England? \xe2\x80\x94 upon my dear \nand blessed country? What but the worst of ills? \nIf I loved her not, but loved myself most, I might \nbe silent here ; but, loving England, I can not and \ndare not; and having soon to render an account \nbefore my God, whose servant I hope I am, I must \nfree myself from this evil, as well as from every \nother, or else on my head may be the doom of souls. \n\nHere let me bring in another point. It is a most \nfearful fact, that, in no age since the Reformation, has \nPopery made such fearful strides in England as during \nthe last few gears. I had comfortably believed that \nPopery was only feeding itself upon foreign subscrip- \ntions, upon a few titled perverts, and imported monks \nand nuns. I dreamed that its progress was not real. \nIn fact, I have often smiled at the alarm of many of \nmy brethren at the progress of Popery. But, my \ndear friends, we have been mistaken, grievously mis- \ntaken. If you will read a valuable paper in the \nmagazine called Christian Work, those of you who \nare acquainted with it will be perfectly startled at its \nrevelations. This great city is now covered with a \nnetwork of monks and priests and sisters of mercy, \nand the conversions made are not by ones or twos, \nbut by scores, till England is being regarded as the \nmost hopeful spot for Romish missionary enterprise \n\n\n\n136 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nin the whole world ; and at the present moment there \nis not a mission which is succeeding to anything like \nthe extent which the English mission is. I covet not \ntheir money, I despise their sophistries, but I marvel \nat the way in which they gain their funds for the \nerection of their ecclesiastical buildings. It really \nis an alarming matter to see so many of our country- \nmen going off to that superstition which as a nation \nwe once rejected, and which it was supposed we \nshould never again receive. Popery is making \nadvances such as you would never believe, though \na spectator should tell it to you. Close to your very \ndoors, perhaps even in your own houses, you may \nhave evidence ere long of what a march Eomanism \nis making. And to what is it to be ascribed? I say, \nwith every ground of probability, that there is no \nmarvel that Popery should increase when you have \ntwo things to make it grow : first of all, the false- \nhood of those who profess a faith which they do not \nbelieve, which is quite contrary to the honesty of \nthe Eomanist, who does through evil report and good \nreport hold his faith ; and then you have, secondly, \nthis form of error known as baptismal regeneration, \nand commonly called Puseyism, which is not only \nPuseyism, but Ohurch-of-Englandism, because it is \nin the Prayer-Book, as plainly as words can express \nit, \xe2\x80\x94 you have this baptismal regeneration, preparing \nstepping-stones to make it easy for men to go to \nRome. I have but to open my eyes a little to fore- \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. \xe2\x80\xa2 137 \n\nsee Romanism rampant everywhere in the future, \nsince its germs are spreading everywhere in the \npresent. In one of our courts of legislature, but \nlast Tuesday, the Lord Chief Justice showed his \nsuperstition, by speaking of "the risk of the calam- \nity of children dying unbaptized l w Among Dissent- \ners you see a veneration for structures, a modified \nbelief in the sacredness of places, which is all idol- \natry ; for to believe in the sacredness of anything but \nof God and of his own Word, is to idolize, whether \nit is to believe in the sacredness of the men, the \npriests, or in the sacredness of the bricks and mor- \ntar, or of the fine linen, or what not, which you may \nuse in the worship of God. I see this coming up \neverywhere \xe2\x80\x94 a belief in ceremony, a resting in cere- \nmony, a veneration for altars, fonts and churches, \xe2\x80\x94 \na veneration so profound that we must not venture \nupon a remark, or straightway of sinners we are \nchief. Here is the essence and soul of Popery, \npeeping up under the garb of a decent respect for \nsacred things. It is impossible but that the Church \nof Rome must spread, when we who are the watch- \ndogs of the fold are silent, and others are gently and \nsmoothly turfing the road, and making it as soft and \nsmooth as possible, that converts may travel down \nto the nethermost hell of Popery. We want John \nKnox back again. Do not talk to me of mild and \ngentle men, of soft manners and squeamish words : \nwe want the fiery Knox; and even though his vehe- \n\n\n\n138 \xe2\x80\xa2 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nmence should " ding our pulpits into blads," it were \nwell if he did but rouse our hearts to action. We \nwant Luther, to tell men the truth unmistakably, in \nhomely phrase. The velvet has got into our minis- \nters\' mouths of late, but we must unrobe ourselves of \nsoft raiment, and truth must be spoken, and nothing \nbut truth ; for of all lies which have dragged millions \ndown to hell, I look upon this as being one of the \nmost atrocious, \xe2\x80\x94 that in a Protestant church there \nshould be found those who swear that baptism saves \nthe soul. Call a man a Baptist, or a Presbyterian, or \na Dissenter, or a Churchman, \xe2\x80\x94 that is nothing to me : \nif he says that baptism saves the soul, out upon him, \nout upon him: he states what God never taught, \nwhat the Bible never laid down, and what ought \nnever to be maintained by men who profess that the \nBible, and the whole Bible, is the religion of Protest- \nants. \n\nI have spoken thus much, and there will be some \nwho will say, spoken thus much bitterly. Yery well ; \nbe it so. Physic is often bitter, but it it shall work \nwell, and the physician is not bitter because his med- \nicine is so ; or if he be accounted so, it will not \nmatter, so long as the patient is cured; at all events \nis no business of the patient whether the physician \nis bitter or not: his business is with his own soul\'s \nhealth. There is the truth, and I have told it to you ; \nand if there should be one among you, or if there \nshould be one among the readers of this sermon \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 139 \n\nwhen it is printed, who is resting on baptism, or rest- \ning upon ceremonies of any sort, I do beseech you r \nshake off this venomous faith into the fire as Paul \ndid the viper which fastened on his hand. I pray \nyou do not rest on baptism. \n\n" No outward forms can make you clean : \nThe leprosy lies deep within." \n\nI do beseech you to remember that you must have \na new heart and a right spirit, and baptism cannot \ngive you these. You must turn from your sins and \nfollow after Christ ; you must have such a faith as \nshall make your life holy and your speech devout, or \nelse you have not the faith of God\'s elect, and into \nGod\'s kingdom you shall never come. I pray you \nnever rest upon this wretched and rotten foundation^ \nthis deceitful invention of antichrist. Oh ! may God \nsave you from it, and bring you to seek the true rock \nof refuge for weary souls. \n\nI come with much brevity, and I hope with much \nearnestness, in the second place, to say that faith \n\nIS THE INDISPENSABLE REQUISITE TO SALVATION. \n\n" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; \nhe that believeth not shall be damned." Faith is the \none indispensable requisite for salvation. This faith \nis the gift of God. It is the work of the Holy \nSpirit. Some men believe not on Jesus ; they \nbelieve not, because they are not of Christ\'s sheep r \nas he himself said unto them ; but his sheep hear his \n\n\n\n140 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nvoice : he knows them and they follow hiin ; he gives \nto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, \nneither shall any pluck them out of his hand. What \nis this believing? Believing consists in two things. \nFirst, there is an accrediting of the testimony of God \nconcerning his Son. God tells you that his Son \ncame into the world and was made flesh; that he \nlived on earth for men\'s sake; that after having \nspent his life in holiness he was offered up a propi- \ntiation for sin ; that upon the cross he there and then \nmade expiation \xe2\x80\x94 so made expiation for the sins of \nthe world that " whosoever believeth in him shall \nnot perish, but have everlasting life." If you would \nbe saved, you must accredit this testimony which \nGod gives concerning his own Son. Having received \nthis testimony, the next thing is to confide in it. Indeed, \nhere lies, I think, the essence of saving faith, to rest \nyourself for eternal salvation upon the atonement \nand the righteousness of Jesus Christ, to have done \nonce for all with all reliance upon feelings or upon \ndoings, and to trust in Jesus Christ and in what he \ndid for your salvation. \n\nThis is faith, receiving of the truth of Christ : first \nknowing it to be true, and then acting upon that \nbelief. Such a faith as this \xe2\x80\x94 such real faith as this \n\xe2\x80\x94 makes the man henceforth hate sin. How can he \niove the thing which made the Saviour bleed I It \nmakes him live in holiness. How can he but seek to \nhonor that God who has loved him so much as to \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 141 \n\ngive his Son to die for him? This faith is spiritual \nin its nature and effects ; it operates upon the entire \nman ; it changes his heart, enlightens his judgment, \nand subdues his will; it subjects him to God\'s \nsupremacy, and makes him receive God\'s Word as a \nlittle child, willing to receive the truth upon the \nipse dixit of the Divine One; it sanctifies his intel- \nlect, and makes him willing to be taught God\'s \nWord; it cleanses within; it makes clean the inside \nof the cup and platter, and it beautifies without; it \nmakes clean the exterior conduct and the inner \nmotive, so that the man, if his faith be true and \nreal, becomes henceforth another man to what he \never was before. \n\nXow that such a faith as this should save the soul, \nis, I believe, reasonable ; yea, more, it is certain, for \nwe have seen men saved by it in this very house of \nprayer. We have seen the harlot lifted out of the \nStygian ditch of her sin, and made an honest \nwoman; we have seen the thief reclaimed; we have \nknown the drunkard, in hundreds of instances, to \nbe sobered; we have observed faith to work such a \nchange, that all the neighbors who have seen it have \ngazed and admired, even though they hated it ; we \nhave seen faith deliver men in the hour of tempta- \ntion, and help them to consecrate themselves and \ntheir substance to God; we have seen, and hope \nstill to see yet more widely, deeds of heroic consecra- \ntion to God and displays of witness-bearing against \n\n\n\n142 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthe common current of the times, which have proved \nto us that faith does affect the man, does save the \nsoul. My hearers, if you would be saved, you must \nbelieve in the Lord Jesus Christ. Let me urge you \nwith all my heart to look nowhere but to Christ cru- \ncified for your salvation. Oh ! if you rest upon any \nceremony, though it be not baptism \xe2\x80\x94 if you rest upon \nany other than Jesus Christ \xe2\x80\x94 you must perish, as \nsurely as this book is true. I pray you believe not \nevery spirit, but though I, or an angel from heaven, \npreach any other doctrine than this, let him be \naccursed j for this, and this alone, is the soul-saving \ntruth which shall regenerate the world\xe2\x80\x94 " He that \nbelieveth and is baptized shall be saved." Away \nfrom all the tag-rags, wax candles, and millinery of \nPuseyism! away from all the gorgeous pomp of \nPopery ! away from the fonts of Church-of-England- \nism ! We bid you turn your eyes to that naked cross, \nwhere hangs as a bleeding man the Son of God. \n\n" None but Jesus, none but Jesus \nCan do helpless sinners good." \n\nThere is life in a look at the Crucified; there is \nlife at this moment for you. Whoever among you \ncan believe in the great love of God towards man in \nChrist Jesus, you shall be saved. If you can believe \nthat our great Father desireth us to come to him \xe2\x80\x94 \nthat he panteth for us \xe2\x80\x94 that he calleth us every day \nwith the loud voice of his Son\'s wounds ; if you can \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 143 \n\nbelieve now that in Christ there is pardon for trans- \ngressions past, and cleansing for years to come; if \nyou can trust him to save you, you have already the \nmarks of regeneration. The work of salvation is \ncommenced in you, so far as the Spirit\'s work is con- \ncerned ; it is finished in you so far as Christ\'s work \nis concerned. Oh! I would plead with you, lay hold \non Jesus Christ. This is the foundation: build on it. \nThis is the rock of refuge: fly to it. I pray you fly \nto it now. Life is short; time speeds with eagle\'s \nwing. Swift as the dove pursued by the hawk, fly, \nfly, poor sinner, to God\'s dear Son: now touch the \nhem of his garment; now look into that dear face, \nonce marred with sorrows for you; look into those \neyes, once shedding tears for you. Trust him, and \nif you find him false, then you must perish ; but false \nyou never will find him while this word standeth \ntrue, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be \nsa^ed ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." \nGod give us this vital, essential faith, without which \nthere is no salvation. Baptized, re-baptized, circum- \ncised, confirmed, fed upon sacraments, and buried in \nconsecrated ground \xe2\x80\x94 ye shall all perish except ye \nbelieve in him. The Word is express and plain ; he \nthat believeth not may plead his baptism, may plead \nanything he likes, " But he that believeth not shall \nbe damned ; " for him there is nothing but the wrath \nof God, the flames of hell, eternal perdition. So \nChrist declares, and so must it be. \n\n\n\n144 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nBut now to close, there are some who say, " Ah ! \nbut baptism is in the text; where do you put that?" \nThat shall be another point, and then we have done. \n\nTHE BAPTISM IN THE TEXT IS ONE EVIDENTLY \n\nconnected with faith. " He that believeth and \nis baptized shall be saved." It strikes me, there is \nno supposition here that anybody would be baptized \nwho did not believe; or if there be such a supposi- \ntion, it is very clearly laid down that his baptism will \nbe of no use to him, for he will be damned, baptized \nor not, unless he believes. The baptism of the text \nseems to me, my brethren, \xe2\x80\x94 if you differ from me I \nam sorry for it, but I must hold my opinion, and out \nwith it, \xe2\x80\x94 it seems to me that baptism is connected \nwith, nay, directly follows belief. I would not insist \ntoo much upon the order of the words ; but, for \nother reasons, I think that baptism should follow \nbelieving. At any rate, it effectually avoids the \nerror we have been combatting. A man who knows \nthat he is saved by believing in Christ does not, \nwhen he is baptized, lift his baptism into a saving \nordinance. In fact, he is the very best protester \nagainst that mistake, because he holds that he has no \nright to be baptized until he is saved. He bears a \ntestimony against baptismal regeneration in his being \nbaptized as professedly an already regenerate per- \nson. Brethren, the baptism here meant is a baptism \nconnected with faith, and to this baptism I will admit \nthere is very much ascribed in Scripture. Into that \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 145 \n\nquestion I am not going; but I do find some very \nremarkable passages in which baptism is spoken of \nvery strongly. I find this : " Arise, and be baptized, \nand wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the \nLord." I find as much as this elsewhere. I know \nthat believer\'s baptism itself does not wash away \nsin, yet it is so the outward sign and emblem of it to \nthe believer, that the thing visible may be described \nas the thing signified. Just as our Saviour said, \n" This is my body," when it was not his body, but \nbread : yet, inasmuch as it represented his body, it \nwas fair and right according to the usage of language \nto say, " Take, eat, this is my body." And so, inas- \nmuch as baptism to the believer represented the \nwashing of sin, it may be called the washing of sin ; \nnot that it is so, but that it is to saved souls the out- \nward symbol and representation of what is done by \nthe power of the Holy Spirit in the man who believes \nin Christ. \n\nWhat connection has this baptism with faith ? I \nthink it has just this, baptism is the avowal of faith ; \nthe man was Christ\'s soldier, but now in baptism he \nputs on his regimentals. The man believed in Christ, \nbut his faith remained between God and his own \nsoul. In baptism he says to the baptizer, " I believe \nin Jesus Christ ; " he says to the church, " 1 unite \nwith you as a believer in the common truths of \nChristianity ; " he saith to the onlooker, " Whatever \nyou may do, as for me, I will serve the Lord." It is \nthe avowal of his faith. 10 \n\n\n\n146 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nNext, we think baptism is also to the believer a \ntestimony of his faith ; he does in baptism tell the \nworld what he believes. "I am about," saith he, \n"to be buried in water. I believe that the Son of \nGod was metaphorically baptized in suffering; I \nbelieve he was literally dead and buried." To rise \nagain out of the water sets forth to all men that he \nbelieves in the resurrection of Christ. There is a \nshowing forth in the Lord\'s Supper of Christ\'s death, \nand there is a showing forth in baptism of Christ\'s \nburial and resurrection. It is a type, a sign, a sym- \nbol, a mirror to the world,\xe2\x80\x94 a looking-glass, in which \nreligion is as it were reflected. We say to the on- \nlooker, when he asks what is the meaning of this \nordinance, "We mean to set forth our faith that \nChrist was buried, and that he rose again from the \ndead ; and we avow this death and resurrection to \nbe the ground of our trust." \n\nAgain, baptism is also Faith\'s taking her proper \nplace. It is, or should be, one of her first acts of \nobedience Reason looks at baptism, and says, \n" Perhaps there is nothing in it; it cannot do me any \ngood." "True," says Faith, "and therefore I will \nobserve it. If it did me some good, my selfishness \nwould make me do it ; but inasmuch as to my sense \nthere is no good in it, since I am bidden by my Lord \nthus to fulfill all righteousness, it is my first public \ndeclaration that a thing which looks to be unreason- \nable and seems to be unprofitable, being commanded \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 147 \n\nby God, is law to me. If my Master had told me to \npick up six stones and lay tliem in a row I would do \nit, without demanding of him, \' What good will it do ? \' \nCui bono f is no fit question for soldiers of Jesus. \nThe very simplicity and apparent uselessness of the \nordinance should make the believer say, \' Therefore \nI do it because it becomes the better test to me of \nmy obedience to my Master.\' " When you tell your \nservant to do something, and he cannot comprehend \nit, if he turns round and says, " Please, sir, what for % " \nyou are quite clear that he hardly understands the \nrelation between master and servant. So when God \ntells me to do a thing, if I say, "What for? V I can- \nnot have taken the place which Faith ought to occupy, \nwhich is that of simple obedience to whatever the \nLord hath said. Baptism is commanded, and Faith \nobeys because it is commanded, and thus takes her \nproper place. \n\nOnce more, k]^<>m is a refreshment to faith. While \nwe are made up of body and soul as we are, we shall \nneed some means by which the body shall sometimes \nbe stirred up to co-work with the soul. In the Lord\'s \nSupper my faith is assisted by the outward and visi- \nble sign. In the bread and in the wine I see no \nsuperstitious mystery: I see nothing but bread and \nwine ; but in that bread and wine I do see to my faith \nan assistant. Through the sign my faith sees the \nthing signified. So in baptism there is no mysterious \nefficacy in the baptistry or in the water. We attach \n\n\n\n148 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nno reverence to the one or to the other ; but we do \nsee in the water and in the baptism such an assist- \nance as brings home to our faith most manifestly our \nbeing buried with Christ, and our rising again in \nnewness of life with him. Explain baptism thus, \ndear friends, and there is no fear of Popery rising \nout of it. Explain it thus, and we cannot suppose \nany soul will be led to trust to it; but it takes its \nproper place among the ordinances of God\'s house. \nTo lift it up in the other way, and say men are saved \nby it \xe2\x80\x94 ah ! my friends, how much of mischief that \none falsehood has done and may do, eternity alone \nwill disclose. Would to God another George Fox \nwould spring up, in all his quaint simplicity and rude \nhonesty, to rebuke the idol-worship of this age ; to \nrail at their holy bricks and mortar, holy lecturns, \nholy altars, holy surplices, right reverend fathers, \nand I know not what. These things are not holy. \nGod is holy; his truth is holy : holiness belongs not \nto the carnal and the material, but to the spiritual. \nOh that a trumpet tongue would cry out against the \nsuperstition of the age ! I cannot, as George Fox \ndid, give up baptism and the Lord\'s Supper ; but I \nwould infinitely sooner do it, counting it the smaller \nmistake of the two, than perpetrate and assist in \nperpetrating the uplifting of baptism and the Lord\'s \nSupper out of their proper place. O my beloved \nfriends, the comrades of my struggles and witness- \nings, cling to the salvation of faith, and abhor the \n\n\n\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 149 \n\nsalvation of priests. If I am not mistaken, the day \nwill come when we shall have to light for a simple \nspiritual religion far more than we do now. We \nhave been cultivating friendship with those who are \neither unscriptural in creed or else dishonest ; who \neither believe baptismal regeneration, or profess \nthat they do, and swear before God that they do \nwhen they do not. The time is come when there \nshall be no more truce or parley between God\'s ser- \nvants and time-servers. The time is come when \nthose who follow God must follow God, and those \nwho try to trim and dress themselves and find out a \nway which is pleasing to the flesh and gentle to car- \nnal desires, must go their way. A great winnowing- \ntime is coming to God\'s saints, and we shall be \nclearer one of these days than we now are from \nunion with those who are upholding Popery, under \nthe pretence of teaching Protestantism. We shall \nbe clear, I say, of those who teach salvation by \nbaptism, instead of salvation by the blood of our \nblessed Master, Jesus Christ. Oh, may the Lord \ngird up your loins ! Believe me, it is no trifle. It \nmay be that on this ground Armageddon shall be \nfought. Here shall come the great battle between \nChrist and his saints on the one hand, and the world \nand forms and ceremonies on the other. If we are \novercome here, there may be years of blood and per- \nsecution, and tossing to and fro between darkness and \nlight ; but if we are brave and bold, and flinch not \n\n\n\n150 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nhere, but stand to God\'s truth, the future of Eng- \nland may be bright and glorious. Oh for a truly \nreformed Church in England, and a godly race to \nmaintain it ! The world\'s future depends on it under \nGod ; for in proportion as truth is marred at home, \ntruth is maimed abroad. Out of any system which \nteaches salvation by baptism must spring infidelity, \nan infidelity which the false church already seems \nwilling to nourish and foster beneath her wing. \nGod save this favored land from the brood of her \nown established religion. Brethren, stand fast in \nthe liberty wherewith Christ has made you free, and \nbe not afraid of any sudden fear nor calamity when \nit cometh ; for he who trusteth to the Lord, mercy \nshall compass him about, and he who is faithful to \nGod and Christ shall hear it said at the last, " Well \ndone, good and faithful servant : enter thou into the \njoy of the Lord." May the Lord bless this word, \nfor Christ\'s sake. \n\n\n\nIMMEESIOX ESSENTIAL TO CHKISTIAN \nBAPTISM. \n\n\n\nBY REV. HENRY S. BURRAGE, PORTLAND, MAINE. \n\n\n\n" Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the \nname of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; \nteaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- \nmanded yon ; and, lo, I am with 3-011 alway, even unto the \nend of the world " Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. \n\n" And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach \nthe gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is bap- \ntized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be \ndamned." Mark xvi. 15, 16. \n\n"And Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every \none of you in the name o Jesns Christ for the remission of \nsins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.*" \nActs ii. 3S. \n\nIn these passages of the Gospels by Matthew and \nMark, we have what is called the Great Commission. \nBeginning at Jerusalem, the disciples were to go \ninto all the earth and preach the gospel to every \ncreature. As messengers of Christ they were to \nmake prominent in their preaching the saving truths \nwhich they had received from their Master\'s lips. \nYet this was not all. Having done this, having \nmade disciples by their divine message, they were \nto baptize these disciples. " Go ye therefore, and \nteach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the \n\n15J \n\n\n\n152 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." \nThe words in Mark\'s gospel are of like import, \nalthough the form of expression is different. " Go \nye into all the world and preach the gospel to every \ncreature. He that believeth and is baptized shall \nbe saved.\' 7 First, as we see, there was to be instruc- \ntion leading to discipleship, then baptism as the pro- \nfession of discipleship. That the apostles so under- \nstood the Saviour\'s words is evident from the New \nTestament records. Peter\'s injunction, on the day \nof Pentecost, is an illustration. When the multi- \ntude, moved by the apostle\'s preaching, cried out, \n" Men and brethren what shall we do ? " Peter \nreplied, " Eepent and be baptized." It was as if he \nhad recalled the very words of the Great Commis- \nsion, \xe2\x80\x94 " teaching them to observe all things whatso- \never I have commanded you " \xe2\x80\x94 or those other words \nof Christ, which bring before us the Saviour\'s test \nof true discipleship, \xe2\x80\x94 " Ye are my friends, if ye do \nwhatsoever I command you." \n\nThe Saviour, however, was addressing not merely \nthe little company gathered around him on that hill- \nside in Galilee, but all who should believe on him, \nin all the ages of the Christian Church. In one \ncomprehensive glance, as it were, he took in the \nwork of converting the nations ; and he added words \nwhich show that in his injunction concerning the \nwork of evangelization, and the administration of \nthe ordinance of baptism, his followers were to find \n\n\n\nIMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 153 \n\na perpetual obligation, \xe2\x80\x94 " Lo, I am with you alway, \neven unto the end of the world." \n\nBut while it is generally conceded that baptism is \nan ordinance divinely instituted, and of perpetual \nobligation, there are many who profess and call \nthemselves Christians, who deny that immersion is \nessential to Christian baptism. They will admit, \nespecially if they are familiar with the recent litera- \nture of the subject, that immersion was the primi- \ntive act. The references to the administration of \nthe ordinance which we find in the New Testament, \nthey say, make this plain. Thus, John baptized the \nmultitudes "in the Jordan," ( Matt. iii. 6 ) ; "in the \nriver Jordan," ( Mark i. 5 ) ; while the Saviour he bap- \ntized " into the Jordan, " ( Mark i. 10.) Moreover, in \nthose passages in our English version where we find \nthe words " with water," as in Matt. iii. 11, " I indeed \nbaptize you with water," the Greek has "in water." \nStanley thus recognizes the requirements of the \nScripture narrative, when, referring to those who \nwere baptized in Jordan, he says, "John plunged \nthem under the rapid torrent." 1 \n\nWe are also told in the New Testament, they add, \nthat leaving the Jordan, John baptized at " iEnon \nnear to Saliin," and the reason given is " because \nthere was much water there," ( John iii. 23 ) ; from \nwhich it is certainly a fair inference that, had there \nnot been "much water" there, the Baptist himself \n\n1 Sinai and Palestine, p. 306. \n\n\n\n154 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nwould not have been there. Condor, of the British \nBoyal Engineers and officer in charge of the Survey \nExpedition of the Palestine Exploration Fund, recog- \nnizes this fact in his Tent-work in Palestine, 1 when,, \nreferring to the probable site of ^Enon in the valley \nnear Shechem, he says : " The valley is open in most \nparts of its course, and we find the two requisites for \nthe scene of the baptism of a huge multitude \xe2\x80\x94 an \nopen space and abundance of water." \n\nIn the Acts of the Apostles also, in the case of \nthe eunuch, the primitive act is very clearly indi- \ncated. Having been instructed by Philip in refer- \nence to the great facts concerning salvation by \nChrist, and the way in which the disciple confesses \nhis faith in Christ, the eunuch exclaims, " See, here \nis water, what doth hinder me to be baptized ? " \nPhilip replies, " If thou believest with all thine heart \nthou niayest." And having answered, " I believe \nthat Jesus Christ is the Son of God," the eunuch \ncommanded the chariot to stand still, "and they \nwent down both into the water, both Philip and the \neunuch, and he baptized him." It has been said by \nsome that the words here translated " into the \nwater " may be translated " unto the water," and they \npicture the eunuch standing by " an evanescent road- \nside rain-pool," while Philip, with a few drops of \nwater upon the tips of his fingers, administers the \nsacred rite. But though it is true that the Greek \n\ni Vol. I., p. 99. \n\n\n\nIMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 155 \n\npreposition here used may sometimes mean " unto," \nit will be seen that in this passage it stands opposed \nto another preposition in the following verse, which \ncan only be understood " out of;" so that Philip \nand the eunuch must have gone down into the water \nin order to come up out of the water. As Prof, \nPlumptre, in Ellicott\'s Commentary for English Read- \ners, in which are embodied the results of recent \nscholarship, says : u The eunuch would lay aside his \ngarments, descend chest deep into the water, and be \nplunged under it * in the name of the Lord Jesus.\' " x \nAnd with this view, that immersion was the primi- \ntive act of baptism, the best church histories are in \nagreement. Kurtz says, "Baptism was administered \nby complete immersion in the name of Christ, or else \nthe Triune God. (Matt, xxviii. 19)." 2 Pressense \nsays : u Baptism, which was the sign of admission into \nthe church, was administered by immersion. The con- \nvert was plunged beneath the water, and as he rose \nfrom it he received the laying on of hands." 3 Stan- \nley says : "There can be no question that the orig- \ninal form of baptism, the very meaning of the word, \nwas complete immersion in the deep baptismal \nwaters, and that for at least four centuries any other \nform was either unknown or regarded, unless in the \ncase of dangerous illness, as an exceptional, almost \na monstrous case The Latin church has wholly \n\ni Xote on Acts 8 : 38. \n\n2 Church History, p. 70. \n\n3 Early Years of Christianity, p. 374. \n\n\n\n156 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\naltered the mode, and, with the two exceptions of \nthe Cathedral of Milan and the sect of the Baptists, \na few drops of water are now the western substi- \ntute for the three-fold plunge into the running rivers \nor the wide baptisteries of the East. 771 These testi- \nmonies might be greatly multiplied, but those we \nhave given are sufficient to show that the evidence \nis clear and decisive that immersion was the primi- \ntive act of baptism, and that scholars of every name \nagree in accepting it. \n\nThere are many, however, as we have already \nremarked, who, though they admit that baptism in \nthe primitive church was administered by immer- \nsion, nevertheless deny that immersion is essential \nto the proper administration of the rite. They say : \n*\' We find nothing in the original institution, or in \nthe nature or uses of the rite, requiring it to be \nadministered in one precise mode. 772 According to \nDean Stanley there is in this matter such a thing as \n"a wise exercise of Christian freedom, 773 or "the \ntriumph of common sense and convenience over the \nbondage of form and custom, 7 \' 4 and so by him, and \nmany others who agree with him, immersion, this \n" singular and interesting relic of primitive and \napostolic times 77 is politely discarded in deference \nto the supposed requirements of the age in which \n\n1 History of the Eastern Church, p. 117. \n\n2 Christian Mirror, April 16, 1S79. \n\n3 Sinai and Palestine, p. 307. \n\nA Article on Baptism, in Nineteenth Century for Oct. 1879. \n\n\n\nIMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 157 \n\nwe live and the circumstances by which we are sur- \nrounded ; an illustration, adds Stanley, showing " how \nthe spirit which lives and moves in human society \ncan override even the most sacred ordinances." It \nis this position in reference to baptism, which just \nnow, as Baptists, we are compelled to meet. Indeed, \nfor the most part, from the other positions which \nhave been taken \xe2\x80\x94 like the one to which we have \nalready referred, that immersion was not primitive \nbaptism \xe2\x80\x94 those who have defended them have one \nafter another quietly withdrawn. But we are per- \nsuaded that this position is as indefensible as the \nothers, and purpose in this discourse accordingly to \npresent the grounds for our belief that immersion is \nessential to Christian baptism. \n\n1. And first, we say, immersion alone meets the \nrequirements of the divine command. When the \nSaviour said to his disciples, " Go ye therefore, and \nteach all nations, immersing them," we have every \nreason to believe that he meant just what he said. \nBut the objection will be urged, That is your inter- \npretation of the Saviour\'s words. Not at all. It is \nnot an interpretation, but a translation. The word \nwhich we find in the Great Commission, and which is \nused throughout the New Testament wherever men- \ntion is made of baptism, is baptizcin, and the evi- \ndence is abundant and conclusive that this word, \nwhich we say means to immerse, to submerge, lias this \nsignification, and this signification only. Xot a pas- \n\n\n\n158 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nsage has been found, in sacred or profane literature, \nin which baptizein means either to sprinkle or to pour. \n\nIts place in the Greek language is precisely that of \nthe verb to immerse, in our own language. We cannot, \nof course, give this evidence here, but it will be found \nin Conant\'s " Meaning and Use of Baptizein," which \nis " an exhaustive examination of examples of the \nlexical and grammatical use of the word, drawn \nfrom writers in almost every department of litera- \nture and science," belonging to different countries, \nand living in different ages of the world\'s history. \n\nBut we shall be told that the Greek-English Lexi- \ncon of Liddell and Scott, which is in use in all of \nour classical schools and colleges, defines baptizein \nto dip repeatedly, dip under, to bathe, to wet, to pour \nupon, drench, to dip a vessel, to draw water. This is \ntrue of their first edition. Under what influences \nsome of these words were introduced into that edi- \ntion we cannot say. But their introduction was \nchallenged \xe2\x80\x94 challenged, too, by scholars not Bap- \ntists \xe2\x80\x94 on the ground that the passages cited in sup- \nport of these definitions could not be forced to yield \nsuch a support ; and in the second edition the words \nto steep, wet, pour upon, drench, were omitted as with- \nout authority, and have never reappeared. But the \nsecond edition of Liddell and Scott retained the \ndefinition to dip repeatedly, and the question has been \nasked by partisan objectors, " Do our Baptist friends \npractice immersion in accordance with this defini- \n\n\n\nIMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 159 \n\ntioii?" It happens that Liddell and Scott have \nfound it necessary to continue the work of revision, \nand in the sixth London edition of their Lexicon \xe2\x80\x94 \nwhich is the last, instead of to dip repeatedly we have \nto dip in or under ivater, while to the definition to \ndraw, for example to draio wine from bowls in cups, \nthey have added in parenthesis, as if to prevent all \npossible misapprehension or misrepresentation, the \nsignificant words, " of course by dipping them." The \nhistory of these changes in the definition of baptizein \nin the successive editions of this standard lexicon \nis a very significant one, and furnishes the most \nstriking proof of the correctness of the conclusions \nreached by Dr. Conant in his learned and exhaustive \nwork. \n\nBut it may be said that this is the classical use of \nthe word \xe2\x80\x94 that many words in common use among \nthe Greeks were taken up by the sacred writers, \nwho gave to them a signification which they did not \nhave before. So far as baptizein is concerned the \nstatement cannot be sustained. One of the first \nGreek scholars in this country is Prof. E. A. Soph- \nocles of Harvard University. He is a Greek by \nbirth, and is familiar with the use of baptizein by \nclassic and sacred writers. In his Greek Lexicon of \nthe Roman and Byzantine Periods, he says: "There \nis no evidence that. Luke and Paul, and the other \nwriters of the Xew Testament, put upon this verb \nmeanings not recognized by the Greeks." \n\n\n\n160 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nAnd with him agree the best New Testament lexi- \ncographers of our day. Wilke\'s Lexicon of Neiv \nTestament Greek, revised and edited by C. L. W. \nGrimm, 1868, and now in process of translation by \nProf. J. Henry Thayer, of Andover Theological \nSeminary, defines baptizein, 1, to immerse repeatedly^ \nto immerse, to submerge ; 2, to bathe, lave, cleanse with \nwater by immersion or submersion. \n\nCremer, in his Biblico- Theological Lexicon of the \nNew Testament Greek, defines baptizein, to immerse, \nsubmerge, and adds that the New Testament use of \nthe word denotes " immersion, submersion for a \nreligious purpose." \n\nAnd with these lexicographers agree the most \nprominent exegetical scholars of every name, \xe2\x80\x94 Tho- \nluck, Meyer, DeWette, Olshausen, Lange, Fritsche, \nLightfoot, Ellicott, Plumptre, Godet, and a host of \nothers. Of even the passage in Mark vii. 4, where, \nby so many controversialists, it has been maintained \nthat baptizein cannot mean to immerse, Meyer, in his \nCritical and Exegetical Commentary, says : " Except \nthey wash is not to be understood of washing the \nhands, but of immersion, which the word in classic \nGreek and in the New Testament everywhere means, \ni. e. here, according to the context, to take a bath." \n\nThere can be only one meaning, therefore, to the \ncommand, " Be baptized." With the N ew Testament \nrecords lying open before us, it is worse than vain \nto suggest such frivolous objections as the impossi- \n\n\n\nIMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 1G1 \n\nbility of immersing three thousand converts on the \nday of Pentecost ; the insufficiency of water in Jeru- \nsalem for the immersion of such a multitude ; and \nother objections even less worthy of notice. The \nSaviour commanded the apostles to immerse those \nwho should believe on Him through their word; and \nthe several writers tell us that they obeyed the \ndivine injunction. They seem never to have asked \nwhether under any circumstances something less \nthan immersion would not answer. They evidently \ndeemed it enough that Christ had fixed the solemn \nrite, and they insisted upon immersion as alone ful- \nfilling the words of the Saviour, " Teaching them to \nobserve all things whatsoever I have commanded \nyou." It will be remembered that Jesus at his bap- \ntism by John, in Jordan, said, u Suffer it to be so \nnow, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteous- \nness." ( Matt. iii. 15 ), that is, as Meyer interprets the \nwords, " all which as duty it is obligatory on us to \ndo." But there is a duty in this matter which rests \nupon the disciple as well as upon his Lord, and that \nduty is made plain. It was in obedience to the \nSaviour\'s words, " Go ye therefore, and teach all \nnations, immersing them," that Peter, on the day of \nPentecost, exclaimed, "Repent and be immersed." \nIt is in obedience to the same injunction that as \nBaptists we insist on immersion as essential to \nChristian baptism. Immersion alone meets the \nrequirements of the divine command. \n11 \n\n\n\n162 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nII. But again, immersion is essential to Christian \nbaptism in order to preserve the symbolical signifi- \ncation of the ordinance as presented in the New \nTestament. \n\n1. In the first place baptism is there referred to as \na symbol of the believer\'s purification from the \ndefilement of sin. When the devout Ananias came \nto Saul at Damascus with the divine message that \nGod had chosen him to be his witness unto all men \nof what he had seen and heard, Ananias added, \n" And now why tarriest thou ? Arise and wash away \nthy sins." (Acts xxii. 16). The thought is precisely \nthat of Peter on the day of Pentecost, when he \nsaid, " Eepent and be baptized every one of you in \nthe name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." \nThis is not baptismal regeneration. As the Scrip- \ntures plainly show, we are not saved in or by bap- \ntism. But sin is a defilement, and the removal of \nthis moral uncleanness is secured by repentance \nand faith, which are the conditions of salvation. \nBut how is this great doctrine of the New Testa- \nment symbolical t By baptism, that is by immersion. \nThe so-called Epistle of Barnabas, which is believed \nto have been written before A. D. 119, the date to \nwhich it is commonly assigned, says : " We go down \ninto the water full of sins and pollutions, but come \nup out again bringing fresh fruit, having in our heart \nthe fear and hope which are in Jesus by the Spirit." \nHow expressive, then, the command, " Wash away \n\n\n\nIMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 163 \n\nthy sins," and what else except immersion, especially \nto a Jew, could fittingly symbolize the great truth to \nwhich this command has reference ! Says Maimon- \nides, a Jewish writer, " Wherever, in the Law, wash- \ning of the flesh or of the clothes is mentioned, it \nmeans nothing else than the dipping of the whole \nbody in a laver: for if any man dip himself all over, \nexcept the tip of his little finger, he is still in his \nuncleanness." Only immersion, therefore, is the \nproper symbol of this spiritual cleaning, which bap- \ntism expresses. 1 \n\n2. But baptism is also a symbol of the believer\'s \ndeath to sin and of his rising to a new life. In his \nEpistle to the Eomans ( vi. 2, 4), Paul says: " Then \nshall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ? \nKnow ye not, that so many of us as were baptized \ninto Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? \n\nl "There was one form of this idea which continued far \ndown into the middle ages, long after it had been dissociated \nfrom baptism, but may be given as an illustration of the same \nidea represented by the same form. The order of knighthood \nin England, of which the banners hang in King Henry the \nSeventh\'s Chapel in Westminster Abbey, and which is distin- \nguished from all the other orders as the \' most honorable,\' is \ncalled the order of the Bath. Why is this ? It is because in \nthe early days of chivalry the Knights, those who were enlisted \nin defence of right against wrong, truth against falsehood, \nhonor against dishonor, on the evening before they were \nadmitted to the order, were laid in a bath, and thoroughly \nwashed, in order to show how bright and pure ought to be the \nlives of those who engage in noble enterprises.*\' \xe2\x80\x94 Stanley\'s \narticle on Baptism, in Nineteenth Century for Oct., 1879. \n\n\n\n164 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nTherefore we are buried with him by baptism into \ndeath ; that like as Christ was raised up from the \ndead by the glory of the Father, even so we also \nshould walk in newness of life." 1 A like thought \nPaul expresses in Col. ii. 12. Here also, then, a \ngreat Scripture truth is presented. The old man \nno longer lives, but is buried, and in his place is \nthe new man in Christ Jesus. In baptism, as the \ncrowning act of repentance and faith, these two \nfacts are symbolically set forth. Buried in the bap- \ntismal waters, the old man with his sinful nature dis- \nappears, but, in the emergence from the watery \ngrave, he rises to the new life in Christ. And this \ngreat truth, immersion, and immersion alone, fitly \nsymbolizes. \n\n3. Baptism is also a symbol of the believer\'s par- \nticipation in the death and resurrection of Christ. \nSays Paul in his epistle to the Bomans, vi. 5, " For \nif we have been planted together in the likeness of \nhis death, we shall be also in the likeness of his res- \nurrection." That is, as in that most intimate union \nof being, which subsists between the believer and \nhis Lord, ours is that moral death to sin in which \nspiritual communion in death with Christ consists, \nso shall we share in the glory of his resurrection. \n\n\n\n1 Says Meyer, in his comment on the passage, the very form \nof the inquiry "presupposes an acquaintance with the moral \nnature of baptism " ; and he adds, " it must in fact have been \nan experimental acquaintance." \n\n\n\nIMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 165 \n\nThere is a fellowship of death, and there is a fellow- \nship of immortality. And of this sublime teaching \nof Scripture, immersion, "in the disappearance \nbeneath the water and the emergence from the \nwater," is not only the appropriate symbol, but "a \nmost expressive one. \n\nBaptism, then, is something more than a rite, it is \na symbol which expresses the grandest, sublimest \ntruth of our evangelical faith. But let immersion give \nplace to sprinkling or pouring, and the symbolical \nsignificance of this divine ordinance is at once de- \nstroyed. As Stanley says i 1 " It is a greater change \neven than that which the Roman Catholic Church \nhas made in administering the Sacrament of the \nLord\'s Supper in the bread without the wine. For \nthat was a change which did not affect the thing that \nwas signified : whereas the change from immersion \nto sprinkling has set aside the larger part of the \napostolic language regarding baptism." \n\nBy some this is regarded as a matter of slight \nimportance. But is it? Who instituted this ordi- \nnance, in which such great truths are so impressively \nset forth? Was it not our King, who just before \nhe entered the swiftly flowing stream, addressing \nthe hesitating John, exclaimed, " So it becometh us \nto fulfil all righteousness V J As I write these lines, \non the other side of the globe, in the mountain fast- \nnesses of Afghanistan, English troops are standing \n\n1 Article on Baptism, in Nineteenth Century for Oct., 1879. \n\n\n\n166 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nin battle array. A sacred silence rests upon the long \nlines \xe2\x80\x94 the solemn hush which precedes the deadly \ncharge, and now the colors are unfurled. Beauti- \nfully they wave in the soft breeze of the early morn- \ning. Strong hands grasp the staff. Soon the order \nto advance is given, and the troops are in motion. \nThe roar of artillery follows, and then, as the assail- \nants near the enemy\'s works, the crack of musketry. \nThe color-bearer falls. A comrade seizes the flag, \nand it is borne on with the advancing lines. Again \nand again it falls, but again and again it is caught up \nby those who love it, and are ready to die for it. \nBut why this devotion to the flag I Is it not seen \nthat it draws from the enemy his deadliest fire ? Let \nit then be furled, or substitute something for it ! It \nis only a symbol! A symbol ? Yes, and because it \nis a symbol, these men reply, we cherish it. It is \nour country\'s flag, and was placed in our hands by \nour gracious queen as a sacred trust. Nothing else \ncan take its place. And on they go. What though \nthe ranks are thinned by every successive volley? \nThere is something worse than death to such men ; \nand as we follow them with straining eyes, our hearts \nare stirred as in the battle front, dimly seen through \nthe smoke of the conflict, moves the flag which they \nfaithfully bear. \n\nSo it is with baptism. It is only a symbol, some \ntell us. Yes, but it was committed to our care by \nour heavenly King, with the promise of his presence \n\n\n\nIMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM, 167 \n\nand aid in the conflict in which we are engaged. To \nuphold it courage may at times be required ; but a \ntrue soldier will have courage. And when the order \nis given, " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, \nimmersing them in the name of the Father, and of \nthe Son, and of the Holy Ghost," he will neither \nfurl his flag nor cast it aside ; but with a desire to be \ntrue to his sovereign, bearing aloft the sacred sym- \nbol of the sacramental host of God\'s elect, he will \npress forward conquering and to conquer. \n\nUpon these two facts, therefore, that immeision \nalone meets the requirements of the divine com- \nmand in reference to baptism, and alone preserves \nthe symbolical significance attributed to the ordi- \nnance in the new Testament, we rest in maintaining \nour position that immersion is essential to Christian \nbaptism. When, therefore, it is said, that there is \nnothing in the original institution or in the nature \nand uses of the rite of baptism " requiring it to be \nadministered in one precise mode," it is evident that \nthose who use these words have failed to consider \nthe testimony which the New Testament furnishes \nin reference to this ordinance. \n\nWhat, then, is the answer that is made to facts \nlike these which we have now presented? Dean \nStanley, 1 admitting that there can be no question but \nthat the original form of baptism was complete \n\nl Eastern Church, p. 11. \n\n\n\n168 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nimmersion in the deep baptismal waters, and alluding \nto the fact that " To this form the Eastern Church \nstill rigidly adheres; and the most illustrious and \nvenerable portion of it, that of the Byzantine Empire, \nabsolutely repudiates and ignores any other mode \nof administration as essentially invalid," adds : " The \nLatin Church, on the other hand, doubtless in defer- \nence to the requirements of a northern climate, to \nthe change of manners, to the convenience of cus- \ntom, has wholly altered the mode, preferring, as it \nwould fairly say, mercy to sacrifice/\' And this \naltered mode, introduced by the church of Rome, \nStanley himself defends as " a wise exercise of \nChristian freedom V and "a striking example of the \ntriumph of common sense and convenience over the \nbondage of form and custom." It is defended, on \nthe same ground, by its advocates in this country. \nSays the editor of a Congregational journal : 1 " We \nfeel warranted by the principles of Christian liberty \nin such cases, while we reverently cherish the ordi- \nnance itself, to consult in its mode of administration \nthose considerations of health, of delicacy, and even \nconvenience, which seem to us more fitting in the \ntimes and circumstances in which we live." \n\nThe answer, then, is this: The Saviour indeed \nsaid, " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, \nimmersing them," but there are considerations of \nhealth, delicacy and convenience which warrant us \n\n1 Christian Mirror, April 12, 1S79. \n\n\n\nIMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 169 \n\nin wholly altering the mode. As to the first of these \nconsiderations there are doubtless, in rare instances, \nthose who would gladly obey the divine command \nwere they not denied the privilege on account of \nill-health. Others are prevented by the circum- \nstances in which they find themselves. The dying \nrobber on the cross could not be buried with Christ \nin baptism. But Christ does not ask of his disciples \na service which they cannot render, nor does he \nsuggest, in case immersion is impossible, an abridge- \nment of the rite. Indeed, they certainly make too \nmuch of baptism, who wholly alter the mode in order \nthat in these exceptional cases there may be an \nappearance of conformity to the divine command. \n\nBut what shall be said of the second consideration, \nthat immersion is indelicate ? Did it ever occur to \nthose who take this position that in so doing they \nimpute to the Saviour a lack of wisdom, and even \nof the finer feelings, in instituting a rite, designed \nto be perpetual, which should in any age, and among \nany people, be an offense to the moral sense of those \nwho witness it or participate in it J ? \n\nEqually frivolous, as it seems to us, is the consid- \neration of convenience which is presented as an \nadditional reason for the adoption of a u wholly \naltered mode." Convenience! Certainly immersion \nis no more inconvenient now than in the New Testa- \nment times ; and yet neither in the Acts nor in the \nEpistles do we anywhere read that the Apostles \n\n\n\n170 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nwholly altered the mode for the sake of convenience t \nTheir Master had not said, Go ye therefore, and \nteach all nations, immersing them if it is convenient, \nbut immersing them ; and how faithfully they obeyed \nthe divine injunction the inspired record clearly \nshows. \n\nIndeed, the position of those who, on the ground \nof these considerations, discard immersion, is pre- \ncisely that which Kalph Waldo Emerson, a half cen- \ntury ago, took in reference to the Lord\'s Supper. He \nwas pastor of the Second Unitarian Church in Bos- \nton. In a sermon on the Lord\'s Supper he said to \nhis people : " The use of the elements, however \nsuitable to the people and the modes of thought in \nthe East where it originated, is foreign and unsuited \n\nto us Most men find the bread and wine no \n\naid to devotion, and to some it is a painful impedi- \nment." And he added: "This mode of commemo- \nrating Christ is not suitable. That is reason enough \nwhy I should abandon it. If I believed that it was \nenjoined by Jesus or his disciples, and that he ever \ncontemplated making permanent this mode of com- \nmemoration, every way agreeable to an Eastern \nmind, and yet, on trial, it was disagreeable to my \nown feelings, I would not adopt it." And so he \nurged the members of his church to abandon the \nordinance as hitherto observed, and " suggested a \nmode in which a meeting for the same purpose \nmight be held free of objection." It is understood \n\n\n\nIMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 171 \n\nthat his suggestion was that the bread and wine \nshould remain on the table at the communion season, \nand as the German philosopher told his students to \n"think the wall," the members of Mr. Emerson\'s \nchurch were to think the Lord\'s Supper. But they \nwere unwilling to conform to Mr. Emerson\'s sug- \ngestion. It seemed to them that this would be an \nunwarrantable violation of the plain commandment \nof the Saviour, " Take, eat -drink ; " " This do in \nremembrance of me ;" and so, rather than yield cher- \nished convictions of duty, they accepted the pastor\'s \nresignation, and Mr. Emerson\'s ministry suddenly \ncame to an end. \n\nThat the position of those who discard immersion \nis the same, is evident. In reference to the Lord\'s \nSupper the command is, " Take, eat." Xo, says \nEmerson, the ordinance is foreign and unsuited to \nus ; indeed it is disagreeable to my feelings. In refer- \nence to baptism the command is, "Be immersed." \nXo, reply the advocates of Christian liberty, immer- \nsion is inconvenient, not suited to the times and cir- \ncumstances in which we live, and is an offense to the \nfiner feelings of our nature. And so, in place of \nthe one baptism, we have another which takes its \nplace as a substitute. Surely, when Mr. Emerson \nannounced his position in reference to the Lord\'s \nSupper half a century ago, and the members of the \nchurch which he served as pastor were willing to let \nhim go rather than abandon a plain commandment of \n\n\n\n172 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthe Lord, lie could little have imagined that in so \nshort a time this very doctrine of Christian liberty \nwould be urged even in evangelical circles, in advo- \ncating changes as radical in reference to the ordi- \nnance of baptism as he had recommended in refer- \nence to the Lord\'s Supper. \n\nIt is sometimes said that the cry of the Baptists is \nu Water, water ! " Dr. Landels, of London, was \nright, when, at a meeting of the Baptist Union in \nEngland not long ago, he replied, " No ! The cry of \nthe Baptists is not \' Water, water V but \' Obedience, \nobedience ! ? n As a denomination, Christian liberty \nis very dear to us. At a great price, as all men \nknow, obtained we this liberty. We glory in it, and \nlike our fathers, as we trust, we are ready to die if \nneed be in maintaining it. But there are some things \nwhich are no less sacred to us than Christian liberty, \nand among these we cheerfully give to the com- \nmands of Christ an abiding place. \n\n\n\n\nONE OF OUR PRIMITIVE TABERXACLES. \n\n(The first Baptist Church edifice erected in Missouri. J \n\n\n\nCLOSE COMMUNION. \n\n\n\n"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which \nI say?"\xe2\x80\x94 Luke vi. 4G. \n\nThis sermon is devoted to a discussion of the ques- \ntion of Close Communion. In one word, this is our \nplea : \n\nWe ask, for ourselves, the simple liberty to admin- \nister the ordinances of the Lord\'s House in such a \nway as our consciences tell us that His Word requires. \n\nWe ask the charity of others that they recognize our \nright to do this, and that they charge our course to \nthis motive alone \xe2\x80\x94 not to bigotry, uncharitableness, \nor illiberality. We ask no more, and surely there will \nbe granted no less, than this. We do not arrogate to \nourselves a wisdom or piety superior to others ; but, \n" with malice towards none, and charity for all," we \nask that we be allowed to follow our conscientious \nconvictions in all matters pertaining to the Kingdom \nof Heaven. As it is by the Word of God that we are \nto be approved or condemned, we feel bound to fol- \nlow that Word just where it leads us. \n\n173 \n\n\n\n174 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nThroughout the land there is an outcry against \nBaptists, because of their Close Communion. This is \nbecause their views and motives are misunderstood. \nThere are persons who never will be brought to \nunderstand the true position of Baptists in this mat- \nter. Not that the position itself is difficult, or that \nthe persons lack the ability to understand, but they do \nnot care to understand. The cry of " Close Com- \nmunion " is a convenient cudgel with which to pound \nBaptists; and a ringing rally-word with which to \nexcite popular passion and prejudice against them. \nTo reason with such persons is the idlest of idle \ntasks ; and Baptists may as well make up their minds \nto endure their carping. But we are glad to believe \nthat this class is a very small minority, while the \nlarge majority of their fellow Christians of other \nnames honestly and really misunderstand. To those \nwho are willing to hear and consider, and who would \nbe glad to be relieved of any wrong impressions they \nmay have received, these words of explanation and \nargument are addressed. \n\nLet it be premised that, rightly considered, the \nvery fact that the position of the Baptists on the \nquestion of Communion is one of odium, instead of \nbeing a ground of rash condemnation, constitutes a \npresumption in its favor, since there must be very \nstrong reasons to urge its adoption and mainten- \nance in the very face of its odiousness. The love \nof approbation is instinctive and very strong. Cen- \n\n\n\nCLOSE COMMUNION. 175 \n\nsure is a thing which men flee. So great is the \naversion of men to censure, that many will give \nup their principles rather than endure it. To go \nout of their way to incur it, or to expose them- \nselves to its fury when it may as well and as easily \nbe avoided, is an unheard-of thing, except among \nfanatics. If a man of probity and intelligence firmly \nset himself in a way that will bring odium upon him, \nand calmly pursue his course despite the scorn and \ncondemnation of his neighbors, if it be in a matter \nnot beyond his judgment, the probability is that he \nwill be found to be not only honest, but right. Such \nwas the position of Paul at Antioch, when Peter and \nBarnabas were carried away by the popular current. \nSuch we believe to be the position of Baptists upon \nthe question of Communion. What a world of pres- \nsure has been brought to bear against their position, \nbecause of its odiousness. It is unpopular, and so is \ncondemned without any attention to its merits. If a \nminister or church has declared for open commun- \nion, with what laudation has that declaration been \nreceived. Par and near, it is sounded abroad ; and \nthe world is given to know what a burst of applause \nwould follow, if all Baptists were to do likewise. Are \nBaptists so unlike all other men, so unnatural, that \nthey choose the heritage of shame and condemnation \nwithout cause ? Or, does not the fact that they have \ncalmly withstood opposition and reproach at least \nentitle them to a candid and patient hearing, lest, \n\n\n\n176 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nafter all, they may be found to be in the way of the \ntrue followers of the Nazarene, "the sect everywhere \nspoken against." \n\nIt is freely conceded that the words " Close Com- \nmunion" are not found in the Bible. No sane man \nwould expect to find them there, when he remembers \nthe character of the Apostolic churches, \xe2\x80\x94 that they \nwere essentially the same, each one being substan- \ntially like every other one. But what we do find in \nthe Word of God is this : Certain restrictions thrown \naround the Lord\'s Supper, which, in the present con- \ndition of the religious world, force upon Baptists \none of two things, \xe2\x80\x94 either to set aside the restrictions \nimposed by the Word of God; or to refuse a free invita- \ntion to the Supper. The former they cannot do with- \nout setting aside the cardinal principle that the \nScriptures are divinely inspired, and constitute an \ninfallible and supreme rule of faith and practice. \nThe latter being the only course left to them, they \nhave refused to give a free invitation to the supper. \nWhat is called " Close Communion " is simply the \npractical application of the terms and conditions \nwhich the Scriptures have imposed upon all who \nwould approach the Lord\'s table. \n\nWhat are those terms or conditions ? \n\n1st. The first is conversion. By this we mean \nthat the individual must be, so far as we can judge, \na true disciple of Jesus Christ, (a) This accords with \nthe Commission which Jesus gave to his Apostles. \n\n\n\nCLOSE COMMUNION. 177 \n\n"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. \nGo ye, therefore, and teach [disciple] all nations." \nMatt, xxviii., 18, 19. (6) It accords also with the \npractice of the Apostles under that Commission. On \nthe day of Pentecost Peter preached Jesus to the \nmultitudes gathered together in Jerusalem. The first \nmarked effect of his discourse is recorded in these \nwords : " They were pricked in their hearts." When \nthey cried out, "What shall we do?" he bade them \nrepent. A little further on we are told that thousands \nof them " gladly received his word." Acts ii. 37, 41. \nTo gladly receive his word about Jesus is the same \nas to receive Jesus himself. Now we are told that \nto receive Jesus is to \'\' to believe on his name." "He \ncame unto his own [the Jews] but his own received \nhim not. But to as many as received him, to them \ngave he power [right or privilege] to become the \nsons of God, even to them that believe on his name." \nJohn i. 11, 12. Those Pentecos.tal converts then, were \npenitent believers. The true character of the penitent \nbelievers is still further developed in that they are \ndeclared to be the sons of God, and the subjects of a \ndivine and spiritual birth. " Which were born not \nof blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will \nof man, but of God. John i. 13. Or, in ordinary par- \nlance, we say that they were converted. This propo- \nsition might be very much enlarged upon, but the \nreader is invited to examine the New Testament for \nhimself; and to note particularly the character of \n\n.12 \n\n\n\n178 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthe apostolic churches, as described in the epistles \naddressed to them. Let only one example be cited : \n" Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ * * * * to the \nsaints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful [the \nbelievers] in Christ Jesus. Eph. i. 1. \n\n2d. The Bible teaches that a second qualification \nfor the Lord\'s Supper is baptism, (a) Again, we \nfind that this accords with the Commission. " Go ye, \ntherefore, and teach [disciple] all nations, baptizing \nthem," etc. Matt, xxviii. 19. ( b ) Again, it accords \nwith the practice of the Apostles under the Com- \nmission. " Then they that gladly received his word \nwere baptized. 1 \'\' Acts ii. 41. So also it is the faith and \npractice of the various denominations of Christians \nto give the supper to the baptized only. \n\nWhat constitutes the act of baptism, I will not \ndiscuss here. Only this much in general : If, in this \ncontroversy about the act of baptism, Baptists stood \nalone, with the whole world against them, they might \nwell distrust the strength and correctness of their \nviews and practice. If, for example, classical schol- \nars, who have no interest in the baptismal con- \ntroversy, said, with united voices, that the word \nbaptize, in its various uses, never involved the idea \nof immersion ; if the modern Greeks, who speak a \nmodified form of the ancient language, said the same \nthing ; if the leading church historians said that, as a \nmatter of fact, sprinkling was the primitive practice, \nand they could point to the time when immersion \n\n\n\nCLOSE COMMUNION. 179 \n\nwas first introduced, and detail the causes and cir- \ncumstances which led to the change; if the charac- \nter of the references to the rite found in the New \nTestament was incompatible with immersion, and \nperfectly accordant with sprinkling; if, in addition to \nall this, hosts of the most learned and pious Baptist \nleaders had arisen, who said that we were mistaken \nin our assumptions, incorrect in our statements, and \nthat we had departed from the primitive practice, \xe2\x80\x94 \nif all these things were so, I should admit at once \nthat the presumption that we were wrong amounted \nto almost a demonstration. But this is the case with \nthose who practice sprinkling or pouring. The inde- \npendent classical scholars of the world, ancient and \nmodern, I suppose were never more united on the \nmeaning of any word than this, and that it means \nimmersion. The modern Greeks say the same thing. \nEcclesiastical historians not only tell us that immer- \nsion was the primitive practice, but they point to the \ntime when sprinkling was introduced, and detail the \ncauses and circumstances that led to the change. \nThe references to the rite in the New Testament are \nincompatible with the idea of sprinkling, andsuitable \nto immersion. a And, in addition to all this, hosts of \nthe most learned and pious scholars of those denom- \ninations that practice sprinkling, conspicuously \nLuther, Calvin, Wesley, etc., tell us plainly that \n\nl See remarks of Dean Stanley, quoted on pages 94, 156 \nand 228-30.\xe2\x80\x94 Ed. \n\n\n\n180 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthere lias been a change of the ordinance, and that \nimmersion was the primitive practice. \n\nWith regard to the subject of baptism, we are con- \ntent to say but little. Yet we say that the New Tes- \ntament affords neither precept nor example for any \nbaptism, except the baptism of the believer. Like the \nsprinkling of adults, the sprinkling of infants had its \norigin in the idea that baptism washes away original \nsin, and that the only safety for the child dying in \ninfancy is the water of baptism. In other words, the \npractice of sprinkling infants had its origin in the \nmischievous dogma of baptismal regeneration. 1 Apart \nfrom this, I think that it is quite impossible to give \nany satisfactory reason for the practice of infant \nbaptism. Its strongest defense is tradition. But \nsuch a defense is against the corner-stone of Protest- \nantism, \xe2\x80\x94 that the Bible, and not tradition, is the \nreligion of Protestants ; that the Holy Scriptures are \nour guide in all matters of faith and practice. This \nis the great battle-ground between Protestants and \nCatholics, and nothing is more common than for \n\nl These words were written before the publication of Dean \nStanley\'s now famous article on Baptism. Had I possessed the \npower to summon a witness from the rank of Pedobaptists, I \ncould not have selected a better one than the Dean of West- \nminster. And had I possessed the authority to dictate the \nwords that he would utter, I could not have made so complete \na defence of the truth of the above statement as to the origin \nand spread of infant baptism. If he has not, the reader is \nurged to read the Dean\'s article. \n\n\n\nCLOSE COMMUNION. 181 \n\nCatholics to twit Pedobaptist Protestants with their \ninconsistency in this particular. "You reject tradi- \ntion, and yet you retain infant baptism." \n\n3d. A third qualification for the Lord\'s Supper is \nchurch membership. Concerning these Pentecostal \nconverts, we read, " Then they that gladly received \nhis word were baptized, and the same day there were \nadded unto them about three thousand souls." Acts \nii. 41. Added unto whom ? The ellipsis is supplied \nin verse 47. "And the Lord added to the church daily \nsuch as should be saved." Now, concerning those \nbaptized converts that had been added to the church, \nwe read, "And they continued steadfastly in the \nApostle\'s doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of \nbread and prayers." Acts ii. 42. The Scriptures \nteach further that the Supper is not an individual, or \nsocial, or family ordinance, but a church ordinance. \nOne of the main points of the Apostle\'s earnest \nadmonitions in I. Cor., xi., is that the Supper is not \na social ordinance, in which a few might join as a \nsocial repast, but that they should wait one for \nanother; and with the whole church assembled, they \nshould partake of the Supper. Again, he declares, \n"For we being many, are one bread and one body; \nfor we are all partakers of that one bread." I. Cor. \nx. 17. In accordance with this, the disciples at Troas \ncame together on the first day of the week to break \nbread. Acts xx. 7. Though there is no specific men- \ntion of a church being established at TroaSj as this \n\n\n\n182 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nwas the third time Paul had visited that city, and as \nhe himself tells us that a door was opened to him \nof the Lord, the presumption is that a church had \nbeen established there. This is the opinion of Cony- \nbeare and Howson. Besides, to omit the mention of \nsuch a fact is not uncommon in Acts. If, in opposi- \ntion to this, it should be urged that the Supper was \nobserved from house to house, and was, perhaps, a \nsocial Christian ordinance rather than a church ordi- \nnance, \xe2\x80\x94 the reply is ready. The writer of the Acts \nseems to be careful to keep up the idea of the disci- \nples as one company. "And all that believed were \ntogether, and they [all that believed] continuing \ndaily with one accord in the temple and in breaking \nbread from house to house," etc. Acts ii. 44-46. \nBesides, the idea is not that of going from house to \nhouse, but, as Olshausen says, "The stress is to be \nlaid upon the opposition between ev rco hpco and xaz y \noaov." They worshipped daily in the Temple; they broke \nbread in private, or, as the marginal renders it, at home. \nFrom these Scriptures it appears that the Lord\'s \nSupper is a church ordinance ; that it is also an \nexpressive symbol of church fellowship ; and that it \nis to be shared by those who are truly united in \nchurch relation. The New Testament says nothing \nof the intercommunion of churches ; but it seems \nreasonable to infer that there may be consistent \nintercommunion between those churches whose doc- \ntrine and order so agree that membership in the one \n\n\n\nCLOSE COMMUNION. 183 \n\nchurch may justly entitle an individual to membership \nin the others; but between such churches only. \n\nLet us now see how these qualifications for the \nSupper, which are of the nature of restrictions \nthrown around it, force upon Baptists the practice of \nClose Communion. \n\nSince conversion is an indispensable qualification \nin the Scriptural communicant, Baptists are com- \npelled to refuse an invitation to all those who deny \nor practically ignore conversion as such a qualifica- \ntion ; or they must, with their own hand, remove the \nrestriction which the Lord has imposed. They have \nno right to do the latter, and so are compelled to do \nthe former. It is absolutely painful to consider how \nlarge a part of the professed Christian world this \nexcludes. But if the reader will cast about him and \ndiscover who it is that demands a credible profession \nof faith in Christ, as a condition of church mem- \nbership, or of participation at the Lord\'s table, he \nwill also discover that nine-tenths of the Christian \nworld are excluded by this simple but unspeakably \nimportant test. \n\nAgain, since we believe that baptism is a qualifica- \ntion of the communicant, and that immersion alone \nis baptism, how can we consistently invite one who \nhas not been baptized [immersed] ? We do not \nadmit to the Table persons whom we ourselves have \nreceived for church membership, until they have been \nbaptized. It not unfrequntly happens that persons \n\n\n\n184 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nare received for membership in Baptist churches ; \nbut before they are baptized the church observes \nthe Lord\'s Supper. Yet these persons are not invited \nto partake, because they have not been baptized. \nHow can we consistently admit others who have not \nbeen baptized? Shall we so discriminate against \nour own members\'? Does not the same Scripture \nwhich compels us to withhold the Supper from those \nwho have signified their wish to join our churches, \nbecause they are unbaptized, compel us to withhold \nit from all others who are unbaptized % We do not \nadmit those who have been sprinkled to membership \nin our churches without baptism ; neither can we \nadmit them to the Lord\'s Table without baptism. \nNow is the one practice any more rigid or exclusive \nthan the other? We may as consistently admit the \nunbaptized to our churches as to the Lord\'s Table. \nParticularly does this appear when we remember \nthat the Supper is a church ordinance. \n\nAgain, if baptism is a scriptural qualification of the \ncommunicant, and is scripturally administered to the \nbeliever only, how can Baptists, unless they set aside \nthe teaching of the Scriptures, invite one who was \nonly sprinkled in his infancy ? and who cannot claim \nthat even that was done as the prompting of his own \ndesire and choice, but wholly at the dictation of \nanother. How can they receive tbe sprinkling of an \nunconscious babe as a substitute for the voluntary \nimmersion of a conscious believer in Jesus Christ? \n\n\n\nCLOSE COMMUNION. 185 \n\nThis brings to the surface the fact that the real dif- \nference between Baptists and Pedobaptists is not one \nof Communion at all, but of baptism. And for our \nPedobaptist brethren to cry out "Close Communion" \nis not only wide of the mark, but is ignoring the real \nissue. As has been said the thousandth time, per- \nhaps, " It is close baptism. 7 \' They will not give the \nSupper to the unbaptized. We say no more than that. \nSo the question between them and us is, "What is \nbaptism V Until it is shown that something else than \nimmersion is baptism, to upbraid Baptists for not \ninviting them to the table is to upbraid them for what \nthey will not do themselves \xe2\x80\x94 commune with those \nwhom they consider unbaptized. Is it not plain that \nin the present condition of the religious world the \npractice of "Close Communion" is the practical appli- \ncation of the restrictions which the Word of God \nhas thrown around the Lord\'s Table ? If Baptists are \nwrong anywhere, it is in the principles which they \nhave drawn from the Word of God ; mot in the prac- \ntical application of those principles in the adminis- \ntration of the Supper. If their principles are wrong, \nthey should abandon them, by all means. If their \nprinciples are of little worth, why, let them go along \nwith their failure to practice them. But if their prin- \nciples are right and important, let them have the \nmanliness and fidelity to stand by them, and God and \ngood men will approve their course. In these days of \nreligious latitudinarianism, when, under the cloak of \n\n\n\n186 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ncharity, men are crying down creeds and formulas \nof faith, and calling upon their fellow Christians to \ngive up, or submerge from view, this or that Bible \ndoctine, that all the Lord\'s people may appear to be \none, is it not worth while that Baptists should stand \nfirm, as the representatives of the grander principle \nthat the Word of God is the supreme rule of life ; that \nto do just what God says is of far greater importance \nthan the exercise of a charity that vaunts itself over \nthe Bible, while professing to reverence and love it ? \nTo maintain such a position as this at this present \ntime is of the greatest moral value to the world, to \nsay nothing of the sacrifice of principle and con- \nscience involved in yielding their position. \n\nObjections. \xe2\x80\x94 There are many plausible objec- \ntions to Close Communion, which are persistently \nthrust forward with a skill and energy " worthy of a \nbetter cause." These have been answered over and \nover again; but as the thoughts of men are particularly \noccupied with the objections to Close Communion, \nrather than with its true meaning and significance, \nthere is no alternative but to expose their unsound- \nness once more. The strongest objections will be \nselected and their full force given to them. \n\nFirst.\xe2\x80\x94" It is the Lord\'s Table ; you have no right \nto prevent the Lord\'s people from approaching it." \n\nIt is strange to see how differently different minds \nwill reason and conclude from the same premises. \nTo my mind it appears that, because it is the Lord\'s \n\n\n\nCLOSE COMMUNION. 187 \n\nTable, is the greatest of all reasons why we have no \nvoice in the matter one way or another, to say who \nshall, or who shall not come to it. We can afford to \nbe generous with what belongs to us, but with what \nbelongs to another, we have no right to do anything \nat all, save what he has directed. If the Table were \nours we might have some discretion as to what we \nwould do with it. Or, if the Table were the Lord\'s, \nbut he had left the administration of it to our choice, \nstill we might have some discretion about it. But \nthe Table is the Lord\'s, and he has left the direc- \ntions for the administration of it in the New Testa- \nment, and we must do as he has said, or prove \nrecreant to our trust. I agree with those who urge \nthis objection, that the Table is the Lord\'s. "There- \nfore,\' 7 say they, " it should be open to all." My mind \nworks in the exactly opposite direction. The Table \nis the Lord\'s ; therefore, I have no voice in the mat- \nter at all, except to follow the directions he himself \nhas given us. The reader can decide which conclu- \nsion is right. \n\nMoreover, a fallacy lurks under this specious plea \nin that it asserts what no recognized body of Chris- \ntians, believes, \xe2\x80\x94 that no other qualification is neces- \nsary but conversion; whereas it is almost universally \nconceded that baptism is a qualification for the Sup- \nper. The objection properly stated would be this : \n" It is the Lord\'s Table ; you have no right to prevent \nthe Lord\'s baptized people from approaching it." \n\n\n\n188 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nThe objection thus stated (and it covers a fallacy \nwhen not thus stated), carries its own answer along \nwith it; for it clearly implies that the Lord\'s unbap- \ntized people have not the Scriptural qualifications \nfor the Supper. \n\nSecond. \xe2\x80\x94 " The Scriptures say : \' Let a man exam- \nine himself;\' from which it is inferred that, if he is \nsatisfied with his own fitness and right to the Sup- \nper, we have no right to interpose a barrier." \n\nThe fallacy of the objection becomes apparent \nwhen we remember that altogether a different state \nof things exists among us to-day, from what existed \nwhen Paul penned these words. We have a score \nof different sects, each claiming to be the Church of \nChrist, and this language is so interpreted as to make \nit mean that if the members of one of these sects \nare satisfied with their fitness and right to the Supper, \nthat that entitles them to admission to the Supper, \nwhensoever and by whomsoever spread. Accord- \ning to this we may have intercommunion not only of \nPresbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, Congre- \ngationalists, Reformers and Baptists, but of Catho- \nlics, Unitarians, Universalists, &c, &c; because, \naccording to his own examination of himself, each \none is satisfied with his right to the Table. But who, \namong evangelical Christians, believes in carrying \nintercommunion that far? Nobody! And so it turns \nout that the objection is not believed by the very \nones even in whose mouths it is formed! \n\n\n\nCLOSE COMMUNION. 189 \n\nBesides, let it be remembered that this language \nwas not addressed to a score of sects, for the pur- \npose of leaving the question of fitness for the Sup- \nper to the individual determination of each, as the \nobjection supposes; but it was addressed to the \nmembers of one church, (Corinth), and was designed \nto prevent the very thing which this objection \ntacitly sanctions. At Corinth, the Supper had been \ngreatly abused, and the source of this abuse was the \nidea that each might act for himself. Against this \nPaul protests. Hear what he says : " Wherefore, \nwhosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup \nof the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body \nand blood of the Lord. But let a man examine him- \nself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of \nthat cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworth- \nily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not \ndiscerning the Lord\'s body. For this cause many \nare weak and sickly among you, and many sleep, \n[have died]." Instead of sanctioning loose com- \nmunion, this language enjoins carefulness, strict- \nness ; and instead of leaving each individual merely \nto be satisfied with himself, it expressly commands \nhim to examine himself lest he be guilty of a viola- \ntion of the ordinance, and so bring condemnation, \nand perhaps sickness and death. [See Hodge in \nloc] \n\nBut passing all this by, is it pretended by those \nwho urge this objection that the right of individual \n\n\n\n190 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\njudgment, flowing from individual self-examination, \nshall supersede the right of judgment by the whole \ncollective body of the church? Certainly not, I \nsuppose. Then, if not, suppose there should be a \nconflict between the judgment of an individual as to \nhis fitness, and the judgment of the church, which \nshould yield? Does Jesus Christ expect nothing of \nhis churches, and everything of individuals % Should \nan individual override the conscience of the whole \nchurch ? May a church seek refuge from the respon- \nsibility of having tolerated a known violation of the \nrequirements of the Divine Word under the plea \nthat every man must judge for himself? The answer \nis, When the requirements of the law are made \nknown, churches are responsible for themselves, as \nwell as an individual for himself. And it is as \nunmanly and as unfaithful in a church, as in an indi- \nvidual, to try to shirk the responsibility or perform- \nance of a delicate and unpleasant duty. The Lord\'s \nSupper is a church ordinance, and the laws govern- \ning that ordinance have been plainly revealed ; and \nit is the duty of an individual to examine himself, \nand so eat and drink ; and it is the duty of the church \nto enforce the laws which have been left to her to \nadminister. In I. Cor. v. 11, this duty of the church \nis distinctly urged and commanded : " But now I \nhave written unto you not to keep company if any \nman that is called a brother be a fornicator, or \ncovetous, or an idolater, or a drunkard, or an extor- \n\n\n\nCLOSE COMMUNION. 191 \n\ntioner ; with such an one no not to eat." This means \nu not to eat at the same table with such : whether at \nthe love feasts ( Agap?e ) or in private intercourse, \nmuch more at the Lord\'s table/ 1 1 ( Fausset Com, in loc.) \nThat the communicant should be a converted man, a \nbaptized man, a church member, is as plainly declared \nin the Scriptures as that he should be a moral man \nand just in his deportment. If it is the province and \nduty of the church to judge the communicant as to \nhis possession of a part of these Scriptural qualifi- \ncations, and the apostle distinctly asserts that it is, \nno less can it be the province and duty of the church \nto judge the communicant as to his possession of all \nthe Scriptural qualifications. And if the church has \nnot this right, aye, if this duty does not solemnly \nrest upon her, then the Lord\'s Table is a prey to \ndesigning men, and the church herself is impotent \nto determine or preserve her own character. \n\nThird \xe2\x80\x94 Another common objection which we hear \nis this : I do not believe that it is right to separate \nChristian people. I think they ought to meet \ntogether at the Lord\'s Table. \n\n1. It is difficult to see the consistency of the out- \ncry against Close Communion, while separation into \ndifferent denominations is at once tolerated and jus- \ntified. If the Lord\'s people can consistently come \ntogether at the Lord\'s Table, what reason is there \nfor their living in and maintaining separate Church \n\ni Italics mine. \n\n\n\n192 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nestablishments ? If their differences should not \nkeep them apart at the Lord\'s Table, why should \nthey anywhere % To say that there may be consis- \ntent intercommunion between the different sects is \nto brand them as being so many schismatics. Upon \nthe basis of the consistency of intercommunion, one \nof the greatest sins of the Christian world is its \ndivision into so many sects ; because there can be no \nconsistent intercommunion except between those \nchurches whose views of divine truth are so accord- \nant that membership in the one may justly entitle \nan individual to membership in the other. But for \ntwo such bodies to live apart is not only schism, but \nit is a wicked consumption of talent and wealth \nwhich might otherwise be employed in the evangel- \nization of the world. \n\nBut if the diverse denominationalism of the Chris- \ntian world is not a rank and crying sin, intercommu- \nnion is a sham, all the worse that it wears the cloak \nof piety and love. And such a sham it is when two \npersons sit down side by side at the Lord\'s Table, \nwhile in their hearts there is a lack of Christian con- \nfidence and fellowship, and so a betrayal of their \nhonest convictions, and a moral cowardice that \nshrinks from the responsibility of standing by one\'s \nprinciples. 1 \n\ni If any one has no principles which would be so violated, his \nfeelings and opinions cannot form a rule of conduct for one \nwho has such principles. \n\n\n\nCLOSE COMMUNION. 193 \n\n2. This objection seems to overlook the fact that \nChristians are already separated, and that independ- \nently of the Table, But for this separation, whether \nat the Table, or elsewhere, we allege that Baptists are \nnot responsible. Let us look at separation at the \nTable. It has already been seen that the question \nbetween the bulk of the religious world and Baptists \nis not one of communion at all, but of baptism. Now \nthere is a common ground between them, upon which \nthey may meet and compose their differences, and \nthat ground is the validity of immersion. Those who \npractice otherwise admit the validity of immersion, \nfor they accept it without hesitation, and occasionally \npractice it. But they say that another act will suf- \nfice, and, as more convenient and popular, they pre- \nfer it. Baptists cannot see it in this light. It \nappears to them that immersion alone is baptism; \nthat to speak of baptism by sprinkling is as much a \nsolecism as to speak of running by crawling. Oth- \ners can conscientiously practice immersion ; Baptists \ncan not conscientiously practice sprinkling. Which \nshould yield 1 Should conscience yield to conven- \nience, or convenience yield to conscience ? Should \nprinciple yield to preference, or preference to \nprinciple ? Now, as a Baptist, I am frank and bold \nto say that, if our positions were reversed, I would \ngladly yield to them. If we believed that either \nimmersion or sprinkling was valid, and they could \nnot conscientiously accept immersion, but sprinkling \n\n13 \n\n\n\n194 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nonly, we would cheerfully relinquish our preference \nfor immersion as the more beautiful and expressive \nrite, and practice sprinkling. Not for a moment \nwould we allow our convenience and preference to \nweigh in the balances against their conscience and \nprinciple ; but instantly they should be relinquished, \nthat we might strike hands in fellowship and love \nupon this question. But while our brethren are in \nthis position to yield without the sacrifice of principle, \nwe are not. Which of us is the more responsible for \nthe separation? By just as much as conscience \nshould be above convenience, as principle should be \nabove preference, by just so much does the respon- \nsibility of the separation not rest upon Baptists. \n\nFourth. \xe2\x80\x94 It is objected that Baptists make too \nmuch of baptism. It is not a saving ordinance ; why \nmake such an ado about it ? \n\nIf we were disposed to retort, we might say that \nthe charge comes with bad grace from those who \npractice sprinkling or pouring; since it was the \nbelief that baptism is a saving ordinance that first \nled to the change in the primitive practice, in such \neases as the sick, when baptism was deemed imprac- \nticable and dangerous. Yet that they might not die \nwithout the regenerating fluid, in such cases sprink- \nling or pouring was substituted for baptism. Bap. \ntists have neither unduly exalted nor debased the \nordinance of baptism. They keep it just where the \nMaster put it. The same with the Supper. They do \n\n\n\nCLOSE COMMUNION. 195 \n\nnot seek to exalt the Supper above baptism. Both \nare divine ordinances, and were established by the \nsame lips. The Master placed one at the entrance \nof the church, the other within the church. No one \nhas the right to run over the one ordinance, baptism, \nto get to the other, the Table. All the commands \nof Jesus are full of power, sweetness and beauty. \nObedience is the test of love, in small matters as well \nas great. A command to pick up a pin is as sure a \ntest of love as a command to put out a fire that is \nburning down a house, \xe2\x80\x94 perhaps a surer one. To \nput out the fire is of so great importance that it \nwould be done without a command; whereas, the \ncommand to pick up a pin carries with it no reason \nfor obedience save that it is commanded. \n\nBut underlying this question about baptism is one \nthat is not of minor importance, \xe2\x80\x94 the Headship of \nChrist. If Christ ordained immersion, have we any \nright to change it ? The Catholic Church says, " Yes ; \nand we have done it." Calvin says on Acts viii. 38: \n"They went down into the water. Here we see the rite \nused among the men of old time in baptism ; for they \nput all the body into the water. Now the use is this, \nthat the minister doth sprinkle the body or the head. \n* * * * It is certain that we want nothing which \nmaketh to the substance of baptism. Wherefore the \nchurch did grant liberty to herself since the begin- \nning to change the rites somewhat excepting the sub- \nstance." (Edinburg : by Calvin Translation Society, \n\n\n\n196 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nquoted by Jeter,) But if we claim the right to change \nwhat Christ has ordained, where will the matter end? \nWhere has it landed the Catholic Church, which arro- \ngates to herself the right to change the laws of Christ? \nLook at her to-day and contrast her with the teach- \nings of God\'s word, and let that be our answer. \n\nJesus Christ is the head of the Church and the \nKing in Zion, and among the last words which he \ncaused to be spoken is a curse upon him who should \n"add to" or "take away from the words of the book." \nRather let my hand or tongue be palsied than do or \nattempt such a thing. \n\nConclusion \xe2\x80\x94 We conclude as we began. Baptists \nsimply ask for themselves the liberty to administer the \nordinance of the Lord\'s House in such a way as their \nconsciences tell them that His Word requires. They \nask their fellow Christians of other names to recog- \nnize their right to do this, and charge their course to \nthis motive alone, not to prejudice, bigotry, unchar- \nitableness, or an affectation of a superior piety or \nwisdom. The practice of Close Communion is the \nlogical result of the principles which they have \nlearned from the Scriptures. If they are wrong, either \nin the principles themselves, or in their practical \napplication, we think they have the candor and man- \nliness to acknowledge the wrong, when it is pointed \nout to them. On a question like this, argument is \nmore agreeable to them, and more becoming those \nwho differ from them, than harsh words and bitter \n\n\n\nCLOSE COMMUNION. 197 \n\nupbraidings. They desire to live on terms of broth- \nerly kindness with all Christian people. They do not \nshrink from criticism and investigation. They would \nbe glad to have the world study their principles in \nthe light of God\'s Word, and will cheerfully abide \nthe result. \n\nTo my Baptist brethren I say, we should remember \nthat we have naught to gain, but everything to lose by \ncompromising the principles which we hold. Should \nfidelity to God\'s Word lead us to separation from \nthose we love as well as our own lives, we should \nstill be firm ; remembering that true love to Jesus, as \nwell as to our friends, should lead us to stand firmly \nby the truth. Baptists have accomplished a noble \nwork for the world. We do not believe that their \nmission is ended. Our fathers suffered imprison- \nment, stripes, banishment, death, that they might \nbequeath to us the rich legacy which we enjoy. Shall \nwe barter that legacy for popular applause t The \nearly Christians were the " sect everywhere spoken \nagainst." Our Master bore suffering and shame for \nus. If our principles bring reproach upon us, let us \nbear that reproach. Let us be careful to avoid bit- \nterness and unholy strife. Let our lives abound in \npatience, forbearance, gentleness, goodness and \ntruth, while we commit ourselves, not to men, but to \nGod, who judgeth righteously. \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHUKCHES APOSTOLICAL. \n\nBY PROF. ALBERT H. NEWMAN, ROCHESTER THEO- \nLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK. \n\n\n\n"If ye love me, keep my commandments." John xiv. 15. \n\n" Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- \nmanded you ; and lo ! I am with you alway, even unto the \nend of the world." Matt, xxviii. 20. \n\n" Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." \n\nII. Cor. iii. 17. \n\nThe aim of the present discourse will be to show \nthat Baptist churches are Apostolical, alike in spirit \nand in form ; and that Baptist churches alone of all \nthe churches are Apostolical in spirit and in form. \n\nWe shall attempt to show, furthermore, that the \nformal elements of Apostolical and Baptist churches \nconstitute the expression, and by far the best expres- \nsion, within the knowledge of man, of the spirit of \nChristianity. \n\nThat Baptist churches are coincident in form with \nApostolic churches we shall find no difficulty in \nproving, for the testimony of Scripture and that of \nscholars of all leading denominations of Christians \nis ample and clear. The fact that Baptist churches \nalone consistently adhere to the New Testament as \nan absolute and complete guide, in matters of prac- \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 109 \n\ntice as well as in matters of doctrine, is freely and \nheartily admitted by many of the ablest defenders of \nother systems. \n\nThat Baptists hold to Apostolical forms in Apos- \ntolical spirit, and that Apostolical and Baptist church \norder best expresses for all ages the spirit of Chris- \ntianity, would be denied by the great majority of the \nscholars of other denominations than Baptists, \xe2\x80\x94 \neven by men who admit that the teaching of the New \nTestament is final in matters of doctrine. \n\nWe may best accomplish our purpose by sketch- \ning first, the essential features of the Apostolical \nchurches as set forth in the New Testament, as inter- \npreted by scholars of various denominations and \nas understood by ourselves ; and afterwards, the \nessential features of Baptist churches as they are \nobserved in the history and the actual state of \nBaptist churches. \n\nI. The Essential Features of the Apostol- \nical Churches. \n\nWe freely admit at the outset that in many minor \nmatters of form the Baptists differ from the first \nChristians. Such points of difference, alike in matters \nsuperadded and in matters omitted, will be consid- \nered hereafter. We may further observe that oar \nbrethren of other denominations, while admitting \nthe correctness of our specifications of character- \nistics of the Apostolical churches, would probably \ndeny these characteristics of them to be essential. \n\n\n\n200 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\n1. The most fundamental thing in the Apostolical \nchurches was their ascription of absolute lordship \nto Jesus Christ. The expression " our Lord Jesus \nChrist," and expressions of like import, constantly \nmeet us throughout the \xc2\xa3Tew Testament writings. \nAnd in the mouths of the first Christians these \nwords meant something, \xe2\x80\x94 more, alas ! than they com- \nmonly mean with us. The chief question with those \nearly disciples was, " Lord, what wilt thou have me \nto do?" The Apostles, under the special inspiration \nof the Holy Spirit, preached not themselves " but \nJesus Christ, as Lord." Whatever they did by way \nof giving form to the outward expression of Chris- \ntianity, they did as they thought themselves directed \nto do by Christ himself, through his remembered \nwords and through the Holy Spirit. \n\nFar, far would it have been from any one of the \nApostles, to have made changes in matters with \nregard to which Christ himself was known to have \ngiven express commands. \n\nSo far as the words of Christ went, they were \nregarded as the final test and the only allowable \nguide. Where definite directions from the Master \nwere wanting, the Apostles and their disciples acted \nas they felt impelled by the Spirit of God to act. \n\nThis lordship of Christ was in the minds of the \nearly Christians based upon the fact that Christ had \nby his own blood redeemed them, so that they felt \nthemselves no longer their own, but Christ\'s, by \nright of purchase. \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 201 \n\nThe spirit of obedience was not slavish, but loving. \nu If you love me, keep my commandments," said our \nLord Jesus Christ. \n\nChrist promised to his disciples spiritual guidance \ninto all truth, and the evidence is abundant that in \nall of their missionary work, whether in teaching or \nin organizing and developing Christian life and activ- \nity, they relied upon and received this promised \ndivine aid. \n\nThe most fundamental thing, therefore, in Chris- \ntianity, and hence in the Apostolical church organi- \nzation, is the recognition of Christ as Lord, on whom \nalone salvation depends, to whom alone his followers \nare responsible, to whom alone in spiritual matters \nimplicit obedience is due, on whom alone his follow- \ners depend for guidance in their inner life and in \ntheir outward activity. \n\n2. The feature of Apostolical church polity next in \nimportance is, if we mistake not, that of regenerate \nchurch-membership. The Apostolical churches were \nmade up exclusively of such as gave credible evi- \ndence of saving belief in Christ, who professed \nthemselves ready to separate themselves from the \nworld, to crucify the flesh and the lusts thereof, to \ndevote themselves wholly to the service of Christ. \n\ntTnregenerate men crept into the churches from \ntime to time, it is true ; but when their ungodliness \nwas revealed, when they were seen to be wolves in \nsheep\'s clothing, there was little hesitation on the \n\n\n\n202 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\npart of the churches in " separating themselves ?? \nfrom such interlopers. \n\nThe Christian life of the Apostolical churches was,, \nas a matter of fact, far below the ideal. Pagan mor- \nals and pagan conceptions could not be shaken off \ncompletely, at once, even by the truly regenerate ; \nbut the ideal constantly kept in view was pure and \nChristlike ; if impurity existed it was recognized as \nabnormal. The Apostolical Christians did not argue \nfrom the impracticability of attaining to the ideal, \nthat the ideal should be lowered; that no effort \nshould be made to secure regenerate church-mem- \nbership, as many Christian scholars do at the pres- \nent day. Though he knew that disorder and corrup- \ntion prevailed in the Corinthian church, Paul writes \n" to the Church of God which is at Corinth, to them \nthat are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be \nsaints." The word which we render saints ( 6.ycot ) \n\xe2\x80\x94 what does it mean? It means "holy" " conge- \ncrated to God," " separated from the world." A \nChurch which is designated " saints " can hardly be \nregarded as including normally any but regenerate \nmembers. Whatever in that Corinthian church did \nnot conform to this characterization, Paul regarded \nas entirely abnormal. If unregenerate members \nwere in the Apostolical churches they surely were \nnot of them. ( I. John ii. 19.) \n\nIn the same epistle to the Corinthian church Paul \nwrites : " Know ye not that ye are God\'s temple, and \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 203 \n\nthat the Spirit of God dwells in you. * * * for \nthe temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." \n(I. Cor. iii. 16-17.) \n\nOur position, otherwise unassailable, would be still \nfurther fortified, if, as some suppose, the very word \nwhich we translate Church (exxXyoca) contains in itself \nan allusion to the calling of Christians out of the world \nby the Gospel, so as to form a distinct class. The \nwords calling (x^avc), the called [xlr^roc), and similar \nwords, occur so frequently in the !N"ew Testament \n(and always with reference to the regenerate) that \nthe application of the word, already in common use \nto designate an assembly, to Christian assemblies and \nto the great Christian brotherhood could hardly \nhave failed to become tinged with the same idea. \n\nThose only were members of the Apostolical \nchurches who gave credible evidence of change of \nheart through faith in Christ, and who symbolized \ntheir death to sin and resurrection to newness of life, \nthe washing away of the stains of sin through the \nblood of Christ, in baptism. \n\nThis assertion the great majority of scholars of all \ndenominations would probably assent to. \n\n3. Another leading characteristic of the Apostol- \nical churches was that of each local church\'s entire \nindependence of any other and of all other local churches, \nand of any individual. Each church was self-gov- \nerning, the only authority recognized being the will \n\n1 Compare Hodge, Church Polity, p. S sqq. \n\n\n\n204 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nof Christ as it was made known to them mediately \nthrough the inspired Apostles, and immediately \nthrough the Holy Spirit. \n\nThe church at Jerusalem, for example, does not \ntransmit its instructions to the church at Corinth, \xe2\x80\x94 \ndoes not threaten them with excommunication when \nit learns of the disorderly walk of some of the Corin- \nthians. \n\nThe churches established by Apostles looked upon \nthese Apostles as spiritual fathers, sought their \nadvice when difficulties arose, acted upon their \nadvice freely, because they recognized it as wise and \nas in accordance with the will of Christ. \n\nWhen deacons were to be appointed (Acts vi.) to \nadminister the charities of the church at Jerusalem, \nwhat course do the Apostles pursue 1 On any pre- \nlatical hypothesis they might have been expected to \ntake the matter into their own hands and to appoint \nthem. But this would have been unapostolic. What \nthey did was truly Apostolic. " So, brethren," said \nthey, " look ye out among you seven men of good \nrepute, full of the Spirit and wisdom, whom we will \nappoint over this business. * * * And the saying \npleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, \na man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, \nand Prochorus, and Mcanor, and Timon, and Parme- \nnas, and Mcolas, a proselyte of Antioch, whom they \nset before the Apostles ; and when they prayed they \nlaid their hands on them." \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 205 \n\nThis is a fair specimen of the relations of the \nApostles to the Apostolical churches. They told the \nchurches what to do, but they were careful that the \nexecution should in every instance be the act, uncon- \nstrained save by a sense of duty, of the entire church. \nThe office-bearers having been chosen, the Apostles \ngave their approval and set them apart to the work, \nceremonially. \n\nTake another instance : " Then it seemed good \nto the Apostles and the elders, with the whole churchy \nto choose out men of their own company and send \nthem to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas." (Acts \nxv. 22). \n\nBut does not the mission of these men to Antioch \nitself contradict what we have said ? The brethren \nat Antioch had been greatly distressed by Judaizers \nwho, pretending to have received a commission from \nthe church, had endeavored to force upon the con- \nsciences of the Christians at Antioch the entire Jew- \nish ceremonial law. \n\nThe present delegation was designed to free the \nminds of the Christians at Antioch from this disturb- \ning influence. It was no effort to assert absolute \nauthority, but simply an effort to set themselves \nright in the eyes of the Antiochians. As a younger \nand less experienced church, it was expected, of \ncourse, that the Antiochian would be influenced by \nthe Jerusalem church. \n\nIf the Antiochian church had become heretical. \n\n\n\n206 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthe Jerusalem church would probably have refused \nto recognize the members as brethren. But further \nthan this there was no thought of dependence of one \nchurch upon another. \n\nOne church might seek the advice of another, but \nthe church seeking advice remained entirely free to \nadopt or reject any advice given. One church might, \nunsolicited, admonish a sister church, but neither \nthe church admonishing nor the church admonished \nwould have felt that any obligation other than moral, \nother than the recognition of the truth and import- \nance of the admonition would induce, rested upon the \nchurch admonished to yield to the admonition. \n\nThe New Testament churches, therefore, were \nindependent one of another; yet as being subjects of \none Lord, brethren beloved, the members of each \nchurch felt a profound interest in the members of \nevery other, so far as their circumstances were \nknown. Each church felt bound to admonish \nchurches and individuals when they were seen to be \nin error, to encourage them in adversity, to aid them \nwith their counsel, their prayers and their means. \nThere was a fellowship of churches, but no organic \nunion. \n\nThe relation of the Apostles to the churches which \nthey founded was an exceptional relation, a relation \nwhich is well illustrated in the history of modern \nmissions. To them the churches looked at first as \nthe only external source of Christian truth; their \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 207 \n\nword was in the estimation of their converts, as it \nwas in reality, the very truth of Christ. As their living \nwords were authoritative in the churches which they \nfounded and in which they labored, so now their word, \nwritten under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit, \nby whom all their Christian activity was directed. \nAs specially commissioned and specially equipped by \nChrist for a special work, the Apostles claimed and \nexercised more of authority than it could be lawful \nfor any individual not so commissioned and not so \nequipped to exercise or to claim. But, as we have \nseen, even the Apostles brought to bear upon the \nchurches only moral suasion, and they recognized \nfully the right of each congregation of believers to \nadminister its own affairs. \n\nIn maintaining the entire independence of the \nApostolical churches, we encounter more of opposi- \ntion than in maintaining the recognized lordship of \nChrist or the insistance on regenerate membership \nin the Apostolic churches. Yet we believe that we \nare amply sustained by Scripture in the statements \nwe have made. \n\n4. A fourth leading feature of the Apostolical \nchurches was the recognition of the entire equality in \npoint of rank and privilege of all the members. Every \nChristian has become a child of God, an heir of God \nand a joint heir with Christ. "For as many as are \nbeing led by God\'s Spirit these are sons of God. For \nye received not a spirit of bondage that ye should fear \nagain, but ye received a spirit of adoption, wherein \n\n\n\n208 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nwe cry Abba, Father. The spirit itself bears witness \nwith our spirit that we are children of God, and if \nchildren heirs also, heirs of God, and joint heirs with \nChrist." (Bom. viii. 14-17.) This applies not to a class \nof believers, but to all believers, to " as many as are \nled by God\'s spirit." If such alone as are led by \nGod\'s spirit are recognized as proper members of \nChristian churches, as we have already seen to be the \ncase, and if such as are led by God\'s spirit are sons \nof God, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if \nevery believer has been brought into a mystical \nunion with Christ, if every believer is a priest of \nGod, with power to offer up to God the sacrifice of \nprayer and to plead the merits of Christ Jesus for \nhimself and for others ; if to his own Master every \nChristian standeth or falleth ; if unto every Christian \nis promised the continued presence of Christ, through \nhis Holy Spirit, as a comforter and a guide ; if every \nChristian is responsible, not simply for himself, but \nin great measure for those within the reach of his \ninfluence ; \xe2\x80\x94 if such are, according to the Scriptures, \nthe prerogatives and duties of each individual Chris- \ntian, the idea of ranks or grades of Christians is \nutterly out of place and preposterous. \n\nThe equality in point of rank of all the members \nof Apostolical local churches as well as of the church \nuniversal, may be made to appear still more clearly \nfrom a consideration of the metaphors employed in the \nNew Testament to set forth the relations of Christians \nto Christ and to each other. " I am the vine, ye are the \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 200 \n\nbranches." (John xv. 5.) Surely it could not be said \nthat one branch of a particular vine outranks another. \nOne may be more advantageously situated, more \nample, more fruitful, but all are alike in kind, all \ndraw their vitality from the same source, no one is \ndifferentiated from another in any essential particu- \nlar. \n\nAgain, take the metaphorical representation of the \nchurch under the figure of the human body. All the \nparts of the body are one flesh and blood. Each \npart has its function. Upon the presence of each \nmember and the performance of its proper function \ndoes the completeness and the efficiency of the entire \nbody depend. Each member has an important func- \ntion of its own, all minister to the whole, each mem- \nber ministers to every other member. The function \nof one member may be more conspicuously import- \nant than that of another; but, on examination, the \nutility of each part and its necessity in the formation \nof the organism is clearly to be seen. There is, there- \nfore, not the slightest basis in the Xew Testament for \nany sacerdotal idea. The church is a democracy. \nChurch officers are not priests mediating between \nGod and man, but servants, ministers. \n\n"The most singular evolution," writes Kenan, "that \nhas ever been produced in a democracy, was brought \nabout in the bosom of the Church. 1 The ecclesia, the \n\n\n\n1 He refers to the growth of hierarchical principles in the \n\nchurches of the second century, \nu \n\n\n\n210 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nfree union of persons, established on a footing of \nequality among themselves, is the thing democratical \npar excellence/ 7 \n\n5. The headship of Christ, acknowledged by the \nApostolical churches, the spiritual character of the \naims of the churches, the equality of rights, duties and \nprivileges, the entire independence of each church of \nall other churches, \xe2\x80\x94 all taken together make the idea \nof any organic union between Church and State utterly \nunthinkable as an element of the Apostolical churches. \nNot only was any union of Church and State entirely \nabsent from the thought of the Apostles, but it was \nentirely contradictory to all the most fundamental \nprinciples of the Apostolical churches. The Apostol- \nical churches, therefore, believed that Christ\'s king- \ndom was not of this world \xc2\xb1 that Christianity was to \naccomplish its mission, not by assuming the reins of \ncivil government, but by bringing individuals to \nyield themselves up in obedience to Jesus Christ. \nThe triumph of Christ over all things in heaven and \non earth and under the earth was not to be mediated \nby intriguing political prelates, but by the gradual \ntransfusion from heart to heart of the spirit of \nChrist. \n\n6. To descend now to particulars, the Apostolical \nehurches, in accordance with the principles already \nstated above, chose out of their own ranks individuals \nfor the performance of special functions in the churches. \nHowever democratic a body may be, it is still indis- \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 211 \n\npensable, in order to its proper efficiency, that some \norganization find place. The choosing and the func- \ntions of the officers of the churches must have been \nin accordance with the above statement of prin- \nciples. \n\nThe officers were chosen by the entire member- \nship of the churches, under the advice, in most \ninstances, of the Apostles or their missionary dis- \nciples. \n\nThe officers were chosen not to rule but to serve \nthe churches, and interests were committed to them \nnot for their own sakes but for the sake of the \nchurches. If a certain authority was delegated to \nthem, it was not for the sake of the office but for \nthe sake of the general weal. \n\nWhen officers had been elected by the assembled \nchurch, they were set apart to their special work by \nthe Apostles, the object of this setting apart being \nto impart to them spiritual gifts, and to secure their \ngeneral recognition and support in their service of \nthe church. \n\nThere certainly was no thought of exalting such \nofficers into a class apart from and above the gen- \neral body of the church. \n\nMen that had been thus set apart had authority to \nperforin certain functions in the church, and in that \nalone, whereto they belonged, and by which they \nwere elected to perform such functions. \n\nIf they performed similar functions in other \n\n\n\n212 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nchurches, it must have been in accordance with a \nsimilar election by such churches, and if they, on \nany account, ceased to perform the functions where- \nunto they were called, there is no reason to believe \nthat they retained the authority conferred upon them \nfor the performance of such functions. \n\nThe number of officers that found place in the \nApostolical churches (apart from the Apostolate, \nwhich was a special provision by Christ for a special \npurpose, and which was not perpetuated ) there were \ntwo classes of officers and only two, viz : Bishops or \nPresbyters, and Deacons. \n\nThat the terms Enta-KOTtoc, and npea6i>repo^ are \nemployed in the New Testament to denote, not two \nclasses of officers, but one, is clear from an examina- \ntion of the use of the terms, and is admitted by \nmost advocates of Episcopacy. We shall, in the \nfirst place, show that the terms are used interchange- \nably in the New Testament, and afterwards quote a \nfew of the more striking admissions by advocates \nof Episcopacy. \n\nThe term most frequently employed in the New \nTestament to denote pastors of Churches is IIpea6o- \nrepoc \xe2\x80\x94 Elder. Various other terms are also used, as \nIlocprjv \xe2\x80\x94 Pastor; AtdaaxaXot; \xe2\x80\x94 Teacher. \n\nThe term npe^urzpoc, occurs in the New Testa- \nment seventeen times, to denote church officers. \n\nThe term Entoxonoc, \xe2\x80\x94 Overseer, Bishop, occurs only \nfive times. \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 213 \n\nThe term e-toxozouvTzt;\xe2\x80\x94 performing the functions of \na Bishop, occurs once. \n\nIn all instances, except in the one instance where \nit is applied to Christ, the " shepherd and bishop of \nour souls n ( I. Pet. ii. 25 ) the term Etzioxottoi; is used \nin such a manner as to make it absolutely certain \nthat those designated Bishops are no other than \nPresbyters or Elders. \n\nIn I. Tim. iii. 2, the term Bishop is used in connec- \ntion with the term Deacon, as if these two classes of \nofficers exhausted the category. The qualifications \nof Bishops are given at length, and afterwards those \nof Deacons, no mention whatever being made of \nPresbyters. \n\nIn Titus i. 5 sq., Paul, having spoken of the work \nwhich he has entrusted to Titus as that of appoint- \ning Presbyters, and having pointed out in general the \nessential qualifications of such officers, assigns as a \nreason for insisting on such qualifications : l * for the \nBishop must be blameless as God\'s steward, etc." It \nis perfectly evident that the terms Bishop and Pres- \nbyter are here used with reference to the same indi- \nvidual. \n\nAgain, in Philippians i. 1, Paul salutes " all the \nsaints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, together \nwith Bishops and Deacons." If there had been Pres- \nbyters as distinct from Bishops, Paul would hardly \nhave failed to mention them in such a connection. \n\nSo also in I. Peter v. 1, 2, we read: "The Presby- \n\n\n\n214 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nters, therefore, who are among you, as a fellow pres- \nbyter and witness of the sufferings of Christ * * * \nI exhort, fulfilling the office of Bishops ( eTTccrxoxovvTEz) \nshepherd the flock of God among you," etc. That \nis, presbyters are exhorted to perform the functions \nof bishops or overseers. \n\nAgain in Acts xx. 17, we read : " Having sent from \nMiletus to Ephesus he (Paul) called for the Presby- \nters of the church." Having addressed to these \npresbyters a most touching account of his past rela- \ntions to them and the church, and having signified \nhis prospective departure, perhaps never to see \ntheir faces more, he exhorts them as follows : " Take \nheed therefore to yourselves and to the whole flock \nin which the Holy Spirit appointed you Bishops \n(sTiccrxoTTouz) to shepherd the church of God [or of the \nLord] which he purchased through his own blood." \n(vs. 28). The identity of the persons denominated \nPresbyters with those denominated Bishops is here \nperfectly evident, and perhaps none would venture \nto question it. \n\nThe term Presbyter was derived probably from \nthe Jewish Synagogue, and was the term in common \nuse among Jewish Christians to denote the office of \nthose that had the especial oversight of Christian \nchurches. The term with Christians, as with Jews, \nwas therefore, one of dignity. \n\nThe term Bishop was confined to Gentile churches, \nand was a word in common use among the Greeks \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 215 \n\nto denote the office of oversight or superintend- \nence. The word Bishop, therefore, refers not so \nmuch to the dignity as to the duties of the office. \n\nWe subjoin a few statements from Roman Cath- \nolic and Anglican writers, all men of highest author- \nity in matters of ecclesiastical history : \n\nA lzog l { Roman Catholic) admits that "the words \ne-taxozoz and Tzpecrduzepoz are, in the New Testament, \napplied indifferently to the same person." * * * \n" Peter and John, though Apostles, call themselves \nI7pe<j6uT\xc2\xa3pot." * * * " The name * Bishop > signifying \na title of authority, was of later origin. In churches \nwhose members were composed of Jewish converts, \nthe word Elders ( TzpeaSurepoc ) was used to designate \nthose holding offices of dignity, while in those fre- \nquented by pagan converts the word used for the \nsame purpose was overseers (etzloxotzol), and hence \nPeter and James uniformly use npeafiurepot; not \n\nZTTCOXOTCOZ." \n\nLightfoot (an Anglican, now Bishop of Durham, \nand universally recognized as standing at the very \nhead of theological science in England ) writes : 2 \n"It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians \nof all shades of opinion, that in the language of the \nXew Testament the same officer in the church is \ncalled indifferently i bishop 7 ( etzcoxottoz ) and \' elder\' \nor \'presbyter\' (Tipeafiuzepoz) * * * JEpiscopus \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n1 Univ. Ch. Hist. i. ? p. 201-2. \n\n2 St. Paul\'s Epistle to the Philippians, 2 ed., p. 93 sq. \n\n\n\n216 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\n\' bishop,\' \' overseer > \xe2\x80\x94 was an official title among the \nGreeks. In the Athenian language it was used \nespecially to designate commissioners appointed to \nregulate a new colony or acquisition, so that the \nAttic \' bishop\' corresponded to the Spartan \' har- \ninosf * * * In the LXX., the word is common. \nIn some places it signifies i inspectors/ i superinten- \ndents/ \' taskmasters J ; in others it is a higher title, \n4 captains \' or \' presidents \'." * * * \n\n" The earlier history of the word presbyteros, (elder, \npresbyter or priest ) is much more closely connected \nwith its Christian sense." * * * " Among the chosen \npeople we meet at every turn with presbyters or \nelders in Church and State from the earliest to the \nlatest times." * * " Over every Jewish synagogue, \nwhether at home or abroad, a council of \' elders/ \npresided. It was not unnatural therefore that, when \na Christian synagogue took its place side by side \nwith the Jewish, a similar organization should be \nadopted, with such modifications as circumstances \nrequired." Bishop Lightfoot then goes on to prove, \nfrom a consideration of the ]S ew Testament passages \ncited above, "the identity of the i bishop \' and \' pres- \nbyter\' in the language of the apostolic age." \n\nJacob (an Anglican theologian of good repute) \nwrites : x " The only bishops mentioned in the New \nTestament were simple presbyters ; the same person \n\n1 The Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament, p. 72, sq. \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 217 \n\nbeing- a \' bishop 7 \xe2\x80\x94 errcaxoTzo^ i. e. a superintendent or \n1 overseer, 7 from his \' taking an oversight \' of his \ncongregation, as is distinctly shown by Acts xx. and \nother passages ; and a presbyter \xe2\x80\x94 xpeeduTepOG or \nelder, from the reverence due to age. It may, how- \never, be observed that the office of elder is of \nHebrew origin ; while the term eiztaxoTzo^ is Hellenic, \nand is applied in the New Testament only to the \nofficers of Gentile churches, though it did not super- \nsede the use of the word presbyter among them." \n\nConybeare and Howson (Anglicans) write: 1 "Of \nthe officers concerned with church government, the \nnext in rank to that of the apostles was the office of \noverseers or elders, more usually known (by their \nGreek designations) as bishops or presbyters. These \nterms are used in the New Testament as equivalent, \nthe former ( sTnaxorro- ) denoting (as its meaning of \noverseer implies ) the duties, the latter (TrpeaSuTepoz) \nthe rank, of the office." \n\nSuch citations from Episcopalian writers might be \nmultiplied. \n\nThe Eeformers, e. g. Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, \nCranmer, Coverdale, etc., were of the same opinion. \n\nThe Protestant church historians of the present \ncentury, and especially the German church histo- \nrians, who have studied church history more scien- \ntifically and more exhaustively than it was ever \n\n1 Life and Epistles of St. Paul, (Treat\'s Am. Ed.) p. 433 sq. \n\n\n\n218 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nstudied before, are well-nigh unanimous in their \nassertion of the identity of presbyters and bishops \nin the Apostolical churches. Among many who dis- \ntinctly teach the identity, I may mention Meander, \nGieseler, Guericke, Hase, Kurtz, Herzog, Eitschl, \nHagenbach and Bunsen. \n\nThe second class of officers in the Apostolical \nchurches ( probably the first in point of time ) were \nBeacons. There seems to us to be no sufficient rea- \nson to doubt but that the diaconate was established \nwhen the Apostles advised the Jerusalem Christians \nto choose out from among them suitable men to take \ncharge of the church charities ( Acts vi.). The mean- \ning of the word diaxovot; is minister, and hence the \nessential idea is that of service. As older, more \nexperienced men were commonly appointed to the \npresbyter ate or eldership, so younger, more active \nmen were, we may suppose, commonly appointed to \nthe diaconate. \n\nThe seclusion of females in eastern society \nmade it important that females should minister to \nthem. Hence deaconesses existed in the Apostolical \nchurches. ( Rom. xvi. 1. comp. I. Tim. v. 3-16.) \n\n7. The Apostolical churches were characterized \nby the regular observance, in the spirit of loving \nobedience, of certain ordinances instituted by Christ. \nChristianity was not designed to be a ceremonial \nreligion. The spirit of the gospel is a spirit of free- \ndom. " Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 219 \n\nliberty." But Christ himself instituted two ordi- \nnances, for perpetual observance, which are most \nappropriate as bringing frequently before the \nbeliever, in an impressive manner, the central truths \nof the Christian faith. As to the number and the \nnames of these two ordinances all Protestants, we \nmay assume, are at one. They are Baptism and the \nLord\'s Supper. \n\nLet us ascertain, if we can, the precise nature of \nthe rite, which in the Apostolical churches was \ndesignated by the term Baptism. How was it \nperformed? The meaning of the term, as it is \ngenerally admitted, is sufficient to make it perfectly \nevident to an unprejudiced mind, that the outward \nform of the rite was the immersion of the subject in \nicater. That such is the meaning of the term will be \nabundantly confirmed, as we proceed, by the testi- \nmony of scholars who can certainly have not the \nslightest interest beyond the interest of truth, in \nmaintaining this view. \n\nThe circumstances connected with the perform- \nance of the rite are of such a nature that even if \nthe designation of the rite were equivocal, there \nwould be no sufficient reason to doubt but that the \nthing actually performed under the name of baptism \nwas immersion in Avater. \n\nAgain, even if the meaning of the word " baptism n \nwere doubtful and we were left without the circum- \nstances, the practice of the western churches until \n\n\n\n220 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthe middle ages, and the persistent practice of the \noriental churches, would make it morally certain that \nthe rite denominated baptism was from the very \nbeginning the immersion of the subject in water. \n\nThis is not the place for an elaborate philological \ndiscussion. The discussions of the subject by others \nare so exhaustive and so conclusive that I shall con- \ntent myself with citing a few striking passages from \nthe writings of those who defend the validity of bap- \ntism by other methods than immersion. \n\nSuch, in our judgment, and, as we shall see, in \nthe judgment of the scholarship of the ages, is the \noutward form designated baptism in the Apostolical \nchurches. What was the aim and significance of \nthe rite 1 Was it in the Apostolical churches an opus \noperatum ! Did the Apostles and their followers \nreceive and administer the rite with the feeling that \nit produced a magical effect ? \n\nThey certainly regarded baptism as important, from \nthe fact that Christ himself had submitted to it, and \nthat he had made it a part of his Great Commission. \nAs an act of obedience to Christ they certainly did \nnot feel at liberty to neglect it. \n\nThey certainly expected that in this as in all other \nacts of obedience to Christ they would receive the \ndivine blessing. \n\nThey regarded it as an initiatory ceremony into \nthe visible Church of Christ \xe2\x80\x94 as an act of conse- \ncration to Christ \xe2\x80\x94 as an outward symbol of the inner \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 221 \n\nspiritual cleansing which they experience, through \nrepentance for sin and faith in Christ Jesus as the \nSaviour from sin and from death. \n\nThey certainly regarded baptism as symbolical of \nthe death of the believer to sin, and his resurrection \nto newness of life, in imitation of the burial and \nresurrection of Christ. \n\nBut that baptism was regarded in the sense of an \nopus operatum is entirely contrary to the spirit of \nthe New Testament, to the direct teachings of the \nApostles, to the circumstances under which the rite \nwas performed. " By faith ye are saved " is, in sub- \nstance, reiterated constantly throughout the New \nTestament. If it is added that " faith without works \nis dead," the reference is far more to works of mercy, \nto Christian life and Christian effort for the salvation \nof others, than to the performance of any outward \nrites. It is never said or intimated that " by baptism \nye are saved." "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses \nfrom all sin," not "baptism." "He that believeth. \nand is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth \nnot shall be damned." Not " he that is not baptized \nshall be damned." \n\nThe passages that have been especially relied upon \nfor the support of baptismal regeneration are : Acts \nii. 38 ; xxii. 16 ; Eph. v. 26 ; I. Peter, iv. 11. Now, \ntaken apart from their connection, and interpreted \nwithout any regard to the particular teachings of the \nApostles with regard to the way of salvation, and the \n\n\n\n222 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ngeneral tone of New Testament Christianity, these \npassages might easily be supposed to attach some- \nthing more than a symbolical meaning to baptism. \nLet us consider these passages one by one : \n\nActs ii. 38. "Bepent and be baptized every \none of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the \nremission of sins," is entirely inadequate for the \npurpose for which it is employed. Evidently the \nrepentance is regarded as the first and most import- \nant step, and this alone is indispensable to the \nremission of sins. But Peter couples the two \ntogether, from the fact that the one followed imme- \ndiately upon the other in Apostolic practice, and the \ntwo-fold act, the inner change and the outward \nrecognition of the change, are represented jointly as \nsecuring remission of sins. The passage, therefore, \nis perfectly explicable in itself; but even if it were \nless so, our duty would be to interpret it in accord- \nance with the numerous explicit teachings of the \nApostles on this subject; and not in such a way as \nto contradict such explicit teachings and the entire \nspirit of the gospel. \n\nLet us consider the passage, Acts xxii. 16 : "Arise \nand be baptized and wash away thy sins." This pas- \nsage occurs in Paul\'s account of his own conversion. \nHe had been struck down on the way to Damascus, \nhad yielded himself up in entire submission to Christ \n("What shall I do Lord?"); in obedience to the \ndivine command he had gone to Damascus for fur- \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 223 \n\nther instruction as to his duty ; it is revealed to him \nby Ananias that he has been chosen by God to be a \nwitness for him unto all men. His repentance and \nhis faith in Christ are certainly presupposed. The \nwashing away of his sins in baptism, which Ananias \nenjoins, can, therefore, be only a symbolical washing. \nPaul, who relates this of himself, certainly regarded \nsalvation as entirely of grace, through faith in Christ \nJesus, who died for sinners. We must, therefore, \nsuppose that Paul understood the words of Ananias \nin accordance with this fundamental principle of all \nhis preaching. \n\nSo, also, the passage, Eph. v. 26 : * * * " Christ \nalso loved the church, and delivered himself up for \nit, that having cleansed it with the washing of the \nwater he might sanctify it by the word," must be \ntaken in connection with Paul\'s constantly empha- \nsized doctrine of justification by faith. The washing \nof water is only symbolical of the inner washing \nthrough the Spirit of God. \n\nIn I. Peter iii. 21, we read: "And now as an \nantitype, baptism saves you." But, lest this should \nbe misunderstood, the Apostle explains: "Not a \nputting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer- \ning of a good conscience unto God, through the \nresurrection of Jesus Christ." Evidently, Peter has \nin mind here the symbolical significance and not a \nmagical effect of baptism. \n\nWe must admit that bv those who are otherwise \n\n\n\n224 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ninclined to attach a magical efficacy to the baptismal \nrite, these passages can easily be made to favor such \na view. But if we interpret these passages in ac- \ncordance with the otherwise well-known Apostolical \nviews of salvation, we shall be in no danger of going \nastray. \n\nSuch was the nature of the external rite, such its \naim and significance. Who were the subjects of this \nrite f Even if we had no facts on which to base our \nanswer to this question, we should be at no loss to \ndecide. If baptism is an initiatory rite, and if the \nApostolic churches, as we have shown to be the \ncase, were, theoretically at least, composed entirely \nof believers, then the subjects of baptism could be \nnone other than believers ; if, as we have seen to be \nthe case, baptism is spoken of in the New Testament, \nonly in connection with faith and repentance, . this \nindicates as clearly as possible, that the subjects of \nbaptism are so far advanced in age as to be capable \nof repentance and faith, capable of turning away \nfrom sin and self, and turning unto Christ. \n\nThere is no passage in the New Testament that \nlends any probability to the view in accordance with \nwhich unconscious infants were baptized in the New \nTestament time. \n\nIn cases where households were baptized, it is cer- \ntain, in accordance with the plain teachings and the \ngeneral spirit of the New Testament, either that \nno infants were members of the households, or else \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 225 \n\nthat they were left entirely out of account in a mat- \nter which, according to Apostolic conceptions, could \nsustain no possible relation to them. \n\nWe may supply the place of elaborate argumenta- \ntion, by making a number of citations from writers \nof recognized authority and whose consistency would \nbest be subserved by an entirely reverse explana- \ntion of primitive Christianity. \n\nDr. Jacob (an Anglican) writes : x " It may at once \nbe inferred from the words of the original institution, \nthat this sacrament was to be an initiatory rite in the \nchurch. It was to be administered to those who \nbelieved in the One God, the Father of all; who \nacknowledged Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, \nthe long promised and now manifested Saviour ; who \naccepted the doctrine that the Divine Spirit is the \nauthor of holiness in man, and would lead them to the \nknowledge and practice of the Christian life ; and \nwho with this amount of understanding and convic- \ntion were desirous to renounce the dominion and \ndeeds of sin, to become obedient servants of Christ\'s \nSpiritual Kingdom, and to join themselves to him \nand to his church. To such persons their baptism \nwas to be the sign and seal of their discipleship ; and \nthus to be the formal evidence of their Christian pro- \nfession, \xe2\x80\x94 their actual admission into the visible fel- \nlowship of the church \xe2\x80\x94 the symbol of their union \n\n\n\n1 Eccl. Polity of the N. T., p. 246. \n\n15 \n\n\n\n226 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nwith Christ, and of their participation in the privi- \nleges which that union imparts." \n\nDr. Jacob\'s view is evidently the same as that \nwhich we have stated above, with regard to the aim \nand significance of baptism. What does he say as \nto the mode of baptism? \n\n"Baptism in the primitive church was evidently \nadministered by immersion of the body in the water \n\xe2\x80\x94 a mode which added to the significance of the rite \nand gave a peculiar force to some of the allusions \nto it." 1 \n\nWe surely have no fault to find with Dr. Jacob\'s \nstatement with regard to the mode of baptism prac- \nticed in the Apostolic churches. What then does \nhe say concerning the subjects of baptism in the \nApostolic churches\'? \n\n"Notwithstanding all that has been written by \nlearned men upon this subject, it remains indispu- \ntable that infant baptism is not mentioned in the \nNew Testament. No instance of it is recorded there ; \nno allusion is made to its effects ; no directions are \ngiven for its administration. * * * It ought to \nbe distinctly acknowledged that it is not an Apos- \ntolic ordinance." \n\nWe shall have space for only a few more citations \non this subj ect. We cannot do better than to give a \nfew striking passages from the recent article on the \nsubject "Baptism," 2 published by Dr. \'A, P. Stanley, \n\ni Eccl. Polity of the K T., p. 258. \n2 Nineteenth Century, Oct., 1879. \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 227 \n\nDean of Westminster, whose name is as widely \nknown and as universally respected as that of any \nother churchman of the present time. \n\nHaving- stated that the primitive idea of baptism \nis that of cleansing, the outward rite symbolizing the \ninward spiritual state, Dean Stanley proceeds : \n"\'Baptism\' was not only a bath, but a plunge \xe2\x80\x94 an \nentire submersion in the deep water, a leap as into \nthe rolling sea or the rushing river, where for the \nmoment the waves close over the bather\'s head, and \nhe emerges again as from a momentary grave ; or it \nwas the shock of a shower-bath, the rush of water \npassed over the whole person from capacious ves- \nsels, so as to wrap the recipient as within the veil of \na splashing cataract. This was the part of the cere- \nmony on which the Apostles laid so much stress. It \nseemed to them like a burial of the old former self, \nand the rising up again of the new self. So St. Paul \ncompared it to the Israelites passing through the \nroaring waves of the Red Sea, and St. Peter to the \npassing through the deep waters of the flood. \'We \nare buried,\' said St. Paul, \' with Christ by baptism at \nhis death ; that like as Christ was raised, thus we also \nshould walk in the newness of life.\' " \n\nHaving described more minutely the baptismal rite \nwith its circumstances, as it was practiced in the \nApostolic churches, he proceeds : " These are the \nouter forms of which, in the Western churches, al- \nmost every particular is altered, even in the most \n\n\n\n228 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nmaterial points. Immersion has become the excep- \ntion, and not the rule. Adult baptism, as well as \nimmersion, exists only among the Baptists. The \ndramatic action of the scene is lost." \n\nThe learned Dean goes on to enumerate and dis- \ncuss the changes that have taken place in the ordi- \nnance. He shows, with perfect right, as we humbly \nbelieve, that the first change was a change in doc- \ntrine : " There was the belief in early ages that it \nwas like a magical charm, which acted on the persons \nwho received it without any consent or intention, \neither of administrator or recipient, as in the case of \nchildren or actors performing the rite with no seri- \nous intention. There was also the belief that it \nwiped away all sins, however long they had been \naccumulating, and however late it was administered. \n# * # There was the yet more dreadful supersti- \ntion, that no one could be saved unless he had passed \nthrough Baptism." \n\nThe second change, according to Dean Stanley, was \na change in form (logically and chronologically the \nchange in subject preceded the change in form, but \nwe retain Dean Stanley\'s order). "For the first \nthirteen centuries w he writes, " the almost universal \npractice of baptism was that of which we read in the \nNew Testament, and which is the very meaning of \nthe word \' baptize J \xe2\x80\x94 that those who were baptized \nwere plunged, submerged, immersed into the water. \nThat practice is still * * * continued in Eastern \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 229 \n\nchurches. Iu the Western church it still lingers \namongst Eoinan Catholics in the solitary instance of \nthe Cathedral of Milan, amongst Protestants in the \naustere sect of the Baptists. It lasted long into the \nMiddle Ages. Even the Icelanders, who at first \nshrank from the waters of their freezing lakes, were \nreconciled when they found that they could use the \nwarm water of the Geysers. * * * Baptism by \nsprinkling was rejected by the whole ancient church \n(except in the rare case of death-beds or extreme \nnecessity) as no baptism at all." \n\nThe third change discussed by Dean Stanley is the \nchange of subjects. From the expressions that have \nalready been cited, we might readily infer the course \nof his discussion of this change. " In the Apostolic \nage, and in the three centuries which followed, it is \nevident that, as a general rule, those who came to \nbaptism came in full age, of their own deliberate \nchoice. We find a few cases of the baptism of chil- \ndren ; 1 in the third century we find one case of the \nbaptism of infants. 2 \n\nlHe does not mean in the Apostolic age, but in the first \nthree centuries. \n\n2 This last clause may be misleading. If the Dean states the \nmatter too strongly on our side, we do not think that we ought \nto take advantage of it, bat to correct it. We may observe that \nin the instance which Dean Stanley doubtless has in mind here, \nthe discussion of the subject in one of Cyprian\'s letters, the \nquestion is not as to whether infants may lawfully be baptized, \nbut whether they may be lawfully baptized before the eighth \nday, Cyprian decides that the ceremonial impurity of the \n\n\n\n230 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\n"The liturgical service of baptism was framed \nentirely for full-grown converts, and is only by con- \nsiderable adaptation applied to the case of infants \nGradually, however, the practice spread, and after \nthe fifth century the whole Christian world, East and \nWest, Catholic and Protestant, Episcopal and Presby- \nterian, (with the single exception of the sect of the \nBaptists before mentioned) have baptized children \nin their infancy. 1 \n\n\xc2\xab# # # What is the justification of this almost \nuniversal departure from the primitive usage ? There \nmay have been many reasons, some bad, some good. \nOne, no doubt, was the superstitious feeling already \nmentioned, which regarded baptism as a charm, indis- \npensable to salvation, and which insisted on imparting \nit to every human being who could be touched with \nwater, however unconscious." \n\nHere, as on the identity of presbyters and bishops, \nit would be easy to multiply citations from English, \nGerman, French and American authors \xe2\x80\x94 men who \n\nchild ought to furnish no obstacle, and that if grown-up people, \nwho are full of pollution, are fit subjects of baptism, much \nmore are infants, who have personally committed no sin. We \nshould be inclined to infer from this passage, if its genuineness \nbe admitted, that baptism of infants was becoming common by \nthe middle of the third century. \n\n1 As we took the liberty of explaining a misleading passage \nto our hurt, so now we object to the sweeping statement con- \ntained in the last sentence. In the Middle Ages, the Petro- \nbrusians, Henricians and many of the Waldenses rejected infant \nbaptism. So also the Anabaptists and the Socinians in the six- \nteenth century. \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 231 \n\nstand highest in scholarship and in general esteem, \nagreeing substantially as to the nature, mode and \nall subjects of the baptismal ordinance as practiced \nin the primitive churches. \n\nWe should find that almost complete unanimity \nexists among the scholars of the world, (Roman \nCatholic and Protestant), with regard to the form of \nApostolic baptism; as to the subjects of baptism in \nthe Apostolic churches, the unanimity would be \nfound considerably less ; as to the nature of the \nrite, still greater diversity of opinion would appear. \n\nThe other ordinance of our Lord, designed for \nperpetual observance, and practiced as such in the \nApostolic churches, is the Lord\'s Supper. \n\nThe significance of this ordinance, in the Apostoli- \ncal churches, was two-fold : First, to commemorate \nthe incarnation and the death of the Lord Jesus \nChrist. "This do in remembrance of me." "As \noften as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye \ndo show forth the Lord\'s death till he come." \nSecondly, it was a communion of believers with \nChrist and among themselves. "The bread which \nwe break, is it not the communion of the body of \nChrist? for we being many are one bread and one \nbody : for we are all partakers of that one bread." \nThe word rendered "communion," in the passage \njust cited, means simply "participation in;" but the \nexpressions that follow show that the idea of joint \nparticipation was also present in the Apostle\'s mind. \n\n\n\n232 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nWe shall not attempt, on this occasion, to refute \nthe doctrine of the real presence of the body and \nblood of Christ in the ordinance under its two-fold \naspect of transubstantiation and con substantiation ; \nnor the theory in accordance with which the Lord\'s \nSupper partakes of the nature of a sacrifice. Such \na discussion would require more space than can be \ngiven to it, and would probably interest few of the \nreaders of this article. \n\nWho, in the Apostolic age, were the participants \nin this ordinance t No one will pretend that any but \nbaptized believers were such. Believers, in the \nApostolic times, were promptly baptized ; baptism \nforming, in the eyes of the Apostles, an integral part \nof the profession of belief in Christ. \n\nCertainly no one would have thought of partaking \nof the Lord\'s Supper without having made full \nprofession of his conversion to Christ. Most Chris- \ntian churches, throughout the entire Christian era, \nhave not only understood the New Testament prac- \ntice thus, but have themselves practiced close com- \nmunion, i. e., have regarded communion as an ordi- \nnance to be participated in only by those who have \nfulfilled all the conditions of church-membership. \n\nII. Apostolical and Baptist Churches Com- \npared as to Form and Spirit. \nSuch, as we humbly believe, were the essential \ncharacteristics of the Apostolical churches. They \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 233 \n\nacknowledged Christ as the only head, and regarded \nhis will, as communicated to them by the Holy Spirit \nand through the Apostles, as absolutely binding. The \nApostolical churches were composed theoretically, \nand practically as far as rigid discipline could make \nthem so, of true believers, of the regenerate. Each \nApostolical church was absolutely independent of \nall other churches and of any men or class of men. \nThe members of these churches were possessed of \nequal rights and privileges, there being manifest \nnothing of the nature of a hierarchy or sacerdotal \nclass. Anything like a union of Church and State \nis utterly repugnant to the Apostolical teachings \nwith regard to the nature and end of the church. The \nApostolical churches chose out of their own ranks \nofficers for the performance of special functions, \nwhich officers regarded themselves and were re- \ngarded, not as lords, but as servants or ministers of \nthe churches for which they performed functions. \nThese officers were divided, in the Apostolic times, \ninto two general classes : bishops or presbyters, and \ndeacons. The ordinances instituted by our Lord for \nperpetual observance, and which were faithfully per- \nformed in the Apostolical churches, were two : Bap- \ntism and the Lord\'s Supper. \n\nSuch were the Apostolical churches. TVhat are \nthe essential characteristics of Baptist churches ? \n\nDo Baptist churches correspond with Apostolical \nchurches in the first specification ? They do most \n\n\n\n234 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nperfectly. As the Apostolical churches depended \nfor doctrine and for methods of organization upon \nApostolical teaching, representing to them the mind \nof Christ, so Baptists make the Scriptures, and \nespecially the Apostolical writings, given as they \nbelieve by Divine inspiration for the perpetual guid- \nance of Christians, and interpreted by the aid of the \nHoly Spirit, their rule of faith and practice. As the \nNew Testament churches were organized in accord- \nance with Apostolical direction, so Baptists believe \nthat churches for all time ought to be organized in \naccordance with Apostolical direction, and, where \nexpress direction is wanting, they feel and maintain \nthat churches ought to proceed in accordance with \nthe spirit of the New Testament precept and example. \n\nBaptists may make innovations within certain lim- \nits, but these limits are very definitely fixed. There \nmay be, in their view, development to meet the exi- \ngencies of the times and the circumstances in which \na church may be placed ; but such development must \nbe strictly in a line with the New Testament precept \nand example. No fundamental principle of Apostol- \nical Christianity and church order must be violated, \nhowever expedient such violation may, to human \ncomprehension, appear. \n\nChrist is the supreme head of the Church, the Lord \nof the consciences of all believers. His will is and \nmust be the supreme rule for believers. Now Christ \neither has revealed and does reveal his will to be- \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 235 \n\nlievers, or not. Either the Scriptures set forth the \nwill of Christ with regard to us, or not. If they do, \nthen we have a firm foundation whereon to stand, \nand we ought to stand upon it. If not, we are left \nentirely to human caprice. \n\nThe church order laid down in the Xew Testament \nis exceedingly simple; but church order, Baptists \nhold, ought to be simple. \n\nSome minor matters, of Apostolical example, that \nbear no necessary relation to what is fundamental in \nChristianity, Baptists may and do put aside. \n\nMatters of practical expediency, which do not \nconflict with any fundamental principal of Apostoli- \ncal Christianity, but can be clearly shown to be in \nharmony with such principles, Baptists wisely super- \nadd. \n\nBut Baptists are and ought to be exceedingly \ncareful and conservative with regard to any such \nchanges. They recognize the fact that it is better to \nerr on the side of conservatism than on the side of \nliberalism. \n\nLet us illustrate. Baptists have, for the most \npart, abandoned the Love Feast, which was com- \nmonly observed in Apostolic times, in connection \nwith the Lord\'s Supper, partly as a charitable arrange- \nment for providing for destitute Christians, and \npartly as a means of Christian social intercourse. \nLove Feasts were not appointed by Christ, they \nwere not enjoined by Apostolic precept, they are \n\n\n\n236 3APTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nrendered necessary by no fundamental law of Chris- \ntianity. The fundamental ideas which it was designed \nto subserve \xe2\x80\x94 liberal provision for destitute Chris- \ntians and fraternal intercourse among Christians \xe2\x80\x94 \nare of perpetual obligation, and these ends are at \npresent better subserved in other ways. \n\nOn the other hand : The Apostolic churches had \nno costly structures in which to worship ; had no \nmusical instruments with which to accompany their \nsinging of psalms; had nothing, probably, which \ncorresponded entirely with our Sunday preaching \nservices ; had no regularly appointed Associations, \nConventions, or Mission Boards ; had nothing cor- \nresponding exactly with our Sunday-schools. \n\nYet no fundamental principle of Apostolical Chris- \ntianity is violated by the building of costly struc- \ntures for Christian worship, provided only that they \nare paid for ; that their building does not conflict \nwith other Christian duties, the caring for the poor, \nthe dissemination of the truth at home and abroad, \netc.; and that they do not foster in the members of \nsuch churches a spirit of self-sufficiency and pride, \nor deter the poor from the privileges of the sanc- \ntuary. \n\nThe use of musical instruments, in connection \nwith Christian worship, violates no fundamental \nChristian principle, in so far as it does not tend \nmore to sensuous gratification than to the intensi- \nfying of the religious aspirations. \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 237 \n\nThe regular employment of the Lord\'s Bay for \nspecial preaching- services by an elder, one of whose \nchief functions is pulpit oratory, violates no funda- \nmental principle of Apostolical Christianity, so far as \nit does not weaken the sense of responsibility in \nindividual church members, so far as it does not \nfoster the habit of attending church services largely \nfor the merely intellectual gratification furnished by \neloquent speaking, so far as it does not foster a sac- \nerdotal spirit ; and so far as it does prove itself to be \na great element of power in winning souls to Christ \nand in promoting Christian intelligence and Christian \ndevelopment. The evils which might otherwise flow \nout of this practice are obviated to a great extent \nby the social meetings which are, in our judgment, an \nelemental part of Christian church order. \n\nSo also, in annual and other associations of \nchurches no Apostolical principle is violated, so long \nas freedom of discussion is maintained, so long as \nthey do not become practically mere means of get- \nting registered the decisions of a few; and so long \nas they do promote Christian fellowship among the \nchurches, knowledge in the individual churches of \nthe religious needs and the efforts to supply these \nneeds in the outside world, activity in the churches, \n(and of course in the individual members of the \nchurches) in every good word and work. \n\nNot only are such associations not contrary to the \nApostolic spirit, but they are clearly in accordance \nwith the Apostolic spirit. \n\n\n\n238 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nThe aim of Christianity, and hence the proper aim \nof every church, is the highest development of its \nmembers in spirituality and in Christian knowledge, \nand the extension of the knowledge of the truth to \nthe greatest possible number of those that are with- \nout. \n\nWhatever really favors this aim is sure to accord \nwith the will of Christ and with the spirit of the \nApostolic churches. Yet we may well be on our \nguard against incidental evils, such as those sug- \ngested above. \n\nThat Baptists insist upon regenerate church-mem- \nbership has always been at the same time their glory \nand the occasion of their being persecuted and \ntreated with contempt by other Christians. This \nprinciple, as it was the second fundamental principle \nin the Apostolical churches, so it is the second funda- \nmental principle in Baptist churches. It was this, \nand not the rejection of infant baptism, that lay at \nthe bottom of the Anabaptist movement in the six- \nteenth century. Zwingle was inclined to agree with \nGrebel, Manz and Hiibmaier in their rejection of \ninfant baptism, until, all at once, it dawned upon him \nthat something lay behind the rejection of infant \nbaptism in the minds of these earnest, godly men \nnamely, a belief in the necessity of a church of the \nregenerate. So, to-day, a belief in the necessity of \nusing all available means for the securing of regen- \nerate church-membership is the most fundamental \nprinciple of Baptist churches. \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 230 \n\nFrom this Xew Testament principle, this principle \nwhich cannot be eliminated from Christian churches \nwithout great and constantly increasing harm, all \nother distinctive points of Baptist, as of Apostolical, \nchurch polity, naturally flow. \n\nIf saving belief in Christ is necessary to church- \nmembership, then saving belief in Christ is pre- \nrequisite to the validity of Baptism, an initiation into \nchurch-membership involving a profession of such \nsaving belief. Hence, infant baptism was never \nthought of in the Apostolic age, and has been \nutterly abolished by the Baptists, who have made \nthe Apostolic churches their model, the Apostolic \nspirit their guide. \n\nAgain, if all church-members are saints, regen- \nerate, separate from the world, united with Christ, \nsons of God, then there can be no such thing as dif- \nference of rank or difference of privilege in churches \nof such constituency. All sacerdotalism thus falls \nto the ground. Whatever officers the church \nmay have, they stand upon precisely the same foot- \ning as other members. Natural gifts may fit one \nabove another for the performance of certain func- \ntions, but the performer is not elevated thereby, is \nput in no different relation to Christ, is simply doing \nhis duty according to the ability that has been given \nhim, just as the humblest Christian does his duty to \nthe extent of his ability. \n\nAgain, as the Apostolic churches were independ- \n\n\n\n240 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nent, each of all other churches, and relied upon the \nteachings of the Apostles as embodying the re- \nvealed will of Christ, but interpreted such teachings \neach one for himself, \xe2\x80\x94 "each one being fully per- \nsuaded in his own mind," and acting according to \nsuch persuasion, \xe2\x80\x94 so Baptists believe that each indi- \nvidual church-member has the inalienable right to \ninterpret the Scriptures for himself, with the light \nwhich his education, his reason, and the Holy Spirit \ngive him, and to think and act according to the dic- \ntates of his own conscience. \n\nThis involves freedom of each individual in the \ncongregation, and freedom of each congregation \nfrom any outside interference, whether of prelate, \npresbytery or State. \n\nAs the Apostolic churches scrupulously observed \nthe two ordinances that Christ entrusted to them as \nmatters of perpetual observance, so Baptists pre- \nserve these ordinances in spirit, in form, in subjects, \nto the best of their ability. \n\nBaptists insist that the rite of baptism be per- \nformed by baptism, not by rhantism. Just as only \nbelievers were baptized in the Apostolic churches, \nand just as the ordinance is in its nature and design \nsuitable only to believers, so Baptists maintain and \npractice to the best of their ability. \n\nJust as, in matters of great importance, Apostolical \nchurches sought the counsel of other Apostolical \nchurches, and acted on such counsel freely when \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 241 \n\nreceived, so Baptist churches, as a matter of ex- \npediency, frequently consult with other Baptist \nchurches, on important local matters and on matters \naffecting- the cause of Christ in general. \n\nAgain, just as the Apostles, as representatives of \nChristian work in different regions, met at Jeru- \nsalem, in convention, to discuss questions of impor- \ntance, so now Baptist churches appoint delegates to \nassemble from time to time, to discuss matters per- \ntaining to the progress of Christ\'s cause; and just as \nthis Apostolical convention appointed certain Apos- \ntles to a special work, so Baptist churches by their \ndelegates form missionary societies for the more \nefficient carrying forward of the work of Christ at \nhome and abroad. \n\nIII. Concluding Remarks. \n\nSuch are, in brief, the principles and the practices \nof Baptist churches, as held to theoretically by the \ngreat Baptist brotherhood. Most institutions with \nwhich men have to do are inferior to their ideals, \nespecially if their ideals are exalted and Christlike. \n\nAlthough Baptists claim to make absolute obedi- \nence to Christ their fundamental principle, how \nmany Baptists give the lie to their profession by im- \npure, selfish, unevangelical lives ! \n\nAlthough Baptists insist theoretically upon re- \ngenerate church-membership, how many Baptist \nchurches tolerate, on account of financial and social \n\n16 \n\n\n\n242 BAPTIST DOCTRINES, \n\nconsiderations, members that give abundant evi- \ndence of being members of Satan rather than mem- \nbers of Christ ! \n\nAlthough Baptists believe in the divine right 01 \nevery individual Christian to interpret the Scriptures \nfor himself, and to act freely according to the full \npersuasion of his own mind, how scantily is this free- \ndom, as a general thing, accorded ! Baptist churches \nhave a standard of orthodoxy, partly written, \npartly traditional, the aim and effect whereof is in \nmany cases to hamper the freedom of individual con- \nsciences. The amount of bigotry and intolerance to \nbe found in Baptist churches is, when compared with \nthe fundamental principles of Baptists, appalling! \n\nAgain, Baptist churches are theoretically demo- \ncratical ; but to how great an extent are they gov- \nerned oligarchically ! Elders and deacons are theo- \nretically servants, ministers of the churches. How \noften, alas ! do they insist upon " lording it over God\'s \nheritage." \n\nEven with regard to the ordinances, which Baptist \nchurches alone keep theoretically to the Apostolical \nnorm, how much bigotry and Phariseeism often find \nplace in Baptist churches ! As forms appointed by \nChrist, these ordinances are important, but how sad \nit is to see large numbers of Baptist churches exalt- \ning them practically above the spiritual elements of \nChristianity ! \n\nWe can show, as we believe, that every impor- \n\n\n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL. 243 \n\ntant innovation upon the Apostolical church order is \nevil in its tendency, and has been historically evil in \nits results. We could show, for example, if time \npermitted, that the perversion of the idea of the \nnature of baptism into a magical rite, containing in \nitself a means of grace and securing remission of \nsins, led to the belief that without baptism there is \nno salvation. \n\nThis in turn, led to the introduction and the gen- \neral adoption of infant baptism, and hence to the \ndiscontinuance of effort to limit church-membership \nto actual believers. \n\nThis practice, in time, greatly facilitated the union \nof Church and State, and the growth of hierarchy, \nwith all the corruption inherent in State churches \nand hierarchical churches. \n\nIt is not denied that circumstances may, in certain \ncases, hinder a similar downward development, as a \nresult of departure from Xew Testament principles ; \nbut such being the tendency, and such the historical \nfacts, we cannot be too careful to avoid any depart- \nure from the principles of Apostolical Christianity, \nhowever slight it may appear in itself, and however \nexpedient it may seem, on a given occasion, to make \nsuch a departure. \n\nu The truth is immortal," wrote Dr. Balthazar \nHiibmaier, the great Baptist of the sixteenth cen- \ntury, on the title-pages of all his books. He thought \nhe possessed, and he did possess, the truth. He \n\n\n\n244 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\npreached the truth, he lived the truth, he died hero- \nically at the stake for the truth. The principles that \nhe taught were too exalted for his age, He was \nhunted down by Protestant, and burned by Roman \nCatholic, Scribes and Pharisees. But these princi- \nples \xe2\x80\x94 the supreme lordship of Christ, the necessity \nof regenerate church-membership, the independence \nof the local church, absolute freedom of conscience, \nand freedom in manifesting religious thought and \nfeeling in religious life and in church organization \xe2\x80\x94 \xe2\x96\xa0 \nhave, in their marvellous extension and general \nrecognition, justified abundantly the faith of this \nman of God. \n\nIt is never really expedient to sacrifice the truth. \nLet us teach the truth, let us live the truth, let us \ndie for the truth, if need be ; and our reward will \nnot be wanting when we come to stand before Him \nwho is the Author of Truth \xe2\x80\x94 nay, who is Himself \nthe Truth. \n\n\n\nTHE GOSPEL MINISTRY. \n\n\n\nBY J. M. STIFLER, D. D., PASTOR FIRST BAPTIST \nCHURCH, NEW HAVEN, CONN. \n\n\n\n"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop \nhe desireth a good work." I. Timothy iii. 1. \n\nThere was good reason for the writing of the \nwords of the text. The condition of things in the \norigin of the church evoked this emphatic utterance \nfrom the pen of inspiration. The gospel ministry, in \nany such form as we possess it to-day, was just begun. \nApostles had been busy for years, but bishops and \nelders came later to the oversight of the churches. \nTheir function had not attained to the dignity and \nhonor that attend it to-day, nor that accrued to it \nlong ago, when bishops were the masters of kings, \nand when popes claimed universal authority. When \nthe text was written, the churches still existed which \nhad emerged fresh and pure from the slums of heath- \nenism, or the darkness of Judaism \xe2\x80\x94 emerged perfect \nand clean, like a diamond from the gutter. The \n" work of faith and labor of love " was abundant \namong them. They were self-contained, and had a \nholy self-sufficiency. \n\nBut while they abounded in good works, and were \n\n245 \n\n\n\n246 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\n" enriched to all bountifulness " " able also to admon- \nish one another," they were not complete. They \nhad not surveyed the whole round of good works* \nHence Paul must write such words as in Philippians \niv. 8: "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever \nthings are honest, whatsoever things are just, what- \nsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, \nwhatsoever things are of good repute ; if there be \nany virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these \nthings." And since the office of the bishop came \nto them after they had already exercised the other \nfunctions of a church, it seems they questioned it. \nThe members of the Apostolic churches, possessing \nas they did the holy spirit in a miraculous way, being \nable to edify one another, did not feel the need of a \nmere formal ministry. They could and did exist \nwithout it. They abounded in good works without \nit. \n\nHow long this pastorless condition of the churches \nprevailed cannot be ascertained. In some cases \nlonger, in others not so long, in some perhaps not \nat all. But that it existed is certain. Only in Paul\'s \nreturning missionary tours did he ordain elders in \nthe churches called out by the labors of his first \ntour. Titus was sent, as we learn from the epistle \nto him, to ordain elders in churches that existed we \nknow not how long before his mission to them. \n\nAnd now this pastorless condition, in which the \nword of the Lord prevailed, is the very key to the \n\n\n\nTHE GOSPEL MINISTRY. 247 \n\ntext. What need of an elder, or an eldership, in \nchurches doing the work of the Lord? Is he who \nseeks such an office seeking a good work? Is not \nthe service he intends supererogatory, a service \nalready being performed by the more than half \ninspired membership ? \n\nPaul answers such suppositive questions in the \nwords of the text. If a man desire the office of a \nbishop, even in churches as complete in themselves \nas these Apostolic ones, he desires a good work. \nThe strength of the opposition to the office can be \nguessed in the emphatic little preface to the text : \n" It is a true saying." It calls on the church to hear, \nand though well able to minister to itself, to admit \nand honor the office. Let qualified men hear; and if, \nthrough doubt or humility, hesitating to enter this \noffice, hesitate no longer. It is a good work. If any \nwere disposed to despise the youthfulness of Timo- \nthy in his labors in this office, the words of the text \nwould be a help to him, and a rebuke to them. \n\nThe text suggests four points, which are also \nclearly brought out in other Scriptures : \n\nI. First The state of things in which the gospel \nministry arose. \n\nII. Second. Some sort of induction into the office \nis implied. \n\nIII. Third. The place of female ministry in the \nwork of the church is definitely set forth. \n\nIV. Fourth. The question of different orders of \nministry is looked at. \n\n\n\n248 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nI. The text suggests the state of things in the \nmidst of which the office of bishop had its birth. \nAnd an understanding of this original condition will \nshed light on the topic of gospel ministry. Before \nthe office was known, the churches already existed. \nTheir work and worship was complete. The churches \narose not for the ministry, but the ministry for the \nchurches. The churches had and have an existence \nindependent of the office (we do not say of the need) \nof the bishop. The simple fact that the churches of \nIconium, of Derbe, of Lystra and of Antioch existed \nfor a time without elders ( Acts xiv. 23 ), and without \nthe presence of an Apostle (and the same seems to \nbe true of the churches in Crete, \xe2\x80\x94 Titus i. 5), raises \na number of questions : Who led the worship ? Who \nadministered the ordinances ? Or were these duties \nomitted until the appointment of elders ? \n\nBut in the membership of these churches, statedly \nmeeting, admonishing and edifying one another \n(Heb. x. 24, 25) must have been men who perceived \nthe headless state of affairs, perhaps often the lack \nof order (I. Cor. xiv. 23-40), men whose hearts longed \nto take the oversight, who desired the office of \nbishop. The Apostles, or Apostolic agents like Titus, \ntravelling among the churches to ordain elders, \nwould soon learn, on coming to each city, who such \nmen were. The church already existing for some time \nwould have learned to know them and would be able \nto say who had the qualifications for the bishopric \n\n\n\nTHE GOSPEL MINISTRY. 249 \n\n(Titus i. 6-9). Or if any church was too dull to \nknow them, or felt complete in itself and quietly- \nignored their superior ministrations, it was instructed \nin this matter. For so we find Paul writing to th.e_ \nThessalonians : " We beseech you, brethren, to know \nthem which labor among you, and are over you in \nthe Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very \nhighly in love for their work\'s sake. And be at peace \namong yourselves. " This passage is worthy of care- \nful study. It was written a few months after they \nhad been called from darkness to light. ( Acts xvii. \n1-9). Timothy had visited them once (I. Thess. iii. \n1 and 9), but hurriedly, and in such a time of perse- \ncution that to ordain elders was impossible. This \nvisit, too, was so shortly after their conversion that \nthey would all be novices (I. Tim. iii. 6) ; and further- \nmore, if the elders had been formally inducted in \ntheir office, by an Apostle, or any Apostolic agent, \nbefore the epistle was written, whence the need of \n"beseeching" them now to "know" them? It \nwould seem probable, then, that the elders were as \nyet without their appointment, but showing by their \nwork their ultimate destination in the organization \nof the church. They were over them " in the Lord," \nto be over them in due time by formal appointment; \na condition of things which the Thessalonian church \ndid not understand, and hence were rejecting their \ncoming elders 7 service in a way to disturb harmony. \nAnd so Paul must write this verse to the end that \nthey may "be at peace among themselves." \n\n\n\n250 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nThis exhortation to know God\'s ministers is use- \nful for ail time, the present especially. The churches \nshould recognize the men among them whom God \nhas qualified to be overseers. Their divine creden- \ntials are in their hearts. See to it that they are not \nhindered by withholding the church\'s from their \nhands. \n\nSuch seems to have been the state of things in \nthe churches at their origin \xe2\x80\x94 for a time without \nelders, not fully recognizing the need of them, and \nnot certain that the office was divine. The words of \nthe text were necessary. If in any church men \nwere desiring the office of a bishop, that desire was \nnot to be overlooked by the church, and the office \nwas not to be considered unnecessary. Its work \nwas good. \n\nBut whence came these men with holy aspirations \nfor this as yet but half-acknowledged office ? They \nwere in the church, participating in all its privileges, \nits work, its trials, and yet they were something \nmore than the standard church member. They prom- \nised something more. In the appointment of the \nLord they were " over " the church. Saul, the first \nking of Israel, had the designation, and the anoint- \ning to his office in secret. Israel was not aware of \nit. Their lot cast subsequently was ultimately not \ntheirs. The whole disposing of it was of the Lord. \n(Prov. xvi. 33.) The elders had a secret pre-appoint- \nment of the Lord. The Scriptures give abundant \n\n\n\nTHE GOSPEL MINISTRY. 251 \n\nanswer to the question of their source. Eph. iv. \n8-12 gives us their origin. When he ascended on \nhigh he gave gifts to men. These gifts were ( and \nare ) special, qualifying them for, and warranting \nthem to seek, the office of the bishop. It was a gift \nnot of nature, but of grace. For the gift is specific- \nally connected with the ascension of Christ, and his \ntriumph at the cross. And not alone of grace, but \nof special and distinguishing grace, so that they who \nreceived it could be recognized before hands had \nbeen laid on them, or before they had been formally \nadmitted to their office. \n\nHere, then, is light on what is familiarly termed the \ncall to preach. If a man desire. The unconsciously \nheld gift will stir up desire in the soul. Again, the \nwords that the called, but as yet unrecognized, man \nutters in public or social worship, his prayers and \nhis general bearing, will mark him, so that the wise \nand spiritual "know" him, and will perceive that \nalready he is " over " them in the appointment of the \nLord. The gift of special grace within will manifest \nitself without. Hence, for a man to assume this \noffice without the special qualifications which con- \nstitute the call is an unholy intrusion like that in \nII. Chronicles xxvi. 16-21. And though the ministry \nmay seem to be crowded, it is worthy to ask if we \nshould not still pray the Lord of the harvest to send \nforth laborers. For it is those which he sends that \ndo his work, and not such as run, no matter how \n\n\n\n252 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ngood they may be otherwise, without being divinely \nsent. \n\nII. Some sort of induction into the bishopric is \nsuggested. \n\nThe work and worship of the Apostolic churches \nwas conducted for months, and doubtless in some \ncases for years, in a headless fashion. The extraor- \ndinary gifts of the Spirit qualified them for this, and \nthe need of special ministry was not recognized at \nonce. Furthermore it was not certain everywhere \nthat it was right, else why the text f There are hints \nthat when offered it was not accepted. A careful \nperusal of John\'s third epistle will show this. It \nwas some order of gospel laborers of whom he \njsays : "We ought to receive such," the same persons \nwhom Diotrephes did not receive. The passage \nalready quoted, I. Thess. v. 12, shows that one \nchurch at least was a little obtuse in the treatment \nof its elders. To the same church it was said : \n"Despise not prophesyings." And almost every \nepistle has some good word for the elders, as if their \nstatus was not wholly settled. But this must be \ncarried in mind, that while to-day the elder or bishop, \nfor the words are synonymous, is often not wanted \non account of the deadness of the church, then he \nfound no place from the very opposite state of the \ncase \xe2\x80\x94 the churches were so alive they ministered to \nthemselves. \n\nNow, in such an atmosphere how was the man, \n\n\n\nTHE GOSPEL MINISTRY. 253 \n\ngifted by the ascended Lord and already exercising \nthese gifts \xe2\x80\x94 how was he to be formally recognized \nas leader without some form? How was he to get \nhis office, how his authority ? Preach and rule to \nsome extent, and govern he already did. But how \nis he to be known as the preacher and ruler in his \nparticular church, where everybody else did the \nsame. See I. Cor. xiv. 26, and mark the words \n" every one." It needed the strong hand of an \nApostle to put him there. Hence Paul qualifies Tim- \nothy for this work, sends a Titus forth directly, and \noften attends to it himself. He writes to Titus: \n" For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou \nshouldst set in order the things that are wanting and \nordain elders in every city as I had appointed thee." \nIt needed a formal setting apart to put a man in the \noffice in any other way in which he was not in it \nalready. It needed the authority of an Apostle to \nconvince the churches that he that desired the office \nwas desiring a good work. \n\nAs to the details of that ordination, perhaps the \nScriptures do not settle everything. But some \xe2\x80\x94 the \nvital ones, seem certain. \n\nFirst. The special mission of Titus ( see 1st chap- \nter) did not convey the spiritual validity of the ordi- \nnation. There is no hint in the prescription to him \nor to Timothy that the ordaining agents did more \nthan to regulate, to direct, and perhaps to bring \nabout the ordination of elders. Titus went to the \n\n\n\nL>54 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nchurches not to make bishops. God had already \nmade them, and already they had been doing the \nwork pertaining to the office, else how was it known \nwho was " apt to teach." The gift of ordination per- \ntained to the eldership. Hence it was said to Timo- \nthy : " Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was \ngiven thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the \nhands of the presbytery." It was the will of the \nHoly Ghost to invest him with the office of ruling \nand governing the church, and this will one of the \nprophets uttered at the time of laying on of hands. \nThe verse in II. Tim. i. 6 does not conflict with this. \nPaul was present at the ordination ( Acts xvi. 1-3 ) \nand doubtless laid on hands with the elders. The \nelders were appointed on Paul\'s return in his first \nmissionary tour. The ordination of Timothy occurred \non his second tour. But it must not be forgotten \nthat this ordination of Timothy was something \nspecial, not strictly that of an elder ; and yet the \nelders\' hands designated him, just as the hands of the \nprophets and teachers who sent forth Barnabas and \nSaul. \n\nAnd now that the eldership conveyed whatever \nof gift was conveyed, what was this but the church \nacting through its representatives, the church con- \nveying the gift ? A man desired the office of bishop, \nfor God had qualified him for it, and the church \nthrough the eldership gave him that office. If there \nwas no eldership as yet, a Titus goes forth to estab- \nlish it. \n\n\n\nTHE GOSPEL MINISTRY. 255 \n\nSecond. As already implied, it is evident that the \nbishops discharged duties pertaining to the office \nbefore that office was formally given to them. They \nhad at first an unpaid and an unrecognized ministry. \nHow else could it be known who was apt to teach? \n{I. Tim. iii. 2.) As Titus went from church to church \nin Crete, he would doubtless ask, as he came to each, \nWho among you has shown the qualifications for a \nbishop, " holding fast the faithful word as he hath \nbeen taught. * * * Able by sound doctrine both \nto exhort and convince the gainsayers ? " (Titus i. 9.) \nWho is apt to teach I Such inquiry would be exactly \nequivalent to our examination, preliminary to ordina- \ntion; and the fact that Paul enjoins that these quali- \nties are to be looked for, recognizes both God\'s \nwork in the making of the minister and Titus 7 inca- \npacity to convey the grace to preach. Titus went \nnot to prepare a ministry. He went to find one that \nhad already evinced its preparation by its known \nand acknowledged works. \n\nThird. It seems evident that hands would be laid \non. Acts xiii. 1, 2, 3 ; I. Tim. iv. 14 ; I. Tim. v. 22. \n\nThe second of these Scriptures shows how Timo- \nthy was ordained himself. The third, if it refers to \nordination, implies unmistakably that imposition of \nhands was already practiced in the setting apart of \nelders. Ellicott, against the authority of Chrysos- \ntom and Theodoret, denies its reference to ordina- \ntion. But Alford shows, and what is still better, the \n\n\n\n256 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ncontext shows, that it has no other. But it is a fact \nto be noted that nowhere in the Scriptures does an \nApostle lay hands on an elder. If Titus did it there \nis absolutely no record of it, and this passage, which \nimplies certainly that Timothy might do it, also \nimplies that it was to be done along with others. \n" Be not partaker of other men\'s sins." \n\nFourth. It would then seem that the power of \nordination resided in the churches. Their elders \nwere all already among them, graciously given and \nqualified of God. They had already exhibited their \naptness to teach and their fitness for the sacred \noffice. Nothing was needed but to grant it to them. \nThis was done by themselves under the direction of \nan Apostolic agent, to whom they pointed out their \nown men. Does any one suppose that Titus, or even \nPaul could have placed a man over an Apostolic \nchurch that shook its head. It must not be forgotten \nthat churches felt themselves complete, possessed \nof an authority and dignity equivalent to that of an \nApostle ; so that Apostles themselves were tried by \nthem. Rev. ii. 2. They were instructed to test pro- \nphets. I. John iv. 1. They hesitated not to question \neven Paul. 2 Cor. xi. 16; xiii. 3-6. They were plainly \ninstructed in their almost divine dignity. (See I. Cor. \nvi. 2, 3; I.John ii. 27.) One can fancy with what \nrighteous indignation they would have spurned the \nattempt to impose the minister of a modern church \nconference upon them. The Apostolic church car- \n\n\n\nTHE GOSPEL MINISTRY* 257 \n\nried its vitals within itself. It contained the ministry, \nthe ministry did not contain it. \n\nHere, then, with the condition of the Apostolic \nchurches before us, we can see both what was the \nneed of and what essential to, ordination. And \nhave we not just about that which belongs to the \nservice as exhibited in the practice of Baptist \nchurches ? Two things would materially help in the \nordinations of to-day: First, if it was seen just what \nthe word means \xe2\x80\x94 a recognition and an appointment. \nAnd when they had ordained them elders. \xe2\x80\x94 Acts xiv. \n23. "Who having appointed for them elders." \xe2\x80\x94 Hack- \nett. The word "ordain" savors of Eome and of \nmore modern ecclesiasticism. Secondly, if in seek- \ning the evidences of a call we paid more attention \nto the qualifications accompanying it, " not a novice," \n"apt to teach," "sound doctrine," and all the rest \nthat in the epistles to Titus and to Timothy is so \nexplicit. That man\'s desire to be ordained, who has \nnot exhibited these qualifications before his brethren- \nshould not be hastily allowed, if at all. \n\nIII. The relation of female ministry is definitely \nset forth. If a man desire the office of a bishop. \nAnd the emphasis is not in the word, for in the orig- \ninal it is indefinite \xe2\x80\x94 any one \xe2\x80\x94 but most strikingly in \nthe context, which goes on to give the bishop\'s qual- \nifications entirely in the masculine gender. He must \nbe the husband of one wife, having his children in \nsubjection. There are no qualifications for a female \n\n17 \n\n\n\n258 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nbishop anywhere. This is the more striking, when \nwe remember that, a female deaconship being allowed, \n(Eom. xvi. 1, original), qualifications for the same office \nare given for females, \xe2\x80\x94 I. Tim. iii. 11 \xe2\x80\x94 a passage \nwholly obscured by translating interpolations. \n" Women in like manner when engaged in the same \noffice," is the way Ellicott puts it. \n\nThe New Testament knows no such office as a \nfemale pastorate, and in express terms forbids it. \nThe work of teaching is pointedly limited to men. \nFor see I. Cor. xiv. 34, and I.Tim. ii. 12 : "I suffer not \na woman to teach." But it may be inquired, do not \nsuch sweeping and general statements exclude women \nfrom the Sunday-school, condemn female missionaries \nto the heathen, and contradict the plain implications \nto the contrary in other Scriptures. For, said Peter \nin his quotation, Acts ii. 18, " And on my hand-maid- \nens will I pour out in these days of my Spirit, and \nthey shall prophesy," which always includes giving \ninstruction. And did not Philip, the evangelist, have \nfour daughters, " which did prophesy " ? Acts xxi. \n8, 9. Does not I, Oor. xi. 5, fairly imply that even in \nthis very church where it was forbidden, Paul recog- \nnized a lawful prophesying on the part of women ? \nTo note three points will do much to reconcile the \nwhole, \xe2\x80\x94 what is forbidden, and where and why. \nFirst, what : " I suffer not a woman to teach." The \nword "teach" is not general, else Philip\'s daughters \nhad their gift in vain, the female Sunday-school \n\n\n\nTHE GOSPEL MINISTRY. 259 \n\nteacher is in error, and the foreign missionary sister \nis violating God\'s appointment, and Peter is going \ntoo far when he says of the hand-maidens : " They \nshall prophesy." The word is specific. " And they \ncommanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the \nname of Jesus," Acts iv. 18, where it is contrasted \nwith speaking. " Teaching and preaching the word, \nActs xv. 35, where we have again an instructive con- \ntrast. In like manner in Rom. xiii. 6-8, the teaching \nis contrasted with prophecy, ministry, exhortation \nand ruling. To forbid teaching does not, in itself, \nforbid any of those works with which it stands here \nin contrast. Christ gave pastors and teachers. The \ntwo are linked together in Ephesians. And so in \nforbidding teaching, the pastorate is forbidden, noth- \ning more. There are several parts of music for the \nfemale voice without singing bass. But in the office \nof teacher she is to be absolutely silent. If it is \ninsisted that in Corinth it was said: "Let your \nwomen keep silence. It is not permitted unto them \nto speak," the second question is raised : where* was \nit forbidden f In the churches. It is not forbidden \nin the informal meetings, as the Sunday-school, the \nprayer meeting. It is not forbidden one female to \nteach others. We do not see that anything but the \npulpit is denied. For, third, what is the ground of \nthe prohibition ? And this will elucidate the whole \nmatter. Teaching implies and includes superiority \nand authority. We have seen that the bishop, the \n\n\n\n260 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nteacher, was set over the church as leader or ruler. \nWe are told of the elder that " ruled " well. In some \nsense the bishop was made head of the church in \nwhich he ruled, Now if a woman were put in the \nplace of the bishop, she would be head, leader, \nruler of her own husband, a violation of the law, \n(I. Cor. xiv. 34 ; Gen, iii. 16), a violation of the order \nand intent of creation. I, Tim ii 13, 14. For this \nseems to be the one grand reason of the prohibition, \nthat it makes woman the head of the man. It is this \nthat makes it a shame for them to speak. But sup- \npose the woman have no husband ? She has a father, \nit may be, or some one who is head. And then, the \nprohibition gets force, too, not alone from the marital \nrelation, but from the order of creation. Adam was \nfirst formed, then Eve. Man is ever to be first. The \nbishopric, that highest place of honor on earth, \nbelongs to him alone. \n\nIY. Does the office of bishop in the text have any \nsimilarity with the office bearing the same name in \nmodern church building? None whatever. One \nbishop in modern episcopacy implies several churches. \nOne New Testament church implies several bishops. \nThe modern bishop implies a union of local churches \nunder one name and government. The New Testa- \nment bishop belonged to his own local church, and \nthe union of the churches of a state or country in \none is unknown in Apostolic times. We have not the \n"church of Galatia," "the church of Judea," but the \n\n\n\nTHE GOSPEL MINISTRY. 261 \n\n" churches." Each one was separate, independent, \nhaving no bond of union in itself or beyond itself \nexcept the possession of a common experience in \nthe membership of the redemptive power of Jesus, \nfaith in whom was expressed and confessed by bap- \ntism. The churches existed for a time without offi- \ncers. And now, when these come to be bestowed, \nbishops and deacons alone are given. The same \nauthority which it took to introduce the elder would \nhave been required to promote an officer over him. \nAnd if that authority was ever exercised, we have \nno record of it. Again, from the qualifications left \nus for church officers, we gather that there were but \ntwo orders, bishops and deacons. Where in the \nNew Testament do we find the qualifications for a \ndean, or a presiding elder, for an arch-bishop or for \na pope ; where for a class-leader, or a circuit-rider * \nThere are rules for just two officers, and to take \nthose in Timothy referring to the bishop, and to \napply them to any one else than the local preacher, \nruling a single local body, is a palpable misuse of \nthem. The New Testament knows but two officers \nfor the church of which the bishop is head, but head \nof the local church only. And here he is over men, \ntoo, his equals in Christ. They do not call him \nmaster. \n\nWe find qualifications for but two officers. Inci- \ndentally those of an Apostle are mentioned, but in \nsuch a way as to show that the office was limited to \n\n\n\n262 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthe cotemporaries of Jesus. Acts i. 21, 22. In the \ncase of Paul, there was a miraculous manifestation \nof the risen Lord, nothing short of which could give \nanother Apostle. Prophets and evangelists are men- \ntioned, but are nowhere given any official connection \nwith the church. They were only church members, \nhaving these special gifts, the prophets in more than \none case being women, to whom the official relations \nof the eldership were denied. \n\nIt is trifling to attempt to break the force of this \nargument from the qualifications by saying that none \nare prescribed for church clerk, church treasurer or \nsexton. These are not church officers, or only so \nmuch so as the servants of the family,\xe2\x80\x94 necessary \nto it, numbered with it, but not having a vital rela- \ntion. \n\nBut the Scriptures speak of both elders and bish- \nops. They never contrast these words, never conjoin \nthem. But they do distinctly identify them. The \nbishop is an elder, as Titus i 5, compared with 7, or \nActs xx. 17, compared with 28, distincly shows. \n\nFinally, the Apostolic salutation, in the epistle to \nthe Philippians, is instructive, both as to the organi- \nzation of the church, and the relative dignity of the \nchurch and its officers. The address is as follows : \n"Paul * * to all the saints * * at Philippi \nwith the bishops and deacons." He mentions first the \nsaints, or church, secondly the bishops, and thirdly \nthe deacons. The epistle was not among the earlier \n\n\n\nTHE GOSPEL MINISTRY. 263 \n\nones, as that to the Thessalonians, but written when \nthe church in Philippi was fully organized. On this \npassage Dean Alford, himself a Churchman, com- \nments: "The simple juxtaposition of the officers \nwith the members of the church, and indeed their \nbeing placed after these members, shows, as it still \nseems to me, against Ellicott,m ?oc, the absence of \nhierarchical views such as those in the epistles of \nthe Apostolic fathers." When, then, Paul wrote the \ntext, he had one of the two officers of Christ\'s church \nin mind, an officer of the local body only, and pos- \nsessed only of so much authority as gave him the \nfront rank of his own brethren in Christ, \xe2\x80\x94 a simple, \nbeautiful relation, like that of a father in his own \nfamily. And one of the marvellous features of the \nperversity of the human heart is, that while the spirit \nof Christ is simplifying human governments, lifting \nup the masses and limiting the rulers ; while the \nLord\'s prayer, " Our Father which art in heaven," \nis fostering and bringing on a universal brotherhood ; \nin the church in some quarters the opposite tendency \nis at work, and all the machinery of tyranny exists. \nHow strange that there is in the world a strong ten- \ndency toward that simple form of government which \nGod loves, while in some religious realms the ten- \ndency is the contrary way! \xe2\x80\x94 the children of this \nworld wiser than the children of light. \n\n\n\nTHE DIFFEEENCE BETWEEN A BAPTIST \nCHUKCH AND ALL OTHEE CHUEOHES. \n\n\n\nBY THOMAS HENDERSON PRITCHARD, D.D., PRESI- \nDENT OF WAKE FOREST COLLEGE, N. C. \n\n\n\n" It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that \nye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once \ndelivered unto the saints." \xe2\x80\x94 Jude i. 3. \n\n" No religious denomination has a moral right to a \nseparate existence unless it differs essentially from \nothers. Ecclesiastical differences ought always to \nspring from profound doctrinal differences. To \ndivide Christians, except for reasons of great import, \nis criminal schism. Sects are justifiable only for \nmatters of conscience, growing out of clear Scrip- \ntural precept or inevitable logical inference. Human \nspeculation, tradition, authority of pope, or council, \nor synod, or conference, or legislature, is no proper \nbasis for an organization of Christians. Nothing \nshort of the truth of revelation, the authoritative \nforce of God\'s word, rising above mere prejudice, or \npassion, or caprice, can justify a distinct church \norganization." \n\nWe accept this luminous statement of an important \ntruth, made by Dr. J. L. M. Curry in a recent premium \n\n261 \n\n\n\nBAPTIST AND OTHER CHURCHES. 265 \n\ntract, and claim the right of a Baptist church to exist \non the ground that it differs from all other churches \nin its constitution, membership, ordinances and doc- \ntrines, and that these differences are authorized by \nthe Word of God. If other denominations, which \nhold to sprinkling and pouring as baptism, teach \ninfant baptism, infant membership, and open com- \nmunion, can justify themselves in maintaining a sepa- \nrate ecclesiastical organization, then much more can \nthe Baptists, who differ from all in many essential \nand important points, vindicate their right to exist- \nence, and free themselves from the charge of bigotry, \nschism and intolerance. I propose to answer to-day \nthe question, How do Baptists differ from other \nChristian denominations I I will first present a brief \nsummary of our distinctive doctrines, as given by \nHiscox in his Baptist Church Directory, p. 118, and \nthen discuss the principles on which they are based: \n\n" First. \xe2\x80\x94 As to Baptism, we believe that immersion \nor clipping is the only way of administering this ordi- \nnance as taught in the New Testament, and practiced \nby Christ and his Apostles, and the only way in \nwhich Christians can obey the command to be bap- \ntized. Consequently, the mode is essential to the \nordinance, and nothing but immersion is baptism. \nTherefore, persons poured upon or sprinkled upon \nare not baptized at all." \n\nu Second. \xe2\x80\x94 As to the subjects for baptism, we believe \nthat the only suitable persons to receive this ordi- \n\n\n\n266 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nnance are those who have exercised a saving faith in \nChrist, and are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. \nConsequently, unconscious infants ought not to be y \nand cannot be scripturally baptized, since they can \nneither exercise, nor profess that faith in Christ ; \nand to baptize such is contrary to the teachings and \npractice of Christ and his Apostles, and most hurt- \nful and injurious to the spiritual welfare of the \nchildren so baptized." \n\n" TJiird. \xe2\x80\x94 As to the subjects for church member- \nship, we believe that such persons only as are \ntruly regenerated, and have been scripturally bap- \ntized on a profession of faith in Christ, can prop- \nerly become members of a Christian church. Con- \nsequently, neither persons sprinkled, instead of being \nbaptized, nor unconscious infants, nor unregenerated \npersons, are suitable to become members of a church. \nTo receive the unregenerate to its fellowship would \ndestroy the distinction between the Church and the \nworld, and contradict the entire spirit and genius of \nthe gospel." \n\n" Fourth. \xe2\x80\x94 As to the subjects for communion, we \nbelieve that the Lord ? s Supper is to be partaken by \nmembers of the church alone, being such persons as \nare regenerated and baptized on a profession of their \nfaith in Christ, and are walking in the faith and fel- \nlowship of the gospel. Consequently, neither unre- \ngenerate persons, nor unbaptized persons, thorgh \nregenerate, nor persons walking disorderly and \n\n\n\nBAPTIST AND OTHER CHURCHES. 267 \n\ncontrary to the gospel, even though baptized, can \nproperly be invited to partake of this ordinance. \nTherefore, Baptists do not invite sprinkled members \nof Pedobaptist churches to their communion, because \nsuch persons are not scripturally baptized ; nor \ndo they admit immersed members of Pedobaptist \nchurches, because such persons are walking dis- \norderly as the disciples of Christ, by holding mem- \nbership in, and walking in fellowship with churches \nwhich receive sprinkling instead of baptism, thereby \nsanctioning and sustaining a perversion of Christ\'s \nordinance and a disobedience to his commands. For \nthe same reason, they decline to commune in Pedo- \nbaptist churches, as being contrary to good order." \n\n" Fifth. \xe2\x80\x94 As to church government, we believe that \neach separate and individual church is entirely inde- \npendent of all other churches, persons and bodies \nof men, either civil or ecclesiastical, and is to be \ngoverned by its own members alone, without aid or \ninterference of any other person or persons what- \never. Consequently, churches governed by popes, \nbishops, synods, presbyteries, conferences, or in any \nother way than by their own members directly and \nexclusively, are not constituted on the model of the \nprimitive churches, nor governed according to the \ngospel rule." \n\n" Sixth. \xe2\x80\x94 As to the scriptural officers of a church, \nwe believe there are but two, viz : the pastor, called \nin the New Testament " bishop," or " overseer," \n\n\n\n268 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\n" presbyter " or " elder," and deacons. Consequently, \nthose churches which admit more than two officers \nor orders in the ministry, have departed from the \ngospel rule and the construction of the primitive \nchurch." \n\nThis plain statement of our principles shows \nclearly that there is a wide difference between a \nBaptist church and all other churches \xe2\x80\x94 a difference \nwhich affects, not a few unimportant points, but \nwhich enters into the very constitution of a gospel \nchurch, and which, from the very nature of the case, \nplaces the Baptists in opposition to all other profess- \ning Christians. The world, therefore, has a right to \nask, By what authority do you array yourselves \nagainst all Christendom in maintaining these doc- \ntrines ? The question is pertinent and reasonable, \nand I will endeavor to answer it. In the first place, \nI reply, that it is not because of sectarian bigotry. \nThere is a spirit of sectarianism among us, as there \nis and must be among all denominations, so long as \nthey maintain a separate existence; and a certain \nmeasure of this feeling is by no means to be con- \ndemned, though when carried to excess it is hurtful \nto Christian character. I am ready to grant, too, \nthat the Baptists are under greater temptation than \nother Christians to cultivate the spirit of sectarian- \nism unduly, by reason of the fact that they stand \nalone in maintaining their principles, and necessarily \nantagonize all other churches ; but I am at the same \n\n\n\nBAPTIST AND OTHER CHURCHES. 269 \n\ntime very sure that I speak the truth, when I declare \nthat we cherish as kindly and as Christianly a spirit \ntowards other denominations as they do towards us, \nor as they do towards each other. I venture to \nassert that there is to-day as much, if not more, good \nfeeling between myself and the pastors of the Pedo- \nbaptist churches of this city, and between this church \nand the churches they represent, as among them- \nselves ; and this notwithstanding we maintain close \ncommunion, while they enjoy the gracious influence \nof open communion, usually regarded as an unfailing \nsource of union and good fellowship. It is, therefore, \nno want of Christian charity which makes us hold \nthese doctrines. Nor is it because ought of earthly \nhonor or earthly interest ever has or ever will accrue \nto us in holding this exclusive and independent posi- \ntion among the Christians of the world, for they that \nhold these doctrines must suffer persecution. Their \nmaintenance in all ages past has cost untold sacrifi- \nces of treasure and of blood. History will prove \nthat of all the people who have suffered for con- \nscience sake the Baptists have been the victims of \nthe most unremitting and relentless persecution. \nThe first and the last martyrs who sealed their faith \nwith their blood on British soil were Baptists ; and it \nis even true now, that while many of their principles \nhave fought their way to an honorable recognition \namong the best thinkers of the world, "this is still \nthe sect everywhere spoken against," as in the days \nof the Apostles. \n\n\n\n270 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\n. \xc2\xa3To, my brethren, it is not that we do not hold the \nmembers of other churches to be Christians ; nor \nthat we do not esteem them for their works of faith \nand labors of love ; not that we do not heartily co- \noperate with them in many departments of Christian \nlabor ; not that we would not profoundly rejoice if \nwe could all see eye to eye and face to face, and \nthink and speak the same thing, and thus form a \nunited army of " the sacramental hosts of God\'s \nelect " ; but because we believe the great principle of \nrespect for God\'s holy Word compels us to differ \nfrom those we love, and constrains us to maintain \nand vindicate what we regard as important and \nimperishable truth. \n\nAnd this brings us to the great cardinal principle \nof all Baptist churches : \n\nFirst, \xe2\x80\x94 The Sovereignty of God\'s Holy Word, We \nhold that the Bible is the supreme, the sufficient, the \nexclusive and absolute rule in all matters of religious \nfaith and practice, and it is a rigid adherence to this \nprinciple which separates us from all other churches, \nEomish and Protestant, and constrains us to hold \nand propagate at all hazards, the doctrines which dis- \ntinguish us as a people. \n\nTo quote authorities (and this I do freely, for my \nobject in this discourse is usefulness, not originality), \nthe great Dr. Francis Wayland says, in his Principles \nand Practices of the Baptists, page 85 : " We propose \nto take as our guide in all matters of religious belief \n\n\n\nBAPTIST AND OTHER CHURCHES. 271 \n\nand practice, the New Testament, the whole New \nTestament, and nothing but the New Testament. \nWhatever we find there we esteem as binding upon \nthe conscience. What is not there is not binding. \nNo matter by what reveuence for antiquity, by what \ntradition, by what councils, by what consent of any \nbranches of the church or of the whole church at \nany particular period, an opinion or practice may be \nsustained, if it be not sustained by the command of \nChrist or his Apostles, we value it only as an opinion \nor a precept of man, and we treat it accordingly. We \ndisavow the authority of man to add to or take from \nthe teachings of inspiration, as they are found in the \nNew Testament. Hence, to a Baptist all appeals to \nthe Fathers, or to antiquity, or to general practice in \nearly centuries, or in later times, are irrelevant and \nfrivolous. He looks for divine authority as his guide \nin all matters of religion, and if this be not produced, \nhis answer is, " In vain do ye worship me, teaching \nfor doctrines the commandments of men." The same \nsentiment is admirably put by Dr. Curry in the tract \nalready referred to. \n\nu Baptists differ fundamentally from Pedobaptists \nin practically adhering to the New Testament as the \nsufficient, the exclusive, and the absolute rule of \nfaith and practice. The soul of Baptist churches is \nsubmission and conformity to the New Testament. \nIndividual liberty is to be regulated by divine law. \nThe end of revelation is the limit of moral and relig- \n\n\n\n272 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nious duty. Loyalty to Christ must in all things take \nprecedence to personal inclination. The New Testa- \nment is not to be supplemented by tradition, nor the \nsyllabi of popes, nor the decrees of councils or syn- \nods, nor by the acts of civil government, nor by \nmotives of personal convenience, nor by parental \nconstraint. No Christian can take as obligatory \nupon his conscience the belief or practice of any \nperson, family or church, or nation, except as sus- \ntained by the Word of God." We know that other \ndenominations claim that they, too, take the Bible as \ntheir only guide in all matters of religion. We do \nnot question their sincerity, but at the same time we \nare obliged to regard them as having forsaken this \ngreat principle in respect to points cited as repre- \nsenting our distinctive tenets. \n\nIn maintaining these principles we feel that we are \nunder the most sacred obligations to protest against \nthe errors of Protestantism itself, and that God calls \nus to a responsibility and imposes upon us a dignity \nsuch as he put upon Luther, Calvin, and Knox, and \nother reformers of the sixteenth century. \n\nII. Closely allied to this high doctrine of regard \nfor God\'s holy Word as exalted to supreme authority ? \nand indeed growing out of it, is another, very dear \nto Baptists, which is "the personality of all religious \nduties " \xe2\x80\x94 the individual responsibility of every man \nfor the performance of his own duty. The Old Tes- \ntament dealt with man in families and nations ; the \n\n\n\nBAPTIST AND OTHER CHURCHES. 273 \n\nlanguage of the Xew Testament is, " every man must \ngive account of himself unto God." Daniel Web- \nster once remarked that " death brought every man \nto his individuality." So does the Christian religion. \nIn the peformance of a religious duty there can be \nno sponsor or proxy, Iso one, however close his \nrelationship, can answer for another. \n\nEach human soul is responsible to God for the \ndischarge of its own duty. Every one must repent \nfor himself, believe for himself, and obey for himself. \nThe faith and obedience of my parents or friends \nwill not avail for me, and u compulsory or involun- \ntary baptism is no more allowable than compulsory \nor involuntary taking of the Lord\'s Supper." If \nfaith, prayer, obedience of any kind, is an individual \nduty, then baptism, which, in the Scripture is always \njoined with faith, is also an individual duty, and, \ntherefore, the baptism of an unconscious, unbelieving \ninfant is a violation of this principle, since it not only \nlacks the elements of personal faith and personal \nobedience, but robs the child, when it can believe, \nof the unspeakable privilege of personally obeying \na command of Christ, as baptism is an ordinance to \nbe administered but once. There are duties, very \nimportant religious duties, which parents owe to \ntheir children ; they should not only feed, clothe and \neducate them, but bring them up in the nurture and \nadmonition of the Lord, and by constant prayer and \nearnest effort seek to secure their salvation ; but, as \n\n18 \n\n\n\n274 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthe Scriptures do not require them to repent, \nbelieve and be regenerated for their children, and \nas, in the nature of the case, it is impossible for them \nto perform these personal acts for their offspring, so \nbaptism, which is equally a personal act, cannot be \nperformed by a parent for a child. \n\nIII. A legitimate deduction from this principle of \nthe personality of religious duty gives us the sub- \nlime doctrine of soul-liberty\xe2\x80\x94 freedom to worship \nGod according to the dictates of each man\'s con- \nscience. If each human soul alone is responsible to \nGod for the discharge of its duty, then no human \nauthority has a right to come between that soul and \nits God, and therefore, all interference with the \nfaith and practice of man in matters of religion, \nwhether that interference be from human govern- \nment, parental authority, or religious teachers, under \nthe name of priests, pastors, or what-not, is a viola- \ntion of the sacred rights of conscience, and not to \nbe tolerated. Many think this doctrine of religious \nliberty the outgrowth of modern Christianity\xe2\x80\x94 a \ndevelopment not so much of the Gospel as of expe- \nrience and enlarged Christian liberality. So far as \ncivil governments are concerned it is certainly a \nnew doctrine, for Judge Story says, " In the code \nof laws established by the Baptists in Ehode Island \nwe read, for the first time since Christianity ascended \nthe throne of the Caesars, the declaration that con- \nscience should be free, and men should not be pun- \n\n\n\nBAPTIST AND OTHER CHURCHES. 275 \n\nished for worshipping God in the way they are per- \nsuaded he requires." But in religion it is not a new \ndoctrine. The New Testament plainly lays down the \nprinciple that while taxes and tributes belong to \nhuman governments, conscience and souls belong to \nGod alone ; and this doctrine the Baptists have \nalways steadily maintained. As Chevalier Bunsen, \nfor twelve years the esteemed ambassador of Prussia \nat the Court of England, and a Lutheran, declares, \n"the principles and polity of the Baptist church \nwill not allow it to persecute;" while the great \nAmerican historian, George Bancroft, has said, \n" Freedom of conscience, unlimited freedom of \nmind, was from the first the trophy of the Bap- \ntists." For seventeen hundred years the Baptists \nstood alone in the world as the advocates of relig- \nious liberty. Papists and Protestants, Lutherans \nand Calvinists, Episcopalians and Presbyterians, all \nrepudiated this doctrine as the dreadful dogma of \nthe despised and persecuted Ana-Baptists. But \nwhile all hierarchs and State religions have sought \nto destroy this principle, it has never been extinct. \nHanded down from generation to generation; enter- \ntained, sometimes for ages in succession, only by \nthose who were cursed as heretics ; driven from \ncountry to country by the cruel hand of persecu- \ntion\xe2\x80\x94its history all gory with the blood of the saints, \nit is vital in every part, and has been preserved by a \ngracious Providence, and will live on to bless the \nworld " till the last syllable of recorded time." \n\n\n\n276 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nIV. The twin brother of religious liberty \xe2\x80\x94 off- \nspring of the same cradle\xe2\x80\x94 is another principle ever \nheld sacred by the Baptists : the right of private \njudgment in interpreting God\'s Word. If the Bible \nis our supreme and exclusive rule of duty, and if \neach individual is personally accountable for the \ndischarge of that duty, then it follows, as a logical \nnecessity, that every man has a right to read and \ninterpret the Bible for himself. " The Baptists have \nalways held that the Bible was given by God, not \nto a priesthood, to be by them diluted, compounded \nand adulterated, and then retailed by the penny- \nworth to the people, but on the contrary, that the \nwhole revelation in all its abundance of blessings, \nwith all its solemn warnings and its exceeding great \nand precious promises, is a communication from God \nto every individual of the human race. It is given \nto the minister in no higher, better or different sense \nthan it is given to every one who reads it. Every \none to whom it comes is bound to study it for him- \nself and govern his life by it. \n\n"The wisdom of Omniscience has tasked itself to \nrender this communication plain, so that he that \nruns may read, and that the way-faring man, though \na fool, need not err therein. The Holy Spirit, more- \nover, has been sent to assist every one who will, \nwith an humble and devout heart, seek to under- \nstand it. With such a revelation and such spiritual \naid, every man is required to determine for himself \n\n\n\nBAPTIST AND OTHER CHURCHES. 277 \n\nwhat is the will of God. He has, therefore, no \nexcuse for disobedience. He cannot plead before \nGod that he could not know His will. He cannot \nexcuse himself on the ground that his minister \ndeceived him. The revelation was made to the man \nhimself, and the means were provided for his under- \nstanding it. Every one of us must give an account \nfor himself unto God." \n\nThis extract I have quoted at length from Way- \nland\'s "Principles and Practices of the Baptists," \npage 132, for two reasons \xe2\x80\x94 first, because the idea is \nadmirably presented, and also because, as the opin- \nion of one of our great representative men, it car- \nries with it more weight than any utterance of my \nown. \n\nHaving thus stated our doctrines, and the princi- \nples on which they are founded, I propose to pre- \nsent, in closing, several conclusions which seem to \nme to be legitimately derived from the principles \ndiscussed. \n\nFirst. \xe2\x80\x94 The Christian religion is the religion of a \nbook. That book is its supreme law, and contains all \nwe know or need to know of that religion. Whatever \nprecept, doctrine or ordinance is found in that book \nhas authority to bind men\'s consciences in matters \nof religion. Whatever is not in that book is only of \nhuman origin and is not binding upon men\'s hearts \nand consciences ; therefore, we stand upon a founda- \ntion of solid rock when we take that book as our \n\n\n\n278 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nonly rule of faith and practice. We are often asked \nwhat is the creed, confession of faith, or standard \nauthority of the Baptist churches J To this ques- \ntion we have but one reply : " The New Testament \nis our rule of faith and practice ; we have no creed, \nconfession of faith, book of discipline, book of com- \nmon prayer or book of church law but this." If \nother denominations reply to this answer \xe2\x80\x94 " We, too, \ntake the Bible for our guide, but we have also auth- \norized confessions, creeds and formularies, which \nhave been prepared by our wisest men and adopted \nby our highest ecclesiastical tribunals, and to a \ngreater or less degree all our members subscribe to \nand are governed by them. Indeed we see not how \nwe could preserve our unity and protect ourselves \nfrom serious errors and divisions, if we had not some \nauthorized standards ; " \xe2\x80\x94 to all this we reply, that we \ncannot recognize the authority of any earthly tri- \nbunal, and the nature of our polity forbids the adop- \ntion of any such standards. Every church, therefore, \nwhen it expresses its own belief, expresses simply \nthe faith of its own members. We believe in the \nperfect independence of every church of Christ. If \nseveral churches understand the Scriptures in the \nsame way, and adopt the same confession of faith, \nthen they simply say thereby that they understand \nGod\'s Word as teaching the same truths, and they \nadopt them because they believe they accord with \nthe Holy Scriptures, and not because any tribunal \n\n\n\nBAPTIST AND OTHER CHURCHES. 279 \n\nother than themselves has given such interpreta- \ntion to the Scriptures. \n\nThe authority is still in the Scriptures ; and we \nrepeat with emphasis, that we believe the Scriptures \nare a revelation, not to popes, or bishops, or presby- \nters, or pastors, or to councils, synods, assemblies, \nor conferences, but to each individual man, to be read \nand interpreted by himself and for his own guidance. \nAnd, strange as it may seem to others, \xe2\x80\x94 several Pedo- \nbaptist churches have expressed their surprise to me \nat the fact \xe2\x80\x94 we have never felt the need of author- \nized standards and confessions of faith to preserve \nour unity and secure us from division and heresy. \nThe truth is, there does not now, nor ever did exist, \na denomination of Christians, which has for so long \na period, and with such entire unanimity, held the \nsame doctrines as the Baptists. It is a most extra- \nordinary fact that the confessions of faith put forth \nby the Baptists in the days of Henry Till., who \nbegan to reign in 1509, and later, in the times of \nCromwell and Charles II., are almost identical with \nthose now generally entertained by Baptist churches. \nAuthorized standards, enforced with pains and pen- \nalties of the most fearful kind, have not secured \nuniformity of faith to the Church of Borne, nor pro- \ntected this great hierarchy from heresy and schism. \nXor have the Episcopalians, the Lutherans, the Pres- \nbyterians, or the Methodist churches been more for- \ntunate in this particular ; while the Baptists have at \n\n\n\n280 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthe same time preserved their liberty and enjoyed \nthe blessing of harmony. And why should it not be \nso ? If the Bible is given to every man to be read and \nunderstood for himself, why should we be surprised \nthat the greatest amount of unity attainable among \nmen has been produced by a resort, not to human \nstandards, which are fallible, but to the infallible \nWord of God, which we know is true, and which \naffords the most solid basis of unity to be found \namong men t \n\nThe second remark I wish you to note is that the \nreliance upon the pure Word of God has not only \nbeen the means of preserving us from divisions, \nbut it has preserved us from error as well, and \nreserved to us a purer faith than that of any other \npeople under heaven. Do any object to the asser- \ntion of such high claims on our part, because we \nhave numbered among our members not many of \nthe great and learned of this world % We reply by \nsaying that, doubtless, we owe our singularly pure \nfaith to the fact that we have not had such guides to \nfollow. As another has well said, u Our fathers for \nthe most part, were plain and unlearned men. They \nhad no learned authorities to lead them astray. They \nmingled in no aristocratic circles whose overwhelm- \ning public sentiment might crush the first buddings \nof earnest and honest inquiry. As little children \nthey took up the Bible, supposing it to mean just \nwhat it said, and willing to practice just what it \n\n\n\nBAPTIST AND OTHER CHURCHES. 281 \n\ntaught. Having nowhere else to look, they looked \nup in humility to the Holy Spirit to teach them the \nmeaning of the Word of God, and they were not \ndisappointed. It was thus that they arrived at truth \nwhich escaped the learned and the intellectually \nmighty." \n\nFinally, brethren, consider the exhortation of the \nApostle that you should earnestly contend for the \nfaith, once for all, delivered to the saints. The \nprinciples we have here discussed constitute our \npeculiar inheritance as a people. In my judgment, \nthey bring with them a dignity, and involve a respon- \nsibility, such as God bestows upon no other denom- \nination of Christians. These principles are the hope \nof the world. They constitute the impregnable \nfoundation whereon all forms of religious error, \nwhether Papal or Protestant, Pagan or Scientific, \ncan be encountered and overcome. Let us hold \nthem with a tenacity, esteem them with a reverence, \nand circulate them with an energy and enterprise \nsuch as never distinguished the Propagandists of \nBorne, in the days of their greatest prosperity. To \ndo this, we must understand these principles and \nappreciate their unspeakable importance. The great \nGerman, Krummacher, said some years ago to Dr. \nSears, " You Baptists have a future." \n\nMay the God of all truth keep us true to these \ngreat and glorious doctrines, and give us grace that \nwe may ever be faithful to the honorable trusts com- \n\n\n\n282 BAPTIST DOCTRIENS. \n\nmitted to our charge. Let us be careful, however, \nalways and everywhere, that we contend for those \nprinciples in the proper spirit. The truth we must \nspeak, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, \nbut it should be spoken in love. We have no right to \ndischarge one duty by violating another in the spirit \nin which we do it. As for myself, I have never been \nable to see why a man should cease to be a Christian \ngentleman because he was a Baptist, or cease to love \nChristians of other denominations because we differ \nfrom them. Of these three, faith^hope and charity y \nthe greatest, God says, is charity. \n\n\n\nTHE MULTIPLICITY OF DENOMINATIONS \nAN EVIL. \n\n\n\nBY REV. J. B. GAMBRELL, CLINTON, MISS. \n\n\n\n" They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my peo- \nple slightly, saying, Peace, peace, when there is no peace." \nJer. vi. 14. \n\nTaking these words as suggestive, I shall proceed \ndirectly to the discussion of a matter which has \nlong appeared to my mind to be of grave concern to \nall Christian people. It requires no argument to \nconvince Bible-readers that the first churches had a \ncommon faith, as they had also a common Lord and \na common baptism. \n\nAt the beginning there was unity in belief and \npractice. This is clear upon the face of the inspired \nrecords, and it is equally clear that it was the will of \nour Lord that this happy state of things should \ncontinue. A caution was given against those who \ncaused divisions contrary to the doctrines of Christ. \nOur Saviour prayed for the unity of his disciples. \n\nThe whole tenor of the New Testament scriptures \nstrongly indicates unity. But in the course of time \nchanges came. Instead of visible bodies known as \nthe churches of Christ, all holding the same doctrines \nand practicing the same things, there are hundreds \n\n\n\n284 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nof schismatic bodies, each with its special doctrines \nand peculiar forms of worship. The heresy of \nschism is not only acquiesced in by great multitudes \nof professing Christians, but it has been elevated into \na doctrine and boldly proclaimed from many a pulpit. \nThe present state of things is extolled as tending \nmightily to the conversion of the world. This is the \npopular view, and I am aware that to take a strong \nstand against it will bring upon me the charge of \nbigotry, narrowness, etc. Nevertheless I have stern \nconvictions upon the subject, and taking all risks I \nshall write on the question as the Lord helps me. \n\n" The Multiplicity of Denominations an Evil" is \nwhat I shall attempt to show. Taking the text as a \nguide I shall notice \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nI. The injury inflicted upon the cause of Christ by \nthe multiplicity of denominations. \n\nII. The pleas for divisions, insufficient, unreason- \nable and unscriptural. \n\nIII. The impossibility of a settled peace under \nexisting circumstances. \n\nI. Under this head let us in the first place look at \nthe mangled form of truth. The Scriptures present \na perfect body of divinity, grand but simple. It was \nconstructed and rounded out under the master hand \nof Deity. It is perfect. And more, it is exactly \nsuited to the wants of our race. It needs no emen- \ndations nor reconstructions. And to realize the \n\n\n\nMULTIPLIED DENOMINATIONS AN EVIL. 285 \n\nmost perfect unity it is only necessary that all men \nhumbly accept the simple system of truth revealed \nin the Scriptures. This has not been done. From \nvery early times down through all the ages a process \nof adding to and taking from has been going on. \nHence the various denominations of to-day. This is \nhistorically true, beyond dispute. The Romish hier- \narchy is the slow growth of centuries, mainly the \nwork of menh hands. Other sects around us have a \nkindred history, as might be shown did time and occa- \nsion allow. They all have some truth. Let us thank \nGod for that ! Yes and I will thank God that even \nin the Eomish system there is truth, saving truth. \nThe foundation rock is there in the doctrine of the \ndivinity of Jesus which Catholics hold. It is fearfully \noverlaid by tradition and superstition, but it is there, \nand again I thank God ! I will add that it is my \nhope and belief that in Rome even and all her \nProtestant branches, there are many of God\'s own \nelect people. But while all these sects hold truth, \nthey do not hold all the truth, and they maintain \nmuch that is not truth. Thus the Divine system- of \ntruth has been mangled. Will any one say there is \nno harm in all this. He would be a daring man who \nwould do so. A traveler, writing from Rome, laments \nthat the petty nobility of that city irreverently tear \ndown the magnificent old temples and take the \nstones to mix with other material in the construction \nof their private residences. And just so have men \n\n\n\n286 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ndone with God\'s grand temple of truth. This can \nnot be right. Such a procedure is attended by the \nmost serious consequences and deserves the gravest \ncensure. It is a work in which we will have no part \nand to which we will give no sanction. \n\nBut let us pass to notice that these divisions \nobstruct the course of truth. I accord to ministers \nof other denominations \xe2\x80\x94 many of them \xe2\x80\x94 the sin- \ncerest desire to forward the cause of our common \nSaviour. This is done with the utmost pleasure, and \nit detracts nothing from what I am about to say. \nThese good men are hindered by the errors of their \nown systems. There have been Christ-loving, soul- \nloving preachers in the Eomish church, who sought \nearnestly to bring the truth savingly near the hearts \nof the people. But their congregations were wrap- \nped about with the grave-clothes of ritualism. They \nfought bravely, but the sword of truth was encased \nin a lifeless formalism, and could not cut its way to \nthe heart. All error is a hindrance, as all truth is a \nhelp. It is painful to see good men struggling with \ntheir own errors. Take the English church : it has \nmuch precious truth in its creed, but this is neutral- \nized in large measure by much error. It is so \neverywhere. Even our Presbyterian brethren, with \na doctrinal base all of pure granite, are embarrassed \nby their views of infant baptism and other kindred \ndoctrines. A man who is bound to maintain that \nbaptism is the seal of the covenant can not so power- \n\n\n\nMULTIPLIED DENOMINATIONS AN EVIL. 287 \n\nfully enforce the doctrine of salvation wholly by the \nsovereign grace of God. \n\nAnd more: whatever tends to hinder the free \npreaching of all truth in due proportion, must be an \nevil. The multiplicity of denominations has this \ntendency. In many places it is very unpopular to \npreach upon certain doctrines concerning which the \nsects are not agreed. Although clearly in the Bible, \nthey are put under ban by a misguided public senti- \nment, lest the preaching of them should give offense. \nMany a man, too weak to stand against the preva- \nlent sentiment, yields. The temptation to be silent \nis great, and the voice of truth is smothered. \nMen, who have been set for the defense of the gos- \npel, speak with bated breath, because there are those \nbefore them who would take it as a personal unkind- \nness, and an attack on their denomination, if the \nwhole truth should be spoken plainly. Many a man \nwho sees clearly that salvation must be entirely by \ngrace, will not tell dying sinners so in unmistakable \nterms, because of the Arminian element in his con- \ngregation. There is a nervousness in pew and \npulpit which is not favorable to the advance of \nscriptural views. Why! in many places certain \ndenominations have pre-empted the ground, and it \nis held improper to go there and preach as the \nScriptures most clearly teach. \n\nAgain : downright opposition to the truth is an- \nother evil growing out of the multiplicity of denom- \n\n\n\n288 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ninations. Truth is exclusive. It will form no alli- \nance with error; nor will it agree to a truce with \nheresy. From this inherent disposition of truth it \nfollows that often it must be crushed to make room \nfor that which is not the truth. It is no part of my \nplan to discuss baptism in this article, but I will \nallude to the baptismal controversy for an illustra- \ntion of the truth of the statement just made. It is \nno more than just to say, that if ever any question \nought to be regarded as settled beyond doubt, it is \nthat which now so much disturbs the world. By \nevery proof, immersion is the act which Christ and \nhis Apostles both taught and practiced. Yet in how \nmany ways is this divine institution attacked 1 Ev- \nery theory is invented which tends to subvert it. \nEidicule and even the charge of indecency are \nemployed to destroy this institution of the gospel \nand make room for innovations. \n\nOther truths have fared no better. How much the \ncause of Christ has been impeded by such opposi- \ntion to his truth no one can know. I do not mean to \nsay that men have wantonly opposed the truth, but \nonly that they have been under the influence of a \nstrong denominational bias, and so have done what \nthey otherwise would not have done. The evil \neffects, however, are the same. \n\nI have said that the existence of conflicting sects \nprevents the free preaching of the truth. Look at \nthe other side of the question. The multiplicity of \n\n\n\nMULTIPLIED DENOMINATIONS AN EVIL. 2&.) \n\ndenominations greatly promotes the preaching of \nheresy. Men will propagate the creed of their \nchurch, and that, too, without taking any great pains, \nas a rule, to find out whether the creed has the sanc- \ntion of the Scripture. Now, no one can fail to know \nthat where there are so many differences there is no \nlittle heresy. Things differing from each other can \nnot be equal to the same thing. All are not right; \nall can not be right. There are, beyond dispute, \ngrave heresies abroad, and these heresies are the \nlife of the sects. Take from Eome her " Infallibility \ndogma," her " Baptismal Eegeneration, n etc., and \nshe would be Eome no more. And so, if what is \nunscriptural were taken from all, there would be a \ngreat deal accomplished toward unity. But with \nwhat energy do preachers uphold the inventions of \nmen. How earnestly, even bitterly, do men contend \nfor denominational peculiarities unknown to Apos- \ntolic times, and how blind are many to all reason. I \nsuppose, if I say that a full half of all the preaching \ndone in the world is in support of denominational \ndogmas for which there is no scriptural warrant, you \nwould hardly doubt it. \n\nLet us reflect for a few moments upon the dif- \nficulties thrown in the way of the ungodly by the \nmultiplicity of denominations, each with its peculiar \nteachings. Many a time I have gone to an ungodly \nman to urge him to seek Christ, and have been met \nwith something like this. " I hear so many different \n\n19 \n\n\n\n290 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthings, that I don\'t know which is right. Sometimes \nI think they are all wrong, and that my chance is \nabout as good as any." The world is confused, and \nno wonder it is. Not long ago I was assisting in a \nprotracted meeting. There was a young man attend- \ning the meeting, who seemed to be under deep con- \ncern for his soul. We tried to point him directly to \nChrist for salvation. Others advised him to join \ntheir church, telling him that he would be more \nlikely to be converted in that way. Others still \nurged him to be baptized right away, assuring him \nthat in this act of obedience his sins would be \nwashed away. There were still others who told him \nof the power of the church to do what was needful \nfor him. The poor man, confused, went back to the \nworld, and is now utterly hardened. This is only \none case of thousands. \n\nNow, just for a little time think how the path of \nobedience is blocked up before the feet of young \nconverts by denominational influences. A person \ngives his heart to Jesus, and wishes at once to obey \nhis dear Lord and Saviour. In the Scriptures the \npath of duty is very plain, but he is not sent to the \nBible to learn his duty. He is told to go with his \nfamily, or to consult his convenience, or he is urged \nby one to do this, and by another to do that. Confu- \nsion is spread around him. Maybe he goes to his \nBible and reads the simple law of Jesus touching- \nbaptism, the first public Christian act. He sees his \n\n\n\nMULTIPLIED DENOMINATIONS AN EVIL. 291 \n\nduty ; but he is not let alone to perform it. If he \ncannot be argued out of his conception of the \nmeaning of the command, he may be persuaded that \nhe need not obey it, seeing that it is not essential. If \nhe is a minor, or if the subject is a daughter or a \nwife, sterner measures may be employed. This is no \nfancy picture. \n\nI must just mention here that, under the influence \nof sectarian zeal, the Word of God is trampled under \nfoot of men, and the authority of the Highest set at \nnaught. In proof of this, I need only refer to the \nhundreds who readily confess that they believe \nimmersion to be of divine origin, but who, neverthe- \nless, refuse to leave their denomination to obey \nChrist. Are there not some such among my readers ? \nI must call your attention to another point which, to \nmy mind, is important. By the injection of error \ninto the religious world, we are called upon to repel \nit. There are some men among us who seem greatly \nto enjoy this business. They are properly called \n" heresy hunters," and, so far as appearances go, they \nwould be extremely miserable if the whole world \nwere to come suddenly right. As for preaching \nChrist simply, they seem not to have been called to \ndo that. The denominational wars have given us a \nrace of theological pugilists from whom we may well \npray in the language of the prayer-book, " Good \nLord, deliver us." But, after all, error must be met! \nStraightforward, peace-loving men are often com- \n\n\n\n292 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\npelled to leave a work they love better, to repel the \nattacks of error upon the citadel of truth. The \nnecessity is thrust upon us, and often we must leave \noff building the walls to repel the enemy. Thus time \nand effort are lost, and, what is still more serious, \noften an unholy spirit is fostered. I verily believe \nthe low state of religion in many places is to be \nattributed to denominational wars, which have been \nwarmer and longer, perhaps, than was necessary. \n\nIn the next place, I must briefly call your attention \nto the untold waste caused by the multiplicity of \ndenominations. Take almost any village of a thou- \nsand inhabitants, and you will see from five to six \nchurches. These have generally, with much incon- \nvenience, built houses of worship, and are maintaining \na sickly existence. As many ministers, as churches, \naddress handsful of people, for which they receive a \nmere pittance. The strength of these bodies, in many \ncases, is wasted in strife among themselves, instead \nof being directed unitedly upon the ungodly in the \ncommunity. \n\nNow, I ask, in all reason, what is the use of this \nwaste! Let us suppose that instead of all these \nchurches, there was one, with one house and one \nminister, preaching the truth, all the truth, and \nnothing but the truth, and that all the people of God \nwere united in every good word and work. How \nmuch better it would be for that community. And \nthen, think of those other men going out to preach \n\n\n\nMULTIPLIED DENOMINATIONS AN EVIL. 293 \n\nthe same truth to the destitute. On this plan, how \nquickly could the gospel be sent to every community \non the face of the earth ! \n\nThis is an intensely practical point. It is a matter \nthat ought to lie with ponderous weight upon the \nconscience of the Christian public. The present \nstate of things is wrong, radically wrong. \n\nThe last point that I will mention uuder this head \nis the promotion of infidelity by the multiplicity of \ndenominations. Our Saviour prayed that his disciples \nmight be one, even as he and his Father are one, that \nthe world might believe that his Father had sent him. \nThere is a powerful force in unity to strengthen faith ; \nthere is a powerful force in division to weaken faith. \nThe prayer of Christ teaches this truth, and reason \nand observation confirm it. Not all the avowed infi- \ndels in the world can inflict so deadly a wound upon \nthe faith of the age as Christians and professed \nChristians are doing by their open divisions. Their \ndiverse teachings, open strife, petty jealousies, palp- \nable denials of the doctrines of Christ, and the \nchanges which they take to themselves the liberty \nof making in the divine order of things, act disas- \ntrously upon the highest interests of the world. We \nhave but glanced at the evils growing out of a multi- \nplicity of denominations. Time would fail us to \nenumerate all of them, or to adequately discuss \nthem. But let us pass on to notice that : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\n294 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nII. The pleas for division are insufficient, unreasonable \nand unscriptural. There are many such pleas. Only \na few of the more prominent can be mentioned here. \n\n" There is variety in all the works of God, and it is \nreasonable that there should be variety in religion." \nThis is very specious. If God had not prescribed a \nreligion, I would agree that endless variety might be \nright. As it is, there is no serious objection to \nvariety in the mere circumstances of worship. If \nmy Episcopal friend wishes to preach in a gown and \nsurplice, I will not deny him the pleasure, though it \nis not at all to my taste. That is a circumstantial \nmatter, and differences concerning it amount to \nnothing important. But when my friend teaches \n"baptismal regeneration," etc., then we must part, \nfor the point is vital. Yet we cannot hold different \nviews on that question without sin on one side or the \nother. If baptismal regeneration be the truth of \nGod, clearly we all ought to accept and teach it. If, \nas I believe with all my heart, there is no such thing \ntaught in the Scriptures, then my friend in the \nsurplice is very wrong to palm off such a notion \nupon the world. There is no room for variety, if we \nall keep to the truth on the question. Now, this \nreasoning applies to every doctrine of the Bible. If \nGod had meant that there should be different \nchurches, with different creeds, he would have made \ndifferent revelations to suit. As he has revealed but \none Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one system of \n\n\n\nMULTIPLIED DENOMINATIONS AN EVIL. 295 \n\ndoctrines throughout, it is clear that he meant there \nshould be unity in all these matters. \n\n"People cannot all believe alike, and therefore we \nmust not expect them to do so." Is there any natural \ndifficulty in the way of any one\'s believing what God \nhas revealed for our acceptance ? Let those who are \nwilling to risk it tell the Judge in the last day that \nthey could not believe what he taught them. There \nis no valid excuse for not accepting the truth, and \nGod will have none. We may be sure of that. \n\n"It is wise to have different denominations, so that \nall may be suited." This plea proceeds upon the \nnotion that people are to be pleased in religion. The \nidea is radically wrong. It reverses things. It is our \nduty to please God by an humble and willing obedi- \nence to the truth. The Almighty has not undertaken \nto suit the world. Besides, if this plea be well \nfounded, we have need of still other denominations, \nfor there are many people yet unsuited. Such excuses \nwill not heal the hurt inflicted upon the cause of \nChrist. \n\n"All the denominations are branches of the church, \nand right, each in its own way." Is this true ? is the \nfirst important inquiry. We have all heard much of \nthe branches of the church. Where is the proof \nthat the church has branches differing one from the \nother? Looking into the Xew Testament, we find \nmany churches, but they were of the same faith and \norder. In vain do we search the sacred records for \n\n\n\n296 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\na trace of these divergent and antagonistic branches. \nHas the church really branched % Whence come the \ndenominations of the present time % History informs \nus. If I say that they are branches of the Eomish \napostacy, I speak only an historical truth. Let no \none say that I am uncharitable. I must speak the \ntruth. That may humble, but should not offend. Is \nit not known to every one that John Calvin led out \nthe Presbyterian branch, Martin Luther the Lutheran \nbranch, and Henry VIII. the Anglican branch? \nMethodism is a branch of the last named. \n\nIs Eome the true church of Christ % No Baptists \nand but few Protestants think so. Eather, she is \nthe scarlet-robed persecutor of Christ\'s Church. If \nEome be not the real church, then are not these \ndenominations branches of the true church ; for they \nare the offshoots of that body, and, as the celebrated \nMethodist minister, Dr. Bond, aptly said, " The hues \nof Eomanism are inlaid throughout all Protestantism.* 7 \nSo much in vindication of the truth, as touching the \nbranch theory which satisfies and misleads the con- \nsciences of many. \n\nUpon the last part of this plea, I wish to say that \nno one exactly believes it. It sounds broad and \ncharitable to hear men say, " all are right, each in his \nown way." But people frequently say more than \nthey mean. In this case, they say more than they \ncan mean. The mind of a sane man is not constructed \nto believe that " yes " and " no,\'* with reference to \n\n\n\nMULTIPLIED DENOMINATIONS AN EVIL. 297 \n\nthe same thing, can both be true. We cannot believe \nboth sides of a contradiction. When my brother, \ndown the street, preaches up infant baptism and I \npreach it down, every one knows that somebody is \nwrong. It is idle to say that each one is right in his \nown way. There is but one right ?r\xc2\xab?/,and that is the \nScriptural way. If he affirms that the Scriptures \nteach such a doctrine, and I deny it, one of us has \nthe misfortune to be wrong. When our Oalvinistic \nbrethren preach up the doctrines of grace, and our \nArminian brethren preach them down, somebody is \npoint-blank wrong. And just so it is with every \npoint of disagreement. With all the charity which \ncharacterizes our brethren of other persuasions, I \nhave always noticed that they do not think as much \nof our doctrines as they do of their own. This is \nvery natural, I will admit; but, at least, if we are \nall right, each in his way, they should not inveigh \nagainst what we hold to be the truth. I have a \ndecided impression that if any or all of them could \nsucceed equal to their wishes, the Baptist branch \nwould soon be no more ; we would be converted to \nother views. As for myself \xe2\x80\x94 and I am persuaded I \nspeak the honest sentiments of my brethren \xe2\x80\x94 I \nwould be glad to see the whole world converted to \nBaptist views. I cannot say that a man is right, and \nstraightway seek to change him. The all-right theory \nis clearly all- wrong. \n\nI must come now to the last division of the subject, \nand speedily to a close. \n\n\n\n298 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nIII. The impossibility of a settled peace under exist- \ning circumstances. We hear the cry, " Peace, peace V 7 \n"when there is no peace," and there can be none till \ntruth is triumphant. Error is a disturbing element, \nand those who have foisted innovations upon the \nChristian system are responsible for disturbing the \npeace of Israel. Those who maintain these errors \nare also responsible. The responsibility lies alto- \ngether with those who have forsaken the old paths. \nTo earnestly defend the faith once delivered to the \nsaints, is a high Christian duty. As matters now \nstand, there can be no peace; we will not hold our \npeace ; we dare not do it. Sprung directly from Christ \nand his holy Apostles, and descended through a long \nline of martyrs, Baptists have a duty to perform, in \nvindicating the old faith, which they must not shirk. \nOur obligations to Christ and a proper regard for the \nhighest interest of the race alike urge us to stand \nfast by the old landmarks of gospel faith. We have \nno terms of compromise to offer, and there are none \nwe can accept. Our orders have been received from \nthe Captain of our salvation ; it only remains for us \nto obey them, and insist, to the last, that others do \nthe same. Just as long as men preach baptismal \nregeneration, we will preach against it. If men will \ninsist on an unregenerate church-membership, we \nare bound to oppose them. We will not even agree \nto the substitution of sprinkling or pouring for \ngospel baptism. Nor will we take infants instead of \n\n\n\nMULTIPLIED DENOMINATIONS AN EYIL. 299 \n\nbelievers as proper subjects for baptism. And just \nas sternly will we oppose the inversion of the ordi- \nnances, putting communion before baptism, though \nthis would please many people whom, in other mat- \nters, we would gladly accommodate. I trust that we \nknow well the difference between servants and \nMaster, and that, being servants, we will make it our \nchief concern to obey. We will have no personal \nfeelings in our advocacy of the truth, but in love we \nwill speak the truth fully, plainly, constantly, till, \nunder God, it prevails over the world. \n\nIt is related that there was great commotion and \nanxiety in the Eomish Council which passed the Infal- \nlibility dogma. Many of the more prudent bishops \nfeared the rupture of the church by such a bold \nmeasure. After the famous dogma was passed, sur- \nrounded by an excited crowd of prelates, Archbishop \n(now Cardinal) Manning, of England, holding the paper \naloft in his hand, said, "Let all the world go to bits, and \nwe will reconstruct it on this paper." The religious \nworld is going to bits. Gradually, but surely, Protest- \nantism is growing out of its Romish wrappings. \nInfant baptism is not now believed in as it once was. \nEight views of both the design and act of baptism \nprevail more and more. Even Rome cannot now hold \nthe masses in her grasp as she has done in the past. \nThe age is one of unrest. The means of communicat- \ning knowledge are constantly multiplying. Men are \neverywhere coming into a larger inheritance of per- \n\n\n\n300 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nsonal liberty and responsibility. Truly, the old world \nof thought and faith is going to bits, and, under God, \nBaptists are called upon to reconstruct it, not around \nan infallible (?) man, but upon the infallible Word of \nGod, which endureth forever. The very times \nadmonish us to stand fast in the old ways, and to \ngive to the simple truth of Jesus, which makes men \nfree indeed, a consistent, earnest, and life-long advo- \ncacy. And may the God of all grace, the God of \npeace, give us evermore the help of his Spirit, and, \nthrough the truth, hasten the day when all lovers of \nJesus shall see eye to eye and speak the same \nthings. Amen. \n\n\n\nMISSIONS, THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. \n\n\n\nBY REV. J. B. HARTWELL, D. D., SAN FRANCISCO, \nCALIFORNIA. 1 \n\n\n\n"For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he \nmight destroy the works of the devil.\' \' \xe2\x80\x94 I. John iii. 8. \n\nFrom the time that the angels who fell left their \nfirst estate, from the time that the first faint thought \nof self-exaltation cast its blighting shadows across \nthe unsullied heart of the Son of the Morning, there \nhas been going on in the universe a struggle \nbetween good and evil, between truth and falsehood, \nbetween holiness and sin, between God and Satan. \n\nThat there is a personal devil, and that he has set \nhimself to mar, and has miserably marred, the fairest \nworks of God ; that, in his hellish antagonism against \nall holiness, and everything that exalts and honors \nGod, he has, by wily and malignant deception, suc- \nceeded in alienating our race from holiness and from \nGod, are truths so plainly taught in the Bible and \nmanifested in the world around us, that only the \nwillfully blind can fail to perceive them. \n\n1 Twenty-one years Missionary to China, of the Foreign Mis- \nsionary Board of the Southern Baptist Convention; now Mis- \nsionary of the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist \nConvention to the Chinese in California. \n\n301 \n\n\n\n302 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nDeceiving our first mother, and through her over- \ncoming our federal head, Satan corrupted the very \nfountain of human life, and from that time he has \nfound the human heart, in every country and every \nage, an easy prey to his artifices. Artfully conceal- \ning his purpose and his agency from his victims, \nwith an angelic wisdom and foresight, he has led \nman on from sin to sin, from one degree of depravity \nto another, till the race now wraps itself in iniquity \nas a garment ; aye, luxuriates like a can ion worm, \nin its native corruption and filth. Availing himself \nof his superior wisdom and ability, and of man\'s \nweakness; perverting even the noblest and most \nheavenly sentiments of the human heart, he has, to \nthe utmost of his power, subordinated to his own \nantagonism against God and truth, every thing, good \nand bad, in man, who has allowed himself to be led \nwillingly captive. Like a roaring lion, he has gone \nforth to destroy. Like a cheat, he has deceived the \nnations. He has attacked the mind, the heart, the \nbody. He has corrupted the languages, the tastes, \nthe customs, the faith of all the nations. Pervert- \ning man\'s tendency to religion, which is innate, he \nhas led him into idolatry. Jeroboam, the son of \nNebat, when he had led the ten tribes to revolt \nagainst the house of David, the rightful sovereigns of \nIsrael, lest their love of religion, taking them to \nJerusalem and to the sanctuary of Jehovah, that \nglorious temple that Solomon had built, should \n\n\n\nMISSIONS, THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. 303 \n\nrestore the people to their rightful Lord, set up \ngolden calves in Bethel and in Dan, and proclaimed \nthese the gods of Israel ; and by satisfying thus, \nwith a pretense and a lie, the religious tendency of \nthe people, he kept them away from the true God, \nand from their lawful sovereign. And no name has \ncome down to posterity stained with a blacker \ninfamy than attaches to Jeroboam, the son of Xebat, \nwho caused Israel to sin. \n\nJust this, on a far grander scale, Satan has done. \nHaving led the world into sin and alienated man \nfrom God, lest his inborn tendency to worship \nshould lead him back to God, he has perverted \nthis heavenly gift, and made it the grand means \nof separation between God and the human soul, \nby instituting idolatry. Walk with me in \nChina, and I will show you gods by the way- \nside, gods at the bridges, gods of the fields and gods \nof the cities, gods of the courts, and gods of the \nkitchen, gods of the sea, and gods of the streams, \ngods of wealth, and gods of disease. Listen to the \nlanguages of the nations, and you find superstition and \ndevil-worship ingrained into them, and unconsciously \nbreathed by the youngest child who has learned to \nspeak. The forms of conception, the habits of life, \nthe foundations of society, are built upon super- \nstition and religious error. Go with me to ancient \nGreece and Eome, to Africa, and the islands of the \nsea, and I will show you as religious worship, orgies \n\n\n\n304 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ninvolving the violation of every moral sense, every \nsense of decency and virtue. Custom, custom makes \nright; and Satan\'s shrewdness is nowhere more \nexercised than in the institution among all people of \ncustoms, involving immorality and degrading crime. \nWho but Satan could have instituted the custom of \nAncestral worship, appealing to some of the tender- \nest and noblest sentiments of the human heart, by \nwhich the Chinese have been enslaved for thousands \nof years? Who but Satan could have instituted \nfoot-binding, which in China, for scores of centuries, \nhas crippled, and almost annihilated for all good, \nnearly one-sixth of the human race ! Satan under- \nstood too well the power and influence of woman as \na strategic force, to allow her to escape his observa- \ntion and special care. Hence the customs involv- \ning female degradation that prevail everywhere, \nexcept where the pure gospel of Jesus Christ has \nshed its light and influence. The natural delicate \ntenderness, the strong tendency to purity and good- \nness, the tenacity to truth and virtue, that charac- \nterize uncorrupted women ; the tender mother-love, \nthe almost unbounded mother-influence, are all \nchecked or perverted by the arch-fiend, by female \ndegradation and ignorance. The moral sense of \nthe ancient Greeks and Romans must have revolted \nat the horrid lewd rites involved in their religious \nworship. Yet Satan had made custom sanction \nthem, and thereby the horror was modified, and the \ndevil continued to be worshipped. \n\n\n\nMISSIONS, THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. 305 \n\nBut when, revolting at the absurdities of heathen- \nism, the human mind demanded something better, \nSatan was equal to the occasion, and Mohammedanism \narose, which, for eleven hundred years, has blighted \nwith its curse many of the fairest lands of Asia, \nAfrica and Europe. \n\nAnd Satan ventures on holier ground. He enters \nthe arena of truth, and, by its perversion, establishes \nman in his opposition to God. Judaism, at first the \nearthly embodiment of the truth of God, has been \nperverted to opposition to God\'s own truth; and \nnow, the descendants of "the friend of God," to \nwhom pertained the promises and the sanctuary, and \nby whom, as pertained to the flesh, the Christ came, \nare the inveterate and irreconcilable enemies of the \ntruth, to which their own existence as a scattered, \npeeled, despised, yet separate and distinct people, \nbears the strongest testimony. Christ came to his \nown, and his own received him not, but cried, "Away \nwith him, his blood be upon us and upon our chil- \ndren." And till to-day they know not his saving \ngrace ; but, calling themselves the people of God, \nand believing that they are serving God, they are \nmarshalled in Satan\'s army, and direct all their \nmighty energies against God\'s plan for destroying \nthe works of the devil. \n\nWould God Satan had stopped here! God-defiant, \nhe has entered the very holy of holies, and, in the \nChurch of Jesus Christ, has raised up Antichrist, \n\n20 \n\n\n\n306 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nwhich, veiled in the garb of the very Bride of Christ, \nbut in heart charged with the venoms of the pit, has \ngone forth his chosen emissary to deceive the \nnations. O Eome, Eome, Rome! what hast thou \ndone? From every land where thou hast held thy \nsway comes the wail of superstition, ignorance and \nblood \xe2\x80\x94 energy stifled, mind enslaved, heart poisoned, \ntruth crushed, vice rampant, God defied, Satan \nenthroned. \n\nBut the mind of man will not, cannot remain always \nbound by the absurd superstitions and slavish sub- \nserviency of Eome; and, breaking loose from its \nshackles, it rushes, led still by the arch-deceiver, \ninto the mazes of infidelity. Like the pendulum, from \nthe one extreme of credulity, giving up soul and body \nto the dictum of the priest, the mind swings to the \nother extreme of infidelity. And here the enemy \navails himself of every agency. Education, incipient \nscience, the art of printing, the telegraph, literature, \nare all perverted to his service and to opposition to \ntruth, to holiness and to God. \n\nOn the other hand, however, the Bible teaches, \nwith equal plainness, that Jesus Christ was sent into \nthe world to overcome all this evil. For this purpose \nwas the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy \nthe works of the devil. \n\nIn this struggle between good and evil, between \nGod and Satan, the Bible represents all created \nintelligences as interested; and especially in the \n\n\n\nMISSIONS, THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. 307 \n\nwork of reconciliation that Christ is effecting, are \ntheir intensest feelings and sympathies elicited. \nPaul speaks of himself and his fellow-apostles as \nappointed unto death, and as a theatre, a spectacle \nto the world, to angels and to men; representing the \nworld, the angels and men as gazing with intensest \nconcern, as if upon one of the gladiatorial shows, in \nwhich persons appointed to death were set to struggle \nin mortal combat with wild beasts. \n\nThe angels are interested. They desire to look \ninto this mystery. From the time of their creation \nthey had been wont to bow in adoration before the \nSon of God. Now they behold a mystery involving \nhis humiliation, his ignominy, his suffering, his death. \nIt staggers them, and they desire to look into the \nmystery. They are all ministering spirits sent forth \nto minister to them who shall be the heirs of salva- \ntion. And they seem anxious to take part in the \nconflict. Eight gladly they visited the saints under \nthe Old Testament dispensation and under the New. \nEight gladly they ministered to the Saviour in the \nhour of his extremity in Gethsemane. \n\nSo, too, the saints are concerned. When it was \npermitted to Moses and Elijah to visit the Saviour at \nthe time of his transfiguration on the mount, the only \ntheme that could claim their conversation in that \nprecious hour was the sacrifice that he should accom- \nplish at Jerusalem. \n\nAnd God also himself is intent upon the struggle, \n\n\n\n308 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nand upon the manifestation of his glory which is to \nresult therefrom. Paul says, " Unto me, who am less \nthan the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I \nshould preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable \nriches of Christ, and to make all men know what is \nthe fellowship of the mystery which, from the begin- \nning of the world, hath been hid in God, who created \nall things by Jesus Christ to the intent that now, unto \nthe principalities and powers in heavenly places \nmight be known by the church the manifold wisdom \nof God, according to his eternal purpose which he \npurposed in Christ Jesus our Lord"\xe2\x80\x94 ( Eph. iii. 8-11) \xe2\x80\x94 \ni. e., unto Paul was granted the privilege of preach- \ning among the heathen, and of letting all men know \nthe fellowship of the mystery which had been hid \nin God from the beginning, but was now revealed \nthrough his holy Apostles ; viz., the mystery of God\'s \npurpose in creation ; that he had created all things \nby Jesus Christ, to the intent that now unto the prin- \ncipalities and powers in heavenly places might be \nknown by the church the manifold wisdom of God; \nthat he had made the world expressly that, through \nhis redeemed here, he might manifest to all the intel- \nligences of the universe such glories in his character \nand workings, as, in all eternity, there had been no \nopportunity of exhibiting before. \n\nWith God this has become, if I may so speak, the \ngrand theme, the supreme thought. The great themes \nof the Bible, its stupendous truths, are Man\'s Apos- \n\n\n\nMISSIONS, THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. 309 \n\n\n\ntacy and God\'s Redemption. The old Testament \nhistory was evidently written with an eye expressly \nto these doctrines. They constitute the burden of \nthe prophets, they give all their music, all their sweet- \nness to the Psalms, and the Xew Testament is but a \nfinal and authoritative reiteration of the same doc- \ntrines. \n\nThe central figure of Christianity is Christ. Around \nhim cluster all its glories, in him centre all its joys, \nall its affections, all its hopes. He is the great sun \nof the Christian system, around which revolve its \ndoctrines, its principles, its ordinances, its theories, \nits promises, its threats. He is the great source \nwhence emanate all the Christian inspiration, all its \nlight, its warmth, its vivifying power. \n\nAnd Christianity is the central system of God\'s \nuniverse. As the suns of God\'s numerous systems \nare supposed to revolve about a common centre, \ntowards which they gravitate, so about Christ and \nChristianity revolve, and towards Christ and Chris- \ntianity gravitate God\'s purposes, his providences, his \nworks, his glories and his affections. Here is his \npeculiar joy, here his highest glory. Man has sinned, \nbut Christ has redeemed him. Satan has corrupted \nman, but Christ purifies him, and makes him meet for \ncompanionship with angels and with God. Man has \ndegraded himself to hell, but Christ exalts him to \nheaven. \n\nThe essence of Christianity in the individual soul \n\n\n\n310 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nis likeness to Christ, union with Christ. The key-note \nof the Christian life and character is fellowship and \nsympathy with Christ. The Christian\'s fellowship with \nChrist in this life and the life to come was the object of \nthe death of Christ. " Our Lord Jesus Christ died for \nus, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live \ntogether with him." I. Thess. v. 10. Our Lord Jesus \ndoes long for the companionship and fellowship of \nhis people. He did when he was on the earth. From \namong the multitude of his disciples he chose a dozen \nmen that they might be with him. One object of our \nSaviour in selecting the Twelve doubtless was that, \nby their being constantly associated with him, wit- \nnessing his miracles, listening to his instructions, and \nimbibing his spirit, they might be the better prepared, \nafter his removal from the earth, to build up and \nestablish his kingdom in the world. But one object, \nalso, was that they might be with him. And accord- \ningly we find that, during his public ministry, only \non those occasions when, though he was God, he felt \nit necessary to withdraw from all human companion- \nship, and spend a season in communion with his \nFather in heaven, did he separate himself from his \nchosen disciples. When he was about to go away \nfrom the earth, his heart seems to have yearned over \nthose disciples. "I go," he says, "but I will not \nleave you comfortless. I go to prepare a place for \nyou, and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will \ncome again and take you to myself, that where I am \n\n\n\nMISSIONS, THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. 311 \n\nthere ye may be also." Again, lie says to them, \n" Because I live ye shall live also," as though there \nwas a necessity in the fact of the Saviour\'s living \nthat his discliples should live also; as though life \nwould not be life for Christ unless his disciples, too, \nshould live. And, then, in that last prayer to his \nFather, recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John, \nhe says, "Father, I will that they whom thou hast \ngiven me be with me where lam;" as though heaven \nwould not be heaven to Christ unless his disciples \nwere there to share its glories with him. Strange ! \nIncomprehensible ! It almost seems as if the Lord \nJesus were stooping to that which is unworthy of \nhim as God, that he should long for the companion- \nship and fellowship of such poor, miserable creatures \nas ourselves. And yet we are taught as plainly as \nlanguage can express it, that the Lord Jesus longed \nfor this, and so longed for it as to be willing to die to \nattain it. \n\nThe fellowship with Christ here spoken of, is to be \nbegun in this life. The Christian is not to wait till he \npasses beyond the river to the other shore, to live \nwith Jesus. It is " whether we wake or sleep," i. e., \nwhether we live or die, whether here or in the spirit \nland, that we are to live with Christ. \n\nThere is such a thing as the Christian\'s living along \nwith Jesus here in this life. Our Saviour, before he \nleft the world, promised his disciples that he and his \nFather would come and take up their abode in the \n\n\n\n312 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nhearts of his people. Aye, there is more, even a \nconscious presence of the Lord Jesus. He promised \nthat he would manifest himself to his own as he \nwould not manifest himself to the world. He lets \nthe Christian know of his presence and his love. I \nremember to have read somewhere of a man who \nwas to spend the night in the same room with Bengel, \nthe author of the Gnomon. Bengel was a holy man, \nand the Christian felt it would be a privilege to wit- \nness his devotions. He watched him, saying to \nhimself : " Now, I shall see Bengel pray." But when \nthe hour grew late, the old man, weary, closed his \nbooks and laid aside his papers, and, lifting his eyes \nto heaven, said; "O blessed Saviour, the same old \nrelation between thee and me continues," and quietly \nlaid himself down to sleep. It was not necessary \nfor the old man, worn as he was with his day\'s labors, \nto go through with even the form of prayer. There \nwas a fixed, established relation between him and his \nSaviour, Bengel loved Jesus, and Jesus knew it ; \nJesus loved Bengel, and Bengel knew it; and it was \nonly necessary for him to say to his Eedeemer: \n"Blessed Saviour, the same old relation between \nthee and me continues," and in perfect confidence \nhe could lay himself down to rest. The afflicted \nChristian sometimes attains this same spirit of confi- \ndence, union and harmony with the Divine will. Oft \nrepeated and long continued suffering has brought \nhim into a state of acquiescence in the Divine will \n\n\n\nMISSIONS, THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. 313 \n\nand purposes, and he feels, "Whatever God wills, I \nwill; whether for joy or for sorrow, for comfort or \nfor pain, for life or for death." And it is the Chris- \ntian\'s privilege always to live in this state of har- \nmony with God and companionship with God. And \nif his privilege, then his duty. \n\nBut how can two walk together except they be \nagreed ? Two men, all whose tastes, affections, pur- \nposes, aims, hopes are diverse, cannot walk together \nin love. Every subject that arises for discussion \ninvolves a dispute. There is a jar, a discord. They \ndo not think alike, feel alike, act alike ; and before \nthey can walk and live together in peace, they must \ncome to have some common character, some common \nprinciples, some common interests, aims, purposes, \naffections. Now, if our Lord Jesus Christ died for \nus that we should live with him, it follows, necessa- \nrily, that he died for us that we might be united with \nhim in sympathy, in character, and in desire. \n\nIf space permitted, it would be pleasant and profit- \nable here to study the character of Jesus Christ, and \nto dwell upon some of those features in his charac- \nter in regard to which we must be like him if we would \nlive with him. Mark his humility. Though God, and \nknowing himself to be God, he yet moved an humble \nman among humble men. When reviled, he reviled \nnot again; when rebuked, he threatened not, but \nmeekly, gently, lovingly bore all. Go to Jesus Christ \nand learn how to live humbly before God, humbly \n\n\n\n314 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\namong men. Note, too, his diligence. Whatever his \nsurroundings, in the crowded city, or in the solitude \nof the desert, always ready to work. Having left \nthe multitude on one occasion, expressly to seek a \nlittle rest for himself and his disciples, the multitude \nhearing of his whereabouts and following him, he was \nnot too weary to come forth and preach to them. \nAnd when, journeying through Samaria, he sat \nwearied at noon upon the curbing of the well near \nthe city of Sychar, while his disciples went into the \ncity to buy food, there came a woman of Samaria to \ndraw water, Jesus was not too weary to talk to her \nof the water of life, nor to preach two whole days \nto the Samaritans concerning the kingdom of God. \nGo, reader, to Jesus Christ and learn how to labor. \nContemplate his tenderness and sympathy, \xe2\x80\x94 always \ntouched with the woes of the distressed. Go to \nJesus Christ and learn how to succor the needy and \nthe suffering. And there is a fellowship of suffering, \ntoo, which it is the church\'s privilege to share. \nNote, also, the spirit of confidence in his Father \nwhich characterized the Christ, saying in his last \nmoments on the cross, u Father, into thy hands I \ncommit my spirit. 77 Go to Jesus Christ and learn \nhow to die. But space does not allow a considera- \ntion of these points. Let it be clearly fixed in the \nmind, however, as a point in our argument, that the \nLord Jesus Christ died for us, to the end that we \nshould be united with him in character, in sympathy, \nand in desire. \n\n\n\nMISSIONS, THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. 315 \n\nThe fellowship with Christ which is thus begun \nhere is to continue in the life to come. Whether we \nwake or sleep, we are to live with him. \n\nTo the Christian there are not two lives. There is \nonly one life here and hereafter. There are those \nwho teach that the soul sleeps with the body from \ndeath till the resurrection ; but the Bible knows \nnothing of any such doctrine. Had Paul believed \nthat for him to die would be to lie down and sleep, \nwould he ever have been in a strait betwixt two, not \nknowing what to desire \xe2\x80\x94 to depart and be with \nChrist, which, he said, would be far better, or to con- \ntinue in the flesh for the benefit of the church ? Ah, \nno ! That man loved Christ too much. He would \nrather have lived and labored, sacrificed and suffered \nif need be, for the advancement of the Bedeemer\'s \nkingdom on the earth, than to have laid down to \nsleep. Paul knew that for him to die was to go into \nthe more immediate, visible presence of the Lord \nJesus than was possible even for him while he lived \nin the flesh. He longed to go. For him, to live was \nChrist ; to die, gain. I was at the death-bed of a \nholy man once (a Presbyterian Missionary in China), \nand as he drew near to his earthly end he lifted up \nhis eyes and said to us : " I see things that you \ncannot see, I know things that you cannot know. \nDeath ? Is this death ? There is no death. It is \njust one living right straight on\xe2\x80\x94 just the expanding \nof temporal life into eternal life." And there is the \n\n\n\n316 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ntrue idea of the Christian\'s death : " Just living right \nstraight on." There is no stop at death, no cessation \nof existence, of consciousness, or of identity. It is \na heathenish idea that at death we change into some- \nthing or somebody else. We carry with us our con- \nsciousness, our identity, our memory, our character, \nour fellowship, and our love, just so far as these are \npure and holy and in accord with the Divine will. \nWhen I go across the ocean to China I do not cease \nto be myself. I am there, as it were, in a new world, \nsurrounded by people whose appearance, dress, lan- \nguage, tastes, habits, characters, are all different \nfrom what I have been accustomed to in America. \nBut I am myself. My character, my aims, my \nhopes, my purposes, my fellowships, my loves, are \nunchanged. I do not change because I have crossed \nthe water. And just so when I cross the little river \nof death. I shall be myself. I shall carry my char- \nacter with me into the other world. If a tree fall \ntoward the north or toward the south, in the place \nwhere a tree falleth, there it shall be. He that is \nholy shall be holy still, and he that is filthy shall be \nfilthy still. The man who loves the world, who loves \nself, who loves sin here, will love self and sin over \nthere, and the man who loves purity, and holiness, \na,nd God and Heaven here, will love purity, holiness, \nGod and Heaven over there. Death will work no \nsuch change in any one, as that from being a lover of \nsin, of Satan and of the world, he will turn and begin \nto love holiness and God. \n\n\n\nMISSIONS, THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. 317 \n\nI shall carry, also, with me my fellowhips and loves, \nso far as these are pure and holy. I know and love \nmy friends in Jesus Christ here \xe2\x80\x94 I shall know and \nlove them on the other shore. Why not ? I shall be \nmyself, and they will be themselves. We shall know \nwhat we are, and what we were, and why we are \nwhat we are. Punish a child without letting him \nknow the ground of the punishment, and it ceases \nto be punishment \xe2\x80\x94 it is cruelty. So, take away from \nthe rewards of the other world a knowledge of the \ngrounds thereof, and they cease to be rewards. We \nshall carry our memories unimpaired into the future \nlife. When the rich man lifted up his eyes in torment \nand saw Lazarus afar off in Abraham\'s bosom, and \nbegged that he might be sent to cool his tongue with \na little water, Abraham, said to him : " Son, remem- \nber." Shall the damned in hell remember and the \nsaints in heaven forget ? Xever ! We shall remem- \nber our struggles, our labors, our sacrifices, our \ntemptations, our sins. We shall remember and love \neach other there. It will not be wrong to love some \nmore than others. Christ did so when on earth. \nThe Twelve were dearer to him than the multitude, \nthe Three nearer than the rest of the Twelve, and \none is specially designated as the disciple whom \nJesus loved. Those of us who have lived long on \nearth have come to feel that we have as many and as \ntender ties in the other world as in this, and one of \nthe sweetest anticipations of the future life is the \nhope of reunion with our loved and lost. \n\n\n\n318 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nAnd we shall carry with us our fellowship with \nChrist. For this he died, that whether we wake or \nsleep, live or die, we should live with him. In heaven \nevery desire, every emotion that finds expression in \nthe Saviour\'s breast, will find an echo in the breasts \nof his saints; every cord that vibrates in the \nSaviour\'s bosom will find a cord vibrating in unison \nin the bosoms of his own. Otherwise heaven will be \nno heaven. What of joy or comfort is there to the \nsin-loving man of the world in the company of the \ndevout men of the earth while they talk of joy in the \nHoly Ghost? To hira there is no joy. He would \nprefer to be among those of his own character and \npassions. So a soul in heaven not in sympathy with \nChrist would find heaven a hell. His presence would \nmar the harmony of heaven, and ruin it, which God \ncan never allow. Dr. McOosh somewhere uses an \nillustration like this : Here is a clock. It is a beau- \ntiful piece of machinery. Every wheel, and every \ncog in every wheel moves in perfect harmony with \nevery other, and with the grand design of the maker. \nThere is beauty, there is symmetry, there is accu- \nracy. But mark! Every time the hand reaches a \ncertain point on the dial, there is a jar. The clock- \nmaker searches to find the cause. One cog on one \nwheel is out of position, out of harmony with the \npurpose of the maker. He may ply his nippers and \ntwist it, or he may ply his file and rasp it. He will \nbring it into position and harmony if it will be \nbrought. Otherwise he will destroy it. He cannot \n\n\n\nMISSIONS, THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. 319 \n\nallow his whole machine to be ruined for the sake of \none miserable cog. So with God. The universe is \nGod\'s grand machine, which he has built for a grand \nand glorious purpose. We are cogs in that machine. \nIf we are in harmony with the rest of the machine, \nand with the purposes of the great Maker, all is well ; \nif not, he will destroy us. God cannot help it. He \ncannot allow his universe to be ruined for the sake \nof a miserable sinner. God must destroy the sinner \njust because he is out of harmony and sympathy with \nhimself. \n\nThe heavenly bodies move, each in its appointed \norbit. There is beauty, there is symmetry, there \nis accord, there is silence. The attractions and \ncounter-attractions balance each other, and all move \nin harmony with each other and with the purpose of \nthe Maker. But let one of those orbs leave its orbit, \nhowever little, and the longer it strays, the further it \nstrays. The equipoise is destroyed. The orb must \nbe brought back, or, darting hither and yon through \nthe heavens without law, God must destroy it. So \nwith us. While we are in sympathy and harmony \nand cooperation with the Divine will and purpose, \nall is well ; but, out of sympathy with God, all must \nperish. \n\nNow, if it be true that sympathy with Christ here \nis necessary to our sympathy and life with him here- \nafter, it behooves us to ask : Is there any one thing \nupon which Christ has set his heart supremely ? If \n\n\n\n320 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nso, in that we must sympathize. We look into the \nBible and there learn that the one grand, absorbing, \nand, if I may so speak, consuming thought with \nthe Christ is the saving of the souls of men all over \nthis world. It was this that brought him from \nheaven, that carried him through all the scenes of \nhis humiliation and suffering on earth, that took him \nto the cross and the grave. For this he lived, for \nthis he labored, for this he sacrificed, for this he \ndied, for this he arose again, and for this he now \nlives and pleads \xe2\x80\x94 aye, reigns in heaven. \n\nAll things were made by and for the Christ. For \nhim the heavens were created, and all the angelic \nhost; for him the orbs of light and beauty that roll in \ngrandeur above us, the planets with all their inhabi- \ntants, if they have them. But upon none of these \nhas the Son of God set his affections supremely. \nThe angels sinned, but no provision was made for \ntheir redemption, and to-day they await in chains the \nday of the revelation of God\'s wrath. But on this \nlittle planet of ours God seems to have centred his \nlove in a peculiar manner. Here is to be the scene \nof his triumph over evil. The redeemed of the earth \nare called the " glory of Christ." In them he finds \nhis glory above every other glory. Through them \nGod is to manifest such glories in his own character \nas in all eternity there has been no similar opportu- \nnity of exhibiting. For this purpose he made the \nworlds. He created all things by Jesus Christ, to \n\n\n\n321 \n\nthe end that now unto the principalities and powers \nin heavenly places might be known, by the church, the \nmanifold wisdom of God. \n\nTo the accomplishment of his purposes in Jesus \nChrist God has subordinated every other purpose, \nevery power, and every agency in the universe. \nBecause Jesus Christ has suffered, God also hath \nhighly exalted him, and given him The Name that \nis above every other name, that at the name of \nJehovah Jesus every knee should bow, of things in \nheaven (angels), of things on earth (men), and of \nthings under the earth (devils and damned spirits). \nEverything in heaven, earth and hell shall conspire \nto accomplish the work of Christ, which is the saving \nof men, and thereby the destroying of the works of \nthe devil. If there be power in God Almighty to \nmake Jesus Christ triumph, he will triumph. \n\nAnd sympathy with Christ in this work of saving \nthe souls of men everywhere is just the missionary \nspirit. It is inconceivable that a man should love \nJesus and not love that which Jesus loves, not labor \nfor that for which Jesus labors, sacrifice for that for \nwhich Jesus sacrificed, and die, if need be, for that \nfor which Jesus died. Sympathy with Christ is the \nessence of Christianity, and is identical with the \nSpirit of Missions. \n\n\n\n21 \n\n\n\nBAPTISTS AND MISSIONS. \n\n\n\nBY REV. A. H. BTTRXINGHAM, D. D., NEW YORK. \n\n\n\nWe use the term Foreign Missions, as embracing \nmodern efforts to evangelize heathen nations. And \nwe view the relation of the Baptist denomination to \nthis movement, in only a few particulars. \n\nIn tracing the connection of Baptists with the \norigin of Foreign Missions, we must, of necessity, \ntraverse familiar ground. The names of Carey, \nFuller, Byland, Hall, Sutcliff, Morris and Pearce, \nare household words to those who have read the \nhistory of the rise of Missions in England. As \nearly as 1784, at an associational meeting at Not- \ntingham, by the suggestion of these and other \nBaptist ministers, a resolution was passed, recom- \nmending a Monthly Concert of Prayer, for " the \nspread, of the gospel to the most distant parts of the \nhabitable globe. 77 This was the origin of the Mission- \nary Concert, and was an unpurposed prophecy of \nthe formation of the Baptist Foreign Missionary \nSociety. This resolution was carried out for several \nyears of the incipient period of this missionary \nmovement. But these good men did not apprehend \nthe silent meaning and drift of their prayers. The \n\n322 \n\n\n\nBAPTISTS AND MISSIONS. 323 \n\nthought that they were making way towards forming \na Missionary Society did not dawn upon them. It \nwas three years after this, that John Eyland, Sen., \nrebuked William Carey, who, at a ministers\' meeting \nat Northampton, timidly asked : " Have the churches \nof Christ done all they ought to have done for hea- \nthen nations ?" The words of rebuke are standard, \nand show how little good men may comprehend the \ngreatness and purpose of Christ\'s redemption: \n44 Young man, sit down; when God pleases to con- \nvert the heathen world, he will do it without your \nhelp or mine either." The effect of this severe \nattack was to quicken and strengthen Mr. Carey\'s \nconvictions with regard to the duty of Christians \ntowards the heathen. Four years after this, the \nministers\' meeting was held at Clipstone, and here \nCarey pressed the subject of establishing a mission. \nBut all that was done was to request him to publish \na pamphlet upon the subject. The next year, 1792, \nMay 30th, the Association was again held at Notting- \nham. Here Mr. Carey preached his memorable ser- \nmon from Isa. liv. 2, 3, making two points: "Expect \ngreat things from God; attempt great things for God." \nDr. John Eyland, Jun., says of this sermon : " If all \nthe people had lifted up their voice and wept, as the \nchildren of Israel did at Bochim, I should not have \nwondered at the effect; it would only have seemed \nproportionate to the cause, so clearly did he prove the \ncriminality of our supineness in the cause of God." \n\n\n\n324 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nBut still they hesitated to move forward. When \nabout to part, and do nothing, Mr. Carey, unable \nto hold himself longer, said to Mr. Fuller, most be- \nseechingly, " And are you, after all, going again to \ndo nothing ?" This brought a decision. A resolu- \ntion was passed, u That a plan be prepared, against \nthe next ministers 7 meeting, at Kettering, for form- \ning a Baptist Society for propagating the Gospel \namong the heathen." \n\nWhen the meeting occurred, Oct. 2d, 1792, the \nBaptist Missionary Society was formed, and a sub- \nscription made of \xc2\xa313. 2. 6. This Society was \nsaid by friends in other denominations to have been \n" as disinterested in design, and as strenuous in exe- \ncution, as any that the Christian world ever did or \never will employ, for the illumination and conversion \nof idolaters ; and surpassing, beyond comparison, all \nof former missions, and all other undertakings in \nthe grand article of translating the Bible into the \nlanguages of the heathen." " Former missions," in \nthis quotation, must refer to the efforts of the Ro- \nman Catholic Church,\' of the Moravians, of Danish \nChristians, and of the Wesleyan Methodists, to \nplant missions. But up to the period of the forma- \ntion of the Baptist Missionary Society of England, \nno organization existed for the purpose of sending \nthe Gospel to the heathen, unless we must recog- \nnize as such the old " Society for the propagation of \nthe Gospel in Foreign Parts," an institution mostly \n\n\n\nBAPTISTS AND MISSIONS. 325 \n\nsustained by governmental patronage, and confined \nin its operations to the British Colonies. This So- \nciety had its origin in 1701, and received its charter \nfrom William III. Its object was u to provide for \nthe ministrations of the Church of England in the \nBritish Colonies, and to propagate the Gospel \namong native inhabitants of those countries." This \ninstitution has done and is still doing great good, \nyet in its inception it was not so widely missionary \nin its spirit and purpose as are modern societies. \nIt contemplated no broader range than British arms \nand rule marked out. But William Carey saw the \nwhole race in ruin, and saw in the Gospel the only \nremedy. Into his sweeping vision came mankind, \nregardless of nationality, and much less of British \nconfines. \n\nThe Society whose founding he inspired, covered \nby its reach and purpose all benighted lands. Carey \nwas raised up for this work. Dr. Kyland says of \nhim : u As to the immediate origin of a Baptist \nMission, I believe God himself infused into the \nmind of Carey that solicitude for the salvation of \nthe heathen, which cannot be fairly traced to any \nother source." \n\nCarey was moved toward the heathen by studying \n" Cook\'s Voyages Bound the World." It is well \nknown that while at work on his shoe-bench, having \nrudely-constructed maps conveniently arranged, he \nstudied the geography of these heathen countries, \n\n\n\n326 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nand was educating himself in this respect, as well \nas by his pursuit of linguistic studies, for the sphere \nwhich God was calling him to fill. He was the first \nmissionary of the Society whose formation, under \nDivine guidance, he forced upon the Baptist denom- \nination in England. His own brethren were timid. \nHe was ridiculed by others as a fanatic, and was \nsatirized as the " consecrated cobbler " by Sydney \nSmith in the Edinburgh Revieic. He was opposed \nby his wife in his missionary longings, and encoun- \ntered barriers to his embarkation from the East \nIndia Company; but, nerved by irrepressible con- \nviction, and encouraged by Divine sanction \xe2\x80\x94 as he \nthought \xe2\x80\x94 he pushed his way on, and reached the \nplace where God sent him ; not Otaheite, where he \nintended to go, but India. He was willing to be thus \nturned in his plans. A committee of the Society \nhad determined his destination. This committee \nmeeting was held in Andrew Fuller\'s study, at \nKettering. It was at this meeting that Mr. Fuller \nsaid : " There is a gold mine in India, but it seems \nalmost as deep as the centre of the earth ; who will \nventure to explore it?" Mr. Carey listened, and \nsaid: "I will go down, but remember, you must \nhold the rope." Those present solemnly engaged \nto do so, nor while they lived would they desert \nhim. \n\nCarey embarked for India, June 13th, 1793, and for \nforty years worked for the salvation of the heathen, \n\n\n\nBAPTISTS AND MISSIONS. 327 \n\nbecoming \xe2\x80\x94 from a rustic youth plying the humble \ntrade of shoemaker and advancing at length into a \nvillage schoolmaster and pastor, but poorly paid and \nlimitedly known in all of these vocations \xe2\x80\x94 as noted a \nman, in learning, in philology, in science, in philoso- \nphy, as India could boast ; and as to benevolence, as \nsome one has said, " deserving a place by the side of \nClarkson and Wilberforce." \n\nThe founding of the Baptist Mission at Serampore \nby Carey, and prosecuted by him and his coadjutors, \nMessrs. Marshinan and Ward, for so long a time, \nhave vital relation to the enlistment of the Baptists \nof the United States in the work of Foreign Mis- \nsions. The wants, the success, the appeals, the \nheart-throbs of this mission were felt by us as well \nas by our brethren in England. As early as 1811 and \n1812, a year or two before any one in this country \ndared to think aloud that the American Baptists \nwould ever organize a Foreign Mission Society, \nthe churches of our denomination in Boston and \nSalem alone, sent $1,600 to aid the Serampore Mis- \nsion. Even as early as 1802, a Baptist Missionary \nSociety was formed in Massachusetts, whose object \nwas "to furnish occasional preaching, and to pro- \nmote the knowledge of evangelical truth in the \nXew Settlements within the United States, or fur- \nther if circumstances rendered it proper." The letters \nof Carey, Marshman and Ward, I have no doubt, had \nmuch to do with the insertion of this italicized sen- \ntence. \n\n\n\n328 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nUndefined and hidden principles seemed intimating \nthemselves, which blindly promised embodiment \nsometime in a Baptist organization avowedly for the \npurpose of giving the Gospel to the heathen. But \nwhere was the leader % We had no Baptist Carey ; \nnor had we an Andrew Fuller in our ranks, though \none of our subsequent leaders much resembled him \n\xe2\x80\x94 the Rev. Thomas Baldwin. Among the fathers we \nlook in vain for a master, aggressive mind, to descry \nthese intimations of Foreign Mission interest in our \ndenomination, and to lay hold of our Baptist forces \nand marshal them for the Master\'s work in regions \nbenighted. Foreign Missions must be precipitated \nupon us by a strange and circuitous Providence. The \nstory of the " Consecrated hay-stack " of Williams- \ntown ; of the Andover Students ; of the Organization \nof the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign \nMissions, in 1810, and the turning of three of \nthe first Missionaries whom this honored society \nsent to India from Congregationalists to Baptists, is \ntoo well known to be dwelt upon in detail. By their \nconvictions, Mr. and Mrs. Judson and Mr. Bice were \nobliged to throw themselves upon American Baptists \nfor support in their work as Missionaries. As soon \nas this strange and startling news reached this \ncountry, there was a a quick response to the rallying \ncry of Providence. Our people seem to have been \nmade ready to heed the call. They came together \nfrom near and far as if challenged by a bugle blast. \n\n\n\nBAPTISTS AND MISSIONS. 329 \n\nAnd it was no uncertain sound that called the \ntribes of our Israel together. The voice was too \nmanifestly of God to allow doubt or debate. All \nminds were one. Letters from Messrs. Judson and \nBice came from India at once upon their change of \necclesiastical relations consequent upon their con- \nviction that immersion of believers is the only Scrip- \ntural baptism, and reached the Bev. Dr. Baldwin, \nPastor of the Second Baptist Church of Boston, in \nFebruary, 1813. It is well known that, immediately \nupon receipt of these letters, a meeting of the lead- \ning Baptist ministers of Massachusetts was sum- \nmoned, and they organized the " Baptist Society for \npropagating the Gospel in India and other foreign \nparts." That Mr. Bice, under the exciting emergency \nthat had arisen, came at once to America to rouse \nour churches to the perils of the perishing millions \nand to gather them in convention to devise measures \nfor bringing the aggregate forces of our denomina- \ntion to bear upon the work of heathen evangelization, \nis also a fact patent to all who have ever read the \nthrilling story of our early enlistment in this cause. \nBice\'s gifts were rare. His soul was ablaze. He \nwent through our land, north and south, and the \npeople in masses listened to his eloquent portrayals \nof heathen wants and woes, to his moving appeals \nfor action and help, and to his glowing and compre- \nhensive exposition of the Great Commission, as to a \nrapt prophet, and his arguments and burning exhor- \n\n\n\n330 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ntations were heard with as breathless attention as \nwas the voice of that rugged forerunner in leathern \ngirdle, who broke upon our world crying in the wil- \nderness of Judea. \n\nDelegates assembled from eleven different States, \nand from the District of Columbia, in convention^ \nthirty-three in number, in the First Baptist church, \nPhiladelphia, on Wednesday, May 18, 1814. The \nmighty men of our denomination, the leaders of our \ntribes, from Massachusetts to Georgia, were there, \nand in their councils there was not a jarring note. \nAs the Holy Spirit had called them together, he \nbrooded over them and kept them in hushed oneness* \nThe Eev. Dr. Furman, of Charleston, S. C, was made \nPresident, and the Eev. Dr. Baldwin, of Boston, Sec- \nretary. After days spent in repeated seasons of \nprayer, in listening to sermons and addresses, in \ndeliberations and fraternal conferences, a Constitu- \ntion for a National Baptist Missionary Society was \nbrought forth by a committee appointed for that pur- \npose, and was unanimously adopted by a rising vote. \nThis was a glorious day for the Baptists of this \ncountry, and hopeful in its prophecy and promise for \nthe world. The preamble to this Constitution is well \nworth recording : \n\n" We, the Delegates from Missionary Societies and \nother religious bodies of the Baptist Denomination \nin various parts of the United States, met in conven- \ntion in the city of Philadelphia, for the purpose of \n\n\n\nBAPTISTS AND MISSIONS. 331 \n\ncarrying into effect the benevolent intentions of our \nconstituents, by organizing a plan for exciting, com- \nbining and directing the energies of the whole De- \nnomination, in sacred effort for sending the good \ntidings of salvation to the heathen, and to nations \ndestitute of pure Gospel Light, do agree to the fol- \nlowing rules or fundamental principles." \n\nThe original designation of this Society was " The \nGeneral Missionary Convention of the Baptist De- \nnomination in the United States of America, for \nForeign Missions." \n\nIt was provided in the constitution that the body \nshould meet once in three years, hence the popular \nname, " Triennial Convention." For more than thirty \nyears this preamble remained unchanged, and the \nconstitution continued substantially the same, though \nslight alterations were introduced from time to time. \nThis old u Triennial Convention," till 1846, commanded \nthe support and combined the moral and religious \nelements of our whole denomination, north and \nsouth. \n\nThe Eev. Luther Bice was appointed the first Mis- \nsionary of the Board, and the Eev. Adoniram Judson \nthe second. But though Mr. Eice was appointed a \nMissionary, the Board gave him special instructions \n"to continue his itinerant services in these United \nStates for a reasonable time, with a view to excite \nthe public mind more generally to engage in Mis- \nsionary exertions, and to assist in originating socie- \n\n\n\n332 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nties and institutions for carrying the Missionary \ndesign into execution." He expected to go back to \nIndia after "a reasonable time." Such was Mr. \nJudson\'s hope, and concerning which he and Mr. Eice \nwere in anxious correspondence. But the work of \nquickening the energies of the churches, and of \ngathering funds, so grew in importance, that Mr. \nEice remained the agent of the Board till 1826, and \nthen left the position to enter upon the work of col- \nlecting funds for Columbian College at Washington. \nIn all he spent twenty-three years in agency work, \nfalling asleep near Edgefield, S. C, in 1836. Long \nbefore this, most of the fathers of this sublime en- \nterprise had passed away. They had wrought and \nothers had entered into their labors. The great \nmovement inaugurated by them has proved to be the \ngrandest of all the achievements of our Denomina- \ntion, and the names of its founders are immortal. \n\nHaving looked at the relation of Baptists to the \norigin of Foreign Missions, we now give a passing \nthought to the attitude of the denomination towards \nthis inaugurated work of foreign evangelization in \nits progress, or while it is in its tentative state. \n\nMr. and Mrs. Judson soon found themselves, after \nbeing driven from Bengal by the East India Com- \npany, at work in Burmah. They toiled on for six \nyears before the first convert rewarded their faith \nand patience. From time to time this mission was \nreinforced, and others were established. These \n\n\n\nBAPTISTS AND MISSIONS. 333 \n\nevangelizing agencies were slow in development, \nbut they made sure progress, as was prophesied by \nthe spirit and consecration which attended their in- \nception. It is a stupendous work to plant and grow \na mission in the midst of unbroken heathenism. \nLanguage must be mastered ; habits must be studied ; \nconfidence must be won ; instruction must be com- \nmunicated by speech and press ; God\'s word must \nbe translated ; the Gospel must be preached ; hard \nground must be broken up, the seed of truth sown, \nand the harvest waited for with patience, faith and \nhope. During all the time this initial work was \ngoing on under our Foreign Mission Board by \nthose sent abroad, our people at home were praying \nand waiting, but not weary and heart-sick from \nhopes deferred any more than the toilers on the \nfield. From the natal day of our missions to this, \nour churches have been growing in missionary elist- \nment and consecration. They .have never ques- \ntioned that the Divine pillar of cloud and fire was \nleading them on to larger and better missionary \npossessions. Sustained by faith and a steadiness of \npurpose which faith inspires, not doubting the ulti- \nmate and large success of their undertaking, they \nhave increased in their charities and gifts, in the \nratio of growing numbers, as the steady movements \nor exigencies of our missions have demanded. As \nBaptists were the pioneers in England of organized \nand general missionary work at the dawn of the \n\n\n\n334 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nnew missionary era and by the signal interposition \nof God, were obliged to be nearly abreast with the \nfirst movement in this country to carry the Gospel \nto the heathen nations, so we have kept on in our \nmissionary interest, not as a whole denomination \nto be sure, but in the fair support of our Society, in \nall the years needed for sowing the fields specially \nours by the providence of God. For the most part, \nduring the history of our foreign work, there has \nbeen a reasonable balance or agreement between \nour home interest and our mission growth abroad. \nMoney has been wanting at times, but when the \ndemand has sorely pressed, our churches have \nrisen and met the exigency of the hour. In the \nnecessarily slow growth of our work at first, amid \nthe discouragements which must needs beset its \nearly progress, to have held on, to have believed \nGod, to have had faith in the ultimate triumph of \nthe Gospel preached to the benighted, is proof of \nGod\'s grace vouchsafed to us, and a cause of un- \nceasing gratitude to Him who says, " Lo, I am with \nyou always." There have been times when despair \nmight have well nigh come to faith, discomfiture to \npatience, discouragement to hope, but God kept \nus toned and strong through these crises. We \nhave waited for God, waited for blessings upon our \nMissionaries and for heavenly dews upon their \nfields ; and, meanwhile, have with moderate prompti- \ntude, steadiness and strength, held the rope, while \nour brethren have been exploring the mines. \n\n\n\nBAPTISTS AND MISSIONS. 335 \n\nIf our faith had been stronger, our prayers more \nfervent and full, and our gifts far larger, men for \nmissions would have multiplied, and results have \nbeen quicker and ampler. But let us be thankful \nthat for sixty-five years the Baptists of this country \nhave steadily cherished the spirit of Missions, a \nspirit that has grown with their growth, and strength- \nened with their strength, and that now, as never \nbefore, Missions have the hearts of our people. Is \nit too much to say, that having kept pace, in some \ndegree, with the progress of our missions, we are \nbetter fitted, both by the general commitment of our \nbrethren to the cause, and by the inspiration coming \nfrom abundant blessings upon our efforts abroad, to \nenter upon the new missionary epoch already come I \n\nThough of gradual accumulation, taking our mis- \nsion history together, the aggregate results of our \nwork are great. \n\nIn the summary of achievements we have in mind, \nand of which we predicate a grandeur and a glory \nwhich divine power and love alone can create, we \ntake into the view our whole Foreign Mission work \nas a denomination, north and south. We contemplate \nAmerican Baptists as a unit in missions. We speak \nas if no rupture between north and south had oc- \ncurred in our missionary administration. We unite \nthe Missionary Union and the Foreign Mission Board \nof the Southern Baptist Convention, as we were \noriginally united from 1814 to 1846, in surveying the \n\n\n\n336 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nresults of our great Foreign Missionary enterprise. \nStatistics to any considerable extent do not befit this \narticle. But no one can contemplate our work with- \nout pride and thanksgiving. In the sixty-five years \nof our Foreign Missionary life, we have gained an \nenviable place among the hosts of God\'s chosen ones \nwho have heard and heeded the Great Commission \nof the Lord Jesus. The men and women whom we \nhave sent forth have been as the finest of the wheat. \nThe renowned and sainted Judsons, who first cast \nthemselves upon us from the promptings of con- \nscience and duty, are the head of a long line of immor- \ntal names which have made our missionary annals \nglorious. Adoniram Judson and his earliest heroic \nwife are the first of a grand procession of shining \nones whom the Lord has honored us in sending as \nmessengers of salvation to the destitute. Though the \nfirst blaze in peerless resplendency never to suffer \neclipse, they have had many, many worthy successors. \nWhat interest will cluster to the final scene when all \nthese toiling, weary, shining ones shall say to the \nMaster, Here are we and the multitudes thou hast \ngiven us from heathen realms ! How will we, that \nhave prayed and given for their success, share in \nthe raptures of that hour ! And these trophies of \nsaving grace brought to that final crowning shall be \nmany \xe2\x80\x94 from the north they shall come, and from the \nwest, and from the land of Sinim; the abundance of the \nSea and the forces of the Gentiles shall swell the \n\n\n\n\nSECOND BAPTIST CHURCH, ST. LOUIS, MO. \n\nRET. VT. W. BOYD, D. D.j PASTOK. \n\n\n\nBAPTISTS AND MISSIONS. 337 \n\nnumbers which they shall bring to the great corona- \ntion. We need to be in such relations of working \nfellowship and spiritual reciprocity to these honored \nmissionaries, by our faith, love and gifts, that their \nworks and glory shall be ours, and ours theirs. \n\nIt cannot be questioned, that in results the mis- \nsions of the American Baptists stand preeminent. \nIf this were the place to array them, and it were \nneedful to do it, we could show by comparative fig- \nures that our missions, with less money than either \nof the other three of the great Foreign Missionary \nSocieties of this country, have had larger results in \nconversions than all of the missions of these other \nsocieties combined ! Not boastingly must this truth \nbe set forth, but humbly and gratefully, and as a pious \nrecognition of God\'s grace and approval. \n\nIn our missions there have been times of great \nfruit-fulness, followed by seasons of lull, if not of \nspiritual impoverishment. As at home in our \nchurches, so abroad, God\'s blessing comes in waves. \nThere are large ingatherings in our missions at sea- \nsons. Between these periods profitable spaces often \ncome, in which the work of compacting, centralizing, \nstrengthening, marshalling Christian forces goes on. \nThe first most notable period of blessing to our mis- \nsions, after the long, patient faith-struggle of Judson, \ncrowned finally by the conversion and baptism of \nMoung Nan, was the great Karen Movement. In a \nvery short time about ten thousand of these people \n\n22 \n\n\n\n338 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nwere converted and gathered into churches. Since \nthat time the work has gone steadily on among that \npeople, but not so rapidly. Perhaps twenty thousand \nof these Karens are now in churches, and thousands \nof Christian Karens have died in faith. After years \nof comparative quietness on the foreign field gen- \nerally, and of weakness, despair, agony, at that par- \nticular mission, comes a flood of blessing upon the \nTeloogoo people. For years back, converts have \nbeen multiplied there " as doves flying to their win- \ndows/ 7 till the crowning year came, and that the last \nof which we have definite report \xe2\x80\x94 1878 \xe2\x80\x94 during a \nfew of the latter months of which ten thousand con- \nverted Teloogoos were baptized into the church at \nOngole by the Eev. Mr. Clough and his helpers ! No ; \nthat seems not the crowning year after all, but this, \nwhose report we shall have in a few months, 1879, \nit may be is ; for Mr. Clough said, in February of ? 79, \nthat forty thousand more of the Teloogoos were con- \nverted and awaiting baptism ! And 1879 may not be \nthe crowning year, but we may be nearing the fulfill- \nment of the promise that "A nation shall be born in \na day." The great year shall be signalized by that, \nand soon the banner may be seen opening its crimson \nfolds, to the joy of earth and heaven. May God \nhasten the time ! Surely we are brought to a day, by \nthe wonders of Divine grace, when we must praise \nthe God of missions as never before, for his bless- \nings upon our efforts as a denomination in giving us \n\n\n\nBAPTISTS AND MISSIONS. 339 \n\nthis demonstration of the saving power of the Gos- \npel, unequalled since the day of Pentecost, if even \nthen ; and we are brought to a time when the demands \nupon us for enlargement are unmistakable and im- \nperious. \n\nThe accumulated appliances and interests of our \nlong established missions, and the signal blessings \nof God upon them, have vastly increased their \ntvants. To be indifferent to these, or not fully to \nmeet them, is a turning back upon ourselves, an \ninsult to our antecedents and traditions altogether \nunworthy of us. These demands upon us are at \nleast threefold \xe2\x80\x94 relating to knowledge, men, money. \n\nWe put knowledge -first, because if facts con- \nnected with our missions are known, helpers \nand means will follow. The rank and file of our \nchurch members have but little intelligence as to \nmissions. Their early and thrilling history is a \nsealed book. The course of events filling up this \nhistory down to the present is not in our minds. \nThe leaders of our churches, ministers, prominent \nlaymen and influential women, in many instances \nare poorly informed as to missionary matters. The \npapers and periodicals giving current news con- \ncerning them are lamentably neglected. The weekly \nreligious newspapers, and the missionary monthlies, \nare full of good things which are never seen by \ngreat numbers of us, because we are too poor, care- \nless, mean or lazy, to avail ourselves of these repos- \n\n\n\n340 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nitories of intelligence. A good religious weekly \nshould be found in every Baptist family in this \ncountry. The organs of our missionary societies \nshould be as widely circulated. An epitomized histo- \nry of the origin and first years of this great mission- \nary movement of ours should come into all our \nhomes in some way. A cheap reprint of the Memoirs \nof the first Mrs. Judson, put up in strong paper or \nflexible cloth covers, and sent generously among the \nBaptist families of our land, would be as remunera- \ntive an investment as our Mission Boards could make. \nIf pastors would inform themselves, and take mis- \nsions upon their hearts, and give out their facts and \nfire to the people, and keep it up, our churches \nwould soon become educated in these most vital \nthings. We owe it to our providential relation to \nmissions, to our honored prominence in establishing \nthem, to God who has so blest us in them, to the \nmemories of the dead, and to the worth of the liv- \ning men and women who have given themselves to \nthis work, and owe it to the large demands of the \npresent, consequent upon their stupendous growth, \nto inform ourselves as to the origin, development \nand glorious achievements of our missions. To \nknow them, is to love, reinforce and support them. \n\nBecruits, to take the places of missionaries disa- \nbled or dead, are in constant and large demand. \nOthers to occupy positions incident to enlargement \nand God\'s abounding blessing, are needed even \n\n\n\nBAPTISTS AND MISSIONS. 341 \n\nmore. These opening fields, far-spreading and wait- \ning for the sickle, must have reapers. The barriers \nare now all down, and the world is an open field. \nThe great cry is for men. The business of the \nchurches now is to furnish the supply for which the \nworld is clamoring, and which God\'s grand move- \nments in missions imperiously demand. As never \nbefore, all signs indicate that drafts from our \nchurches must be frequent and large. Cords are \nrapidly lengthening, and the boundaries of Christ\'s \nvisible kingdom are impatient to encircle the whole \nearth. God\'s people must grasp the situation, and \nprovide for the wants which are so pressing. Choice \nsons and daughters of our churches must not hold \nback, nor be held back from mission altars. What \nLewis Shuck, in a great missionary meeting in Eich- \nmond many years ago, said upon a subscription \ncard when the collection was being taken \xe2\x80\x94 " I give \nmyself" \xe2\x80\x94 must be said by many to-day, or the \nripened harvests of the heathen world will perish \nfor lack of reapers. \n\nBut money, as well as men, has rightful and \nneeded place as a factor in this divine problem of \nmissions. To fail here, is as if an army had no com- \nmissariat. To be weak in exchequer is to leave the \nstruggling host with no base of supplies. It would \nseem that the greater ought to carry the less \xe2\x80\x94 if \nmen and women give themselves, it is a bold, im- \npious, acted heresy, for others having it, holding the \n\n\n\n342 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nsame relations of debt to God and the world, not to \ngive their money. To-day, with all the rich tokens \nof God\'s favor upon the missions of both the For- \neign Boards of American Baptists, their treasuries \nare empty, and the men in financial place by denom- \ninational call, are asked to make brick without \nstraw. Every year they are confronted with the \ngrim spectacle of probable debt at its fiscal close. \nThese things ought not so to be. Where is the \nfault ? Largely with pastors. In too many instan- \nces are missions regarded outside a pastor\'s care \nand effort. Pastors must educate churches in benevo- \nlence, or this withering curse of deficiency and debt \nwill never be removed. But though we thus speak, \nwe have faith that He to whom belong the silver \nand gold, and the cattle upon a thousand hills, will \nso rule the hearts of Christian men entrusted with \nthese treasures as stewards, that there shall be \nproper proportion between offerings and demands, \nas to our missions. May time soon bring us to such \na blessed agreement. It shall come, and money \nenough shall be given. An increased intelligence, a \nmore correct view of what a church is for, and enter- \ning into sympathy with Jesus by prayer and love in \nhis great work of saving the world, will enlarge our \nsouls and open our pockets. \n\nBut still greater things than the wonders of the \npresent are in reserve for Christ\'s church as a Mis- \nsionary Institution. Great possibilities are yet to be \nrealized. \n\n\n\nBAPTISTS AND MISSIONS. 343 \n\nThe grand enterprises of the world in the interests \nof commerce, prophesy this more wondrous spread \nof the Gospel. They mark a new epoch in its reach \nand in its facilities for propagation. Commerce is \never throwing up highways for the Gospel. The \nquickened passages to China, Japan and India, by \ngoing West over rail, or East by the Suez Canal ; the \nlonged-for and surely to be completed ship-cut \nthrough the Southern Isthmus; the proposed and \nprobably not impracticable scheme of flooding the \nGreat Eastern Desert so that ships may sail into the \nvery heart of Africa \xe2\x80\x94 all these improved carrying \nfacilities are rich in promise and means for an im- \nmeasurably wider heraldry of the Gospel. The fact \nthat for the last twenty-five years all the huge under- \ntakings for opening new carrying routes are in the \ndirection of the great heathen populations of the \nearth, is profoundly significant to every student of \nChristian missions. Is it not time for us to go up \nhigher and take a broader outlook upon the world ! \nShall we not try to ascend those mountain heights of \nvision upon which Isaiah stood, when he told such \nwondrous things concerning the growth and triumphs \nof Christ\'s Kingdom ? To help to actualize what was \nin the rapt vision of the prophet is our work. What \nCarey and Judson and their long lines of honored \nsuccessors on mission fields attempted to do, must \nbe carried forward by the great Baptist family of \nEngland and America, and by the enlisted forces of \n\n\n\n344 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nother Christian communions, so as at length " the \nforces of the Gentiles" and the "abundance of the \nsea " shall traverse that highway which no vulture\'s \neye hath seen, and no lion\'s whelp hath trod. \n\n\n\nTHE PERMANENCE OF THE DIVINE PLAN; \nOE, SPECIAL PROVIDENCE. \n\n\n\nBY REV. WAYLAND HOYT, D. D., PASTOR OF STRONG \nPLACE BAPTIST CHURCH, BROOKLYN, N. Y. \n\n\n\n" Then they sought to take him : but no man laid hands on \nhim, because his hour was not yet come." \xe2\x80\x94 John vii. 30. \xe2\x80\xa2 \n\nBecause his hour was not yet come\xe2\x80\x94 that must \nhold our thought just now. \n\nLet us not think of our Lord Christ when he was \nupon earth, as always in the guise in which the \npainters chiefly picture him ; with a gentle and suf- \nfering mildness ever on his face and in his mein; \nwith never the flash of a righteous indignation strik- \ning out from him\xe2\x80\x94 a much enduring, even somewhat \neffeminate Christ, with more of the yielding and \ndependence of the woman than the vigor of the \nman. \n\nWhen John, in the Spirit on the Lord\'s day, caught \nsight of him afterwards, at Patinos, he saw him wear- \ning no such unresisting aspect. " His eyes were as \na flame of fire ; his feet were like unto fine brass, as \nif they burned in a furnace ; his voice was as the \nsound of many waters; out of his mouth went a \n.sharp two-edged sword, and his countenance was as \n\n345 \n\n\n\n346 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthe sun shinetk in his strength." And I am sure \nthat often during his tarrying upon our earth, \neven as the lightning breaks out of the darkening \ncloud, the stroke of rebuke of unbelief and evil- \nthinking and evil-living burst, scathing, from the lips \neven of the meek Christ. For we must remember \nalways that sinlessness is not a merely passive \nfreedom from any tarnish on its whiteness, but is \nalso an active going forth against anything which \nwould seek to tarnish. It is battle against impurity, \nbecause it is purity. It is flaming fight against wrong, \nbecause itself is righteousness. To be Christian is \nnot to stand upon the defensive only. It is to grasp \nthe sword, to enter into combat, to push on into the \noffensive against evil, too. So, I am sure that the \nglance of eye like flame, and the steady tread of \nfeet like brass, and the distinct and cleaving words \nlike quick cut of a two-edged sword, were to be \nheard and seen, even during the earthly humiliation \nof our Lord. Every Christian ought to illustrate the \nability of being angry and sinning not. We may be \ncertain our Lord illustrated it. \n\nYou will find it thus just now, if you will carefully \nread the context. This seventh chapter of John is a \nbattle chapter. You can hear the clashing strokes \nof the sword of Truth against the shields of Error. \nChrist is standing in the fire front of opposition. It \nis the feast time. Jerusalem is crowded. The relig- \nious leaders are seeking to block his influence. \n\n\n\nSPECIAL PROVIDENCE. 347 \n\nThey turn his sermons in the Temple courts into con- \ntentions. They interrupt him. They try to trap him. \nThey lay plots for his life. Upon one thing they \nare determined \xe2\x80\x94 they will not believe him nor \nlet the people. There is the stir of a great turmoil \nthrough this chapter. Because he has wrought \na miracle of healing upon the Sabbath, the people, \nunder the suggestion of their leaders, say that \nChrist has broken the Sabbath law. Then they \nlisten to the great words he speaks, and get moved \nto the depths. Messiah himself could not speak more \ngrandly or convincingly. Also, his tender and gentle \ndeeds of healing and of mercy touch them. They \nare caught in cross-currents of feeling. They know \nnot what to think or what to say. They cry, " Do the \nrulers know indeed that this is verily Messiah V 7 \nThen the influence of the religious rulers again over- \nsweeps and triumphs. Then the people bethink \nthemselves of an old Eabbinical tradition and test of \nthe Messiah \xe2\x80\x94 that he was indeed to be born in Beth- \nlehem, but that straightway he was to be snatched \nout of sight by spirits and by tempests ; that he was \nto be hidden for a while; that unexpectedly and \nsupernaturally he was to reappear and enter on his \nmission. With the changing humor of a crowd, \nwhose feeling sets one way, though there may be \nrefluent ripples on the surface, the people apply this \ntest, and say, "This Jesus who pretends to be Messiah \nfails before it. When Messiah cometh, no man know- \n\n\n\n348 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\neth whence he is ; howbeit as for this fellow, we know \nwhence he is. Ko ; he cannot be Messiah." Then, \nagainst their obdurate unbelief and evil speech, the \nrighteous indignation of the Master flashes out. He \nasserts himself. He pushes on into the offensive. It \nis the time for severity, for the quick strokes of the \ntwo-edged sword of Truth. There in the Temple, as \nhe teaches, Jesus cries out, "Ye do indeed know me, \nand ye know whence I am ; and I am not come of \nmyself, but it is the True One who hath sent me ; him \nye do not know. I know him, for I have come from \nhim, and he it is who hath sent me forth." As another \nhas explained it, " In his miracles and his instructions \nthey had seen and heard enough to assure them that \nhe was from God. Their contemptuous declaration, \n4 We know this fellow,\' he transformed into an indict- \nment against them. \'Ye do know me,\' he says, \'and \nye know whence I am, for the authentication of my \ndivine mission is ample. Ye do know that I am not \ncome of myself, for my whole life is a conclusive \ndemonstration that I am not a self-seeker.\' But the \nOne True God, him they did not and could not know. \nHe knew him, for he had been his companion from \neternity. This tone of fearless assumption, in which \nhe at once claimed to be from the only true God, and \ndeclared that they did not even know him whose \npeculiar people it was their peculiar boast to be, \n.angered the crowd, angered especially the leaders." 1 \n\n1 Abbott\'s Commentary, in loco. \n\n\n\nSPECIAL PROVIDENCE. 349 \n\nTheir answer is that of attempted arrest and the \ngagging of prison and of death. \n\nBut, somehow, they cannot take him. Notwith- \nstanding the command of the leaders and the \nfierce feeling and the fierce tumult, no man will lay \nhands on Jesus. Something, somehow, holds them \nback. \n\nStill the stir continues ; now another refluent wave \nsets in. The people ask each other, " When Messiah, \ncoineth, will he do more miracles than these which \nthis one hath done 1 There begins to be a flowing \nforth of faith toward Jesus. Many of the people \nbelieve on him. \n\nSo the leaders assume authority more regular and \ndistinctively official. By decree of the Sanhedrim, \nthey send officers to take him. \n\nMeanwhile, the critical tumult having overpassed \na little, Christ goes on with his wonderful heart- \ntouching, heart-searching speech. Probably on that \nday he is not further troubled. \n\nBut the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles comes \nround. It is the Hosanna Eabba. It is the great day. \nThere is the grand procession passing seven times \nround the city with palms, with instruments of music, \nwith sounding choirs, to commemorate the ancient \ncapture of Jericho. There is, by other multitudes \nled by priests and Levites carrying golden vessels, \nthe streaming to the brook of Siloah; that amid \njubilant clamorings on every side \xe2\x80\x94 Ho, every one \n\n\n\n350 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthat thirsteth. With j oy shall ye draw water from the \nwells of salvation!\xe2\x80\x94 the sacred water may be drawn, \nand from thence borne to the temple for libation at \nthe morning sacrifice. It is much more than likely \nthat, as this very ceremonial was going on \xe2\x80\x94 the vast \ncrowds pouring themselves back from Siloah through \nthe temple gates, the priests bearing the water toward \nthe altar \xe2\x80\x94 Jesus stood and cried, " If any man thirst, \nlet him come unto ME and drink." It was the burning \nweather of the autumn. It was the parched time \nbefore the falling of the latter rain. Always in Pal- \nestine, to tell of water was to use a spell. The rivers \nof living water which were to flow forth from him \nwho should believe in Jesus seemed to tell of a \nrefreshment deeper and truer than that the most \nsplendid ceremonial could supply. 1 The people\'s \nhearts were strangely touched. " Of a truth this is \nthe Prophet," some cried out. " This is the Christ," \nstill others said. But others questioned, " Shall \nMessiah come out of Galilee?" So the ferment \ngrew again. \n\nAnd here were the officers, with their orders to \nmake this troubler prisoner. They try, and yet they \ncannot. At length they go back to their chiefs, \nempty-handed still, and with this excuse upon their \nlips, " Never man spake like this man." \n\nNow, the Scripture which makes the text gives us \nthe reason for this strange helplessness \xe2\x80\x94 of the \n\nl Geike\'s Life of Christ, Vol. 2, p. 293. \n\n\n\nSPECIAL PROVIDENCE. 351 \n\nleaders, of the people smitten by various passions as \nthe tempests smite the sea, of the officers. After- \nwards they do take him. They scourge him. They \ncrucify him. But not now. They cannot do it now. \nAnd why ? God\'s time for it had not struck. On \nthe dial of his purpose the hands of his appointment \nhad not reached the hour. Until that moment, the \nmob might rage, but they could not capture. Then \nthey sought to take him ; but no man laid hands on \nhim, because Ms hour was not yet come, \xe2\x80\x94 that was the \nreason. \n\nSo the truth which flashes out upon us from this \nScripture is the Permanence of the Divine Plan. It \nbinds the leaders, the people, the officials. It holds \nthem back. Wait, O raging waves ! \xe2\x80\x94 then \xe2\x80\x94 but not \ntill then. The hour has not yet come \xe2\x80\x94 the Perma- \nnence of the Divine Plan. And to affirm this is only \nto declare in another way the Doctrine of a Special \nProvidence. \n\nFirst. \xe2\x80\x94 Let us be frank, and confess the mystery \nof this matter. \n\nIn the year 1608, there lived a Hollander whose \nname was Lippershey. He discovered that, by look- \ning through two glass lenses in a certain way, objects \ndistant were made larger, and could be seen distinct- \nly. That was the seed of the telescope. The year \nafterwards Galileo heard of the fact, and, without \nknowing the principles of their construction, never- \ntheless invented for himself a form of the instrument. \n\n\n\n352 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nWorking at it, and gradually improving it, he suc- \nceeded in making a telescope which could magnify \nthirty times. He turned it on the moon. He found \nthat its surface was diversified like that of our own \nearth; that there were mountains, and valley s between \nthem, and that the mountains cast deep shadows into \nthe valleys. On the night of the 7th of January, 1610, \nhe was looking through the telescope at the planet \nJupiter. He saw near Jupiter three small stars in a \nstraight line. A few evenings later he saw a fourth. \nGazing at them evening after evening, he discov- \nered that they were revolving in orbits round the \nplanet in regular times and at regular distances. He \nwas the first to see the moons of Jupiter. Here was \npositive proof of the astronomical theory of Coper- \nnicus. As the moons went round Jupiter, so Jupiter \nwent round its centre, so the earth traveled round its \ncentre, too, and its moon round it. The old thought \nthat the earth was centre, and that everything went \nround it, was clearly wrong. The new thought that \nthe sun was center, and that all the planets circled \nit, was clearly right. That new and better thought \nmade a real science of astronomy possible. Yes, \nthe moons of Jupiter were facts. The telescope dis- \ncovered them. And the vast inferences from these \nrevolving moons were facts as well. It was a won- \nderful night for truth when Galileo first caught vision \nthrough his little tube and his imperfect lenses of \nthese revolving moons. x \n\nl Draper\'s Conflict Between Religion and Science, p. 169. \n\n\n\nSPECIAL PROVIDENCE. 353 \n\nBut now, facts of which the telescope tells, and tho \nmicroscope tells, and the chemical test tube tells, arc \nnot all the facts which exist in the universe. Some \npeople seem to think they are, but they are not. \n\nHere is a man. He turns his thought inward upon \nhimself. He thinks about himself. He studies him- \nself. He is a mightier fact than these moons which \nGalileo saw. If a section of the sun falling earthward \nshould smite that man to death, he would yet be \ngreater than the sun, for he would know that he was \nslain, while the sun would not know that it was slay- \ning, as Pascal has told us. \n\nWell, this man is turning his thought inward on \nhimself, and immediately he comes upon this great \nfact of consciousness, that he is morally free, and, \ntherefore, that he is morally responsible. That \nis as certain a fact to every man as are the moons \nof Jupiter when he sees them through a telescope. \nIt is a fact of another kind. It is a fact internal, and \nnot external. It is a fact of consciousness, and not \na fact of physics. But, notwithstanding, it is 3^et a \ncertainty \xe2\x80\x94 every man is free in his moral choices, \nand so every man is responsible. Mr. Tyndall, not \nlong ago, in Birmingham, made a speech in which he \ndenied this fundamental fact of a moral and human \nfreedom. Mr. Tyndall is telling the robber, ravisher, \nmurderer, that he cannot help his robbing, ravishing, \nmurdering. The man is plunged into a good deal of \nperplexity. He always thought, before, he could help \n\n23 \n\n\n\n354 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nit. So lie turns round and asks the renowned lec- \nturer, " What do you hold me responsible, then, \nfor? what do you punish me, then, for? 77 And Mr. \nTyndall answers : " You offend because you cannot \nhelp offending, to the public detriment. We punish \nbecause we cannot help punishing, for the public \ngood." Now, there is just one short and easy, and, \nat the same time, severely scientific answer to such \na " cannot help " philosophy. This robber, ravisher, \nmurderer, or any other man doing wrongly, knows \nMr. Tyndall is speaking falsely to him, when he tells \nhim he cannot help it. He knows he can help it, if he \nwill help it. He knows he ought to help it since he \ncan help it. He knows, everybody knows,\xe2\x80\x94 it is a fact \nof moral consciousness, as real as the physical fact \nof the moons of Jupiter, \xe2\x80\x94 that every one is free in \nhis moral choices, and that, therefore, he is morally \nresponsible. \n\nBut now the Scripture which makes the text, and \nmuch other Scripture also, lifts into view another \ngreat divine fact \xe2\x80\x94 that of the Permanence of the \nDivine Plan, and therefore necessarily a Special \nDivine Providence constantly working toward the \nrealization of that Plan. God has a purpose in this \nworld. That purpose stands and stays. That pur- \npose organizes about itself all forces and instru- \nments for its accomplishment. The accomplishing \nof that Plan is a special and controlling Providence. \nNotwithstanding the free moral action of human \n\n\n\nSPECIAL PROVIDENCE. 355 \n\nwills, that Providence is at work, bringing that plan \nto bloom. To the last jot and to the last title, and \nprecisely in the Divine time as well, that Divine Pur- \npose is going to get itself finished. It is not going \nto hurry. It is not going to delay. Xothing can \nthwart God, nothing can hinder God. " Then they \nsought to take him, but no man laid his hands on \nhim, because his hour icas not yet come." In the Perma- \nnent Divine Plan, a special Providence took hold \nof these leaders, people and officers, and con- \ntrolled them. They were perfectly free on the one \nhand, they were perfectly controlled on the other. \nThrough a Providence special to each one of them \nthey must render ministry to the Divine and Perma- \nnent Plan. \n\nCertainly there is mystery here. What shall we \ndo with it? Say there is no human freedom, or \ndeclare there is no permanence of divine plan, and \nso no special providence out-working it ? ]No, we are \nto hold fast to a human freedom and to a special \nprovidence bringing the divine plan to fruitage, and \nconfess the mystery. Here is a mighty pyramid. Its \nbase sweeps off in an unmeasured distance. Upon \none of its majestic sides I find words like these let \ndown into the stone\'s heart : " Whom he did fore- \nknow he also did predestinate. He shall cause the \nwrath of man to praise him, and the remainder shall \nhe restrain," and when I read the words I say: As \nfixed as fate is each man\'s destiny. God holds every- \n\n\n\n356 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthing in his hands. But after weary miles of travel \nI pass around to this pyramid\'s other side, and lo ! \nthere I read these words just as deeply sculptured: \n" Choose ye whom you will serve." " Whosoever will \nlet him come." And with the memory of those other \nwords and of what they taught me still strong within \nme, in the presence of these I must say notwith- \nstanding, all is as man shall choose ; his destiny is in \nhis own hands. Yet both are written on the same \npyramid, and I notice that both sides slope upward \ntoward the apex. But when in my perplexity I look \naloft to see if these apparently opposing sides can \never meet, above that summit I discern only the \nthickest mists, and that is all. \n\nWhat, then, am I to do % Both teachings are writ- \nten on the same pyramid. I will accept the appa- \nrently opposing truths, notwithstanding the mystery. \nI will be glad the world cannot shackle to loose \nends because there is a permanent Divine Plan and \ntherefore a Special Providence urging that Plan\'s \ncompletion; I will be sure that men are free, and so \nresponsible. As to the mystery, I will wait till \nheaven\'s light lifts its mists from the majestic pyramid \nof the Divine Be velation. \n\nSecondly. \xe2\x80\x94 While we confess the mystery of a per- \nmanent divine plan, through a special providence \nlaying its grasp upon all natural laws and forces and \nall freely-acting human wills, let us nevertheless \naffirm that though the doctrine may be above reason, \nit is not against reason. \n\n\n\nSPECIAL PROVIDENCE. 357 \n\nIt is not an unreasonable doctrine. That is to say, \nit is not against the analogy of things ; it is in accord- \nance with that analogy. One thing is certain : God \ncannot deny himself; therefore, this other thing is \ncertain, that, in the grasp of this permanent Divine \nPlan through a special providence, upon all natural \nfacts and forces and also upon the free choices of \nhuman wills, there can be no break or fracture of the \nlaws ruling them since these laws God has himself \nappointed. Such breakage and fracture would be \nGod\'s denial of himself. The question comes, is there \nany analogy which may at least suggest to me how this \nspecial providence may push on the blooming of \nGod ? s purpose without injury to these presiding \nlaws ? In the light of such analogy, while this \ndoctrine of a special providence may be above my \nreason, and while I may freely confess it to be so, I \nmay be still sure that it is not against my reason. \n\nI think the analogy from our human use of natural \nlaw will help us here. \n\nThe advance of science, how wonderful it is ! I \nget aboard a steamship, and in a few days, against \nthe tides and winds and sweeping ocean currents, I \nam borne across the Atlantic. This my fathers could \nnot do. What I can do in days they could scarcely \naccomplish in as many months. They were the sport \nof tides and hostile winds. I enter a telegraph office \nand send my question to a friend in London through \nthe great wide sea, and get his answer almost in a \n\n\n\n358 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nmoment. This my fathers could not do. They must \nwait months for an answer, until the slow-sailing ship \nbrought in the tardy mails. I turn the crank of a \nphonograph and find, to my amazement, that it has \ncaught and kept even the most evanescent varieties \nof my tone and accent, the rapidity or the slowness \nof my speech, the words that I have spoken into the \nyielding air. Surely this marvel was never for my \nfathers. \n\nBy what means have these things been accom- \nplished, and a thousand others like them I Through \nthe breaking of any natural law? Nay, verily! \nThrough a better knowledge of, and so through a \nbetter obedience to the laws of steam and electric- \nity and sound, and the skillful manipulation of them to \nspecial uses. These vast achievements result from \na truer knowledge of, and a profounder obedience \nto, natural law. They do not come, they never could \nhave come, from the breaking of natural law. \n\nGod knows all laws; those which preside over \nphysics, those which preside over the free and subtle \nhuman soul. With God\'s knowledge is conjoined \nalso infinite power and infinite skill. I am unable to \nconceive hoiv he may do it ; but I am not unable to \nconceive that infinite knowledge and infinite power \nand infinite skill may, without injury to a gossamer \nthread of law, through a special providence, cause \nand complete the actualization of his own majestic \nplan. If man can do so much through law, surely \nGod can do infinitely more. \n\n\n\nSPECIAL PROVIDENCE. 350 \n\nAnd so, to me at least, this analogy from the human \nsceptre over natural law assures me that while the \ndoctrine of a special providence may be above my \nreason, it is not against it \xe2\x80\x94 it is not unreasonable. \n\nThirdly, \xe2\x80\x94 Let us get the comfort of this serene \ntruth of a permanent Divine Plan working itself out \nthrough a special Divine Providence. "Prevent- \nively," " permissively," " directively," " determina- \ntively," it may work, but this providence works on \ntoward the highest and holiest, since it is but the \nexpression and actualization of the Divine Plan. \n\nThere is comfort in it. Once my little child taught \nme a deep lesson. I was changing my residence ; we \nwere in the turmoil of moving. The pictures were \ntaken from the walls ; the carpets were rolled from \nthe floors. Her nursery had been invaded ; her toys \nmust be captured and packed as well. Apparently \nto her it was the destruction of her home. But \nI noticed that as she went about through the \ndesolate rooms she was as joyful and as fearless, and \nwas ringing out a laugh as merry as when her toys \nwere at her hand and the house was ordered from \nthe basement to the attic. I waited and watched \nher, and asked myself why her childish comfort could \nbe so little blighted. This was the answer to my \nquestion about my child: She had utter faith in my \nthought for her, and in the means by which I was \ncarrying out my thought. We are to have such faith \nin the greater Father\'s thought and in his means. \n\n\n\n360 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nWho shall say that there is not for any Christian the \nprofoundest comfort here ? \n\nThere is comfort for the Christian worker. The \ncause of God must triumph shiningly, and the meshes \nof this special providence are so fine that no word \nof prayer or deed of duty done to help it on can slip \nthrough into loss or uselessness. \n\nThere is comfort for the Christian who is meeting \ntrial. The Kohinoor, the mountain of light from \nIndia, was a gem most wonderful. But it was poorly \ncut, and so the inward fires of its lustre were some- \nwhat dimmed. For more than a month they set \nwhirling at it the emery wheels armed with diamond- \ndust. They removed a third of it ; but it gleamed \nnow a perfect gem. It was into no careless hands \nthey gave the duty. He was the best diamond- \nworker who could be found. He knew what he was \nabout, and his instruments were the best possible. \nWe need the grind ings and rubs of trial. But God\'s \ndesign for us is the best possible, and it is his special \nprovidence which uses the tools. \n\nAnd even death must wear a shining face when we \nsee it through the lease of his appointment and \nremember that a special providence shall bring it in \nhis time. We must be immortal till our work is done ; \nthen dying is coronation. \n\n\n\nTHE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. \n\n\n\nBY REV. ALVAH HOVEY, D. D., PRESIDENT OF NEWTON \nTHEOLOGICAL INSTITUTION, MASS. \n\n\n\nli Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and \nthe Holy Ghost. "\' Matt, xxviii. 19. \n\nThis tex^ lias been chosen, not because it speaks \nof Christian baptism, but because it speaks of a \nTriune God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. \nFor my article will attempt to state the Biblical \ndoctrine of a Trinity \xe2\x80\x94 a doctrine which is often \ndenominated a mystery, though not always in the \nscriptural sense of this term. For the word " mys- \ntery " is used by the sacred writers to denote a fact \nor truth which could not have been discovered by \nthe unassisted mind of man, but which has been \nrevealed by the Saviour or by the Holy Spirit. In \nthis sense it was employed by Christ when he told \nhis disciples why he was teaching them plainly, and \nthe people in parables. " Unto 3*011 it is given to know \nthe mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but to them it \nis not given." ( Matt. xiii. 11.) And in the same sense \nit was used by Paul when he informed the Colossians \nthat he had been made a minister " to fulfill the word \nof God, even the mystery which hath been hid from \n\n361 \n\n\n\n362 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nages and from generations, but now is made manifest \nto Ms saints. 77 ( Gol. i. 26.) A mystery, then, in its \nproper, biblical sense, is simply a fact or truth made \nknown by revelation. It may, therefore, be plain or \nobscure, comprehensible or incomprehensible. \n\nBut many of the facts revealed by Christ, or by \nholy men who were enlightened by the Spirit of God, \nare " hard to be understood." They do not fall within \nthe range of our earthly experience. They belong to \nthe world that is unseen and spiritual. They refer \nto modes of existence and of intercourse that puzzle \nthe understanding. And so we have gradually come \nto apply the word to any fact or truth which is incom- \nprehensible. In this sense the word is commonly \nused when we speak of the Divine Trinity. We call \nthe doctrine of the Triune God a mystery, not so \nmuch because it is a revealed truth as because it is an \nobscure truth. Doubtless it is both ; for all our knowl- \nedge of it is derived from the Bible, and all that the \nBible says fails to explain the amazing fact. It " half \nreveals and half conceals " a mode of the divine \nexistence which differs greatly from anything in our \nown. Obviously, then, we ought to listen with deep \nreverence to the testimony of Christ and of his \nApostles while they utter "wondrous things" con- \ncerning "him whom no man hath seen or can see." \n\nThe word " Trinity " is not applied by any sacred \nwriter to the Supreme Being, but it has been used \na long time by Christians to express what they \n\n\n\nTHE TRINITY. 363 \n\nsuppose to be a doctrine of the Xew Testament in \nrespect to God. Trinity, abbreviated from tri-unity, \nis formed of two words, which signify, respectively, \n"three" and "one," and is affirmed of God because \nhe is believed to be three in one \xe2\x80\x94 that is, in a certain \nrespect three, and in another respect one. Thus \nTrinity and Unity are affirmed of the Godhead, but \nthey are not both affirmed of the same thing in \nthe Godhead. In harmony with the great body of \nChristian teachers in the past, we believe that the \nUnity of God is essential, and the distinctions in God \npersonal. But by the latter expression we do not \nmean that the Father is as separate and secluded in \nconsciousness from the Son as a human father is \nfrom his son; we only mean to say that whatever dis- \ntinction there is between the Father and the Son is \nof & personal nature. For it seems to us very evident \nthat the Scriptures teach three things, namely, that \nthere is but one true God; that the Father, the Son, \nand the Holy Spirit are, each of them, truly Divine or \nGod ; and that these three are in a personal respect \ndistinguishable from one another. Let us look at \nsome of the evidence for each of these propositions. \nI. The Scriptures teach that there is hut one living \nand true God. This statement is rarely called in ques- \ntion by any person familiar with the sacred record ; \nfor it represents the prevailing tone and spirit of that \nrecord. It is the deep underlying assumption which \nsupports every message of every prophet ; and it is \n\n\n\n364 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\noften expressed. With all the emphasis possible \nMoses cried : " Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is \none Jehovah." ( Deut. vi. 4.) With no less assurance \nMalachi asks : " Have we not all one Father f Hath \nnot one God created us?" (ii. 10.) And the Most \nHigh declares by the pen of Isaiah : " I am Jehovah, \nthat is my name, and my glory will I not give to \nanother." (xlii. 8). " Before me there was no God \nformed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, \n;am Jehovah, and besides me there is no Saviour." \n(xlii. 10, 11.) " I am the first and the last, and besides \nme there is no God." (xliv. G.) If further evidence is \nneeded, a large part of the fortieth chapter of Isaiah \nmay be read ; for it is a passage of wonderful majesty, \nasserting that Jehovah, in contrast with idols, is the \nonly God, the Creator, the Preserver, and the Euler \nof all things. And this doctrine of one God, so \nclearly announced by the prophets, became at last \nthe settled creed of the Jews, and was made by them \nan excuse for rejecting Jesus Christ as a blasphemer, \ninstead of receiving him as the Son of God. Yet \nthe Saviour himself taught that there is but one true \nGod, (e. g. Mark x. 18); and while he claimed to be \nstrictly divine, he so identified himself with the\' \nFather that the unity of God was maintained. \n\nAs to the nature of the divine unity, we hold that it \nis essential, or in other words, that the proper essence \nor substance of the Father, the Son, and the Holy \nSpirit is forever one and the same \xe2\x80\x94 a simple, indivis- \n\n\n\nTHE TRINITY. 365 \n\nible, self- existent, everlasting principle of life, intel- \nligence, wisdom, love and power. This language \ndescribes what is implied in the words of the sacred \nwriters ; it offers a key that will fit into all the state- \nments of Scripture and lay open to us their treasures \nof wisdom. Do the sacred writers lay great stress \non the Unity of God, as if it were a fundamental \ncharacteristic of His being ? This view accounts for \ntheir so doing, for by a law of our reason we attach \neven greater importance to being than to manifesta- \ntion, even though that manifestation be personal* \nDo they represent the distinctions of the Godhead as \npersonal? This view is consistent with the repre- \nsentation, for it has never been proved that unity of \nessence carries with it unity of person. Do they \nascribe equal knowledge, goodness, wisdom, and \nright to the divine Father, Son and Spirit? This \nview explains their doctrine, for the same attributes \nought naturally to inhere in personal beings whose \nunderlying and essential nature is one and the same. \nDoes the Saviour say, " I and my Father are one,\' 7 \n(John, x. 30); that is, one in guarding the flock, one \nin power, one thing, using a neuter form of the word \none f This view accounts for the saying better than \nany other with which we are acquainted ; for power, \nin the last analysis, belongs to essence, and if the \nessence of the Father and the Son is one and the \nsame, their power may well be one. In the light of \nthese facts it seems to us that the Unity of God is \nessential. \n\n\n\n366 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nII. The Scriptures plainly teach that the Father, the \nSon and the Holy Spirit are, each of them, truly divine, \nor God. We are not now concerned about the agree- \nment of this teaching with the doctrine that God is \none, but are seeking to show that this teaching is to \nbe found in the New Testament. If found there, we \nmay be sure that it agrees with the Unity of God, \neven though we should be unable to comprehend the \nmystery of the divine nature, and demonstrate this \nagreement. Taking one step at a time, let us search \nfor the testimony of the inspired Word as to the \nDeity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the \nHoly Spirit. \n\nChristians of every name freely admit that the \nFather is often called God, and is always represented \nby the sacred writers as truly divine. That Chris- \ntians are right in doing this may be proved by a \nsingle text ; for in his Epistle to the Ephesians Paul \ndeclares there is " one God and Father of all, who is \nover all and through all and in you all." ( iv. 6.) If \nwe add to this the fact that, while there are several \npassages of the New Testament in which the term \nGod may signify the Supreme Being, without any \nspecial reference to the Father, and a few in which \nit is applied to the Son or to the Holy Spirit, there \nare very many in which this term is applied to the \nFather \xe2\x80\x94 no further proof will be necessary. The \nproper Deity of the Father will be accepted as a \ncertain truth of Scripture. \n\n\n\nTHE TRINITY. 3G7 \n\nIn regard to the Deity of the Son, we appeal, first, \nto the language of Thomas when Jesus appeared to \nhim in the evening of the eighth day after his resur- \nrection. For seeing Jesus before him, he said unto \nhim : " My Lord and my God." ( John, xx. 28.) If \nthis was not a definite acknowledgment of the Deity \nof Christ, I am at a loss to conceive how such an \nacknowledgment could have been made. And the \nSaviour did not protest against it. He who had \nrecently come from Paradise with the awe of the \nunseen and holy Father upon him, did not rebuke \nthe words of his disciples, though, if he was less \nthan God, they were false and blasphemous. \n\nWe appeal secondly to the words of Paul, exhorting \nthe Phillipians : " Let this mind be in you which was \nalso in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, \nthought it not robbery to be equal with God, but \nmade himself of no reputation," etc. ( ii. 56.) These \nwords teach that equality with God was freely relin- \nquished by Jesus Christ when He left His heavenly \nstate or condition to become man. But no being can \nrelinquish or forego that which is beyond his reach ; \nno one can relinquish his equality with God whose \nnature does not qualify him to be on a level with God, \nto share his condition and glory. With this passage \nmay be compared another in the Epistle to the Colos- \nsians, written about the same time, in which, speaking \nor Christ, he says that " all things have been created \nby him and for him," and that "in him all things \n\n\n\n368 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nconsist," (i. 16, 17); while a little further on he \ndeclares that "in him dwelleth all the fullness of the \nGodhead bodily." (ii. 8.) Or we may turn to one of \nhis earlier epistles, namely, that sent to the Romans, \nand hear him say of the Israelites : " Whose are the \nfathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ \ncame, who is God over all, blessed forever." (ix. 5.) \nWe appeal thirdly to the language of John in his \nprologue to the Fourth Gospel, who says that "the \nWord was God," that "all things were made by \nHim," that " in Him was life," and that " the life was \nthe light of men." (i. 1-4.) With these words of the \ndisciple whom Jesus loved we may compare the \nsayings of Christ himself: " The Son can do nothing \nof himself" or from himself; that is, so close is the \nunion between the Father and Son that any action of \nthe Son, separate from that of the Father, is impos- \nsible. Hence the full expression is this : " The Son \ncan do nothing from himself but what he seeth the \nFather do; for what things soever he (the Father) \ndoeth, these in like manner doeth the Son also. For \nas the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth \nthem, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." \n(v. 19-21.) " I am the light of the world." ( vii. 12.) \n" Before Abraham was, I am." ( viii. 5-8.) " He that \nhath seen me hath seen the Father.\' 7 (xiv. 9.) "I \nand my Father are one." (x. 30; xvii. 22.) This last \nexpression was twice used by the Lord \xe2\x80\x94 once to \naffirm the inseparable unity of his own action and \n\n\n\nTHE TRINITY. 369 \n\nhis Father\'s, and once to affirm his moral unity with \nthe Father. \n\nWe have here given but a small part of the bib- \nlical evidence that Christ is truly God, but enough \nto establish this proposition as a doctrine of the \nChristian religion. Our Saviour is divine as well as \nhuman, and we are constrained to take account of \nHis divinity in forming our conception of the God- \nhead. \n\nBut if the Son is truly God, so likewise is the \nSpirit. This might be inferred with some degree of \nprobability from the designation itself; for as the \nspirit of man is that part of his being which is high- \nest, freest, most intelligent, it is surely improbable \nthat inspired men would apply such a name as Spirit \nof God, or Holy Spirit, to anything less high and holy \nthan God himself. The same might be inferred with \nstill greater confidence from the fact that divers \nacts, such as inspiration, regeneration, sanctification \nand the like are ascribed sometimes to God, some- \ntimes to Christ, sometimes to the Spirit of God, \nsometimes to the Spirit of Christ, and sometimes to \nthe Holy Spirit; while a careful examination and \ncomparison of all these representations lead to the \nbelief that it is the Holy Spirit who accomplishes, \nby direct agency, the divine will in human souls. \nMoreover, the proper deity of the Holy Spirit \nappears to be assumed by Peter in his address to \nAnanias : " Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to \n\n24 \n\n\n\n370 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthe Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price \nof the land? " * * * " Why hast thou conceived \nthis thing in thy heart ? Thou hast not lied unto men, \nbut unto God." (Acts v. 3, 4.) The same assump- \ntion is also made by Paul in these words : " Know ye \nnot that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit \nof God dwelleth in you ? \xc2\xbb (I. Cor. iii. 16.) That is, \nGod dwells in his temple, and ye are God\'s temple, \nbecause the Spirit of God dwells in you, for the Spirit \nis God. But we need not multiply citations, for there \nseems to be in fact no biblical ground for doubt as to \nthe divinity of the Holy Spirit. It may be necessary \nto collect with some care the evidence that he is \npersonal, but it is needless to prove that he is Divine, \nIII. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are \ndistinguishable in a personal respect from one another. \nPersonality is selfhood, and by a personal being we \nmean a being that is intelligent, self-conscious, vol- \nuntary \xe2\x80\x94 a being that knows, feels, wills. Let us \nobserve what the Scriptures teach in respect to a \npersonal distinction between the Father and the Son, \n( 1.) They make use of these terms as divine names, \nand these terms, Father and Son, point to distinc- \ntions of a personal nature. They are applicable to \nbeings that know, love, plan and choose. Any other \nuse of them is intensely figurative. Yet they are \nused very often by the Saviour, when his language \nis otherwise plain, sober, didactic. And they are \noften accompanied by other expressions which rest \n\n\n\nTHE TRINITY. 371 \n\non the idea of a personal distinction between the \nFather and the Son. (2.) The pronouns I, thou, he \nand we, are often employed by Jesus in speaking of \nhimself, of the Father, or of both, and they imply the \npersonality of himself and of His Father, as well as \nsome distinction between the two. Thus : "J thank \nthee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth." ( Matt. \nxi. 25.) " Glorify thou me with the glory which I had \nwith thee before the world was." (John xvii. 5.) \n"Even as thou, Father, art in me, and Jin TJiee, that \nthey also may be in us." (John xvii. 21.) If this use \nof the pronouns does not prove that there is some \ndistinction of a personal nature between the Father \nand the Son, it is not easy to imagine any kind of \nevidence which would be accepted as proof of such \na distinction. (3.) Christ distinguishes between His \nown knowledge and the Father\'s. Thus: "No one \nknoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth \nany one the Father b*ut the Son, and he to whom the \nSon will reveal Him." (Matt. xi. 27.) "The Father \nloveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that \nhimself doeth." (John v. 20.) Both these testimo- \nnies\xe2\x80\x94one preserved in the Gospel of Matthew, and \nthe other in the Gospel of John\xe2\x80\x94 imply that the \nintellect of the Son is, properly speaking, distin- \nguishable from that of the Father. And the same \nmay be said of nearly every passage in the New \nTestament which refers to the knowledge of either. \n(4.) Christ distinguishes between his own affection \n\n\n\n372 BAPTIST DOCTEINES. \n\nand his Father\'s ; not indeed as to the moral char- \nacter of that affection, but as to the heart that \nexercises it. " The Father loveth the Son," (John v. \n20), is a declaration of Jesus himself, and it accords \nwith the voice from Heaven : " This is my beloved \nSon, in whom I am well pleased." ( Matt. iii. 17.) As \nto the Son\'s love of the Father, we find it expressed \nin such terms as these : " My meat is to do the will \nof him that sent me." ( John iv. 34.) " I honor my \nFather." (John viii. 49.) "I know him and keep \nhis word." (John viii. 55.) "I do always those \nthings which please him." ( John viii. 29.) It is then \ncertain that the Father loves the Son, and the Son \nthe Father; and it is no less certain that mutual \naffection implies distinctions of a personal nature. \n(5.) Christ distinguishes between his own will and \nhis Father\'s will. "If I glorify myself, my glory is \nnothing; it is my Father that glorifieth me." (John \nviii. 54.) "I seek not mine own glory; there is one \nthat seeketh and judgeth." ( John viii. 50.) " Not my \nwill, but thine, be done." (Luke xxii. 42.) There is, \nof course, a sense in which the Father\'s will is the \nsame as the Son\'s ; for they agree in willing the same \nholy ends ; but if the passages quoted by us are to \nhave any natural interpretation, the faculty of will in \nthe Father is in some way and measure distinct from \nthe faculty of will in the Son, and this distinction is \nclearly personal. \nFinally, it must be observed that every particle of \n\n\n\nTHE TRINITY. 373 \n\nevidence to be found in the New Testament for any \nkind of Trinity in the Godhead, goes to prove that \nthe distinctions marked by the words Father, Son, \nand Holy Spirit are of a personal nature. All the \nScriptural evidence, we say, looks towards this Mnd \nof a distinction, and not as some would have us \nbelieve, to something else which is utterly, and it \nmay be forever, hidden from us in the depths of the \nDivine nature. \n\nBut, if we admit the personality of the Son to be \ndistinguishable from that of the Father, is it neces- \nsary to take a similar view of the Holy Spirit ? May \nwe not think of the latter as being only a certain \ndivine influence or operation by which the Father \nand the Son move upon the hearts of men? In \nanswer to these questions, it may be said : 1. That \nour appeal must still be made to biblical evidence. \nWhere that leads, it is necessary for us to follow; \nfor on this subject there is no other valid evidence \nwithin our reach. 2. That all the logical difficulties \ninvolved in the doctrine of a tripersonal God are \nencountered in the doctrine of a bipersonal God, the \nFather and the Son, and as we must accept the latter, \nthere is no reason why we should not accept the \nformer, if it is supported by preponderating evidence. \n3. That the biblical evidence for the personality of \nthe Holy Spirit is amply sufficient to justify belief in \nthe same. Eecall the words of my text, " Baptizing \nthem in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and \n\n\n\n374 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nof the Holy Ghost." Is it easy to suppose that the \nLord Jesus here associates an influence or operation \nwith himself and the Father ? binding them together \nby the word " name " ? Can we believe that he \nintended to say, " Baptizing them into the name of \nthe Father, and of the Son, and of the holy influence \nwhich is exercised by the Father and the Son?" \nRead the Apostle\'s benediction " The grace of the \nLord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the com- \nmunion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all" ( II. Cor. \nxiii. 14), and ask yourselves whether there is not in \nthis case also strong reason to infer the personality \nof the Spirit from the personality of the Lord Jesus \nChrist and of the Father? Recall, at the same time, \nthe Apostle\'s account of the extraordinary gifts \nwhich were. bestowed on certain members of the \nearly church, concluding with the words, " But all \nthese worketh the one and self-same Spirit, distrib- \nuting to every one severally as he willeth " ( I. Cor. \nxii. 11), and his word of exhortation, " Grieve not the \nHoly Spirit of God, by whom ye were called unto the \nday of redemption." (Eph. iv. 30). In these expres- \nsions, feeling, willing and doing are ascribed to the \nSpirit as unequivocally as they are ever ascribed to \nthe Father or to the Son. Recall, too, the language \nof Christ when he promised the Comforter to his \ndisciples : " He will guide you into all the truth ; for \nhe will not speak of (or from) himself, but whatso- \never he shall hear that will he speak ; and he will \n\n\n\nTHE TRINITY. 375 \n\nshow you things to come. He will glorify me, for he \nwill receive of mine and will show it unto you." \n(John xvi. 13, 14). Do not the words, "he will not \nspeak from himself," imply that he could speak from \nhimself ? Is it necessary to say that an influence or \noperation will not speak from itself? Or does an \ninfluence or mode of action "hear" and "receive"? \nIt is enough to read the last discourse of Jesus before \nhe was betrayed, in order to be convinced that the \nHoly Spirit is as truly personal as the Father or the \nSon. \n\nThus the elements of the doctrine of the Trinity are \nfound in the New Testament ; the unity of God, the \ndeity of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy \nSpirit, and the personal distinction between these \nthree. And these elements readily unite in the \nreceived doctrine of the Trinity, which is, that the \nFather, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the \nsame in essence, but distinguishable in a personal \nrespect. This doctrine, I repeat, is not to be fully \ncomprehended by us in the present life. It may be \na mystery forever. For who can find out the deep \nthings of God? (Job xi. 17.) No one can tell just \nhow far unity of spiritual essence modifies and \nreduces the distinction involved in separate person- \nalities as we know them. All we affirm is this : that, \naccording to Scripture, the divine unity is essential, \nand the difference between the eternal Father, Son, \n\n\n\n376 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nand Spirit personal, or of a personal nature. There \nis a vast mystery here. But it is not the only mys- \ntery that confronts us. There is no power or object in \nnature that does not rest in mystery, in the very bosom \nand sea of impenetrable obscurity. Who of us ever \nexpects to learn on the shores of time the secret of \nthe union of body and soul, of matter and spirit, \nacting and reacting upon each other, and so related \nbjr vital forces as to be a single being, a complex \nunity, as proved by the witness of self-conscious- \nness 1 Most truly did the Apostle say : " For now \nwe know in part, and we prophesy in part." \n\nBut if we cannot comprehend the Trinity, why is \nanything said of it in the Bible? Would not the \nScriptures have been more useful, because less \nobscure and perplexing, if they had contained no \nreferences to this mysterious truth ? We think not. \nBe the subject what it may, our knowledge of \nit is only partial; yet this partial knowledge is \nfound to produce wonder, curiosity, desire, effort and \nprogress ; yea, partial knowledge has often proved \nsufficient to smother vanity, beget reverence, warn \nof danger, and point out the way of life. Men knew \nhow to use the compass, and, by its direction, how to \ncross the pathless deep in safety, long before they \nhad any conception (if they have this now) of the \npower which held it with unseen hand, and made its \ntrembling point a steady guide in cloud and storm. \nMen have known by the Word of God of a future \n\n\n\nTHE TRINITY. 377 \n\nlife and a heavenly state, and have been animated to \nholy action by that knowledge, though quite unable \nto imagine the peculiarities of that life, and always \nbaffled in their attempts to comprehend its glory. \nIn like manner our knowledge of the Trinity, though \npartial, is sufficient to awaken awe, reverence, grati- \ntude and praise\' in our hearts. It is all we need for \nreligious direction and improvement. It is all we \nneed to prevent us from relapsing into the coldness \nof deism or the distraction of polytheism. If the \nunity of the Godhead were not plainly taught, we \nshould be liable, in the interest of clear thought, to \nregard the Father and the Son and the Spirit as three \nseparate beings, like ourselves. If the deity of the \nSon and the Spirit were not plainly taught, we should \nbe liable, under the influence of gratitude, to pay \nreligious homage to our Saviour and our Sanctifier, \neven though they were not known to be truly divine. \nAnd if the personal distinction between the Father, \nthe Son, and the Holy Spirit were not plainly taught, \nwe should be in danger of rejecting the whole doc- \ntrine of grace through atonement, and of going back \nto Judaism or over to Islamism, where legal right- \neousness and despair are the sole alternatives. \n\nIn two particulars, especially, may a reverent belief \nof the Trinity prove helpful to our religious life. In \nthe first place, it may help us to see how God can \nbe forever both self-sufficient and benevolent. By \nsaying that God is self-sufficient, we mean to say that \n\n\n\n378 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nhis being and blessedness are complete in them- \nselves, and therefore independent of any other \nbeing; and by saying that he is benevolent, we mean \nto say that he is love, that good will to others is \nnatural to him. For when we read, " Every one that \nloveth is born of God, for God is love" (I. John iv* \n8), we feel that an affection really akin to Christian \nlove, though infinite and eternal, must pervade and \nanimate the life of the Godhead. And this -is actually \nconceivable, if we can say with the Apostle John,. \n" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was \nwith God, and the Word was God." (John i. 1.) For \nthe term with denotes fellowship, intimate commun- \nion ; in this case, the fellowship of the divine Word \nwith the divine Father. And it is easy to see that \nif there are different selves in the infinite Being, \xe2\x80\x94 \nhowever interpenetrant, transparent and perfectly \nknown to one another they may be, \xe2\x80\x94 there must be \nmutual and perfect love ; for in every one of them \nmust be constantly revealed, in personal form and \nbeauty, the infinite virtues of their common nature. \nBut, with any other view, we must believe, either \nthat love is not an affection eternally active in God, \nor that he has had from eternity created objects on \nwhich to bestow his affection. By the former sup- \nposition, the innermost and highest activity of the \nGodhead is temporal instead of eternal, and mutable \ninstead of permanent ; and by the latter, the highest \naffection and blessedness of Jehovah depend upon \n\n\n\nTHE TRINITY. 379 \n\nthe existence of created objects. But such a depend- \nence of God upon creation is inconsistent with any \nproper idea of his self-sufficiency or perfection. I \nam, therefore, convinced that the doctrine of the \nTrinity is very helpful to us in forming a conception \nof God as both self-sufficing and loving. \n\nIn the second place, this doctrine is a help to us in \nthinking of the Atonement. As a matter of history, \nwe know that a rejection of the doctrine of the \nTrinity has almost always led to a rejection of the \nAtonement, while a cordial belief in the Trinity has \nbeen almost always accompanied with a belief in the \nAtonement. From this fact alone it would be safe to \nconclude that the two doctrines belong to the same \nsystem of truth. But this is not all that should be \nsaid. The Scriptures link them together in many \nplaces, and the method of interpretation which finds \nor fails to find one of them will find or fail to find the \nother. He to whom the Scriptures represent Jesus \nChrist as the Son of God\xe2\x80\x94 strictly divine and strictly \nhuman \xe2\x80\x94 will see in him a fit Mediator between God \nand men, and will receive the testimony of the Apos- \ntles to his atoning death. The mystery of a triune \nGod accepted, a hundred passages of the Xew \nTestament, otherwise obscure, are made plain. " God \nso loved the world that he gave his only begotten \nSon, that whosoever believeth in him might not \nperish, but have everlasting life." (John iii. 16.) \n" Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin \n\n\n\n380 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nof the world." (John i. 23.) "If any man sin, we \nhave an advocate with the Father, Jesns Christ, the \nrighteous ; and he is the propitiation for our sins ; \nand not for ours only, but also for the whole world." \n{I. John ii. 1, 2.) " For he made him to be sin for us \nwho knew no sin, that we might be made the right- \neousness of God in him." (II. Cor. v. 21.) "If we \nwalk in the light as he is in the light, we have \nfellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus \nChrist his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (I.John \ni. 7.) " Wherefore he is able to save to the uttermost \nthose that come unto God by him, seeing that he ever \nliveth to make intercession for them." ( Heb. vii. 25.) \n" Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, \nand riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and \nglory, and blessing." ( Eev. v. 12.) \n\nThough my principal object in this essay has been \nto set forth, as clearly as possible, what seems \nto me to be the plain teaching of the Scriptures \nconcerning a triune God, I am fully aware of the \nobjections which are sometimes made to it, and \nmight attempt, if it was necessary, to point out their \ninconclusiveness. But I will only remark : 1. That \nthe biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as believed by \nevangelical Christians, is not self -contradictory. This \nwill be evident, if you recall the fact that it does not \naffirm God to be in all respects one, and in all respects \nthree, but\' in a certain respect one and in another \nrespect three. To illustrate my thought : there is no \n\n\n\nTHE TRINITY. 381 \n\ncontradiction in saying that every man is three in \nessence, and one in person or consciousness. His \nbeing may comprise three distinct elements \xe2\x80\x94 a \nmaterial body, a principle of life which pervades and \nanimates that body, and a spirit which is united with \nboth, but higher than either, rational, immortal, and \nfitted to "glorify God and enjoy him forever. I do \nnot say that man has this triple nature ; I only say \nthat there is no contradiction in supposing that he \nhas it. So, on the other hand, there is no contradic- \ntion in supposing that the personality of God is \ntriple, and his essence single. In either case, our \nonly duty is to ask for the evidence and follow where \nit leads. In the one case, as well as in the other, we \nare brought face to face with a mystery which no \nman ever yet comprehended or explained. Let us \nnot stumble at mysteries. The universe is full of \nthem, and from youth to age we are encompassed by \nthem as by an atmosphere. Let us not imagine that \nwe can comprehend the Almighty, " He is higher \nthan heaven, what canst thou know ? " My brethren, \nthis is not a theme for philosophy, but for revelation. \nOn this subject, above most others, we need to be \nas little children, accepting the facts as they are \ndeclared to us by "holy men who spake as they were \nmoved by the Holy Ghost." \n\n2. That the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as \nunderstood by evangelical Christians, is not incon- \nsistent with some kind of subordination on the part of \n\n\n\n382 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthe Son to the Father. We may be unable to point \nout the kind or degree of that subordination, but two \nremarks will show the direction in which it is possible \nto look for light. First. The second person of the \nGodhead is generally set before us by the sacred \nwriters in his state of incarnation or humiliation. \nBoth prophecy and history are chiefly occupied with \nhim as the Mediator, and in this office he took upon \nhimself the form, place and work of a servant of \nGod, though he was Head over all things to the \nchurch. A certain subordination to the Father is \ntherefore involved in his mediatorial work. But the \nrelation of sonship and official subordination among \nmen is consistent with that of equality in every \nnatural and moral excellence ; may we not believe that \nit is equally so in the Godhead, whose personal distinc- \ntions are rooted in a common nature ? Second. To \nsay that the distinction between the Father, the Son \nand the Holy Spirit is of a personal nature, is to \nprepare the way for us to believe that some personal \nquality of the eternal Word rendered it divinely \nsuitable that he should be the revealer of God and \nthe Redeemer of mankind, and that some personal \nquality of the Holy Spirit rendered it divinely suit- \nable that he should be the Sanctifier of men. Beyond \nthis we need not attempt to go. We may be certain \nthat there is an eternal fitness or decorum in all the \nacts of the triune God, but it is too much for us to \nexpect to see and comprehend it in the present life. \n\n\n\nTHE TRINITY. 383 \n\n3. That iii prayer we should think of the Father, \nthe Son, and the Holy Spirit as truly divine. We \nneed not hesitate to address either of them in praise \nor petition. We need not, and we should not, fear \nto sing, "Come Holy Spirit, heavenly Dove." Though \nthis is prayer and praise to the Spirit, the author of \nthe new life is certainly God, since "every one that \nloveth is born of God" (I.John iv. 17), and those \nwho "believe in the name" of Christ "have been \nborn, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor \nof the will of man, but of God" (John i. 13); that is \nto say, of God the Spirit; for "that which is born of \nthe Spirit is spirit," and " the wind bloweth where it \nlisteth,and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst \nnot tell whence it cometh and whether it goeth, so \nis (it with) every one that is born of the Spirit." \n(John iii. 8.) We need not hesitate to offer praise or \npetition to Christ; for that is what the first Christians \ndid, when they called on the name of the Lord; that \nis what Stephen did, when he said, " Lord Jesus, \nreceive my spirit" (Acts vii. 59), and that is what the \nhosts of heaven were seen and heard doing by the \nApostle John when banished to the isle of Patmos. \nAnd, finally, we need not puzzle ourselves with any \nattempt to hold in our minds the unity and triperson- \nality of God at the same time. It is enough for us to \ncome to God as sinners saved by grace, recognizing \nthe work of Christ in our behalf, and ready to ascribe \n\n\n\n384 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthe glory of our salvation to the infinite God. It \nis enough if we honor God in the unseen Father, \nbehold him in the face of Jesus Christ, and gratefully \nwelcome his presence in the working of the Holy \nSpirit. \n\n\n\n\nFIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, BALTIMORE, MD. \n\nKEY, J. W. M. WILLIAMS, DC, PASTOK FOB THIBTY YEABS. \n\n\n\nTHE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. \n\n\n\nBY REV. W. T. BRANTLY, D. D., BALTIMORE, MD. \n\n\n\n1. Tim. 3 : 16. God was manifest in the flesh. \n\nAs to some facts respecting Jesus Christ, people \nof all parties and shades of opinion concur : \xe2\x80\x94 that \nhe lived on earth at the period mentioned by the \nevangelists, that lie was a man of upright life, that \nhe delivered sundry discourses, some of which are \nextant in our day, that he was the founder of a re- \nligion which now numbers its adherents by millions ; \nand that he was put to death by Pontius Pilate, at \nthe instigation of the Jewish Rulers. Whether he \nwrought the miracles ascribed to him, indeed whether \nhe performed any miracles at all, whether he rose \nfrom the dead after his crucifixion, whether he was a \nteacher sent from God, \xe2\x80\x94 these and other inquiries \ninvolving superhuman intervention have been con- \nstantly agitated ; and different conclusions have been \nreached. This should not be surprising. For even \namong those who were brought into personal con- \ntact with him, who listened to his discourses, saw his \nmiracles and observed his daily life, very diverse \nopinions prevailed respecting him. " Whom do men \nsay that I am V 9 he asked his disciples on one occa- \n\n25 385 \n\n\n\n386 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nsion. "Some say John the Baptist; some Elias, \nothers Jeremias or one of the prophets," was the \nreply. They might have added, some call you " a \ngluttonous man, a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans \nand sinners ; others say you have a devil and are \nmad ; others still, that you are in league with Beelze- \nbub and through your connection with the King of \ndevils you are able to cast out inferior demons." \nThe addition would have been true, for the sacred \nhistorians tell us that these opinions were expressed \nat different times in regard to his character. \n\nAs clashing views were held in reference to the \nperson of Christ prior to the completion of his early \nwork and his ascension to heaven, it might be sup- \nposed that after he had left the world great diver- \nsity of opinions would continue to prevail respecting \nhimself and the work he had performed. Such \naccordingly we find to be the case. He had scarcely \ndisappeared from the earth before controversies \nsprang up respecting his character and his teachings. \nIn our day it is generally the divinity of Jesus which \nis denied. His true humanity is now universally \nconceded. But in the first century, we find a con- \nsiderable number of persons, known as Docetae, \nwho asserted that Christ was a human being only in \nappearance. They taught that the being who so- \njourned among men, who ate and drank, and slept \nand wept, and experienced pleasure and pain, and \nfinally was crucified, was only the phantom of a man. \n\n\n\nTHE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 387 \n\nAbsurd as such an opinion appears to us, it would \nseem that the Apostle John regarded it as sufficiently \nserious to demand a refutation. The existence of \nthis heresy explains the apparent repetition and tau- \ntology with which he emphasizes the humanity of \nour Lord when he speaks of " what he has heard, \nwhat he has seen with his eyes, what he has looked \nupon, what his hands have handled of the Word of \nlife.*\' \n\nThree hundred years later comes Arius denying \nthe proper divinity of Christ. In his view, Jesus \nwas superior to man, above angels, more exalted in \nrank and dignity than any intelligence in heaven, but \nnevertheless a creature \xe2\x80\x94 there having been a time \nwhen he did not exist. This doctrine for a time en- \nlisted many adherents. Indeed for several centuries \nall the leading nations of Europe appear to have \nbeen largely under its influence. Coming down to \nmore recent periods we reach the days of Faustus \nSocinus, who in the fifteenth century declared that \nno religious doctrine should be received which could \nnot be explained by rational methods, and as he \ncould not understand how Christ the Son could be \nequal with God the Father, he rejected the doctrine \nof three persons in the Godhead. He believed \nthat Christ was a good man, that his teaching was \ninvested with divine authority, and that lie suffered \ndeath as a martyr to the truth of his teachings. So- \ncinus died in 1G04. But his views are still held by \n\n\n\n388 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nmany persons in our own country and in Europe. \nUnitarians (though we do not admit their exclusive \nright to the appellation) is the name by which they \nelect to be called. But their views are essentially \nthe same as those of Lelius and Faustus SoeinUs, \nwho uttered them in the latter part of the fifteenth \ncentury. \n\nBut during all the years in which these discordant \nopinions have prevailed, respecting the character of \nour Lord, there have always been those who have \nbeen in full agreement with Simon Barjona, when \nhe said, " Thou art the Christ, the son of the living \nGod." And were the Saviour now to ask, as he did \nat the coast of Cesarea Philippi, Whom do men say \nthat I am \\ \xe2\x80\x94 whilst the answer might be, Some say \nthat thou art a human being and no more, it would \nalso be, Millions believe in thee as the being " who \nwas in the form of God, and thought it no robbery \nto be equal with God." They believe that thou wast \nGod manifest in the flesh; and they are looking for \nsalvation through thy name because they believe \nthat thou art " able to save to the uttermost, all that \ncome to God through thee." \n\nBut why do we hold these views of Jesus Christ ? \nThose who believe him to be God should be ready \nto give a reason for the faith that is in them. For \nwhilst it is true that if he be divine, and we refuse \nhim the homage to which he is entitled, we are \nguilty of a robbery which imperils our salvation, it \n\n\n\nTHE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 389 \n\nis also true that if lie be only a creature, we are ob- \nnoxious to the charge of idolatry if we render him \nthe homage due to God only. \n\nWhen we claim Deity for Jesus Christ, we must \nrely on divine revelation to substantiate the claim. \nWe have no other source of proof. Some persons \nhave said that natural religion suggests the necessity \nfor a mediator between God and man. Granted the \nnecessity, reason teaches further : it has been said \nthat he should possess a dual nature ; that is, he \nmust be God and man at the same time. But we \nneed better evidence than natural religion can sup- \nply, in support of a truth so momentous. As res- \npects reason, it is enough for us to know that there \nis nothing contrary to her dictates in the declara- \ntion that there may be God the Father and God the \nSon also. For though she may not comprehend how \nthis can be \xe2\x80\x94 since " great is the mystery of Godli- \nness " \xe2\x80\x94 she must admit that it is more reasonable to \nbelieve what Revelation teaches to be true, than \nto trust her own uncertain light. It is not con- \ntended that the Scriptures teach with irresistible \nclearness, (to every class of inquirers), the divinity \nof Jesus. They do not, indeed, present any impor- \ntant doctrine so strongly as to defy resistance. The \nScriptures \xe2\x80\x94 any of them \xe2\x80\x94 may be wrested. Our \nconduct in the pursuit and reception of truth, it \nhas been well said, "is a part of our probation." \nWhilst the meek and honest inquirer may be able to \n\n\n\n390 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ndiscover the truth, the self-sufficient seeker, filled \nwith prepossessions for which he is mainly seeking \nconfirmation from the Scriptures, will be left to \nwander in ignorance and error. If we appeal to \nthe sacred oracles, with teachable and devout minds \nin quest of the truth on this vital question, I think \nwe shall find the following propositions to be true : \n\nI. The Scriptures declare that Jesus Christ claimed \nfor himself a divine nature. It is natural to suppose \nthat if Jesus had been truly God, he would have as- \nserted this prerogative for himself, whenever it was \nproper to set forth his divinity. Had he made no \nsuch claim on any occasion, though the evidence for \nhis Deity from other sources would still be con- \nclusive, objectors would be ready to say that a supe- \nriority should not be awarded to Christ, which, by \nhis silence, he virtually disclaimed. But the words \nof our Lord, on such occasions, as well as the con- \nstruction placed on his language by those best \nqualified to judge, constrain us to believe that he \ndeclared his own true divinity. \n\n1. See what occurred after the healing of the im- \npotent man at the pool of Bethesda. The miracle \nwas performed on the Sabbath day. The enemies \nof our Lord, always in quest of some vulnerable \npoint at which they might strike the object of their \nhate, assail him as a profaner of the Sabbath. By \nhis violation of the law he is guilty of death, and \nthey determined to take his life. Aware of their \n\n\n\nTHE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 391 \n\ndesigns, Jesus excused himself, saying " My Father, \nworketh hitherto and I work.\' 7 But this language, \nwe are told, only awakened their fiercest displeasure. \nThey sought the more to kill him, because he had \nnot only dishonored the Sabbath, but said also that \nGod was his Father, making himself equal with God. \nShould it be said that the Jews misapprehended the \nSaviour when they charged him with claiming equal- \nity with God, it may be replied that our Lord would \nnot have permitted such a construction of his answer \nto pass in silence, had it been incorrect. His non- \nrepudiation, his acceptance of their interpretation, \nattests its correctness ; and in his case it is equiva- \nlent to the assertion of the claim for himself. The \ntruth is, his language can have no other meaning; \nand it is plain, in our view, that he intended it to \nconvey just the meaning which they accepted. It is \nas if he had said, " My Father worketh hitherto on \nthe Sabbath day in his Providence; he heals the \nsick on this day; he makes his sun to rise and set; \nhe sends the rain on this day ; he makes the grass \nto grow and the flowers to bloom on this day ; and I, \nwho am his Son, work also in the same manner, and \nwith the same authority, being Lord of the Sabbath \nas he is." Thus the language involves equality with \nthe Father, and if equal to him, he must be Divine. \nAccepting the character ascribed to him by his \nenemies, our Lord proceeds to assert his equality in \nan extended discourse. He tells them that "as the \n\n\n\n392 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nFather raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, \neven so the Son quickeneth whom he will." Surely \nhe who can call back to life, from the repositories of \nthe dead, any person whom he wills thus to summon, \nmay "without robbery think himself equal with God." \nBeing thus equal, he declares that the Father hath \ncommanded that all men should honor the Son, even \nas they honor the Father. Is it the will of the \nFather that all men should believe in him as God % \nThen it is his will that they reverence the Son like- \nwise. Is it the will of the Father that all men should \nworship him % Then it is his will that they worship \nthe Son also. Is it the will of the Father that all \nmen should obey him % Then it is his will that they \nobey the Son likewise. Such is the union between \nthem that no man can truly honor the Son, without \nat the same time honoring the Father. The more \nwe exalt Jesus, the more do we honor him who says \nof his Son, " This is my beloved Son, hear him." This \nis the teaching of our Lord respecting himself. It \nis apparent that throughout the discourse he is \nvindicating himself from the charge of arrogant \nblasphemies, and asserting his Divine nature. The \nlanguage fairly and obviously understood, represents \nhim as claiming true Deity. \n\n2. A similar claim is made in that striking declar- \nation, " I and my Father are one." I am aware that \nSocinians teach that in this Scripture our Lord is \nsetting forth that between himself and Father there \n\n\n\nTHE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 393 \n\nis a unity of sentiment and action. They deny that \nit teaches any essential unity of nature. But if the \nSocinians are right in their interpretation of the \nexpression, would the Jews, on hearing* it, immediate- \nly have taken up stones to stone him? They surely \nunderstood him to affirm that he was one with God. \nFor when he interrogated them as to the reason of \nthe assault, \xe2\x80\x94 inquiring for which of the good works \nhe had shown them their anger was excited, \xe2\x80\x94 they \npromptly replied, "For a good work we stone thee \nnot, but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a \nman, makest thyself God." low, if the declaration of \nour Lord had been misapprehended by his hearers, \nhe would not have permitted them to be- misled on \na point so important. Common honesty, to say \nnothing of true benevolence, would have quickly \ncorrected the mistake. But so far from disclaiming \nthe construction placed on his words, he accepted \ntheir interpretation of his meaning, and then, as on \na previous occasion, he continued his discourse, ex- \' \nhibiting at length the intimate relation between the \nFather and himself. \n\n3. In the memorable prayer offered on the eve of \nhis crucifixion, our Lord claims divinity for himself, \nwhen, addressing the Father, he says, "And now, O \nFather, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the \nglory which I had with thee before the world was." \nWhat is the glory to which reference is here made ? \nIt can be nothing less than the homage which is paid \n\n\n\n394 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nto Divine beings. God was the object of angelic \nworship long before the foundations of the earth, \nwere laid. This it seems was shared by the Son \nbefore he became " God manifest in the flesh ;" and \ncan we suppose that God, who " never gives his glory \nto another," would have been glorified with any one \nwho did not, like himself, possess a divine nature, \nwho was not God equal to himself? The prayer \nmanifestly implies the claim of Divinity on the part \nof Christ. \n\nAnd so, when Philip asked that he might see the \nFather, the reply from Jesus implies a like claim. \n11 Show us the Father and it sufficeth us." Have I \nbeen so long time with you and yet hast thou not \nknown me, Philip ? After all that you have heard \nfrom me, after having learned from me that I and my \nFather are one, are you still in doubt as to who I am ? \nLet me tell you again, Whoever has seen me has \nseen all that it is possible for mortal man to see of \nthe Father. \n\nSuch was the claim of Jesus. That he was a good \nman none nave denied who believe in his existence \nat all. The Docetse who ignored his person, and the \nArians who called him a preexistent creature, and \nthe Socinians who deny his divinity, all admit that \nhe was a good man. And if this be his character \nthen he will certainly speak the truth ; and we must \nreceive his testimony respecting his own Deity as \nabsolutely true. \n\n\n\nTHE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 395 \n\nII. Whilst Jesus Christ asserted his own proper \nDivinity, he sustained his assertion by performing \nworks which could only be wrought by the power of \nGod. It might be said that the mere claim of any \none to a character proves nothing. An impostor may \nclaim to be king of the realm. Even a good man, \nthrough the imperfections of his judgment, may \nclaim for himself prerogatives to which he has no \njust title. It is admitted that one claiming a divine \nnature should be prepared to furnish the world with \nsufficient reasons for such a claim. If Jesus, like \nMohammed, had produced no miracles in attestation \nof his high claims, we should be as unwilling to be- \nlieve in his Deity as to recognize the assumptions of \nthe great Arabian impostor to be the prophet of God. \n\nBut his Deity was demonstrated by an impressive \nexhibition of the most unquestionable miracles. \nWhen the disciples exclaimed, on the Sea of Tiberias, \nM What manner of man is this ?" they felt most pro- \nfoundly that the Being who could tranquilize the \nangry elements with a word, was something more \nthan man. He who could take a few small loaves \nand fishes, which a lad had brought with him, proba- \nbly a lunch for his own use, and so multiply them as \nto satisfy the appetites of ten thousand people, (for \nif we include the women and the children, there \nwere probably so many), and then gather up a larger \namount of fragments than the original supply, \nshowed himself equal to a work which is one of the \n\n\n\n396 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nmost indisputable proofs of divine power \xe2\x80\x94 we mean \ncreation. The young man who rose from the bier on \nwhich the attendants were bearing him to the tomb, \nand Lazarus, who returned to life after decomposi- \ntion had proceeded to such an extent as to be offen- \nsive, proclaim a present Deity as manifestly as did \nthe water at the marriage of Cana in Gallilee, which \nat its Lord\'s bidding, "blushed into wine." \n\nI know it may be said that this argument for the \nDivinity of Jesus proves too much, since it would \nprove Moses, who wrought stupendous miracles in \nEgypt; and Elijah, at whose word the widow\'s son \ncame back to life, and whose meal and oil were mul- \ntiplied ; and Peter and Paul who healed the sick and \nraised the dead, to have been divine also. Not so. \nThese men never wrought miracles as Jesus did. \nThey acted with a delegated authority which they \nnever failed to recognize. Moses and others of the \nOld Testament saints worked miracles only as they \nwere acting under Divine command. When Paul \nrequires the spirit of divination to come out of the \ndamsel, he asserts his order "in the name of Jesus \nChrist," thus attesting his own weakness, and the \npower of the Lord Jesus. "Eneas," says Peter, \n" Jesus Christ maketh thee whole." Here Peter in \nlike manner attests at once the Divinity of Jesus \nand his own subordination. But Jesus acted in his \nown name and on his own authority. He had but to \nsay, " I will, be thou clean," and immediately the \n\n\n\nTHE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 397 \n\ncleansing followed. With authority and power he \ncommanded the unclean spirits and they obeyed him. \nThe seventy came back to him saying, " Lord, even \nthe devils are subject to us through thy name." Well \nthen has it been said that "although miracles may \nbe performed by mere men, that is, through their \ninstrumentality, and so cannot by themselves be \nproofs of the Deity of those who, in this instru- \nmental sense, performed them ; yet as the miracles \nof Christ were performed in his own name, by his \nundisputed word, according to his will and for \nhis glory, they plainly prove him to be Divine." \n\nIII. The Deity of Christ is further manifest in \nthe declarations made of the fact expressly, or by \nfair implication, by God the Father. If God should \nsend his Son into the world, it is quite reasonable to \nsuppose (if his Son were a divine being) that the \nattention of men would in some way be drawn to the \nfact. This is just what we find to be true. At the \ncommencement or his ministry, we hear the Father \nintroducing him to the muititude, assembled at his \nbap\' ism. with the announcement, "This is my beloved \nSon in whom I am well pleased." It is true that \ngood men are often cailed sons of God in the Scrip- \ntures ; but it is always with such qualifications, or \nunder such circumstances as to indicate the limited \nsense in which he intended the expression to be un- \nderstood. But when, on the banks of the Jordan, \nwe hear the voice of the Father miraculously pro- \n\n\n\n398 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nclaiming the august character of the candidate who \nhad just received baptism at the hands of John, and \nmark the spirit descending in the form of a dove, \nsuch facts indicate unmistakably that the object \nof such honor could be none other than the equal \nSon \xe2\x80\x94 even " God manifest in the flesh." And as at \nthe beginning, so as he was entering on the last \nscenes of his ministerial life, the voice of the Father \nis heard in the Holy Mount reaffirming the utterance \nat Jordan, saying, " This is my beloved Son, hear ye \nhim." Is it possible, if the Son had not been Divine, \nhe could have been the recipient of such renewed \ncommendation of the Father, after he had asserted \nhis equality with God, had repeatedly allowed Divine \nhomage to be paid him, and had, in fact, declared \nthat he and his Father were one ? \n\nBut we have something stronger than implication \non this important point. The Father bears witness \nto the Divinity of the Son, when he commands both \nangels and men to worship him. Speaking of Jesus \nin his letter to the Philippians, the Apostle tells us \n" Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and \ngiven him a name which is above every name ;" that \nat the name of Jesus " every knee should bow, of \nthings in heaven and things in earth, and things \nunder the earth ; and that every tongue should con- \nfess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God \nthe Father." Now says our Lord, "Thou shalt wor- \nship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou \n\n\n\nTHE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 399 \n\nserve." Is not then the fact that God commands \nrational beings on earth and in heaven \xe2\x80\x94 beings \neverywhere \xe2\x80\x94 to worship him, a testimony of God the \nFather to the Divinity of the Son % In like manner \nwhen the Apostle, in the first chapter of the Epistle \nto the Hebrews, citing the language of the Psalmist \nin the forty-fifth Psalm, "Thy throne O God is for- \never and ever," as the very language addressed \nby God the Father to God the Son, what room can \nthere be to question the Father\'s recognition of the \nequality of the Son? Watts\' theology is at once \nScriptural and comforting in the familiar verse \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n" So strange, so boundless was the love \nThat pitied dying men, \nThe Father sent his equal Son \nTo give them life again." \n\nIY. The Deity of Christ is directly affirmed in \nrepeated instances by the sacred writers. The tes- \ntimony of these writers to the Deity of Christ de- \nrives all its value from the fact that they were \ndivinely directed in their testimony. If you sup- \npose that they were ordinary witnesses, liable to the \nfrailties and errors of fallible men, their testimony \nupon the point would be of little value. But guided \nas they were by an unerring hand, we may depend \non what they have said. Do they distinctly declare \nthe Deity of the blessed Lord? Let the prophet \nIsaiah answer, " For unto us a child is born, unto us \na Son is given, and the government shall be upon \n\n\n\n400 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nhis shoulders: and his name shall be called Won- \nderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting- \nFather, the Prince of Peace." Hear the beloved \ndisciple, " In the beginning was the Word, and the \nWord was with God and the Word was God." Who \nwas this Word? The same that afterwards was \n"made flesh and dwelt among us." "Of whom," \nsays the Apostle Paul, "as concerning the flesh, \nChrist came, who is over all, God blessed forever." \nCan language be more explicit than this in regard to \nthe Divinity of Jesus ? " He was in the form of \nGod," says the same Apostle, "and thought it no \nrobbery to be equal with God." And if he, wise \nand good as he was, thought it no robbery, there \nwas none, and he was equal with God. A^ain says \nthe same Apostle, " In him dwelleth all the fullness \nof the Godhead bodily." And yet again, " The first \nman is of the earth, earthy ; the second man is the \nLord from heaven." "Hereby," says the inspired \nJohn, " perceive we the love of God, because he \nlaid down his life for us "-\xe2\x80\x94thus fulfilling his own \nwords \xe2\x80\x94 " I lay down my life for the sheep." But we \nneed not multiply this testimony. It is more than \ncomplete; it is abundant. The sacred writers, it \nwould seem, seek to establish this vital truth by \nirresistible proof. \n\nV. The worship paid to Jesus Christ, on earth \nand in heaven is another evidence of his Deity. We \nknow that Christ was often addressed as Lord when \n\n\n\nTHE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 401 \n\nhe was on earth. We know that he was often wor- \nshipped and that prayers were constantly offered to \nhim. Here comes the leper worshipping him and \nsaying, " Lord if thou wilt thou canst make me clean." \nPeter says to him " Depart from me O Lord, for I \nam a sinful man." Thomas cries out " My Lord and \nmy God." The dying thief prays " Lord remember \nme when thou comest into thy kingdom." After his \nresurrection, the disciples come calling him Lord, \nsaying, " Lord wilt thou at this time restore again the \nkingdom to Israel V 9 After his ascension, these same \ndisciples "worshipped him and returned to Jeru- \nsalem." \n\nNow, what would you think of any one, not divine, \nwho would allow himself, through the ignorance of \nothers, to be worshipped as God? You remember \non one occasion, Cornelius fell down at the feet of \nPeter and worshipped him, but Peter disclaimed \nthe homage. He would not for a moment suffer \nCornelius to remain under the delusion that he was \nentitled to any such honor. " Stand up, I myself \nalso am a man." So when John fell down to worship \none improperly he was immediately corrected. " See \nthou do it not, I am thy fellow servant, worship God." \nCan any one suppose for a moment that the Lord \nJesus would have received worship which was not \nhis due? \n\nPerhaps some one may say just here, the fact that \nthese men worshipped Jesus proves nothing, since \n\n\n\n402 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nit shows rather their opinion of his person than his \ntrue character. This would be true, but for what we \nhave just seen \xe2\x80\x94 that our Lord allowed himself to be \nso worshipped. But more than this, he not only re- \nceived this worship, but actually commended it. u Ye \ncall me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for so I \nam." " I am your Master "; it is as if he had said " I \nhave a right to lay my commands upon you. More \nthan that, I am your Lord. I give you rest, I for- \ngive your sins, and when you die I am he that will \nraise you up at the last day." Then, too, the Scrip- \ntures teach us that he who permitted himself to be \nworshipped on earth is receiving homage in heaven. \nThe dying Stephen called upon him after he had \nascended on high, crying, " Lord Jesus receive my \nspirit." "I beheld," says John in Eevelation, "and \nheard the voice of many angels round about the \nthrone, and the living creatures and the elders, and \nthe number of them was ten thousand times ten \nthousand and thousands of thousands, saying with a \nloud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to re- \nceive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, \nand honor and glory and blessing. And every crea- \nture which is in heaven and on earth and under the \nearth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in \nthem, heard I saying, Blessing and honor and glory \nand power be to him that sitteth upon the throne \nand unto the Lamb forever and ever. And the four \nliving creatures said Amen." \n\n\n\nTHE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 403 \n\nMay we not call him God who accepted worship \nfrom men on earth, and who now receives the hom- \nage of saints and angels in heaven ? \n\nNeed I multiply proofs from the sacred oracles in \nsupport of this cardinal article of our Christianity? \nIt would be easy to do it. I could show you that \nattributes properly predicable of Deity only, are \nconstantly affirmed of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. I \ncould show you that works which God alone could \nperforin were wrought by Jesus Christ. It could be \nshown that the names applied to God are also applied \nto Jesus \xe2\x80\x94 that the Deity of Christ is recognized in \nthe prayers which were constantly addressed to him \nby Paul and the other Apostles \xe2\x80\x94 that when Christ \ncommanded his Apostles to baptize in the name of \nthe Father, Son and Holy Ghost, his equality with \nthe other persons of the Godhead was asserted \xe2\x80\x94 \nthat the benediction pronounced on Christian con- \ngregations is an act of worship rendered to Christ \nin connection with the Father and the Holy Spirit. \nBut enough. \n\nThe discussion of the subject is closed. We have \nproved, we think, most conclusively, from the only \nauthorized source, that the man who was born in \nBethlehem of Judea, was indeed, " God manifest in \nthe flesh 7 \' \xe2\x80\x94 "very God of very God." Who can \nthink even superficially that the God of Glory should \nthus humble himself for sinners ; should for the \nguilty and lost consent not only to this act of humil- \niation, but to a whole life of suffering, shame and \n\n\n\n404; BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nsorrow, and finally to an ignominious death upon the \ncross, without having his soul stirred to its lowest \ndepths ? What shall we say to such love % What \nwords of gratitude can express the obligation we \nowe to such a benefactor % What devotion can ad- \nequately characterize the obedience which is his \ndue % We can only summon our poor souls to stand \nstill, and praise and wonder and adore. We say \nwith the Apostle, "Thanks be unto God for his un- \nspeakable gift." But how cold and unworthy is that \nword " thanks, 7 \' viewed in connection with the gift % \nStill let us rejoice that, poor as it is, we can speak \nit. Let us love to speak it every day. Let the ear- \nliest consciousness of every morning hour find our \nhearts swelling with grateful emotions to the God- \nSaviour. Let the last thoughts of the evening hour \nbe of Him who, God though he was, gave himself \nfor us. Let our whole lives attest by appropriate \ndeeds, the sincerity of our thanks. And let us look \nforward to the skies as the place in which we may \nrepeat and continue evermore the praises begun on \nearth. For, after we have dwelt for ages on the \ntheme, we cannot express all that ransomed sinners \nowe to such a Divine Deliverer. \n\n" O for this love, let rocks and hills \nTheir lasting silence break, \nAnd all harmonious human tongues, \nThe Saviour\'s praises speak. \n\nAngels! assist our mighty joys, \n\nStrike all your harps of gold \xe2\x80\x94 \nBut when you raise your highest notes \n\nHis love can ne\'er he told." \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. \n\n\n\nBY REV. G. W. SAMSON, D. D., NEW YORK. \n\n\n\n44 And not only so, but we joy in God through our Lord Jesus \nChrist, by whom we have received the atonement."\xe2\x80\x94 Rom. \nv. 11. \n\nFor two reasons, this text is often conscientiously \nrejected as a statement presenting the gospel doc- \ntrine which the word "Atonement," as now used by \ntheologians, implies. \n\nIn the first place, the word here translated "atone- \nment" in the original Greek means "reconciliation." \nIn every case but this the Greek noun is rendered \n"reconciliation," and the corresponding verb, as in \nthe verse preceding our text, is always translated \n\xe2\x80\xa2"reconciled." The word "reconciliation" does not \npresent the full idea of what is now included in the \ndoctrine characterized as the Atonement. For this \nTeason the text seems to be objectionable as setting \nforth the doctrine to be considered. \n\nIn the second place, the old English meaning of \nthe word used by our translators has changed since \ntheir day. Its old meaning was the same as that now \nimplied in the word reconciliation. The old Saxon \nword "atone," as its composition implies, means \n\n405 \n\n\n\n406 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\n"at-one." The verb is causative in signification, \nmeaning "to set at-one." So, too, the noun "atone- \nment" meant, when our translation was made, "the \nsetting at-one," or " that which sets at-one." Now, \nthis changed meaning of the word \xe2\x80\x94 as those accus- \ntomed to encounter opponents to the gospel doctrine \nalways observe \xe2\x80\x94 this changed meaning of the word \natonement is so radically fixed in the mind of those \ntrained to erroneous views of the Gospel doctrine, \nthat it is impossible, humanly speaking, to make them \nsee "the truth as it is in Jesus." For this reason, \nagain, many evangelical Christians and Bible stu- \ndents have avoided the use of this passage as setting \nforth the Gospel doctrine. \n\nFor two reasons, in the present survey, this text \nis chosen : first, because of the New Testament term \nitself; and second, because of the doctrine involved \nboth in the word and in its connection. \n\nAs to the word Atonement here employed, though \nbut once found in the New Testament, it is often met \nin the Old Testament, in the version used for nearly \nthree centuries by English readers. The people \ncling to the English translation ; they will quote it, \nand even when the translation can be shown by \nscholars to be in terms now obsolete or incorrect, \ncommon readers will be led by the version in their \nhands. Here, however, the translation is correct. \nIt gives truly the meaning of the original. The \nchange in the meaning of the word, moreover, is but \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 407 \n\npartial. In the many eases in the Old Testament \nwhere the words "atone" and "atonement" are \nmet it means all that is now involved in the term \nas used by evangelical theologians. Yet more, the \nEnglish translators who had employed the word in \nthe Old Testament in its comprehensive meaning, \ndoubtless had reasons, in this single passage of the \nNew Testament, to depart from their own ordinary \nXew Testament translation, and to insert the word \n"atonement\'\' instead of "reconciliation." Such was \nthe comprehensiveness which Paul in this connec- \ntion himself threw into the word, that fidelity to the \ninspired writer\'s thought demanded that here, and \nhere alone, the comprehensive Old Testament word \n"atonement" should be introduced. And this fact \nsuggests an added and controlling guide to the \npreacher, who should first find and then should thor- \noughly unfold the truth, not of the word alone, but \nof the word in its connection with other words, by \nwhich the Divine Spirit presents connected truth. \n\nAs to the doctrine, though not fully found in the \nword, it is found in the statement wherein Paul used \nthe word. The word "atonement" here employed \ndoes mean, both in the inspired original and in the \nold English, "reconciliation." But the very idea of \nreconciliation implies former alienation, and some \neffective means by which that alienation is brought \nto an end. Reconciliation is but a result of some- \nthing beforehand accomplished ; it is an effect which \n\n\n\n408 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nmust have an adequate cause. When Paul used the \nword here his mind was so full of thoughts of the \ncause which had brought about the reconciliation \nthat he filled in all the other words of the text with \nthe statement of that cause. The mind that persists \nin dwelling on one word used by Jesus or Paul, and \nneglecting its connection, may unwittingly belong to \nthe class referred to by the great Apostle, " who \nhandle the word of God deceitfully." If this sinking \nof the subject in thoughts of the word be sincere, it \nmust spring from man\'s natural heart, like that of \nNicodemus ; sincere indeed, but untaught by experi- \nence what reconciliation to God is, and what it \nimplies. \n\nLet us read again the statement here, in which \nthere was such a fullness of associated truth that \nour English translators seemed compelled to drop \nthe word " reconciliation " everywhere else employed \nand to insert the word "Atonement." It reads: \n"And not only so ; but we also joy in God, through \nour Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have received \nthe Atonement." Packed with gospel hints as it is, \nlinked also to a long preceding statement of truth, \nthe text presents, and that in a manner most compre- \nhensive and effective, this theme : \n\nThe Divine Atonement ; its nature, ground and efficacy, \nas taught hy the icord of God and oy human experience. \n\nA careful re-reading of the text leads us to notice \nthese points of thought. There is an " atonement \' \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 409 \n\nprovided for man; therefore, we should seek to com- \nprehend its nature as a blessing needed by man. \nAgain, this blessing is "received," not self-provided; \nand its author and giver should be held in mind. \nYet again, it is " our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we \nhave received the atonement," and as each of these \nthree names \xe2\x80\x94 first, " the Lord," the Jehovah of the \nOld Testament, or God manifested ; second, " Jesus," \nor Saviour; and third, "Christ," the anointed, or \nofficially appointed -as each of these words is meant \nto present its own distinct idea as to the Atonement \nand its provider, the ground of the Atonement is here \nset forth. Yet once again, as Paul says, u we have \nreceived from our Lord Jesus Christ the Atonement," \nand as therefore " ice joy in God," the inquiry must \narise, for whom, and how far for each human being, \nis this provision made, or what is the efficacy of the \nAtonement ? \n\nWe have, then, our theme in the text. The Atone- \nment is certainly divine, not human, in its nature, in \nits ground, and in its application. And this over- \nruling idea must be our guide as we seek in the word \nof God for that interpretation of the word which \nhuman experience compels us to accept; otherwise \nwe cannot reach the truth. For, while the revealed \nstatements of the Old and Xew Testament are our \nsole guide to religious truth, the inspired Scriptures \nteach us through human language; and human lan- \nguage is but the embodiment of ideas in the human \n\n\n\n410 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nmind before language was framed. We must, there- \nfore, first, carefully note at every point of our consid- \neration the meaning of the words in the original \nHebrew and Greek Scriptures which God himself \nchose in which the most clearly to present his \ntruth to man. We must also, second, carefully con- \nsider the meaning of words in our English tongue, \ninto which that original divine revelation is trans- \nlated; for if, as readers of the Word, we attach \ndiffering ideas to the meaning of the Word we read, \nthat Word will no longer be to us a divine revelation. \n\nMost of all, if the word of God is the revelation of \nhis own distinct idea of each truth belonging to our \nduty to him and to his redemption for us, no mind \ncan hope to attain " the truth as it is in Jesus," \nexcept it be under the guiding and enlightening influ- \nence of the Divine Spirit. As Christ taught, " Except \na man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of \nGod," so Paul taught, " The natural man receiveth not \nthe things of the Spirit." " God hath revealed them \nunto us by his Spirit." \n\nGuided, then, by human experience, with prayer \nthat we may be enlightened by the Divine Spirit\'s \ninfluence, we are to consider \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nI. The nature of the Atonement, as consisting in its \nthree provisions : Reconciliation, Propitiation, and \nExpiation) which secure Justification. \n\nAs the word of God to man is in man\'s language^ \nalready framed as the expression of human ideas, \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 411 \n\nDivine Providence has ordered that the efforts of \nambitious popular leaders to impose and impress \ntheir own conceptions upon other minds should the \nmore clearly illustrate his truth. Tims the " opposi- \ntions of philosophy, falsely so-called," Paul declares, \nwere made, at the Greek cities of Ephesus and \nCorinth, the occasion of a fuller consideration and \npresentation of the gospel truth. This has, in our \nday and land, been witnessed in the case of Dr. \nBushnell of Hartford, Conn. Observing in his youth \nthat "no doctrine of the Atonement" yet presented \nhad " received the consent of the Christian world," \nhe sought, in two discourses delivered in the year \n1848 \xe2\x80\x94 one at the Harvard and the other at the Yale \nDivinity School, \xe2\x80\x94 to show that the "Atonement" is \na " reconciliation " of man to his Maker, such as an \noffending man makes to his fellow. After years of \nadded study it was perceived by Dr. Bushnell that \nthis view implied nothing on the part of the Divine \nBeing; but that it was simply a change in man. He \nwas now convinced that reason taught that some new \naffection must necessarily be awakened in the divine \nmind. Recalling, therefore, the closing half of his \nfirst volume, he added, as a second element of the \nAtonement, " propitiation of the Divine Being." This \nidea he found everywhere in the philosophic relig- \nions of the world; as in India, Greece and Rome. \nThis idea of "propitiation" he explained by Jona- \nthan Edwards\' statement that " God\'s love and pity \n\n\n\n412 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nfixed the idea of man\'s sin and its penalty in his mind \nas if he had been really they." Thus the Atonement \nto Dr. Bushnell was, first, "reconciliation" in man, \nand second, "propitiation" in God. But while he \nfound, as he admits, in the Greek language, words \nimplying " expiation " and " expiatory sacrifice," and \nwhile he also found that such sacrifices have, in \nall ages before Christ\'s day, both among nations \nthe most cultured and the most rude, been always \noffered, failing to recognize that human reason, \nalways and everywhere, has felt the need of " expia- \ntion," as well as of propitiation and reconciliation, he \ndenied that the New Testament teaches that in \nChrist\'s Atonement an " expiatory sacrifice " is pro- \nvided. Contrary to Bushnell\'s forced conclusion, \nthe Christian experience, as well as the honest intel- \nligence of most readers of the New Testament, has \nrecognized that the clearly -stated expiatory sacrifice \nof Christ is that which manifests to the intelligent \nuniverse God\'s love. This expiation is the essential \nprovision of the Divine Atonement. The gospel \ndoctrine of the Atonement, indeed, makes these \nthree provisions, and in their inverse order, to enter \ninto the nature of the Divine Atonement: There is, \nfirst, an "expiation," reconciling the universe to God\'s \ngovernment ; there is, second, a " propitiation," rec- \nonciling in the divine character " righteousness and \nlove ;" and there is, third, a " reconciliation " in man. \nremoving the condemnation for past sin, and beget- \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 413 \n\nting a new life of love to God and his service. And \nall these secure man\'s "justification;" so that, \nthough sinful, he is accounted to be righteous. \n\nTurning to the Hebrew of the Old Testament, we \nfind that the word to " atone " is one from which our \nSaxon word " cover," both in form and meaning, is \nderived. This word is used about one hundred and \nforty times in the Old Testament ; and thus often used \nit presents the leading idea in the nature of the \nAtonement. That idea, end and result accomplished \nfor believing men is to " cover" the sins of which \nthe sinner has been guilty. It is the thought of \nDavid, when, after his great guilt was revealed to \nhim in the virtual murder and adultery which brought \nthe great stain and formed the great crime of his life,, \nhe wrote the thirty-second and fifty-first Psalms; \nexclaiming, at the opening of the former, " Blessed \nis the man whose transgression is forgiven, whose \nsin is covered." It was not enough for David that \nhe was assured of "forgiveness;" he wished his sin \n" blotted out from the book of remembrance." Fur- \nther than this, as the Apostle Paul, quoting in Eom. \niv. 8 the added expression in Ps. xxxii. 2, plainly \nteaches, it is the demand of human conscience and \nof divine truth, that in order to be " covered " and \n"blotted from remembrance" sin should "not be \nImputed " to the sinner ; that it should not be charged \nto his account. This, yet again, leads to a further \ndemand that man, the sinner, should be actually \n\n\n\n414 BAPTIST DOCTEINES. \n\njustified from his transgression; the vital idea of the \nnature of the Atonement which runs through the \nwhole history of religious experience as recorded in \nthe Old and New Testament, and as witnessed in the \nhistory of Christian converts in every age and land. \nJob, the earliest patriarch whose experience is \nrecorded, since his age indicates (xlii. 16) that he \nmust have lived some generations before Abraham, \nis a striking example of this demand. Divine reve- \nlation had declared as to Noah, who lived some \ngenerations earlier than Job, these three facts: \nFirst, that he " found grace in the eyes of the Lord ; " \nsecond, that he was "a just man and perfect in his \ngeneration;" and third, that "he walked with God." \nThe meaning of the word just here must, as Paul and \nPeter both teach, refer to his "justification by faith " \nfrom sin against God ( Gen. vi. 8, 9 ; Heb. xi. 7 ; II. \nPet. v. 7). The full explanation of what is thus briefly \nstated as to Noah is found in Job. Job is repeatedly \ndesignated by the divine pen and voice as " a per- \nfect and upright man " ( i. 1-8 ; ii. 3). Yet when his \nfriends declare that he must have been "unjust," even \ntowards his fellow-men, Job, in defending himself \nfrom the charge, (ix. 2), asks: "But how should a \nman be just with God?" Irritated into murmuring \nutterances by the persistent charges of his friends, \nyoung Elihu perceived at the close of the discussion \nthat Job, even as to his sin against God, " had just- \nified himself rather than God" (xxxii. 2). In his \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 415 \n\nreply the Divine Being declares that Job had exalted \nfirst his own "wisdom," (xxxviii. 2), and second his \n** purity " ( xl. 2, 8). Both these, when reproved by \nthe Divine voice, Job humbly confesses (xlii. 4; \nxlii. 2-5). His sincere repentance and faith are \naccepted, and his justification is declared by God \n(xlii. G-8) ; and in this extended description the fullest \nas well as the earliest illustration of "justification by \nfaith" seen in Christian experience is given for all \ntime. Yet again in the brief record of Abraham \nPaul saw and repeatedly presented the same idea \nas fundamental in the nature of the Atonement, \n(Gen. xv. 6 ; Gal. iii. 6 ; Eom. iv. 3-22) ; while in all \nthe redeemed from Abel to David, he declares that \nthe same faith was illustrated (Heb. xi. 2 to xii. 3). \n\nThe fullest and most enrapturing view of "justifi- \ncation " as the essential feature in the result of the \nAtonement is presented by the Apostle Paul in the \nEpistle to the Eomans. He first shows that all men \nare sinners; because, first, from nature, without rev- \nelation, they have "known" God, the reality and the \npenalty of sin, and the duty of repentance and faith \nin God; because, second, though knowing all this, \nthe heathen had become vile in appetite and brutal \nin passion, the Jews had been insincere and hateful \nin spirit, while "all men had sinned," in that the \nmost virtuous had " come short of the glory of God." \nIndeed, he declares that every human being, from \nthe first of our race, had sinned so perfectly " in the \n\n\n\n416 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nsimilitude of Adam\'s transgression " that all were as \nhopelessly lost as our first parents were. Hence the \nnecessary provision for man\'s redemption was one \nby which (Ch. 3) "the righteousness of God in the \nremission of sins that are past " might be made \nclear ; so that all the universe might see that God \n"might be just and yet the justifier of him that \nbelieved in Jesus." , The special presentation of this \naccomplished result is found in the eighth chapter \nof this epistle. Having stated again (viii. 1), "there \nis now, therefore, no condemnation to them that are \nin Christ Jesus," the Apostle proceeds to explain \nhow this fact can be true. Declaring that sinful man \nis " not willingly " \xe2\x80\x94that is, not of his own choice \xe2\x80\x94 \n" subject to vanity," or to the weak, erring, sinful \ncondition inseparable from his earthly and bodily \nlife, but that he has thus been created " by reason \nof him who hath subjected him in hope" \xe2\x80\x94 that is, \nthat Christ might show his glory and grace in \nredeeming him \xe2\x80\x94 the Apostle presents the following \nquestions and responses : " Who shall lay anything \nto the charge of God\'s elect f It is God that justifieih ! \nWho is he that condemneth V Can any of the angels, \nhe seems to imply, beings that never sinned, and \nwho might regard it unjust that a sinful being should \nbe treated as if sinless \xe2\x80\x94 can any angel condemn \nman? Have they, he seems further to imply, suf- \nfered at all by man\'s sin? And then, suspending, \napparently, his reply till these thoughts may have \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 417 \n\nbeen pondered, lie responds to his own expressed \nquestion, " Who is he that condemneth ? " " It is \nChrist, that died" for man, if any one, that has any \nright to condemn ! Assuredly man must himself be \nsatisfied\xe2\x80\x94 indeed all heaven must confess, after such \na presentation, that " God may be just and yet justify \nthe ungodly who believe in Jesus;" and who, with \nPaul, can say, " He gave himself for me." \n\nThrough all the history of Christian experience \nthis view, substantially, has been conceived when \npeace and rest in Jesus have first been felt. In \nevery age and land, from the day of Paul\'s conver- \nsion, Christian converts have conceived that Christ \nis both their substitute and surety ; that he assumes \nas his own the responsibility of their past sin and of \ntheir future righteousness. It was this that the \nconverted Brahmin had conceived, whose experi- \nence Dr. Duff, of the Scotch Presbyterian Mission \nat Calcutta, described. Dissatisfied with the religion \nof the Vedas, he had studied next the Buddhist, and \nthen the Mohammedan faith. Still at unrest, he \nheard of the Christian faith, and came to Dr. Duff to \nbe instructed in it. A month\'s reading of the Scrip- \ntures and of Scotch theology brought no satisfying \nlight. One da}*, however,\' in poring over Paul\'s \nEpistle to the Romans, a new idea \xe2\x80\x94 that which we \nhave traced \xe2\x80\x94broke upon his mind. Perfectly enrap- \ntured, he went to his instructor to state his new \nconception. "And why," asked Dr. Duff, u were you \n\n\n\n418 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nnot satisfied with the Koran, which on every page \ndeclares that God is merciful and can forgive sin?" \n" Oh," exclaimed the converted Brahmin," " I was \nnot satisfied to be forgiven through the mercy of \nGod. I wanted to see how God could be just and \nyet justify the ungodly." \n\nWhile sin is thus expiated, and the believing sinner \nis justified, human nature recognizes that the Divine \nBeing must be " propitiated. 7 \' It was this that Dr. \nBushnell, by years of thoughtful study \xe2\x80\x94 proceeding \nbackward from the first perceived element of the \nAtonement, the sinner\'s " reconciliation " \xe2\x80\x94 traced in \nman\'s religious history. It was ever and fearfully \nprominent in the history of the Greeks, in whose \nlanguage the Old Testament was studied at Christ\'s \nday, and in whose tongue, also, the New Testament \ntruth could be most fully presented. When, in the \nIliad of Homer, the Grecian heroes embarking for \nthe conquest of Troy are driven back by a storm, \nthey are told that one of their chief deities must be \n" propitiated " by the sacrifice of the most lovely \ndaughter of their commanding general. How fear- \nfully expressive, how forcibly instructive, the history \nof such sacrifices ! Let no one dare to treat with \nscorn the sacrifice of Christ Jesus on the cross ; for \nin that act of scorn this agonizing demand of human \nreason and conscience will also be treated with \ncontempt ! Man needs a " propitiation" with God ; \nand this, the Old and Xew Testament fully teach, is \nprovided by Christ Jesus our Lord. \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 419 \n\nIt was the deep conviction that " propitiation" was \nneeded that caused \'\' the horror of great darkness " \nto come over Abraham when, immediately after the \ndeclaration that "his faith was counted to him for \nrighteousness," like many a Christian convert in \nlater times, he showed a still distrustful craving for \nsome visible proof of God\'s acceptance of him, and \nasked, "Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall \ninherit " thy promise ? (Compare Gen. xv. 6, 8, 12.) \nIt was the agony of anxiety that God should be pro- \npitiated which made Moses " quake with great fear" \nwhen, having irreverently dashed the two tables \nwritten with God\'s finger, as he saw the people of \nIsrael besotted in their drunken and idolatrous \ndance, and then, going back to meet the offended \nand aggrieved God whose servants he and they \nought to have been, he thus addressed the people : \n"Ye have sinned a great sin. But now I will go \nup unto the Lord. Peradventure I shall make an \natonement for your sin." This agony of yearning \nfor " propitiation " with God breaks forth again \nimmediately on his reaching the presence of the \nAlmighty, as he utters the prayer, " O, this people \nhave sinned a great sin! Yet now, if thou wilt for- \ngive their sin \xe2\x80\x94 and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of \nthy book which thou hast written." (Exod. xxxii. \n31, 32.) The same need prompts the first exclama- \nion of David\'s penitential prayer ( Ps. li. 1 ) : " Have \nmercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving \nkindness." It is this very word " propitious " that \n\n\n\n420 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nis on the heart and tongue of the publican in his \nprayer, " God be merciful," or as the original Greek \nword means, "God be propitious to me a sinner;\'\' \nand it is in answer to this prayer for " propitiation " \nthat Jesus declares that the pleading penitent " went \ndown to his house justified." Everywhere in the \nNew Testament as well as in the Old, in the words \nof the Apostles as well as of Jesus, "propitiation" \nis the second need of man the sinner, and the second \nprovision of the Gospel. As Paul, in the words nigh \nour text (iii. 25) says of Jesus, "whom God hath set \nforth to be a propitiation," so John, in the closing \nrecord of the inspired New Testament (I. John, ii. 2) r \ndeclares "He is the propitiation for our sins, and \nnot for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole \nworld." \n\nThe fact that "reconciliation" with God is the \nthird element required in the "Atonement" is too \nplain to need extended confirmation from the Scrip- \ntures. As we have noticed, it is the essential idea in \nthe old English Avord " atonement " employed in our \ntext, which is a literal translation of the Greek term \nhere used by the Apostle Paul. It is the final result, \nand hence, so far as human duty is concerned, the \nessential element for man\'s practical regard in the \nAtonement. Man\'s personal effort of mind and heart \nis concerned when Paul, on behalf of all succeeding \nChristian heralds, writes (II. Cor. v. 18-21): "All \nthings are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself \nby Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 421 \n\nof reconciliation, to-wit, that God was in Christ, \nreconciling the world unto himself." But, to give \nemphasis to the fact that it is only so far as human \nduty is concerned that "reconciliation" is made \nprominent in the divine statement as to the Atone- \nment, the great Apostle immediately adds, as the \nmeans by which this reconciliation of the world to \nhimself is secured, " Not imputing their trespasses \nunto them." Setting forth then the agency by which \nthis means is provided, Paul adds : " For he hath \nmade him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we \nmight be made the righteousness of God in him." It \nis the " expiation" securing " propitiation," and this \npermitting "justification," that makes "reconcilia- \ntion" possible. \n\nHence our text is worthy the prominence given it, \nsince while the "reconciliation" of man to God is \nthe special element here implied in the word "atone- \nment," that very "reconciliation" is "received" from \nGod, through the " propitiation " which reconciles in \nhim his righteousness and love, and by means of the \n" expiation " which reconciles the intelligent universe \nto the divine character and government. \n\nWe are thus led on to consider \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nII. \xe2\x80\x94 The ground of the Divine Atonement: The \nsacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, offered for man\'s \nredemption. \n\nAs the worldly-wise statements of ambitious men, \nstep by step recognizing the full nature of the Atone- \nment, serve to make clear its complete idea, so the \n\n\n\n422 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nsincere effort of men of earnest mind to approximate, \nthough they cannot attain to, "the truth as it is in \nJesus,\' 7 most forcibly presents the only ground of \nDivine Atonement ; which the inspired Scriptures \nreveal, and which can alone meet all the demands of \nhuman reason. Here the mature and condensed \nstatement of Channing is most instructive. In his \nspecial discourse on " Unitarian Christianity," speak- \ning for his New England associates, Channing says : \n"A difference of opinion exists among us as to * * \nthe precise influence of Christ\'s death on our for- \ngiveness. Many suppose that the event contributes \nto our pardon, as it was a principal means of con- \nfirming his religion and of giving it a power over the \nmind ; in other words, that it procures forgiveness \nby leading to that repentance and virtue which is the \ngreat and only condition on which forgiveness is \nbestowed. Many of us are dissatisfied with this \nexplanation; and I think that the Scriptures ascribe \nthe remission of sins to Christ\'s death with an \nemphasis so peculiar that we ought to consider this \nevent as having a special influence in removing pun- \nishment, though the Scriptures may not reveal the \nway in which it contributed to this event." \n\nThis peculiarly frank statement, indicating a mind \nseeking light from revelation as well as from reason^ \nindicates the way in which the human mind has in all \nages been led to recognize the revealed ground of \nDivine Atonement. Channing\'s words, both in the \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 423 \n\ncited quotations and in their connection in his dis- \ncourse, indicate a reference to "theories" of the \nAtonement which have prevailed. As each of these \ntheories presents a " part," and a part only, of the \ntruth revealed in God\'s "word" and in his "work," \nthe human mind which studies that word, the effort \nof the Christian inquirer who is seeking "the truth," \nmay be aided by recalling\' those theories. \n\nThe theories of the Atonement which have been \nextensively accepted are substantially five. They \nare each made to grow out of the view each theorist \nhas maintained as to the fundamental element in \nhuman " sin," for which Atonement is made, and as \nto the essential nature of "Christ," who by his death \natones for sin. The elements of sin are three \xe2\x80\x94 \nerror, alienation, and unsubmission ; and the first \nthree different theories of the Atonement turn on \nthe question, Which of these three elements of sin \nis the source of the other two? The natures attrib- \nuted to Christ are two \xe2\x80\x94 the human and the divine ; \nand the last two theories differ from the first three \nin making the divine nature of Jesus, rather than \nthe human, give fundamental efficacy to the Atone- \nment. And while in all ages, both before and after \nChrist\'s coming, and among nations with and without \nrevelation, these differences of view have existed, \nyet the theories, as fully elaborated, have been \nascribed to Christian writers of comparatively mod- \nern times. \n\n\n\n424 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nThe first, or lowest in its estimate of sin and of \nthe Saviour, is the " Example Theory," attributed to \nSocinus. According to this theory, sin is funda- \nmentally error \xe2\x80\x94 " amartia " in the Greek original ; \nlack of understanding, as was seen in Eve, who \nwas " deceived in the transgression." The Atone- \nment for sin, accordingly, is the example of Christ, \nwho, as a man, wins back the sinner from his error. \nThe second is the "Moral Influence Theory," now \nascribed to Bushnell. According to this theory, sin \nis alienation \xe2\x80\x94 "echthra" in the Greek\xe2\x80\x94 or " enmity \nagainst God ; " illustrated in Adam, who " was not \ndeceived," yet transgressed God\'s command. The \nAtonement for sin, consequently, is Christ\'s suffer- \ning morally, and only as a man, the innocent for the \nguilty ; a suffering like that experienced by earthly \nparents and friends, and also by sinless angels, who \ngrieve at the alienation of the sinful from the God \nwhom they love ; a suffering whose moral influence \ntends to reconcile those alienated from God, and \nto subdue their enmity. The third is the " Gov- \nernmental Theory," illustrated by Grotius, the \nfounder of the modern science of International \nLaw. According to this theory, sin is u lawless- \nness," in the Greek, "anornia," translated in the \nNew Testament " transgression of law ; " an element \nseen in the "pride" or "rebellion" which was "the \ncondemnation of the devil." The Atonement, there- \nfore, is Christ\'s sacrifice, as a human representative \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 425 \n\nsent by God, of every earthly comfort; suffering \nevery loss, and the most painful of deaths, as a sub- \nstitute for man, condemned as a rebel ; for, as all \nmankind, because of their relation to Adam, as heirs \nof a feudal lord, are subject to loss of property, of \nstation, and of character, because of the guilt of an \nancestor who has become a traitor, so Christ, by \n\xe2\x96\xa0assuming as his own that sacrifice, makes the trait- \nor\'s guilt to be counterbalanced by his merit. The \nfourth theory, that called "Material Substitution," \nfully wrought out by Anselm, of the Eoman Church, \nand partially accepted by Calvin, among the early \nEeformers, regards the suffering of Christ, as man \nand God united, to be an equivalent in intensity and \nmerit for the suffering which all mankind who are \nredeemed would have endured had they not been \nrescued from eternal misery. The fifth theory, styled \nthat of "Moral Substitution," makes the moral \nweight of Christ\'s suffering, as divine and human, to \nbe an equivalent whose moral influence reconciles \nangels and men to the government of God, and \nbegets love supreme to his perfect character. \n\nWithout doubt there is valuable truth in each of \nthese several theories; but each presents only a part, \nthough the latter a most comprehensive combining \nof several parts, of the entire truth demanded by \nreason and fully presented in revelation. Sin is \nerror, and Christ is an example for man. Sin is \nalienation or u enmity," and the moral influence of a \n\n\n\n\xc2\xb126 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nsinless being must have an effect in winning back \nthose "alienated from God." Sin is the spirit of \n"lawlessness;" as Paul illustrates in his own case, \nwhen his heart rose in rebellion against God simply \nbecause the "law was good," and he therefore rebelled \nagainst it; while, moreover, Christ is the divine rep- \nresentative, taking man\'s place, as if the guilt of \nman\'s sin were his own. Still more true is it that \nChrist, as divine and human, suffered as no one, nor \nindeed all men combined, can suffer; the physical \nagony and the mental anguish he endured being as \nmuch greater than man\'s as his nature is greater. \nYet more, and almost climactic in its comprehensive \ntruth, is the revealed fact that in the sacrifice of \nChrist as God and man united, there was a moral \nimpression on all intelligent creatures of God, human \nand angelic, which will at last reconcile them all to \nthe character and government of God. And yet the \nessential fact revealed in the Old and New Testament \nas to the Eedeemer and this redemption may be over- \nlooked in the study of all, even of the last of these \ntheories. \n\nThe opening revelation by Moses teaches that \nbefore Adam was formed, his Creator, "The Lord \nGod," or "Jehovah God," the manifested Divine \nBeing, had himself assumed human nature, so that \nhe himself was prepared to appear in human form, \n" walking in the garden," and addressing the first \nformed pair with human voice. It is in accordance \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 427 \n\nwith this stated fact that Paul says (quoting Ps. xl. \n6 in Heb. x. 5) that before man\'s creation, Christ \nexclaimed, "A body hast thou prepared me"; that \nin that body, "a little lower than the angels," he was \nintroduced into the world, and the angels were called \non to worship him (Deut. xxxii. 43 and Heb. i. 6, also \nPs. viii. 4, and Heb. ii. 7, 9); that "all things were \nmade by him and for him" (Col. i. 10); and that all \nmankind, from Abel, who believed in him, already at \nman\'s first sin revealed as the "seed of the woman," \n" the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world," \nshould be redeemed by this one sacrifice. John, the \nlast of the New Testament writers, is yet more \nexplicit than Paul in these statements; that it was \nthe "Word made flesh, by whom all things and beings \nwere created" (Johni. 2); that he is "the propitia- \ntion for the sins of the whole world," Abel himself \nbeing specially cited as " saved by faith" (I. John ii. \n2; iii. 8-12); and yet more, that in the purpose of \nGod and in the eflicacy of his atonement, Christ was \n"the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." \nThe history of man\'s creation, of his first sin, and of \nthe Bedeemer\'s interposition in Eden, illustrated by \nthe statements of Christ and his Apostles, is a key \nto the essential truth as to the ground of the Atone- \nment, presented in the epistle from which our text is \ntaken. All men from Adam, the Apostle teaches, \nhave sinned under such circumstances that the \nstatement is universally true, they "have sinned \n\n\n\n428 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nafter the similitude of Adam\'s transgression." All \nmen, therefore, are redeemed, if saved, as was Adam ; \nby the second Adam, the Divine Being who had \nbefore forming the first man assumed his nature ; \nassumed the responsibility of his being placed under \nthe circumstances which led to his fall; assumed the \ncreation of man with the purpose of himself taking \nman\'s nature, suffering in it all that man in any age \nor combination of trial could suffer ; and assumed \nall this in order that he might not only appear to be, \nbut might actually u be just, and the justifier of him \nthat believes on him." David had the conception \nthat sin might really "not be imputed" to the sinful; \nwhile Paul teaches here that the sinner\'s penalty is \nassumed by Christ, while " righteousness," the right- \neousness of Christ, "is imputed to him who believes \nin him." The ground of the Atonement is, that the \nCreator assumes for his creature man, whenever any \nhuman being accepts his sacrifice as made personally \nfor him \xe2\x80\x94 that believing man\'s Creator assumes the \nresponsibility of his sinful condition, and of his \n"weak" spiritual nature while in probation upon \nearth. This great fact as to the Divine Atonement \nis on the very face of the ^N~ew Testament, and even \nof the Old, from the time of man\'s creation in Eden \ntill John\'s Gospel was penned. The history of \nhuman thought and experience makes this universal \nScripture teaching both clear and entrancing. \nIn every age, among people without revelation, \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 429 \n\njust so far as men have formed a low estimate of the \n"exceeding sinfulness of sin," just so far, also, they \nhave blindly trusted to personal rites and offerings \nof a material nature, or to personal efforts at purity \nof life for the expiation of sin, for propitiation with \nGod and for reconciliation. So, too, in every age \nmen who have had the Old and Kew Testament \nrevelation, and yet have cherished the spirit of self- \njustification \xe2\x80\x94 such men have had low estimates of \nthe demerit of sin, and, of course, of the Eedeemer \nJesus and of his work for man. This may be traced \nin the early days of the Eoman Christian emperors, \nwhen to profess Christianity secured worldly prefer- \nment; as the discussions from Arius to Pelagius \nindicate. It is made impressive in the seventh, \ncentury; when the corruptions brought in by worldly \nmen led to the fall of the Eoman Empire and the rise \nof Mohammed, who, while admitting all the miracu- \nlous facts of Christ\'s earthly life, insisted that he was \nnot crucified, but that Simon, the Cyrenian, a guilty \ncriminal who bore his cross, and on whom God \nstamped the image of Jesus, was crucified in his \nstead. The reason which Mohammed alleged for \nthis denial of Christ\'s death, was the special proof \nboth of its reality and of its efficacy. He denied \nChrist\'s death because it would have been unjust in \nGod to allow a sinless being like Christ to suffer the \npenalty of sin ; giving thus the strongest confirmation \nthat if Christ died it was not for himself, but for sinful \n\n\n\n430 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nmen. This same perversion appears again at the \nEeformation, when, as Dorner and Eitschl, the great \nmodern historians of the Eeformation, both avow, \nthe great framers of theories of the Atonement did \nnot return to the Scriptures alone as their guide; \nbut, as their name implied, they but re-formed old \nopinions. For, seeking to gather a church, not " of \nholy persons, 7 \' but made up " of communities bound \ntogether by Christian ordinances,\'" they sacrificed \nChristian truth to state policy. Hence arose at the \nvery juncture of the Eeformation the partial theories \nof the Atonement we have traced. \n\nOn the other hand, this fact can be traced most \npalpably in all human history. Whenever any human \nmind has been spiritually enlightened to see his sin \nas it is pictured in David\'s experience and wrought \ninto his Psalms, and in Paul\'s world-wide observation \nas wrought into the Epistle to the Eomans, \xe2\x80\x94 then \nthe ground of Christ\'s Atonement has appeared to \nbe this: it is Christ\'s assumption, at once as our \nCreator and Eedeemer, of the responsibility of the \nsin of all those who accept his interposition for them. \nThis can be traced in all the admired writers of every \nage and branch of the Christian Church ; and it is in \ntheir profound reasonings but the echo of truth \ncommon to all the inspired writers. Moreover, \nwhenever any profoundly thoughtful believer in \nother religions than the Christian faith has come to \nfeel the yearning to be "justified by the righteous- \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 431 \n\nness," rather than to be forgiven in the mercy of \nGod, then the fact everywhere revealed in the \nScriptures, that his Creator stands pledged as \n"surety" to secure by his own assumption this per- \nfect redemption for those who accept it from him \xe2\x80\x94 \nthis fact meets all the demands of human reason for \nan Atonement Divine in its provision and Divine in \nits ground, because it fully harmonizes God\'s right- \neousness and love. \n\nBut this expression, an Atonement for " those who \naccept it," thus far necessarily employed, demands \nitself an explanation, and leads to the consideration \nof\xe2\x80\x94 \n\nIII. \xe2\x80\x94 The Efficacy of the Divine Atonement, as Expi- \nation for redeemed men, Propitiation for unredeemed \nmen, and Reconciliation for all beings. \n\nThus far, it has been necessary, in considering the \nnature and ground of the Divine Atonement, to allude \nto its efficacy for men who accept it. The farther \nquestion arises whether it has an efficacy beyond \nthat realized in those who are redeemed. The con- \nsideration of this requires careful notice of what the \nScriptures state to be its efficacy, first for men who \nare redeemed, second for angels that have not sinned, \nand third for men and angels who, having sinned, \ncontinue in their sinfulness. This specially involves \nthe harmony of the Divine Sovereignty and of man\'s \nfree agency in those redeemed and those unredeemed \nby Christ\'s Atonement. \n\n\n\n432 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nAs to the efficacy of the Atonement for the \nredeemed, no statement framed by grateful and \nenthusiastic Christian hearts can surpass or even \nequal the reality. The redeemed by Christ are on \nearth, as John exultantly says (I. John iii. 2), "already \nsons of God," while " it does not yet appear what we \nshall be" since "when he," our Redeemer, "shall \nappear, we shall be like him; " while, moreover, they \nwho " receive him " receive also from him " power to* \nbecome the sons of God." Paul, too, exhausts the \nvocabulary of the most expressive terms, when he \nsays that the redeemed are " sons of God," not by \nnature, but by the higher and most appreciative \nrelationship, that of "adoption;" that this sonship \nby adoption makes us " heirs of God," in the double \nsense of being "glorified" in personal character, and \nof being blessed with every outward relationship \nthat can exalt. Most of all, Paul teaches that we \nwere " predestinated " by God " to be conformed to \nthe image of his Son," who is exalted "above the \nangels," and that thus we are "joint heirs with Christ \nto an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that \nfadeth not away." Yet more, in view partly of this \nfuture exaltation, but more in view of the natural \ninterest which a redeemed spirit awakens, and of the \npersonal joy which a saving change begets, Christ \nand his inspired Apostles enumerate as present and \nearthly blessings bestowed on the redeemed." " They \nalready rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 433 \n\nglory." They " have a hundred-fold " of every earthly \ncomfort. " There is joy in the presence of the angels \nof God over one sinner that repents more than over \nninety and nine just beings that need no repentance." \nIn the songs, too, of the upper world there is a strain, \n" Thou hast redeemed us unto God," which only the \nsaints of earth can utter; while the angelic choir \nlistens and waits to join in the chorus, " Worthy is \nthe Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, \nand wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and \nblessing." \n\nThey are right, then, who place stress on these \ndeclarations ; for they are statements of fact. They \ncertainly err who, from these and such like state- \nments, infer that Christ\'s Atonement has efficacy only \nfor the redeemed. These are strong statements, \nindeed : " Christ loved the Church, and gave himself \nfor it " ( Eph. v. 25) ; " He loved me, and gave himself \nfor me" (Gal. ii. 20); but they are not statements \nwhich exclude an efficacy that reaches another end in \nanother class. There are other declarations that \nassert a positive efficacy, though not a redeeming \npower, over others than the redeemed. Such are \nthe declarations of Christ and of Paul and of John \nto this effect. Christ declares (Matt. xx. 28), "The \nSon of Man came . . to give his life a ransom for \nmany," which the Apostle Paul makes synonymous \nwith the declaration (I. Tim. ii. 6), " He gave himself \na ransom for all." Again Paul (Heb. ii. 9), "We see \n\n2S \n\n\n\n434 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nJesus, made a little lower than the angels, crowned \nWith glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, \nshould taste death for every man." Yet again, John \n(I. John ii. 2), "He is the propitiation for our sins, \nand not for ours only, but also for the sins of the \nwhole world;" in which expression the word rendered \n*\' world" is, in the Greek, "kosmos," or universe. It \nis impossible to suppose that Paul and John used, \nwithout special design, these expressions of an influ- \nence exerted by Christ\'s Atonement which reaches \nbeyond the redeemed. They are right, indeed, who \nseek, in the connection of the statements just quoted \nfor proofs that the redemption secured by the Atone- \nment is limited to those who accept it; and yet the \nform of language chosen by the inspired writers is \nnot by this qualification of the context made of no \naccount in the writer\'s design. \n\nPerhaps a harmonizing of important distinctions \nmade in our study of the nature and ground of the \nAtonement may here prove an aid to reach the \ndivine thought. In its nature, the Divine Atonement \nincludes three elements, reconciliation, propitiation \nand expiation, their combined result securing justifi- \ncation. Of course no " expiation n is required for \nangels who have not sinned; and no expiation is \nmade for those who have sinned but are not \nredeemed. There may, however, be " reconciliation " \nsecured for sinless angels, and "propitiation" for \nunredeemed men. Yet, again : the ground of the \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 435 \n\nAtonement has appeared from our survey to be \nTatker moral than material; not so much the fact \nthat Christ\'s bodily agony and mental anguish was \na measured equivalent for that which would have \nbeen endured by the precise numbers who are to \nbe redeemed if they had been unredeemed. But \nChrist\'s sacrifice is a moral equivalent, in its united \nhuman and divine impression made on the universe \nof intelligent beings, which infinitely surpasses the \nimpression which would have been made had all \nmankind been left to bear themselves the penalty of \ntheir own sin. Not detracting, therefore, in the least \nfrom the strongest possible statement as to the \ndivine purpose and the divine accomplishment in the \nefficacy of Christ\'s Atonement for the redeemed, we \nshould be prepared to receive the divine declaration \nas to another influence of the Atonement on beings \nnot redeemed. \n\nThe case of infants, next after mature believers, \ndemands consideration. That they are born with a \nsinful nature, Greeks, like Socrates, and Eomans, like \nCicero, without revelation, declare ; while Yirgil pic- \ntures that they need expiation, though among the \nnearest to the heavenly entrance. David, in the \nstrongest terms, declares their depravity (Ps. li. 5); \nand yet his confidence in their redemption is as clear \n(II. Sam. xii. 23). Christ, in the last of his life, three \ntimes piatt. xviii. 3-10 ; xix. 13-15 ; xxi. 15, 16 ) teaches \nthat children, even infants, are to be saved ; yet he \n\n\n\n436 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\naccords with their parents that "prayer" for the \nDivine " blessing " is essential if they " enter the \nkingdom of heaven " ( Matt. xix. 13, 15 ; Mark x. 16). \nSo John records (I. John ii. 12): "I write unto you r \nlittle children, because your sins are forgiven you \nfor his name\'s sake." It is natural to suppose that, \nas the Divine Spirit acts directly on the mature mind \nin regeneration, so it may act on the undeveloped \ninfant spirit. It is rational to conclude that, as those \nwho can exercise personal faith are called to that \nexercise ; while at the same time the faith of the \nweakest intellect is as acceptable as that of the pro- \nfoundest thinker (I. Gor. i. 27), so "oat of the mouth \nof babes and sucklings" God may "perfect praise." \nThe Atonement of Christ to such may not bring con- \nscious "reconciliation;" while it does provide for \ntheir " expiation " and " propitiation." \n\nThe interest of angels, both in man who is redeemed \nand the divine purpose accomplished by it, is the \ntheme of frequent statement by Christ and his Apos- \ntles. Christ says that "there is joy in the presence \nof the angels over one sinner that repents;" his \nwords justifying, doubtless, Watts\' interpretation in \nhis hymn, " Who can describe the joy ? " etc., that it \nis the Divine Being, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, \nwho manifests the greatness of joy, while, however, \n"saints and angels join" in its expression, Christ \nagain says of his " little ones " (Matt, xviii. 10), " Their \nangels do always behold the face of my Father which \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 437 \n\nis in heaven ; " while Paul (Heb. i. 14) asks, as if it \nwere a truth universally taught, "Are they not all \nministering spirits sent forth to minister for them \nwho shall be heirs of salvation ? " in which statement \nevery word is full of meaning. We should be pre- \npared, then, for Peter\'s declaration (I. Pet. i. 10-12) \nas to the interest of angels in the purpose as well as \nin the icorJc of human redemption, when, after dwell- \ning on the intense interest of prophets who could \nnot comprehend that of which they wrote, "the \nsufferings of Christ and the glory that should \nfollow," the Apostle adds, " which things the angels \ndesire to look into." We may, yet more, be prepared \nfor Paul\'s repeated statement as to the direct effect \nof the Atonement on angels. Thus, to the Ephesians \n(i. 9-12) he declares that it entered into the " pur- \npose " of God, that " he might gather together in \none all things in Christ, both which are in heaven \nand which are in earth, even in him," and then, lest \nthis statement might be supposed to refer only to \nredeemed saints then in heaven, he adds : " In whom, \nalso, we have obtained an inheritance, being predes- \ntinated according to the purpose of him who worketh \nall things after the counsel of his own will, that we \nshould be to the praise of his glory who first trusted \nin Christ." To make it clear that angels are \naffected by the Atonement, the Apostle adds, a little \nfarther on in his epistle (Eph. iii. 10, 11), that the \ndivine "intent" in the Atonement had respect to the \n\n\n\n438 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nimpression it would make on sinless angels. His \nwords are, " To the intent that now unto the principal- \nities and powers in heavenly places might be known \nby the church the manifold wisdom of God, according \nto the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ \nJesus our Lord." To make yet more manifest his \nspecific meaning, in an epistle written at the same \ntime with that first quoted, after repeating the trans- \ncendent and special blessings of the Atonement \nconferred on the redeemed (Col. i. 9-14), having \ndeclared that Christ was " the image of the invisible \nGod," and yet " the first-born of every creature," or \nof the animate and human creation, that " all things \nwere made by and for him," and that he is "the head \nof the body, the church," Paul adds this peculiar \nstatement: that by Christ\'s Atonement the angels \nwere "reconciled." His words are (i. 19, 20): "For \nit pleased the Father that in him should all fullness \ndwell ; and, having made peace through the blood of \nhis cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; \nby him, I say, whether they be things in earth or \nthings in heaven." We may readily conceive, as we \nbring together all of Paul\'s revealed statements, that \nangels, who saw some of their own number rebel \nagainst God and become hopelessly irreconcilable, \nand who then saw mankind sin and only partially \nrecovered \xe2\x80\x94 the loftiest angels, seeing but part of \nGod\'s way, could not "reconcile" to their finite \njudgment God\'s character and acts ; while, neverthe- \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 439 \n\nless, they had such faith in him that they remained \nsinless. But the " sufferings of Christ" and the \ngradually manifested " glory that should follow" was \nto "reconcile" them in their virtuous longing for \ncomplete knowledge of God\'s purpose. Thus the \nAtonement had an efficacy \xe2\x80\x94 not that indeed of \n"expiation," or of "justification," but certainly that \nof " reconciliation," as Paul states, and perhaps of \n" propitiation," as John\'s language may intimate. \n\nBut another class than pure angels look upon \nChrist\'s Atonement \xe2\x80\x94 hopelessly fallen angels and \nthe unredeemed among men. It is intensely interest- \ning, and it is also practically important, to consider \nwhat the Scriptures say as to the impression made \nby it on them. \n\nThe relation of those who among men reject the \nAtonement provided in Christ is dwelt upon at large \nin the epistle from which our text is taken. Over his \ncountrymen who "have not submitted themselves to \nthe righteousness of Christ," Paul pours forth his \nanguish of heart in the opening of the ninth and \ntenth chapters. He justifies, however, their rejec- \ntion, while Gentiles were blessed with redemption, \nby this profound argument. When, before their \nbirth, Jacob was chosen of God for superior mental, \nmoral and material exaltation, a divine appointment \neverywhere seen among brothers in the same family, \nthe inferior might murmur; but what rational man \nwould not, even in his worldly mind, condemn that \n\n\n\n440 BAPTIST DOCTEINES. \n\nmurmuring, and commend humble submission and \nfaithful devotion in the lot appointed of God, who, \nlike the potter, has "authority" as to the clay he \nmoulds. But still more: When with a man like \nPharaoh, hardened by his own cast of mind, and \nhardening himself even after his "wise men" and \nhis "people" remonstrate, resisting the appeals of \njustice to the oppressed Israelites, and of God\'s \nProvidence and Word, enjoining upon him his per- \nsonal duty \xe2\x80\x94 when, with such a "vessel of wrath \nfitted to destruction," God, like his suffering people, \n"endured with much long-suffering" \xe2\x80\x94 "What if," \nasks the Apostle, " What if the Divine Being, after \nlong endurance, leaves to his fate that persistent \nreprobate ? " For, as the great Apostle in his high \nargument proves \xe2\x80\x94 an argument which, in his own \nday and in every age, has satisfied impartial reason \xe2\x80\x94 \ntwo ends were accomplished, which in no other way \ncould have been realized : first, the glory of his grace \nin the redeemed, and second, of his justice on those \nwho reject Christ\'s Atonement. And yet, think of \nit in whatever light we may, unreasonable as well as \nunreasoning men will retort, "Why, then, doth he \nyet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" \nYes ; now, as in Paul\'s day, like vicious men con- \ndemned by all others yet excusing themselves for \nbrutalizing indulgence, men will not "justify God." \nBut a time will come \xe2\x80\x94 is coming \xe2\x80\x94 when others \nthan the redeemed will join in the admission and \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 441 \n\nadoring confession of David and of Paul, " That thou \nniightest be justified in thy sayings, and niightest \novercome when thou art judged" (Rom. iii. 4). \nThere is coming (Rom. ii. 5) "a day of the revelation \nof the righteous judgment of God.\' 7 That day is "the \nlast day, 7 \' since not until all the efficacy of Christ\'s \nredemption on earth and in the universe has been \nrealized, can the "revelation" be made clear. Then, \nwhatever be now the judgment of unredeemed men \nand of fallen angels, then " every knee shall bow \n(Rom. xiv. 11) and every tongue shall confess." That \nconfession will be that "Jesus Christ" is rightful \n"Lord;" that he will justly "confess before the \nangels" only those who "confess him before men," \nand that, therefore, he is " worthy to receive power \nand glory" eternal. So important is this final, trans- \ncendent efficacy of the Atonement that not only does \nPaul, as we have seen, make it his great argument in \nthe latter half of this wondrous epistle, and also a \npoint for allusion often in other writings, but John, \nin his final Revelation as to the future world and its \nevents, twice alludes to it (Rev. xiii. 8, and xvii. 8) as \nspecially illustrating the recognized wisdom and \npower, righteousness and love which at last all intel- \nligent beings, though unredeemed, will behold in the \nDivine Atonement. John\'s revelation of that final \nconfession is thus stated: "All that dwell upon the \nearth shall worship him, even they whose names are \nnot written in the book of life of the Lamb slain \nbefore the foundation of the world." \n\n\n\n442 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nIf such be the nature and the ground, and such r \nmost of all, the efficacy of the Divine Atonement, \nwho on earth should not strive to comprehend and \nappreciate it ? If " the angels desire to look into it," \ncertainly the redeemed of earth should "search the \nScriptures " to see u whether these things be so." If \nsuch be the present and future exaltation of a true \nChristian, "What manner of persons ought we to be \nin all holy conversation and godliness?" If, at the \n"last day," not only fallen angels, " greater than" \nmen, will bow and confess that Jesus is "righteous" \nas well as self-sacrificing in all his sway \xe2\x80\x94 if at the \n" last day " all that dwell on the earth will " worship " \nChrist, even those " whose names will not then be \nwritten in the book of life of the Lamb slain from \nthe foundation of the world" \xe2\x80\x94 who that is now \n"neglecting" the "great salvation" should not heed \nthe great Apostle\'s appeal in this epistle ? (Eom. x. \n1, 13): "Brethren, my heart\'s desire and my prayer \nto God for my kinsmen according to the flesh is, that \nthey might be saved." "Whosoever shall call upon \nthe name of the Lord shall be saved." \n\n\n\nTHE PEKSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIEIT. \n\n\n\nBY REV. A. J. GORDON, D.D., BOSTON, MASS. \n\n\n\nAnd I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another \nComforter, that he may abide with you forever." \xe2\x80\x94 John xiv. \n16. \n\n\n\nWe have in these words a comparison and a con- \ntrast. The comparison is between Christ and the \nHoly Spirit. For the words "another Comforter 77 \ncarry the thought, that Jesus is one comforter, and \nthe Spirit who should come is another. Thus, by a \nsingle word, our Lord puts the Holy Spirit on the \nsame plane with himself. There is no comparison \nbetween a person and an influence. If I say, u I am \na man and you are another," I mean, of course, that \nyou are another man. Thus it seems to me, we have \nour Lord\'s estimate of the Spirit established in a \nsingle word. Mechanics have an instrument, you \nknow, which they call a " spirit level,\' 7 which being \nplaced across two objects, indicates when they are \nupon exactly the same plane. Such is the word \n" another " as here employed. By it Christ fixes for- \never the divine level between himself and the Holy \nGhost. And whatever claim of divinity and person- \nality he made for himself as the advocate with God \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n443 \n\n\n\n444 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nfor that is what the word here translated" Comforter " \nmeans \xe2\x80\x94 he now makes for the Spirit who was to come, \nsince he puts that Spirit upon the same level with \nhimself by calling him " another advocate." \n\nAnd there is also a contrast between Christ and \nthe Spirit. U I go away/ 3 the Lord had three times \nsaid in the previous part of his discourse. Of the \nSpirit he says, "that lie may abide with you forever. 17 \nIt is the contrast between Christ\'s brief visit to earth, \nand the Spirit\'s perpetual and abiding presence on \nearth. And this comparison and contrast suggest \ntwo thoughts \xe2\x80\x94 the personality and the perpetual \npresence of the Holy Spirit. \n\nI. It seems to me that the text teaches quite dis- \ntinctly the personality and divinity of the Holy Spirit. \nFor the word comforter or advocate could hardly be \napplied to other than a person. An advocate is one \nwho stands for another, as a lawyer for his client. " If \nany man sin," says John, " we have an advocate with \nthe Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." It is a word \nwhich strongly and especially carries in it the idea \nof personality, ^o concentration of spiritual influ- \nences, no combination of divine impressions could \never be intense enough to constitute an advocate. \nThe sun\'s rays condensed to a focus will kindle a fire, \nbut they can not make a sun, since they are only an \nemanation of the sun. And no spiritual influences, \nhowever powerful, can make a spirit or constitute \nan advocate, pleading, speaking and standing for us \n\n\n\nTHE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 445 \n\nbefore God. A person can produce influences, but \nno amount of influences can ever constitute a person. \n\nIndeed, the more we study the word paraclete or \n"advocate," the more fertile do we find it to be in \nsuggestions in regard to the personality of the Holy \nSpirit. It is that which takes the place of Jesus in his \nseparation from his Church. "If I depart I will send \nthe Comforter unto you." Here the thought is clearly \nthat of a substitute for Christ in his absence. And \nwhen he says that it is expedient for him to go away \nin order that this substitute may come, a most pow- \nerful impression is at once made upon the mind, of \nthe greatness and dignity of a being that shall be \ndeemed worthy to take the place in the world which \nis about to be made vacant by the Son of God. If \nthe Lord himself is a person, surely his vicegerent \nmust also be a person. \n\nBut then we hear Christ, in the same discourse, \nidentify himself with this person : " I will not leave \nyou comfortless, I will come unto you." So closely \nand mysteriously related is the Lord to this coming \nadvocate, that he thus speaks of him as another self. \nAnd if the Lord is divine, surely this advocate must \nbe divine. And not only this. There is a constant \nidentification of ministry and offices between Christ \nand the Spirit in convincing of sin, in revealing the \ntruth, in intercession with God. As Christ testifies \nof the Father, so the Spirit testifies of Christ. Christ \ncomes in the Father\'s name: the Spirit comes in \n\n\n\n446 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nChrist\'s name. Christ makes known to men the \nthings of the Father : the Spirit makes known the \nthings of Christ. Christ reveals himself as one with \nthe Father : and he reveals the Holy Spirit as one \nwith himself. Christ is "an advocate with the Father ": \nthe Holy Spirit is " another advocate." Thus, in all \nour Lord\'s predictions concerning the Spirit who \nshould come, he seems to be not only installing a \ndivine successor in his place, but to be bequeathing \nto that successor all the offices and dignities and \nattributes which he himself had claimed. And this \ntestimony of Jesus to the Spirit is more decisive \nthan any word of that Spirit himself could be. For \ndid not Christ teach us that even a divine being is \nnot to base his claims upon his own testimony? "If \nI bear witness of myself," said Jesus, " my witness \nis not true." And so he appealed constantly to the \ntestimony of his Father. So does the Holy Ghost \nappeal to the testimony of Christ. From the silent \nheavens God speaks concerning Jesus : " This is my \nbeloved Son; hear ye him." And just before Christ \nenters into those silent heavens that must contain \nMm until the times of restitution of all things, he \nspoke concerning the Spirit : " Hoivbeit, ivhen he the \nSpirit of Truth shall come he will guide you into all \ntruth." \n\nWhat a being that must be to whom the Lord \ncommitted the trust of leading his disciples into all \ntruth after his own departure! The Spirit, who was \n\n\n\nTHE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 447 \n\nto be a more advanced teacher than Christ, surely \ncould not be a less exalted person ; the one who was \nto enlarge and intensify the work which Jesus had \nbegun could not belong to a lower rank of being \nthan Jesus. In God\'s school men do not graduate \ndownward any more than in man\'s school. And if \nthe Holy Spirit were anything less than a divine \nperson, I cannot conceive of Christ\'s dismissing his \ndisciples to his tuition with the saying, "I have \ntaught much, but this instructor will teach you more. \nI have led you as far as is yet possible in your pres- \nent weakness, but he shall lead you farther. I have \nguided you into some truth, but he will guide you \ninto all truth." And this is what he says in the \nwords, " I have yet many things to say unto you, but \nye cannot hear them now. Howbeit, when he the \nSpirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all \ntruth." \n\nMany regard the Holy Spirit as simply the moral \ninfluence of Jesus which remains in the world after \nhis departure. But how feeble is the posthumous \ninfluence of even the greatest man compared with \nhis personal presence! The echo can add no single \nsyllable to the voice that creates it ; the influence \ncan, by no possibility, be greater than the man who \nexerted it. But we hear Jesus saying to his disci- \nples, "When I am gone and the Spirit is come, \ngreater works than I have done shall ye do ; and \nfurther into the truth than I have brought you shall \n\n\n\n448 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nye be led." Can it be that this augmented power is \nbut the momentum of his influence increasing after \nhis departure % Can it be that this larger teaching \nis but the multiplying echo of his voice after he has \nceased to speak on earth? \n\nNapoleon is said to have uttered this prediction \nbefore his death : " When I am gone, my spirit shall \ncome back to France to throb with ceaseless life in \nnew revolutions." His spirit did come back in the \nsense of his personal influence, and its inspiration \nwas more or less felt in European politics in subse- \nquent years. But how very small the posthumous \ninfluence compared with the living man who shook \nall Europe by his giant tread. And how inevitably \nhas that influence waned from year to year. But \nChrist said, " When I am gone, the Spirit of Truth \nshall come, whom I will send unto you." That Spirit \ncame. The church became filled and energized with \nhis presence, and instead of being feebler than before, \nnow commences her mightiest conquests; now dim \napprehensions of truth give way to clear and vivid \nknowledge ; doubts succumb to doctrine, and fears \nto faith. The disciples are utterly transformed* \nJohn, who in carnal blindness would call down fire \nfrom heaven on his enemies, now glows like a seraph \nwith the fire of love, writing, " God is love, and he \nthat dwelleth in love dwelleth in God and God in \nhim." And Peter, who before seemed so amazed and \nbewildered at every mention of his Master\'s death, \n\n\n\nTHE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 449 \n\nnow makes that strongest of all statements of the \ndoctrine of atonement : " Who his own self bore our \nsins in his own body on the tree." When I read \nChrist\'s predictions in regard to the Spirit that \nshould come, and when I read in the Acts of the \nApostles what happened after he had come, the \nimpression is inevitable in my mind that there is an \ninvisible divine presence filling the church and \nmaking it no less than a second incarnation of God \nthrough the Spirit. Looking at Jesus Christ, Paul \nexclaims : " Great is the mystery of Godliness, God \nmanifest in the flesh." And looking at Paul and his \ncompanions casting out devils, healing the sick, and \npreaching the Word, who has not exclaimed to him- \nself, " Great is the mystery of Christliness, Jesus \nmanifested in the person of his disciples." "In \nwhom ye also are builded together for a habitation \nof God through the Spirit." \n\nI have referred to the words "another advocate" \nas used in the text. Christ, in using this phrase, not \nonly puts the Spirit on a level with himself, and in \nthe place of himself, but makes him a co-partner \nwith himself in the work of regeneration and salva- \ntion. As in a law partnership there is often a \ncounsellor and an advocate \xe2\x80\x94 the one to advise in \nthe office, the other to plead in court; so in the \ndivine co-partnership between Christ and the Holy \nSpirit. The Spirit is the earthly advocate, counsel- \nling in the heart of man. Christ is the heavenly \n\n29 \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa350 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\n: advocate, pleading in the court of heaven. There \nmust be a good case on earth in order that there \nmay be a successful issue in heaven. And so we are \ntold of the indwelling Spirit that " he helpeth our \ninfirmities since we know not what we should pray \nfor as we ought, and niaketh intercession for the \nsaints according to the tvill of God." Then the prayer \nwhich has been wrought within us according to the \ndivine will, Christ takes up and pleads before the \nthrone for us, " seeing he ever liveth to make inter- \ncession for us." Does the heart need comforting \nand enlightening, that " other advocate " searches its \ndepths and voices its unutterable longings, and then \nthe heavenly advocate prolongs and presses its suit \nbefore the Judge in heaven. Oh, blessed and unfailing \nadvocacy! How can our case with such defendants \nbe lost? "It is Satan\'s highest art," says John \nBanyan, "to get us to take our cases into some \nlower court, ko owing that he can never non-suit us \nin the court of heaven with such counsellors.\' 7 God \ngrant that in all the convictions of an accusing con- \nscience we may have the wisdom to appeal to that \ncourt where the Lord Jesus has gone to appear \nfor us. \n\nNow what a testimony to the Divine personality of \nthe Spirit is found in the very fact of such a part- \nnership as this. Think you that in those sublime dox- \nologies which are found in almost every epistle "to \nthe Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost," \n\n\n\nTHE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 451 \n\nit is a mere impersonal influence which is thus linked \nup into co-equal fellowship with God and Christ. And \nin that passage in the Ephesians where the whole \nTrinity is mentioned in a single sweep of thought, \n"Through him we all have access by one Spirit \nunto the Father/\' think you that it is only some mys- \nterious breath or impression that is thus made partner \nwith God and the Son of God ? Oh, Holy Spirit ! since \nour fellowship also is with the Father and with the \nSon, so lift us into the lofty plane of thy communion \nwith God that we may never be so irreverent as to \ndrag thee down to the plane of our earthly and finite \nfellowship ! So near to Christ is the Holy Ghost, and \nyet so near, blessed be God, to us. Nothing in the \nNew Testament so impresses me at once with the \ninfallible deity of the Spirit, and with his familiar and \ntender fellowship with man, as that single phrase in \nthe Acts of the Apostles, " It seemed good to the Holy \nGhost and to us." The first serious controversy and \ndissension had arisen in the church. Had Christ been \npresent, how quickly they would have sought him \nout for his advice and counsel. But he had gone \ninto heaven to be their advocate. Yet that other \nadvocate whom he had promised had come. And so \nreal and personal was his presence to the disciples, \nso plain and decisive was his counsel to them, that \nthey could say with all the positiveness of a client \nreturning from a conference with his lawyer, "It \nseemed good to my counsellor and myself to do \n\n\n\n452 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthus." Oh ! that we knew such communion with the \nSpirit, and had such sensible manifestations of his \nmind, that instead of saying so often, "It seemed \ngood to us," we might say, " It seemed good to the \nHoly Ghost and to us. \n\nII. The text teaches also the abiding presence of the \nHoly Spirit in the Church. " That he may abide with \nyou forever," or for the age, as it is in the original. \nChrist went away after a few brief years on earth, \nand sent the Spirit to fill up the interregnum between \nhis departure and his coming again in his kingdom. \nThe earth is now the abode of the Spirit, just as \ntruly as it was the abode of Christ during his per- \nsonal ministry. We have not now to pray for the \nHoly Spirit to descend, any more than the disciples \nhad need to pray for Christ to descend while he was \nalready with them. For these eighteen hundred \nyears the Holy Ghost has been among men, con- \nvincing the world of sin, and of righteousness, and \nof judgment; witnessing and interceding in the \nhearts of Christians; often sorely grieved by their \nsins, as the Master was; his admonitions often \nquenched, his testimony often rejected, his counsel \noften refused; yet always having somewhere a body \nof true believers where he could make his home. \n\nThis coming and abiding of the Holy Spirit in the \nworld seems to me the most powerful testimony to \nGod\'s loving and persistent determination to dwell \nwith men, however rejected and driven away by their \n\n\n\nTHE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 453 \n\nsins. Each of the three persons of the Trinity has \nin turn dwelt upon the earth. God walked with man \nin the garden, talked familiarly with patriarchs and \nprophets, and dwelt at last in the cloud of glory over \nthe mercy-seat in the Temple. But he was driven \naway by man\'s sin. There was no cloud of glory in \nthe latter days of the Temple. Jewish tradition has \nthe strange story that that sheckina-cloud moved \nslowly away from the Temple in the days of Jewish \napostasy, and for three years and a half hung over \nthe brow of Olivet, waiting in vain for the nation to \nrepent, and then disappeared. It is probably but a \nlegend, but it is a striking prophecy, at least. \n\nNow Christ, the second person of the Godhead, \ncomes. " The Word was made flesh and tabernacled \namong us," says John. For three and a half years \nof his public ministry he pleaded with the people, \nonly to be despised and rejected of men, till at last, \nturning to the Temple, he said : " Behold ! your house \nis left unto you desolate ; " and through the path of \nthe cross, the resurrection and the ascension, he \nalso went away. Then came the Holy Spirit \xe2\x80\x94 not to \ninhabit the temple on Mount Zion, but to dwell in a \nredeemed and regenerated church of living men. \n" Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and \nthat the spirit of God dwelleth in you?" Do you \nwish to know where Christ is now? Without the \nslightest question I answer you that he is in the \ntemple of God in heaven, in the presence of the \n\n\n\n454 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nFather. Do you wish to know where the Holy Spirit \nis? With equal assurance I answer that he is in \n" the temple of God " on earth. " Know ye not that \nyour body is the temple of the Holy Ghost that is in \nyou?" Be terribly afraid, then, of the lusts that \ntarnish and defile this temple; drive out with the \nscourge of self-denial the avarice that would turn \nthis temple into a house of merchandise, "for the \ntemple of God is holy, which temple are ye." \n\nThis fact of the present, personal abiding of the \nHoly Spirit upon the earth cannot be too strongly \nemphasized. There is danger that we grieve this \npresent Spirit by the unbelief that counts him absent* \nTo forget an absent friend is a serious slight ; but to \nforget a present friend, and be so little sensible of \nhis nearness that we put him afar off in our thoughts, \nis a most grievous affront. The sin of the Jews was \nthat they "knew not the day of their visitation," \nand looked and prayed for a Messiah yet to come, \ninstead of believing on the Messiah that had come. \nWith a telescopic faith they gazed on for the star of \nBalaam, saying: "I shall see him, but not now; I \nshall behold him, but not nigh. There shall come forth \na star out of Jacob," and only an humble few had the \nsimple faith to behold the Star of Bethlehem, already \nrisen, and to follow where it led. Oh, the sin which \nputs God afar off, and cries, " Who shall ascend up \ninto heaven to bring Christ down % " when the Word \nis nigh us, even in our mouth! So many pray for \nthe Spirit now, calling to him beyond the stars to \n\n\n\nTHE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 455 \n\ncome down to us, as though we knew not that he had \nbeen here for eighteen hundred years. I sometimes \nthink that if Christ were to speak to us from the \nheavens, it would be to repeat to us concerning the \nSpirit what he once said concerning himself, " There \nstandeth one among you that ye know not." The \nSpirit is here, and it is for us to open our hearts \nto give him entrance. Air only needs a vacuum to \nsecure its swift and rushing presence. And the most \nprevailing prayer for the Spirit is a heart vacant of \nselfish idols. We need not and cannot repeat the \nday of Pentecost ; for on that day the Spirit came \ndown, never to return till this dispensation shall end. \nBut the waiting and praying of Pentecost we have \nneed constantly to repeat. And if we might but \nopen, to him a heart utterly empty of sin, the Spirit \nwould come into us like "a rushing, mighty wind," \nand we should know the meaning of these words, \n"being filled with the Holy Ghost." \n\nI have said that the Holy Ghost is given to abide \non earth during the present dispensation, or till the \nreturn of Christ to the world. And how striking it \nis that all the ordinances and instruments through \nwhich the Spirit works are limited to precisely the \nsame era. The Word of God is the instrument \nthrough which the Spirit regenerates and sanctifies. \nAnd how long does the office of the Word continue? \n"We have also a more sure word of prophecy where- \nunto ye do well that ye take heed as unto a light that \nshineth in a dark place until the day daivn and the \n\n\n\n456 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nday-star arise." The ordinances of baptism and the \nLord\'s supper are the agencies, in connection with \nthe Word, for confession and sanctification. And \nhow long do they continue their ministry in the \nchurch. "Even unto the end of the age," are the \nsolemn words with which our baptismal commission \nends. " Until he come, is the refrain with which the \ncommandment to observe the Supper closes. Thus \nordinances that point to the absent Christ testify of \nthe present Spirit. They tell of Christ\'s return by \nthe limit which is put to their continuance. The \nSpirit, the Word and the ordinances are the moon \nand stars that are to light our midnight journey till \nChrist, the Star of Day, shall once more arise upon \nthe earth. God grant that in memory of that Sun \nnow set, and in hope of that Star to arise again, we \nnever forget the lesser lights that rule the night. \n\nOh! Holy Spirit, help us to receive thee in the \nfullness of thine indwelling; to pray ever under the \npower of thy prevailing intercession ; to walk accord- \ning to thy holy guidance : to live in the power of \nthine endless life. Oh ! Holy Spirit, open hearts that \nare yet closed to thy presence ; convince of sin those \nwho are saying to themselves "we have no sin;" \nconvince of righteousness those who are trusting in \ntheir vain self-righteousness; and convince of judg- \nment those who know not that by Christ\'s death \nthe prince of this world is cast out, and " there is \nnow therefore no condemnation to them that are in \nChrist Jesus." \n\n\n\nBEGENERATION ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. \n\n\n\nBY REV. E. G. TAYLOR, D. D., OF PROVIDENCE, R. I. \n\n\n\n\xe2\x99\xa6\'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of \nGod." John iii. 3. \n\nIs Regeneration essential to salvation ? This ques- \ntion is definitely settled by our Lord himself, in his \nconversation with Nicodemus. In no abstract way \ncould the necessity of the new birth have been so \nforcibly taught. In this "ruler of the Jews" we \nhave the highest reach of nature and of law in their \nefforts to fit a man for the " kingdom of God. 77 Here \nis their brightest blossom and their fairest fruit; \nbut as God had not respect unto Cain and his altar \ngarlanded with flowers and enriched with the best \nproducts of the earth, so our Lord could not accept \nthe righteousness of ^"icodemus \xe2\x80\x94 though none of \nIsrael was more worthy than he \xe2\x80\x94 as fitting him to be \na subject of that spiritual kingdom which Christ came \nto establish. Canon Farrar suggests 1 that the title in \nverse 10, "Master of Israel,\' 7 may signify his rank as \n"the teacher 77 or "the wise man, 77 the third member \nof the Sanhedrim. It is evident that he was a man \n\n\n\nl Life of Christ, Vol. I., p. 199. \n\n457 \n\n\n\n458 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nof culture, refinement, and of zeal for the law; a \nreligious man, sincere in his convictions, and honest \nin his desire to do right. It would seem as if all \nmeritorious qualifications met in him ; and yet over \nagainst them all the unseen hand of truth had writ- \nten, "come short," and "thou art weighed in the \nbalance and found wanting." Jesus sweeps away \nwith a breath all hope of fitness for God\'s kingdom \nby natural birth or natural development, saying, \n" except a man be born again he cannot see the king- \ndom of God." \n\nI. \xe2\x80\x94 Let us define terms. According to Godet, 1 " In \nthe view of Mcodeinus and his colleagues, the king- \ndom of God was only this life glorified, and its \nappearance an external and political matter. Hence \nto them the new birth must be of the same nature \nas the first." But, though by the " kingdom of God " \nhere is not meant heaven, yet it is the heavenly rule \non earth, as if a section of heaven had come down \nto earth with heaven\'s atmosphere, and laws, and \nrequirements for citizenship ; it is the spiritual king- \ndom begun here, which shall be transferred to and \ncontinued in the eternal sphere ; and, as our Lord \nuses the phrase, it is equivalent to saying that a man \nmust be born again to enter heaven. \n\nThough the phrase " born again" may be rendered^ \nas in the margin, " born from above," the stronger \n\n1 Commentary on John, Vol. II., p. 48. \n\n\n\nREGENERATION ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. 459 \n\nrendering of our accepted translation is better, both \nby grammatical construction and by the fact that \nKicodemus so understands it, inquiring, perhaps \nwith an assumed ignorance, "How can a man be \nborn when he is old? Can he enter the second \ntime into his mother\'s womb and be born?" The \nexpression is one which denotes a change which is \nradical and fundamental, and implies that a man \nneeds to be renewed in the very source of his \nbeing; that he must become a new creation, as \nmuch as if he were decomposed into his original \nparts, and formed anew. For, as says Dean Alford, \n"it is not learning, but life, that is wanted for the \nMessiah\'s kingdom, and life begins by birth." What \nthis great change is, we shall discuss farther along. \nIn saying " Except a man," and in addressing one \nwho was an exalted type of what education, sin- \ncerity and religious influences can do for a man, \nJesus teaches us the absolute and universal necessity \nof the Xew Birth. It is something predicated of the \nwhole human race, and grows out, not of unfortunate \ncircumstances in which some may be placed, nor of \nspecial weaknesses and moral deformities which may \nbe conspicuous in others ; but out of man\'s condition \nas man, as lost, as dead, as ruined, as tainted through \nand through, and corrupted by sin, and as having a \nnature which is hostile to God and can never be \nbrought into subjection to him. It is not of yon- \nder dissipated and blasphemous wretch, nor of that \n\n\n\n460 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ndespised outcast, of whom Jesus speaks ; but in this \nphrase " except a man," he embraces the noble and \nthe virtuous, as well as the worthless and the vile. \nThis was a hard saying to Mcodemus, and is now to \nsuch as would build up a righteousness of their own \nupon the rotten basis of the old self. But Jesus \nexplains by saying, " That which is born of the flesh \nis flesh." It can never become spirit. It can never \nbe other than flesh, with its sin and decay, and offen- \nsiveness to God. A skeleton in ribbons is still a \nhideous thing, and all the more unsightly from the \nfutile attempt to give it an appearance of life. Man \nat his best is as much included in this necessity of \nRegeneration as at his worst. For it is only that \nwhich is bom of the Spirit that is Spirit, and that \nbirth of the Spirit is Regeneration. The tallest of \nmen is not appreciably nearer the sun than the \nshortest. Both alike would need to cross the line \nof the sun\'s superior attractive power in order, to \niourney to that great centre. Though they may \ndiffer in age, and height, and color, and attainments, \nyet in this "there is no difference;" and whatever \ndifferences there may be in men in the matter of \ncultivation, or moral development, they alike are \nincluded in our Lord\'s declaration, " Except a man \nbe born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." \nThere is force also in the word "see," as here \nused ; for the old nature is blind, and cannot discern \nspiritual things. There is a spiritual world, a king- \n\n\n\nREGENERATION ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. 4G1 \n\ndom of God, which has come down to us 3 but men do \nnot see it, nor will they, until the new nature, which \nhas spiritual vision, is implanted. Having thus \ndenned the terms which our Lord employs in this \nbroad and sweeping assertion, let us consider the \ngreat truth which is presented in it, that \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nII. \xe2\x80\x94 Regeneration, or the New Birth, is Essential to \nSalvation. We may here define Kegeneration as that \nact of God upon us by which, through the Gospel as \na means, the governing disposition of the soul is \nmade holy. It includes, or brings about, an entire \nchange of character, and gives a holy meetness for \nheaven. \n\n1. The Scriptures are very full and explicit upon this \npoint. To the objections offered by Mcodemus, \nChrist replies, explaining the nature of the new \nbirth, and repeating in the most peremptory form, \n"Ye must be born again." Indeed, our Lord \nexpresses surprise that the " master n or leader " of \nIsrael" should not know these things; because a \ncareful study of the Old Testament Scriptures would \nsurely reveal them. Not that Christ\'s phrase, " born \nagain," will be found there, but the same teach- \ning runs through them from beginning to end. All \nsuch Scriptures as represent man as destitute of \nspiritual life, as hostile to God, as dead in sin, as \ncorrupt, as having a heart which is " deceitful above \nall things and desperately wicked" (Jer. xvii. 9), \nimply the necessity of the new birth, that man may \n\n\n\n462 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nenter the heavenly kingdom. Early in the history of \nour race God saw that u every imagination of the \nthoughts of man\'s heart was only evil continually " \n(Gen. vi. 5.) The words " every," " only " and " con- \ntinually" are significant. "The Lord looked down \nfrom heaven upon the children of men, to see if there \nwere any that did understand, and seek God. They \nare all gone aside, they are all together become filthy; \nthere is none that doeth good \xe2\x80\x94 no, not one." (Ps. \nxiv. 2, 3.) Can assertion of the condition of man\'s \nold nature as irremediable go further? Can any con- \nclusion be stronger, or more legitimate from such \nfacts, than that he must have a new nature if he \nwould be in harmony with God and heaven? But \nin Ezekiel there is the direct teaching to this effect. \n" Make you a new heart and a new spirit ; for why \nwill you die, O house of Israel \xc2\xa5 w "A new heart \nalso will I give you, and a new spirit will I put \nwithin you." (Ezek. xviii. 31; xxxvi. 26.) As also \nin David\'s prayer : " Create in me a clean heart, O \nGod, and renew a right spirit within me." ( Ps. li. 10.) \nThus much for the Old Testament, which abounds \nin expressions of equal force with those quoted, \nand which our Lord believed should have taught \nMcodemus that doctrine which fell so strangely \nupon his ears. The entire scope of the New Tes- \ntament is in harmony with the words of Jesus \nas in the text. The Apostle to the Gentiles sets \nat naught all the claims of the Jew as a child \n\n\n\nREGENERATION ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. 463 \n\nof God on account of his descent from Abra- \nham, saying, " In Christ Jesus neither circumcision \navaileth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new \ncreature." (Gal. vi. 15.) " If any man be in Christ, \nhe is a new creature. Old things are passed away ; \nbehold, all things are become new." (II. Cor. v. \n17.) The uniform testimony of the inspired writers \nis that, by nature, our state is one of irrecoverable \nruin. u The carnal mind is enmity against God ; for \nit is not subject to the law of God; neither, indeed, \ncan be." (Rom. yiii. 7.) And furthermore, man\'s \ncondition is not only one of native ruin, but also of \nnative helplessness, so far as remedying the fatal \ndefect. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the \nleopard his spots? then may ye also do good who \nare accustomed to do evil." ( Jer. xiii. 23.) There is \nno promise of blessedness in the future world to the \nunregenerate. Jesus says : " Many will say unto me \nin that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in \nthy name, and in thy name cast out devils, and in thy \nname done many wonderful works % and then will I \nprofess unto them, I never knew you ; depart from \nme, ye that work iniquity." ( Matt. vii. 21-23.) And \nthe most terrible threatenings are spoken concerning \nsuch as remain in their sins. How fallacious are the \nhopes of the ungodly ! And God is unchangeable, \nthe day of reckoning will find him as determined to \npunish those who die in nature and in sin as when \nhe uttered the proclamation of wrath. Look at the \n\n\n\n464 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nScripture as we will, at the picture of man\'s ruin; \nof his helplessness; of the wrath to come upon the \nungodly; at the demands for holiness, without which \nno one can see the Lord ; at the character of God ; \nat the descriptions of heaven ; at the cross of Christ \nand the shed blood, without which there is no remis- \nsion; at invitations and warnings; at parable and \nstory and didactic teaching; all join in confirmation \nof the assertion of Christ, " Except a man be born \nagain, he cannot see the kingdom of God." \n\n2. If we look at the nature of Regeneration, we shall \nsee that it is Essential to Salvation. We have already \nseen that it is something radical and fundamental. \nIt is not mere reformation, or a simple renunciation \nof error and reception of truth. That may occur, \nand the heart be unaffected. A newly-awakened \nlove of family, or desire for respectability, may \nprove powerful incentives to restrain a man from \nevil, or may lead one out of the slough of sensual- \nism. A certain loftiness of mind may keep one from \ndegrading sins ; or strong selfish motives, such as a \nmiser has in hoarding his gold, may prove a barrier \nagainst dissipation. Yet the evil within is not elim- \ninated or lessened, and like a fire in the earth, \nrepressed in one place, it bursts forth in another. \nSin reveals itself in forms less offensive to society, \nbut equally hateful in the. sight of God. Men\'s \nreforms are like lopping off branches of the evil \ntree, while the poisonous root, from which other \n\n\n\nREGENERATION ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. 465 \n\nbranches will spring, is not only unharmed, bnt \ncherished and assiduously cultivated. A man in an \neasy chair cannot lift the chair with himself in it by \ntugging at its arms. He needs a power outside and \nabove him. And men need a divine power to lift \nthem from the weight of their own dead selves. \n\nRegeneration is more than is included in a life of \nmorality. Else the young ruler who came running \nto Christ with the all-important question, "What \nshall I do that I may inherit eternal life ? - w ( Mark x. \n17), would not have gone away sorrowful. Nor \nwould it have been necessary for Christ to chill, \nwith the words of the text, the advances of so dis- \ntinguished and important a supporter as Nicodemus \nwas likely to be. Society is permeated with the \nPantheistic sentiment that holiness, or at least fitness \nfor heaven, can be obtained by merely natural growth \nor development. Men tell us that " the salvation of \nthe soul is no more miraculously obtained than that \nthe grass grows, or the rain falls, or the sun shines \nmiraculously." That is, salvation comes according \nto nature, as much as the swelling of the buds and \nthe growth of the seeds. The mistake lies not so \nmuch in the analogy of development, as in the fact \nthat holiness has in human nature nothing to be \ndeveloped from. " Who can bring a clean thing out \nof an unclean ? Not one.\' 7 ( Job xiv. 4.) There must \nbe the seed created by the divine hand, and cast into \nthe barren earth, before the fields can smile with \n\n29 \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa366 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nabundant harvests. In vain would be all the hus- \nbandman\'s exhortations either to empty soil, or to \nthe pebbles and stones that may be scattered around, \nto yield him a crop of cotton or of wheat. He must \nhave like to produce like. And the " carnal mind," \nthat is not simply at enmity with God, but enmity \nitself, has in it nothing to produce likeness to God. \nCultivation carried to the highest extent can never \nturn the pebble into the living tree. After all, Eegen- \neration is a miracle wrought by the Holy Spirit in \nman; so mysterious, so hidden in its operation, that \nit is known only by its effects; so subtle that the \nlearned "Master of Israel" could not understand it, \nand even Christ contents himself with asserting it. \nIt is infinitely more than the highest result which \nman can, with all his efforts, produce upon himself. \nFor he has not the inclination, the power, the soil, \nnor the seed, from which this marvellous work of \nEegeneration comes. Let men talk as they will, \nthere is no true morality aside from the working out \nin life whatever God works in, in Eegeneration. All \nelse is in his sight but the garnishing of the sepul- \nchre, which within is full of dead men\'s bones. \n\n" They talk of morals, O thou bleeding Lamb, \nThe grand morality is love to thee." \n\nIt is needless to say that the profession of faith is \nnot synonymous with the new birth. Else the Phar- \nisees had been the favorite children of the Lord; for \n\n\n\nREGENERATION ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. 4C7 \n\nprofession, as an ivy vine, spread with a profuse \ngrowth over them, concealing from man, but not \nfrom Christ, the rottenness within. It was to such \nas made broad their phylacteries, more intent upon \ncarrying the law upon their foreheads than in their \nhearts; who uttered long prayers at the street cor- \nners, and gave but to be seen of men, that Jesus \nturned with withering denunciation, saying: "How \ncan ye escape the damnation of hell ? n \n\nThis work of Begeneration is not to be transferred \nto the intellect as its seat. That the understanding \nis enlightened and the mental faculties quickened in \nthe process is true, but these are but accompani- \nments, and not the work itself. Perhaps the Scrip- \ntural truth as to this matter has no greater foe than \nthat pride of intellect which arrogates to itself the \nright of first place and chief consideration, and \nwould make itself the subject as well as the judge \nof even spiritual processes. The Gospel, to the \nancient Greek, was foolishness; and it is now to some \nscientists, because it was neither discovered, nor \ncan be fathomed, by the intellect. There is no flavor \nof man\'s wisdom in the cross ; there is no detecting \nby men\'s microscopes the operation of the Spirit in \nthe new birth, nor the dropping of the seed of a \ndivine faith into the penitent heart. From the eye of \nmere culture, the spiritual world is hidden, and there- \nfore men say that it does not exist. Hence the \nrestlessness, and more, the antagonism, which this \n\n\n\n\xc2\xb168 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nlevelling doctrine of the new birth encounters among* \nmany cultivated men, and the intense desire to carry \nit into the region of the head, and there settle it, \nwhen its sphere is distinctively that of the heart. \nFor it is the heart, and it is the will, that are the \nseat of moral death and ruin, and it is with the heart \nthat man must believe unto righteousness. A man \nbitten by a deadly serpent may have in his hand the \nsufficient remedy for the poison which is coursing \nthrough his veins, and which is about to bring con- \ngestion and death ; he may hold it up to the light and \nadmire it, and talk learnedly about its ingredients, and \ntell just how the medicine, when taken, will counter- \nact the disease; and yet he may perish, and will, if \nhe does nothing more. For it is not the hand that \nholds the medicine, nor the mind that discourses elo- \nquently upon it, that is the point to be reached ; but \nthe whole system, of which the stomach is the centre, \nand from which life, through the remedy received \ninto it, must radiate to every part. How many talk \nlearnedly of religion, and even of the doctrines of \ngrace, who recoil from the humbling teaching of the \nnew birth, and like Nicodemus, know not " these \nthings." \n\nThe new birth is not a creation of new faculties, \nnor an increase in the number of original endow- \nments. Here is a man who yesterday was in sin, \nand to-day is in Christ. He is a new creature, by the \noperation of God through the truth. Yet he has the \n\n\n\nREGENERATION ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. 469 \n\nsame physical structure \xe2\x80\x94 the same eyes, face, form, \nmind, breadth, culture. Yesterday his tongue blas- \nphemed God; such is not the case to-day \xe2\x80\x94 not \nbecause it is paralyzed, and cannot utter wicked \nwords, for, on the contrary, it is active in praising \nGod. His arm that was raised in rebellion is the \nsame that now puts forth its energy in the Lord\'s \nwork. If you ask him wherein is the difference, he \nmay not be able to explain it. But, putting his hand \nupon his heart, he says : " The difference is here \xe2\x80\x94 \nold things are passed away ; all things are become \nnew." There is a new ruler in the house of the soul, \nwho has swept and garnished it, and has taken pos- \nsession as the controlling and governing force ; who \nhas rescued his faculties and powers from the \nthraldom of sin, and has purified and turned them \nabout, and taken them into the exalted service of \nholiness. For these faculties of body and mind are \nnot the seat of sin, and were not made for its base \nuses. They are adapted, by the divine hand, to \nhigher ends. They may be fitted for such service as \nangels give, and find in it their true employment and \ndevelopment. Yonder is a ship upon the high seas, \nperfect in all its equipments, and freighted with \nprecious lives and valuable merchandise. It was \nconstructed for noble uses, and the sky is clear, and \nthe winds are favorable to speed it on its way to its \nproper port. But there is an evil pilot on board, \nwhose intent it is to destroy it. He is steering it \n\n\n\n470 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ntowards that reef of rocks, and, in his efforts to \nbring it to ruin, he is aided by the very excellence of \nits parts. The sturdy masts, and strong sails, and \nstiff breeze, but hasten it to its destruction. But \nchange your pilot ; put a true man in charge, and \nevery spar and bit of cordage feels the difference ; \nand wind, and sail, and masts, and rudder, all combine \nto bring the vessel safely to its haven. No illustra- \ntion is perfect, and this is far from it; but it may \nillustrate this one point, that in Eegeneration there \nis a new governing power, and that every fibre of \nbody and mind is to feel the thrill of its rulership, \nand to own its sway. And this new governing power \nis no less than a new nature. It is not the divine \nmethod to seek to improve that which is dead and \nworthless, or to attempt to turn enmity into love. \nThe old nature is beyond cultivation, even by the \ndivine hand, and it is fit only to be crucified. There \nis the implanting of a new nature, the becoming \n"partakers of the divine nature" (II. Pet. i. 4); and \nthis new nature begotten in us by God " with the \nword of truth " (James i. 18) is that which is the new \nman in Christ Jesus; is that which sings at the \napproach of its Lord; is that which alone rejoices \nin his love, delights in his presence, and, becoming \nmaster of the regenerated one, is in harmony with \nGod and heaven. \n\nIf such be the nature of Regeneration; if it be \nhigher, and deeper, and broader than man\'s best \n\n\n\nREGENERATION ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. 471 \n\nattainments ; if it be the crucifixion of the old, and \nthe imparting of a new nature which hates sin and \nloves holiness; of a nature which is in harmony with \nGod\'s character and requirements; then man must \nbe regenerated, or he is in perpetual dissonance with \nthe government and the holiness of God, at eternal \nwar with his Creator\xe2\x80\x94 and that means eternal wretch- \nedness and misery. \n\n3. Regeneration is essential to bring man where he is \ninfluenced by Gospel motives, and by the Word of God. \nAccording to Scripture, we are " born again, not of \ncorruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word \nof God, which liveth and abideth forever." (I. Pet. \ni. 23.) Gospel truth is the means through which the \nnew life comes to the soul. It is " he that heareth \nmy ivord, and belie veth on him that sent me, hath \neverlasting life." (John v. 21.) Now, all is in perfect \nkeeping here. One needs to be begotten " with the \nWord of truth," which is the new birth, in order to \nbe guided and moulded by the truth. But this truth \nis from God, and endures forever. There is no sal- \nvation but in conformity to it. "Indignation and \nwrath" are the portion of such as "do not obey the \ntruth, but obey unrighteousness." ( Eom. ii. 8.) In \nII. Thessalonians i. 7, 8, we are taught that "the \nLord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his \nmighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on \nthem that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel \nof our Lord Jesus Christ." And, in I. Peter iv. 17, \n\n\n\n472 BAPTIST DOCTRINES, \n\nwe are asked the solemn question, "What shall \nthe end be of them that obey not the Gospel of \nGail" Furthermore, the children of God "purify \ntheir souls in obeying the truth " (I. Pet. i. 22), and are \nkept clean from the defilements of life by " the mash- \ning of water by the Word." ( Eph. v. 26.) In all of \nwhich we see that he alone is saved and conformed \nto the image of the Son, who hears and receives the \nWord; who has the new life come to him through \nthe Word; and to whom the Word is "the lamp to \nMs feet and the light to his path ; " who is controlled, \nshaped, cleansed, seized upon and possessed by the \nWord ; who can say with the Psalmist ( Ps. cxix. 11), \n6s Thy Word have I hid in mine heart that I might \nnot sin against thee." But all this is the work, the \naccompaniment, and the result of Eegeneration. It \nis the new birth alone, and not any culture of the old \nnature, which brings us into the position where the \nWord of God, which is the law of heaven, is infinitely \nsweet, and his will the souPs supreme delight. This \nis far from being the case with the unregenerate. \nu The ungodly are not so." Their delight is not in \nthe law of the Lord, nor do they meditate in the law \nday and night. (Ps. ii. 2.) They cannot say, "How \nsweet are thy words unto my taste ! yea, sweeter \nthan honey to my mouth ! " ( Ps. cxix. 103.) On the \ncontrary, the Gospel falls upon dead ears ; the book \nof God is shunned because it condemns them; its \nprecepts, which mould the character for heaven, are \n\n\n\nREGENERATION ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. 473 \n\ndisregarded. How, then, can the unregenerate man \nbe saved, when the Gospel, the means by which life \ncomes to him, is unheeded ; and the Word, which \ngives the heavenly pattern to which the saved con- \nform, is to him as an idle tale ? \n\n4. The Regeneration of the soul is demanded by the \nnature and employments of the Heavenly World. \n\nThe superficial thought is prevalent that "the only \nobstacle to the eternal felicity of the ungodly is the \ndetermination of Jehovah to close against them the \ngates of the eternal city." 1 It is argued that, this \nbeing the case, God is too tender and complaisant to \nhold out in this arbitrary enactment, but will yield at \nlast, in a gush of sentiment, and receive the evil and \nthe good alike into glory. It seems to be conven- \niently forgotten that," constituted as man is, misery is \nthe natural and necessary result of unholy character. \nFor God himself does not attempt the impossible task \nof saving his people in their sins, but from them." 2 \nNeither the torments of the damned nor the bliss of \nthe saved will result mainly from the place to which \nthey shall be consigned, though the place be hell with \nits horrors, or heaven with its unspeakable splendor, \n^ot denying or underrating the positive punishments \ninflicted upon the lost, yet it will be true that "the \nhell of the sinner will be in his own bosom; " and if \nthe hand of God should not directly touch him, yet \n\ni Payne\'s Lectures, p. 388. \n2 Payne\'s Lectures. \n\n\n\n474 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nhis portion will be with, the never-dying worm of an \naccusing conscience; with the unquenchable fire of \nself-reproach, with the torments of an unholy nature \nwhich shall know no restraints in its developments \nin sin. It is not an arbitrary fiat, " He which is filthy, \nlet him be filthy still ; and he that is holy, let him be \nholy still." ( Eev. xxii. 11.) It is but the expression of \nthe unalterable nature of things. Yet men, ignorant \nof the nature of the heavenly world, and picturing it \nas adapted to their unrenewed tastes, and imagining \nthat a change of circumstances will cure the ills which \nattend this life, suppose that if, by any means, they \ncould break down the decree which keeps them out, \nor could elude the vigilance of the angel wardens \nand enter, they would be supremely blest forever. \nThey forget that character determines destiny, and \nthat in the case of the angels who kept not their first \nestate, even heaven itself was a place of misery until \nthey were cast out. It is a true sentiment which \nMilton has put into the mouth of Satan, \n\n" Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell." \n\nCould it be that the unregenerate man should \nenter heaven, it would yield him no delight. Its \nduties would be irksome, its pleasures insipid and \njoyless. The illiterate boor, shut up in the society of \nphilosophers, soon wearies of their learned discourse, \nand longs to break loose and rejoin his boon com- \npanions. Now, to the unregenerate holiness is \n\n\n\nREGENERATION ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. 475 \n\ninsufferable here. They do not delight to meditate \nupon it, nor to seek after it. It belongs to a world \noutside of their existence. But holiness is the \nsupreme characteristic of heaven. Seraphim s there, \nwith veiled faces, cry, " Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord \nof hosts." ( Is. vi. 3.) "And into that city there shall \nin no wise enter anything that defileth, neither what- \nsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie ; but \nthey which are written in the Lamb\'s book of life." \n(Rev. xxi. 27.) Holiness is the bliss of heaven. To \nbe freed from the corpse of sin which is chained to \nus here; to be purified from every taint of evil; to be \nmade holy like God, beyond the reach of the lusts of \nthe flesh or the temptations of Satan; this is the \nardent longing of every child of God, and because of \nthis attainment, heaven to him is unutterably glorious. \nBut there is nothing in death, nor in change of loca- \ntion, to give to the unregenerate man that relish for \nholiness and spiritual delights, which is foreign to \nhim here, and which he must have to enter and enjoy \nthe celestial city. \n\nThe pursuits of heaven are such as are here irksome \nto the unregenerate. For they are hearty and inces- \nsant service to God and the Lamb. In the view of \nthe heavenly city, in Revelation, we see the four \nliving creatures and the elders \xe2\x80\x94 as representatives \nof the Church of God \xe2\x80\x94 and the angelic hosts vieing \nwith each other in their ascriptions of praise, and of \nhonor, and of glory, and of power, to him that sitteth \n\n\n\n476 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\non the throne, and to the Lamb forever. They sing \nwith wondrous enthusiasm the new song of Redemp- \ntion through the blood. But, however men may join \nin external acts of worship here, is it true that the \nunregenerate delight in the perfections of God, and \nin the atoning work of Christ? Is their will lost in \nhis, and is it their joy to present their "bodies as a \nliving sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is \ntheir reasonable service % " ( Rom. xii. 1.) \n\nTo the redeemed soul, heaven is nothing without \nthe enjoyment of God and the presence of Christ. \nPaul, in the fulness of his labors, expresses his desire \n"to depart and be with Christ, which is far better." \n( Phil. i. 23.) The Apostle John exultingly says : " We \nknow that when he shall appear, we shall be like him, \nfor we shall see him as he is." ( I. John iii. 2.) And, \nin Revelation, Christ is seen in heaven as the Lamb \nbearing the marks of sacrifice, and the centre of \nadoration and worship. To meet him whom here we \nhave known as the "man of sorrows," and see him \nas the glorified Son of God ; to greet him not as a \nstranger, but as the friend who died for our sins and \nrose again for our justification ; to be associated with \nhim forever ; this is the blessed prospect which stirs \nthe Christian heart with a deathless enthusiasm, and \ncauses us to joyfully respond to our Lord\'s declara- \ntion, "Surely I come quickly;" with the prayer, \n"Even so, Lord Jesus, come." \n\nBut, do the unregenerate delight in Christ here % \n\n\n\nREGENERATION ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. 477 \n\nIs he to them the one "altogether lovely?" Is the \nthought of God one which inspires them with pleas- \nure ? or do they not desire to banish him from their \nminds and hearts ? And if, perchance, the subject of \npersonal union with Christ be introduced as a theme \nin their presence, there is constraint ; and they are \nat ease again only when the topic is exchanged for \nsome worldly one. Jesus is not \n\n\n\n\' All the clay long \nTheir joy and their song.\' \n\n\n\nThey cannot sit under his shadow with great delight. \nHow, then, shall they endure Heaven, when the pres- \nence of God and the Lamb is that which gives to the \nupper world its inextinguishable radiance ? Introduce \nthat unregenerate heart into the glorious company of \nthe angels and redeemed. Let him visit circle after \ncircle, and group upon group of the heavenly inhab- \nitants, and endeavor to share in their service and \ndelights, and what congeniality is there for such as \nhe? He listens to them telling of redeeming love; \nhe\'hears their acclamations of praise; he sees them \nstriking their harps to the lofty strains of joy. But \nwherever he turns, there is but the one theme \nEedemption through God\'s abounding grace; and \nof this they never weary. There is the impress of \nholiness in their faces, and the mark of God\'s pro- \nprietorship upon their foreheads. He could not be \n\n\n\n478 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nhappy there, for to share in heaven\'s enjoyments, \none must be born again. \n\nThus, not arbitrary is this radical saying of Jesus. \nThe whole tenor of Scripture ; the lost condition of \nman; the nature of the work of regeneration; the \nimperative necessity of a holy character ; the nature \nof the heavenly world \xe2\x80\x94 all combine to give emphasis \nto this saying of Jesus, "Except a man be born \nagain, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 7 \' \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. \n\n\n\nBY REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D. LATE OF BALTI- \n\n\n\ntt And now I exhort you to be of good cheer; for there shall be \nno loss of any man\'s life among you, but of the ship. For \nthere stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am \nand whom I serve, saying, Fear not Paul: thou must be \nbrought before Caesar; and lo, God hath given thee all them \nthat sail with thee. And as the shipmen were about to flee \nout of the ship when they had let down the boat into the \nsea, under color as though they would have cast anchors \nout of the foreship, Paul said to the centurion and to the \nsoldiers, Except these abide in the ship ye cannot be saved." \n\xe2\x80\x94Acts xxvii : 22, 23, 24, 30, 31. \n\nIt was Mr. Pitt, I believe, who, after reading \nButler\'s Analogy, remarked that " it suggested more \ndoubts than it answered." In removing one diffi- \nculty, we ought to be careful lest we create others \nwhich are greater. However, in speaking of the \ndeep things of God, all we can do is to show how far \nthe human understanding can go, when it ceases to \nobey reason, and debases itself to mere scholastic \nlogic. \n\nYou are all familiar with the narrative of Paul\'s \nshipwreck. In spite of some plausible objections, \n\n1 Taken from Fuller\'s Sermons, published by J. F. Weis- \nha-Mpel, Jr., Baltimore, Md., in three volumes. $1.00 each. \n\n479 \n\n\n\n480 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nit is certain almost to demonstration that the vessel \nwas lost upon the island now known as Malta. The \nwhole description is very graphic; the impending- \ndanger; the commanding attitude of the Apostle \nduring that fearful night; his inspiring address as \nthe dim morning light reveals the terrified, haggard \ncompany \xe2\x80\x94 two hundred and seventy-six in all \xe2\x80\x94 \nshivering on the deck of the sinking ship ; the effect \nof his exhortation ; and the rescue of all on board. \n\nAs you read the account, you feel that, if the \nsailors believed Paul\'s declaration as to a revelation \nfrom heaven, it would put fresh heart in them to \nwork, as it really did. Nor does it strike you that \nthere is any contradiction between this positive as- \nsurance of safety to all and the subsequent warning \nas to the impossibility of saving the passengers \nunless the crew remained in the stranded bark. \n\nOur philosophers, however, are astonished at your \nsimplicity, and, of .course, at the simplicity of the \nApostle and the inspired historian. For if God had \ndetermined that all should reach the land in safety, \nhow could it be affirmed that in any case some would \nbe lost I \n\nThe Eoman centurion had, I dare say, quite as \nmuch sagacity as these cavillers, yet he urged no \nobjection, but at once complied with Paul\'s counsels. \nAnd just so now. When in earnest, no man ever \npretends that predestination has anything to do with \nhis free agency. No farmer \xe2\x80\x94 though in theology the \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 481 \n\nmost fierce hyper-Calvinist \xe2\x80\x94 was ever heard of, fool- \nish enough to neglect the cultivation of his fields, \nbecause nothing can be left to contingencies, and, \ntherefore, it is predetermined whether he shall reap \na harvest or not. In a shipwreck no fatalist ever \nfolded his arms, saying, " If I am to perish, I will \nperish; if I am to be saved, I will be saved." When \ndanger presses, the peasant and philosopher alike \ncry to God for deliverance, and put forth all their \nefforts. It is only in idle speculations, or when seek- \ning to lull their consciences in impenitence and dis- \nobedience, that the enemies of God insult him, by \npleading his decrees as a pretext for their indolence \nand passions. \n\nI am going to offer you some thoughts upon this \ndifficult subject, treating it first doctrinally, and then \npractically. It is very seldom that such abstruse \ndiscussions find a place in this pulpit ; and now noth- \ning is farther from my wishes than that any of you \nshould be encouraged to leave the paths of pure, un- \ndefiled, simple piety, for the mysteries of tangled \nmetaphysical polemics. " The secret things belong \nunto the Lord our God ; but those things which are \nrevealed belong unto us and to our children forever, \nthat we may do all the words of this law. 7 \' \n\nIf we are properly engaged about the plain duties \nof the Gospel, we will not be tempted to perplex \nourselves with the subtleties of controversial divin- \nity, any more than will a traveller, pressing home- \n\n31 \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa382 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nward, wish to leap into every quicksand that he may \nfathom its depths, or to rush into every thicket by \nthe wayside that he may try how far he can pene- \ntrate. It was through pride of reasoning that man \n;CeIL Eevelation constantly assails the arrogance \nwhich impiously arraigns the credibility of the divine \nword, unless our puny intellects can comprehend \nthings which it is the glory of God to conceal. The \ndesign of the Gospel is to humble this temper, and \nto nourish in us the spirit of " a little child," without \nwhich the mind will go on sounding its dim and peril- \nous way, till it is lost in endless mazes, bewildered \ninextricably in dark, interminable labyrinths. \n\nAs, however, men affecting to be wits and geniuses \nare, in books and in conversation, forever parading \ntheir flippancies on the question of predestination \nand free-agency, it is worth while to show them, once \nfor all, how little they can take by their infidelity and \nribaldry. \n\nI. I am first to treat our subject doctrinally. And \nyou see at once that it presents the very question \nwhich, century after century, has been the source of \nbitter controversy ; which has not only supplied the \nsceptic with his sneers, but has exasperated pulpit \nagainst pulpit, church against church, and council \nagainst council. The problem to which I refer is \nthat of God\'s decrees and man\'s moral agency, to \nsolve which two systems have been advocated, two \nparties have been formed. Let us examine each of \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 483 \n\nthese systems, let us hear each of these parties, \nwhom\xe2\x80\x94 that I may avoid the shibboleths of hostile \nreligious prejudices and factions\xe2\x80\x94 I will designate \nas the Libertarians and the Necessarians. \n\nThe Libertarians reject the doctrine of predesti- \nnation ; they deny that God has fore-ordained all \nthings. But, now, can this negation be even men- \ntioned without shocking our reason and our rever- \nence for the oracles of eternal truth? \n\nI might easih* show that nothing is gained by this \ndenial, that it only removes the difficulty a little \nfarther back. This system rejects predestination, \nand maintains that God has left all men to act as \nthey choose. But what is meant by a man\'s acting \nas he chooses ? It is, of course, that he obeys the \nimpulses of his own feelings and passions. Well, \ndid not God endow him with these passions ? Did \nnot God know that if certain temptations assailed \nthe creature to whom he had given these passions, \nhe would fall ? Did he not foresee that these temp- \ntations would assail him ? Did he not permit these \ntemptations to assail him? Could he not have pre- \nvented these temptations? Why did he form him \nwith these passions? Why did he allow him to be \nexposed to these temptations? Why, in short \xe2\x80\x94 hav- \ning a perfect fore-knowledge that such a being, so \nconstituted and so tempted, would sin and perish \xe2\x80\x94 \nwhy did he create him at all? None will deny the \ndivine fore-knowledge ; and I at once admit that the \n\n\n\n484 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nmere foreseeing an event, which we cannot hinder \nand have no agency in accomplishing, does not in- \nvolve us in any responsibility. But when the Creator, \nof his own sovereign pleasure, calls an intelligent \nagent into being, fashions him with certain powers \nand appetites, and places him amid scenes where he \nclearly sees that temptations will overcome him \xe2\x80\x94 in \nsuch a case it is self-evident that our feeble faculties \ncannot separate fore-knowledge from fore-appoint- \nment. The denial of preordination does not, there- \nfore, at all relieve any objection, it only conceals the \ndifficulty from the ignorant and unthinking. \n\nBut even if the theory of the Libertarians were \nnot a plain evasion, it would be impossible for us to \naccept such a solution ; for it dethrones Jehovah ; it \nsurrenders the entire government of the world to \nmere chance, to wild caprice and disorder. Accord- \ning to this system, nature, providence, grace are \nonly departments of atheism ; God has no control \nover the earth and its affairs ; or \xe2\x80\x94 if that be too \nmonstrous and revolting, \xe2\x80\x94 he exercises authority \nover matter, but none over the minds and hearts of \nmen. " The king\'s heart is in the hands of the Lord \nas rivers of water, he turneth\' it whithersoever he \nwill "; \xe2\x80\x94 such is the declaration of the Holy Spirit ; \nbut this theory rejects this truth. God exercises no \ncontrol over men\'s hearts, consequently prophecy is \nan absurdity; providence is a chimera; prayer is a \nmockery; since God does not interfere in mortal \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 485 \n\nevents, but abandons all to the wanton humors and \npassions of myriads of independent agents, none of \nwhose whims and impulses he restrains, by whom his \nwill is constantly defeated and trampled under foot. \nA creed so odious, so abhorrent to all reason and \nreligion, need only be carried out to its consequences \nand no sane mind can adopt it. \n\nAnd this heresy is condemned on every page of \nthe Bible. It is deeply to be lamented that theologi- \ncal partisans so often treat texts of Scripture, as \nhired advocates in our courts treat those witnesses \nwhose evidence damages their cause, \xe2\x80\x94 cross-exam- \nining and brow-beating the clearest passages, \xe2\x80\x94 seek- \ning to perplex their plain meaning \xe2\x80\x94 and to extort \nfrom them a testimony they will not and cannot give. \nBut after all ingenuity has been exhausted, how un- \nequivocal is the language of inspiration. "The \ncounsel of the Lord standeth forever, the thought of \nhis heart to all generations." "All the inhabitants \nof the earth are reputed as nothing, he doeth accord- \ning to his will in the army of heaven, and among the \ninhabitants of the earth, and none can stay his hand, \nor say unto him, What doest thou?" "And they \nprayed and said, Lord show whether of these two \nthou hast chosen ; that he may take part of this min- \nistry and apostleship." "Whom God did foreknow \nhe did predestinate, moreover whom he did predes- \ntinate them he also called." "Being predestinated \naccording to the purpose of him who worketh all \n\n\n\n486 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthings after the counsels of his own will." Passages \nlike these might be easily multiplied, but I prefer to \ntake another course, and to establish the doctrines \nof the Sacred Oracles by a sort of proof which is \nvery striking, and which silences all cavil and \nsophistry. \n\nThe depositions to which I now refer are gathered \nfrom those narratives in which man\'s free agency is \ntaken for granted or expressly affirmed, while at the \nsame time,\' the entire event is ascribed directly to \nGod\'s over-ruling decrees. Let us turn for a moment \nto these records, and let us begin with the transpor- \ntation of Joseph into Egypt. Eead the history of \nhis mission to his brethren, of the conspiracy among \nthese brethren to slay him, of Keuben\'s scheme to \nsave his life and restore him to his father, of the \narrival of the Ishmaelite merchants, of Judah\'s prop- \nosition to sell him to them, and of the cruel and un- \nnatural traffic. There never was a transaction in \nwhich human passions \xe2\x80\x94 envy, hatred, revenge, cu- \npidity \xe2\x80\x94 were more confessedly the sole ruling cause \nand motive from first to last. " And the patriarchs," \nsaid Stephen, "moved with envy, sold Joseph into \nEgypt." Yet the result, from beginning to end, is \nascribed to God\'s purpose and decree. " And Joseph \nsaid unto his brethren, Be not grieved nor angry \nwith yourselves, that ye sold me hither, for God did \nsend me before you to preserve life. So now it was \nnot you that sent me hither, but God." And the \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 487 \n\nPsalmist utters the same declaration. "He sent a \nman before them, even Joseph, who was sold as a \nservant, whose feet they hurt with fetters, he was \nlaid in irons until the time that his word came, the \nword of the Lord tried him." \n\nTake, next, the fatal obduracy of Pharaoh. In the \nbook of Genesis it is repeatedly said that " Pharaoh \nhardened his heart and sinned yet the more," but in \nthe same chapters it is declared that "The Lord \nhardened the heart of Pharaoh." And in the Epistle \nto the Romans it is written, " For the Scripture saith \nunto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I \nraised thee up, that I might show my power in thee 5 \nand that my name might be declared throughout the \nearth." \n\nIn the first book of Kings, the people appeal to \nRehoboam, to abate a portion of the burden under \nwhich they groaned. That monarch seeks the coun- \nsel, first of the old men, the former companions of \nhis father, and then of the young men who had grown \nup with him. Wilfully rejecting the sage advice of \nthe elders, he adopts the tyrannical measures recom- \nmended by the passions of his youthful associates* \nThe consequence is, the revolt of the ten tribes. \nHere was an arbitrary decree of a despot, instigated \nby an evil heart and evil counsellors ; yet the whole \nis attributed directly to God\'s decree. " The king \nhearkened not unto the people ; for the cause was \nfrom the Lord, that he might perform his saying, \n\n\n\n488 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nwhich the Lord spake by Abijah the Shilonite unto \nJeroboam the Son of Nebat." \n\nIn the same regal history, Ahab disobeys God; \nand the prophet is sent to warn him that, as a pun- \nishment, he shall be slain in battle. The monarch \ndisguises himself so that he is not known ; and " a \ncertain man drew a bow at a venture, and smote the \nking of Israel between the joints of the harness, \nand he died." The archer aimed his shaft at no one, \nbut discharged it "at a venture" against the con- \nfused masses. Yet it was winged and guided by \nGod\'s unerring decree. \n\nIn the entire volume of the Book nothing is more \nfearful than the epitaph upon the soul of Judas \nIscariot, spoken by the Saviour himself, "It had \nbeen good for that man if he had not been born." \nYou at once perceive that this sentence consigned \nhim to everlasting misery. The Universalist can \nnever evade this passage. For if, after myriads of \nages, the lost soul shall be released and translated \nto heaven, those centuries of wretchedness will be \nonly as a moment, as nothing, compared with an \neternity of happiness ; and it would not then be true \nthat the culprit had better never been born. But \nnow this treason \xe2\x80\x94 though instigated purely by cov- \netousness, the ruling passion of the apostate \xe2\x80\x94 was \na part of God\'s pre-arranged purpose. " None of \nthem is lost, but the son of perdition; that the \nScriptures might be fulfilled." "The Son of Man \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 489 \n\ngoeth as it is written of him, but woe unto that man \nby whom the Son of Man is betrayed, it had been \ngood for that man if he had not been born." " Men \nand brethren, this Scripture must needs have been \nfulfilled which the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of \nDavid spake before concerning Judas, which was \nguide to them that took Jesus." \n\nIn fine, the great catastrophe of the Bible, the \ncrucifixion of the Redeemer \xe2\x80\x94 if ever a deed was \nperpetrated by cruel, relentless malignity, it was the \nmurder of that innocent benefactor of mankind. \nThe actors in that tragedy were charged with hein- \nous guilt in having " killed the Prince of Life," whom \n" with wicked hands they crucified and slew." Xor \ndid these murderers attempt any palliation. " They \nwere pricked to the heart," and cried out in anguish, \n"What shall we do?" Yet this conspiracy and its \ntriumph only accomplished the predetermination of \neternal wisdom and love. " Those things which God \nbefore had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, \nthat Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled." \n"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel \nand fore-knowledge of God, ye have taken and by \nwicked hands have crucified and slain." " For of a \ntruth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast \nanointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the \nGentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered \ntogether : for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy \ncounsel determined before to be done." \n\n\n\n490 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nIf anything be certain, then, it is that the anti- \npredestinarian system is wholly untenable. It is \ngood for nothing, since it solves no difficulty, it stul- \ntifies our reason, it is practical atheism, and it con- \ntradicts the express assertions of the Bible. \n\nThis argument is highly pleasing to some of you, \nI perceive. I read your approbation in your coun- \ntenances. I see you are ready to come forward and \nextend to me the hand of fellowship and cordial \ncongratulation. " Certainly," I hear you exclaim, " all \nthat you have advanced is incontestible ; it is just \nwhat we firmly believe. None but an idiot can \nreject the doctrine of predestination. Eeason and \nScripture both condemn the heresy which leaves \nman a free, independent agent. We have always \nmaintained this, and your reasoning ought to silence \nthe presumption of those who proudly arrogate \nliberty of will and action." The men who thus speak \nbelong to the other class I have mentioned ; they are \nNecessarians; they hold that God not only fore- \nknows but fore-determines all things ; that his decree \ncontrols irresistibly all matter, all mind, all feeling, \nall action ; and, therefore, that man\'s free agency is \na tenet false, unscriptural, and absurd. Let us turn \nto this system, and examine it for a moment. Now, \nin the very outset we encounter one objection to this \ncreed, which amounts to a refutation, and which \nnothing can remove ; it is the consciousness of free \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 491 \n\nwill and free agency which every man carries in his \nown bosom. Keason, refine, cavil as we may, one \nthing is certain, we feel that we are free agents. \nConsciousness is an inward faculty which informs us \nof what passes within us ; and its intuitions are con- \nclusive and final as to the principles of our mental \nconstitution \xe2\x80\x94 just as the authority of the senses con- \nvinces us of what takes place in the outward world. \nNo matter what metaphysicians and schoolmen say, I \nam not more sure that I see the sun in the heavens, \nthan that I act in accordance with my own unre- \nstrained volitions. Suppose a man should construct \nan ingenious argument to prove that you do not see \nand cannot walk. You might not be able to detect \nthe fallacy of his reasoning, but so long as you do \nsee and do walk, you know that his logic is all false. \n\nJust so in the case before us ; the testimony of \nthe interior sense is equally conclusive against all \nspecious denials of our freedom. Indeed, if our will \nand conduct are not free, they are, of course, under \ncompulsion; and it is impossible for conscience \neither to approve or to condemn our actions or our \nmotives ; the deliberate murderer is no more guilty \nthan the innocent victim of brute force, who, in spite \nof his protestations, is compelled to discharge a pis- \ntol into the breast of a stranger. \n\nWhatever theological dogmas men may adopt, \nthere are some original truths written in the very \nstructure of our nature, and our moral responsibility \nis one of these primary truths. \n\n\n\n492 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nBut let us look a little more closely at this scheme \nof necessity, and see if it does not conduct us to \nissues quite as monstrous as those which have just \nshocked us in the opposite system. If man is not \nfree, what then ! Why, then, he is not accountable \nwhen he sins. If man be forced by necessity, it is \nabsurd to predicate any moral quality of his actions, \nto call them either good or evil. If man be com- \npelled, it is impossible to deny that God is the author \nof sin \xe2\x80\x94 of all the sin which is perpetrated. From \nconclusions so profane and repulsive as these, even \nthe hyper-Calvinist and fatalist shrink back, yet \nthey are committed inevitably to them by their \ncreed. \n\nThis is not all. The system of the Necessarians is \ncondemned by the Scriptures as unequivocally as \nthat of their opponents. The cases which I have \njust now cited to establish the doctrine of predesti- \nnation, are equally as convincing as to man\'s free \nmoral agency. For you remember that the inspired \nwriters expressly charge the crimes upon their au- \nthors, without the slightest intimation that God\'s \ndecrees have anything to do with man\'s guilt. In \nfact, they announce each of the doctrines now before \nus in the same sentence without any attempt to rec- \noncile them, without seeming to be aware of any \nsort of contradiction between them. Eecall the illus- \ntrations I submitted to you a moment since \xe2\x80\x94 the \ncases of Joseph, of Pharaoh, of Ahab, of Eehoboam, \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 493 \n\nof Judas, of the crucifixion \xe2\x80\x94 and you will find them \njust as incontestable with reference to Liberty as to \nNecessity. They take for granted man\'s free agency r \nas well as God\'s sovereign and universal control. \nIndeed, it is manifest that every call, every threat, \nevery expostulation, every exhortation in the Bible \nsupposes that man is a free agent. If he be not free, \nif he be the passive victim of inexorable, irresistible \ndestiny, the Sacred Volume is a compilation of glar- \ning inconsistencies \xe2\x80\x94 of sheer, downright falsehood \nand mockery. If a fixed fate has fore-doomed men \nas mere machines, how can God utter those tender \ncomplaints of their conduct with which the Scrip- \ntures abound f If his decrees compel men, how can \nhe so earnestly admonish and beseech them to re- \npent and turn from their evil ways? If men are \nforced by God\'s pre-ordination, how can he utter \nthat assurance, "As I live, I desire not the death of \nthe sinner, but that he turn and live f How could \nJesus affirm that, if the mighty works done in Chora- \nzin "had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would \nhave repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes," and \nthat if the mighty works done Capernaum " had been \ndone in Sodom, it would have remained until this \nday ?" In a word, if God\'s purposes bind men inflex- \nibly in chains, what is the meaning of that touching, \nweeping exclamation, " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou \nthat killest the prophets and stonest them which are \nsent unto thee, how often would I have gathered \n\n\n\n494 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthy children together even as a hen gathereth her \nchickens under her wings, and ye would not. Behold \nyour house is left unto you desolate "? \n\nIf you have followed me, I think you will confess \nnow, that neither of the two classes indicated can \nbe right. The Libertarian is plainly in error when \nhe rejects the doctrine of predestination; and the \nNecessarian is as plainly in error when he rejects \nthe doctrine of free agency. And these are the only \ntwo parties. I am aware that some theologians pro- \nfess to belong to a third and moderate school : and \nthey undertake to reconcile the difficulties of our \nsubject by this solution: \xe2\x80\x94 that God, who appoints \nthe end, appoints also the means. This is the prop- \nosition advanced by Dr. Chalmers in an admirable \nsermon upon the very text now before us. It is no \ndoubt very true ; but it elucidates nothing, it only \nremoves the difficulty one step farther. The advo- \ncates of this thesis do not belong to a third class, \nthey are Necessarians, and ascribe all events to \nGod\'s decrees as rigorously as if no agent had been \nemployed. In a former part of this discourse I re- \nmarked that those who admit God\'s foreknowledge, \nbut deny his fore-appointment, gain nothing by the \ndiscrimination; since, in the Creator, our minds can \ndraw no distinction between foreseeing and fore-or- \ndaining. I make a similar observation now as to the \ninterposition of a medium. Nothing is gained by it. \nThe unthinking may be thus satisfied ; but it is an \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 495 \n\nold axiom, that he who performs an act by another, \nperforms it himself. In human affairs God never \nacts immediately, except when working miracles; he \nuses instruments and agents. These, of course, are \nchosen by him ; and if they are necessitated by his \ndecrees \xe2\x80\x94 as is supposed in the case before us \xe2\x80\x94 the \nintroduction of one or many agencies produces no \nmodification in the system, which is that of mechani- \ncal force and stern compulsion. In these assemblies \nwhere you are compelled to listen in silence, a \npreacher may think that he has triumphed, when he \nthus disposes of an objection; but he deceives him- \nself. His hearers see clearly that he has not fairly \nmet the difficulty ; he has only shifted it a little out \nof sight. \n\nIn the recital from which our text is taken, Paul \nannounced, by express revelation from heaven, that \nnot a soul on board the ship should perish. Yet \nwhen the seamen were about to leave in the boats, \nhe as confidently declared that unless they remained \nin the vessel the passengers could not be saved. \nAccording to the intermediate system, the Apostle \nwas very inconsistent in this last admonition ; since \nhe must have seen clearly that if God had prede- \ntermined the salvation of all, he had also indefeasibly \nadjusted the means, and that his decree could no \nmore be frustrated by the treachery of the mariners \nthan by the winds and the waves. \n\nIn reference to predestination and free agency, \n\n\n\n496 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthere are, then, only two systems \xe2\x80\x94 that of the Liber- \ntarians, and that of the Necessarians. These schemes \nseem to our minds not only irreconcilable, but antag- \nonistical. Yet the rejection of either involves us in \nconsequences absurd and impious. And what is still \nmore confounding, the Bible, with a directness and \nplainness admitting of no dispute or evasion, incul- \ncates both of these conflicting doctrines, requiring \nour unmutilated faith in each, without even noticing \nthe inscrutable difficulty and seemingly palpable con- \ntradiction by which our intellects are bewildered. \n\nThus perplexed and staggered, what are we to do? \nThus far we have only been entangling ourselves in \na labyrinth ; following first a path which leads one \nway; then returning and pursuing another path run- \nning in the opposite direction ; but every attempt \ninvolving us more inextricably, until we feel hope- \nlessly lost. What are we to do ! It is evident that \nthere is only one hope left us. We must confess our \nabsolute blindness, and procure a guide who com- \nprehends all the dark intricacies ; one in whom we \nhave perfect confidence ; who can and will conduct \nus safely; and we must surrender ourselves to him. \nSuppose that two men born blind were to enter into \na dispute as to the color of an object ; one affirming \nthat it is red; the other that it is blue. It is clear \nthat these discussions would be simple absurdities ; \nsince neither of them possesses that sense by which \ncolor can be known. Mr. Locke gives the case of a \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 497 \n\nblind man who insisted that he knew what the color \nof scarlet resembled ; and when asked what, he an- \nswered " The sound of a trumpet." Their contro- \nversy could be decided only in one way. An umpire \nmust be found who can see; and who will decide the \nquestion truly ; and they must submit to his arbitra- \nment. This analogy illustrates exactly our condition \nas to the subject before us, which is confessedly be- \nyond the reach of human faculties. Lut, now, can \nwe secure such a guide as we have described? \nWhere is the arbiter to be found, who perfectly com- \nprehends these deep things of God, and to whom we \nmay with perfect confidence refer the difficulty ? \n\nMy brethren, the guide, the arbiter we seek is \nbefore us. It is God himself. He understands \nfully his decrees ; he also comprehends man\'s free \nagency ; and he declares as we have seen, that all \nour speculations are wrong; that both these doc- \ntrines are true ; and, of course, that there is no dis- \ncrepancy between them. I have shown that it is \nimpossible for us to reject either of these great \ntruths, and it is equally impossible for our minds to \nreconcile them. But here, as everywhere, faith must \ncome to our aid, teaching us to repose unquestion- \ningly upon God\'s veracity ; reminding us that u secret \nthings belong unto the Lord our God ;" and rebuking \nthe arrogance which demands that our intellects shall \npenetrate and reconcile those thoughts of the divine \nmind which are as high above our thoughts as the \n\n32 \n\n\n\n498 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nheavens are above the earth. With unspeakable \ncondescension, God constantly invites us to confer \nand plead with him. " Come now," he says, " let us \nreason together." Only once, in all the Scriptures, \ndoes he silence the arguments of man by a stern, \nabrupt assertion of his sovereignty; and this is \nwhen an inquisitive objector has assumed the atti- \ntude of a caviller who, daring to believe less and \npresuming to comprehend more than is revealed, \nfinds fault with his decrees because, as he pretends, \nthey destroy man\'s moral freedom. It is this very \npresumption the Apostle cuts short by that sudden \nretort, " Kay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest \nagainst God?" \n\nThe pillar by which Jehovah led his people was \nluminous all night long, but in the day it became an \nimpenetrable column of murky cloud ; and it is thus \nGod now reveals himself to us. His precepts and \nour duty are all so plain, that the wayfaring man, \nthough a fool, need not err therein; but if instead of \npursuing our way humbly and earnestly, we seek to \nfathom the abysses of his adorable wisdom, we are \nbaffled ; clouds and darkness are round about him, \n" he makes darkness his secret place, his pavilions \nround about him are dark waters and thick clouds \nof the skies." And, as in the wilderness the black- \nness proclaimed the majestic presence as gloriously \nas the splendor, so now, " it is the glory of God to \nconceal a thing." His independence, his infinite \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 499 \n\nsuperiority to all creatures, that reverential awe \nwhich is due to such a Being, require that much in \nhis providence and everything in his secret coun- \nsels shall be inscrutable to man. \n\nIf from Paul the traveller, animating his harrassed, \ntempest-tossed fellow voyagers, we turn to Paul the \ntheologian, and ask how the immutable purposes of \nGod can be harmonized with the perfect freeness of \nmen he does not attempt to gratify our curiosity; \nhe has but one answer, he exclaims, " O the depth \nof the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of \nGod ! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his \nways past finding out." And this temper \xe2\x80\x94 this hum- \nble confession of our incompetency, this profound \nsubmission of our reason to mysteries which are \nabove us \xe2\x80\x94 is taught not only by inspiration but by \nnatural reason. We have taken our text from the \ntravels of an Apostle, let us borrow from another \ntraveller a case of casuistry which has been well \ncited by his illustrious countryman, and which ought \nto be profitable to many now before me. This acute \nand accurate author has recorded much useful infor- \nmation concerning the Persians ; and he tells us \nthat among those Mohammedans the duty of remem- \nbering the limits of the human understanding is \ninculcated by the following curious anecdote. \n\n" There were once three brethren who all died at \nthe same time. The two first were men ; the eldest \nhaving always lived in a habit of obedience to God ; \n\n\n\n500 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthe second, on the contrary, in a course of disobe- \ndience and sin. The third was an infant, incapable \nof distinguishing good from evil. These three broth- \ners appeared before the tribunal of God ; the first \nwas received into Paradise, the second was con- \ndemned to hell, the third was sent to a middle place \nwhere there was neither pleasure nor pain, because \nhe had not done either good or evil. When the \nyoungest heard his sentence, and the reasons on \nwhich the supreme Judge grounded it, grieved to be \nexcluded from Paradise, he exclaimed, Ah, Lord, \nhadst thou preserved my life as thou didst that of \nmy good brother, how much better would it have \nbeen for me. I should have lived as he lived, and \nthen I should have enjoyed as he does the happiness \nof eternal glory. My child, replied God to him, I \nknew thee, and I knew, that hadst thou lived longer, \nthou wouldst have lived like thy wicked brother, \nand like him wouldst have rendered thyself deserv- \ning of the punishment of hell. The condemned \nbrother, hearing this discourse of God, exclaimed, \nAh, Lord, why didst thou not confer the same favor \nupon me as upon my younger brother, by depriving \nme of a life which I have so wickedly misspent as to \nbring myself under a sentence of condemnation? \nI preserved thy life, said God, to give thee an oppor- \ntunity of saving thyself. The younger brother, hear- \ning this reply, exclaimed again, Ah, why then, my \nGod, didst thou not preserve my life also, that I \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 501 \n\nmight have had an opportunity of saving myself? \nGod, to put an end to complaining and disputing, \nreplied, Because my decree had determined other- \nwise." \n\nLet us, my brethren, study this fable, and be in- \nstructed by these ingenious heathen. Other teach- \ners begin by proposing to their scholars the exam- \nples of those who have distinguished themselves in \nlearning. Jesus commences by setting before us a \nlittle child, and requiring us to cultivate an humble, \ndocile temper. The fact is, we are familiar with \nnames, and we mistake this for a knowledge of \nthings ; we adopt a system and love that more than \ntruth. The inspired writers never set themselves to \nbuild up well adjusted scientific schemes; they sim- \nply announce " God\'s testimony." But we must \ncompact the truths revealed into a regular symmet- \nrical body of divinity ; we examine the Sacred \nOracles, not to learn all they disclose, but with a \nfixed determination to defend our theory. Hence \nwe study, not the Bible in its amplitude, but the \nauthors who advocate our dogmas. And hence, too, \nwe seek to wrest those Scriptures which conflict \nwith the beauty and harmony of our ingeniously \nconstructed systems. \n\nDo you receive the doctrine of predestination? \nCertainly. To reject it, I would have to stultify my \nintellect, to discard prophecy, which is based upon \nthis truth, to abjure the unequivocal teachings of the \n\n\n\n502 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nBible, to believe that God had abandoned the earth \nto chance and disorder, and to plunge into I know \nnot what absurdities. Well, then you do not receive \nthe doctrine of man\'s free agency. Indeed I do; \nfor otherwise I must renounce my own distinct con- \nsciousness, I must disbelieve the Scriptures, I must \nmake God the author and yet the punisher of sin, \nI must precipitate myself into I know not what ab- \nsurdities. I embrace both doctrines. Nay, more ; I \nsee clearly that if I reject either of these great \ntruths and cling to the other, it will tow me away \ninto fathomless depths of folly and impiety. But r \nhow do you reconcile these two doctrines f Eecon- \ncile ! I do not reconcile them at all. I am not re- \nquired to reconcile them. Who made me a judge \nand reconciler of God\'s acts and attributes and \nclearly revealed testimonies\'? !No, my brethren; \nlet us rather with Job exclaim, " Behold I am vile, \nwhat shall I answer thee f I will lay my hand upon \nmy mouth. Once have I spoken, but I will not \nanswer ; yea, twice, but I will proceed no farther. \nLo, these are parts of thy ways, but how little a por- \ntion is heard of him. I know that thou canst do \neverything ; therefore have I uttered that I under- \nstood not, things too wonderful for me which I knew \nnot. Canst thou by searching find out God ! Canst \nthou find out the Almighty unto perfection ! It is \nhigh as heaven, what canst thou do % deeper than \nhell, what canst thou know W \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 503 \n\nFor my own part, as I contemplate these two \ngrand doctrines I seem to see two parallel lines \nstretching away into eternity with thousands of other \nlines, all of which my vision can pursue but a little \nway. How they can ever meet, or whether they meet \nat all, I have no means of deciding. They appear to \nbe ultimate facts, between which we can discover no \nlinks, but which are perfectly harmonious in the \nDivine Mind. We can discern no connection between \nthem ; but it is preposterous to affirm that there is \ncollision ; \xe2\x80\x94 pre-posterous in the exact meaning of the \nword, since a pre-requisite to such an assertion is a \nknowledge which we cannot possess. \n\nWhen I affirm two distinct truths, you never re- \nfuse to believe each, unless I can show some con- \nnection between them. " There is such a country as \nEngland." " The sun is shining brightly." What \nwould you think of his intellect who should say, \nBoth these propositions are clear, but I will not \nreceive them unless you show me the relation \nbetween them. Such a man you would pronounce a \nlunatic. Yery well, now apply this reasoning to the \ndoctrines before us. "God has pre-ordained all \nthings." " Man is a free responsible agent." Neither \nof these propositions can be denied ; why do you \nreject either of them, unless I can show the connec- \ntion between them ? You will reply, Because they \ncontradict each other. Now, this I denv, and this \nyou cannot possibly prove. The whole matter is \n\n\n\n504 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nreduced to this single question: Can God fore- \nordain all things, and yet form an intelligent being \nwho shall be a perfectly free, moral, accountable \nagent 1 And it is clearly preposterous for any finite \nmind to attempt to answer that question; for the \ndecision demands omniscience. God only can solve \nthat problem, and, as we have his solution, \xe2\x80\x94 as he \ndeclares that he has peopled the earth with beings \nas free as if there were no decrees \xe2\x80\x94 our duty is \nplain. In this, as in other mysteries of Godliness, \nour speculations must cease, we must subject our \n"philosophy and vain deceit" to the decisions of \nEevelation. Eeason must ascertain what God says, \nand then both faith and reason must acquiesce in \nhumility and reverence. \n\nTrue wisdom is always humble. The wisdom \nwhich descendeth from above is so profoundly hum- \nble that it at once confesses its ignorance and says, \n"If any man think that he knoweth anything, he \nknoweth nothing yet as he ought to know." It feels \nthat all our present knowledges are only puerilities \nwhich will be put aside when we become men \xe2\x80\x94 a \nsort of nescience which " shall vanish away " when \nour minds are emancipated from darkness. There \nis a region of truth inaccessible to argument and \nlogic ; there is a " sea of light" before whose excess \nof brightness our feeble intellects are dazzled into \nutter blindness. These domains we may one day \nfully penetrate. Now we can reach them, not by \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 505 \n\nreasoning, but only by childlike love. And for true \nspiritual wisdom only one course remains. As to \npredestination and other kindred subjects we must \n" have faith in God j" we must not expect to com- \nprehend all the parts and bearings of all things re- \nvealed in the Bible ; we must never carry our sys- \ntems farther than the teachings of the Word will \njustify; especially we must never impinge upon the \nclear doctrines of revelation. A profound philoso- \npher has well remarked that " the wall of adamant \nwhich bounds human inquiry has scarcely ever been \ndiscovered by any adventurer until he has been \nroused by the shock which drove him back." All \nwhich is necessary to the perfect repose of a devout \nmind, is the knowledge, either that the truth has \nbeen ascertained, or that it is inaccessibly concealed \nin the abysses of light in which God dwells. As to \nthe abstruse topics upon which we have been medi- \ntating, we may, therefore, rest from all speculations \nwith perfect confidence. If we attempt to explain \nand reconcile the doctrines of predestination and \nfree agency, we find impassable barriers hemming us \nin, and sharp adamant striking us back. But the \nproofs of these doctrines are irrefragable. Their \nharmony we must leave with God; it is an ultimate \nfact transcending our thoughts; but clear to that \nIntellect which is the supreme fountain of all light \nand love. \n\nII. So much for our text treated doctrinally. The \nfew moments which remain I devote to the practical \n\n\n\n506 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nlessons of our subject, for these are very important ; \ndarkness serving us for light; darkness teaching us \nmore than light \xe2\x80\x94 even as night reveals more of the \nstarry glories of the firmament than the day. \n\nAnd, first, it will not be in vain that I have con- \nducted you through the intricacies of this discussion, \nif, once for all, we learn the folly of human wisdom, \nwhen in the presence of the deep things of God ; if \nwe are convinced that the philosopher must discard \nhis " oppositions of science falsely so called," and \nmust, with the peasant, meekly receive the commu- \nnications which God has vouchsafed to man. Those \nwho cavil at the mysteries of revelation, and those \nwho pretend to solve them, always affect superior \nwisdom and penetration ; but in fact they only betray \na want of thought. " I do not understand everything \nconnected with this proposition, therefore I cannot \nbelieve it." The man who reasons thus will have a \nvery short creed, for what truth is there, even in \nnature, which does not involve mysteries f Such \nlanguage is simply foolish. For, whatever be the \nobscurities and difficulties of the Gospel, there is \nnothing in them unworthy of a religion which is \ndivine, they are "mysteries of Godliness" inspiring \nsacred veneration, teaching us to be holy. And what- \never system we may seek to substitute for the Gos- \npel \xe2\x80\x94 the religion of nature, infidelity, atheism \xe2\x80\x94 we \ncannot escape mysteries; we can explain nothing; \nAve can only lose ourselves in fresh obscurities and \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 507 \n\ndifficulties. In heaven God promises that all shall be \nexplained, as far as finite intellects can comprehend \nhis conduct and perfections ; but at present, every \nreflecting mind confesses that we are surrounded on \nevery side by inexplicable enigmas. If anything be \ncertain, if anything be true, elevating, worthy of all \nour confidence, it is the revelation contained in the \nBible. Abandon that and we must surrender our- \nselves to universal scepticism. \n\nThere is, even among those who profess to be \nChristians, a want of that full confidence which the \nBible challenges as a revelation from God. We must \ncorrect this lurking infidelity. When we consider \nGod\'s relation to us, and the incompetency of nature \nand reason to instruct us as to our future destiny, a \ncommunication directly from heaven seems to be an \nindispensable part of the divine intercourse with this \nearth. And supposing that God\'s goodness and jus- \ntice would cause him to make a revelation to man, \nthere are only two ways by which it can be authenti- \ncated. These are, first, credentials conclusive to the \nmind; and secondly, internal evidence which con- \nvinces the heart \xe2\x80\x94 for the heart has its reasonings, \nand in religion they are prompter and surer than the \ndeductions of the intellect. \n\nNow, examined by each of these tests, the Sacred \nOracles establish at once and forever their divine \norigin ; and reason tells us that her highest office is \nto receive in all their integrity the things which " eye \n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0508 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nhath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered \ninto the heart of man, but which God hath revealed \nby his Spirit." To require God to reveal nothing \nwhich we cannot comprehend, is to demand of him \nmore than he has done for unfallen angels, more than \nhe can possibly do for any finite being. These pre- \ntexts are the stale cavils of philosophy flown with \nvanity and conceit. They are not only insane, but \nimpious ; for have these men any claims upon God? \nIn a word, they are manifestly but the shifts and \nmere subterfuges of an evil heart ; since if these \nobjectors knew all they demand to know, their duty \ncould not be made any plainer than it now is. \n\nTheological prejudices are proverbially inveterate, \nand I do not expect that the arguments urged in this \ndiscourse will detach a single partizan from the creed \nto which he has long been bigoted ; but surely the \nincomprehensibility of the divine mind ought to \nrebuke the fierce controversies which too often em- \nbitter the hearts of Christians ; in waging which \nthey entirely forget the admonition, that \xe2\x80\x94 though we \nunderstand all mysteries and all knowledge \xe2\x80\x94 we are \nnothing without charity. Marcellus said that, with \nall his imperial power, Tiberius Caesar could not give \ncurrency to a new word. Sectarian gladiators have \nunhappily invented and consecrated a good many \nnew words, which have become the shibboleths of \nstrife, bitterness and persecution. The two parties \nwhom I have called Libertarians and Necessarians \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 509 \n\nare well known in the churches by other names. \nAnd they have often been arrayed in hostile atti- \ntudes against each other, urging a war of uncom- \npromising intolerance ; for this is a melancholy fact \nthat it has generally been about polemical abstrac- \ntions, scarcely ever about moral duties, that theolo- \ngians have fulminated their anathemas. Each of \nthese factions has much truth ; but each overlooks \nthe fact that, as a mist is more dangerous than dark- \nness, so partial truth is one of the most dangerous \nforms of error ; that the most effectual method of per- \nverting the Bible is to garble its teachings ; and each \nhas pushed its system so far as to trench upon other \ntruths. How much uncharitableness, strife, hatred, \nmalice would be avoided, \xe2\x80\x94 what peace, love, har- \nmony would adorn the churches \xe2\x80\x94 if these partizans \nloved their dogmas less, and the unmutilated Scrip- \ntures more ; if they would conquer their prejudices; \nif, instead of presumptuously seeking to reconcile \nGod\'s ways, they would remember that what seem \ndiscords to us, are only hidden, pre-established har- \nmonies, which shall one day fill us with admiration \nand adoration ; if, in short, \xe2\x80\x94 instead of a mistaken, \nharsh, hard orthodoxy \xe2\x80\x94 they possessed more of that \nreverence which is the sublimest faculty of man\'s \nnature, before which self is humbled into nothing, \nand God\'s ways are a vast infinitude edged with in- \ntolerable radiance \xe2\x80\x94 eternity spreading all around it \nand stretching far away as its back-ground % \n\n\n\n510 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nThe subject we have been discussing applies to \nour duties. Let us pray for grace that we may acqui- \nesce in all the mysteries of God\'s sovereignty, and \nyet hold inviolate all the strenuous activities of the \nlife of faith. In a revelation from heaven there must \nbe some mysteries ; there will be much that no \nthought of man can fully reach \xe2\x80\x94 since it is wrapped \nin the very light in which God dwells unapproach- \nably. But we would expect his will concerning us \nto be distinctly announced. And so we find it. \nWhatever is obscure, we clearly see our duty. In \nthe narrative before us, there was no sort of doubt \nas to what was to be done. The assurance from \nheaven not only did not relax the earnestness of the \nApostle and the seamen, but it inspired fresh \n-strength and ardor. And thus, if we are sincere, \nwill it be with us in our religious duties. Take prayer \nfor example. God promises to answer prayer, and \nwe know he does answer prayer. Let us not perplex \nourselves by curious speculations as to the manner \nin which our petitions can be granted, and how the \nprevalence of our supplications can consort with \nGod\'s unchangeableness. Prayer is the cry of human \nweakness, guilt and misery. If we are thoroughly \nin earnest, we will be encouraged by God\'s promises ; \nnor can any objection be drawn from the divine im- \nmutability, which would not equally prevent our \nplanting, or toiling, or employing any means what- \never to attain an object. \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 511 \n\nAgain, we are under the most solemn obligations \nto seek the salvation of men ; and we are only fold- \ning about us a fatal illusion, if we hope to escape \nthis responsibility by pleading any decrees of God. \nWhen Paul was vehemently opposed in Corinth, the \nLord said to him, " Be not afraid, but speak, and hold \nnot thy peace, for I have much people in this city." \nDoes the Apostle argue that if God had much people \nin the city, it was unnecessary for him to labor and \nexpose himself to suffering? Just the reverse. He \ndevotes himself with renewed zeal to his work, and \nin this he furnishes a pattern to us, and a reproof to \nthat antinomianism which has too long been a pre- \ntext for indolence, covetousness, perfidiousness in \nthe churches. \n\nLastly, and above all, let us learn to work out our \n"own salvation with fear and trembling." As a \nmotive to this duty, the Scriptures assure us that \n"it is God who worketh in us." Let us admit all \nthe force and comprehensiveness of this motive. \nGod worketh in me ; then I can work. God worketh \nin me ; then I will work. God worketh in me ; then \nI must work. \n\nAmidst all our ignorance and weakness, what we \nmost clearly perceive is, the transcendent impor- \ntance of religion, the love of God, the atonement of \nthe Cross and salvation through that atonement. \nJesus Christ has come into the world to save sin- \nners. His blood cleanses from all sin. The Holy \n\n\n\n512 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nSpirit can deliver us from all our corruptions. The \ngospel is adapted to all our wants, and offers us its \ntreasures without money and without price. All \nthis we know. And we know, too, that God\'s hid- \nden decrees do not at all affect our conduct and \ncharacter. You are shocked at the guilt of Judas \nand of the murderers of Christ. No ingenuity can \npersuade you that they were innocent because their \npassions were overruled and accomplished what \nGod had fore-ordained. Your conscience, then, sec- \nonds the declarations of the Bible on this subject. \n\nAnd your reason seconds . your conscience ; for y \nafter all your syllogisms to prove that the divine \npurposes hold and control man, nobody could in- \nduce you to leap into the sea, or to throw yourself \nfrom the summit of a precipice. \n\nApply this reasoning to the concerns of your \nsoul. Lost and ruined as we are, a great salvation \nhas been provided for us, and it is yours by faith in \nJesus. God repels no imputation with such intense \nabhorrence as that which charges him with desiring \nthe death of any sinner. " Oh, Israel," he exclaims, \n" thou hast destroyed thyself, but in me is thy help." \n" As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure \nin the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn \nfrom his way and live. Turn ye, turn ye, for why \nwill ye die ! " Having \xe2\x80\x94 at such expense \xe2\x80\x94 wrought \nout a wonderful atonement, Jesus now calls you to \nturn to him and accept a full deliverence ; he assures \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 513 \n\nyou he is not willing that " any should perish, but \nthat all should come to repentance." " Come unto \nme," he cries, "and him that cometh I will in no \nwise cast out." \n\nBut, still \xe2\x80\x94 as Paul said to the centurion and to the \nsoldiers, " Except these abide in the ship ye cannot \nbe saved " \xe2\x80\x94 so I tell you this day, that unless you \nare found in Christ, you cannot be saved. It has \nbeen well remarked, that any fool can ask questions \nwhich no wise man can answer; and the simplest \nman in that laboring vessel might have proposed \njust such impertinent inquiries as we now every \nday hear. If God has decreed that all of us shall \nbe saved, how can the escape of the sailors reverse \nthat decree ? If Infinite Wisdom and Power have \npredetermined that "not a hair shall fall from the \nhead of any of us," why need we take some meat? \nwhy " lighten the ship and cast out the wheat into \nthe sea"? " why loose the rudder bands and hoist \nup the mainsail to the wind " ? why need some \n"swim" and the rest seize upon "boards and \nbroken pieces of the ship " ? These and similar \nquestions any idiot might have asked ; but no man \nwas idiot enough to waste time in such casuistry. \nOn a sinking vessel people find very little edifica- \ntion in metaphysical dialectics ; they are altogether \ntoo much in earnest to bewilder their minds with \nthese unprofitable subtilties. In the hour of dan- \nger, he would be regarded as a lunatic, who should \n\n33 \n\n\n\n514 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nstop to reason as our pretended philosophers rea- \nson. Had any one of the passengers refused to \nIbestir himself and resolved to stand by his ortho- \ndoxy, he would certainly have been drowned, in \nspite of all his unanswerable logic. And so, my \nfriends, if you neglect the great salvation, you can- \nnot escape ; you will perish, and all your pleas and \npretences will only expose you to shame and ever- \nlasting contempt. \n\nBe warned, be wise, before it is forever too late. \nO, think, how short and uncertain your life is. Con- \nsider how perilous it is thus to defer that surrender \nto Jesus, which the word and providence and Spirit \nof God have so long been urging, and which you \nhave so often secretly resolved upon. What is the \ngreat concern % " What?" you reply, "Why ! the salva- \ntion of my soul, certainly. To abandon sin, to over- \ncome the fatal spirit of procrastination, to receive \nthe Gospel on the terms of the Gospel, to take up \nthe cross and follow Jesus\xe2\x80\x94 this is the first great \nconcern." Such, my dear hearer, has been your con- \nfession a hundred times; such is your confession \nnow. But what then? Alas, you have lived, and \nyou will leave this house to go on living, as if salva- \ntion were the only affair unworthy of your serious \nattention. Lay these things solemnly to heart. Go \nnot all the way to the judgment, to discover that \nyour destruction is unnecessary and willful and \nwanton. \n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION. 515 \n\nOr, if you are bent on self-destruction \xe2\x80\x94 if no en- \ntreaties from God, no restraints of his providence, \nno solicitations of the Spirit, no expostulations, no \ntears of your Saviour can stop you \xe2\x80\x94 at least do not \ninsult Heaven by pretending that you are waiting \nfor more effectual influences. This plea admits that \nyou feel some strivings of the Holy Ghost ; why do \nyou not comply with these ? Why resist these, and \ndesire more powerful movements ? What is this, \nbut openly to proclaim that you will try conclusions \nwith the Almighty ? that you are resolved to strive \nagainst your Maker, to yield nothing to him willingly, \nto defy him as long as you can, and only to submit \nto a sad necessity when he shall compel you? Is \nthere anything in Eevelation \xe2\x80\x94 do you seriously \nthink there is anything in the secret counsels of \neternity \xe2\x80\x94 to justify the hope that God will thus be \nappeased ? What, my beloved friend, what can you \nexpect from such deliberate, unrelenting opposition \nto the Sovereign of the Universe ? What must be \nthe issue of such an unequal, disastrous, desperate \nconflict ? \n\nLet me adjure you \xe2\x80\x94 by the mercies of God and by \nthe unspeakable danger of your soul, with only a \nbrief and uncertain remnant of life left you \xe2\x80\x94 to \nadopt a different course. "Hear ye and give ear; \nbe not proud, for the Lord hath spoken. Give glory \nto the Lord your God, before he cause darkness, and \nbefore your feet stumble upon the dark mountains." \n\n\n\n516 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nHe is the incomprehensible Jehovah ; but the mys- \nteriousness of his counsels casts no obscuration \nover his wisdom and love. It is a subliming, rejoic- \ning exercise of faith, to feel that in God\'s ways there \nare heights and depths far out of our sight ; to sub- \nmit wholly to him ; to ascribe all honor and salvation \nto him \xe2\x80\x94 of whom and through whom, and to whom \nare all things ; to whom be glory forever. Amen. \n\n\n\nPERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. \n\n\n\nBY KEY. T. T. EATON, D. D., PETERSBURG, YA. \n\n\n\n*\' They shall never perish." \xe2\x80\x94 John x. 28. \n\nWill all who are truly regenerate persevere in a \nstate of grace to a state of glory ? or will some of \nthem finally perish. ? Many a priori arguments have \nbeen used on both sides of this great question, which \nhas for so many centuries divided the professed fol- \nlowers of Christ; but since " the Bible, and the Bible \nonly, is the religion of Protestants," it is alone worth \nour while to consider what the Scriptures teach upon \nthis subject. \n\nIf the doctrine of election be true, then the final \nperseverance of the saints follows as a necessary \ncorollary, so that every passage that can be cited to \nprove the former doctrine also goes to establish the \nlatter. Peter (I. i. 2-5) calls Christians who are \nscattered over the world, "Elect according to the \nforeknowledge of God the Father through sanctifi- \ncation of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling \nof the blood of Jesus Christ; " and he adds that they \n" are kept by the power of God through faith unto \n\n517 \n\n\n\n518 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nsalvation ready to be revealed in the last time." It \nis plain this language would not have been true of \nany Christians in " Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, \nand Bithynia," who afterwards were lost. It there- \nfore follows that none of them were lost; and if none \nof them, then no true Christians in any age will perish. \nPaul wrote to the Thessalonians (II. ii. 13), "God \nhath from the beginning chosen you to salvation \nthrough the sanctifieation of the Spirit and belief of \nthe truth." Now, it is evident that no man can perish \nwhom God hath chosen to salvation, for if chosen to \nsalvation, he must be saved. A salvation that does \nnot save is a contradiction. Ko man is saved so long \nas danger still threatens him, for the saved man is \nsafe, and no one is safe who is in danger of perishing. \nPaul told the Philippian jailer (Acts xvi. 31), " Believe \non the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, \nand thy house." If there had been any danger of \nthe jailer\'s being lost after believing, the Apostle \ncould not have spoken to him thus. The language is \nnot "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and then you \nwill have a probability of salvation," but "believe \non the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." \nAgain, in Acts ii. 47, we read, "And the Lord added \nto the church daily such as should be saved," \xe2\x80\x94 or, \naccording to the Greek, "the saved," \xe2\x80\x94 and there could \nhave been no doubtful ones among those added. \nOther similar passages might be cited, but let these \nsuffice. None who are chosen of God to salvation \n\n\n\nPERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 519 \n\nwill perish. All Christians are thus chosen. There- \nfore no Christian will perish. \n\nOur Saviour declared the doctrine of the Perse- \nverance of the Saints in language as plain as it is \npossible to use : " He that heareth my word, and \nbelieveth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, \nand shall not come into condemnation ; but is passed \nfrom death unto life." (John v. 24.) Every regen- \nerate man is described by the words, " he that heareth. \nmy word and believeth on him that sent me," and, \ntherefore, every regenerate man "hath everlasting \nlife, and shall not come into condemnation." Could \nlanguage declare more plainly that no Christian will \nfinally perish? Universalists tinker at the word \neverlasting, and attempt to show that it does not \nmean endless; but even Universalists would scarcely \nclaim that a life which endured only a few years could \nbe rightly called everlasting. It is to be observed \nJesus does not say "shall have," but "hath everlast- \ning life "\xe2\x80\x94 the verb (s/sr) is in the present tense. To \nmake it doubly sure, our Lord adds that such an one \n"shall not come into condemnation," which he would \ncertainly do if he should be lost. The change from \ndeath to life has passed upon him that believeth, and \nthat change is irreversible forever. Of similar import \nare other passages, e. #., John iii. 3G: "He that \nbelieveth on the Son hath everlasting life.\'\' We see \nthat the very terms used in speaking of regeneration \nforbid the idea of men\'s perishing who are regen- \nerate. \n\n\n\n520 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nThere is no such thing as a second spiritual birth. \nNicodemus was right, that a second natural birth was \nimpossible. No man is born, and grows a short time, \ndies and is born again to live a few more years, and \nso on. The same is true of the spiritual birth from \nabove; it stands at the beginning of the Christian \nlife. No man is born a babe in Christ, to grow in \ngrace for awhile, to die and become a babe again. \nThis analogy is of our Saviour\'s own choosing (John \niii. 3-7), and shows that as we have but one natural \nlife, so we have but one spiritual life. This does not \nof itself prove that the spiritual life may not be lost, \nbut since those who believe the doctrine of apostasy \nbelieve that men may be regenerated, lose their faith, \nand be regenerated again, and repeat the process \nseveral times, it is proper to show, in this connection, \nthat a man can be regenerated but once. \n\nChristians are often spoken of as children of God \nin Scripture, and this is no evanescent relation. Once \na son, always a son, though a prodigal. Jesus calls \nbelievers sheep, and says, " My sheep hear my voice \nand I know them, and they follow me; and I give \nunto them eternal life, and they shall never perish ; \nneither shall any pluck them out of my hand." (John \nx. 27, 28.) Here it is plainly declared that no Chris- \ntian will ever perish \xe2\x80\x94 "they shall never perish." \nSuch language would be false if a single one of the \nsheep was lost. And at the last day \xe2\x80\x94 under the \nfigure of a shepherd\'s dividing the sheep from the \n\n\n\nPERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 521 \n\ngoats \xe2\x80\x94 Christ tells us he will separate the righteous \nfrom the wicked (Matt. xxv. 32 and sq.), placing the \nsheep upon the right hand and the goats upon the \nleft. u Then shall the King say unto them on his right \nhand, i Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the \nkingdom prepared for you from the foundation of \nthe world. 7 " All who are his sheep will hear this \nglad welcome \xe2\x80\x94 none of them shall perish. \n\nIn the sermon on the mount, our Lord declared, \nu Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have \nwe not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name \nhave cast out devils ? and in thy name have done \nmany wonderful works? And then will I profess \nunto them, I never knew you : depart from me, ye \nthat work iniquity." (Matt. vii. 22, 23.) Note the \nexpression, " I never knew you." It is not, " I do \nnot now know you, though I knew you once," but "I \nnever knew you." Xone of that throng were ever \ntruly regenerate, although they had made great pro- \nfessions and had been very active in "many wonderful \nworks," else Christ would have known them. Paul \ndeclares his faith in the doctrine of final persever- \nance when he writes to the Philip pians (i. 6): "Being \nconfident of this very thing, that he which hath begun \na, good work in you will perforin it until the day of \nJesus Christ." The word rendered " perform " is \niizereXiffee, and has the sense of " finish." God begins \nthe work of grace in every regenerate person, and \nfor that person to perish, would be for God to leave \n\n\n\n522 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nhis work in that one unfinished. And since God will \nfinish the work of grace he has begun in each heart \n" until the day of Jesus Christ," if any Christian falls \nfrom grace it must be after the resurrection, and that \nno one claims. \n\nMoreover, perseverance in holiness is declared in \nScripture to be a test of regeneration ; that is to say, \nthose who do not persevere were never truly regen- \nerate. Jesus said to some of the Jews at Jerusalem \nwho believed on him, " If ye continue in my word \nthen are ye my disciples indeed." (John viii. 31.) \n"If ye continue," "then are;" mark the words; the \nfuture continuance is a test of their present faith. \nIf they continued not, then they were not at any time \nChrist\'s disciples indeed. To the same effect is the \nutterance of John (I. ii. 19), " They went out from us, \nbut they were not of us ; for if they had been of us \nthey would have continued with us." In King James* \nversion, the words " no doubt " are inserted, but in \nitalics, to show they do not belong in the passage. \nHere, then, it is emphatically stated that if those who \nwent out had been "of us"\xe2\x80\x94 that is to say, if they \nhad been regenerate \xe2\x80\x94 "they would have continued \nwith us." The seed planted in Christian hearts is \ndeclared to be " incorruptible " (I. Peter i. 23), so that \nwhenever what appears to be the result of regenera- \ntion becomes corrupt, that proves the regeneration \nto have been unreal. It is self-evident that what is \nincorruptible cannot become corrupt. " Whosoever \n\n\n\nPERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 523 \n\nis born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed \nremaineth in him." (I. John iii. 9.) If, then, the seed \nremain eth in whosoever is born of God, no such one \ncan perish. The seed which brought forth no fruit, \nin the parable, was sown in stony places and by the \nwayside ; that which fell in good ground yielded from \nthirty to an hundred fold. The house which fell was \nthe one built upon the sand; the one founded upon \nthe rock stood unharmed through the storm. \n\nThere are other passages which might be cited, but \nthese are sufficient for our present limits. Let us \nnow consider the texts relied on to prove the oppo- \nsite doctrine. In Matthew x. 22 we read, " But he \nthat endureth to the end shall be saved ; w and this \nis claimed as implying that some will begin the life of \nfaith, and, failing to endure to the end, will perish. \nThe inference is unwarranted; the passage simply \ndeclares that the saved man is he that endureth to \nthe end. This is made clear by referring to the Greek, \n6 dk uTzo/iecvaz ere ri^oc, o t jtoq acodrjaerai. Again, the \npassage (Heb. x. 38), " If any man dra*w back, my \nsoul shall have no pleasure in him," is relied on to \nprove the doctrine of apostasy. The next verse \nmakes the meaning plain (verse 39), "But we are not \nof them that draw back unto perdition, but of them \nthat believe to the saving of the soul." Here two \nclasses are described: those who " draw back " and \nthose who "believe," and the passage is equivalent \nto a declaration that none who believe will draw \n\n\n\n524 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nback. Again (Heb. iii. 6 and 14): "Bat Christ as a \nson over his own house; whose house are we, if we \nhold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope \nfirm unto the end?" and "For we are made partakers \nof Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence \nsteadfast unto the end." These passages, so far from \nintimating that true believers may perish, declare \njust the opposite, for they make perseverance the \ntest of the genuineness of faith. " Whose house are \nwe if," etc. ; " We are made partakers of Christ if," \netc. ; that is to say, if we do not hold fast we are not \nof Christ\'s house, nor are we made partakers of him; \nthus perseverance is made the test of discipleship, \nas we saw above. Salvation is promised to those \nwho persevere; it is also promised to those who \nrepent, and to those who believe, to those who love \nGod, and to those who call upon him. Now, there is \nas much reason for saying that some repent who do \nnot believe, or some believe who do not love God, or \nsome love God who do not pray, as there is for saying \nthat some believe who do not persevere. \n\nIt is also claimed that apostasy is taught by our \nLord in his last discourse to his disciples before his \ndeath. " Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, \nhe taketh it away; and every branch that beareth \nfruit, he purgeth it that it may bring forth more \nfruit." (John xv. 2.) It is not stated that the fruit- \nless branches ever bore any fruit, which they must \nhave done according to the doctrine of apostasy. \n\n\n\nPERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 525 \n\nOur Lord calls attention to two sorts of branches \xe2\x80\x94 \nthe fruitless and the fruitful\xe2\x80\x94 and only the latter are \nsaid to abide in him. In verse 6 he declares : " If \na man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch," \netc. Here, then, is a branch which did not abide in \nthe vine, which had it done, it would (v. 5) have borne \nfruit. There are two sorts of branches on grape- \nvines \xe2\x80\x94 the real branch, which comes from the heart \nof the vine, and the proud shoot, which comes only \nfrom the sap. These latter are fruitless, and typify \nthose who make the Christian profession, but have \nno \\ital union with Christ, and do not "abide" in him. \nWhen our Lord uttered these words he was walking \nwith his disciples through the vineyards which bor- \ndered Kedron, and amidst the fires in which the \nfruitless branches were being burnt by the keepers, \nXo fruitful branch nor one which has a heart con- \nnection with the vine will ever be cast away. \n\nPeter\'s denial and Christ\'s words to him, " When \nthou art converted, strengthen thy brethren," we \nfind cited to establish the doctrine of apostasy. But \nit must be borne in mind that conversion is not \nthe same as regeneration. Conversion is a turning \nround, so that a man may be said to be converted as \noften as he goes wrong, while regeneration gives him \na new nature, and this can take place but once. That \nPeter did not fall from grace is evident from Jesus; \nsaying to him, " But I have prayed for thee that thy \nfaith fail not." At the grave of Lazarus our Lord \n\n\n\n526 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nprayed, " Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard \nme. And I know that thou nearest me always ; but \nbecause of the people which stand by I said it that \nthey may believe that thou hast sent me." Since the \nFather hears Christ always, he heard him when he \nprayed for Peter, and so his faith did not fail; and as \n2a proof that it did not, after the denial, he " went out \nand wept bitterly." And that same Saviour who \nprayed for Peter, prays to-day for all true Christians \nthat their faith fail not, and therefore in no case will \nit fail. " It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is \nrisen again, who is even at the right hand of God, \nwho also maketh intercession for us." ( Bom. viii. 34. \nSee also Heb. vii. 25, and I. John ii. 1.) \n\nPaul is supposed to teach the possibility of apos- \ntasy in I. Cor. ix. 27, where he says, "But I keep \nunder my body and bring it into subjection ; lest that \nby any means, when I have preached to others, I \nmyself should be a castaway." If he had said, " lest \nI myself should be an apostate," then the passage \nmight have borne the interpretation sought to be \nput upon it. The Apostle is comparing the Christian \nlife to the contests of the Greek athletes \xe2\x80\x94 a familiar \npicture to the Corinthians \xe2\x80\x94 and after stating how \nthese athletes were " temperate in all things," "to \nobtain a corruptible crown," he goes on to say: "I \ntherefore so run, not as uncertainly ; so fight I, not \na-s one that beateth the air. But I keep my body \nunder," etc. The word rendered " castaway " is \n\n\n\nPERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 527 \n\ndooxc/io- and means "spurious." Plato and other \nGreek writers use the word to describe counterfeit \ncoin. Xow a counterfeit coin never was genuine, \nand the use of the word in this connection, so far \nfrom favoring, is in direct conflict with the doctrine \nof apostasy. \n\nThat Paul said to the Galatians, "Ye are fallen \nfrom grace," is sometimes cited to prove apostasy. \nBut the connection plainly shows that the Apostle \nreferred to the doctrinal error of those who claimed \nthat justification was by the law instead of by faith, \nand the argument is, that such persons, in their \nbelief, had fallen from the doctrines of grace to \nthose of works. A simple reading of the fourth, \nfifth and sixth verses ( Gal. v. 4, 5, 6,) will make the \nmeaning clear. " Christ is become of no effect unto \nyou, whosoever of you are justified by the law ; ye \nare fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit \nwait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For \nin Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any- \nthing, nor uncircumcision ; but faith which worketh \nby love." \n\nBut the passages chiefly relied upon to establish \nthe doctrine of apostasy are Hebrews vi. 4-6 \xe2\x80\x94 " For \nit is impossible for those who were once enlightened \nand have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made \npartakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted of the \ngood word of God, and the powers of the world to \ncome, if they shall fall away, to renew them again \n\n\n\n528 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nunto repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves \nthe Son of G-od afresh, and put him to an open \nshame ;"\xe2\x80\x94 and x. 26, 27\xe2\x80\x94" For if we sin wilfully after \nthat we have received the knowledge of the truth, \nthere remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a \nfearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, \nwhich shall devour the adversaries." If these pas- \nsages prove apostasy, they prove too much for the \nadvocates of that doctrine, who teach that a man \nmay be recovered after apostatizing, and that, too, \nmore than once. The words apostasy, apostatizing, \netc., are used in this discussion as meaning the loss \nof regeneration and the passing back from a state \nof grace to a state of nature. But in neither of \nthese passages is it said that a regenerate man may \nfall away. To say " if a thing should happen," is not \nto declare that it ever will happen. But none of the \nexpressions in the above passages are necessarily \ndescriptive of a true Christian. The expression \n" made partakers of the Holy Ghost and the powers \nof the world to come " is nearest such a description; \nbut Judas had this qualification, for he wrought mira- \ncles by the power of the Holy Ghost; and Judas was \nnever regenerate. It has been claimed that he was \nregenerate, and John xvii. 12 has been cited in proof. \n" Those whom thou gavest me have I kept, and none \nof them is lost, but the son of perdition." That \nJudas is here not declared to be one of those given \n\n\n\n\nWILLIAM JEWELL COLLEGE, LIBERTY, MO. \n\n\n\nPERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 529 \n\nto Christ will appeal by citing some precisely similar \nexpressions. For example, in Luke iv. 25, 26, 27, we \nread : " But I tell you of a truth, many widows and \norphans were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the \nheaven was shut up three years and six months, \nwhen great famine was throughout all the land ; but \nunto none of them was Elias sent save unto Sarepta, \na city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. \nAnd many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus \nthe prophet, and none of them was cleansed saving \nNaaman the Syrian." \xc2\xa3Tow the widow of Sarepta \nand Naaman the Syrian are just as much included \namong the widows of Israel and the lepers of \nIsrael, respectively, as is Judas included among \nthose given to Christ. And neither the widow nor \nXaaman were Israelites. The passage concerning \nJudas, fully expressed, would be : " Those whom \nthou gavest me have I kept, and none of them is \nlost, but the son of perdition is lost." \n\nThere can be little doubt, however, that these two \npassages from Hebrews refer to the unpardonable \nsin. The descriptions suit that view exactly, and \nsince this sin in Hebrews is declared unpardonable, \nif it is different from the sin against the Holy Ghost, \nwhich Jesus declared could never be forgiven, then \nthere are two unpardonable sins, which no one \nclaims. And besides John declares " there is a sin \nunto death" (I. John v. 16); language he would not \nhave used had there been two such sins. \n\n\n\n530 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nIt was not the purpose of this discussion to go \noutside of Scripture, but there is one objection, \ndrawn from expediency, urged against the doctrine \nof Final Perseverance, and urged with such earnest- \nness that we take space to mention it. It is asked, \nif the doctrine of Perseverance be true, what is the \nuse of Christians\' striving to keep the law ? If a man \nis saved when regenerated, and nothing can cause the \nloss of his soul, why should he not sin to his heart\'s \ncontent? Now this objection rests upon the idea \nthat Christians desire to sin, and are only restrained \nby their fear of losing heaven, and thus their \nlove to God is reduced to " a lively sense of favors \nexpected " \xe2\x80\x94 a feeling contemptible in the eyes of all \nnoble men. Salvation is not simply the removal of \nsin\'s penalty, but also deliverance from its power \nand pollution, and that man who would continue in \nsin if there was no penalty, is not a Christian. Jesus \ndeclared : " For whosoever will save his life shall \nlose it." ( Matt. xvi. 25.) According to Scripture the \nregenerate man loves holiness, strives and agonizes \nto be freed from the pollution of sin, and struggles \nagainst the law of sin remaining in his members and \nleading him into transgression. So that if a man \nloves sin, and only shrinks from it because of its \nconsequences, he is a stranger to the saving grace \nof God. The true Christian would avoid sin none \nthe less if he was certain of reaching heaven at last, \n\n\n\nPERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 531 \n\nbecause he hates sin and loves God. An unregen- \nerate man in the church, if convinced that he was \nsure to reach heaven, would plunge headlong into \nsin because in his heart he loves sin ; and only to \nsuch is the doctrine of Saints\' Perseverance a savor \nof death unto death. Perseverance, as we have \nseen, is a test of regeneration. \n\nWhile there is no danger of apostasy to God\'s \nchildren, there is great danger of self-deception, and \ngreat need for us to "work out our own salvation \nwith fear and trembling." Those who at the last will \nsay, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy \nname," etc., cannot be regarded as hypocrites, but \nas deceived ; for they evidently went to their graves \nbelieving they would reach heaven. How shall we \nknow that we are not deceived ? John says : " He \nthat loveth is born of God; " and again, "This is the \nlove of God, that ye keep his commandments." ( I. \nJohn v. 3.) The verse before is a conclusive answer \nto the question just asked \xe2\x80\x94 "By this we know that \nwe love the children of God, when we love God and \nkeep his commandments." If we do this with earn- \nest and honest purpose, asking the Holy Spirit to \nguide us, we can echo from blessed hearts those \njoyful words wherein the great Apostle declares his \nbelief in the Final Perseverance of the Saints, in \nthat chapter (Eom, viii.) which is one long affirmation \nof this glorious doctrine. " For I am persuaded that \n\n\n\n532 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nneither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, \nnor powers, nor things present, nor things to coine y \nnor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall \nbe able to separate us from the love of God, which \nis in Christ Jesus our Lord*" \n\n\n\n\n\n\nFUTURE PUNISHMENT\xe2\x80\x94 CHARACTER DE- \nTERMINES DOOM. \n\n\n\nBY REV. J. L. BURROWS, D. D., LOUISYILLE, KY. \n\n" He that is unjust, let him be unjust still ; he that is filthy, let \nhim be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be \nrighteous still ; and he that is holy, let him be holy still." \xe2\x80\x94 \nKev. xxii. 11. \n\nWhatever applications or limitations may be given \nto this passage, to make it fit in with the varied theo- \nries of interpreting the Apocalypse, this much at \nleast is certain : That it teaches that the tendency of \nboth evil and good affections is to fixedness and \nmastery in the soul that fosters them. And this is \nnot simply a truth of revelation, it is a fact of all \nhuman history and experience. Even if God\'s Word \nhad never referred to it, it is indisputable truth. \nMen do become worse and worse by indulging and \npracticing evil, and they become better and better \nby cherishing good. The boy of fifteen may timidly \nand tremblingly enter upon a career of vice, which \nshall harden into inveterate and unchecked villainy \nin the man of forty. Right principles, persistently \noperative, mould habits of spirit and life, and become \nincorporate and incarnate as righteous character. \nLoose principles, carelessly acted upon, develop into \n\n533 \n\n\n\n534 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nevil habits of soul and life and form bad character. \nAnd this is only saying what every thinking mind \nknows to be true ; that men good at heart become \nbetter and better, and men bad at heart become \nworse and worse. \n\nThere has been a good deal of preaching and writ- \ning and talking during the past few years about the \nexistence, nature and duration of hell. Much of it \nhas been misapprehended. As to the essential fact \nthat the Scriptures do reveal that the impenitent \nungodly will be wretched in the future world, there \nis almost entire agreement among evangelical Chris- \ntians holding to the inspiration of the Scriptures. \nAs to the precise nature of the wretchedness, and as \nto the right interpretation of some of those terrible \ntexts which speak of future woe, there may be \ndifferences. Some, too, may imagine that, through \nsome yet unrevealed methods of redemption, there \nmay be deliverance from misery and restoration to \nthe favor of God. This is about the sum of the \ndifferences among evangelical ministers on this sub- \nject. Now let me say to you, my friend, you will be \nvery unwise to permit any discussions of this sort \nto encourage you to live in disobedience to God\'s \ncommandments, and jump to the conclusion, " There \nis no hell, and therefore I may live as I please ; no \nmatter how vilely I sin, I shall escape all punishment \nin the future world and be translated to a happy \nheaven." You had better not risk your soul upon a \n\n\n\nFUTURE PUNISHMENT. 535 \n\ndoubt, and live as though you were sure there would \nbe no future retribution. Even a doubt on such a \nsubject should impel us to choose the safer side. \n\nAll agree that heaven may be secured by a holy \nsoul, and that this holiness may be attained through \nfaith in Christ and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. \nThis at least is a sure way to heaven, and he is a fool \nwho risks his soul upon a doubt as to whether there \nmay not be some other way to heaven. Who would \ngrope his way in storm and darkness to a mansion \nwhen he might have a clear and sure light along his \npath ? \n\nI submit for your serious consideration the follow- \ning propositions, which, I think, are in harmony with \nall known mental laws and with the whole scope and \ntenor of God\'s Word. May God help you to weigh \nthem with an honest heart as plainly set forth in the \nWord of God ! \n\nI. \xe2\x80\x94 Heaven is a home for the holy. \n\nA few out of many similar proofs from the Bible \nare these: Eom. ii. 7: "To them who by patient \ncontinuance in well doing seek for glory and honor \nand immortality, eternal life." Eom. vi. 22 : " Being \nmade free from sin and become servants of God, ye \nhave your fruit unto holiness and the end everlasting \nlife." Heb. xii. 23: "The general assembly and \nchurch of the first born which are written in heaven," \nis composed of "the spirits of just men made per- \nfect." It is " an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled \n\n\n\n536 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\n* * * and reserved in heaven for you." Kev. xxi. \n27 . a There shall in no wise enter into it anything \nthat defileth nor worketh abomination, nor maketh a \nlie, but they which are written in the Lamb\'s book of \nlife." With such proof-texts I think it can scarcely \nbe doubted that the Scriptures plainly teach that \nthose who are gathered into heaven will be holy, \nBut then : \n\nII. \xe2\x80\x94 In this life men are not lioly. \n\n" There is none righteous, no not one." (Eom. iii. \n10.) " The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it \nis not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can \nbe." (Rom. viii. 7.) This is a fact so universal and \npalpable as to be undeniable. No theory of morals, \nheathen or philosophical, asserts that men anywhere \nare what they ought to be or might be. There is no \nstandard of right raised which man reaches. In \nevery one\'s own consciousness and conscience is a \nconviction of failure and wrong. I care not how short \nmay be your measuring-rod of perfection, it will \nalways be longer than your own conduct and charac- \nter will stretch over. You know in your own soul \nthat you are not holy, and we have only to listen to \nyour criticisms of the failings and faults of others to \nassure us that you do not believe that anybody else \nis immaculate. There seems scarcely need to argue \nsuch question at all. The proof is in the statement. \nAll history, observation and experience confirm it. \nMen are not pure and holy beings. \n\n\n\n1 LTURE PUNISHMENT. 537 \n\nIf heaven is a home for the holy, and if men are \nnot holy, then, \n\nIII. \xe2\x80\x94 Men\'s affections must be changed before they \ncan be fitted for heaven. \n\nThis is a proposition which, as it seems to me, must \nbe self-evident to every thinking mind. One cannot \nbe happy amid surroundings which he dislikes, in \nemployments which he hates. Take a vicious and \nhardened man out of a filthy hovel or a thieves\' den, \nwhere he finds enjoyment in carousing and drinking \nand gambling, in obscene songs, and blasphemous \nslang, and ribald jests, and drunken laughter, plotting \nburglaries and thefts, and introduce him into a pious \nfamily, where the conversation is decorous and del- \nicate, where culture, and intelligence, and virtue \ncharacterize the whole intercourse of the household, \nand tell him to be happy there. Have you made him \nhappy by the transfer without any change of his \ntastes and habits? You may tell him that his old \nhaunt was a hell, and that this is a heaven, but he \nwill scowl and curse you, and clamor, "Let me out \nof this ! I had rather go back to my hell than live in \nsuch a heaven as this." And he would dive, too, into \nhis hell in an hour, if he could find his way there, and \njest and laugh with his comrades about the mawkish \nand insipid and flat enjoyments to which he had \nbeen introduced. You must change the man\'s whole \nnature before he can be satisfied with what is pure \nand refined and elevating. \n\n\n\n538 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nCan you not see that the teachings of the Bible on \nthis subject are founded upon profoundest knowl- \nedge of human nature. " Ye must be born again or \nyou cannot see the kingdom of God." You must be \n"created anew," become "a new creature," "dead to \nsin and alive unto holiness," before heaven could \nreveal any joys that would suit your tastes or give \nyou any pleasure. Why, sinner, when you think of \nheaven as a pure and holy place, can you imagine airy \nenjoyment which you could find amid such environ- \nments or in such society? \n\nBut perhaps you answer me: I hope to be so \nchanged in tastes and feelings that I shall enjoy the \npleasures which heaven furnishes. When and how? \n\nAnd let this question lead to our next proposition: \n\nIY. \xe2\x80\x94 Death works no change of character. \n\nThis our text plainly intimates : " He that is unjust,, \nlet him be unjust still; and he that is filthy, let him \nbe filthy still ; and he that is righteous, let him be \nrighteous still ; and he that is holy, let him be holy \nstill." \n\nMen sometimes talk loosely about death, as though \nit created some change of moral character, tastes and \npropensities. But death has to do only with man\'s \nphysical being. It only stops the beating of the \nheart and the heaving of the lungs \xe2\x80\x94 stops the \naction of the vital forces and leaves the body to dis- \nsolution and decay. But in all this there is nothing \nthat touches mind or spirit, nothing that can annihilate^ \n\n\n\nFUTURE PUNISHMENT. 539 \n\nor alter faculties or dispositions of the soul. A change \nof state or of place does not work a change of char- \nacter or of conscience. A bad man in America does \nnot become a good man by travelling to France or \nPalestine, nor is there anything in the transfer from \ntime into eternity to transform a filthy into a holy \nheart. What a man is in essential character this side \nof death he will be beyond it. You cannot die a \nsinner and be raised a saint. The bullet driven \nthrough a man\'s heart cannot reform his spiritual \ntastes and propensities or loves. If in death he lies \ndown depraved, he will wake up depraved. What he \nloved here he will love there ; what he hated here he \nwill hate there. If he ended this life a rebel against \nGod, he will begin the new life a rebel against God. \nIf he repudiated God and his authority and com- \nmandments in this life, he will, with equal dislike, \nrepudiate them in the life to come. This position is \nin the line of all the deductions of mental science, \nas well as of the teachings of God\'s Word. In no \nsense can death be a renewer, purifier or saviour of \nthe soul. Then it follows : \n\nY. \xe2\x80\x94 If man a is unholy at death, he will be unholy \nafter death\' \n\nYou will carry with you across the line the nature \nyou possess here. If you are "holy, you will be \nholy still ; if filthy, you will be filthy still." Death is \nnothing but the stoppage of the life*forces; it is \nsimply the absence of life, as darkness is the absence \n\n\n\n540 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nof light, or cold absence of heat. Death does not \nimprove the body; it initiates deterioration, decay \nand corruption. It cannot improve mind or soul. It \ncan have no influence in purifying or in any way \nchanging moral character, in modifying mental habits \nor affections. In the very nature of things, then, it \nmust be that if the soul continues to exist after the \ndissolution of the body, it must exist with the same \naffections, dispositions and habits as before that dis- \nsolution. If a man hates God before he dies, he will \nhate God after his death. If he repudiates his right \nand authority this side the grave, he will repudiate \nthem the other side. If he loves sin in this life, up \nto the point of his departure, he will love it beyond \nthat point. If he is rebellious and selfish, and impa- \ntient and malignant until he dies, he will be all this \nafterward. If he is pure and loving and good, he \nwill wake up so in eternity. If he has faith in Jesus \nto save and keep him, when he goes out of this life, \nhe will find this faith sustaining and cheering him \nwhen he enters the next. Death changes nothing \nbut matter. It has no power over mind and spirit. \nWhat a man is within himself in time, he will be in \neternity. \n\nYI. \xe2\x80\x94 Affections and passions are confirmed and inten- \nsified by indulgence and exercise. \n\nOf this we have clearest proof in this life. Evil \npassions by every indulgence become stronger. \nPure affections by every exercise become more \n\n\n\nFUTURE PUNISHMENT. 541 \n\npleasant and controlling. The man who gives way \nto anger, hate, avarice, lust, becomes worse and \never worse, strengthening habits and enlarging \ncapabilities for evil. He who cultivates patience, \nforbearance, kindness, benevolence, charity, grows \nin these graces and becomes better and ever better \nin heart. Every thoughtful eye perceives this : that \nthe bent and culture of one\'s affections enter into \nthe formation of his permanent character. Is there \nany reason for believing that this natural law is sus- \npended beyond death? What will there be to check \nor correct these proclivities and propensities of his \nnature? What will there be to hinder rebellion \nfrom becoming more rebellious; hate becoming- \nmore hating; envy, more envious; blasphemy, more \nblasphemous ; every vile passion more violent ? And, \non the other hand, why should not there, as here, \nevery virtue and grace, by its own cultivation and \nexercise, become purer, sweeter and pleasanter? If \nthe same mental laws operate there as here, there \nwill be progressive developments and experiences \xe2\x80\x94 \nin the one direction wicked and wretched; in the \nother, pure and joyful. \n\nVII. \xe2\x80\x94 There tcill be law and government in the next \nicorld as really as in this. \n\nMany have an indefinite sort of notion that in the \nfuture life everything will be fixed and unchange- \nable ; that heaven will furnish rewards only for what \nhas been done well in this world, and that hell will \n\n\n\n542 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nexecute penalties only for what has been done of \nevil here. But God\'s word furnishes no warrant for \nsuch idea. " From everlasting to everlasting Jeho- \nvah is God." " He shall reign forever and ever." \n\nAs the laws which govern physical nature operate \nthrough all time, so must the laws that govern mind. \nIf law is violated in eternity, it will be followed by \npenalty as surely as in time. You cannot get away \nfrom God\'s government. His laws will be as binding \nin heaven and hell as upon earth. "If I ascend to \nheaven, thou art there ; if I make my bed in hell, \nbehold, thou art there," etc. The sum of all his laws \nis this : " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all \nthy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself." Wherever \nthis law is not obeyed there is sin. It follows, then, \n\nVIII. \xe2\x80\x94 So long as the soul siiis it will suffer. \n\nSin, by its own inherent nature, works woe. The \nquestion then is, will you continue to be a sinner in \nthe future world f And what is to prevent this, if \nyour nature is not changed and purified ? You will \nbe as responsible for obedience to divine law there \nas you are here. Will you be likely to love God and \nyour neighbor there ! Carrying with you that nature \nand disposition you now possess, will you not hate \nGod, and blaspheme his name, and wish you could \nconquer and dethrone him I You would not be rec- \nonciled to him in this life, where you had offers and \nopportunities; will you become reconciled to him \nthere, when these opportunities are passed over? \n\n\n\nFUTURE PUNISHMENT. 513 \n\nBy your persistence in impenitence in this life, by \nyour refusal to become fitted for the purity and \nblessedness of a holy heaven, you will have brought \nupon yourself a fatal necessity of perpetual sinful- \nness \xe2\x80\x94 an impure state of heart \xe2\x80\x94 and that will bring \nits own wretchedness there, just as it does here. \nGod does not arbitrarily send any man to hell. The \nman sends himself thither, because he is not fitted \nand would not become fitted for heaven. His own \ncorrupt nature, his love of evil, his wicked disposi- \ntions, his antagonism of spirit to a holy God \xe2\x80\x94 these \ncompose his hell. And according to his own evil \npropensities and affinities he finds his own place and \ncompanions. We find fearful illustrations of this in \nthis world. There are hovels and dens in this, in \nevery city, where parents and children live in bestial \nfilth, riotous, blasphemous, vicious, criminal \xe2\x80\x94 where \nthe parents are brutal and quarrelsome and violent, \nand where the children are trained to beggary, theft \nand burglary, and glory in their skill, and not a mem- \nber of the household would change their hell of a \nhome for an abode of purity and refinement and \nintelligence. And there is an awful sense in which \nwicked men will prefer hell to heaven. They will \nfind in hell associations and affinities that will \nbetter suit their own tastes and habits than heaven \ncould furnish, unless their natures are changed and \npurified. \n\n\n\n544 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nIX. \xe2\x80\x94 Wretchedness works no change of character. \n\nA notion prevails that punishment is reformatory; \nthat suffering can purify the heart ; that the fires of \npurgatory or of hell can burn out the impurities of \nthe soul and fuse the spirit into holiness. And we \nhad the novel spectacle a few years since of thou- \nsands of priests praying at thousands of altars that \nthe Pope, the infallible head of the church, might \nspeedily be purified by the fires of purgatory and be \npermitted to enter heaven. They seemed to have \nhad doubts as to whether he whom they called and \nalmost worshipped as the Vicegerent of God and the \nVicar of Christ had been welcomed to heavenly \nblessedness. If he believed and trusted in the sac- \nrifice and intercession of Jesus, and if his soul was- \ncleansed in the blood of Christ, like any other poor y \nransomed sinner, he is in heaven to-day. And if not \nto-day, he never will be. " He that is holy will be \nholy still, and he that is filthy will be filthy still." \n\nIf suffering could purify, this world would be a \nparadise to-day. In all the ages pain and agony have \ntortured humanity, and still the race is corrupt and \nvile. The horrors of delirium tremens do not change \nthe drunkard\'s tastes nor reform his habits. The \ncariosity of the libertine\'s bones cannot extirpate his \nlusts. Prison chains cannot subdue the robber\'s \ngreed. A recent earnest writer says : " Turn to the \nworld\'s prison-houses and see how baseless is the \nnotion that men can be morally renovated by pun- \n\n\n\nFUTURE PUNISHMENT. 545 \n\nishment. The Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek and Roman \ndungeons were synonyms of horror. Pains and \npenalties were meted ont without mercy. But not a \nsingle prisoner among all the thousands that suffered \namid danger and chills, in chains and stocks, was \never transformed in moral character by this fearful \npunishment. In fact, criminals in the prisons of \nChristian nations have been morally transformed \nonly by the Gospel. Kot punishment, but the rev- \nelation of divine love and truth in Christ has lifted \nmany of them out of sin and brought them into \nfellowship with God." 1 \nX. \xe2\x80\x94 2To revelation ivarrants hope of future remedy. \nIt is imagined by some that at some indefinite \nperiod in eternity the Lord will interpose some \nremedial method by which the lost may be redeemed \nand purified and fitted for the peace and holiness of \nheaven. They urge that his wisdom and goodness \ncan provide such measures and make them effective. \nI do not deny that such consummation is possible. \nI dare not limit the wisdom or mercy of God. But \nthis we may say: there is no revelation of such \npurpose in the Holy Scriptures, nor in the normal \noperation of the laws that govern mind; and these \nare given us for our instruction and guidance. We \ncannot find anywhere else grounds for faith or direc- \ntion. And these Scriptures speak of the decisions \nand sentences of the judgment, as final, and of the \n\n1 Rev. Dr. G. Anderson. 35 \n\n\n\n546 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nstate of both the accepted and the rejected as fixed \nIt will be safest for us, my friends, to believe and \nact as if God\'s word were true. There is a way of \nrelieving all doubts and of winning our souls\' peace \nand safety. No one doubts that if there is a heaven \nit may be gained ; that if there is a hell it may be \nescaped, by repentance for sin and by such faith in \nChrist\'s atonement as shall purify our souls and lead \nto a holy life. That, by every theory, is a sure way \nto heaven. And by a thousand motives, outside any \ndread of hell, we are urged to submission, faith and \nobedience to God. We exhort you to seek this state \nof heart, because it is right and pure and blessed. \nThe surest preparation for a holy heaven is regen- \neration and sanctification of the spirit. Whatever \nmay be the doom of others, " the pure in heart shall \nsee God." \n\n\n\nTHE RESURRECTION. \n\n\n\nBY PROF. NORMAN FOX, NEW YORK. \n\n\n\n"For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so \nthem also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." \xe2\x80\x94 \nI. Thess. iv. 14. \n\nWhen God created the spirit of man, he created it \nin union with a material body. This being so, the \nquestion may arise whether that union will not be \nperpetual ; whether though the body go down into \nthe grave, it shall not be raised again to exist with \nthe spirit forever. \n\nThat the body shall live again has been the belief of \nthe Church through all the ages. Hardly the smallest \nsect has taken exception to the formula, " I believe \nin the resurrection of the body." It has ever and \nuniversally been felt that if the Bible plainly teaches \nanything at all, it teaches that the body which is laid \nin the grave shall yet be raised therefrom. \n\nI. It is true that the Bible nowhere contains the \nexact phrase " the resurrection of the body." And \nthere has appeared here and there the doctrine that \nthe rising from the dead of which the Scriptures \nspeak is not the rising again of the very body which \nwas laid in the tomb; that though the spirit in the \n\n547 \n\n\n\n548 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nfuture will have a body, it will not be the body which \nnow we wear. The idea is that in addition to \xe2\x80\x94 per- \nhaps enclosed in \xe2\x80\x94 this covering of flesh and matter \nthere is a more ethereal frame in which the spirit is \nclothed at death, leaving this present body behind \nin the grave, like the skin of the worm which the \nascending butterfly has cast off\xe2\x80\x94 useless, worthless, \nnever to be inhabited again. This doctrine is simply \nthe doctrine of immortality in a bodily form ; it denies \nany resurrection but such as takes place at the \nmoment of death. But this teaching can never find \ngeneral acceptance as the Bible doctrine of the rising \nfrom the dead. For \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n1. Eegarding certain ones it is expressly revealed \nthat the body in which they enter the future state is \nthe body of the present time. When Jesus ascended \nfrom the Mount of Olives, when Elijah was caught up \nin the chariot of fire, when Enoch was taken as he \nwalked with God \xe2\x80\x94 in each of these cases there \nascended not merely some ethereal frame, the mate- \nterial body being left behind, but in each case there \nascended that same body of flesh and bone in which \nthe years of life had been spent. We are told (I. Thes. \niv. 17) that when the Lord shall descend from heaven \nand the dead in Christ shall rise, those who are alive \nand remain shall be caught up together with them in \nthe clouds to meet the Lord in the air \xe2\x80\x94 caught up, \nof course, in the bodies in which they there stand \xe2\x80\x94 \nand so shall they ever be with the Lord. Now if \xe2\x80\x94 as \n\n\n\nTHE RESURRECTION. 519 \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2of course must be the case \xe2\x80\x94 all bodies of the future \nsaints shall be alike, then must all wear the bodies \nof the present time \xe2\x80\x94 "changed," of course, as Paul \nexplains to the Corinthians (I. Cor. xv. 52) \xe2\x80\x94 but \nstill the same bodies which they wore on the pres- \nent earth. \n\n2. According to the teaching we are now consid- \nering, the saints who have passed from earth have \nalready fully attained the rising from the dead. But \nin the Bible teaching this rising is yet to take place. \nIt is not until "the last trump " that "the dead shall \nbe raised\' 7 (I. Cor. xv. 52); not until "the Lord him- \nself shall descend from heaven with a shout" that \n"the dead in Christ shall rise." (I. Thess. iv. 16.) \nThe time of the rising is given as still in the future. \nIn many passages this rising, therefore, can be nothing \nless than the rising of the body from the grave. \n\n3. If the saints attain the rising from the dead \nwhen this present body dies, then Jesus rose from \nthe dead the very moment he died on the cross. And \nhow, then, does Scripture always say that he rose \non the third day ? But if Jesus did not rise from the \ndead until his body rose from the grave, then those \nthat sleep in Jesus will not have risen till their bod- \nies rise from the tomb. \n\n4. The idea that the resurrection is simply exist- \nence after the death of the body leaves no force \nwhatever to Paul\'s argument based on the rising of \nChrist\'s body. " If Christ," he says,* "be preached \n\n\n\n550 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nthat he rose from the dead, how say some among you \nthat there is no resurrection from the dead?" (I. \nCor. xv. 12.) Now the existence of Christ in a body \nwhich had risen would be no proof at all of the con- \ntinued existence of those whose bodies had not risen* \nTo prove that these were still in being, he should \nhave cited the appearance of some departed one \nwhose body was still in the tomb. The case of \nJesus is just the case which would prove nothing \nregarding the continued existence of those whose \nbodies were still lying in the grave. " If there be no \nresurrection from the dead," says Paul, "then is \nChrist not risen." Now it would not be admitted \nthat if there was no existence after death for those \nwhose bodies were still in the tomb, one could not \nbe still in existence whose body had been restored \nto life. The Apostle\'s argument is : if there be no \nrising of the body from the grave, then is Jesus\' \nbody not risen from the grave ; but if Jesus\' body \nbe risen from the grave, how say some among you \nthat there is no such thing as the rising of the body \nfrom the grave I The whole line of argument which \nthe Apostle employs shows that the rising from the \ndead of which he was endeavoring to convince the \nCorinthians was not simply the existence of the \nspirit after the death of the body, but the rising to \nlife again of the body itself. \n\n5. And that the body of the present is to be the \nbody of the future is declared in Scripture in so \n\n\n\nTHE RESURRECTION. 551 \n\nmany words. It is that which is sown in weakness \nwhich is to be raised in power, the corruptible which \nshall put on incorruption, the mortal which shall put \non immortality. (I. Cor. xv.) We read (Phil. iii. 21) \nthat Christ " shall change our vile (our lowly) body \nthat it (the same) may be fashioned like unto his \nglorious body." And in other places do the Scrip- \ntures plainly declare that as the Saviour shall exist \nforever in the body which he wore when on earth, \nso the bodies of his saints shall be raised from the \ntomb to exist with their spirits forever. \n\nII. \xe2\x80\x94 But the idea of the restoration of this present \nbody suggests difficulties which are indeed great. It \ndecays, and its substance passing off in gases is dif- \nfused throughout the whole atmosphere ; consumed \nwith fire, it ascends in smoke and is dispelled to the \nfour corners of the heavens, or its indistinguishable \nashes are trampled into the sod; cast into the sea, \nit is dissolved by the waters and wafted throughout \nthe entire globe. Now it is not strange that to the \nhumblest faith the question should arise, How can \na body thus destroyed be ever restored ? \n\nHe were a wise man indeed who should say how it \ncould be done. But he must be a wiser yet to say \nthat it could not be done. What man has so meas- \nured the power and skill of the one who created both \nspirit and body as to say just where his might and \nwisdom cease ? And that God should restore this \npresent body is no more incredible than many other \nthings which we believe he has done or will do. \n\n\n\n552 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\n1. We read that Elijah was caught up into heaven; \nthat the body of Jesus ascended on high; that the \nbodies of the saints who are alive at Christ\'s coming \nshall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. If \nwe believe the Bible at all,, we must believe fully in \nthese things. But explain to me just how, under the \nworkings of gravitation and other natural forces, all \nthese things can take place. Surely it is just as diffi- \ncult to believe that at Christ\'s coming the bodies of \nthe living saints shall be caught up in the clouds as to \nbelieve that the bodies of the dead in Christ shall be \nraised to be caught up with them. If we allow that \nthe one is not impossible, how shall we say that the \nother may not take place ? \n\n2. We read that God formed man\'s body out of \nthe dust of the ground. Do you believe that state- \nment? Tell me, then, how he did it ; how from inert \nclay could be formed the quivering muscle, the vivid \nnerve, the eye, the ear, the hand. But God did this \nthing ; nay, he repeats that mighty miracle every \nday. In the dust of the ground is planted a corn of \nwheat. It sprouts, it grows ; you have the full corn \nin the ear. What is that head of wheat? It is that \ndust of the ground which God has transformed into \ngrain. You make that wheat into bread and eat that \nbread, and it becomes a part of your muscle and of \nyour bone. What is that muscle I what is that bone % \nIt is merely that dust of the ground which God has \nmade into your body. Death and resurrection are \n\n\n\nTHE RESURRECTION. OJO \n\namong the very commonest events of every-day life. \nYou wipe from your brow a drop of perspiration. \nWhat is that drop of perspiration ? It is death ; it \nis so much of the substance of your body which has \nbeen destroyed and has passed away. You eat a \nmorsel of food, and that loss is repaired. What is \nthat eating of food and the incorporation of it into \nyour physical frame ? It is resurrection. That part \nof the body which was destroyed is restored. And \nso death and resurrection are going on within us \nall the time. Did you ever think of it? \xe2\x80\x94 that every \ntime you eat a morsel of bread there takes place \nwithin your body as wonderful an event as when the \nbody was first formed from the dust \xe2\x80\x94 as wonderful \nan event as shall occur when the dead of all the ages \nshall arise to life again. Now if God formed this \nbody in the beginning out of the dust of the ground, \nif in part, at least, he repeats tl^at great miracle \nevery day of our lives, can he not in the end of time \nonce more raise up that body from the dust % \n\n3. Again. We read that Jesus was raised from \nthe dead. We read also that there was a restoration \nto life of two children \xe2\x80\x94 one by Elijah and the other \nby Elisha; also of the man that was laid in Elisha\'s \ngrave; also of Jairus\' daughter, the young man at \nNam and Lazarus, by the Saviour; also of Dorcas, \nby Peter, and Eutychus, by Paul. Now if all these \nwere raised up from death, why may there not be a \ngeneral resurrection ? \n\n\n\n554 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nI know that some declare that in the case of Jesus \nand Lazarus and the others who have been raised \nfrom the dead, the usual corruption of the body did \nnot take place. But I know not on what grounds this \nassertion can be based. As to the text \xe2\x80\x94 " Nor suffer \nthine holy one to see corruption" \xe2\x80\x94 it can have no \nbroader meaning than the correlative passage, " Thou \nwilt not leave my soul in hell." But as the Saviour \nwas left for the time being within the gates of death r \nso we must suppose a corresponding temporary \nabandonment to the power of death, which includes \ncorruption. In the case of Jesus, of Lazarus, and of \nthe others that were raised from the dead, I see no \nreason to suppose otherwise than that corruption \ncommenced as in the usual case. Now when death \nhas struck down one of our dear ones, it may be two or \nthree days before we are compelled to bury our dead \nout of our sight ; but we must suppose that in each \ncase the destruction of the tissues of the system \ncommences the moment the breath leaves the lips. \nTherefore in the case of Jairus\' daughter, who was \nraised immediately \xe2\x80\x94 say within half an hour of her \ndeath \xe2\x80\x94 as well as in that of Lazarus, who had lain \nso long in the grave that the prudent Martha feared \nto have the tomb unclosed, we must suppose that \nthe body was restored to life after a portion of its \nfabric had been destroyed and had passed away into \nthe atmosphere. Now such a partial restoration \nis just as difficult to understand as one where the \n\n\n\nTHE RESURRECTION. 555 \n\ncomponent parts are all dispersed and separated. If \nthe one has taken place, then may the other take \nplace also. \n\nBut suppose we allow that in the case of these \nresurrections there had been no dissolution of any \npart of the body, the matter remains still the same. \nIf God could for three days keep in place all the \nparticles of matter composing the body of Jesus, so \nthat the body could be raised again, why could he \nnot (if such a thing were necessary), keep at hand \neach of the particles of matter composing each of \nthe bodies of all the thousands of the dead to restore \nthose bodies to life in the end of time ? Adopt what \nscientific theory you please regarding the cases \nof resurrection which have already occurred, and \nthe question still remains, Why, if certain bodies \nhave been restored to life, may not the bodies of the \ncountless dead all live again ? \n\nThe case of which Matthew speaks in his account \nof the crucifixion is one of especial interest in this \nconnection. He tells us that when Jesus yielded up \nthe ghost "the graves were opened and many bodies \nof the saints which slept arose and came out of the \ngraves after his resurrection, and went into the holy \ncity and appeared unto many." When Jesus died \ngraves were opened, showing that in his death the \npower of death was broken. After his resurrec- \ntion \xe2\x80\x94 not before, for he was the first born from the \ndead \xe2\x80\x94 the bodies of these saints came forth out of \n\n\n\n556 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\ntheir tombs and entered into the holy city, the city \nof Jerusalem, and as Jesus showed himself to his \ndisciples, so these appeared unto the living. Who \nwere these sleeping saints? I have sometimes \nthought they were men of old who had looked with \nespecial longing for the coming of the Messiah; men \nwho had climbed the mountain-tops of faith, and while \nthe world around them was still slumbering in dark- \nness their eyes had caught from afar the beams of \nthe rising sun. How long had these saints been \nsleeping? It were at least more natural to suppose \nthat they were the ancient dead whose forms had \ngone back centuries before to their native dust. \nAnd what became of these risen bodies ? Did they, \nlike the body of Lazarus, go back to the grave again, \nor may we suppose that this was their final resurrec- \ntion, and that when Jesus ascended up on high these \nrisen saints ascended with him as first fruits and \ntrophies of his conquest, to grace his triumphal \nreturn to his Father\'s throne ? But casting aside all \nsurmises, this much of historic fact remains: that \nwhen Christ arose "many bodies of the saints which \nslept arose and came forth out of their graves n with \nhim ; and if we believe this, must we not believe in \nthe possibility of a general resurrection, as well as \nin the fact that the rising from the dead is the rising \nagain of the very body that was laid in the tomb ? \n\nThis whole topic is covered by the argument of \nPaul to the Corinthians: " If Christ be preached that \n\n\n\nTHE .RESURRECTION. 557 \n\nhe rose from the dead, how say some among you that \nthere is no resurrection of the dead ?" If you believe \nthat Christ\'s body rose from the tomb, how say you \nthat there is no such thing as a body\'s rising from \nthe tomb ? " For," he says, " if the dead rise not, then \nis Christ not raised." If it be absolutely certain that \nthe grave will not give up its dead, then our Saviour, \nwho died and was buried, is still sleeping within its \niron portals. If human science can make it certain \nthat the dead form cannot rise again, then it can do \nwhat Pilate\'s guard could not do \xe2\x80\x94 it can keep the \nSaviour\'s body within the tomb. On the other hand, \nif our faith can say with Paul, " But now is Christ \nrisen from the dead," then can we believe that the \ndead in Christ shall rise with him. When Jesus \nhimself burst through the bars of the tomb, he left \nbehind him a path broad enough for all the armies of \nhis saints to come forth after him. \n\nIII. \xe2\x80\x94 But many of the difficulties connected with \nthe doctrine of the Besurrection disappear of them- \nselves on a little reflection. \n\n1. This question, for instance, is sometimes brought \nforward : The body dies \xe2\x80\x94 it decays, and its substance \npasses into some plant, which is eaten by and becomes \npart of the body of some other person, who in turn \ndies, and this same matter enters the system of still \na third. Xow, how can you say that in each case the \nsame body shall arise when the same particles of \nmatter went to make up more than one body ? \n\n\n\n55S BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nThis question proceeds on the assumption that, in \norder to have the same body, you must have the \nsame particles of matter composing the body. But \nis this assumption correct ? You have the same body \nto-day that you had yesterday, have you not ? But \nthe particles of matter composing your body are \nnot the same now as they were then. By action \xe2\x80\x94 by \nthought, even \xe2\x80\x94 there is a continual waste of the \ntissues of the system, which waste food is required \nto repair. For every ounce of food incorporated \ninto the system of a full-grown man to-day there \nmust have been just so much waste of the system \nsince yesterday. Thus the particles of matter com- \nposing our bodies are changing \xe2\x80\x94 changing all the \nwhile \xe2\x80\x94 never for two successive moments precisely \nthe same \xe2\x80\x94 and physiologists tell us that in the \ncourse of seven years or so there is a complete \nchange \xe2\x80\x94 that the man of fifty has had the particles \nof matter composing his system entirely changed \nsomething like seven different times. And yet you \nsay that all the while it is the same body. It is the \nsame body, because the animating principle is ever \nthe same. Now, if the animating principle of your \nbody has let go some of the particles of matter which \nit held to itself yesterday, and has taken to itself in \ntheir place others from the food which you have \neaten to-day, and, notwithstanding this partial change \nof component particles, you say it is still the same \nbody \xe2\x80\x94 what matters it though the complete change \n\n\n\nTHE RESURRECTION. 559 \n\nbe instantaneous instead of gradual ? If, lying in the \ngrave, the animating principle of your body suffers \nevery particle of matter now composing it to escape, \nand then, by and by, aroused by Jehovah\'s voice, it \narises and takes to itself, not as now from food and \ndrink, but, as in the beginning, from the dust of the \nearth \xe2\x80\x94 not as now, in seven years\' time, but in a \nmoment, in the twinkling of an eye, it takes to itself \nenough, though entirely different particles of matter, \nto rebuild the frame \xe2\x80\x94 the body with which it lay \ndown and the body with which it arises are the same \nbody in precisely the same sense as the body you \nhave now is the body you had yesterday, or last \nweek, or ten years ago. \n\n2. To some, the rising of the same body suggests \nthe perpetuation of the weaknesses and the imper- \nfections of the body. One dies in infancy \xe2\x80\x94 will he \nrise to eternal weakness and helplessness I Another \ngoes down to the grave decrepit with age \xe2\x80\x94 will he \nrise weak, tottering, decrepit? Here is one who has \ngone through life a twisted cripple \xe2\x80\x94 some of his \nlimbs were wanting at his birth, perhaps \xe2\x80\x94 or he is \nblind, or he has never had his hearing \xe2\x80\x94 will he rise \ncrippled, blind, defective? This by no means follows. \nWhen one lies before us helpless in the cradle, and \nafter a few years stands forth a stalwart man \xe2\x80\x94 has \nhe not still the same body ! If the one bent with age \nshould wash in the fabled fountain of youth and come \nforth young again, would he not still have the same \n\n\n\n560 BAPTTST DOCTRINES. \n\nbody? When the eyes of the man born blind were \nopened \xe2\x80\x94 when the man received strength who had \nbeen lame from his mother\'s womb \xe2\x80\x94 when the man\'s \nwithered arm was healed, had he not still the same \nbody ? For the weakness, the disease, the imperfec- \ntion is no part of the body itself; these are not of \nthe substance, but are only accidents of the body, \nand the body is the same though these all be done \naway, and the frame stand before us in strength and \nin perfection. As the soul of man is the same soul r \nthough it be freed from all sin and made perfect in \nholiness, so the body may be the same body with all \nits imperfections done away. \n\nAnd with the doctrine of the resurrection should \nbe joined the doctrine of the redemption of the body. \nFor, though it is a glorious thought that the soul \nfreed from sin should be made perfect in Christ \nJesus, yet not in that alone will have come to pass \nthat which is written, " Death is (completely) swal- \nlowed up in victory." For the body \xe2\x80\x94 the primeval \ncompanion of the spirit \xe2\x80\x94 is still lying in the prison- \nhouse of death. But as the body of our Lord was \nraised up from the grave, so shall the body of his \ndisciple come forth from the tomb. And as all sin is \ncleansed from the mind, so every trace of the effects \nof sin shall be gone from the body. It shall arise, \nnot as it went down into the grave, weak, .emaciated, \nmarred and scarred by the power of the great enemy, \nbut glorified, and thus made worthy to be the com- \n\n\n\nTHE RESURRECTION. 561 \n\npanion of the glorified spirit. The brow that was \nfurrowed with care shall be fair with immortal \nbeauty. The eyes that were dim with watching and \nwith weeping shall kindle with undying radiance. \nThe form that was bowed with trouble and with \nburdens shall be erect with immortal vigor, and the \nwhole frame shall be transformed into the glory of \nGod\'s own image. When John in his wondrous \nvision beheld the risen Lord, it was not as the Lord \nonce was, with visage marred more than any man, \nand his form more than the sons of men ; it was not \nas the Lord appeared when he thirsted by the well \nof Samaria, or tottered beneath the burden of the \ncross. But " his head and his hairs were white like \nwool, as white as snow, and his eyes were as a flame of \nfire, and his feet like unto fine brass as if they burned \nin a furnace, and his voice as the sound of many \nwaters." So, when the disciple shall rise to meet his \nrisen Lord, he shall be changed into that same glory. \nAs he went down into the grave in the likeness of \nthe first Adam, he shall rise therefrom in the likeness \nof the second Adam. In weakness, in suffering, in \npain and in death, he has borne the image of the \nearthy \xe2\x80\x94 in brightness, in beauty, in glory and in \npower, he shall bear the image of the heavenly. As \nthe human form in its first creation must have been \nthe perfection of beauty and strength, much more, \ncreated anew in Christ, shall it be the model of every \nphysical glory and excellence. \n\n36 \n\n\n\n562 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nIV. \xe2\x80\x94 But some one may inquire regarding the \nnature of the bodies of the risen saints. On this \npoint no one can speak with any definiteness. The \nApostle tells us that the bodies of those who are \nalive at Christ\'s coming shall be "changed." The \nbody of Elijah must have undergone some change at \nhis translation. The body of Jesus now in glory is, \nof course, different from what it was on earth. So \nthe bodies of the rising saints shall undergo a trans- \nformation. Weakness shall gird itself with power \xe2\x80\x94 \nthe corrupt shall become incorruptible \xe2\x80\x94 dishonor \nshall be arrayed in glory \xe2\x80\x94 and the natural body, the \nbody which we possess in common with the brutes, \nshall become a spiritual body \xe2\x80\x94 one which we shall \npossess in common with the angels. But just in \nwhat this transformation will consist, it were vain to \nspeculate. If, on the morning of creation, there had \nbeen presented a handful of the dust of the ground, \nnot the loftiest angelic intellect could have described \nfrom it the form and properties of the man that was \nto be created therefrom. If there were brought \nbefore us from some distant land a seed which we \nhad never seen before \xe2\x80\x94 a black and shrivelled seed \n\xe2\x80\x94 not by placing it under the most powerful micro- \nscope ; not though the keenest scalpel unwound the \nfolds of its tissues; not though the most skillful \nchemistry analyzed its substance, could one describe \nthe stately plant, the beautiful flower, the luscious \nfruit which should spring from that shapeless seed. \n\n\n\nTHE RESURRECTION. 563 \n\nNo more by the widest range of surmise can we, from \nthe body of the present, describe that body which \nshall be. \n\nWe sometimes read detailed descriptions of the \nscenes of the resurrection. We are told just how \nbone shall come to bone, and how the new body shall \ntake form. But it is safer not to go beyond the \nstatements of the Scriptures \xe2\x80\x94 the sum of which \nstatements is merely this: Jesus had a body like \nours ; that body, dying, was laid in the grave ; that \nsame body rose from the grave, and, ascending up \non high, is now glorified at God\'s right hand. So, \nthough the bodies of his saints go down into the \ngrave, they shall rise therefrom, and, glorified, shall \nascend to meet the Lord in the air, to be forever \nwith him. As to the details of the resurrection, it is \nnot probable that we could understand them if they \nwere all laid before us. But though many questions \nwe might ask are left unanswered, the great truth \nitself stands clearly forth, that as Jesus now sits at \nthe right hand of God in that form which was born \nof a woman, so, though our bodies slumber for a time \nin the grave, they shall arise, and in them shall we \nexist forever. \n\nV. \xe2\x80\x94 The doctrine of the Eesurrection conveys \ncertain important lessons. \n\n1. It teaches us the dignity of the human frame. \nSome schools of philosophy have regarded matter \nas inherently vile \xe2\x80\x94 as the seat of all sin and evil. \n\n\n\n564 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nOn this idea many religionists have despised the \nbody \xe2\x80\x94 subjecting it to neglects and tortures \xe2\x80\x94 \nthinking that the more the body was oppressed and \ntrampled on the more completely was the spirit \nfreed. So often in our own time do we hear of the \ncumbering clay, the burden of the flesh, as if the \nbody were but a clog from which the spirit might \nwell desire to part forever. But the doctrine of the \nresurrection teaches us that this body of ours is not \nin itself sinful ; that it is only the abused servant of \nthe wicked soul ; that if the plague-spot of sin be \nupon it, it is merely the livery of its tyrant master, \nthe reprobate mind. This human body God has \nthought fit to be the eternal dwelling place of the \nglorified spirit \xe2\x80\x94 nay, even the King of Kings and \nLord of Lords has thought it not unworthy to be \nworn by him as the robe of his majesty on the great \nwhite throne of eternity. If, therefore, the eternal \nduration of the mind makes it worthy of culture \xe2\x80\x94 if \nits exalted destination renders it worthy of respect \xe2\x80\x94 \nthen should the body also be honored and esteemed, \nfor it shall exist as long as the mind shall exist, twin \nsister of the spirit in the heirship of eternity. \n\n2. The doctrine of the Eesurrection lights up the \ndarkness of the grave. As we recall the truth that \nthe dead shall rise again, the thoughts of many a one \ngo back to some sacred spot where precious dust is \nsleeping. But as the Saviour was destined to remain \nbut three days in the tomb, so the bodies of the \n\n\n\nTHE RESURRECTION. 565 \n\nsaints shall be left there only for a season. As we \nlay the pious dead to rest; as we look down into the \nawful chasm of the grave, we can even then begin \nto sing our song of triumph. " Exult not, O, grave, \nover thy victory, for soon it shall be rent from thy \ngrasp. Only for a little while \xe2\x80\x94 but for a little while \nshalt thou retain the dear form we now surrender \nto thee." For, as the stone was rolled away from the \ndoor of the Saviour\'s sepulchre, so shall be rent the \ngates of the tombs where his loved ones are sleep- \ning. The angels that watched by the sepulchre of \nJoseph of Arimathea, they hover above the spot \nwhere each of Christ\'s saints is sleeping, and not \none shall be left in the power of the tomb. From \nthe drifting currents of ocean; from the confused \ntrenches of the battle field; from the unmarked \ngrave in the distant lands of earth, they shall all \ncome up in glad answer at the call of their Lord. He \nknoweth his sheep by name, and the grave must give \nthem back every one. "Wherefore, comfort one \nanother with these words." \n\n3. The doctrine of the Kesurrection sets forth the \nneed and glory of redemption. I have been speaking \nmerely of the resurrection of the dead in Christ, for \nit is their case alone to which the Apostle alludes in \nwriting to their Thessalonian brethren. But there is \na resurrection of the unjust as well as of the just \xe2\x80\x94 \na resurrection to damnation as well as a resurrection \nto life. As for those who refuse all part in the \n\n\n\n566 BAPTIST DOCTRINES. \n\nredemption purchased by Christ, they must rise still \nin "the image of the earthy" \xe2\x80\x94 rise to a continuance \nof the pains which they have inherited as members \nof a sinful race \xe2\x80\x94 which they have increased by their \nown transgressions, and which must continue to \nincrease as long as they continue to sin. On the other \nhand, redemption by Christ implies that these weak \nand suffering bodies of ours shall be delivered from \nthe power of sin and pain, while evil passions and \nsinful habits \xe2\x80\x94 diseases of the soul \xe2\x80\x94these, too, shall \nall be done away. Let us rejoice that this deliverance \nis offered us \xe2\x80\x94 let us hasten to accept it. And may \nthe God of peace, that brought again from the dead \nour Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, \nthrough the blood of the everlasting covenant, make \nus perfect in every good word and woik to do his \nwill, working in us that which is well pleasing in his \nsight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever \nand ever. Amen. \n\n\n\n}W?ufett<&tioitf*B Cf. % Skfi^. \n\nTHE CLAIMS OF THE \n\nBAPTIST CHURCHES \n\nIN AMERICA; \n\nA LECTURE IN A POPULAR FORM, DELIVERED BY \n\nREV. W. W. BOYD, \n\nPastor of the Second Baptist Church in St. Louis, Mo. \n\nAT THE CHURCH OF THE MESSIAH (Unitarian), \n\nOn Sunday Evening, March 10, i8?c. \n\n\n\nPrice by Mail, Post-paid, - Fifteen Cents. \n\nTemperance Addresses \n\n\xe2\x80\x94 by \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nHon. B. Gratz Brown, \n\n\n\nEX-GOVERNOR OF MISSOURI. \n\n\n\n1. THE POWER AND DUTY OF THE STATE TO SUP- \n\nPRESS THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC. 16 pp., 8 vo. Price \n\nper 100, post-paid $1.00 \n\n2. THE PEOPEE VS. THE DRAM SHOPS. 8 pp., 8 VO. \n\nPrice per 100, post-paid 80 \n\n\n\nThese addresses are among the most powerful, lucid and convincing \narguments against the Liquor Traffic ever issued in the whole history of \nTemperance Literature. The author has hrought to hear upon the subject \nthe concentrated force of one of the keenest intellects in America, and deals \nblows at \'"the monster evil of our day\'\' which are telling upon its strong- \nholds throughout the country. \n\n\n\nC. R. BARNS, Publisher, 215 Pine Street, St. Louis, Mo. \n\n\n\n\n\' \'Did they descend from \nAdam, or did they, as \nHumholdt suggests, per- \ntain to the Autochthone \nnations?" \n\n\n\nJUST PUBLISHED: \n\n\n\nFOOTPRINTS OF VANISHED RACES \n\n\n\n\nIr\\ title ]Vti#i^ij)|>i Yklley. \n\nBeing 1 an Account of some of the Monuments and Relics \n\nof Pre-historic Races scattered over its surface, \n\nwith Suggestions as to their Origin and Uses. \n\n\n\nBY A. J. CONANT, A. M., \n\nMember of the St. Louis Academy of Science and of the American Association \nfor the Advancement of Science. \n\n\n\n-**-\xc2\xbb> \n\n\n\nElegantly Printed on toned paper, with ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN FINE \nENGRAVINGS of Mounds, Pottery, Implements, Crania, etc. \n\n\n\nOPINIONS OF THE PRESS. \n\nMr Conant is confident in the opinion that the Mound.Builders were different from \nthe Indians, and as far superior as the ancient Romans were superior to their rude \nconquerors He says that " Missouri was once the home of a vast population, com- \nposed of tribes who had a fixed habitation, dwelt in large towns, practiced agriculture \non an extended scale, with a good deal of method and skill; who had also a well- \norganized system of religious rites and worship." \n\nThe work is a valuable contribution to science. In style it is simple, clear and \nelegant, and sometimes rises into eloquence. \xe2\x80\x94 St. Louis Globe- Democrat. \n\nThe whole work is interesting, and, while its accumulation of facts is valuable, its \ndeductions from them do not seem to be offensive to the Christian scientist, as is some\' \ntimes the case with the books of our modern savants.\xe2\x80\x94 Congregationalist. \n\nThe author brings to view, in a condensed form, much that we might search long \nor in vain for elsewhere. * * While he gives great antiquity to man, perhaps too \ngreat, he does not deny or impeach the Divine Record.\xe2\x80\x94 Christian Secretary. \n\nPRICE, CLOTH, $l.BO. \n\nSent by Mail, Post-paid, on Receipt of Price. \n\n\n\nC. R. BARNS, Publisher, 215 Pine Street, St. Louis, Mo. \n\n\n\nThe only Accurate and Reliable History of Missouri vet Publish^. \nS T*7" 1 T Z Xj E IEV S \n\nIllu^kted Si^to^y of jVIi^ouri, \n\n\n\n\nBurial of De Soto. \n\n\n\nBy Col. W. F. SWITZLER, of Columbia, Mo., \n\nWith interesting chapters on the Indian Mounds and other pro-historic Monuments of \n\nthe State, b>- Prof. A. J. Conant, A. M ; on its Physical Geography, by \n\nProf. G. C. Swallow, LL.D.; and on its Material Wealth, \n\nProductions and Possibilities, by R. A. Campbell, C. E. \n\n\n\nEmbracing 635 large Octavo Pages, elegantly Printed on Toned Paper \nand Illustrated by about 200 fine Wood Engravings. \n\n\n\nFew States have a history of more absorbing interest than Missouri; and yet, up \nto the issue of the present volume, no work has appeared, from which the student or \nthe general reader could glean more than the barest outline of facts. The romantic \nepisodes of its first settlement; the stirring scenes of the various Indian Wars; the \nstormy debates attending its admission to the Union; the career of Thomas J I. Benton; \nthe great events of the late War, of which it was one of the principal theatres\xe2\x80\x94 all these \n^ere recorded in scattered documents, but waiting the labors of a competent hand to \nblend them into a harmonious whole \n\nXo person could have been found better qualified for the task than Col. W. P. \nSwttzler, Editor of the Columbia Statesman. Blessed with a remarkable memory, \nand having all his life given particular attention to the preservation of documents and \nmemoranda of every description relating to the history and growth of Missouri, he has \nenjoyed unequa led advantages in the preparation of the wor^ ; advantages which have \nbeen supplemented by patriotic ardor which age canno cool, and a discriminating \njudgment which preserves the truth unswerved by prejudice or partisan feeling. The \nunvarying accuracy of his record has already been the subject of much complimen- \ntary remark. \n\n\n\nPrice in Extra Cloth, - $2.75; Full Leather, \xe2\x96\xa0 \n\nSent by Mail, Post-paid, on Receipt of the Price. \n\n\n\n83.75 \n\n\n\nC. R. BARNS, Publisher, 215 Pine. Street, St. Louis, Mo. \n\n\n\nOver\' 100,000 Copied $old. \n\n\n\nJULIAN\'S \n\nInterest Tables; \n\nCONTAINING AN \n\nACCURATE CALCULATION OF INTEREST, AT 5, 6, 7, \n\n8, 9 AND 10 PER CENT., BOTH SIMPLE \n\nAND COMPOUND, \n\nON ALL SUMS FROM 1 CENT TO $10,000 AND FROM \nONE DAY TO SIX YEARS. \n\nALSO, SOME VERY VALUABLE TABLES. \n\n\n\nZB37- EI3-A.2>T JXTI-.I-^.lSr. \n\n\n\n"These Tables are at once simple, accurate and reliable, and should be in the hands \nof every business man, every person who gives or takes a mortgage, and every holder \nof stocks or bonds of any description. A single glance at its pages will save the time \nand annoyance of making many a laborious calculation, while assuring an absolute \ncertainty of correctness. The original plates having been worn out by multiplied edi- \ntions, a new set has been ordered, in improved style, making the book more valuable \nthan ever. \n\n^rice, One Dollar. \n\nThe book will be seat by mail, post-paid, on receipt of the price. \n\n\n\nC. R. BARNS, Publisher, 215 Pine Street, St. Louis, Mo. \n\n151 8 2 \'1 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n*<h \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nlO^, \n\n\n\n\n^O **^?\xc2\xab CT Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process \n\n^ * " ^ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide \n\nV c^wVftT* ^ 4.V \xc2\xbbV Treatment Date: April 2006 \n\n\n\n*^* \n\n\n\n^\xc2\xab> \n\n\n\n-fc- \n\n\n\n\n\n\nPreservatidnTechnologies \n\nA WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION \n\n\n\nAT o \n\n\n\n.o v \n\n\n\n1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive \nCranberry Township, PA 16066 \n(724)779-2111 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n*. \'\xe2\x80\xa2TvT * jP V***^-* \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n^ \xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x80\xa2il?* <^ a? \xe2\x80\xa2*\xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x80\xa2* *> \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n>* \\wv <? *+ -J^ps <? *+ \xe2\x80\xa2ray * v ^ \n\n\n\n\xc2\xbb ^ v \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nr *^ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n.4 \n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2*b v* \xc2\xb0 \n\n\n\n**?* \xe2\x80\xa2 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\xc2\xbbP"V. \n\n\n\n** *^-\' .# \n\n\n\nF" .\xc2\xab? \n\n\n\n,41, .\xe2\x96\xa0 \n\n\n\n\n\n\ne \n\n\n\n\n\n\n- \n\n\n\n\n\n^ MAY 82 \n\nPSS^ N. MANCHESTER, \n^^ INDIANA 46962 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n1^ \xe2\x80\xa2 t aK ; \xc2\xb0^ ; ^ft\xc2\xb0\xc2\xb0 "^^ \n\n\n\n'