THE BAPTISTS:
THEIR
ORIGIN, CONTINUITY, PRINCIPLES, SPIRIT, POLITY,
POSITION, AND INFLUENCE.
A VINDICATION.
BY
T. G. JONES, D.D.
1ljitarlpjia'
AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY,
530 ARCH STREET.








CONTENTS.
I.-PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS..............      9
II.-ORIGIN OF THE BAPTISTS............... 21
II1.-CONTINUITY OF THE BAPTISTS............ 40
IV.-PRINCIPLES OF THE BAPTISTS......... 102
V.-SPIRIT OF THE BAPTISTS................ 127
VI.-POLITY OF THE BAPTISTS............... 167
VII.-POSITION OF THE BAPTISTS............185
VIII.-INFLUENCE OF THE BAPTISTS........... 194
IX.-CONCLUDING REMARKS............. 226








THE BAPTISTS.
I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS.
True Christianity always opposed-Opposition to Christ himself-To his faithful followers in every age-To the Baptists
especially-The opposition undeserved-Testimony of others
-Real cause of the hostility-It still continues-Is softened
but not subdued-Shows itself in unjust imputations-Proposed Vindication.
~fILEHATEVER its outward forms or modes
of expression, genuine Christianity has always been opposed.      Having all the of.
fense of the cross, it meets in every carnal mind a foe.  Its Divine Author himself encountered the most constant and unrelenting opposition.  In the annals of the world
there is no instance of so causeless, and malignant,
and perpetual a persecution as that which the Lord
of Life and Glory suffered. It commenced with
(2)




10             TIlE BAPTISTS
the beginning of his public ministry, and continued
till its sublimely tragic close. The very embodiment of truth, men called him an impostor. The
truest friend of the people, they charged him with
betraying them. The most peaceful and law-abiding of all earth's citizens, they said he sowed the
seeds of sedition, and plotted against the government: The most unworldly and unselfish, the meekest and lowliest of beings, they charged him with
seeking human honor and an earthly crown. Recoiling with infinite revulsion from the least irreverence, they sought to fix upon him the guilt of blasphemy. Performing miracles the most stupendous
and sublime, as well as the most beneficent, they
pronounced them the work, not of celestial, but infernal power. When he gave to the suffering and
weary body, and the yet more suffering and weary soul,
rest on the Sabbath, they charged him with desecration of the holy day. Whithersoever he went
they followed him, and beset his path, seeking to
"entangle him in his talk"-to involve him in contradictions and false issues, and thus to make him,
by some unguarded word, odious to the people or
obnoxious to the government. Having at length,
through the bribery of a false friend, compassed his
betrayal, they condemned him to death, and delivered him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge,
and to crucify him. And even when he lay still
and stiff in death, their hate knew no relentings




PRELIMINARY STA'EMEiTS.          11
They spoke of him with cold contempt, and bitter
malignity, as " that deceiver."
Nor was it long after the consummation of the
wicked but futile measures of his enemies upon his
sacred person, before his followers all realized the
truth of his declaration, " If they have persecuted
me, they will also persecute you."  They were
" every where spoken against."  They were reviled,
persecuted, defamed, accounted as the filth of the
world, and the offscouring of all things. Their chief
teachers were seized, bound, thrust into prison, and
some of them inhumanly murdered.
And as the weary years rolled on, the opposition
they encountered knew no abatement.  They were
cast into noisome dungeons, thrown to wild beasts,
burned at the stake, and tormented in every way
which the ingenuity of men, aided and inspired by
the rage of hell, could invent.  Their very women
suffered the most shameful indignities, and the most
cruel tortures.  The more they resembled Christ,
the more they breathed his spirit, the more closely
they followed in his footsteps, the more obnoxious
were they to their persecutors.
In later times, still contending earnestly for the
faith once delivered to the saints, they were
opposed with equal persistency and rage, and myriads sealed with their blood their testimony to the
truth.  Even the greater light and increasing
liberty of modern ages, were slow to bring them re



12               THE BAPTISTS
lief. They taught the purest and holiest truths,
they lived the purest and holiest lives, yet still were
they constantly and cruelly opposed. Their doctrines were grossly misrepresented.  Their own
character was vilely slandered.  They were deprived
of their natural and social, civil and religious rights.
They were arrested upon false charges, carried
through the processes of mock trials, and summarily
condemned to the most cruel and ignominious punishments. Thus perished thousands and hundreds
of thousands of faithful witnesses for God. The
spirit of their persecutors often seemed more diabolic
than human. It was so calmly and coldly cruel.
It so delighted in tears and blood, in sighs and
shrieks, in despair and death. It had no pity. It
knew no relentings.  It could be moved by no
pleading look of truth and purity, of helplessness
and innocence. It was as hard and unyielding to
feminine gentleness and sweetness, youthful simplicity and beauty, as to stern and rugged manhood,
duplicity and ugliness.  So ingenious, so hypocritical, it could have been inspired only by the subtlety
of the serpent, and the deep deception of the
father of lies. Others have their hates-but they
seem human hates. The hates of these so-called
religious persecutors seemed the very hates of hell.
But of all the followers of Jesus, none have so
constantly and so deeply suffered as the Baptists.
"It is difficult," says Benedict, "to find language




PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS.         13
to describe the disposition which for ages was
shown towardsthe old Waldenses, Anabaptists, and
all kindred communities, under whatever names they
passed, who were made to suffer and feel the rigor
of the laws which were continually enacted against'them by all classes of rulers, civil and ecclesiastical.
The concentrated rays of their scorching indignation with focal intensity were made to fall on a defenseless people, who had neither the means nor
the disposition to defend themselves. The full vials
of their wrath, with awful regurgitations, were
poured out upon their devoted heads.  Century
after century the Christian world, so-called, was
mad against them. Catholics and Protestants went
hand in hand in their efforts to protect the infant
system, and by fire and sword to drive every vestige
of anti-pedobaptism from the earth."
Persecuted in one country they fled into another.
But, alas! no country afforded them a refuge.
Driven from the Continent, they fled to England.
Driven from England, they fled beyond seas to Massachusetts. Driven from Massachusetts, they fled,
as of old, to " the wilderness," where alone they found
an asylum.
Now, why this universal and unrelenting opposition?  They surely did not deserve it. "They
stood alone," says Underhill, referring to the Bap
History of the Baptists, p. 932.




14              THE BAPTISTS.
tists of the early part of the seventeenth century,
"amidst all their cotemporaries for liberal and enlightened views.  Calumny, contumely, reproach,
and persecution, failed to turn them from their
high and holy calling. Freedom to worship God,
as each for himself thought right, even when others
might think it heresy, they nobly struggled for to
the end. They were the first to pioneer the way
through the forests of human superstition, the
morasses of human inventions, and the barriers of
human, usurpations.  A  forlorn hope, they assailed the huge fortress of human tyranny. But God
was their refuge and their strength. - They made
the costly outlay for that inheritance, whose rich
and pleasant fruit we daily gather."  Another eminent member of their communion, Dr. Wayland, in
a recent work upon their Principles and Practices,
referring to them  generally, says,-" Our whole
history is in the highest degree honorable to us as a
Christian sect. If any sect has occasion to glory, we
more. If any man among us does not feel a manly
pride in the sentiments which have distinguished
us, and in the manner in which we have maintained
them, there must exist something peculiar, either in
his head or his heart. "
From others, too, comes testimony in their behalf of the highest value. " Many of the first setRel. Lib. p. 215.




PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS.         15
tiers in Massachusetts were Baptists," says Cotton
Mather, a zealous opponent of them, "and as holy,
and watchful, and fruitful, and heavenly a people, as
perhaps any in the world." The celebrated John
Locke, in his Essay on Toleration, says that the Baptists were the first and only propounders of " absolute liberty, just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty." Dr. Chalmers says, " Let it never be
forgotten of the Particular Baptists of England,
that they form the denomination of Puller, and
Carey, and Ryland, and Hall, and Foster: that
they have originated among the greatest of all missionary enterprises; that they have enriched the
Christian literature of our country with authorship
of the most exalted piety, as well as of the first talent,
and the first eloquence; that they have waged a
very noble and successful war with the hydra of antinomianism; that perhaps there is not a more intellectual community of ministers in our island, or
who have put forth, to their number, a greater
amount of mental power, and mental activity in the
defense and illustration of our common faith; and,
what is still better than all the triumphs of genius or
understanding, who, by their zeal and fidelity, and
pastoral labor among the congregations which they
have reared, have done more to swell the lists of
genuine discipleship in the walks of private society,
and thus both to uphold and extend the living
Christianity of our nation." Bancroft, the historian,




16              THE BAPTISTS.
in his account of the Baptist colony of Rhode Island,
says, "Freedom  of conscience, unlimited freedom
of mind, was, from the first, the trophy of the Baptists."1  Speaking of the Baptists of Germany, he
thus strongly and eloquently expresses himself,"With greater consistency than Luther, they applied the doctrines of the Reformation to the social
positions of life, and threatened an end to priestcraft, and king-craft, spiritual domination, tithes,
and vassalage. The party was trodden under foot
with foul reproaches, and most arrogant scorn, and
its history is written in the blood of myriads of the
German peasantry; but its principles, secure in their
immortality, escaped with Roger Williams to Providence; and his colony is the witness that naturally
the paths of the Baptists are paths of freedom, of
pleasantness, and peace."2
Dr. Price, in his History of Nonconformity, speaking of the Baptists, says, " It belonged to the members of a calumniated and despised sect, few in numbers and poor in circumstances, to bring forth to
public view, in their simplicity and omnipotence,
those immortal principles which are now universally
recognized as of Divine authority and of universal
obligation.  Other writers of more distinguished
name succeeded, and robbed them of their honor;
but their title is so good, and the amount of serI Hict. U. S. vol. ii. p. p. 66-67  2Hist..S. vol. ii. p. 459.




PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS.          17
vice they performed on behalf of the common interests
of humanity is so incalculable, that an impartial posterity must assign to them their due meed of praise."
Even the Romanist Cardinal Hosius, referring to the
Baptists before and at the time of the Reformation,
pays them this high tribute: "If you behold their
cheerfulness in suffering persecutions, the Anabaptists run before all other heretics. If you will have
regard to the number, it is like that in multitude
they would swarm above all others, if they were not
grievously plagued and cut off with the knife of
persecution. If you have an eye to the outward
appearance of godliness, both the Lutherans and
Zuinglians must needs grant that they far pass them.
If you will be moved by the boasting of the word
of God, these be no less bold than Calvin to preach,
and their doctrine must stand aloft above all the
glory of the world, must stand invincible above all
power, because it is not their word, but the word of
the living God. Neither do they cry less boldly than
Luther, that with their doctrine, which is the word
of God, they shall judge the angels. And surely,
how many soever have written against this heresy,
whetner they were Catholics or heretics, [Reformers,] they were able to overthrow it, not so much
by the testimony of the Scriptures, as by the authority of the church."'
1 Hatchet of Heresies translated by R. Shacklock, fol. 48, edit.
1565. Underhill, pp. 88-89.
2*




18              THE BAPTISTS.
Why then, we again ask, the constant and bitter
opposition to the Baptists? That distinguished
English Baptist already quoted, Underhill, thus indicates the source of much of it: " We have, however, discovered the real cause of the unanimous
hostility these despised people encountered. Papist and Protestant, Puritan and Brownist, with
one consent, laid aside their differences, to condemn
and punish a sect, a heresy, an opinion, which threw
prostrate their favorite church, their politico-ecclesiastical power, their extravagant assumptions, and
their unscriptural theories.  The Papists abhorred
them: for if this heresy prevailed, a church hoary
with age, laden with the spoils of many lands, rich
in the merchandise of souls, must be utterly broken
and destroyed. The Protestants hated them: for
their cherished headship, their worldly alliances,
the pomps and circumstances of a state religion,
must be debased before the kingly crown of Jesus.
The Puritans defamed them: for Baptist sentiments
were too liberal and free for those who sought a
papal authority over conscience, and desired the
sword of the higher powers to enforce their'holy
discipline' on an unconverted people. The Brownists avoided them: for their principle of liberty was
too broad, and to this they added the crime of rejecting the Lord's little ones from the fold."'
1 Rol. Lib. p. 200, 201.




PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS.          19
But whatever may have been the cause or causes
of it, the fact that these people have, in all ages,
encountered the most strenuous opposition is clear.
That this opposition continues, to a very considerable extent,is equally clear. The ancient opponents
of the Baptists cast out their name as evil. They
had no proper means of defense before human tribunals. Their voices were silenced-their books
were burned, and themselves driven out into the. wulderness, and into the dens and caves of the earth.
Their only proper record was on high. Tradition,
many-tongued and false, slandered them. The muse
of history, whose boast is truth, deceived and led
astray, slandered them. These slanders, imbedded
in the strata of history,have continued, miserable
fossils, until this day. And hence much of the
odium theologicum of the past, clings tenaciously
to the Baptists still.
Although in our own land, especially, they now
suffer no fines, nor imprisohments, no civil disabilities whatever, they yet have great reason to complain of the injustice still done them.  The opposition is softened, but it is not subdued. In the
social circle, through the press, and even in the pulpit, they are often severely assailed. Imputations
the most unjust and injurious are constantly made
against them.
For this injustice, the Baptists are compelled to
arraign the candor and intelligence, or the Chris



20               THE BAPTISTS.
tian courtesy and kindness, of their opponents. It
pains them to be under the necessity of doing either.
But there seems to them no alternative. Those who
so persistently oppose them, are, without doubt,
grossly ignorant of their true character and history,
their real principles and spirit, or they are swayed
by prejudices and passions the most unreasonable
and unworthy.   In either case we submit that the
latter have as little reason for self-complacency as
the former for self-abasement.
Some of the opponents of the Baptists openly and
boldly bring accusations against them. Others,
with an air of charitable indifference, simply suggest them. With softened, subdued utterance, they
disparage
"With faint praise, assent with civil leer
tC4 without sneering, teach the rest to sneer
Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike,
Just hint a fault and hesitate dislike."
In the following pages we shall attempt a brief
vindication of the Baptists from some of these bold
charges, and covert insinuations. Those which we
propose to notice, may all, perhaps, be properly regarded as having reference to the ORIGIN, CONTINUITY, PRINCIPLES, SPIRIT, POLITY, and GENERAL INFLUENCIE UPON THE WORLD, of the Baptists. And
under these heads we propose to consider them.




II.
ORIGIINOF THE BAPTISTS.
Late Origin alleged against the Baptists-Universal belfef
among Baptists respecting their Origin-Weight as an argument of this belief-Apostolic origin of the Baptists-Scriptural evidence-Analysis of the Commission-Procedure of
the Apostles-Constituents of the First Churches-Leading
characteristics-Substantially identical with those of modera
Baptists-No necessity for tracing Unbroken Succession.
T is often objected to the Baptists that while
they claim to bx more strictly than others, the
true churches o: Christ, they actually had no? existence until many centuries after the first
promulgation and establishment of the gospel.  Many of their opponents confidently
affirm that they originated in Germany, and so late
as the sixteenth century.   Even so respectable a
person as the Rev. Albert Barnes, of Philadelphia,
author of popular commentaries upon the Scriptures, not long since said of the Baptists that " as
a denomination they are but of yesterday"-and
that "they have not as a foundation for their exclusiveness, even the poor pretension of the Epis(21)




22              THE BAPTISTS.
copalians, that they can trace their history back
to the apostolic times; for there were times, and
those not far remote in the history of the world,
when the Baptist denomination was not. For
more than three-fourths of the history of the church
on the earth, Christianity has made its way somehow among the nations-converting sinners, overthrowing idolatry, diffusing knowledge, establishing colleges and schools, comforting the afflicted,
and sustaining the dying,without the Baptist idea
that men must be immersed-and that the blessings of the covenant descend only on those whose
children are not baptized." To the same purport
wrote Dr. Miller, of Princeton, some years since,
in his work on Infant Baptism. And the wellknown Dr. Nevin, in 1852, in the Mercersburg Review, after pronouncing the faith of the Baptists a
"new faith "-and their system a "modern system,"
a "thing comparatively of yesterday," "nothing
more in fact than the last phase of what is called
Orthodox Puritanism," proceeds thus to apostrophize the new  scheme:  "Who art thou, upstart
system! that thou shouldest set thyself in such
proud style above the universal church of antiquity
-the immediate successors of the apostles, the
noble army of martyrs, the goodly fellowship of
the fathers, the vast cloud of witnesses that look
down upon us from those ages of faith-charging
it with Wholesale superstition and folly, and re



THEIR ORIGIN.              23
quiring us to renounce its creed, the whole scheme
and habit of its religious life, and to accept from
thy hands, in place of it, another form of belief,
another scheme of doctrine altogether, as infallibly true and right? Who gave thee this authority? Whence came such infallibility?" In similar
strains, do many others, of less note, also express
themselves.
That these views of their origin and character
are both uncharitable and unjust, the Baptists universally believe. They have always maintained
that their churches are as ancient as Christianity
itself. That their foundations were laid by no less
honorable hands than those of Christ and his
apostles. In all ages since the first, the Baptists
have believed their denomination more ancient
than themselves.  The American Baptists deny
that they owe their origin to Roger Williams.
The English Baptists will not grant that John
Smyth or Thomas Helwysse was their founder.
The Welsh Baptists strenuously contend that they
received their creed in the first century, from those
who had obtained it, direct, from the apostles
themselves.  The Dutch Baptists trace their spiritual pedigree up to the same source. The German
Baptists maintained that they were older than the
Reformation, older than the corrupt hierarchy
which it sought to reform.  The Waldensian Baptists boasted an ancestry far older than Waldo,




24              THE BAPTISTS.
older than the most ancient of their predecessors
in the vales of Piedmont. So, too, may we say
of the Lollards, Henricians, Paterines, Paulicians,
Donatists, and other ancient Baptists, that they
claim an origin more ancient than that of the men
or the circumstances from which they derived
their peculiar appellations. If in any instance the
stream of descent is lost to human eye, in "the remote depths of antiquity," they maintain that it
ultimately reappears, and reveals its source in
Christ and his apostles.
Now we think that this singular unanimity
of opinion among the Baptists of all countries
and of all ages, respecting their common origin
in apostolic and primitive times - a unanimity
the existence of which might easily be established by numerous quotations from historians
and other writers among them, is of itself a fact
of no little value, as furnishing a presumptive argument of much force in support of the Baptist
claim. In England and in the United States especially, the Baptists are now numerous, intelligent, and in every way as respectable as any denomination of Christian people. Among them
are men, not only of unimpeachable moral and
Christian character, but of profound learning and
extensive historical research. And all these, as well
as the humblest and most unlearned among them,
believe that Baptists, (whether with or without the




TRlm  ORIGIN.             25
name, is a matter of indifference,) Lave existed
"from the days of John the Baptist until now."
We readily concede that this mere opinion cannot
of itself establish their claim to an apostolic origin.
But, to all unprejudiced minds, it furnishes presumptive proof in favor of that claim. If on the part of
any numerous and widely scattered race of men,
there now existed, and for ages had existed, a tradition of a common origin, in some distant land, at a period remote, but fixed-a tradition, which all held,
the philosophic historian would certainly not feel
himself at liberty to disregard it. On the contrary,
such tradition would receive his profoundest respect, and engage his most serious investigations.
And if, with the tradition were found numerous
traces of similarity of language, manners and customs. complexion, and general physiological character, between those holding it, and those from
whom they professed to have sprung, still stronger
would be the presumption in favor of its truth.
And why should not a similar tradition, similarly held, by numerous widely-scattered, intelligent
Christian communities of the same spiritual racecommunities not at all given to boasting of men, or
of any outward circumstances whatever-accompanied too by the clearest and strongest evidences of
similarity, not to say identity, in all essential characteristics, between themselves and those from
3




26             THE BAPTISTS.
whom they profess to have derived their origin,
receive equal respect and consideration?
But the Apostolic origin of the Baptists is not
a matter of tradition or of opinion, however univer-'sal and however strong. It is a matter of history
-the highest history- history written by the
hand of man, yet guided and inspired by God.
Passing over the traditions and opinions of men,
whether themselves or others,-passing over all
mere human history, they go, for the proof of their
apostolic origin, at once to the only infallible
source of evidence upon the subject. They appeal
to the divine record itself; and in that they find
the fullest and most satisfactory vindication of
their claims.
Just before his ascension, Jesus said to his
apostles, "All power is given unto me in heaven
and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway,
even unto the end of the world. Amen."-Matt.
xxxviii. 18, 19, 20. Or, as Mark renders his
words, "Go ye into all the world and preach the
Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and
is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth
not shall be damned."-Mark xvi. 15, 16. Here
is furnished the authority under which the Apos



THEIR ORIGIN.             27
ties acted in proclaiming and establishing the
kingdom of Christ among the nations. Nothing
is easier than to show that it called for the establishment of Baptist churches, and that the apostles and evangelists, faithfully fulfilling its provisions, actually established such churches. Under
the requirements of the divine charter which'
guided and governed their procedure, they were,
1. To preach the gospel to every creature-to
every creature capable of understanding and receiving the glad tidings which they proclaimed.
Thus preaching, they were, 2. To make disciples
of their hearers-to secure their assent to, and
acceptance of, the glad tidings which they proclaimed.  3. They were to baptize those thus
believing and accepting the gospel.  4. They
were to go on teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever Christ had commanded.
In this simple analysis of the commission is
presented the very process by which Baptists are
now made, constituted into churches, and governed. That it was the process by which the first
preachers made converts, and constituted churches,
is beyond question. The inspired historian tells
us that while Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, his hearers " were pricked in their hearts, and
said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles,
Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then
Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized,




28             THE BAPTISTS.
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.
*  *  Then they that gladly received the word
were baptized: and the same day there were added
unto them about three thousand souls. And they
continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and
fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."-Acts ii. 3'-42.  He also tells us that
"lwhen Philip went down to the city of Samaria,
and preached Christ to them, the people with one
accord gave heed unto those things which Philip
spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he
did." And "when they believed Philip preaching
the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the
name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both
men and women."-Acts viii. 5-12.
Who does not see that these early converts,
made by this divine process, whether called disciples, as at first, or Christians, as subsequently at
Antioch, could have been nothing else than Baptists? For, consider 1. That they were men and
women-that no infants are either directly named,
or indirectly suggested even. 2. That they repented and believed before they were baptized.
3. That they were baptized before they "were
added" to the company of the disciples-to the
church. 4. That they were added to the church
before they "broke bread," or partook of the
Lord's Supper. If we have not here all the elements of a Baptist church, as constituted in the




THEIR ORIGIN.              29
present day, then we think they are not to be
found in such a church itself.
That the baptism which these early Christians
received in declaration of their faith, was immersion, is evident from the following considerations:
1. The meaning of the term defining the rite.The word always employed to denote the baptismal action, is Bawtvco, or some of its immediate
inflections. And it uniformly and essentially involves, both in classic and in Hellenistic usage,
the idea of an immersion. This, whatever sciolists
and partisans may say, the scholarship of the
world, Pedobaptist as well as Baptist, has put beyond all question. The most distinguished scholars of every age, and of all theological creeds,
concede it. And, even if, in this brief essay, in
which so many other topics are to be touched, we
had the space, it were a work of supererogation
to attempt a new and independent argument in
proof of it.
2. The symbolic import of the rite.-In baptism
is represented the plunging of the guilty and polluted soul into the fountain opened in the house
of David for sin and for uncleanness, and the washing of regeneration through the power of the
Holy Ghost. A complex symbol, in it is also
represented the death, burial, and resurrection of
Christ; the'death and burial to sin of the believer,
3*




30              THE BAPTISTS,
his resurrection to newness of life, and his faith in
the resurrection and future felicity of the bodies
of all departed believers. And surely no act could
be more significant of these things, than that of
the immersion in water of the believer. None
could be less so,than that of sprinkling or pouring
water upon the unconscious, unbelieving, unconsenting babe.
3. The scriptural representations, in some instances remarkably circumstantial and minute, of
baptismal scenes.-Matthew, speaking of the first
baptism, says: " Then went out to him [John the
Baptist] Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of
him in Jordan, confessing their sins."-Matt. iii.
5, 6.  Mark, speaking of the same baptismal
scene, says: "John did baptize in the wilderness,
and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And then went out unto him all
the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and
were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan,
confessing their sins."-Mark i. 4, 5. Matthew,
speaking of the baptism of Jesus, says: "Then
cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John,
to be baptized of him. *  *  And Jesus, when
he was baptized, went up straightway out of the
water."-Matt. iii. 13-16. Mark, recording it,
says: "And it came to pass in those days, that
Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was




THEIR ORIGIN.             31
baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway
coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens
opened," etc.-Mark i. 9, 10. John the Evangelist, after referring to Jesus and his disciples as
baptizing in the land of Judea, says of John the
Baptist, that he "also was baptizing in Enon,
near to Salim, because there was much water
there. "-John iii. 2, 3.  And Luke, in Acts,
describing the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch
by Philip says: " As they went on their way, they
came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said,
See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be
baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with
all thy heart thou mayest. And he answered and
said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God. And he commanded the chariot to stand
still: and they went down both into the water, both
Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And
when they were come up out of the water, the
Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip that the
eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his
way rejoicing."-Acts viii. 36-40.
4. The terms in which, as a symbolic burial and
resurrection, the rite is alluded to by the inspired
writers. "Know ye not," says Paul to the Romans, "that so many of us as were baptized into
Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into
Auath, that like as Christ was raised up from the




82              THE BAPTISTS.
dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also
should walk in newness of life. For if we have
been planted together in the likeness of his death,
we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection."-Rom. vi. 3-6. The same figure of a burial
and resurrection in baptism he also employs when
addressing his Colossian brethren: "Buried with
him in baptism," says he, "wherein also ye are
risen with him through the faith of the operation
of God who hath raised him from the dead. "-Col.
ii. 12.  Urging upon them, too, the argument
from consistency, he says: "If ye, then, be risen
with Christ [as in your baptism ye symbolically
declared,] seek those things," etc.-Col. iii. 1.
That the churches constituted by the Apostles
were regarded as essentially spiritual, and composed of converted or regenerate and believing
persons only, is evident from the manner in which
they are addressed and referred to as "believers,"
"saints," "the quickened," "the faithful," "the
redeemed," "the sanctified," "the saved," etc.
And so evident is it, that whenever and wherever
the great and destructive error of admitting infants and other unconverted persons into the
church, has prevailed, there has always been the
notion of a regeneration, as more or less closely
connected with their baptism and initiation.
That, too, the apostolic churches gathered by
the process, and composed of the elements which




THEIR ORIGIN.              33
we have indicated, were local bodies, outwardly
and formally independent one of another, separate from the State, endowed by Christ with all
the powers, and performing under him all the
functions of sovereign, self-controlling bodies, is
evident from the way in which they are referred
to throughout the New Testament.     They are
spoken of individually, as "the church at Jerusalem," the church at Antioch," "the church of the
Ephesians," "the church in Smyrna," "the church
which is in Nymphas' house," "every church."
They are spoken of collectively, as "the churches,"
"the churches of Judea," "the churches of Galatia," "the churches of Macedonia," "the churches
of Asia," "the churches of God," " the churches of
Christ," " all the churches." They are represented
as electing tlkeir own officers, admitting members to their fellowship and communion, expelling
and restoring offenders, and, in a word, exercising
all the powers lying legitimately within the province of distinct, self-governing, and independent
Christian communities. That this was so, Mosheim, Gieseler, Neander, Schaff, and all the great
ecclesiastical historians, distinctly show.  An
archbishop of the church of England thus strongly
sets forth the fact: " It appears plainly from the
sacred narrative, that though the many churches
which the apostles founded were branches of one
spiritual brotherhood, of which the Lord Jesus




34              THE BAPTISTS.
Christ is the Heavenly Head-though there was
" one Lord, one faith, one baptism," for all of them,
yet they were each a distinct, independent community on earth, united by the common principles
on which they were founded, and by their mutual
agreement, affection, and respect, but not having
any recognized head on earth, or acknowledging
any sovereignty of one of these societies over
others. And as for so-called general councils, we
find not even any mention of them, or allusion to
any such expedient. The pretended first council
at Jerusalem does seem to me a most extraordinary chimera, without any warrant whatever from
sacred history."'
That the churches thus independent of each
other were independent of the State, is also clear.
It is implied by Christ's declaration, " My kingdom is not of this world;" his injunction, " Render
unto Cassar the things that are Csesar's, and to
God the things that are God's;" the declaration
of Peter and John to the Jewish rulers, when they
commanded them not to speak at all, nor to teach
in the name of Jesus, " Whether it be right in the
sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto
God, judge ye; for we cannot but speak the
things which we have seen and heard;" and also' Whately. Kingdom of Christ, p. 36. This testimony of
Whately and others might be added to, were it necessary, almost ad ijfilitum.




THEIR ORIGIN.              35
from the uniform conduct of all the apostles and
early Christians, who, while constantly rendering
obedience to the civil government when acting
within its legitimate sphere, as constantly resisted
and defied its utmost power, when, presumptuously stepping outside of that sphere, it invaded
the spiritual domain of Christ and his churches,
and interfered with the rights and responsibilities
of conscience.
That the first churches admitted to the Lord's
table only such as had been, upon profession of
faith, baptized into their fellowship, is also evident-so evident that no one of any Christian denomination  questions it.  Even   Robert Hall,
while strongly contending that there is no essential connection of baptism with the Lord's Supper,
or any natural and necessary dependence of the
latter upon the former, yet grants that "the apostles admitted none to the Lord's Supper, but such
as were previously baptized,"' and concedes " the
prior claim of baptism to the attention of such as
are properly enlightened on the subject."2
In addition to the points of agreement-the
evidences of identity, between the apostolic
churches and the Baptist churches of the present
day, to which we have directed attention, we may
Hall's Works, vol. ii, pp. 213, 214.' Ibid. vol. i. p. 310.




36              THE BAPTISTS.
also name that of remarkable similarity in their
modes and forms of worship. Like the present
Baptists, and unlike many of those who so proudly
vaunt that they are their only true descendants
and successors, the apostolic churches were distinguished for the plainness and simplicity of their
worship. They had no magnificent cathedrals, no
gorgeously arrayed priesthood, no prescribed
ritual, no splendid religious shows, no pomp of
music, no parade of images and paintings-nothing
to delight the mere imagination or the senses.
Quietly and unostentatiously they met in some
"upper room," or other humble sanctuary, to sing
God's praise, supplicate his favor, read and expound his word, exhort one another, and, in all
kindred ministries, to exercise and cultivate the
spiritual gifts and graces which God had bestowed
upon them.
To this model, the worship of the Baptists is
conformed. Their ministers, though often learned
and able, are for the most part plain and practical
men, whose taste as well as sense of duty, prompts
them to dispense the truth simple and unadorned,
without the aid of the enticing words of man's
wisdom, or other adventitious and carnal helps,
which give to the public ministrations of so many
others their chief attractions. There is nothing in
the appendages and concomitants of any of their
modes and forms of worship, more than in their




THEIR ORIGIN.             37
general strain of preaching, to take captive the
imaginative and the dreamy, the man of sentiment
and the woman of fashion-nothing to attract the
poetaster, the dilettante, and the trancendentalist
-nothing to fascinate those to whom religion is
but a fine art, or an assemblage of fine arts-whose
devotion is but the glow of a poetic temperament,
the expression of mere natural sentiment-homage
to music, and architecture, and painting; a luxurious spiritualized indulgence of the imagination and
the senses,-nothing to secure the homage of those
devout worshipers of brick and mortar, and
stucco and stone, and holy ground, who in some
places have appropriated to themselves the highsounding title of Ecclesiologists.
Here we have, as we think, a demonstration that
the apostolic and primitive churches of Christ
were in all essential respects identical with those
of the modern Baptists. If there be any important difference between them, we are unable to
perceive it. And we respectfully submit that in
view of this identity, the latter have a right, to
claim that they are the true representatives and
proper successors of the former, without being under any real necessity of tracing a chain of succession, and showing that no single link is wanting in that chain. Many a link in the deep darkness of the long and dreary past, amidst its revolutions and convulsions, may have been visible to
4




38              THE BAPTISTS.
the eye of God, nay, to the eyes of men then living, yet invisible to ours. For many centuries we
have no connected and complete history of certain
nations of marked peculiarities. Who doubts
their continued existence throughout every hiatus
in their history? For many ages there was no
written history of the human race. Yet who
doubts the existence of the race? It existed as
really and certainly during all the unrecorded centuries, as during the historic ages. Its existence
was in no manner dependent either upon the
knowledge or the ignorance of men unborn. The
first man, Adam, stood at one end of the line-another man, just like him, stood at the other. Is it
difficult to believe, however wide and dark the interval which separated them, that the latter was
the true and proper successor of the former? So
the churches of the apostolic age stand at one end
of the ecclesiastical line, the Baptists just like them,
stand at the other. Why doubt that the line has
been continuous,-though we may, in the darkness, or because of our own defective vision, be
unable to see its whole extent,-and that those
who stand at this end, are the true descendants
and successors of those who stand at that?
In all consistency and candor, we think their Pedobaptist opponents, whatever others may think of
it, should grant the validity and force of this reasoning in support of the Baptist position. They can



THEIR ORIGIN.              39
not at all trace the existence of infant baptism for
a long period subsequent to the apostolic age.
They contend, however, that having at the first
existed, its continuance is to be presumed during
all the long interval in which no trace of it is
found. And if the existence of infant baptism at
the first, were, as it is not, proved, we should unhesitatingly concede the strength of the presumption in its favor. The Baptists, as we have seen,
can and do prove their existence in the apostolic
age. If then, there were really a wide hiatus in
their history, the just principle upon which (in a
wrong application of it, however,) their Pedobaptist opponents proceed, would enable them at once
to fill it.
Justly, as well as with great strength and felicity
of expression, one of our brethren says, " Whatever
is found in the New Testament is as worthy as if
you traced it there. It is only a doubtful practice
whose thread must be traced thus carefully through
the labyrinth of history, with painful uncertainty
lest you reach its end, while yet a century or two
from Christ. If between us and the apostolic
age there yawned a fathomless abyss, into whose
silent darkness intervening history had fallen, with
a Baptist church on this side, and a:New Testament on the other, we should boldly bridge the
gulf, and look for the record of our faith among
the hills of Galilee."'
Rev. J. Wheaton Smith.-Letter to Mr. Barnes.




III.
CONTINUITY OF THE BAPTISTS.
Inability to trace Historic Connection with Primitive Churches
charged against the Baptists False theory of SuccessionTrue Succession and Continuity claimed by the Baptists-Disadvantages under which they labor in Tracing their History
-The Difficulties not Insuperable-Faithful Witnesses for
God in all Ages-Statement of President Edwards-Those to
whom he refers for most part Baptists-Opinion of Sir Isaac
Newton-First Churches Baptist-Gradual Corruption-Rise
of Antichristian Hierarchy-Opposition to it-The Novatians
-The Donatists-The Paulicians-The Patorines-The Waldenses-German and Dutch Baptists-English and American Baptists-Recapitulation-Munster-Roger Williams.
S is intimated in the preceding section, it
is charged against the Baptists that while
they   claim  essential identity with    the
4i~^    apostolic and primitive churches, and from
that identity   consider themselves their
true representatives and successors, they
are wholly unable to trace any actual historic connection with them; that even if it be conceded that
their churches have a certain outward conformity to
the apostolic model, still nothing is gained, inasmuch as that conformity, in so far as it exists, is
(40)




THEIR CONTINUITY.           41
only incidental and accidental-an irregular conformity-and that there is no way in which they
can satisfactorily establish their claim to a true
apostolicity, but by tracing an uninterrupted clerical and ecclesiastical succession from the apostles
and primitive churches of Christ.
This objection involves a theory of succession
which invests the administration of baptism and the
imposition of hands, with a "mysterious virtue,"
supposed to pass in unobstructed flow, and in a
particular channel, from the apostles to their
successors in every age, to which the Baptists have
never subscribed; but which they have always regarded as unscriptural and absurd.
Long since should this theory of thejus divinum
of priests,have perished with its kindred theory of
the jus divinum of kings. Like that, in looking
at the outward and the formal alone or mainly, it
proves itself repugnant to the very genius and
spirit of Christianity, as well as at variance with
the common sense of men. It assumes that the
Divine Ruler having once employed a certain class
of agents to effect his purposes, must needs continue them, or formal and strictly lineal successors
of them, forever, having no power to transfer honor
and authority from them to others not of their
lineage-an assumption accordant neither with the
divine character, nor the modes of the divine procedure. For how often has God suddenly and vio.
4*




42             THE BAPTISTS.
lently cast down one, and set up another in his
place! How often has he taken the power from
one dynasty and given it to another I He rejected
Saul and gave the kingdom to David. He re-'jected the Jews and gave the gospel to the Gentiles.
If this theory be just, it will apply to things natural as well as spiritual. Does it? Is genius a
matter of uninterrupted succession? From whom
did the tinker of Elstow and the ploughman of
Ayrshire derive the gifts which have made their
names forever illustrious? Is patriotism a matter
of such succession?  May not a man love his
country unless he be in the line of unbroken descent from a Codrus or a Curtius, an Alfred or a Tell?
May not an amiable and gentle Pocahontas be the
daughter of a savage and blood-thirsty Powhatan?
May not a man be a fool whose father was a philosopher? Nay, may not a man be a philosopher
whose father was a fool? But if in things natural,
there may be the perpetuation of principle and
spirit, the essence, the heart, the life, without absolute outward regularity, why may there not be in
things spiritual? Is not the God of the natural
economy, the same with the God of the spiritual?
And are not the essential principles of his government and procedure identical in all its departments,
even in those apparently the most diverse?
Essentially materialistic, this theory of succession, when consistently carried out, applies to con



THEIR CONTINUITY.           43
secrated places as well as to consecrated persons.
It requires tactual succession and perpetuity in the
latter as well as in the former. But the God who
was purely worshiped in the plain and unimposing old tabernacle, and who filled it with his glorious presence, was just as acceptably worshiped
in the magnificent temple which Solomon reared,
where burned the Shekinah, and where was enshrined the divine oracle. And he who so honored the first temple, yet more highly honored the
second, by that brighter and more glorious Shekinah,
the actual presence of him who was the brightness
of the Father's glory and the express image of his
Person, and by that fuller and clearer oracle, the
mouth of him who spake as never man spake.
Were then the foundations of the first temple laid
with portions of the old tabernacle? Did the
simplicity and comparative rudeness of the latter,
furnish the complete model for the symmetry and
beauty, the grandeur and magnificence of the former? In building the second temple was it imperatively required to have the identical site, to
the square yard and the square inch of the first?
Were its completed walls but the continuation of
the old walls, portions of which still standing, had
alike defied the ruthless hand of Nebuchadnezzar, and the ravages of the mightier destroyer,
Time.
There is no evidence from the Holy Scriptures




44             THE BAPTISTS.
of either the truth or the necessity of this doctrine
of "uninterrupted succession." It surely is not
furnished by Christ's declaration, in the commission, "Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the
end of the world." That is only the assurance of
his presence with the heralds of the gospel, wherever they might go, or whatever they might do, in
accordance with his will. Nor is such evidence
furnished by Christ's declaration to Peter, "On
this rock I will build my church, and the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it." The notion that
it is, proceeds from that papal and unscriptural assumption in which is involved the double error of
confounding the church universal and invisible,
with the visible church, and of supposing it to be
founded upon Peter, rather than upon that eternal
and immutable truth in which the apostles, through
Peter, their spokesman, professed their faith-upon
the weakness and instability of man, rather than
upon the strength and immutability of God.
When Christ said he would build his church upon
a rock, he spoke, of course, figuratively. It would
be subversive of the true principles of language
and of all just rules of interpretation, to suppose
that by the words he employed he meant to convey the idea that he would build a literal structure.
Such a supposition would involve an incongruous
mixture of ideas and of figures-such as a physical
superstructure upon a spiritual foundation. The




TIEIR CONTINUITY.             45
3hurch which Christ affirmed that he would build,
upon the spiritual foundation to which he referred,
was a spiritual house, built up of living stones.
And when he declared that the gates of hell should
not prevail against it, he simply affirmed that the
gates of hell should never prevail against the essential principles and spirit of the gospel, which
are the life, the soul, of the church. That the
gates of hell should not prevail against his church
as an immortal energy, a heavenly spirit, a divine
institution in the world.
Christ did, indeed, establish an outward and visible church, or perhaps we should rather say that
he gave to his church visibility.  But surely he
did not mean that the gates of hell should never
prevail against that mere visibility. Visibility is
but a circumstance of the church, regarded in the
sense in which Christ spoke of it. It must have
existence before it can appear. It may still exist
while vailing itself and withdrawing from human
view-as when represented by "the woman in the
wilderness," it existed for ages in obscurity, an obscurity so deep as that its very existence was then
by the great world unknown, and is now with difficulty traced. The church to which Christ referred, first became visible as an outward local organization at Jerusalem. Now, if we admit that
when Christ affirmed that the gates of hell should
not prevail against it, he meant its visibility, or




46              THE BAPTISTS.
the outward organization in which for the time it
enshrined itself, and through which it first found
external development, how shall we reconcile his
declaration with well attested facts? What shall
we say when that assembly is scattered by persecution, ceases to perform the functions of the
church visible, and has no existence save in its
"membra disjecta"? As a visible and local organization, where is the church first founded at Jerusalem? For long ages it has ceased to exist. But
the church to which Christ referred in his declaration
to Peter, still survives-defying now as ever the
gates of hell. So with respect to ten thousand
other outward forms in which the church universal, the true spiritual church of Christ, transmigrating, if we may be allowed so to speak, from age
to age, and land to land, and thus developing a
true and sublime metempsychosis, has enshrined
itself, and through which it has been made visible.
They, outward, physical, earthly, have passed
away. That, immortal and divine, lives on with
never-fading beauty, and undecaying strength.
If one point to the church of Rome, and say, there
is the church to which, in his declaration to Peter,
Christ referred, and against which, as an outward
and visible organization, the gates of hell have
never prevailed, we ask what right has that, more
than any one of ten thousand other local ecclesias.
tical organizations, to claim to be the church of




THEIR CONTINUITY.            4,
Christ? If any one, more than another, of the
visible churches which have existed, could claim
to be, par excellence, THE CHURCH of Christ, the
church referred to in the declaration to Peter, one
would think it should be that first established, and
of which Peter was one of the original and chief
constituents. We grant that the church of Rome
was once one of the many outward organizations
through which the church universal, at different
times and in different places, has been made visible-yet it was not the first. And it has long
ceased to be such an organization at all. The
gates of hell have prevailed against it-prevailed
against it in the destruction of its original and
essential character-the dissolution of its original
and essential elements-the complete and absolute
alteration of its relations to Christ-the reversal
of its whole posture and aspect towards him. Nothing were easier than to show, by subjecting that
body, in its present character and past history, to
the infallible tests of the truth of God, that, whatever it may once have been, it is now no church
of Christ at all. His truth has fled from it. His
Spirit has forsaken it. It is the synagogue of
Satan. It is the home and the seat of Antichrist.
It is the habitation of dragons, a nest of every
unclean bird. Its life is gone. It is but a huge
and hideous corpse.
So far from the Scriptures sustaining this theory




48              THE BAPTISTS,
of "uninterrupted succession," they show its utter
futility. "Think not to say within yourselves,"
said John the Baptist to the ancient advocates of
this theory, " we have Abraham to our father: for
I say unto you that God is able of these stones to
raise up children urito Abraham. And now also
the axe is laid unto the root of the tree: therefore
every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is
hewn down and cast into the fire." To the same
class of persons Paul said, "He is not a Jew
which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:but he is a Jew
which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that
of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter;
whose praise is not of men, but of God."-Rom.
ii. 17, 29. To those who said, "We be Abraham's
seed," and, in virtue of their outward connection
with the patriarch, claimed honors to which they
were not entitled, Christ, pouring contempt upon
this theory of succession, said, " If ye were Abraham's children ye would do the works of Abraham. *   *  Ye are of your father the devil, and
the lusts of your father ye will do."-John viii.
39-44. To the woman of Samaria, saying to
him, "Our fathers worshiped in this mountain,
and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where
men ought to worship," he taught that it was not
absolutely necessary to have connection with the
outward and the formal in order to be recognized




THEIR CONTINUITY.          49
Sy God-not necessary to the acceptability of worship that it be offered either upon Mount Gerizim
or Mount Zion, according to this or that prescribed
form. "Woman," said he, "the hour cometh when
ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.  *  *   The hour
cometh and now is when the true worshipers
shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for
the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is
a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship
him in spirit and in truth." To those who inquired
of him "when the kingdom of God should come,"
he said, " The kingdom of. God cometh not with
observation. Neither shall they say, Lo, here! or
Lo, there I for behold, the kingdom of God is
within you." All unobserved, it was even then
in their very midst. And very graciously, on
one occasion, he said to his disciples, " Where two
or three are gathered together in my name, there
am I in the midst of them."
Far be it from us to disparage any, even the
least, of the outward ordinances of God.  We
honor them and keep them. But outward ordinances are only important as they are the vehicles
of something infinitely higher and better. This,
indeed, God demonstrated, even under the first
dispensation, intensely formal and ceremonial
though it was. The new moons, and solemn
feasts, and. costly sacrifices. of those who had no
5




50             THE BAPTISTS.
heart in his service, and who subordinated the
spirit to the form, so far from being pleasing to
God, were an abomination to him. He would
have mercy and not sacrifice, justice and judgment
rather than the fat of rams. One who had been
reared under that dispensation, and who had been
deeply imbued with its spirit, confessed to Christ
(and was commended for it by him), that to love
God "with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the
strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is
more than all whole burnt-offerings ar.d sacrifices."
And to him who, under the old dispensation, inquired, "Wherewithal shall I come before the
Lord, and bow myself before the high God? Shall
I come before him with burnt-offerings, with
calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased
with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of
rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my
transgression-the fruit of my body for the sin of
my soul?" comes the emphatic and significant response, "He hath showed thee, 0 man, what is
good, and what doth the Lord require of thee but
to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly
with thy God."
We wonder not, then, that this theory of "uninterrupted succession" finds no real support in
the writings of the ablest and best of the Christian
Fathers. That, though often quoted in support




THEIR CONTINUITY.           51
of it, many of them, Tertullian, Jerome, Ambrose,
Gregory Nazianzen, Augustine, and others, repudiate it-all contending that succession of doctrine
and of faith, of principle and spirit, is the only
true succession, and that without it, however important outward and formal succession may be,
when viewed in certain aspects, it is of no avail,
and not worthy of regard-being often claimed by
heretical teachers and apostate churches.1 Nor do
we wonder that Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, and
all the leading Reformers should contemn it; that
the Presbyterian Turrettine, the Episcopalian
Stillingfleet, and the great founder of Methodism,
Wesley, as well as the Baptist Robinson, should
ridicule it; that Archbishop Whately should
ridicule it, too, pronounce it "absurd," and, in
some of the conclusions to which it leads, even
" impious;" that even Romish writers, while formally maintaining it, should, by its repugnance both
to reason and to scripture, sometimes be constrained (as Turrettine shows, in a quotation from
Bellarmine,) virtually to yield it. We only wonder that any, especially in these times, and in this
country, and among professed Protestants, should
be found to defend it.
The Baptists holding, then, in accordance with
1 Vide Turrettini Opera, tom. iii., De Ecclesia: Quaest. i. et
Qusest. xiii.




52              THE BAPTISTS.
the common sense of men, in accordance with the
teachings of the most illustrious of the early Fathers, the Reformers, and other eminent servants
of God; above all, in accordance with the teachings of inspired men and of Christ himself, that
the true succession is succession of principle, of
spirit, of faith, and of works, maintain that the
genuine representatives of the primitive Christians,
the true successors of the apostles, Ore those who
hold their doctrines, follow their example, tread
in their footsteps; that It does not matter that
there was once a time when one was not in the
apostolic path, nor when nor how he got into it.
If he be only in it now, that is enough-he is
their successor. That, on the other hand, it does
not matter that one was once in that path, nor
when nor how he got out of it. If he be not in it
now, he is not their successor. As many a one
has begun right and ended wrong, so many a one
has commenced wrong and ended right. To the
proposition of his Romish opponent, that "want
of succession of bishops and pastors holding always the same doctrine, and of the forms of ordaining bishops and priests which are in use in
the Roman church, is a certain mark of heresy,"
admirable is the reply of the great Chillingworth,
himself an Episcopalian, and at one time a Papist:
"Nothing but want of truth, and holding error,
can make or prove any man or church heretical.




THEIR CONTINUITY.           53
For if he be a true Aristotelian, or Platonist, or
Pyrrhonian, or Epicurean, who holds the doctrine
of Aristotle, or Plato, or Pyrrho, or Epicurus, although he cannot assign any that held it before
him for many ages together; why should I not be
made a true and orthodox Christian, by believing
all the doctrine of Christ, though I cannot derive
my descent from a perpetual succession that believed it before me. * * What is more certain,
than that he may make a straight line, who hath
a rule to make it by, though never man in the
world had made any before? And why, then, may
not he that believes the Scripture to be the word
of God, and the rule of faith, regulate his faith by
it, and consequently believe aright, without much
regarding what other men either will do or have
done?"1
In the same spirit Dr. Ripley says: " A church
that came into existence yesterday, in strict conformity to the [New Testament principles of membership, far away from any long-existing church
or company of churches, and therefore unable to
trace an outward lineal descent, is a true church
of Christ-for Christianity is not a religion of circumstances, but of principles-while a church socalled, not standing on the apostolic principles of' Works.-Charity Maintained by Catholics, vol. ii. pp. 375,
376, 377.
5*




54              THE BAPTISTS.
faith and practice, and yet able to look back
through a long line up to time immemorial, may
have never belonged to that body of which Christ
is the Head.71 Yet more fully and with rare elegance and ability are the views of the Baptists,
upon this subject of succession, expressed by another distinguished Baptist.  Referring to their
churches, he says: "Amongst their sister churches
they are related by sympathies and kind offices,
but they own no subjection, and acknowledge no
dependence either on cotemporary churches of
their own country, or upon the churches of other
lands or other times, except as those churches have
held the same truth, clung to the same Head, and
have exhibited the same spirit. * * They claim
to hold directly of the ever-living, almighty, and
omnipotent Spirit, and to lean, without the interposition of chains of succession and lines of spiritual
descent, immediately and for themselves on the
bosom and the heart of the Saviour, who pledged
his presence to the end of the world, where two
or three are gathered together in his name.  To
all pedigrees of a spiritual and priestly class, claimed
by some Christians, we oppose the permanent presence and indefeasible priesthood of the great Melchisedec of our profession, without beginning of
days or end of years; and we claim to come up' Introduction to Crowell's Church Manual, p. 4.




THEIR CONTINUITY.            55
out of the wilderness, stayed directly on Christ
and leaning on our beloved. We touch, so to
speak, his bare arm as our stay, without the intervention of the envelopes of any favored order or
virtue running through a chain of spiritual conductors.  Our graces are not transmitted, but
taken direct from the Redeemer's own hand. Nothing short of a personal application to Christ, we
suppose, will avail us in conversion; and nothing
short of the personal presence of Christ will sustain us in the dying hour; and, as churches, we
judge nothing short of the personal presence of
the Lord can give energy to our preaching, validity to our ordinances, or life to our worship. If
we have this, let others find, if they can, something
better, holier, older, newer, and vaster. We know
it not and seek it not."M
We have said thus much upon a topic which in
itself does not deserve the consideration we have
given it, to show the utter unreasonableness and
injustice of the objection to the Baptists, based
upon an alleged inability on their part to trace an
uninterrupted clerical and ecclesiastical succession, as well as to rebuke an assumption based
upon a mere figment, and altogether absurd and
preposterous.
From all that we have said, however, it must' Williams' Miscellanies, pp. 140, 141.




56              THE BAPTISTS.
not be inferred that the Baptists do not claim any
sort of succession or continuity from the Apostles. They do claim a real succession and continuity. But, as we have all along intimated, they
do it not as at all necessary to the establishment
of their character and standing as true and apostolic churches of Christ. They do it in reply to
the taunting and contemptuous charge of recency
of origin, so often brought against them by their
opponents. They do it " on the ground of truth
and histqric fact." They do it in vindication of
their noble ancestry, "that the stigma of ingratitude may not attach to themselves, nor those worthy ones be deprived of their honorable and bloodbought renown." For a far higher reason, they
do it in humble and heartfelt acknowledgment of
the love and power of Him who, in all ages, amid
all the vicissitudes and perils of their trying fortunes, has so wonderfully and graciously watched
over and preserved them and their principles.
The sum and substance of the Baptist claim to
continuity from primitive times until the present,
is simply this-that in all the intervening ages
there have been persons, more or less numerous
or conspicuous, existing as formally organized
churches, or as scattered individuals, assembling
from time to time, as their enemies allowed them
opportunity, for the worship of God and for mutual
edification-persons who, if now living, would be




THEIR CONTINUITY.          57
universally recognized as Baptists. If the existence, in all ages, of such persons, can be proved,
all for which the Baptists contend will be proved.
And that it can be, they at least have no doubt.
In tracing their continuity, the Baptists frankly
confess that they encounter not a few difficulties.
They labor under disadvantages which they think
should not, in common fairness, be overlooked by
their opponents. It might be expected that much
labor would be necessary in collecting and bringing to bear upon the question, all the evidence
which really exists. Much too, which it may
reasonably be inferred once existed has been lost,
and cannot now by any degree of labor and research be adduced at.all. Since the origin of the
Baptists, long and eventful ages have elapsed.
Some of them were ages of great ignorance and
darkness, in which facilities for collecting, preserving, and handing down to other times such records
as are now desirable, were extremely limited.
The printing-press had not been invented. Few
could read, and yet fewer write. Not one in many
thousands could compose a page that would survive him. Many of those ages, too, were periods
of commotion and convulsion, of perpetual strife
and contention, warfare and bloodshed, tyranny
and oppression. Men were afraid to speak or to
write-almost to think! During the progress of
those long ages, the Baptists passed through many




58              THIE BAPTISTS.
and great vicissitudes. They were in the minority. Their enemies sat in the seats of power.
The principles for which the world is at length
beginning to honor them, were then fiercely denounced as heresy and treason. If they ventured
to publish them, their voices were hushed in death,
or stifled in prison. Every effort that earthly malice
or hellish hate could devise for the extermination
of their principles was made. And had they not
been immortal, all vestige of them, save in the
records of the courts and councils which condemned as felons those who held and taught
them, they would certainly have faded forever
from the earth. "The Baptists had to conceal
themselves like the innocent dove in the clefts of
rocks and hollow trees to be secure from the talons
of the hawk." Thus fleeing from their foes and
concealing themselves, they continued for centuries in the deepest obscurity. Hence they have
been almost entirely overlooked by many who
have written the history of the great antichristian
hierarchy, and called it the history of the church
of Christ. If the Baptists-could have written sc
freely and fully as their opponents, and if their
writings could have been preserved, the work of
tracing their history and establishing their claim
to continuity, would now be comparatively slight.
As it is, this is to be done chiefly through the writings of those who viewed everything good con



THEIR CONTINUITY.           59
corning them  "through the refracting medium
of bitter enmity."  Their opponents and persecutors held the pen as well as the sword. And
these it is that make history. We need not say
how in the hands of those who wielded them, they
did their work.
" The Baptists," says Halbertsma, "existed several centuries before the Reformation, but then a
history of them was an impossibility. It was
ever the main condition of their existence to keep
out of sight. Excluded from all ecclesiastical and
civil offices, they could never appear in any of the
State documents. Repudiating all the doctrines
and ceremonies of the Romish Church which Jesus
riad not commanded, by this disavowal, they caused
to disappear, all those distinctions in doctrines
which separated the other sects. Since the kingdom of God was shut up in their bosoms, and was
made known by no outward actions whatever,
they existed by hundreds of thousands, as if not
in existence, and only were known of men through
the persecutions and investigations made by the
Inquisition.  Hence it is absurd to demand a
series of historical truths, by which the existence
of the earliest Baptists of the Reformation, and
that of their spiritual ancestors in the middle ages,
may be firmly bound together. "
The Baptists and their Origin: Doventer, 1843, p. 226
SA9 tranplltigp from the DIuteb of $, Blaupot Ten Cate's His;




60              THE BAPTISTS.
Nor must the peculiarity of their views of the
nature and constitution of the church be overlooked in considering the question of the continuity of the Baptists. They have never acknowledged
any visible and organized church universal.  They
have always contended that the people of God
while, indeed, holding in common the great leading
and essential principles of the Gospel, and being
one in spirit, are, in so far as they sustain outward
church relations, comprised in churches, rather
than in a church. "It is not a confederation of
Baptist churches," says a recent writer, "nor a continued succession of Baptist churches, that is the
Baptist church; but every local independent body
of baptized believers, holding the doctrines of the
Gospel, and having the ordinances of the gospel,
that now exists, or has at any time or in any place
existed, is and was the Baptist church in the only
sense in which there can be any such thing as the
Baptist church." Their various communities,
therefore, having always been separate and distinct
bodies not formally united in one great ecclesiastical
organization, were little likely, especially in such
times as those to which we have referred, even
when each one in its true sphere nobly fulfilled the
purpose of God, to make themselves very conspicuInq. into Waldensian Origin of Dutch Baptists. Sc. Bap. Rev.
July, 1857.




THEIR CONTINUITY.           61
ous or powerful in a worldly or historic point of;iew. It often, indeed, happened that those communities, from personal, local, and other incidental
causes, bearing different appellations, though not
different in faith, were regarded by the world and
the established hierarchy, as well as by many
learned historians, as different sects, when they
were as properly but one people, as the different
and widely-scattered churches of the apostolic age,
or the different Baptist churches of this country
now are. The proof is decided, that while the
Baptists have been known by the many names of
Baptists, Anabaptists, Waldenses, Albigenses, Petrobrussians, Henricians, Paulicians, Paterines,
Donatists, Novatians, and Christians, they have
ever been in principle and spirit really the same
people.
Notwithstanding the disadvantages which exist,
however, the tracing of the continued existence of
the Baptists, is not so difficult as might at first
view be expected. God, whose prerogative it is
to bring good out of evil, and to make the wrath of
man praise him, has caused the very enemies of his
afflicted people, even in the act of striving to destroy them and blot out their name, bear unwilling
and unwitting testimony to them. From those
who spoke and wrote against them, from the tribunals which condemned them, from their judges
and executioners, come both the history and the
6




62              THE BAPTISTS.
eulogy of the Baptists. The courts which arraigned
and tried them upon charges of heresy and treason,
in some instances preserved records which reveal
the fact that the faith of the heretic was the faith
of the gospel,-his heresy, the truth as it is in
Jesus.
Thus can the existence and continuity of the
Baptists be traced. Traced by their sufferings for
the truth-"by the stains of their martyrs' bloodby the light of their martyrs' fires"-by the broad
wake of glory which followed them, as'hey moved
on, in the darkness, through the deep waters of
tribulation.
That there have been in all ages since the Apostles, persons who, when tried by the strictest scriptural tests, approve themselves as the proper representatives and successors of the first followers of
Christ, is acknowledged by all.  President Edwards speaking of the long and dreary interval between the rise of Antichrist and the Reformation,
with his usual power of condensation and force of
statement, says, " In every age of this dark time,
there appeared particular persons in all parts of
Christendom, who bore a testimony against the
corruptions and tyranny of the Church of Rome.
There is no one age of Antichrist, even in the
darkest times of all, but ecclesiastical historians
mention a great many by name who manifested an
abhorrence of the Pope, and his idolatrous worship,




THEIR CONTINUITY.           63
and pleaded for the ancient purity of doctrine and
worship. God was pleased to maintain an uninterrupted succession of witnesses through the
whole time, in Germany, France, Britain, and other
countries,-as historians demonstrate, and mention
them by name, and give an account of the testimony which they held. Many of them were private
persons, and many of them ministers, and some
magistrates, and persons of great distinction. And
there were numbers in every age, who were persecuted and put to death for this testimony."'
The Baptists claim, whether President Edwards
would have conceded it or not, that the persons to
whom he refers, were, for the most part, substantially Baptists. And this claim we think they
can and do establish, as we shall soon see. Not
now to adduce the testimony of others, we will
only say, in passing, that that illustrious Christian
philosopher, Sir Isaac Newton, whose ecclesiastical investigations were only less extensive and profound than his philosophical, frequently expressed
to Whiston, as the latter states in the memoirs of
his own life, his conviction that "the Baptists were
the only Christians who had never symbolized with
the Church of Rome. "2
We have seen that the first churches were BapWorks, vol. i. p. 460.
2 See Robert Hall's Works, vol. i. p. 358.




64              THE BAPTISTS.
tist churches.  Such they continued throughout
the apostolic age, and indeed in all fundamental
and essential respects, for a considerable period afterward, as we might easily show by an appeal to
Mosheim, Neander, Bunsen, and other writers of the
highest authority. Gradually, however, the purity
of their doctrine was corrupted, and the strictness
of their discipline relaxed, signs of which had already appeared, even in the age of the apostles
themselves. Multitudes of errorists and pretended
converts were admitted into the churches, until at
length these outnumbered the true people of God,
and obtained the control of affairs. This was especially the case in the time of Constantine, the
Emperor, and Sylvester, the Bishop of Rome, under whom, in the early part of the fourth century,
the church and the state were united. From this
time, the general declension and defection were very
deep and rapid. The churches became more and
more superstitious in their worship, and introduced
many unscriptural and heathenish ceremonies into
the service of God's house. They "brought in the
worship of saints, and set up images in their places
of worship, and the clergy in general, and especially
the Bishop of Rome, assumed more and more authority to himself. In the primitive times he was
only a minister of a congregation; then a standing
moderator of a presbytery; then a diocesan bishop;
then a metropolitan, which is equivalent to an




THEIR CONTINUITY.            65
archbishop; then he was a patriarch; then afterward he claimed the power of universal bishop
over the whole Christian church through the world,
wherein he was opposed for a while, but afterward
confirmed in it by the civil power of the Emperor
in the year 606. After that he claimed the
power of a temporal prince, and so was wont to
carry two swords, to signify that both the temporal and spiritual sword was his, and claimed more
and more authority till at length he, as Christ's
vicegerent on earth, claimed the very same power
that Christ would have if he was present on earth,
-nd reigned on his throne; or the same power that
Belongs to God, and used to be called God on
earth. "
In the early part of this period, even at Rome
itself, as well as in other portions of the empire,
when the constantly-encroaching irregularities and
ever-increasing corruptions threatened utterly to
destroy the simplicity that is in Christ, and to subvert the essential principles of the gospel, those
who remained steadfast in the true doctrine, and
pure in life, and who from the first had resisted
these irregularities and corruptions, and patiently
borne with the abuses which they deplored, but had
no power to correct, hopeless of reform, after many
a struggle, at length overcoming their aversion to' See Edward's Works, Hist. Red., vol. i. 457, 458.
6*




66             THE BAPTISTS.
separation, withdrew and established themselves
in distinct and independent communities, in which,
earnestly contending for the faith once delivered
to the saints, they stemmed the swelling tides of
error. These communities in different places, and
under different appellations, continued to exist
throughout all the dark and dreadful days of persecution which followed, until the Reformation,
when, in their descendants and successors, they
rose up simultaneously in great numbers, and asserted themselves in almost all parts of Europe.
Since then, passing through great and trying vicissitudes, they have still held on their way, until
increased in numbers, and otherwise greatly
strengthened, they are now, as Baptists, known
and acknowledged throughout the world.
The first important class, passing by the Montanists, with whom Tertullian identified himself, which
openly resisted and organized themselves against
the corruptions of the dominant party, were the
Novatians. They received this name about the
middle of the third century, and flourished until
about the middle of the fifth. "Afterward," says
Robinson, "when penal laws obliged them to lurk
in corners and worship God in private, they were
distinguished by a variety of names, and a succession of them continued until the Reformation."
The same author styles them "Trinitarian Baptists."




THEIR CONTINUITY.            6t
The enemies of the Novatians have given them
a very bad name. But to the loftiness of their
principles, the strictness of their discipline, and
the purity of their lives, Mosheim, Dupin, Adam
Clark, Lardner, and others bear ample testimony.
"The rise of these puritans at so critical a
period," says the historian Orchard, "their soundness in the faith, their regard to character and purity of communion, their vast extent and long success, must have had a powerful influence in all the
vicinity of their churches in checking the ambition
and secularity of the established clergy, and in
shedding a moral auspice on benighted provinces.
These sealed witnesses, (Rev. iii. 3,) were the first
protestant dissenters from assuming hierarchies;
and it is most gratifying to be able to prove ourselves the successors of a class of men who first set
the example of contending for the purity and simplicity of Christian worship and a firm adherence
to the laws of the King of Zion."'
After the Novatians, followed the Donatists.
They arose early in the fourth century, in Africa,
were very numerous and powerful, and flourished
for several centuries, when, like the Novatians,
they were outwardly suppressed by their enemies,
and forced into exile and obscurity. But they
still continued to exist.  "For a thousand years' History of Foreign Baptists, p. 63.




68              THE BAPTISTS.
after the rise of the Donatists," says Benedict,
" we find them spread along in all parts of Europe,
under different names, but recognized by friends
and foes as substantially the same people."1
The Donatists, like the Novatians, have been
painted by their enemies in the most repulsive
colors. But they were almost infinitely superior
to those by whom they have been disparaged.
And while we may regret any imperfections attaching to their character and conduct, we are not
ashamed to recognize them as brethren, and to claim
them, for the most part, as essentially Baptists.
That they were such is evident.  They immersed
their converts, refused to baptize infants, opposed
the union of church and state, preserved purity of
discipline, simplicity of worship, and earnestly insisted upon holiness of life. Of the correctness of
these statements, Robinson, Jones, Orchard, Benedict, Curtis, and others, furnish evidence. Neander
shows that they strenuously insisted upon the
principle that the church could rightly consist
only of the pure, and that all others should be
separated from it. A principle which, as they developed and applied it, could not fail to conflict
with infant baptism whenever and wherever practiced, and to exclude it. The same great historian
also shows that the Donatists held other principles,
Hist. of the Baptists, p. 11.




THEIR CONTINUITY.           69
which are incompatible with infant baptism and
its unfailing adjuncts and concomitants.  They
bore their testimony with emphasis against the
employment of force in matters of religion, and
"manfully asserted" the great doctrine of the
individuality and freedom of the human soul.
" Did the Apostles ever persecute any one, or did
Christ ever deliver any one over to the secular
power?" significantly asks the Donatist Petilian.
" God created man free, after his own image. How
am I to be deprived of that by human lordship
which God has bestowed on me?" with equal significance inquires the Donatist Gaudentius.1
Surely infant baptism, forestalling the individual
judgment and the individual conscience, anticipating and violating the right of personal choice,
and making Christians those who have never
yielded their consent, could no more exist among
these ancient Baptists than among their modern
descendants and successors.
The learned Dr. Thomas Fuller, the author of a
church history of Great Britain, which has been
for nearly two hundred years in high estimation
among English Episcopalians, speaking of certain
Baptists, some of whom suffered martyrdom for
their faith in the time of Henry VIII., says:
"These Anabaptists, for the main, are but the' See.Neander', Iltt. Ch. Rel. and Ch. vol. ii. pp. 203-217.




TO               TOIE BAPTISTS.
Donatists new-dipped.'"    Long, Prebendary of
St. Peter's, says of the Donatists, that "they did
not only re-baptize the adults that came over to
them, but refused to baptize children, contrary to
the practice of the church, as appears by several
discourses of St. Augustine."2 Twisck, Chron.
bk. vi. p. 201, says, "The followers of Donatus
were all one with the Anabaptists, denying baptism to children, admitting believers only thereto
who desired the same, and maintaining that none
ought to be forced to any belief." D'Anvers, in
his Treatise on Baptism, says: " Austin's third and
fourth books against the Donatists demonstrate
that they denied infant baptism, wherein he managed the argument of infant baptism against them
with great zeal, enforcing it by several arguments,
but especially from apostolical tradition, and cursing with great bitterness them that should not
embrace it. And therefore Osiander, in his Epit.
Cent. 16, p. 175, saith that our modern Anabaptists were the same with the Donatists of old."
Benedict says that H. Bullinger invariably identifies the Donatists with the Anabaptists, or as he
styles them, Baptists. "They are," says'Bullinger,' Ch. Hist. of Britain, vol. ii. p. 96, ed. 1837-as quoted in
True Union, Sept. 8, 1859.
a Hist. of Donatists, by Thomas Long, B. D. etc., Preh. St.
Peter's, Exon. London, Walter Kettilby, 1677-as quoted in
True Union.




THEIR CoNTINTUTY.             71
" similar in every particular to the old Baptists,"
the Donatists.1
About the middle of the seventh century, the
Paulicians, another party of Baptists, came into
notice in the east, where, as in the west, the
greatest errors and corruptions prevailed. Orchard
calls them the "restorers of the New Testament
order of things."
However defective the views and practices in
some respects of many of them, through certain
Gnostic and Mystic influences to which their peculiar circumstances exposed them, it is clear that
they regarded the ordinances of baptism and the
Lord's Supper as pertaining only to believers.
"In the practice, or at least in the theory of the
sacraments," says Gibbon, "the Paulicians were
inclined to abolish all visible objects of worship;
and the words of the gospel were, in their judgment, the baptism and communion of the faithful. "
Mosheim, speaking of a certain class of these
people, says that "they supposed all religion to
consist in pious exercises, and in actions conformed
to the law of God, while they despised all external
worship." And he adds, " They rejected baptism
as a rite of no use as regards salvation, and especi-' See various authorities referred to by Benedict, pp. 64, 65,
Hist. Baptists.
2 Milman's Gibbon, vol. v. p. 388.




'72             THE BAPTISTS.
ally the baptism  of infants."1 Dr. Milner says
that " they were simply scriptural in the use of the
sacraments; they were orthodox in the doctrine
of the Trinity; they knew of no other mediator
than the Lord Jesus Christ."2
Dr. Allix, in his Remarks upon the Churches
of Piedmont, says that "they were Anabaptists,
or rejecters of infant baptism, and were consequently often reproached with that term." Robinson also gives the same account of them.
Like that of the churches of Greece, and, indeed,
of all others of that time and for several centuries
later, their baptism was immersion. After continuing until the eleventh century as distinct and
independent communities, they were blended with
the Waldenses and other kindred people.
Like the Paulicians, contemporary with them,
and, as some suppose, deriving their origin from
them, were the Paterines of Italy, though Robinson and Jones believe that they had always existed in that country. The former, upon the testimony of eminent Romish writers, to whose works
he refers, says that they maintained that a Christian church ought to consist of only good people;
that it had no right to frame any constitution, i. e.
apart from the Scriptures; that a man ought not
* Murdock's Mosheim, vol. ii. p. 204.
~ Ch. Hist. Cent. 9, ch. ii., as quoted in Orchard's For. Bap.




THEIR CONTINUITY.           73
to be delivered up to officers of justice to be converted; that the benefits-of society belong alike to
all its members; that faith without works could
not save a man; that the church ought not to persecute any, even the wicked. Their "public religion" consisted of nothing but social prayer,
reading and expounding the gospel, baptism once,
and the. Lord's supper as often as convenient.
Robinson still further says of them: "As the
Catholics of those times baptized by immersion,
the Paterines, by what name soever they were
called, as Manicheans, Gazari, Josephites, Passagines, etc., made no complaint of the mode of baptizing, but when they were examined, they objected vehemently against the baptism of infants,
and condemned it as an error: among other things,
they said that a child knew nothing of the matter,
that he had no desire to be baptized, and was incapable of making any profession of faith, and that
the willingness of and professing of another could
be of no service to him." Benedict says of the
Paterines, that " besides their opposition to infant
baptism, we see in their arrangement of associations a very distinct trait of their Baptist character."
The Paterines were of irreproachable life. And
at one time they were so numerous as to be very
formidable to their opponents. At length, however, they "were dispersed abroad into other
7




~7  ~4      THE BAPTISTS.
provinces, or else they retired into obscurity, from
either of which circumstances their local names
would become extinct. The terror of the inquisitors awed the Italians into silence; but it is highly
credible, indeed there are some reasons to believe,
the Paterines did continue dispersed' in Italy until
the Reformation in Germany. It is very probable
that many of these people became incorporated
with the Waldensian churches in the valleys of
Piedmont, which at this period enjoyed, under the
Duke of Savoy, the sweets of religious liberty.
This incorporation could be easily effected, since
it is proved by Allix and others, that the most
part of the Paterines held the same opinion as the
churches in the valleys, and therefore were taken
for one and the same people."'
The most important party, in some respects,
which, during the dark ages, resisted the authority
of Rome, were the Waldenses, who became more
publicly and generally known when Peter Waldo,
an opulent merchant of the city of Lyons, in
France, connected himself with them and became
their leader.  "Many writers, both papal and
Protestant, have most erroneously regarded him
as the parent and founder of the proper Waldense.
Mr. Robinson, however, has shown that this name
has a much earlier origin, that it signifies "in.' Foreign Baptists, p. 159.




THEIR CONTINUITY.            75
habitants of the valleys,' and that it was applied
to these persecuted people, simply for the reason
that great multitudes of them made their residence
in the valleys of the Alps and of the Pyrenees,
where, age after age, they found an asylum from
the tyranny of the church of Rome. This view
of the matter, also, is supported by the testimony
of their own historians, Pierre Gilles, Perrin,
Leger, Sir Samuel Morland, and Dr. Allix. The
names imposed upon them by their adversaries,
they say, have been intended to vilify and ridicule
them, or to represent them as new and different
sects. Their enemies confirm their great antiquity. *  *  If we will believe the testimony
of the suffering Waldenses themselves, their doctrine and discipline had been preserved, in all its
purity and efficacy, from the days of the primitive
martyrs, in Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and
especially in the valleys of Piedmont." President
Edwards, after alluding to their obscure retreat,
says: "It is supposed they first betook themselves
to this desert secret place among the mountains,
to hide themselves from the severity of the heathen
persecutors which were before Constantine the
Great. And there their posterity continued from
age to age afterward. And being, as it were, by
natural walls, as well as by God's grace, separated' Encyc. Rel. Knowledge, Art. Waldenses.




76              THE BAPTISTS.
from the rest of the world, never partook of the
overflowing corruption."'
In his History of the Crusades against the Albigenses, M. Sismondi says: "Those very persons
who punished the sectaries with frightful torments,
have alone taken it upon themselves to make us
acquainted with their opinions; allowing, at the
same time, that they had been transmitted in
Gaul from generation to generation, almost from
the origin of Christianity. We cannot be astonished," he adds, " if they have represented them to
uswith all those characters which might render
them the most monstrous, mingled with all the
fables which would serve to irritate the minds of
the people against those who professed them.
Nevertheless, amidst many puerile and calumnious
tales, it is still easy to recognize the principles of
the Reformation of the sixteenth century among
the heretics who are designated by the name of
Vaudois, or Albigeois."
Reinerius, speaking of the Waldenses, or Poor
Men of Lyons, uses the following remarkable language: " Of all the sects which have been or now
exist, none is more injurious to the church [of
Rome], for three reasons: 1. Because it is more
ancient. Some aver their existence from Sylves.
ter; others from the very times of the apostles.
Edward's Works, vol. i., Hist. Red. p. 460.




THEIR CONTINUITY.            7
2. Because it is so universal. There is scarcely
any country into which this sect has not crept.
And, 3. Because all other heretics excite horror
by the greatness of their blasphemies against God;
but these have a great appearance of piety, as they
live justly before men, believe rightly all things
concerning God, and confess all the articles which
are contained in the creed; only they hate and
revile the church of Rome, and their accusations
are easily believed by the people."
"Here, then," in the language of the writer to
whom we are indebted for several of the foregoing
extracts, "is a succession of faithful men, whose
apostolic origin, perpetuity, universal, though often
hidden, diffusion, general orthodoxy, evangelical
simplicity, and sanctity of character are admitted by
the church of Rome herself; a succession of faithful
men, organized into Christian churches, claiming
to be the true successors of the apostles, protesting
against all the corruptions of the patriarchate and
the Papacy, and for this reason subject to continual
persecution from both, through the hands of the
secular powers to which they are allied; a church
built not on St. Peter alone, but on the entire
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus
Christ himself being the chief corner-stone, and
against which the gates of hell have not been able
to prevail."'
1 Encyc. Rel. Knowl., Art. Waldenses.
qu




78              THE BAPTISTS.
And now the great question is,-Were these peo.
pie Baptists? Several of the Protestant denominations seek their ancestry among them. We have
no doubt that considerable diversity of faith and
practice prevailed among the many communities
who bore the name of Waldenses-an appellation
which (like that of Puritans, in which both Baptists and Pedobaptists have often been included,)
was employed with no little breadth and indefiniteness of signification. But that the old Waldenses proper, were, for the most part, essentially
Baptists, seems to us so evident that we think,
with Benedict, nothing but want of information,
or partisan illiberality and unfairness, could ever
have led to a denial of it. They held that the
church of Christ is an assembly of godly persons;
that its only rule of faith and practice is the word
of God; that no one should be coerced in matters
of conscience; that while the state is to be honored
by "subjection, ready obedience, and the paying
of tribute," it has no right to interfere with the internal administration of the church. They practiced immersion as baptism, and denied the rite to
infants.
The evidence in support of this last statement
has been sometimes questioned; but it is more
than abundant. We are embarrassed, not by its
deficiency, but by its excess.  The Wallenses
have always been charged with a denial of in



THEIR CONTINUITY.             9
fant baptism. In the decrees of the Council of
Toulouse, 1119, those of the second Lateran, 1139,
and of the third Lateran, 1215, in the Decretals
of Innocent III., and in numerous documents from
the pens of others, they were charged with neglecting and opposing the baptism of infants. So
far were they from denying it, that they put forth
the strongest proofs of the justice of the charge.
In the Treatise on Antichrist, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, and the Sacraments, supposed to
have been written by the celebrated Peter de
Bruys, about the year 1120, in which are disclosed
some of the more important views of the Waldenses, it is said of Antichrist, that " He teaches to
baptize children into the faith, and attributes to
this the work of regeneration; thus confounding
the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration with
the external rite of baptism, and on this foundation bestows orders, and, indeed, grounds all his
Christianity. "1
In a full Confession of Faith, drawn up about
the same time, they say, "We consider the sacraments as signs of holy things, or as the visible
emblems of invisible blessings. We regard it as
proper and even necessary that believers use these
symbols, or visible forms, when it can be done.
Notwithstanding, we maintain that believers may
be saved without these signs, when they have' Jones' Hist. Ch. Church, vol. ii. p. 51; N. Y. ed., 1824.




80                THE BAPTISTS.
neither place nor opportunity of observing them."'
In the " Noble Lesson," a work in verse, probably
written about the year 1100, "they emphatically
teach that the apostolic commission authorized
the making and baptizing of'disciples' only; that
the apostles and primitive preachers baptized only
believers; and that the first churches were composed of'converts,' who'trusted in Christ.' I2 In
addition to the Treatise on Antichrist, the Confession of Faith, and the Noble Lesson, the Waldenses put forth a catechism, a century or two
later, in which "they strike at the very root of
infant baptism, and assert the great principle of all
Baptist peculiarity-the church is a congregation
of believers. "'  In "the public aeclaration of their
taith to the French king, 1521," according to
Montanus, the Waldenses " assert in the strongest
terms the baptizing of believers, and deny that of
infants."4 So late as the year 1544, after some of
their brethren, the ancestors of the present Waldenses, had been induced through the influence of
the Reformers to compromise their ancient faith,5
Jones' Hist. Ch. Ch., vol. ii. p. 43.
2 Dr. Waller in Ch. Repos., Oct., 1858.' Ib. ut sup.
~ Twisck's Chron. p. 930. Merningus' Hist. Baptism, p. 739,
as cited in Orchard's For. Bap., App. to Wald. Sect.
s " Following the teachings of the Scriptures, both Waldenses
and Albigenses appear first universally to have rejected infant
baptism and the use of oaths; but gradually, in the course of




THEIR CONTINUITY.                  81
they explicitly state in a Confession then drawn
up and subscribed, "We believe that in the sacrament of Baptism the water is the visible and external sign which represents to us that which, by
virtue of the invisible God so working, is within
us; that is to say, the renovation of the Spirit and
the -mortification of our members in Jesus Christ;
by which also we are received into the holy congregation of God's people, PROTESTING AND DECLARING
BEFORE IT OUR FAITH AND CHANGE OF LIFE. "' Jones
time, many of the Waldenses gave up these points. This occurred in a great degree at the time of the Reformation. They
became acquainted with Zuingle, (Ecolampadius and Bucerus,
and the result was, a new Confession of Faith, which was made
at Angrogne, in 1532. But they were not unanimous in the reception of this; and two of their teachers declared that it would
be better to adhere to their former Confession, especially to that
of the year 1100. But after that, there arose in the valleys a
need of teachers; they turned to Geneva for aid, and reformed
teachers taught in their midst, not using the language of the
people, of which they were ignorant, but their native language,
the French. As a matter of course, these preachers imparted
their own peculiar views to the Waldenses. * * Since they
do not reject infant baptism, and the use of oaths, as they formerly did, and since their young men who expect to enter tife
ministry, are instructed at the universities of Lausanne, Geneva,
Montauban, Struatsburg, and Berlin, the peculiar opinions of
the Baptists do not now prevail in their midst."-See Translation from S. Blaupot Ten Cate's Historical Inquiry: S. Bap.
Rev., July, 1857.
Hist. of Wald., Ed. by Dr. Baird, p 53, as quoted by Dr.
Waller in Ch. Rep., Sep., 1858.




8U2              THE BAPTIST'S.
gives the latter part of this statem  nt thus:
"By this ordinance [baptism] we ara, received
into the holy congregation of God's people previously professing and declaring our faith and
change of life."1
Now, surely no better or fuller evidence than
this could reasonably be required. For what can
furnish more satisfactory information respecting
the creed of a people than the creed itself?
Other testimony in profusion is at hand. Our
limits, however, allowing us to introduce only a
very small portion of it, without any unnecessary
minuteness of citation, we refer the reader who
may wish to pursue the subject further, to the
works of Robinson, Jones, Orchard, Benedict, and
especially to a discussion of the Waldensian question by the late Dr. Waller, as published in Ch.
Rep., Aug., Sept., Oct., Nov., Dec., 1858, in which
the whole subject is treated with great ability, and
the Baptist character of these ancient people of
God, fully shown. We cite from these and other
sources, only a few of the more modern authorities.
* Starck, Court preacher of Darmstadt, in his
History of Baptism, says of the Waldenses, "If,
instead of only looking at particular confessions,
we follow out their general mode of thinking, we
find that they not only rejected infant baptism, but
Hist. Ch. Church, vol. ii. p. 47; N. Y. ed., 1824.




THEIR CONTINUITY.           83
re-baptized those who passed froew the Catholic
church to them.I"
M. de Potter, in a compendiocs account of the
Waldenses, says, "They called the Pope Antichrist, opposed the payment of tithes, abolished
the distinctions in the priesthood, denied the
authority of councils, rejected all the ceremonies of baptism, except simple ablution; and laying stress on the truth that in infancy there can
be no actual conversion to the Christian faith, they
therefore baptized anew all those who left the
Romish church, wishing to embrace their doctrine."2
One of the most celebrated barbs or pastors
of the Waldenses, was Peter de Bruys. Mosheim says that he taught that persons "ought
not to be baptized until they come to the use of
reason."3 Neander says "that he was an opponent of infant baptism, since he regarded personal
faith as a necessary condition for true baptism and
denied the benefit in the case of another's faith."4
Henry of Lausanne, the disciple of Peter, and
like him a distinguished leader and teacher of the
Waldenses, also rejected and opposed infant baptism. Neander says that "he attacked various
customs which could not be directly proved from
the Sacred Scriptures, as corruptions of primitive
1 Hague's Hist. Disc., as quoted in Ch. Rep., Dec. 1q58.
2 Hague's Hist. Discourse.
3 Murdock's Mosheim, vol. ii. p 267.' Hist. Ch. Rel. and Church. vol. iv. p 595.




84               THE BAPTISTS.
Christianity; such, for example, as the worship of
saints, and infant baptism."1  Mosheim says, "We
only know that he too disapproved of infant baptism, inveighed severely against the corrupt morals
of the clergy, despised the festal days and the religious ceremonies, and held clandestine assemblies. "
"It is certain," say Ypeij and Dermout, in their
History of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands, "that the Netherlands' Waldenses always
rejected infant baptism, and administered the
ordinances only to adults. We may find this
positively asserted respecting the Netherlands'
Waldenses, by Hieronymus Verdussen, by the
Abbot of Clugny, and other Romish writers.
Hence it is that in this country they are better
known by the name of Anabaptists, than by that
of Waldenses."3
The author of the Historical Inquiry into the
Waldensian origin of the Dutch Baptists says,
"We are compelled to agree in opinion with Cornelius Van Huizen, who says that the Baptists in
Switzerland and Alsatia had no other origin than
the Waldenses." And he adds, "Vanizen considers
z Hist. Ch. Rel. and Church, vol. iv. p. 601.
g Murdock's Mosheim, vol. ii. p. 267.' See Translation, So. Bap. Rev., April, 1859, of that portion of this History which refers to the Anabaptists and Baptists.




THEIR CONTINUITY.           85
that many of the most distinguished Baptist families in Hamburg, Altona, and Embden, were of
Waldensian origin." Again, says he, "Limboroh
who has accurately examined their opinions, in
the Memorabilia of the Inquisition, at Toulouse,
bears testimony respecting the Waldenses, that no
Christians appear more closely to resemble them
than those whom they call Mennonites,"-the Dutch
Baptists.'
In the preface to the fifth edition, 1825, of his
history of the Waldenses, Jones says, that "they
brought up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.; but they neither sprinkled
nor immersed them, under the notion of administering Christian baptism. They were, in a word,
so many distinct churches of Anti-pedobaptists."
But why multiply proofs of what is so completely
established? With the words of Robinson, the
learned and able author of the History of Baptism,
and of the Ecclesiastical Researches, we close
what we now have to say upon this topic,-"Amidst
all the productions of early writers, friends and
foes,-confessors of the whole truth, and opposers
of it, annalists, historians, recorders, inquisitors,
and others, with the laboured researches of Usher,
Newton, Allix, Collier, Wall, Perrin, Leger, Morland, Mosheim, Maclaine, Gilles, Sims, and others,
See Translation from his work, in S. B. Rev., Oct. 1857.
8




86              THE BAPTISTS.
all of the Pedobaptist persuasion, with every advantage of learning on their side, who collated
councils, canons, synods, conferences, chronicles,
decrees, bulls, sermons, homilies, confessions, creeds,
liturgies, etc., from the private creed of Irenueus
down to the rules of Augsburg,-who examined documents at home, and explored territories abroad,their united labors could never produce a single dated
document or testimony of Pedobaptism among the
Vaudois, separate from the Romish community, from
Novatian's rupture, to the death of the execrable
monster, Alexander VI., 1503."
Other parties of Baptists, distinguished by different appellations, we have deemed it unnecessary
particularly to mention. All held essentially the
same principles, and were animated by the same
spirit. "The different companies overlapped each
other, and covered the whole ground; and notwithstanding all the persecutions, gibbets, and
flames to which they were exposed, the interdicts,
banishments, and exile, which were their neverceasing portion, they continued in great numbers,
down to the time of the Reformation."
To the great Waldensian faternity belonged the
so-called German Anabaptists, and the Mennonites, or Dutch Baptists, to whose high antiquity
and apostolic origin, testimony of the greatest
weight by their opponents is borne.  Cardinal
Hosius, president of the Council of Trent, who as




THEIR CONTINUITY             87
a Papist, certainly cannot be charged with being
too favorable to them, affirmed that the Baptists, or
Anabaptists as they were then called, had existed
for twelve hundred years. Zuinglius, a little earlierf says, for thirteen hundred years.  Twelve
hundred years from the times of Zuinglius and
Hosius, would carry the Baptists up to the fourth
century-thirteen, up to the third-when immersion was universally practiced as baptism, save
perhaps in a few cases of extreme illness; and
when, although the Baptist principle of the independence of the churches was giving place to
Episcopal pretensions and the establishment of
a hierarchy, infant baptism, as Neander affirms,
entered very rarely and with great difficulty, into
the church life.'
The writer of the article on the Baptists, in
the Edinburgh Encyclopsedia, says-" It must have
already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are
the same sect of Christians which we formerly described under the appellation of Anabaptists. It
is but justice to acknowledge that they reject the
latter appellation with disdain, and maintain that
as none of the forms adopted by other churches
are consonant to Scripture, the baptism of those
churches is in reality no baptism.  Hence, in their
opinion, they do not re-baptize. Indeed, this seems
Hist. Christ. Rel. and Ch., vol. ii. p. 319.




88             TIIE BAPTISTS.
to have been their great leading principle, FROM THE
TIME [A. D. 160-245] OF TERTULLIAN, [whom he
elsewhere calls one of their'earliest founders,' ] to
the present day."1
Mosheim, speaking of the Dutch Baptists, says,
"The origin of the sect, who, from their repetition
of the baptism received in other communities, are
called Anabaptists, but who are also denominated
Mennonites, from the celebrated man to whom they
owe a large share of their present prosperity, is
involved in much obscurity. For they suddenly
started up, in various countries of Europe, under
the influence of leaders of dissimilar characters and
views; and at a time when the first contests with
the Catholics so engrossed the attention of all, that
they scarcely noticed any other passing occurrences." And he adds, that they "are not altogether in the wrong, when they boast of a descent
from those Waldensians, Petrobrussians, and others,
who are usually styled the witnesses for the truth
before Luther. Prior to the age of Luther there
lay concealed in almost every country of Europe,
but especially in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland
and Germany, very many persons, in whose minds
was deeply rooted that principle which the Waldensians, the Wickliffites, and the Hussites maintained, some more covertly and others more openly;' Ed. Encyc., Art. Baptists.




THEIR CONTINUITY.            89
namely, that the kingdom which Christ set up on
the earth, or the visible church, is an assembly of
holy persons, and ought therefore to be entirely
free not only from ungodly persons and sinners,
but from all institutions of human device against
ungodliness. This principle lay at the foundation,
and was the source of all that was new and singular in the religion of the Mennonites [or Baptists]:
and the greatest part of their singular opinions, as
it is well attested, were approved some centuries
before Luther's time, by those who had such views
of the nature of the church of Christ."l1
To the ancient and apostolic origin of the Baptists, the learned authors of the History of the
Church of the Netherlands, a work prepared under
royal patronage, in the early part of the present
century, bear the most decided testimony. Stronger
could not be desired. After having spoken at considerable length of the Baptists, they say, —"We
have now seen that the Baptists who in former
times were called Anabaptists, and at a later period, Mennonites, were originally Waldenses, who in
the history of the church, even from the most ancient times, have received such a well deserved
homage. On this account, the Baptists may be
considered, as of old, the only religious community
which has continued from the times of the ApostlesEccles. Hist., Murdock's translation, vol. iii. pp. 198, 199, 200.
8*




90              TIIE BAPTISTS.
as a Christian society which has kept pure, through
all ages, the evangelical doctrines of religion.
The uncorrupted inward and outward condition of
the Baptist community, affords proof of the truth,
contested by the Romish Church, of the great necessity of a reformation of religion, such as that
which took place in the sixteenth century, and also
a refutation of the erroneous notion of the Roman
Catholics, that their denomination is the most ancient. 1
To the Baptists of Germany and Holland succeeded the English and American Baptists, now
so actively and successfully diffusing their principles, and establishing their churches, in every quarter of the world.
Thus, briefly to recapitulate, we see that the
Baptists may be traced from the ages immediately
succeeding that of the Apostles and of those who
received the gospel directly from their lips, through
the Novatians, the Donatists, the Paulicians, the
Paterines, the various communities of Waldenses,
down to the Reformation, and thence through the
so-called Anabaptists of Germany, the Mennonites
or Dutch Baptists, the Baptists of England and
those of this country, to the present time.  Or, inverting the order, we may trace them from our' Hist. Neth. Ref. Ch., Translation in S. Bap. Rev., April, 1859,
See also Encyc. Rel. Knowl., Art. Mennonites.




THEIR CONTINUITY.           91
own times to the Reformation, and thence through
the various parties which we have named, up to
those who "were first called Christians at Antioch."
We had not intended to notice the charge against
the Baptists that they originated with the fanatics
of Munster. It did not seem to deserve it. No
person of intelligence and candor believes it. And
we thought it would be no great exploit to demolish this " man of straw."  The charge is sufficiently
refuted by the proof which we have already furnished of their apostolic origin and character, and
of their continued existence throughout all the
Christian ages preceding the Reformation. And
yet, inasmuch as that charge is so often brought
by the uninformed and the prejudiced, in disparagement of the Baptists, it may, perhaps, be proper
briefly to notice it.
The Baptists had been in being full fifteen hundred years when Bockhold, Matthias, and their
frantic followers commenced their career of folly
and of crime. " Munster was a German forest, where
the Saxon savage chased the scarce wilder boar,
when the master and his disciples laid the foundation of our history. The blood of that Caesar who
drove Ariovistus to the Danube, was not yet extinct in the veins of Nero, when Baptists were
clustering among the hills of Rome. The fading
light of letters and of art still played in lingering
beauty on the marble slopes of the Acropolis, when




92              THE BAPTISTS.
hundreds of Athenian and Corinthian believers
were buried with Christ in baptism.'"
A brief comparison of the character and principles
of the men of Munster, with those of the Baptists,
would suffice to show that the latter could not possibly be the true descendants and successors of the
former. Like produces like. Men do not gather
grapes of thorns nor figs of thistles. A bitter
fountain cannot send forth sweet waters. "The
Munster Sect," says Dr. Brown, in his Life and
Times of the great Baptist leader, Menno, "was a'handful' of men resembling the modern Mormons. They claimed new revelation, not the
Scriptures, as their guide in setting up their'New
Zion.' Their leaders were the successors of the'Prophets of Zwickau,' in 1522. They had nothing in common with the Baptists, except the denial of infant baptism-for they held to a worldly,
not a spiritual kingdom. At first, however, they
were simple enthusiasts; persecution made them
fanatics.'Against the spirit, and word, and example of Christ,' says Menno,'they drew in their
own defensethe sword, which Peter was commanded
by his Lord to sheath.' We italicize the words'in
their own defense,' because the fact is commonly represented otherwise; and Menno's impartial testimony shows how much of the guilt and horror oa' Rev. J. Wheaton Smith.-Letter to Mr. Barnes.




THEIMi CONTINUITY.         93
the subsequent Munster tragedy, is really chargeable on the measures of the persecutors, who (before they drew the sword in self-defense) had long
inflicted on them the most cruel immolations,
butcheries, and murders.  The fanatical proceedings at Munster, in 1534, under John Bockhold, the
prophet, polygamist and bloody tyrant, shocked all
men of common sense and decency; but none
more than Menno."1  "I warned every man," says
he, "against the Munster abominations in regard
to a king, to polygamy, to a worldly kingdom, to
the sword, etc., most faithfully."2
-After giving a full account of Menno, telling in
his own words of his renunciation, as a Papist, of
his "anti-Christian abominations, mass, infant
baptism, loose and careless life, and all," and saying that "with a penitent heart he was'buried
with Christ by baptism,' and joined the martyr
church of the New Testament-that church more
ancient than Rome-opposed to all its corruptions,
and persecuted in every age, because so pure, Dr.
Brown adds-"It is now too late in the day to
confound this primitive people with the'Munster
sect,' because both were called, by their enemies,'Anabaptists.' As well confound the Baptists of
the United States with the Mormons of Nauvoo.'Life and Times of Menno, pp. 21, 22.  a Ib. p. 23.




94              TIIE BAPTISTS.
This is proof of pitiable ignorance. Learned
Romanists knew better."'
One of those learned Romanists, not cited by
Dr. Brown,-"a sincere Catholic," having "the
reputation of a learned and liberal theologian,"
was, in 1564, employed by the Duke of Cleves to
convert the Anabaptists. He had an intimate
acquaintance with them and their history; and his
testimony concerning them is introduced into
Bayle's Dictionary, with these words: " No author
has represented this sect with so much justice as
George Cassander."  Speaking of these so-called
Anabaptists, Cassander says-"In which people
you may in general discover marks of a certain
pious disposition of mind; who, carried away by a
zeal not according to knowledge, have erroneously,
not maliciously, departed from the true sense of
tlf inspired writings and the general consent of the
whole church; which is evident from hence, in
that they always strenuously. opposed the rash
attempts of those of Munster, who were contriving
a new sort of establishment of the kingdom of
Christ, which consisted in destroying the impious
by external force; and have always taught that
the establishment and propagation of Christ's
kingdom depended solely upon the cross."2
Life and Times of Menno, pp. 24, 25.
2 Prefat. Tractat. de Baptismo Infantium, as quoted in
Bayle's Hist. and Crit. Diet., Art. Anab.




THEIR CONTINUITY.            95
The author of the Historical Inquiry into the
Waldensian Origin of the Dutch Baptists, a recent
able writer to whom we have already referred,
alluding to the desire which an "extremely prejudiced Romanist writer" manifested to identify the
Baptists with the fanatics of Munster, says that
he "may be quoted as evidence, in spite of himself, of the different principles or different origin
of the Baptists and Anabaptists."'l
But really learned Protestants, as well as learned
Romanists, "know better" than to confound the
Baptists with the insurrectionists of Munster.
D'Aubigne considers them "as different as possible."  Guy de Bres, "a writer," as Bayle says,
"who has exerted his whole force in refuting this
sect," (the Anabaptists, or rather the Baptists,) and
of whom he speaks as "an evidence which cannot
be suspected," aids, indirectly at least, in their vindication.  "He gives," says Bayle, "not the least
hint that the Anabaptist martyrs, [the martyrs of
the Baptists proper,] suffered death for taking up
arms against the state, or stirring up the people
to a rebellion.'2
Very decided are the statements upon this subject, of the authors of the History of the Reformed
Church of the Netherlands. We give a few of the
more important of them.   They affirm that the
See Translation in So. Bap. Rev., Oct., 1857.' Bayle's Hist. and Crit. Diet., Art. Anab.




96                 THE BAPTISTS.
"rebel Anabaptists," as they style them, "ought by
no means to be considered the same as the Baptists"-that the insurrectionists "were people of
every variety of religious belief, and many of them
of no religion at all"-Catholics, Lutherans, Zuinglians, Anabaptists, properly so called, (those, as
these authors define them, who "baptized all who
passed over to their community, even if they had
been baptized in another society at an adult
age,")1 and infidels-that they "made themselves
notorious in the Netherlands for the most unheardof seditions, in which were manifested a folly and
regardlessness of religion, of a most surprising
character"-that they "deserved the just hatred
of all well-meaning persons, as a herd of turbulent
vagabonds every where dreaded"-that "the Baptists generally, both by word and deed, testified
that their peace-loving hearts abhorred the seditious conduct of the Anabaptists"-and          "that
"1 Anabaptists, a name which has been indiscriminately
applied to Christians of very different principles and practices,
though many of them object to the denomination, and hold
nothing in common besides the opinion that baptism ought
always to be performed by immersion, and not administered
before the age of discretion. Anabaptists in a strict and proper
sense, appear to be those who not only re-baptize when they
arrive at an adult age, persons that were baptized in their
infancy, but also as often as any person comes from one of their
sects to another, or as often as any one is excluded from their
communion, and again received into the bosom of the church,
theb baptize him."-Encyc. Brit., 2Art. Anab.




THEIR CONTINUITY.           97
when the Anabaptists had taken Munster, the
Landgrave of Hesse, a Lutheran, but inclined to
the Baptists, furnished the Bishop with the munitions of war, that he might storm the city, and
destroy the wicked rebels." After stating that
partly through inability to make the proper discriminations, and partly on account of the prejudice under which they labored, in judging any
thing which had reference to the Reformation, "the
majority of the Romanists knew no difference between the various Protestant parties and sects,
and would make no distinction," and that "the abhorrence only deserved by some of the Anabaptists, was bestowed upon all Protestants," the same
authors say, "The honest Baptists suffered the
most severely from this prejudice, because they
were considered by the people to be the same, and
were called by the same name. The fact that they
agreed in their opinions respecting the holy ordinance of baptism, was the unfortunate occasion of
this thing. On this account, the Baptists in Flanders and in Friesland suffered the most terrible
persecutions." Blinded by their prejudices, their
enemies "would not see that which they might
have seen. How evident it was, that although
the Baptists appeared to agree exactly with the
Anabaptists in respect to the baptismal question,
the former entirely disapproved of the course pursued by the latter. For it had been, and continued
9




98             TIHE BAPTISTS.
to be, a doctrine of the Baptists, that the bearing
of arms was very unbecoming to a Christian. Did
not the Anabaptists pursue a course directly the
opposite of this? Did not all which they in their
folly called religion, rest upon a most pernicious
principle, which permitted the Christian, with fire
and sword, to murder princes on their thrones?
Among these people, were not all things made to
yield to the demands of a licentiousness, the only
tendency of which was to make the earth a howling wilderness, filled with men who would devour
each other like wild beasts? Who could have imagined that such a purpose prevailed among the
Baptists, who were the meekest of Christians?
*  *  We have nowhere seen clearer evidences
of the injurious influence of prejudice, nowhere
have we met with a more obstinate unwillingness
to be correctly informed; and a more evident disposition to silence those who better understood the
truth of the matter. Prejudice, when once deeply
imbibed, blinds the eye, perplexes the understanding, silences the instincts of the heart, and destroys
the love of truth and rectitude. *  *  The Baptists are Protestant Christians, entirely different
from the Anabaptists in character. They were
descendants from the ancient Waldenses, whose
teachings were evangelical and tolerably pure, and
who were scattered by severe persecutions in
various lands, and, long before the time of the




THEIR CONTINUITY.           99
Reformation of the church, were existing in the
Netherlands.'
Though we have already said much more than
we had intended to say upon this subject, we cannot refrain, now that we are on it, from giving the
testimony of another distinguished witness. The
writer of the article on the Anabaptists in the En.
cyclopaedia Britannica, after stating that "it must
be acknowledged that the true rise of the numerous insurrections" with which the name of the
Anabaptists is connected, "ought not to be attributed to religious opinions;" that "th6 first insurgents groaned under the most grievous oppressions," and "took up arms principally in defense
of their civil liberties;" that, of "the commotions
that took place, the Anabaptist [not Baptist]
leaders seem rather to have availed themselves,
than to have been the prime movers;" that "it
appears from history that a great part" of the insurgents "consisted of Roman Catholics, and a
still greater of persons who had scarcely any religious principles at all;" and that "it appears
reasonable to conclude that a great majority of them
were not Anabaptists," goes on to say: "Before
concluding this article, it must be remarked that
the Baptists or Mennonites in England and Hol-' Hist. Neth. Ref. Ch., Translation in S. Bap. Rav., April,
1859.




100             THE BAPTISTS.
land are to be considered in a very different light
from the enthusiasts we have been describing; and
it appears equally uncandid and invidious to trace
up their distinguishing tenet, as some of their adversaries have done, to those obnoxious characters,
and then to stop, in order as it were to associate
with it the ideas of turbulence and fanaticism,
with which it certainly has no natural connection.
Their coincidence with some of those oppressed
and infatuated people in denying baptism to infants, is acknowledged by the Baptists; but they
disavow the practice which the appellation of
Anabaptists implies, and their doctrines seem referable to a more ancient and respectable origin.
They appear supported by history in considering
themselves as the descendants of the Waldenses,
who were so grievously oppressed and persecuted
by the despotic heads of the Roman hierarchy;
and they profess an equal aversion to all principles
of rebellion, on the one hand, and to all suggestions
of fanaticism on the other."1
In reference to the absurd statement concerning
the American Baptists, that they owe their origin
to Roger Williams, and that his baptism being irregular and defective, they are without valid baptism, it is sufficient to state that he never baptized
any one who baptized others, and that his irregu-' Encyc. Brit., Art. Anabaptists.




THEIR CONTINUITY.          101
lar baptism ceased with himself and the few private
individuals whom he baptized. While the American Baptists, with a worthy pride in the character
and achievements of the great champion of civil
and religious liberty, are always ready to recognize
him as a member of their community, they acknowledge no ecclesiastical dependence whatever
upon him. They stand "upon the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself
being the chief corner-stone."
We hesitate not to say, however, that if all the
Baptists of this country were compelled to trace
their baptism to Roger Williams, we should consider it far better than that of those by whom it is
contemned. We should regard it as real, if irregular, while that of our opponents is neither
regular nor irregular baptism. But even if it were,
it would be no better than-nay, not so good as,
that derived from Williams. He baptized, after
having received the rite at the hands of a Christian layman. Those from whom they received it,
obtained it, directly or indirectly, from the antichristian clergy of the apostate church of Rome.
And even the poor authority, thence derived, was
subsequently revoked with anathemas and bulls
of excommunication.




IV.
PRINCIPLES OF THE BAPTISTS.
Baptists charged with Narrowness of Views-Deny the Charge
-Appeal to the Infallible Standard-Views chiefly objected
to-Calvinism-Theory of the Church-Baptism-The Lord's
Supper.
F, as we have shown, the Baptists derive their
origin from  Christ and his apostles, and are
v'  still essentially what they were in the beginning of their history, it follows that their
principles are pure and scriptural, adapted
eminently to honor God and to bless the
world. That this is true of what are considered
their more important principles, is, we believe,
generally conceded. By common consent, they
are ranked with the denominations of Christians
generally esteemed strictly orthodox and evangelical.  Yet, strangely enough, many who profess
thus to esteem them, charge that they are, as compared with some of those denominations, remarkably contracted in their views and principles. To
this indictment, as to others which we have no(102)




THEIR PRINCIPLES.          103
ticed, the Baptists plead-not guilty. They regard
the gospel as the broadest and most liberal system
ever promulgated among men. And they believe
undoubtingly, that their principles and those of the
gospel are in all essential respects identical. If
Christianity be contracted, then are they so; but
if that be distinguished by a broad and sublime
comprehensiveness, then  are their principles
marked by the same high characteristic.
Theyhave no disposition to draw invidious comnparisons between themselves and others, and would
neither measure nor be measured by human standards. By the infallible standard of divine Truth,
and that only, would they try and be tried.
While sensible of many and great imperfections in
their own individual character and conduct, and
deeply deploring them, while confessing, with humiliation and sorrow, that they often fail practically
to realize the true beauty and divine glory of their
principles-yet believing, as we have said, that
those principles are the principles of the gospel
itself, and trusting that they love truth more than
party, they are willing and even anxious that those
who urge objections to them, should put them to
the most thorough and searching evangelical
tests.
The fairest and most satisfactory way, perhaps,
of meeting the objection of narrowness brought
against thle principles of the Baptists, would be to




104            THE BAPTISTS.
state those principles in full. With the intelligent
and candid, a distinct statement of them would be
their best vindication. They shine with the pure,
unborrowed light of heaven. They speak with the
voice and authority of God. But we have not
space for such a statement, with what else we have
to say upon the charge under consideration. We
must, therefore, content ourselves with a more
limited view, confining it to those principles objected to by their opponents.
The Baptists are charged with narrowness in
respect to their views of what are commonly
called the doctrines of grace. Some of their opponents seem anxious to fix all the odium that may
attach to an exaggerated and grossly misrepresented Calvinism upon the Baptists alone, or
chiefly. But if there be such odium, let it be
borne in mind that others share it with the Baptists; and that, so far as Calvinism is concerned,
they are in what is generally considered good company. They stand not only with Calvin, but with
the ablest and best of the Christian fathers-with
Luther, with Knox, with Whitefield and Chalmers,
Edwards and Dwight, with the Westminster Assembly of Divines, with the fathers of the church
of England, as well as with innumerable others,
good and great as they.
The views of the Baptists respecting the doctrines of grace, are either much misunderstood by




THEIR PRINCIPLES.          105
many, or perversely misrepresented.  Their socalled Calvinism is older than Calvin, older than
Augustine, old as Christianity itself. If they hold
to the doctrines of the sovereignty of God, predestination, election, and the final perseverance of
the saints, it is not as many of their ignorant or
prejudiced opponents represent them; it is as they
are set forth by God himself. They hold them as
Paul and the other inspired servants of Christ held
them.
In connection with these doctrines, the Baptists
are often charged with limiting the grace of God,
and denying the universal freeness of the gospel.
But they believe that God is no respecter of persons; that all, in every nation, who fear him and
work righteousness, are accepted with him; that
the gospel is without money and without price,
and that whosoever will, may freely enjoy its
benefits; that if any one perishes, it is because he
will not come to Christ that he may have life. They
believe, and teach, and preach, that " God so loved
the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life." If this be narrowness, then
are the Baptists narrow.
Another ground of the charge of narrowness,
respects their theory of the church. In what we
shall have to say, in another section, upon the
polity of the Baptists, we trust we shall be able to




106             THE BAPTISTS.
show that their theory of the constitution and gov.
crnment of the church is not justly amenable to
this charge. We, for the present, limit what we
have to say concerning it, to their views in respect
to the character and constituency of the church.
They regard the church, in its highest and best
sense, as inclusive of all the people of God, in
every nation and in every age. They believe that
while it is exclusive of many who have been, so
far as the external act is concerned, rightly baptized, it is inclusive of all, whether so baptized or
not, who truly love God, and honestly strive to
know and do his will. But they do not believe it
to be inclusive of the unregenerate, whether adults
or infants, baptized or unbaptized. Its members
are those only who have been " born, not of blood,
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,
but of God."  Of this church, not baptism, but
Christ himself, is the door. And it is only through
faith in him that any one can enter it. Those
who seek admittance by any other way, will be
forever excluded as intruders.
With respect to the church, in its literal and
usual sense, as an outward and local organization,
they believe that it regularly and rightly embraces
all, whatever their age, position, or other outward
circumstances, who, giving credible evidence of
genuine piety, and personally professing faith in
Christ, have been, in declaration of that faith, bap



THEIR PRINCIPLES.          107
tized into the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost, and formally received into the
company and fellowship of God's people. That it
embraces infants, or others, whatever their age,
position, or character, who do not fulfill the abovementioned conditions, they do not believe.
It is to this latter view of the church especially,
as narrow, that not a few take exceptions. Some
maintain that the church visible is composed of all
true believers and their infant children; and others
that it is composed of all the baptized, whether
adults or infants, the children of believers or of
infidels.
In denying baptism and church-membership to
infants, the Baptists are said to exhibit greater
narrowness than the proverbially illiberal and exclusive Jews, who embraced infants as well as
adults in their ecclesiastical system. To some of
their opponents, indeed, the principle upon which
these blessed privileges, as they are esteemed, are
withheld from infants, seems so contracted as to
have its source in nothing less than a want of the
finer feelings of humanity, and to indicate a callousness and cold-blooded cruelty which are the
reproach of our nature. To exclude tender babes
from the church of Christ, weak and innocent
lambs from the fold of the Good Shepherd, seems
to them to re-enact the part of those who, when
certain persons brought little children to JesuL




108             THE BAPTISTS.
that he might bless them, "forbade them;" and to
deserve a severer rebuke than they received. It
appears to them scarcely less than monstrous thus
to treat the weakest, most helpless, and only innocent portion of the race. They often speak of it
as consigning them, with pagans and infidels, to
the "uncovenanted mercies of God," and sometimes even as consigning them to perdition. In
expatiating upon this phase of Baptist exclusiveness and narrowness, their opponents often grow
exceedingly touching and eloquent. But we regard all this expenditure of sentiment and eloquence as very unnecessary. He who, while on
earth, took little children, without baptism, into
his arms, clasped them to his bosom, blessed them,
and said, " Of such is the kingdom of heaven,'
loves them still, and no less tenderly now that he
is in the skies than when he was on the earth;
and no less ready is he there to receive their
spirits to his embrace, than he was here to receive
their bodies.
This is a question of religious principle, rather
than of natural feeling and human sympathy.
And as such it should always be regarded.
Surely reason, enlightened and guided by the
word of God, neither requires nor sanctions the
baptism and formal introduction of infants into the
church. Christianity is essentially a voluntary
system. The reception of baptism and union with




TlEIR PRINCIPLES.          109
the church are, therefore, or should be, voluntary
acts. But infants are incapable of any consciously
voluntary act at all. They have not, therefore,
the first and most necessary qualification for baptism and church membership. The unconscious
babe knows nothing of the organization of which
it is proposed to make it a member, and nothing
of the act by which it is proposed to make it
such.
Nor would the infant be able, by its baptism
and reception into the church, to impart any spiritual benefit whatever to others, or to receive any
from them. Its membership, therefore, would be
at best only nominal and honorary, rather than
active and real. But it is of the very genius of
Christianity to deal in the real rather than in the
ideal, in the substantial rather than in the formal.
It is a system intensely practical. There is nothing ideal and sentimental, nominal and merely
honorary about it.
What useful purpose could the membership of
a child in a church possibly subserve? If it die
in infancy without baptism, ahd outside of the pale
of the visible church, no one but the Papist or the
semi-Papist would have any doubt concerning its
future and eternal blessedness. Certainlyono Baptist would. On the other hand, none but the Papist or the semi-Papist believes that if it lived
10




110             THE BAPTISTS.
within the pale of the church to years of accountability, and then died without faith, its baptism in
infancy, and membership in the church, would be
of the least avail.
If it be suggested that the baptism and churchmembership of the infant would make it more
likely than if unbaptized and holdiig no such membership, to exercise, at the proper age, faith and
repentance, it may be replied that facts do not at
all justify any such inference. Is there any magic
in mere membership in the church? Any marvelous, mysterious virtue in the waters of baptism?
It has been truly said that "baptized children often grow up to be baptized infidels." If we mistake not, almost all the most noted infidels of
modern times, Bolingbroke, Shaftesbury, Gibbon,
Hume, Hobbes, Voltaire, Volney, Rousseau, were
baptized infidels.
We doubt not that a careful collection and collation of statistics upon this subject, would show
that the children of those who do not observe
the rite of infant baptism, are at least as often and
as early converted, as the children of those by
whom it is most strictly observed. "In the city
of Baltimore, it appears by the annual reports of
the Sunday-school Superintendents' and Teachers'
Association, that for several years the proportion of
scholars professing religion, in the Baptist schools,




THEIR PRINCIPLES.           111
was at least three times as great as in the Pe.
dobaptist schools."'
The family, which is as much an institution of
God as the church itself, is the proper place for
the child-the true sphere in which to train it.
Home influence is the great influence, as well for
spiritual as for natural developement.  If the
child be neglected in the private sanctuary of
home, it suffers a loss for which neither the
public sanctuary of the church, nor any thing else
can make amends. But is the home religious influence of the humble and truly devout Christian
man who conscientiously rejects infant baptism as
the invention of man, less than that of him who
accepts it as of divine origin and authority? What
is there in the rite, to make the latter more faithful to either his children or his God, than the former? Nothing I Surely nothing I unless to recur to the preposterous hypothesis already made,
we find it in some mystic spell, some talismanic
charm, about the baptism of an infant, which the
parent feels, though the child be unconscious of
its power.  The Baptist as well as the Pedobaptist, loves his children.  He, too, is a man, with
all the feelings of a man-a parent with all the inextinguishable instincts of a parent.  He desires
for them above all earthly riches and honors, the' See Rev. F. Wilson's Comp. Influence of Bap. and Pedobap.
Principles in the Christian nurture of Children.




112             THE BAPTISTS.
riches of truth, the honors of Heaven. He early
instructs them in the word and will of God. He
prays for them. He prays with them. He reads
to them the Holy Scriptures. To stimulate their
interest, he places the Holy Book in their young
hands, and reverently listens to the word of truth
as in soft, sweet, accents, they pronounce it. And
as soon as their expanding minds are capable of
deriving spiritual profit from them, with affectionate simplicity, he expounds to them its sublime and
saving principles. He leads them to the house of
God. That they may feel its healthful stimulus,
and share in all its hallowed influences, he early
introduces them into that nursery of the church,
the Sunday-school. What other and more effective means can the most intelligent and pious Pedobaptist employ?
Not only does reason show the futility of infant
baptism and church membership, it shows them to
be positively injurious.  Scarcely can any act,
however trivial and simple, be entirely negative in
its influence. If it do no good, it is sure to do
harm. Such negativeness of influence, however,
many have ascribed to infant baptism. They have
said, "It is at least an innocent ceremony, and
while we do not believe that it can benefit the recipient of it, we do not see how it can possibly injure it."  But has God authorized the serious and
religious performance in his name, of an act that




THEI PRINCIPLES.           113
has no significance, that is of no utility? Surely
it does not become grave and reverend men solemnly to perform such an act, claiming for it divine
significance, and enforcing it by divine sanctions.
Such a rite, so performed, however unimportant in
itself, claiming the authority of God, and purporting to be in fulfillment of the Saviour's parting injunction to his apostles, and which is supposed,
in the language of many who perform it, to engraft
the infant recipient of it into Christ, make it a child
of God and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven,
cannot be without vast influence.
If it do not affect the subject of it now, it will
hereafter. It forestalls his inalienable right of
personal choice. It fixes him in an involuntary
and false position, from which in subsequent life,
it is difficult to extricate himself. To say the least.
it may greatly embarrass and distress him. But
this is not all, nor the worst. Teaching him to regard himself as a member of God's church, identified with God's people, it may lead him to indulge
a false hope, and to repose in a false and fatal security. And this, there is the greatest reason to fear,
it often actually does.
It may, too, and doubtless does, exert a baleful
influence upon the minds of parents, cultivating in
them a superstitious trust in the saving efficacy
of a mere outward rite.  Hence it is that many a
Pedobaptist parent, who feels his baptized and dy10*




114             THE BAPTISTS.
ing child to be secure, would have, if it were unbaptized, the most painful misgivings concerning
its future fate.
Nor is the administrator of the rite himself unaffected by it. It burdens his mind with worse
than worthless error;-error noxious, and so far as
its influence extends, destructive. More than this,
it may involve him in the sin of both adding to
and detracting from the gospel, and even, to some
extent, in that of preaching " another gospel," and
thus expose him to the fearful curses pronounced
upon those sins.
Still further. It exerts a most deleterious influence upon others not immediately concerned in it
-upon the whole Christian community-nay, upon
the whole world. This is certainly its tendency,
and this really its effect. It has in many instances
subordinated the inward spiritual grace to the outward physical rite, and thus put the church and
the so-called "sacraments" above Christ and the
Cross. It has united in unholy wedlock, the
church and the state-from which union has proceeded a brood of hybrid monsters devouring and
desolating all that is fairest and best on the earth.
It has confounded the just distinctions between the
righteous and the wicked, the church and the world.
It has degraded her who should have been the
Bride, the Lamb's wife, into a harlot.
These evils, not to name others, reason-in the




THEIR PRINCIPLES.           115
light of scripture, experience, observation, and
history-teaches are likely to result, as they have
heretofore resulted, from that unscriptural breadth,
which embraces within the church of Christ, those
devoid of the essential qualifications for membership-the breadth which their opponents are so
fond of bringing into uncharitable, and we fear
invidious, contrast with the alleged narrowness of
the Baptists.
But revelation, more authoritative than reason,
neither requires nor sanctions the reception into
the church of Christ of any who do not personally
profess faith in Him. The narrowness which
denies it, and of which the opponents of the Baptists so much complain, is the narrowness of the
gospel itself. No precept, or precedent for the
baptism and church-membership of infants, is any
where to be found in the Holy Book.
Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament.
This the opponents of the Baptists admit. But if
it be so, then the authority for its administration,
must and can be found there. We need not involve ourselves in the mazes of Abrahamic covenants, and Mosaic institutes, in far-fetched, indeterminate inferences from this isolated passage of
Scripture, of difficult interpretation and uncertain
import, and that dark saying of some early father.
No: a positive institute must be positively instituted. And if it'be intended for all classes of




116             THE BAPTISTS.
persons, the unlearned as well as the learned, the
weak as well as the strong, it should, one would
think, be especially direct, and clear, and unequivocal, as well as positive.
But neither from the Abrahamic covenants, nor
the institutes of Moses, more than from disputed
passages of the holy or patristic writings, can the
practice of infant baptism be sustained. This has
been often and triumphantly shown in works
widely read and accessible to all. Any formal
reply, therefore, to the arguments on this point,
of the opponents of the Baptists, even if our limits
allowed, is here unnecessary. We will, however,
take occasion to say, in passing, that the very
length and difficulty of the argument from the Old
Testament, for infant baptism and church-membership, furnish proof presumptive, very clear and
strong, of the unsoundness of the theory which it
assumes to defend-because it shows that instead
of what we have every reason to require of its advocates, a concise, clear, direct, positive command,
from the New Testament, they are only able to
give us a long, labored, involved, and difficult
argument, drawn from the Old Testament, and
from a different and a superseded dispensation.
As we have said, our opponents admit that baptism is a New-Testament ordinance. We demand
of them, therefore, New-Testament authority for
its application to infants. They will never be able




TIEIR PRINCIPLES.          117
to furnish it. Men of learning and research, theyhave
long made earnest and eager inquisition; but still
has the object of their pursuit eluded them. After
turning the sacred page by night and by day, not
a few of them, with the learned German, Schleiermacher, have been constrained to confess that "he
who finds infant baptism there, must first put it
there. "
We read of men and women being baptized, but
of babes never. Nothing in favor of the baptism
of infants but weak and far-fetched and strained
inferences, at issue with the universally acknowledged principles of interpretation, as well
as with the whole analogy of faith, are to be
drawn from the accounts of household baptisms,
as given in the New Testament. When fairly interpreted, all those accounts add greatly to the
strength of the Baptist position. So, too, may we
say with respect to the Commission; the famous
passage already referred to, " Suffer little children
to come unto me, etc;" and that equally famous
one, "Else were your children unclean."
No mention whatever of infants, in connection
with baptism, is ever made in the New Testament.
All the allusions to the members of the churches,
as well as the manner in which they are directly
addressed, show that they were adults, or at least
not infants.
If infants were in the first churches, they were




118             THE BAPTISTS.
most strangely and unaccountably ignored. If
they formed so large a proportion of the membership of the early churches, if they engrossed so
much of the official attention and ecclesiastical regard of the apostles, and those immediately
following them, as upon the Pedobaptist theory it
were reasonable to suppose, it is utterly unaccountable that during the whole apostolic age, and
for a long period afterward, they were never
named, nor even remotely alluded to as members.
They are not now so ignored in Pedobaptist books,
pulpits, prayers, papers, and pamphlets. The
baptized children of the church are one of their
commonest and most eloquent themes.
The charge against the Baptists of narrowness,
is also warmly urged in connection with their views
of the act of baptism. It is said that they exhibit
great want of breadth and liberality in making
that rite which it is affirmed is a mere application
of water in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost, for the purpose of symbolizing
spiritual purification, and the consecration of him
who receives it to the service of God, essentially
and necessarily an immersion in water-in making,
as is alleged, the quantity of the water determine
the validity of the rite-in making the mere mode
in which the rite is performed, as important as,
nay, more important than the rite itself-in subordinating the spirit to the form-in exalting baptism




THEIR PRINCIPLES.           119
above other and more important requisitions of the
gospel-in making it a saving ordinance, and in
making a difference of views in respect to it-an
unessential outward ceremony!-a cause of separation from their Christian brethren.
The Baptists regard baptism as something more
than an emblem of purification and an act of consecration to God. It is inclusive of these, and of
much more, which we have stated in another place.
As to the question of much or little water, the
Baptists regard it as altogether trivial, and not
entering at all into the real issue between their opponents and themselves. Indeed they are entirely
indifferent to the whole matter of mere water,
however viewed, save in so far only as it furnishes
the means of performing a most significant and sacred act. All they contend for is the thing itself
-not the means nor the modes of its performance.
Anciently the little river Jordan furnished waters
as sufficient for the purposes of baptism, as those
of the Mediterranean Sea. And the waters of the
pool on the premises of the Jailor at Philippi, sufficed as well as those of the river Jordan. And
so is it now. The Baptists of our day find it not
less convenient to administer the ordinance in baptisteries than in rivers. It is their opponentsunlike the illustrious Harbinger of Christ, the
great Baptist, having a horror of "much water"
and a passion for little, as little as may adhere




120             TIIE BAPTISTS.
to a finger-who so stickle about the quantity of
water.
Nor do the Baptists overlook the substance and
true significance of the rite, in an exaggerated,
unreasonable, and unscriptural estimate of the
mere mode of its administration. While they are
ready to admit that the mode of administering the
ordinance of baptism, like the way of doing any
other thing of serious import, is not without a certain importance, they yet consider the matter of
mere mode of comparatively little moment.  It is
not, we repeat, for the manner of the act, but for
the act itself, that they so strenuously contend.
They insist that whatever the manipulations of
the administrator, whatever the mode of administration, whatever the quantity of water applied,
without immersion there is no real baptism. But
whether the immersion be effected in much water
or little, in a flowing stream or a standing pool,
slowly or rapidly, gracefully or ungracefully, is
wholly indifferent, so far as the validity of the baptism is concerned.  As we said that it is their opponents, and not the Baptists, who make a question of the quantity of the water of baptism, so
we say it is they, and not the Baptists, who make
a question of the mode of baptism. It is they who
clamor for mode-the mode of sprinkling, or the
mode of pouring-advocating and defending it, in
other ages, by fire and sword,-in our times, by




THEIR PRINCIPLES.          121
tongue and pen, with all the powers of logic and
of rhetoric, pathos and pleasantry, wit and ridicule,
which they can command. If they really regard
the mode so unimportant, why not for the sake of
Christian charity, for the sake of the consciences
of their weak Baptist brethren, for the sake of harmony and peace, for the sake of union and communion and the strength and happiness which they
would give, for the sake of efficiency and success
in winning souls, for the sake of the divine glory,
why do they not adopt the mode of immersion.
Ah! the opponents of the Baptists deceive themselves. The mode occupies an important place in
their esteem. The quantity of water gives them
great concern.
It is, too, our opponents who sacrifice the spirit
to the form, in the administration of the rite, exalt
it to an undue prominence as compared with other
parts of the evangelic system, and endow it with
magic power and saving efficacy. It is notorious
that many of them, regarding with superstitious
reverence the rite, attribute to it a strange, mysterious virtue, an incomprehensible and marvelous
efficacy, nowhere accorded to it in the word of
God. Including the Papists, the overwhelming
majority, and excluding them, a very considerable
proportion, of the opponents of the Baptists, regard
it as the act of regeneration, a saving rite, without
11




122             THIE BAPTISTS.
which the innocent and helpless babe is lost,-with
which, the vilest criminal is saved.
On the other hand, the Baptists believe that all
the baptismal waters of the world administered by
the holiest of human hands, however they might
wash away the filth of the flesh, would not suffice
to take away the guilt of the soul. That for this
high end, vain were the sacred floods of a thousand
Jordans, vain the utmost potency of all the consecrated fonts of all earth's temples and cathedrals.
That the blood of Jesus, and that alone, makes
pure the polluted soul. That no one who has not
already received that inward, spiritual cleansing,
that baptism of the Holy Ghost which finds only
its beautiful and striking emblem, in the outward
rite, is prepared for the reception of that rite.
As to the charge of making a mere difference in
respect to an outward and unessential ceremony, the
cause of separation from their Christian brethren,
it may be said that the Baptists do not regard any
ordinance of God, in any proper sense, an unessential ceremony. They stand now, where they
have always stood, with the truth of God-upon
the same platform which was pressed by the feet
of the Apostles and other early Christians. And it
is not their fault, if their opponents are not with
them. They have not caused the separation.
The real controversy is not so much with them,
as it is with the Bible Let their opponents cease




THEIR PRINCIPLES.         123
to contend with that.  Let them marshal themselves under the true standard. They will, we
trust, by the grace of God, find the Baptists there.
Their opponents parted company with them,
when they parted company with the truthwhen they substituted the traditions of men for
the commandments of God. Let them come back
to the truth. Let them cease by their traditions to
make void the law of God-let them " inquire for the
old paths, and walk therein," and they may again
join company with the Baptists.
But the narrowness alleged against the Baptists
is supposed most conspicuously to display itself in
connection with their views of the Lord's Supper.
And, singularly enough, this charge is generally
brought by those who hold the very same principles
in respect to the communion, by which the Baptists are governed.
The Lord's Supper is an ordinance commemorative of the sufferings and death of Christ on behalf
of his people, and none have the right to participate in its celebration, who have not assumed, in
baptism, the badge of discipleship. This is the
outward sign by which Christ's people are dis.
tinguished; and no one without it, is, in strictness,
any more to be regarded a member of the visible
church of Christ, than he is to be regarded, without
enrollment and the prescribed uniform, a member
of the army. In these views, the Baptists agree




124             THE BAPTISTS.
with all other evangelical denominations, as might
easily be shown by quotations from eminent authors
among them all. As sufficient, however, for our
present purpose, we here introduce the testimony
of only two of them.   The distinguished Dr
Griffin, President of Williams College, in his celebrated letter on Communion, says, "I agree with
the advocates of close communion in two points:
1. That baptism is the initiating ordinance which
introduces us into the visible church; of course
where there is no baptism there are no visible
churches: 2. That we ought not to commune with
those who are not baptized, and of course are not
church-members, even if we regard them as Christians. Should a pious Quaker so far depart from
his principles as to wish to commune with me at
the Lord's table, while yet he refused to be baptized, I could not receive him; because there is
such a relationship established between the two ordinances that I have no right to separate them;
in other words I have no right to send the sacred
elements out of the church."1
Dr. Hibbard, perhaps the ablest writer on baptism and its kindred subjects, among the Methodists of this country, says: " It is but just to remark
that, in one principle, the Baptist and Pedobaptist
churches agree. They both agree in rejecting from
communion at the table of the Lord, and in deny-' ee Bap. Lib. vol. iii. p. 211.




THEIR PRINCIPLES.          125
ing the rights of church fellowship to all who have
not been baptized. Valid baptism they consider
as essential to constitute visible church-membership. This also we hold. The only question,
then, that here divides us, is,'What is essential to
valid baptism?' The Baptists, in passing the
sweeping sentence of disfranchisement upon all
other Christian churches, have only acted upon a
principle held in common with all other Christian
churches, viz., that baptism is essential to churchmembership. They have denied our baptism, and,
as unbaptized persons, we have been excluded from
their table. That they err greatly in their views
of Christian baptism, we of course believe. But
according to their views of baptism, they certainly
are consistent in restricting thus their communion.
We would not be understood as passing judgment
of approval upon their course; but we say, their
views of baptism force them upon the ground of
strict communion, and herein they act upon the
same principles as other churches, i. e. they admit
only those whom they deem baptized persons to
the communion-table. Of course, they must be
their own judges as to what baptism is. It is evident that, according to our views of baptism, we
can admit them to our communion; but, with their
views of baptism, it is equally evident they can
never reciprocate the courtesy. And the charge
of close communion is no more applicable to the
11*




126              THE BAPTISTS.
Baptists than to us, inasmuch as the question of
church-fellowship with them   is determined by as
liberal principles as it is with any other Protestant
churches, so far, I mean, as the present subject is
concerned; i. e. it is determined by valid bap.
tism. "1
1 Christian Baptism, pp. 174, 175; ed. 1845.




V.
SPIRIT OF THE BAPTISTS.
Illiberality and Exclusiveness of Spirit charged against the Baptists-Their History and present Attitude toward others Refute
the Charge-Friends of every real "Evangelio Alliance"Distinguished for Breadth and Expansiveness of SympathyImpossible for a true Baptist to be a Bigot-Persecuted but
never Persecuting-Proselytism-Strict Communion.
~        HE Baptists are charged not only with narrowness of principle, but with illiberality
and exclusiveness of spirit. It is said that'?      they are so absorbed in devotion to their
own party and its peculiarities, as greatly to
neglect, if not in some instances entirely
to overlook, principles vastly more important; that
hence they are characterized by great want of
Christian charity, and even by a spirit of intolerance.
That those views of the Baptists to which, as
peculiar, exceptions are most generally taken, do
not absorb an undue share of interest among them,
and are not exalted into too great prominence, has
(127)




128             THE BAPTISTS.
been made apparent in what we have already said,
and will yet further appear in what we have still
to say. As to the charge that they are uncharitable and intolerant, we think their history, as well
as their present attitude toward their Christian
brethren of every name, furnishes a ready and
complete refutation. Whilst honest, earnest, fearless, and ardent in the advocacy of their distinguishing tenets, and ready, rather than yield them,
to suffer reproach and scorn, persecution and
death, they have, in respect to all points of agreement, ever sympathized with others, and been
ready in every feasible way to co-operate with
them. This was strikingly shown at the Reformation.  They differed widely in many important
things from the leaders of that great movement;
but, agreeing with them in others, they rose up in
every part of Europe, and enthusiastically rallied
to their support. And it was only when they discovered that the price of the distinguished alliance
was the sacrifice of principles which they held
dearer than life, and after having, for their devotion to them, been cruellyrepulsed and persecuted,
that they retired.
Another exemplification of the sympathy of the
Baptists with others in every thing noble, is furnished by their course during the civil wars in
England, in which the first Charles was dethroned
and beheaded, and Cromwell raised to the supreme




THEIR SPIRIT.           129
power. In vindication of what they esteemed the
inalienable civil and religious rights of man, they
united with those whose views, in all respects,
they could not accept, and with them braved all
the perils and shared all the sacrifices of those
times. With them they sat side by side in the
meeting for devotion; with them they knelt down in
prayer; with them they stood shoulder to shoulder
on the field of blood; and with them they lay
down in death, martyrs for truth and freedom.
So, too, in our own Revolutionary struggle, the
Baptists readily united with all who stood up for
freedom.
Thus has it ever been. Thus is it now. In
every movement, whose aim is the advancement
of the cause of God and the promotion of the wellbeing of men, the Baptists, waiving their religious
and denominational peculiarities, so far as it can
be done without compromiting them, are ever
ready to unite with any and with all others. They
are ever among the fastest friends of every real
"evangelical alliance." That great union of different denominations of Christians for the diffusion
of the Holy Scriptures in all lands, the first organization of the kind, we believe, ever established,
the British and Foreign Bible Society, owes its
origin to Joseph Hughes, a Baptist. And to a
Baptist deacon, the excellent William Fox, was




130             THE BAPTISTS.
due the organization of the first great national
Society in England in behalf of Sunday-schools.1
No truer friends of the American Sunday School
Union and the American Tract Society have there
been than many of the Baptists. And if they now
seem to show less interest in those, as well as in
other kindred organizations, than formerly, it is
only because they believe they can by separate
action accomplish more for the cause of truth and
righteousness on the earth, in similar institutions
more directly under their own control, and now,
in the incipiency of their existence, having special
claims upon their sympathies and fostering care.
They are still, however, as much friends to those
national societies as other sects, each of which has
its separate organizations.
For many years the Baptists were in close and
zealous co-operation with the other leading evangelical denominations of the land in the American
Bible Society. And it was only with the conviction that they could not be true to the claims of the
truth of God, and the best interests of the worlda conviction forced upon them by what they esteemed, and still esteem, great inconsistency and injustice on the part of their associates, that theywithdrew, and established an independent organization.
In those admirable institutions composed of
young men of various Christian denominations,
See Raikes and his Schools, p. 62.




THEIR SPIRIT.            131
now so generally existing in our cities, Baptists, in
large proportion, are to be found.  So, too, have
they always been found in the union meetings for
prayer, which have marked the progress of the recent great revival of religion. And this, too, although in some instances the most ill-timed and
indelicate suggestions of measures calculated to
compromise their principles, their self-respect, and
their consciences, have been made.
The attendance of the Baptists, too, upon the
ministry of others, whenever the just claims of
their own allow, is a notable fact, and further corroborates the statement which we have made concerning the catholicity of their spirit.  So, too, is
the fact that they, more, perhaps, than any other
religious community, are always ready to acknowledge and avail themselves of whatever is good in
the writings of others. Scarcely among Pedobaptists themselves are to be found more appreciative
readers of their ablest and best writings than
among the Baptists. Conspicuous in the libraries
of their ministers as well as private members, are
to be found the standard expository and practical
works of authors of every Christian name. And
with a fearlessness and eagerness of inquiry, to
which, we think, is found no parallel among others,
are they always ready to examine even the most
illiberal and bitter of the controversial productions
of their opponents.




132                THE BAPTISTS.
The most indi;iidual, independent, and least clannish of communities-proverbially popular in their
sympathies-each one of them, when true to the
principle and spirit of the brotherhood to which
he belongs, may appropriate to himself the noble
language of the Roman: "I am a man, and nothing that relates to humanity do I think indifferent to me."    In all their social relations, in all
their civil and ecclesiastical connections, they are
distinguished   for breadth and expansiveness of
spirit rather than for narrowness.'
How    grossly unjust, then, is the charge of a
want of sympathy and brotherly love for others I
Yet is it constantly made.     Nor is this the worst.
As we have said, we are even charged with a spirit
of bigoted devotion to our peculiar views, and intolerance toward those of others.     To this part of
1 The following resolutions, passed at their late anniversaries
by two Baptist State Conventions, illustrate the spirit of liberality to which we have referred as characteristic of the Baptists.
The New Jersey Convention resolved: " That, while we, as Baptists, cannot yield our distinctive views conscientiously held,
we cordially approve a large measure of unity in spirit and also
of unity in benevolent action, on common ground, among the different evangelical denominations." The New York Convention
adopted the following: "That, while we can never sacrifice the
principles which distinguish us as Baptists, we nevertheless hail
with joy the increasing union of spirit among different denominations of Christians in the great work of saving men, and will
rost heartily ard cheerfully co-operate with them in every work,,f fairlh and labor of love."




THEIR SPIRIT.            133
the charge we reply, that it were indeed one of the
rarest of all rare things to find a whole community
of men, or even a single individual, wholly free
from the evil spirit of bigotry. Sure are we that
those who so spiritedly charge it upon the Baptists, do in this very thing exhibit it themselves.
The tone as well as the terms in which they bring
the charge, were there no other, is evidence enough
against them. And well, perhaps, were it, if, when
it is said to them in the words of Jesus to the
Pharisees, "Let him that is without sin among
you cast the first stone," they showed as much
sensitiveness and force of conscience as those displayed to whom the words were first addressed,
when, without casting a stone, "they went out
one by one."
It is fair to judge of the spirit of men by the
principles which they hold, and the measures by
which they seek to propagate them. Now, we
have already shown that the principles of the
Baptists are not justly chargeable with narrowness,
but that they are broad and comprehensive as the
gospel itself. If, then, the spirit determine the
principles, in showing affinity for, and in adopting
principles so wide and liberal as theirs, the Baptists demonstrate the breadth and liberality of
their spirit. And if, on the other hand, the principles determine the spirit, then is there the same
demonstration in their favor.  In either case, it is
12




184             THE BAPTISTS
established that the essential spirit of the Baptists
cannot be narrow and intolerant. That there are
individuals among them who may justly be charged
with bigotry-nay, that some tincture of bigotry,
because they are men, may attach to them as a
community, we are by no means disposed to deny.
But we insist that it attaches to them as men
rather than as Baptists. No one, whatever may
be his name or his professions, can be a bigot,
without ceasing, in so far as he is a bigot, in that
far to be a Baptist. And this we thus briefly demonstrate: The two prime articles of the Baptist
creed are, 1. That the New Testament is the only
and the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice.
2. That it is the inalienable right of every man to
study and interpret that divine statute-book for
himself. How, now, can a bigot be a true Baptist? No one will say that either the principle or
the spirit of bigotry can be derived from the New
Testament.  And we have seen that the New
Testament is the creed of the Baptists. Nor will
any one say that he who acts upon the second
great principle which we have named, can be a
bigot. It is, then, impossible for a true Baptist to
be a bigot.
But perhaps it is said that Baptists do not adhere to their principles, and are therefore bigots.
Ah, that! Then our cause is gained. The principles and the true spirit of the Baptists are vindi



THEIR SPIRIT.            135
cated. All that remains is to vindicate them as
men. But this we did not propose to do. We
proposed to vindicate them as Baptists. As men,
the Baptists are like all other men. As Baptists,
they are very unlike them.
We have said we judge the spirit of an individual not only by his principles, but by the measures he pursues in practically carrying them out.
How have the Baptists carried out their principles?
In the spirit of them, we reply. They have never
used the sword or the stake, the rack or the dungeon? They have never coerced any one. The
only weapon they have ever wielded, even against
their bitterest opponents, is that put into their
hands by the Holy Spirit of God-the weapon of
truth. They have never persecuted. It is sometimes said, sweepingly, that all sects persecute
when they have the power. Alas! the Baptists
too well know that it is almost true. They have
felt the crushing power of Protestants as well as
of Papists, of the Puritans of Old England and
the Puritans of New England, of Lutherans and
Calvinists, of Presbyterians, and Episcopalians,
and Congregationalists. Yet the sweeping statement, to which we have alluded, is not quite true.
One sect, of all the sects which have had the power
to persecute, never used it-could not use it, without, in the act of seeking the destruction of its
victim, aiming a deadlier blow at the organic law




136                THE BAPTISTS.
of its own being. It was the sect of the Baptists.
Poor, persecuted people, downtrodden and despised, without a home, without a country, fugitives and wanderers, they were like their Lord,
who had not where to lay his head. No crown
ever begirt their temples, no robes of royalty ever
invested their forms. Yet once it happened that a
poor fugitive who had first fled to the wilderness from
before the face of the "lord bishops" of England,
and afterward to a second and drearier wilderness
from the " lord brethren" of Massachusetts, in that
wilderness set up a state, and established a civil
government, which, in process of time'became important. That fugitive was Roger Williams. That
State was the Baptist State of Rhode Island, the
first the world had known in which perfect freedom, civil and religious-" soul liberty," as Williams called it-was guaranteed to every citizen,
and in which it was impossible to persecute.1
It has frequently been asserted, especially within late years,
that the Catholic founders of Maryland anticipated Roger Williams in the formal and legal establishment of religious liberty.
But nothing were easier than to show that this is a very great
mistake. The Lords Baltimore had very inadequate conceptions upon this subject, and never established complete religious
freedom at all. They made, it is true, under circumstances
which scarcely allowed them to do otherwise, some approximation toward it. But it was by no means, even under those circumstances, a very close approximation. The very enactments
which professed to guarantee the free exercise of religion, de



THEIR SPIRIT.                  137
In connection with their alleged bigoted devotion to party and its peculiarities, is often brought
against the Baptists the charge of a narrow and
selfish  spirit of proselytism.     The only answer
which the charge deserves is the argumentum          ad
hominem. It is doubtless often but the device of
him who, having despoiled his neighbor of his
goods, seeks by shouting       at every step, "Stop
thief!" to divert attention from himself.
There is a true and a false proselytism.        The
Baptists confess the former, but deny the latter. A
truly aggressive church is the only church conformed in principle and spirit to the early churches,
and to the gospel itself. But an aggressive church
nounced the severest penalties upon certain classes of religious
offenders. Jews denying the Messiahship of Jesus, and Unitarians his Divinity, were liable to "death, with forfeiture of
lands and goods." And all who, recoiling from the sin of Mariolatry, manifested a want of due respect for "the Blessed Virgin
Mary," exposed themselves to "fine, whipping, and banishment." Subsequently, in the spirit of these enactments, and
without violation of the original charter of the Colony, refusal
to have one's children baptized was made in Maryland a heinous
offense, and heavily fined. And, at a later day, the expression
of certain religious opinions subjected the party guilty of it, not
only to a heavy fine, but to the shocking and barbarous punishment of kaving his tongue bored through. Of the truth of these
statements, both Bancroft and Hildreth, especially the latter,
furnish abundant evidence. See, for a full and able discussion
of this whole subject, Prof. H. H. Tucker's Letters to Hon. A.
H. Stephens.
12*




138             TIHE BAPTISTS.
is a proselyting church. We would that the Baptists had more of the spirit of aggression upon
error, and upon sin, more of a spirit of true proselytism. He who is in possession of the truth, is
under the most sacred obligations to communicate
it to others, and to strive in every lawful and
honorable way, to induce them to accept it. This,
Christ constantly taught both by precept and example,-"Freely ye have received, freely give."
Having bountifully spread the banquet of truth,
he commanded his servants to bid men come to
it-to go out into the highways and hedges, and
even compel the destitute and the starving to
come.
But it is not more the duty of him who has the
truth, to strive to win others to it, than it is to
endeavor to convert them from error. The one, indeed, involves the other. And how blessed is he
who zealously and faithfully performs a work so
noble I "Brethren," says the Apostle James, "if
any of you do err from the truth, and one convert
him, let him know that he which converteth the
sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul
from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."
"He that winneth souls is wise." And " they that
be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness,
as the stars for ever and ever."
The Apostles were famous proselyters. To con



THEIR SPIRIT.           139
vert men to their faith, they left no legitimate.means untried. Paul, particularly, proselyted
with wondrous boldness and success. He became
all things to all men. To the Jews, he became as
a Jew, that he might gain the Jews. To them that
were under the law, as under the law, that he might
gain them that were under the law. To them that
were without law, as without law, that he might
gain them that were without law. To the weak,
he became as weak, that he might gain the weak.
The Reformers, too, were celebrated for their
proselyting propensities. Luther was the very
prince of proselyters. He drew over to his party
more than fifty millions of the subjects of the Papal See. All the great modern missionaries, too,
Carey, Marshman, Martyn, Moirison, Judson, and
others, glowed with an intense and inextinguishable spirit of proselytism.
And we honor, most profoundly, all these proselyters. We praise their proselytism, as the highest
exhibition of Christian virtue. It was not selfish
and narrow-minded.  It was disinterested and
magnanimous.   We commend the Christian for
proselyting the Jew, the Mohammedan, the Pagan,
and the Infidel. We commend the Protestant for
proselyting the Papist. We commend all who have
the truth, for proselyting to it those who are in
error. We commend the Baptist, who, conscientiously believing that his Pedobaptist brother is in




140             THE BAPTISTS.
error, upon certain highly important points, strives
by all honorable and scriptural means, to win him
from it, to what he himself esteems the truth.
But the false and unscriptural proselytism to
which we have alluded, is worthy of universal reprobation. How terribly was it denounced by
Christ I "Woe unto you scribes and pharisees,
hypocrites I for ye compass sea and land to make
one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him
two-fold more the child of hell than yourselves."
And how miserably is it now often exhibited, especially in cities, by many, who, like their prototypes of old, "love to go in long clothing."
The great scheme of proselytism is the scheme
of infant baptism. There can be no doubt that an intense spirit of proselytism, as well as superstitious
views of the rite, had much to do with its origin.
" It was," says Benedict, " a strife and scramble to
increase their party, and a spirit of rivalship among
churches of different creeds, and not unfrequently of
the same. Catechumens were hurried through their
preparatory studies; the requisitions were continually diminished, until sponsors were admitted to
make the needful answers for candidates for baptism, and then children of any age could be introduced to membership. And now, the great mass
of Pedobaptist churches make their main dependence on their infant members for filling up their
ranks. This peculiar kind of ecclesiastical adroit



THEIR SPIRIT.             141
ness enables them to have a constant supply in reserve. Those who join them from a conviction
of the truth of their own sentiments, or on the
profession of their own faith, would not be sufficient
to keep their churches alive." 1
Another plan of proselytism is that of the union
of church and state. This, for ages, was the plan of
all the opponents of the Baptists. To enhance
their influence, and thus to increase the number as
well as the weight of their adherents, they sought
the power and patronage of the state. But to increase their worldly honor, to swell their numbers,
or upon any other consideration whatever, never
could the Baptists be induced to seek or to suffer
such an alliance. On the contrary, they constantly
and strenuously opposed it, even though thus their
ranks might be thinned by desertion, or broken and
scattered by persecution.
Still another mode of proselytism, is that of a
broad platform,-a latitudinarian creed. And this,
too, is the mode not of the Baptists, but of the opponents of the Baptists. The Baptists will not, as
this very charge of narrowness now under consideration attests, either compromise their faith, or materially modify their practice, in order to increase
their numbers.  To do it, they will not substitute
for baptism something that is not baptism, though'Hist. Bap. p. 933.




142             THE BAPTISTS.
thus, like their opponents, they might greatly enlarge their party. To gain favor with the world,
though thus, too, they might strengthen themselves,
in a mere human and earthly point of view, they
will not violate the law and subvert the order of
God's house, by admitting to the Eucharist the
unbaptized.  They will not receive into their
churches along with the unbelieving, unregenerate,
unbaptized, men of every theological cast and complexion.
These things being so, who, the Baptists or their
opponents1 are most obnoxious to the charge of a
narrow and selfish proselytism?
We have said that the illiberality and exclusiveness of the Baptists, are thought to be especially
shown in respect to baptism and the Lord's Supper. As we have, perhaps, in the preceding sections, said enough of baptism, and noticed all that
is important in the charge of narrowness, whether
of principle or of spirit, concerning that ordinance,
we need say nothing further of it here. We shall,
therefore, pass at once to a consideration of the
charge as it relates to the administration of the
Eucharist.
It is alleged that in not inviting to the Lord's
table their brethren of Pedobaptist denominaions, the Baptists constitute themselves the judges
of their consciences, discredit their religious profession, reject those whom God has accepted, and




TTHEIR SPIRIT.
deny a place in the church below, to those who
will be assigned a place in the church above.
Now if these things were so, the Baptists would
be indeed justly chargeable with the grossest illibcrality and exclusiveness.  They, however, deny
the justice of these charges. They maintain that
in witholding ceremonial communion from those
whom they regard as unbaptized, it does not follow that they either make themselves their judges,
impeach their whole Christian character, exclude
them from their Christian sympathies, or deny them
a place among GQd's people. And this, we think,
we shall make apparent to every intelligent and
candid mind.
The Lord's Supper is an ordinance purely commemorative. It is designed to be a remembrancer
of Christ, outwardly simple and unimposing, yet
beautiful and touching, to those for whom he offered up his life. None, then, but his people, can
rightly celebrate it. And since it is an outward
and formal rite, none even of these, but such as
have made an open and formal declaration of faith
in him. The mode appointed by Christ, and universally observed by the primitive disciples, of
making such declaration, was submission to baptism,
administered in his name. This is evident from
the commission under which the gospel is preached,
and all its ordinances administered. It requires
that by preaching and teaching disciples be made;
that they be then, in declaration of their disciple'




144             THE BAPTISTS.
ship, baptized; and that they be subsequently
taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ
has commanded. Among the things commanded
by him, and to which in the commission he referred, was the commemoration of his death. And
whatever the place of this one of those things,
with respect to the others thus generally alluded
to, it is obvious that it was designed to follow baptism, previously, as well as so particularly, mentioned, and so prominently put forward.
Nothing, in the way of precept or example, in
the slightest degree favoring the notion that any
but baptized believers, in union and fellowship with
the church, ever participated in the sacred feast, is
to be found in the New Testament. So clear and
undeniable is this, that the scriptural precedence
of baptism to the Lord's Supper, has been conceded in all ages, and by Christians of every
class.
In proof of this statement, testimony the fullest
and most satisfactory, could easily be adduced from
the standards of all Christian denominations, as
well as from eminent writers both ancient and modern, such as Justin Martyr, Jerome, Austin, Bede,
Theophylact, Bonaventure, Spanheim, Lord Chancellor King, Dr. Wall, Wesley, Watson, Doddridge,
Dwight-to name no more. As we previously
saw, Robert Hall, the great champion of open
communion, while strenuously contending that




THEIR SPIRIT.             145
there is no necessary precedence of baptism to the
Lord's Supper, yet admits, that in apostolic usage
there always was such precedence. And he even
goes so far as to say that if any one, in apostolic
times, had insisted upon receiving the communion,
while refusing to be baptized, he would have been
repelled as a contumacious schismatic.'
The proper precedence of baptism to the Lord's
Supper, is also sustained by the very nature and
relations to each other of the ordinances themselves.
Baptism, while symbolical of the burial of the natural,
is symbolical of the birth of the spiritual man, the
commencement of the new and divine life. The
Lord's Supper is symbolical of the continued sustenance of that life. The one symbolizes that
spiritual and divine process by which we are made
new creatures in Christ Jesus-the other that by
which we are constantly nourished and sustained
by him, until, from being babes, we reach the stature
of perfect men. The one, therefore, has been appropriately styled the symbol of regeneration, the
other the symbol of nutrition. "In submitting to
baptism," says the venerable Abraham Booth, "we
have an emblem of our union and communion with
Jesus Christ, as our great Representative, in his
death, burial, and resurrection: and as in baptism
we profess to have renewed spiritual life, so in communicating at the Lord's table, we have the em-'Hall's Woiks, vol. i. p. 311.




146             THE BAPTISTS.
blems of that heavenly food by which we live, by
which we grow, and by virtue of which we hope
to live forever. Hence theological writers have
often called baptism the sacrament of regeneration
or of initiation, and the Lord's Supper the sacrament of nutrition."1 Dr. Dagg, having in view
the passage just quoted from Booth, remarks,"Baptism which is administered but once, denotes
regeneration or the beginning of the new life.
The Lord's Supper which is often repeated, denotes the nutrition of the regenerate, or the continued feeding on Christ by faith. It is, therefore, fit that baptism should be received at the
beginning of the Christian profession, before
any participation of the Supper."  And, again,"If regeneration precedes the life of faith; if we
die with Christ, and rise to newness of life before
we habitually receive by faith the benefits of his
sacrifice, baptism ought to precede the Lord's
Supper, or the natural order becomes inverted."2
The priority of baptism to the Lord's Supper,
thus shown by the nature and relation to each
other of the ordinances, as well as by the places assigned them in the Holy Scriptures, is also enforced
by practical considerations of the very highest importance. The proper outward evidence of discipleship, is baptism and union with the church
See Dagg's Essay on Strict Communion, pp. 12, 13.
Ib. pp. 55, 57.




THEIR SPIRIT.            14T
How else shall one be recognized as a follower of
Jesus, and a friend of his people. We cannot read
the heart. Shall we receive into our fellowship,
and make ourselves responsible for any and every
isolated individual who may simply in word, and
perhaps from improper motives, profess faith in
Christ and love for his people, while persistently
disregarding the solemn commandment of the former, and habitually standing aloof from the society
of the latter?  Surely not. We rightly require
that he shall give the.proof of his loyalty to Christ
by obedience to his commandment, in putting him
on in baptism, and of his love for his people, by
formally and openly seeking a permanent connection with them.
So far, indeed, from receiving into fellowship
those who make no pretension to "walking in all
the ordinances and commandments of the Lord
blameless," the churches are solemnly charged to
withdraw from those already in connection with
them, whose walk is disorderly.-" Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every
brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the
tradition which ye received of us."-2. Thes. iii:
6.
Thus we see, both from Scripture, and the natural order of things, the proper and necessary priority of baptism to the Lord's Supper. We have




148             THE BAPTISTS.
also seen that in respect to that priority, we agree
with our brethren of all Christian denominations.
With what consistency, then, do they bring against
us, for practically insisting upon it, the grave
charges which we are now repelling? Why are
they not only so unjust, but so inconsistent, as to
charge as a fault in the Baptists, that which they
regard as a virtue in themselves? Is their conscience sacred, and does ours deserve no regard?
Are they to be commended for maintaining what
they esteem the order and honor of God's house,
and we to be reproached for doing the same
thing?
The real issue between the Baptists and their
Pedobaptist opponents, respects baptism rather
than the Lord's Supper. And this-though some
with reckless partisan unfairness, and others with
exceeding illogicality, have often overlooked and
ignored it-many, as we have seen, with a candor
and magnanimity which do them the highest honor,
fully concede. That in this issue, the argument is
on the Baptist side, has been already, in other connections, briefly shown, and might, did our limits
allow, easily be demonstrated at greater length.
It is clear, however, that even if the Baptists were
in error upon the subject of baptism, they would not
be chargeable with illiberality and exclusiveness. In
common with others, they believe that only the baptized are entitled to a place at the Lord's table.




THEIR SPIRIT.           149
And they believe that only such as have been immersed, upon a personal profession offaith, are
baptized. Hence they cannot without gross inconsistency, as well as moral guilt, invite to the table of
the Lord, any, however pious and exemplary, who
have not, upon such profession, been immersed.
Were they to do so, they would be unworthy communion with their Pedobaptist brethren, and we
do not see how the latter could honorably extend
it to them.
The only way in which at all plausibly the course
of the Baptists can be objected to, is to insist, as
Dr. Griffin did, that they believe wrongly. But,
as we have intimated, the Baptists could not, if
they would, believe otherwise than they do. And
the more they examine the whole subject in debate,
the more they think, speak, read, write upon
it, the stronger grows their faith in the correctness of their views. And did they not know
something of the strength and inveteracy of prejudice, the force of early education, and the almost invincible power of social and ecclesiastical connections, it would seem to them utterly unaccountable
that their brethren of other denominations, intelligent and pious as many of them unquestionably
are, can so tenaciously cling to their present
opinions. And they cannot but think that all they
need in order to relinquish them, is freedom from
the influences to which we have referred.
13*




150             THE BAPTISTS.
Not less liberal, in their theory of Communion,
than others, the Baptists are not less so in their
practice of it. None of the Pedobaptist denominations, when really consistent and true to their
standards, will admit to the Eucharist those whom
they regard as unbaptized.  Exceptions to this
rule, on the part of individuals and societies among
them, there may be, but as denominations they are
all agreed. The Quaker, having, as he supposes,
received the higher and better baptism of the Spirit,
rejects, as unnecessary, the baptism of water.
His Pedobaptist brethren, acknowledging his piety,
but not accepting his theological views, think
themselves justifiable in refusing him a place at the
table of the Lord. " Romanists," says a recent
writer, "in certain cases of discipline and penance,
to prevent scandal, and save appearances, will allow a prince or any other individual, where the
motive is sufficient, to approach.the altar and receive a wafer, but a wafer not consecrated, and
therefore without virtue, which has been called a
blank, or white communion." A similarly blank,
or white communion, the late venerable Bishop
Moore of the Episcopal church in Virginia, once
granted to a Quaker friend. " In the earlier part
of his ministry, while officiating in the State of
New York, on a certain sacramental occasion, he
presented to the members of other denominations
an urgent appeal inviting them to participate in




THEIR SPIRIT.           151
the privilege of commemorating the dying love
of Christ at his table. In this address he adverted
to the right of Christians to commune together,
representing it as the Lord's table, and denying
the propriety of repulsing any of the Lord's people.
The appeal had its desired effect. Several of different denominations came forward. Among others,
to the surprise of Mr. Moore, was a prominent
member of the Quaker persuasion, a man of highly
respectable character, and of undoubted piety.
The minister supposed that he might have changed
his sentiments, and have been baptized. He approached the applicant as he knelt, at the chancel,
and affectionately inquired if he had obeyed Christ
in baptism. He was informed that a change of
sentiment had taken place with respect to the perpetual obligation of the Lord's Supper, but not in
relation to the other ordinance. In this painful
dilemma, Mr. Moore stated that for a moment he
scarcely knew what was best to be done. He,
however, soon determined that he could not conscientiously administer the communion to his Quaker
brother, although he believed him to be a man of
God, because he had not been baptized. He stated
his difficulties to his friend, and requested him to
retain his place, and he would simply pass him by
in the administration of the elements."'
See Taylor's Restricted Communion, p. 24.




152            TlE BAPTISTS.
But even blank or white communion is not always accorded the Quaker. "An intimate friend,"
says Dr. Dagg, " of my early days, who had been
educated a Quaker, soon after having obtained a
hope in Christ, happened to be present at a Presbyterian sacramental meeting, and was moved to request that he might be admitted to the table. He
was refused, on the ground that he had not been
baptized. "
A prominent minister of the Methodist Episcopal church, a few years since, even while highly
eulogizing Robert Hall, and expressing great admiration of his views on communion, admitted to the
writer, that he could not conscientiously, and
in conformity with the standards of his church,
admit a Quaker, however pious, to the Communion.
Here we have Episcopalians, Presbyterians,
Methodists, and, as we saw in a quotation from
Dr. Griffin, Congregationalists also, agreed in excluding the unbaptized but pious Quaker from the
table of the Lord.
But not only do Pedobaptists exclude Quakers
from their communion, they often exclude each
other. A few years since, the members of the Old
School Presbyterian General Assembly refused a
request for inter-communion, formally preferred by
members of the New School General Assembly,
then in session in the same place. The Episcopa



THEIR SPIRIT.            153
lian, in his own church, will commune with the
Presbyterian, but he will not reciprocate the compliment, by receiving the sacred elements in the
Presbyterian church, from what he regards as "unconsecrated hands." The several Scotch Presbyterian churches, the Associate, the Associate Reformed, the Reformed Presbyterian, or Covenanters, and the United Presbyterian,refuse to commune with any sect.
Thus we see that there is no such thing as the
much-vaunted open communion, among Pedobaptist denominations. They are as close as Baptists
-though with not half their consistency. Nay,
they are closer than Baptists. To crown their
closeness and their inconsistency, all these denominations refuse the communion to a large portion
of their own membership. They will administer
the rite of baptism, taking, as they suppose, the
place of circumcision, to infants-but they will not
administer the Lord's Supper, taking the place, as
they equally believe, of the Passover, to these
same infants. In the preceding section, we saw
that it was considered exceedingly narrow in the
Baptists to refuse baptism to children. Is it less
so in Pedobaptists, after baptizing them, to deny
them the Lord's Supper?
Surely the opponents of the Baptists are not so
liberal in their views and sympathies, their principles and practices, as would become those who




154             THE BAPTISTS.
arraign others upon the charge of narrowness. It
seems that a fair comparison between them and
those whom they so freely censure, and so summarily condemn, would by no means enhance their
credit for either breadth of view or liberality of
sentiment. We have seen that they, for the most
part, agree with the Baptists that immersion is true
ard valid baptism. They could, therefore, without
any sacrifice of conscience, and with very little real
inconvenience, certainly not more than that which
the Baptists esteem it a privilege and an honor to
encounter, adopt immersion universally as the act
of baptism. Thus easily could they do much towards putting an end to the baptismal strife; thus
easily could they restore one of the breaches in
the walls of Zion-thus easily could they effect
something of that union which they profess so ardently to desire. And yet they will not I Alas,
for human consistency! Alas, for the eye that beholds the mote in another, but descries not the
beam by which its own vision is blurred I Alas,
for the heart that deeply repenting of the sins of
another, so exhausts itself as to have no sorrow
left for its own I
On the other hand, it cannot be said that the
Baptists could just as easily adopt sprinkling or
pouring for baptism. No I For in the light in
which it appears to them, they could not do it
without committing a violent outrage upon their




THEIR SPIRIT.            155
understanding. It seems to them nothing less than
the most unmitigated and preposterous solecism,
to use no harsher term, to say-baptism by sprink.
ling! In their view it is tantamount to saying
ing-immersion by sprinkling! But this is not ail,
nor the worst. To adopt sprinkling or pouring
for baptism, they would have to commit the most
flagrant outrage upon their moral sense,-they
would have to stifle the voice of conscience. They
believe it to be their duty, in obedience to the
command of Christ, to immerse, not to sprinkle.
To do the latter, then, for the former, would be,
with their present views, the most unconscionable
trifling with sacred things.
Further still. The gospel, in its purity, integrity, completeness, beauty, strength, divinity, is the
greatest gift of God to man. Now, to corrupt this
purity, to disturb this integrity, to lessen this completeness, to mar this beauty, to weaken this
strength, to obscure this divinity, in any degree, is
to wrong those to whom have been sent the glad
tidings of great joy. And this is done by any perversion of the truth of the gospel, by any mal-administration of its ordinances.
But to outrage one's own understanding, and
even one's own conscience, are yet lighter things
than to outrage the authority of God. Presumptuously to do, as by authority of heaven, what he has
not enjoined; rebelliously to leave undone, what




156             THE BAPTISTS.
he has commanded to be done I This great guilt
the Baptists would incur, if, to win the approbation
of others, they disregarded their conscientious convictions concerning any ordinance of God. Surely
it is strange, passing strange, thatprofessed Christian people, boasting that charity which rejoiceth not
in iniquity, but only in the truth, should; in the name
of truth and charity, demand it of them. This, however, thy virtually do, when they insist that the Baptists shall admit to the Lord's table those who have
not been immersed upon profession of faith in Christ.
Hence it has happened, that when, in any case,
yielding to the seductions of a spurious' charity,
they have thus compromised their principles, there
have not been wanting, among their opponents,
some to make it the occasion of taunting them
with insincerity ft their professions concerning
baptism. "By adopting the plan of open communion," says the author of Modern Immersion not
Christian Baptism, "they practically concede the
validity of our baptism, as respects both the mode
and the subject. As they profess to act only from
plain examples or apostolic precepts, and as they
can find neither in the New Testament for receiving persons at the Lord's table after Christian
baptism was instituted, who, in the judgment of
the first Christians were not baptized, we must take
it for granted, notwithstanding all their evasions oa




THEIR SPIRIT.           157
this subject, that they consider Pedobaptists really
baptized."
We cannot but think that many of the more intelligent and candid opponents of the Baptists misapprehend, in some important respects, the nature
and design of the Eucharist, as well as the views
of the Baptists in regard to it. They seem to consider the Lord's Supper, which is, in its primary design, a commemorative, and only a commemorative
rite, as essentially a symbol of universal spiritual
communion among Christians. But nowhere in the
New Testament do we find it stated or in any way
intimated that it was ever celebrated by individual
believers, or by general companies of Christians,
simply as such, and independently of church relations. The communion of the body and blood of
Christ is "the joint participation" of his people,
in communion with God,-communion with Him
who died, with the Father who gave himf to die,
and with the Holy Spirit through whom are made
available the benefits of his death.
Not only do many thus wrongly regard the
Lord's Supper as the symbol of general spiritual
communion between believers, but they make it
the one great symbol, the highest test of such communion. The Baptists, on the contrary, do not
believe that it was designed to be, even in the individual church which celebrates it, the highest
test, or, indeed, any special test at all of spiritual
14




158             THE BAPTISTS.
communion among its members.    Such communion, in a very high degree, is often enjoyed; but
it results incidentally, and is essentially such as
is enjoyed in prayer and praise, and other acts of
devotion. So far as it is a symbol at all, of communion between believers, the Lord's Supper is a symbol of purely and strictly ceremonial communion
between them, as members of the same individual
church.
Hence it appears that in maintaining their views
and practice respecting this ordinance, Baptists do
not arrogate to themselves peculiar sanctity, or
any spiritual superiority whatever. They only
claim for themselves greater outward regularity, a
stricter formal and ceremonial conformity to the
requisitions of the gospel, a fuller and completer
obedience to the law of Christ than others exhibit.
Another erroneous view of the Lord's Supper,
one which, doubtless, produces much of the sensitiveness manifested by many concerning it, and
thus leads to the charge of illiberality and exclusiveness urged against the Baptists, is, that it is
holier, and more sacred, than any other ordinance.
God forbid that the Baptists should, in any degree,
seem to detract from the beautiful and blessed ordinance commemorative of their dying Lord, and of
the Love whose height, and depth, and length, and
breadth, neither man nor angel may measure.
But while according to it the utmost sacredne88,




THEIR SPIRIT.           159
while regarding it, like every thing that emanates
from God, holy even as he is holy, they do not see
wherein it is holier or more sacred than any other
divine ordinance-than baptism, of which many
sometimes speak so slightingly, and which, in instances not a few, they even seem to ridicule.
The Eucharist may, indeed, suggest associations
more impressive, more touching, more tender, to
our human hearts, and therefore be invested by
our feelings with greater solemnity and sacredness; but it is not intrinsically at all more important than some others; not really holier or more
sacred than the least of them all.
Another error is that of supposing that open
and universal communion would accomplish great
good in promoting charity, union, and co-operation among the people of God.   Facts by no
means sustain this supposition. Are the intercommuning denominations more united than the
non-intercommuning?  Are   Presbyterians and
Methodists more affectionate towards each other
than Presbyterians and Baptists? If so, is it
brought about by free communion among them?
We think not. The fact is that there is nothing in
the nature of mere ceremonial communion peculiarly adapted to produce such union and co-operation. Practically, open communion is a nullity.
It is a mere theory. Pedobaptists while extolling
it, rarely practice it.




160             THE BAPTISTS.
So far from unrestricted communion having a
good effect, it would have, if universally practiced,
a most deleterious influence. Its constant tendency
is to a compromise of principle, to laxity of discipline, latitudinarianism of doctrine, and to a consequent lowering of the standard of individual
piety, and of the character and efficiency of the
churches.
It is well known that other denominations hold
doctrines, and in some instances tolerate courses'
of conduct in their members, which are not held
and tolerated by Baptists. Now how could the
latter reasonably receive persons to their communion, who, if they were actual members of their
churches, would be expelled for entertaining and
advocating what they deem unscriptural and pernicious doctrines, and for practices esteemed by
them incompatible with the Christian character?
Such a doctrine is that of infant baptism, held by all
the Pedobaptist denominations. Such practices are
those of frequenting theatres, ball-rooms, and other
places of worldly and sinful amusement, allowed
by several of them. Well says the late venerable
Dr. Cone, " In extending the right hand of fellowship, a church must be satisfied that the individual
soliciting admission has scriptural views of himself, and of God, and of the way of salvation by
Christ alone, and of the work of the Spirit, and of
the holy tendency of divine truth; and hence we




THEIR SPIRIT.           161
are directed to mark and avoid those whose erroneous sentiments cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which we have learned.-Rom.
xvi. Moreover, the candidate for church communion must not only converse about the things of
God in a proper manner, but his deportment must
correspond with his holy profession.'If any man
that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous,
or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an
extortioner, we must not keep company with such
an one, no, not to eat,' (1 Cor. v. 11); and that
course of conduct which cuts off from the church
one who is already a member, must be, by parity
of reasoning, an insurmountable obstacle against
admission to its privileges."
A striking illustration of the evil effects, practically, of admitting to the sacramental communion
of the church, those who are not formally in fellowship with it, is furnished in the following, stated by
Prof. Harvey as.a "well-authenticated fact," in his
recent essay on Communion: "A devoted and
conscientious deacon of a Congregational church
commenced to labor with a member of the same
church for unchristian-like conduct, but could obtain no satisfaction.  He then took one or two
brethren with him, and spread out all the circumstances before them; but the man still justified
himself. The church was at last compelled to exclude the offender. He then went to a neighboring
14*




162            THE BAPTISTS.
Methodist church, represented himself as persecuted
because-he had honestly changed his sentiments,
and was cordially received. The next communion
season which this Congregational church enjoyed,
(or would have enjoyed but for mixed communion,)
he came forward, and with great care takes his seat
by the side of the deacon who took up the labor
with him, for the express purpose of aggravating
his feelings. The good deacon says to a member
of the Baptist church present, (with whom he was
very intimate,)'Brother, what shall I do? I do
not feel as though I could commune with that man?
The Baptist replied:'I pity you, deacon, from the
bottom of my heart, but I cannot relieve you: this
is the effect of your wrong view of communion.'
The church was thrown into such a state of perturbation as to disqualify them to receive so holy
an ordinance with pleasure or profit."l
We have said that many of the opponents of the
Baptists misapprehend not only the true nature
and design of the Lord's Supper, but also the views
and feelings of the Baptists respecting it. They do
so, especially, in supposing that the Baptists by refusing ceremonially to commune with those whom
they regard as unbaptized, make themselves the
judges of their consciences. One of the leading
principles of the Baptists is that of the right of' Terms of Communion, pp. 33, 34.




THEIR SPIRIT.            1863
private judgment-a principle for which they have
contended in all ages, and under all circumstances,
in the loss of all things, and unto death; while
many others were striving to banish it from the
earth. Their opponents judge for themselves in
receiving into their churches, in their own way, all
applicants. This the Baptists do, and nothing
more. They judge for themselves alone, and not
for others.
Another misapprehension, on the part of their
Pedobaptist brethren, is, that in refusing to commune with them at the Lord's table, they deny the
genuineness of their piety. But this one fact alone
Ls sufficient to show the contrary, viz., that believing
all to be pious before they can rightly receive
baptism, Baptists refuse to administer the sacred
rite to any who do not give evidence of having
become new creatures in Christ Jesus and entered into a state of salvation. It many a time
happens that they refuse a place at the Lord's table,
for the time, and upon principle, to recent converts
whom they have already received as candidates for
baptism. Will any one be so preposterous as to
affirm that they deny their Christian character, and
withhold from them all Christian fellowship and
communion, when they have already indorsed and
accepted them as true believers? Surely not.
The case is similar with respect to their Pedobaptist brethren. Their position is the same as that




164             THE BAPTISTS.
of the young converts alluded to. They are recognized as believers, but believers yet unbaptized.
And as outward church-fellowship and sacramental
communion are denied the former, so are they denied the latter, and upon precisely the same principle.
All the fervid eloquence, therefore, which has
been expended upon the enormous illiberality and
exclusiveness of the Baptists, in refusing to commune on earth with those with whom they expect to
commune in Heaven, has had no proper excitant,
and been expended uselessly.
And now, in view of all that we have said, we
confidently submit our cause to the candid and
just of all parties, believing that they will acquit
us of the charge of illiberality and narrowness.
So far, indeed, from deserving reproach, we think
the Baptists deserve the highest honor for what is
styled their close communion-terms which, as
usually applied, should be, in common justice, dis 
used, implying, as they do, that the Baptists are
narrow and exclusive in their principle and practice of communion, while, in fact, as we have so
fully shown, they are as wide and liberal as any
others-nay, as the Gospel itself.
Baptists regard themselves as, in their spheretheir true and proper sphere, not beyond it,-custodians of God's truth, and guardians of the honor
of his house. And while they do not at all claim




THEIR SPIRIT.            165
the right to interfere with the administration of
the Lord's Supper, as practiced by others, under
such conditions as they conscientiously esteem to
be right, they think that in all candor and charity
they should not be upbraided and charged with illiberality for admitting among themselves appli-#
cants for the sacred rite, upon such principles, and
under such conditions only, as they believe to have
the warrant of the word of God. They claim for
themselves only the same privilege of private judgment and the same rights of conscience, which they
now, as they have ever done, freely accord to others.
Surely there is no illiberality, no bigotry, in this!
If there be, then we beg God, in his goodness, to
give us more and yet more of it, and not only us,
but others, all-and especially those by whom we
are so unjustly and unkindly reproached.
If, as the Baptists have so often said, the Lord's
table were their table only, then they might follow
their mere natural and human, social and civil
sympathies, as they do at their own boards an;
domestic hearths, and admit others to it. But because it is the Lord's table, and not theirs, they
dare do so only upon the terms which their Lord
has prescribed.
We believe that in their scriptural strictness of
communion, modern Baptists have a most important mission to fulfill. It is to keep pure the ordinances of God's house-to lift up and keep on high




166              THE BAPTISTS.
the standard of their glorious Leader and their
Lord; and thus, while vindicating their claim to
be his true followers, to illustrate their spiritual
and ecclesiastical connection with those noble wit
nesses for the testimony of Jesus, whose bones
"Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains eold,
E'en them who kept God's truth so pure of old,"
as well as with all who, in every age and everj
land, have, like them, "kept the faith."




VI.
POLITY OF THE BAPTISTS,
Objections to the Polity of the Baptists-Erroneous Views of
the Church-Baptist Views-The Church both a Theocracy
and a Democracy-Baptist System not more Radical than the
Gospel itself- Not Agrarian-Not Inefficient — Admirably
adapted to secure the highest Development of the Individual
Believer and the utmost Efficiency of the Churches.
T is objected to the Baptists that their church
polity is too democratic; that it is radical
and agrarian in its tendencies, deficient in
disciplinary power, and wanting, generally,
in strength and efficiency; that it gives to
the uneducated and the ignorant as much
authority and influence as to the most highly cultivated and refined; that, allowing no great, controlling, centralizing power, strifes and divisions
weakening and rending the societies which adopt
it are likely to be constantly engendered among
them; and that, providing for no fixed organic
union of all these societies, it furnishes no adequate means of making so imposing and effective
167)




168            TIIE BAPTISTS.
a demonstration before the world, as is necessary
widely, powerfully, and permanently to impress
it.
In other ages, Baptist views of the constitution
and government of the church called forth the severest denunciations.  Their enemies not only
insisted upon a prelatic authority, which the Baptists could not allow, but, with fiery zeal, upon an
ecclesiastical unity and catholicity, in which the
Baptists had no faith. Contending for unity as
though it were a mere mechanical thing, they compelled it by external pressure, and thus secured an
outward uniformity, while there was no oneness
of mind and heart. These erroneous notions, with
the unreasonable, unscriptural, and oppressive
measures which were adopted to enforce them, the
Baptists always resisted. They contended that
true unity is the unity of the spirit-the unity of
the spirit in the bonds of peace; not unity enforced
by discord and contention; not unity produced by
bonds of fear and of force. Hence, while always
insisting upon spiritual and doctrinal unity, while
uncompromisingly maintaining that there is but
one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; while fervently
praying and assiduously striving for harmony of
purpose and concert of action, they did not require
any formal and inseparable confederation of their
churches. The advocates of the false unity we
have named, regarding it as of prime importance,




THEIR POLITY.             169
naturally, therefore, looked upon the Baptists-dividing, as they supposed, the one church of Christ
into many different sects-as its worst enemies,
and the greatest barrier in the way of its realization. Hence they represented them as the sowers
of the seeds of discord, strife, and confusion, the
renders of the body of Christ, the foes of truth
and order, peace and love; and, as such, they
persecuted them with all the means which they
could command.
To all the allegations against their polity, the
Baptists might with propriety reply, that the fact
that it was instituted by Christ, and recognized
and adopted by the apostolic and primitive
churches, is a sufficient proof of its excellence, and
should be regarded by all as a satisfactory vindication. But they are not disposed thus summarily
to deal with their opponents.  They are willing,
in the light of reason, guided by the word of God,
calmly and dispassionately to consider their objections.
Baptists maintain that the church visible, as
usually represented in the Holy Scriptures, is not
a hierarchy, not an aggregation of all the professors of the true religion in the world, or in any
kingdom, province, or city, but simply a local
body of baptized believers, meeting statedly for
the worship of God and the observance of the ordinances of his house. That, as a voluntary society,
15




170             THE BAPTISTS.
it is independent of all others, competent to transact its own business in its own way, according to
the laws of Christ; under whom it is, in its own
proper sphere, sovereign, binding and loosing
with an authority from which there is no appeal
to any tribunal but that of God. That, while
owing obedience to " the powers that be," in matters purely civil and secular, and justly claiming
their protection in the exercise of all its rights, it
is essentially distinct and separate from the State,
and, in its spiritual character and relations, wholly
independent of it.  That Christ is its only Head,
its only and Supreme Ruler. That in religious
rights and privileges its members are all equal.
That among its ministers there is official parity.
That although the apostles were superior in position to all other ministers of the first churches,
their superiority did not descend to others. That,
as a peculiar class of men, raised up for special
purposes under extraordinary circumstances, which
could only exist in their own times, they could
have, in strictness, no successors.  That in all
matters of government and discipline, as well as
of faith, the Word of God is the supreme law.
That the administration of that law pertains to the
church. That hence all claims of Papal supremacy,
as well as all pretensions to prelatic, presbyterial,
and synodical authority, are to be rejected.
In thus constituting and governing His church,




THEIR POLITY.             1T1
the Baptists see the most conspicuous exhibition
of Divine wisdom and goodness. A vast overshadowing hierarchy, an all-embracing, all-absorbing, centralizing ecclesiasticism, they have ever
regarded  as fraught with evil.  While it may
have, what may seem to many, unity, strength, and
grandeur, its unity will be apparent, rather than
real, its strength carnal and human, rather than
spiritual and divine, its grandeur subversive of the
simplicity that is in Christ. The constant tendency of such a system is to corrupt the purity
and destroy the integrity of the churches of Christ,
to fetter and embarrass all the powers of the individual man, absorb his proper personality in the
common mass, and even to destroy the liberties
of the whole race. If one strong hand, like that
of Hildebrand, should grasp the reins of powerif one strong will should get command of the
mighty energies of the whole vast organism, what
fearful rule might it not bear I Or, several ambitious and unscrupulous ecclesiastics conspiring
and forming a spiritual oligarchy, how proudly
and tyrannically might they not lord it over the
heritage of God! Nor are these mere hypotheses.
They have been realized, as the finest portions of
the world, now and for ages withering under the
influence of priestly domination, testify.  How
easily and rapidly, too, under such a system, might
error, whether of faith or of practice, seizing upon




172             THE BAPTISTS.
some vital part, spread a destructive gangrene
over every portion I Where there is no such vast
and consolidated ecclesiasticism, no such centralizing hierarchy, however, the errors and abuses to
which we have referred, if not impossible, are far
less likely to arise. Each one of the many distinct
and independent communities presents a breakwater, so to speak, against the tides of error and
corruption, from any cause, or from any quarter,
setting in, and checks, if it does not altogether arrest, their progress. Like the separate and sovereign States of the American Confederacy, balancing and regulating the Federal Government, and
neutralizing any undue tendencies to consolidation, the separate and sovereign churches, counterbalancing centralizing tendencies (not less decided
ecclesiastically than politically,) furnish the only
proper pledges and sufficient guarantees of religious freedom.
Upon the Baptist theory, the church is to be
viewed in a two-fold aspect, the one having respect
to its divine, the other to its human relations.
Regarded in the one aspect, it is a theocracy;
regarded in the other, it is a pure democracy.
While, however, the church of Christ, considered in reference to its earthly relations alone, is a
pure democracy, it is such a democracy as the
world never before saw. It is not a democracy
of the promiscuous, undisciplined, and lawless




THEIR POLITY.             113
rabble. It is a democracy in which all the various
classes of humanity are supposed to be represented
in their highest types. A democracy of select men,
each one of whom is presumed to understand the
essential principles of truth and righteousness, and
to be animated by a spirit of deep and inextinguishable devotion to them; and who, therefore,
as a self-governed man, is prepared, with others
like himself, to constitute a self-governed society.
If it be said that, however excellent the Baptist
theory, it may never be realized; that in its practical development and application, grievous errors
may be made; and that, in consequence, evils of
the most serious character may result, we readily
admit the force of the objection. But God must
needs form a perfect theory-if he form a theory
at all. And if, through human folly or human
wickedness, it be not realized, surely it were very
daring, by rejection of that theory, to seem to
blame the infinitely wise and holy God. We protest against the charging upon a system divine
and perfect in all its principles and in all its tendencies, the errors and imperfections of men.
What is there in this world of error and of sin that
men do not pervert and abuse?
We will still further admit that there are some
evils incident to the administration of Baptist
church polity, to which some other ecclesiastical
15*




174             THE BAPTISTS.
organizations may not be so liable. Under this
system, the individuality of man, his right of private judgment, the sanctity of his conscience, and
his complete personal independence, are fully recognized.  This may sometimes cause him to
think more highly of himself than he ought to think,
to turn his liberty into licentiousness, to strive
to subject to his private judgment the general
sense, and to exalt his individuality into supremacy
over the whole church: thus may he cause strife,
which may end in schism.
But other systems are just as liable to abuseand to far greater abuse. Some of them greatly
weaken, if they do not destroy all proper individuality of character, violate the sanctity of the individual conscience, disregard the right of private
judgment, and subvert the proper personality and
independence of the whole man. And these, we
need not say, are evils of the greatest magnitude
-evils from which the world has widely and woefully suffered, and from which the Baptist system,
had it universally prevailed, would ever have
saved it.
In that system, the democratic element is subordinated to the theocratic element. The church,
as we have said, though sovereign with respect to
its posture and bearings toward men, is subject
with respect to its posture and bearings toward
Christ. Its theocracy regulates and controls its




THEIR POLITY.            175
democracy; so that with the bane, if there be such,
in the workings of the Baptist system, goes along
the antidote. Christ, the Head of his church, presiding over it, corrects its errors.  The Head
guides and controls the body.
The objection to what is supposed to be the
radical tendencies of the Baptist church polity,
has been often and strongly urged. This is an
old charge revived. It was brought against the
first Baptists. When they undermined the false
foundations upon which men had built, their opponents contemptuously charged them with a seditious and revolutionary spirit, and said they
"turned the world upside down."
The church polity of the Baptists is not more
radical and revolutionary than the gospel itself.
While fostering the aggressive and progressive
spirit of that, it also fosters its spirit of moderation
and conservatism. It goes no further than that.
It goes no deeper than that. Its radicalism descends no lower than the foundations of truth.
This is to be properly constructive, not destructive. It is to upbuild rather than to pull down.
It is cementive rather than disruptive. Baptists
think the want of a true radicalism one of the
chief defects of their opponents. They do not go
down to the granite foundations —they do not
penetrate to and build upon the solid and eternal
rock of divine truth, but base themselves super8*




1 6            THE BAPTISTS.
ficially upon mere mounds of sand, upon heaps of
the rubbish of antiquity, upon huge piles of human
tradition-its wood, hay, and stubble, fit only to
be burned. Well may many of them dread the
Baptist radicalism. It will undermine and destroy
their sandy foundations, as it did those of the an.
cient pharisaism of Judea and the ancient paganism of Rome.
Nor is the polity of the Baptists agrarian or
leveling in its tendencies. The charge that it is so,
originates, in many instances, far more in the defects of those who bring it, than in the polity to
which they take exceptions, and might with equal
force be urged against our elective franchise. Baptists make no war among the classes of society.
They are themselves of all classes. While, as we
should expect from the teachings of Christ and his
Apostles, composed, for the most part, of the poor of
this world, rich only in faith, they comprise many
noble, and illustrious men, and " honorable women
not a few." While now, as anciently, insisting
upon humbleness of mind-a true and universal
charity, they allow all to abide in the spheres in
which they were originally called, whether they
be high or low-the master or the servant, the
peer or the peasant, the sovereign or the subject.
And though, as members of the church, all are brethren, and one may not call another master; though
all stand upon the same broad platform of equality




TIEIR POLITY.           1i7
in spiritual rights and privileges, there is no degradation of the strong to the level of the weak; of
the educated, intelligent, and refined, to that of
those circumstantially and essentially inferior.
Some are always greater than the rest. Greater
in faith, in prayer, and every good word and work
-in force of moral and Christian character, and
therefore greater in authority and influence among
their brethren. " One star differ from another star
in glory." Though the wisest and most efficient
member of the fraternity may have a voice numerically only equal to that of him who is least so,
the suffrage of the former may be really of an hun.
dred times the weight of that of the latter.
Strifes and divisions occur more or less frequently in all communities of men, whether civil
or religious, and because they are men, imperfect,
erring, wicked men. In many instances, however,
the very conflicts and divisions which occur among
the Baptists, despite all the evils connected with
them, furnish a noble illustration, and make the
true eulogy of their polity. Though, on account
of the popular nature of their system, the outspoken, independent character of their membership,
and the absence of policy and cautious reserve,
dissensions among them may become more readily
and widely known than among some others, yet
they are usually confined to the particular churches




1 8             THE BAPTISTS.
in which they arise, and do not involve the denomination at large.
A late writer strikingly remarks: " One of the
beauties of the Baptist principle, taken as it undoubtedly is from the Bible, is that questions of strife can
hardly by any possible means become general. The
surges or ripples of discord, as the case maybe, need
something more human, as their conductors, than
the universal spirit of love and union which connect all Christians together, and make them one
in Christ Jesus. When these broad systems of
human policy are wanting, as they are in our denominational belief, waves of strife must die abortive on their own narrow strand. They cannot
ruffle or disturb the sea of Christian love."
A petty dispute, in a petty parish, has been
known to embroil the whole English hierarchy.
The misconduct of a single bishop has for years
disturbed and embarrassed the Protestant Episcopal church of this country. A private feud between
two prominent preachers, a few years since, convulsed with excitement one, if not two, of the largest
and most influential Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal church South, and extended its baleful influences still more widely. "It was in great
part by a single case of discipline, that the Presbyterian denomination in our country, was divided
into the Old and New Schools. And this result,"
continues the writer, in whose words the statement




THEIR POLITY.            1 9
is given, "grew out of the fact that a'human'
system of church government rendered it necessary,
in the last resort, that the whole denomination
should, by a judicatory higher than the local
churches, review their proceedings, and confirm or
reverse their action. Under such a polity, questions
of strife must of necessity become general. But
Baptists acknowledge no judicatory higher than
the local churches. Here, if we be true to our
principles, is a safeguard against denominational
controversy on points which lie entirely within the
jurisdiction of particular congregations. In these
congregations, of right, the waves of strife rise and
fall, sending not even the faintest ripple beyond."
And when Baptists, true to their theory, " act in accordance with it, nothing can'ruffle or disturb the
sea of Christian love,' and drive the churches of
the denomination apart, like a scattered fleet."
The existence of the many sects which assume,
more or less modified, the Baptist name, because of
an agreement with the Baptists in the one article
of baptism, but which are really not identical with
them, has often given occasion to their opponents,
very unjustly, to charge the spirit of division and
schism upon them. The existence of these numerous sects, agreeing with the Baptists in respect to
the rite of baptism, but differing from them, in
many other things, is rather an argument for the
strength of their position, upon the question of




180             THE BAPTISTS.
baptism, than an argument for the weakness of
their church polity, And this fact, thus furnishing a vindication of them from an unjust charge,
and at the same time an independent and valuable
argument in their favor, upon one of the chief
points of controversy between them and others, we
trust will be properly regarded, and constantly
borne in mind by their opponents.
Some ecclesiastical communities have not life
and energy enough for strife. They have neither
interest in the great religious issues, nor independence and spirit enough for division. In others, a
spiritual absolutism keeps down, or at least in the
back-ground, the great body of the people, stifles
the voice of the individual conscience, allows no
liberty of speech or of action, and gives no room to
an out-spoken and generous freedom of discussion.
Hence their outward and apparent exemption from
strifes and divisions. An exemption which, viewed
in connection with its true cause, less honors than
dishonors them, is far less their glory than their
shame.
In respect to the charge of weakness and inefficiency in the Baptist polity, it may be said, that
while the noble principle upon which every member of the church, without respect of persons, is individually recognized and honored, may be, as we
have admitted, peculiarly liable to abuse by certain
classes of character, that very principle proves the




THEIR POLITY.            181
superior adaptation of this polity to the production
and development of the greatest efficiency and
strength.
The true theory of evangelization requires that
aih member of the church shall be a worker. He
cannot be dispensed with. No one of the servants
of Christ, however feeble or obscure, can be idle,
without, to some extent, obstructing and retarding
the progress of that great work which the Redeemer
is carrying forward in the world. He fills a place
that can be filled by no other. The Master has
assigned to each his proper place, and said, " Occupy, till I come." And we believe that the conversion
of the world to Christ will never be effected, until
this theory of the gospel is practically carried out.
For rendering effective service, the private membership of the churches have, in some important
respects, the advantage of the ministry.  The former are, more completely than the latter, identified
with all the various orders of society. Their position, habits, and pursuits, lead them to mingle
more freely and unreservedly with them. Thus
are they better prepared, in many instances, to act
effectively upon them-to speak to them more in
accordance with their peculiar modes of thought
and feeling; to become truer exponents and interpreters of that thought and feeling. This is an
advantage which can scarcely be too highly estimated. It gives to the churches a power analo16




182            THE BAPTISTS.
gous to that of those wondrous men of genius, who,
"myriad-minded," embrace within themselves the
types of all the orders of men, and who come as if
special messengers from God, to speak to the people of all ages and of all lands; to remind them of
their common nature, origin, and destiny; to counteract the tendencies to alienation of man from
man, and class from class; and, by enkindling the
same feelings, and awakening the same sentiments
in all breasts, to unite mankind in the bonds of a
common and universal brotherhood.
The efficiency of the early churches consisted
not in their officers mainly, though some of them
were Apostles, but in the whole body of the redeemed, each one of whom was a living stone in
the spiritual temple, essential to its completeness,
strength, and beauty; a living member of the spiritual body whose healthful and appropriate action was
necessary to the full performance of all its functions.
Now, we maintain that by the polity of the Baptists, as by no other, is provision made for the
practical realization of that true theory of evangelization, of which we have been speaking, and the
accomplishment of the great work whose consummation it contemplates. Under it, each one's personal rights being respected, his sense of personal responsibility is aroused. All that is generous and noble in his character, is appealed to.
He perceives that he is not lost in the common




THEIR POLITY.            183
mass, that he is no mere puppet in the hands of
others, to be used or not used as they please-that
he may himself be something, and achieve something. Thus is he stimulated in the performance
of his duty, and incited to a deep and self-denying
devotion.
As to the objection that the separate and independent character of each church, is unfavorable
to the exercise of the highest power of Christianity,
it is, like others which we have noticed, by no
means valid. That true unity which gives real
strength, and produces the highest efficiency, comes
from within rather than without. In the natural
world, union between different bodies depends
upon their having for each other inherent affinity,
which no amount of outward force can create.
Their union is chemical rather than mechanical.
Without any external impulse, kindred substances,
as if sentient and intelligent, seek each other out,
and rush to each other's embrace; and so, in
the spiritual world, things truly related, obeying
superior impulses than those of gross and insensate
matter, attract each other, and blend in the most
beautiful accord. The true churches of Christ,
however distinct and independent their several
outward organizations, are essentially one. They
breathe the same spirit, speak the same language,
mind the same things. Their strong affinity for
each other tends to an actual and outward devel



184             THE BAPTISTS.
opment.  Not more surely do the social and religious instincts of the individual Christian lead him
to seek companionship with his Christian brother,
than do similar instincts lead the individual church
to seek communion and co-operation with its sister
churches.  Thus is secured, even outwardly,
among the many distinct and independent communities of Baptists, that true unity for which Jesus
prayed, and which he so tenderly and touchingly
urged upon his people. These spiritual bodieseach in its proper sphere distinct, yet all under the
gravitating force of mutualbrespect and love, identity of character, principles and aims, which binds
each one to all the others, and the whole to the
common centre, Christ-move in concentric circles,
and thus exhibit something even more admirable
than the wondrous unity and harmony displayed
in the worlds and systems of worlds above us, in
which simplicity and beauty, unity and strength,
are so gloriously conjoired.




VII.
POSITION OF THE BAPTISTS.
Reflections against the Character and Position of the BaptistsCome with bad grace from their Opponents-Number and Diffusion of the Baptists-Cultivation and Intelligence among
them-Allegation that their Churches are composed of the Poor
of the World unworthy serious Reply-Their social and general Position.
T is sometimes disdainfully said that the Baptists are poor, illiterate, few  in number, devoid of social refinement, and occupy an unimportant position in the world. The reflections
thus cast upon them, however potent their
influence upon many minds, we regard as in
themselves altogether trivial. We might, perhaps,
find a fitting and sufficient reply to those who cast
these unworthy reflections, in the words of Nazianzen to those by whom he and his brethren were
contemned: " Where are those who reproach us with
our poverty, who define the church by the multitude, and despise the little flock? They have the
people, but we the faith."' 
In Orat. Arian. et pro seipso-as cited by Chillingworth.
(185)




186             THE BAPTISTS.
Neither wealth, nor learning, nor numbers, nor
social position, nor courtliness of manners, nor
worldly influence, have any necessary connection with piety, or the favor of God. If they
have, then the Apostles, and other early Christians, possessed neither.  They were fewer in
numbers, poorer, more illiterate, more deeply depressed socially, than the Baptists now are, even
in the view of our most prejudiced opponents.
While coming with very bad grace from those
whose ecclesiastical ancestry did so much to depress and destroy the Baptists, such uncharitable
statements, as we have mentioned, are not only in
themselves trivial, but groundless. The Baptists
of the present day are much more highly favored
than their despised and persecuted predecessors.
The lines are fallen to them in pleasant places.
They have a goodly heritage. The little one has
become a thousand, the small one a strong nation.
The Lord has hastened it in his time.
Wherever Baptists have been allowed scope
for development they show what, under auspicious circumstances, they would have been, and
would have done, in all ages, and in all lands.
Since they have obtained freedom to worship God
according to the dictates of their own consciences,
and to " sit every man under his vine and under his
fig tree, none making him afraid," they have wonderfully advanced in numbers, in wealth, in culti



THEIR POSITION.          187
vation, in social position, in general influence upon
the world.
In regard to numbers, it cannot now be said as
it has so often been sneeringly done, that the Baptists are " a mere handful." In the United States,
where they now have what they never before had
in any age or country, a wide and unobstructed
field, they are developing the inherent power of
their principles, and displaying something of that
elastic and expansive energy, which the heavy
hand of oppression and persecution so long suppressed, but could not destroy.
From about the middle of the last century, to
the American Revolution, though they then labored
under many and great disadvantages, being persecuted both in the North and in the South, by the
ruling ecclesiastical parties, they increased in this
country from about one in every four hundred of
the population, to about one in every sixty. Since
the Revolution, they have increased from one in
sixty, to one in twenty-now numbering, including
all who hold their fundamental principles, a million
and a half of actual communicants, about seven
and a half millions of adherents,-(one-fourth of
the population of our great Confederacy,)-and
having about a quarter of all the church accommodation in the whole country. While equal, numerically, to the Methodists, strictly counted,they are more than twice the number of the Pres



188             THE BAPTISTS.
byterians, and more than ten times that of the
Episcopalians.
In England and Wales, they are one of tlib most
important bodies of Dissenters from the Established
Church. In France, though almost exterminated,
along with the other opponents of the Papacy, by
the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, they still
exist. And though their churches are few and
feeble, and subjected by their enemies to constant
embarrassments, their sentiments are widely, though
as yet not very openly, spreading. Suppressed in
Germany, by persecution suffered at the hands of
the Lutherans as well as of the Romanists, they
have at length re-appeared. And notwithstanding great opposition and sore persecution, they
have increased, in about a score of years, from seven
to more than seven thousand. They exist, in considerable numbers, in Holland, where, within the
present century, the king offered them the patronage of the State, though, true to their principles,
theydeclined the proffered grace. They are found
in Denmark and in Norway, in Sweden and in
Switzerland.  In  Sweden, though embarrassed
greatly by the opposition of the ministers of the
State Church, and by many civil disabilities, they
are rapidly rising into importance.
In India, the Baptists have many churches and
communicants. They have established themselves
in China and Central Africa, have commenced a




THEIR POSITION.           189
mission to Japan, and another to Brazil. In Liberia they have several mission stations and flourishing churches. In the West Indies are some of
their strongest churches. In the flourishing English colony of Australia, their principles are now
having a wide diffusion. Among the American
Indians they have done a noble work in the translation of the Scriptures, the formation of churches,
and the establishment of schools.
Thus scattered throughout the world, set up
as lights in the midst of the darkness of every
great section of the earth, they are witnessing
now, as of old, under good report and evil report,
amid obloquy and scorn, opposition and persecution.
Nor are they, as compared with'other Christian
communities, justly chargeable with want of cultivation and intelligence. Referring to the Baptists of the time of Cromwell and the Commonwealth, William R. Williams says, " In literature,
it is honor enough that our sentiments were held
by the two men who displayed, beyond all comparison, the most creative genius, in that age of English literature, Milton and Bunyan."' One of the
most accomplished oriental scholars, as well as one
of the ablest expositors of the Holy Scriptures,
during the last century, was John Gill. The scholar
who was deemed, in his day, the profoundest oriMiscellanies, Life and Times of Baxter, p. 202.




190             THE BAPTISTS.
entalist alive, was Yates of Calcutta. The man
who, as a translator of the Scriptures, has been called
the Tyndale of modern times, who during the forty
years of his labors in India, in connection with his
associates, published two hundred and twelve
thousand volumes of the Bible, in forty different
languages, and of whom the venerable John Newton said, "I look to such a man with reverencehe is more to me than bishop or archbishop, he is
an apostle,"' was William Carey. And the man
who, as a translator, deserves, in some respects, a
higher place than Carey-a man whose version of
the Bible in Burmese, is pronounced by Burman
scholars, "perfect as a literary work,"' was Adoniram Judson. The profoundest, most judicious, and
most reliable theologian of the generation just gone
by, a writer whom Dr. Campbell of London styles
the "Bacon of Scripture," who "traverses with giant
steps the whole empire of Revelation and of reason
as its hand-maid," and of whose works he says
that they are " in themselves a Library," and, " with
the Bible, will suffice to make any man a first rate
theologian," was Andrew Fuller.  The most original and able essayist of the present generation, was
John Foster. Its most finished pulpit orator, and,
at the same time, a writer who united to the elegance, and much more than the strength and splen-'Anderson's History of the English Bible, p. 5n4.
Wayland's Life of Judson, vol. ii. p. 167.




THEIR POSITION.           191
dor of Addison, the purity of Swift, and the loftiness of Johnson, was Robert Hall.  One of the
most accomplished philologists of our times, a writer who has forever settled, in its philological relations at least, that long and hotly contested question, of the meaning of the word Baunteco, a thinker
who has won the title of the Jonathan Edwards of
the nineteenth century, was the late Alexander Carson. The author of the ablest exposition of that
most difficult portion of the New Testament, the
Epistle to the Romans, was Robert Haldane.
If it comported with our sense of delicacy and propriety to speak of the living as we have done of the
dead, we might easily show that among eminent living scholars and philosophers, writers and preachers,
Baptists hold no mean rank. We might point to
a preacher who rivals Whitefield-to an ethical
philosopher superior to Paley-to a writer who
combines the grace and delicate beauty of Washington Irving with much of the felicity and wealth
of illustration of Macaulay-to scholars of a richer
and profounder lore than that of Porson or of
Bentley.
There are other and yet more satisfactory evidences of the injustice of the charge now under
review. They are furnished by the universities,
colleges, theological seminaries, and other schools
innumerable, of the Baptists, for the culture and
training both of males and females.  They are




192              THE BAPTISTS.
furnished by the thousands of books and other
publications of high character, constantly issuing
from their presses. They are furnished in the pulpit, in the pew, in the social circle, in every sphere
of business, in every walk of life.
The allegation that their churches are composed
of the poor of the world, we consider unworthy
serious notice. God has so blessed them, temporally, as well as spiritually, that we could easily
demonstrate that the aggregate of wealth among
them is far greater than that of some ecclesiastical
fraternities, whose members not unfrequently put
on lordly airs, and affect to despise the Baptists
for their poverty. But to a task like this we are
unwilling to descend.
With respect to the charge that the social position of the Baptists is humble, it might be well to
inquire by what standard do those who bring it
judge. We think that " Christian is the highest
style of man." That the truer the Christian, the
truer the gentleman.  That the nearer one approaches Christ, the higher on the true scale he
rises; and that the further he recedes from him,
the lower he sinks. Tried by this standard, the
Baptists, we trust, would bear comparison with
others.
Nor, to view the matter in the light of their opponents, are the Baptists so depressed as is
charged. As we have said, they are of all classes.




THEIR POSITION.           193
We have seen that genius the most illustrious,
learning the most profound, piety the most exalted, are theirs. That though charged with poverty, they are by no means devoid of wealth.
That amiability and refinement-in a word, that
all the elements of the highest social character and
standing may be found among them.
If, then, the Baptists be so widely diffused as
we have stated; if they possess the numbers, the
intelligence, the zeal, the energy, the wealth, the
piety which we have ascribed to them, it were
impossible that their position in the world should
be so unimportant as their opponents allege. Nor
is it. In many respects, the position of no people
is more important; and, as we shall see in the
following section, the influence of none greater.




VIII.
INFLUENCE OF THE BAPTISTS.
Want of Correspondence between their Claims and their
Achievements urged against the Baptists-Mission of the Baptists-Its Extent and Difficulty-Mightiest enterprises often
carried forward upon scale of imperceptible gradations-Baptists
have achieved more than superficially appears-Have "wrought
rather than written"-What they have done-Primitive Bap.
tists-Medieval Baptists-Modern Baptists.
F the claims of the Baptists be just, why is it
that they have had no greater success in the
world? why have they not figured more in
A,    the history of the past? why are they not
now more numerous, more prominent, more
influential? These are questions often tauntingly put by the opponents of the Baptists, and are
well worthy the consideration of their friends.
To the casual and superficial observer, the Baptists may seem to have essentially failed in the
great mission upon which they profess to have
been sent. But that they have not, will appear,
if we take a just and sufficiently comprehensive
view.
(194)




THEIR INFLUENCE.           195
The mission of the Baptists is of the grandest
and most difficult character. It is nothing less
than the conquest of a world. It is the conversion
to their principles of the whole human race. We
cannot accept the views of those, who, regarding
the true mission of the Baptists as a work of
almost exclusive bearing upon certain classes of
men, would seem to us greatly too much to limit
and lower that mission. No I we believe the
mission of the Baptists is coextensive and identical
with that of the gospel itself. Theirs is the broad
commission-" Go, teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost." And in its fulfillment theirs is
the promise-" Lo, I am with you alway, even
unto the end of the world."  The true mission of
the Baptists, then, is wide as the world, durable as
time-a mission to all them that dwell on the earth,
to every kindred and tribe and people under the
whole heaven. To men of the most diverse character, culture, and circumstances-from the prince
to the peasant, from the most fastidious and courtly
gentlemen of the city, to the rudest boor of the
wilds.
We have no notion that others can, as some
suppose, preach the gospel more effectively to the
proud, the worldly, the rich, the refined, the intellectual. Those who have most of the truth, and
the spirit of the truth, are most competent ably




196             THE BAPTISTS.
and successfully to preach it. But, with all the
difficulties' that lie in the way, to convert all orders
of men from their multiform errors and sins, to a
system of perfect truth and immaculate purity, is
to effect infinitely the greatest and most arduous
work-ever attempted on the earth; and it cannot
be done in a day.
It is not accordant with the ordinary principles
of the divine economy to work otherwise than by
what might seem to men somewhat slow processes,
and upon a scale, in many instances, of almost imperceptible gradations.  Thus he created the
world, gradually evolving from the wildest and
crudest materials, a system of marvelous harmony
of parts and order of operations.  Only after long
months of preparation, does the God of nature
bring out from the bare bleak winter, the bud of
spring, the bloom of summer, and the golden grain
of autumn. He whose life is eternity can afford
to take time. " He does not drive all his work into
any one year. Amid delays and struggles, he holds
through every hour, dark or light, of every day, in
every year, His sleepless post of observant guardianship, and retains His unrelaxing grasp of the
helm of universal dominion."
"Never does he hasteNever does he rest."
We believe that Christianity has often moved




THEIR INFLUENCE.          197
forward when it seemed to stand still. Nay, that
while seeming to retrograde, it has made a true
progress-a progress which all, if they saw as God
sees, would readily recognize. It has stooped to
bound higher. It has stepped back to " gain a purchase" for a more successful effort, a surer and more
rapid advance. " Now and then there has been a
stoppage, now and then a short retrogression, but
as to the general tendency there can be no doubt.
A single breaker may recede, but the tide is
evidently coming in." The natural Israel were a
type of the spiritual Israel. The long residence
and deep depression of the former, in the land of
Ham, their marching and counter-marching in the
wilderness, before their entrance into the land of
proimise, were typical and illustrative of the career
and fortunes of the latter.
The partial and temporary failure of his people,
is doubtless designed and ordained by God, to
prepare them for ultimate and complete success.
Their reverses are necessary, it may be, to give
them a proper view of the difficulties and dangers
of their position, the number and strength of their
adversaries-above all, to impress them with a
due sense of their dependence upon the Divine
Power, and to enable them to realize the truth of
that blessed paradox-" When I am weak, then am
I strong."
He to whom a thousand years are but as a day,




198             THE BAPTISTS.
a world but as an atom, lays his plans for the infinite. He allows wicked men and institutions
long to continue, that, in the view of all his intelligent creation, they may thoroughly evolve all
the evil within them, solve the problems of sin and
error, for the instruction and profit of the whole
universe, for all eternity. Thus the mouths of
gainsayers shall be finally and forever shut, and all
the workers of iniquity put to perpetual shame.
Thus the righteous, however for a time disheartened, shall at last have their cause firmly and
eternally established. If evil principles were at
once suppressed, limited in their range, or fettered
in their operation, they might be thought less injurious than an expenditure of their whole energy,
under circumstances the most favorable to Jheir
development, would prove them  to be.   Nay,
the enemies of God might even affirm that they
were not injurious at all, but only seemed so
because of their circumscribed and embarrassed
action-that had they been allowed to operate
longer, and on a field wider and worthier, they
would have shown themselves good and not evil.
Men wonder that He who is " a jealous God," and
who will not give his glory to another, should
allow idolatry to continue for a day. But idolatry
must solve its problem. It must teach the universe its lesson-its lesson for eternity. Idolatry,
then, must have time to give its lesson. It must




THEIR INFLUENCE.          199
show itself under all its possible forms and phases.
It must go as high as it can, and as far-and it
must sink to the lowest deep to which it can go
down. So of all the forms of error and of sin
which have existed in the world.
On the other hand, truth must be put to the test.
Virtue must be tried. They too must give their
lesson to the universe-their lesson for eternity.
And to do it, they also must have time.
Taking the whole career of the Baptists into
view, it might appear that they have achieved, or
gotten into a position to achieve, far more than
would appear in a more limited range of vision.
"The men who originate the most important
movements, seldom are the men to record them.
Those who achieve the materials for history, seldom
stop to write them down. Thus far Baptists have
wrought rather than written. They have dug a
deep foundation, running under ground through the
history of Christianity in the world, and resting on
the Rock of Ages. But as a denomination they
have not occupied its pages with a description of
the lofty erections which they have reared. As
in the construction of some large building it takes
months to dig away the rubbish, and lay the foundations firm, so that the building seems long in
reaching the level of the surrounding earth, while
after tlat, it soon appears as a lofty edifice that
shall stand for ages; so thus far the progress of




200             THE BAPTISTS,
the Baptists has been slow and laborious, while
removing errors and prejudices from the minds of
nations, so as to get a clear space and settled foundation, upon which to build. But that work accomplished, the rest becomes certain, easy, and enduring. As the historian, Neander, once remarked,'There is a future for the Baptists. "7
That they have already effected a great work,
have fulfilled an important part of their high
mission, we cannot doubt. What have they done?
Taking the view which we have all along taken,
that they are the true representatives and successors of the first followers of Christ, then, whatever may have been their subsequent delinquencies,
much of the honor is theirs, under God, of the marvelous achievements of the apostolic and primitive
churches, in disseminating evangelic truth, and establishing the cause of Christ throughout the
whole known world, in the face of the combined
opposition of Jew and Gentile, Greek and Barbarian, earth and hell,-and this, though they were
few in number, without worldly influence, and, for
the most part, poor, illiterate, and despised.
And if, in this view, it be said that the guilt and
shame of the great apostasy, with its egregious
errors and its awful crimes, attaches to the Baptists-that the church of Iome was a Baptist
Curtis' Prog. Bap. Principles, pp. 367, 368




THEIR INFLUENCE.          201
church, and its bishop a Baptist pastor-that the
servile and obsequious churches and pastors of the
provinces, which acknowledged the supremacy of,
and crouched before, the proud and imperious
church of the metropolis, were Baptist churchesthat they suffered to come, if they did not bring,
upon the world, the thousand years of night, with
all its horrors-that its rank growth of deadly
nightshade, its flocks of obscene and ill-omened
birds, its nests of envenomed reptiles, its dreariness and gloom, its chill and stupor, its noxious,
death-diffusing exhalations, must be regarded in
some sense Baptist products,-we reply, that, these
objections against the Baptists would be equally objections against Christianity itself,-and that, even
if they were just, many circumstances of extenuation might be pleaded. The first followers of Christ
were a noble band, of whom the world was not
worthy. They were distinguished by every public and private virtue. How unselfish, how selfdenying, were they I  How deeply devoted to
God! How loving towards each other! How
magnanimous towards their enemies! How compassionate and kind to the weak, the helpless, the
suffering! How fearless in circumstances of extremest and most appalling peril!  How they
glowed with pure and unquenchable zeal! What
sublime energy did they display  What perseverance! What fortitude! The whole world was




202             THE BAPTISTS.
arrayed against them. No weapon save the sword
of the Spirit, which is the word of God, was in their
hands. That blade of celestial temper, however, was
resistless. It blazed with astrange unearthlylighta light that irradiated the darkest hovels of the poor,
that penetrated into the deepest dens of iniquity, that
burst into the marble halls of the Caesars, that revealed the abominations of the pagan priest, in the
inner shrine of the pagan temple, paled the unhallowed fires on its altars, and dispelled the black
clouds of its incense forever. Wherever gleamed
the Roman sword, there gleamed this two-edged
sword of the Spirit. Wherever perched the Roman
eagle, wherever its proud eyrie was built, there
brooded the Holy Dove, there was consecrated its
holy place. Rome herself, imperial, arrogant, and
unused to submission, at length confessed and
yielded to the power of warriors mightier.and more
invincible than her own. The statues of her gods
were broken.   Her Pantheon was demolished.
The Christian temple towered upon the ruins of
that of Jupiter Stator. The cross, once the symbol
of shame, became the badge of honor, worn near
the heart of woman, on the breast of the chivalrous
knight, and emblazoned on the flaunting banner of
the victorious army.
But, in this very success the early Christians
found disaster and defeat. By their heroism and
their hardihood, by their unparalleled virtues of




THEIR INFLUENCE.          203
every kind, by their marvelous successes, they
achieved temporal as well as spiritual glory. They
won an earthly name.    They secured  power
and place among men. And, to say nothing
of the terrible trial to their own integrity,
which all this honor caused-a trial perhaps
the hardest of all trials for humanity to bear
-it opened upon them the floodgates of all corruption from  without.  Hordes of hypocrites
pressed into the churches. The time-serving, the
self-seeking, those whose fortunes had been
wrecked, and whose hopes had been blighted, by
folly or by crime, bold and unprincipled adventurers-all, in a word, who were willing to make
a gain of godliness, and all who, like drift-wood,
follow the course of every high and sweeping current, sought the society and alliance of the people
of God. They, warmed and elated by success,
glowing with enthusiasm, and, from their own
very simplicity, conscious honesty, and rectitude
of purpose, disinclined to look suspiciously upon
any-and, in many instances, doubtless, too eager
to make proselytes-with open arms welcomed,
without proper scrutiny and wise precaution, these
professed converts. Throwing wide the doors of
the church, they admitted into the fold of Christ
these wolves in sheep's clothing. Satan himself,
changing his tactics, became a preacher of righteousness. He ceased to be the accuser of the




204             THE BAPTISTS.
brethren, and became their advocate. lie transformed himself into an angel of light. Nay, in the
person of his human representative, he, as God, sat
in the temple of God, showing himself that he was
God. Thus, all unperceived, and almost before
its best and wisest friends had more than suspicion
of it, radical and essential change had taken place.
The church of God had given place to the synagogue
of Satan. Truth fell prostrate in the streets. Every
movement for reform   was suppressed.   Every
voice that was raised in remonstrance was silenced.
In truth, then, if this view be just, the great
apostasy, so called, was, in strictness, no apostasy
at all. It was not the defection of the true people
of God. They doubtless made mistakes. They
doubtless sinned. And deeply did they suffer for
it. But they were still, and to the last, loyal to
their King. That so-called apostasy was but the
natural and necessary development of the essential principle and spirit of those who, whilo
among God's people, were not really of themthose who had "stolen the livery of the court of
Heaven to serve the devil in."  It was but the
apparent and temporary triumph of the powers of
darkness, permitted by God, in part, it may be, to
rebuke the mistakes of policy, and punish other
and worse delinquencies of his people; in part, to
teach them their own weakness, the subtilty, and
strategy, and strength of the great Adversary, and




THEIR INFLUENCE.          205
their constant and absolute dependence upon a
higlher and mightier than human aid.
But, as we have already seen in a previous portion of this work, God did not leave himself, in those
dark days, without a witness on the earth. Amid
innumerable false, many were still true. In some
instances, perhaps, they had an outward and nominal
connection with the enemies of God. But it was
a connection involuntary and constrained. There
was no spiritual and real affiliation. The oil and
the water flowed along in the same channel; but
they were oil and water still. Hence, from time
to time, as opportunity offered, in opposition to
the enemy that had come in as a flood, a standard
was set up and bravely sustained, till overwhelming
odds coming against it, death paralyzed the hand
by which it was upheld. Of such revolts against
the established hierarchy there are many records.
And, without question, there would have been
many more, had not that hierarchy, as we have
said, held the pen as well as the sword.
Even in the very midnight of the ages, when the
powers of darkness seemed supreme, there were
many more than seven thousand men who had not
bowed the knee to the Baal of Rome, and whom
God concealed, and would not suffer to be touched.
These, for the most part, we have shown were
essentially Baptist in principle and in spirit.
Now these poor people, despised and afflicted,
18




206             THE BAPTISTS.
whose names were cast out as evil, and who,
whenever and wherever they appeared, were driven
out from before the face of men, into the wilderness, the clefts of the rocks, the dens and caves of
the earth-these men were the salt of the earth, at
the time of its deepest corruption-the light of
the world, when the world most needed light.
Who, then, shall say that, even when weakest
and most depressed, the Baptists failed? Failed I
Nay, they were then doing, in some respects, their
greatest work.  Alone, they were keeping the
bridge of truth, against the overwhelming odds of
error.  They were standing in the Thermopyle
of the ages. They were throwing themselves into
the terrible breach that had been made, by the
hosts of hell, in the walls of Zi6n. And they saved
Zion.
We do not know but that dark as is this portion of the Christian ages, it is, in some aspects of it, the most interesting of them all. Perhaps, too, it was as important as any of them to
the final success and permanent establishment of
Christianity. In the economy of nature, winter is
as important as spring, night as necessary as day,
clouds as indispensable as sunshine. In winter,
nature is not dead, nor asleep, nor inactive.  In
the inner chambers of her great laboratory, she is
busily and effectively at work. She is preparing
for all those wonderful transformations which the




THEIR INFLUENCE.           207
advancing year shall disclose, when the flower
shall bud and bloom in mead and valley, the grass
grow green over hill and dale, the forests come
forth in gorgeous sheen, and all imprisoned life
find full enlargement. So, in the economy of grace,
wintry seasons, seasons of darkness, are not necessarily fruitless. They may be seasons of a true
inward and spiritual activity, seasons of real progress, however inappreciable by the common eye.
During those gloomy ages, our Baptist forefathers were preparing the way of the Reformers.
They were erecting the pedestals on which stand the
colossal figures of Luther and Melancthon, Calvin
and Zuinglius, with their illustrious compeers,pedestals, however, far grander and more enduring
than the statues surmounting them. It was they
who had, under God, made the Reformation possible.  " Their views," says Underhill, "formed the
ultimate idea of the great movement of the Reformation."' Arnold of Brescia, an earnest opponent
of infant baptism, and a noble champion of liberty,
sacred and secular, "produced an immense effect
upon Europe and his age, and gave an impulse to
those reforming movements in the church of Rome,
that are distinctly traceable as the germs from
which, four hundred years later, sprang the great
Protestant Reformation."' Others, like him, holdRel. Lib. p. 194.
9 Curtis' Prog. Bap. Prin., p. 24.




208             THIE BAPTISTS.
ing the great primordial principle of the Baptists,
that "the church can consist only of holy and
pious persons," contributed equally to that grand
result. " In times of ignorance and unbelief," says
the German theologian Knapp, "they have been
the depositaries of uncorrupted Christianity.
Without the Waldenses, the Wickliffites, and the
Hussites, the Reformation would not have taken
place."' Gibbon says, "The visible assemblies of
the Paulicians, or Albigeois, were extirpated by
fire and sword; and the bleeding remnant escaped
by flight, concealment, or Catholic conformity.
But the invincible spirit which they had kindled,
still lived and breathed in the western world. In
the state, in the church, and even in the cloister,
a latent succession was preserved of the disciples
of St. Paul, who protested against the tyranny of
Rome, embraced the Bible as the rule of faith, and
purified their creed from all the visions of the
Gnostic theology. The struggles of Wickliffe in
England, of Russ in B.ohemia, were premature and
ineffectual; but the names of Zuinglius, Luther,
and Calvin are pronounced with gratitude as the
deliverers of nations."2  The authors of the History of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands
say, "Before the name of Luther as a Reformer
Christian Theology, p. 474.
Milman's Gibbon, vol. v. pp. 398, 399.




THEIR INFLUENCE.           209
was known, it appears that the Anabaptists in
this land carried on the work of Reformation,
originally undertaken by others, and drew many
from the Romish church to them, and rebaptized
them. Had these Anabaptists then possessed
really learned men, how great would have been
the harvest reaped from the good seed which
they had scattered I In all probability all the
light which now shines in Europe would have
emanated from their community, and at a much
earlier period."'
The constant persecutions to which they were
exposed, and the denial to them, so far as was
possible, of all the means of mental culture and
development, were the cause of their want of
"really learned men." But, despite all difficulties,
they had still kept burning, however remotely and
obscurely, the fires of truth and freedom, at which
was lighted the torch of many a brave Reformer,
who bore it blazing in the darkness far and wide.
The great principles of the supreme authority of
the Holy Scriptures, justification by faith, the right
of private judgment, and all the doctrines that
made the Reformation popular and successful, they
had always held.
Thus, long before the time of Luther, had the
Hist. Neth. Ref. Ch., Translation in S. Bap. Rev., April,
1859.
18*




210             TIE BAPTISTS.
Baptists sowed the seed of the great harvest of
Reform. And although, when just springing up
and adorning with living green the fields of Central and Western Europe, it sometimes seemed
about to be destroyed, it did not die.  God himself threw over it his mantle, which, while concealing, protected it. The snows of winter lay
thick upon it, not to blight, but to preserve, till, in
due time, under the genial influence of softer skies
and brighter suns, balmier airs and more refreshing
showers, the fields white unto the harvest, the
grain ripe for the sickle, the great Reapers should
come. Then stepped forth Luther and his compeers; and at once, to speak without a figure, they
found a people prepared.  Hence it was that so
soon after they raised the standard of reform, so
many millions rallied around it.
If these views be just, then, to the Baptists
rightly belongs no little of the credit of the Reformation, and of the glorious results to truth and
freedom, civil and religious, which have flowed
from that mighty movement of the human mind.
But greater credit still is theirs. For had the
Reformers been as consistent and thorough-going
as they, the work of Reformation had not stopped
where it did, in mid-career.  It had not so soon
declined. It had not so soon itself needed reformation. There would not be room, at this late
day, for saying in reference to it, as a distinguished




THEIR INFLUENCE.           211
follower of Luther, the Chevalier Bunsen, has said,
"lThe question at this moment is, not how to carry
out, but how to prepare, a second, grand, reconstructive Reformation. The porch of the temple
must first be more thoroughly cleansed than it
was in the sixteenth, and, above all, restored more
honestly than it was in the seventeenth, century;
and, lastly, the work must be handled more practically than has yet been done by the critical German school of this age."' Nor would the followers of Luther now maintain that "the body and
blood of Christ are actually present in the bread
and wine of the sacrament."  They would not
retain "the rites of confession, absolution, and exorcism," and allow " the use of images in worship."
They would not be, as they are, but "little less
intolerant toward other forms of Protestantism
than Romanism itself."  They would not be, as
" in Sweden, the support of an absolute despotism."
Their clergy would not "have the control of the
people, in all the circumstances and relations of
life, and leave them scarcely a vestige of personal
freedom."
Since the era of the Reformation, when the Baptists first came forth from their long and deep retreats-the woman emerging from the wilderness' ippolytus and his Age, vol. ii. Int. p. 18: 2d ed., London,
1864.




212             THE BAPTISTS.
— though they have constantly labored under many
disadvantages, they have made great progress, and
exerted broadly upon the world an influence of the
highest and most beneficial character.
In the Netherlands, they aided the great Prince
of Orange in his struggle with the bloody bigot of
Spain, and thus contributed effectively to the establishment of the Dutch Republic, and to the
mighty influence which it exerted in behalf of
human freedom   throughout the world.  When
William's affairs wore their gloomiest aspect, when
his most powerful friends failed him, when his
coffers were empty, and his cause seemed desperate, they came, bringing their hard-earned savings
and their earnest sympathies, to his relief. Of this
statement, there are most affecting illustrations.
"A poor Anabaptist preacher collected a small
sum from a refugee congregation on the outskirts
of Holland, and brought it, at the peril of his life,
into the Prince's camp. It came from people, he
said, whose will was better than the gift. They
never wished to be repaid, he said, except by kindness, when the cause of reform should be triumphant in the Netherlands, The Prince signed a
receipt for the money, expressing himself touched
by this sympathy from these poor outcasts. In
the course of time, other contributions from similar
sources, principally collected by dissenting preachers, starving and persecuted church communities,




THEIR INFLUENCE.           213
were received. The poverty-stricken exiles contributed far more, in proportion, for the establishment of civil and religious liberty, than the wealthy
merchants or haughty nobles." 
In England, the Baptists have long made themselves known and felt in every department of the
realm. They assisted Cromwell and the Parliament in crushing the tyranny of the Stuarts. Baxter, an ardent royalist as well as Pedobaptist, and
objecting as much to the political as to the religious opinions of the Baptists, ascribed to them "the
chief events which hurried on the subversion of
monarchy and the establishment of a republic."
They filled Cromwell's armies with "preaching,
and praying, and valiant men." And when Cromwell gave signs of himself playing the tyrant, they
boldly withstood him. In their preaching, in their
writings, in their lives, free or in chains, in the
dungeoh or on the scaffold, they heroically maintained their principles. " In the cause of religious
and political freedom, it was the lot of our community to labor, none the less effectively because
they did it obscurely, with Keach, doomed to the
pillory, or, like Delaune, perishing in the dungeon.
The opinions, as to religious freedom, then professed by our churches, were not only denounced
by statesmen as rebellion, but by grave divines as' Motley's Rise of the Dutch Republic, vol. ii. pp. 250, 251.




214             THE BAPTISTS.
the most fearful heresy. Through evil and through
good report they persevered, until what had
clothed them with obloquy, became, in the hands
of later scholars and more practiced writers, as
Locke, a badge of hon6r and a diadem of glory.
Nor should it be forgotten, that these views were
not with them, as with some others, professed in
the time of persecution and virtually retracted
when power had been won. Such was, alas, the
course of names no less illustrious than Stillingfleet and Taylor. But the day of prosperity and
political influence was with our churches the day
for their most earnest dissemination. Their share
in shoring up the falling liberties of England, and
in infusing new vigor and liberality into the constitution of that country, is not yet generally acknowledged. It is scarce even known. The dominant
party in the church and the state, at the Restoration, became the historians; and'when the man,
and not the lion, was thus the painter,' it was easy
to foretell with what party all the virtues, all the
talents, and all the triumphs would be found.
When our principles shall have won their way to
more general acceptance, the share of the Baptists
in the achievements of that day will be disinterred,
like many other forgotten truths, from the ruins
of history. Then it will, we believe, be found,
that while dross, such as has alloyed the purest
churches in the best ages, may have been found in




THEIR INFLUENCE.           215
some of our denomination, yet the body was composed of pure and scriptural Christians, who contended manfully, some with bitter sufferings, for
the rights of conscience and the truth as it is in
Jesus; that to them English liberty owes a debt
it has never acknowledged; and that amongst
them Christian freedom found its earliest and some
of its staunchest, its most consistent, and its most
disinterested champions. "'
But it is in the United States that the Baptists,
since the Reformation, have made the greatest progress, and exercised the widest and strongest influence. Here they have a congenial clime, a large
and open field, rich soil, and every facility for its
cultivation.
In the establishment of the free institutions
which are the glory of the American people, they
performed a most important part. In Virginia,
the most populous and influential of the colonies,
they enthusiastically rallied around the great orator, whose voice crying, " Give me liberty or give
me death!" was arousing the people to resistance
of British oppression.
And as in Virginia, so throughout the whole
country, they everywhere espoused the cause of
freedom. When the war commenced, their sons
enlisted in the army, and their ministers acted as
1 W. R. Williams' Miscellanies, pp. 202, 203.




216             THE BAPTISTS.
its chaplains.  "The Baptists," says Backus,
"were so generally united with their country in
the defense of its privileges, that when the General Court at Boston, passed an act in October,
1778, to debar all men from returning into their
government whom they judged to be their enemies, and named three hundred and eleven men
as such, there was not one Baptist among them.,
Yet there was scarce a Baptist member in the
Legislature which passed this act."1
But not only was their influence felt on the
field. It was equally felt in the council. The
first Continental Congress, held in Philadelphia,
1774, had not been ir-session ten days before they
presented a memorial setting forth that they
" united with their country in defense of its privileges," and beseeching its assembled representatives
to secure at once the recognition of the inalienable rights of conscience. In behalf of these rights,
they presented other memorials and addresses,
some of which are eminently distinguished for
clearness of statement, force of argument, and eloquence of expression.
"They were to a man," says an able writer
in the Baptist Family Magazine, "the friends of
liberty, both civil and religious, and the friends
of liberty gradually recognized and honored
IIist.. E. Baptists, in Bap. Lib., vol. i. p. 160.




THEIR INFLUENCE.          217
them. In Virginia, they overthrew the persecutoing hierarchy, by patient suffering and persevering
testimony to the truth. Patrick Henry, Jefferson,
Madison, and Washington aided their efforts. The
constitution of Virginia was moulded on their
principles of religious liberty in 1776. The North
Western Territory, ceded by Virginia to the Union,
by the ordinance of 1787, was set apart to the same
principles forever. The Constitution of the United
States was amended in 1789, so as to prohibit Congress ever to legalize a religious establishment, or to
invade the rights of conscience in any manner or
degree. This was a grand triumph of Baptist principles in this country; or more properly of New
Testament principles, for which alone Baptists
have pleaded and suffered. It was a national acknowledgment of the authority of Jesus Christ
over his own kingdom in the human soul. Such
an acknowledgment, no nation, as such, had ever
made before. It was a new era in the world's history. It was the beginning of a new epoch in
Christendom."
The influence of the Baptists, so great upon the
civil institutions of our country, has been, notwithstandingthe determinedresistance encountered,
yet greater upon its religious establishments. It
has changed the whole character and aspect of
American Christianity.  "The practices of our
brethren around us have burst the restraints of
19




218             THE BAPTISTS.
their written formularies, and some of them have
but to state their positions to their own consciousness, and they are Baptists at once."1  Indeed,
Bushnell, Mines, Nevin, and others confess that
several of the leading Pedobaptist denominations
of the country are, to say the least, " Semi-Baptist."
This acknowledgment on the part of prominent
Pedobaptists, whether intended as such or not,
may be justly claimed as a tribute to the influence
of the Baptists.
That all these denominations powerfully feel the
pressure of that influence, is evident from many
considerations.  We name only one. It is that
of the ever-weakening hold, upon the minds and
hearts of their membership, of that doctrine which
has been always the main support of their ecclesiastical systems. While in all European countries
where there are no Baptists, or where from any
cause their influence is slight, all, or nearly all the
children are baptized, in the United States, where
the Baptists are so numerous and their influence
so great, "not one child in ten receives the rite."
Throughout the whole country, and we think
mainly through the influence of the Baptists, under
God, infant baptism, that bane of Christianity, is
"waxing old, effete, and ready to vanish away."
We state these things in no boastful or unchari-' Cutting's Hist. Vind., p. 52.




THEIR INFLUENCE.           219
table spirit, but as simple matters of fact, strikingly
illustrative of the extent and power of that influence
of the Baptists which so many affect to despise,
and of which they so slightingly speak.
But, though the influence of the Baptists, in modern times, has been and still is greatest in England
and the United States, the two freest and most enlightened nations of the world, it is by no means
confined to them. At this moment it is powerfully
felt in every quarter of the world.  They have
been the leaders in the great enterprise of modern
missions to the heathen.  "In the year 1784, at a
Baptist Association held at Nottingham, it was determined that one hour on the first Monday evening of every month should be devoted to solemn
and special intercession for the revival of genuine religion, and for the extension of the kingdom of Christ
throughout the world; hence the origin of Monthly
Missionary Prayer Meetings,"' whose vast and
blessed influence, for the last three quarters of a century, in keeping alive the missionary spirit at home,
and carrying forward the missionary work abroad,
no finite mind can estimate.
In his work on India as a Field of Missions,
Macleod Wylie, speaking of the Baptists, says"Without any reference to their operations or in.
fluence elsewhere, it is but fair to say that to them,
1 IHarir  Great Coiumission, p. 1~1,




220             THE BAPTISTS.
above all other Christian bodies, this part of India
(Bengal) is deeply indebted. Not only have their
churches in Great Britain and America sent out
some of the most distinguished missionaries who
ever preached the gospel-for such certainly were
Carey, Marshman, and Ward, Chamberlaine, W.
H. Pearce, and Yates, in Bengal; and Judson and
Boardman in Burmah-but they have sent out
to India more than any other portion of the Christian church." After having said, that "of one hundred and twenty-nine European and American
missionaries, no less than eighty-four are Baptists,"
he adds-" Had all the branches of Christ's church
done as much for Bengal in proportion to their
numbers and wealth, as the Baptists have done, we
should have hundreds of missionaries where we
have tens."
In a recent volume upon the gospel in Burmah,
in which is recited the story of its introduction and
marvelous progress among the Burmese and
Karens, the wife of the author just quoted, though
herself, like her husband, of a different Christian
communion, bears yet higher testimony to the
Baptists. An English Presbyterian, speaking of
that wondrous "story " which Mrs. Wylie so well
tells, lately said, as is stated in a recent notice of
her work, that "the history of American Baptist
missions among the Burmese and Karens, reads
like a continuation of the Acts of the Apostles."




THEIR INFLUENCE.           221
An essential part of the missionary work is the
translation and circulation of the Holy Scriptures.
In this department of evangelical effort, the Baptists have always been distinguished. They have
outstripped all others. Even in the time of their
sorest persecution, and deepest depression, the
Waldensian Baptists were indefatigable in their labors for the diffusion of the pure word of God, not
only in their own, but in other communities. Their
great leader, Waldo, " caused the Scriptures to be
translated into the language of the people, and
sent his disciples abroad at the same time, travqling incessantly from one region to another. In his
Historical Inquiry, Ten Cate ascribes in great degree to "the circulation of translations of the Bible"
the astonishing prevalence of their principles,
throughout Europe, before and at the time of the
Reformation.  "Since the word of God was the
foundation upon which they stood, they were desirous that it should be as widely known as possible. The Scriptures could go where the Waldensian preachers could not; and where their preachers
had been, their preaching could be confirmed by the
Bible." Their "persecutors themselves declared that
the translations of the Scriptures must be considered
as the chief cause of the spread of the Waldensian
opinions," and "with all their might " opposed them.
But the Waldenses were not terrified. In the face
of all opposition, these noble witnesses for the
19




222             THE BAPTISTS.
truth persisted heroically in their blessed work.
"When they came into the Netherlands, they took
care to translate the Bible into the Dutch and Flemish languages."
The successors of these men, whose descendants
were afterward known in Holland as Baptists, inherited their principles and their spirit. Long and
patiently did they labor, by the slow process of
writing to multiply copies of the Holy Book for
those who were perishing for lack of knowledge.
At length the art of printing, denounced by the
slaves of superstition as the device of the devil,
came, a glorious gift from God, to facilitate and
lighten their labors. And "before the end of the
fifteenth century, more than one Dutch transla.
tion of the Scriptures was given to the public;
in 1477, at Delft; in 1479, at Gonda; in 1481, at
Utrecht; in 1486, at Harlem; in 1487, at Zrolle;
and in 1493, at Deventer."
Inspired by Baptist principles, Wickliffe,
"morning star of the Reformation," and Tyndale, in
England, its very "dawn," have both laid the
world under obligations for their translations of
the Scriptures, and the self-sacrificing efforts which
they made to give them to the people.
Nor have the later Baptists proven recreant to
the Bible-loving spirit of their ancestors. The
London Quarterly Review, referring, in 1809, to
the labors of Carey and his associates, in India,




THEIR INFLUENCE.          223
says: " They have translated the whole Bible into
Bengali, and have by this time printed it. They
are printing the New Testament in the Sanscrit,
the Orissa, Mahratta, Hindostani, and Guzarat,
and translating it into Persic, Felinga, Karnata,
Chinese, the language of the Seikhs and of the
Burmans; and in four of these languages they are
going on with the whole Bible." After remarking
further upon the' extraordinary" character of their
achievements, that celebrated journal affirms that
" in fourteen years" they" have done more towards
spreading the knowledge of the Scriptures among.the heathen, than has been accomplished by all the
world besides."
In addition to their achievements in translating and publishing the Word of God, "the missionaries of the English Baptist Society, among
their incidental labors, have written and published
fourteen grammars and nine dictionaries, mostly of
languages in which no such works previously
existed."
In connection with the work of Bible translation
by the Baptists, we might say as much of Judson
as we have said of Carey. But it is not necessary.  All know the achievements, in this behalf,
of "Burmah's great Missionary."
In view of all the facts which have been adduced,
who shall say that the influence of the Baptists
upon the world, has been, is, or is destined to be,




224           -TIE BAPTISTS.
slight?  Great, however silent and unobserved,
has been that influence in all the Christian ages
gone by. Great, at this moment, is it in every
quarter of the world. And greater, far greater, is
it yet to be upon coming generations. "One or
two great ideas," says Professor Curtis, "are evidently at work among the masses of thinking men.
One is what may be termed the essential voluntariness of all true religion, and, therefore, of all true
church-membership. That piety is not a thing of
mere education, to be learned by rote simply through
creed and catechism; not a thing to be professed
by proxy, or indeed to be professed at all without
the surrender of a man's own heart to God; and
that all forms and rites without that are worthless.
It is evident, on a moment's reflection, that either
this idea must destroy Pedobaptism, or else Pedobaptism must destroy it. Which does the pious
Christian wish to be victorious? Certain as destiny it is, that the aggressive principle will here
prove triumphant. There is another great truth
at work with progressive power, throughout the
whole world, both in Church and State. It is the
principle of self-government, as the most proper of
all authorities, because resting with greatest faith
and most immediately upon the universal government of God. To that all the revolutions of Europe are tending; to that, the peaceful extension
of our own national principles. It were as useless




THEIR INFLUENCE.           225
to attempt to silence the thunder by a word, or to
roll back the falling waters of Niagara, as to stay
the progress of these opinions. The world is full
of them, and the churches are full of them. We
believe that whoever examines carefully, will perceive that our principles, as Baptists, present
the most complete living embodiment of these
ideas. "'
Thus, wide-spread and mighty, under the smiles
of Heayen, has been and is the influence of the
Baptists in the world. Thus onward has been the
course of their principles, despite every difficulty
and every foe. And whatever checks, in the Providence of God, mayhereafter impede their progress,
whatever outward reverses they may suffer, those
principles, because they are the principles of Christianity itself, must and will advance until their
great mission is fulfilled, and throughout the whole
earth " one Lord, one faith, and one baptism" are
loyally and lovingly acknowledged.' Communion, pp. 275, 276.




IX.
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
Recapitulation-Nothing Arrogant-No intentional Disparagement of Others-Boastful and Vain-glorious Spirit Disclaimed
-The Work commended to the Blessing of God and to the
kind and candid Attention of the Reader.
-IITTUS have we seen the apostolic origin
and character of the Baptists-their exi-tence in all ages-the scriptural breadth
X     ~of their views-the expansiveness and
liberality of their spirit-the simplicity,
strength, and efficiency of their politythe importance of their position-the extent and
beneficial character of their influence upon the
world.
The high claims which we have instituted in behalf
of the Baptists, will, to some, seem arrogant. And
we grant that they would be so, if unsustained by
clear and convincing evidence of their validity.
Such evidence we think we have furnished. If
we have done so, we do not see how arrogance
can be charged either against them, or the most
(226)




CONCLUDING REMARKS.         227
emphatic and unequivocal assertion of them.
However that may be, we think we shall at least
be acquitted of uncharitableness of spirit and harshness of language in their presentation. We have
endeavored to speak the truth; and much more in
defense of our injured brethren, than in aggression
upon others.  And we should deeply regret, if,
while zealously striving to vindicate the Baptists
from unjust charges, we should seem to be unjust
to even their most prejudiced and inveterate opponents.
Exception will, perhaps, be taken to what may
seem an implied disparagement of the claims of
others  But, in asserting our own just claims,
whatever they may be, we assume no more than we
are ready to accord to others. We are perfectly
willing that all should make and maintain, as best
they can, such claims as they consider just; and
however high, if fairly established, we trust we
shall not want the candor and the justice to concede them. We ask, for ourselves, a respectful
and candid estimate of the evidence we adduce in
support of our claims, and a concession of them
only in so far as that evidence, when justly
and generously weighed, may properly entitle
us to it.
Some will probably charge us with a boastful,
vain-glorious spirit. But for ourselves and our
brethren, we would earnestly disclaim such a




224             THE BAPTISTS.
spirit. God forbid that we should be of the number of those who, exalting themselves, shall be
abased. Any advantage which we may possess,
is such as the truth gives us. And for this we
would humbly and gratefully acknowledge ourselves wholly indebted to the sovereign grace of
the God of truth. So far from indulging a spirit
of self-glorification, we would make the very consideration of the favors conferred upon us, an occasion of humility, remembering that of those to
whom much is given, much will be required.
With these views, and in this spirit, we commend the foregoing pages to the blessing of God,
trusting that they may bear some humble part in
promotion of the divine glory, and be of some
service, both to those in whose defense they have
been prepared, and to those whose unjust imputations have given occasion to their preparation;
leading both parties to the cultivation of a deeper
devotion to truth and righteousness, and to the ex.
ercise of a broader and more fervent charity.
THE END.