The New Directory for Baptist Churches

As a prerequisite for this course you must have completed
and passed the course on
    Salvation
    The Church
    The Bible

This course is based upon and uses the entirety of the classic book:

The New Directory for Baptist Churches
by Edward T. Hiscox

Edited by Dr. T.E. VanBuskirk
That book has been divided into lessons with questions; and,
links to the tests have been added where necessary.

The text itself has been edited only slightly and then mostly for
purposes of clarification or arrangement into lesson form and
correction of spelling and punctuation errors caused when
the book was originally scanned into electronic medium.
Archaic spelling of words has been left intact.

Some small amount of editing of content has also been done to
bring the book into exact agreement with the scriptures.
These places are clearly marked as "Ed. Note."

CHAPTER XI

Few questions can be so vitally important to any Church, whether as relates to its own peace and prosperity, or to the success of the work it is appointed to do, as that of the kind of ministry which shall serve and lead it.

No greater blessing can be granted of Heaven to a Church than a capable, judicious, pious pastor; and no greater calamity can befall one than to have an incompetent, unfaithful, secularized, and worldly minded minister. The people naturally contemplate the office with feelings of reverence, and consequently regard the incumbent with very great deference, to say the least. The young, in a special manner, consider what he says as true, and what he does as right. The position commands high regard, for the minister is looked upon not only as a teacher, but as an example. He is, therefore, accepted as the one who is to illustrate, by his private walk and public deportment, the doctrines and morals which he inculcates from the pulpit.

The old prophet's declaration, "like people, like priest," is as true now as when Hosea uttered it.

For where the people have freedom of choice, and select their own pastors, they will choose them on the plane of their own religious thinking and acting. Moreover, there is a constant tendency, on the part of the preacher, to keep somewhere near the standard of the people. It requires a heroic effort for the pulpit to rise far above the level of the pews, as to Christian teaching and consecration, and he who long sustains himself in that position may expect, sooner or later, to hear the mutterings of discontent. But then, contradictory as it may seem to be, the converse of the prophet's epigram is equally true: "like priest, like people." Indeed, this is the form in which the proverb is usually quoted by the laity, as a salient thrust at an unfaithful or incompetent pastor, supposing they are quoting Scripture. The implication is, that if the Church is not right, it is the fault of the pastor. To a large extent this may be true, and the censure just. For, to a large extent, by faithful, judicious, and persistent endeavor, a godly pastor can mould and win the Church to a higher standard. To that extent will the spirit of all powerful grace work with him and for him, while an unworthy and carnally-minded man in the pulpit will surely degrade and lower the standard of piety among his people to somewhere near his own.

The old prophets – notably Jeremiah – represented the people of Israel under the similitude of a flock, led, and fed, and guarded by shepherds, called pastors. It was a, promise of peculiar favor by Jehovah, that He would give them pastors after His own heart; while the lamentation over some of their heaviest calamities was that the shepherds destroyed the flock, and fed themselves instead. The same figure Jesus used when He declared Himself to be the Good Shepherd that gave His life for the sheep. The relationship between pastor and people is intimate, vital, and sacred. Woe to the churches and the cause of Christian truth, when they have not a faithful, capable, and spiritual ministry!

Christian congregations under the control of State-churchism, or subject to ecclesiastical domination, cannot choose their own pastors, but receive such as are sent them. All the currents of religious life stagnate under such a system. It is one of the first and most important fruits of religious liberty and Church independency, that congregations of Christian worshipers can elect their own religious teachers. They may make mistakes, but they insist on the right, and they will not willingly submit to the dictation or control of others in this regard, either from civil or ecclesiastical authority. This is a point Baptists have always emphasized, maintaining this as well as other expressions of religious freedom for the individual Church.

The ministry is of divine appointment, and its purpose is to instruct and edify the Church, and to bear the knowledge of salvation abroad to the world. As a means and medium of spiritual good to men, the Gospel ministry stands preeminent; it is without a parallel among beneficent agencies.

Every true disciple is under obligation to preach the Gospel according to his ability and opportunity; but the economy of grace anticipated the need of special leaders and teachers for the congregations of the saints, and the Spirit of God moves on and fits certain men for the work, while the providence of God develops and calls forth their ministry. It is all under the direction of the chief Shepherd and Bishop of souls, who sends among His people the under shepherds.

This work He began while among men. He "... ordained twelve, that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach." – Mark 3:14. Also, "After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before His face into every city and place, whither He Himself would come." – Luke 10:1. And His final instructions, as He was about leaving them, were: "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 28:19, 20.

I. HOW THE MINISTRY ORIGINATES

Does the ministry grow out of the churches, or the churches out of the ministry? These are questions which require thoughtful care to answer correctly. Which is first in the order of time, and according to the genius of the Gospel?

Where the Gospel is proclaimed, converts will be made and churches will arise. Converts will associate, will assimilate, will aggregate, and so become churches. These are the sheaves brought together on the harvest field, and bound in bundles for the Master's use; the fruit of the seed sowing. Also, where there are churches a ministry will be developed. Jesus preached the Gospel of the kingdom, and disciples were gathered – gathered and assimilated, and held together as a band by the attraction of His personal presence and influence. A Church, we may say, inchoate and unorganized; but still, to all intents and purposes, an ekklesia, called out from the world and concenterd about Himself. The centripetal force of their fellowship did not die with His removal from among them. They kept together after His death, and especially after His resurrection. At the Pentecost the number of converts increased, under the preaching of Peter, by the power of the Spirit; the Church became more clearly developed, and more definitely organized. With the increase of the Church the ministers increased, until, not very long after, on the breaking out of persecution, they went everywhere, preaching Christ. Heralds of the glad tidings were multiplied; they were begotten of the Spirit and born of the Church in such abundance as the occasion required.

Thus has it ever been, and thus must it ever be. Our ascended Christ furnishes for the churches, and from the churches, the only true Gospel ministry. They are not by natural descent of one appointed lineage, as was the Aaronic priesthood, from the loins of Levi – born with a prescriptive right to the sacred office. They are not to be assigned by either civil or ecclesiastical establishments to the "cure of souls," with only a perfunctory knowledge of, and fitness for, the place. "... When He ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." – Eph 4:8, 11. These were Christ's "ascension gifts" to His churches, and these He continues to bestow, in one form or another, on the churches and the world.

II. CLERGY AND LAITY NOT PRIMITIVE

It is well to bear in mind that the distinction which has for ages prevailed in Christian society between clergy and laity is not primitive; was not known in the apostolic age. There was an apostleship and a discipleship, but no clerical caste, separated by a wide gulf of sacramental ordination from the common people. The Holy Spirit working in each believer developed those gracious qualities which were profitable to the edifying of the body of Christ. All alike constituted a holy and a royal priesthood, "ordained to offer spiritual sacrifices unto God." The churches chose for their pastors and teachers such of their own members as exhibited the needed qualities which fitted them for the positions. *

"But when, in the next generation [after the first], it was thought expedient that presbyters should be confined to their sacred duties, and kept apart from all secular occupations – which, by the way, occasioned the two classes of clergy and laity – then ordination would become a much more solemn affair." Com. on Act's, 14:23.

"In the first beginnings of Christianity there was no such institution as the clergy; and it is conceivable there may be a time when they shall cease to be." – Christian Institutions, p. 175. N. Y., ed. 1881

"There was then no such distinction between clergymen and laymen." "They were all equally the priests of God." "The first instance of the distinction of the clergy and laity, as separate orders of men in the Christian Church, occurs in Tertullian, at the beginning of the third century." – Ancient Christ. Ex., pp. 93 – 107

" There was yet [in the apostolic age] no distinct order of clergy, for the whole society of Christians was a royal priesthood." – Ch. Hist., Vol. I., p. 58.

"The Jewish and the Catholic antithesis of clergy and laity has no place in the apostolic age." – Hist. Christ. Ch. Vol. I., p. 131.

"The basis of ecclesiastical organization was the fraternal equality of believers. ' All ye are brethren,' Instead of a sacerdotal order, there was a universal priesthood." – Hist. Ch. Church, p. 35.

Rigaltius, Salmasius, Selden, and others, assert the same as cited by Bingham, who finds the earliest historical evidence of the distinction of clergy and laity in the third century after Christ.– Ancient Christ. Ch. B. l., chap. 5.

[* Ed. Note: Although it is true there was no sharp division into clergy and laity as it is practiced in the modern sense in many churches, there still was a difference recognized and observed between leaders and the rest of the members of the early churches. Titus 1:5; Heb 13:7, 17]

III. THE PURPOSE OF THE MINISTRY

The general purpose contemplated by the appointment and sustenance of an official ministry in the churches is clearly enough defined in the popular mind, and well enough understood by the prevailing customs of religious society: to shepherd the flock, to instruct congregations in religious truth, and guide the churches as to internal order and the practical activities of Christian life. But, to be more specific, it may be said the ministerial purpose is twofold: the edification of saints and the conversion of sinners. Or, to reverse, and perhaps make more natural the order, the conversion of men, and then their instruction and upbuilding in the faith of the Gospel. Thus did Jesus, in His farewell injunction, command His disciples to go forth, preach the Gospel, disciple men, baptize them, and then teach them to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded them.

Not infrequently extremists are heard to say that there is nothing comparable to the conversion of souls; that is the one great object of preaching. It is allowed to be one great object, but not the only one to the exclusion of the other. Both should be constantly sought, and devotion to one does not exclude the other. It is quite supposable that God may be as much glorified and the world as much blessed by the development of character, the enlargement of graces, and the increase of good works on the part of believers, as by the addition of converts. Read the epistles to the churches, and see how much is said about edifying the body of Christ; about growth in grace; about perfecting the saints in holiness; about being filled with the Spirit. The truth is, when Christians are living in the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel, and exhibiting the life of Christ, sinners will be converted. The ministry will be crowned with divine success.

There is a passage in Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians on this subject, the force and comprehensiveness of which is only equaled by the beauty of its diction, and the vivid imagery employed. After saying that Christ gave gifts, some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, he states for what purpose these gifts were bestowed; namely, "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." – Eph 4:12, 13. How grand the conception of an advancing Christian growth, under the culture of pastors and teachers, even to the attainment of a "perfect man;" not a perfect angel, but a perfected humanity in Christ! How sublime the upward sweep of Christian development, from the inchoate believer in the infancy of his new life, along all the planes of development, until finally the full purpose is realized in the "measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ!"

IV. A CALL TO THE MINISTRY

If the spiritual life of the churches is to be maintained, and the power of godliness to be preserved, a divine call to the work of the ministry must be insisted on by the Churches.

It is not enough that a man – young or old – has piety, and ability, and education; that he possesses a facility in the use of language, and can address a congregation with ease and interest, both to himself and to them. Nor is it enough that he has an earnest desire to do good. All this may be, and yet he may not be called to the sacred office. All these are important, but not of themselves sufficient. It must not be the mere choice of a profession; nor the dictate of an ambition which looks to the pulpit as a desirable arena for achieving distinction, nor even as the best field for usefulness. Nor must it be a yielding to the opinions or persuasions of over-partial, but, it may be, injudicious friends. A true call to the work of the ministry must rest on more solid ground than any or all of these evidences.

"... no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." – Heb 5:4. He that would lawfully enter upon this work must do it from a deep, abiding and unalterable conviction, wrought into his soul by the Holy Spirit, that such is the will of God concerning him; and that nothing else is, or can be, the work of his life, whether it may bring joy or sorrow, prosperity or adversity. He that can follow any other pursuit or profession with a peaceful mind, and a conscience void of offense, should never enter the ministry. This inward movement and monition of the Spirit does not cease with a single impression, nor subside with a single occasion; but it continues usually through weeks and months, and perhaps years, holding the mind to this one conviction; not always continuously, but from time to time, calling it back from all other purposes and plans to this conviction of duty.

As this conviction of duty is slowly working its way into the soul, various emotions are excited. Not unfrequently the mind revolts at what seems the inevitable conclusion, and sometimes violently rebels against it. The thoughts of unfitness for the work; the apparent impossibility of being able to secure the proper qualifications; the fact that many cherished plans for life, which seem to promise more of pleasure and of profit, must be abandoned; and, what to some minds with noble instincts is most of all humiliating and painful, that if one enters the ministry he must become dependent on others, in a certain sense, for his living, and subject to their caprices in many ways for his comfort: the temptation to sink his personal independence, so as not to antagonize the opinions of his hearers, and to modify messages of truth, rather than offend the ignorance or the prejudices of those on whom he is dependent, to an over sensitive nature become difficulties of no ordinary magnitude. But through it all the Spirit holds the mind true to its destiny, until at length it submits, silences every objection, sacrifices every consideration, accepts every condition, and yields implicit obedience to the divine call. Then a new peace fills the soul, and light from a new horizon irradiates all its sphere.

The evidences of this divine call are various. The most convincing is that just named, where the Spirit works the ever deepening conviction into the soul, that it must be so. Another sign is that the mind is being led into a fruitful contemplation of the Scriptures, whose spirit and meaning, whose deep and rich treasures of truth are unfolded and made plain to an unusual degree. An increasing facility of utterance in addressing religious meetings, especially when attempting to explain and enforce particular portions of the word, is another evidence. This, however, is not uniform, owing to many causes. For sometimes, instead of joyous liberty, every thing seems dark and confined. Particular cases, either on the one side or the other, are not so much to influence the judgment as the general trend and current of these tokens. Still more, if one has been divinely called to this work, there will soon rise a conviction of the fact in the minds of pious and prayerful people. All truly spiritual saints are, in a sense, prophets to discern spiritual things. If they be interested in, and profited by, the exercise of such gifts, that fact itself goes far to establish the call.

And further: if one be divinely called to preach the Gospel, Providence will open such ways of needed preparation for the work, as may be best in the circumstances. Precisely what that fitting preparation may be, it is impossible here to tell. It should be the best that can be secured. But there is a great variety of fields, and of conditions of work, and an equal variety of ability, and of intellectual preparation is needed to fill them. There may be difficulties in the way; but let not the young man who believes himself called to this service, be impatient, nor too hasty. Let him "wait on the Lord," observe the indications of Providence, and not run before he is sent. Our Lord Himself waited in patient preparation till He was thirty years of age, before entering upon His public ministry; and that, too, when He was to have but three short years of active service afterward. Let the young man improve his gifts as occasion offers, and wait; sooner or later he will become satisfied, as will also his brethren, whether or not he is called to preach.

Note 1.- It is not an evidence of a call to the ministry, that the heart sets itself in persistent rebellion against the monitions of the Spirit. So commonly is this resistance to the gracious movement felt, that some seem to think they lack good evidence of such a call. unless they stoutly fight against God. On the other hand, some of the most devout and useful men in the ministry did most earnestly desire the sacred office, though feeling themselves unworthy of it, and unfitted for it. Paul said, "If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work."

Note 2.– Any man whom God has not called to that work, will find the pulpit the most difficult and disastrous of all positions, and the work of the ministry the most irksome and uncongenial. No hope of gratifying a carnal ambition, no expectation of praise for learning or eloquence can mitigate the uncongenial burden of a service in which the heart is not enlisted.

Note 3.– Young men exercised on this point, as to the choice of the ministry, should not attach too much importance to the flattering encouragements of ardent, and over partial friends, whose judgments may not be as sound as their impulses are generous. Nor, on the other hand, should they be too much discouraged, if any throw stumbling blocks in their way. Let them carefully weigh all things, pray for divine direction, and decide the question according to their best light.

V. THE PERPETUITY OF ITS OBLIGATIONS

Is the obligation involved in a divine call of perpetual force? Or may a man called to that work leave it for some other profession or calling at his option? Is a man "once a priest, always a priest"? Or may there be a demission of sacerdotal functions?

This is a question in which our churches have not so much interest as men already in, and candidates for, the office most naturally have. It is, however, admitted almost universally by evangelical Christians, that such a call is of perpetual obligation. It is manifest that if divine authority puts a man into the ministry, the same authority is requisite to direct, or give permission for him to leave it and enter upon some other work. There are, no doubt, men in the ministry who never ought to have entered it, and who would confer the greatest possible benefit on the churches and the cause by leaving it. There are doubtless many instances in which men are incapacitated by sickness, or other causes, for a discharge of its duties. Providence clearly indicates that such should seek some other sphere of service, where they can still be useful, and yet secure support for a dependent family. In such cases of manifest necessity, temporary diversion from exclusive ministerial labor would be not only permissible but commendable, and perhaps even imperative.

But young men, looking to this calling, should regard it as a life-long service, and not consider a change to a more lucrative or less laborious pursuit as a possible contingency. Providential causes may arise where temporarily the active duties of the ministry – especially of the pastorate – may be remitted, to be resumed when the obstacles are removed. But how one, who believes himself called of God to preach the Gospel, can quietly and conscientiously devote himself to other callings, secular or semi-secular, without such providential compulsion, it is difficult to understand. And there are many of our ministers, men of sound health, and ability for usefulness, who have abandoned pastoral service for these side issues; positions for which laymen would be quite as competent, and often better fitted. It is not a sufficient answer to say that these posts are important and useful spheres of service. All that may be true, and they may have peculiar qualifications for the places, but it was not for these, or such as these, they professed to have been called, and to which they were ordained and set apart. If they were mistaken in their original purpose, it is well they have made a change.

Note 4.– The question may arise, How far is it allowable for a minister to engage in outside work for the sake of added gain, while holding a pastorate and receiving a salary from the people? Though no general answer can be given that would meet every case, yet it is safe to say that no outside work should be engaged in that will in any way interfere with a full and faithful discharge of his duties to the Church and congregation of his charge. If they give him a respectable support he should devote his best energies to them.

Note 5.– But it often happens in small and feeble congregations, especially in frontier settlements and rural districts, that congregations cannot – or think they cannot – support a pastor, and he is obliged to supplement a scanty salary from other sources. This is right not only, but most commendable in such cases. It should, however, be done not for gain, but for godliness, that he may be the better enabled to preach the Gospel, and give his family the comforts of life. Paul worked at his trade of tent-making, that he might the better be able to preach Christ.

VI THE SPHERE OF MINISTERIAL LABOR

A minister is not necessarily a pastor. If a minister have not a pastoral charge, to whatever field he may be designated, there lies his first and chief obligation for service. If he be a pastor, his Church, and congregation, and the community about him constitute his principal sphere of ministerial labor. To neglect them would be disloyalty to his Church, and to his Lord. Unless that be cultivated with fidelity, zeal, and a good degree of devotion, he need not expect any great amount of success. Nor yet need he expect that his work will be greatly appreciated, or widely demanded. He should, however, countenance and aid, to the extent of his ability, every good word and work, consistently with his duties to his own people. His nature should vibrate in sympathy with all endeavors made to ameliorate the sufferings of humanity, to suppress vice, and elevate virtue everywhere. He should stand the friend and abettor of missions, temperance, and of every virtue which the Gospel inculcates and promotes. He would be unfaithful to his holy trust, should he stand quietly by, without a hand to help in giving the means of salvation to the world, for which Christ died; should he remain unmoved amidst the ravages of sin, and not strive to withstand them; should he be indifferent to the ignorance of a world lying in wickedness, and not labor for its enlightenment.

It sometimes happens that pastors can, in special emergencies, render needed and valuable aid to other pastors in times of great discouragement or of special religious interest. Other occasions will arise when incidental aid can be rendered a good cause outside the limits of his ordinary duties, without injury to other interests. And yet the apostolic injunction must continue to be the pastor's guide: "Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood." – Acts 20:28.

VII. THE SOURCE OF MINISTERIAL AUTHORITY

Whence does the minister derive his authority for the exercise of ministerial functions? For preaching, administering the ordinances, and other prerogatives? "... no man taketh this honor unto himself..." – Heb 5:4.

Whence is it then? Not from the Church, for no Church holds in itself any such authority to bestow. Not from a Council, since councils possess no ecclesiastical authority. Not from the State, for the State has no right of interference in matters of faith and conscience, and possesses no control over, or authority in, ecclesiastical affairs. The minister, therefore, derives his credentials as a preacher of righteousness, and the right to minister as a priest in spiritual services from no human source, but directly from Christ, the great Head of the Church, by the witness and endowment of the Holy Spirit; He who calls, endows and authorizes. He sends forth His heralds with authority to preach the Gospel to the end of the age.

All that a Church or a Council can properly do is to recognize, and express approval of a man's entering the ministry. The force of ordination is simply a recognition and sanction, in a public and impressive manner, of what is believed to be the divine appointment of the candidate to the sacred office. The object of Church and Council action is not to impart either ability or authority to preach the Gospel, for these they cannot give; but to ascertain if such ability and authority have been divinely given, and if so, to approve their public exercise. If not in so remarkable a manner, yet probably just as really is every true minister called and invested as was Paul: "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood." – Gal 1:15, 16.

Note 6.– Any one who believes himself called and authorized of God to preach the Gospel, as one under law to Christ, and ultimately accountable to Him alone, has a right to preach the Gospel, though churches and councils should oppose his course. But he would not have the right to preach in any congregation without their (the congregation's) consent.

Note 7.– The right of any man to be the minister and pastor of any particular Church is derived from that Church itself. No man, no body of men can make him a minister to them without their consent. While on the other hand, if they so determine and choose him, he is a minister to them though councils and churches should forbid it. Others are not obliged to recognize or fellowship them or him, but they cannot interfere with them. A man's right to preach the Gospel, and administer the ordinances comes from God alone; a man's right to do this in any particular Church comes from that Church alone.

Note 8.– But suppose a man believes himself called to preach, and insists on the exercise of that right, while the Church of which he is a member, after long and careful consideration, is convinced that he is mistaken in his convictions, and that he ought not to undertake the work. The Church has its authority, as well as the individual his rights. In such a case, while the Church should be careful not to infringe on the individual's rights of conscience, or freedom of action, they may, in the exercise of their lawful and legitimate authority, labor with, admonish, and, if need be, rebuke such a one, he being a member in covenant relations with them and if he will not hear them, and they judge the occasion calls for it, discipline, and even withdraw fellowship from him. They possess that right.

VIII. QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE MINISTRY

It is not to be expected that of all men the minister alone will be perfect. And yet in no other man is a near approach to perfection so imperative as in him. Of all men, he should prayerfully strive to have as few faults and as many excellencies as possible. For in no other man do they count for so much, either for or against truth and righteousness as in him.

He should be a man of good physical health. This counts for vastly more, even in a spiritual point of view, than is usually supposed. And if, by hereditary taint, or for any other reason, he may lack physical vigor, he should, by careful self-training in regard to diet, exercise, and otherwise, strive to reinvigorate his energies. This is a duty as sacred and imperative as prayer, the study of the Bible, or other spiritual exercise. He will find that an enfeebled body impairs his best endeavors. He should also avoid all of those habits which tend to enervate and undermine his health. Irregularity of life, late hours, heavy suppers, and the like; while the use of tobacco, opium and alcohol should be regarded as an abomination, not to be tolerated by one who preaches a gospel of purity, and who himself should be pure.

It must not, however, be understood as saying that a man manifestly called of God to the work, should not undertake it because he does not enjoy robust health, and has not been favored with a vigorous constitution. Some of the most godly and useful ministers who have ever blessed the world and the churches, have been life-long invalids and sufferers. And sometimes the active and varied duties of the pastorate, especially in rural fields, have been highly conducive to physical health and longevity. Still, "a sound mind in a sound body" must be insisted on as of the greatest importance, for the possession of which no prudent or persistent effort is too great a price to pay.

Moreover, the minister should be a Christian gentleman in the best sense of that term. Not a technical gentleman, flippant and finical, according to the standard of so-called genteel society, but far better and higher than this – a true gentleman at heart, courteous, considerate, gentle, generous, and kind to all. There is no excuse for a minister's being rude, boorish, inconsiderate of the proprieties of society, and indifferent to the feelings or comfort of others. He who is such, no matter what amount of talent he may possess, will drive people from him, and his life will be largely unfruitful of good. Some ministers seem to think it a mark of superiority to be rude and supercilious toward others. It is simply a mark of superior boorishness, and a disgrace to the profession.

But those special qualifications named by the Apostle, and detailed in the epistles to Timothy and Titus (I Tim, chap. 3; Titus, chap. 1) It, should be insisted on by both churches and ordaining councils. They are such as all who aspire to that sacred office can possess, and such as, if possessed, may give assurance to the most humble and timid that their work and labor of love will not be in vain in the Lord. According to these inspired specifications, the bishop or pastor should be "blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not given to much wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre, patient, not a brawler, not covetous, one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection; not a novice, having a good report of them that are without, not self-willed, not soon angry." Such qualifications, quickened and sanctified by the Spirit, could not fail to make good ministers of Jesus Christ. There is no impossible endowment enjoined, and the morality of the Gospel, so largely prominent in these qualities, should be conspicuous in a religious teacher and leader of the people.

Note 7.– As to those qualifications which are purely scholastic, whether literary or theological, as a preparation for the work of the ministry, no certain amount or given standard can be fixed. The importance and difficulties of the profession make it necessary that the divinity student should avail himself of the largest and most liberal culture possible in the circumstances. The indications of Providence, his own convictions of duty, and the advice of wise and judicious friends must decide that question.

Note 8.– The wide field over which our churches are scattered, the vast variety of social conditions which mark the different congregations, not only make possible, but demand all types and varieties of ministerial gifts. Certain it is, that many a field would welcome the man without the culture of the schools, but with a knowledge of men and a deep insight into the Gospel, much more readily, and find him much more useful, than the scholar from the seminary, thoroughly versed in books, but ignorant of men and practical life.

Note 9.– It is desirable that every young man preparing for the ministry should, if possible, be able to read intelligently the Scriptures in the original Greek and Hebrew. This, and all other linguistic knowledge, will be to him of great value, if rightly used. But of all " book knowledge" that can be named, none can compare with a deep, thorough knowledge of the English Bible. The importance of this to the minister of Christ outranks all others, and does more than any other literary attainment to make a man an able minister of the New Testament. And this qualification is within the reach of all – even the plainest and the poorest.

* [Ed. Note: I must interject here that "the English Bible" must be the KJV in order to be true to God's Word as it was originally given.]

Note 10. - It is of great practical advantage to the student that, during his preparatory studies, he should not unfrequently exercise his gifts in preaching, as occasion offers. It will give him opportunity for developing his capabilities, testing his theories and correcting his faults under the most favorable circumstances, But this should be done with caution, and not to any such extent as seriously to interfere with his studies, which for the time constitute his principal business.

Note 11.– Let no young man deem the time wasted that confines him to the class room in mental training, and the acquisition of knowledge preparatory to the great work. He serves his Master best who patiently and faithfully prepares best to serve Him. That foolish enthusiasm for the work which hurries one into the field only half fitted, when a better preparation was possible, will always after be deeply regretted.

IX. THE LICENSING OF MINISTERS

It is one of the prevailing customs of our churches to grant a license to young men believing themselves, and believed by others, to have been called to preach the Gospel, but not yet prepared to enter upon the work of the ministry.* This is simply an approval by the Church of the course which the candidate is pursuing. It confers no rights and imparts no authority, but expresses the conviction that the bearer possesses gifts and capabilities which indicate a call to the ministry, and a promise of usefulness in it. The giving of licenses is not universal in such cases. Theological schools usually require them of students entering, as an evidence that they have the approval and confidence of their churches. Churches should be very careful not to grant licenses without sufficient evidence of a divine call, and not till they have had sufficient opportunity to judge wisely in the case. And where there is good evidence of a call, the Church should be as ready as they are careful to encourage the candidate in his chosen course.

Note 12. - Ordination does not necessarily follow the granting of a license, though usually it does. The Church may have occasion to change their opinion of the case, and may, for sufficient cause, revoke the license.

Note 13.– A license should never be granted simply because it is sought, nor to gratify the candidate or his friends, nor because they dislike to refuse. It is a serious and an important matter and should be acted on with kindly feeling, but with conscientious care.

Note 14. - A letter of commendation is sometimes given a young man, approving of his entering upon a course of study, with the ministry in view, but deferring a license until better opportunities are offered to judge of his gifts and calling.

Note 15.– It is, of course, understood that the practice of licensing is merely a cautionary measure, a custom not essential and not uniform, but salutary, and tending to good order.

X. THE ORDINATION OF MINISTERS

The importance of selecting and placing over the churches the right kind of men as pastors and teachers cannot be overestimated. But the high regard, the almost sanctity, in which our churches hold the ceremony of setting apart, of the inauguration of the clergy, finds no parallel and no sanction in the New Testament, and is derived directly from sacramentarian communions, remotely from the Romish Church, which holds ordination as one of the seven sacraments.

The New Testament meaning of the word ordination is choosing, electing, appointing a man to the office of bishop or pastor, and has no reference to a ceremonial setting apart, or investiture with the functions of the office. A president is elected – that is, ordained – to the presidency by the votes of the people; but the ceremony of his inauguration is quite a different thing; very proper, becoming and impressive, but not essential. He is as really president without it as with it: president by virtue of his election, not of his inauguration.* Our churches, unfortunately, have come to apply the term "ordination" exclusively to the ceremonial induction, and not to the election, which was its primitive and is its proper meaning. Thus laying all the stress on the ceremony, they have come to insist on certain ritual observances as essential to its validity. All the more notable is this since Baptists contend so earnestly for following the New Testament in all things, And however appropriate such forms of induction may be, they find no warrant for them in the Scriptures. Therefore they should be urged, if urged at all, as matters of order, and not matters of authority; as appropriate and becoming, but not essential.

* As the question of ordination holds an important place among the usages of our Church life, and as not a little misapprehension and perplexity often arise from the diversity of views entertained by our people respecting it, and its relation to primitive Church practice, it has seemed wise to devote a separate chapter in this work to a somewhat full discussion of the subject. See page 344.

No reasonable objection can be made to our usual forms of ordination service, providing these forms be rightly understood and held at their right value. But no instance can be found in the New Testament where any man was set apart to the work of the Gospel ministry, at his first entrance upon it, by any ceremony whatever. The seven deacons were ceremonially inducted into their office, but not the preachers of the Gospel – or if they were, we do not know it.

The Order of Proceedings:

The Church which calls for the ordination – and of which Church the candidate should be a member – invites a Council, by sending letters to such other churches (and individuals) as they may desire to have present, requesting them to send their pastor and brethren (usually two) to consider and advise them as to the propriety of setting apart the candidate to the work of the Gospel ministry. In some parts, particularly at the South, a Presbytery is called instead of a Council; that is, a number of ministers personally invited without the presence of laymen. So far as the validity of the action is concerned, there is no choice in the methods.

The Council, when convened and organized, listens to a statement from the Church calling them, through a committee appointed for the purpose, and then proceeds to the examination of the candidate. This examination usually traverses three principal lines of inquiry, but may go beyond them, viz.:

2. His call to the ministry.

Other topics than these may appropriately be made subjects for inquiry, providing they be germane to the occasion, but remote subjects and profitless discussion should be avoided; especially such subjects as those on which members of the Council themselves may be divided.

When the Council is satisfied with the examination, the candidate is allowed to retire, while the body proceeds to discuss the matter, and the action to be taken. If there be any particular dissatisfaction in the case, such matters are considered; and if desired, the candidate can be recalled to give his views more fully on doubtful points. If not, on motion duly made, the Council votes its satisfaction on each of the above three distinct topics of inquiry. Then a final vote to this effect is passed: "Resolved: that being satisfied with the result of our examination, we approve the setting apart of the candidate, and recommend the Church to proceed to the public services of ordination." As the Council was called to advise the Church, this is the advice they give. The committee of the Church acting for them, request the Council to take charge of the services, and assign the several parts, with the concurrence of the candidate, as they may think desirable.

What these various parts shall be, and who shall perform them, is a matter of no importance beyond the wishes of the candidate, and the Church.

Note 16.– The Church which calls the Council usually appoints a committee to represent it before the Council in giving information, answering questions, or making suggestions, but such a committee is no part of the Council, and cannot vote on any question.

Note 17.- Should the Council decide against the propriety of ordaining the candidate, still the Church can have him as their minister if they choose to do so, and none can prevent. The independence of churches cannot be questioned. This, however, in ordinary circumstances would be highly inexpedient. Neither the Church nor candidate would be likely to command the approval or confidence of other churches, or of the community, should they utterly ignore the judgment and advice of a Council of their own calling.

Note. 18.- A call to the ministry does not necessarily involve an immediate entrance upon its duties. Hence a Church or a Council may agree that a man is called, but on account of his inexperience, ignorance of doctrines or duties, or for other reason, may decide against immediate ordination, and advise to defer that step until he shall be better qualified, and more thoroughly instructed in the ways of the Lord. Quite often, no doubt, this would be a wise course to take.

Note 19.- Since the peace and prosperity of a Church so vitally depend on the knowledge, discretion, and experience of a pastor, and his ability to guide its affairs, as well as his gift in preaching the Gospel, therefore the utmost caution and prudence should be used on the part of the churches in calling men to ordination. The Council that examines the candidate, also, should give a wide range to their investigations, and thoroughly ascertain the candidate's general competency for the work.

Note 20.– It will be clearly inferred from statements already made, that the right of ordination inheres in the Church, and not in the Council. This must be so, if, as is universally conceded in our churches, all ecclesiastical authority resides in a Church. And also since the Church is of divine appointment and authority, while the Council is not.*

Note 21.– The practice of "laying on of hands," is an Oriental custom of immemorial usage, as a form of blessing conferred by the old upon the young, and by superiors upon inferiors. In the ritualism of the Mosaic economy it was a symbolical act. Jesus laid His hands on the sick to heal them, and on little children to bless them. With the pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit, miraculous effects followed the laying on of the Apostles' hands. Some of the Baptist fathers laid hands on the head of each candidate baptized, pronouncing a brief blessing; a few continue the practice. Since the original significancy of the act is no longer realized, and since no gifts, either common or extraordinary, are pretended to be conferred, the act should no longer be deemed essential as a part of ordination services, nor as affecting the completeness of ministerial character, or the validity of ministerial acts.

XI. RECOGNITION, INSTALLATION REORDINATION

Services bearing these designations are sometimes, though with no considerable degree of uniformity, resorted to. Nor does any considerable importance attach to them, except that reordination from time to time becomes a question of perplexity and of controversy among our people.

Recognition. When a pastor changes his field, and takes a new one, he is at times welcomed by some special services to celebrate the event, and introduce him to the community. Neighboring clergymen and others, are invited in; a sermon is preached by some personal friend of the pastor, or by some other one selected, or several addresses are made instead; attractive music is had; the pastor is congratulated on his field, the Church on its pastor, and a pleasant time is enjoyed. There can be no objection to such a service – and it is difficult to see how any marked benefit can arise from it, especially as the pastor may change his field again in a year, and some one else take his place – when the service will be repeated.

Installation. This term has no proper use in the customs of Baptists; though it is sometimes used by accommodation to indicate a recognition service, where a minister takes possession of a new pastorate. The word is properly used to designate the service by which a minister is placed over a new charge, with appropriate ceremonies by his ecclesiastical superiors. To install is to place in a stall or seat, indicative of official duties and functions, by which the incumbent is invested with official authority. The term is appropriate only where a minister is placed in a charge by superior ecclesiastical functionaries, acquiring new rights and prerogatives thereby.

Reordination. The question of reordination arises when a minister of some other denomination unites with us, and wishes to become a pastor among us. He has professed conformity to our denominational views, [Ed. Note: Again the unscriptural idea of denominationalism is interjected here.] and has been baptized into our fellowship. But that gives him only the standing of a private member and not that of a minister. He was, however, an accredited minister in an evangelical denomination before, regularly set apart to the sacred office. Now, the question is, in order to become a Baptist minister, will his previous ordination suffice, or should he be ordained again as though he had never been a clergyman? On this point opinions somewhat differ.

Some answer in the affirmative and some in the negative. But really it makes very little difference which course is pursued. Either would be valid, and neither is essential. Considering what ordination is, and what use it is intended to serve, in the case supposed, a recognition would be as good as an ordination; and the reverse would be true. In case of a minister coming from some other communion, before he should be admitted to ministerial functions among our churches, it would be every way desirable that a Council or a Presbytery should be called by the Church which proposes to have him as pastor, to examine and ascertain his views as to Baptist doctrine and Church order. If satisfied, some public services would be proper and desirable. Call it a recognition or a reordination: the difference is slight. Indeed, the only difference in ceremony is, that in the latter the laying on of hands is practiced, but omitted in the former. Let the wish of the candidate, or the Church, or the Council – if they have a preference – be gratified. A man is a minister none the more with the imposition of hands, and none the less without it.*

CHAPTER XII

[Ed. Note: In Independent Baptist circles the calling of Councils is not practiced because they have no scriptural precedent. Instead, if a pastor has a question for which he is seeking council, he will call several pastors for whom he has respect as to their abilities and experience and will seek counsel from them personally. He is not bound to take their advice but, because of his trust for them, will almost surely take it into consideration as he wrestles with a disturbing point about which he personally must make a decision as the pastor of the Church over which Christ has given him responsibility. The following section has been left in the textbook by brother Hiscox because it does give sound advice should a church or churches decide they want to be involved in the use of a strictly advisory council called for some specific matter. However, it must be remembered that the calling of even advisory councils is strictly a matter of personal choice for the churches that may decide to do so; but, they have no scriptural precedent or mandate for doing so.]

Councils for consultation and advice in ecclesiastical affairs are an established usage among American Baptists, especially at the North, East, and West. With the Southern churches there is a prejudice existing against them lest their action should come to be considered authoritative, and threaten a domination of the churches. For this reason they are seldom resorted to in that section.

Indeed, through the whole extent of our denomination their doings have been watched with jealousy and regarded with not a little of suspicion, for fear they might grow to an interference with the independence of the churches; this doctrine of Church independency being held by them with great tenacity, both because they believe it taught in the New Testament and also because of the wrongs perpetrated on the true people of God during past ages, by acts of Councils and papal decrees in the name of ecclesiastical authority.

Hence Baptists watch with commendable vigilance against every combination of men, and every form of action which by any possibility may threaten an assumption of power over, or interference with, the free and independent action of the local churches. Thus it has come to pass that Associations, when appealed to to decide disputes which vexed the churches, or to settle perplexing questions which disturbed their peace, have either declined to respond altogether, lest they might come to be regarded as a court of appeals, or if they did reply, did it with the distinct avowal that they could not dictate to, nor interfere with their internal order in any wise. It is just and proper jealousy. It is indisputable that Councils have, at times, done great good both to churches and to individuals, by prudent and well considered advice in cases of great perplexity. It is equally evident that at times they have been the occasion of much harm, even of manifest injustice, by decisions hastily reached, or based on false assumptions. Whether on the whole, they have been productive of more good than evil, is still an unsettled question with those who have known them the longest, and watched them the most carefully. The danger lies in a constant tendency to recognize them, in some sense, as a court of appeal and of arbitration – in effect if not in form. And this danger is the greater, because there will always be among us some who think they see the need of a stronger government for the control of virulent disorders than the independency of the churches furnishes. They desire some more speedy and more effectual method of removing rank offenses than the slow and uncertain process of Church discipline. They would therefore welcome a quasi authority in the action of Councils, which should make an end of all controversy with the contentious and the perverse.

But such tendencies, fortunately, have thus far been counteracted by that innate apprehension with which the Baptist mind regards any possible approach to dictation, and stands guard against the interference of any external authority whatever, beyond the simple act of giving advice, when advice is asked.

I. THE ORIGIN OF COUNCILS

It has generally been taken for granted, by both Protestant and Papal authorities, that all Church Councils had their origin and find their sanction in the conference held in Jerusalem (Acts, fifteenth chapter), convened to consider questions which disturbed the Gentile churches, as to the reception of Jewish customs.

That meeting, it is claimed, was a Council somewhat within the accepted meaning of that term. And it is quite notable, not to say remarkable, that all men, and all classes of men, have with an easy liberality of interpretation, explained that primitive conference to meet their own peculiar views of Council need, and of Council action. Whether Papal or Protestant, ultra-Prelatical or moderately Congregational, every man who desires to find some central authority, some Church court to settle disputed questions, and to coerce or control Church action, claims to find a warrant for his particular theory in "the Council held in Jerusalem." That is declared to have been apostolic; and an appeal to the fifteenth of Acts is assumed to be the end of all controversy.

It has been made the warrant and justification for ages of spiritual tyranny exercised over the churches of Christ and over the freedom of Christian thought and action, by men ambitious to lord it over God's heritage. By this means Christian liberty and spiritual life almost have been crushed out of Christ's free churches, and the flock of God has been made a prey to the rapacity of men whose spiritual pride blinded them to the true methods of the Gospel.

The Syrian Christians had been disturbed by certain Jewish teachers who insisted they must observe the law of Moses; especially must they be circumcised. Against this they rebelled, and Paul who had planted these churches, refused to impose on the Gentile converts such a yoke. To settle the matter, therefore, the Church at Antioch sent Paul with certain others to Jerusalem, to ask the opinion and advice of the mother Church in reference to the matter. This mother Church would be more likely to understand the genius of the Gospel, especially in its relation to Judaism; and moreover they had the Apostles with them, whose inspired judgment in such a case could not go amiss. When the messengers from Antioch arrived, the Church at Jerusalem had a meeting to consider the matter. It was no Council, no Synod, no Consociation, but a church meeting simply. Just that, and nothing more. It consisted of the Apostles, and elders, and brethren. That is, the entire Church. And the Church, with just this composition, heard the case, deliberated, and, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, gave a decision. This is the view taken of the matter by Hackett, Alford, Schaff, Daddington, and indeed nearly all Church authorities.

"To call it a Council is a perversion. For that meeting was a conference of only a single Church, collected together for deliberation; and if such meetings may be called ecclesiastical Councils, a multitude of them were held in those primitive times. An ecclesiastical Council is a meeting of delegates from a number of confederate churches." – Eccl. Hist., Vol. I., p. 72 sec. 14 note 17.

Councils are of human, not of divine origin. They cannot therefore take precedence of, nor claim authority over, churches, which are divinely instituted. Nor were Councils known during the first age, and not until Christianity began to be corrupted. And to organize combinations of ecclesiastics to govern and dominate the churches, was one of the early corruptions which afflicted the kingdom of Christ.

"The apostolic churches were entirely independent of each, other." "But in the second century this primitive liberty and independence began to be relinquished, and merged in a confederation of the churches of a province, or country, into a larger association." "They [Councils] were appointed by merely human authority, and were regarded as being instituted neither by Christ nor by His Apostles." – Ancient Christ. Exempt., pp. 475 476

"Nor does there appear in this first century any vestige of that consociation of the churches of the same province which gave rise to ecclesiastical Councils. But rather, as is manifest, it was not till the second century that the custom of holding ecclesiastical Councils first began, in Greece, and thence extended into other provinces." – Eccl. Hist. II., l., Cent. s, part 2, ch. z, sec. 14.

"All the present disputes about Councils, mutual or exparte, in respect to their authority, are vain and useless, because they have no divine authority, at all." "The human device of giving power to Associations, Consociations, or Councils, to decide in ecclesiastical causes, has been a fruitful source of ecclesiastical injustice, tyranny and persecution." – Ernmons's Works, Vol. III., pp. 584, 586.

There is, however, a sense in which the Church conference at Jerusalem may be said to have contained the germ of subsequent Councils – Councils in their better form. It is the dictate of common sense, and of Christian prudence as well, for those called to deal with grave and difficult matters, especially if such matters be new and unfamiliar, to seek advice from those supposed to be better informed, whose counsel can instruct their minds and guide their action more wisely. In a multitude of counselors, also, there may be safety. A large number of wise and pious men, viewing a question from different points, with unbiased judgments, will be more likely to reach a safe and just conclusion, than a smaller number, less experienced, who are personally interested in it. And therefore it is natural and wise to ask advice in cases of moment and of doubt, in order to be helped by the wisdom and the experience of others. This explains the philosophy of Councils, committees of reference, and Presbyteries, as used by Baptists. The fellowship of individuals, and the fraternity of churches, lead Christian men to desire concurrence in matters of local interest, and so far as may be, to secure uniformity in matters of general concern.

But uniformity would be purchased at too great a cost if the rights or the liberties of the churches should be imperiled. When usage becomes uniform, it is not difficult to have it considered as essential; and when it is conceded to be essential, it has already become authoritative. Councils may be desirable and beneficent, but they are not essential for any purpose for which their advice is usually invoked; nor are they authoritative in any opinion they may express, or in any decisions they may render. Their possible perversions should not wholly condemn them, nor their probable benefits unduly magnify them.

II. GENERAL PROPOSITIONS

The principles on which, and rules by which – according to common usage and general consent – Baptist Councils are constituted, and their action governed, may be stated in the following propositions:

1. It must be accepted as a rule without exception, that such Councils are advisory only, always and everywhere; they neither have, nor can have, any ecclesiastical authority. They bind individuals and churches so far, only, as they may choose to submit to their judgment and advice. Their province is simply counsel – what the name implies. Never, and in no sense, are they Church courts for authoritative decrees; much less are they legislative bodies for the enactment of laws for the churches.

2. Councils have no original authority for action, and, indeed, no antecedent right of existence. Their existence depends on those who call them into being, and their right to act is derived from the same source. No company of persons, not a Church, has the right to convene, organize and take action on ecclesiastical matters which have not been submitted to them.

3. A Council is composed of delegates or messengers – either laic or cleric – appointed by the churches of which they are members, at the request of those calling it. A committee of reference is composed of individuals personally asked to advise, but without any Church action as to their appointment. A Presbytery, in the Baptist sense, is a company of ministers personally invited to assist in ordination, or to advise in any Church matter.

4. Councils may be convened by churches or individuals– more commonly by churches – to consult and advise touching questions to be submitted to them. Individuals in difficulty with their churches, or persons excluded from them, may call a Council, if the Church will not, in circumstances hereafter explained.

5. But individuals in difficulty among themselves in the same Church, could not with propriety call a Council to settle their difficulties. Such difficulties would constitute a case of discipline which the Church would be under obligation to see adjusted. But the Church might feel the need of advice, and call a Council on the ground that it could not effect a settlement of the trouble without such assistance.

6. The usual and proper method for convening a Council, is by sending letters to such churches as may be selected, a majority of which should be those located in the vicinity, asking them to appoint their pastor, and one or more – usually two – brethren, to sit in consultation with them. These letters are called letters missive, and constitute the only authority for the assembling of the body, and the charter under which it must act when assembled.

7. The letters missive should be uniform, their statements identical, distinctively announcing when and where the body is to convene, and what churches and individuals are invited as members.

8. The letters missive should also distinctly state what matters they will be asked to consider, and respecting which they are to advise. It is an admitted rule, sanctioned by common consent, that a Council cannot be convened under a roving commission, to act on any subject that may chance to be presented, but must confine its deliberations to such matters as were specified in the letters by which it was convened.

9. The delegates, or messengers, who compose the Council, are in no proper sense representatives of the churches which appoint them. They cannot therefore act for their churches, to bind them by their action. A Baptist Church cannot be represented in any other body; nor can it transfer its authority or its functions to any persons either within, or external to itself, to act for it. It can send messages by messengers, but cannot delegate its power to act.

10. A Council, when duly organized, is an independent body within its own sphere of action. It cannot be coerced, dictated to, or controlled by the churches from which its members come, nor by those who called it. Its acts are the result of the judgment of a majority of its members, and have the weight and force which such opinions may command – simply that, and nothing more.

11. It is somewhat common for those calling Councils, to invite, in addition to Church messenger, certain individuals whose presence and counsels they may desire. To this custom, though it constitutes a somewhat mixed commission, there seems to be no reasonable objection. They are members by invitation, not by appointment.

12. Parties cannot properly convoke a Council to investigate or pass judgment on the case of persons with whom they hold no ecclesiastical connection – such as a member or pastor of another Church than that of which those convoking the Council are connected. But one Church may call a Council and ask advice as to their duty in respect to some other Church with which they are in fellowship.

13. The messengers, when convened, at the hour named in the call, organize by the election of a chairman and a clerk. These elections are usually on nomination; and any one may call the meeting to order and ask for a nomination. But sometimes, in very important and difficult cases, a temporary chairman and clerk are chosen, and a committee is appointed to recommend permanent officers. After this the credentials of messengers are called for, and the clerk makes an accurate list of members, and of their churches. Then the object for which the Council was called, is stated – usually by reading a copy of the letter missive. By this the body understands what it is desired to do, and what it will be lawful for it to attempt. Further explanations, the presentation of evidence, and a discussion of the subject follow, concluding with such action as the body may agree to take. The usual parliamentary rules govern in order and debate, unless different rules are adopted at the beginning of the session.

14. A Council is composed of all the persons present in response to the invitations sent out. This number of members can neither be increased nor diminished. Its composition is fixed by those who call it, and cannot be changed by its own action, nor by the authority of any other body. It cannot, therefore, admit others to membership, nor exclude those who are members by appointment.

15. But, as an exception to this rule, all deliberative bodies have the primal and inherent right to protect themselves against insult, disgrace, and such interruptions as would frustrate the object of their deliberations. Such conduct, therefore, on the part of any member during the proceedings, would make him liable to censure or expulsion.

16. If, however, any member be dissatisfied with the presence of any other member or with the proceedings of the body, he can refuse to act, and withdraw. He has no other remedy.

17. Usage has not decided that any specified number of messengers appointed shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for doing business. Any considerable number, or even a small portion of them, usually proceed to act, especially if the case be one involving no great difficulty. If, however, the matter be important and complicated, action should not be taken without a full attendance of members. In all important cases, it would be a salutary rule, that no action should be had unless a majority of those called to constitute the Council, were present; or unless a majority of the churches invited had responded by messengers present. But so diverse are the views of those who convene Councils, as well as those who act on them, that no rule on this point, fitted to all occasions, has thus far been established.

18. A Council may adjourn from time to time, if necessary, to accomplish the purpose for which it was convened. But it cannot perpetuate a continued existence as a standing court of appeals. When its object is accomplished it expires by limitation; but a formal vote to dissolve or to adjourn, sine die, is usually passed.

19. If a Council adjourns, it must retain the same composition when it subsequently meets as at its first session. It cannot have new members added to it, except by mutual consent of the body and all parties interested in its action. Nor can it be diminished, except that the absence of some members would not vitiate its action.

20. Before the final adjournment, the minutes of the proceedings are read, corrected, and approved, and a certified copy is ordered to be given to the parties by whom it was called, as containing the results of the deliberations, and the Council's answer to the request for advice.

21. When finally adjourned or dissolved, the Council ceases to exist, and cannot reconvene at its own option, or by the authority of its members. If convened at all, it must be by process similar to that which brought it into being at first. It would, in fact, be a new Council, though composed of the same individuals.

22. It is not proper for one Council to sit in judgment on, or review the action of, a previous Council. But a matter not satisfactorily disposed of by one may be referred to a second. Such a second should so far, only, canvass the proceedings of the first as to ascertain the facts they had before them, and the ground of their decision.

23. When a second is called to consider some matter submitted to a previous one, the second should contain, so far as practicable, all or most of the members of the previous one, with such additions, however, as will be likely to counterbalance any local or personal bias or prejudice, or any want of information or experience, which may have prevented satisfactory results in the former case.

24. In the calling of a Council no packing process should ever be resorted to, seeking to compose it of such persons only as would be likely to favor the object of those who called it. Such a course may be a device of worldly policy, but is unworthy of Christian men, who in all honesty should act on higher principles, and seek not simply the endorsement of a man or a cause, but equity and justice, truth and right. For this, and not for the furtherance of personal or of party ends, should they ask counsel of their brethren.

25. A Council may be called by a single Church, or by several churches united; by a single individual, or by several persons acting in concert. The letters missive should distinctly state by whom the call is issued, as well as the object for which it is issued.

26. Councils called to adjust and settle difficulties are usually designated as either mutual or ex parte. A mutual Council is one in which the several parties to the difficulty unite in the call and reference. An ex parte Council is called by one party to the difficulty.

27. In the calling of a mutual Council, each party uniting in the call – whether an individual, several persons, or a Church – has the selection of one-half the members; otherwise there might be a want of fairness in the composition of the body. While the parties may confer together as to the churches or individuals to be invited, yet neither has the right to object to those selected by the other, provided they be all reputable members, in good and regular standing in Baptist churches.

28. An ex parte Council should not be called until all proper efforts have been made for, and have failed to secure, a mutual Council. The reason is obvious. General harmony and agreement are desirable, and are more likely to be secured in a mutual representation, where all parties can be heard.

29. Parties not uniting in the call can have no rights or standing in the Council when convened. But as a matter of courtesy, or for the sake of obtaining all possible information, other persons who have knowledge of the case may be heard by consent of the body and those who convened it.

30. Parties calling a Council cannot be members of it, and have no vote or right of action in it, except to place before the body all the information they possess, through persons chosen by them for that purpose; otherwise they would sit as judges of their own cause.

31. An ex parte Council cannot by its own act, transform itself into a mutual Council. Such a change can be effected only by the consent and agreement of the various parties involved in the difficulty.

32. When a mutual Council is to be called, to adjust difficulties between a Church and some of its members, the letters missive should be sent out by, and in the name of, the Church, and not of the individuals. But the fact of its being by mutual agreement of the parties should be stated in the letters.

33. A Council cannot review and pass judgment on the conduct of any other Church than that which has called it and submitted its case; nor can a Council properly be called for such a purpose. No body of men holds the right to try and pass judgment on an independent Church, except by its own request; nor review its acts of internal order and discipline. Such a body would thereby become judicial – a Church court; which Councils are not.

34. But either churches or individuals may call a Council to advise them what is their duty in relation to a Church deemed heretical in doctrine or irregular in practice; or for other reasons thought important. In such a case matters pertaining to that other Church would necessarily come under review, so far, and so far only, as the facts were concerned regarding which advice had been asked, and so far as might be needful to enable the Council to advise intelligently and discreetly in the case.

35. Members, if aggrieved by the attitude of their own Church, believed by them to be heretical or disorderly, having failed in efforts at adjustment, and in efforts for a mutual Council as well, before proceeding to call an ex parte Council, would do well to lay the case before some neighboring Church or churches, as a matter in which such churches have an equal interest with themselves. Churches thus appealed to could, with propriety, ask a Council to advise them as to their duty in regard to the matter, or to advise the aggrieved members as to their duty in the case. Should such churches decline, as not deeming the occasion sufficient, or not wishing to become involved in controversy, then the individuals may proceed to call one to give them advice. The call should state what efforts had already been made for the adjustment of the difficulty.

36. Councils, when convened to aid in settling difficulties, should take sufficient time to understand the case thoroughly, and then act heroically in expressing their opinions as to where the blame rests, and in giving their advice as to what should be done. Aim to be right, rather than try to please. It is usually a vain thing to attempt a compromise. As a rule, this pleases neither party. Whatever is decided, almost certainly one party, and very likely both, will be dissatisfied. Too much must not be expected from Councils; they can give advice and express opinions; beyond this they cannot vindicate the right or punish the wrong.

37. When persons, excluded, as they believe, unjustly, resolve to call a Council ex parte, they cannot be expected to ask the excluding Church to send delegates to sit in the Council. It would be contrary to a natural sense of justice for those who had prejudged the case, and decided against the plaintiff, unfairly, as he believed, to be asked to sit again on its decision. Such persons could not be regarded as unbiased or impartial judges. But the excluding Church should be asked to send some one to the Council to give any information to the body, and to present their version of the case.

38. If those who are invited to sit with councils do not approved the object of the call, and decline to act, they should at once notify those inviting them to that effect, giving their reasons for non-concurrence. Such communications should be laid before the body when convened. But it is better to respond to the call – unless the circumstances be very remarkable – and by one's presence and influence, prevent unfortunate action, rather than permit it by their absence.

39. It is a course of questionable propriety for a Council to require the parties to a difficulty to pledge themselves at the beginning to abide by whatever decision the body may reach. This is sometimes done with the commendable purpose of putting an end to the controversy. But it seems hardly consistent with freedom of conscience to pledge agreement beforehand to a course of action at the time unknown, and contingent on future and unforeseen events. As a matter of fact, such pledges when made are seldom kept.

40. Councils for the adjustment of difficulties involving Church action should not be called, unless the need seems imperative. Churches should administer their own affairs, exercising their own prerogatives, and discharging their own responsibilities, without external aid, so far as possible. They may make some mistakes, but that is inevitable in all human affairs, and the aid of Councils will not absolutely obviate that misfortune. But against all tendency to relieve the churches of their appropriate duties, to intrude into the sphere of their just authority, or to undermine their rightful independence - against all this Councils should constantly and sacredly guard.*

* For further and more specific application of Council action, especially in difficult cases of Church discipline, and the trials of unworthy ministers, see chaps. 6 and 7, pp. 193-214

Should the test fail to open properly, please use F5 to reload or click the refresh symbol on the top of your browser page.

If you failed the test, then restudy this lesson and retake the test on or after the next day.
Once you have passed the test, do not take it again.

If you missed any questions on the test, then restudy the section and find all of the correct answers to any questions that you missed. A copy of your test was sent to you with the correct answers on it. You may use that for comparison purposes to make sure you have found the correct answers.
You may begin the next Section the day after you passed the test for this Section.

CHAPTER XIII

RELATED SOCIETIES

While the churches are the only Christian societies provided for by the New Testament economy, and, therefore, the only ones really essential to the accomplishment of the purposes contemplated by the Gospel, yet combinations of individual and local efforts have been found convenient for the carrying on of Christian work on wider areas and more distant fields than could well be cared for by individual service. These combinations have grown into vast systems of organized endeavor, making societies almost innumerable for Christian and benevolent service of many kinds. It may well be questioned if there be not quite too many such. Some of the more common, which have grown into established usage with our churches, are the following:

I. ASSOCIATIONS

There is at times no little confusion of thought occasioned by want of a clear understanding as to the true nature and real purpose of Associations; and that, too, by ministers themselves, who ought to be able expounders of Baptist polity and usage. Especially as to the relation which these bodies sustain to the churches; whether they can act for the associated churches, and in some sense bind them by their action. It is customary for churches occupying a given extent of territory – usually less than a State, perhaps limited portions of contiguous States, not so widely extended as to make it difficult, because of distance, to meet in one place, nor yet embracing so many churches as to make the meetings inconveniently large – by common agreement to organize on some simple basis of association for mutual helpfulness and counsel.

These churches agree to cooperate in the Association, and meet yearly with some one of them, by their pastors, and a certain number of members, appointed as messengers.* These meetings usually hold two days, sometimes more, and the time is occupied in hearing reports from the various churches – each one sending with the messengers a letter, setting forth their condition as to anything of special interest to themselves or to the body. Sermons are preached, prayer meetings held, and various matters pertaining to the prosperity of the cause come under consideration. Missionary work on their field is fostered, new churches are planted, and weak ones aided. If any of the churches have peculiar difficulties to encounter, and choose to ask advice and help, such matters are considered, and help rendered, if practicable.

*The term representative is sometimes used, and delegate more frequently. Both terms are liable to be misunderstood, as implying that an Association is a representative body, and that the messengers bear delegated authority to represent their churches and act for them. The term messenger was commonly used by the earlier Associations, is least objectionable, and most accurately characterizes the purpose for which they are appointed

When the body meets to observe its anniversary, the moderator of the previous year calls the meeting to order at the appointed time, and presides until a new moderator is elected, with clerk and treasurer; then the body is fully organized for business. Thence its services proceed according to its bylaws, or a prearranged programme. It is customary to hear, during the sessions, appeals with important information from the representatives of various missionary and benevolent bodies, for the sake of instructing and stimulating the members in reference to such causes.

These annual gatherings constitute not only favorable opportunities for projecting plans for missionary work within the bounds of the Association, but they also give occasion for pleasant fraternal intercourse on the part of members of the various churches, who, at these Christian festivals, form and foster personal friendships of a most pleasant and profitable character. This is particularly true in rural districts, where they have few opportunities for personal intercourse.

Note 1.– Should one of the associated churches be commonly reported to have become unsound in the faith, or irregular in practice, to have violated the constitutional provisions, or broken the compact accepted at the union, and these reports seem credible, it would be the right and the duty of the Association to inquire into the case, by committee or otherwise, and ascertain the facts. The Association would have no right to call the Church to account, to exercise any authority on it, reprimand or censure it; but only to ascertain the facts in the case, and then to take such action as their mutual relations warranted, Such action might result in the Church being disfellowshiped, dropped from the minutes, and all intercourse with it discontinued. That would be the extent of an exercise of disciplinary power on a Church by an Association.

Note 2.– If an Association should disfellowship a Church and drop it from its minutes, that act would not interrupt the intercourse and fellowship of said Church in its relation to other churches. An Association cannot act for the churches, but only for itself; nor can it exercise disciplinary power beyond its own corporate limits. Such an act of disfellowship would indeed be presumptive evidence that something was wrong in the Church dropped. But if the fellowship of other churches is to be interrupted, or withdrawn, it must be by their own act; the Association cannot do it; it acts for itself alone, not for the churches.

Note 3.– Should the pastor of one of the associated churches be known, or believed, to be a disreputable and unworthy man, the Association would not be obliged to accept him as a member of the body or allow his name to appear on their minutes – to do which would give him a quasi endorsement and recommendation. They could refuse to do this, and thereby free themselves from all responsibility as to his standing. Such an act, however, could not affect his relation to the Church of which he was the pastor, nor yet to other churches. If those relations are to be interrupted, it must be by the action of the Church, or the churches themselves. No one else can act for them.

Note 4.– If an associated Church persists in retaining and supporting for its pastor a man of bad reputation, generally believed to be unfit for the ministry, and unworthy of confidence, the Association can refuse to receive the man and they can disfellowship and drop the Church, should the case become serious. They possess this right; but such disfellowship does not carry with it the disfellowship of the other churches. Their intercourse with the dropped Church or man is not interrupted until they interrupt it by their own action. The Association acts for itself, not for the churches. Such action may at times become necessary, in order to free the body from apparent complicity with evil, and to relieve other pastors and messengers from all responsibility in sustaining and giving currency to an unworthy man or an unworthy Church.

Note 5.– Many of the larger Associations – especially those that centre in cities and towns – became incorporated, with a board of legally elected trustees, for the purpose of holding and managing real estate, not for speculative uses, but to aid mission stations and feeble churches to houses of worship. These trustees act for, and under the direction of the body, while the churches furnishing funds for the purpose. Thus the Association becomes an efficient missionary organization within its own bounds.

Note 6.– In former times, when churches were less numerous, and obtaining counsel in perplexing matters was more difficult, it was no uncommon thing for them, vexed with divisive questions of doctrine, order or discipline, to send up queries to the Associations at their annual meetings, and thereby seek advice from the assembled wisdom, which might dispel their doubts. These queries were considered warily, and answered with caution; usually protesting that they could not meddle with the internal affairs of the churches, and that the Association was not a legislative body to enact laws, nor an ecclesiastical court to settle questions judicially for them. They could express an opinion, or give advice – nothing more. They were very jealous for the independence of the churches. So it is now, and should ever continue to be.

II. STATE CONVENTIONS

As a single Association covers a limited extent of territory, and the various Associations, whose boundaries touch, hold no organic relation to each other, but each working for the same end, in a similar way, it has been thought wise to have a more general organization, extending over and embracing the fields of all the Associations in the State. This is called a Baptist State Convention, or, as in many States it is termed, a General Association. This latter designation is by some supposed more accurately to express its relation to the local or district Associations.

The Convention is a missionary organization, to operate in extending evangelical religion within the bounds of the State, in connection with the Associations and churches. It works by sustaining feeble interests and supporting missionaries in destitute neighborhoods. This is done either in cooperation with the Associations within their bounds, or else in fields which they cannot cultivate. Sometimes the Associations work under the general direction of the Convention, and report to it and through it. But all this is according to mutual agreement, since each is equally independent in its own sphere. In addition to the strictly spiritual culture of their fields, State Conventions not unfrequently plant and foster educational institutions, especially denominational academies and schools for higher learning.

The composition of State Conventions is varied and indefinite. Associations are uniformly constituted by the pastors and delegates or messengers from the churches. The membership of Conventions, according to their mutually arranged and voluntary constitutional provisions, is composed of persons appointed by contributing churches, delegates sent by cooperating Associations, individuals who make themselves annual or life members by the payment of a specified sum, and perhaps still other classes, as may be provided; while no person can be a member, unless he be a member in good standing of some regular Baptist Church, yet, to a large extent, a money qualification is insisted on, the better to stimulate liberality and secure funds to the treasury.

The meetings are held annually for two or three days – one day being usually given to a State pastors' conference. Reports are made by the Associations, addresses by missionaries and others, plans projected for enlarged endeavors – special time and attention being given to the Sunday school cause. The anniversaries alternate between different sections of the State, and are held chiefly in the larger communities, the smaller churches finding it difficult to accommodate the numbers which attend, for whose entertainment gratuitous provision is usually, though not always made.

III. MINISTERS MEETINGS

In nearly all compact communities, and, indeed, in many rural and scattered neighborhoods, the Baptist pastors form associations for mutual intercourse and improvement, called Ministers Meetings, Pastors' Conferences, or other similar names. They organize with a simple constitution and bylaws, and constitute a voluntary and independent society for the purpose set forth. They have no organic connection with the churches, and possess no ecclesiastical character or significancy. Essays are read for criticism on assigned topics, plans of sermons presented, sermons preached also for criticism, and discussions held on subjects germane to ministerial culture and service.

These meetings are held monthly, or, in larger communities, weekly. They are composed mostly of pastors, but in some, minister without a charge, and even deacons, are admitted. These meetings have no right of interference with the churches, and no action they can take with reference to any pastor who is a member, can affect that pastor's relation to his Church. They have the right to admit, dismiss, or expel their own members, but cannot interfere with the relations the various pastors sustain outside the conference itself.

IV. OTHER SOCIETIES

There are other denominational societies, well known to all, sustained for Christian service in connection with our denominational activities. The Missionary Union, for conducting Baptist missions in foreign lands; the Home Mission Society, performing a similar service in our own country; the Publication Society, for disseminating a denominational literature; an Education Society – indeed, many of them, one general, and many local – for the establishment and support of schools of learning; a Historical Society, for the collection and preservation of denominational records. The Southern Baptist Convention represents the mission work of Baptists in the Southern States, both home and foreign.

These various missionary organizations are so many voluntary and independent societies, sustaining no organic connection with the churches; are not controlled by them, and cannot control them. They derive their financial support from the churches, to which churches they make appeals, and to which appeals they respond as they may feel inclined. Membership in these various organizations is largely secured by the payment of a stipulated sum of money. Usually they are incorporated societies, holding property devoted exclusively to the purposes of their work. Many other societies not here named, exist, operating on local fields for various beneficent purposes connected with our denominational work and welfare.

Should the test fail to open properly, please use F5 to reload or click the refresh symbol on the top of your browser page.

If you failed the test, then restudy this lesson and retake the test on or after the next day.
Once you have passed the test, do not take it again.

CHAPTER XIV

Ordination, in its popular sense, is that form of service by which men are admitted to the ranks of the Christian ministry, and to the exercise of its functions. So important a relation does this service sustain to the character of the men who fill their pulpits and become the instructors and guides of the churches, that ritualistic communions hold it as a sacrament. While ordination is but one of the avenues by which worthy men can be admitted to, and unworthy men excluded from, the sacred office, yet it is one, and should be sedulously guarded by watchful churches and conscientious Councils and Presbyteries – that the ministry be kept pure and true to its high calling. For, while neither churches nor Councils can prevent a man from preaching, if he desires to do it, and can secure hearers, they can refuse him recognition and fellowship in such a course, and ought to do it, if they believe him unfit or unworthy.

Ordination, therefore, as the act by which men are admitted to the rank and functions of religious teachers among our people, and pastors of the flock of Christ, becomes a matter of serious moment, and should be well considered. Its motive, its purpose and its effect should be clearly understood.

To do this in the light of Baptist Church polity, the following questions must be asked and answered:

Primary Propositions

The discussion which follows will maintain, and it is believed will establish, the following propositions:

Prop. I. That the ordination of the New Testament was an election, or appointment, to the ministerial once, and not a ceremonial setting apart, or consecration to that office.

Prop. II. That there is no proof in the New Testament that persons chosen to the office of elder,* pastor or bishop in the apostolic churches were designated for, or inducted into, that office by any formal service or ceremony whatever.

* [Ed. Note: Because bro. Hiscox has chosen to include "elder" it will do well here to remember from the prerequisite course on The Church, that the scriptural term "elder" does not refer to an office in the Church, such as "pastor" of "bishop" but refers rather to the group of physically and/or spiritually mature group within the local Church from which the bishops/pastors were chosen.]

Prop. III. That, though the laying on of hands was common on many occasions, as an ancient Oriental Jewish and early Christian form of blessing, especially in the bestowment of the gifts of the Spirit, yet there is neither precept nor precedent in the New Testament to require its use in the ordination of Christian ministers.

Prop. IV. That, while some public service of inauguration and designation for one who first enters the ministry, or at any subsequent entrance upon a new field of labor, would be very appropriate and becoming as expressing the approval and fellowship of other ministers and the churches, yet such service is not of divine authority, and cannot be made obligatory or essential, either to the lawfulness of ministerial standing or to the validity of ministerial acts.

Prop. V. That if such ordination or recognition services be held, their form and order are matters of liberty and choice with those concerned in them, since they are prescribed by no Scriptural authority.

Prop. VI. That, since all ecclesiastical authority resides in the local, visible Church according to the New Testament polity, therefore the right to set apart, as well as to elect, belongs to the Church alone, and the only sphere of Council or Presbytery action is that of advice to, and cooperation with, the Church, being in no sense authoritative or essential.

Prop. VII. That while, for the sake of order and propriety it is becoming for accredited ministers to conduct all public religious services on ordinary occasions, yet ceremonial ordination is not essential to the ministry of the Word, nor to the administration of the ordinances; therefore, a Church without an ordained minister may, with the strictest propriety, direct a private member to administer the ordinances, conduct its services, and preside in its assemblies; and, indeed, this should be done for the edification of the body.

Prop. VIII. That reordination, in the case of ministers who come to us from other evangelical denominations, is a matter of Christian liberty, optional with those concerned, but cannot be made essential to ministerial character or the validity of ministerial acts, though it may with propriety be made to conform to prevailing custom, for the sake of uniformity in usage. Our space will admit of little more than a statement of positions deemed true and tenable; while many of the arguments, and most of the authorities by which these positions are maintained must be omitted.

I. WHAT IS ORDINATION?

This question, to be clearly answered, needs definition and limitation. Ordination means different things to different minds, and according to different ecclesiastical standards. It is defined to be the act and form of setting one apart to the work of the Christian ministry; or induction into the sacred office. Or, in a little more formal and churchly language it is "the act of conferring holy orders, with prayer, and the imposition of hands." If, however, a more comprehensible explanation be desired, as to both the form and substance of it, we must keep in mind the point of view from which it is contemplated.

First, there is the ordination of present usage as held and practiced by the various Christian denominations, with great diversity of subjective import and ceremonial observance.

Second, there is the ordination of history which found its highest conception and most complete expression in the mediaeval Latin and Greek churches, which held it as a sacrament, invested it with the sanctity of inspiration and surrounded it with the pageantry of an imposing ritualism.

Third, there is the ordination of the New Testament, which differs from both the others, and which alone need command the regard or research of those churches who claim to draw both the form and spirit of all life from that sacred fountain of ecclesiastical order and authority. Our inquiry, then, is narrowed to this question, What is the "ordination" of the New Testament?

The English words ordain and ordained, are used with some frequency in the sacred writings, and render several Greek words, but constitute, as every careful reader knows, no argument for ceremonial ordination, as now or formerly practiced.

In Mark 3:14 it is said Jesus "... ordained (epoieese, actually epoiaysen, epoihsen, to make, declare to be) twelve, that they should be with him..." It implies no "setting apart," but simply an appointment, a choice.

In Luke 10:1 it is said, "... the Lord appointed (anededzen, anedeizen) other seventy also." The word means to point out, to declare, to appoint. Has no reference to formal induction into office.

In I Tim 2:7, Paul says, "Whereunto I am ordained (etetheen, actually etethayn, eteqhn) a preacher, and an apostle..." Here the word means to set, to constitute, to appoint, and has no reference to ceremonial ordination.

In Acts 1:22 Peter declares that one must be ordained (genesthai, genesqai) to be a witness of the resurrection of Jesus, to fill the place of Judas. Here the word means to select, elect, appoint, to bring about, cause to be.

In Acts 14:23 it is said of Paul and Barnabas, "And when they had ordained (cheirotoneesantes, actually cheirotonaysantes, ceirotonhsanteV) them elders in every city," etc. This much quoted word, which has been relied on to prove a ritualistic ordination, by the "laying on of hands," the best: scholarship decides to mean the stretching out of the hand or the lifting up of the hand as in voting.

The meaning of which here is, that the Apostles secured the election of elders by the vote of the churches, with no reference to ceremonial induction into office.*

The word used in Titus 1:5, "ordain elders in every city," is katasteesees, (actually katastaysays, katasthshV) which means to set, hence to vote; to give one's vote. In N. T. to choose by vote, to appoint. [Ed. Note: the meaning is actually more specific to the derivative rather than to the word it is derived from which is the meaning given by brother Hiscox. Rather than the meaning given by him, which is the meaning of the root, it is more to the idea of "determinate state, condition; personal appearance, mien, deportment." But this is an academic point that makes no difference to the point being made here by brother Hiscox that the scriptural event had nothing to do with ordination as it is defined today as "a ritualistic ordination."]

[Ed. Note: Bro. Hiscox now goes back to the word used in Acts 14:23, ceirotonhsanteV]

Creen, in his N. T. Lexicon, defines it, ''to stretch out the hand; to constitute by voting; to appoint."
Dontsegan, in his Greek Lexicon, defines, "to stretch forth the hand; to vote in an assembly by extending the hand: to elect, to choose." The only places where this word is used in the N. T. are that already named, Acts 14:23, and 2 Cor 8:19, where Paul speaks of the brother "who was chosen (Cheirotoneetheis, cheirotonaythays, ceirotonhqeiV) of the churches to travel with us." Here the choice or appointment of the brother is the only thing indicated.
To place, to constitute, to set over. And which Robinson defines, "to constitute, to make;" and Green, "to place, constitute, set, appoint."

But does not Paul expressly declare to Timothy that he was ordained and set apart to the work of the ministry by the laying on of his hands and the hands of the Presbytery? No; he makes no such declaration. Does he not enjoin Timothy not to ordain any man hastily by suddenly laying hands on him? No; he makes no such declaration, as we shall see. The subject of "the laying on of hands" must be treated very briefly in this place. It was an old Jewish and common Oriental custom, by which benedictions were conferred or invoked, and other symbolical acts performed. Our Lord laid His hands on the sick to heal them; on the little children to bless them. The Apostles did the same. But in the apostolic church this act was chiefly associated with the special impartation of the Holy Spirit. The Charismata was thus conferred. Peter and John laid hands on the converts at Samaria, and they received the Holy Ghost. So did Paul on the twelve disciples at Ephesus. Ananias laid his hands on Saul at Damascus that he might receive his sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Jesus, after the resurrection, conferred the Holy Ghost by breathing on His disciples. And His farewell blessing, when He ascended, was conferred by the lifting up of His hands.

Now, the apostolic precedents relied on to enforce ceremonial ordination by the laying on of hands, are the following:

1. The ordination of the Seven as related in Acts 6:16. The true ordination, i. e., the election in this case was by the "whole multitude," " the multitude of the disciples."

But this case is not in point, and constitutes no argument; since this setting apart was to a secular office and not to a spiritual ministry; to the serving of tables and not to preaching of the Word. An induction into the Diaconate and not into the Episcopate. Moreover, this act was by inspired Apostles, who have no successors. Neither the Diaconate, the Episcopate, nor the Presbyterate can claim to be the official successors of the Apostolate. Presumably this act was for their especial endowment by the Charismata. It has no authority unless it be in the ordination of deacons.

2. The next precedent relied on is the case of Barnabas and Saul, sent forth to the Gentiles by the Church at Antioch, Acts 13:13.

But this was not an ordination in any technical sense. Both these men had been engage in the active work of the ministry for years – not less than eight or nine, possibly twelve, according to the best chronological data. They were not here inducted into the ministry, but designated to a new field of work. Moreover, this designation was by the special and express dictation of the Holy Ghost, showing that it was not a common and customary, but an extraordinary and wholly exceptional thing, and therefore not an imitable example. Also, it is wholly undetermined who laid hands on them, whether the prophets, the elders, or the disciples generally.

3. The next case usually quoted to the same end, is Paul's injunctions to Timothy; "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." – I Tim. 4: 14. Also, "Wherefore, I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands." – 2 Tim. 1: 6.

These passages are held to prove primitive ordination by the laying on of hands. This inferential reasoning is quite of a piece with that which proves primitive infant baptisms from the fact of household baptisms. The fact is, the Apostle makes not the least allusion to ordination in these citations. He speaks expressly and only of "the gift of God" (to Charisma tou Theou), which had been bestowed by the laying on of hands. It would do no more violence to the text to infer that Paul laid his hands on the disciples to ordain them, or that Peter laid his hands on the converts at Samaria for the same purpose, than to say that the above texts refer to Timothy's ordination.

BAPTISMAL PROPOSITIONS

THE subject of baptism constitutes one of the primary and fundamental discussions between Baptists and other Christian denominations, and has reference to the form and uses of that ordinance.* The following propositions set forth the nature and extent of the controversy, the proof of which propositions will amply justify the Baptist position on that subject.

* [Ed. Not: One other reference that should be mentioned is "Authority."]

PROP. I.-That the baptism which John administered, which Jesus received and enjoined, and which the Apostles practiced, was an immersion, a dipping, an entire submergence of the person baptized, in water, on a profession of repentance and faith in Christ.

PROP. II.-That this same baptism of immersion was used by the Apostles and disciples of our Lord, and by the primitive churches, without any known exception, for more than two hundred years after Christ.

PROP. III.-That the first recorded departure from the practice of immersion in baptism was, about A. D. 250, in the case of Novatian, afused on his sick-bed, being, as was supposed, incapable of baptism. No earlier instance is known to history.

PROP. IV.-That from this time pouring, or sprinkling, for baptism, was occasionally resorted to as substitutes, in cases of sick persons, called clinics; hence clinic baptism came into use in emergencies.

PROP. V.-That for more than thirteen hundred years immersion was the prevailing practice of Christian churches throughout the world in the administration of baptism.

PROP. VI.-That the Greek and other Oriental churches have never abandoned the primitive mode, but still practise dipping, whether in the case of adults or of infants, in all climates, and at all seasons of the year.

PROP. VII.-That the substitution of aspersion for immersion was one of the corruptions of the Papal Church, transmitted to, and accepted by, the Protestant Christians in later times.

PROP. VIII.-That, after the Reformation, sprinkling for baptism came into general use among Protestant Christians in Europe, by whom it was transmitted to Protestant churches in America.

PROP. IX.-That the leading scholarship of the world declares that the meaning of the Greek word baptizo is to immerse, and that immersion was the original Scriptural baptism; while sprinkling and pouring are conceded substitutes, used for convenience only, and are without divine authority.

PROP. X.-That more than half the nominal Christians in the world still practise immersion in baptism, denying the validity of any other form, while all Christians, the world over, hold such baptism to be valid, primitive and Scriptural.

If these propositions be proven, it ought to end the controversy - certainly, with candid and unbiased minds. But the force of education, social relations and religious predilections are often more powerful to influence conduct than the combined energies of truth, judgment, and conscience. The injunction of our Lord was and still is: "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Cotton Mather's words could not have a more appropriate or emphatic application than to such a case: " Let a precept be never so difficult to obey, or never so distasteful to flesh and blood, yet if I see it is God's command, my soul says, it is good; let me obey it till I die."

Let it be distinctly understood, however, that all the eminent and learned authorities hereafter cited are Pedobaptists. Baptist witnesses are wholly omitted, not because they are less learned, or less valuable, but because we prefer to allow our opponents in this controversy to bear witness for us, rather than to testify in our own behalf. Possibly, also, the testimony of their own scholars may have more weight with our Pedobaptist brethren than would the testimony of ours, who might be thought interested witnesses in such a case.

WHAT IS CHRISTIAN BAPTISM?

This is the greatest question that enters into the baptismal controversy, and the one in which Baptists take sides against the Pedobaptist world, both Papal and Protestant, so far, at least, as their practice is concerned. Other questions of moment arise in connection with this sacred rite; questions as to its mode, its purpose, and its efficacy. They have their importance, and a legitimate sphere of discussion. What shall precede baptism, or accompany it, or follow it? Whether salt or oil shall be used; whether a black robe or a white robe, or no robe at all shall be worn, by candidate or administrant; whether the candidate shall be dipped once, twice, or thrice, forward or backward, standing or kneeling, all these, and many others, which burdened medieval polemics, are mere accidents, having reference to mode, in which we have no special interest. But it is of primary importance to know what constitutes baptism itself. That point, once settled, will decide the form of its administration. To say it is a ceremony in which water is the element used, and by which persons are admitted to the Christian Church, does not answer the question. What is baptism? As a Gospel ordinance, the New Testament must define it. Baptists answer the question by saying that baptism is the immersion or dipping of a candidate in water, on a profession of faith in Christ, administered in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit.

Pedobaptists answer the question by saying it is either the sprinkling or pouring of water upon the person, touching the forehead with a wet finger, or the dipping of the candidate into water, in either case in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit; and that it may be administered to one on his own profession of faith, or to an unconscious infant on the professed faith of some other person. This would make four forms of the ordinance, administered to two classes of subjects.

Baptists hold to a unity in the ordinance, as in the faith, believing that as there is but one Lord and one Faith, so there is but one Baptism, and not four. And the one baptism is the immersion in water, in, or into the name of the Father, Son and Spirit. Neither pouring nor sprinkling water upon, nor any other application of water to a person, is baptism, though it may be called such ever so often. and ever so earnestly.

MEANING OF BAPTIZO

The word "baptize" is, properly speaking, a Greek word (baptizo), adapted to the English language by a change in its termination. This is the word used by the sacred writers to express and define the ordinance. What does this word mean as originally used? For it is certain that Divine Wisdom, in commanding an ordinance to be observed by believers of all classes, in all lands, and through all ages, would use a word of positive and definite import, and one whose meaning would admit of no reasonable doubt.

What, then, does "baptizo" mean? Let us ask Greek scholars - men familiar with and skilled in the use of Greek words. How do the dictionaries define it? What do lexicographers and scholars say?

SCAPULA says:

To dip, to immerse, as we do anything for the purpose of dyeing it."

SCHLEUSNER says:

'Properly, it signifies to dip, to immerse, to immerse in water."

SCHREVELIUS says:

"To baptize, to merge, to bathe."

PARKHURST says:

"To dip, immerse, or plunge in water."

GREENFIELD says:

"To immerse, immerge, submerge, sink."

GREEN says:

"To dip, immerse, to cleanse or purify by washing."

DONNEGAN says:

"To immerse repeatedly into liquid, to submerge, to soak thoroughly, to saturate."

STEVENS says:

"To merge or immerse, to submerge, or bury in the water."

ALSTIDIUS says:

"To baptize signifies only to immerse, not to wash, except by consequence."

PASSOW says:

"To immerse often and repeatedly, to submerge."

SCHÖTTGEN says:

"To merge, immerse, to wash, to bathe."

STOCKIUS says:

"Properly, it means to dig, or immerse in water."

ROBINSON says:

"To immerse, to sink."

LIDDELL AND SCOTT say:

"To dip repeatedly."

SOPHOCLES says:

"Baptizo, to dip, to immerse, to sink."

ANTHON says:

"The primary meaning of the word is to dip, to immerse."

CREMER says:

"Baptizo, immersion, submersion, for a religious purpose."

GRIMM's LEXICON of the New Testament, which in Europe and America stands confessedly at the head of Greek lexicography, as translated and edited by Prof. Thayer of Harvard University, thus defines baptizo.'

'(1.) To dip repeatedly, to immerse, submerge. (2.) To cleanse by dipping or submerging. (3.) To overwhelm. In the New Testament it is used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution; first instituted by John the Baptist, afterward by Christ's command received by Christians and adjusted to the nature and contents of their religion, viz., an immersion in water performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and administered to those who, impelled by a desire for salvation, sought admission to the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom. With "eis" (eis) to mark the element into which the immersion is made; "en" (en) with the dative of the thing in which one is immersed."

The noun baptisma, the only other word used in the New Testament to denote the rite, this lexicon thus defines: "A word peculiar to the New Testament and ecclesiastical writers; used (1) of John's baptism; (2) of Christian baptism. This, according to the view of the Apostles, is a rite of sacred immersion commanded by Christ."

MOSES STUART, one of the ablest scholars America has produced, says:

Baptizo means to dip, plunge, or immerse into any liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this."-Essay on Baptism, p. 51; Bib. Repos., 1833, p. 298.

ROSENMÜLLER says:

"To baptize is to immerse or dip, the body, or part of the body which is to be baptized, going under the water. -- Scholia, Matt. 3:6.

WETSTEIN says:

"To baptize is to plunge, to dip. The body, or part of the body being under water is said to be baptized. "-Com. on Matt. 3:6.

LEIGH says:

"The native and proper signification of it is, to dip into water, or to plunge under water, "-Critica Sacra.

TURRETIN says:

"The word 'baptism' is of Greek origin, which signifies to baptize, to dip into, to immerse. "-Inst. loc. 19, quest. 11.

BEZA says:

"Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain immersion is signified."-Annot. on Matt. 7:4; Acts 19:3; Matt, 3:2.

CALVIN says:

"The word baptize signifies to immerse,' and the rite of immersion was observed by the ancient Church." -Institutes, B. IV., ch. 15, sec. 19.

WITSIUS says:

"It cannot be denied that the native signification of the word baptism, is to plunge, to dip."-Econ. Cove., B. IV., ch. 16, sec. 13.

LUTHER says:

"The term baptism is a Greek word. It may be rendered a dipping, when we dip something in water, that it may be entirely covered with water. "-Cited by Du Veile on Acts 8:38.

VOSSIUS says:

"To baptize signifies to plunge. "-Discourses on Baptism

WILSON says:

"To baptize, to dip one into water, to plunge one into the water. "-Christ. Dict., Art. Baptism.

CAMPBELL says:

"The word baptizein, (another form of baptidzo) both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse; and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, tingere, the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion." -Translation Gospels. Note on Matt. 3:16.

Very many other competent scholars and critics familiar with the Greek language, might be cited to the same effect. Can there be any reasonable question that the true, indeed the only proper, meaning of baptizo is to dip, plunge, immerse, or bury in water? And if at any time it may have the secondary meaning of wash, cleanse, saturate, or dye, it is in consequence, and by reason of, the manner in which these acts are performed by immersion. As to the meaning of the word there can be no dispute. Both classic and sacred Greek are in harmony as to that. The New Testament decides its meaning as an ecclesiastical term applied to a Gospel ordinance.

SIGNIFICANT USE OF THE WORD

Our Lord in commanding baptism, evidently used such words as conveyed His meaning in no doubtful terms. And the sacred writers in transmitting His command to posterity, as well as His Apostles in preaching His Gospel to the nations, chose from all the words of the Greek language that one which accurately and truthfully conveyed His meaning to those who should believe upon His name. The Greek language is rich in terms to express all positive ideas, and all varying shades of thought. Why was this one word, and no other, selected to describe an ordinance of great significancy, intended to be observed by all believers, to the end of the world.

Baptizo is found eighty times in the New Testament, and is a derivative from bapto. In nearly all it is used to designate this ordinance- and no other word is ever used for that purpose. Baptisma, a baptism, an immersion, is found twenty-two times, and baptismos, the act of baptizing, or immersing, four times, both formed from baptizo. Dr. Carson, Professor Stuart, and others, have abundantly proven that this word means to dip, plunge, or immerse; and that, primarily and properly, it means nothing else. Our Saviour, in leaving a command universally binding on His disciples, meant doubtless to express it so plainly and so positively, that none could misunderstand Him. Therefore, this particular word and no other has been used, because it means just what He intended, and nothing else.

Bapto is found three times in the New Testament, and also means to dip, but is never used to describe baptism. Why not? Because it has other meanings, as well as that of dipping; and with this word the nature of the ordinance might be misunderstood.

Louo is found six times, and means to wash; to wash the whole body; to bathe. If baptism means to wash, as some hold, here was just the word to express it. But this word is never applied to the ordinance; because washing is not baptism, and baptism is not washing.

Nipto is found seventeen times, and means also to wash, to wash the extremities, as the face, hands, or feet, as distinguished from bathing the entire body. But this word is never used to express baptism. Why not, if a little water applied to the face may be baptism, as some teach?

Breko is found seven times, and means to wet, to moisten, to rain upon, but is never used to designate the rite of baptism; therefore to touch or moisten the forehead with wet fingers is not baptism, though frequently declared to be such.

Rantizo is found four times, and means to sprinkle. If baptism could have been performed by sprinkling, as is at present so widely believed, this would have been the word above all others to describe the ordinance. But this word is in no case so used; simply because sprinkling is not baptism.

Keo is found many times in its various combinations, and means to pour, but is never used to designate baptism. But if baptism may be performed by pouring water on a candidate, why was not this word sometimes used to indicate the act?

Katharizo is found thirty times, and means to purify, but is never used to signify the act of baptizing. If the ordinance means to purify, as some claim, this word would have expressed it much better than the one used.

We again ask, why did the sacred writers, from all the words in the Greek language, select only and always that one which strictly means to dip or immerse, to express the act by which the sacred ordinance which Christ had commanded, and which His disciples administered, should be performed? The only consistent answer is, because baptism means immersion, and nothing else, and nothing but immersion is baptism.

Of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, it is said:

"And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water..."-Matt. 3:16. Again it is recorded that Jesus, "... was baptized of John in Jordan; and straightway coming up out of the water..."-Mark 1:9, 10.

Does not the very fact of His going down into the water, so as to come up out of the water, show, if not positively, yet presumptively, that His baptism was an immersion, or burial in the water? For to say He went down into the river for the purpose of having a small quantity of water poured, or a few drops sprinkled on Him, is quite too trifling to have weight with candid minds.

Bp. TAYLOR says:

"The custom of the ancient churches was not sprinkling, but immersion; in pursuance of the sense of the word in the commandment, and the example of our blessed Savior."- Com. Matt, 3:16.

DR. CAMPBELL says:

"Jesus being baptized, no sooner rose out of the water, than heaven was open to Him."-Trans. Gospels, Matt. 3:16.

MACKNIGHT says:

"Christ submitted to be baptized, that is, to be buried under water, and to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of His future death and resurrection. "-Epist. Rom. 6:3, 4.

LIGHTFOOT, the most distinguished and influential member of the Westminster Assembly, says:

"That the baptism of John was the immersion of the body, in which manner both the ablutions of unclean persons and the baptism of proselytes was performed, seems evident from those things which are related of it; namely, that he baptized in the Jordan, and in Enon, because there was much water; and that Christ, being baptized, went up out of the water. "-On Matt, 3:6.

POOLE says:

"A great part of those who went out to hear John were baptized, that is, dipped in the Jordan."- Annot. on Matt. 3:6.

OLSHAUSEN, on the baptism of Jesus, says:

"The one part of the action, the submersion, represents the negative aspect, the taking away of the old man; the other, the emersion, denotes its positive aspect, the appearance of the new man."-Com. Rom, 6:3, 4.

DEAN STANLEY says:

"The mode of John's baptism has been, and still is much discussed, but the practice of the Eastern Church, and the very meaning of the word baptizo leave no sufficient ground for questioning that the original form of baptism was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters. "-Hist. Eastern Church, p. 34.

GEIKIE says of John's converts:

"He led them in groups to the Jordan, and immersed each singly in the waters, after earnest and full confession of their sins. "-Life and Words of Christ, Vol. I., p. 405.

DR. DöLLINGER says:

"The Baptists are, however, from the Protestant point of view, unassailable, since, for their demand of baptism by submersion, they have the clear text of the Bible; and the authority of the Church and of her testimony is not regarded by either party. "-Kirche und Kirchen, 337.

PROF. HARNACK says:

Baptizein undoubtedly signifies immersion. No proof can be found that it signifies anything else in the New Testament, and in the most ancient Christian literature. The suggestion regarding a 'sacred sense,' is out of the question. "-In Independent, Feb. 19, 1885.

MUCH WATER FOR BAPTISM.

"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan, unto John, to be baptized of him."-Matt. 3:13. "And John also was baptizing in Ænon, near to Salim, because there was much water there..."-John 3:23.

Thoughtful persons will ask why should they have resorted to places expressly because these furnished large supplies of water, if baptism was performed by sprinkling? A very small quantity would have answered the purpose in that case. Let Pedobaptist scholars themselves answer the question as follows:

CALVIN, whom Scaliger pronounced the most learned man in Europe, says:

"From these words of John (ch. 3:23) it may be inferred that baptism was administered, by John and Christ, by plunging the whole body under the water. "-Comment. John 3: 23.

BENGEL says:

"Many waters; so the rite of immersion required." -Comment on John 3: 23.

POOLE says:

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

CURCELLÆUS says:

"Baptism was performed by plunging the whole body into water, and not by sprinkling a few drops, as is now the practice, For John was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water there. "-Relig. Ch. Inst., cited, Booth, Ped. Ex. ch. 4, p.50

WHITBY says:

"Because there was much water there, in which their whole bodies might be dipped. "-Crit. Com. John 3:23.

ADAM CLARK says:

"As the Jewish custom required the persons to stand in the water, and having been instructed, and entered into a covenant to renounce all idolatry, and take the God of Israel for their God, then plunged themselves under the water, it is probable that the rite was thus performed. "-Com. on John 3:23.

GEIKIE says:

"John had to leave the Jordan as too shallow at its accessible parts for baptism, and go to another place, Enon near Salim, an unknown locality, where pools more suitable were yet to be had."-Life and Words of Christ, p. 410.

PHILIP AND THE EUNUCH

Why should Philip and the eunuch, or either of them, have gone down into the water, if a mere sprinkling or pouring of water, and not immersion in water, was to be used? "And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip."-Acts 8:38, 39.

CALVIN says:

"Here we perceive how baptism was administered among the ancients; for they immersed the whole body in water."- On baptism, ch. 3, p. 56.

Dr. TOWERSON says:

"For what need would there have been of Philip and the eunuch going into this [the water], were it not that the baptism was to be performed by immersion. "-Com. Acts 8:38.

GROTIUS, whom his biographer declared one of the most illustrious names in literature, politics and theology, says:

"But that this customary rite was performed by immersion, and not by pouring, is indicated both by the proper signification of the word, and the places chosen for the rite." -Annot. Matt. 3:6.

VENEMA says:

"It is without controversy, that baptism in the primitive Church was administered by immersion into water, and not by sprinkling, seeing that John is said to have baptized in Jordan, and where there was much water, as Christ also did by His disciples in the neighborhood of those places. Philip, also, going down into the water, baptized the eunuch."-. Eccl. Hist., ch. 1, sec. 138. See Booth, Ped. Ex., ch. 4, sec. 76.

THE TESTIMONY OF EXPOSITORS

The great question with every candid mind should be, "What is truth? What is right?" But as the Scriptures are our only and sufficient standard in matters of religious faith and practice, we ask, what do the Scriptures teach? In order to ascertain this point, we inquire of those pious men, eminent for learning and a devout study of the Bible, who have prepared able commentaries on the sacred text, as to what they understand to be the nature of baptism, and the form of its original administration. What do expositors say?

ZANCHIUS, whose opinion, De Courcy declares, "is worth a thousand others," says:

'The proper signification of baptizo is to immerse, plunge under, to overwhelm in water."- Works, Vol. VI., p. 217. Geneva, 1619.

WITSIUS says:

"It cannot be denied that the native signification of the word baptein, and baptizein, is to plunge or dip. "-Econ. Covenants, p. 1213.

Bp. TAYLOR says:

"The custom of the ancient churches was not sprinkling, but immersion. "-Duct. Dubit, B. III., ch. 4, R. 15.

LUTHER, the great German reformer, says:

"The term baptism is Greek; in Latin it may be translated immersio; since we immerse anything into water, that the whole may be covered with the water."-Works, Vol. I., p. 74. Wit. Ed., 1582.

MELANCTHON says:

"Baptism is immersion into water, which is made with this admirable benediction. "-Melanct. Catec., Wit., 1580.

CAVE, in his able work on Christian Antiquities, says: "The party to be baptized was wholly immersed, or put under water. "-Prim. Chris., P. I., ch. 10, p. 320.

Bp. SHERLOCK says:

"Baptism, or an immersion into water, according to the ancient rite of administering it, is a figure of our burial with Christ, and of our conformity to His death. "-See Bloom. Crit. Dig., Vol. V., p. 537.

BEZA says:

"Christ commanded us to be baptized: by which word it is certain immersion is signified. ".-Epis. ad. Thom. Tillium, Annot. on Mark 7:4

POOLE says:

"He seems here to allude to the manner of baptizing in those warm Eastern countries, which was to dip or plunge the party baptized, and, as it were, to bury him for a while under water. "-Annot. on Romans 6:4.

MEDE says:

"There was no such thing as sprinkling used in the Apostles' days, nor for many ages after them. "-Discourse on Titus

VITRINGA says:

The act of baptizing is the immersion of believers in water. This expresses the force of the word. "-Aphorism 884.

GROTIUS says:

"That baptism used to be performed by immersion, and not pouring, appears by the proper signification of the word, and by the places chosen for the administration of this rite." -Annot. Matt. 3:6; John 3:23.

Bp. BOSSUET says:

"To baptize signifies to plunge, as is granted by all the world. "-Stennett against Russen, p.174.

DIODATI says:

"Baptized, that is to say, ducked in the water, for a sacred sign and seal of the expiation and remission of sins."- Annot. on Matt. 3: 6.

CALVIN says:

"The word baptize signifies to immerse; and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient Church."- Institutes, B. IV., ch. 15, sec. 19.

SAMUEL CLARKE says:

"In the primitive times the manner of baptizing was by immersion, or dipping the whole body into water. "-Exp. Ch. Catec., p. 294. Ed. 6.

STORR and FLATT say:

"The disciples of our Lord could understand His command in no other way than as enjoining immersion, for the baptism of John, to which Jesus Himself submitted, and also the earlier baptism of the disciples of Jesus, were performed by dipping the subject into cold water. "-Bib. Theol., B. IV., sec. 109, par. 4.

ADAM CLARK says:

"Alluding to the immersions practiced in the case of adults, wherein the person appeared to be buried under the water, as Christ was buried in the heart of the earth. "-Comment on Col. 2:12.

BLOOMFIELD says:

"There is here plainly a reference to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion."-Greek New Test. Exp. Rom. 6:4.

SCHOLZ says:

'Baptism consists in the immersion of the whole body in water."-Comment on Matt. 3:6.

SCHAFF says:

"Immersion, and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original form. This is shown by the very meaning of the words baptizo, baptisma and baptismos, used to designate the rite."-Hist. Apos. Ch., p. 488. Merc. ed., 1851. See also Noel on Bap., ch. 3, sec. 8.

PROF. BROWNE says:

"The language of the New Testament and of the primitive Fathers sufficiently point to immersion as the common mode of baptism. "-Smith's Bib. Dict., Art. Bap. Sup.

DR. JACOBS says:

"It only remains to be observed that baptism, in the primitive Church, was evidently administered by immersion of the body in water, a mode which added to the significancy of the rite, and gave a peculiar force to some of the allusions to it."- Eccl. Polity of the N. T., p. .258.

NEANDER says:

"The usual form of submersion at baptism, practiced by the Jews, was passed over to the Gentile Christians. Indeed, this form was the most suitable to signify that which Christ intended to render an object of contemplation by such a symbol: the immersion of the whole man in the spirit of a new life. "-Planting and Training, p. 161.

To the same effect might be adduced many others from among the most able and distinguished of biblical scholars and commentators connected with the Pedobaptist communions.

APOSTOLIC ALLUSIONS

The idea that Paul had of both the form and purpose of baptism is very manifest from the manner in which he refers to it in his Epistles. To the Romans he says: "Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death."-Rom. 6: 4. To the Colossians, using nearly the same language, he says: "Buried with Him in baptism."-Col 2:12.

His conception must have been that of a burying, a covering of the subject entirely in the water, by a sinking into it. No other form could have been true to the figure here used. And this fact has been generally acknowledged.

ABP. TILLOTSON, on these passages, says:

"Anciently those who were baptized were immersed, and buried in the water, to represent their death to sin; and then did rise up out of the water to signify their entrance upon a new life. And to these customs the Apostle alludes."- Works, Vol. I., p. 179.

BENSON says:

"Buried with Him by baptism - alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion. "-Comment on Rom. 4:4.

DIODATI says:

"In baptism being dipped in water according to the ancient ceremony; it is a sacred sign unto us, that sin ought to be drowned in us by God's Spirit."-Annot. Rom. 4:4.

TURRETIN says:

And indeed baptism was performed in that age, and in those countries, by immersion of the whole body into water." -Comment on Rom. 6:3, 4.

ZWINGLE says:

"When ye were immersed into the water by baptism, ye were ingrafted into the death of Christ. "-Annot. Rom. 4:4. See Conant's Append. to Matt.

WHITBY says:

"It being so expressly declared that we are buried with Christ in baptism, by being buried under water. "-Comment on Rom. 4:4.

JOHN WESLEY says:

"Buried with Him - alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion. "-Note on Romans 4:4.

CONYBEARE says:

"This passage cannot be understood, unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion. "-Life and Epist. St. Paul, Rom. 4:4.

BLOOMFIELD says:

"Here is a plain allusion to the ancient Custom of baptizing by immersion; and I agree with Koppe and Rosenmüller, that there is reason to regret it should ever have been abandoned in most Christian churches, especially as it has so evident a reference to the mystic sense of baptism. "-Recens. Synop. On Rom. 4:4.

SAMUEL CLARKE says:

"In the primitive times, the manner of baptizing was by immersion, or dipping the whole body into water. And this manner of doing it was a very significant emblem of the dying and rising again, referred to by St. Paul, in the above-mentioned similitude."-Expos. Church Cate., 294, ed. 6.

OLSHAUSEN says:

"Particularly Paul (Rom. 6:4) treats of baptism in the twofold reference of that ordinance to immersion and emersion, as symbolizing the death and resurrection of Christ."- Comment Matt. 18: 1-15.

FRITZSCHE says:

"But that, in accordance with the nature of the word, baptism was then performed not by sprinkling upon, but by submerging, is proved especially by Rom. 4:4. "-Com, on Matt., Vol. I., p. 120. See Conant's Append. to Matt., p. loj.

ESTIUS says:

"For immersion represents to us Christ's burial, and so also His death; since none but the dead are buried. Moreover, the emersion which follows the immersion has a resemblance to the resurrection."-Com. on Rom. 6:3. Cited by Conant, Append. to Matt., p. 100.

MALDONATUS says:

"For in Greek to be baptized is the same as to be submerged."-Com. on Matt. 20:22; Luke 12:50.

WHITEFIELD says:

"It is certain that in the words of our text (Rom. 6:3, 4) there is an allusion to the manner of baptism, which was by immersion. "-Eighteen Sermons, p. 297.

ADAM CLARK says:

"It is probable that the Apostle here alludes to the mode of administering baptism by immersion, the whole body being put under water." -Comment on Rom. 6:4.

BISHOP FELL says~

"The primitive fashion of immersion under the water, representing our death, and elevation again out of it, our resurrection or regeneration. "-Note on Rom. 6:4

DR. DODDRIDGE says:

"It seems the part of candor to confess, that here (Rom. 6:4) is an allusion to the manner of baptizing by immersion, as most usual in those early times. "-Fam. Expos. on Rom. 6:4.

ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES say:

"In this phrase (Col. 2:12) the Apostle seemeth to allude to the ancient manner of baptism, which was to dip the parties baptized, and, as it were, to bury them under the water for a while, and then to draw them out of it, and lift them up, to represent the burial of our old man, and our resurrection to newness of life."-Annot. on Matt. 3:6 Rom. 6:4.

Such opinions, expressed by these learned and pious men, do not surprise us. It is difficult to see how they could have expressed any others.

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

Many learned men have studied with care the early records of Christianity; have written histories of the doctrines and ceremonies of the churches during the times immediately succeeding the apostolic age. What do they say of the practice as to baptism in the first centuries of Christian history?

BARNABAS, the companion of St. Paul, in an epistle ascribed to him, and which must have been written very early, whoever was the real author, speaks of baptism as a "going down into the water." He says:

"We go down into the water full of sin and filth, but we come up bearing fruits in our hands."-Cath. Epist., sec. 9., cited by Broughton, Hist. Dict., Art. Baptism.

HERMAS, writing about A. D. 95, in the "Shepherd," a work ascribed to him, speaks of the Apostles as having gone "down into the water with those they baptized," and "come up again."-Stennet against Russen, p. 143.

JUSTIN MARTYR, writing about A.D. 140, speaks of those baptized as "washed in the water, in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit."-Apology, secs. 79, 85, 86. Reeve's Trans,; Orchard's Hist. Bapt., secs. 1, 2,3, 4.

TERTULLIAN, about A. D. 204, says the person to be baptized "is let down into the water, and, with a few words said, is dipped."-De Bapt., ch. 2.

HIPPOLYTUS, about A. D. 225, says:

"For he who goes down with faith into the bath of regeneration, is arrayed against the evil one, and on the side of Christ. He comes up from the baptism bright as the sun, flashing forth the rays of righteousness. "-Dis. on the Theoph., 10. See Conant's Append. to Matt.

GREGORY, A. D. 360, says:

"We are buried with Christ by baptism, that we may also rise with him. "-Stennet's Reply, p.144

BASIL, A. D. 360, says:

"By three immersions the great mystery of baptism is accomplished;" referring to trine baptism. -Baronius' Annals, V.; .Bingham's Antiq., B. XI., ch. 11.

AMBROSE, A. D. 374, says:

"Thou saidst, I do believe, and wast immersed in water; that in thou wast buried."-Bing. Ant., B. II., ch. 2. Stennett's Reply to Russen, p.144

CYRIL, A. D. 374, says:

"Candidates are first anointed with consecrated oils; they are then conducted to the laver, and asked three times if they believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; then they are dipped three times into the water, and retire by three distinct efforts. "-Dupin's Eccl. Hist., ch. 6., sec. 2; Orchard's Hist. Bap.,p.43. Nash. ed.,1855.

CHRYSOSTOM, A. D. 398, says:

"To be baptized and plunged in the water, and then emerge and rise again, is a symbol of our descent into the grave, and our ascent out of it. "-Hom. 40, on I Cor., p. 186; Bing. Christ. Antiq., B. XI,, ch. 11. See also on all the Fathers, Conant's Append. to Matt.

SALMASIUS says:

"Baptism is immersion, and was formerly celebrated according to the force and meaning of the name. Now it is only rantism, or sprinkling, not immersion nor dipping."- Wolf. Crit. Matt. 28: 19; De Caes. Viro., p. 669

BINGHAM says:

The ancients thought that immersion, or burying under water, did more lively represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, as well as our own death to sin, and rising again into righteousness." -Christ. Antiq., B. XI., ch, 15,

MOSHEIM says:

"In this century [the first] baptism was administered in convenient places, without the public assemblies, and by immersing the candidate wholly in water, "-Eccl. Hist.. B. I., Cent. I. part II., ch. 4.

NEANDER says:

"In respect to the form of baptism, it was, in conformity with the original institution, and the original import of the symbol, performed by immersion, as a sign of entire baptism into the Holy Spirit, of being entirely penetrated by the same. "-Ch. Hist. Vol. I., p. 310. Also Hist. Plant, and Train., Vol. 1., p. 222.

WADDINGTON says:

"The sacraments of the primitive Church were two: that of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The ceremony of immersion, the oldest form of baptism, was performed in the name of the three persons of the Trinity. "-Church Hist., ch. 2., sec. 3.

SCHAFF says:

"Finally, so far as it respects the mode and manner of outward baptizing, there can be no doubt that immersion, and not sprinkling, was the original normal form. "-Hist. Christ. Ch., p. 488, Mercer. ed.

FOR THIRTEEN CENTURIES

Not only was immersion the original normal form of baptism, as received by Christ, administered by His Apostles, and practiced by the earliest Christians, but it was that form which was retained in use by all Christian churches, with few exceptions, for many centuries. Indeed, with a large portion of the so-called Christian world, it retains its position to this day.

DR. WHITBY says:

"And this immersion being religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen Centuries, and approved by our Church "-referring to the Church of England .-Annotations on Rom. 6:4.

DR. STACKHOUSE says:

"Several authors have shown and proved that this manner of immersion continued, as much as possible, to be used for thirteen hundred years after Christ. "-History of the Bible, B. VIII., ch, I.

BISHOP BOSSUET Says:

"We are able to make it appear, by the acts of Councils, and by ancient rituals, that for thirteen hundred years baptism was thus administered ~by immersionj throughout the whole Church, as far as possible." -Stennett ad. Russen, p. 176; Booth's Pedo. Ex., ch. 4.

DR. BRENNER says:

Thirteen hundred years was baptism generally and orderly performed by the immersion of the person under water, and only in extraordinary cases was sprinkling, or affusion, permitted. These later methods of baptism were called in question, and even prohibited, "-Hist. Exhibit. Bapt,, p.306.

VON CöLLN says:

"Immersion in water was general until the thirteenth century among the Latins; it was then displaced by sprinkling, but retained by the Greeks. "-Hist. Doct., Vol. II., p. 303

HAGENBACH says:

"From the thirteenth century sprinkling came into more general use in the West. The Greek Church, however, and the Church of Milano still retained the practice of immersion. "-Hist. Doct., Vol. II., p. 84, note 1.

WINER says:

"Affusion was first applied to the sick, but was gradually introduced for others after the seventh century, and in the thirteenth became the prevailing practice in the West."- Lects. Christ. Antiquity.

AUGUSTI says:

"Immersion in water was general until the thirteenth century, among the Latins; it was then displaced by sprinkling, but retained by the Greeks." -Archa., Vol. V., p. 5, Vol. VII., p. 229.

BINGHAM says:

"As this [dipping] was the original apostolical practice, so it continued the universal practice of the Church for many ages. "-Antiq. Christ. Church, B. XI., ch, 11.

VAN OOSTERZEE says:

"This sprinkling, which seems to have first come generally into use in the thirteenth century, in place of the entire immersion of the body, in imitation of the previous baptism of the sick, has certainly this imperfection, that the symbolical character of the act is expressed by it much less conspicuously than by complete immersion and burial under water." -Christian Dogmatics, p. 749. N. Y. ed.

COLEMAN says:

"The practice of immersion continued even until the thirteenth or fourteenth century. Indeed, it has never been formally abandoned." -Ancient Christianity, ch. 79, sec. 12.

ENCYCLOPÆDIA ECCLESIASTICA says:

"Whatever weight, however, may be in those reasons, as a defense for the present practice of sprinkling, it is evident that during the first ages of the Church, and for many centuries afterwards, the practice of immersion prevailed." -Ency. Eccl., Art. Baptism.

While these testimonials do not exhaust historical evidence on this point, they are sufficient to satisfy unbiased minds as to the primitive and long-continued use of immersion for baptism, in the Christian world.

These Pedobaptist scholars concede that for thirteen hundred years immersion was the prevailing form of baptism, departed from only in special and extraordinary cases. And that even when abandoned by the Latin, or Romish Church, it was retained by the Greek, and other Oriental churches, which do to this day preserve the original form of that sacred rite.

USAGE OF THE GREEK CHURCH

While it may not be an unanswerable argument in favor of the position taken by Baptists, that the Greek Church has always practised, and does still practise immersion, yet the fact is too significant to be overlooked. It constitutes collateral evidence of no mean character. The Greek Church extends over Greece, Russia, Egypt, Arabia, Palestine, Abyssinia, and other Oriental countries. Like the Romish Church, it has corrupted the primitive purity of Gospel doctrine and practice with many absurd glosses and superstitious rites. But as to the form of baptism, it holds the primitive custom of dipping the candidates.

STOURDZA, the Russian scholar and diplomat, says:

"The Church of the West [Rome] has, then, departed from the example of Jesus Christ; she has obliterated the whole sublimity of the exterior sign. Baptism and immersion are identical. Baptism by aspersion is as if one should say, immersion by aspersion; or any other absurdity of the same nature. "-Consid. Orthodox Ch., p. 87, Conant's Append., p. 99.

DEYLINGIUS says:

"The Greeks retain the rite of immersion to this day; as Jeremiah, the patriarch of Constantinople, declares. "-De Prud. Past., P. III., ch. 3., sec. 26.

BUDDEUS says:

"That the Greeks defend immersion is manifest, and has been frequently observed by learned men; which Ludolphus informs us is the practice of the Ethiopians."-Theol. Dogmat., B. V,, ch. 1., sec. 5.

RICAUT says:

"Thrice dipping, or plunging, this Church holds to be as necessary to the form of baptism, as water is to the matter." -State of Greek Church, p. 163.

DR. WALL, whose learned and laborious researches into the history of baptism left little for others to discover, says

"The Greek Church in all its branches does still use immersion, and so do all other Christians in the world, except the Latins. All those nations that do now, or formerly did submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, do ordinarily baptize their infants by pouring or sprinkling. But all other Christians in the world, who never owned the Pope's usurped power, do, and ever did, dip their infants in the ordinary use. All the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one-third in Europe, are of the last sort." -Hist. Inf. Bap., Vol. II., p. 376; ed.3.

DR. WHITBY says:

"The observation of the Greek Church is this, that he who ascended out of the water must first descend into it; baptism, therefore, is to be performed, not by sprinkling, but by washing the body, and, indeed, it can be only from ignorance of the Jewish rites that this can be questioned. "-Critical Com. on Matt. 3:16.

DR. KING says:

"The Greek Church uniformly practices the trine immersion, undoubtedly the most primitive manner. "-Rites and Cerem. Greek Church, p. 192.

COLEMAN says:

"The Eastern Church has uniformly retained the form of immersion as indispensable to the validity of the ordinance; and repeat the rite whenever they have received to their communion persons who have been baptized in another manner." -Ancient Christ. Exemp., ch. 19., sec. 72.

BROUGHTON says:

"The Greek Church differs from the Romish, as to the rite of baptism, chiefly in performing it by immersion, or plunging the infant all over in the water. "-Hist. Dict., Art. Bapt. Also Ricaut's Greek Church.

THE PANTALOGIA says:

The Greek Church is "that part of the Christian Church which was first established in Greece, and is now spread over a larger extent of country than any other established Church.

Amid all their trifling rites, they practice trine immersion, which is unquestionably the original manner. "-Article Greek Church.

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA says:

"The Greek Church differs from the Romish, as to the rite of baptism, chiefly in performing it by immersion, or plunging the infant all over in the water." -Article Baptism.

The Greek Church, like the Latin, has departed from scriptural usage in baptizing unconscious infants, and in many other matters; but has retained the true form of baptism. The Romish Church claims the right to change and abolish ordinances. For that reason, and on that ground alone, they have abolished immersion, and use aspersion in its stead. And this aspersion the Protestant Pedobaptist churches have accepted, with other ecclesiastical perversions, from that corrupt source. Why will they not go back to primitive purity, and scripture teaching? Would they but discard rantism, and adopt baptism according to the command of Christ and the practice of the Apostles, it would do more to secure Christian unity among Protestants than all other proposed schemes combined.

THE TESTIMONY OF BAPTISTERIES

It will cast some further light on this subject to know what places were resorted to for a convenient administration of this ordinance during the early ages of Christianity. They never would have frequented rivers, pools, cisterns, and other large bodies of water, for the mere purpose of sprinkling the candidates.

We know that John the Baptist and the disciples of Jesus resorted to the Jordan for the purpose of baptizing, and to Enon, near to Salim, "because there was much water there."

TERTULLIAN says:

"There is no difference whether one is baptized in the sea or in a lake, in a river or in a fountain; neither was there any difference between those whom John baptized in Jordan, and those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber." -De Bapt., ch. 4 Bing. Antiq., B. VIII,, ch. 8, sec. 1.

DR. DODDRIDGE says:

"John was also at the same time baptizing at Enon; and he particularly chose that place because there was a great quantity of water there, which made it very convenient for his purpose. "-Fam. Expositor on Matt. 3:16.

As Christianity spread and converts multiplied, in many places, especially in large cities, there were few opportunities for the convenient and agreeable administration of the ordinance. Other cities were not so well supplied with pools as was Jerusalem. Then began to be erected baptisteries, expressly designed for this use. These, at first, were constructed in the simplest manner; but, in process of time, large, costly and imposing edifices were built for this purpose.

MOSHEIM says:

"For the more convenient administration of baptism sacred fonts, or baptisteria, were erected in the porches of the temples. This was in the fourth century. "-Eccl. Hist. Cent. 4, B. II., p. II,, ch. 4, sec. 7.

BROUGHTON says:

"The place of baptism was at first unlimited, being some pond or lake, some spring or river, but always as near as possible to the place of public worship. Afterward they had their baptisteries, or (as we call them) fonts, built at first near the church, then in the church porch, and, at last, in the church itself." "The baptistery was, properly speaking, the whole house or building in which the font stood, which latter was only the fountain or pool of water in which the immersion was performed."-Hist. Dict., Arts. Baptism and Baptistery.

DR. MURDOCK says:

"Thc baptisteries were, properly, buildings adjacent to the churches, in which the catechumens were instructed, and where were a sort of cistern, into which water was let at the time of baptism, and in which the candidates were baptized by immersion. "-Mosh. Eccl, Hist,, Vol. I., p.281, note 15.

DR. SCHAFF says:

"In the fourth century special buildings for this holy ordinance (baptism) began to appear, either entirely separate, or connected with the main church by a covered passage. The need of them arose partly from the still prevalent custom of immersion. "-Hist. Chr. Ch., Vol. II., p. 558-9, sec. zo8.

CAVE says:

"These baptisteries were usually very large and capacious, not only that they might comport with the general custom of those times, of persons baptized being immersed or put under water, but because the stated times of baptism returning so seldom, great multitudes were usually baptized at the same time." -Prim. Christ., P. I., ch. 10, p. 312.

BINGHAM says:

"In the apostolic age, and some time after, before churches and baptisteries were generally erected, they baptized in any place where they had convenience, as John baptized in Jordan, Philip baptized the eunuch in the wilderness, and Paul, the jailor, in his own house." -Christ. Antiq., B. XI., Ch. 6, sec. 11.

HAGENBACH says:

"That baptism in the beginning was administered in the open air, in rivers and pools, and that it was by immersion we know from the narratives of the New Testament. In later times there were prepared great baptismal fonts or chapels. The person to be baptized descended several steps into the reservoir of water, and then the whole body was immersed under the water. "-Hist. Christ. Church, ch. 19, p. 324.

COLEMAN says:

"The first baptistery, or place appropriated to baptism, of which any mention is made, occurs in a biography in the fourth century, and this was prepared in a private house."- Ancient Christ. Exemplified, ch. 19, sec 10.

The term "baptistery" was applied properly to the pool or font of water, but was also used to designate the building in which the pool was placed.

BRANDE says:

"A building destined for the purpose of administering the rite of baptism. The baptistery was entirely distinct from the church up to the end of the sixth century; after which period the interior of the church received it. "-Dict. Arts, Sci., and Lit., Art. Baptistery.

THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA says:

"In the ancient Church it was one of the exedra, or buildings distinct from the church itself. Thus it continues till the sixth century, when the baptisteries began to be taken into the church porch, and afterward into the church itself." -Article Baptistery.

Some of these structures are still preserved, and others are well known to have existed - as that of Florence, Venice, Pisa, Naples, Bologna, and Ravenna. That of the Lateran, at Rome, is considered the oldest now existing, having been erected A.D. 324.

That at Pisa was completed AD. 1160, the entire structure being one hundred and fifteen feet in diameter, by one hundred and seventy-two feet in height, and of a circular form. That at Florence is an octagonal building, ninety feet in diameter, with a lofty dome. That of St. Sophia, at Constantinople, erected by Constantine, AD. 337, was capable of accommodating a numerous Council, whose sessions were held in it. Most of these structures are large, elaborate, and costly edifices. The baptistery proper, or pool for baptizing, was an open cistern in the center of the large hall, or main part of the building.

Can any one suppose these buildings would have been provided if sprinkling and not immersion had been the manner of administering baptism?*

* For a full account of Baptisteries, see Robinson's History of Baptism, ch. 12, where, with much labor, the author has collected a large amount of information on the subject. Also Duncan's Hist. Baptists, ch. 5, sec. 3. Also Crystal's History of the Mode of Baptism.

THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM

What was baptism intended to represent and teach? As an outward rite, it must be a type, or sign, of some religious truth, or spiritual fact, meant to be taught or enforced by its observance. And the form of the rite, the manner of its administration, must be such as properly to express its design and meaning. If the form be so changed that its symbolic force is lost, and its design no longer seen in its administration, then, manifestly, it is no longer baptism in form or fact; its teaching is not understood, and its chief purpose fails.

Now, it is not difficult to ascertain from the New Testament what was intended by baptism. It was clearly this: to show forth the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, who died for our sins, and rose again for our justification. And every candidate who receives the ordinance professes thereby faith in the merits of Christ's death as the ground of his own hope and salvation, fellowship also with His sufferings, and a declaration of his own death to sin, and a rising to newness of life in Christ. It also typifies the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and declares the candidate's hope of a resurrection from the dead, even as Christ, into the likeness of whose death he is buried, was raised up by the glory of the Father.

That immersion alone can teach this is evident; which view the following testimonies abundantly confirm:

TYNDALE says:

"The plunging into the water signifieth that we die and are buried with Christ, as concerning the old life of sin. And the pulling out again signifieth that we rise again with Christ in a new life full of the Holy Ghost." -Obedience of a Christ, Man, 143, cited by Conant, Append., p. 93.

ADAM CLARK says:

"But as they received baptism as an emblem of death, in voluntarily going under the water, so they receive it as an emblem of the resurrection unto eternal life, in coming up out of the water. " -Bap. for the dead, Com. on I Cor. 15:29.

Bp. NEWTON says:

"Baptism was usually performed by immersion, or dipping the whole body under water, to represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ together, and therewith signify the person's own dying to sin, the destruction of its power, and his resurrection to a new life."-Prac. Expos. Catechism p. 297.

FRANKIUS says:

"The baptism of Christ represented His sufferings, and His coming up out of the water His resurrection from the dead ."-Programme, 54, p. 343.

PICTETUS says:

"That immersion into and emersion out of the water, practiced by the ancients, signify the death of the old man, and the resurrection of the new man."- Theol. Christ., B. XIV., Ch. 4, sec. 13.

BUDDEUS says:

"Immersion, which was used in former times, was a symbol and an image of the death and the burial of Christ."- Dogmatic Theol., B. V., Ch. I, sec. 8.

SAURIN says:

"The ceremony of wholly immersing us in water, when we were baptized, signified that we died to sin." -Sermons, Vol. III., p. 171. Robinson's Trans.

GROTIUS says:

"There was in baptism, as administered in former times, an image both of a burial and a resurrection, which in regard to Christ was external, in regard to Christians internal." -Annot. Rom. 4:4. Col. 2: 12.

OLSHAUSEN says:

"As believers are in Christ's death dead with Him, and in baptism buried with Him, so they are now also risen with Him in His resurrection."-Comment on Col. 2:12.

MACKNIGHT says:

"He submitted to be baptized, that is, to be buried under the water by John, and to be raised up out of it again, as an emblem of His future death and resurrection." -Comment on Rom. 6: 4.

BAXTER says:

"In our baptism we are dipped under the water, as signifying our covenant profession, that as He was buried for sin, we are dead and buried to sin." -Para. Rom. 6.4. Col. 2:12.

ABP. LEIGHTON says:

"Buried with Christ . . . . where the dipping into water is referred to as representing our dying with Christ, and the return thence, as expressive of our rising with Him." -Com. I Pet. 3:21.

DR. BARROW says:

"The action is baptizing, or immersing into water." "The mersion also in water, and emersion thence, doth figure our death to the former, and our reviving to a new life." -Doct. Sacra. Works, Vol. III., p. 43.

Dr. Cave says:

"As in immersion there are, in a manner, three several acts - the putting the person into water, his abiding there for a little time, and his rising up again - so by these were represented Christ's death, burial, and resurrection; and in conformity thereunto our dying unto sin, the destruction of its power. and our resurrection to a new course of life." -Prim. Christ., p. I., ch. 10, p.320.

Dr. HAMMOND says:

"It is a thing that every Christian knows, that the immersion in baptism refers to the death of Christ. The putting the person into the water denotes and proclaims the death and burial of Christ." -Comment. on Rom. 6:3.

DR. WALL says:

"The immersion of the person, whether infant or adult, in the posture of one that is buried and raised up again, is much more solemn, and expresses the design of the sacrament and the mystery of the spiritual washing much better than pouring a small quantity on the face." -Hist. Inf. Bap., pp. 404-408.

DR. SCHAFF says:

"All commentators of note (except Stuart and Hodge) expressly admit, or take it for granted, that in this verse the ancient prevailing mode of baptism by immersion and emersion is implied, as giving additional force to the idea of the going down of the old and the rising up of the new man." - Note in Lange on Rom. 6:4.

Bp. BLOOMFIELD says:

"There may also be (as the ancient commentators think) an allusion to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion; which, while typifying a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness, also had reference to the Christian's communion with his Lord, both in death and resurrection from the dead." -Greek N. Test. on I Cor. 15:29. Bap. for the dead.

DR. TOWERSON says:

"Therefore, as there is so much the more reason to represent the rite of immersion, as the only legitimate rite of baptism, because the only one that can answer the end of its institution, and those things which were to be signified by it; so, especially, if, as is well known, and undoubtedly of great force, the general practice of the Primitive Church was agreeable thereto, and the practice of the Greek Church to this very day. For who can think that either one or the other would have been so tenacious of so troublesome a rite, were it not that they were well assured, as they of the Primitive Church might well be, of its being the only instituted and legitimate one?" -On Sacra. Bapt., Part III., pp. 51-58.

CANON LIDDON, on the likeness to Christ's resurrection, said:

"Of this, the Apostle traced the token in the ceremony, at that time universal, of baptism by immersion. The baptismal waters were the grave of the old nature, while through those waters Christ bestowed the gift of the new nature. As Jesus, crucified and dead, was laid in the grave, so the Christian, crucified to the world through the body of Christ, descends, as into the tomb, into the baptismal Waters. He was buried beneath them; they closed for a moment over him; he was 'planted,' not only in the likeness of Christ's death, but of His burial. But the immersion is over; the Christian is lifted from the flood, and this is evidently as correspondent to the resurrection of Christ, as the descent had been to His burial. Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him." -Easter Sermon in St Paul's, June, 1889.

Such are the opinions of candid Pedobaptist divines, as to the design of baptism. Immersion alone can meet this demand, and serve its purpose. Sprinkling, or pouring water on a candidate, has no force in the direction of this sacred symbolism. It cannot show the death, burial, or the resurrection of Christ; nor the disciple's death to sin, and his rising to a new life. If immersion, therefore, be abandoned, the entire force of the ordinance will be destroyed, and its design obliterated.

Sprinkling sets forth no great doctrine of the Gospel. Only when the disciple is buried beneath the water, and raised up again, do the beauty, force, and meaning, which divine wisdom intended, appear in that sacred ordinance.

THE WATER SUPPLY

Among the weak arguments used, and the indefensible positions assumed by the advocates of sprinkling, is this - one of the weakest, and least defensible - that the Jordan had not sufficient depth of water for immersing the multitudes said to have been baptized by John and the disciples of Jesus; and that there were no conveniences in Jerusalem for immersing the large number of early converts who were baptized there. Consequently, they say, those converts must have had water sprinkled on them instead.

Puerile as may seem this objection, it has been seriously put forth by not a few of the advocates of aspersion, even in the face of Scripture testimony, and against scholarship and history. Such assertions indicate the ignorance or the recklessness of those who make them, and show how prejudice may unfit even good men for a just discussion of grave subjects. The objection is too trifling to merit serious regard; and yet the testimony on this point is so abundant, and so conclusive - and that, too, from Pedobaptist sources - as to make it both pleasant and fitting to adduce some of it in this connection.

PROF. EDWARD ROBINSON, in 1840, made a careful survey of Palestine, including the Jordan river. His statements corroborate those of others, as to the abundant supply of water both in the Jordan and in the city of Jerusalem itself. He cites the earlier but well-known travelers whose published works are familiar to the reading public: Seetzen, who visited the country in 1806; Burckhardt, who explored it in 1812; Irby and Mangles, in 1818, and Buckingham, who traveled through it at about the same time. These distinguished explorers published the results of their travels, which can be consulted. -Rob. Bib, Resear., Vol. II., pp. 257-267.

LIEUT. LYNCH, of the United States navy, was, in 1848, sent out by his government in charge of an expedition to explore the river Jordan and the Dead Sea. This, of course, had no connection with polemic discussions, and least of all was it to settle the baptismal question. It was done for antiquarian research, and for the advancement of science.

The expedition passed down the entire length of the Jordan, in boats, from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea; made frequent and careful surveys, which were accurately recorded and officially published. The river was found to vary in width from seventy-five to two hundred feet; and in depth from three to twelve feet. At Bethabara, where tradition has fixed the place of our Saviour's baptism, and where John baptized the multitudes, Lieut. Lynch gives the width as one hundred and twenty feet, and the greatest depth as twelve feet. There certainly is no lack of water there, since one quarter of twelve feet would be sufficient for burying converts in baptism.

It is a well-known fact that thousands of Christian pilgrims from adjacent countries visit this spot at a certain season annually to bathe in the waters, held sacred by them because of Christ's baptism there. The expedition witnessed one of these scenes, and had their boats in readiness to prevent accidents, which it was feared might occur in so great a crowd of fanatical devotees, in so great a depth of water. Had the advocates of sprinkling been present they might have found an argument as perilous as it would have been convincing for a sufficient depth of water for the immersion of Christian believers. Scarcely an occasion of this kind transpires without some fatal accidents by drowning in the deep and rapid current. -Lynch, chs. 10, 11.

DEAN STANLEY, a distinguished divine and scholar of the English Church, made the tour of the Holy Land in 1853, explored the Jordan valley, witnessed the bathing of the pilgrims, and recorded this remark touching the baptism of John:

"He came baptizing, that is, signifying to those who came to him, as he plunged them under the rapid torrent, the forgiveness and forsaking of their sins." "There began that sacred rite which has since spread throughout the world; through the vast baptisteries of the Southern and Oriental churches, gradually dwindling to the little fonts of the North and West." -Stanley's Syria and Palestine, Ch. 7, pp. 306-7.

DR. THOMSON, for a quarter of a century missionary in Syria and Palestine, and very familiar with the Holy Land, traversed it in 1857, visited the Jordan in the vicinity of Jericho, and witnessed the bathing of the Greek pilgrims, as described by Lieut. Lynch and others. Of this singular and exciting scene he gives a graphic description. He says:

"The men ducked the women somewhat as the farmers do their sheep, while the little children were carried and plunged under water, trembling like so many lambs."

Being Pedobaptists, these Oriental fanatics may not have performed their rites with becoming propriety. But there was an abundance of water, and they believed in a thorough immersion. He adds:

"The current is astonishingly rapid, and at least ten feet deep. "Two Christians and a Turk. who ventured too far, were drowned without the possibility of a rescue." A perilous depth of water certainly. "At the bathing-place it was twenty rods wide." "Boats could do nothing in such a current, and it is too deep to ford ."-The Land and the Book, Vol. II., pp. 445-446

PROF. OSBORNE, who in 1857 made the tour of Palestine for scientific research, makes this note of a bath taken in the Jordan:

"The current was too strong to permit of swimming across, though washing in its waters completely freed me from the clammy sensation which was the consequence of my previous bath in the Dead Sea." -Palestine, Past and Present, p. 476.

LORD NUGENT says of the Jordan:

"Its general breadth is between fifty and sixty yards, perhaps a little wider; and in most parts it is too deep, within a few feet out (when thus high), to allow any but swimmers to trust themselves out of arm's reach of the brink, and its drooping branches and tall reeds. The pilgrims who come thither in crowds at Easter, bathe in this way. Some of us tried to make way against the current, but were carried several yards down before reaching even the full strength of it." - Travels, Vol. II., p. 100.

The city of Jerusalem was abundantly supplied with water, to a large extent by pools and cisterns, many of which were of great size. Outside, but near the city, were others of still larger dimensions. These were constructed in part for the purpose of furnishing water for the ordinary uses of life, and in part to supply conveniences for the many ablutions enjoined by the Mosaic law.

These pools were abundant in our Savior's time, and some of them still remain, containing water, and even now affording admirable conveniences for the administration of baptism in its primitive form. Others, now in a ruined state, distinctly reveal their original form and magnitude. The greater part of them were in good repair, and continued to be used for hundreds of years after Christ.

DR. EDWARD ROBINSON visited Jerusalem in the prosecution of his researches, and made careful and extensive investigations touching the topography and antiquities of the Holy City. The results, published in his "Researches" in 1841, have been fully corroborated by other and more recent surveys. They are as follows:*

*Robinson's Biblical Researches, Vol. I., pp. 480-515. See. also, Thomson's Land and Book, Vol. II., pp. 64 and 446.

The Pool of Bethesda is three hundred and sixty (360) feet long, one hundred and thirty (130) feet wide, and seventy--five (75) feet deep. When full, it was a considerable pond, covering more than an acre of ground.

The Pool of Siloam is fifty-three (53) feet long, eighteen (18) feet wide, and nineteen (19) feet deep; it now holds two or three feet of water, which can readily be increased to a much greater depth.

The Upper Pool is three hundred and sixteen (316) feet long, two hundred and eighteen (218) feet wide, and eighteen (18) feet deep, covering an acre and a half of ground.

The Pool of Hezekiah is two hundred and forty (240) feet long, and one hundred and forty-four (144) feet wide, and is partly filled with water.

The Lower Pool, or Pool of Gihon, is five hundred and ninety-two (592) feet long, two hundred and sixty (260) feet wide, and forty (40) feet deep, covering more than three and a half acres of ground. This pool is now dry; but so lately as the time of the Crusaders was fully supplied with water, and free to the use of all.

Several other pools existed, either in or in the immediate vicinity of the city. They were all constructed with sides gradually sloping inward and downward, so as to make a descent into the water to any required depth safe and easy, and were, doubtless, in daily use for purposes of ablution, as constantly practised by the Jews.

DR. BARCLAY, who spent many years in missionary labor in Jerusalem, and who, so far as that city is concerned, is perhaps the most competent and reliable of all authorities, substantiates the above statements by his own testimony. -City of the Great King. See, also, Prof. Chase's Design of Baptism, with Dr. Sampson's Article, p. 115.

DR. THOMSON, in his efforts to identify the place where Philip baptized the eunuch, says:

"He would then have met the chariot somewhere south-west of Latron. There is a fine stream of water, called Murubbah, deep enough even in June to satisfy the utmost wishes of our Baptist friends."- The Land and the Book, Vol. II., p. 310.

Good testimony that is, from a most competent and reliable source, and from one who did not think immersion essential to baptism.

How fully such testimony from well-informed sources vindicates the views held by Baptists, let any one judge. And how futile are all objections urged against immersion as the scriptural mode of baptism, on the ground of an insufficient supply of water for such a purpose, is manifest. And this testimony comes from those who have no doctrinal sympathy with Baptists.

ASPERSION FOR IMMERSION

We may now properly inquire when and why was sprinkling introduced and accepted as a substitute for the original scriptural form of dipping in baptism? Why and when did a human device supersede a divine institution? The question has its interest and its importance, and is fully and satisfactorily answered by Pedobaptists themselves. We accept their testimony as a complete justification of our position in respect to this ordinance.

For two hundred and fifty years after Christ we have no evidence of any departure from the primitive practice of immersion - the first authenticated instance of such a departure being about the middle of the third century, or A. D. 250. This was in the case of Novatian. Eusebius, the historian, gives this case, and no earlier instance could be found by Dr. Wall in his laborious researches. Good evidence that none earlier existed. What he failed in this direction to discover, it would be difficult for any other one to find.

Novatian was dangerously ill, and believing himself about to die, he greatly desired to be baptized, not having as yet received that ordinance. As the case seemed urgent, and he was thought too feeble to be immersed, it was decided to try a substitute as nearly resembling baptism as possible. Water was poured profusely over him as he lay on his bed, so as to resemble as much as possible a submersion. The word used to describe this action (perichutheis, perfusus) has usually been rendered, besprinkle; it rather means, to pour round about, or upon and over one. This was, doubtless, the action in the case of Novatian, and such a profuse over-whelming with water, it was thought, might serve the purpose, especially as the necessity was so great.-See this case treated in Dr. Chase's Design of Baptism, p.53.

EUSEBIUS, in his history, quoting from Cornelius, bishop of Rome, gives the following accounts of this case - a case which claims the more regard as being the first recorded departure from apostolic usage in the matter of baptism:

"He fell into a grievous distemper, and, it being supposed that he would die immediately, he received baptism - being besprinkled with water on the bed whereon he lay, if that can be termed baptism." -Eccl. Hist., B. VI., Ch. 43. Cambridge ed. 1683. Also Bing. Christ. Antiq., B. XI., Ch. 11, sec. 5. Also B. IV., Ch. 3, sec. 11.

The historian himself seemed doubtful as to the validity of such a rite.

VALESIUS makes the following comment on the passage:

"This word, perichutheis, Rufinus very well renders be-sprinkled (perfusus). For people who were sick, and baptized on their beds, could not be dipped in water by the priest, but were besprinkled by him. This baptism was thought imperfect, and not solemn, for several reasons. Also, they who were thus baptized were called ever afterward Clinici; and by the twelfth canon of the Council of Neocesarea, these Clinici were prohibited priesthood." -Cited by Booth, Pedo-ex. Ch. 7, ref 2. Also. Chase's Design of Baptism, p. 53. Bing. Antiq., B. IV., Ch. 3, sec. 11.

DR. WALL, the able historian and defender of infant baptism, makes the following statement respecting the case of Novatian:

"Anno Domini 251 Novatian was, by one part of the clergy and people of Rome, chosen Bishop of that Church, in opposition to Cornelius, who had before been chosen by the major part, and was already ordained. Cornelius does, in a letter to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, vindicate his right, showing that Novatian came not canonically to his orders of priesthood, much less was capable of being chosen Bishop; for that all the clergy, and a great many of the laity, were against his being ordained presbyter; because it was not lawful, they said, for one that had been baptized in his bed in time of sickness, as he had been, to be admitted to any order of the clergy.' -Euseb. Eccl. Hist., B. VI., Ch. 43. Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap., p. II.., Ch. 9,p. 463.

It is evident that such a substitute for baptism was, at the time, generally considered as unscriptural and improper. But, having been introduced, and by some accepted, from that time the practice of affusion or aspersion was resorted to in cases of sickness; hence, denominated "clinic baptism," from clina, a couch or bed, on which it was received.

BISHOP TAYLOR says:

"It was a formal and solemn question made by Magnus to Cyprian whether they are to be esteemed right Christians, who are only sprinkled with water, and not washed or dipped." -Duct. Dubit., B. III., Ch. 4, r. 14.

DR. TOWERSON says:

"The first mention we find of aspersion in the baptism of the elder sort, was in the case of the Clinici, or men who received baptism upon their sick beds." -Sacra. Bap., p. III., p. 59

VENEMA says:

"Sprinkling was used in the last moments of life, on such as were called Clinics. "-Eccl. Hist., Vol. IV., ch, 4, sec 110.

SALMASIUS says:

"The Clinics only, because they were confined to their beds, were baptized in a manner of which they were capable; thus Novatian, when sick, received baptism, being besprinkled, not baptized." -De Vita Martini ch. 15. Cited by Witsius, B. IV., ch. 16, sec. 13.

GROTIUS says:

"The custom of pouring or sprinkling seems to have prevailed in favor of those that were dangerously ill, and were desirous of giving up themselves to Christ, whom others called Clinics." -Comment on Matt. 3:6.

SPRINKLING PREVAILED,

In the Roman Church pouring for baptism was tolerated in the eighth century, and in the sixteenth century generally adopted as a matter of convenience, that hierarchy presumptuously arrogating the right to change ordinances.

DR. WALL says:

"France seems to have been the first country in the world where baptism by affusion was used ordinarily to persons in health, and in the public way of administering it." -Hist. Inf. Bap., p. II, Ch. 9, p. 470.

The same learned author states that Calvin prepared for the Genevan Church, and afterward published to the world, "a form of administering the sacraments," in respect to which he adds, "for an office, or liturgy of any Church, this is, I believe, the first in the world that prescribes aspersion absolutely."-Hist. Inf. Bap. See above.

DR. WALL adds:

"And for sprinkling, properly called, it seems it was, at A.D. 1645, just then beginning, and used by very few." "But sprinkling for the common use of baptizing was really introduced (in France first, and then in other popish countries) in times of popery." -Hist. Inf. Rap., p. II., Ch. 9, p. 470.

Of England, he says:

"The offices and liturgies did all along enjoin dipping, without any mention of pouring or sprinkling." About 1550 however, aspersion began to prevail, being used first in the case of "weak children," and "within the space of half a century, from 1550 to 1600, prevailed to be the more general." The English Churches finally came to imitate the Genevan, and casting off the dominion of the pope, bowed to the authority of Calvin, and adopted pouring in the place of dipping. - Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap., p. II,, Ch. 9, pp. 463-475.

THE ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES, in Convocation in 1643, voted by one majority, mainly through the influence of Dr. Lightfoot, probably the most influential member of the Assembly, against baptizing by immersion, and the year following Parliament sanctioned their decision, and decreed that sprinkling should be the legal mode of administering baptism. Both immersion and sprinkling had been in common use. This action ruled out immersion and made sprinkling sufficient. The following is the form finally decided and fixed by the Assembly for the minister to use in baptism:

"He is to baptize the child with water, which, for the manner of doing, is not only lawful, but also sufficient and most expedient to be by pouring or sprinkling water on the face of the child without any other ceremony." -Pittman and Lightfoot's Works, Vol. XIII., p. 300. Cited in Debates of Camp. and Rice, pp. 241-2.

THE EDINBURGH ENCYCLOPEDIA gives the following account of the rise of sprinkling

"The first law to sanction aspersion as a mode of baptism was by Pope Stephen IV., A. D. 753. But it was not till the year 1311 that a Council held at Ravenna declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent, In this country (Scotland), however, sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases till after the Reformation; and in England, even in the reign of Edward VI. (about 1550), immersion was commonly observed." -Article Baptism.

But during the reign of the Catholic Mary, who succeeded to the throne on the death of Edward VI., 1553, persecution drove many of the Protestants from their homes, not a few of whom, especially the Scotch, found an asylum in Geneva, where, under the influence of John Calvin, they imbibed a preference for sprinkling. - Edinb. Ency., Art. Baptism. "These Scottish exiles," says the last-quoted authority, "who had renounced the authority of the pope, implicitly acknowledged the authority of Calvin; and returning to their own country, with John Knox at their head, in 1559 established sprinkling in Scotland. From Scotland, this practice made its way into England in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized by the established Church."

It was not authorized in England until, as above stated, the action of the Westminster Assembly in 1643, and confirmed by Parliament in 1644.

THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA states the case, much to the same effect, as follows:

"What principally tended to confirm the practice of affusion or sprinkling, was that several of our Protestant divines, flying into Germany and Switzerland during the bloody reign of Queen Mary, and coming home when Queen Elizabeth came to the crown, brought back with them a great zeal for the Protestant churches beyond the sea, where they had been received and sheltered, And having observed that at Geneva, and some other places, baptism was administered by sprinkling, they thought they could not do the Church of England a greater service than by introducing a practice dictated by so great an oracle as Calvin." -Ency. Britan., Article Baptism.

Thus we have given, briefly, but accurately, the rise, progress, and final prevalence of this perversion, the substitution of sprinkling for immersion, in the administration of Christian baptism.

STOP HERE and TAKE TEST!
Test is open book.

LESSON FIFTEEN TEST

Should the test fail to open properly, please use F5 to reload or click the refresh symbol on the top of your browser page.

If you failed the test, then restudy this lesson and retake the test on or after the next day.
Once you have passed the test, do not take it again.

MAIN TABLE of CONTENTS

CHAPTER XI

I. HOW THE MINISTRY ORIGINATES

II. CLERGY AND LAITY NOT PRIMITIVE

III. THE PURPOSE OF THE MINISTRY

IV. A CALL TO THE MINISTRY

V. THE PERPETUITY OF ITS OBLIGATIONS

VI THE SPHERE OF MINISTERIAL LABOR

VII. THE SOURCE OF MINISTERIAL AUTHORITY

VIII. QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE MINISTRY

IX. THE LICENSING OF MINISTERS

X. THE ORDINATION OF MINISTERS

The Order of Proceedings:

2. His call to the ministry.

XI. RECOGNITION, INSTALLATION REORDINATION

CHAPTER XII

I. THE ORIGIN OF COUNCILS

II. GENERAL PROPOSITIONS

CHAPTER XIII

RELATED SOCIETIES

I. ASSOCIATIONS

II. STATE CONVENTIONS

III. MINISTERS MEETINGS

IV. OTHER SOCIETIES

CHAPTER XIV

ORDINATION

Primary Propositions

I. WHAT IS ORDINATION?

III. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF ORDINATION?

CHAPTER XV CHRISTIAN BAPTISM

BAPTISMAL PROPOSITIONS

WHAT IS CHRISTIAN BAPTISM?

MEANING OF BAPTIZO

SIGNIFICANT USE OF THE WORD

MUCH WATER FOR BAPTISM.

PHILIP AND THE EUNUCH

THE TESTIMONY OF EXPOSITORS

APOSTOLIC ALLUSIONS

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

FOR THIRTEEN CENTURIES

USAGE OF THE GREEK CHURCH

THE TESTIMONY OF BAPTISTERIES

THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM

THE WATER SUPPLY

ASPERSION FOR IMMERSION

SPRINKLING PREVAILED,

CHAPTER XV
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM