CHAPTER XVI
THE LORD'S SUPPER

The Lord's Supper in its institution, and also as to its symbolic import, as well as in its relation to Christian life and doctrine, has already been considered. It would be useless, in this place, to attempt a history of the rite, especially a detail of the perversions of its uses, the bitter controversies concerning it, or the false claims set up for its sacramental efficacy in working grace in its subjects.

The one question with which we are now concerned is a purely denominational one, having reference to the proper subjects of the ordinance, and the spiritual and ritual qualifications of those who partake of it. Also as to the proper and rightful authority of the Church in restricting its use, and judging of the qualifications of the participants.

EUCHARISTIC PROPOSITIONS

The following propositions may be stated:

PROP. 1.  The Gospel calls on all men, everywhere, to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation. This is the first act of submission to divine authority required of men.

PROP. 2.  Such as have exercised saving faith in Christ, and are thus born of the Spirit, are commanded to be baptized, as a declaration of that change, and a profession of the inward washing of regeneration, which has transpired in them. And no one is required to be, or properly can be, baptized till he has believed.

PROP. 3.  All persons, having savingly believed on Christ, and having been baptized into His name on a profession of that faith, are expected, and required, to unite themselves thereby with the company of disciples as members, in fellowship with a Church which is Christ's visible body. And no one can properly become a member of a Church till he has believed and been baptized.

PROP. 4.  It becomes the privilege and the duty of all who have thus been regenerated by the Spirit, baptized on a profession of faith, and are walking in fellowship with the Church, to celebrate the death of Christ in the Supper. Moreover, it is the duty of all who believe they love the Lord to be baptized, and unite with His Church, in order that they may obey His command, "This do in remembrance of me." No true disciple should neglect it.

PROP. 5.  It becomes the imperative duty of the churches, to whom the ordinances are committed, to see to it, as faithful guardians of so sacred a trust, that these regulations be faithfully observed, according to the will of the Master, by all who are members, and by all who desire to become members with them.

PROP. 6.  The pastor, as "the chief executive officer" of the Church, acts as its representative under instructions in his sphere of service. But it is not his prerogative to determine who shall be baptized into its fellowship, or who shall enjoy its privileges, including a right to the Supper. The right and responsibility of deciding those questions belong to the Church itself, and not to its officers.

PROP. 7.  The pastor, in the exercise of his Christian liberty, is not under obligation to baptize any, though the Church may approve, unless he believes they are fit and suitable subjects. Nor can he baptize any into the fellowship of the Church without its consent.

I. OPEN AND CLOSE COMMUNION

The difference between Baptists and other Christian denominations on this question has principal reference to what is usually known as open and close communion. These terms do not very accurately define the distinction, but they are in common use in popular discussions on the subject, and are quite well understood.

Open, free, or mixed communion, is, strictly speaking, that which permits any one who desires, and believes himself qualified, to come to the Lord 's table, without any questions being asked, or conditions imposed, by the Church where the communion is observed. But ordinarily the term open communion is applied to the practice of the greater part of Pedobaptist churches, in which they permit and invite, not all persons, but the members of other evangelical churches to their Communion, whatever may be their views of doctrine, or Church order, in other respects.

Close, strict, or restricted communion is properly that which does not invite all, indiscriminately, who may choose to come to the Lord's table, but restricts the invitation to a particular class. But ordinarily the term close communion is applied to the practice of Baptist churches, which invite to it only baptized believers, walking in orderly fellowship in their own churches. And by baptized believers, they mean, of course, immersed believers; since they hold that nothing but immersion is baptism.

[Ed. Note: As an American Baptist, brother Hiscox does not mention the one other type of communion practiced by thousands of Independent Baptist Churches, and some others, which is called "Closed Communion."  This communion is restricted to those saved and Baptized members of that local church only.  This communion is closed to all who are not members of that Local Church. This is the type of Communion, or "Lord's Supper" as it is commonly called, that was practiced by the Lord Jesus Christ on the night He first instituted the ordinance.  Although his own family was in the city along with many other believers, most of whom were probably baptized, yet they were not invited to partake in the Lord's Supper.  The only ones who were allowed were those who were members of His own Church- known as "the twelve." (Matthew 26:20-30)]

Nearly all Baptists in the United States, and a large part of those in foreign lands, are strict communion in practice, as are also a few smaller denominations; while the Latin, Greek, and Oriental churches, and the greater part of Protestant churches practise free communion. Which are right? Let us compare them by the infallible standard.

II. THE OPEN COMMUNION VIEW

Those who favor and practice open or free communion justify their course by various and somewhat divergent reasons. The following constitute, in the main, the arguments they use:

1. Sprinkling Held to be Baptism

The first class of open-communionists are those who hold that none but baptized persons should be invited to the Lord's table, and that the Church is the rightful judge of the fitness of persons to be received to its privileges; yet they assert that sprinkling is lawful baptism, and that persons sprinkled only, and not immersed, should, therefore, be admitted to the Supper. This Baptists deny, and have, as they believe, proven the contrary - that sprinkling is not scriptural baptism.

2. Baptism not Prerequisite

The second class of open-communionists assert that the ordinances sustain no necessary relation to each other; that baptism can claim no priority over the Supper, and, therefore, it is not a condition, nor prerequisite to it. Consequently, unbaptized persons, if believers - for they do make faith a condition - may partake of the Supper as lawfully as baptized persons. Therefore immersion or sprinkling, either or neither, is equally indifferent. This theory virtually denies the memorial and symbolic character of the ordinance, and regards it chiefly as a sign and service of Christian fellowship. This course of argument, however plausible, is rejected and condemned by the great body of Christians the world over, both Baptist and Pedobaptists.

3. The Church is not to Judge

The third class of open-communionists are those who claim that the privilege of the Supper is based on no ground of prescribed conditions, on no ritual preparation, but entirely upon one's own sense of fitness and duty. That the Church has no right of judgment in the case, and no responsibility concerning it, but is simply to "set the table," and leave it to each and all to take or to refrain; whoever wishes, and judges himself fit, may eat and drink in that holy service without hindrance or question.

To this attitude as to the ordinances, and to this mode of reasoning, Baptists strenuously object; as do the great majority of Pedobaptists themselves. It is not only the right, but the duty of each Church to guard the sacred trusts committed to it, and to judge whether candidates for its privileges are, or are not, scripturally qualified to receive them. Each Church must be its own interpreter of truth and duty. It would be absurd to claim that the convictions of an individual must be the authoritative standard by which the body is bound to act.

If the judgment of the Church must yield to the convictions of individuals in one thing, it may in all, and then all order, government, and discipline would be prostrated before an anarchy of conflicting personal opinions. If the privilege of the Supper becomes common, all others may be, since this is the highest and most sacred of all. It would be a criminal indifference to the Master of the household to allow the safeguards with which He has surrounded the sanctity of His institutions to be broken down.

III. THE BAPTIST VIEW

The following will express with general accuracy the view held by Baptists as to the conditions of the communion and the qualifications of the communicants.

1. Baptists hold that there are three scriptural conditions to the privileges of the Lord's Supper, which are imperative on the part of the Church to be observed:

a. Regeneration; being born of the Spirit, and thus becoming a new creature in Christ Jesus. Without this, no one can be a member of His spiritual body, or can rightfully be a member of His visible body, the Church.

b. Baptism; being buried with Christ in water, on a profession of faith in Him. This act must precede Church membership, and of course Church privileges, including the Supper.

c. Godliness; an upright Christian life, orderly walk, and godly conversation as a Church member. For though one may have been truly converted, and rightly baptized, if he be a disorderly walker, violating his covenant obligations, living in sin, and openly disobeying his Lord, he has no claim on the Lord's Table.

2. Baptists claim that the Communion, strictly speaking, is a Church ordinance to be observed by churches only. That it cannot be administered, or received by those outside the Church; that members, in their individual capacity, cannot administer or receive it. Nor can the Church authorize individuals to administer, or receive it. The body must act in its organic character in the use of it; and persons must be within the Church, legitimately to enjoy it.

3. Baptists insist that they neither may, nor ought to, invite to the Supper any except persons converted, baptized, and walking orderly according to gospel rule. They believe the Church is bound to judge of the fitness of those admitted to its ordinances as well as those admitted to its membership. To invite, or permit persons to receive the Communion without conditions, is to allow the vile and the profane, the carnal and the impure, to mingle with God's spiritual people, and eat and drink, unworthily, the symbolic flesh and blood of Christ. For, if the rule be allowed, to this extent will the abuse be sure to go.

4. Baptists are firmly convinced that, to maintain the purity and spirituality of the churches, it is absolutely needful to restrict the Communion to regenerated persons, baptized on a profession of faith, and walking orderly Christian lives in Church fellowship. To adopt any other rule, or allow any larger liberty, would break down the distinction between the Church and the world; would bring in a carnal and unconverted membership, with which to over-shadow the spiritual, and control the household of faith; would virtually transfer the Communion from the house of God to the temple of Belial. To keep the churches pure, the ordinances must be kept pure and unperverted, both as to their substance and their form.

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

a. They do not invite Pedobaptists to their Communion, because they do not regard such persons as baptized; they having been only sprinkled. The fact that they think themselves baptized, does not make it so. If they desire to commune, let them be baptized according to Christ's command.

b. They do not accept invitations from Pedobaptists to commune with them, for the same reason; they do not consider them baptized Christians. Therefore their churches are irregular churches according to the New Testament standard, both in the misuse of the ordinances, and in the admission of infant Church membership. Therefore to commune with them would be disorderly walking, and would encourage them in disorderly walking, by upholding a perversion of the ordinances.

c. They do not invite the immersed members of Pedobaptist churches to their Communion, because, though such persons may be truly converted and properly baptized, they are walking disorderly as disciples, by remaining in churches which hold and practise serious errors as to the ordinances, as such persons themselves judge. These churches use sprinkling for baptism, and administer the ordinance to infants; both of which are contrary to Scripture, as such persons themselves allow. And yet, by remaining in these churches, they give their countenance and support to uphold and perpetuate what they confess to be errors, and thus help to impose on others what they will not accept for themselves. This is not an orderly and consistent course for Christians to pursue.

IV. BAPTISM IS PREREQUISITE

If the Supper was intended to be limited to those converted, baptized, and brought into the fellowship of the churches, it may be asked, Why was not this fact made plain and explicitly stated in some command or precept of Christ or His Apostles? Why was not this command as positively given as that which enjoined baptism? The reply must be, It was plainly and explicitly enjoined. The form of the ordinance was exhibited when instituted by Jesus; the command enjoining its observance was, "This do in remembrance of me;" the qualified subjects were those before Him; baptized believers.

But note the following considerations.

1. The example of our Saviour at the institution of the Supper. Whom did He invite to partake of the symbols of His body and blood? Not an indiscriminate company; not all who deemed themselves fit, and chose to come; not all of His professed disciples even. But a small and very select company, who had received John's baptism, or His own, not even including His own mother, brethren, and other family connections. That first Communion service, at the close of or during the paschal supper, was a very restricted one. Certainly no unbaptized persons were present in that upper chamber to receive the elements.

2. The language of Christ in the Great Commission, and other similar forms of speech, if not conclusive proof, are very little short of it, in favor of the necessary priority of baptism to the Supper. He commanded to teach all nations, baptizing them; His promise is to those who believe and are baptized. This order is uniform; teaching, believing, baptizing. Where does the Supper come in? Baptists say, after the teaching, believing, baptizing, and thus being "added to the Church." There is no room for it before. But if it comes before - then where before? Before the teaching, and before the believing? Why not? If the divine order is to be changed, then why not have the Supper come before the teaching and believing, and be given, as Pedobaptists give baptism, to infants incapable of either instruction or faith. Infant communion, as practised from the third to the ninth century by the Latin Church, and still practised by the Greek Church, is equally scriptural with infant baptism, as now practised by all Pedobaptists, whether Catholics or Protestants. Nor would infant communion after baptism be any more inconsistent than adult communion before baptism.

3. The New Testament history affords no instance which can be supposed to favor the theory of communion without baptism. But abundant evidence is furnished, in facts and circumstances mentioned, to show that all communicants were baptized persons. Apostolic instruction, with reference to the Supper and reproofs administered for an abuse of that sacred ordinance, all are addressed to churches and Church members. Those who believed, and gladly received the Word, were baptized, then added to the Church; then they continued steadfast in the Apostles' doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and of prayer.

4. The almost unvarying testimony of Christian history through all its ages should be accepted as important evidence in this case. Both Catholics and Protestants, Baptists and Pedobaptists, with singular unanimity, declare baptism to be prerequisite to the Communion.

JUSTIN MARTYR, one of the early Christian Fathers, about A. D. 140, says of the Supper:

This food is called by us the Eucharist, of which it is not lawful for any one to partake, but such as believe the things taught by us to be true, and have been baptized." - Apol. I. C., 65, 66. See Schaff's Ch. Hist., II., 51ó.

MOSHEIM, in his Church History, says:

"Neither those doing penance, nor those not yet baptized, were allowed to be present at the celebration of this ordinance." "The sacred mystery of the service was deemed so great as to exclude the unbaptized from the place." -Eccl. Hist., Cent. II., part II., chap.4.sec.3.

NEANDER, the great Church historian, says:

"At this celebration, as may be easily concluded, no one could be present who was not a member of the Christian Church, and incorporated into it by the rite of baptism." -Ch. Hist., Vol. 1 p.327.

CAVE, one of the most reliable writers on Christian antiquities, says the communicants in the primitive Church were those "That had embraced the doctrine of the Gospel, and had been baptized into the faith of Christ. For, looking upon the Lord's Supper as the highest and most solemn act of religion, they thought they could never take care enough in dispensing it." -Prim. Christ., ch. 11, p. 333.

BINGHAM, in his able work on the antiquities of the Christian church, says of the early Christians:

"As soon as a man was baptized he was communicated," that is, admitted to the Communion. Baptism, therefore, preceded the Supper. -Church Antiq. B. XII, ch 4, section 1.

WALL, who searched the records of antiquity for facts illustrating the history of the ordinances, says:

"No church ever gave the Communion to any before they were baptized. Among all the absurdities that were ever held, none ever maintained that any person should partake of the Communion before he was baptized." -Hist. Inf. Bapt., part II, ch. 9.

DODDRIDGE says:

"It is certain that, so far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity reaches, no unbaptized person received the Lord's Supper." -Lectures, pp. 511, 512.

BAXTER says:

"What man dares go in a way which hath neither precept nor example to warrant it, from a way that hath full consent of both? Yet they that will admit members into the visible Church without baptism do so." -Plain Scrip. Proof, 24.

DICK says:

"An uncircumcised man was not permitted to eat the passover; and an unbaptized man should not be permitted to partake of the Eucharist. "- Theol., Vol. II., p. 220.

DWIGHT says:

"It is an indispensable qualification for this ordinance, that the candidate for communion be a member of the visible Church, in full standing. By this I intend that he should be a man of piety; that he should have made a public profession of religion, and that he should have been baptized." -Syst. Theol. Ser. 160, B. VIII., ch. 4, sec. 7.

SCHAFF says:

"The Communion was a regular part, and, in fact, the most important and solemn part of the Sunday worship, in which none but full members of the Church could engage." -Ch. Hist., Vol.1, p. 392. N.Y., 1871.

COLEMAN says:

"None, indeed, but believers, in full communion with the Church, were permitted to be present." "But agreeably to all the laws and customs of the Church, baptism constituted membership with the Church. All baptized persons were legitimately numbered among the communicants as members of the Church." -Ancient Christ. Ex., ch. 21, sec. 8.

These witnesses to our position, not being Baptists, may command the more regard from those who do not agree with us. Other similar testimonies need not be cited.

V. ONE AND THE SAME RULE

Here observe, that Baptists and Pedobaptists have one and the same rule as to the conditions of the Communion, viz.: they all hold baptism to be prerequisite, and that unbaptized persons have no lawful right to it. For though there may be a few ministers, and possibly a few churches, that would invite anybody and everybody, yet such a course would be contrary to the standards, and opposed to the usages of their churches generally. They all practise a restricted or close communion, since they restrict the privilege to baptized believers. But inasmuch as they hold that sprinkling as well as immersion is baptism, their communion is more open, and that of Baptists is more close, by the difference between their views of baptism and ours, and by that difference only. Therefore the question in debate is one, after all, not of communion, but of baptism. Let them prove that sprinkling is baptism, or admit that it is not, and the communion controversy will cease.

DR. GRIFFIN, one of the fathers of New England Congregationalism, said:

"I agree with the advocates of close communion in two points: 1. That baptism is the initiatory ordinance which introduces us into the visible Church - of course, where there is no baptism there are no visible churches. 2. That we ought not to commune with those who are not baptized, and of course not Church members, even if we regard them as Christians." -Letter on Baptism, 1829. See Curtis on Com. p. 125.

BISHOP COXE, of the Episcopal Diocese of Western New York, says:

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

DR. HIBBARD, a leading Methodist scholar and divine, says:

In one principle, Baptist and Pedobaptist churches agree. They both agree in rejecting from communion at the table of the Lord, and in denying the rights of Church fellowship to all who have not been baptized"; and with admirable frankness he adds: "The charge of close communion is no more applicable to the Baptists than to us [Pedobaptists], in-so-much-as the question of Church fellowship with them is determined by as liberal principles as it is with any other Protestant churches - so far, I mean, as the present subject is concerned: i.e. it is determined by valid baptism" -Hibbard on Christ. Bapt., p. II., p. 174.

DR. BULLOCK, another Methodist divine, says:

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

THE INDEPENDENT, the most widely circulated and perhaps the most influential Pedobaptist paper in the country, in an editorial, says:

"Leading writers of all denominations declare that converts must be baptized before they can be invited to the communion table. This is the position generally taken. But Baptists regarding sprinkling as a nullity - no baptism at all - look upon Presbyterians, Methodists and others as unbaptized persons." "The other churches cannot urge the Baptists to become open communicants till they themselves take the position that all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, the unbaptized as well as the baptized, may be invited to the communion table." -Editorial, July, 1879.

THE CONGREGATIONALIST, the organ of the New England Congregational Churches, in an editorial, says:

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

THE OBSERVER of New York, the oldest and leading Presbyterian journal of this country, said:

"It is not a want of charity which compels the Baptist to restrict his invitation. He has no hesitation in admitting the personal piety of his unimmersed brethren. Presbyterians do not invite the unbaptized, however pious they may be. It is not uncharitable. It is not bigotry on the part of Baptists to confine their communion to those whom they consider the baptized."

THE INTERIOR of Chicago, organ of the Western Presbyterians, said:

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

THE EPISCOPAL RECORDER said:

"The close Communion of the Baptist Church is but the necessary sequence of the fundamental idea out of which their existence has grown. No Christian Church would willingly receive to its Communion even the humblest and truest believer in Christ who had not been baptized. With the Baptist, immersion, only, is baptism, and he therefore, of necessity, excludes from the Lord's table all who have not been immersed. It is an essential part of the system - the legitimate carrying out of this creed."

THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE of New York, said:

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

Many other similar concessions from candid Christian men, who differ from us, might be adduced, but are unnecessary.

Thus, leading Pedobaptists themselves sustain the position of Baptists, so far as the principle is concerned on which close communion is based. They hold, as we do, that unbaptized persons should not be invited to the Lord's table; and that it is a false liberalism which would admit everybody there, and thus obliterate the distinction between the Church and the world, in this the most sacred service of religion. Of course, they hold that sprinkling is baptism, and therefore, that sprinkled persons have a right to the Communion.

 

VI. THE SYMBOLISM OF THE ORDINANCES

The design of Baptism was to show the death of Christ for our offenses, and His resurrection for our justification. Thus, in the two acts, the immersion signifies burial, and the emersion signifies resurrection. In baptism the believer professes his death to sin, his burial with Christ, and his resurrection to newness of life in Him - Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12; the coming forth from the baptismal wave, therefore, proclaims a new spiritual life in Christ begun.

The design of the Supper is to show that this new spiritual life, thus begun, is to be nourished and maintained by feeding on Christ. Eating and drinking indicate sustenance and support. They show the saint's dependence on Christ, who is the bread of God, and the abundant supply of grace represented by the loaf and the cup.

Now, as life must begin before it can be nourished, so baptism, which symbolizes its beginning, comes before the Supper, which symbolizes its nourishment and support. Thus it was in the apostolic age. They believed and were baptized; then they were added to the Church; then they continued in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and of prayers. - Acts 2:41 42.

VII. BUT ONE ARGUMENT

Open communion has but one argument to sustain it, viz., sympathy; that, with some kindly minds, outweighs all others. It has neither Scripture, logic, expediency, nor the concurrent practice of Christendom, either past or present, in its favor. But to some it seems kind and brotherly to invite all who say they love our Lord Jesus Christ, to unite in commemorating His death at the Supper. And to exclude any, or fail to invite all, seems to those sentimental natures harsh, cold, and unchristian. To them, the Supper is rather a love-feast for Christian fellowship than a personal commemoration of Christ's love by those who have believed upon His name, and been baptized into the likeness of His death. But sympathy should not control in matters of faith, and in acts of conscience,

VIII. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED

1. It is sometimes objected that we make too much of baptism; that we make it a saving ordinance; that it is not essential to salvation. We reply: That baptism is not essential to salvation; but it is essential to obedience, since Christ has commanded it; and no one has a right to be called His disciple, who, knowing His command, deliberately refuses to obey.

2. Our Pedobaptist friends say they invite us to their Communion, why should we not in like manner invite them?

We answer: They can well afford to invite us, since they acknowledge that our baptism is valid and scriptural; but we do not acknowledge theirs to be either scriptural or valid.

3. Again, they say: It is the Lord's table, and we should not exclude any of the Lord's people.

To this we reply: It is the Lord's table, and not ours; therefore we have no right to invite any but such as the Lord has designated. If it were our table we could invite whomsoever we would. As it is, we must obey the Lord at His own table.

4. They also ask: If the Lord has received us, why should not you? We reply: The Lord has received you to a spiritual fellowship; so do we. But the Lord has not received you to His visible ordinances unless you have obeyed His direction. He receives pardoned souls to His spiritual communion, but not to the outward communion of His church, till they have obeyed Him in baptism.

5. But they say: We hope that all will commune in heaven together; why then should we not on earth?

This objection is based on the assumption that all who will commune together in heaven should come to the Lord's Supper here. But this is fallacious. There will be no baptism or Supper in heaven. There the communion will be spiritual, and in spiritual communion all of God's people do unite now. But Pedobaptists do not themselves invite to the Lord's table all they hope to meet in heaven, children, and many other unprofessed and unknown, but true, disciples. Christ has given His churches laws and ordinances for their earthly state, none of which will be needed in the heavenly state.

6. And when they say that they do not object to our baptism, but they do to our close communion, we reply, as has been shown, that the difficulty is not with the communion really at all, but altogether with the baptism. And in order to remove the difficulty, they must either show that sprinkling is true scriptural baptism, or else that unbaptized persons may properly be invited to the Lord's Supper.

7. In one respect, Pedobaptists are more close in their Communion than Baptists, viz., in that they exclude a large class of their own members from the Lord's table; that is, baptized infants. Baptists do not exclude their own members against whom no charge is made. If unconscious infants can receive baptism on the faith of sponsors, they are certainly competent to receive the Supper in like manner, as they did in the earlier ages, after the introduction of infant baptism, from the third to the ninth century, according to church historians, and as is still the practice of the Greek Church. Both are alike contrary to reason and the Scriptures.

DR. COLEMAN says:

After the general introduction of infant baptism, in the second and third centuries, the sacrament * continued to be administered to all who had been baptized, whether infants or adults. The reason alleged by Cyprian and others for this practice was, that age was no impediment. Augustine strongly advocates the practice. The custom continued for several centuries. It is mentioned in the third Council of Tours, A. D. 813; and even the Council of Trent, A. D. 1545, only decreed that it should not be considered essential to salvation. It is still scrupulously observed by the Greek Church." -Anc. Christ. Exemp., ch. 22, sec. 8; Bing. Orig., B. XV., ch. 4, sec. 7; Cave, 335-349; Giesseler, Vol. II, p.332. Many other writers bear the same testimony.

* [Ed. Note: Because there is no "Salvatory" effect to the Lord's Supper, i.e., it is not the source of any effect that promotes Salvation, nor hinders it for that matter, then the word "sacrament" should be properly changed to "ordinance."]

 

STOP HERE and TAKE TEST!
The test is open book.

LESSON SIXTEEN 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.

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 XVII
INFANT BAPTISM

 

The baptism of unconverted children and unconscious infants has become common through the Christian world. The Romish Church, the Greek Church, and most of the Protestant churches practise it. Yet Baptists condemn it as unscriptural, unreasonable and pernicious. They believe that repentance and faith should always precede baptism. Without these baptism has no significancy, and serves no religious purpose. Whenever these gracious exercises have been experienced, whether in young or old, the subject may be admitted to the holy ordinance of baptism. But never till he has believed. Infants incapable of faith are, therefore, unfit for baptism.

Manifest Propositions

Baptists make and defend the following propositions respecting this practice:

PR0P. 1.-That there is in the New Testament neither precept nor example found to authorize or sanction infant baptism. Nor, indeed, is there even an allusion to it in the Scriptures - very naturally, because it did not exist when the New Testament was written.

PROP. 2-That Christ did not institute it, nor did either the Apostles or early Christians practise it.

PROP. 3.-That it arose with, and was a part of, the corruption which in subsequent ages crept into the churches, having its origin in the belief of a sacramental efficacy possessed, and a saving power exerted, by baptism on the soul of the child.

PROP. 4.-That the practice is unauthorized, presumptuous and censurable on the part of parents, sponsors and administrators, and productive of evil both to the child that receives it and the Church that allows and practises it.

PROP. 5.-That it perverts the design and falsifies the profession of the church as the spiritual body of Christ by introducing to its membership a carnal element of unconverted persons.

PROP. 6.-That it originated with the unscriptural dogma of baptismal regeneration, so it must still be held by its advocates to have some saving or sanctifying power on the child, or else it can have no significancy, and be of no avail.

If these statements be true - and their truth will be shown - how can the custom be defended and continued by intelligent Christians?

I. NOT OF SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY

Nearly all the learned and scholarly supporters of infant baptism have, with commendable candor admitted that it was not instituted by Christ, nor practised either by His apostles or their immediate successors.

DR. WALL, of the English Church, who wrote a History of Infant Baptism, a work so thorough and able that the clergy, assembled in convocation, gave him a vote of thanks for his learned defense of this custom, nevertheless says:

Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the Apostles, there is no express mention of infants." -Hist. lnf. Bap., Introd., pp.1,55.

FULLER, the historian, says:

We do freely confess there is neither express precept nor precedent in the New Testament for the baptizing of infants." -Infant's Advoc., pp. 71, 150.

BISHOP BURNETT says:

"There is no express precept or rule given in the New Testament for the baptism of infants." -Expos. 39 Articles, 27 Art.

BAXTER says:

I conclude that all examples of baptism in Scripture do mention only the administration of it to the professors of saving faith; and the precepts give us no other direction." -. Disput. of Right to the Sacra., p. 150.

PROF. LINDNER says:

"Christian baptism can be given only to adults, not to infants. The Holy Spirit, which is given only to believers, was a prerequisite to baptism." -On Lord's Supper p. 123.

GOODWIN says:

"Baptism supposeth regeneration sure in itself first. Sacraments are never administered to begin or to work grace. You suppose children to believe before you baptize them. Read all the Acts: still it is said, 'They believed, and were baptized.' " - Works, Vol. I., part I., p. 200.

CELLARIUS says:

"Infant baptism is neither commanded in the sacred Scriptures, nor is it confirmed by apostolic examples." -Shyn Hist. Mennonites, p. 168.

LIMBORCH says:

"There is no instance can be produced from which it may indisputably be inferred that any child was baptized by the Apostles. " -Comp. Syst. Divin., B. V., ch. 22, sec. 2.

FIELD says:

"The baptism of infants is, therefore, named a tradition, because it is not expressly delivered in Scripture that the Apostles did baptize infants; nor any express precept found there that they should do so." -On the Church, p. 375.

NEANDER says:

"Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive of baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution." -Ch. Hist. Vol. 1., p.311; Torrey's Trans. Plant. and Train., Vol. I, p. 222.

OLSHAUSEN says:

"We cannot, in truth, find anywhere a reliable prooftext in favor of infant baptism." -Comment, Acts 15:14, 15

HAHN says:

"Neither in the Scriptures, nor during the first hundred and fifty years, is a sure example of infant baptism to be found." -Theology, p. 556.

ROBERT BARCLAY says:

"As to the baptism of infants, it is a mere human tradition, for which neither precept nor practice is to be found in all the Scriptures." -Apology, Propo. 12.

WILLIAM PENN says:

There is "not one text of Scripture to prove that sprinkling in the face was the water baptism, or that children were the subjects of water baptism in the first times." -Defence of Gospel Truths, p. 82.

PROF. L. LANGE, of Jena, says:

"All attempts to make out infant baptism from the New Testament fail. It is totally opposed to the spirit of the apostolic age, and to the fundamental principles of the New Testament." -Inf. Bap.,p.101; Duncan's Hist. Bap. p. 224.

DR. HAGENBACH says:

"The passages from Scripture cited in favor of infant baptism as a usage of the primitive Church, are doubtful, and prove nothing. " -Hist. Doct., Vol. II., p. 200.

DR. JACOBS says:

"Notwithstanding all that has been written by learned men upon this subject, it remains indisputable that infant baptism is not mentioned in the New Testament." "There is no trace of it until the last part of the second century." - Eccl. Polity of the N. T., pp. 270-71.

PROF. JACOBI says:

Infant baptism was established neither by Christ not by the Apostles." -Art. Baptism, Kitto's Bib. Cyclop.

DR. HANNA says:

"Scriptures know nothing of the baptism of infants."- North Brit. Review, Aug., 1852.

Observe that none of these authorities cited were Baptists. Many more witnesses from the ranks of Pedobaptist scholars and divines could be adduced to the same effect; but let these suffice.

II. HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS

Some, however, have supposed that the "household baptisms" mentioned in the New Testament must have included children, and thus constitute a warrant for the baptism of such.

This argument, like the others in its support, is founded on the faintest and most illogical inference. It is inferred that these households certainly had infant children in them, and that such children certainly were baptized; both of which are wholly gratuitous. There probably are but few Baptist churches in the world, of any considerable standing and numbers that do not have one or more entire households in their communion, each member of which was baptized on a profession of faith.

 

1. Lydia and her Household

The case of Lydia, baptized at Philippi, mentioned in Acts, 16th chapter, is especially relied on as a strong case. Now observe, Lydia was a merchant woman, "a seller of purple," from "the city of Thyatira," and was at Philippi, some three hundred miles from home, on business, when she heard Paul preach, was converted, and then "she was baptized, and her household." There is not the least evidence that she had either husband or children. If she had a husband why was she so far from home on mercantile business? If she had infant children, they would not likely have been with her on such a journey, so far away, and for such a purpose. Her "household," doubtless, were adults, and employed by her in her business - her company. The most reckless sophism alone could build infant baptism on such a case. A poor cause it must be that relies for support on such evidence as this.

DR. NEANDER says:

"We cannot prove that the Apostles ordained infant baptism: from those places where the baptism of a whole family is mentioned, we can draw no such conclusion." -Planting and Training, p.162. Ed. 1865.

PROF. JACOBI, with reference to these household baptisms, says:

"In none of these instances has it been proved that there were little children among them." -Kitto's Bib. Cyclo., Art. Bap.

DR. MEYER says:

"That the baptism of children was not in use at that time appears evident from I Cor. 7:14." -Com. on Acts 16:15.

DR. DE WETTE says:

"This passage has been adduced in proof of the apostolic authority of infant baptism; but there is no proof here that any except adults were baptized." -Com. N. T., Acts 16:15.

DR. OLSHAUSEN says:

"Baptism ensued in this case, without doubt, merely upon a profession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. But for that very reason it is highly improbable that her house should be understood as including infant children,"

And he adds:

"There is altogether wanting any conclusive proof-text for the baptism of children in the age of the Apostles." -Com. Acts 16:14, 15, Kend's Trans.

Most manifestly, all of her household, whether old or young, believed, as she herself did, before they were baptized. Of this opinion, also, were Whitby. Lawson, the Assembly of Divines, and other Pedobaptist authorities.

 

2. The Philippian Jailer and his Household

The case of the Philippian jailer and his household, mentioned, also Acts, 16th chapter, is often referred to as of force by the advocates of this practice.

Now observe that Paul and Silas, being released from their confinement, spoke the word of the Lord to the jailer, "and to all that were in his house." Whether adults or infants, any one can judge; the Gospel was preached to them. And the jailer "was baptized, he and all his, straightway." Then "he rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house." Observe, the jailer's family was baptized; but first, they listened to the preaching of the Word, then they believed in God; and then they rejoiced in their new-found hope. Who believes that such a record as this could ever have been made of unconscious infants? There is not the remotest allusion to children, and the narrative does not fit them at all. Those who were baptized were those who believed and who rejoiced. It was therefore "believers' baptism," beyond which fact the particular age of the subjects is of no consequence whatever.

BLOOMFIELD says:

"It is taken for granted that his family became Christians, as well as himself."- Com. on Acts 16:31. Greek N. Test.

Such is the faith of Baptists, and such the command of Christ: "Believe and be baptized." Calvin, Doddridge, Henry, and other Pedobaptist scholars, declare that in this case they all believed, and therefore were baptized.

 

3. The Household of Stephanas

Paul speaks, in I Corinthians, 1st chapter, of having baptized "the household of Stephanas." This is also quoted as giving some support to the infant baptismal theory. The course of argument, or inference, is the same. It is supposed that the household contained children, and that these children were baptized. How entirely gratuitous! Households are constantly being baptized and admitted to the fellowship of our churches, but without infants in them. Doddridge, Guise, Hammond, Macknight, and others, consider this case as giving no countenance to the custom of baptizing infants.

This same family of Stephanas, Paul, in I Cor., 16th chapter, says were "the first fruits of Achaia;" and he adds, "they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." This could not have been spoken of baptized infants, but well describes the Christian activities of adult believers. No infants can be found in the household of Stephanas.

III. RISE OF INFANT BAPTISM

But, it will be asked, if the baptism of unconscious infants and unconverted children was not appointed by Christ, nor practised by his Apostles, nor known in the primitive age, from whence was it, how did it arise, and when did it come into use?

These questions are readily answered by the testimony of its friends.

TERTULLIAN is the first writer who mentions it in history, and he opposes it.* This was at the close of the second century, or about A.D. 200. His opposition proves two things. First, that it was in occasional use, at least. Second, that it was of recent origin, and not generally prevalent. For it must have been in use to be discussed and opposed, and had it been long prevalent, it would have been earlier mentioned.

* Neander supposes that the much-disputed passage of Irenaeus has reference to this custom - a little earlier than Tertullian's mention of it. See Neander's Ch. Hist. Vol. I., p. 311.

BINGHAM, with all his scholarship and industry, could find no earlier allusion to it than that of Tertullian, though he believed it to have previously existed. Had there been any earlier historic record he would surely have found it. It must therefore, as is generally admitted, have arisen about the beginning of the third century after Christ.

VENEMA says:

"Nothing can be affirmed with certainty concerning the custom of the Church before Tertullian; seeing there is not anywhere, in more ancient writers, that I know of, undoubted mention of infant baptism." -Eccl. Hist., Vol. III., ch. 2, secs, 108, 109.

CURCELLIUS says:

"The baptism of infants in the two first centuries after Christ was altogether unknown, but in the third and fourth was allowed by some few. In the fifth and following ages it was generally received. " -Inst. Christ. Religion. B. I.. ch. 12.

HIPPOLYTUS, bishop of Pontus, writing in the first half of the third century, bears this testimony:

"We, in our days, never defended the baptism of children, which had only begun to be practiced in some regions." -Hippol. and his Age. Vol. I., p. 184. See Duncan's Hist. Bap. p. 115: Curtis Prog. Bap. Princs., p. 101.

BUNSEN, the learned translator of Hippolytus. declares that infant baptism, in the modern sense,

"was utterly unknown to the early Church, not only down to the end of the second century, but, indeed, to the middle of the third century." -Hippol. and his Age, Vol. III., p. 180.

SALMASIUS says:

"In the first two centuries no one was baptized except. being instructed in the faith and acquainted with the doctrines of Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer." - Hist. Bap.. Luicer. Thesaur., Vol. II., p. 1136.

Such testimony, and from such sources, is quite conclusive. Infant baptism was unknown until the first part of the third century after Christ. Had it existed earlier, some trace of, or allusion to, it would have been discovered. But the most labored and learned research has failed to make any such discovery.

It should be added that when the baptism of children did begin to be practiced, it was not the baptism of unconscious infants at all, but, as Bunsen says, of "little growing children, from six to ten years old." He declares that Tertullian in his opposition to infant baptism does not say a word of newborn infants. Cyprian, an African bishop, at the close of the third century urged the baptism of infants proper, because of the regenerating efficacy which the ordinance was supposed to exert. He and his associates were the first to take this ground. - Hippol. and his Age, Vol. III., pp. 192-5; Curtis Prog. Bap. Prin., p. 125.

 

IV. FROM WHAT CAUSE DID IT SPRING?

If it be asked from what cause did infant baptism arise, the question is not difficult to answer.

It is well known that at a very early period in Christian history the notion began to prevail that the ordinances possessed some magical virtue. It was believed that baptism conveyed saving grace to the soul; that by it sins were washed away, and the spirit fitted for heaven. Thus the sick were thought to be prepared for death, and salvation secured, or made more certain by its efficacy. Anxious parents therefore desired their dying children to receive baptism, and thus, "washed in the layer of regeneration," be secured against the perils of perdition. Such was one of the errors of a superstitious age. Hence arose infant baptism, as one of the many perversions which early corrupted the doctrines and ordinances of Christianity.

VITRINGA says:

"The ancient Church, from the highest antiquity after the apostolic times, appears generally to have thought that baptism is absolutely necessary for all that would be saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. It was therefore customary in the ancient Church, if infants were greatly afflicted and in danger of death, or if parents were affected with a singular concern about the salvation of their children, to present their infants or children in their minority to the bishop to be baptized. " -Observ. ad Sacra., Vol. I., B. II., ch. 4, sec. 9.

SALMASIUS says:

"An opinion prevailed that no one could be saved without being baptized; and for that reason the custom arose of baptizing infants." -Epist. Jus. Pac. See Booth's Pedobap. Ex., ch. 3, sec. 3.

VENEMA says:

"The ancients connected a regenerating power and a communication of the Spirit with baptism." He further asserts that the early fathers believed baptism to possess a saving efficacy, and cites Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens, Tertullian and Cyprian as of that opinion, the last-named of whom has been called "the inventor of infant baptism." - Eccl. Hist., Vol. IV., p. 3, secs. 2, 3, 4.

CHRYSOSTOM, writing about A.D. 398, as cited by Luicerus, says

"It is impossible without baptism to obtain the kingdom. It is impossible to be saved without it." And, as cited by Wall, he says: "If sudden death seize us before we are baptized, though we have a thousand good qualities there is nothing to be expected but hell. " -Luicer. Thesaur., Eccl. Vol. I.,p.3.

WADDINGTON, in his Church History, declares, touching the opinions of the third century:

"The original simplicity of the office of baptism had already undergone some corruption. The symbol had been gradually exalted at the expense of the thing signified, and the spirit of the ceremony was beginning to be lost in the form. Hence a belief was gaining ground among the converts, and was inculcated among the heathen, that the act of baptism gave remission of all sins committed previously." -Hist. of the Church, ch. 2, p. 53.

Thus we see plainly why, as well as when, infant baptism arose. An invention of men, based on a perversion of Scripture doctrine, it is now boldly claimed to be an ordinance of God. How can honest and pious men make such a claim? We are reminded of the words of the pious Charnock : "The wisdom of God is affronted and invaded by introducing rules and modes of worship different from divine institution." And we venture to ask, with the devout Baxter, though both had reference to other subjects, "What man dare go in a way which hath neither precept nor example to warrant it, from a way that hath full current of both ?"

 

V. BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

We have seen that the baptism of infants, with that of the sick and dying, originated in a belief in the saving efficacy of the ordinance. Thus, the unscriptural device of infant baptism grew out of the unscriptural dogma of baptismal regeneration - a dogma as pernicious as presumptuous, and as repugnant to common sense as it is to the Bible; but one to which the advocates of pedobaptism have ever clung.

EPISCOPIUS asserts that the Milevitan Council, A. D. 418, declared pedobaptism to be a necessary rite. - Theol. Inst., B. IV., ch.14.

DR. WALL says:

"If we except Tertulllan, Vincentius, A. D. 419, is the first man on record that ever said that children might be saved without baptism." -Hist. Inf. Bap., part I., chap. 20, p. 232.

HAGENBACH says:

"The Church of England taught the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, yet with cautions." He cites Jewell, Jackson, Hooker, Taylor, Pearson, and Waterland, to justify the assertion, which the baptismal service of that Church plainly proves. -Hist. of Doct., Vol. II., p. 366.

The words of our Saviour, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," were almost universally applied to baptism, and supposed to teach that there was no salvation without it.

WALL declares that,

"From Justin Martyr down to St. Austin," this text was so understood. "Neither did I ever see it otherwise applied in any ancient author." And he adds, "I believe Calvin was the first man who ever denied this place to mean baptism. " -Hist. Inf. Bap., Part II, ch. 6, p. 354.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH held to baptismal regeneration, and in the Council of Trent thus declared it:

"If any one shall say that baptism is not necessary to salvation, let him be accursed." -Catechism Coun., Trent, p., 165, 175.

THE GREEK CHURCH holds the same dogma, Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople, declares,

"That both original and actual sins are forgiven to those who are baptized in the manner which our Lord requires in the Gospel. " -Confes. of Faith, ch. 16, 1631.

STAPFERUS says:

They hold the absolute necessity of baptism, and that "without it no one can become a real Christian; and that it cannot be omitted, in respect to infants, without endangering their salvation. " - Theology, Vol. V., p. 82.

THE PROTESTANT CHURCHES generally have held, and to a degree do still hold, the same pernicious doctrine.

BOOTH cites the following Confessions which embrace it:

"That of Helvetia, of Bohemia, of Augsburg, of Saxony, of Wittenberg, of Sueveland, of the Church of England, and of the Westminster Assembly." -Pedobap. Examined, chap. 3, ref. 3.

A large number of Pedobaptist scholars and divines are cited by the same author as holding this doctrine, including Luther, Gerhardus, Vossius, Deylingius, Fiddes, Whitby, Wilson, Scott, John Wesley, and Matthew Henry.

Do its advocates and defenders now maintain the same ground? Do they make the same claim for its saving efficacy? If not, on what ground, and for what reason do they hold to the baptism of infants? Have they any reason for it, except that they have been accustomed to it?

VI. REASONS FOR INFANT BAPTISM

Now, since this rite was not instituted by Christ, nor practiced by the Apostles, nor known among Christians until about A. D. 200, how is it justified as a Christian ordinance by those who practice it? And by what reasons is it sustained and defended ?

1. Some good and honest people really believe, after all, that infant baptism is taught in the Bible, and are greatly astonished, if they examine the subject, not to find it there. A very little effort will show how utterly without foundation is such a supposition. Read the sacred records through, from beginning to end, and no allusion to such a practice appears.

2. Its antiquity commends it to some. It has been a long time in vogue, and very generally practised by various Christian communions. But does that make it right? Is a usage necessarily good and true because it is old? Heathenism is older than the institutes of Christianity. Shall we adopt and practise all the absurd superstitions of the early corrupted churches - the worship of images, invocation of saints, prayer to the Virgin, oblations for the dead, baptism of bells, and many others; not a few of which came into use about the same time as this, and some of which are still older; any one of which has as much scriptural authority as infant baptism? Why do Protestants preserve this relic of popery alone, and reject the others?

Not what is old, but what is true should be our rule. Not what antiquity, but what the Bible commends should we obey. Not tradition, but, as Chillingworth declared, "the Bible only is the religion of Protestants." As Basil said, so should we say, "It is a manifest mistake in regard to faith, and a clear evidence of pride, either to reject any of those things which the Scripture contains, or to introduce anything that is not in the sacred pages."

3. Some there be, who confess that there is neither clear precept nor example in the New Testament to commend this practice, yet hold that the general spirit of the Gospel favors it; fundamental truths are there taught, from which the practice may be inferred. A strange mode of reasoning, surely. For if we may, by remote deduction and vague inference, originate ceremonies, call them gospel ordinances, and impose them on the consciences of men, then the whole Jewish ceremonial, and, indeed, the ritual of the Papal Church entire may be adopted, used, and taught as of divine authority, binding on believers.

But what a reflection is this on the wisdom and goodness of God; that He should have left positive institutions, designed for universal observance in His churches, to be vaguely inferred from supposed general principles, rather than to have been plainly and explicitly taught in His Word! Such reasoning will not serve in matters of religion. This maxim of Tertullian should have due weight, "The Scripture forbids what it does not mention." And with Ambrose we may ask, "Where the Scripture is silent, who shall speak?"

4. Some have claimed that baptism came in the place of circumcision. Hence, it is inferred - only inferred - that as all the male Jewish children were to be circumcised, so all the children of Christians, both male and female, should be baptized. What connection there is between these two institutions would require a philosopher to discover. And yet this has been the argument chiefly relied on by theologians, scholars, and divines in this country especially, for generations past, to prove the divine authority of infant baptism. More recently this stronghold of the tradition has been less confidently resorted to by learned men, and it may be said the tradition itself is being slowly abandoned. It cannot well endure the light of Christian intelligence.

Baptism did not come in the place of circumcision; nor in the place of any other previously existing institution. It has no connection with, and no reference to, circumcision whatever. The following considerations will make this plain

a. If baptism, a Christian ordinance, was designed to take the place of circumcision, a Mosaic rite, would not Christ have so stated, or the Apostles have mentioned the fact? But no allusion is to be found to any such design.

b. Circumcision applied to males alone. If baptism was its substitute, why are females baptized ?

c. Circumcision was an external sign of an external union with a national congregation, to secure the separation of the Jews from all other nations and races, and their unity as a people. Baptism is an external sign of an inward spiritual work of grace already wrought in the heart. It indicates not the separation of races, but the unity of the true people of God, of all races, as believers in Christ, without distinction of blood or tongue.

d. If baptism did take the place of circumcision, as is claimed, evidently the Apostles did not know it, else they would have made some mention of it, either in the conference at Jerusalem or in Epistles written for the guidance of the churches, or on other occasions, when both these subjects were under discussion, and directions given respecting them. But no allusion is anywhere made to such a substitution.

e. Jewish Christians for a time insisted on the practice of both circumcision and baptism; which proves they did not understand the one to have displaced the other. With their strong Jewish predilections they wished to retain circumcision as the sign and seal of their fellowship with the Church of Israel, and at the same time received baptism as a sign and seal of their adoption into the faith and fellowship of Christ and His kingdom.

The attempt to found a Christian ordinance on a Jewish ceremony is unreasonable, futile and absurd.

VII. OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM

1. It is founded on a falsehood. It claims to be a Gospel ordinance, when it is an invention of men, Christ did not appoint it; the Apostles did not practise it; the Scriptures do not sanction it. This is a sufficient reason why it should not be held as a Christian rite.

2. It impugns divine wisdom and insults the divine authority, because it claims to be needful, or useful, to religion; though Christ, by not appointing it when he instituted the Church, virtually decided it to be neither needful nor useful. Also, by binding the service on the consciences of Christian parents, as of religious obligation when God has not commanded it, there is an unwarrantable assumption of authority, and a grievous wrong is committed. Divine wisdom knew best what institutions to ordain, and what commands to lay upon His people.

3. It deprives Christian converts of the pleasure and privilege of believers' baptism. For having received this rite in their unconscious infancy without their consent or knowledge, if in after years they become regenerate and truly united to Christ, they cannot go forward in the discharge of this duty and be baptized on a profession of their faith without discrediting their earlier baptism-if baptism it may be called.

4. Because it appears like a solemn mockery for parents and sponsors to become sureties for the child about to be baptized, and declare for it that they believe in God's holy Word, and in the articles of the Christian faith as contained in the Apostles' creed; that they will renounce the vain pomp of the world, the devil and all his works, with all covetous and sinful desires of the flesh.

5. Because it requires the officiating minister to declare what is false, in the very performance of what should be a most sacred service. He declares what is false when he says, "I baptize thee," since he rantizes, or sprinkles, and does not baptize at all. Still more, and still worse, when he asserts that in this act the child "is regenerated and grafted into the body of Christ's Church;" and, also, when in prayer he thanks God "that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant with Thy Holy Spirit; to receive him for Thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into Thy holy Church." This is solemnly declared, when no such thing is done, and when the minister who says it knows that no such thing is done, unless, indeed, he believes in baptismal regeneration. The child is not regenerated, nor adopted of God, nor incorporated into the Church of Christ by this act. The service falsifies the facts most flagrantly.

6. But, perhaps, worst of all, infant baptism still teaches, to an extent, baptismal regeneration. It is more than a false statement, it is a pernicious and destructive error. What could be more reckless than to assert, even by inference, that a few drops of water on the face, with any form of words - no matter what - can make one regenerate, and a child of God? If the child, when grown, believes all this - and why should he not believe it, when thus solemnly taught by parents and minister? - he believes himself an heir of heaven, sealed and sanctified by the Spirit, while blind to the fact that he is still in the gall of bitterness, a child of sin, an heir of wrath, and in the broad road to death. What blind leadings of the blind! too sad to be countenanced by Christian men and Christian churches.

7. Infant baptism, in some sense-though its advocates are not agreed in what sense-makes the child a Church-member, and thus introduces an unsanctified element into the nominal body of Christ, making that body carnal instead of keeping it spiritual. It thus destroys the distinction which the Divine Founder of the Church designed should be maintained between it and the world. For even if the infant, as such, is not a member, yet, when grown to maturity, he is admitted to full membership, with no other evidence of, or demand for, regeneration. The purely spiritual character of the Church is thereby destroyed, and, like other associations, the spiritual and the carnal indifferently make up its communion. "A regenerated Church-membership" cannot be the motto or the watchword of the advocates of pedobaptism.

PROF. LANGE'S protest should be pondered by Protestant advocates of this papal emanation:

"Would the Protestant Church fulfill and attain to its final destiny, the baptism of new-born infants must of necessity be abolished. It has sunk down to a mere formality, without any meaning for the child. " -Hist. Protestantism,

Other objections than these mentioned may be urged against this unscriptural practice. But these would seem sufficient to deter any candid and conscientious Christian, who takes the Bible for his guide, from giving it any countenance or support.

 

CHAPTER XVIII

BAPTIST HISTORY

 

BAPTISTS have a history of which they need not be ashamed - a history of noble names and noble deeds, extending back through many ages, in which the present generation well may glory. From the days of John the Baptist until now, a great army of these witnesses for the truth, and martyrs for its sake, has illumined and honored the march of Christian history. The ages since Christ have known no purer, nobler lives, no braver, more faithful witnesses for the Gospel of Christ, no more glorious martyrs for its sake, than many of those who honor us by being called "our fathers in the faith." They were true to conscience and to principle and loyal to Christ, at a cost to which we are strangers. They went gladly to prison and to death in defense of the Gospel which they loved. Social ostracism, bonds and imprisonments, confiscations and fines, whippings, drownings, and burnings at the stake, not only in solitary cases, but by hundreds and thousands, are certified to, even by their enemies. Christian martyrology has no bloodier and no brighter page than that which tells, however imperfectly, of the persecutions and sufferings for conscience' sake of Baptist confessors, received during past ages, not from pagan barbarians so much as from professed fellow-Christians. It is an equal honor to their record that, while they endured persecution for the truth's sake, they never persecuted others for conscience' sake - never! How could they, when one of their cardinal principles was, and is, entire freedom of conscience and liberty of faith and worship, without interference by any? And the one priceless heritage they have given to the world, with which the world's religious life of today - and its secular life as well - has become imbued, is that of entire religious liberty of faith, speech and worship, and entire separation of church and state.

The time was when toleration in religion was hailed as a peculiar boon, granted through a gracious Providence. Baptists have contended and suffered, not for toleration, but for liberty in religion.

The world is slow to acknowledge its indebtedness to them; nevertheless, it remains. With a great price they purchased it. But they did it, not for glory, nor for gain, but for God and humanity.

No Baptist history of adequate value has thus far been written. Not a few attempts have been made, and much valuable material has been collected and preserved. We do not, however, place so much value on written history, as on present conformity to the teachings of Christ, a maintenance of the doctrines, and an imitation of the lives of the apostles and the first Christians. It matters little whether a church can trace its lineage back one century or twenty.* The great question is, does it inherit the spirit of Him who founded the church, and does it hold the doctrines and imitate the examples of Christ and His apostles? Still, whatever of history can be brought within the range of vision to be studied should be claimed and cherished.

* [Ed. Note: This statement must be contested.  Brother Hiscox was of the mind that no group could trace its lineage directly to the original church started by Jesus Christ.  As you have already learned in the prerequisite course, The Church, there is an entire group, and only one group, that can trace their lineage back to that original church.
    Why is this important?  One reason is because of the necessity of it to delineate the only churches that carry the direct authority to Baptize.  And today the only group with such a lineage and the attendant authority to baptize delegated to them is the Independent, non-denominational, non-protestant, local Churches known as Baptists - generally known as Independent Baptists.]

If it be asked, When and where did Baptist history begin? Who were the first of their honored line? Without hesitation we reply, They commenced with John the Baptist, or Jesus Christ, the Head of the church. And the first of their faith were His disciples, constituting the primitive churches. And though in the dim, uncertain light of subsequent ages of error and corruption, we cannot at all times follow their trail, or identify their presence with absolute certainty,* yet we feel positively assured that they have always existed. Like a stream which pursues its way from the mountains to the sea, and never ceases, though its course at times be through mountain gorges, trackless deserts, and hidden caverns, we know it is somewhere, though we cannot trace it, but we recognize it when again it comes to light, with a grander sweep, a deeper current, and a stronger tide.

* [Ed. Note: This statement and the following section have, since brother Hiscox' time been proven to be in error.  Evidence does exist and has been presented in the previous required course on "The Church" as well as the course on "Baptist History."
   For sake of continuity of the textbook the preceding statement and the following section have been left intact.  However, the student must be cautioned that history has proven the succession that is denied by the author of the textbook.  There are still enough lessons to be learned from the following section to warrant it's being left intact, but please be aware that the precept of "no succession" is in error.]

Baptists make no pretence of establishing, by documentary evidence, an unbroken succession of churches in form and name, as now existing, extending back to apostolic times. Such a claim would only make them ridiculous, as similar High-Church pretensions have made some other communions. Such a claim would be as impossible to prove as it would be useless if proven. The old is not always true or useful, nor the new false or useless necessarily. Falsehood and error are hoary with age, from Eden until now. Nevertheless, there is a survival of truth often hidden under the accumulated rubbish of human tradition, itself ages old; and he is wise who searches for truth as for hid treasures. Baptists trace their lineage, not through corporate designations, or forms of organic life, but by principles avowed, maintained and defended. The doctrines they professed, and the lives they lived, give us title to the inheritance we claim in their history.

 

I. THE EARLY SECTS

It is on all hands conceded that from the days of the apostles to the Reformation there existed congregations and communities of Christians separate from the prevailing and dominant churches, claiming to be of a more primitive and therefore of a purer, faith. As these dominant churches fell into alliance with the state, sought its patronage, became subservient to its spirit, proud, corrupt and carnal, departing from the simplicity and spirituality of the Gospel, these separate communities maintained their distinct existence, worshiped by themselves, and served God according to their understanding of the Scriptures and the dictates of their consciences. They maintained the doctrines of the Gospel nearly in their purity, as they were at first delivered to the saints, and were the true and faithful followers of Christ in the midst of prevailing spiritual darkness and decay. Even in the apostolic age not a few errors from prevailing philosophies had crept into the profession of the Christian faith, but after that faith had been adopted by princes and became nationalized, its corruptions became more numerous and its perversions more glaring. All the more did these dissenting communities need to maintain their distinctive existence, not only for conscience' sake, but as a protest against the outrages perpetrated on the cause of Christ by others.

During all the dark ages since the kingdom of Christ appeared, these companies and communities have confessedly existed. They have been known by many names, and have differed somewhat among themselves in different ages and in different countries. By the prevailing and dominant secularized churches they were stigmatized as heretics, and were defamed and persecuted perpetually, not by pagans and barbarians, but by their professed fellow-Christians. Those are usually the heretics who differ from the majority, and have conscience and courage enough to defend their position, and, if need be, suffer for their faith. Thousands on thousands of those dissenting disciples were put to death by the most painful tortures for no other crime than a purer faith than their persecutors possessed, and because they would hold, profess and defend that purer faith. Those who were permitted to live were doomed to endure unequaled cruelties. Emperors, kings and princes, popes, priests and people, senates, synods and councils, pursued them with every device of cruelty which malice could invent or power execute, to waste, blot out and exterminate them from the face of the earth. Language is too weak to portray the diabolical and fiendish cruelties perpetrated upon the innocent, helpless and, for the most part, unresisting people of God by those who were able to invoke the secular power to execute their fell designs.

They were the few among the many, the weak oppressed by the strong; with none to plead their cause, or to defend their rights, they could do nothing but suffer. Though calumniated by their enemies, who accused them of every crime, and charged them with every enormity, they were the purest and the best of the ages and the countries in which they lived. The doctrines and ordinances of the Gospel they maintained nearly, if not quite, in their primitive purity. The greater part had never been connected with the Roman hierarchy, while many who had, separated themselves from the false, that they might enjoy the true church of Christ.

Like some rivulet which pursues its way parallel to, but never mingling with, the broad and turbid stream, these people have come down from the first ages of Christianity, preserving and transmitting to posterity the purest forms of doctrinal faith and practical godliness known to history during those long succeeding ages of darkness and corruption. The reproaches and persecutions they suffered were because they bore witness against prevailing errors and crimes, perpetrated in the name of religion by the papal church. No doubt they had some faults, and; perhaps, held some errors. How could it well be otherwise, surrounded, as they were, by an atmosphere of ecclesiastical falsehood and corruption.

During the first and second centuries, Messalians, Euchites, Montanists, were the names by which some of these sects were known.

In the third, fourth and fifth centuries, the Novatians arose and became exceedingly numerous, spreading throughout the Roman Empire, notwithstanding the destruction wrought among them by persecution.

In the seventh and eighth centuries arose the Paulicians, attracting much attention, becoming very numerous, and drawing upon themselves the hatred and hostility of the papal Church.*

* See Benedict's, Orchard's, Robinson's, Jones's, et al., Histories, with all current Eccl. Hists. of the early ages of Christianity.

JONES states that in the first part of the ninth century, Claude, bishop of Turin, a truly godly and evangelical man, who preached righteousness, and opposed prevailing corruptions, both as to doctrines and morals:

"By his preaching, and by his valuable writings, he disseminated the doctrines of the kingdom of heaven." "His doctrine grew exceedingly. The valleys of Piedmont were filled with his disciples, and while midnight darkness sat enthroned over almost every portion of the globe, the Waldenses preserved the Gospel among them in its native purity, and rejoiced in its glorious light." -Jones's Ch. Hist., Vol. 1., p. 396; Rob. Eccl. Research., p. 447; Allix. Rem., p. ,52.

If not technically Baptists, the principal points in which they differed from the dominant churches, and for which they were persecuted, were those which Baptists have always emphasized, and in respect to which they still chiefly differ from other Christian communions. They held that none but regenerate persons ought to be received to membership in the churches; they rejected infant baptism; they baptized by immersion, as did all Christians during those ages; they rebaptized converts received among them from the Romish Church, and hence were called Anabaptists. These are distinguishing marks of them all, more or less clearly defined, as noted by their enemies, from whom we receive the greater part of our knowledge concerning them, their own writings having largely perished in the sore and bloody persecutions to which they were subjected. Robinson, the historian, called them Trinitarian Baptists."

The Paulicians became exceedingly numerous, and were so cruelly persecuted that the Empress Theodora is said to have caused not less than one hundred thousand of these peaceable subjects to be put to death, after having confiscated their property.* They confined the ordinances to the regenerate, rejected infant baptism, and rebaptized converts received to their fellowship. They were also called Bogomilians, a name which became famous in the annals of persecution. These communities continued through several succeeding centuries, and spread through both the East and the West.

*See Orchard, Milner, Gibbon. et al.

Near the close of the tenth century, the Peterines come into notice. They were substantially the same people as had previously existed under other names. Indeed, these various sects were the progenitors and the inheritors of each other's religious faith and practice. It was the irrepressible energy of truth and the spirit of God, working in regenerate souls to develop and reproduce the true Christian life, in the simplicity of Christ, according to the primitive type. Not only the individual, but the church life of the saints. Europe was well nigh flooded with these dissentients. The truly devout welcomed them, since they yearned for something better than the prevailing heartless and secularized religion. And the prevailing and shameless corruptions of the Romish clergy gave those of purer lives great currency with the masses. For there were no vices, however gross and degrading, which the clergy, from the highest to the lowest, from pope to priest, did not practise with greediness and impunity. They were examples to the people in all kinds of sin and iniquity.

In the eleventh and following centuries, the Waldenses, Albigenses, Vaudois, Cathari, poor men of Lyons, and Anabaptists, attracted renewed attention through Europe, and for generations continued to increase and to suffer. They differed slightly among themselves, but were variously named according to their locations, or the circumstances in which they attracted the notice of the public. Their prevailing characteristics were the same as have been noticed above. They filled Italy, even the very seat and center of papal power, corruption and crime, with their influence and the truths they held.

In the twelfth century, so great became their influence, especially under the leadership of Arnold of Brescia, a pupil of the renowned Abelard, that the papal throne itself trembled to its foundation. Arnold was as brave a reformer as was Luther four hundred years later, and perhaps as learned. But the times were not ripe for such a work as the German reformer was raised up to lead. Arnold, however, dared to visit Rome itself, and by his attacks on the vices and the unjust authority of the clergy raised a revolt in the very face of the Vatican, which finally compelled the pope to flee, and changed the government for a season. But he had no powerful nobles to espouse his cause, as had Luther, and the people were unorganized and unreliable; while the influence of the clergy, with all their vices, was still most potent. Wise and powerful leaders were needed for a reformation. The people could endure better than contend. This lesson they had learned through generations of suffering. But the time had not come for truth to triumph. A reaction set in, and Arnold, like Savonarola three hundred years later, whose early history was also associated with Brescia, fell a victim to the hatred of his foes, and his immediate followers were scattered.* But their principles survived, as did countless numbers of the various communities of dissentients from the dominant communions.

* See Gibbon's Decl. and Fall, Mosheim, Allix, Jones, et al.

WADDINGTON, the historian, gives the following statement, made by Saccho, one of their adversaries and persecutors, as to the Vaudois, or Leonists, of the twelfth century:

"There is no sect so dangerous as the Leonists, for three reasons: First, it is the most ancient - some say as old as Sylvester, others as the Apostles themselves. Secondly, it is very generally disseminated; there is no country where it has not gained some footing. Thirdly, while other sects are profane and blasphemous, this retains the utmost show of piety. They live justly before men, and believe nothing respecting God which is not good. Only they blaspheme against the Roman Church and the clergy, and thus gain many followers." - Waddington, Ch. Hist., p. 290. See Mosheim, 12th Cent.

ORCHARD says of the Piedmontese:

"Though we have no documents proving the apostolical foundation for these churches, yet it becomes evident that some communities did exist here in the second century, since it is recorded they practiced believers' baptism by immersion." -Hist. Bap., p. 255. See also Rollinson, Allix, et al., Hist. Pied.; Wall's Hist. Inf. .Bap.

From the time of the Apostles to the Reformation these various sectaries may be said to have constituted the true Church of God. Their faith was the most scriptural, and their lives were the purest the world had. Of course they were not perfect. How could they be with such environments? And if at times they did not wholly agree among themselves, what marvel in an age of doubt, corruption and unrest, when the truest were the most reviled, and the purest were the most persecuted? In the sixteenth century they came into public notice, largely under the leadership of Menno Simons, whom the historian calls, "a reformer whose apostolic spirit and labors have thus far failed to receive the recognition they deserve." From him they were called Mennonites, and flooded Europe with tens of thousands. "Mennonites, the Anabaptists of the Netherlands first called themselves in 1536." "They were certainly among the most pious Christians the world ever saw, and the worthiest citizens the State ever had." They crowded into Russia for shelter, where in our times they have been persecuted and exiled. At length they have fled to our own country for peace and freedom which they found nowhere else for the past four hundred years.

At the time of the Lutheran Reformation these various sects to a large extent fraternized with, and were lost in, the multitudes of the reformers. So glad were they to find something, if not wholly to their wish, yet so much better than had previously existed in the papal churches, and to find leaders of power, as also to find some shelter from civil and ecclesiastical persecution, that they welcomed the Reformation, even with its imperfections, as a boon from heaven. The Waldenses of Piedmont, and some others, abandoned dipping for baptism, adopted infant sprinkling, in common with State churches, and the Calvinistic reformers generally identified themselves with, and were largely lost in, the mass of Protestant Pedobaptists. Not so however with the Baptists, or Anabaptists, as by their opponents they were more generally called. They maintained their faith and their position, not only against their papal adversaries, but against their Protestant friends as well, whose reformation they insisted needed still further reforming.

These various protesting peoples through the generations had at times been joined by enthusiasts and fanatics, or such had sprung up within their fellowship, like the "mad men of Münster," whose extravagances brought upon the entire brotherhood reproaches they did not merit - their adversaries being ever ready to find occasion against them, and to magnify every fault and indiscretion to the largest possible extent. But they were, on the whole, so much superior in faith and life to the dominant churches as to command the wonder and admiration of those, who in a spirit of fairness, now study the imperfect fragments of their history. They all more or less strongly pronounced the following statements of their religious beliefs:
   1. The Bible as the only and sufficient standard of faith and appeal in matters of religion.
   2. Entire liberty of conscience, confession and worship for all
   3. Complete separation of church and state, the church acknowledging but one Lord, even Christ.
   4. The churches to be constituted of spiritual members only, such as were regenerate by the Holy Spirit.
   5. Baptism to be administered by immersion.
   6. Infant baptism to be rejected, as alien to the New Testament.
   7. The churches to be self-governing, and free from the domination of both lords spiritual and lords temporal.

Such facts identify them with Baptists of later ages, what no other denomination can claim.

 

II. THE SWISS BAPTISTS

The secluded valleys and mountain fastnesses of Switzerland and Piedmont have from the earliest ages been the home and refuge of the persecuted people of God. Not only those native to the soil but such as had fled from other countries to find shelter and freedom in those Alpine retreats. Paulicians, Albigenses, Vaudois, Pickards, Anabaptists, with many others, are names bound up in history with these wild mountain resorts. "The Vaudois and Waldenses," says a historian, "have from time immemorial inhabited the vales at the foot of the Cottian Alps."

ZWINGLI, the Swiss reformer and co-laborer with Luther, says:

"The institution of Anabaptism is no novelty, but for thirteen hundred years has caused great disturbance in the Church." *

* See Intro. Orchard, p. 17; also Benedict et al, Ch. Hists.

If it had existed thirteen hundred years before Zwingli, it must have extended back to within two centuries of Christ, to say the least. And it is confidently affirmed that it can be traced as far back as to the fourth century. They too, in common with their brethren of similar faith, suffered persecution unto death, against which the strongholds of nature, in the midst of which they dwelt, could not wholly protect them.* The horrid massacre of these innocent people by the Duke of Savoy, about the middle of the seventeenth century, equaled the dreadful scenes of St. Bartholomew's day, and was protested against by Cromwell, then in power.

*See Robinson, Allix, Danvers; especially Burrage and Schaff

 

III. THE WELSH BAPTISTS

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

When Austin, the Romish monk and missionary, visited Wales at the close of the sixth century, he found a community of more than 2,000 Christians quietly living in their mountain homes. They were independent of the Roman See, and wholly rejected its authority. Austin labored zealously to convert them - that is, to bring them under the papal yoke - but entirely failed in the effort. Yielding things in general, he reduced his demands upon them to three particulars:
   1. That they should observe Easter in due form, as ordered by the Church.
   2. That they should give Christening or baptism to their children.
   3. That they should preach the Word of God to the English, as directed.

   This demand proves that they neither observed the popish ordinance of Easter, nor baptized infants. They, however, rejected all his overtures, whereupon he left them with many threats of war and wretchedness. Not long after Wales was invaded by the Saxons, and many of these inoffensive Christians cruelly put to death, as was believed, at the instigation of this bigoted zealot, the exacting and heartless Austin.*

*See Neal's Hist. Puritans; Rob. Hist. Bap.; Benedict.

 

IV. THE DUTCH BAPTISTS

The Baptists of Holland are acknowledged by historians to have had their origin at a very remote period.

MOSHEIM, the historian, says:

"The true origin of that sect which acquired the name of Anabaptists, is hid in the remote depth of antiquity, and consequently extremely difficult to be ascertained."  -Eccl. Hist., Vol. IV., p. 427, Murd. ed.; Introd. Orchard's Hist.

DR. DERMONT, chaplain to the king of Holland, and Dr. Ypeij, professor of theology at Graningen, a few years since received a royal commission to prepare a history of the Reformed Dutch Church. This history, prepared under royal sanction, and officially  published, contains the following manly and generous testimony to the antiquity and orthodoxy of the Dutch Baptists:

"We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and have long in the history of the Church received the honor of that origin. On this account, the Baptists may be considered the only Christian community which has stood since the Apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel through all ages." -Hist. Ref. Dutch Ch., Breda, 1819. See Hist. Mennonites.

MOSHEIM says of the persecutions of this people in the sixteenth century:

"Vast numbers of these people, in nearly all the countries of Europe, would rather perish miserably by drowning, hanging, burning, or decapitation. than renounce the opinions they had embraced." And their innocency he vindicates thus: "It is indeed true that many Anabaptists were put to death, not as being bad citizens, or injurious members of civil society, but as being incurable heretics, who were condemned by the old canon laws. For the error of adult baptism was in that age looked upon as a horrible offense." That was their only crime. -Eccl. Hist., Cent. 16, sec. 3, part II., ch. 3; Fuller's Ch. Hist., B. IV.

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

CARDINAL HOSSIUS, chairman of the Council at Trent says:

"If the truth of religion were to be judged of by the readiness and cheerfulness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer or surer than those of the Anabaptists; since there have been none, for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more grievously punished." -Orchard's Hist. Bap., sec. 12, part XXX., p. 364.

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

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

V. THE ENGLISH BAPTISTS

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

*See Histories of Baptists, by Crosby, Ivimey, Danvers, and Benedict.

BRANDE writes that:

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

BISHOP LATIMER declares that:

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

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

DR. FEATLEY, one of their bitter enemies, wrote of them, in 1633:

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

BAILEY wrote, in 1639, that:

"Under the shadow of independency they have lifted up their heads, and increased their numbers above all sects in the land. They have forty-six churches in and about London. They are a people very fond of religious liberty, and very unwilling to be brought under bondage of the judgment of others." -Benedict's Hist., p. 304.

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

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

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

*Eng. Bap. Jubilee Memor., Benedict's Hist. Bap.

VI. AMERICAN BAPTISTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

VII. BAPTIST FACTS AND FIGURES

For the first hundred years of Baptist history in America their growth was slow. The population was small and scattered. They were still dissentients from the majority of their fellow Christians, by whom they were defamed, opposed, and persecuted. Though, in this country, none were burned, hanged, or drowned, because of their faith, yet in New England they were banished, fined, imprisoned, and publicly whipped at the stake, because they insisted on religious liberty, and would not submit to the magistrates in matters of faith and conscience. In the then condition of the country they lacked in organization, intercourse, and mutual help. The first Baptist church known to American history was organized by Roger Williams in Providence, R. I., in 1639.

Edwards' Tables gives the number of churches in 1768, more than a hundred years afterward, as one hundred and thirty-seven.

Asplund's Register reported for 1790, 872 churches, 722 ordained ministers, and 64,975 church members.

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

Allens' Register, for 1836, enrolls 7,299 churches, 4,075 ministers, and 517,523 Church members.

The Baptist Almanack, for 1840, gives the following figures: 7,771 churches, 5,208 ministers, and 571,291 members.

The Baptist Year Book, for 1860, reports the following numbers, 12,279 churches, 7,773 ministers, and 1,016,134 members.

It must be borne in mind, however, that the figures given are always less than the facts would warrant, since complete returns can never be obtained from churches and associations.

From the various sources of information accessible, the following table of statistics is compiled, and is doubtless approximately correct; though, as to the earlier dates the figures differ somewhat, according to the sources from which they are derived.

 

The Baptist Family

The Baptist family of the United States is sometimes spoken of as included in three sectional divisions: First, Baptists of the North, of whom there are, according to reports of 1927, 1,385,709; Second, White Baptists in the South and Southwest, numbering (1927) 3,708,253; Third, Negro Baptists of whom there are 3,253,369. It may be noted that the Northern Baptists reported, in 1927, something more than $6,323,985 expended the previous year in Home and Foreign Missions. The Southern white Baptists reported, in 1927, total receipts for Home and Foreign Missions of $8,228,281. The Negro Baptists have their mission and educational enterprises under their own management, for which they raise and expend amounts very creditable to them, considering their circumstances.

First Things

The following table of historical data, believed to be correct, presents facts which may prove of substantial value for reference. The first Baptist Church in each State was organized at the date here given.*

*This table was compiled after laborious care in ascertaining the facts, and published by Rev. David Spencer, D. D.

During One Decade

During the decade from 1874 to 1884 there was reported the following increase: churches, 7,086; ministers, 3,313; members, 1,806,542. Full returns in many cases, not obtainable.

Numbers Baptized

Some years have been marked by peculiar revival power in the churches, when the numbers baptized were very large. In 1886 there were reported 163,300 baptisms; in 1887, 158,373; in 1888, 134,563; in 1889, 140,058; in 1890, 155,300; in 1891, 160,247; in 1892, 166,322; in 1927, 325,386. Of course, it is possible that some of these persons baptized may not have been truly regenerate. There is always a liability to hasty admission to church fellowship, especially in times of high revival fervor. But they all profess to be genuine converts, and the rule universally recognized for admission is, that none except such as give evidence of the new birth can be received to baptism and church-membership.

Of the 325,386 reported as baptized during the church year of 1927, there were 65,486 among the Northern Baptists, 195,858 among the Southern white Baptists, and 64,042 among the Negro Baptists.

Other Baptists

There are in the United States various other smaller sections of the great Baptist family practising immersion, but differing in many other respects from our own churches. It is a satisfaction to know that no longer is there any division between the Free-Will Baptists of the North and the other churches of the Northern Baptist Convention, the Free-Will churches having entered into unity of fellowship and work with the Baptists of the North. Concerning some of the smaller branches of the Baptist family the Year-Book of 1927 reports: Dunkards (Brethren), 156,768; United Brethren in Christ, 410,631; Adventists, 150,891; Church of God (Winebrenner), 29,011; Disciples of Christ, 1,754,512; Mennonites, 90,310.

[Ed. Note: Some of these groups are not Baptist in any sense of the word.  They are listed here by brother Hiscox in no other sense than they, at that time, all practiced Baptism by immersion.]

Institutions of Learning *

American Baptists have 18 theological seminaries, with 224 teachers, and 2,688 pupils, with property valued at $8,441,600; endowments, $7,807,916; volumes in the libraries, 246,700. They have 70 universities and colleges, with 3,493 instructors, 111,555 pupils, $85,955,000 value in property; $108,849,218 in endowments; 2,454,900 volumes in the libraries.

They have 32 institutions (including theological seminaries) for the education of women and girls, with 673 teachers and 9,872 pupils, with property worth $15,082,600 and $4,360,456 in endowments, with 205,100 volumes in their libraries.

They have 195 coeducational institutions (including theological seminaries), with 4,196 teachers, 69,114 pupils, $95,472,800 value of property, $104,887,239 in endowments, and 2,591,100 volumes in their libraries.

There are some 60 schools (including theological seminaries) for Negroes, 3 schools among the Indians, and 11 among the people in Mexico. There are also schools for Chinese and other foreign-speaking peoples in the United States.

*The statistics given are quoted with reserve, because of difficulties encountered in obtaining full returns to requests for information.

Sunday Schools

The churches reported 29,137 Sunday schools for 1927, with an enrolment of 3,859,734; that is, there are about six-sevenths as many Sunday schools as churches, and the enrolment in the schools reaches nearly four-fifths of the number of church-members.

Benevolent Contributions

Within the last two decades vigorous efforts have been made to increase the contributions of the denomination to missionary objects. According to the latest and most reliable reports available, they are credited with giving for foreign missions in the fiscal year 1927, $3,636,325; for home missions, $4,503,270; for education, $1,089,870; for miscellaneous purposes, in the neighborhood of two million dollars, or more; for salaries of pastors and other home expenses of the churches, $61,490,538; an aggregate of over seventy-two million dollars. The value of church property as reported was $426,416,000. It seems difficult to reconcile these facts with a sense of duty to Christ and the world, that they should expend nearly sixty-two million dollars on the churches at home and less than four millions for the conversion of the heathen world; or, that they should lock up more than $426,000,000 in church properties when there is so much need of funds for disseminating the gospel. At the same time they have more than $240,000,000 in property and endowments of educational institutions, or a total of more than $666,000,000 in property and endowments of churches and schools. Highly creditable in one sense, but the active work of giving the gospel to the world should claim a larger share.

 

Foreign Baptists

In the Canadas, about	140,474
West India Islands	57,944
Central America	1,843
Mexico	5,560
South America	30,872
Great Britain	416,665
Europe, exclusive of Great Britain	1,220,295
Asia	334,251
Africa	67,727
Australia	32,811

It may properly be added that in all parts of the world where Baptists exist they are steadily, and in many places rapidly, increasing, both as to numbers, culture, wealth, and influence. But their polity is most in harmony with free civil governments and liberal institutions. In Russia, in common with some other religionists, they still suffer oppression and persecution. No missions among the heathen have shown such large results, in proportion to the means employed, as theirs; a fact in which they duly recognize the most gracious favor of God, to whom be the praise.*

* For many other facts see American Baptist Year Book for 1928.

STOP HERE and TAKE TEST!

LESSON EIGHTEEN 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.

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.

LESSON NINETEEN

 

APPENDIX.

[Ed. Note: For purposes of this course, A-C of the Appendix of brother Hiscox' book are not included in this textbook.  Also, E and F have likewise not been included.  For our purposes it is only necessary to study section D.
If you would like to read the other sections not required for this class, please click HERE to download a pdf version of the entire book by brother Hiscox.  The file is nearly 7 meg so if you have a slow internet connection it may take some time to download.]

A. Creeds and Confessions.

B. Optional Resolutions.

C. Glossary of Authorities.

D. Rules of Order.

E. Forms and Blanks.
       ATTENTION: There will be access to various forms and blanks made available to the students through other means.  These will be more up to date.

F. Benevolent Societies.

 

Click the title below to go to Lesson Nineteen.
When you have finished that section, leave that window
open and return here to take your open book test.
Shrink both that window and the test down so
they can be viewed side by side so you can
use that Lesson to help take the test.

D. Rules of Order.

 

After you have finished "D. Rules of Order" then
STOP HERE and TAKE TEST for LESSON NINETEEN!

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.

LESSON NINETEEN TEST

Once you have passed this test, then you may close the
window with the "D. Rules of Order" section and
all other pages you may have open, with the
exception of the Church Polity and Order
course main page or the Classes main
page, and remain on this page
to take your Final Test.