Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

logians of the different Christian denominations in the most intimate relations with the topics under treatment.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

In the preparation of the work hundreds of writers have taken part, including persons in almost every quarter of the United States, in Great Britain, and on the Continent of Europe. No restriction has been laid on their pens, except that of abstinence from the expression of private dogmatic judgments, and from the introduction of sectarian comments at war with the professed historical character of the work. In these facts," the editors express the hope, "will be found a guarantee of the universality and impartiality of the work, impressing upon it a disinterested character, no less by the necessity of the case, than by the good faith of individual professions." We are happy, from personal examination, to bear witness to the able and impartial character of some of the articles. We take it that nothing is more difficult and delicate than to treat of denominational peculiarities in such a way as to satisfy friends, without offending foes; yet this, we think, is done in the article on Baptists- a work all the more important, as this denomination has been not only "everywhere spoken against," but often in works professing to be catholic, sadly misrepresented. This article is well done, and is evidently the work of one who understands the genius of the Baptists. They, we think, will esteem it faithful, while it is so utterly free from "the expression of private, dogmatic judgments, and from the introduction of sectarian comments," that no candid outsider, or opposer even, can complain. We propose to verify our statements, and illustrate our idea of the article, by free quotations from it, with which quotations, we dismiss the work, heartily commending the enterprise of the Publishers, and recommending the work itself as worthy of a place in every library.

"BAPTISTS, a denomination of evangelical Christians, which differs from others in certain principles connected with baptism as the initiatory ordinance of Christianity. This difference is commonly understood as limited to the proper age and mode of its administration, and hence Baptists have been defined as 'those who believe in adult baptism by immersion.' But this definition is inaccurate and incomplete. Inaccurate, for

in the view of the Baptists age is nothing, but spiritual qualification is everything; hence they baptize all who repent and believe the Gospel, whether in childhood, youth, or manhood, and, very frequently whole households at once, as did the apostles. The definition is incomplete, for many who are not Baptists, believe that the immersion of adults was the primitive baptism of the NEW TESTAMENT. The fact is generally admitted in works of scientific authority, both historical and archæological. Baptists, then, properly defined, are those who hold that the baptism of Christian believers is of universal obligation, and practice accordingly. And they hold this because they acknowledge no master but Christ; no rule of faith but his Word; no baptism but that which is preceded and hallowed by personal piety; no Church but that which is the body of Christ, pervaded, governed and animated by his spirit. Whatever diversities of opinion and usage are found among them, these are their common and characteristic principles; by these they are known and distinguished in every country and in every age. On like grounds, also, the Baptists reject (though with far less concern) the substitution of sprinkling for the entire immersion of the body, which they maintain, was originally practised in the administration of baptism, and (except in the case of the sick) universally observed throughout Christendom for thirteen hundred (?) years. For the universal obligation of immersion as identical with baptism itself, and essential to its specific spiritual purposes, they urge the admitted signification of the word Bantw, the necessity of adhering to the ordinary meaning of words in the interpretation of laws, the places where the rite was originally performed, the phraseology employed in describing it, the undeniable example of Christ himself, and the metaphorical allusions of the sacred writers when explaining the spiritual import of the rite; all which, they say, confirm the meaning to be immersion, and necessarily exclude every other. They maintain that no valid objections have ever been brought against the combined force of this evidence, and that, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, they have the concurrence of the whole body of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, who were withheld from restoring immersion among Protestants generally, not by critical reasons, but by their views of church authority and expediency. The Mennonites, or Dutch Baptists, restored immersion; but a part of them, though still rejecting infant baptism, have since adopted pouring, by confounding the outpouring of the Spirit with the baptism of the Spirit-the cause with the effect: hence those who retain immersion are now called Tunkers i. e. dippers. It is, however, well known that all the Greek and Oriental churches, (with a population of 100,000,000,) though adopting the baptism of children, retain immersion to this day, as essential to the validity of the rite, and, as Bunsen remarks, 'deny that there is any efficacy in the western form of baptism.' The Baptists (with the small exception mentioned above) regard it as one part of their mission to uphold, and as far as possible, to restore throughout Christendom, the original institution of Christ in its entire form and spirit. On the subject of church communion the Baptists generally agree with other denominations that it is not proper before baptism. As they find no exception to this rule in the New Testament, they do not feel authorized to invite those who are not, in their view, duly baptized, to unite with them at the Lord's table, however highly they esteem them. They profess in this limitation of church communion that they do not judge the consciences of others, but seek to preserve their own. Open communion, so eloquently advocated by Robert Hall in England, the Baptists of the United States regard as an anomaly. Yet, while holding these views, they claim to feel a cordial sympathy with other evangelical denominations, and rejoice to co-operate with them, as far as possible, in the work of Christ. As it regards church

government, the Baptists believe in the spiritual unity of the whole believing Church under Christ, its Head, and in the duty of making this unity visible by subjection to him in all things. (John xvii. 27.) Local churches, like those of Jerusalem and Antioch, composed of converted members duly baptized, embodied under the law of Christ by free mutual agreement, and maintaining the truth in love, they hold to be, according to the New Testament, the appointed means in the first place, for manifesting this unity. The government of these churches is congregational. Each body being immediately dependent on Christ, is therefore, independent of all others, and is complete in itself for the management of its internal affairs, such as the choice of officers, declaration of faith, reception, dismission, or discipline of members. Each church is a tribunal, where Christ himself presides, ratifying in heaven whatever is done according to his will on earth. (Matt. xviii. 17-20.) Baptists recognize no higher ecclesiastical tribunal on earth as constituted by Christ. This principle of independence is, however, quite distinct, in their view, from selfish isolation. It is balanced by another principle equally dear to them-that of intercommunion, or the communion of churches. This intercommunion is the highest form of visible unity, and is never interrupted without necessity, On this principle their churches associate, invite councils for advice, and organize societies for mutual co-operation in any benevolent, educational, or missionary enterprise. But all such associations among Baptists disclaim the slightest jurisdiction over the churches, and any attempt to usurp ecclesiastical power would be indignantly repelled. Baptists make no distinction but that of office between clergymen and laymen. As each church is a little spiritual republic, so each member is entitled to a vote, and is trained in all the dnties of an active citizen. The will of the majority governs, but they seek, by fraternal discussion and prayer, mingled with love and forbearance, to secure perfect unanimity, according to the will of God. They recognize no higher church officers than pastors and deacons. Elders, as evangelists and missionaries, are also ordained, after due trial, and sent out to preach the Gospel. Councils are usually called by the churches, to advise and assist in the ordination of ministers, the formation of churches, and the settlement of serious difficulties. Such councils are sometimes called presbyteries, but they must not be confounded with the bodies that bear that name in the Presbyterian Church, as they have neither judicial nor appellate powers. Whatever be their differences in other things, Baptists all agree in maintaining the congregational form of church government. With Congregationalists, so called, they differ only in regard to baptism, and in being more strictly congregational.

In the United States, the Baptist, with one exception, is now the largest denomination of evangelical Christians. They are spread through every State and Territory. They form one body, differing in nothing but in their position in regard to slavery. Owing to this difference, in 1845 the Southern Baptists, by mutual consent, formed separate organizations for their benevolent enterprises, and by avoiding bickerings, both sections have reaped the advantages of a division of labor.

"The ministry of the Baptists," says Dr. Baird, "comprehends a body of men, who in point of talents, learning and eloquence, as well as devoted piety, have no superiors in the country." The Baptists have never made classical scholarship a prerequisite to the ministry of the Gospel, lest they should seem to be wiser than God; but it is a mistake to suppose they have ever despised education or knowledge, except when substituted for holier gifts.

The Baptists, as will be evident from the above exposition of their principles, claim their origin from the ministry of Christ and his apos

tles. They further claim that all the Christian churches of the first two centuries after Christ were founded and built up on the principles they profess; in proof of which they appeal to the high critical authorities in church history, Mosheim, Neander, Hagenbach, Jacobi and Bunsen. They further claim to be able to trace their history in a succession of pure churches (cathari) essentially Baptist, though under various names, from the third century down to the Reformation. These churches, from the fifth century onward, were the subjects of systematic persecution from the State churches both in the East and West. Cyril of Alexandria and Innocent I. of Rome, according to the historian Socrates, began this per secution by depriving them of their houses of worship, and driving them into secret places, under the laws of Honorius and Theodosius II., which forbid re-baptism (so called) under penalty of death. Yet their principles reappear among the Culdees of the West and the Paulicians of the East; the Callesii and the Paterines, the Albigenses and Waldenses, and emerge on all sides at the first dawn of the Reformation. In the opinion of Sir Isaac Newton, as reported by Whiston, the Baptists are the only body of Christians that has not symbolized with the Church of Rome."

ART. VII. THE RELIGIOUS ELEMENT IN HUMAN NATURE.

THERE are always, back of all phenomena, laws of which they are the expression. He is but a superficial inquirer who carries his investigations no farther than the former of these. When Bacon inaugurated a new method in Philosophy, he did not teach that the facts ascertained by experiment are the ultimate goal of philosophical research, but that from facts we should proceed to principles. In human experience and in human history there are certain religious phenomena not less striking and remarkable than those which have been noted in other spheres, and which point as certainly and significantly to laws of which they are the expression. These phenomena clearly indicate that Religion, both in its theory and in its practice, and under whatever of its forms, whether true or false, must be regarded as more than a mere incident in human life. We do not see one age religious, and another not; one nation with a belief and a worship, another with none. But all nations and all ages are, in some sense, religious. The nature of man demands a religion. It is evidently one of the necessities of

his being. There is a Religious Element in his nature, which is to be fed with appropriate nutriment, and which claims for itself a sphere and an influence, whatever the condition or circumstances of the individual. To this principle must be referred all the phenomena of man's religious history. They can be accounted for on no other.

We propose in the present article a practical discussion of the general truth indicated. It has suggestions that are deserving of notice, especially by those who as Christians or as Christian ministers, need to be sustained and animated in their work by all right motives. We will consider, first, the following statement: The Religious Element in Human Nature, so remarkably developed in all the ages of human history, proves that the true Religion is a real want of man.

Let us look a little into the nature and the manifestations of this element. Religion, in its evangelical sense, is often undervalued and even scorned by proud and worldly men. In its perverted forms, it has manifested human frailty in a way to excite the contempt of the unthinking and the compassion of the serious. And still, as it exists among men, with its attending phenomena, it is a meaning and a momentous fact, which no reflecting person will dispose of with a sneer. All the great facts in man's history and experience, as we intimated before, are but the development of fixed principles in his constitution, and he who mocks at any of these should beware lest he may seem to dishonor and despise his own nature. And the fact indicates the principle as infallibly as the phenomena of the physical world indicate its laws. The universality of trade shows that men universally love gain; society, being a universal fact, proves that the social principle is a law in man's nature; government, being found everywhere, either in ruder or more cultivated forms, makes it evident that men everywhere, by a tendency of nature, are led to seek this method for attaining certain ends, important to them as individuals and communities. But neither of these is in any higher sense universal, than is the manifestation of a religious tendency. Wherever we find society, we find religion; wherever there is government, there is worship too; and as the

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »