Baptist principles reset; consisting of articles on distinctive Baptist principles

Front matter

" 7 ••

'WW

^H

Preface

Dr. J. B. Jeter died February 18, 1880. In the autumn of 1876, in execution of a purpose formed long before, he began in the Religious Herald, of which he was then senior editor, a series of articles on "Distinctive Baptist Principles." He was at this date, had been for many years, and continued till his death the first among his brethren. His mind was not only rich in the accumulated stores of information, well digested, but it was characterized by a manly vigor and a most uncommon candor, which commanded the respect and admiration of all who knew him. Dr. Jeter was a model controversial writer. Scrupulously fair in his statement of an opponent's views, he never descended from the high plane of courteous debate to indulge in personalities. He was incapable of subterfuge or indirection. He took no short cuts in discussion. The articles from his pen which we print in this volume illustrate these characteristics. No word of bitterness will be found in them. They are not marred by any attempt at smartness. They are never extravagant, never hysterical. They are marked by a sober and conscious strength, which makes them very convincing. It is only just to Dr. Jeter to say that these papers were prepared for the general reader. While not a technical and professional scholar, he was well acquainted with the conclusions of the best scholarship, and these are embodied in his articles. But we venture the opinion that the reader will find no obscure sentence, nothing abstruse or recondite. They are plain, clear, coherent. Moreover, let no one neglect the papers under the impression that they will be dull and lifeless. The writer's remarkable command of his mother tongue, his kindly humor, his style, marked by vivacity as well as sobriety, most of all his clear and well-reasoned conviction of the unshakable truth of his contention, will give growing interest to the series.

While these articles were reappearing in the Religious Herald, the editors determined to follow them with another series, written by the ablest and most representative of our living Baptist brethren. Accordingly the articles which are found in Part II. of this volume were, at our request, prepared, and we were permitted to print them in the Religious Herald. Dr. Henry G. Weston, President of Crozer Theological Seminary — vigorous, clear, scholarly — contributes the first article, on that fundamental tenet of Baptists, "A Regenerate Church Membership." Dr. Alvah Hovey, President Emeritus of Newton Theological Seminary, who through his long, useful, and distinguished life has been growing "in the grace and knowledge" of his Lord — a most judicious interpreter of the Scriptures — compresses a most remarkable article on "The Subjects of Baptism" within very brief limits.

PREFACE. 5

It is distinguished company into which our young and gifted President Mullins, of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, comes; but he is worthy to take his place with these venerated and experienced teachers. His article, on "The Case for Immersion at Present," is one of the best.

In Dr. Jeter's fine series one aspect of the baptismal question was not discussed — its archaeology. It is not extravagant to say that there is no living man more competent to deal with that matter than Dr. Howard Osgood, who is among the very foremost conservative scholars of our day and time. His article on "Archaeology of Baptism — The Bath Under the Old Testament" is intensely interesting and highly informing.

When President Harper was gathering around him his great corps of teachers for the University of Chicago, he brought to the Divinity School Dr. Franklin Johnson. Dr. Johnson had already given evidence of his intellectual power — notably in a volume meeting and combatting the destructive criticism which was attacking the Bible. When his strong and stalwart articles on "The Lord's Supper" appeared in the Herald, competent judges declared that he had covered the ground with surpassing skill. We do not know of any argument on the whole question so simple, strong, and conclusive.

Dr. Benjamin 0. True, of Rochester Theological Seminary (Church History), one of the most accurate and sympathetic students of history, has brought us all greatly in debt to him by the fine and comprehensive glimpse which he has given of "Baptists and Religious Liberty." He makes us all long for more.

Then, to complete this remarkable series and to round out this distinguished company, we laid violent hands on our Baptist commoner, our philosopher-preacher, Dr. J. B. Gambrell, at present of Texas, but in spirit, in the sweep of sympathy and intelligence, a real "citizen of the world."

%&*> $,5% £%

Now the Religious Herald, in printing the articles by the revered and lamented Jeter, and in adding these by seven of the most distinguished and representative Baptist scholars and leaders in the world, modestly maintains that this volume is unique. Among all the treatises on denominational teaching that have appeared, we know of none like this. Dr. Jeter's articles were first published nearly a quarter of a century ago. They set forth views which had been formed probably twenty-five years earlier. In the first part of this volume, then, we have the product of one mind, thinking his theme through from start to finish. The articles in Part II. have been printed within the past few months. Seven men — one in Massachusetts, one in Pennsylvania, two in New York, one in Illinois, one in Kentucky, and one in Texas — furnish them. They write wholly independent of one another. Each develops his theme without considering how his discussion will fit in with those of his brethren.

PREFACE. 7

Now, then, we come out upon a most remarkable result. First, they do make a singularly consistent and harmonious whole. The Jeter articles do not fit one another more perfectly than these. Secondly, they harmonize entirely with the articles by Dr. Jeter. Probably fifty years lie between the Jeter articles and these by our living brethren. They have, too, been years of theological change — in some respects change that has been almost revolution. Great denominations have been rent and great institutions hc,ve been alienated from denominational control by theological controversies. The seminaries have been hot-beds of heresy. But every important Baptist theological seminary in the land, except one, is represented in this series, and Drs. Jeter and Gambrell fitly represent the many who have not taught or learned in these schools of the prophets. Still, with no authoritative formulary, with no doctrinal court to settle differences, the Baptists continue to think and believe alike. Thus this book illustrates, in a way all the more impressive because unintentional, that solidarity of doctrine is best preserved where human formularies have no voice of authority, and the true secret of denominational and of Christian unity is a ,free and reverent approach to Christ, the centre of our hopes and the object of our faith.

May God bless the book to the honor of his name

and the spread of the truth!

R. H. Pitt.

Religious Herald Oflice, Richmond, Va., February

25, 1901.

Preface to CMrd edition

The first edition of this book was so quickly exhausted that it became necessary to issue a second edition. In this the original volume was enlarged by the addition of Dr. A. E. Dickinson's monograph on "What Baptist Principles Are Worth to the World," Dr. Madison C. Peters' paper on "Why I Became a Baptist," Dr. W. R. L. Smith's article on "Candid Scholarship," and a brief paper by the undersigned on "Sunday Observance and Religious Liberty." We make this third edition still more valuable by printing an admirable article by Dr. B. H. Carroll, Principal of the English Bible Course in Baylor University, and by printing good likenesses of the contributors.

R. H. Pitt.

Richmond, Va., February 20, 1902.

J. B JETER, D. D.

PART L

Distinctive Baptist Principles

By the Late J. B. JETER, D. D., Editor The Religious Herald.

DISTINCTIVE BAPTIST PRINCIPLES-

Introduction

We promised a series of articles on this subject, so soon as we could dispose of other matters claiming our attention. The time has come for us to begin to redeem that pledge. An elaborate discussion of the various points comprehended in our scheme must not be expected. We can attempt nothing beyond a brief and simple statement of Baptist principles, and the main arguments by which they are defended. Our statements or arguments may not be satisfactory to all our readers; but, in presenting them, we will endeavor to be candid, courteous, and fair. We shall earnestly aim so to write that, if any person should be offended, the fault shall be his, and not ours. We are so firmly convinced of the soundness of our principles that we can well afford to discuss them with calmness and good-will to all men.

Before we enter on an examination of the distinctive principles of Baptists, it is proper that the points regarding which they are in full and hearty accord with most Protestant Christians should be stated. The Baptists are united in the support of what is generally known as Evangelical Christianity. This system embraces the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures — their sufficiency as a rule of faith and practice; the existence of God in three persons — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; the perfection of the divine law in its precepts and in its penalty; the apostasy and guilt of man; his utter inability to attain to righteousness or justification by deeds of law or good works; the incarnation, obedience, sufferings, and death of the Son of God; his resurrection, ascension, and assumption of universal empire; salvation by grace through his atoning blood; the necessity of the Holy Spirit's influence in the regeneration of the soul; free justification by faith in Christ; the necessity of good works as the fruit and evidence of faith; the resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust; the general judgment; the eternal blessedness of the redeemed and the eternal punishment of the wicked.

We have presented these points, not as exhaustive of the evangelical system, but as comprehending its main articles. These constitute the fundamental, vital, soul-saving facts and teachings of the gospel. In their support and diffusion, Baptists are happy to unite with Christians of every name and party. ■ We rejoice that they are received by most Protestant sects, and that, wherever they are heartily embraced, they bring forth the fruits of righteousness. We are ready to concede, too, that these points are far more numerous and important than those concerning which we differ from them.

It may be proper to add that Baptists generally hold to what may be termed, for the sake of dis-

INTRODUCTION. 13

tinction, "moderate Calvinism." They are far from acknowledging Calvin as authority in matters of religion; but the system of doctrine which bears his name, as it has been modified by the study of the Scriptures, is now commonly accepted by Baptists. Fifty years ago, they mostly adhered to high Calvinism, as maintained by Dr. John Gill, of London. Since that time their views have been considerably changed, through the writings of Andrew Fuller and others. These differences of views, however, have not disturbed their harmony or hindered their co-operation, except with a small dissenting party, whose Antinomian views led them to proclaim their hostility to missions and to all liberal efforts for the diffusion of Christianity.

Before we enter on a discussion of Baptist principles, it may be proper to state them briefly, that the reader may see the ground which we propose to traverse. A spiritual church membership lies at the foundation of all Baptist peculiarities. In harmony with this principle, Baptists maintain that only believers, or regenerated persons, are proper subjects of baptism; that only immersion on a profession of faith is true baptism; that only baptized believers are entitled to the privileges of church membership, and consequently that only church members should be admitted to the Lord's table. The last-named principle is held, not by all Baptists, but a large majority of them.

There are some principles held by Baptists in common with other Christian denominations, and to which Baptists give peculiar prominence. Among these may be mentioned the sufficiency of the Scriptures for guidance in religious matters, and the independence of the churches, under Christ, in the exercise of discipline. All Protestant sects, so far as we know, except those of rationalistic tendency, adopt the first of these principles, though many of them seem to us to be sadly swayed, in the interpretation of the Scriptures, by tradition, creeds, and ecclesiastical relations. The second principle is held as firmly by the Independents of England, the Congregationalists of this country, and other minor sects, as by Baptists; though, perhaps, the latter give it greater prominency, and follow it more fully to its logical consequences than others do. These principles, however warmly they may be cherished by Baptists, cannot be classed among their distinctive views.

The peculiar principles of Baptists, while they do not constitute the main doctrines of Christianity, deeply affect the purity, progress, and triumph of the kingdom of Christ. If these views are erroneous, Baptists are more profoundly interested than any other people to discover the error. If they are deceived, they are exerting — unintentionally, but most unfortunately — a disturbing influence among the disciples of Christ. As we do not claim to be infallible, we should cultivate a candid spirit, diligently search the Scriptures, earnestly pray for divine guidance, and be ready to sacrifice reputation for truth. If these views, however, are true,

INTRODUCTION. 15

it is the solemn duty of those who receive them to expound, defend, and proclaim them in such manner as shall best secure their prevalence and final triumph. The differences between Baptists and Pedobaptists are not a mere question as to whether much or little water shall be used in baptism. They fundamentally affect church organization. They are all concentrated in this inquiry: Shall churches be composed only of believers, who profess their faith in the divinely appointed way, and prove their sincerity by lives in harmony with the gospel of Christ? To us, it seems that conformity to this method would free Christianity from more than half the evils by which it is brought into reproach and its progress and final triumph are hindered. It is clear that its adoption would deliver the world from all hierarchies, all connections between Church and State, except that created by mutual good-will, all pontiffs and lordly ecclesiastics, all persecution for conscience' sake, and all the immense expenditures lavished in support of the palaces and splendors of princely prelates; and the true friends of Christ would be left to support and extend his cause by the sanctity of their lives, the purity of their doctrine, the faithfulness of their labors, their liberal sacrifices, and the divine blessing on their efforts. Would not this be a gain?

It is to be lamented that Christians cannot discuss their differences with equanimity, fairness, and affection. They serve a common Lord, and he is the God of truth. He takes no pleasure in error, however plausibly it may be defended. They have a common interest to promote, and that is the extension of the kingdom and the manifestation of the glory of their Redeemer. It is only by the knowledge and the diffusion of divine truth that they can promote the end for which they were translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son. It is vain, however, to hope that the discussion of controverted religious questions, except in rare instances, will be conducted with a simple desire to discover and to maintain truth. The pride of opinion, the desire of victory, sectarian zeal, the prejudices of education, and personal interests, are likely to give more or less inspiration and heat to religious controversy, by which its proper end is, in a great measure, defeated.

As our arguments will be based chiefly on the common version of the Scriptures, it is proper to notice a few things concerning it. It was made, not by Baptists, but by Pedobaptists. The translators were instructed by King James to retain the "old ecclesiastical words" found in the existing versions. Whether baptism belonged to this category, we need not decide. Certain it is that the translators did not render baptize and its derivatives into English, but merely gave them an English termination and spelt them with Latin letters. The English reader is left to infer their meaning from their connection and the circumstances of the act which they denote. The reader must perceive that a ver-

INTRODUCTION. 17

sion made by Pedobaptist scholars, under such a restriction, can have no unfair leaning to Baptist principles; and yet we expect to show, by a proper use of it, their soundness.

CHAPTER I. A Spiritual, or Regenerate, Church Membership

A spiritual, or regenerate, church membership, as already stated, lies at the foundation of all Baptist peculiarities. On this point, Baptists and the few small sects that agree with them differ from the whole Christian world. If numbers were an infallible sign of truth, we should be constrained to abandon our principles. But they are not. On this supposition, Protestantism would be compelled to yield to Romanism, and Christianity itself to paganism. The oracles of God are the only infallible test of truth. To these we appeal.

The Israelitish theocracy, or commonwealth, differed widely from the Christian church, or, more properly, churches. That institution — a politicoreligious organization — consisted only of the descendants of Abraham, in the line of Jacob, or Israel, with such foreigners as chose, by submission to a painful and bloody rite, to become incorporated with the nation. Citizenship in the commonwealth was hereditary, and was maintained, not by regeneration and a life of piety, but by the observance of various costly rites. The government was designed and admirably adapted to preserve the nation from commingling with the neighboring heathen. To the Israelites were committed the oracles of God and the honor of maintaining his worship amid the gloom of surrounding idola-

A SPIRITUAL OR REGENERATE MEMBERSHIP. 19

try. From that favored race the Messiah was to descend, in whom all nations were to be blessed.

In the fulness of time, Jesus of Nazareth made his appearance. He claimed to be the promised Messiah, and confirmed his title to the office by the wisdom of his words and the number and greatness of his miracles. He came, not to establish or to modify the "commonwealth of Israel," but to introduce a new dispensation, or order of things. After a brief, but most instructive, ministry, terminating in his sacrificial death, he endowed his apostles with plenary inspiration and the power of working miracles, and entrusted to them the duty of carrying into effect his gracious and sublime mission.

In the execution of the plan, the apostles organized churches, first in Judea, then in Samaria and Galilee, and afterwards among the heathen nations throughout the Roman empire. These churches were not a continuation of the Jewish hierarchy. They differed from it widely in members, doctrine, rites, worship, and discipline. No man was entitled to a place in a Christian church because of his connection with a synagogue. Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, could not share in the blessings of the new kingdom without regeneration. Under the changed order of things, circumcision, which was a passport to the privileges of the synagogue, availed nothing. All the rites and ceremonies of the Levitical economy were abolished under the new dispensation. The truth, which had been symbolically and dimly revealed to the Jews, was clearly taught in the churches. Repentance, faith, regeneration, were conditions of admission to their fellowship, and holy lives were essential to its continuance. Instead of the blood sacrifices of the Jews, the churches offered up "spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." In fine, the commonwealth of Israel was a hierarchy; but the churches are voluntary associations. That was typical, preparatory, and temporary; these are spiritual and permanent.

Having made these general remarks, we will now proceed to prove their correctness. John the Bajv tist, the morning star of the new dispensation, was an eminent reformer. He preached repentance and the necessity of godly lives, laid the axe at the root of the trees which did not bear good fruit, and proclaimed that descent from Abraham, which secured all the benefits of Judaism, would avail nothing under the reign of the Messiah. He baptized the penitent for the remission of sins; but he organized no church among his disciples. His mission was to prepare the way of the Messiah, by awaking an expectation of his coming, making ready a people to receive him, and introducing him into his public ministry; and, having done these things, his work was ended. Matt. iii. 1-12; Mk. i. 1-11; Lu. iii. 2-22; Jno. iii. 28-31.

The personal ministry of Jesus was preparatory to the constitution of churches. His preaching was eminently searching, and fitted to reform men and make them spiritual and devout; but during his

A SPIRITUAL OR REGENERATE MEMBERSHIP. 21

life no church was organized, and his disciples were subject to no discipline, and their labors, except so far as they were directed by his personal attention, were without concert.

On the day of Pentecost, after the ascension of Jesus, the apostles, by the descent of the Holy Spirit, were fully qualified to carry forward and complete the work that John and Jesus had begun. The first church was formed in Jerusalem, and this soon became the mother of other churches in various countries. We have at present no concern with them, but to show that they were composed exclusively of believers — converts to Christianity — or persons who made a credible profession of piety. The mother church was clearly a spiritual one. The 120 disciples who held a continuous prayer meeting in Jerusalem were its nucleus. Acts i. 14, 15. To these were added 3,000 believers on the day of Pentecost. Acts ii. 41. Additions were daily made to the church, but only of such as were saved. Verse 47. To this company was added Joses, surnamed Barnabas, who signalized his conversion by his liberality to the cause of Christ. Acts iv. 36, 37. After the death of Ananias and Sapphira, the ungodly were deterred from joining the church; "but believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both cf men and women." Acts v. 13, 14. After the appointment of deacons, "The word of God increased, and the number of disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." Acts vi.

7. This was the true church. Are we not justified in affirming that it was composed of believers, and of believers only? There is not the slightest trace in the copious inspired record that, in this large, primitive, model church, there were unconverted seekers, or infants or hereditary members. The church was organized under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit and according to the will of Christ, and we have a full and infallible account of its membership, for the instruction of church builders in all ages. Is it possible that, on the Pedobaptist theory of church construction, there should have been no reference to its infant members? Among the thousands of believers added to the church, did none claim the covenant blessing for their children? Or did the faithful historian fail to mention so important a fact? Can anybody believe that, if Pedobaptists were favored with such a wonderful increase of members, their account of it would contain no allusion to the reception of the infant offspring of the converts into the church?

Had we no other proof that the primitive churches were composed exclusively of believers, the history of the church at Jerusalem should fully satisfy us on that point. It is perfectly fair to conclude that all the churches were conformed, in their membership, as in other things, to the mother church. On this point, however, evidence is ample. The second church was probably organized in Samaria. We have not so full an account of its constitution as we have of that at Jerusalem, but

A SPIRITUAL OR REGENERATE MEMBERSHIP. 23

quite enough to guide us to a right conclusion. After the persecution of the disciples consequent on the death of Stephen, "Philip went down to Samaria and preached Christ unto them." Many of the Samaritans gave heed to his words and were joyfully converted. "When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Acts viii. 12. We have no definite account of the organization of the church, but there can be no reasonable doubt that these believing men and women were its constituent members. Children were not among the baptized, nor can we reasonably suppose that they were admitted into the church.

In the Acts of the Apostles, covering a period of more than thirty years, and recording the labors of the apostles and their assistants in founding and edifying churches in a large part of the Roman empire, there is not the slightest evidence, or shadow of evidence, except that supposed to be furnished by household baptisms, (which will be hereafter examined,) that any persons were admitted to membership in the churches except on a credible profession of faith, or retained in them, by apostolic sanction, without lives in harmony with their profession.

The proof furnished by the apostolic epistles in favor of the spiritual membership of the primitive churches is quite as conclusive as that drawn from their inspired history. Let us briefly examine it.

24 BAPTIST PEINCIPLES BESET.

Paul addressed his first epistle in the canon, "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints," and thanked God that their faith was "spoken of throughout the world." Rom. i. 7, 8. If the church contained other members, either adults or infants, the fact does not appear in the long letter. Human ingenuity has not been able to find in all its chapters a single allusion, or shadow of allusion, to any other than a regenerate membership.

The next epistle in course was directed by the apostle "Unto the church of God in Corinth"; but, that there might be no mistake as to its membership, he adds, "to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints," &c. 1 Cor. i. 2. The second epistle was addressed by Paul and Timothy, "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia." 2 Cor. i. 1. We think that it is impossible to find in these letters, copious as they are in instruction, the slightest sanction of an unregenerate church membership.

The next epistle was addressed by Paul, not to a single church, but to the churches of the large province of Galatia. "Grace be to you and peace," he said, "from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ." The apostle did not use such language as this to the unconverted. Only believers are the recipients of grace and peace. Of the unbelieving his language was: "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema mara-

A SPIRITUAL OB REGENERATE MEMBERSHIP. 25

natha." We can find in this epistle no trace of infant church membership.

We must abridge our labors on this point. The epistle to the Ephesians was addressed "to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." Eph. i. 1. The letter to the Philippians was directed "to all the saints in Christ Jesus," &c. Phil. i. 1. The epistle to the Colossians was addressed "to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse." Col. i. 2.

If there were unconverted seekers or infants in the apostolic churches, is it not strange and inexplicable that the apostle in his epistles should have taken no notice of them? They must have constituted a large and important part of the churches. Many questions must have arisen concerning the relations which they bore to the churches and the responsibilities arising from them. Were they members in full fellowship or only nominal members? Were they entitled to partake of the Lord's supper? Were they subject to discipline as other members? Should they be formally expelled from the churches, if they furnished no evidence of piety? If they ceased to be members by lack of piety, at what age and under what circumstances did their membership terminate? These and similar questions have greatly perplexed modern Pedobaptists. Is it possible that these difficulties should not have arisen in the primitive churches, if they contained infant members? How is it to be explained that the Spirit of inspiration, so full of light and love, left the churches in utter ignorance on questions so vitally affecting their interests?

All these difficulties are obviated and all these questions are explained by a spiritual church membership. The primitive churches were composed of believers, and of believers only, and all the facts recorded in the inspired history and all the instructions in the inspired epistles are in perfect harmony with this fundamental principle of church organization.

BAPTISM A CONDITION OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 27

CHAPTER II. Baptism a Condition of Church Membership

Baptism is a Christian ordinance. It originated in the wisdom, goodness, and authority of God. John was divinely commissioned to baptize. Jno. i. 3. Jesus honored the crdinance of baptism by receiving it at the hands of John. Matt. iii. 16, 17. When Jesus entered on his public ministry, he continued the administration of baptism, through the agency of his disciples. Jno. iv. 2, 3. The ordinance occupies an important place in the great commission which Jesus, after his resurrection, gave to the apostles for evangelizing the world. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. No man can intelligently and candidly read the New Testament without perceiving that baptism is of solemn import, and designed to exert a momentous influence in the kingdom of Christ.