baptism, so far as that matter is concerned, is valid, no matter what the true character of the administrator may turn out to be. It is his official, not his inner character, that the candidate, or the church he joins, is required to know. The baptismal succession, of no importance whatever. of proof, if it were required to prove it, that there has been such a succession, and hence that the great body of the Baptists of the present day, throughout the world, have descended in unbroken succession from the apostles. This must be so, if our churches are, as we contend, identical with the New Testament church, of which Christ expressly said, "The gates of hell shall never prevail against it." This is, in fact, admitted by the highest authorities, even among Pedobaptists. Thus, Dr. Ypeig, Professor of Theology in the University of Groningen, and the Rev. J. J. Dermont, chaplain to the King of the Netherlands, the highest authority in the Dutch Reformed Church, in their "Account of the Origin of the Dutch Baptists" say: "We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and who have long, in the history of the church, received the honor of that origin. And on this account, the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community that has stood since the days of the apostles, and as a Christian society has preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel throughout all ages. The perfectly correct external and internal economy of the Baptist denomination tends to confirm the truth, disputed by the Romish Church, that the Reformation, brought about in the sixteenth century, was in the highest degree necessary, and at the same time goes to refute the erroneous notion of the Catholics, that their commu. nion is the most ancient." Rev. Mr. Tustin, in his able "Historical Discourse," at Warren, R. I., gives the results of the best historical investigations, where he says: "The witnesses for the truth, and the dissenters from the reigning apostacy of Antichrist, were always found among thousands of sequestered groups of Christians, who loved the Gospel, and held it in its purity of doctrine and of worship; who are known in history then, according to this view, is by the name of Novatians at Rome, the Donatists in Africa the Paulicians in Greece, the Cathari, or Puritans, in Italy; in all the south of Europe, in Germany and Holland, these Christians were known as the Albigenses, Montenses, Waldenses, and Anabaptists, names not assumed by themselves, but applied in contempt by the dominant power of the papal church." "It would be an easy and delightful task," he adds, "to trace the history of the principles of the Apostolic and primitive churches, through various channels and by various names, in an unbroken line of succession, from the first communities down through the long night of papal despotism, till they reappear in all their brightness and beauty, in modern times." The leading church historians have fully substantiated the truth of these statements. Baptist churches, and therefore qualified administrators, have ever existed. It cannot be shown that the Baptist churches of the present day have not received their baptism in regular succession from the apostles. The only apparent exception is the case of Roger Williams. But whatever view may be taken of the validity of his baptism, it is not probable, and it certainly cannot be proved, that there is a man now living whose baptism is traceable to that of Roger Williams. This will appear from the following facts in the case, which are sustained by the best historical data: 1. Roger Williams was baptized by Ezekiel Holliman, March, 1639, and immediately after he baptized Mr. Holliman and ten others. 2. These formed a church or society, of which Roger Williams was the pastor. 3. Four months after his baptism, that is, in July following, Williams left the church, and never afterwards returned to it. As his doubts respecting baptism and the perpetuity of the church, which led to this step, must have commenced soon after his baptism, it is not likely that he ever baptized any others. 4. The church which Williams formed "came to nothing," or was dissolved soon after he left it. 5. It was re-organized, or another was formed, a few years afterwards, under Mr. Thomas Olney as its pastor, who was one of the eleven baptized by Roger Williams. Olney continued to be the pastor of this church until his death, in 1682, something over thirty years. 6. In 1653 or '54, which was a few years after the formation of Olney's church, there was a division in that church on the question of "the laying on of hands" in the reception of members, and a separate church was formed for the maintenance of this ceremony, under the pastorship of Chad, Browne, Wickenden and Dexter. This church was perpetuated, having, in 1808, given up its original faith as to the laying on of hands, and is now the First Baptist Church in Providence. 7. The parent church, under Olney, gradually dwindled away, and became extinct about the year 1718, some seventy years from its origin. 8. No church was formed from Olney's after the division already mentioned, and no ministers are known to have gone out from it. Olney's baptism, whether valid or invalid, was not propagated. 9. Nearly a century passed before the church formed from Olney's began to colonize, in 1730. 10. None of its ministers, or the ministers of the churches formed from it, received their baptism from Williams, or from any one whose baptism descended from his. 11. The Baptist churches of America, then, could not have descended from Roger Williams, or from the temporary society which he formed. Their true descent is from the Baptist churches of Wales and Piedmont, extending back to the apostles' times. The law of baptism, thus far considered, and which we have seen requires the administrator to be the accredited agent of a Gospel church, is intended to apply where such a church is to be found, or where access can be had to such a church, and to such an administrator; but we may suppose a case (as that of Roger Williams and his friends) where persons desire to receive the rite, and where there is no qualified administrator to perform it. Can it be lawfully administered under such circumstances? I think it can, and for the following reasons: John the Baptist was not baptized, and yet the rite was lawfully administered by him. As I have already shown, this does not authorize us to dispense with a qualified administrator, where such can be obtained; but does it not warrant a similar course under similar circumstances? Christ designed to gather and organize believers into churches, for the maintenance of the doctrines and order of the Gospel. Baptism he made essential to this—a part of the process of organization. For this purpose John administered it. A church was to be formed, and this could not be done without baptism, and that baptism could be obtained only at the hands of one who had not himself received it. It was of necessity, therefore, that it was thus administered. It was on the principle that "necessity knows no law, or is a law in itself." On this principle God permitted the sons of Adam to marry their sisters; and Christ justified his disciples in plucking and eating the ears of corn on the Sabbath Matt. xii. 1, 5. Such a baptism, though not complete, according to the general rule laid down for its observance, is as complete as was the first observance of the Lord's Supper by the disciples, at a time when they had no idea of "showing forth the Lord's death ;" and as complete as was their faith, at a time when the burial and resurrection of Christ, which their baptism symbolized, constituted no part of their belief. And yet Paul makes the "showing forth of Christ's death," and the believing "that God raised him from the dead,” essential to the valid observance of the Supper, and to a true saving faith under ordinary circumstances. See 1 Cor. xi. 26; Rom. x. 9. Under certain circumstances, then, I think baptism by an unbaptized and unaccredited person would be valid; that is, (1,) where there is no true church or minister; (2,) where it is impossible for the parties desiring it to obtain the services of a qualified administrator from abroad, or where there is no knowledge, on their part, of such an administrator; (3,) where the intention of those receiving the rite is thereby to form themselves into a Gospel church; and (4,) where the person thus administering the ordinance does so in good faith, and in practical submission to the teachings of Christ; that is, he must be one of the number forming the church, and as such must himself receive the rite in turn, which John the Baptist would have done, had not his peculiar mission, as the forerunner of Christ, prevented. Such then, we think, is the law of Christ on the subject in question. It may be thought to be a small part of that law, one of "the least commandments" here involved. But for that very reason we ought not to neglect it, for the observance of the "least commands" is a more decisive test of obedience than is the observance of the great ones. "Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." ARTICLE V.-THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE MENTAL FACULTIES. THE more common classification of the phenomena exhibited by the mind is under the designations: 1. The intellect or understanding; 2. The sensibilities; and 3. The will. We trust there can be no harm in suggesting an inquiry as to the advantages or otherwise, of an arrangement somewhat different. I.-The Intellect. II. The Sensibilities. III. The Conscience. Of course, it is expected reasons will at once be demanded for the alteration. Why is such a special pre-eminence given to conscience in a classification of the mental capabilities? And what, in the meantime, has so suddenly become of "THE WILL?" To the consideration of these two questions attention is invited separately. |