ePub 版

and that the Baptist Church in Columbia, “with the new code spread open before their eyes, and with a full knowledge and understanding of the intent and meaning of section 1376, and after a thorough discussion of its provisions, deliberately violated the same, and ordained two negroes to officiate in church matters in the office of deacon. They claim that the obnoxious law 'trespasses not only on the rights of men, but on the rights

, of God. It dictates to the Almighty what color his preachers shall be.'”i Evidently the protest scarcely

1 fell short of being a defiance. The offending section was repealed.

In 1835 the exclusive theory of the Baptists respecting the form of baptism began to disturb their relation with the American Bible Society, with which they had co-operated since its foundation in 1816. The society at the former date expressed the conclusion that in the versions prepared by the aid of its funds the Greek words denoting the rite of baptism should be transferred rather than interpreted. The Baptists, on the other hand, while they were at that time content with the simple transference of the Greek words, so far as concerned the English version, insisted that, when the Bible was rendered into foreign tongues by their own missionaries, the words should be interpreted according to Baptist ideas, or, as they preferred to put the case, should be translated. As a result of the disagreement, the Baptists proceeded to form a society of their own (1836–37), entitled the American and Foreign Bible Society. For a time the policy of this society to circulate the common English version met but little opposition. But the impatience of those who argued that English readers are quite as much entitled to an unadulterated translation as are foreigners and heathens, worked like a leaven, and at length in 1850 issued in the organization of an additional society, the American Bible Union, which at once projected a revision of the English Bible. The revised New Testament, as prepared under the auspices of the society, was published in 1865. As this revision was not a mere change of terms on the single subject of baptism, but was prosecuted with much of critical industry, by the labors of such Baptist scholars as T. J. Conant, H. B. Hackett, and A. C. Kendrick, together with the assistance of some divines of other communions, it afforded a valuable preliminary to the revision for the English-speaking world which was projected by the Convocation of Canterbury in 1870.

1 Armitage, History of the Baptists, pp. 774, 775.

The Baptists in recent times have found considerable support for their special ceremonial postulate in the verdicts of antiquarians and exegetes. But many of these verdicts are modified by a very significant qualification. Non-Baptist scholars who are persuaded with Dean Stanley that baptism was commonly administered in the first age of the Church by immersion, are quite apt to feel with him that a departure from that mode was a laudable triumph of common-sense over ancient custom. Many of them entertain the opinion that the mode was largely an accident of the conditions then existing, and that the Lord does not care in the least whether a scanty or a large quantity of water is employed, so long as in baptism the headship of Christ is sincerely acknowledged. Nor can this feeling be expected to diminish, unless there is to be in Christian society a profound revulsion toward the standpoint of technicality and legality. It is to be feared therefore, notwithstanding the long list of names selected by Baptist apologists from the ranks of exegetes, lexicographers, and historians, that the jubilee of the world's conversion to their exclusive tenets cannot be celebrated very soon. New evidences that the early Church allowed baptism by other modes than immersion, like that which was given to the world not long since in the “ Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," will not tend to hasten the day of that hypothetical jubilee.

In the formative stage of their history (1809-1830) the Disciples of Christ, or Campbellites, -as they are sometimes called by outsiders, from their founders, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, - were in association with the Baptists. In requiring immersion and rejecting infant baptism they still remain true to Baptist principles. Their primary and distinctive tenet, however, and the one which led them to emerge into a separate communion, was their opposition to the imposition of creeds, as being a fatal bar to unity. To avoid divisions, they argued, “ nothing ought to be required as a term of union, communion, and co-operation that is not as old as the New Testament." Notwithstanding the absence of binding formulas they have maintained a tolerably firm consensus of belief, and proclaim in their pulpits the doctrines which evangelical denominations generally regard as fundamental. Numerically they have had a fair measure of success; but in the effort to find a cure for the divisions of Protestantism they have accomplished little, unless their testimony has a potency which is not discoverable to ordinary eyes. As has been more than once illustrated in this country, to organize a new denomination for the sake of reducing the number of the old is a doubtful expedient.

6. EPISCOPALIANS. - It was noticed that inefficient

management in the colonial period, and the overturning incident to the era of the Revolution left the Episcopal Church with a somewhat scanty inheritance. A basis for better fortunes was laid in the successful attempt at unification and reorganization which was consummated in 1789. For a time, however, the forward movement was not rapid. The first bishops were rectors of parishes, and gave but moderate attention to church enterprises in the broader sense. There was also in the constitutional theories commonly entertained an obstruction to organic missionary effort. The State idea was dominant. It was thought that bishoprics should be conformed to the limits of the several States, and that only when there were enough Episcopalians in a State to justify the election of a bishop could any provision be made for their episcopal supervision. Up to that point it was necessary to leave them comparatively unshepherded. Thus there was no instrument for propagandism upon a national scale. But this embarrassing theory was at length outgrown. After some previous mitigations it was cast completely away in 1835. The General Convention of that year, besides constituting a

of Managers which should represent the whole membership in efforts for church extension, provided for the sending of missionary bishops in advance of any request for them.1

1 S. D. McConnell, History of the American Episcopal Church, p. 309. 1 McConnell, 267-269.

[ocr errors]

As respects the distribution of powers, there has been a general tendency to enlarge the prerogatives of the General Convention, and thus to render nugatory the stipulation in the original Act of Association, that no powers be delegated to a general ecclesiastical government, except such as cannot conveniently be exercised by the clergy and laity in their respective congregations.' While the bishops in their collective capacity, as being able to negative measures proposed in the other houses of the General Convention, have had large powers since 1808, there has been considerable restriction of the sphere of their individual jurisdiction. The right of initiative in the exercise of clerical discipline has passed mainly into other hands. In the prerogative of inspection the Diocesan Convention takes precedence of the bishop; and reports on the state of the churches and the behavior of the clergy are made to it rather than to him. Also in the selection of candidates for ordination the bishop has a limited function. The Standing Committee, from being his agent to examine candidates, has come to be thought of as representing the clergy and laity in making necessary recommendations of candidates.

Naturally, somewhat of a reflex of the special developments in the Anglican establishment has appeared within the Episcopalian body in this country. In the first years of the reorganized Church the Evangelical School had its representatives, such as Pilmoor in Phil. adelphia, Percy in South Carolina, and Duke in Maryland. In the following years the succession was well maintained through Hopkins, Boyd, Bull, and Bedell in

« 上一頁繼續 »