A Compendium of Christian Theology
By William Burt Pope, D.D.,
Volume Three
Chapter 5
The Christian Church
|
THE CHURCH
The Christian Church is the sphere as well as the organ of the Spirit's administration of redemption. As a corporate body it was founded by our Lord Jesus Christ; is invested with certain attributes and notes as the representative of His agency among men; discharges its functions as an institute of worship and depository of the Faith; has definite obligations to the world as an instrument for its conversion; and, lastly, bears special relations in its temporal form to the eternal Kingdom of Christ These several branches of the one subject must be considered in relation to Biblical, Dogmatic, and Historical Theology: from the Word of God we gather the materials for the true doctrinal statement; and make this the standard by which to test the various ecclesiastical phenomena of the Christian world. That this whole question belongs generally to the Administration of Redemption has been already shown at the outset, where the special relations of the Holy Spirit to the work of the Redeemer was the subject. It may be added that many topics connected with this department of theology must needs be distributed over several sections, especially those of the Three Offices of Christ and the consummation of the Kingdom in Eschatology THE HISTORICAL FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH A large portion of the New Testament is occupied with the details of the establishment of the Church as Christ's new institution: more particularly, this is a prominent subject down to the beginning of the Acts. We may embrace the whole under two heads: the preparations made by our Lord in the Gospels, and its actual foundation on the Day of Pentecost THE PREPARATIONS IN THE GOSPELS 1. Our Lord proclaimed the advent in His own person of the kingdom of heaven, 1 or the kingdom of God.2 His new revelation to mankind was the Gospel of the Kingdom:3 the Baptist preached its coming, as the forerunner both of Christ and of the Apostles; and the Savior made it the subject of His teaching until the day in which He was taken up.4 By this term He linked His own government with the ancient Theocracy: but not with its earthly form; for His was the kingdom of heaven,5 as such predicted, though not by that name, throughout the prophets. The new kingdom, however, was a mystery revealed: and the main secret of that mystery lay in the fact that, while it was still the kingdom of God, it was also the Messiah's, the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ,6 the kingdom of Jesus the Son Incarnate. The phrase pervades the Lord's teaching; down to the last He was speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.7 It was not however His purpose that it should be retained as the denomination of His new community. The company of His people is the sphere of His reign to the end of time; but the name and character of the dominion is held in abeyance until the consummation of all, until its final manifestation as the one kingdom of heaven and earth, of God and man, of Christ and His saints: it was of that the Incarnate Redeemer spoke, when, at the close of His ministry, throwing off all reserve, He termed it My kingdom.8 As our study here begins with this name, so it will revolve back to it at the close; and meanwhile the first prayer of Christendom is, Thy kingdom come:9 a prayer that will end only when all prayer shall cease1 Mat. 4:17; 2 Mark 1:15; 3 Mat. 24:14; 4 Acts 1:2,3; 5 Rev. 11:15; 6 Rev. 1:9; 7 Acts 1:3; 8 Luke 22:30; 9 Mat. 6:10 2. At a memorable crisis in His history our Lord gave His institution its new name: MY CHURCH.1 Twice, and twice only, He used it; and on two occasions closely connected: both instances, be it observed, occurring in the very midst of St. Matthew's special collection of parables and discourses concerning the kingdom. In the former, it seems to be the great temple or house of prayer for all nations,2 in all ages, and for the worship of eternity; in the latter, the visible assembly of Christian people, gathered together in one place for the administration of His laws. Putting the two passages together, we have a summary of the Saviour's will concerning His future congregation. He gave it then a name that we need not yet further expound: the word ekkloosia has from that day had the pre-eminence over every other by which the fellowship of Christians may be describedNo one who considers this origin of the term will consent to allow it to be displaced by any other. The abuses of it should not bring it into contempt 1 MAT. 16:18; 18:17; 2 MARK 11:17 3. It is observable that our Lord, having given this new name, and thrown a brief but effectual ray of light upon first the invisible and then the visible congregation of the future, did not again mention the word: leaving it for future use. His parables and discourses flowed on in their former channel, keeping the kingdom of God in view. But the last discourses including the last prayer give some elements of teaching concerning the future Church which are of the deepest interest. These will only be alluded to now: the fuller exposition of their meaning must be reserved for the future. Provision was made for the permanent memorial of redemption in the Holy Supper: the sacrament of His people's corporate unity with Himself and with each other as the heirs of a new covenant. Baptism, the sacramental rite of initiation, was also substituted for the ancient rite of circumcision, now virtually abolished. The new congregation or church was, as it were, formally consecrated to God by its Head in what may be called the High-priestly Prayer: 1 the first Prayer in His own house.2 In it He refers to the company of believers as given Him of the Father: the suffering obedience which nevertheless purchased the gift is kept back or dimly alluded to; as kept from the would, or, as one afterwards said who heard the words, preserved in Jesus Christ;3 and to be made perfect in one, in that spiritual and eternal unity of perfection of which the highest type is to be sought though it can never be found in the interior relations of the Trinity. But it is observable that the Savior speaks of this new community, describes it, and prays for it, as future. Even after His passion, when the resurrection had put all power in His hands, and He appeared in the midst of His disciples as their glorified Head, the New Fellowship was yet in the futureHe spent forty days in speaking about its history or destiny, 4 and His Apostles' duty in the coming days; doubtless gave many instructions that have not been recorded; but always His Church was yet to come1 John 17; 2 Heb. 3:6; 3 Jude 1; 4Acts 3:4 4. While it is true that the Church, in the strict sense of the word, and as a corporate institute, was not founded while the Lord was upon earth, in another sense He was laying its foundation during the whole of His ministry. He left a large body of instruction concerning it which waited only for the Day of Pentecost to disclose its fullness of meaning. The germs and principles of all that is to follow in this branch of theology are to be found in the Gospels: indeed, we may be more bold, and say that nothing on this subject, or any subject, can go beyond the meaning of the Lord's own words. He spoke of the Comforter as the future Divine Presence in the congregation; but His office was only to glorify, expound, and expand the sayings of the Redeemer Himself. We shall find that this holds true in a very remarkable degree concerning the doctrine of the new Church or Kingdom. A large part of the Saviour's teaching in the four Gospels treats of its nature, of the methods of its spread, of the character of its subjects, of its relations to the world, and of the principles of His own government in it. The development of this teaching will appear in all that the subject brings before us The Day of Pentecost was the epoch of the foundation of the Christian Church. The prepared disciples of Christ were assembled, and upon them the Holy Ghost came down, making them the New Temple of the Triune God. Those were added whose faith received the preaching of the Finished Gospel; and the disciples were constituted into an organized and visible fellowship, to continue for ever during this dispensation under the government of the Spirit as the representative of Jesus its Head 1. The institute of the Feast of Weeks, representing the presentation of the Jewish harvest firstfruits, typified the oblation of the first-fruits of the Christian ingathering. It also, though not by Divine enactment, commemorated the giving of the Law, and had its antitype in the full revelation of the New Law of Faith. The Risen Lord appointed a meeting of His disciples in Galilee for the proclamation of His Kingdom; but bade them wait in Jerusalem for the founding of His Church. There they received, as representatives of the Saviour's old discipleship and the germ of the future body, that baptism of the Spirit which was to them, as their special dignity, instead of the baptism of water. But the Holy Ghost represented the Triune God, now fully revealed, Who took possession of this consecrated body, and made them the new Temple or Church. The Shekinah, which was the symbol of the union of God with man, appeared for the last time, and was resolved into the Personal Spirit, the Presence of God in the midst of His people, and resting upon every person present from the Apostles downward. And it sat upon each of them. 1
1 Acts 2:11
2. After the
wonderful works of God had been proclaimed by the many new tongues
of
the worshipping assembly, the one new tongue of the
preaching brotherhood began the
everlasting Gospel. The new Law was the proclamation of
the finished work of Christ
The day of the foundation thus gives the first and
perhaps the most complete exhibition
of the process by which the Church is to be formed to
the end of time. The ekkloosia
is
the company called out from the mass by the preaching of
the completed redemption of
the Incarnate Mediator. It is the
3. This Day also began the organization of the
community: that is, if we include the final
words of the chapter as belonging to its history. The
elements of order, prepared in the
Gospels, now take their instant and permanent form.
Pentecost is the typical day of the
future of Christendom: in the morning the worshipping
assembly, glorifying God for the
accomplishment of all His purposes; in its noon the full
Evangelical preaching; the rest of
it given to organization and fellowship. Amidst such
shaking of heaven and earth as was
never known before, whilst the Christian company was in
its first ecstasy of worship, and
the crowd in the strong excitement of conviction, the
water of Baptism begins to flow as
the symbol of order and of introduction to the new
fellowship. And, as the rite of
initiation was remembered in honor of the Lord's final
command, so the community was
immediately organized within. Here first indeed we have
the ekkloosia, or church,
mentioned as an historical fact: the Lord added to the church daily such
as were in course
of salvation.
4. The later New Testament—the Acts and the Epistles
being interwoven into one history
of the beginnings of the perfected fellowship—shows us
the gradual consolidation of the
economy of the Church, under the guidance of the
Apostles, who were for a season all in
all as Christ had been. As My Father hath sent Me, even so send
I you.
The new brotherhood was not molded by an esoteric
influence, acting like a philosophy:
the leaven leavened a lump which the Holy Spirit shaped
into a body as fully and exactly
organized as any known to men. Simple as are the
elements of this primitive
ecclesiastical polity, it is very sharply defined. The
visible Jesus, surrounded by His
disciples, was not more isolated and apart from the mass
of the people around, than His
Church is, under the influence of His Spirit, marked off
and isolated from the world. And
that organization, thus perfectly sketched, remains as
the standard of order in the
congregation for ever
5. This Day placed the Christian community under the
jurisdiction and government of the
Holy Ghost. What the presence of Christ was in the
Gospels, the Head without a
corporate body, the presence of the Spirit is,
representing the Invisible Head of a body
now visible. This doctrine is vital in many ways. It
overturns the delusion of any earthly
vicar of Christ
There is one body and one Spirit.
1 Eph. 4:4;
2
Rom. 8:2;
3
Mat. 16:18;
4
1 Pet. 2:10;
5
Gen. 2:7;
6
John 14:18;16:15;
7 John 3:30;
8
Eph. 1:22;
9
Jer. 23:23;
10
1 John 2:1;
11
Rom. 8:26;
12
Acts 13:2;
13 Acts 20:28;
14
Mat. 16:18
ATTRIBUTES AND NOTES OF THE CHURCH
The Church in the later New Testament is represented
passively as the Temple of God,
actively as the Body or organ of Christ's manifestation:
the former, as the sphere of
Divine worship and holy influence; the latter, as the
instrument of Christ's manifold
operations on earth. To both, in their unity, there are
certain attributes assigned in
Scripture, the study of which brings before us the whole
subject in the most complete
way. These qualities are Unity, Sanctity, Invisibility,
Catholicity, Apostolicity,
Indefectibility, Glory. But we also find by the side of
these, which generally describe the
Body in its higher and ideal character, qualities in
some measure their counterparts or
opposites: such as Diversity, Imperfection, Visibility,
Localisation, Confessionalism,
Mutability, and Militant Weakness. Hence we gather that
the true church of Christ is a
body in which these opposite attributes unite
1. These correlative qualities of the one Church of
Christ suggest a certain analogy with
the Person of its Head in Whom Divine perfections and
human attributes meet. It also is
one organized body with two natures or modes of
presentations. The concept church is
not that of a Divine body and a human; but of one
reality under two exhibitions, as in the
case of our Incarnate Lord. But the analogy must not be
pressed too far. Here there is the
same reserve and the same protection that was found
necessary in the higher doctrine. As
the Son of God uses human nature as His body or flesh,
He is the same with humanity
As He occupies it as a temple He is distinct from it.
The church is the temple of Christ: it
is inhabited by Him. It is His body: the complement or
fullness of Himself. The higher
and Divine church is in the visible and human as a
temple: distinct from it. It acts and
works in the human as a body: inseparable from it. We
have to speak of all its
attributes—higher and lower, Divine and human, temporal
and eternal—as belonging to
the one church. And the habit of doing this saves from
much confusion
2. These attributes are in Historical Theology
transformed into Notes, by which, as tests,
the true Church is supposed to be known. In the
Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, as united,
those are specified as four: One, Holy, Catholic,
Apostolic. The controversial theology of
Borne has multiplied these Notes very abundantly. We
shall adopt the method of
connecting each attribute with its seeming counterpart
as the ideal community is realized
in the world. There will, of course, be less to be said
on each series of opposites as we
proceed, because each more or less anticipates those
that follow. Moreover, these
Attributes and Notes do not exhaust the subject, being
dwelt upon only as introductory to
what follows
Unity and Variety are both and alike essential to the
idea of the Christian Church; and
their sound combination is a test that may be applied to
all ecclesiastical systems
SCRIPTURE
The Scriptural doctrine on this subject will be most
fully exhibited by considering, first,
the universal Body of Christ of which the Christian
Church is the last earthly form;
secondly, the Christian Fellowship proper as an
institution. As to the first, the note of
manifoldness is most conspicuous; as to the second,
oneness and multiplicity unite
I. Taking the largest view of the Church of Christ as
the fellowship of the people of God
in every age, we may affirm that unity in manifoldness
has been its law of existence and
development. Its oneness from the beginning is
recognized throughout the Scripture as
founded upon the common redemption, whether revealed or
unrevealed. The Holy
Company of all ages has been one in the unity of many
forms and varieties of
manifestation. It is the company of the nations of them which are saved;
II. But the Christian Church as an institution founded
by Jesus is one and manifold; its
unity in the Spirit of its Head being the blending of
many believers in one common
confession, and their participation in one common grace.
The teaching of the New
Testament may be viewed, first, as to the essentials of
oneness and then as to the breaches
of that oneness. From these we may gather the true
doctrine of Scripture
1. The unity of the Church has but one ground, that of a
common union with Christ; nor
is there any positive reference to it which does not
make that prominent. The first word
on the subject is that of the High Priest, whose Unction
is the bond of His people's union
with Himself and with each other: that they all may be one: as Thou,
Father, art in Me,
and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the
world may believe that Thou hast
sent Me.
2. If we turn to the negative or indirect teaching, we
find much that is instructive on this
subject. First, the omissions are remarkable. There is
no prescription of a necessary
uniformity according to any supposed theory: external
oneness is never directly even
alluded to as existing beyond an individual
congregation, while, on the other hand, a
certain measure of external differences and mutual
independence must be assumed in
order to give reality to the exhortations to unity.
Secondly, the constant tone of Apostolic
doctrine points to the maintenance rather of a spiritual
than of a visible oneness. This
appears in the figurative language used to describe the
Christian fellowship, which
always shows that the only unity directly aimed at in
Scripture is the mystical. It is that of
His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all:1
the pleerooma of Christ,
whatever the
precise meaning of the word may be, must signify one
pure and perfect spiritual
complement of this Divine-human Person, one in His
unity, or in Himself. Now that is
said of the
Church; and that body is never spoken of as one in any external
sense. In our
Lord's allegory it is the Vine
3. Hence we may gather up these Scriptural elements into
the statement that the One
Church is the unity of all the congregations of
believers in Christ in which the pure
Gospel is preached, the sacraments duly administered,
and the discipline of the Christian
fellowship maintained in its purity
(1.) The basis of this unity is the common property of a
sound confession of faith in
Jesus. This is called holding the Head,
(2.) As to the expression of this oneness it is regarded
in the New Testament as seen of
God, and of Him only. He beholds the one great assembly
and hears the secret harmony
of what may seem to result from many discordant voices.
As to man it is the object not of
sight but of faith: " I believe in one holy, catholic
church,"—not faith
(3.) The Scriptural ground of this unity is the general
supervision of the Holy Spirit:
The
Lord knoweth them that are His in the great house; and this is the
inscription on the seal
of its security, the obverse being only this, Let every one that nameth the name of
the
Lord depart from unrighteousness.
ECCLESIASTICAL
Differences as to this attribute or note of the Church
are bound up with its best and worst
developments. The subject belongs strictly to
ecclesiastical history; but a few hints may
be noted here, having relation both to doctrine and
ethics
1. It has been seen that within the Scripture there is a
unity observable which is quite
different from uniformity. In Israel there was indeed
only one temple: no breach of unity
was permitted, and the separation of the kingdoms was
not sanctioned by God. The
Romanist theory, fake now, was true then: the High
Priest was the bond of absolute unity
to the covenant people. But after the Captivity, another
temple was built in Egypt;
synagogues organised local centers of worship; and sects
arose. Our Lord sanctioned
none of the sects as such, neither did He condemn them
as such: the Monachism of the
Jews and the ascetic isolation of the Essenes He did not
once refer to. He certainly
condemned by implication the worship of Samaria, not as
a violation of unity, however,
but as false: ye
worship ye know not what. For
salvation is of the Jews.
2. Leaving the Scriptures, we find at once the tendency
that has made the unity of the
Church a prominent question. During the ante-Nicene and
Patristic ages generally the
foundations were laid of a doctrine of absolute
uniformity. The growth of heresies and
schisms was the first occasion of this very early idea
of a mechanical unity: these two
words becoming very soon fixed in their meaning as
follows.
Every church which renounces the fundamental doctrines
of Christianity is out of the
unity of Christendom: not that it must necessarily be at
once cut off; the tribunal is an
invisible one; and the excision is from on high. As to
the outward expression of unity the
violation is
3. The further development of the principle that
internal unity must be expressed by
external uniformity belongs to Ecclesiastical History.
By degrees the Roman bishop of
bishops assumed to be to the whole church what each
bishop was to the individual
church. The ecclesiastical was conformed to the civil
order, the Caesar of a temporal
universal empire must have for his counterpart the
spiritual Caesar, or the Vicar of Christ
as the centre of unity and final appeal. The spirit of
protest against this began in the East,
which resented both the
4. A few remarks may be made upon modern tendencies in
the interpretation of the note
of unity since the Reformation
(1.) It is generally conceded to be impracticable to aim
at oneness in the visible church
save in the fundamentals of faith, worship, and
discipline. It must be obvious to every
dispassionate mind that there has never been since the
times of the Apostles any other
unity than that which God alone can discern. Eastern and
Western Christendom would
agree that there has been none such since the seventh
century: and each despairs of the
restoration of union save on terms which the other
cannot accept. Among Protestant
communities only one judgment ought to prevail here.
There are found, however, certain
Hierarchical or High-Church enthusiasts who dream of a
unity which a lineal Apostolical
succession of orders gives to Eastern and Western
Episcopal communions. But this is the
most unreal of unrealities. A compromise is attempted by
those who, whether Anglican
with episcopacy, or Lutheran without it, give up the
hope of a universal unity, but cling to
that expressed by national churches in every land. This
is the religious unity of race or
nation or territory. But ft can never be proved that the
Head of the Church divided His
kingdom, or Intended that it should be divided,
territorially. The Congregational theory
which admits only of voluntary aggregation of churches,
and neither has nor desires any
guarantee for more than that, goes to an extreme but in
the right direction
(2.) But this tends to the modern correction of the
notions of Heresy and Schism. There
are some important principles which are now generally
accepted. These two violations of
unity generally go together: the airesis or heresy being self-willed
choice of private
interpretation in opposition to Scripture, and the
schisma the following of a
party. Few
schisms can be named which have not been the result of
doctrinal error: few leading
heresies which have not issued in schisms. Here,
however, there is a distinction. Heresy
can never be perpetuated; but the result of schisms may.
Ecclesiastical schism may be
taken up by Divine wisdom into the development of the
kingdom of Christ: having been
in fact not schism in the sight of God, or soon losing
the taint. Apparent schism may be
the only cure of heresy. Many minor heresies may
co-exist with holding the Head. But
where, on the one hand, there is such infidel
subtraction from the faith, or, on the other,
such superstitious addition to it, as neutralize the
fundamentals, separation may be
inevitable and lawful. Discipline may be so relaxed or
perverted as to necessitate
separations which are not schismatical: Dissent and
Nonconformity are not necessarily
and as such sinful. Schism may be the sin of the
community left as well as of the
community leaving. But all this rises to the higher
principle that the Holy Spirit is the
Giver of life corporate as well as individual. He
quickeneth whom He will. The body is
more than its raiment: any such act of the sovereign
Spirit must aim at the more effectual
growth of the Church. He thus prevents unity from
degenerating into stagnant uniformity
He calls them His people that were not a people, in
order to provoke others to jealousy
Lastly, whenever the Spirit thus goes out of His way to
divide existing churches, He
never fails to authenticate His own act: as Paul among
the Apostles was able to
authenticate his vocation and work As to heresy or
self-willed and needless schism it is
still one of the
works of the flesh:
(3.) There are two opposite errors on the whole subject
which, always observable, are
very prominent in modern times. One is the overvaluation
of the importance of unity, as
uniformity. This is rebuked by reason, Scripture, and
the evidence of the fact that the
Holy Ghost does administer the work of Christ by sects
and divisions. Much of the
progress of the Gospel, and many of its most glorious
achievements, at home and abroad,
may be traced to the labors of Christian Societies to a
great extent independent of each
other. But undervaluation of it is equally wrong. Though
variety is ordained of God, the
nearer to uniformity, or at least to thorough mutual
recognition, the estate of Christendom
can be made the better will it be for its peace and
dignity and prosperity. In due time
Christ Who at His first coming made both one,
1 Eph. 2:14;
2
John 17:23
The Church, as the organ of the Holy Ghost, is
necessarily holy. But its holiness as
imputed is consistent with much imperfection; and as
real and internal is only by degrees
carried onwards to a perfection which will not be
reached in this world
I. The meaning of
agia, sancta, as applied to the Body of Christ, is the same which
the
term has been seen to bear as applied to individuals:
with regard to both it signifies
simply that which is set apart from the world and
consecrated to God
1. The Church is spoken of as holy in the Divine
purpose: the end proposed by the
Creator. Let Us
make man in Our image, after Our likeness,
2. This design is accomplished through all the means of
grace. The process is spiritual
and in union with Christ, Who as the Head can have only
members like Himself. Hence
their vocation is
an holy calling.
1 2 Tim. 1:9;
2
John 15:19;
3
Eph. 1:6;
42
Cor. 6:16; 51
Cor. 6:19; 6Eph.
5:26; 7Eph.
2:21
3. This design is supposed by anticipation and in
prophecy to be accomplished. Always
over the visible and imperfect church hovers the image
of a sanctified Ideal already in
heavenly places in Christ Jesus.
1. There is a relative and imputed sanctity. As holiness unto the Lord was stamped
on the
bells of the horses,
2. There is an internal and real sanctity, which inheres
in the body, being derived from
the sanctity of the individual members of the mystical
fellowship, never wanting in any
community that holds the Head. Their life, aim, and
communion are holy; the sanctity of
the Church is really their sanctity; and of them the
Creed says: I believe in the
communion of saints. This holiness is matter of faith;
it is also imperfect necessarily: for
whatever perfection of sanctity individual members may
reach cannot be imputed to the
whole body unless all share it alike
3. The internal and external are gradually becoming one,
in the whole Church as in the
individual Christian. Within the universal community,
reckoned holy, there is going on
the silent, ceaseless operation of a sanctifying grace:
by love, by discipline, by melting,
and by burning, the Church as a whole, and every branch
and congregation, is brought
gradually towards perfect purity. Hence the importance
during the interval of process that
we should remember St. Paul's twofold seal. The Lord knoweth them that are His:
1 2 Tim. 2:19;
2
John 21:22;
3
Mat. 13:30;
4
2 Thes. 3:6
III. This leads to the consideration of two currents of
error which this Note of the Church
detects: the exaggeration of the relative and of the
absolute sanctity respectively
1. As to the former, many circumstances have had the
effect of limiting the sanctity of the
body to its outward fellowship. The notion of an
inherent virtue in the sacraments,
especially when these sacraments were multiplied so as
to hedge in all life, tended to
externalize the idea of religion generally, and of the
ordinances of Christian fellowship in
particular. So also the early and unregulated alliance
of Christianity with the State had the
same effect, as the perversion of what was in itself not
necessarily evil. Whether the
developed Roman theory, that the Church is invested with
the supreme authority over the
world, or the Erastian, that it is only an organ of the
State, or the Latitudinarian, that the
Church and State are several aspects of the same thing,
the evidence of fact, multiplied
into endless instances, goes to prove that the union, as
it has been generally seen in
Christendom, has always had this evil issue. Neglect of
discipline, one of the worst
results of bringing into too close relations the world
and the Church, has tended the same
way. The Lord's
Take these things hence!
2. The external sanctity has sometimes been undervalued.
Some schisms in the early
Church—Montanism in Phrygia, Novatianism in Rome,
Donatism in Africa—were the
result of undue rigor in rooting out the tares: the
extremest fanaticism was the consequence
In more recent times Puritanism, whether on the
Continent or in England, has
pushed its high principle too far. Hence Modern
Congregationalism, its lineal descendant
and representative in this country, counts no sanctity
of the external Church as valid to
establish a Christian character or availing for
membership without the profession of
conscious faith. The Baptists go further, and refuse to
admit that the dedication of
children to God in baptism confers on them any even
external relation to the Church as
holy. This at least, is their principle when carried to
its issues
3. The true theory seems to be that which aims at the
medium
(1.) All who approve themselves believers in Christ, and
who, whether as adults or as
children, are baptized, belong to the external body, and
are entitled to all its privileges
Due respect to the outward and visible church requires
the recognition of all baptized and
consistent members of it, without demanding personal
testimony of conscious experience
Bat the internal sanctity of the fellowship has its
rights. The Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper, the seal of the communion of saints, and their
note of profession among men,
must be guarded with care, its approaches being fenced
in every possible way suggested
by pastoral vigilance and mutual watchfulness. In some
manner communicants ought to
be examined and approved one by one
(2.) The method of accomplishing this has varied with
every age and almost with every
community. By many of the later national churches it has
been too often entirely
neglected: public warnings and confessions being only to
a slight degree reinforced by
private investigation. The
These attributes of the organic fellowship of Christ
have played a prominent part in
ecclesiastical controversy. But there are none which are
clearer in their elementary
principles
I. The Church is, as the Redeemer's mystical body,
animated by His Spirit, essentially
invisible. In its deepest and most comprehensive sense
it is a spiritual and unseen reality;
and therefore an ideal or the mystical fellowship. But,
in its manifestation as the kingdom
upon earth it is no other than the invisible Church
taking visible form. Lastly, in its
eternal consummation the invisible and the visible will
be one
1. My kingdom is
not of this world:
2. But this language concerning the mystical fellowship
is addressed to a visible
community as concerning itself. St. Paul does not speak
of the Saints which are at
Ephesus as distinct from the Faithful in Christ Jesus, though the
whole question of
visible and invisible lies in that distinction. The
entire New Testament goes upon the
assumption that every extant community is the earthly
embodiment of the kingdom of
heaven. In this the servants are faithful to the
teaching of their Master, "Who taught the
unity, though not identity, of the visible and the
invisible communions. The only two
recorded instances of our Lord's use of the word
illustrate the unity and the difference of
the two. Upon
this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail
against it:
3. The Apocalypse gives us a clear vision of the visible
and invisible reduced to final and
eternal unity: mystical still, but eternally visible as
one glorified organic whole, the
Church is a distinct spiritual counterpart of the Lord
Himself. Moreover He is the
Bridegroom, and His Church the Bride adorned for her husband,
II. The application of this double Note in historical
theology concerns only the relative
importance of the two ideas of visible and invisible. No
confession has ever denied the
reality of either. The differences between them have
concerned only the results flowing
from the undue preponderance of one or the other
1. Romanism exalts the visibility almost to the
suppression of the invisibility: not,
however, denying the latter. It teaches that there is "
one Ruler of the church invisible,
Christ; and one Ruler of the visible, the successor of
St. Peter." The spiritual body has a
place in its interior theology, but is not, by any
means, a governing idea: its theory is
constructed in entire independence of the mystical
reality, which is acknowledged indeed
to be its crown and glory, but only in another state and
to the eye of faith. Hence, it
makes one of the many notes of the true church —of which
a large number is sometimes
reckoned—Exclusiveness: there is no salvation beyond the
pale of the one visible
institution
2. The Protestant idea strives to unite the two
attributes: but giving always the priority
and pre-eminence to the invisibility. The Roman Dogma
will have nothing to do with an
invisible church apart from the visible: the Protestant
rejects the thought of a visible
which is not created by the invisible to be its organ.
The Reformed Confessions differed
from the Lutheran only so far as their doctrine of
election obliged them to differ. In the
former the elect are the true fellowship; but the
visible church is a holy institution "to
depart from which," in Calvin's words, "is to deny
Christ." Calvin says, further: " God
substitutes the judgment of charity, in which we
acknowledge those to be true members
of the Church who confess the same God with us in
profession of faith, in goodness of
life, and in participation of sacraments." The Lutheran
and the Reformed were agreed at
the outset as to the close connection between the
congregation visible and the body
politic; but the close alliance of Church and State is
not so generally accepted by their
modern representatives
3. Much of the differences between the modern communions
results from variations in
theory as to the possibility of bringing the visible and
the invisible into coincidence or
unity. Here are two opposite extremes, and a middle way
between them. The Broad-
Church theory holds that the distinction should never be
made, except in extreme cases of
apostasy and excommunication: the whole world, waiting
for baptism, is as it were the
visible church, and the invisible must be left with God.
The stricter Congregationalist
theories strive to limit it as much as possible to
authenticated professors, and aim very
closely at making the visible the measure of the
invisible in every society. This has
introduced the modern distinction between the church and
the congregation. Lastly, there
has been a compromise, adopted under various forms among
various communities: that
of the Society within the church, which is not a theory
of the mystical within the visible
body, but the attempt to save the general fellowship
from some of the evils which are
inseparable from the constitution and working of the
visible fellowship as the Apostles
left it: an attempt that in some form or other has been
made in almost every earnest and
faithful communion
The ascription of catholicity to the Christian body
dates from a very early time. The term
catholic means universal; and when local is added, as
its counterpart, the two expressions
signify that the one church of the Redeemer, His body on
earth, has such a universality in
its design and destiny as is consistent with the local
independence of individual churches
Nothing more is meant than this; but we shall find that
the word catholic has a very
different application in ecclesiastical history
1. The testimony of Scripture on this subject is very
simple. The ancient church, Hebrew
and Jewish, was strictly local and national. All who
might enter it from other lands must
submit to what was a Jewish rite: retaining their own
nationality as men, they must as
worshippers become Jews. But the ancient Scriptures
predicted a future religious
fellowship which should embrace all nations, and be
independent of everything national
The New Testament explains what in this matter the old
predictions left indistinct. In the
Gospels almost all the discourses and parables bearing
on this subject dwell much on this
enlargement of the kingdom: it is in fact hardly ever
left out down to the last commission
In the later New Testament the theory is that of a
church which is to be diffused through
all nations; and the labors of the Apostles are directed
accordingly. But, while thus
catholic, the local community meets us everywhere. We
read of the church,
2. The earliest use of the term Catholic, in the middle
of the second century, probably
introduced into it a meaning that the Scriptures do not
refer to. The word was used to
distinguish the one universal and faithful body from the
fragmentary companies of
heretics and schismatics which were therefore not parts
of the catholic body. That
meaning the word has never lost: the Great Majority.
But, since the division between East
and West, and the plain fact that the majority of
professing Christians is on the side of the
dissentients from the see of St. Peter, the term has
been conventionally used by Rome to
signify simply the one and only church, outside of which
there is no salvation. The
Eastern communities do not so much affect the term,
preferring that of Orthodox and
Apostolic
3. The Christian Church may be regarded as
APOSTOLIC AND CONFESSIONAL
The New Testament to some extent sanctions the attribute
of Apostolicity. After our Lord
had chosen the Twelve—distinguished by this number
whether as disciples or as
Apostles,
1. At first the application of it was sound: the true
church traced its institution, under
God, to the Apostolical foundation, and maintained the
Apostolical faith and traditions as
yet un-corrupted. But gradually the theory arose which
merged the authority of the
Twelve in that of Peter, and the Church was regarded as
Apostolic so far as it was one
with the see of Rome. But the primacy of Peter, only
representative in the New
Testament, ceased altogether when he departed; and thus
this application of the note is
convicted of being unscriptural
2. The Apostolic note is applied, altogether
independently of Rome, by many churches in
the form, of Apostolical succession. That there is an
uninterrupted succession of ministers
which the Divine eye can trace up to the Apostles'
times, there can be no doubt. But it is
utterly impossible to prove that in any part of the
world there is a ministry that can trace
its orders up through episcopal hands to the Apostles.
This theory of the transmission of
the Apostolic authority is closely connected with a
wider theory of sacramental grace,
which is elsewhere examined. As belonging to the
Apostolic note, the doctrine of
succession has no place in sound theology: at least in
its modern conventional sense
3. Another error—based on a theory curiously opposite to
the last—interprets the Note
thus: that the true church is one in which the Spirit,
after the long pretermission of ages,
has restored the Apostolate, with the original gifts and
prerogatives of speaking new
tongues and other miraculous endowments. But the
Scripture does not make the existence
of the Christian fellowship dependent on the permanence
of the Apostolic office: on the
contrary, St. Paul and St. John write as contemplating a
state of things in which they and
their prerogative would be absent
4. During the last few centuries all Evangelical
communions, not in bondage to this idea
of succession, have held that the Apostolical doctrine
and discipline may be maintained
in common by communities which on minor points, not
absolutely determined by the
Apostles, differ according to their various standards of
confession. Hence we may lay
down our dogma: the Church is Apostolic, as being still
ruled by the Apostolical
authority living in the writings of the Apostles, that
authority being the standard of appeal
in all the Confessions that
Both these attributes are clearly given to the one
church in Holy Scripture. They refer to
the perpetuity of the Christian community and of the
Christian faith delivered to it
1. As to the former, it is enough to quote our Lord's
words on two occasions: when He
first spoke of His church, and when He last spoke of it.
The gates of Hades shall not
prevail against it.
2. As to the latter, the perpetuity of the Faith, it
needs no special evidence beyond the
assurance I am
with you alway.
1. There is no necessity for any illustration, either
from history or Scripture, of these last
correlative attributes. Here at length all exposition,
all confessions, all communions
agree. The same one body which is waging war with
principalities and powers, slowly
winning and hardly maintaining its conquests, is at the
same time triumphant, rejoicing in
Paradise with its Head in anticipation of that deeper
joy, that joy of their Lord, into which
all shall at once enter in the end of the days. The
Church militant expects its most severe
conflicts yet in the future; but the apocalyptic agonies
shall at the set time be swallowed
up in the song of eternal triumph. These two attributes
are the most comprehensive as
they are the last. And, as they belong to the one
church, so in a certain sense they are
themselves one. We hear the Apostles say: Now thanks be unto God, which always
leadeth us in triumph in Christ!
2. The measure of the sympathy between the militant and
the triumphant fellowship is
clearly defined in Scripture; but the early Church soon
began to chafe at its restrictions
From Origen onward may be traced an ever-widening
current of doctrine, the issue of
which was the creation of a new intermediate estate of
the Christian company, not
precisely militant and not yet triumphant, that of
Purgatory. Connected with this was the
enlargement of the article on the Communion of Saints,
so as to include the good offices
of prayer between the living and the departed:
intercession for the dead in Purgatory on
the part of saints on earth; on the part of saints in
heaven, intercession both for the dead
in Purgatory and the militant living. This department of
theology is simply an addition to
Scripture, the teaching of which, as we have seen, and
shall see again, altogether
repudiates it
THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTE FOR WORSHIP
The Church of Christ is not only His representative Body
on earth, it is also the Temple
of Divine service, continuing and perfecting the worship
of the past. This service may be
studied under two aspects, as it includes offering
presented to God, and blessing received
from Him. The former embraces the entire ordinance of
worship, with its nature, reasons,
and observances; the latter embraces the means of grace,
Common Prayer, the Word, and
Sacraments. These, however, are really one, and their
relations to each other as one are of
great importance. Both require for their realization the
institution of the Evangelical
ministry. We have then now before us the Divine worship,
the Means of Grace, and the
Christian Ministry
As to the unity of worship and the means of grace, it
must be remembered that both are
taken in their widest meaning. Worship includes all that
belongs to the service offered by
men to God, as He is the Object of adoration and the
Source of blessing: including praise
and prayer in all their forms. Communion with Him,
therefore, is the channel of all
benediction; and we may speak generally of waiting upon
God in the means of grace. But
this latter term (Media Gratise) has also its technical
signification, as designating the
appointed and specific channels through which the Divine
Spirit pours His influences into
the Church. Into the Church: for, while all doxology and
all benediction is individual, we
are now regarding them as ordinances of the
congregation. Their congregational character
is represented by the ministry, which must be regarded
as an institution for the corporate
body, affecting individuals only as being members in
particular
The worship of the Christian Church may be regarded in
its Divine principles and in its
human arrangements. As to the former, its object is the
revealed Trinity; its form is
Mediatorial, through the Son Incarnate, by the Holy
Spirit; its attributes are spirituality,
simplicity, purity, and reverent decorum; its seasons
are the Christian Sabbath preeminently,
and all times of holy assembly. As to the latter, it is
left to the congregation
itself to determine the minor details, according to the
pattern shown in the Scripture: this
latitude extending to the order of worship, its set
times, its forms, liturgical or otherwise,
and its decent ceremonial generally
THE DIVINE ORDER
The Divine and permanent laws of the perfect economy of
public worship prescribe the
following general principles
1. That always and everywhere the
2. That the stated form of all worship, whether of
praise or prayer, must be, either
informally or avowedly,
And, though we do not presume to add the formula of
mediatorial words to the Lord's
Player, we silently present it through the name of Him
Who gave it to us
3. The
preparations of the heart in man, also, are from the Lord.
4. Amongst the permanent Divine ordinances of worship
must be reckoned
(1.) It has been doubted whether the account in Genesis
asserts the institution of the
Sabbath at that time: God blessed the seventh day, and
sanctified it
1 Gen. 2:3;
2
Gen. 8:10,11; 29:27,28;
3
Mark 2:27;
4
Exo. 20:8
(2.) So far as the Sabbath was introduced into the
ceremonial law, and was made the basis
of a Sabbatic cycle of days; so far as it became a
sacrament of the old law,
commemorating the redemption from Egypt, a sign between Me and you throughout
your
generations;
1 Exo. 31:13;
2
Jer. 17:20-27;
3
Col. 2:16
(3.) The new ordinance of the Sabbath in the Gospel was
given by Christ Himself, the
Lord also of the Sabbath.
Paul's word on another occasion, the law of the
Christian sabbath is not of men,
neither
by man, not of the Church nor by the Church, but by Jesus Christ.
1 Mark 2:28;
2
Mat. 5:17;
3
Rev. 1:10;
4
Gal. 1:1
(4.) It is, so to speak, the sacrament of holy time in
the Evangelical economy. The first
day of the week sanctifies all the days which follow,
but it retains its symbolical
meaning. It is the day of holy convocation, concerning
which it is said, pre-eminently
though not solely,
not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.
(5.) Lastly, this general view of the Sabbath in
relation to worship connects it with the
Church, though it is scarcely right to number it among
the
THE HUMAN FORMS
Public worship is left, as to its form, to the
discretion of the congregation, subject,
however, to the authority of the Divine laws, and guided
by the usage of Scripture. The
questions that here arise are not strictly included in
dogmatic theology: they therefore
need only slight indication
1. The rights of the laws already laid down being
reserved, the Church may appoint times
and seasons and places of religious service. There is no
restriction: the Lord's Supper
itself is not limited to any certain day. There is no
hour that may not be feet apart. Daily
service, and canonical hours, are not in themselves
evil, save in connection with
superstitions, and as tending to absorb family and
private worship. Days of Thanksgiving
and of Fasting have the plenary sanction of Scripture.
But Saints' days have not that
authority;
and, although much may be said in favor of making the names of our
Lord's
inspired servants prominent in the service, it is
expedient to abstain. There is but a step,
as the history of the corruptions of Christianity shows,
between this and the Invocation of
Saints. As to places, there is no Temple or Sanctuary:
this word is reserved for the
spiritual community or body of the Church, and the
regenerate spirit of the Christian. In a
certain sense there is a House of God, but wherever the
congregation may meet there is,
in the truest sense, the House of Prayer: Whose house are we.
2. As to the arrangements of Divine service, there is
the same latitude. The law of
Decency and Order requires that the worship be
regulated, and that no room be left for
caprice. The relations of worship, and sacrament, and
preaching must be arranged by the
community. As to the much-vexed question of
3. As to the superadded ceremonials of public worship,
there is hardly the same latitude
The jurisdiction of the Church here, or its power to
ordain ceremonies, is attended with
great difficulty. We have not now to decide between the
hard requirement that forgets
everything but the purely spiritual nature of the
worshipper and the opposite extreme that
panders to all his senses. Neither of these can be
right. There is a spirit in worshipping
man, or he could not worship the Invisible; and he is
also flesh and blood, or he could not
worship in public assemblies. There is a simple
aesthetical vesture of Divine service
without which it ought not to appear before God, without
which it cannot commend itself
to man. But what is now conventionally called Ritualism
must be entirely condemned;
that is to say, the introduction of symbols not ordained
by the Head of the Church:
symbols in the architecture of the building, in the
dress of the officiating minister, and
especially in the conduct of the worship itself. It
tends to dishonor Holy Scripture, by
making ceremonials teach doctrines that the Word of God
alone should teach: in fact,
Ritualism is another form of the Oral Tradition which is
made co-ordinate with Scripture
as the teaching authority. It endangers the dignity of
the Sacraments, which, as the sole
elements of ritual given us in a religion that closed
the ritual temple, should be rigidly
guarded in their simplicity as the Savior left them:
whereas the ritual superadded to them
in later times teaches principles and applications never
contemplated by the Founder of
Christianity. And what is called the ritualistic spirit
dishonors the Spirit of devotion by
such numberless and ever-varying appeals to the senses
as distract the soul from its one
function. Concerning such additions of men's
will-worship the Lord of the Temple says
still: Take these
things hence!
1 John 2:16
As an institute of worship the Church of Christ has its
ordinary channels for the
communication of the influences of the Holy Ghost to the
souls of men. These are the
Media Gratiae, or
THE SUPREME MEANS: THE WORD AND PRAYER
These are the supreme means as they are the basis of
all: they give their virtue to the
ordinances of the Church, including the sacraments. They
are united: the Word gives the
warrant to prayer and all its objects; Prayer is the
instrument which makes the Word
effectual. But as means of grace they may be regarded
separately
THE WORD
The Word of God in the Scriptures contains the whole
compass of that spiritual truth
which the Holy Spirit uses as His instrument for the
communication of every influence on
which the salvation of man depends. As the revelation of
God's law He uses it for
conviction; as the Gospel promise He uses it for
salvation; as the depository of ethical
truth He uses it for sanctification through all morality
and the discipline of holy life
Let us view this in the light of Scripture itself; and
then glance at ancient and current
divergences
I. The doctrine of the Word concerning itself is that it
is the universal channel of grace;
that it is not this of itself, through any inherent
efficacy, but as the organ of the Holy
Ghost; and that its efficacy is nevertheless in a
certain sense inherent, as the Spirit's
instrument, though it may be resisted. These topics have
been discussed, in their
application, under the Administration of Redemption.
Their bearing on the Word as chief
among the means of grace may, however, be briefly
considered
1. The sufficiency of Scripture is declared throughout
both Testaments. The praises of the
law of the Lord abound in the Old Testament, especially
in the Psalms. One of them
expatiates on the subject by taking all the ten names
given to the Law and applying them
to every phase of human need and religious experience.
1 Psa. 119;
2
2 Tim. 3:15,16;
3
John 16:13;
4
John 17:17
2. The fallen estate of man forbids the thought that the
mere presentation of truth should
save him. He has an organ or faculty to receive it, for
it is as much adapted to his soul's
need as bread is to the need of his body; but the organ
or faculty itself needs quickening
Hence the inherent power of the Word requires the
influence of the Spirit to make it
effectual. The Apostle Paul declares that his preaching
was in demonstration of the
Spirit
and of power
He appeals, as the Lord appealed: why do ye not understand My speech
(lalian)? even
because ye cannot hear My word (logon).
3. But there is an inherent efficacy in Scripture, as
applied by the Spirit. It is the universal
means of grace, though men may resist it. The Word of
God is as efficacious as it is
universal and sufficient. It is its inherent efficacy
that detects unbelief and convicts it: it is
not only effectual in saving, but in condemning also. It
is the same Gospel power of God
which is a savor
of death unto death, and a
savor of life unto life.
The self-evidencing energy of the Bible is its sure
credential. No living man can say that
it has utterly failed to find him out, and move his
inmost being, and work upon his
deepest convictions
II. It will be enough to indicate some more or less
prevalent errors belonging to two
entirely opposite types
1. There has never been wanting a tendency to make the
Scriptures sufficient of
themselves, without any supernatural accompanying
influence, to effect the salvation of
men. The ancient Pelagians and semi-Pelagians regarded
the Word of God as the
intellectual and moral discipline which best suits the
spiritual nature of man, its honest
use leading sincere inquirers to perfection. As human
nature retains its original elements
unimpaired, its natural powers are supposed to be
sufficient under the influence of truth
to guide to salvation. Modern Rationalism has the same
general estimate of the Word of
God: not regarding it as in any specific sense the means
of grace, but only as one among
many instruments of moral discipline
2. The highest Mysticism of every age seeks through
means to rise above means and
become dead to them. To the more Scriptural mystics of
every communion the Word* is
to be valued by its substance of truth; which exerts its
influence upon the mind, but only
in order to raise it to the higher intuition of God.
Meditation on the principles and truths
of the Word leads to Contemplation which leaves all
words, thoughts, and images behind
This is the line beyond which Mysticism becomes unsafe
3. The doctrine which makes the Divine sovereignty its
supreme principle holds the Word
to be the means of an absolute and irresistible grace.
Whatever effect it produces is
produced by the effectual operation of One who cannot be
resisted. The Holy Ghost, as a
personal Spirit, free in all His acts, and applying
redemption only to those whose names
are already written in the Book of Life, uses the Word
to accomplish His purposes, or
accomplishes them without it, as seemeth good to Him.
When the Word is used, it is
literally His
4. The doctrine which we hold combines all that is good
in them, and rejects the evil. It
gives a high, indeed the highest, place to the Scripture
as the instrument of all grace. It
pays its tribute to the Spirit Who alone makes it such.
But it regards the Spirit's operation
as operating not simply and alone
PRAYER
Prayer, or communion with God, is not generally reckoned
among the Means of Grace,
technically so called. It is regarded rather as the
concomitant of the others. But, while it is
undeniably true that Prayer is a condition of the
efficacy of other means, it is itself and
alone a means of grace. In many respects, it is the
highest, simplest, most universal, most
comprehensive, and most effectual of these means
1. It is the most universal. Wherever the creature is
found, Ask and it shall be given
you
2. It is all-pervading. The Word by which man lives is
made the channel of blessing when
its promises are pleaded in prayer. Sacraments derive
from this their efficacy. And it is
adapted to all conditions of life; private, social, and
common prayer open and keep open
their several channels into the individual soul, the
family, and the congregation. But,
while prayer pervades all other means, it extends beyond
them all. There is no moment of
life, there is no occupation, nor can the petitioning
spirit be found in any place, where the
turning of the soul to God may not be attended by the
full virtue of this everlasting
ordinance
3. Hence we see the importance of uniting the Word and
Prayer most closely as the
abiding, pre-eminent, and essential means of grace. They
do not disparage the other
means; but must not by them be superseded. This will,
however, appear more fully in the
consideration of what follows
THE SACRAMENTS AS THE ECONOMICAL OR COVENANT MEANS OF
GRACE
The Savior, who came not to destroy but to fulfill the
law, has retained under new forms
those two of the ancient ritual observances which were
the specific badges of the old
covenant as such: Circumcision, the rite by which the
covenant was entered, has become
Baptism; and the Passover, the rite by which it was
annually confirmed, has become the
Lord's Supper. These have been instituted for the
perpetual observance of the Christian
Church, and placed among its means of grace. As means of
grace they have elements of
difference, and elements in common with the other means.
Their difference is that they
are Federal Transactions: signs and seals of the
covenant of redemption. As signs, they
represent in action and by symbols the great blessings
of the covenant; as seals they are
standing pledges of the Divine fidelity in bestowing
them on certain conditions, being the
Spirit's instrument in aiding and strengthening the
faith which they require, and in
assuring to that faith the present bestowment of its
object. Thus they are, on the one hand,
objective institutions which assure the continuance of
the Spirit's administration of
redemption in the Church, and, on the other, subjective
confirmations to each believing
recipient of his own present interest in the covenant.
Moreover, as the covenant is
What more this topic requires will be best given in a
brief view of the history of the
sacramental principle in general
1. In the New Testament no designation is given to these
symbols. All types, or
prophecies in act, ended with Christ the universal
Antitype, and all symbols, or visible
prophetic representations of invisible realities, ended
with the Tongues of fire on the Day
of Pentecost, and therefore with the Holy Ghost, the
universal spiritual reality. So for as
they are prophetic types and symbols they must cease
with their fulfillment. This gives
deep emphasis to the fact that two symbols were
retained, or rather instituted anew, for
permanent observance. They are closely connected with
the blessings they signify: they
are also distinctly separated from them; and by plain
command, which we see always
obeyed throughout the New Testament, they are made
perpetual. This will appear more
fully in the discussion of the several Sacraments
themselves
2. Very early two names were given to the sacramental
institution. In the Greek Church
the term
Musteerion
1 Rev. 1:20
As to their significatory character there has been no
real difference from the beginning
among those who have held fast the Sacraments as
belonging to the permanent economy
of the Gospel. Augustine's " aliud videtur, aliud
intelligitur " or " verba visibilia," Visible
Words; and Chrysostom's etera orooen etera pisteuooen, " one
thing we see, another we
believe," have been accepted by all Christians alike as
rightly indicating the meaning of
the emblems, whether of the old covenant or of the new.
Here there is no discussion. It
has pleased God in every age to include among His divers manners
SEALS
Their character as seals has been the subject of much
discussion and of wide discrepancy
The various theories which have predominated may be
studied to great advantage in their
historical order
1. In the Early Church we find the germs of every later
teaching. But to one who studies
attentively there can be no question that a strong
tendency betrayed itself almost as soon
as the Apostles departed to dwell more on the Mysterium
than on the Sacramentum, and
to make the whole of religion depend as it were on these
two sacramental rites
2. This exaggerated estimate of the ceremonial
ordinances took its final form in the
Tridentine teaching, which makes the sacraments, not
seals of a covenant, but
depositories of grace flowing through them of necessity
and through them alone: their
intrinsic efficacy being supposed always to accompany
the priestly administration; if
performed, that is, with intention according to the mind
of the Church, and on recipients
who do not interpose the obstacle of mortal sin. The
Council of Trent has this canon: Si
quis dixerit per ipsa novae legis sacramenta ex opere
operato non conferri gratiam sed
solam fidem divinse promissionis ad gratiam consequendam
sufficere, anathema sit. This
dictum is capable of two constructions. As in the case
of Justification it may be said that
the faith
3. The Lutheran and Reformed types of doctrine
concerning the sacramental idea
condemn the
Lutheranism lodges the virtue in the sacraments, makes
it inherent in them by the
ordination of Christ, but saving only to the believer:
it approaches the Romanist theory as
to their being the appointed and generally the only
channels of salvation. Adopting a
maxim of Augustine, Accedit verbum et fit sacramentum,
—the Divine word added
makes it a sacrament—it regards that consecrating word
as conveying into the elements a
grace which they must needs impart, to the evil for
condemnation and to believers for
their good. It makes the sacraments necessary means of
grace: not merely the first, and
generally necessary; but, as to the specific grace they
represent, the only means. A
participation in these institutes is held essential to a
participation in the things they
signify. Hence the sacraments are made in a certain
sense the centre of the plan of
salvation. This must be remembered in every estimate of
Lutheranism as such
4. The Reformed doctrine lays more stress on the
concurrence of the Holy Ghost: virtus
Spiritus sancti extrinsecus accedens. Not the Word, as
in Augustine's dictum, but the
Spirit, makes the sacrament a channel of grace; and, as
that Spirit is not bound to forms,
He can dispense His grace without the sacraments, before
them or after them. Still,
though not absolutely necessary, sine qua non, they are
preceptively necessary: and, as
the appointed seals and pledges of the administration of
redeeming grace, they must be
observed. The early Socinians went beyond the Swiss
Zwingli in making sacraments only
signs of Christian profession, and emblems intended to
exert a moral influence on the
mind: a view which is extensively prevalent among the
lesser sections of Christendom
both on the Continent and in England
5. The early Arminian doctrine is sometimes classed with
the system to which these lastnamed
views belong. But let us hear the words of the
Remonstrant Confession:
Sacramenta cum dicimus, externas Ecclesiae caeremonias
seu ritus illos sacros ac
solennes intelligimus, quibus veluti foederalibus signis
ac sigillis visibilibus Deus
gratiosa beneficia sua in foedere praesertim evangelico
promissa non modo nobis
repraesentat et adumbrat, sed et certo modo exhibet
atque obsignat, nosque vicissim
palam publiceque declaramus ac testamur, nos
promissiones omnes divinas vera, firma
atque obsequiosa fide amplecti et beneficia ipsius jugi
et grata semper memoria celebrare
velle. These words should be carefully studied in their
connection, and translated; as
presenting, beyond those of any other Symbol, all the
elements necessary to make up the
true sacramental idea. The definition lays stress on
their being Federal signs and seals:
not only adumbrating the evangelical blessings of the
Christian covenant, but exhibiting
and applying them; while they express also our public
faith, and grateful remembrance
This testimony includes all that is included in our
great British Confessions; and, if it
adds anything, the addition is an improvement. The
Westminster Confession says: "
Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of
grace. There is in every sacrament
a spiritual relation, or sacramental union between the
sign and the thing signified; whence
it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one
are attributed to the other." And in
the Shorter Catechism the Presbyterian standard thus
speaks: " A sacrament is a holy
ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible
signs, Christ and the benefits of the
New Covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to
believers." Here the last expression
gives additional strength to the idea of the seal: not
only are blessings pledged, but they
are then and there imparted. So the Article of the
Church of England: " Sacraments
ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of
Christian men's profession, but rather
they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of
grace, and God's goodwill towards
us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth
not only quicken, but also
strengthen and confirm our faith in Him." With these
symbols —Arminian, Reformed,
Anglican—our general Proposition agrees
As to the Divine institution of the sacraments there
have been two leading errors. One,
represented by some of the more pantheistic Mystics in
earlier ages, and by the Quakers
in modern times, denies the permanent obligation of
these ordinances. According to the
latter Baptism was intended only for the first
introduction of Gentiles into the new
community; the Eucharist was only the sanctification of
the common nourishment of life;
and, generally, the Christian economy has and can have
in it no ritual. The other error has
gone to the opposite extreme, and multiplied the
sacramental institutions of Christianity
ADDITIONS TO THE SACRAMENTS
1. The origin of this multiplication of sacraments may
be traced to the indefinite use of
the term in early phraseology: it was applied to almost
every mystery of the Christian
Faith and almost every religious symbol. Thus Augustine,
while allowing their
supremacy to the Two, speaks in an uncertain and
wavering manner concerning some
other rites of a sacramental nature. Bernard was
disposed to add the Feet-washing, and
many writers before and after him mention other
symbolical acts of Christ among the
sacraments. The Seven Sacraments were first defined by
Otto of Bamberg, A.D. 1124;
these received ecclesiastical sanction at Florence, A.D.
1439, and were confirmed at the
Council of Trent. They were variously illustrated and
defended by the Scholastics. It was
supposed that each was symbolized by or symbolized one
of the seven cardinal virtues,
Faith, Love, Hope, Wisdom, Temperance, Courage,
Righteous-ness; they were explained
by the analogy of the spiritual life with the physical,
as to Birth, Growth into adult age,
Nourishment, Healing, Reproduction, Instruction, Death;
and so forth. The final
definition at Trent admits the pre-eminence of the
Eucharist: Sanctitate longe caeteris
antecellit. Baptism, Confirmation, Orders were held to
have an indelible character, never
effaceable, and never to be repeated. The anathema is
pronounced upon those who deny
that the Seven were all, if not equally, instituted by
Christ: admitting therefore that the
appointment of our Lord is the only and final test of a
true sacrament
2. It is remarkable that the Greek and the Roman
communions, differing in so much
besides, agree in accepting seven sacraments. Both base
their acceptance on the authority
of the Church as interpreting the will of Christ, and
vindicate them as enfolding and
hedging round and sanctifying the whole of life at its
several stages: Baptism is the
sanctification of birth, Confirmation of adult life,
Penance of the life of daily sin, the
Eucharist of life itself, Orders of legitimate
authority, Matrimony of the Church's law of
continuance and increase, and Unction of the departure
hence. Other communions have
attempted, and are attempting, to introduce the
distinction between sacramental
ordinances which are not sacraments and sacraments
proper, but the test of our Lord's
own institution absolutely forbids any addition to His
two covenant institutes. "A
sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward
and spiritual grace, ordained by
Christ Himself as a means whereby we receive the same,
and a pledge to assure us
thereof." Our Lord has chosen and hallowed two, only
two; and it is vain to elevate acts
which are rather benedictory or only symbolical than
sacramental into sacraments proper
3. The Apology for the Augsburg Confession allowed
Penance to be one of the Saviour's
sacramental institutes, and Melanchthon was disposed to
admit into the number
Ordination. These were not retained, however, in the
churches of the Reformation,
although the Lutherans preserved Confession as a
wholesome part of the rejected Orders
The definition in the English Article strikes the true
note: the Five added by Rome " are
not to be counted sacraments of the Gospel, being such
as have grown partly of the
corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of
life allowed in the Scriptures; but
yet have not like nature of sacraments with Baptism and
the Lord's Supper, for that they
have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God."
To this, however, may be added
that they have no connection with the covenant character
of the Gospel of Christ
Having this test to apply, we may consider the
additional sacraments in their order
THE FIVE ADDED SACRAMENTS
1. The supposed sacrament of CONFIRMATION sprang out of
a rite anciently known as
2. The system of
The Contrition of heart is not required to be absolutely
perfect. Attrition, or a sincere
desire to repent, may be enough; the Confession is
auricular, including omnia et singula
peccata mortalia, and at least once in the year. The
satisfaction supposes that the priest is
a judge who, in the name of God, imposes penances as the
condition of the remission of
temporal punishments of the sin, which, as to the reatus
culpae and its eternal
consequences, is forgiven for Christ's merits' sake.
These temporal penalties may be
exacted in this life or in the intermediate state: both
being temporal. They may be
commuted for satisfactions of various kinds, fasting,
prayer, alms; which, however, were
connected often with the most unevangelical forms of
self-discipline. On this sacrament
of Penance hangs the doctrine of Purgatory, the scene
where the supreme satisfaction of
Christ is supplemented: as also Indulgences, based on
the fund of merit stored in the
Church, and granted, avowedly for the remission of
temporal penalty, often, in popular
acceptation, for the remission of all sin whatever. This
most important institute is not
based upon the Word of God: the Scriptural Absolution is
the declaration of the terms of
forgiveness, its Confession is not auricular and
enforced, its only Satisfaction is the
perfect obedience of Christ, and its only Judge and
Confessor the Lord Himself
3. The sacrament of
4.
5.
The opposite error, that of those who deny the
authoritative; institution of sacramental
means of grace, in the sense in which we understand the
term, that is, ordinances which
pledge or seal, as well as symbolize, to those who
worthily receive them the grace of
redemption, should be carefully avoided
1. There are those, as we have seen, who would honor the
spiritual character of the
religion of Christ by dispensing with His own express
appointments. But they are surely
on the way to the same error who regard our Lord as
having placed in His Church two
rites which are only rites, only symbols teaching the
eye whether of the assistants or the
spectators, and thus make Him the Founder of a purely
ritual and symbolical service. Had
that been His design, we should have accepted it with
reverence. But it was not His
design. There is nothing ordained by Him for the
permanent observance of His people
which is not accompanied by the Holy Ghost, and made the
channel of its own
appropriate grace. The rites of Christianity have their
concomitant benedictions; and are
never without them, save to such as bring no preparation
of faith, the absence of which
makes all religion a mere ceremonial. The true doctrine
is between two extremes. It
avoids the delusive over-statement that connects
specific blessings, regeneration, and the
sustenance of Christ's life, with the sacraments as
their sole conductors to the soul: these
are only the covenant pledges of a gift that is with and
through them imparted, but not
necessarily with and through them alone. And it avoids
the delusive under-statement that
makes sacramental ordinances mere signs that
aesthetically act on the minds of those who
wait upon them. This, it may be repeated, is to abolish
the distinction between those
symbolical actions of our Lord—such as His setting a
child in the midst, blighting the figtree,
washing His disciples' feet, breathing forth the Holy
Ghost—which were actions that
taught their lesson by symbol first and were afterwards
interpreted by His words, and
those permanent ceremonies which He ordained to be Means
as well as signs of His grace
to the believer
2. There is, however, an undervaluation of the
sacraments which springs from no
theological opposition or scruple, but is the result of
indifference or ignorance. There are
many unbaptised children whose parents are responsible
for the neglect of the Saviour's
command, a neglect which will not be visited on the
children themselves. But the neglect
is, perhaps, more striking in the case of the other
sacrament It is not that it is treated with
irreverence; but, for want of adequate instruction,
multitudes come to regard the Lord's
Supper as a religious solemnity in some way or other
connected with the acceptance of
religious responsibilities, and dependent for its
blessing upon the vigor of faith and
expectation in the communicant, but without any distinct
perception of its peculiar and
distinct place in the Evangelical economy. The recoil
from one extreme has carried these
too far in the opposite direction. It ought to be matter
of solicitude on the part of Christian
ministers to teach their people the right doctrine of
the sacraments: especially that which
lays emphasis upon their relation to the new covenant,
its benefits and obligations. They
are "signs and seals of the covenant of grace
established in Christ: which is a covenant
with promise on the part of God, and with Conditions on
the part of man." Nor should
they be suffered to forget the meaning of the
Sacramental institute: " an outward and
visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto
us, ordained by Christ Himself, as
a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to
assure us thereof."
BAPTISM
Baptism is an ordinance appointed by our Lord to be the
rite of initiation into the new
covenant of grace and fellowship of its kingdom; being
the sign and seal of the blessings
of that covenant conferred upon those who thereby avow
their acceptance of the one
condition of faith in Jesus Christ with its obligations.
It is the sacrament of union with
Christ, of pardon and renewal through His Gospel, and of
membership in His Church:
being the outward and visible sign of the sealing of the
Holy Ghost, Who is the interior
Bond of communion between the believer and the Lord, the
Agent in imparting that
forgiveness and regeneration of which the washing of
water is the sign, and the Sanctifier
of the people of God. The nature, mode of administration
and subjects of this rite are
clearly set forth in the New Testament; but have been
variously interpreted in
ecclesiastical doctrine and practice. It will be
expedient, therefore, to examine the
authoritative Scripture first, and afterwards briefly to
view the subject in the light of
controversy
THE DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE OF BAPTISM IN SCRIPTURE
The Word of God furnishes a preliminary history of this
rite as linked with the Old
Covenant, through usages which are changed in the New;
it gives a clear account of its
institution and observance; and defines its meaning and
relation to the economy of grace
These topics correspond to the teaching of the Old
Testament, of the Gospels and Acts,
and of the Epistles respectively
I. Many rites, ceremonies, types, symbols, and
predictions pointed forward to baptism
and found in this simple ordinance their fulfillment.
Its special Old-Testament
representative was the covenant rite of circumcision:
the type of baptism as it was the rite
of admission into the old covenant of grace, established
first with Abraham for all nations
in his Seed the Christ, and renewed through Moses with
the same People now more
distinguished from the rest of mankind. As given to
Abraham it was the seal of the
righteousness of the faith which lie had yet being
uncircumcised: that he might be the
father of all them that believe, though they be not
circumcised.
The ancient baptism of proselytes from heathenism
—ancient as to us, modern as to the
Hebrews—probably had no foundation in the Old Testament
beyond the general practice
of washing before sacrificing to God. But it seems
indisputable, from Rabbinical
authorities, that after the captivity every proselyte
was circumcised and baptized;
moreover, that this baptism included the women and
children of his house. This accounts
for the general familiarity with the rite assumed in the
Gospels. It sheds light upon the
institute of John the Baptist and our Lord's baptism of
His disciples. It must be borne in
mind in our interpretation of St. Peter's words on the
Day of Pentecost: there can be no
doubt how his hearers would understand, The promise is unto you, and to your
children.
1Rom. 4:11;
2Gal.
3:19; 31
Cor. 10:2; 41
Pet. 3:21; 5Zech.
13:1; 6Ezek.
36:25; 7Acts
2:39
II. The institution of Christian Baptism has its gradual
history. We have the Gospel
preliminary baptisms; the Saviour's express and formal
New-Testament appointment: and
the occasional observance of the rite as described in
the first records of the early New-
Testament Church
1. The Baptism of John has a distinct significance and
stands alone: to Ioannou Baptisma
It was the baptism of repentance as the preparation for
Christ and the New Covenant;
2. The Christian institute itself was enacted in one
clear and definite injunction. It had
been prepared for in act, as we have seen; doubtless
also in word during the Forty Days:
hence the formula was understood when finally used:
into the name of the Father and
of
the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
3. From the day of Pentecost onward the rite is observed
as an indispensable ordinance
There is no instance of conversion with which it is not
connected: they were baptized,
both men and women.
St. Paul was a high exception, but he gives the reason
of his satisfaction at
having baptized so few in Corinth: partly, his jealousy
for the name of Christ, partly his
higher obligation to preach the Gospel. The households
of believing persons were thus
consecrated: including obviously their children, whose
baptism is not mentioned because
implied in the Lord's benediction of them. That they
received it, however, needs no other
proof than that baptism superseded circumcision, and
that children are already addressed
as members of the Christian Church
III. The later Apostolic teaching on this subject
remains to be considered: it will be found
abundantly full and clear
1. The new ordinance is everywhere regarded as having
superseded circumcision as a
sign and seal of the Christian covenant. Nothing can be
plainer than that the old rite was
done away with. If admitted in any case, it was for
reasons of expediency; if not practiced
as the rite of an imperfect covenant, but only as a
national usage slowly given up, it was a
thing indifferent. But circumcision, as the initiatory
rite of the preparatory dispensation,
was lost in baptism. Negatively and positively St. Paul
says: Ye are complete in Him,
which is the Head
of all principality and power . . . in Whom also ye are circumcised
with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off
the body of the sins of the flesh
by the circumcision of Christ: buried with Him in
baptism.
There is no longer any circumcision save that which is
2. We may view this more generally and more
particularly
(1.) All the blessings of the Christian covenant are
represented as summed up in the
Promise made to Abraham; that Promise was Christ, the Seed, and the blessing of
Abraham, the Holy Spirit As many of you as have been baptized
into Christ have put on
Christ:
(2.) But this is general: we may find many references to
the specific blessings which are
exhibited and pledged to the believer in his baptism.
Foremost is justification or the
forgiveness of sins: St. Peter cries, Repent, and be baptized every one of you
in the name
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;
3. Now, in all these passages the sacrament of baptism
is, as it were, identified with the
blessings which it signifies; and in such a way as will
not allow us to think for a moment
of its being a mere ritual sign. St. Paul speaks of
one Lord, one faith, one baptism:
4. It must not be forgotten that the initiatory
sacrament has in the Epistles a universal
character, as extending and enlarging the meaning of the
former rite, and adapting it to a
more catholic economy. The cardinal passage has been
already quoted in part: For as
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put
on Christ. There is neither Jew
nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither male nor female: for ye are oil
one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye
Abraham's seed, and heirs
according to the promise.
Unholy by nature, they are sanctified through baptismal
consecration to God: Christ has
blessed them, their alien estate is past, and noic are your children holy.
Of this infants are incapable; but the Lord is their
everlasting Sponsor; and when He said,
of suth is the kingdom of heaven,
BAPTISM IN HISTORICAL THEOLOGY
The development of doctrine concerning this ordinance or
sacrament needs to be
exhibited only in broad and general outline
I. The primitive Church attached to it a very high
importance as the
1. Very early it was regarded as the instrument of the
conveyance rather than as the sign
and seal of Christian blessings; but the forgiveness it
conveyed was only of past sins
Hence arose by degrees the necessity of a new Sacrament
of Penance. The absolute
necessity of baptism was expressed in unqualified terms;
though in the case of its
accidental absence only contempt was ground of
condemnation. Martyrdom with its
baptism of blood was supposed to supersede it or condone
its absence. The Eastern
Church has always preferred dipping, the Western
sprinkling
2. The Catechumenate as an institution sprang out of
this sacrament by an internal
necessity, at first preceding adult baptism and
afterwards following that of infants. With
its Catechists, Catechumens, and Catechisms, it has
always in some form existed in
Christendom: though its early character has never been
fully maintained in later years,
much to the loss of, the Christian cause. In the third
century the catechumens were
divided, with reference to their final initiation into
the mystery of the Supper, into
Audientes or outside hearers of doctrine, Genuflectentes
or those who prayed with the
Church, and Competentes or candidates for full and
determinate admission to all the
privileges of Christianity
3. The ceremonial of baptism soon became elaborate: so
elaborate as to form, equally
with the ceremonial of the Eucharist, a perfect contrast
to the simplicity of our Lord's
institution. In the fourth century the water was
consecrated; and Epiphany, Easter,
Pentecost were the seasons of the year preferred for its
celebration. Tertullian mentions
the Sponsors, the Confession, and the Creed. Three
immersions were usual in some parts,
and a triple sprinkling, both with reference to the
Trinity. Exorcism and the renunciation
of Satan occupied in the rite an important place, which
both in East and West they have
retained. The particulars of the ritualistic development
must be elsewhere studied
4.
5. In the third century heretical baptism was matter of
earnest controversy. Cyprian
denied its validity, on ecclesiastical principles, but
the authority of the Church at Rome
prevailed: resting its plea on the ground of the
objective value of the rite, by whomsoever
performed in the name of the Holy Trinity,
II. The Romanist doctrine confirmed at Trent the
doctrinal decisions and the symbolical
ritual which had long been current in the mediaeval
Church. It ordained that Baptism
must be supplemented by Confirmation. It decreed that in
Baptism " that is taken away
which has the character of sin: it is not merely cut
down or not imputed." Concupiscence
not in itself sinful, either in Adam or in us, remains
as the fomes or fuel of possible sin,
and for the matter of our virtue and reward through its
constant suppression. In fact all
the benefits of redemption are applied to the soul.
Nothing, however, so clearly exhibits
the doctrine as the variety of ritual: from the blessing
of the water, through exorcism, the
chrism, the white garment, to the giving of the name
III. Lutheranism, in harmony with its high theory of the
sacraments, makes baptism
ordinarily necessary to salvation, conveying by Divine
appointment the blessings of
remission of sins and regeneration. Without faith,
however, the adult receives no benefit;
and the Spirit works in infants the receptivity of
faith, about which, it need not be added,
there have been endless discussions. Repentance after
baptism is, as it were, a " regressus
ad baptismum," a return to the baptismal position. The
Reformed Churches generally
make the internal effect, concur with the external act
in the case of the believing elect
Infants are presumed to be elect, and the benefit in
their case is only seminal and
prospective. The Anglican Formularies are, taken as a
whole, a combination of the
Lutheran and the Reformed. They distinctly teach
regeneration to be the secret virtue of
baptism, in adults believing and in all infants. But
there are two views of the doctrine
which have always had their supporters: first, that
which is more Lutheran and
sacramentarian and supposes a renewal of the soul of the
infant or a certain infusion of a
new life; and, secondly, that which regards the new
birth as in infants a change of relation
only, by which they are translated into the kingdom of
grace: meaning adoption rather
than regeneration
IV. The doctrine of the Baptist Communities differs from
that of Christendom at large in
two points: they insist that baptism was appointed to be
an expression of adult faith in
Christ, denying the right and duty of infant baptism;
and they maintain that the only valid
baptism is that of immersion in water. Agreeing with
them in what they hold, the
majority of Churches differ from them in what they deny;
but not attributing so much importance
to the points of difference as they do
1. It is important to establish the validity of infant
baptism, inasmuch as by degrees that
becomes, in established Christian communities which
admit infants to the rite, the only
baptism. Moreover, the settlement of this question is
bound up with the wider question of
what constitutes membership in the external body or
fellowship of Christendom
(1.) The Christian Fellowship is the continuation of a
community in which children had
always been reckoned members. The Church of God in
Christ has been one through all
ages: the ancients believed in the Seed that should come to Whom the promise was
made,
(2.) The theory of the Church held by those who reject
infant baptism is not a sound one
It is simply this, that none are to be admitted to
membership who do not give credible
evidence to the congregation of being regenerate. This
principle, as adopted by the
Congregationalists, allows all such professors to
communicate and to bring their children
to baptism for their training towards the full
privileges of the new covenant. As adopted
by the Baptists, it allows of no membership at all until
a credible profession of living
faith is made and sealed in the sacrament. These views
are altogether too narrow for the
spirit of the catholic Gospel. It is impossible to limit
the Church, or admission to its
ordinances, to the regenerate as approved by men. All
who profess faith in the doctrines
of Christ, who are seeking salvation, whose lives do not
contradict their profession or
impeach their sincerity, may be accepted to baptism; and
their children with them. To
such all the ordinances of religion are open; according
to their faith they are dealt with,
and the Lord
knoweth them that are His.
12 Tim. 2:19;
2
Eph. 6:4;
3
Mark 10:14
2. The mode of baptism might seem to be a less important
matter in a religion which is
not ritualistic. But the Baptist community thinks
otherwise. In dealing with this subject
we have only to show that the three kinds of baptism—by
immersion, by affusion, and by
sprinkling—are equally valid according to the
appointment of Christ; but that the weight
of the evidence is in favor of the last, or of the two
latter, which in this argument may be
regarded as one and the same
(1.) The equal admissibility of the two kinds, pouring
or sprinkling and immersing, is
proved by three considerations. First, the influences of
the Spirit, of which baptism is the
outward and visible sign, are described throughout
Scripture in language which aptly
represents both.
I will pour out My Spirit;
(2.) But there are many considerations which lead us to
regard affusion or sprinkling as
the ordained form of the rite. The catholic design of
the Gospel suggests that the simplest
and most universally practicable ordinance would be
appointed. Again, the most
important realities of which baptism is only the sign
are such as sprinkling or affusion
indicates: the blood of atonement was sprinkled on the
people and on the mercy-seat; and
the gifts of the Holy Ghost are generally illustrated by
the pouring of water and the
anointing. Moreover, the multitudinous baptisms of the
New Testament forbid the
possibility of immersion: especially when it is
remembered that whole families were
baptized, and individuals sometimes, where large
quantities of water cannot be supposed
to have been accessible. As to the passages which
describe this sacrament as burial with
Christ and resurrection with Him, they must be
interpreted by the analogy of those which
describe it as dying with Christ and putting Him on. It
may be said, further, that there are
words which obviously would have been employed instead
of baptism if the practice of
immersion had been deemed essential. This last argument
is of great force when we
remember how carefully the institution of the two
sacraments has been guarded in the
revelation of the New Testament. As it respects the
Lord's Supper, there is no room for
misapprehension: every departure from the simplicity of
the ordinance is self-convicted
Now, if it had been the Saviour's will that every
convert and every infant throughout all
ages should be immersed in the baptismal flood He would
have told us so in language
that could not be mistaken. But the vast majority of the
Christian world has understood
by baptism the pouring or sprinkling of water. It may be
said that this only shows our
Lord's intention to have been to allow a large latitude
of observance. Be it so: of this none
can complain. But it may be inferred that, if the more
cumbrous and difficult rite was not
ordained, the simpler one would everywhere be understood
to be more in harmony with
His will
V. The doctrine taught by Methodism may be said to hold
the mean between two
extremes as to the efficacy of this Sacrament,
1. Its authoritative standards repudiate the notion that
Baptism is merely a sign or badge
of Christian profession; as also that which, going a
little farther, is content to make it only
an impressive ritualistic emblem of the washing away of
sin. The Methodist teaching on
the Sacraments, seals as well as signs of the Christian
covenant, will not allow that either
of the two ordinances is without its accompanying grace
to the recipient who complies
with the covenant conditions. As to Baptism, Mr.
Wesley's note on Except a man be
born
of water and of the Spirit
2. Those standards do not teach that Baptism is the sole
ordinary appointed means of
communicating the virtue of the atonement in the
remission of sins and the bestowment
of the new life. They reject the dogma of Baptismal
Regeneration as tending
unevangelically to bind together the sign and the thing
signified. This term, common to
all high sacramentarian theology, Romanist, Oriental,
Lutheran and Anglican, expresses
the principle that in the economy of grace Baptism is
the sole ordained channel of the
renewing Spirit. It certainly is the Divine and
authoritative seal; but not the only or the
necessary channel. The impartation of regenerate life
may be distinct from the seal: it
may accompany it, it may have preceded it, and it may,
as in the case of infants, follow it
But, however viewed, its importance is great, as an
integral part of the new covenant in
Christ
3. Mr. Wesley was trained to believe in a possible
regeneration of infants. In his sermon
on the New Birth he says: "It is certain our Church
supposes that all who are baptized in
their infancy are at the same time born again." "Nor is
it an objection of any weight
against this, that we cannot comprehend how this work
can be wrought in infants. For
neither can we comprehend how it is wrought in a person
of riper years.'" For himself he
never distinctly defined this: " But whatever be the
case with infants, it is sure all of riper
years who are baptized are not at the same time born
again." His views of the preliminary
grace signified by the new birth of infants have been
more fully expressed by later
expositors of Methodist doctrine. Mr. Watson's summary
may be accepted as giving their
meaning. "To the infant child it is a visible reception
into the same covenant and church,
—a pledge of acceptance through Christ, — the bestowment
of a title to all the grace of
the covenant as circumstances may require, and as the
mind of the child may be capable,
or made capable, of receiving it." " It secures, too,
the gift of the Holy Spirit in those
secret spiritual influences by which the actual
regeneration of those children who die in
infancy is effected; and which are a seed of life in
those who are spare!
The Lord's Supper is a rite ordained by our Lord for
perpetual observance in His Church,
as a sacramental feast in which bread and wine are signs
of His sacred body and blood
offered in one oblation on the cross, and seals of the
present and constant impartation to
the believer of all the benefits of His passion. In this
supper the Church joyfully and
thankfully celebrates before the world the sacrifice
once presented in the past, until He
come again without sin unto salvation. Moreover, the
Lord's people partake of the
elements as the symbol of a common Christian life and
sustentation, as the mutual pledge
of union and brotherly fellowship, with all its
enjoyments and obligations. Thus this
ordinance is the Sacrament, as it signifies and seals
the mystical nourishment of Christ;
the Eucharist, as commemorating the sacrifice of
redemption; and the Communion, as the
badge of united Christian profession. While most
Christian people agree as to this last,
there have been many and great divisions both as it
respects the blessings conveyed in the
Sacrament, and the nature of the Eucharistical
commemoration. We shall find it useful, as
in the case of the other Sacrament, to examine the
testimony of Scripture, and then
consider the controversies of dogma
The statements of the New Testament are few, but
exceedingly distinct. They describe
the institution of a new rite instead of the Passover,
and connect it especially with the
ratification of the new covenant. St. Paul adds the
account that he received by special
revelation, and in it, a few additional points of
doctrine. Besides these four records of the
institution, there are sundry incidental allusions
tending to complete our view of the circumstantials of the rite itself. We must glance at
the doctrine and the ritual of the
second sacrament, which was instituted in connection
with the Passover, and to supersede
it for ever
1. Now the ancient rite was an annual commemoration of
the typical redemption of the
Hebrew people; and the Lord's Supper is the solemn act
of the Church's commemoration
of the redeeming death of the Savior of the world. St.
Paul's account, the last and fullest
authentic statement of the institution, stamps great
prominence on this. He adds In
remembrance of Me
2. The ancient Passover was also the annual ratification
of the covenant between God and
His people. As such it was itself a sacrifice both of
expiation and thanksgiving; and
summed up or represented all other covenant sacrifices.
When our Lord substituted His
Supper, He used language that included all, and
specially referred to the solemn covenant
transaction in which Moses divided the blood of
atonement into two parts: half of
the
blood he sprinkled on the altar,
3. But the ancient Passover was the rite that kept in
annual remembrance the birth of the
people as such and their community life in the bond of
the covenant. When our Lord
ordained His Supper, He distributed to each and laid
emphasis on the
4. The notices scattered through the New Testament give
us plain indications of the ritual
of this ordinance. The elements, or constituents, are
bread and wine:
Each element was received separately, and by the act of
each recipient. The communion
was frequent:
THE EUCHARIST IN HISTORICAL THEOLOGY
The history of doctrine on this subject may be broadly
viewed as falling under four
heads: first, the Patristic period, when germs of error
are seen growing up in teaching and
ritual; secondly, the controversies which issued in the
Tridentine doctrine of Rome;
thirdly, the different formularies of the Reformation;
and, lastly, the present aspect of the
question throughout Christendom generally and especially
in English theology
I. In the Patristic age, down to the first great
controversy on the subject in the ninth
century, we mark in every school of doctrine the signs
of coming development. That
development took two forms which afterwards united:
respecting the sacramental
presence in the Communion, and the sacrificial offering
in the Eucharist,
1. As to the former, there was always much difference in
expression. The earliest Fathers,
while using very ambiguous language, never went beyond
the figurative presence. So
even Cyprian alludes to the Calix, quo sanguis Christi
ostenditur. They speak of the
Eucharist as being the body of Christ, and the heavenly
food, but only as they speak of
the Gospel and faith being the same. Down to Chrysostom
there is no hint of the
conversion of the substance, though Ignatius and Justin
use the term meta-boloo. But
both Ambrose and Chrysostom strike the note of future
transubstantiation, though
generally using the language of a purer faith: the
latter declares that the priest held in his
hand what was the most adorable in heaven, and the
former, Hoc quod conficimus corpus
ex virgine est
2. The sacrificial idea was added to the Eucharist in
the third century, though it entered
furtively. At first it was an oblation of gratitude for
the gifts of God in life as crowned in
redemption: the people brought the bread and wine
themselves: part was consecrated for
the Eucharist proper, the remainder was left for the
lovefeast and the use of the ministry
This resemblance to the ancient oblations soon went
further. Even Tertullian speaks of
sacrifices for the dead; and Cyprian of the priest as
offering in the place of Christ,
Sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur. Then the Greek
Fathers refer to the unbloody
sacrifice, and even the sacrifice of propitiation.
Cyprian and Augustine are content with
the Sacrificii peracti memoria: but Chrysostom and
others delight in representing the
Eucharist as a repetition of the great oblation, though
in such terms as only suggest the
error of the future: suggesting it however in the
plainest manner
II. During the Middle Ages this sacrament had the
concentrated attention of the
Schoolmen fixed upon it. There were two crises of
controversy, and then the dogmatic
construction of Mediaeval materials went steadily
onwards towards Trent
1. In the middle of the ninth century Paschasius
Eadbertus wrote a treatise in which the
idea of Transubstantiation was first expressed: " that
the earthly substance of the bread
and wine, sacrificed by the virtue and consecration of
the Spirit, are converted into the
selfsame body and blood which the Blessed Virgin by the
virtue of the same Spirit
conceived and brought forth: only the corporeal
appearance and taste remain for the
exercise of faith." Eatramnus opposed him, asserting
only the symbolical and denying the
actual change and use of the elements
2. Precisely two hundred years later (1030) Berengarius
wrote a treatise asserting the
spiritual participation of the whole Christ, and the
logical contradiction of the other
theory. His protest was vain, and Gregory VII. compelled
him to recant
3. Ecclesiastical sanction was given to the theory of
4. The Council of Trent fixed the Roman dogma: it boldly
affirms that the substance is
gone and the accidents only remain, in the emblems; it
teaches that the presentation to
God of the elements is a propitiatory offering, and
includes the body, soul, and Divinity
of the Redeemer, though the transubstantiation itself is
only of the bread and wine into
the body and blood. Moreover, masses were sanctioned for
the living and the dead, and
for particular individuals, their effect being to remove
the temporal consequences of sin;
and the private masses of the priests were permitted.
The connection between
Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass governs
all the sacramental acts: the
Elevation, the Adoration, the Reservation, the
Circumgestation or procession which
presents the Adorable Presence to the worship of all
beholders
5. The Greek Church differed in some points: retaining
Transubstantiation it imposed
unleavened bread, gave the cup to the laity, and always
administered to children, which
last peculiarity the Western Church had gradually
abandoned
III. Protestantism was mainly a revolt against this
teaching: first against its abuses and
then against its fundamental principles. We must glance
at the forms it assumed after the
Reformation
1. Lutheran Protestantism abolished—that is in its final
form and standard, for the
abolition was very gradual—the Sacrifice of the Mass,
with its concomitants. It retained
the Sacramental Presence of the body and blood of
Christ, but not in the form of
Transubstantiation: the sacramental union was the basis,
and expressed by sub, in, and
cum pane, under, in, and with the elements. Hence the
term Consubstantiation, which
required the doctrine of Ubiquity, or the presence
everywhere of the glorified body of
Christ, after a Divine and celestial manner. The
reception of the elements is by all who
partake the receiving of the corporeity of Christ: but
to the advantage of believers only, as
the sign and seal of remission of sins; to the
unbeliever for condemnation. The
impartation of Christ's glorified humanity is moreover
for the benefit of the whole nature
of man: for the nourishment of his soul and for the
sustentation of the germ of the
resurrection in the body. This view of the Lutheran
doctrine is much developed in its later
theology. The basis of the whole system is the
assumption that the words of institution
must be taken literally, not figuratively: This is My Body; this is My blood.
2. Reformed Protestantism diverged widely from the
doctrine of Luther. It altogether
gave up the Lutheran manducatio oralis, and substituted
the manducatio realis sed
spiritualis; it gave up therefore the hyperphysical or
physical presence. It insisted that
This is My
body meant This
(1.) Zwingli represented the view that tended towards
the merely commemorative design;
but his doctrine went beyond that: Christ to the
contemplation of faith is not only
subjectively but objectively present; and that spiritual
eating of His heavenly body which
is the appropriation of His atoning grace is a
sacramental eating or receiving of the signs
and seals of a present Savior. He rejected the " IN pane
et vino," but would retain the
"CUM pane et vino," and with this a specific sacramental
blessing
(2.) Calvin went much nearer to Lutheranism. What the
elements symbolized was to him
the Person of the Redeemer as well as His atoning work;
and His body as part of His
person. This is received spiritually, but not the less
on that account really: the
communicant is lifted up by faith to heaven, and his
soul is as surely invigorated by the
spiritual body of Christ as his body by the emblems.
With these views perhaps the
Presbyterian Confession and certainly the Anglican
substantially agree
(3.) The Remonstrant Arminians leaned rather to Zwingli
than to Calvin; and perhaps laid
more stress than either upon the commemorative design of
the ordinance. But that they
ought not to be classed with the Socinians and their
descendants, who make the
sacrament only a memorial of the death of Christ,
whatever value that death may have,
will appear from these words of the Remonstrant
Confession: " The holy supper is the
second sacred rite of the New Testament, instituted on
the night of His betrayal, to
celebrate the eucharistical and solemn commemoration of
His death; in which believers,
after they have duly examined themselves and tested
their true faith, eat the holy bread
publicly broken in the congregation, and at the same
time drink the holy wine publicly
poured out, to show forth with solemn thanksgivings the
bloody death of Christ
undergone for us (by which, as our bodies are sustained
with meat and drink, or bread
and wine, so our souls are nourished up into the hope of
eternal life), and to testify
publicly before God and His Church their own vivifying
and spiritual fellowship with the
crucified body and shed blood of Christ (or with Jesus
Christ Himself crucified and dead
for us), and with all the benefits obtained through the
sacrifice of the Redeemer, as well
as their mutual charity towards each other." It is true
that the covenant seal is omitted; but
we must remember what has been already adduced as to the
Arminian doctrine of the
sacraments generally
IV. It remains that we refer to certain modern
tendencies
1. Protestantism has renounced altogether the perversion
of the Eucharist into a
propitiatory sacrifice or mass; as also the perversion
of the mystery of the spiritual
presence into the sacrament of the impartation of the
whole Christ through material
elements that are only the accidents, or bread and wine
without the substance. The
Tridentine dogma is a fundamental violation of the
symbolical and covenant character of
the ordinance, and is refuted in its two main elements
by all that has been shown to be the
New-Testament doctrine
2. But the doctrine of the
3. The Anglican Church retains in her formularies
nothing that favors the Romish error;
but many of the elements of Lutheran, Calvinistic, and
Zwinglian doctrine are combined
The Twenty-eighth Article, however, ought to be
decisive, that " the body of Christ is
given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a
heavenly and spiritual manner: and the
means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten
in the Supper is faith." The
modern theory of comprehension in the English Church
allows all types of doctrine to be
held: but by no just interpretation can the article of
the Real Presence be attributed to that
Church as represented by her authoritative formularies.
The Presbyterian teaching of the
Westminster Confession is substantially the same, and
conformed to the Scripture. But
the notion that the sacrament is only a commemorative
and representative rite is held by
many of the religious communities of England
4. The true doctrine generally is that which bears in
mind the design of the ordinance to
be a sign to the believing Church of all the blessings
purchased by the oblation of the one
sacrifice for sins, and a seal to the believer of his
constant and present interest in those
blessings. Whatever other ends it subserves, as a
perpetual memorial of the life and death
of Christ, as a badge of union among Christian people,
and as a sacred service in which
all holy affections and purposes are quickened, it is
also the abiding exhibition to the eye,
in sensible emblems, of the blood of atonement and the
bread of life, and a sure pledge to
those who accept the propitiation, as it is offered to
penitent and believing faith, of their
present, and constant, and eternal heritage of life in
Jesus, Each of the terms
For the discharge of the offices of worship towards God,
and for the administration of the
means of grace, an order has been set apart: men called
to this function by the Holy
Ghost, approved of the Church by its representatives,
and ordained to office by their
brethren in the same order. The history of this
institution in the New Testament is very
simple, and may be thus summed in its results. First,
the ancient ministry of the Temple
and priesthood was entirely abolished. Secondly, an
irregular vocation appeared in
ministerial gifts and functions which were transitional,
adapted to the days of the
foundation, yet patterns also for future extraordinary
vocations according to the Spirit's
wisdom and the exigencies of the Christian society.
Lastly, the established constitution
takes its final form as an Episcopal or Presbyterial
body described not so much by name
as by office, and in some respect conformed to the model
of the Synagogue: its function
being ministerial, in the Divine service; pastoral, in
the spiritual care of the flock; and
ruling, in the government of the Church. But, simple as
the Scriptural arrangements are,
they assume in historical theology the widest variety of
developments
The ancient Temple, with its typical offerings, having
been done away in Christ, an entire
change takes place in the ministry of the congregation.
There is one High Priest, who
hath passed into the heavens; the whole Church is a
spiritual temple; and all its living
members are a sacrificing priesthood. Whatever the New
Testament says concerning
sacrifice in the new worship either has reference to the
priestly character of all true
believers, or is figuratively applied to the functions
of the ministry. The universal
priesthood of Christianity is, however, only the
New-Testament fulfillment of the typical
priesthood of the entire congregation of Israel. Its
fundamental principle is most
important, as teaching the true dignity and essential
equality of individual Christians, and
the corporate sanctity of the Church whose inalienable
prerogatives are represented by its
ministry. But it has been perverted to the undermining
of a distinct ministerial order, and
therefore requires qualifications and guards
Ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy
nation:
1. There is no separated order of priesthood in the new
service: one is our Priest even
Christ, and all we are priests through fellowship with
Him, presenting through Him as our
Representative our
spiritual sacrifice.
1 1 Pet. 2:5;
2
Heb. 13:10
2. Yet there is a separated ministry in the New
Testament representing the universal
priesthood. While the offices of religious worship are
more or less common to all, in
private and social and public assemblies, there is
provision made for the responsible
presentation of the Church's religious acts of service
and discharge of the Church's
teaching function. After St. Paul and St Peter have
bidden all believers to present their
living sacrifices,
OFFICES EXTRAORDINARY AND TRANSITIONAL
Christianity was founded by the instrumentality of an
extraordinary body of agents, preeminently
endowed and authenticated. Their ministry was
transitional; and, as such,
continued for a season the various extraordinary
administrations of the Holy Ghost under
the old economy, not one of which passed away without
being consummated and
glorified in the service of the New Faith. While their
function was designed to be
transitory, it was at the same time to exhibit the types
of an irregular vocation for special
service according to the will of the Free Spirit in all
ages wisely guiding the destinies of
Christendom
References to all these extraordinary agents are
dispersed through the Acts and the
Epistles; but there are certain passages in which St.
Paul enumerates and describes them
Comparing his words to the Ephesians with those to the
Corinthians we gather that God
set, that Christ gave
1. There are three orders of this original and
extraordinary service: Apostles, Prophets,
and Evangelists
1. The
2. The
1 Acts 2:14-18;
2
1 Cor. 14:3,24,25,20;
3
Eph. 2:20;
4
Eph. 3:5
3. The link between Prophets and
In due time the name was given to the writers of the
Gospels which the first Evangelists
preached: Eusebius seems to have been the first to give
it this application, and it has been
accepted by the consent of Christendom
II. The transitional character of these offices suggests
their connection both with the past
and with the future
1. By them the Old Testament was linked with the New.
The human instruments in the
foundation of both economies are men extraordinarily
appointed and supernaturally
endowed. The Apostles in the New Law answer to Moses in
the Old; the Prophets have
risen again, having begun at the advent of Christ and
not ceased until the foundations of
His kingdom were laid; and the Evangelists correspond
with those great men who
anciently combined the legislative and prophetic
functions. But there is the difference
which the universal mission of the Gospel introduced:
the publishers of the Evangelical
glad tidings were only predicted in the Old Testament
2. In their relation to the future, these offices have,
in the strictest sense, passed away
The Apostles have no successors. Their number was
sealed: Twelve to represent the
tribes of Israel, Matthias having been most solemnly
added to complete their body when
Judas fell from it; and One supernumerary introduced to
represent the Gentile world. If
others, such as Barnabas, seem to bear the name, a
careful examination of the texts will
show that they receive it only in an accommodated sense,
or as appendages of the true
Apostles. The prophetic office also has been withdrawn.
And in the full meaning of the
office there are no longer Evangelists, or men endowed
with a delegated apostolical
authority. But, though they passed away, their relations
to early Christianity cannot be
studied without leaving the impression that the same
Spirit Who set them in the Church
may reproduce their extraordinary influence without
their names and without their
miraculous endowments. We need no other Apostles, for
the Apostolic body rules over us
still; we need no Prophets, for the prophecy is sealed;
but Evangelists, in the spirit and
power of Apostles and Prophets, though not in their
Spirit, —that is, not with their
vocation—will always be needed while the earth is
anywhere covered with the darkness
of heathenism
The New Testament, especially in its latest documents,
makes it certain that a regular and
uniform ministerial constitution was appointed for the
service of the Church after
Apostolical supervision should be withdrawn. This
ministry was divided into two offices:
one, having more particularly the care of the spiritual
interests of the flock, and the other
more particularly that of its temporal or quasi-temporal
affairs. The former is the
Pastorate, the latter the Diaconate; and these two have
been generally retained, though
with different names and varying functions, by most
bodies of Christian people
The term Ministry,
diakonia, is the most comprehensive that can be used. It is
sanctified
by its application to the Lord Himself, Who announced
that He came to minister,
The terms employed to denote the ordinary spiritual
office-bearers of the Christian
community are in their English equivalents Presbyters or
Elders, and Bishops or
Overseers or Superintendents. These, however, constitute
one order in the New
Testament. The functions assigned to them are those of
ministering the Word, and
watching over the flock, and ruling the churches: they
are accordingly called Teachers or
Preachers, Pastors, and Rulers
NAMES
The only official names of a permanent character are
presbuteroi, and episkopoi: the
former being far the more common
1. The New Testament uses these terms interchangeably
for one and the same order of
spiritual officers. The passages which prove this will
also throw light upon the functions
of this undivided order. St. Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the elders
of the church, tous
presbuterous,
2. The differences between the terms are obvious. That
of Elder had reference to age or
dignity, and was derived from Judaism; that of Bishop to
office, and was derived from
the Greeks. There is therefore no office of eldership as
such, but there is of course an
episkopoo: this is mentioned once in a sad
connection,
3. There are some traces of a pre-eminence given to one
member of the Presbyterial
body. During the New-Testament age the Apostles
themselves were absolute in all
churches and over all their affairs: the Evangelists
representing their authority where it
was delegated. But every corporate governing body must
have a head, at least as Primus
inter pares; and in the Apocalypse that one
representative of the presbytery seems to be
pointed out in the
The term Angel is symbolical, probably like Stars,
though in another sense:
FUNCTIONS
The three functions of dispensing the Word of doctrine,
watching over the flock, and
ruling in the congregation, are distinctly laid down
especially in St. Paul's Pastoral
Epistles, to which in this connection it may be
sufficient to refer as containing the sum
and substance of New-Testament teaching on the subject
1. The ministration in Divine service includes the
ordering of worship, administering the
sacraments, and preaching the Word. Here the term
Minister is especially appropriate: as
angels are ministering spirits, so pastors are
ministering men: but both as offering their
liturgical service first to God and then from God. The
responsibility of the due
celebration of worship rests with the Ministry: the
service, that is, whether of prayer or
praise, which has been already described. As the
representatives of the Divine will to the
congregation, the duty of these spiritual officers is to
administer the Sacraments, to
preach the Gospel for conversion, and to teach the souls
by their instrumentality
converted. All this is in their commission, and for all
this they must seek every Divine
and human qualification. In the Gospels and Pastoral
Epistles these endowments are, as
might be expected, amply described
2. The responsibility of the pastoral care springs out
of the former. The feeding of the
flock is the instruction of its members, old and young;
but it is also the vigilant
distributive attention to all its interests in the whole
economy of life. The undershepherds
must imitate the Archipoimoon
Who calleth his own sheep by
name.
3. This pastoral relation passes naturally into what we
have Scriptural authority for
calling the spiritual government of the Church. Its
ministers are called hagoumenoi,
rulers or
proestotes, presidents,
and all its members are bidden to
obey them that have the
rule.
(1.) Such rule as they have is ordained of Christ, and
the solemn sanctions of their
responsibility are connected with the great day when
they must give account to Him who
now walketh in
the midst of the seven golden candlesticks and holdeth their seven stars in
His right hand.
(2.) Their jurisdiction may be said also to be
representative of that of the congregation
itself. Though
there is no power but of God, and the government of the ministry is
included as
ordained of God,
4. This Presbyterial government is one and not divided.
Distinctions between a Teaching
and a Pastoral or Ruling Eldership have been established
in various communities, as will
be hereafter seen;
but the Scripture does not sanction them, for it generally speaks of
ministerial teaching as a necessary part of pastoral
duty. Remember them that had the
rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God.
5. Lastly, these offices of the Presbytery have relation
not only to individual churches but
to congregations of churches. Neither in the Old
Testament nor in the New is there
anything to favor the supposition that a congregation
was ever regarded as isolated and
independent in its government. The unity of the churches
as representing the one Church
appears everywhere: whether in our Lord's use of the
term—first, My church
The first officers whose appointment is mentioned after
Pentecost were set apart as
helpers of the Apostles in the service of tables: the
feasts and charities of the Church. The
Seven originally designated were in all respects an
extraordinary creation; but in due tune
a distinct order is mentioned by the name of Deacons,
whose vocation was, first, to assist
the Presbyters in their several offices generally, and,
secondly, as their assistants, to take
charge of the sick and the poor. To the Deacons
corresponded a much less prominent
order of Deaconesses
1. The Seven were to the subsequent deacons what, as we
have seen, the extraordinary
ministers were to the ordinary. Their appointment was
one of the results of the transitory
community of goods; a temporary expedient out of which a
permanent institution grew
An outpouring of love altogether new and peculiar to the
Christian fellowship demanded
a service of which the ancient economy, temple or
synagogue, had no type. Hence the
men appointed to assist the Apostles were scarcely below
them in spiritual endowments;
and indeed added to these new functions the offices of
preachers and evangelists and
prophets. Certainly nothing in their duties corresponded
with the Minister,
1 Luke 4:20;
2 Acts
21:8
2. The later New Testament mentions the office and
qualifications for the office in such a
manner as to show that it was mainly though not
exclusively secular: the deacon is not
required to be
apt to teach, and the good
degree
They were an order common to all. Their first care was
for the sick and poor; they
dispersed the alms of which the Presbyters were the
treasurers: and sent it to the
elders by
the hands of Barnabas and Saul.
3. The deaconesses constituted a distinct order,
originating in the necessity of the female
portion of the congregation, especially among the
Greeks. The office was strictly like that
of the deacons so far as concerned the care of the poor
and private instruction: it allowed
women to minister in countless ways to the good of the
saints under the direction of the
elders. These seem to be referred to when St. Paul says:
let not a widow be taken into the
number—katalegesthoo, be enrolled—under
threescore years old,
Natural decorum was the ground of his interdict, which
would apply, however, only to
the more public assembly
To this ministry there is a Divine vocation, of the
Spirit; and a human, of the Church
And this vocation is, in the New Testament, generally
sealed by Ordination, through
laying on of the hands of the Presbytery
VOCATION, OR THE CALL
To every service in the Christian fellowship there is a
vocation: the ministerial, whether
pastoral or more administrative, is connected with a
special call, more emphatically
marked than any other on account of its greater
spiritual importance
1. The Divine call is supposed throughout the New
Testament. As in the old economy
no
man taketh this honor unto himself but he that is called
of God,
1 Heb. 5:4;
2
Acts 20:28;
3
2 Cor. 5:18;
4
1 Tim. 3:2-13
2. The vocation on the part of the church is much more
expressly dwelt upon. Generally,
the body of elders or ministers pronounces the call of
the congregation: the Apostles set
apart the deacons; the prophets and teachers
ORDINATION
What is now called ordination took place generally by
imposition of the hands of the
Presbytery. This ceremony was borrowed from Judaism,
being the symbol and medium
of the appointment to office, and the pledge of all
requisite grace for its discharge
1. It was the designation to the sacred business of
their lives. They on whom hands were
laid were set apart as the act of the congregation
representatively performed. Hence it
was the pledge on the part of the Church of the
maintenance of those thus enrolled.
Even
so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the
gospel should live of the gospel:
1 1 Cor. 9:14;
2
1 Pet. 5:2;
3
1 Tim. 3:2
2. On the part of the body of elders it was the formal
admission of the ordained into their
own number: With
the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.
3. On the part of the Spirit it was the pledge of His
bestowment of grace for the discharge
of the duties of the office: that gift, namely, which
St. Paul speaks of as latent or inherent
in Timothy. The laying on of the hands of the Apostles
was never without a specific
blessing: specific as to the blessing, specific also as
to the Apostolic hands. But in every
subsequent age the ministerial
The development of ecclesiastical opinion as to the
function and authority of the
Ministry, or the Power of the Keys, has been bound up
inseparably with the development
of the idea of the Church itself. A few leading points
only will require attention here:
much of the subject belongs to Ecclesiastical history
I. The ante-Nicene distinction between Clergy and Laity
contained the germ of the latter
Hierarchy, with most of its accompanying errors, but
with some striking peculiarities
1. The Apostolical Fathers began the development very
early. The first of them, Clement
of Rome, speaks of the laikos anthropos, the
Their rank was an
2. These beginnings of error are to be traced in another
direction. Almost every doctrinal
deviation from the faith as a whole had its specific
influence on the theory of the
Christian ministry and its relation to the sacrifice of
Christ. So far as Judaizing prevailed
it brought back the sacrifice and the sacrificing
priesthood with the sacrificial altar. The
notion of a necessary external unity pointed to the
supremacy of the bishop as the bond of
union in the individual church, according to Ignatius;
and of the supremacy of one bishop
to secure the unity of all the churches. Even the
wholesome doctrine of Catholicity, in
opposition to schisms and heresy, tended the same way.
The Power of the Keys, which
originally guarded the purity of the fellowship, became
to the clergy a great temptation;
and tended, together with the exaggerated notion of the
mysteries of which they had the
keys, to invest their character with an unevangelical
prerogative. In the second century
two views predominated on this subject: one which made
the binding and loosing
identical with retaining and forgiving sin; and another
which made it refer more generally
to all ecclesiastical authority. Both, however, took a
high stand on this subject. Cyprian
asserted that the power of the keys was entrusted first
to Peter and then to the other
Apostles: making that difference between the two on
which so great a superstructure has
since been raised. The prescriptions of penance for
Peccata Mortalia, or sins which
threatened spiritual life, with the excommunication and
reconciliation or reception into
the Church again by absolution, did not before the time
.of Augustine give the priest
more than the authority of intercession as the
representative of the congregation. Leo the
Great did much to exalt the priestly independent power
as his own official prerogative
Confession was not as yet made to the priests under
obligation; and, while the binding
and loosing had some reference to Divine forgiveness, it
had more to certain
ecclesiastical privileges. Public expulsions from the
church on Ash-Wednesday, and
public receptions afterwards on the Ascension Thursday,
were usages of Rome in the
fifth century. These gave place during the Middle Ages
to private penance and private
absolution
II. From the time of Constantine to the
Reformation—twelve hundred years—there was a
steady development of the germs of error observable in
the first centuries. The main
points only need be here noted: to follow them out into
their details belongs rather to
ecclesiastical history
1. Though some of the highest authorities—Jerome,
Chrysostom, Theodoret—asserted
the original identity of bishops and presbyters, the
episcopal order came to be regarded as
representative of Christ and the Apostles, the special
organs and instruments of the Holy
Ghost. The bishops assumed the sole right to ordain, and
in the West to confirm: their
hands alone being supposed to communicate the sealing
grace of the Gospel
2. When Christianity was made the religion of the empire
the ministry of the Church
became in the strictest sense a
These long contended for the mastery; but Rome finally
gained the victory. R
3. The Jewish priesthood and worship had gradually
become the model of the Christian
service. Ordination was accompanied with oil: this being
to the special priesthood what
baptism was to the universal priesthood, and, like
baptism, having a Character Indelibilis
By slow degrees every trace of popular election and
confirmation passed away; and the
clergy virtually became the church. Their sole
administration of the sacraments, the
number of which gradually increased, gave them more than
the ancient Jewish priestly
ascendancy. The central service of the Unbloody
Sacrifice was waited on by priests
clothed in vestments surpassing those of the Temple
service in variety of symbolical
meaning, and concentrated on them all the confidence and
awe which the Levitical
priesthood inspired
4. Seminaries of ministerial instruction—of which the
Catechetical School at Alexandria
was the model—abounded in the East from the fourth
century. In the West there were
many such schools privately set up by the bishops: such
as the Monasterium Clericorum
of Augustine. But the majority of the clergy were found
to be profoundly ignorant as ages
rolled on; although their ignorance was not so universal
as is sometimes represented
5. The history of Monasticism is only indirectly
connected with that of the ministry
Asceticism marked the private life of many of the clergy
from the beginning; in the
fourth century this became Anchoretism or hermit life
separated from the world
(anachoreo to
retire, erouia a desert);
thence came the coenobite or cloister life, or
monasticism proper, the ascetic life organized (koinos
bios vita communis, common life);
and in the middle ages the monastic orders were the
climax. The vows of poverty,
chastity, and obedience undertaken by them all were not
of themselves ministerial. The
monks were Religiosi but not therefore necessarily
Clerici until the tenth century
6. The Mediaeval doctrine of the Keys underwent much
development; and was finally
completed by Thomas Aquinas. He distinguished between
the Potestas (and the Clavis)
Ordinis and the Potestas (and the Clavis)
Jurisdictionis: the former opening heaven
directly, the latter through the excommunication and
absolution dispensed in the
ecclesiastical forum. The sacramental power of the Keys
became the centre of the
sacrament of penance. Absolution, according to the final
doctrine, procures forgiveness
of sins. The opus operans of the penitent's repentance
is followed by a pardon ex opere
operato. But as judge in foro Dei, the priest can give
absolution only as passing judgment
on the reality of the penitence. This must after all,
even in this doctrine of the Keys, be
left conditional and with God alone
7. The full Roman Catholic doctrine places the
administration of grace in the hands of an
Ordo Sacerdotalis; an ecclesiastical hierarchy jure
divino—with its Clerus Minor rising to
the Clerus Major—which in its stricter sense the bishops
really form, culminating in one
visible Head, the successor of St. Peter and the
representative of Christ on earth. The
Church is represented by general councils, consisting of
the collective episcopate
summoned and presided over by the Pope, who has the
Suprematus Jurisdictionis over all
bishops. By the same Divine right the Church—the
authority of which the Vatican
Council of 1870 has really vested in its Head—has the
Potestas Ordinis, magisterii and
ministerii, the ordering of all doctrine and worship;
the Potestas Jurisdictionis, that is the
Potestas Clavium or Power of the Keys, the authority to
dispose of all the treasures of the
grace of Christ; the Potestas Regiminis, or religious
authority over the world, which
however is an authority always, to a greater or less
extent, in conflict with the Potestas
Saecularis
III. The general principle introduced by the Reformation
was this, that the living church
is the subject and source and centre of all power: that
the Potestas Clavium, or Power of
the Keys, was committed by Christ to the Apostles as His
representatives, and through
them to the universal body. The ministerial function or
office is of Divine appointment;
but its various forms and names are of human
arrangement. As human and Divine at
once, the ministry is representative of the whole
Church, acting through it and in it and
devolving upon it its rights
1. The Lutheran doctrine was higher than that of the
Reformed. It connected the
ministerial office more expressly with the
2. The Reformed type of doctrine was more rigorous. It
laid more stress on ecclesiastical
discipline, which it reckoned among the notes of the
true Church; and rejected private
confession and absolution altogether. It introduced a
more stringent theory of the equality
of pastors. By the side of the Ministri Docentes it
placed the Ministri Ministrantes or Layelders
who represented the Church in another sense and in
matters of economy and
discipline: set apart, and generally ordained, but not
to teach
3. The Anglican doctrine of the Ministry, established at
the Reformation, differed in some
respects from both these. It retained Episcopacy with
the name of Bishop and its special
prerogatives: which Lutheranism disguised under the name
of Superintendents and
reduced it to a mere human expedient. It retained the
Hierarchy, as adapted to a territorial
and national religion. It went further than the other
bodies in its interpretation of the
Power of the Keys: using language as to the private
absolution of the minister which at
least in some of its services is more than merely
declarative and significative. The
presbyter is also styled priest by an equivocal
abbreviation of the word. And, lastly, the
Anglican doctrine assumes a special gift and influence
of the Holy Spirit in ordination:
though the strictly sacramental character of orders is
denied, it lays much stress, and
rightly so, on the express provision of grace provided
for every ministerial function
IV. It will suffice to indicate the theological points
involved in these several tendencies:
as they affect, that is, doctrine concerning the
Christian Ministry
1. The Hierarchical tendency has reached its natural
consummation in the dogmatic
definition of Papal Infallibility in 1870. The Pontiff,
or Bishop of Rome, or Pope,
speaking ex cathedra, that is, avowedly pronouncing the
mind of the Church, or of the
Spirit in the Church, is the infallible oracle of truth.
Thus the long controversy as to the
meaning of the Keys being given to St. Peter before they
were given to the Apostolic
company, seems to be settled, though in a manner
inconsistent with other parts of the
New Testament. It is forgotten that the special
authority given to Peter, that of first
opening the kingdom of heaven to Jews and Gentiles, and
decreeing what was binding on
the Church, and declaring the terms of forgiveness, —the
Power of the Keys— was never
arrogated by him for himself alone, or even as superior
to the rest; and that he declared
only that God
made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word
of the gospel,
2. From the time of the Reformation there has been a
reaction against the Hierarchy
which has in some communities gone to extremes. The
3. The Catholic Apostolic Church strives to combine
almost all the theories already
alluded to. Its ministry is one of charismata, or gifts,
restored according to the pattern in
the Corinthian Epistles, and the Epistles of the
Revelation. Its Power of the Keys is very
similar to that of the Romanists. Its priestly service
seeks to go back to the early ages;
but halts midway
4. The importance of the Laity or general body of the
congregation has been in modern
times steadily more and more acknowledged. The abuse of
terms which made the church
and the clergy synonymous has passed away to a great
extent; though its effect is not nor
is it likely to be entirely removed. It is more and more
generally acknowledged that
laymen may act as Evangelists towards the world, and
even as teachers within the church;
that they may be employed in instruction of children, or
as catechists; that they may read
the Scriptures, publicly and privately; that they may
sustain manifold offices more or less
spiritual; that they may mainly direct the financial
affairs of the community; and that they
ought to be representatives in many ecclesiastical
courts of the economics of the Church
There are excesses in this direction, which go to the
extreme opposite of the hierarchical
excesses. Such is the lay power which is retained by the
constitution of the established
church as a final appeal. Such is the lay-representation
in the Presbyterian government
proper: ruling elders, chosen for life, in the
presbyteries, synods, and general assemblies
These presbyters—laymen in all other respects, and
representatives of the lay element—
have a voice in matters which affect the ministerial
jurisdiction as such. This applies also
to several of the minor Methodist bodies not professedly
Presbyterian. In the
congregational system the power of the Pastor as such is
reduced to a very slight element
in comparison with that of the body of the laity
5. Methodism is in regard to its doctrine and practice
on this subject eminently high at
once and free. It is Presbyterian as to the basis of its
theory: its ministers are of one order
only, its Conference being composed of representatives
of the Presbytery of the body of
Societies or Churches forming the Connexion. It is
episcopal, after the earliest type
Augustine says (de Civ. xix. 19): Episcopatus nomen est
operis, non honoris. Graecum
est enim, atque inde ductum vocabulum, quod ille qui
praeficitur eis, quibus praeficitur,
superintendit, curam eorum, scilicet gerens, epi quippe super, skopos, intentio est: ergo,
episkopein latine
THE CHURCH IN ITS RELATION TO THE WORLD,
The Church of Christ, at once visible and invisible,
exists to continue and perfect the
work which He began. It is His organ for the preparation
of His final kingdom. As such it
has a twofold relation to those without: first, to
maintain itself, in the midst of the world,
as the depositary and witness of saving truth; secondly,
to win the world to the obedience
of Christ, as a Missionary Institute
Some of the topics here indicated have been already more
or less fully discussed. Some
of them must be reserved for Eschatology. But the view
or the Administration of
Redemption would not be complete without some general
remarks here on the three
branches of this subject
The Church, as an organization in the world but not of
it, is the depositary and guardian
and witness of the truth. The truth which it has
received is the standard of its faith and
discipline; as it respects both individual Churches and
union of Churches on whatever
principles united
1. One of the chief prerogatives of the ancient people
was that unto them were committed
the oracles of God.
To show that the cause of God was not absolutely
dependent on the complete Canon, that
canon took centuries for its determination. But it was
completed for the long future; and
no individual church is faithful which either adds to or
takes from the collection of the
sacred oracles. Further it is also the guardian of the
truth which is derived from Scripture
One end of its existence is contradiction of error as it
arises: hence, the variations of dogmatic
definition in Creeds and Formularies, The
2. The individual churches have been raised up to bear
witness to sundry and several
neglected elements of the truth: it being manifestly the
mind of the Spirit that the
denominations should act as mutual restraints and
excitements. It was not His will that
there should be uniformity in the Confessions of
Christendom: when that uniformity
existed for a season corruption was at the door. He
administers the Work of Christ by
unity in essentials, and mutual antagonism in things of
less moment
3. But it is also the doctrine of Scripture that even
the truth as it is in Jesus is not in this
world to be revealed in all its fullness. For we know in part.
The Church of Christ exists for the sake of the spread
of the Gospel through the world: it
is in virtue of its original commission a missionary
body. Its obligation rests upon all
individual Societies and all their members. With the
fulfillment of this commission the
functions of the Church will cease: the kingdom of
Christ will more and more fully be
revealed; until by His coming it will be translated from
a kingdom of grace to a kingdom
of glory
The doctrine of Vocation has brought out the distinction
of the Christian Church, that it
has received a commission for all nations: partly, in
contradistinction to the limitation of
the Theocracy; partly as the term and goal of its own
mission
1. Hence the preaching of the Gospel was the revelation of the mystery
2. No truth concerning the mission of Christianity has
been so unfaithfully dealt
with by the Church itself. Until the Roman Empire became
Christian, missions, the
record of which are lost, were vigorously conducted. But
from that time down to the
Reformation they were affected by two evils, which
however did not hinder the spread of
Christianity. The faith was propagated to a great extent
by the agency of the civil power;
it was diffused in its corrupt form, and sometimes by
heretics: but the foundations were
everywhere laid on which a better superstructure was
afterwards upreared. The
Reformation was not mindful enough of the missionary
obligation: the English Church
organized her missions only for the sake of her colonies
in the seventeenth century; the
Lutheran Church made energetic beginnings in the Danish
mission; but it was the Romish
Propaganda that showed most vigor
3. With this century began the Missionary era proper,
after the preparations of the last
century. It is now acknowledged by most Christian
communities that the churches exist
as such in order to the preparation and diffusion of the
kingdom of Christ among men
In strange contrast with this is the fact that there are
some communities, and many
individuals in other communities, who believe that the
diffusion of the Gospel is a
subordinate matter; and that the destruction of His
enemies and the establishment of His
kingdom must be effected by the visible reappearance of
the Lord, Who will for a
thousand years before the end reign upon earth. But the
uniform tenor of the New
Testament declares that this Gospel is to be preached in
all the earth, to every creature,
and that Christ's presence with His missionary Church
will continue always to the end of
the world. This subject will return in the last section,
that of Eschatology
The New Testament ends as it began, with the Kingdom of
God and of Christ. That
kingdom is the kingdom of heaven, as being in its origin
not of this world. It is the
kingdom of heaven on earth, as the spiritual authority
that is already pervading human
society. It is the kingdom of heaven also as the final
form into which all the individual
Churches of Christ upon earth shall melt. It is the
kingdom absolutely as it is the one
manifestation of Christ's mediatorial rule, which had
its earlier Old-Testament stage of
preparation in Israel, its New-Testament fulfillment
among Israel and the Gentiles, and
will have its glorious consummation at the Coming of the
Lord
1. The one
basileia, or Kingdom, was established in Israel and as a
2. The kingdom of grace coincides with the Church, as it
has been exhibited in its united
visibility and invisibility, good and evil combined. The
kingdom, during the interval until
the coming of the Lord, is, however, mainly regarded as
invisible. Our Lord speaks of it
as already come:
behold, the kingdom of God is within you;
3. The kingdom even now has in some respects the
preeminence. It is the subject of most
of our Lord's parables. Many of the prerogatives and
privileges which are too often
assigned to the Church really belong to the Kingdom. It
is, for instance, the supreme good
which must be sought and purchased, at the cost of all
that we have: the treasure hid in
a
field, and the
one pearl of great price.
Whatever glorious things are said of the Church, it
after all carries with it a reference to
the evil world whence it came: a glorious church, not having spot or
wrinkle, or any such
thing.
4. It is this kingdom that is an everlasting kingdom.
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
-
Site Navigation
Home
What's New
Bible
Photos
Hiking
E-Books
Genealogy
Profile
Free Plug-ins You May Need
Get Java.png)
Get Flash
Get 7-Zip
Get Acrobat Reader
Get TheWORD