— Zaiea, Bees | MeooctooetooesooSovoogooctoo oon GonGoogongonoogoro iy LIBRARY ; ' REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN SEMINARY, & Sif Of Allegheny City. 4 4 , $ Class... cases Me... BO 61. ‘ { Tnesented by § : lgegeertpepepeteeet Uphic te, Adenrtad 9 19 AGH >, CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY uM j DISCUSSIONS CHURCH POLITY, FROM THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE “PRINCETON REVIEW.” BY CHARLES HODGE, D. D. SELECTED AND ARRANGED BY THE REV. WILLIAM DURANT, WITH A PREFACE BY ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER HODGE, D.D. NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS, 743 AND 745 BROADWAY, Copyright, 1878. BY CHABLES SCRIBNER’S SONS. &7 GRANT, FAIRES & RODGERS, Electrotypers & Printers, 52 & 64 North Sixth St., Philadelphia. PREFACE. In 1835 my father began to write a series of annual articles, in review of the action of each successive General Assembly, in which he furnished a brief narrative of the proceedings, and discussed the doctrinal and ecclesiastical principles involved. He contributed each of the articles of this series which appeared in the Princeton Review from 1835 to 1868, with the exception probably of that of 1841. They, therefore, contain an exposition of his views of the fundamental principles underlying the constitution of the Church and its adminis- tration, and of the practical application of these principles to the various historical conditions experienced by the American Presbyterian Church during that long period. In 1845 he began to lecture to his classes in the Seminary on the topics embraced under the general head of Ecclesiology, and eventually lectured over the whole ground embraced in this department. At that time it was apparently his purpose to prepare for publication an exhaustive treatise on the subject, defending Presbyterian Church order in view of the present attitude of its Prelatic and Independent oppo- nents. His manuscripts disclose the fact that these lectures were more than once rewritten, and articles substantially identical with several of them were published in the Princeton Review in successive years from 1846 to 1857. After the publication of his Systematic Theology, he often expressed the desire that he might be permitted to complete that work by the addition of a fourth volume embracing the department of Ecclesiology; but he was prevented by the infirmities incident to his advanced age. And it is with reluctance that his representatives now iii iv PREFACE. relinquish the hope of publishing these papers in a connected form, from the conviction that they have no right to publish in his name that which his own judgment regarded as too imperfectly elaborated. In the meantime, the Rev. William Durant, of Albany, N. Y., an intelligent and enthusiastic pupil of my father, was struck with the vast amount of valuable discussion of Church principles and their practical applications, contained in these articles. He believed that if selections from these discussions were judiciously made and systemati- cally grouped, a work of great value might be offered to the ministry, and to those intelligent laymen who are interested in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs. He consequently accomplished this work with the cordial approval of my father. After its completion, at the request of Mr. Durant, I subjected his work to a general review, and have now entire confidence in thus publicly testifying to my.conviction that in the selection and arrangement of extracts, the reader of this work will have a fair, and, as far as the circumstances admit, an adequate exposition of my father’s views, expressed in his own language, on all the subjects set. forth in the table of contents. This table of contents itself discloses the wide range and the thorough analysis embraced in these discussions; and hence the very considerable contribution made in this volume to the elucidation of the subject set forth on its title page. A. A. HODGE. Princeton, N. J., Sepr. 10rn, 1878. CONTENTS. PREFACE List oF SELECTIONS IN THE ORDER OF PUBLICATION PART I. PRELIMINARY PRINCIPLES. Intropuctory Notes To “ GENERAL ASSEMBLY ” ARTICLES.+...sssssssseres-assesscsesssessnsseesooens CHAPTER I. IpEA oF THE CHURCH. CHAPTER II. THEORIES OF THE CHURCH CHAPTER III. VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH CHAPTER IV. PERPETUITY oF THE CHURCH CHAPTER V. PrincipLes or Courcy UNIoN CHAPTER VI. PRovINcE oF THE CHURCH. CHAPTER VII. RELATION OF THE CHURCH AND STATE. CHAPTER VIII. PRESBYTERIANISM. PAGE. iii 5-38 38-55 55-67 67-88 89-100 100-106 106-118 118-133 vi CONTENTS. CHAPTER IX. PACE. Tue CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND PRESBYTERIAN ORDERS..ccomsesesssossessssonsessssssessessrsoesersrs 134-156 CHAPTER X. PrespyTERIAN LITURGIES....-- 157-167 PART II. x APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. CHAPTER XI. Hrerory AnD INTENT oF CONSTITUTION steceenee 171-189 CHAPTER XII. A ParticuLaR CHURCH... oats 190-242 Section 1.—The Geasion a pbiitbieie are e Chureh Mem bersunseesssssceasessnccsesessseeesesaeeee 190 “ 2,.—Validity of Romish Baptism......... weeises 191 “ — 3,--Infant Members Subjects of Discipline. 215 4.—Terms of Communion: a, The Lord’s Table for the Lord’s People... 218 b. Credible Evidence of Conversion alone required 218 6, Temperance Question ....csesssesseccrsessecscees sores 224 d. Marriage Question...sssssseesseseses 231 Section 5.—Dismission of Members to other Churches....... Nasisesegtea® 236 “ 6—Withdrawal from the Communion 239 CHAPTER XIII. Crurcn OFFic’ 242-300 Section 1.—Title of Bishop 242 “ 2,—Who may vote in the Election of a Pastor.........ssessere absocitessssassees ade 244 “ 3.—Support of the Clergy 247 “« 4.—Warrant and Theory of Ruling Eldership. 262 “ 6§.—Rights of Ruling Elders........sssssssseree 271 “ 6—Whether Ruling Elders may join in the Imposition of. Hands awit Ministers are ordained..... ai 288 “ 4,—Significance of Laying-on of Hands eiseae 295 “ g,—Installation not essential to Validity of Eldership......... 295 “ 9.—Right of Elders to exhort and expound the Scriptures 298 “ 10.—Relative Powers of Elders and Deacons. 299 CHAPTER XIV. Tue PrespyTERY. sestiscceanorasoonver ODESSA iBection. 1—Quorum of Presbytery: 300 2.—Ordination by less than three Ministers...........cs00 5 B05 “ 3.—Presbytery judges the a are of Members .. 307 « " 4,—Length of Study before Ordination... 314 “ 6.—Ordination sine titulu 314 4G —Reordination....ccccseesseesresseeeseeneecscsseneseerees 316 “ 7—Adoption of the Confession of Faith a. In Reply to certain Strictures...sssccsssecesssersessseccessssneeceestssseeereay 317 b, In View of the Reunion 335 CONTENTS. Section 8.—Church Membership of Ministers... “9,—Ministers without Pastoral Charge.. “ 10.—Demission of the Ministry, “ 11.—Commissions of Presbyteries and Synods. “ 12.—Supervision of vacant Churches CHAPTER XV. THE GeneRAL AssEMBLY ae enee conser eee Borvieades Section 1.—Commissioners: . Assembly judges the Qualifications of its Members....csce-csssscessee . Disputed Elections...... . Irregular Commissions aahease . Case of an Elder who had ceased to act......seeee “ . Commissioners excluded pending Investigation. . Reduction of Representation.......... Section 2—Manner of Conducting Business... “ 3.—Power to act by Commission.......... “ 4—Decisions and Deliverances on Doctrines: a. General Remark... wise ate aesbeeweean a Testimony aenuiet Erioneaiis Publications . Church Commentary on the Bible... Section i eopermeenasnes A a, Disposal of the Members of a dissolved Presbytery....csssssssssesee b. Exclusion of the Synod of Western Reserve. c. Report on the Presbytery of Louisville d, Power to remove Sentence Section 6.—General Agencies: a, Voluntary Societies and Church Boards b. Warrant for the Boards....sssesrccsrerseesees c. Relations of Boards to Preskyteries.. line ndanabpadeseseusadtnuedepisemnenucs d. Board of Education may condition Aid on Length of Study. € Parochial Scho018.....scesssssscesscnsscesseeenevansoeanenus sae eee canoes se Section 7.—Correspondence with other Churches... .ccsssssssssesessseceoreececses ssscesnnee Me arog CHAPTER XVI. Discrrrine Section 1.—Revision of the Book: a, Need of Revision... b. Effective Methods for Revision........cccscssssesssssscssrecsesseccestes sesseeceee Section 2.—Citation of Judicatories inte “ 3.—Appeals and Complaints: a. Appeals in Cases not Judicial.....csscccsocssseeccseessevssssesescssees PAGE. 342 343 345 353 362 364-456 364 365 366 366 368 370 73 374 377 380 6. Review of a Decision that Appeals cannot lie exceptin vd udicial Cases 485 c. Legitimate Grounds of Complaint. d. In favor of a Commission to try Appeals and Complaints.. Section 4.—Decisions may confirm or reverse in part.. “ §,—Finality of the Assembly’s Judicial Decisions. InvEX..... LIST OF SELECTIONS IN THE Order of their Publication in the Princeton Review, YEAR.| PAGE AND TITLE IN THE REVIEW. TITLE IN CHURCH POLITY. PAGES. 1835 | 440} General Assembly. Introductory Note....ccccceeees 3 1835 | 443 as “ “Right of Dr. Edson to] Commissioners; Case of an 1S Seat. secersesesceee Elder who had ceased to Clererrrsorecscenseceseccrsecs cesses 366-368 1835 | 461 “ v “ Pittsburg Memorial.” Presbytery judges the Quali- fications of its Members. | 307-313 1836 | 469 7 . “Pittsburg Memorial.”| Testimony against Errone- ous Publications............. | 378-380 835 | 4 * o “Ministers without : m Pastoral Charge.”...] Same titlo.sssssssssecssesssceesees 343-345 18937 | 101 | Voluntary Societies and Ecclesiastical Or- GANIZALIONS .ersererersesserennvensncorerssoeeeree| EH gar gs 1837 | 407 | General Assembly, fo0t-NOte...ereereeeereree! Introductory Note.s.sseresssee 4 1837 | 411 ¥s * snssnenee «| Assembly’s Deliverances on DOCtriNC..caccrecssscrssscrseseeee 3I7 1887 | 436 es s “Citation of Judicato- THOS.” seoressersesverroe one] GAME bitle.sscssesssseneeseeeee reese 461-470 8; “ a “Exclusion of the Sy- ey | ae nod of Western Re- BOTVO."eecsssesersessseree| Eo asnsenceceeretsneeee | 385-399 1837 | 476 “ € seeesessssressennsesssereesensoores! Disposal of the Members of a Dissolved Presbytery... | 384-385 1838 | 463 i “Reviewing “A Review of the Leading Measures of the Assembly of| History and Intent of Con- 1837, by a Member of the New York Bar.” Stitution ........008 asbouiassbaas’s 171-189 1838 | 490 From the Same ssccescsrsscsrssessrvoscerersseeeeenes| Assembly Judges the Quali- fications of its Members.. 364 1838 | 492 | General Assembly..er.cscrcrersssecoeseserrseeeeeee| COMMissioners Excluded Pending Investigation.... | 368-370 1839 | 429 a“ a “Complaint of A.D.Met- : ealf and others against’ the Synod of Virginia.”| Appealsin Casesnot Judicial | 470-484 1840 | 413 « = eneccossscenanacsccsereneyssesesnses Correspondence with other ChUrche...crocrcrreereccoserees | 454-456 1840 | 415 “ « seosssseesnccsetserecererseresreeese| Decisions may Confirm o: Reverse in Part... oa 499 1840 | 689 | Discourse on Religion by Mr. Coit............| Terms of Communion; Cred- ible Evidence of Conver- sion alone Required........ | 218-224 1842 | 479 | General Assembly; “Hasty Ordinations, and Unauthorized Demission of the Ministry.” -| Ordination, sine titulo.. 314-316 1842 | 481 | General Assembly ; same topic... .| Supervision of Vacant ~ Churches ...... ssssmeceees | 362, 363 1842 | 482 | Gen’l Assembly, “Imposition of Hands.”| Significance of Laying-on of Hands.. 3 295 Lord’s People....s.cscsesseone x LIST OF SELECTIONS FROM PRINCETON REVIEW. YEAR.| PAGE AND TITLE OF THE REVIEW. TITLE IN CHURCH POLITY. PAGES. 1843 | 313 | Rights of Ruling Elders. Same title 271-287 1843 | 408 | General Assembly. “Disputed Elections.”| — sssssossssasseee sssseasese 365 1843 | 421 “ fe “Church Membership of Ministers.” fey Gis 342 1845 | 432 ” # “Ruling Elders.”.........| Whether Ruling Elders may] d join in the Imposition of ‘ands when Ministers BPO OTdained...rereerceereee| 288-294 1843 | 444 « Le “Quorum of Presbyt’y.”| Same title .........secoesoreeeeree] 300-805 1843 | 450 “ . “Marriage Question.”.., Terms of Communion; same ALLO seccccrsesnereeecarssserssesereee! 231-936 1843 | 457 “ - “Case of the Rey. Arch-| Power of Assembly to Re- ibald McQueen.”.... MOVE Sentence....ccveeees| 414-417 1843 | 461 © “Temperance Quest’n.”| Terms of Communion ; same © UEC wcecceresscececsessecnneersenee| 294-037 “eee and Complaint} Legitimate Grounds of Com- 1944 | 424 * s of R. J. Breckinridge PIA acsaiierswccan senabesninss 490-498 and others.”.....sseer| 1844 | 446 se «" “Board of Education.”| Conditioning Aid on Length 445-447 of Study. 1845 | 444 “s * “ Romish Baptism.”...... Validity of Romish Baptism] 191-915 1846 | 137 | Theories of the Church ../Same title 88-55 ' 1846 | 418 | General Assembly; “Title of Bishop.”.....] “! { sessecsessnscsesseceesensnsece 242, 243 1846 | 433 ee Ce “Parochial Schools."| “ “* sesassensssenesrceeseneee eee] 447-454 1847 | 360 | Support of the Clergy ai 247-262 1847 | 397 | General Assembly, “ Reduction of Repre- sentation... OF seneveeseneimnmnaeninisite 370-373 1847 | 400 be - “ Commissions of Pres- byteries &Synods."| “ “ ., 353-362 1847 | 411 ae “The McQueen Case.”| Finality of the Assembly's Judicial Decisions.. 500-507 1848 | 408 = e “Right of Church] Same title... .| 239-949 Members to withdraw from the Com- " munion of the Church..... fesassie 1848 | 416 | General Assembly ; “ Dr. Skinner's Appeal Review of a Decision that from the Decision of the Synod of Appeals cannot lie except Virginia”.. sieseeel itn in Judicial Cases..........+ 485-490 1850 | 468 | General Assembly; “Overture No. 3,—on| The Session says who are Church Members.”... sas Church Members............ 190, 191 1850 | 477 | General Assembly ; ‘ Ordination.”............] Ordination by less than three Ministers........ccorcssseover-| 805-307 1851 | 550 © * “Dismission of Mem- : bers to other Churches......... Same title. 236-239 1852 | 497 | General Assembly ; “ Reordination.”........ Bie UL pdsneensonainsteseitens coud 316 1853 | 249 | Idea of the Church... frtemcusemnnnen| "" “F seesisnniesaaititen oeenens 5-38 1853 | 451 | General Assembly, “Irregular Commis- s ‘ BlONS wieecsreevesvrseces| SE OM. tee vcs cisesbentesccwcccce 366 1853 | 452 se “ “ Overtures.”....00000---.| The Lord’s Table for the 218 LIST OF SELECTIONS FROM PRINCETON REVIEW. xi YEAR. |PAGE AND TITLE IN THE REVIEW. TITLE IN CHURCH POLITY. PAGES. 1853 | 496 | General Assembly, “ Board of Missions.”...| Relations of Boards and Presbyteries.......csscseevee | 443-445 1853 | 527 s se “Complaint of James} In Favor of a Commission to Russell”... try Appeals and Complaints | 498, 499 1853 | 670 | Visibility of the Church Same title 55-67 1854 | 377 | The Church of England and Presbyterian Orders. ses | FE paantisestemininiannomny || 2OEeLO8 1855 | 445 | Presbyterian Liturgies. HSM scstesevhssa(nvsesacescavas: | LOTLEZ 1856 | 502 | General Assembly, “ Commissions.”.........| Power of Assembly to act by Commission ..-..ssseeecee. | 374-377 1856 | 582 7 “Judicial Cases.”......) Need of Revision of Book of Discipline......s.eceerreereee | 456-459 1856 | 586 “ a sceseoreasessesecsscttsesseeeoeees| LOStallation not Essential to Validity of Eldership...... | 295-298 1856 | 689 | The Church—Jts Perpetuity.....ssseovseeses .| Perpetuity of the Church.... | 67-88 1857 | 471 | General Assembly ; “ Relative Powers of Elders and Deacons.”| Same title......sssssesseseecee eee 239 1857 | 487 “« « &Ri ight of Elders to Ex- hort and Expound the Scriptures...) — sccsesssseeesnesseeee 298 1858 | 559 General Assembly ; “ Church Commentary ‘ OD the Bible.” ......ssossseseeseeseeseresseees Hee 380-384 1858 | 669 | Adoption of the Confession of Faith.......... me ee 317-335 1859 | 360 | Demission of the Ministry...) “ * 345-363 1859 | 603 | General Assembly; “Revised Book of| Infant Members Subjects of Discipline.” Discipline. 215-217 1859 | 607 | General Assembly; “Colonization and ‘ Theory of the Church.”| Province of the Church....... | 100-106 1860 | 511 ss a a Reorganization of ie Boards.” .....e0...| Warrant for the Boards....... | 435-443 1860 | 546 | Presbyteri Same title. 118-133 1863 | 482 | General Assembly j ....c0ressesesceranseesesesesreres.) Who may Vote in the Elec-- tion Of Pastor.......-ccesece | 244-247 1863 | 493 te s dessnasuid cocci eabatt sesteasea Tenens of ehidy before Or- AtION....ccerereeee aiveaestes . 314 1863 | 498 ae & sesesecensecsersreceerscoveesseeens| Manner of Conducting Busi- TOSS seececeeasscoencnens a tneesescasi . 373 . 1863 | 679 | Relation of the Church and State. Same title 106-118 1864 | 513 | General Assembly; “Revised Book of| Effective Methods for Revi- Discipline.”....scovrsessescsscccasscercorssscanees BION seeressee ccscerecrsenevsereees | 459-461 1865 | 271 | Principles of Church Union and Reunion of the Old and New School Presbytersans..| Principles of Church Union | 89-100 1866 | 454 | General Assembly ; “Report on the Pres-| Same title....ecsrssesessesseeres | 399-413 bytery of Louisville.” ...sssssssssceseses 1867 | 606 | General Assembly, “ Reunion.”’.......+.0...| Adoption of the Confession . Of Faith ......cseccreeen avessnare | BS5—B42 The Elder Question, a pam let, signed Warrant and Theory of Rul- foe an — orevevensen ing Eldership......sewesese | 262-271 PART I, —_—__ PRELIMINARY PRINCIPLES. INTRODUCTORY NOTES TO THE i ANNUAL ARTICLES ON “THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ;” IN THE “PRINCETON REVIEW,” 1835 anv 1837. Durrne the sessions of the late General Assembly of our Church, so many subjects of interest were brought under discussion, that a brief review of the more important of these topics may perhaps be both acceptable and useful. The principles involved in the settlement of these questions are likely to be called up in subsequent Assemblies, and must influence, to a greater or less degree, the action of all infe- rior judicatories. It is, therefore, a matter of importance to have the grounds on which certain measures were advocated and opposed spread before the ministers and elders of the Church. We propose, therefore, to notice the most important questions debated and deter- mined by the last Assembly, and to present a general view of the arguments on both sides. We are well aware that this is a difficult and delicate task. Our dependence for information must be almost exclusively on the reports of the debates published in the religious journals, which are confessedly very imperfect. * * * * * * * * * Were these papers in the hands of all our readers, and did they pre- sent the information which we wish to communicate in a form as con- venient for preservation and reference as the pages of a Quarterly Review, we might well spare ourselves the labour of this digest. But this not being the case, we feel we shall be rendering an acceptable service in reducing within as small a compass as possible a view of the more important discussions of the supreme judicatory of our Church. There is one other preliminary remark that we wish to make. While 3 a 4 INTRODUCTORY NOTES. we shall aim at perfect impartiality we do not expect fully to attain it. It is next to impossible, in presenting the arguments for and against any particular measure, not to exhibit those which strike the writer’s own mind with the greatest force, with more clearness and effect than those of an opposite character. Our readers therefore must make due allowance on this score, and remember, as an apology for occasional inaccuracy, the comparative scantiness of the sources of information at our command. [Princeton Review, 1835, p. 440.] * ok * * * * * * * It may be proper to repeat what we have said on former occasions, that it is not the object of these accounts of the proceedings of the Assembly, to give the minutes of that body, or to record all the motions and debates, but simply to select the topics of most importance, and to give the best view we can of the arguments on either side. We make no pretensions to indifference or neutrality. The arguments of those from whom we differ we try to give with perfect fairness, as far as pos- sible, in the language of the reports given by their friends. But we do not undertake to argue the case for them. This we could not do hon- estly or satisfactorily. On the other hand, we endeavour to make the best argument we can in favour of the measures we approve, using all the speeches of the supporters of those measures, and putting down any thing which may happen to occur to ourselves. Our object is to let our readers know what questions were debated, and to give them the best means in our power to form an opinion of the correctness of the conclusions arrived at. [Princeton Review, 1837, note p. 407.] PRELIMINARY PRINCIPLES. CHAPTER I. IDEA OF THE cHURCH.[*] In that symbol of faith adopted by the whole Christian world, com- monly called the Apostles’ Creed, the Church is declared to be “the Communion of saints.” In analyzing the idea of the Church here pre- sented, it may be proper to state, first, what is not included in it; and secondly, what it does really embrace. It is obvious that the Church, considered as the communion of saints, does not necessarily include the idea of a visible society organ- ized under one definite form. A kingdom is a political society gov- erned by a king; an aristocracy is such a society governed by a privileged class; a democracy is a political organization having the power céntred in the people. The very terms suggest these ideas. There can be no kingdom without a king, and no aristocracy without a privileged class. There may, however, be a communion of saints without a visible head, without prelates, without a democratic cove- nant. In other words, the Church, as defined in the creed, is not a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a democracy. It may be either, all, or neither. It is not, however, presented as a visible organization, to which the form is essential, as in the case of the human societies just mentioned. Again, the conception of the Church as the communion of saints, does not include the idea of any external organization. The bond of union may be spiritual. There may be communion without external organized union. The Church, therefore, according to this view, is not essentially a visible society; it is not a corporation which ceases to exist if the external bond of union be dissolved. It may be proper that such union should exist; it may be true that it has always existed ; but it is not necessary. The Church, as such, is not a visible society. All [* “Princeton Review,” same title, 1853, p. 249.] 5 6 CHURCH POLITY. visible union, all external organization, may cease, and yet, so long as there are saints who have communion, the Church exists, if the Church is the communion of saints. That communion may be in faith, in love, in obedience to a common Lord. It may have its origin in something deeper still; in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, even the Spirit of Christ, by which every member is united to Christ, and all the mem- bers are joined in one body. This is a union far more real, a com- munion far more intimate, than subsists between the members of any visible society as such. So far, therefore, is the Apostles’ Creed from representing the Church as a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a democracy ; so far is it from setting forth the Church as a visible society of one specific form, that it does not present it under the idea of an external society at all, The saints may exist, they may have communion, the Church may continue under any external organization, or without any visible organization whatever. What is affirmed in the above cited definition is, first, that the Church consists of saints; and, secondly, of saints in communion—that is, so united as to form one body. To determine, therefore, the true idea of the Church, it is only necessary to ascertain who are meant by the “saints,” and the nature of their communion, or the essential bond by which they are united. The word dycos, saint, signifies holy, worthy of reverence, pure in the sense of freedom either from guilt, or from moral pollution. The word &cafev means to render holy, or sacred; to cleanse from guilt, as -by a sacrifice; or from moral defilement, by the renewing of the heart. The saints, therefore, according to the scriptural meaning of the term, are those who have been cleansed from guilt or justified, who have been inwardly renewed or sanctified, and who have been separated from the world and consecrated to God. Of such the Church consists. If a man is not justified, sanctified, and consecrated to God, he is not a saint, and therefore does not belong to the Church, which is the communion of saints. Under the old dispensation, the whole nation of the Hebrews was called holy, as separated from the idolatrous nations around them, and consecrated to God. The Israelites were also called the children of God, as the recipients of his peculiar favours. These expressions had reference rather to external relations and privileges than to internal character. In the New Testament, however, they are applied only to the true people of God. None are there called saints but the sanctified in Christ Jesus. None are called the children of God, but those born of the Spirit, who being children are heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ of a heavenly inheritance. When, therefore, it is said that the Church consists of saints, the meaning is not that it con- IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 7 sists of all who are externally consecrated to God, irrespective of their moral character, but that it consists of true Christians or sincere be- lievers. As to the bond by which the saints are united so as to become a Church, it cannot be anything external, because that may and always does unite those who are not saints. The bond, whatever it is, must be peculiar to the saints; it must be something to which their justification, sanctification, and access to God are due. This can be nothing less than their relation to Christ. It is in virtue of union with him that men become saints, or are justified, sanctified, and brought nigh to God. They are one body in Christ Jesus. The bond of union between Christ and his people is the Holy Spirit, who dwells in him and in them. He is the head, they are the members of his body, the Church, which is one body, because pervaded and animated by one Spirit. The proximate and essential bond of union between the saints, that which gives rise to their communion, and makes them the Church or body of Christ, is, therefore, the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Such, then, is the true idea of the Church, or, what is the same thing, the idea of the true Church. It is the communion of saints, the body of those who are united to Christ by the indwelling of his Spirit. The two essential points included in this definition are, that the Church consists of saints, and that the bond of their union is not external organization, but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. These, therefore, are the two points to be established. As, however, the one involves the other, they need not be considered separately. The same arguments | which prove the one, prove also the other. By this statement, it is not meant that the word church is not pro- perly used in various senses. The object of inquiry is not the usage of a word, but the true idea of a thing; not how the word church is employed, but what the Church itself is. Who compose the Church? What is essential to the existence of that body, to which the attributes, the promises, the prerogatives of the Church belong? On the decision of that question rests the solution of all other questions in controversy between Romanists and Protestants. The mode of verifying the true idea of the Church—The holy Scrip- tures are on this, as on all other matters of faith or practice, our only infallible rule. We may confirm our interpretation of the Scriptures from various sources, especially from the current judgment of the Church, but the real foundation of our faith is to be sought in the word of God itself. The teachings of the Scriptures concerning the nature of the Church, are both direct and indirect. They didactically assert what the Church is, and they teach such things respecting it, as neces- sarily lead to a certain conception of its nature. Z 8 CHURCH POLITY. We may learn from the Bible the true idea of the Church, in the first place, from the use of the word itself. Under all the various applications of the term, that which is essential to the idea will be found to be expressed. In the second place, the equivalent or descriptive terms employed to express the same idea, reveal its nature. In the third place, the attributes ascribed to the Church in the word of God, determine its nature. If those attributes can be affirmed only of a visible society, then the Church must, as to its essence, be such a society. If, on the other hand, they belong only to the communion of saints, then none but saints constitute the Church. These attributes must all be included in the idea of the Church. They are but different phases or manifestations of its nature. They can all, therefore, be traced back to it, or evolved from it. If the Church is the body of those who are united to Christ by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then the indwelling of the Spirit must make the Church holy, visible, perpetual, one, catholic. All these attributes must be referable to that one thing to which the Church owes its nature. In the fourth place, the promises and prerogatives which belong to the Church, teach us very plainly whether it is an external society, or a communion of. saints. In the fifth place, there is a necessary connection between a certain scheme of doctrine and a certain theory of the Church. It is admitted that the Church includes all who are in Christ, all who are saints. It is also admitted that all who are ‘in Christ are in the Church. The question, therefore, Who are in the Church? must de- pend upon the answer to the question, Who are in Christ? or how do we become united to him ? Finally, as the true doctrine concerning the way of salvation leads to the true theory of the Church, we may expect to see that theory asserted and taught in all ages. However corrupted and overlaid it may be, as other doctrines have been, it will be found still preserved and capable of being recognized under all these perversions. The testimony of the Church itself will, therefore, be found to be in favour of the true doctrine as to what the Church is. The full exposition of these topics would require a treatise by itself. The evidence in favour of the true doctrine concerning the Church, ' even in the imperfect manner in which it is unfolded in this article, is to be sought through all the following pages, and not exclusively under one particular head. All that is now intended is to present a general view of the principal arguments in support of the doctrine, that the Church consists of saints or true Christians, and that the essential bond of their union is not external organization, but the indwelling éf the Holy Ghost. Argument from the scriptural use of the word Church—The word IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 9 éxxiyora from éxzakew, evocare, means an assembly or body of men evoked, or called out and together. It was used to designate the public assembly of the people, among the Greeks, collected for the transaction of business. It is applied to the tumultuous assembly called together in Ephesus, by the outcries of Demetrius, Acts xix. 39. It is used for those who are called out of the world, by the gospel, so as to form a distinct class. It was not the Helotes at Athens who heard the procla- mation of the heralds, but the people who actually assembied, who constituted the éxzdyora of that city. In like manner it is not those who merely hear the call of the gospel, who constitute the Church, but those who obey the call. Thousands of the Jews and Gentiles, in the age of the apostles, heard the gospel, received its invitations, but remained Jews and idolaters. Those only who obeyed the invitation, and sepa- rated themselves from their former connections, and entered into a new relation and communion, made up the Church of that day. In all the various applications, therefore, of the word éxzdjoca ‘in the New Testament, we find it uniformly used as a collective term for the xAyror or éziexrot, that is, for those who obey the gospel call, and who are thus selected and separated, as a distinct class from the rest of the world. Sometimes the term includes all who have already, or who shall hereafter accept the call of God. This is the sense of the word in Eph. iii. 10, where it is said to be the purpose of God to manifest unto principalities and powers, by the Church, his manifold wisdom; and in Eph. v. 25, 26, where it is said, that Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing. Sometimes the word is used for the people of God indefinitely, as when it is said of Paul, he persecuted the Church; or when we are com- manded to give no offence to the Church. The word is very commonly used in this sense, as when we speak of the progress of the Church, or pray for the Church. It is not any specific, organized body, that is commonly intended in such expressions, but the kingdom of Christ in- definitely. Sometimes it is used for any number of the called, collect- ively considered, united together by some common bond. Thus we hear of the Church in the house of Priscilla and Aquila, the Church in the house of Nymphas, the Church in the house of Philemon; the Church of Jerusalem, of Antioch, of Corinth, &c. In all these cases, the meaning of the word is the same. It is always used as a collective term for the xAytor, either for the whole number, or for any portion of them considered as a whole. The Church of God is the whole number of the elect ; the Church of Corinth is the whole number of the called in that city. Amn organized body may be a Church, and their organi- 10 CHURCH POLITY. zation may be the reason for their being considered as a whole or as a unit. But it is not their organization that makes them a Church. The multitude of believers in Corinth, organized or dispersed, is the Church of Corinth, just as the whole multitude of saints in heaven and on earth is the Church of God. It is not organization, but evocation, the actual calling out and separating from others, that makes the Church. The nature of the Church, therefore, must depend on the nature of the gospel call. If that call is merely or essentially to the outward profession of certain doctrines, or to baptism, or to anything external, then the Church must consist of all who make that profession, or are baptized. But if the call of the gospel is to repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, then none obey that call but those who repent and believe, and the Church must consist of penitent believers, It cannot require proof that the call of the gospel is to faith and repentance. The great apostle tells us he received his apos- tleship to the obedience of faith, among all nations, 7. ¢., to bring them to that obedience which consists in faith. He calls those who heard him to witness that he had not failed to testify both to the Jews and also to the Gentiles, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. No one was admitted by the apostles to the Church, or recognized as of the number of “the called,” who did not profess faith and repentance, and such has been the law and practice of the Church ever since. There can, therefore, be no doubt on this subject. What the apostles did, and what all ministers, since their day, have been commissioned to do, is to preach the gospel; to offer men salvation on the condition of faith and repentance. Those who obeyed that call were baptized, and recognized as constituent members of the Church; those who rejected it, who refused to repent and believe, were not mem- bers, they were not in fact “ called,” and by that divine vocation sepa- rated from the world. It would, therefore, be as unreasonable to call the inhabitants of a country an army, because they heard the call to arms, as to call all who hear but do not obey the gospel, the Church. The army consists of those who actually enrol themselves as soldiers ; and the Church consists of those who actually repent and believe, in obedience to the call of the gospel. This conclusion, to which we are led by the very nature of the call by which the Church is constituted, is confirmed by the unvarying usage of the New Testament. Every éxzijota is composed of the xdyror, of those called out and assembled. But the word xdyrot, as applied to Christians, is never used in the New Testament, except in reference to true believers. If, therefore, the Church consists of “the called,” it must consist of true believers. That such is the usage of the word IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 11 “ called” in the New Testament, is abundantly evident. In Rom. i. 6, believers are designated the xdytoc Inaod Xptorod, Christ’s called ones. In Rom. viii. 28, all things are said to work together for good, tocc xara rpddeaty xdytotc, to the called according to purpose. In 1 Cor. i. 2, 24, we find the same use of the word. The gospel is said to be foolish- ness to the Greeks, and a stumbling-block to the Jews, but to “the called,” it is declared to be the wisdom of God and power of God. The called are distinguished as those to whom the gospel is effectual. Jude addresses believers as the sanctified by the Father, the preserved in Christ Jesus, and “called.” In Rev. xvii. 14, the triumphant followers of the Lamb are called xAnrot xad éxdextod xat mistof. The doctrinal usage of the word xAyroé is, therefore, not a matter of doubt. None but those who truly repent and believe, are ever called xAyroé, and, as the ézzAyova consists of the xAytoé, the Church must consist of true believers. This conclusion is confirmed by a reference to analogous terms applied to believers. As they are xAyrot, because the subjects of a divine zAjorc, or vocation, so they are ézdezro/, Rom. viii. 23; 1 Pet. 1. 2; ytacpuevor, 1 Cor.i.1; Jude 1; Heb. x. 10; zpoopradévtec, Eph. i. 11; co%épevor, 1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. ii. 15; 2 Thess. ii, 11; tetaypévot ets wiv alwytov, Acts xiii. 48. All these terms have refer- ence to that divine agency, to that call, choice, separation, or appointment, by which men are made true believers, and they are never applied to any other class. The use of the cognate words, zaiéw and zAjats, goes to confirm the conclusion as to the meaning of the word zdyrof. When used in re- ference to the act of God, in calling men by the gospel, they always designate a call that is effectual, so that the subjects of that vocation become the true children of God. Thus, in Rom. viii. 30, whom he calls, them he also justifies, whom he justifies, them he also glorifies. All the called, therefore, (the xAytoé, the éxxAyjota,) are justified and glorified. In Rom. ix. 24, the vessels of mercy are said to be those whom God calls. In 1 Cor. i. 9, believers are said to be called into fellowship of the Son of God. In the same chapter the apostle says : “Ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called,” 7. e. converted and made the true children of God. In 1 Cor. vii. the word is used nine times in the same way. In Gal. i. 15, Paul says, speaking of God, “who has called me by his grace.” See, also, Gal. v. 8,13; Eph. iv. 4; Col. iii. 15; 1 Thess. ii. 12; v. 24; 1 Tim. vi. 12; 2 Tim. i. 9. It is said believers are called, not according to their works, but accord- ing to the purpose and grace of God, given them in Christ Jesus, before the world began. In Heb. ix. 5, Christ is said to have died that the called, of xexAyuévot, might receive the eternal inheritance, In 1 Pet. 12 CHURCH POLITY. al ii. 9, believers are described as a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a peculiar people, whom God hath called out of darkness into his mar- vellous light. In the salutation prefixed to his second Epistle, this apostle wishes all good to those whom God had called by his glorious power. In proof that the word zAjors is constantly used in reference to the effectual call of God, see Rom. xi. 29; 1 Cor. i. 26; Eph. i. 18, iv. 1; Phil. iii. 14; Heb. iii. 1; 2 Pet. i. 10. From these considerations it is clear that the xAyro? or called, are the effectually called, those who really obey the gospel, and by repentance and faith are separated from the world. And as it is admitted that the éxzAyota is a collective term for the xAyroé, it follows that none but true believers constitute the Church, or that the Church is the com- munion of saints. The word in the New Testament is never used ex- cept in reference to the company of true believers. This consideration alone is sufficient to determine the nature of the Church. To this argument it is indeed objected, that as the apostles addressed all the Christians of Antioch, Corinth, or Ephesus, as constituting the Church in those cities, and as among them there were many hypo- crites, therefore the word Church designates a body of professors, whether sincere or insincere. The fact is admitted, that all the pro- fessors of the true religion in Corinth, without reference to their character, are called the church of Corinth. This, however, is no answer to the preceding argument. It determines nothing as to the nature of the Church. It does not prove it to be an external society, composed of sincere and insincere professors of the true religion. All the professors in Corinth are called saints, sanctified in Christ Jesus, the saved, the children of God, the faithful believers, &c., &c. Does this prove that there are good and bad saints, holy and unholy sancti- fied persons, believing and unbelieving believers, or men who are at the same time children of God and children of the devil? Their being called believers does not prove that they were all believers; neither does their being called the Church prove that they were all members of the Church. They are designated according to their profession. In professing to be members of the Church, they professed to be believers, to be saints and faithful brethren, and this proves that the Church consists of true believers. This will appear more clearly from the following. Argument from the terms used as equivalents for the word Church. Those epistles in the New Testament which are addressed to Churches, are addressed to believers, saints, the children of God. These latter terms, therefore, are equivalent to the former. The conclusion to be drawn from this fact is, that the Church consists of believers. IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 13 In the same sense and in no other, in which infidels may be called believers, and wicked men saints, in the same sense may they be said to be included in the Church. If they are not really believers, they are not the Church. They are not. constituent members of the com- pany of believers. . The force of this argument will appear from a reference to the salu- tations prefixed to these epistles, The epistle to the Romans, for example, is addressed to “the called of Jesus Christ,” “the beloved of God,” “called to be saints.” ‘The epistles to the Corinthians are addressed “to the Church of God which is at Corinth.” Who are they? “The sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,” the wor- shippers of Christ. The Ephesian Church is addressed as “ the saints who are in Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus,” The Philip- pians are called “saints and faithful brethren in Christ.” Peter ad- dressed his first Epistle to ‘the elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ;” 7. ¢., to those who, being elected to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus, are sanctified by the Spirit. His second Epistle is directed to those who had ob- tained like precious faith with the apostle himself, through (or in) the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. From this collation it appears, that to call any body of men a Church, is to call them saints, sanctified in Christ Jesus, elected to obe- dience and sprinkling of the blood of Christ, partakers of the same precious faith with the apostles, the beloved of God, and faithful breth- ren. The inference from this fact is inevitable. The Church consists of those to whom these terms are applicable. The only way by which this argument can be evaded is, by saying that the faith here spoken of is mere speculative faith, the sanctification intended is mere external consecration; the sonship referred to, is merely adoption to external privileges, or a church state. This objec- tion, however, is completely obviated by the contents of these epistles. The persons to whom these terms are applied, and who are represented as constituting the Church, are described as really holy in heart and life ; not mere professors of the true faith, but true believers ; not merely the recipients of certain privileges, but the children of God and heirs of eternal life. The members of the Church in Corinth are declared to be in fellowship with Jesus Christ, chosen of God, inhabited by his. Spirit, washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. That the faith which Paul attributes to the members of the Church in Rome, and the sonship of which he represents them as partakers, were not speculative or external, is evi- 14 CHURCH POLITY. dent, because he says, those who believe have peace with God, rejoice in hope of his glory and have his love shed abroad in their hearts. Those who are in Christ, he says, are not only free from condemnation, but walk after the Spirit, and are spiritually-minded. Being the sons of God they are led by the Spirit, they have the spirit of adoption, and are joint heirs with Jesus Christ of a heavenly inheritance. The mem- bers of the Church in Ephesus were faithful brethren in Christ Jesus, sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, quickened and raised from spiritual death, and made to sit in heavenly places. All those in Co- losse who are designated as the Church, are described as reconciled unto God, the recipients of Christ, who were complete in him, all whose sins are pardoned. The Church in Thessalonica consisted of those whose work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope, Paul joy- fully zemembered, and of whose election of God he was well assured. They were children of the light and of the day, whom God had ap- pointed to the obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, The churches to whom Peter wrote consisted of those who had been begotten again to a lively hope, by the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Though they had not seen the Saviour, they loved him, and be- lieving on him, rejoiced with joy unspeakable and full of glory. They had purified their souls unto unfeigned love of the brethren, having been born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God. Those whom John recognized as members of the Church he says had received an anointing of the Holy one, which abode with them, teaching them the truth. They were the sons of God, who had overcome the world, who believing in Christ had eternal life. From all this, it is evident that the terms, believers, saints, children of God, the sanctified, the justified, and the like, are equivalent to the collective term Church, so that any company of men addressed as a Church, are always addressed as saints, faithful brethren, partakers of the Holy Ghost, and children of God. The Church, therefore, consists exclusively of such. That these terms do not express merely a pro- fessed faith or external consecration is evident, because those to whom they are applied are declared to be no longer unjust, extortioners, thieves, drunkards, covetous, revilers, or adulterers, but to be led by the Spirit to the belief and obedience of the truth. The Church, therefore, consists of believers; and if it consists of believers, it consists of those who have peace with God, and have overcome the world. It is not to be inferred from the fact that all the members of the Christian societies in Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus, are addressed as believers, that they all had true faith. But we can infer, that since what is said of them is said of them as believers, it had no applica- tion to those who were without faith. In like manner, though all are IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 15 addressed as belonging to the Church, what issaid of the Church had no application to those who were not really its members. Addressing a body of professed believers, as believers, does not prove them to be all sincere; neither does addressing a body of men as a Church, prove that they all belong to the Church. In both cases they are addressed according to their profession. If it is a fatal error to transfer what is said in Scripture of believers, to mere professors, to apply to nominal what is said of true Christians, it is no less fatal to apply what is said of the Church to those who are only by profession its members. It is no more proper to infer that the Church consists of the promiscuous multitude of sincere and insincere professors of the true faith, from the fact that all the professors, good and bad, in Corinth, are called the Church, than it would be to infer that they were all saints and chil- dren of God, because they are all so denominated. It is enough to determine the true nature of the Church, that none are ever addressed as its members, who are not, at the same time, addressed as true saints and sincere believers. Argument from the descriptions of the Church—The descriptions of the Church given in the word of God, apply to none but true believers, and therefore true believers constitute the Church. These descriptions relate either to the relation which the Church sustains to Christ, or to the character of its members, or to its future destiny. The argument is, that none but true believers bear that relation to Christ, which the Church is said to sustain to him; none but believers possess the cha- racter ascribed to members of the Church; and none but believers are heirs of those blessings which are in reserve for the Church. If all this is so, it follows that the Church consists of those who truly believe. It will not be necessary to keep these points distinct, because in many passages of Scripture, the relation which the Church bears to Christ, the character of its members, and its destiny, are all brought into view. 1. The Church is described as the body of Christ. Eph. i. 22; iv. 15, 16; Col. i.18. The relation expressed by this designation, in- cludes subjection, dependence, participation of the same life, sympathy, and community. Those who are the body of Christ, are dependent upon him and subject to him, as the human body to its head. They are partakers of his life. The human body is animated by one soul, and has one vital principle. This is the precise truth which the Scriptures teach in reference to the Church as the body of Christ. It is his body, because animated by his Spirit, so that if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his, Rom. viii. 9; for it is by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, 1 Cor. xii. 13. The distin- guishing characteristic of. the members of Christ’s body, is the indwell- 16 CHURCH POLITY. ing of the Holy Ghost. They are therefore called zvevparexor, men having the Spirit. They are led by the Spirit. They are spiritually- minded. All this is true of sincere believers alone. It is not true of the promiscuous body of professors, nor of the members of any visible society, as such, and therefore no such visible society is the body of Christ. What is said of the body of Christ, is not true of any external organized corporation on earth, and, therefore, the two cannot be identical. ‘ Again, as the body sympathizes with the head, and the members sympathize one with another, so all the members of Christ’s body sym- pathize with him, and with each other. This sympathy is not merely a duty, it is a fact. Where it does not exist, there membership in Christ’s body does not exist. All, therefore, who are members of Christ’s body feel his glory to be their own, his triumph to be their victory. They love those whom he loves, and they hate what he hates, Finally, as the human head and body have a common destiny, so have Christ and his Church. As it partakes of his life, it shall participate in his glory. The members of his body suffer with him here, and shall reign with him hereafter. It is to degrade and destroy the gospel to apply this description of the Church as the body of Christ, to the mass of nominal Christians, the visible Church, which consists of “all sorts of men.” No such visible society is animated by his Spirit, is a partaker of his life, and heir of his glory. It is to obliterate the distinction between holiness and sin, between the Church and the world, between the children of God and the children of the devil, to apply what the Bible says of the body of Christ to any promiscuous society of saints and sinners. 2. The Church is declared to be the temple of God, because he dwells in it by his Spirit. That temple is composed of living stones. 1 Pet. ii. 4,5. Know ye not, says the apostle to the Corinthians, that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which isin you? 1 Cor. vi. 19. The inference from this description of the Church is, that it is composed of those in whom the Spirit of God dwells; but the Spirit of God dwells only in true believers, and therefore the Church consists of such believers. 3. The Church is the family of God. Those, therefore, who are not the children of God are not members of his Church. The wicked are declared to be the children of the devil; they therefore cannot be the children of God. Those only are his children who have the spirit of adoption; and being children, are heirs. of God and joint heirs with Christ. Rom. viii. 16, 17. 4. The Church is the flock of Christ; its members are his sheep. He knows them, leads them, feeds them, and lays down his life for IDEA OF THE CHURCE. 17 them. They were given to him by the Father, and no one is able to pluck them out of his hand. They know his voice and follow him, but a stranger they will not follow. John, x. This description of the Church as the flock of Christ, is applicable only to saints or true believers, and therefore they alone constitute his Church. 5. The Church is the bride of Christ; the object of his peculiar love, . for which he gave himself, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing. No man, saith the Scripture, ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church. Eph. v. 25-30. It is not true, according to the Bible, that any but true Christians are the objects of this peculiar love of Christ, and therefore they alone consti- tute that Church which is his bride. According to the Scriptures, then, the Church consists of those who are in Christ, to whom he is made wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; of those who are his body, in whom he dwells by his Spirit; of those who are the family of God, the children of his grace; of those who, as living stones, compose that temple in which God dwells, and who rest on that elect, tried, precious corner-stone, which God has laid in Zion; of those who are the bride of Christ, purchased by his blood, sanctified by his word, sacraments, and Spirit, to be pre- sented at last before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy. These descriptions of the Church are inapplicable to any external visible society as such; to the Church of Rome, the Church of England, or the Presbyterian Church. The only Church of which these things are true, is the communion of saints, the body of true Christians. Arguments from the attributes of the Church—The great question at issue on this whole subject is, whether we are to conceive of the Church, in its essential character, as an external society, or as the communion of saints. One method of deciding this question, is by a reference to the acknowledged attributes of the Church. If those attributes belong only to a visible society, then the Church must be such a society. But if they can be predicated only of the communion of saints, then the Church is a spiritual body, and not an external, visible society. The Church is the body of Christ, in which he dwells by his Spirit. It is in virtue of this indwelling of the Spirit, that the Church is what she is, and all that she is. To this source her holiness, unity, and per- petuity, are to be referred, and under these attributes all others are comprehended. First, then, as to holiness. The Church considered as the com- munion of saints, is holy. Where the Spirit of God is, there is holi- : 2 18 CHURCH POLITY. ness. If, therefore, the Spirit dwells in the Church, the Church must be holy, not merely nominally, but really; not merely because her founder, her doctrines, her institutions are holy, but because her mem- bers are personally holy. They are, and must be, holy brethren, saints, the sanctified in Christ Jesus, beloved of God. They are led by _the Spirit, and mind the things of the Spirit. The indwelling of the Spirit produces this personal holiness, and that separation from the world and consecration to God, which make the Church a holy nation, a peculiar people, zealous of good works. The Church is defined to be a company of believers, the catus fidelium. To say that the Church is holy, is to say that that company of men and women who compose the Church, is holy. It is a contradiction to say that “all sorts of men,” thieves, murderers, drunkards, the unjust, the rapacious, and the covet- ous, enter into the composition of a society whose essential attribute is holiness. To say that a man is unjust, is to say that he is not holy, and to say that he is not holy, is to say that he is not one of a company of saints. If then we conceive of the Church as the communion of saints, as the body of Christ, in which the Holy Spirit dwells as the source of its life, we see that the Church is and must be holy. It must be inwardly pure, that is, its members must be regenerated men, and it must be really separated from the world, and consecrated to God. These are the two ideas included in the scriptural sense of holiness, and in both these senses the Church is truly holy. But in neither sense can holi- ness ‘be predicated of any external visible society as such. No such society is really pure, nor is it really separated from the world, and devoted to God. This is evident from the most superficial observation. It is plain that neither the Roman, the Greek, the English, nor the Presbyterian ‘Church, falls within the definition of the Church as the cactus sanctorum, or company of believers. No one of these societies is holy, they are all more or less corrupt and worldly. The church state does not in the least depend on the moral character of their members, if the Church is essentially an external society. Such a society may sink to the lowest degree of corruption, and yet be a church, provided it retain its external integrity. Of no such a society, however, is holiness an attribute, and all history and daily observation concur in their testimony as to this fact. If, therefore, no community of which holi- ness is not an attribute can be the Church, it follows, that no external society, composed of “all sorts of men,” can be the holy, catholic Church. Those, therefore, who regard the Church as an external society, are forced to deny that the Church is holy. They all assert that it is composed of hypocrites and unrenewed men, as well as of saints. Thus, for example, Bellarmine defines the Church to be “the society of men united by the profession of the same Christian faith, and IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 19 the communion of the same sacraments, under the government of legitimate pastors, and especially of the only vicar of Christ here on earth, the Roman Pontiff.” * By the first clause of this definition he excludes all who do not profess the true faith, such as Jews, Moham- medans, Pagans, and heretics; by the second, all the unbaptized and the excommunicated ; by the third, all schismatics, 7. ¢., all who do not submit to legitimate pastors, (prelates,) especially to the Pope. All other classes of men, he adds, are included in the Church, etiamsi reprobi, scelesti et impti sint. The main point of difference between the Romish and Protestant theories of the Church, he says, is that the latter requires internal virtues in order to Church membership, but the former requires nothing beyond outward profession, for the Church, he adds, is just as much an external society as the Roman people, the kingdom of France, or the republic of Venice. + The Oxford theory of the Church differs from the Romish only in excluding subjection to the Pope as one of its essential characteristics. The Church is defined to be “ The whole society of Christians through- out the world, including all those who profess their belief in Christ, and who are subject to lawful pastors.” { By Christians, in this definition, are meant nominal, or professed Christians. According to this view, neither inward regeneration, nor “visible sanctity of life, is requisite for admission to the Church of Christ.” ‘The Scriptures and the uni- versal Church appoint,” it is said, “ only one mode in which Christians are to be made members of the Church. It is baptism, which renders us, by divine right, members of the Church, and entitles us to all the privileges of the faithful.”§ Again, when speaking of baptism, which thus secures a divine right to all the privileges of the faithful, it is said, there is no ‘mention of regeneration, sanctity, real piety, visible or invisible, as prerequisite to its reception.” || Holiness, therefore, is denied to be an attribute of the Church in any proper sense of the term. This denial is the unavoidable consequence of regarding the Church as a visible society, analogous to an earthly kingdom. As holiness is not necessary to citizenship in the kingdom of Spain, or * Lib. TIT, c. ii col. 108. Cuetum hominum ejusdem Christiane fidei professione, et corundem sacramentorum communione colligatum, sub regimine legitimorum pastorum, ac precipue unius Christi in terris vicarit Romani Pontificis. + Nos autem... non putamus requirt ullam internam virtutem, sed tantum profes- sionem fidei et sacramentorum communionem, que sensu ipso percipitur. Ecclesia, enim est cectus hominum ita visibilis et palpabilis, ut est cactus populi Romani, vel regnum Galli, aut respublica Venetorum.—Ibid. col. 109. { Palmer on the Church, Amer. edition, vol. i. p. 28. @ Palmer. Vol. i. page 144, || Palmer. Vol. i, p. 377. 20 CHURCH POLITY. republic of Venice, holiness is not an attribute of either of those com- munities. Neither Spain nor Venice is, as such, holy. And if the Church, in its true essential character, be a visible society, of which men become members by mere profession, and without holiness, then holiness is not an attribute of the Church. But, as by common consent the Church is holy, a theory of its nature which excludes this attribute, must be both unscriptural and uncatholic, and therefore false. No false theory can be consistent. If, therefore, the theory of the Church which represents it as an external society of professors is false, we may expect to see its advocates falling continually into suicidal con- tradictions. The whole Romish or ritual system is founded on the assumption, that the attributes and prerogatives ascribed in Scripture to the Church, belong to the visible Church, irrespective of the charac- ter of its members. Nothing is required for admission into that society, but profession of its faith, reception of its sacraments, and submission to its legitimate rulers. Ifa whole nation of Pagans or Mohammedans should submit to these external conditions, they would be true mem- bers of the Church, though ignorant of its doctrines, though destitute of faith, and sunk in moral corruption. To this society the attributes of holiness, unity and perpetuity, belong; this society, thus constituted of “all sorts of men,” has the prerogative authoritatively to teach, and to bind and loose; and the teaching and discipline of this society, Christ has promised to ratify in heaven. The absurdities and enormi- ties, however, which flow from this theory, are so glaring and atrocious, that few of its advocates have the nerve to look them in the face. As we have seen, it is a contradiction to call a society composed of “all sorts of men,” holy. Those who teach, therefore, that the Church is such a society, sometimes say that holiness is not a condition of mem- bership; in other words, is not an attribute of the Church; and some- times, that none but the holy are really in the Church, that the wicked are not its true members. But, if this be so, as holiness has its seat in the heart, no man can tell certainly who are holy, and therefore no one can tell who are the real members of the Church, or who actually constitute the body of Christ, which we are required to join and to obey. The Church, therefore, if it consists only of the holy, is not an external society, and the whole ritual system falls to the ground. Neither Romish nor Anglican writers can escape from these contra- dictions. Augustin says, the Church is a living body, in which there are both a soul and body. Some are members of the Church in both respects, being united to Christ, as well externally as internally. These are the living members of the Church; others are of the soul, but not of the body—that is, they have faith and love, without external communion with the Church. Others, again, are of the body and not IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 21 of the soul—that is, they have no true faith. These last, he says, are as the hairs, or nails, or evil humours of the human body.* According to Augustin, then, the wicked are not true members of the Church ; their relation to it is altogether external. They no more make up the Church, than the scurf or hair on the surface of the skin make up the human body. This representation is in entire accordance with the Protestant doctrine, that the Church is a communion of saints, and that none but the holy are its true members. It expressly contradicts the Romish and Oxford theory, that the Church consists of all sorts of men; and that the baptized, no matter what their character, if they submit to their legitimate pastors, are by divine right constituent por- tions of the Church ; and that none who do not receive the sacraments, and who are not thus subject, can be members of the body of Christ. Yet this doctrine of Augustin, so inconsistent with their own, is con- ceded by Romish writers. They speak of the relation of the wicked to the Church as merely external or nominal, as a dead branch to a tree, or as chaff to the wheat. So, also, does Mr. Palmer,t who says: “It is generally allowed that the wicked belong only externally to the Church.” Again: “That the ungodly, whether secret or manifest, do not really belong to the Church, considered as to its invisible charac- ter—namely, as consisting of its essential and permanent members, the elect, predestinated, and sanctified, who are known to God only, I admit.” { That is, he admits his whole theory to be untenable. He admits, after all, that the wicked “do not really belong to the Church,” and therefore, that the real or true Church consists of the sanctified in Christ Jesus. What is said of the wheat is surely not true of the chaff; and what the Bible says of the Church is not true of the wicked. Yet all Romanism, all ritualism, rests on the assumption, that what is said of the wheat is true of the chaff—that what is said of the com- munion of saints, is true of a body composed of all sorts of men. The argument, then, here is, that, as holiness is an attribute of the Church, no body which is not holy can be the Church. No external visible society, as such, is holy; and, therefore, the Church, of which the Scriptures speak, is not a visible society, but the communion of saints. The same argument may be drawn from the other attributes of the Church. It is conceded that unity is one of its essential attributes. The Church is one, as there is, and can be but one body of Christ. The Church as the communion of saints is one; as an external society it is not one; therefore, the Church is the company of believers, and not an external society. * In Brevieulo Collationis. Collat. ivi. {On the Church. Vol. i. p. 28. { Ibid. p. 143. 92 CHURCH POLITY. The unity of the Church is threefold. 1. Spiritual; the unity of faith and of communion. 2. Comprehensive; the Church is one as it is catholic, embracing all the people of God. 3. Historical; it is the same Church in all ages. In all these senses, the Church considered as the communion of saints, is one; in no one of these senses can unity be predicated of the Church as visible. The Church, considered as the communion of saints, is one in faith. The Spirit of God leads his people into all truth. He takes of the things of Christ and shows them unto them. They are all taught of God. The anointing which they have received abideth with them, and teacheth them all things, and is truth. 1 John ii. 27. Under this teaching of the Spirit, whichis promised to all believers, and which is with and by the word, they are all led to the knowledge and belief of all necessary truth. And within the limits of such necessary truths, all true Christians, the whole catus sanctorum, or body of believers, are one. In all ages and in all nations, wherever there are true Christians, you find they have, as to all essential matters, one and the same faith. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of love as well as of truth, and there- fore all those in whom he dwells are one in affection as well as in faith. They have the same inward experience, the same conviction of sin, the same repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the same love of holiness, and desire after conformity to the image of God. There is, therefore, an inward fellowship or congeniality between them, which proves them to be one spirit. They all stand in the same rela- tion to God and Christ; they constitute one family, of which God is the Father; one kingdom, of which Christ is the Lord. They have a common interest and common expectation. The triumph of the Redeemer’s kingdom is the common joy and triumph of all his people. They have, thereforé, the fellowship which belongs to the subjects of the same king, to the children of the same family, and to the members of the same body. If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; and if one member rejoices, all the members rejoice with it. This sympathy is an essential characteristic of the body of Christ. Those who do not possess this affection and fellow-feeling for his members, are none of his. This inward spiritual communion expresses itself out- wardly, not only in acts of kindness, but especially and appropriately in all acts of Christian fellowship. True believers are disposed to recognize each other as such, to unite as Christians in the service of their common Lord, and to make one joint profession before the world of their allegiance to him. In this, the highest and truest sense, the Church is one. It is one body in Christ Jesus. He dwells by his. Spirit in all his members, and thus unites them in one living whole, IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 23 leading all to the belief of the same truths, and binding all in the bond of peace. This is the unity of which the apostle speaks: “There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Such is the unity which belongs to the Church; it does not belong to any external society, and therefore no such society can be the Church to which the attributes and prerogatives of the body of Christ belong. In proof that spiritual unity cannot be predicated of the external Church, it is sufficient to refer to the obvious fact, that the Holy Spirit, the ground and bond of that unity, does not dwell in all the members of that Church. Wherever he dwells there are the fruits of holiness, and as those fruits are not found in all who profess to be Christians, the Spirit does not dwell in them so as to unite them to the body of Christ. The consequence is, they have neither the unity of faith nor of communion. As to the unity of faith, it is undeniable that all Christian societies do not even, profess the same faith. While all unite in certain doc- trines, they each profess or deny what the others regard as fatal error or necessary truth. The Greek, Latin, and Protestant Churches do not regard themselves as one in faith. Each declares the others to be heretical. But this is not all. Unity of faith does not exist within the pale of these several churches. In each of them all grades and kinds of doctrine, from atheism to orthodoxy, are entertained. No one doubts this. It would be preposterous to assert that all the members of the Latin Church hold the public faith of that society. The great body of them do not know what that faith is, and multitudes among them are infidels. Neither can any one pretend that the standards of the English, Dutch, or Prussian Church, express the faith of all their members. It is a notorious and admitted fact, that every form of religious faith and infidelity is to be found among the members of those societies. Unity of faith, therefore, is one of the attributes of the true Church, which, with no show of truth or reason, can be predicated of any external society calling itself the Church of God. The case is no less plain with regard to communion. The societies constituting the visible Church, do not maintain Christian ¢ommunion. They do not all recognize each other as brethren, nor do they unite in the offices of Christian worship and fellowship. On the contrary, they, in many cases, mutually excommunicate each other. The Greek, Latin, and Protestant Churches, each stands aloof. They are separate communions, having no ecclesiastical fellowship whatever. This kind of separation, however, is not so entirely inconsistent with the commu- nion of saints, as the absence of brotherly love, and the presence of all 24 CHURCH POLITY. unholy affections, which characterize to so great an extent these nomi- nal Christians. If it be true that there is a warm sympathy, a real brotherly affection, between all the members of Christ’s body, then nothing can be plainer than that the great mass of nominal Christians are not members of that body. The unity of the Spirit, the bond of perfectness, true Christian love, does not unite the members of any extended visible society into one holy brotherhood; and therefore no such society is the Church of Christ. Romanists answer this argument by vehement assertion. They first degrade the idea of unity into that of outward connection. So that men profess the same faith, they are united in faith, even though many of them be heretics or infidels. If they receive the same sacraments and submit to the same rulers, they are in Christian communion, even though they bite and devour one another. They, then, boldly assert that the Church is confined to themselves; that Greeks, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Reformed, are out of the Church. To make it appear that the Church, in their view of its nature, is one in faith and in communion, they deny that any body of men, or any individual, belongs to the Church, who does not profess their faith and submit to their discipline. Thus even the false, deteriorated idea of unity, which they claim, can be predicated of the Church only by denying the Christian name to more than one-half of Christendom. The answer given to this argument by Anglicans of the Oxford school, is still less satisfactory. They admit that the Church is one in faith and communion, that either heresy or schism is destructive of all saving connection with the body of Christ. To all appearance, however, the Church of England does not hold the faith of the Church of Rome, nor is she in ecclesiastical communion with her Latin sister. She is also almost as widely separated from the Greek and Oriental Churches. How low must the idea of unity be brought down, to make it embrace all these conflicting bodies! The Oxford writers, therefore, in order to save their Church standing, are obliged, first, to teach with Rome that unity of the Church is merely in appearance or profession ; secondly, that England and Rome do not differ as to matters of faith; and, thirdly, that notwithstanding their mutual denunciations, and, on the part of Rome, of the most formal act of excommunication, they are still in communion. The unity of communion therefore, is, according to their doctrine, compatible with non-communion and mutual excom- munication. It is, however, a contradiction in terms, to assert that the Churches of Rome and England, in a state of absolute schism in refer- ence to each other, are yet one in faith and communion. The essential attribute of unity, therefore, cannot be predicated of the external Church, either as to doctrine or as to fellowship. IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 25 The second form of unity is catholicity. The Church is one, because it embraces all the people of God. This was the prominent idea of unity in the early centuries of the Christian era. The Church is one, because there is none other. Those out of the Church are, therefore, out of Christ, they are not members of his body, nor partakers of his Spirit. This is the universal faith of Christendom. All denomina- tions, in all ages, have, agreeably to the plain teaching of the Scrip- tures, and the very nature of the gospel, maintained that there is no salvation out of the Church; in other words, that the Church is catholic, embracing all the people of God in all parts of the world. Of course it depends on our idea of the Church, whether this attribute of comprehensive unity belongs to it or not. If the Church is essentially a visible monarchical society, of which the Bishop of Rome is the head, then there can be no true religion and no salvation out of the pale of that society. To admit the possibility of men being saved who are not subject to the Pope, is to admit that they can be saved out of the Church; and to say they can be saved out of the Church, is to say they can be saved out of Christ, which no Christians admit. If the Church is a visible aristocratical society, under the government of prelates having succession, then the unity of the Church implies, that those only who are subject to such prelates are within its pale. There can, therefore, be neither true religion nor salvation except among prelatists. This is a conclusion which flows unavoidably from the idea of the Church as an external visible society. Neither Romanists nor Anglicans shrink from this conclusion. They avow the premises and the inevitable sequence. Mr. Palmer says: “It is not, indeed, to be supposed or believed for a moment, that divine grace would permit the really holy and justified members of Christ to fall from the way of life. He would only permit the unsanctified, the enemies of Christ, to sever themselves from that fountain where his Spirit is given freely.”* This he says in commenting on a dictum of Augustin, “Let us hold it as a thing unshaken and firm that no good men can divide themselves from the Church.” + He further quotes Trenzus, as saying that God has placed every operation of his Spirit in the Church, so that none have the Spirit but those who are in the Church, “for where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there also the Church and every grace exist.” { Cyprian is urged as another authority, who says: “ Whoso- * Palmer on the Church. Vol. i. p. 69. + Inconcussum firmumque teneamus, nullos bonos ab ea (ecclesia) se poses dividere.— Adv. Parmenian. Lib. iii. ch. 5. , { Adv. Heres, iii. 24, p. 223, 26 CHURCH POLITY. ever, divorced from the Church, is united to an adulteress, is separated from the Church’s promises; nor shall that man attain the rewards of Christ, who relinquishes his Church. He is a stranger, he is profane, he is an enemy.”* All this is undoubtedly true. It is true, as Augustin says, that the good cannot divide themselves from the Church; it is true, as Irenzus says, where the Church is, there the Spirit of God is; and where the Spirit is, there the Church is. This is the favourite motto of Protestants. It is also true, as Cyprian says, that he who is separated from the Church, is separated from Christ. This brings the nature of the Church down to a palpable matter of fact, Are there any fruits of the Spirit, any repentance, faith, and holy living, among those who do not obey the Pope? If so, then the Church is not a monarchy, of which the Pope is the head. Is there any true religion, are there any of the people of God who are not sub- ject to prelates? If so, then the Church is not a society subject to bishops having succession. These are questions which can be easily answered. It is, indeed, impossible, in every particular case, to dis- criminate between true and false professors of religion; but still, as a class, we can distinguish good men from bad men, the children of God from the children of this world. Men do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles. By their fruit we can know them. A wolf may indeed at times appear in sheep’s clothing, nevertheless, men can distinguish sheep from wolves. We can therefore determine, with full assurance, whether it is true, as the Romish theory of the Church requires, that there is no religion among Protestants, whether all the seemingly pious men of the English Church, for example, are mere hypocrites. This is a question about which no rational man has any doubt, and, therefore, we see not how any such man can fail to see that the Romish theory of the Church is false. It is contradicted by noto- rious facts. With like assurance we decide against the Anglican theory, because if that theory is true, then there is no religion, and never has been any, out of the pale of the Episcopal Church. It is, however, equivalent to a confession that we ourselves are destitute of the Spirit of Christ, to refuse to recognize as his people the thousands of Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Reformed, who have lived for his service, and died to his glory. Here the ritual theory of the Church breaks down entirely. If the Church is an external society, that society must include all good men, all the children of God in the world. No such society does embrace all such men, and, therefore, the Church is not a visible society. It is a communion of saints. The very fact that a man is a saint, a child of God that is born of the * De Unitate, p. 254. IDEA OF THE CHURCH. Q7 Spirit, makes him a member of the Church. To say, therefore, with Augustin, that no good man can leave the Church, is only to say that the good will love and cleave to each other; to say, with Irenzus, that where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, is to say the presence of the Spirit makes the Church; and to say with Cyprian, that he who is separated from the Church, is separated from Christ, is only saying, that if a man love not his brother whom he hath seen, he cannot love God whom he hath not seen. Ifthe Church is the communion of saints, it includes all saints; it has catholic unity because it embraces all the children of God. And to say there is no salvation out of the Church, in this sense of the word, is only saying there is no salvation for the wicked, for the unrenewed and unsanctified. But to say there is no piety and no salvation out of the papal or prelatic Church, is very much like doing despite unto the Spirit of God; it is to say of multitudes of true Christians, what the Pharisees said of our Lord; “They cast out devils by Beelzebub, the chief of devils.” That is, it is denying the well-authenticated work of the Spirit, and attributing to some other and some evil source, what is really the operation of the Holy Ghost. Wherever the Spirit of God is, there the Church is; and as the Spirit is not only within, but without all external Church organizations, so the Church itself cannot be limited to any visible society. . The historical unity of the Church is its perpetuity ; its remaining one and the same in all ages. In this sense, also, the true Church is one. It is now what it was in the days of the apostles. It has con- tinued the same without interruption, from the beginning, and is to continue until the final consummation ; for the gates of hell can never prevail against it. About this there is no dispute; all Christians admit the Church to be in this sense perpetual. In asserting the his- torical unity, or uninterrupted confinuance of the Church, all must maintain the unbroken continuance of every thing which, according to their several theories, is essential to its existence. Ifthe Church is a visible society, professing the true faith, and subject to lawful prelates, and especially to the Pope of Rome, then-the perpetuity of the Church supposes the continued existence of such a society, thus organized, always professing the true faith, and always subject to its lawful rulers. There must, therefore, always be an external visible society; that society must profess the truth; there must always be prelates legiti- mately consecrated, and a lawful pope. If, according to the Anglican theory, the Church is precisely what Romanists declare it to be, except subjection to the pope, then its perpetuity involves all the particulars above mentioned, except the continued recognition of the headship of the bishop of Rome. If, on the other hand, the Church is 28 CHURCH POLITY. a company of believers, if it is the communion of saints, all that is essential to its perpetuity is that there should always be believers. It is not necessary that they should be externally organized, much less is it necessary that they should be organized in any prescribed form. It is not necessary that any line of officers should be uninterruptedly con- tinued ; much less is it necessary that those officers should be prelates or popes. All that God has promised, and all that we have a right to expect, is, that the true worshippers of the Lord Jesus shall never entirely fail. They may be few and scattered; they may be even unknown to each other, and, in a great measure, to the world; they may be as the seven thousand in the days of the prophet Elijah, who had not bowed the knee unto Baal; still, so long as they exist, the Church, considered as the communion of saints, the mystical body of Christ on earth, continues to exist. The argument from this source, in favour of the Protestant theory of the Church, is, that in no other sense is the Church perpetual. No existing external society has continued uninterruptedly to profess the true faith, Rome was at one time Arian, at another Pelagian, at another, according to the judgment of the Church of England, idola- trous. All Latin churches were subject to the instability of the Church of Rome. No existing eastern Church has continued the same in its doctrines, from the times of the apostles to the present time. That there has been an uninterrupted succession of popes and prelates, validly consecrated, is admitted to be a matter of faith, and not of sight. From the nature of the case it does not admit of historical proof. The chances, humanly speaking, are as a million to one against it. If it is assumed, it must be on the ground of the supposed necessity of such succession to the perpetuity of the Church, which is a matter of pro- mise. But the Church can exist without a pope, without prelates, yea, without presbyters, if in its essential nature it is the communion of saints. There is, therefore, no promise of an uninterrupted succession of validly ordained church-officers, and consequently no foundation for faith in any such succession. In the absence of any such promise, the historical argument against “apostolic succession,” becomes overwhelm- ing and unanswerable. We must allow the attributes of the Church to determine our con- ception of its nature. If no external society is perpetual; if every existing visible Church has more than once apostatized from the faith, then the Church must be something which can continue in the midst of the general defection of all external societies; then external organi- zation is not essential to the Church, much less can any particular mode of organization be essential to its existence. The only Church which is holy, which is one, which is catholic, apostolic, and perpetual, is the IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 29 communion of saints, the company of faithful men, the mystical body of Christ, whose only essential bond of union is the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. ‘That Spirit, however, always produces faith and love, so that all in whom he dwells are united in faith and Christian fellow- ship. And as, in virtue of the divine promise, the Spirit is to remain constantly gathering in the people of God, until Christ comes the second time, so the Church can never fail. The attributes, then, of holiness, unity, and perpetuity, do not belong to any external society, and therefore no such society can be the Church. They are all found, in their strictest sense and highest measure, in the communion of saints, and, therefore, the saints constitute the one, holy, apostolic, Catholic Church. Argument from the promises and prerogatives of the Church—The Scriptures abound with promises addressed to the Church, and they ascribe certain prerogatives to it. From the character of these pro- mises and prerogatives, we may infer the nature of the Church. 1. The most comprehensive of the promises in question, is that of the continued presence of Christ, by the indwelling of his Spirit. This promise is often given in express terms, and is involved in the descrip- ‘tion of the Church as the body of Christ and the temple of God. It is not his body, neither is it the temple of God, without the presence of the Spirit. The presence of God is not inoperative. It is like the presence of light and heat, or of knowledge and love, which of necessity manifest themselves by their effects. In like manner, and by a like necessity, the presence of God is manifested by holiness, righteousness, and peace. He is not, where these graces are not; just as certainly as light is not present in the midst of darkness. The promise of God to his Church is, Lo, I am with you always; in every age and in every part of the world; so that where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church; and where the Church is, there is the Spirit. The presence promised is, therefore, a perpetual presence. It is also universal. God does not promise to be with the officers of the Church to the ex- clusion of the members; nor with some members to the exclusion of others. The soul is not in the head of the human body, to the exclusion of the limbs; nor is it in the eyes and ears, to the exclusion of the hands or feet. So long as it is in the body at all, it is in the whole body. In like manner the promised presence of God with his Church relates to all its members. If this is so; if God has promised to be with his Church; if his pre- sence is operative; if it is perpetual and all-pervading, then it is plain that this promise was never made to any external society, for to no such society has it ever been fulfilled. No such society has had the per- sistency in truth and holiness, which the divine presence of necessity 30 CHURCH POLITY. secures. If in one age it professes the truth, in another it professes srror. If at one time its members appear holy, at another they are nost manifestly corrupt. Or, if some manifest the presence of the Spirit, others give evidence that they are not under his influence. It s, therefore, just as plain that God is not always present with the »xternal Church, as that the sun is not always above our horizon. [he nominal Church would correspond with the real, the visible with the nvisible, if the promise of the divine presence belonged to the former. With his own people God is always present; they, therefore, must con- stitute that Church to whom the promise of his presence belongs. 2. The promise of divine teaching is made to the Church. This is included in the promise of the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of truth, the source of light and knowledge, wherever he dwells. Christ, when about to leave the world, promised his disciples that he would send them the Spirit, to guide them into all truth. With regard to this promise it is to be remarked, 1. That it is made to all the members of the Church. It is not the peculium of its officers, for it is expressly said, Ye shall be all taught of God. And the apostle John says to all believers, Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 2. It relates only to necessary truths. God has not promised so teach his people all science, nor has he promised to render them infallible in matters of religion. All he has promised, is to teach them whatever is necessary to their salvation, and to qualify them for the work to which they are called. 3. This divine teaching is effectual and abiding. “The anointing,” says the apostle, “ which ye have re- seived of him, abideth with you.” Those who are taught of God, therefore, continue in the knowledge and acknowledgment of the truth. That such divine teaching is not promised to any external society, is plain; 1. Because all the constituent members of no such society are thus divinely taught. The visible Church includes “ all sorts of men,” zood and bad, ignorant and enlightened, heterodox and orthodox, believing and infidel. Of the members of that society, therefore, that is not true which the Scriptures declare to be true, with regard to the members of the Church. They are not all taught of God. 2. Within the pale of every external, and especially of every denominational Church, there is heresy, either secret or avowed. But the teaching of God; as has been shown, precludes the possibility of fundamental error. There may be great diversity of views on many points of doc- trine, but as to every thing necessary to salvation, all the members of the body of Christ must agree. It is, however, notorious and avowed, that in the Church of Scotland, of England, and of Rome, all forms of doctrine, from the purest scriptural faith down to the lowest skepticism, are to be found; therefore no such society can be the Church to which IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 31 this divine teaching is promised. 3. The teaching of God being per- petual, securing constancy in the acknowledgment of the truth, none but those who continue in the truth can belong to the Church to which that teaching is promised. This fidelity is an attribute of the invisible Church alone, and therefore the communion of saints is the body to which this promise is made. 3. A third promise is that of divine protection. By this promise the Church is secured from internal decay and from external destruc- tion. Its enemies are numerous and powerful; they are ever on the watch, and most insidious in their attacks. Without the constant protection of her divine Sovereign, the Church would soon entirely perish. This promise is made to every individual member of the Church. They are all the members of his body, and his body, re- deemed and sanctified, can never perish. No man, he says, shall ever pluck them out of his hand. They may be sorely tempted; they may be seduced into many errors, and even into sin; but Satan shall not triumph over them. They may be persecuted, and driven into the caverns and dens of the earth, but though cast down, they are never forsaken. That this promise of protection is not made to the external Church is plain, 1. Because multitudes included within the pale of that Church are not the subjects of this divine protection. 2. The external Church has not been preserved from apostasy. Both before and since the advent of Christ, idolatry or false doctrine has been introduced and tolerated by the official organs of that Church. 3. A society dis- persed is, for the time being, destroyed. Its organization being dis- solved, it ceases to exist as a society. From such disorganization or dispersion, the visible Church has not been protected, and therefore it cannot be the body to which this promise of protection belongs. 4, We find in the Scriptures frequent assurances that the Church is to extend from sea to sea, from the rising to the setting of the sun; that all nations and people are to flow unto it. These promises the Jews referred to their theocracy. Jerusalem was to be the capital of the world; the King of Zion was to be the King of the whole earth, and all nations were to be subject to the Jews. Judaizing Christians interpret these same predictions as securing the universal prevalence of the theocratic Church, with its pope or prelates. In opposition to both, the Redeemer said: “My kingdom is not of this world.” His apostles also taught that the kingdom of God consists in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. The extension of the Church, therefore, consists in the prevalence of love to God and man, of the worship and service of the Lord Jesus Christ. It matters not how the saints may be associated; it is not their association, but their faith 32 CHURCH POLITY. and love that makes them the Church, and as they multiply and spread, so does the Church extend. All the fond anticipations of the Jews, founded on a false interpretation of the divine promises, were dissipated by the advent of a Messiah whose kingdom is not of this world. History is not less effectually refuting the ritual theory of the Church, by showing that piety, the worship and obedience of Christ, the true kingdom of God, is extending far beyond the limits which that theory would assign to the dominion of the Redeemer. 5. The great promise made to the Church is holiness and salvation. Christ, it is said, loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word ; that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. This and similar passages, plainly teach that holiness and salvation are promised to every member of the Church. This is obvi- ous; 1. Because these are blessings of which individuals alone are sus- ceptible. It is not a community or society, as such, that is redeemed, regenerated, sanctified, and saved. Persons, and not communities, are the subjects of these blessings. 2. This follows from the relation of the Church to Christ as his body. The members of the Church are members of Christ. They are in him, partakers of his fife, and the subjects of his grace. 3. It is, in fact, a conceded point. It is the common doctrine of all Christians, that out of the Church there is no salvation, and within the Church there is no perdition. It is the doc- trine of all ritualists, that those who die in communion with the Church are saved. To this conclusion they are unavoidably led by what the Scriptures teach concerning the Church, as the body of Christ, and temple of God. Protestants admit the justice of the conclusion. They acknowledge that the Bible as plainly teaches that every member of the Church shall be saved, as that every penitent believer shall be admitted into heaven. If this is so, as both parties virtually concede, it determines the nature of the Church. If all the members of the Church are saved, the Church must consist exclusively of saints, and not “ of all sorts of men.” Membership in the Church being thus inseparably connected with salvation, to represent the Church as‘a visible society, is—1. To make’ the salvation of men to depend upon their external relation, entirely irrespective of their moral character. 2. It is to promise salvation to multitudes against whom God denounces wrath. 38. It is to denounce wrath on many to whom God promises salvation. 4. It therefore utterly destroys the nature of true religion. The argument for the true doctrine concerning the Church, derived from the divine promises, is this. Those promises, according to the IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 33 Scriptures, are made to the humble, the penitent and believing; the Church, therefore, must consist exclusively of the regenerated. Those to whom the promises of divine presence, guidance, protection, and salvation, are made, cannot be a promiscuous multitude of all sorts of men. That theory of the Church, therefore, which makes it an exter- nal society, is necessarily destructive of religion and morality. Of religion, because it teaches that our relation to God depends’on out- ward circumstances, and not on the state of the heart and character of the life. If, by an external rite or outward profession, we are made “members of Christ,” “the children of God,” and “inheritors of the kingdom of heaven ;” if we are thus united to that body to which all the promises are made; and if our connection with the Church or body of Christ, can be dissolved only by heresy, schism, or excommu- nication, then of necessity religion is mere formalism, Church mem- bership is the only condition of salvation, and Church ceremonies the only exercises of piety. This natural tendency of the theory in question is, indeed, in many minds, counteracted by opposing influences. Men who have access to the Bible, cannot altogether resist the power of its truths. They are thus often saved, in a measure, from the perverting influence of their false views ofthe Church. The whole tendency, however, of such error, is to evil. It perverts one’s views of the nature of religion, and of the conditions of salvation. It leads men to substitute for real piety the indulgence of religious sentiment. They expend on the Church as an esthetic idea, or as represented in a cathedral, the awe, the reverence, the varied emotions, which similate the fear of God and love of his excellence. This kind of religion often satisfies those whose consciences are too much enlightened, and whose tastes are too much refined, to allow them to make full use of the theory that the visible Church is the body of Christ, and all its members the children of God. This doctrine is no less destructive of morality than of religion. How can it be otherwise, if all the promises of God are made to men, not as penitent and holy, but as members of an external society; and if membership in that society requires, as Bellarmin and Mr. Palmer, Oxford and Rome, teach, no internal virtue whatever? This injurious tendency of Ritualism is not a matter of logical inference merely. It is abundantly demonstrated by history. The ancient Jews believed that God had made a covenant which secured the salvation of all the natural descendants of Abraham, upon condition of their adherence to the external theocracy. They might be punished for their sins, but, according to their doctrine, no circumcised Israelite ever entered hell. The effect of this doctrine was manifest in their whole spirit and cha- racter. External connection with the Church, and practice of its rites 3 84 CHURCH POLITY. and ceremonies, constituted their religion. They would not eat with unwashen hands, nor pray unless towards Jerusalem; but they would devour widows’ houses, and, for a pretence, make long prayers. They were whited sepulchres, fair in the sight of men, but within full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness. The same effect has been produced by the doctrine which makes salvation depend upon connec- tion with a visible society, in the Greek and Latin Churches. Eccle- siastical services have taken the place. of spiritual worship. Corrup- tion of morals has gone hand in hand with the decline of religion. The wicked are allowed to retain their standing in the Church, and are led to consider themselves as perfectly safe so long as embraced within its communion; and no matter what their crimes, they are committed to the dust “in the sure hape of a blessed resurrection.” There is one effect of this false theory of the Church, which ought to be specially noticed. It is the parent of bigotry, religious pride com- bined with malignity. Those who cry, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we, are an abomination in the sight of God. That this spirit is the legitimate fruit of the ritual theory is plain. That theory leads a particular class of men to regard themselves, on the ground of their external relations, as the special favourites of heaven. It is of course admitted that a sense of God’s favour, the assurance of his love, is the fountain of all holy affections and right actions. Hence the Bible is filled with the declarations of his love for his people; and hence the Holy Spirit is sent to shed abroad his love in their hearts. The assurance of the divine favour, however, pro- duces holiness, only when we have right apprehensions of God, and of the way in which his love comes to be exercised towards us. When we see that he is of purer eyes than to look upon sin; that it is only for Christ’s sake he is propitious to the guilty; that the love and indulgence of sin are proof that we are not the objects of his favour, the more we see of our unworthiness, the more grateful are we for his undeserved love, and the more desirous to be conformed to his image. But when men believe they are the favourites of God, because, members of a particular society, that no matter what their personal character, they are objects of God’s special love, then the natural and inevitable effect is pride, contempt, intolerance, malignity, and, when they dare, persecution. The empirical proof of the truth of this remark is found in the history of the Jews, of the Brahmins, of the Mohammedans, and of the Christian Church. It is to be found in the practical effect of the doctrine in question, wherever it has prevailed. The Jews re- garded themselves as the peculiar favourites of God in virtue of their descent from Abraham, and irrespective of their personal character. This belief rendered them proud, contemptuous, intolerant, and malig- IDEA OF THE CHURCH. . 35 nant towards all beyond their exclusive circle. In the Christian Church we always find the same spirit connected with this doctrine, expressed under one set of circumstances by anathemas, enforced by the rack and stake; under another, by denying the mercy of God to the penitent and believing, if not subject to “pastors having succes- sion;” by setting up exclusive claims to be the Church of God; by contemptuous language and deportment towards their fellow Chris- tians ; and, as in the case of Mr. Palmer, with the open avowal of the right and duty of persecution. Such are the legitimate effects of this theory; effects which it has never failed to produce. It is essentially Antinomian in its tendency, destructive of true religion, and injurious to holy living, and therefore cannot be in accordance with the word and will of God. The only answer given to this fatal objection is an evasion. Ritual- ists abandon pro hac vice their theory. They teach, that to the visible Church, Christ has promised his constant presence, his guid- ance, his protection, and his saving grace; and that in order to mem- bership in this Church, no internal virtue is required, no regeneration, piety, sanctity, visible or invisible. But when it is objected, that if the promises are made to the visible Church, they are made to the wicked, for the wicked are within the pale of that Church, they answer, “ The wicked are not really in the Church;” the Church really consists of “the elect, the predestinated, the sanctified.” * As soon, however, as this difficulty is out of sight, they return to their theory, and make the Church to consist “ of all sorts of men.” This temporary admission of the truth, does not counteract the tendency of the constant inculcation of the doctrine that membership in that body to which the promises are made, is secured by external profession. Wherever that doctrine is taught, there the very essence of Antinomianism is inculcated, and there the fruits of Antinomianism never fail to appear. The same argument, afforded by a consideration of the promises made to the Church to determine its nature, flows from a consideration of its prerogatives. Those prerogatives are the authority to teach, and the right to exercise discipline, These are included in the power of the keys. This is not the place for any formal exhibition of the na- ture and limitations of this power. To construct the argument to be now presented, it is only necessary to assume what all Christians con- cede. Christ has given his Church the authority to teach, and to bind and loose. He has promised to ratify her decisions, and to enforce her judgments. In this general statement all denominations of Christians agree. Our present question is, To whom does this power belong? * Palmer on the Church, I. pp. 28, 58. 36 , CHURCH POLITY. To the Church, of course. But ig it to the visible Church, as such, irrespective of the spiritual state of its members, or is it to the Church considered as the communion of saints? The answer to this question makes all the difference between Popery and Protestantism, between the Inquisition and the liberty wherewith Christ has made his people free. The prerogative in question does not belong to the visible Church, or to its superior officers, but to the company of believers and their ap- propriate organs; 1. Because it presupposes the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is only because the Church is the organ of the Spirit of Christ, and therefore only so far as it is his organ, that the teaching of the Church is the teaching of Christ, or that her decisions will be ratified in heaven. It has, however, been abundantly proved from the word of God, that the Holy Spirit dwells only in true be- lievers; they only are his organs, and therefore it is only the teaching and discipline of his own people, as guided by his Spirit, that Christ has promised to ratify. To them alone belongs the prerogative in question, and to any external body, only on the assumption of their being, and only as far’ as they are what they profess to be, the true children of God. No external visible body, as such, is so far the organ of the Holy Spirit, that its teachings are the teaching of Christ, and its decisions his judgments. No such body is, therefore, the Church to which the power of doctrine, and the key of the kingdom of heaven have been committed. 2. As it is undeniable that the visible Church is always-a mixed body, and often controlled in its action by wicked or worldly mea, if Christ had promised to ratify the teaching and discipline of that body, he would be bound to sanction what was contrary to his own word and Spirit. It is certain that unrenewed men are governed by the spirit of the world, or by that spirit which works in the children of disobe- dience, and it is no less certain that the visible Church has often been composed, in great measure, of unrenewed men; if, therefore, to them has been committed this prerogative, then the people of God are, by Christ’s own command, bound to obey the world and those governed by its spirit. If wicked men, whether in the Church or out of it, cast us out of their communion, because of the opposition between us and them, it is nothing more than the judgment of the world. It is neither the judgment of Christ, nor of his Church. But if true believers refuse us their fellowship, because of our opposition to them as believers, it is a very different matter. It is one thing to be rejected by the wicked because they are wicked, and quite another to be cast off by the good because they are good. It is only the judgment of his own people, and even of his own people, only as they submit to the guidance of his own IDEA OF THE CHURCH. ’ 37 Spirit, (i. e., of his people as his people,) that Christ has promised to ratify in heaven. The condemnation of Christ himself by the Jewish Church, of Athanasius by the Church of the fifth century, of Protest- ants by the Church of Rome, was but the judgment of the world, and of him who is the god of this world. 3. If the power of the keys is, as ritualists teach, committed to the chief officers of the Church as a visible society, if it is their official pre- rogative, then there can be no such thing as the right of private judg- ment. Such a right can have no place in the presence of the Spirit of God. If the chief officers of the Church, without regard to their cha- racter, are the organs of that Spirit, then all private Christians are bound to submit without hesitation to all their decisions. This, as is well known, is the doctrine and practice of all those Churches which hold that the promises and prerogatives pertaining to the Church, be- long to the Church as a visible society. All private judgment, all private responsibility, are done away. But according to the Scriptures, it is the duty of every Christian to try the spirits whether they be of God, to reject an apostle, or an angel from heaven, should he deny the faith, and of that denial such Christian is of necessity the judge. Faith, moreover, is an act for which every man is personally responsible; his salvation depends upon his believing the truth. He must, therefore, have the right to believe God, let the chief officers of the Church teach what they may. The right of private judgment is, therefore, a divine right. It is incompatible with the ritual theory of the Church, but perfectly consistent with the Protestant doctrine that the Church is the communion of saints. The latter is consequently the true doctrine. 4. The fact that the teaching of the visible Church has so often been contradictory and heretical, that council is against council, one age against another age, one part of the Church against another part, is a clear proof that the prerogative of authoritative teaching was never given by Christ to any such erring body. And the fact that the exter- nal Church has so often excommunicated and persecuted the true peo- ple of God, is proof positive that hers are not the decisions which are always ratified in heaven. There are many difficult questions respecting the “power of the keys,” which are not here alluded to. All that is now necessary, is to show that this is a prerogative which cannot belong to the visible Church as such. It can belong to her only so far as she is the organ of the Church invisible, to which all the attributes, the promises and prerogatives of the true Church are to be referred. And no more wicked or more disastrous mistake has ever been made, than to trans- fer to the visible society of professors of the true religion, subject to bishops having succession. the promises and prerogatives of the body 38 CHURCH POLITY. of Christ. It is to attribute to the world the attributes of the Church; to the kingdom of darkness the prerogatives of the kingdom of light, It is to ascribe to wickedness the character and blessedness of goodness. Every such historical Church has been the world baptized; all the men of a generation, or of a nation, are included in the pale of such a communion. If they are the Church, who are the world? If they are the kingdom of light, who constitute the kingdom of darkness? To teach that the promises and prerogatives of the Church belong to these visible societies, is to teach that they belong to the world, organ- ized under a particular form and called by a new name. CHAPTER II. i THEORIES OF THE CHURCH. [*] Tarts is one of the ablest productions of the Oxford school. The theory of the Church which that school has embraced, is here presented historically, in the first instance, and then sustained by arguments drawn from the design of the Church, as a divine institute, and the common conclusion is arrived at and urged, that the one Church, as described by the author, is the only revealed way of salvation. Arch- deacon Manning’s work has excited no little attention in England; and its republication in this country, has been warmly welcomed by the Oxford party in America. We do not propose to make the book before us, the subject of parti- cular examination; but simply to exhibit the theory of the Church which it advocates, in connection and contrast with that which neces- sarily arises out of the evangelical system of doctrine. The Church as an outward organization is the result and expression of an inward spiritual life; and consequeritly must take its form from the nature of the life whence it springs. This is only saying, in other words, that our theory of the Church, depends on our theory of doctrine. If we hold a particular system of doctrine, we must hold a corresponding theory of the Church. The two are so intimately connected that they cannot be separated ; and it is doubtful whether, as a matter of expe- rience, the system of doctrine most frequently leads to the adoption of a particular view of the Church, or whether the view men take of the [* Princeton Review, article same title, in review of “The Unity of the Church, by Henry Edward Manning ;” 1846, p. 137.] THEORIES OF THE CHURCH. 39 Church more generally determines their system of doctrines. In the order of nature, and perhaps also most frequently in experience, the doctrine precedes the theory. History teaches us that Christianity appears under three character- istic forms ; which for the sake of distinction may be called the Evan- gelical, the Ritual, and the Rationalistic. These forms always co-exist in the Church, and are constantly striving for the mastery. At one period, the one, and at another, another gains the ascendency, and gives character to that period. During the apostolic age, the evan- gelical system prevailed, though in constant conflict with Ritualism in the form of Judaism. During the next age of the Church we find Rationalism struggling for the ascendency, under the form of Gnosti- cism and the philosophy of the Platonizing fathers. Ritualism, how- ever, soon gained the mastery, which it maintained almost without a struggle until the time of the Reformation. At that period evangelical truth gained the ascendency which it maintained for more than a hun- dred years, and was succeeded on the continent by Rationalism, and in England, under Archbishop Laud, by Ritualism. This latter system, however, was there pressed beyond endurance, and the measures adopted for promoting it, led to a violent reaction. The restoration of Charles the II. commenced the reign of the Rationalistic form of doc- trine in England, manifesting itself in low Arminian or Pelagian views, and in general indifference. This continued to characterize the Church in Great Britain, until the appearance of Wesley and White- field, about a century ago, since which time there has been a constant advance in the prevalence and power of evangelical truth both in England and Scotland. Within the last ten or fifteen years, however, a new movement has taken place, which has attracted the attention of the whole Christian world. After the fall of Archbishop Laud, the banishment of James IT. and the gradual disappearance of the non-jurors, the principles which they represented, though they found here and there an advocate in the Church of England, lay nearly dormant, until the publication of the Oxford Tracts. Since that time their progress has been rapid, and connected with the contemporaneous revival of Popery, constitutes the characteristic ecclesiastical features of the present generation. The Church universal is so united, that no great movement in one portion of it, can be destitute of interest for all the rest. The Church in this country, especially, is so connected with the Church in Great Britain, there are so many channels of reciprocal influence between the two, that nothing of importance can happen there, which is not felt here. The Church in the one country has generally risen and declined, with the Church in the other. The spiritual death which gradually over- 40 CHURCH POLITY. spread England and Scotland from the revolution of 1688 to the rise of Wesley, in no small measure spread its influence over America ; and the great revival of religion in England and Scotland before the middle of the last century, was contemporaneous with the revival which extended in this country from Maine to Georgia. The recent progress of Ritualism in England, is accompanied by the spread of the same principles in America. We are not, therefore, uninterested spectators of the struggle now in progress between the two conflicting systems of doctrines and theories of the Church, the Evangelical and the Ritual. The spiritual welfare of our children and of the country is deeply concerned in the issue. The different forms of religion to which reference has been made, have each its peculiar basis, both objective and subjective. The evan- gelical form rests on the Scriptures as its objective ground; and its in- ward or subjective ground is an enlightened conviction of sin. The ritual system rests outwardly on the authority of the Church, or tradi- tion; inwardly on a vague religious sentiment. The rationalistic rests on the human understanding, and internally on indifference. These are general remarks, and true only in the general. Perhaps few persons are under the influence of any one of these forms, to the exclu- sion of the others; in very few, is the ground of belief exclusively the Bible, tradition, or reason. Yet as general remarks they appear to us correct, and may serve to characterize the comprehensive forms which the Christian religion has been found to assume. The evangelical system of doctrine starts with the assumption that all men are under the condemnation and power of sin. This is assumed by the sacred writers as a fact of consciousness, and is made the ground of the whole doctrine of redemption. From the guilt of sin there is no method of deliverance but through the righteousness of Christ, and no way in which freedom from its power can be obtained, but through the indwelling of his Spirit. No man who is not united to Christ by a living faith isa partaker either of his righteousness or Spirit, and every man who does truly believe, is a partaker of both, so as to be both justified and sanctified. This union with Christ by the indwelling of his Spirit is always manifested by the fruits of righteous- ness; by love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. Where these fruits of the Spirit are, there, and not elsewhere, is the Spirit; and where the Spirit is, there is union with Christ; and where union with Christ is, there is membership in his body, which is the Church. True believers, therefore, according to the Scriptures, are the, xAnror, the éxtexrot, the éxxdyota, This is the fundamental principle of the evangelical theory respecting the Church. It is the only view at all consistent with the evangelical system of doc- THEORIES OF THE CHURCH. Al trine; and as a historical fact, it is the view to which those doctrines have uniformly led, If a man holds that the Church is the body of Christ; that the body of Christ consists of those in whom he dwells by his Spirit; that it is by faith we receive the promise of the Spirit; and that the presence of the Spirit is always manifested by his fruits ; then he must hold that no man who does not possess that faith which works by love, is united to Christ or a member of his Church; and that all, no matter how else they may differ, or where they may dwell, who have that faith, are members of that body, which is his Church. Such is the unavoidable conclusion to which the evangelical system leads as to the nature of the Church. The body to whom the attri- butes, the promises, the prerogatives of the Church belong, consists of all true believers. This also is the turning point between the evan- gelical and ritual theories, on which all other questions concerning the Church depend. To the question, what is the Church; or, who con- stitute the Church? the Evangelical answer, and must answer, True believers. The answer of the Ritualists is, The organized professors of the true religion subject to lawful pastors. And according as the one or the other of these answers is adopted, the one or the other theory with its consequences of necessity follows. The Church, in that sense in which it is the heir of the promises and prerogatives granted in the word of God, consists of true believers, is in one aspect a visible, in another, an invisible body. First, believers as men are visible beings, and by their confession and fruits are visible as believers. ‘“ By their fruits ye shall know them.” In their character also of believers, they assdciate for the purposes of worship and disci- pline, and have their proper officers for instruction and government, and thus appear before the world as a visible body. And secondly, as God has not given to men the power to search the heart, the terms of admission into this body, or in other words, the terms of Christian communion, are not any infallible evidence of regeneration and true faith, but a credible profession. And as many make that profession who are either self-deceived or deceivers, it necessarily follows that many are of the Church, who are not in the Church. Hence arises the distinction between the real and the nominal, or, as it is commonly ex- pressed, the invisible and the visible Church. A distinction which is unavoidable, and which is made in all analogous cases, and which is substantially and of necessity admitted in this case even by those whose whole theory rests on the denial of it. The Bible promises great blessings to Christians; but there are real Christians and nomi- nal Christians ; and no one hesitates to make the distinction and to confine the application of these promises to those who are Christians at heart, and not merely in name. TheScriptures promise eternal life to 42 CHURCH POLITY. believers. But there is a dead, as well as a living faith; there are true believers, and those who profess faith without possessing it. No one here again refuses to acknowledge the propriety of the distinction, or hesitates to say that the promise of eternal life belongs only to those who truly. believe. In like manner there is a real and a nominal, a visible and an invisible Church, a body consisting of those who are truly united to Christ, and a body consisting of all who profess such union. Why should not this distinction be allowed? How can what is said in Scripture of the Church, be applied to the body of professors, any more than what is said of believers can be applied to the body of professed believers? There is the same necessity for the distinction in the one case, as in the other. And accordingly it is in fact made by those who in terms deny it. Thus Mr. Palmer, an Oxford wri- ter, says, The Church, as composed of its vital and essential mem- bers, means “ the elect and sanctified children of God;” and adds, “ it is generally allowed that the wicked belong only externally to the Church.” Vol. I. p. 28, 58. Even Romanists are forced to make the same admission, when they distinguish between the living and dead members of the Church. As neither they nor Mr. Palmer will contend chat the promises pertain to the “ dead ” members, or those who are only »xternally united to the Church, but must admit them to belong to the ‘essential ” or “living”? members, they concede the fundamental prin- riple of the evangelical theory as to the nature of the Church, viz.: chat it consists of true believers, and is visible as they are visible as velievers by their profession and fruits, and that those associated with them in external union, are the Church only outwardly, and not as con- stituent members of the body of Christ and temple of God. In this soncession is involved an admission of the distinction for which the svangelical contend between the Church invisible and visible, between nominal and real Christians, between true and professing believers. Such being the view of the nature of the Church and of its visibility, ‘0 which the evangelical system of doctrine necessarily leads, it is easy so see wherein the Church is one. If the Church consists of those who we united to Christ and are the members of his body, it is evident that the bond which unites them to him, unites them to each other. They are one body in Christ Jesus, and every one members of one another. The vital bond between Christ and his body is the Holy Spirit; which he gives to dwell in all who are united to him by faith. The indwell- ing of the Spirit is therefore the essential or vital bond of unity in the Church. By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, for we are partakers of that one Spirit. The human body is one, because animated by one soul; and the Church is one because actuated by one Spirit. As the Spirit wherever he dwells manifests himself as the Spirit of THEORIES OF THE CHURCH. 43 truth, of love, and of holiness, it follows that those in whom he dwells must be one in faith, in love, and holy obedience. Those whom he guides, he guides into the knowledge of the truth, and as he cannot contradict himself, those under his guidance, must in all essential matters, believe the same truths. And as the Spirit of love, he leads all under his influence to love the same objects, the same God and Father of all, the same Lord Jesus Christ; and to love each other as brethren. This inward, spiritual union must express itself outwardly, in the profession of the same faith, in the cheerful recognition of all Christians as Christians, that is, in the communion of saints, and in mutual subjection. Every individual Christian recognizes the right of his fellow-Christians to exercise over’ him a watch and care, and feels his obligation to submit to them in the Lord. ; Since however the Church’ is too widely diffused for the whole to exercise their watch and care over each particular part, there is a necessity for more restricted organizations. Believers therefore of the same neighbourhood, of the same province, of the same nation, may and must unite by some closer bond than that which externally binds the Church as a whole together. The Church of England is one, in virtue of its subjection to a common head, and the adoption of common for- mularies of worship and discipline. This more intimate union of its several parts with each other, does not in any measure violate its unity with the Episcopal body in this country. And the Presbyterian Church in the United States, though subject to its own peculiar judica- tories, is still one with the Church of Scotland. It is evident, and generally conceded, that there is nothing, in independent organization, in itself considered, inconsistent with unity, so long as a common faith is professed, and mutual recognition is preserved. And if independent organization on account of difference of locality or of civil relations, is compatible with unity, so also is independent organization on the ground of diversity of language. The former has its foundation in expediency and convenience, so has the latter. It is not true, therefore, as Ritualists teach, that there cannot be two independent Churches, in the same place. Englishmen in Germany and Germans in England may organize Churches not in organic connection with those around them, with as much propriety as Episcopalians in England and Episco- palians in Scotland may have independent organizations. Still further, as independent or separate organization is admitted to be consistent with true unity, by all but Romanists, it follows that any reason not destructive of the principle of unity, may be made the ground of such separate organization; not merely difference as to loca- tion, or diversity of language, but diversity of opinion. It is on all hands conceded that there may be difference of opinion, within certain 44 CHURCH POLITY. limits, without violating unity of faith; and it is also admitted that there may be independent organization, for considerations of conve- nience, without violating the unity of communion. It therefore follows, that where such diversity of opinion exists, as to render such separate organization convenient, the unity of the Church is not violated by such separation. Diversity of opinion is indeed an evidence of i imper- fection, and therefore such separations are evil, so far as they are evi- dence of want of perfect union in faith. But they are a less evil, than either hypocrisy or contention; and therefore, the diversity of sects, which exist in the Christian world, is to be regarded as incident to im- perfect knowledge and imperfect sanctification. They are to be de- plored, as every other evidence of such imperfection is to be regretted, yet the evil is not to be magnified above its just dimensions. So long as unity of faith, of love, and of obedience is preserved, the unity of the Church is as to its essential principle safe. It need hardly be remarked, that it is admitted that all separate organization on inadequate grounds, and all diversity of opinion affecting important doctrines, and all want of Christian love and especially a sectarian, unchurching spirit, are opposed to the unity of the Church, and either mar or destroy it ac- cording to their nature. The sense in which the Church is catholic depends on the sense in which it is one. It is catholic only as it is one. If its unity, therefore, depends on subjection to one visible head, to one supreme governing tribunal, to the adoption of the same form of organization, then of course its extent or catholicity are limited by these conditions. If such be the nature of its oneness, then all not subject to such visible head, or governing tribunal, or who do not adopt the form of government assumed to be necessary, are excluded from the Church. But if the unity of the Church arises from union with Christ and the indwelling of his Spirit, then all who are thus united to him, are members of his Church, no matter what their external ecclesiastical connections may be, or whether they sustain any such relations at all. And as all really united to Christ are the true Church, so all who profess such union by professing to reccive his doctrines and obey his laws, consti- tute the professing or visible Church. It is plain therefore that the evangelical are the most truly catholic, because, embracing in their definition of the Church all who profess the true religion, they include a far wider range in the Church catholic, than those who confine their fellowship to those who adopt the same form of government, or are subject to the same visible head. It is easy to see how, according to the evangelical system the question, What is a true Church? is to be answered. Starting with the principle that all men are sinners, that the only method of salvation is by faith THEORIES OF THE CHURCH. 45 in Jesus Christ, and that all who believe in Him, and show the fruits of faith in a holy life, are the children of God, the called according to his purpose, that is, in the language of the New Testament, the xAyror, the éxzdyora, that system must teach that all true believers are members of the true Church, and all professors of the true faith are members of the visible Church. This is the only conclusion to which that system can lead. And therefore the only essential mark of a true Church which it can admit, is the profession of the true religion. Any indi- vidual man who makes a credible profession of religion we are bound to regard as a Christian; any society of such men, united for the purpose of worship and discipline, we are bound to regard as a Church. As there is endless diversity as to the degree of exactness with which individual Christians conform, in their doctrines, spirit and deportment, to the word of God, so there is great diversity as to the degree in which the different Churches conform to the same standard. But as in the case of the individual professor we can reject none who does not reject Christ, so in regard to Churches, we can disown none who holds the fundamental doctrines of the gospel. Against this simple and decisive test of a true Church it is objected on the one hand, that it is too latitudinarian. The force of this objection depends upon the standard of liberality adopted. It is of course too latitudinarian for Romanists and High Churchmen, as well as for rigid sectarians. But is it more liberal than the Bible, and our own Confession of Faith? Let any man decide this question by ascertaining what the Bible teaches as the true answer to the question, what is a Christian? And what isa Church? You cannot possibly make your notion of a Church narrower than your notion of a Christian. If a true Christian is a true believer, and a professed believer is a professing Christian, then of course a true Church is a body of true Christians, a professsing or visible Church is a body of professing Christians. This is the precise doctrine of our standards, which teach that the Church consists of all those who profess the true religion. On the other hand, however, it is objected that it cannot be expected of ordinary Christians that they should decide between the conflicting creeds of rival churches, and therefore the profession of the truth cannot be the mark of a true Church. To this objection it may be answered first, that it is only the plain fundamental doctrines of the gospel which are necessary to salvation, and therefore it is the profes- sion of those doctrines alone, which is necessary to establish the claim of any society to be regarded as a portion of the true Church. Secondly, that the objection proceeds on the assumption that such doc- trines cannot by the people be gathered from the word of God. If however theScriptures are the rule of faith, so plain that all men may 46 CHURCH POLITY. learn from them what they must believe and do in order to be saved, then do they furnish an available standard by which they may judge of the faith both of individuals and of Churches. Fourthly, this right to judge and the promise of divine guidance in judging are given in the Scriptures to all the people of God, and the duty to exercise the right is enjoined upon them as a condition of salvation. They are pro- nounced accursed if they do not try the spirits, or if they receive any other gospel than that taught in the Scriptures. And fifthly, this doctrinal test is beyond comparison more easy of application than any other. How are the unlearned to know that the Church with which they are connected has been derived, without schism or excommunica- tion, from the Churches founded by the apostles? What can they tell of the apostolical succession of pastors? These are mere historical ques- tions, the decision of which requires great learning, and involves no test of character, and yet: the salvation of men is made to depend on that decision. All the marks of the Church laid down by Romanists and High Churchmen, are liable to two fatal objections. They can be verified, if at all, only by the learned. And secondly, when verified, they decide nothing. A Church may have been originally founded by the apostles, and possess an uninterrupted succession of pastors, and yet be a synagogue of Satan. The theory of the Church, then, which of necessity follows from the evangelical system of doctrine is, that all who really believe the gospel constitute the true Church, and all who profess such faith constitute the visible Church; that in virtue of the profession of this common faith, and of allegiance to the same Lord, they are one body, and in this one body there may rightly be subordinate and more intimate unions of certain parts, for the purposes of combined action, and of mutual oversight and consolation. When it is said, in our Confession of Faith, that out of this visible Church, there is no ordinary possi- bility of salvation, it is only saying that there is no salvation without the knowledge and profession of the gospel; that there is no other name by which we must be saved, but the name of Jesus Christ. The proposition that “out of the Church there is no salvation” is true or false, liberal or illiberal, according to the latitude given to the word Church. There was not long since, and probably there is still in New York a little society of Sandemanian Baptists, consisting of seven persons, two men and five women, who hold that they constitute the whole Church in America. In their mouths the proposition above stated would indeed be restrictive. In the mouth of a Romanist, it means there is no salvation to any who do not belong to that body which acknowledges the Pope as its head. In the mouths of High Churchmen, it means there is no salvation to those who are not in sub- THEORIES OF THE CHURCH. AT jection to some prelate who is in communion with the Church catholic. While in the mouths of Protestants, it means there is no salvation without faith in Jesus Christ. The system, which for the sake of distinction has been called the Ritual, agrees of course with the evangelical as to many points of doc- trine. It includes the doctrine of the Trinity, of the incarnation of the Son of God, of original sin, of the sacrifice of Christ as a satis- faction to satisfy divine justice, of the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification, of the resurrection of the body and of an eternal judgment. The great distinction lies in the answer which it gives the question, what must I do to be saved? or by what means does the soul become interested in the redemption of Christ? According to the Evangelical system, it is faith. Every sinner who hears the gospel has unimpeded access to the Son of God, and can, in the exercise of faith and repentance, go immediately to him, and obtain eternal life at his hands. According to the Ritual system, he must go to the priest; the sacraments are the channels of grace and salvation, and the sacraments can only be lawfully or effect- ively administered by men prelatically ordained. The doctrine of the priestly character of the Christian ministry, therefore, is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Ritual system. A priest is a man ordained for men, in things pertaining to God, to offer gifts and sacri- fices. The very nature of the office supposes that those for whom he acts, have not in themselves liberty of access to God; and therefore the Ritual system is founded on the assumption that we have not this liberty of drawing nigh to God. It is only by the ministerial inter- vention of the Christian priesthood, that the sinner can be reconciled and made a partaker of salvation. Here then is a broad line of dis- tinction between the two systems of doctrines. This was one of the three great doctrines rejected by Protestants, at the time of the Refor- mation. They affirmed the priesthood of all believers, asserting that all have access to God through the High Priest of their profession, Jesus, the Son of God; and they denied the official priesthood of the clergy. The second great distinction between the two systems of doctrine, is the place they assign the sacraments. The evangelical admit them to be efficacious signs of grace, but they ascribe their efficacy not to any virtue in them or in him by whom they are administered, but to the influence of the Spirit in them that do by faith receive them. Ritual- ists attribute to them an inherent virtue, an opus operatum efficacy, independent of the moral state of the recipient. According to the one system, the sacraments are necessary only as matters of precept; ac- cording to the other, they have the necessity of means. According to the one, we are required to receive baptism, just as we are under 48 CHURCH POLITY. obligation to keep the Sabbath, or as the Jews were required to be circumcised, and yet we are taught that if any man kept the law, his uncircumcision should be counted for circumcision. And thus also, if any one truly repents and believes, his want of baptism cannot make the promise of God of none effect. The neglect of such instituted rites may involve more or less sin, or none at all, according to the circum- stances. It is necessary only as obedience to any other positive insti- tution is necessary; that is, as a matter of duty, the non-performance of which ignorance or disability may palliate or excuse. According to the latter system, however, we are required to receive baptism be- cause it is the only appointed means of conveying to us the benefits of redemption. It is of the same necessity as faith. It is a sine qua non, This alters the whole nature of the case, and changes in a great measure the plan of redemption. The theory of the Church connected with the Ritual system of doc- trine, that system which makes ministers priests, and the sacraments the only appointed channels of communicating to men the benefits of redemption, is implied in the nature of the doctrines themselves. It makes the Church so prominent that Christ and the truth are eclipsed. This made Dr. Parr call the whole system Churchianity, in distinction from Christianity. If our Lord, when he ascended to heaven, clothed his apostles with all the power which he himself possessed in his human nature, so that they were to the Church what he himself had been, its in- fallible teachers and the dispensers of, pardon and grace; and if in accordance with that assumption, the apostles communicated this power to their successors, the prelates, then it follows that these pre- lates and those whom they may authorize to act in their name, are the dispensers of truth and salvation, and communion with them, or subjection to their authority, is essential to union with the Church and to eternal life. The Church is thus represented as a store- house of divine grace; whose treasures are in the custody of its officers, to be dealt out by them, and at their discretion. It is like one of the rich convents of the middle ages ; to whose gates the people repaired at stated times for food. The convent was the store-house. Those who wanted food must come to its gates. Food was given at the discretion of its officers, to what persons and on what conditions they saw fit. To obtain supplies, it was of course necessary to recog- nize the convent as the depository, and its officers as the distributors ; and none who refused such recognition, could be fed from its stores. The analogy fails indeed as to an essential point. Food could be ob- tained elsewhere than at the convent gates; and none need apply, who did not choose to submit to the prescribed: conditions. Whereas ac- THEORIES OF THE CHURCH. 49 cording to Ritualists, the food of the soul can be obtained nowhere but at the doors of the Church ; and those who refuse to receive it there, and at the hands of withorized ministers, and on the terms they pre- scribe, cannot receive it at all. Unless in communion of the Church we cannot be saved ; and unless in subjection to prelates deriving the gift of the Spirit by regular succession from the apostles, we cannot be in communion of the Church. The subjection to the bishop, therefore, is ait indispensable condition of salvation. He is the centre of unity ; the bond of union between the believer and the Church, and thus with Christ. The unity of the Church, according to this theory, is no longer a spiritual union; not a unity of faith and love, but a union of associa- tion, a union of connection with the authorized dispensers of saving grace. It is not enough for any society of men to show that they are united in faith with the apostles, and in heart with all the people of God, and with Christ by the indwelling of his Spirit, as manifested by his fruits, they cannot be recognized as any portion of the true Church, unless they can prove historically their descent as a society from the apostles through the line of bishops. They must prove themselves a Church, just as a man proves his title to an estate. No Church, says Mr. Palmer, not founded by the apostles, or regularly descended from such a Church without separation or excommunication, can be con- sidered a true Church; and every society that can make out such a descent is a true Church, for a Church can only cease to be united to Christ by its own act of separation, or by the lawful judgment of others, Vol. I. p. 84. This also is what is meant by apostolicity as an attribute and mark of the Church. A Church is not apostolical because it holds the doc- trines, and conforms to the institutions of the apostles, but because it is historically derived from them by an uninterrupted descent. “Any society which is in fact derived from the apostles, must be so by spiritual propagation, or derivation, or union, not by separation from the apostles or the Churches actually derived from their preaching, under pretence of establishing a new system of supposed apostolic per- fection. Derivation from the apostles, is, in the former case, a reality, just as much as the descent of an illustrious family from its original founder. In the latter case it is merely an assumption in which the most essential links of the genealogy are wanting.” Palmer, Vol. I. p. 160. This descent must be through prelates, who are the bonds of con- nection between the apostles and the different portions of the one catholic and apostolic Church. Without regular consecration there can be no bishop, and without a bishop no Church, and out of the Church no salvation. The ae of these principles as made by their advocates, 50 . CHURCH POLITY. reveals their nature and importance, more distinctly than any mere verbal statement of them. The Methodists, for example, though they adopt the doctrinal standards of the Church of England, and have the same form of government, are not and never can become, according to this theory, a part of the Church, because the line of descent was broken by Wesley. He was but a presbyter and could not continue the succession of the ministry. A fatal flaw thus exists in their eccle- siastical pedigree, and they are hopelessly cut off from the Church ahd from salvation. The Roman and Eastern Churches, on the contrary, are declared to be true Churches, because descended from the communions founded by the apostles, and because they have never been separated from the , Church catholic either by voluntary secession or by excommunication. The Nestorians, on the other hand, are declared to be no part of the true Church; for though they may now have the orthodox faith, and though they have preserved the succession of bishops, they were excommuni- . cated in the fifth century, and that sentence has never been revoked. The Church of England is declared to be a true Church, because it has preserved the succession, and because, although excommunicated by the Church of Rome, that sentence has not been ratified by the Church universal. All other ecclesiastical societies in Great Britain and Ireland, whether Romanist or Protestant, are pronounced to be cut off from the Church and out of the way of salvation. This position is openly avowed, and is the necessary consequence of the theory. As the Romanists in those countries, though they have the succession, yet they voluntarily separate themselves from the Church of England, which as that is a true Church, is to separate themselves from the Church of Christ, a sin which is declared to be of the same turpitude as adultery and murder, and as certainly excludes from heaven. As to all other Protestant bodies, the case is still plainer. They have not only separated from the Church, but lost the succession, and are therefore out of the reach of the benefits of redemption, which flow only in the line of that succession. The Church of Scotland is declared to be in the same deplorable condition. Though under the Stuarts episcopacy was established in that country, yet it was strenuously resisted by the people; and.under William III. it was, by a joint act of the Assembly and Parliament formally rejected; they thereby separated themselves from the suc- ' cessors of the apostles, “and all the temporal enactments and powers of the whole world could not cure this fault, nor render them a portion of the Church of Christ.” Palmer, Vol. I. p. 529. The same judg- ment is pronounced on all the Churches in this country except the Church of England. The Romanists here are excluded, because they THEORIES OF THE CHURCH. 51 are derived from the schismatic Papists in Great Britain and Ireland, or have mtruded into sees where bishops deriving authority from the Anglican Church already presided. How this can be historically made out as regards Maryland and Louisiana, it is not for us to say. The theory forbids the existence of two separate Churches in the same place. If the Church of England in Maryland is a true Church, the Church of Rome is not. Bishop Whittingham, therefore, with perfect consistency, always speaks of the Romanists in the United States as schismatics, and schismatics of course are out of the Church. As to non-episcopal communions in this country, they are not only declared to be in a state of schism, but to be destitute of the essential elements of the Church. They are all, therefore, of necessity excluded from the pale of the Church. The advocates of this theory, when pressed with the obvious objection that multitudes thus excluded from the Church, and consequently from salvation, give every evidence of piety, meet the objection by quoting Augustine, “ Let us hold it as a thing un- shaken and firm, that no good men can divide themselves from the Church.” “It is not indeed to be supposed or believed for a moment,” adds Mr. Palmer, “ that divine grace would permit the really holy and justified members of Christ to fall from the way of life. He would only permit the unsanctified, the enemies of Christ to sever themselves from that fountain, where his Spirit is freely given.” Voluntary sepa- ration therefore from the Church, he concludes is “a sin which, unless repented of, is eternally destructive of the soul. The heinous nature of this offence is incapable of exaggeration, because no human imagi- nation, and no human tongue can adequately describe its enormity.” Vol. I. p. 68. The only Church in Great Britain, according to Mr. Palmer, be it remembered, is the Church of England, and the only Church in this country according to the same theory and its advocates, is the Episcopal Church. Thus the knot is fairly cut. It is appa- rently a formidable difficulty, that there should be more piety out of the Church, than in it. But the difficulty vanishes at once, when we know that ‘no good man can divide himself from the Church.” If this theory were new, if it were now presented for the first time, it would be rejected with indignation and derision; indignation at its mon- strous and unscriptural claims, and derision at the weakness of the argu- ments by which it is supported. But age renders even imbecility ven- erable. It must also be conceded that a theory which has for centuries prevailed in the Church, must have something to recommend it. It is not difficult to discover, in the present case, what that something is. The Ritual theory of the Church is perfectly simple and consistent. It has the first and most important element of success in being intelligible. That Christ should found a Church, or external society, giving to his 52 CHURCH POLITY. apostles the Holy Spirit to render them infallible in teaching and judging, and authorize them to communicate the like gift to their suc- cessors to the end of time; and make it a condition of salvation that all should recognize their spiritual authority, receive their doctrines and submit to their decisions, declaring that what they bound on earth should be bound in heaven, and what they loosed on earth should be loosed’ in heaven, is precisely the plan which the wise men of this world would have devised. It is in fact that which they have con- structed. We must not forget, however, that the wisdom of men is foolishness with God. Again, this theory admits of being propounded in the forms of truth. All its fundamental principles may be stated in a form to command universal assent. It is true that the Church is one, that it is catholic and apostolical; that it has the power of authoritative teaching and judging; that out of its pale there is no salvation. But this system perverts all these principles. It places the bond of unity in the wrong place. Instead of saying with Jerome, Ecclesia ibi est, ubi vera fides est, or with Irenus, ubi Spiritus Dei, illic ecclesia, they as- sume that the Church is nowhere, where prelates are not. The true apostolicity of the Church, does not consist in an external descent to be historically traced from the early Churches, but in sameness of faith and Spirit with the apostles. Separation from the Church is indeed a great sin; but there is no separation from the Church involved in withdrawing from an external body whose terms of communion hurt the enlightened conscience; provided this be done without ex- communicating or denouncing those who are really the people of God. The great advantage of this theory, however, is to be found in its adaptation to the human heart. Most men who live where the gospel is known, desire some better foundation for confidence towards God, than their own good works. To such men the Church, according to this theory, presents itself as an Institute of Salvation; venerable for its antiquity, attractive from the number and rank of its disciples, and from the easy terms on which it proffers pardon and eternal life. There are three very comprehensive classes of men to whom this system must commend itself. The first consists of those who are at once ignorant and wicked. The degraded inhabitants of Italy and Portugal have no doubt of their salvation, no matter how wicked they may be, so long as they are in the Church and submissive to officers and rites. The second includes those who are devout and at the same time ignorant of the Scriptures. Such men feel the need of religion, of communion with God, and of preparation for heaven. But knowing nothing of the gospel, or disliking what they know, a form of religion which is laborious, mystical, and ritual, meets all their necessities, and THEORIES OF THE CHURCH. 53 commands their homage. The third class consists of worldly men, who wish to enjoy this life and get to heaven with as little trouble as possible. Such men, the world over, are high-churchmen. To them a Church which claims the secure and exclusive custody of the blessings of redemption, and which she professes to grant on the condition of unre- sisting submission to her authority and rites, is exactly the Church they desire. We need not wonder, therefore, at the long continued and extensive prevalence of this system. It is too much in accordance with the human heart, to fail of its support, or to be effectually resisted by any power short of that by which the heart is changed. It is obvious that the question concerning the nature and preroga- tives of the Church, is not one which relates to the externals of reli- gion. It concerns the very nature of Christianity and the conditions of salvation. _ If the soul convinced of sin and desirous of reconcilia- tion with God, is allowed to hear the Saviour’s voice, and permitted to go to him by faith for pardon and the Spirit, then the way of life is unobstructed. But if a human priest must intervene, and bar our access to Christ, assuming the exclusive power to dispense the blessings Christ has purchased, and to grant or withhold them at discretion, then the whole plan of salvation is effectually changed. No sprink- ling priest, no sacrificial or sacramental rite can be substituted for the immediate access of the soul to Christ, without imminent peril of salvation. It is not, however, merely the first approach to God, or the com- mencement of a religious life, that is perverted by the ritual system; all the inward and permanent exercises of religion must be modified and injured by it. It produces a different kind of religion from that which we find portrayed in the Bible, and exemplified in the lives of the apostles and early Christians. There everything is spiritual. God and Christ are the immediate objects of reverence and love; com- munion with the Father of Spirits through Jesus Christ his Son, and by the Holy Ghost, is the life which is there exhibited. In the Rit- ual system, rites, ceremonies, altars, buildings, priests, saints, the blessed virgin, intervene and divide or absorb the reverence and ho- mage due to God alone. If external rites and creature agents are made necessary to our access to God, then those rites and agents will more or less take the place of God, and men will come to worship the creature rather than the creator. This tendency constantly gathers strength, until actual idolatry is the consequence, or until all religion is made to consist in the performance of external services. Hence this system is not only destructive of true religion, but leads to secu- rity in the indulgence of sin and commission of crimes. Though it includes among its advocates many devout and exemplary men, its 54 CHURCH POLITY. legitimate fruits are recklessness and profligacy, combined with super- stition and bigotry. It is impossible, also, under this system, to avoid transferring the subjection of the understanding and conscience due to God and his word, to the Church and the priesthood. The judgments of the Church, considered as an external visible society, are pro- nounced even by the Protestant advocates of this theory, to be unerr- ing and irrefragable, to which every believer must bow on pain of per- dition. See Palmer, Vol. II. p. 46. The bishops are declared to stand in Christ’s place; to be clothed with all the authority which he as man possessed ; to be invested with the power to communicate the Holy Ghost, to forgive sins, to make the body and blood of Christ, and to offer sacrifices available for the living and the dead. Such a system must exalt the priesthood into the place of God. A theory, however, which has so long prevailed need not be judged by its apparent tendencies. Let it be judged by its fruits, It has always and everywhere, just in proportion to its prevalence, produced - the effects above referred to. It has changed the plan of salvation; it has rendered obsolete the answer given by Paul to the question, What must I do to be saved? ‘It has perverted religion. Ii has introduced idolatry. It has rendered men secure in the habitual commission of crime. It has subjected the faith, the conscience, and the conduct of the people to the dictation of the priesthood. It has exalted the hie- rarchy, saints, angels, and the Virgin Mary, into the place of God, so as to give a polytheistic character to the religion of a large part of Christendom. Such are the actual fruits of that system which has of late renewed its strength, and which everywhere asserts its claims to be received as genuine Christianity. It will not be necessary to dwell on that theory of the Church which is connected with Rationalism. Its characteristic feature is, that the Church is not a divine institution, with prerogatives and attributes authoritatively determined by its author, but rather a form of Christian society, to be controlled according to the wisdom of its members. It may be identified with the state, or made dependent on it; or erected into a co-ordinate body with its peculiar officers and ends. It is obvi- ous that a system which sets aside, more or less completely, the au- thority both of Scripture and tradition, must leave its advocates at liberty to make of the Church just what “the exigency of the times” in their judgment requires. The philosophical or mystic school of Rationalists, have of course a mystical doctrine of the Church, which can be understood only by those who understand the philosophy on which it rests. With these views we have in this country little con- cern, nor do we believe they are destined to excite any general interést, or to exert any permanent influence. The two theories of the Church VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 55 which are now in obvious conflict, are the Evangelical and Ritual. The controversy between Protestants and Romanists, has, in appear- ance, shifted its ground from matters of doctrine to the question con- cerning the Church. This is, however, only a change in form. The essential question remains the same. It is still a contention about the very nature of religion, and the method of salvation. CHAPTER III. VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. [*] Ovr view of the attributes of the Church is of necessity determined by our view of its nature. There is no dispute between Romanists and Protestants, as to whether the Church is visible, perpetual, one, holy, catholic, and apostolical. This is universally conceded. The only “question is as to the sense in which these attributes can be predicated of it. If the Church is, in its essential nature and external or- ganization, analogous to an earthly kingdom, then its visibility, per- petuity, and all its other attributes, must be such as can pertain to such an organization. When we affirm that an earthly kingdom is visible and perpetual, we mean that its organization as a kingdom is conspicuous, notorious, seen of all men, and unchanging. The king- doms of Babylon, Egypt, and of Rome, have passed away. They are no longer visible or extant. The Papacy has a visible existence of the same kind, and Romanists affirm it is to continue while the world lasts. The kingdom of England is the body of men professing alle- giance to its laws, and subject to its sovereign. The Church, according to Romanists, is the body of men professing the true religion, and sub- ject to the Pope. Bellarmin, therefore, says: “ Ecclesia est catus ho- minum, ita visibilis et palpabilis, ut est cetus Populi Romani, vel regnum Gallie aut respublica Venetorum.” + As these bodies are equally ex- ternal organizations, the visibility of the one is analogous to that of the other. But if the Church is the cetus sanctorum, the company of believers; if it is the body of Christ, and if his body consists of those, and of those only, in whom he dwells by his Spirit, then the Church is visible only, in the sense in which believers are visible. England stands out [ *Article, same title, Princeton Review, 1853, p. 670.] T Disputationes ; de Ecclesia Militante. Lib. iii. ¢. 2, 56 CHURCH POLITY. before the world as an earthly kingdom; the members of Christ’s body in England are no less conspicuous. That believers are there, that the Church is there, is a fact which can no more be rationally disputed, than the existence of the monarchy. But it does not follow that because equally visible, they are equally external organizations, and that to deny that the Church, in its idea, is an external society, is to deny that it is visible. Protestants teach that the true Church, as ex- isting on earth, is always visible: 1. As it consists of men and women, in distinction from disembodied spirits or angels. Its members are not impalpable and unseen, as those ministering spirits who, unrevealed to our senses, continually minister to the heirs of salvation. “Surely,” exclaims Bellarmin, “the Church does not consist of ghosts!” Certainly not: and the suggestion of such an objection betrays an entire misconception of the doctrine he was opposing. Protestants admit that the Church on earth consists of visible men and women, and not of invisible spirits. 2. The Church is visible, because its members manifest their faith by their works. The fact that they are the members of Christ’s body be- comes notorious. Goodness is an inward quality, and yet it is outwardly- manifested, so that the good are known and recognized as such; not with ‘absolute certainty in all cases, but with sufficient clearness to determine all questions of duty respecting them. So, though faith is an inward principle, it so reveals itself in the confession of the truth, and in a holy life, that believers may be known as a tree is known by its fruit. In the general prevalence of Arianism, the true Church neither perished nor ceased to be visible. It continued to exist, and its existence was manifested in the confessors and martyrs of that age. “When,” says Dr. Jackson, “the doctrine of antichrist was come to its full growth in the Council of Trent, although the whole body of Germany, besides Chemnitz and others, and although the whole visible Church of France, besides Calvin and some such, had subscribed unto that Council, yet the true Church had been visible in those worthies,”* Wherever there are true believers, there is the true Church; and wherever such believers confess their faith, and illustrate it by a holy life, there the Church is visible. 3. The Church is visible, because believers are, by their “effectual calling,” separated from the world. Though in it, they are not of it. They have different objects, are animated by a different spirit, and are distinguished by a different life. They are visible, as a pure river is often seen flowing unmingled through the turbid waters of a broader stream. When the Holy Spirit enters into the heart, renewing it after * Treatise on the Church, p- 19, Philadelphia edition, VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 57 the image of God, uniting the soul to Christ as a living member of his body, the man becomes a new creature. All men take knowledge of him. They see that he is a Christian. He renounces the ways of the world, separates himself from all false religions, becomes an open wor- shipper of Christ, a visible member of the Church, which is Christ’s body. When the early Christians heard the words of eternal life, and received the gospel in faith, they at once renounced idolatry, withdrew from all corrupt associations, and manifested themselves as a new people, the followers of the Lord Jesus. They were visible members of his body. Even though there was but one such man in a city, still the fact that he was a Christian became notorious; and if a visible Christian, a visible member of the Church. The true Church is thus visible throughout the world, not as an organization, not as an external society, but as the living body of Christ; as a set of men distinguished from others as true Christians. They are the epistles of Jesus Christ, known and read of all men. This is a visibility which is real, and may be, and often has been, and will hereafter be, glorious. The Church, in this sense, is a city set on a hill. She is the light of the world. She is conspicuous in the beauty of holiness. This is not, indeed, the visibility of a hierarchy, gorgeous in apparel, pompous in ritual services—a kingdom which is of this world. But it is not the less real, and infinitely more glorious. How unfounded, then, is the objection that the Church, the body of Christ, is a chimera, a Platonic idea, unless it is, in its essential nature, a visible society, like the king- dom of England or Republic of Switzerland! Apart from any outward organization, and in the midst of all organizations, the true Church is now visible, and she has left a track of glory through all history, since the day of Pentecost, so that it can be traced and verified, in all ages and in all parts of the world. 4. The true Church is visible in the external Church, just as the soul is visible in the body. That is, as by the means of the body we know that the soul is there, so by means of the external Church, we know where the true Church is. There are, doubtless, among Moham- medans, many insincere and skeptical professors of the religion of the false prophet. No one can tell who they are, or how many there may be. But the institutions of Mohammedanism, its laws, its usages, its mosques, its worship, make it as apparent as the light of day, that sin- cere believers in Mahomet exist, and are the life of the external com- munities consisting of sincere and insincere followers of the prophet. So the external Church, as embracing all who profess the true religion —with their various organizations, their confessions of the truth, their temples, and their Christian worship—make it apparent that the true Church, the body of Christ, éxists, and where it is. These are not the 58 CHURCH POLITY. Church, any more than the body is the soul; but they are its manifes- tations, and its residence. This becomes intelligible by adverting to the origin of the Christian community. The admitted facts in refer- ence to this subject are—1. That our Lord appeared on earth as the Son of God, and the Saviour of sinners. To all who received him he gave power to become the sons of God; they were justified and made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and thereby united to Christ as living members of his body. They were thus distinguished inwardly and outwardly from all other men. 2. He commissioned his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He enjoined upon them to require as the conditions of any man’s being admitted into their communion as a member of his body, repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. He commanded all who did thus repent and believe, to unite to- gether for his worship, for instruction, for the administration of the sacraments, and for mutual watch and care. For this purpose he pro- vided for the appointment of certain officers, and gave, through his apostles, a body of laws for their government, and for the regulation of all things which those who believed were required to perform. Provision was thus made, by divine authority, for the Church assum- ing the form of an external visible society. Let us now suppose that all those who, in every age, and in every part of the world, professed the true religion, and thereby united them- selves to this society, were true believers, then there would be no room for the distinction, so far as this world is concerned, between the Church as visible and invisible. Then this external society would be Christ’s body on earth. All that is predicated of the latter could be predicated of the former; all that is promised to the one would be promised to the other. Then this society would answer to the defini- tion of the Church, as a company of believers. Then all within it would be saved, and all out of it would be lost. The above hypothesis, however, is undeniably false, and therefore the conclusions drawn from it must also be false. We know that even in the apostolic age, many who professed faith in Christ, and ranked themselves with his people, were not true believers. We know that in every subsequent age, the great majority of those who have been baptized in the name of Christ, and who call themselves Christians, and who are included in the exter- nal organization of his followers, are not true Christians. This exter- nal society, therefore, is not a company of believers; it is not the Church which is Christ’s body; the attributes and promises of the Church do not belong to it. It is not that living temple built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets as an habitation of God, through the Spirit. It is not the bride of Christ, for which he. died, VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 59 and which he cleanses with the washing of regeneration. It is not the flock of the good'Shepherd, composed of the sheep who hear his voice, and to whom it is his Father’s good pleasure to give the kingdom. In short, the external society is not the Church. The two are not identi- cal, commensurate, and conterminous, so that he who is a member of the one is a member of the other, and he who is excommunicated from the one is cut off from the other. Yet the Church is in that society, or the aggregate body of professing Christians, as the soul is in the body, or as sincere believers are comprehended in the mass of the pro- fessors of the religion of Christ. Tf, then, the Church is the body of Christ; if aman becomes a mem- ber of that body by faith ; if multitudes of those who profess in baptism the true religion, are not believers, then it is just as certain that the external body consisting of the baptized is not the Church, as that a man’s calling himself a Christian does not make him a Christian. Yet there would be no nominal Christians, if there were no sincere disciples of Christ. The name and form of his religion would long since have perished from the world. The existence of the external Church, its continuance, its influence for good, its spiritual power, its extension, its visible organizations, are all due to the living element which it embraces, and which in these various ways manifests its presence. It is thus that the true Church is visible in the outward, though the one is no more the other than the body is the soul. That the Protestant doctrine as to the visibility of the Church, above stated, is true, is evident, in the first place, from what has already been established as to the nature of the Church. Everything depends upon the answer to the question, What is the Church? If it is an external society of professors of the true religion, then it is visible as an earthly kingdom; if that society is destroyed, the Church is destroyed, and everything that is true of the Church is true of that society. Then, in short, Romanism must be admitted as a logical necessity. But if the Church is a company of believers, then its visibility is that which be- longs to believers; and nothing is true of the Church which is not true of believers. 2. The Protestant distinction between the Church visible and invisible, nominal and real, is that which Paul makes between “ Israel after the flesh,” and “ Israel after the Spirit.” God had promised to Israel that he would be their God, and that they should be his people; that he would never forsake or cast them off; that he would send his Son for their redemption; dwell in them by his Spirit; write his laws in their hearts; guide them into the knowledge of the truth ; that he would give them the possession of the world, and the inheritance of heaven; that all who joined them should be saved, and all who forsook them should 60 . CHURCH POLITY. perish. The Jews claimed all these promises for the external organiza- tion, 7. e. for the natural descendants of Abraham, united to him and to each other by the outward profession of the covenant, and by the sign of circumcision, They held, that external conformity to Judaism made a man a Jew, a member of that body to which all these promises and prerogatives belonged; and, consequently, that the apostasy or re- jection of that external body would involve the destruction of the Church, and a failure of the promise of God. In like manner Ritualists teach that what is said and promised to the Church belongs to the external visible society of professing Christians, and that the destruc- tion of that society would be the destruction of the Church. ‘In opposition to all this, Paul taught, 1. That he is not a Jew who is one outwardly. 2. Circumcision, which was outward, in the flesh, did not secure an interest in the divine promises. 3. That he only was a Jew, t. e. one of the true people of God, who was such in virtue of the state of his heart. 4. That the body to which the divine promises were made, was not the outward organization, but the inward, invisible body; not the Israel xara capza but the Israel zeta avevya, This is the Protestant doctrine of the Church, which teaches that he is not a Christian who is such by mere profession, and that it is not water baptism which makes a man a member of that body to which the promises are made, and consequently that the visibility of the Church is not that which belongs to an.external society, but to true believers, or the communion of saints. The perversion and abuse of terms, and the false reasoning to which Romanists resort, when speaking of this subject, are so palpable, that they could not be tolerated in any ordinary discussion. The word Christian is just as ambiguous as the word Church. If called upon to ‘ define a Christian, they would not hesitate to say—He is a man who believes the doctrines and obeys the commands of Christ. The inevi- table inference from this definition is, that the attributes, the promises, and prerogatives pertaining to Christians, belong to those only who be- lieve and obey the Lord Jesus. Instead, however, of admitting this un- avoidable conclusion, which would overthrow their whole system, they insist that all these attributes, promises, and prerogatives, belong to the body of professing Christians, and that it is baptism and subjection to a prelate or the pope, and not faith and obedience towards Christ, which constitute membership in the true Church. 3. The same doctrine taught by the apostle Paul, is no less plainly taught by the apostle John. In his day many who had been baptized, and received into the communion of the external society of Christians, were not true believers. How were they regarded by the apostle? Did their external profession make them members of the true Church, VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 61 to which the promises pertain? St. John answers this question by saying, “ They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that it might be made manifest that they were not all of us. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.” 1 John ii. 19, 20. It is here taught, 1. That many are included in the pale of the external Church, who are not members of the true Church. 2, That those only who have an unction of the Holy One, leading them into the knowledge of the truth, constitute the Church. 3. And consequently the visibility of the Church is that which belongs to the body of true believers. : 4, The Church must retain its essential attributes in every stage and state of its existence, in prosperity and in adversity. It is, however, undeniable, that the Church has existed in a state of dispersion. There have been periods when the whole external organization lapsed into idolatry or heresy. This was the case when there were but seven thousand in all Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal, when at the time of the advent the whole Jewish Church, as an organized body, rejected Christ, and the New Testament Church was not yet founded ; and to a great extent, also, during the ascendency of Arian- ism. We must either admit that the Church perished during these periods, or that it was continued in the scattered, unorganized be- lievers. If the latter, its visibility is not that of an external society, but such as belongs to the true body of Christ, whose members are known by the fruits of the Spirit manifested in their lives. 5. The great argument however, on this subject, is the utter incon- gruity between what the Bible teaches concerning the Church, and the Romish doctrine that the Church is visible as an external organization. If that is so, then such organization is the Church; then, as the Church is holy, the body and bride of Christ, the temple and family of God, all the members of the organization are holy, members of Christ’s body, and partakers of his life. Then, too, as Christ has promised to guide his Church into the knowledge of the truth, that ex- ternal organization can never err as to any essential doctrine. Then, also, as we are commanded to obey the Church, if we refuse submission to this external body, we are to be regarded as heathen men and publicans. Then, moreover, as Christ saves all the members of his body, and none other, he saves all included in this external organiza- tion, and consigns to eternal death all out of it. And then, finally, ministers admit to heaven all whom they receive into this society, and cast into hell all whom they reject from it. These are not only the logi- cal, but the avowed and admitted conclusions of the principle in ques- tion. It becomes those who call themselves Protestants, to look these 62 CHURCH POLITY. consequences in the face, before they join the Papists and Puseyites in ridiculing the idea of a Church composed exclusively of believers, and insist that the body to which the attributes and promises of the Church belong, is the visible organization of professing Christians. Such Protest- ants may live to see men walking about with the keys of heaven at their girdle, armed with a power before which the bravest may well tremble. The scriptural and Protestant doctrine of the visibility of the Church is, therefore, a corollary of the true doctriné of its nature. If the Church is a company of believers, its visibility is that which belongs to believers. They are visible as men; as holy men; as men separated from the world, as a peculiar people, by the indwelling of the Spirit of God; as the soul and sustaining element of all those external organiza- tions, consisting of professors of the true religion, united for the wor- ship of Christ, the maintenance of the truth, and mutual watch and care. The objections which Bellarmin, Bossuet, Palmer, and writers gene- rally of the Romish and Ritual class, urge against this doctrine, are either founded on misconception, or resolve themselves into objections against the scriptural view of the nature of the Church as “the com- pany of believers.” Thus, in the first place, it is objected that in the Scriptures and in all ecclesiastical history, the Church is spoken of and addressed as a visible society of professing Christians. The churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, and Rome, were all such societies; and the whole body of such professors constituted THE CuurcH. History traces the origin, the extension, the trials, and the triumphs of that outward community. It is vain, therefore, to deny that body to be the Church, which the Bible and all Christendom unite in so designating. But was not the ancient Hebrew common- wealth called Israel, Jerusalem, Zion? Is not its history, as a visible society, recorded from Abraham to the destruction of Jerusalem? And yet does not Paul say expressly, that he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; that the external Israel is not the true Israel? In this objection the real point at issue is overlooked. The question is not, whether a man who professes to be a Christian, may properly be so addressed and so treated, but whether profession makes a man a true Christian. The question is not, whether a society of professing Chris- tians may properly be called a Church, and be so regarded, but whether their being such a society constitutes them a competent part of the body of Christ. The whole question is, What is the subject of the attributes and prerogatives of the body of Christ? Is it the exter- nal body of professors, or the company of believers? If calling a mana Christian does not imply that he has the character and the inheritance of the disciples of Christ; if calling the Jewish commonwealth Israel did not imply that they were the true Israel, then calling the pro- VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 63 fessors of the true religion the Church, does not imply that they are the body of Christ. When the designation given to any man or body of men, involves nothing more than what is external or official, its application implies they are what they are called. To call a man an Englishman, is to recognize him as such. To address any one as emperor, king, or president, is to admit his claim to such title. But when the designation is expressive of some inward quality, and a state of mind, its application does not imply its actual possession, but simply that it is claimed. To call men saints, believers, the children of God, or a Church, supposes them to be true believers, or the true Church, only on the assumption that “no internal virtue” is necessary to union with the Church, or to make a man a believer and a child of God. Scriptural and common usage, therefore, is perfectly consistent with the Protestant doctrine. That doctrine admits the propriety of calling any man a Christian who professes to be a worshipper of Christ, and of designating any company of such men a church. It only denies that he is a real Christian who is one only in name; or that that is a true Church, which is such only in profession. An external society, therefore, may properly be called a Church, without implying that the visibility of the true Church consists in outward organization. 2. It is objected that the possession of officers, of laws, of terms of communion, necessarily supposes the Church to have the visibility of an external society. How can a man be received into the Church, or excommunicated from it, if the Church is not an outward organiza- tion? Did the fact that the Hebrews had officers and laws, a temple, a ritual, terms of admission and exclusion, make the external Israel the true Israel, or prove that the visibility of the latter was that of a state or commonwealth? Protestants admit that true believers form themselves into a visible society, with officers, laws, and terms of communion—but they deny that such society is the true Church, any further than it con- sists of true believers. Everything comes back to the question, What is the Church? True believers constitute the true Church; professed believers constitute the outward Church. These two things are not to be confounded. The external body is not, as such, the body of Christ. Neither are they to be separated as two Churches; the one true and the other false, the one real and the other nominal. They differ as the sin- cere and insincere differ in any community, or as the Israel zara myevya differ from the Israel xara capxa, A man could be admitted to the outward Israel without being received into the number of God’s true people, and he could be excluded from the former without being cut off from the latter. The true Israel was not the commonwealth, as such, and the outward organization, with its laws and officers, though 64 CHURCH POLITY. intimately related with the spiritual body as the true Church, did not constitute it. The question, how far the outward Church is the true Church, is easily answered. Just so far as it is what it professes to be, and no further. So far as it is a company of faithful men, animated and controlled by the Holy Spirit, it is a true Church, a constituent member of the body of Christ. If it be asked further, how we are to know whether a given society is to be regarded as a Church; we answer, precisely as we know whether a given individual is to be regarded as a Christian, i. e. by their profession and conduct. As the Protestant doctrine, that true believers constitute the body of Christ, is perfectly consistent with the existence amongst them and others out- wardly united with them, of officers and laws, no argument can be drawn from the existence of such outward institutions to prove that the Church is essentially an external organization. Bossuet presents this objection in the light of a contradiction. He says, “Protestants insist that the Church consists exclusively of be- lievers, and is therefore an invisible body. But when asked for the signs of a Church, they say, the word and sacraments: thus making it an external society with ordinances, a ministry, and public service. If so, how can it consist exclusively of the pious? And where was there any stich society, answering to the Protestant definition, before the Reformation?” * This objection rests upon the misconception which Ritualists do not appear able to rid themselves of. When Protestants say the Church is invisible, they only mean that an inward and conse- quently invisible state of mind is the condition of membership, and not that those who have this internal qualification are invisible, or that they cannot be so known as to enable us to discharge the duties which we owe them. When asked, what makes a man a Christian? we say, true faith. When asked whom must we regard and treat as Chris- tians? we answer, those who make a credible profession of their faith. Is there any contradiction in this? Is there any force in the objec- tion, that if faith is an inward quality, it cannot be proved by outward evidence? Thus, when Protestants are asked, what is the true Church? they answer, the company of believers. When asked what associations are to be regarded and treated as churches? they answer, those in which the gospel is preached. When asked further, where was the Church before the Reformation? they answer, just where it was in the days.of Elias, when it consisted of a few thousand scattered believers.t * Bossuet’s Variations, Book xv. 2 20, et seqq. + The question which Romanists so confidently ask, Where was your Church before Luther ? is well answered in the homely retort, Where was your face this morning before it was washed? VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 65 3. A third objection is very much of the same kind as the preceding. If the Church consists exclusively of believers, it is invisible. We are, however, required to obey the Church, to hear the Church, &c. But how can we hear and obey an invisible body? To this the answer is, the Church is no more invisible than believers are. We are %om- manded to love the brethren; to do good to all men, especially to the household of faith. As faith, however, is invisible, it may be asked, in the spirit of this objection, how can we tell who are believers? Christ says, by their fruits. There is no real difficulty in this matter. If we have a real heart for it, we shall be able to obey the command to love the brethren, though we cannot read the heart; and if disposed to hear the Church, we shall be able to recognize her voice. Because the true Church is always visible, and, therefore, can be obeyed, Ritualists infer that the visible Church is the true Church, though, as Dr. Jackson says, the two propositions differ as much as “ to withstand aman” differs from “standing with a man.” 4. Much the most plausible argument of Romanists is derived from the analogy of the old dispensation. That the Church is a visible society, consisting of the professors of the true religion, as distinguished from the body of true believers, known only to God, is plain, they say, because under the old dispensation it was such a society, embracing all the descendants of Abraham who professed the true religion, and received the sign of circumcision. To this external society were given the oracles of God, the covenants, the promises, the means of grace. Out of its pale there was no salvation. Union with it was the neces- sary condition ef acceptance with God. This was a divine institution. It was a visible Church, consisting of professors, and not exclusively of believers. If such a society existed then by divine appointment, what has become of it? Has it ceased to exist? Has removing its restriction to one people destroyed its nature? Does lopping certain branches from the tree destroy the tree itself? Far from it. The Church exists as an external society now as it did then; what once . belonged to the commonwealth of Israel, now belongs to the visible Church. As union with the commonwealth of Israel was necessary to salvation then, so union with the visible Church is necessary to salva- tion now. And as subjection to the priesthood, and especially to the high-priest, was necessary to union with Israel then, so submiission to the regular ministry, and especially to the Pope, is necessary to union with the Church now. Such is the favourite argument of Romanists ; and such, (striking out illogically the last clause, which requires sub- jection to prelates, or the Pope,) we are sorry to say is the argument of some Protestants, and even of some Presbyterians. The fallacy of the whole argument lies in its false assumption, that 5 66 CHURCH POLITY. the external Israel was the true Church. It was not the body of Christ ; it was not pervaded by his Spirit. Membership in it did not constitute membership in the body of Christ. The rejection or de- struction of the external Israel was not the destruction of the Church. The “apostasy of the former was not the apostasy of the latter. The attributes, promises, and prerogatives of the one, were not those of the other. In short, they were not the same, and, therefore, that the visi- bility of the one was that of an external organization, is no proof that the visibility of the Church is that of an external society. All this is included, not only in the express declaration of the Apostle, that the external Israel was not the true Israel, but is involved in his whole argument. It was, indeed, the main point of discussion between him- self and the Jews. The great question was, isa man made a member of the true Israel, and a partaker of the promise, by circumcision and subjection, or by faith in Christ? If the former, then the Jews were right, and Paul was wrong as to the whole issue. But if the latter, then Paul was right and the Jews wrong. And this is the pre- cise question between us and Romanists, and Anglicans. If the ex- ternal Israel was the true Israel, then Romanists are right and Protes- tants are wrong as to the method of salvation. Besides, if we admit that the external Israel was the true Church, then we must admit that the true Church apostatized ; for it is undeniable that the whole external Israel, as an organized body, did repeatedly, and for long periods, lapse into idolatry. Nay more, we must admit that the true Church rejected and crucified Christ; for he was rejected by the external Israel, by the Sanhedrim, by the priesthood, by the elders, and’ by the people. All this is in direct opposition to the Scriptures, and would involve a breach of promise on the part of God. Paul avoids this fatal con- clusion by denying that the external Church is, as such, the true Church, or that the promises made to the latter were made to the former. It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one, his natural descendants through Isaac were constituted a commonwealth, an external, visible community. By the other, his spiritual descendants were constituted a Church. The parties to the former covenant were God and the nation; to the other, God and his true people. The promises of the national covenant were na- tional blessings; the promises of the spiritual covenant, (7. e. of the covenant of grace,) were spiritual blessings, reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life. The conditions of the one covenant were circumcision and obedience to the law; the condition of the latter was, is, and ever has been, faith in the Messiah as the seed of the woman, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. There cannot be a greater mistake PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. 67 than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace, and the commonwealth founded on the one with the Church founded on the other. When Christ came “the commonwealth” was abolished, and there was nothing put in its place. The Church remained. There was no external covenant, nor promises of external blessings, on condition of external rites and subjection. There was a spiritual society with spiritual promises, on the condition of faith in Christ. In no part of the New Testament is any other condition of membership in the Church prescribed than that contained in the answer of Philip to the eunuch who desired baptism: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”—Acts viii. 37. The Church, therefore, is, in its essen- tial nature, a company of believers, and not an external society, re- quiring merely external profession as the condition of membership. While this is true and vitally important, it is no less true that believ- ers make themselves visible by the profession of the truth, by holiness of life, by separation from the world as a peculiar people, and by organizing themselves for the worship-of Christ, and for mutual watch and care. The question, when any such organization is to be regarded as a portion of the true Church, is one to which the Protestant answer has already been given in a few words, but its fuller discussion must be reserved to some other occasion. CHAPTER IV. PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. [*] Tur Church is perpetual. Of this there is, among Christians, neither doubt nor dispute. But as to what is meant both by the sub- ject and predicate of this proposition, there exist radically different views. By the Church, Romanists understand the external visible society united in the profession of the same faith, by communion in the sacraments, and subjection to bishops having succession, especially to the Roman Pontiff. The perpetuity of the Church, therefore, must on their theory include the continued existence of an organized society, professing the true faith; the continued legitimate administration of the sacraments; and the uninterrupted succession of prelates and popes. [* Article entitled “ The Church—Its Perpetuity,” Princeton Review, 1856, p. 689.] 68 CHURCH POLITY, Anglicans * understand by the Church an external society professing the true faith, united in the communion of the same sacraments, and in subjection to bishops canonically ordained. Perpetuity with them, therefore,‘must include perpetual adherence to the truth, the due administration of the sacraments, and the uninterrupted succession of bishops. Protestants hold that the true Church is the body of true believers; and that the empirical or visible Church is the body of those who profess the true religion, together with their children. All therefore that the perpetuity of the Church, according to the Protestant theory, involves, is the continued existence on earth of sincere believers who profess the true religion. It is obvious that everything depends on the definition of the Church. If you determine the nature of the subject, you determine the nature of its attributes. If the Romish or Anglican definition of the Church be correct, then their view of all its attributes, its visibility, perpetuity, holiness, and unity, must also be correct. And, on the other hand, if the Protestant definition of the Church be accepted, so must also the Protestant view of its attributes. It is also obvious that the considera- tion of any one of these points involves all the others. The perpetuity of the Church, for example, brings up the question, whether external organization is necessary to its existence; whether the Church may depart from the faith; whether the prelatical office is necessary, and whether an uninterrupted succession of ordination is essential to the ministry; how far the sacraments are necessary to the being of the Church ; whether Peter was the head of the College of the Apostles ; whether the bishop of Rome is his successor in that office; and whether submission to the Roman Pontiff is essential to the unity, and, of course, to the existence of the Church. All these points are involved in the Romish theory on this subject; and all, except the last two, in the Anglican doctrine. It would be impossible to go over all this ground in less compass than that of a volume. On each of these topics, ponderous tomes have been written. We propose simply to present, in a series of propositions, a brief outline of the Protestant answer to the question, In what sense is the Church perpetual? The predictions of the Old Testament, and the promises of the New, it is universally conceded, secure the existence of the Church on earth until the second advent of Christ. Our Lord said to his disciples, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” He pro- mised that the gates of hell should never prevail against his Church. * By Anglicans is meant the Laudean, or Oxford party, in the Church of England. PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. 69 As to the fact, therefore, that the Church is to exist on earth as long as the world lasts, there is and can be no dispute among Christians. The only question is, How are these promises to be understood ? The first proposition which Protestants maintain in answer to the above question, is, that the promise of Christ does not secure the con- tinued existence of any particular Church as an organized body. By a particular Church is meant a body of professing Christians, united by some ecclesiastical organization, as the Church of Antioch, of Jeru- salem, of England, or of Holland. The proposition is, that, from all that appears in Scripture, any such Church may apostatize from the truth, or ceasé to exist even nominally. This proposition is almost universally conceded. Many of the apostolic Churches have long since perished. The Churches of Antioch, of Ephesus, of Corinth, of Thes- salonica, have been blotted out of existence. Romanists teach that the Eastern Churches, and those of England, Scotland, Holland, &c., have so far departed from the faith and order of the true Church, as no longer to belong to the body of Christ. Anglicans teach, that all societies which have rejected the office, or lost the regular succession of the episcopate, have ceased to be Churches. Protestants, with one voice, deny that any particular Church is either infallible, or secure from fatal apostasy. All parties therefore agree in asserting that the promise of Christ does not secure the perpetuity of any one particular Church. . The great majority of Papists do indeed make an exception in favour of the city of Rome. As the bishop of that city is regarded as the vicar of Christ, and as all other Churches are required to recognize and obey him as such on pain of exclusion from the body of Christ, so long as the Church continues on earth, that bishop must continue worthy of recognition and obedience. Any member of the body may die, but if the head perish, the whole body perishes with it. But since there is no special promise in Scripture to the Church of Rome, it can be made an exception to the general liability to defection only on the assumption, 1. That Peter was made the head of the whole Church. 2. That the recognition of him in that character is essential to membership in the body of Christ. 38. That he was the bishop of Rome. 4. That the Popes are his legitimate successors in the bishopric of that city, and in his headship over the Church. 5. That the re- cognition of the supremacy of the Pope is an essential condition for all ages of the existence of the Church. Every one of these assumptions, however, is false. The second proposition is, that the promise of Christ does not secure his Church from all error in matters of faith. The Protestant doc- trine is that a particular Church, and even the whole visible Church, 70 CHURCH POLITY. may err in matters of doctrine, and yet retain their character as Churches. “The purest Churches under heaven,” says the West- minster Confession, “are subject to mixture and error.” By the pro- fession of the truth, therefore, which is declared to be essential to the existence of the Church, must be understood the profession of the - fundamental doctrines of the gospel. This distinction between essential and non-essential doctrines is one, which, however it may be denied, is in some form admitted by all Christians. Sometimes the distinction is pressed by drawing a line between matters of faith and matters of opinion; at others, by distinguishing, between truths which must be received with explicit faith, and those which may be received im- plicitly. In some form the distinction must be acknowledged. What we are concerned to show is, that the’ existence of the Church does not depend on its absolute freedom from error. This may appear too plain a point to need proof; and yet it is one of the fundamental doctrines of Romanism, that the Church cannot err in matters of faith. That the Church may thus err, is proved, 1. Because nothing can be necessary to the existence of the Church which is not necessary to sal- vation. Freedom from error in matters of doctrine, is not necessary to salvation, and therefore cannot be necessary to the perpetuity of the Church. That nothing can be necessary to the existence of the Church which is not necessary to salvation, is so nearly a self-evident . proposition, that its terms cannot be understood without forcing assent. Salvation involves union with Christ; union with Christ involves union with the Church, for the Church is his body; that is, it consists of those who are united toHim. Therefore, nothing which is compatible with union with Christ, can be incompatible with union to the Church. Con- sequently, the Church exists so long as true believers exist. It isa contradiction, therefore, to say that anything is necessary to the being of the Church, which is not necessary to salvation. That freedom from error in matters of faith is not necessary to sal- vation, is scarcely less plain. ‘ By “ matters of faith” are meant those truths which God has revealed in his word, and which all who hear the gospel are bound to believe. Perfect faith supposes perfect know- ledge; and such perfection cannot be necessary to salvation, because it is not necessary to piety. It is of course admitted that knowledge is essential to religion, because religion consists in the love, belief, and obedience of the truth. It is therefore conceded, that all religious error must be injurious to religion, in proportion to the importance of the truths concerned. If such errors are so grave as to present a false object of worship to the mind, or to lead men to rest on a false ground of confidence, they must be fatal. But it must be admitted that a very PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. val limited amount of knowledge is absolutely essential to faith and love. A man may be ignorant of much that God has revealed, and yet re- ceiving with humble confidence all he does know, and acting in obedi- ence to what he has learned, he may be accepted of Him who judgeth according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not. As religion may consist with much ignorance, so it may consist with error. There is indeed little practical difference between the two. In both cases the proper object of faith and love is absent from the mind; and when absent its place is of necessity supplied by some erroneous conception. Ifa man know not the true God, he will form to himself a false god. If he know not that Jesus Christ is the Lord of glory, he will conceive him to be a man or angel. If he know not the true method of salvation, he will build his hope on some wrong foundation. But if perfect knowledge is not necessary to religion, freedom from error cannot be essential. And if not essential to the individual Christian, it canhot be essential to the Church, which is only a com- pany of Christians. The Romish and Anglican doctrine, therefore, that all error in matters of faith is destructive to the being of the Church, or that the promise of Christ secures the Church from all such error, is contrary to the nature of religion, inasmuch as it supposes freedom from error to be necessary to its existence. This view is confirmed by daily observation. We constantly see men who give every evidence of piety, who are either ignorant or erroneous as to many matters of faith. The Bible also, in various ways, teaches the same doctrine. It distinguishes between babes in Christ, and those who are strong. It recognizes as Christians those who know nothing beyond the first principles of the doctrines of Christ. It teaches that those who hold the foundation shall be saved, (though so as by fire,) although they buiid on that foundation wood, hay, and stubble. It recognizes great diversity of doctrine as existing among those whom it treats as being substantially one in faith. It is not true, therefore, that a Christian cannot err in matters of faith; and if one may err, all may ; and if all may, the Church may. The perpetuity of the Church consequently does not imply that it must always profess the truth, without any admixture of error. 2. The historical argument in opposition to the Romish doctrine that the Church must be free from error in matters of faith, is no less de- cisive. ; There are two ways in which the Church may profess its faith. It may be done by its public authorized confession or creed; or it may be done by its individual members. The former is the more formal and authoritative; but the latter is no less real. The Church of any age consists of its members for that age. What the members profess, the 72, CHURCH POLITY. Church professes. The apostasy of the Church of Geneva was not the less real because the old orthodox Confessions were allowed to remain. The Churches of Germany were uniyersally considered as sunk in Ra- tionalism, even though the Augsburg Confession was nominally their standard of faith. The lapse of the Romish Church into infidelity and atheism in France was complete, although the Apostles’ Creed con- tinued to be professed in the Church services. If no Church could be considered as having lapsed into error, so long as its standards remain orthodox, then no Church can ever become erroneous, so long as it professes to believe the Scriptures. By the faith of a Church is pro- perly meant the faith of its actual members; and by a Church pro- fessing error is meant that error is avowed by its members. The . doctrine, therefore, that the Church cannot err in matters of faith, must mean that the mass of its members cannot thus err; for they con- stitute the Church, and if they err the Church errs. There is no historical fact better established than that no external organized body has ever existed free from error. Even during the apostolical age the Churches of Jerusalem, of Corinth, and of Galatia, were infected with serious errors, and yet they were Churches. During the first three centuries, errors concerning the. Trinity, the person and work of Christ, the person and office of the Spirit, and the nature of man, were almost universal. From the fourth to the tenth century, no organized body can be pointed out whose members did not profess doc- trines which are now almost universally pronounced to be erroneous. Since the Reformation, the Lutherans and the Reformed differ in mat- ters of doctrine. The Church of England differs from the Greek and Latin Churches. So that it is impossible to maintain that freedom from error is essential to the perpetuity of the Church. No Church is absolutely pure in doctrine; and even if the standards of the Church should be faultless, still the real faith of its members is not. The pro- mise of Christ, therefore, securing the perpetuity of the Church, does not secure the constant existence on earth of any body of men who are infallible in matters of faith and practice. The third proposition is, that the perpetuity of the Church does not involve the continued existence of any visible organized body profess- ing the true religion, and furnished with regular pastors. At the time of the Reformation it was constantly urged against the Protestants that they were' bound to obey the Church. To this they replied, that the Church to which the obedience of the faithful is due, was not the Romish, or any other external organization, for they had all departed from the faith, and taught for doctrines the command- ments of men. To this, Romanists rejoined, that if that were true, the Church had perished, for no organized visible society could be pointed PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. 73 out which professed the doctrines avowed by Protestants. To this again the Reformers replied, that the perpetuity of the Church, which all parties admitted, did not require the continued existence of any such society; the Church might exist, and at times had existed in scattered believers. Calvin says: “Jn his curdinibus controversia nos- tra vertitur: primum quod ecclesie formam semper apparere et spectabi- lem esse contendunt: deinde quod formam ipsam in sede Romane Ecele- sie et Presulum suorum ordine constituant. Nos contra asserimus, et ecclesiam nulla apparente forma constare posse, nec formam externo illo splendore quem stulte admirantur, sed longe alia nota contineri ; nempe pura verbi Dei preedicatione, et legitima sacramentorum administratione. Fremunt nisi ecclesia digito semper ostendatur.” * In support of what Calvin thus calls one of the cardinal doctrines of Protestants, that the Church may be perpetuated in scattered believers; or in other words, that the apostasy of every visible or- ganized society from the true faith is consistent with the perpetuity of the Church, it may be argued, 1. That the definition of the Church necessarily involves that con- clusion. If the true Church consists of true believers, and the visible Church of professed believers, then the true Church continues as long as true believers exist on earth; and the visible Church so long as pro- fessors of the true religion exist. It is only by denying the correctness of these definitions that the necessity of a continued visible organiza- tion can be maintained. Accordingly Romanists and Anglicans have been obliged to depart from the scriptural view of the nature of the Church, and to make external organization an essential element of its definition in order to have any ground on which to stand. They maintain that the Church is something more than a company of believers, or a collective term for a number of believers. They insist that it is a visible organization, subject to lawful pastors—some- thing that can be pointed to with the finger. If to such an organiza- tion the promise of perpetuity was originally given, then Protestants were schismatics, and their Churches are apostate. But if their view of the nature of the Church be correct, then their view of the sense in which it is perpetual musi also be correct. 2. The promises of the word of God which secure the perpetuity of the Church, require nothing more than the continued existence of profes- sors of the true religion. Thus, when our Lord says, the gates of hell shall never prevail against his Church; if by Church he meant his * Preface to the Institutes, p. 15. Had Calvin lived in our day he would hear with surprise zealous Protestants, and even Presbyterians, crying out against the doctrine that visible organization is not essential to the Church. 74 CHURCH POLITY. people, his promise only renders it certain that he shall always have a seed to serve him, or that there shall always be true followers and worshippers of Christ on the earth. Thus, also, the declaration of Christ, “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world,” holds good, even though all the temples of Christians should be de- stroyed, their faithful pastors scattered or slain, and they forced to wander about, being destitute, afflicted and tormented, hiding in dens and caves of the earth. Nay, his presence will only be the more con- spicuous in the sight of saints and angels, in sustaining the faith and patience of his people under all these trials, and in causing them to triumph through suffering, and become great through weakness. The presence of God was more illustriously displayed with the three confes- sors in the fiery furnace, than with Solomon in all his glory. Pro- testants believe with Tertullian—“ Ubi tres sunt, etiamsi laict, rbi eccle- sia est.” The predictions in the Old Testament, which speak of an everlasting covenant which God was to form with his people, (Isa. lxi.,) and of a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, (Dan. ii. 44,) do indeed clearly establish the perpetuity of the Church, but not of an external organization. The kingdom of God consists of those who obey him; and as long as there are any who recognize Christ as their king, so long will his kingdom continue. His promise renders it certain that such subjects of the heavenly King shall never entirely fail from among men; and also that their number shall ultimately so increase, that they shall possess the whole earth. More than this these predic- tions do not render necessary. They do not preclude the possibility of the temporary triumph of the enemies of the Church, dispersing its members, and causing them to wander about, known only to God. Nor do they preclude the occurrence of a general apostasy, so extended as to embrace all the visible organizations calling themselves churches. Whether such an apostasy has ever actually occurred, is not now the question. All that is asserted is that these promises and predictions do not forbid its occurrence. They may all be yea and amen, though the faithful for a season be as few and as unknown, as the seven thousand who did not bow the knee unto Baal. Further, when St. Paul says, “Then we who are alive and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the air, and so shall we be ever with the Lord,” (1 Thess. iv. 17,) the only inference is, that there shall be Christians living on the earth when Christ comes the second time. The parable of the wheat and tares proves that until the consummation there will be true and false professors of the religion of the gospel, but it proves nothing more. 1 PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. 75 Such are the leading scriptural arguments urged by Bellarmin* and Palmer { for the Romish and Anglican view of the perpetuity of the Church. They prove what Protestants admit, but they do not prove what their opponents assert. That is, they prove that the people of God shall continue to exist on the earth until the second coming of Christ, but they do not prove the continued existence of any visible organization professing the true faith, and subject to pastors having succession. If it be granted that the word Church, in Scripture, is a collective term for the people of God, then the promises which secure the continued existence of a seed to serve God as long as the world lasts, do not secure the continued fidelity of the visible Church, con- sidered as an organized body. 3. A third argument on this subject is, that there is no necessity for the continued existence of the Church as an external visible society. That is, there is no revealed purpose of God, which involves such existence as the necessary means of its accomplishment. Bellarmin’s argument on this point is, “If the Church should ever be reduced to such a state as to be unknown, the salvation of those out of the Church would be impossible. For no man can be saved unless he enters the Church, but, if the Church be unknown, it cannot be entered, therefore, men cannot be saved.” { Mr. Palmer’s argument is to the same effect. “Tf the Church as an organization were to fail,” he says, “there would be no way to revive it, except by a direct and immediate interposition of God; which would prove the gospel to be a temporary dispensation, . and all living subsequently to its failure would be deprived of its benefits.” The answer to this is that the argument rests on the unscriptural assumption, that we become united to Christ by being united to the Church as an external visible society; whereas union with Christ in the divine order precedes, aud is entirely independent of union with * De Ecclesia, cap. 13. + Palmer on the Church, part i. ch. i. sec. 1. Mr. Palmer's chapter on this subject is one of the most illogical in all his elaborate work. Without defining his terms, he quotes promises and predictions which imply the perpetuity of the Church, and then quotes from Protestant writers of all denominations, passages to show that the continued existence of the Church is a conceded point. Every step of his argument, throughout his book, and all his important deductions, rest on the assumption that the Church, whose perpetuity is thus proved or conceded, is an external organization, consisting of those who profess the truth, without any error in matters of faith, and who are subject to pastors episcopally and canoni- cally ordained. Everything is founded on this chapter, which quietly takes for granted the thing to be proved. { De Ecclesia, lib. iii. c. 13. 76 CHURCH POLITY. any visible society. ‘That our union with some present visible Church,” says Dr. Jackson, one of the greatest divines of the Church of England, “is a native degree or part of our union with the Holy Catholic Church, [i. e., the body of Christ ;] or, that our union with some present visible church is essential to our being, or not being members of the Holy Catholic Church,” is what “we utterly deny.” * That such union with the visible Church as the argument of Bellar- min supposes is not necessary to salvation is plain, because all that the Scriptures require in order to salvation, is repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism has indeed the neces- sity of precept, as something commanded; but even Romanists ad- mit that where the desire for baptism exists, the mere want of the rite works no forfeiture of salvation. And they also admit the validity of lay baptism ; so that even if the necessity of that ordinance were conceded, it would not involve the necessity of an external organ- ized Church, or an uninterrupted succession of the ministry. If, there- fore, the whole visible organized Church should apostatize or be dis- persed by persecution, the door of heaven would be as wide open as ever. Wherever Christ is known, men may obey and love him, with- out the intervention of a priest. Mr. Palmer’s idea, that if the Church as a society should fail, it could only be revived by a new revelation or intervention of God, rests on the assumption that the Church is a corporation with supernatural prerogatives and powers, which if once dissolved perishes entirely. The Church however is only the people of God; if they should be scattered even for years, as soon as they assemble for the worship of God, the administration of the Sacraments, and the exercise of disci- pline, the Church as a society is there, as good as ever; and a thousand times better than the fossil Churches which have preserved their or- ganic continuity only by being petrified. Should the succession of the ministry fail, no harm isdone. The validity of the ministry does not de- pend on such succession. It is not the prerogative of prelates to make ministers. A minister is made by the inward call of the Spirit. The whole office of the Church in the matter is to sit in judgment on that call, and, if satisfied, to authenticate it. The failure of the succession, therefore, works no failure in the stream of life, as the Spirit is not confined to the channel of the ministry. The apostasy or dispersion of the whole organized Church, is not inconsistent with its continued existence, or incompatible with the accomplishment of all the revealed - purposes of God. Men may still be saved, and the ministry and sa- craments be perpetuated in all their efficiency and power. * Treatise on the Church, p. 143: PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. "7 Again, Bellarmin presents the following dilemma. “Either,” he says, “those secret men who constitute the invisible Church, continue to profess the true religion or they do not. If they do, the Church con- tinues visible and conspicuously so, in them. If they do not confess the truth, then the Church in every sense fails, for without confession there is no salvation.” This is an illustration of the impossibility of errorists avoiding laps- ing into the truth. Here is one of the acutest polemics Rome ever produced, surrendering the whole matter in debate. These secret con- fessors are not a society of faithful men, subject to lawful pastors and to the Pope. It is precisely what Romanists deny, and Protestants affirm, that the Church may be perpetuated in scattered believers, each in his own narrow sphere confessing the truth, and this is here conceded. This is what Protestants affirm of the Church before the Reformation. Every conspicuous organization had lapsed into idolatry, and yet the Church was continued in thousands of God’s chosen ones who never bowed the knee to Baal. 4, A fourth argument on this subject is derived from the predictions of general apostasy contained in the Scriptures. Our Lord foretold that false Christs should come and deceive many. He warned his disciples that they should be persecuted and hated of all nations; that iniquity should abound, and the love of many wax cold; that false prophets should arise and show signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they would deceive the very elect. He intimated that faith should hardly be found when he came again; that it will be then as it was in the days of Noah, or in the time of Lot, only a few here and there would be found faithful. The apostles also are frequent and explicit in their declarations that a general apostasy was to occur. The Spirit, says Paul, speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, 1 Tim.iv.1. In the last days, perilous times were to come (2 Tim. iii. 4); times in which men would not endure sound doctrine, (iv. 3.). The day of Christ, he says, was not to come before the rise of the man of sin, whose coming was to be attended by the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, when men (the professing Church generally) should be given up to believe a lie. Peter foretold that in the last times there should be false prophets and scorners, who would bring in damnable heresies. 2 Pet. ii. 1; iii. 8. And the apostle Jude reminds his readers of the words which were spoken by the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, how they told you that in the last time there should be mockers, walking after their own lusts. Jude 18. Although these passages do not go the full length of the proposition above stated, or render it necessary to asume that no organized body 78 CHURCH POLITY. was to exist during this apostasy, which professed the true faith, yet they are entirely inconsistent with the Romish and Anglican theory. That theory is that the catholic Church, or the great body of professing Christians united under lawful pastors, can never err in matters of faith. Whereas these passages foretell an apostasy from the truth so general, that true believers are to be few and scattered, driven into the wilder- ness, and in a great measure unknown to men. 5. The history of the Church before the advent of Christ, proves that its perpetuity does not involve the continued existence of any organization professing the true religion. The Church has existed from the beginning. We know, however, that there was, before the flood, an apostasy so general that Noah and his family were the only believers on the face of the earth. Soon after the flood the defection from the truth again became so far universal, that no organized body of the worshippers of God can be pointed out. Abraham was, there- fore, called to be the head of a new organization. His descendants, to whom pertained the law, the covenants, and the promises, constituted the visible Church; nevertheless they often and for long periods lapsed into idolatry. All public celebration of the worship of the true God was intermitted ; altars to Baal were erected in every part of the land; the true children of God were scattered and unknown, so that under Ahab, the prophet complained: “Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars, and I am left alone.” Where was then the visible Church? Where was then any organized society professing the true religion? The seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal, were indeed the Church, but they were not an organized body. They were unknown even to Elijah. To this argument Bellarmin answers, that the Jewish Church was not catholic in the sense in which the Christian Church now is, because good men existed outside the pale of the Jewish Church: and, there- fore, although all within the Jewish communion had apostatized, it would not follow that the whole Church had failed. This is very true on the Protestant theory of the Church, but not on his. Protestants hold that the Church consists of true believers, and therefore so long as such believers exist, the Church exists. But according to Romanists the Church is a corporation, an external, visible, organized society. It is very clear that no such society existed except among the Jews, and therefore if the Jewish Church lapsed into idolatry, there was no Church on earth to answer to the Romish theory. Another answer to the above argument is, that the complaint of Elijah had reference only to the kingdom of Israel; that although the defection there had been universal, the true Church as an organized body was continued in the kingdom of Judah. To this it may be PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. 79 replied, that the prophet probably intended to include both kingdoms, because he complains of digging down the altars of God; but there were no altars of God except at Jerusalem. Besides, the prophet could hardly have felt so entirely alone, and wished for death, if the worship of God were then celebrated at Jerusalem. What, however, is more to the purpose is, that it is plain that the apostle in Rom. xi. 2, evidently uses the word Israel not in its restricted sense for the ten tribes, but for the whole theocratical people. He appeals to the words of ihe prophet for the very purpose of proving that the rejection of the Jews as a body involved no failure of the divine promise. As in the ‘days of Elijah there were an unknown few who, in the midst of general apostasy, did not bow to Baal; so notwithstanding the general defection and rejection of the Jews at the time of Christ, there was still a remnant according to the election of grace. Paul’s design was to teach that the Church might be perpetuated, and in fact had been perpetuated in scattered unknown believers, although the visible Church as a society entirely apostatized. Admitting, however, that the complaint of Elijah had exclusive reference to the kingdom of Israel, it still proves all that the argument demands. It proves that the Church as visible in that kingdom had apostatized and was continued in the seven thousand. This proves two points: first, that scattered believers, although members of no external society, may be members of the Church; and second, that the Church may be continued in such unknown believers. This is precisely what Romanists and Anglicans deny, and what Protestants affirm ; and what Calvin declares to be one of the cardinal or turning points in our con- troversy with Rome. Besides, whatever may have been the condition of the Church in Jerusalem at the period to which the prophet referred, it is certain that idolatry did at other times prevail contemporaneously in both king- doms ; and that after the captivity of the ten tribes wicked kings set up idols even in the temple. Thus we read in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 4, 5, that Manasseh built altars in the house of the Lord, whereof the Lord had said, In Jerusalem shall my name be for ever. And he built altars in the two courts of the house of the Lord... And he set up a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God... made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to err and to do worse than the heathen. It is plain that the public worship of God, all the insti- tutions of the Jewish Church, all sacrifices and service of the temple were abolished under this and other wicked princes. And when at last the patience of God was wearied out, Jerusalem itself was taken, the temple was destroyed, and the people carried away. During the seventy years of the captivity the visible Church as an organized body, with its 80 CHURCH POLITY. priests and sacrifices, ceased to exist. It was continued only in the dis- persed worshippers of the true God. Subsequently to the return of the people and the restoration of the temple, under the persecutions of An- tiochus Epiphanes the public worship of God was again suppressed. Idols were erected in the temple, and altars dedicated to false gods were erected in every part of the land. It must be remembered that under the old dispensation the visible Church had, as it were, a local habitation. It was so connected with Jerusalem and the temple, that when those sacred places were in possession of idolaters, the Church was, for the time being, disorganized. No sacrifice could be offered, and all the functions of the priesthood were suspended. There is another consideration which shows that the perpetuity of the Church does not depend on the regular succession of a visible society, and especially on the regular succession of the ministry, as Romanists and Anglicans assert. By the law of Moses it was expressly ordered that the office of High Priest should be confined to the family of Aaron, and descend in that family by regular descent. Even before the cap- tivity, however, the priesthood was changed from one branch of that family to another, descending first in the line of Eleazar, (Num. iii. 32. Deut. x. 6;) from Eli to Solomon in that of Ithamar; then returning to that of Eleazar, (1 Sam. ii. 35. 1 Kings ii. 35.) From the latter. passage it appears that Solomon displaced Abiathar and appointed Zadok. Under the Maccabees the office was given to the hero Jona- than, of the priestly family of Joiarib, (1 Macc. xiv. 35, 41;) after his death it was transferred to his brother Simon; and under Herod the office was sold to the highest bidder, or given at the discretion of the king. (Josh. Antiq. xx. 10.) Caiaphas was made High Priest by Valerius Gratus, the Procurator of Judea, and soon after the death of Christ he was displaced by the Proconsul- Vitellius. (Joseph. xviii. 4,3.) If then, notwithstanding the express injunction of the law, the priesthood was thus changed, men being introduced into the office and displaced from it by the ruling powers without legitimate authority, and still the office continued, and the actual incumbent was recognized as high priest even by Christ and his apostles, it cannot be supposed that the existence of the Church is suspended on the regular succession of the ministry under the New Testament, where there is no express law prescribing the mode of descent. The Old Testament history, therefore, distinctly proves that the perpetuity of the Church involves neither the perpetual existence of an organized body professing the true religion, nor the regular transmission of the ministerial office. In other words, the apostolical succession in the Church or in the ministry, which is the great Diana of the Ephesians, is a mere figment. Another illustration on this subject may be derived from the state of - PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. 81 the Church during the time of Christ. The Jews were then divided into three sects, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. Of these the Pharisees were the most correct in doctrine, and yet they made the word of God of no effect by their traditions, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. They asserted the doctrine of justification by works in its grossest form; they attributed saving efficacy to external rites; and they were great persecutors of Christ. The people in their organized capacity, through their official organs, the priesthood and the Sanhedrim, rejected and crucified the Lord of glory. The Christian Church, as distinguished from the Jewish, was not organized until after the resurrection of our Lord. Where then, during the period referred to, was there any organized body which professed the true religion? The Protestant theory provides for this case, the Romish theory does not. The one theory is consistent with notorious historical facts; the other theory is inconsistent with them. To all this, however, Bellarmin and others object that the privileges of the Christian Church are so much greater than those of the Jewish, that we cannot infer from the fact that the latter apostatized that the former may depart from the faith. To this we answer that the promises of God are the only foundation of the security of the Church. The promises addressed to the Jewish Church were as explicit and as ‘com- prehensive as those addressed to the Christian Church. If those promises were consistent with the apostasy of the whole organized body of the Jews, they must be consistent with a similar apostasy on the part of Christians. God promised to Abraham to be a God to him and to his seed after him; that though a woman might forsake her sucking child, he would never forsake Zion. But he did forsake Zion as an organized community; he did permit the seed of Abraham as a body to lapse into idolatry, to reject and crucify their Messiah; he permitted Jerusalem to be destroyed, and the people to whom were given the covenants, the law, and the promises, to be scattered to the ends of the earth. These promises, therefore, as Paul argues, were not intended to guaranty the continued existence of Israel as a society faithful to the truth, but simply the continued existence of true believers. As the Jews argued that the promises of God secured the continued fidelity of the external Israel; so Bellarmin and Mr. Palmer, (Rome and Oxford,) argue that his promises secure the continued fidelity of the visible Church. And as Paul teaches that the rejection of the external Israel was consistent with the fidelity _ of God, because the true Israel, hidden in the external body, continued | faithful ; so Protestants teach that the apostasy of the whole external cpeaned Church is consistent with the promises of God, provided a remnant, however small and however scattered, adheres to the truth. 6 82 CHURCH POLITY. The argument from the history of the Church under the old dispensa- tion is therefore legitimate and scriptural. Nothing is promised to the Church now, that was not promised to the Church then. Whatever happened to the one, may happen to the other. 6. The history of the Church since the advent of Christ is no less conclusive against the Romish theory. It is not necessary to assert that the whole visible Church has at any time been so far apostate, that no organized body existed professing the true faith. All that is requisite is to prove that the Church, in the sense in which Romanists and Anglicans understand the term, has at times denied the faith. By the Church they mean the multitude of professed Christians subject to Prelates or to the Pope. This body has apostatized. There have been times in which the Church has officially and by its appropriate and acknowledged organs, (as understood by Ritualists,) professed doctrines universally admitted to be heretical. Romanists and Anglicans say that this Church is represented by the chief pastors or bishops, and that the decisions of these bishops, either assembled in council, or each acting for himself, are the decisions of the Church, to which all the faithful are bound to submit. The decision of the three hundred and eighty bishops assembled at Nice, in favour of the proper divinity of the Lord Jesus, is considered as the decision of the whole Church, not- withstanding the fewness of their number, and the fact that they were not delegates or representatives, and the further fact, that they were almost entirely from the West, because that decision was ratified by the silent acquiescence of the majority of the absent bishops. The fact that a great many of the Eastern bishops dissented from that decision and sided with Arius, is not allowed to invalidate the authority of the council. By parity of reasoning, the decisions of the contemporaneous councils, that of Seleucia in the East, and of Ariminum in the West, were the decisions of the Church. Those councils together comprised eight hundred bishops; they were convened by the Emperor, their decisions were ratified by the Pope or bishop of Rome, and by the vast majority of the bishops of Christendom. Yet the decisions of these councils were heretical. They denied the proper Divinity of our Lord. It cannot be pretended that the acquiescence in these decisions was less general than that accorded to those of the orthodox council of Nice. The reverse was notoriously the fact. Jerome in his Dialogue “Contra Luciferianos,” says: “Ingemuit orbis terrarum, et se Arianum miratus est.” In his comment on Psalm cxxxiii—“ Ecclesia non in parietibus consistit, sed in dogmatum veritate ; ecclesia, ibi est, ubi fides. vera est. Ceterum ante annos quindecim aut viginti parietes omnes ecclesiarum heretici possidebant; eccclesia autem vera illic erat, ubi fides vera erat." Athanasius himself asks: “ Que nune ecclesia libere PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. 83 Christum adorat?..... Nam si alicubi sunt pit e Christi studiosi (sunt autem ubique tales permulti) ili itidem, ut magnus ille propheta Elias, absconduntur, et in speluncas et cavernas terre sese abstrudunt, aut in solitudine aberrantes commorantur.” Lib. ad solitar. vitam agentes. Vincentius Lirinensis says: “ Arianorum venenum non jam portiunculam quandam, sed pene orbem totum contaminaverat; adeo fere cunctis Latini sermonis episcopis partim vi partim fraude deceptis caligo quedam offunderetur.” Adv. heres. novationes. Thus accord- ing to Jerome the heretics were in possession of all church edifices; according to Athanasius the worshippers of Christ were hidden, or wan- dered about in solitude; and according to Vincent, the poison of Arian- ism infected the world. “After the defection of Liberius,” says Dr. Jackson, “the whole Roman Empire was overspread with Arianism.” If therefore the Church was orthodox under Constantine, it was hereti- cal under Constantius. It professed Arianism under the latter, more generally than it had professed the truth under the former. For the bishops were “forty to one against Athanasius.” It will not avail to say that these bishops were deceived or intimi- dated. First, because the point is not why they apostatized, but that they did apostatize. This, the Romish and Anglican theory teaches, the representatives of the Church cannot do, without the Church perishing and the promise of God failing. And secondly, because the same objec- tion might be made to the validity of the decisions of the council of Nice. Many bishops feigned agreement with those decisions; many signed them from fear of banishment; many because they thought they could be interpreted in a sense which suited their views. If these considera- tions do not invalidate the authority of the orthodox councils, they cannot be urged against the authority of those which were heterodox. Every argument which proves that the visible Church was Trinitarian at one time, proves that it was Arian at another time; and therefore the Church in the Romish and Anglican sense of that term, may apos- tatize. So undeniable is the fact of the general prevalence of Arianism, that Romanists and Anglicans are forced to abandon their fundamental principles, in their attempts to elude the argument from this source. Bellarmin says, the Church was conspicuous in that time of defection in Hilary, Athanasius, Vincent, and others. And Mr. Palmer says the truth was preserved even under Arian bishops.t Here they are on Protestant ground. We teach that the Church is where the truth is; that the Church may be continued in scattered individuals, They teach that the Church, as an organized body, the great multitude of * De Ecclesia, lib. iii. cap. 16. t Palmer on the Church, vol. ii. p. 187. 84 CHURCH POLITY. ' professors under prelates, must always profess the truth. The facts are against them, and therefore their doctrine must be false. 7. The only other argument in favour of the position that the external Church may apostatize, is the concession of opponents. So far as the Anglican or Oxford party of the Church of England are concerned, they are estopped by the authority of their own Church and by.the facts of her history. Before the Reformation, that Church, in common with all the recog- nized Churches of the West, and the great body also of the Eastern Churches, held the doctrines of transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, subjective justification, the priestly character of the ministry, the invocation of saints, the worship of images, extreme unction and pur- gatory. These doctrines the English Church rejected, pronouncing the mass idolatrous, and the other errors heretical. According to her own official declaration, therefore, the whole Church embraced in the Oxford definition of the term, had apostatized from the faith, and become idolatrous. To say, with the Anglican party, that the points of difference between Rome and England are matters of opinion, and not matters of faith, is absurd. Because both parties declare them to be matters of faith, and because they fall under the definition of matters of faith, as given by the Anglicans themselves, Any doctrine which the Church at any time has pronounced to be part of the revela- tion of God, they say is a matter of faith. But the doctrines above mentioned were all for centuries part of the faith of the whole catholic Church, and therefore cannot be referred to matters of opinion. It is, therefore, impossible that the 'Church of England can deny the pro- position that the catholic Church, as a visible organization, may apos- tatize. All the great divines of England, consequently, teach that the Church may be perpetuated in scattered believers. The concessions of Romanists on this. point are not less decisive. They teach that when Antichrist shall come, all public worship of God shall be interdicted; all Christian temples shall be occupied by heretics and idolators, the faithful be dispersed and hidden from the sight of men in caves and dens of the earth. This is precisely what Protestants say happened before the Reformation. The pure worship of God was everywhere forbidden; idolatrous services were universally introduced; the true children of God persecuted and driven into the mountains or caves; false doctrine was everywhere professed, and the confession of the truth was everywhere interdicted. Both parties agree as to what are the consequences of the coming of the man of sin. The only diffet- ence is that Protestants say he has come already, and Romanists say his coming is still future. But if the promise of Christ that the gates of hell shall never prevail against his Church, consists with this general * PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. 85 apostasy in the future, it may consist with it in the past. If the Church hereafter is to be hidden from view and continued in scattered believers, it may have been thus continued in times past. Romanists and Angli- cans spurn with contempt the idea that the Lollards were the trueChurch in England, and yet they admit that when Antichrist shall come, the faithful will be reduced to the same, or even to a worse relative posi- tion. That is, they admit the external visible Church may become utterly apostate. Thus Bellarmin says: “ Certum est, Antichrist persecutionem fore gravissimam et notissimam ita ut cessant omnes pub- lice religionis ceremonie et sacrificia.. . , Antichristus interdicturus est omnem divinum cultum, qui in ecclesiis Christianorum exercetur.” * Stapleton says: “ Pelli sane poterit in desertum ecclesia regnante Anti- christo, et tllo momento temporis in deserto, id est, in locis abditis, in speluncis, in latibulis, quo sancti se recipient, non incommode queretur ecclesia.” | During the reign of Antichrist, according to the notes to the Romish version of the New Testament, 2 Thess. ii. ‘“ The external state of the Romish Church, and the public intercourse of the faithful with it, may cease; yet the due honour and obedience towards the Romish see, and the communion of heart with it, and the secret prac- tice of that communion, and the open confession thereof, if the occasion require, shall not cease.’’? Again, in verse 4, it is said: “The great Antichrist, who must come towards the world’s end, shall abolish all other religions, true and false; and put down the blessed sacrament of ° the altar, wherein consisteth principally the worship of the true God, and also all idols of the Gentiles.” “The oblation of Christ’s blood,” it is said, “is to be abolished among all the nations and Churches in the world.” These passages admit that as great an apostasy as Protestants have ever asserted has occurred. The public exercise and profession of the true faith is everywhere to cease; idolatry, or the worship of Anti- christ, is to be set up in every Church in the world; the only commu- nion of the faithful is to be in the heart and in secret; believers are to" be scattered and hidden from the sight of men, Romanists, therefore, although the admission is perfectly suicidal, are constrained to admit that the perpetuity of the Church does not involve the continuance of an external visible society, professing the true faith, and subject to lawful pastors. They give up, so far as the principle is concerned, all their objections to the Protestant doctrine, that the true Church was perpetuated during the Romish apostasy, in scattered believers and witnesses of the truth. 8. The last proposition to be sustained, in vindicating the Protestant * Rom. Pontiff. lib. iii, c. 7. ¢ Princip. Doctrin. cap. 2. as as 86 CHURCH POLITY. doctrine, is included in what has already been said. The Church is perpetual; but as its perpetuity does not secure the continued existence or fidelity of any particular Church; not the preservation of the Church catholic from all error in matters of faith; nor even the pre- servation of the whole visible Church as an organized body, from apostasy—the only sense in which the Church is necessarily perpetual, is in the continued existence of those who profess the true faith, or the essential doctrines of the Scriptures. The perpetuity of the Church in this sense is secured, 1. By the promises made to Christ, that. he should see of the travail of his soul, (Isa. liii.;) that he should have a seed to serve him as long as sun or moon endured, (Ps. Ixxii.;) that his kingdom was to be an ever- lasting kingdom, as foretold by all the prophets. 2. By the pro- mises made by Christ, that the gates of hell should never prevail against his Church; that he would be with his people to the end of the world; that he would send them his Spirit to abide with them for ever. 3. By the nature of the mediatorial. office, Christ is the perpetual teacher, priest, and ruler of his people. He con- tinues to exercise the functions of these several offices in behalf of his Church on earth; and therefore the Church cannot fail so long as Christ lives: “If I live,” he says, “ye shall live also.” 4. The testi- mony of history is no less decisive. It is true, it is not the province of history to preserve a record of the faith and knowledge of all the indi- viduals of our race. The best men are often those of whom history makes no mention, And therefore though there were whole centu- ries during which we could point to no witnesses of the truth, it would be most unreasonable to infer that none such existed. The perpetuity of the Church is moré a matter of faith, than a matter of sight; and yet the evidence is abundant that pious men, the children of God, and the worshippers of Christ, have existed in all ages of the world. There is not a period in the whole history of the world, and especially of the world since the advent of the Son of God, which does not in its literature retain the impress of devout minds. The hymns and prayers of the Church in themselves afford abundant evidence of its continued vitality. The history of the Church of Rome has been in great measure a history ‘of the persecution of those who denied her errors, and protested against her authority ; and therefore she has by the fires of martyrdom revealed the existence of the true Church, even in the darkest ages. The word of God has been read even in the most apostate Churches; the Psalter, the Creed, and the Ten Com- mandments, have always been included in the services of the most cor- rupt Churches; so that in every age there has been a public profession of the truth, in which some sincere hearts have joined. PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. 87 This is not a point which needs to be proved, as all Christians are herein agreed. If, however, the Church is perpetual, it follows that everything necessary to its preservation and extension must also be perpetual. The Scriptures teach that the word, sacraments, and the ministry, are the divinely appointed means for that purpose ; and on this ground we may be assured, prior to any testimony from his- tory, that these means have never failed, and never shall fail. The word of God has never perished. The books written by Moses and the prophets are still in the hands of the Church. The writings of the apostles have been preserved in their integrity, and are now translated into all the important languages of the globe. It is impossible that they should perish. Their sound has gone into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. So too with the sacraments. There is no pretence that baptism in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, has ever ceased to be administered agreeably to the divine command. And the Spirit of God has never failed to call men tothe ministry of the word, and duly to authenticate their voca- tion. Whether there has been a regular succession of ordinations, is a small matter. Ordination confers neither grace nor office. It is the solemn recognition of the vocation of the Holy Ghost, which may be effectually demonstrated to the Church in other ways. The call of Farel and of Bunyan to the work of the ministry, though unordained by man, (if such were the fact,) is abundantly more evident than that of nine-tenths of the prelates of their day. In perpetuating his Church, God has therefore perpetuated his word, sacraments, and min- istry, and we have his assurance that they shall continue to the end. On the principles above stated, it is easy to answer the question so often put to Protestants by Romanists, ‘“‘ Where was your Church before the time of Luther?” Just where it was after Luther. Ubi vera fides erat, ibi ecclesia erat. The visible Church among the Jews had sunk into idolatry before the time of Hezekiah. That pious king cast down the idols, and restored the pure worship of God. Did that destroy the Church? The Christian Church at Jerusalem was long burdened with Jewish rites. When they were cast aside, did the Church cease to exist ? The Church in Germany and England had become corrupted by false doctrines, and by idolatrous and superstitious ceremonies. Did casting away these corruptions destroy the Church in those lands? Does a man cease to be a man, when he washes himself? Or, if Bellarmin and Mr. Palmer may say that the Church was continued during the Arian apostasy in the scattered professors of the true faith, why may not Protestants say that it was continued in the same way during the Romish apostasy? If the Jewish Church existed when idolatry prevailed all over Judea, why may not the Christian 88 CHURCH POLITY. Church have continued when image worship prevailed all over Europe? Truth alone is consistent with itself. The Protestant doctrine that the true Church consists of true believers, and the visible Church of pro- fessed believers, whether they be many or few, organized or dispersed, alone accords with the facts which Romanists and Protestants are alike forced to acknowledge. And that doctrine affords a ready answer to all objections derived from the absence of any conspicuous organization professing the true faith and worshipping God in accordance with his word. Admitting, therefore, that such witnesses of the truth as the Albigenses, Waldenses, and Bohemian brethren, do not form an un- broken succession of the visible Church, the doctrine that the Church is perpetual is none the less certain, and none the less consistent with Protestant principles. A man must be a Romanist in order to feel the force of the arguments of Romanists. He must believe the Church to be a visible society subject to the Pope, before he can be puzzled by the question, Where was the Church before the Reformation? In like manner, if the above principles be correct, it is easy to see that the charge of schism cannot rest against Protestants. Schism is either separation, without just cause, from the true Church, or the re- fusing to commune with those who are really the children of God. If the Church consists of true believers, the Protestants did not withdraw from the fellowship of the Church; neither did they refuse to admit true believers to their communion. They did not form a new Church ; they simply reformed the old. The same body which owned Jesus Christ as Lord, and professed his gospel from the beginning, continued , to worship him and to confess his truth after the Reformation, without any solution in the continuity of its being. The fire which sweeps over the prairie may seem to destroy everything, but the verdure which soon clothes the fields with new life and beauty is the legitimate product of the life that preceded it. So the Church, although corruption or per- secution may divest it of all visible indications of life, soon puts forth new flowers and produces new fruit, without any real discontinuance of its life. The only schismatics in the case are the Romanists, who de- nounce and excommunicate the Protestants because they profess the truth. CHAPTER V. PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH UNION. [*] In the January number of this journal, we published ‘an article from the pen of a respected contributor, advocating the confederation of the various Presbyterian bodies in this country, of which there are at least eight or ten distinct organizations. That article presented in a clear light the serious evils which flow from this multiplicity of Presbyterian bodies. Not only the evils of sectarian jealousy and rivalry, but: the enormous waste which it incurs of men, labour, and money. It did not propose an amalgamation of all these independent organizations, but suggested that while each should retain its own separate being, its order, discipline, and usages, the possession and control of its own property and institutions, all should be subject to one general synod, for the decision of matters of dispute, and the conduct of missionary and other benevolent operations, in which all Calvinistic Presbyterians can, without the sacrifice of principle, combine. The advantages of this plan are obvious, in the promotion of efficiency, in the consolida- tion of efforts, in the economy of men and means, and in the prevention of unseemly rivalry and interference. But we must take men and Churches as they are. Those who are liberal, and, shall we say, enlight- ened enough, thus to codperate, may be persuaded into such an union. But if some Presbyterians believe that it is sinful to sing Watts’s hymns, and that they would be false to their “testimony ” and principles even to commune with those who use such hymns in the worship of God; what can be done? We cannot force them to think otherwise, and while they retain their peculiar views they are doomed to isolation. * eR * * * * * * * * * * * * * * All Protestants agree that the Church in heaven and on earth is one. There is one fold, one kingdom, one family, one body. They all agree that Christ is the centre of this unity. Believers are one body in Christ Jesus; that is, in virtue of their union with him. The bond of [* From article entitled, “ Principles of Church Union, and Reunion of Old and New School Presbyterians.” Princeton Review, 1865, p. 272.] a 90 CHURCH POLITY. * this union between Christ and his people, apart from the eternal federal union constituted before the foundation of the world, is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. By one Spirit we are baptized into or constituted one body. That Spirit working faith in us, does thereby unite us to Christ in our effectual calling. Tt follows from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit being the principle of unity, or-the the bond which unites all believers to each other, and all to Christ, that all the legitimate manifestations of this unity must be referable to the Spirit’s presence. That is, they must be his fruits, produced by his influence on the hearts of his people. As the Holy Spirit is a teacher—as he dwells in believers as an unction from the Holy One, which, as the apostle says, (1 John ii. 27,) teaches them all things, so that they need not that any man teach them, it follows that all true Christians agree in faith, They have one faith, as they have one Lord and one baptism. If they were perfect, that is, if they perfectly submitted to the guidance of the Spirit by his word and by his inward influence, this agreement in matters of faith would be perfect. But as this is not the case, as imperfection attaches to every- thing human in this life, the unity of faith among believers is also imperfect. Nevertheless it is real. It is far greater than would be inferred from the contentions of theologians, and it includes everything essential to Christianity. .That there is one God; that the Godhead subsists in three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; that the Eternal Son of God assumed our nature, was born of a woman, and suffered and died for our salvation; that He is the only Saviour of men; that it is through his merit and grace men are delivered from the condemnation and power of sin; that all men being sinners, need this salvation; that it is only through the power of the Holy Ghost sinners are made partakers of the redemption of Christ; that those who experience this renewing of the Holy Ghost and are united to Christ, and they only, are made partakers of eternal life—these are doctrines which enter into the faith of all Christian Churches, and of all true believers. As it is not for us to say what is the lowest degree of knowledge necessary to salvation, so it is not for us to determine, with precision and confidence, what degree of aberration from the common faith of Christians forfeits the communion of saints. We know indeed that those who deny the Son, deny the Father also, and that if any man believe that Jesus is the Son of God, he is born of God. 2. The Holy Spirit is not only a teacher but a sanctifier. All those in whom he dwells are more or less renewed after the image of God, and consequently they all agree in their religious experience. The Spirit convinces .all of sin, 7. ¢., of guilt, moral pollution, and help- lessness, He reveals to all the righteousness of Christ; @ ¢., the PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH UNION. 91 righteousness of his claims to be received, loved, worshipped, and obeyed, as the Son of God and the Saviour of the world. He excites in all in whom he dwells the same holy affections, in greater or less degrees of strength and constancy. True Christians, therefore, of all ages and in all parts of the world, are one in their inward spiritual life, in its principles and its characteristic exercises. The prayers, the hymns, the confessions and thanksgivings, which express the yearning desires and outgoings of soul of one, suits all others. This is a bond of fellowship which unites in mystic union the hearts of all people of God, and makes them one family or household. 8. The Holy Spirit is a Spirit of love, and love is one of the fruits of his presence. The command of Christ to his disciples, so often re- peated by him and his apostles, is written on the heart by the Spirit, and becomes a controlling law in all his people. This is not mere beneyo- lence, nor philanthropy, nor friendship, nor any form of natural affec- tion. It isa love of the brethren because they are brethren. It isa love founded on their character and on their relation to Christ. It extends therefore to all Christians without distinction of nation, or cul- ture, or ecclesiastical association. It leads not only to acts of kindness, but to religious fellowship. It expresses itself in the open and cordial recognition of every Christian as a Christian, and treating him accord- ingly. We confess Christ when we confess his followers to be our breth- ren; and it is one form of denying Christ to refuse to acknowledge his disciples as such. Inasmuch as ye did it unto them, ye did it unto me, are very comprehensive, as well as very solemn words. It is thus that all believers as individuals are one spiritual body. But the union of believers extends much farther than this. Man isa social being, and the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the people of God is an organizing principle. As men, in virtue of their natural consti- tution, form themselves into families, tribes, and nations, united not only by community of nature and of interests, but by external organic laws and institutions; so believers in Christ, in virtue of their spiritual nature, or under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as the principle of spiritual life, form themselves into societies for the propagation and culture of their spiritual nature. This leads 1, to their uniting for the purposes of Christian worship, and the celebration of the Christian ordinances. 2. To the institution of church government, in order to carry out the injunctions of the word of God, and the exercise of mutual watch and care, or for the exercise of discipline. It arises out of the nature of Christianity, in other words, it arises out of the state of mind produced in believers by the indwelling of the Spirit, that they should, under the guidance of the written word, adopt means of deciding on the admission of members 92 CHURCH POLITY. to the Church, and upon the exclusion of the unworthy, as well as for the selection or appointment of the officers necessary for their edifica- tion. Thus individual or separate congregations are formed. The natural principle of association of such individual Churches is proximity. Those believers who reside sufficiently near each to make it possible or convenient for them to meet from Sabbath to Sabbath, would naturally unite for the purposes above indicated. 3d. The unity of the Church, however, continues. These separate congregations constitute one Church. First, because they have the same faith, and the same Lord. Secondly, because they are associated on the same terms; so that a member admitted to one, becomes a mem- ber of the Church universal; and a member excluded from one congre- gation is thereby excluded from the fellowship of all. It would indeed be an anomaly, if the man whom Paul required the Corinthians to excommunicate, could by removing to Philippi be restored to the com- munion of the saints. Thirdly, because every single congregation is subject to the body of other Churches. Believers are required by the word, and impelled by the indwelling of the Spirit, to be subject to their brethren in the Lord. The ground of this subjection is not the fact that they are neighbours, and therefore is not confined to those with whom they are united in daily or weekly acts of worship. Nor does it rest on any contract or mutual covenant, so as to be limited to those to whom we may agree to obey. It is founded on the fact that they are brethren; that the Spirit of God dwells in them, and therefore extends to all the brethren. The doctrine that’a Church is formed by mutual covenant, and that its authority is limited to those who agree together for mutual watch and care, is as inconsistent with the nature of Chris- tianity and the word of God, as that parental authority is founded on a, covenant between the parent and the children, Children are required to obey their parents, because they are parents, and not because they have covenanted to obey them. In like manner we are required to obey our brethren, because they are brethren; just as we are bound to obey the wise and good, because they are what they are; or as we are bound to obey reason and conscience, because they are reason and con- science ; or God, because he is God. Mutual covenants as the ground and limitation of church authority, and the “social compact” as the ground of civil government, are alike anti-scriptural. The Church therefore remains one body, not only spiritually, but outwardly. Each individual congregation is a member of an organic whole, as the several members of the human body are united not only by the inward prin- ciple of life common to them all, but in external relation and mutual dependence. The eye cannot say to the ear, nor the hand to the foot, “thou art not of the body.” PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH UNION. 93 It follows from what has been said, that the Church in any one town or city would be subject to those in its immediate vicinity, and those again to the Churches in a larger circle, and these to the Church univer- sal, Thus by an inward law, provincial and national Churches, or ecclesiastical organizations, would be formed, all inwardly and out- wardly connected, and all subject to the Church as a whole. The rep- resentative principle which pervades the Bible, and which has its foundation in the nature of man, is also founded in the nature of the Church, and is necessarily involved in her organization. As it is phy- sically impossible that all the people should assemble for the adminis- tration of government and discipline, it is a matter of necessity that the power of the Church should be exercised through its properly ap- pointed representatives—so that this organic outward union of the Church, as the expression of its inward spiritual unity, becomes feasible, and has to a large extent been actual. It can hardly be denied that such is the normal or ideal state of the Church. This is the form which it would in fact have assumed, if it had not been for disturbing influences. A tree planted under favoura- ble circumstances of soil and climate, and with free scope on every side, assumes its normal shape and proportions, and stands forth the realiza- tion of its idea. But if the soil or climate be uncongenial, or if the tree be hedged in, it grows indeed, but in a distorted shape, and with cramped and crooked limbs. This has been the actual history of the Church. The full and free development of its inward life has been so hindered by the imperfection of that life itself, and by adverse external influences, that instead of filling the earth with its branches, or stand- ing one and symmetrical, as a cedar of Lebanon, or an oak of Bashan, it is rent and divided, and her members twisted out of their natural shape and proportions. These adverse influences, although partly external, (geographical and political,) have been principally from within. As external union is the product and expression of spiritual unity; if the latter be de- fective, the former must be imperfect. Christians have not been so united in their views of Christian doctrine and order as to render it possible for them all to be joined in one organized external body. Romanists (especially of the genuine ultramontane school) assume that Christ constituted his Church in the form of an absolute monarchy, and appointed the bishop of Rome its head, and invested him with ab- solute power to decide all questions of doctrine and morals, and with universal authority to exercise discipline; making him, in short, his vicar, with plenary power upon earth; and that the Church can exist under no other form, so that to deny the authority of the Pope is to secede from the Church. As no man can be a member of the Russian 94 CHURCH POLITY. empire and enjoy its privileges, who does not acknowledge the au- thority of the Czar, so no one can be a member of the Romish Church who does not acknowledge the authority of the Pope. This theory of the nature and organization of the Church, and of the condition of membership therein, of necessity separates those who adopt it from all other Christians. If they are right, all who protest and refuse to ac- knowledge the Bishop of Rome as their sovereign lord, are schismatics. If they are wrong, then the crime of schism rests on them. In either case, however, the Church is divided. Prelatists, on the other hand, hold to the perpetuity of the apostle- ship, and assume that bishops are the official successors of the apostles, and ought to be accepted and obeyed as such. The class of those who adopt this theory teach that the being of the Church depends on this principle. As in the early Church those only were recognized as members who received the doctrines and submitted to the authority of the apostles, so now those only are in the Church who yield like sub- jection to the prelates having apostolic succession. Another class, while they do not go to this extreme, still hold that it is the duty of all Christians to adopt and submit to the episcopal organization of the Church, and to render canonical obedience to its prelates. Presbyterians are fully persuaded, from their interpretation of the Scriptures, that the office of the apostles was temporary; that they have no official successors, and that presbyters are the highest per- manent officers of the Church, according to its original design and institution. They therefore cannot conscientiously submit to the claims of either papal or prelatical authority, and are necessitated to organize an external Church for themselves; or rather, as they believe, to maintain and perpetuate the original and divinely ap- pointed mode of organization. Independents believe that a Church is a company of believers united by mutual covenant for the purposes of Christian worship and disci- pline, and is complete in itself, subject to no ecclesiastical authority but that of its own members. Holding these views they cannot submit to pope, prelates, or presbyteries. ‘Thus we have the external Church of necessity divided into three independent, antagonistic bodies, The evil, however, has not stopped here. Baptists assume that immersion is essential to baptism; that baptism is necessary to membership in the visible Church; and that adult believers are the only proper subjects of that Christian ordinance, Hence they cannot recognize any persons as members of the Church who were either baptized in infancy, or to whom the rite was ad- ministered otherwise than by immersion. They are thus separated (at least externally) from the great body of Christians. Less diversities PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH UNION. 95 of opinion than any of the above have led to the multiplication of sects. Some Presbyterians, believing that the civil magistrate is ’ clothed with the power to maintain the purity of the Church, will not recognize the authority of any magistrate who has not bound himself by covenant to exercise his power to sustain the Church ‘according to their views of gospel doctrine and order. These Covenanters, there- fore, separate from other Presbyterians who do not agree with them in this fundamental principle. Otherwise they would be unfaithful, as they believe, to the testimony for the truth which they are bound to bear. Others again believe that the Book of Psalms was divinely ap- pointed to be used in public worship, and that the use of hymns written by uninspired men in the service of God is a violation of his commands. With such a belief they cannot unite in worship or com- munion with those who differ from them in this matter. Thus the evil has gone on increasing until the Church is split into sects and indepen- dent communions almost without number. Nevertheless, the existence of such divisions is the less of two evils. When men differ, it is better to avow their diversity of opinion or faith, than to pretend to agree, or to force discordant elements in a formal uncongenial union. It is clear from the history of the Church, that diversity as to forms of Church government, or matters connected with worship and dis- cipline, more than differences about doctrine, has been the cause of existing divisions of the Church. Many Romanists, Episcopalians, and all Presbyterians (with few exceptions) have been, and are, Au- gustinian in doctrine. In the Romish Church, during all the middle ages, Augustinians, Pelagians, and Semi-Pelagians were included in her communion. The same diversity notoriously exists in the Church of England, and in the Episcopal Churches of this country at the present day. These Churches are one, not in doctrine, but in virtue of their external organization, and subjection to one and the same goy- erning body. In the Romish Church the principle or centre of union is the Pope; in the Church of England the king in council; in the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, the General Con- vention. The Presbyterians of Scotland, subject to the same General Assembly, constitute one Church; those subject to another Assembly constitute another. And so it is in the United States. Churches there- fore may agree in their standards of doctrine, in their form of govern- ment, and mode of worship, and yet be separate, independent bodies, The existence of denominational Churches being unavoidable in the present imperfect state of inward spiritual unity among Christians, it becomes important to determine their relative duties. In the first place, it is their duty to combine or unite in one body (so far as 96 CHURCH POLITY. geographical and political considerations will permit), wherever and whenever the grounds of their separation are inadequate and unscrip- tural. They are not bound to unite when the differences between them ~ are such as to prevent harmonious action; but where the points in which they differ are either such as the Scriptures do not determine, or which are of minor importance, it is obviously wrong that all the evils arising from the multiplication of sects should for the sake of these subordinate matters be continued. It is clearly impossible that Romanists and Protestants should be united in the same ecclesiastical organization. It is no less impossible that anything more than a federal union, such as may exist between independent nations, can be formed between Prelatists and Presbyterians, between Baptists and Pedobaptists, between Congregationalists and any other denomination recognizing the authority of Church courts. The principles con- scientiously adopted by these different bodies are not only different, but antagonistic and incompatible. Those who hold them can no more form one Church than despotism and democracy can be united in the constitution of the same state. If by divine right all authority vests in the king, it cannot vest in the people. The advocates of these opposite theories therefore cannot unite in one form of government. It is no less obvious that if ecclesiastical power vests in one man—the bishop—it cannot vest in a presbytery. Episcopalians and Presbyterians therefore cannot unite. The latter deny the right of the bishop to the prerogatives which he claims; and the former deny the authority of the presbytery which it assumes. The same thing is equally plain of Presbyterians and Congregationalists. The former regard themselves as bound by the decisions of sessions and presbyteries; the latter refuse to recognize the right of Church courts to exercise discipline or government. So long, therefore, as such differences exist among Christians, it is plain that Romanists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists, must form separate and independent bodies. Differences as to doctrine do not form such insuperable barriers to Church union as diversity of opinion respecting ecclesiastical govern- ment. The creed of a Church may be so general, embracing only the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, such as can be professed with a good conscience by all true Christians, and thus ministers and members who differ widely within those limits may unite in one ecclesiastical organization. It is notorious that great differences of doctrine prevail in all large Churches, as in the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland, and in this country in the Episcopal Church, and in a less degree, perhaps, among Presbyterians. Much as to this point depends on the standards of the Church. Those standards may be so strict and so extended as to exclude all but Calvinists, or all but Arminians, as PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH UNION. 97 is the case with the Wesleyans. It is a question of delicacy and diffi- culty how minute a confession of faith for an extended organization should be made. It may be too concise and latitudinarian, or it may be too minute and extended, requiring a degree of unanimity greater than is necessary, and greater than is attainable. Fidelity and har- mony, however, both demand that the requirements of the standards, whatever they may be, should be sincerely adopted and enforced so far as every thing essential to their integrity is concerned. But secondly, when union between different denominations is imprac- ticable or undesirable, they have very important duties resting upon them in relation to each other. 1. The first and most comprehensive of these duties is mutual recognition. By this is meant the acknow- ledgment of their members as Christian brethren, and of the denomi- nations or bodies themselves as Christian Churches. It is a great offence against Christian charity, and a direct violation of the command of Christ, to refuse to receive as our brethren those whom Christ receives as his disciples. It will not avail as an excuse for such repu- diation of brotherhood, to say that others do not walk with us; that they do not adopt the same form of government, are not subject to the same bishops or Church courts; or that they do not unite with us in the same testimony as to non-essential matters; or do not agree with us in the same mode of worship. We might as well refuse to recognize a man as a fellow-creature because he was a monarchist and not a republi- can, a European and not an American, or an African and not a Cau- casian. This is no small matter. Those who refuse to recognize Christians as Christians, sin against Christ and commit an offence which is severely denounced in the word of God. The same principle applies to Churches. To refuse to recognize as a Church of Christ any body of associated believers united for the purposes of worship and dis- cipline, can be justified only on the ground that some particular form of organization has by Divine authority been made essential to the existence of the Church. And if essential to the existence of the Church, it must be essential to the existence of piety and to the presence and operations of the Holy Spirit. Ubi Spiritus Sanctus ibi Ecclesia is a principle founded upon the Scriptures, and held sacred by evangeli- cal Christians in all ages. It was the legend on the banner which they raised in all their conflicts with Papists and High Churchmen from the beginning. A body of Christians, therefore, professing the true faith, and united for the purpose of worship and discipline, no matter how externally organized, is a Church which other Christians are bound to recognize as such, unless it can be proved that a particular mode of organization is in fact, and by Divine command, essential to the exis- tence of the Church. 7 98 CHURCH POLITY. 2. It is included in the acknowledgment that a body of Christians is a Church of Christ, that we should commune with its members in public worship and in the sacraments, and allow them to commune with us. This follows from the spiritual unity of the Church; from its having the same faith and the same Lord and God, and from the conditions of Church membership being the same for all Churches. A member of the Church at Jerusalem was entitled to the privileges of the Church of Antioch. If he was a Christian in one place, he was no less a Chris- tian in another, and the rights of a Christian belonged to him wherever he went. It is obvious that this principle, although true in itself, is limited in its practical application. There may be something in the mode of conducting public worship or in the administration of the sacraments which hurts the consciences of other Christians, and pre- vents this freedom of communion in Church ordinances. If a Church requires all who partake of the Lord’s Supper to receive the elements upon their knees, should any man conscientiously believe that this posture implies the worship of the consecrated bread, he cannot join in the service; or if a Church is so unfaithful as to admit to its fellowship those whom the law of Christ requires should be excluded, other Churches are not bound to receive them into fellowship. These and similar limitations do not invalidate the principle. It remains the plain duty of all Christian Churches to recognize each other as Churches, and hold intercourse one with another as such. And it is also their duty to make nothing essential either to the existence of the Church or to Church fellowship, which the word of God does not declare to be essential. 3. A third duty resting on different Churches or denominations, is to recognize the validity of each other’s acts of discipline. If .the Church, notwithstanding its division into sects, is still one; if the legiti- mate terms of membership are the same in all; and if the lawful grounds of exclusion are also the same, then it follows that a man ex- cluded from one Church should be excluded from all other Churches, The meaning of the act of suspension or excommunication is, that the subject of censure is unworthy of Christian fellowship. If this be true in one place, it is true in every place. Civil tribunals act upon this principle. Not only do the courts of the same state respect the deci- sions of co-ordinate courts; but the judicial decisions of one state are held valid in other states, until just reason can be shown to the con- trary. The rule is the same with regard to acts of Church discipline. The right to exercise discipline is to be acknowledged. The propriety and justice of the particular acts of discipline are to be presumed and acted upon. If clear evidence be afforded that those acts were unau- thorized by the law of Christ, or manifestly unjust, other Churches, in ~ CELI TE STITT TTT PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH UNION. 99 consistency with courtesy and Christian fellowship, may disregard them. If a Baptist Church should excommunicate a member because he had his children baptized, no peedobaptist Church could, on that ground, refuse to receive him. Or if one Presbyterian Church should ‘subject a member to discipline because he joined in acts of worship in which hymns written by uninspired men were sung, other Presbyterians would be free to disregard such censures. 4, The same remarks apply to cases of ordination. If we are bound to recognize a given body as a Christian Church, we are bound to admit that it has a right to all the privileges and prerogatives belong- ing toa Church. Among those necessary prerogatives is the right to perpetuate and extend itself, and to appoint men to all scriptural offices necessary to that purpose. The ministry is a divine institution. It is appointed for the edification of saints and for the ingathering of those who are without. It is necessary, therefore, that a Church should have ministers; and therefore it is necessary that she should have the right to ordain. Ifthe Presbyterians, Methodists, or Congre- gationalists are to be recognized as Christian Churches, their right to ordain ministers cannot be legitimately denied. It is one thing, how- ever, to admit the right and another to admit the propriety of the mode in which it is exercised. If Presbyterians believe that the pres- bytery is the organ by which the Church signifies her conviction that aman is called by the Spirit to the work of the ministry, they may consistently refuse to receive as ministers of their own body those who have not been presbyterially ordained. Or if one presbytery should exercise its admitted right of ordination in contravention either of the laws of Christ, or of the rules of the Presbyterian Church, other pres- byteries would not be bound to receive such minister as a member. The Bishop of Oxford ordained a man whom the Bishop of Chester refused to allow to officiate in his diocese. This was not schismatical. It was not a denial of the right of the Bishop of Oxford to ordain ; it was only a denial that he had properly exercised that right in a given case. It is not necessary therefore that one denomination should con- cern itself how other denominational Churches exercise the right of appointing men to the ministry, provided it admit that they possess the right of appointment; and recognize those thus appointed as min- isters of Christ. It can preserve the purity of its own ministry and Churches without incurring the charge of discourtesy or schism. Pres- byterians may recognize Methodist preachers as ministers of the gospel, and welcome them to their pulpits, but they cannot be expected to re- ceive them into their own body ot make them pastors of their own Churches. The same of course may be said of Methodists in regard to Presbyterians, 100 CHURCH POLITY. 5. Another important duty which rests upon denominations recogniz- ing each other as Christian Churches, is that of non-interference. When one Church has planted itself in a field which it is abundantly able to cultivate, it is a breach of the principles of unity for another denomination to contend for joint-occupation. This is a great evil" and one of constant occurrence. It often happens that one denom- ination organizes a Church in a village the population of which is barely sufficient for one Church, when another starts a rival Church, which can succeed only by drawing support from the other. When the field is the world, and so much land remains unoccupied, it is a great wrong thus to embarrass the operations of our fellow- Christians, and to burden the people with the support of two, three or more Churches, where one would do more good than many. 6. Finally, it is obviously the duty of different denominations to cultivate peace. They should avoid all the causes of alienation and ill-feeling, and do everything in their power to promote Christian love and fellowship. It is their duty, indeed, to maintain what they believe to be the truth, and endeavour to promote unity of faith; but they are bound to abstain from mere rivalry and sectarian conflicts. * * * * * * * * * CHAPTER VI. PROVINCE OF THE cHURCH. [*] * * * * * * * * * Tue world is governed by ideas. The triteness of this remark is only a proof of its importance. It is wonderful also how ideas percolate: how they silently diffuse themselves, as heat, or electricity, until they animate the mass of society, and manifest themselves in the most unexpected quarters. They often lie dormant, as it were, in the public mind, until some practical measure, some foregone conclusion or purpose as to a definite mode of action, calls them into notice. If they suit the occasion, if they answer a cherished purpose, and give to the intellect a satisfactory reason for what the will has determined upon, they are adopted with avidity. The history of every community will suggest abundant illustrations to every reader of the truth of this remark, [* From article on ‘ The General Assembly ;” topic, ‘ Colonization and Theory of the Church ;” Princeton Review, 1859, p. 607.] PROVINCE OF THE CHURCH. 101 Great evils were long experienced in England from Erastianism. The intimate union of the Church and state, and the consequent subjection of the former to the latter, led to all manner of corruptions and oppressions. To escape these evils, one class of the Puritans went to the opposite extreme. They represented the visible Church as a purely . Spiritual body, consisting of the regenerated, united by special covenant ’ for the worship of God, and mutual watch and care. This is Owen’s idea. He says, believers are the matter of the Church, and the covenant is the form. No one, therefore, is a member of the Church but one, who giving satisfactory evidence of regeneration, voluntarily and personally professes his faith, and enters into a Church covenant with a number of fellow-believers. All else are of the world, in no way amenable to the Church or subject to its control. The sole object of Church organization is the worship of God and the exercise of discipline; and consequently its sole prerogative is to provide for divine worship and to receive and exclude members. This leads to the distinction between the Church and the parish, The former is the covenanted body of believers; the latter, the whole body of the commu- nity united in the maintenance of the ordinances of religion. There are two principles involved in this theory, the one, that each body of believers united by covenant for worship and discipline is a complete Church, and independent of all others; and the other, that the Church is a purely spiritual body having for its sole object the worship of God and the fellowship and purity of believers. The effects of this theory we see in the progress of development in New England. The Church, there, is what Napoleon’s army would be were it disbanded into inde- pendent companies, each acting by, and for itself; this is the effect of Independency ; or what these countries would be, if every village were a separate sovereignty. ‘The effect of the other principle, relating to the nature and design of the Church, is utter inefficiency. Who ever heard of the Church saying or doing anything in New England? It is muzzled, manacled and fettered. It exists there in spite of the theory, in the spiritual union and fellowship of the people of God, but they have no means of organic action, and according to the prevalent notion, no right to act as an organic whole, nor to act even in its dis- jointed members, except for the purposes indicated above. If they have even to ordain a man to the ministry, found a seminary, send out missionaries, or do anything however intimately connected with Christ’s kingdom, they must go out of the Church organization to do it. The most desperate evils may prevail in the form of heresies or immorali- ties, the Church as such can do nothing, and does nothing. We give full credit to the devotion of individual Christians in New England, and to the energy of their combined action in their voluntary associa- 102 CHURCH POLITY. tions of different kinds. But these are very poor substitutes for the natural and divinely appointed organs of Church action. Experience is teaching a sad lesson on this subject. Of the two principles involved in this form of Puritanism, the Inde- pendent element has had no access to our Church. There is no suscep- tibility in our system of impression from that source. The two systems are antagonistic and repellent. They are incapable of combination. With regard to the other element, however, relating to the nature and prerogatives of the Church, the case is far different. That element has long been silently diffusing itself through our whole body. It affects our modes of thought, our expressions, and our ecclesiastical action. With us, in common parlance, the Church is the body of those who profess to be regenerated ; to join the Church is to come to the Lord’s table. Our Book declares that all baptized persons are members of the Church, and yet we constantly talk of such persons joining the Church when they come to the Lord’s Supper. Personal and voluntary pro- ‘fession of saving faith is regarded as the condition of Church member- ship. The Church has no right of discipline except over such profes- sors. And now the doctrine is advanced by one of the very foremost men of our whole communion, that the Church is in such sense a, spiri- tual body, that she has no right even to recommend a benevolent soci- ety. She must confine herself to a purely spiritual vocation. She cannot denounce evil or patronize good out of her pale. It is not her business to attend “to the colonization of races, or to the arrest of the slave trade,” or to anything else but the immediate spiritual affairs of men. There is always a half truth in every error. It is true that the Church is not of this world; that it is not as such concerned in the affairs of the world ; that it has nothing to do with politics, commerce, or agriculture, or any secular enterprise as such. All this follows from our theory of the Church, as logically and freely as from the Puritan doctrine. There is no necessity to manacle the Church to keep her hands off of politics. In strong contrast with this whole Puritan doctrine is that idea of the Church which is the life of our system, which has revealed itself in act in every period of our history. It is, that while the true Church, or body of Christ, the opal xara mvedya, consists of the true people of God, yet by divine ordinance the children of’ believers are to be regarded and treated as included within its: pale, and consecrated to God in Baptism, and therefore, in thé sight of men, all baptized per- sons, in the language of our Book, are members of the Church, and under its watch and care. This, of course, as remarked above, does not imply that they are all PROVINCE OF THE CHURCH. 103 to be admitted to the Lord’s table, any more than that they are to be admitted to the ministry or eldership. God has prescribed the qualifi- cations which the Church is to require of those whom she receives to full communion or to office. Still, baptized persons are members of the visible Church, until they renounce their birthright, or are excommuni- cated, and consequently subject to its government or discipline. This body constitutes one whole, so that one part is subject to a larger, and the larger to the whole. To the Church, in this sense, is committed not merely the work of public worship and exercising discipline, not simply or exclusively to exhort men to repentance and faith, but to assert, maintain, and propagate the truth. And by the truth, is to be understood the word of God, and all it contains, as the rule of faith and practice. This is the great prerogative and duty of the Church. Her divine commission is, “ Go, teach all nations.” From this it follows: 1. That she has the right to preach the gospel. This is the first, the most important, and pressing of her duties ; and in the discharge of this duty, she ordains ministers and sends forth missionaries. Hence your Boards of Foreign and Domestic Missions, and of Church Extension. 2. She has the right to administer discipline, which is one of the divinely appointed means of preserving the truth. 3. The right to educate. If she is to teach all nations, she must train up teachers; she must prepare the minds of men to receive the truth, and she must com- municate that truth by all the means at her command. MHence your schools, colleges, and theological seminaries; hence also your educa- tional institutions among the heathen, and your establishments for printing and distributing Bibles, tracts, and religious books. On this foundation rest your Boards of Education and Publication. 4. It follows from the great commission of the Church, that it is her pre- rogative and duty to testify for the truth and the law of God, where- ever she can make her voice heard; not only to her own people, but to kings and rulers, to Jews and Gentiles. It is her duty not only to an- nounce the truth, but to apply it to particular cases and persons; that is, she is bound to instruct, rebuke, and exhort, with all long- suffering. She is called of God to set forth and enjoin upon the con- sciences of men the relative duties of parents and children, of magis- trates and people, of masters and slaves. If parents neglect their duties, she is called upon by her divine commission to instruct and exhort them. If magistrates transcend the limits of their authority, and tres- pass on the divine law, she is bound to raise her voice in remonstrance and warning. She has nothing to do with the state, in the exercise of its discretion within its own sphere; and therefore has no right to med- dle with questions of policy, foreign or domestic. She has nothing to do with tariffs, or banks, or internal improvements. We say, with Dr. 104 CHURCH POLITY. Thornwell, “Let the dead bury the dead.” Let Cesar attend to his own affairs. But if Cesar undertakes to meddle with the affairs of God; if the state pass any laws contrary to the law of God, then it is the duty of the Church, to whom God has committed the great work of asserting and maintaining his truth and will, to protect and remon- strate. If the state not only violates the Sabbath, but makes it a con- dition to holding office, that others should violate it; or if it legalizes piracy, or concubinage, or polygamy; if it prohibits the worship of God, or the free use of the means of salvation; if, in short, it does any- thing directly contrary to the law of God, the Church is bound to make that law known, and set it home upon the conscience of all concerned. In many of our states, there are in force laws relating to marriage and divorce, in open conflict with the word of God. We hold that it is the duty of the Church of every denomination, in those states, to tell their legislators, that while they have the right to legislate about mat- ters of property and civil rights at their discretion, under the constitu- tion, they have no right to separate those whom God has joined to- gether, or make that lawful which God has declared to be unlawful. A few years since, Dr. Thornwell preached an elaborate sermon, set- ting forth what he believed to be the true teaching of the word of God on the subject of slavery. What he had a right to do, and was bound to do as a minister of the gospel, the Church has the right and obliga- tion to do. If, on the one hand, Northern brethren would abstain from teaching, on that and other subjects, what God does not teach; and if, on the other hand, Southern brethren would clearly assert, in their ca- pacity of ministers and a Church, what they fully believe God does teach, great good and God’s blessing, we doubt not, would be the result. They are as much bound to teach the truth on this subject, as a Church as they are bound to do it as ministers; and they are surely as much bound to teach the law of God respecting the duties of masters and slaves, as they are to teach what God says of the duty of parents and children, of saints and sinners. There is a great temptation to adopt theories which free us from painful responsibilities; but we are satisfied that the brethren must, on reflection, be convinced that the duty to tes- tify to the truth, to make it known, and to press it upon the hearts and consciences of men, is as much obligatory on the Church, in her aggre- gate capacity, as on her individual pastors. Her Confession and Catechisms are an admirable summary of that testimony; but she is no more to be satisfied with them, than the ministry is to be satisfied with reading the Confession of Faith, Sabbath after Sabbath to the people. The principle which defines and limits the prerogative and duty of the Church in all such cases, seems to us perfectly plain. PROVINCE OF THE CHURCH. 105 She has nothing to do as a Church with secular affairs, with ques- tions of politics or state policy. Her duty is to announce and en- force by moral means the law of God. Ifat any time, as may well happen, a given question assumed both a moral and political bearing, as for example, the slave-trade, then the duty of the Church is limited to setting forth the law of God on the subject. It is not her office to argue the question in its bearing on the civil or secular interests of the community, but simply to declare in her official capacity what God has said on the subject. To adopt any theory which would stop the mouth of the Church, and prevent her bearing her testimony to kings and rulers, magistrates and people, in behalf of the truth and law of God, is like administering chloroform to a man to prevent his doing mischief. We pray God that this poison may be dashed away, before it has reduced the Church to a state of inanition, and delivered her bound hand and foot into the power of the world. It is obvious that the same principle is applicable to ministers. They profane the pulpit when they preach politics, or turn the sacred desk into a ros- trum for lectures on secular affairs. But they are only faithful to their vows when they proclaim the truth of God and apply his law to all matters whether of private manners or laws of the state. The whole history of the Presbyterian Church in Europe and America is instinct with this spirit. The Presbyterians of Scotland told the government that it had no right to establish Popery or Prelacy, and that they would not submit to it. Our fathers of the Revolution took sides with the country in the struggle for independence, and protested against the acts of the British Government tending to the introduction of Episco- pacy. Before the Revolution the old Synod remonstrated with the au- thorities in Virginia, for their. persecuting laws. In 1830 the Gene- eral Assembly raised its voice against the persecution of Christians in Switzerland. It has, over and over, remonstrated with the Govern- ment of this country on the laws enjoining the carrying and distribu- tion of the mails on Sunday. While admitting that the Bible does not forbid slave-holding, it has borne its testimony in the most explicit terms against the iniquity of many slave laws. It has many times en- joined on the conscience of the people the duty of instructing the col- ored population of our land, and patronized the establishment of schools for that purpose. It has never been afraid to denounce what God forbids, or to proclaim in all ears what God commands, This is her prerogative and this is her duty. * * * * * * * * Presbyterians have always held that the Church is bound to hold forth in the face of all men the truth and law of God, to testify against all infractions of that law by rulers or people, to lend her countenance 106 CHURCH POLITY. -and support to all means, within and without her jurisdiction, which she believes to be designed and wisely adapted to promote the glory and kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. This our Church has always done, and we pray God, she may continue to do even to the end. CHAPTER VIL. RELATION OF THE CHURCH AND STATE. [*] Tus is an exceedingly complicated and difficult subject. There are three aspects under which it may be viewed. I. The actual relation which at different times and in different coun- tries has subsisted between the two institutions. II. The theory devised to justify or determine the limits of such existing relation. III. The normal relation, such as should exist according to the re- vealed will of God, and the nature of the state and of the Church. Before the conversion of Constantine, the Church was of course so far independent of the state, that she determined her own faith, regulated her worship, chose her officers, and exercised her discipline without any interference of the civil authorities. Her members were regarded as citizens of the state, whose religious opinions and practices were, except in times of persecution, regarded as matters of indifference. It is pro- bable that much the same liberty was accorded to the early Christians as was granted by the Romans to the Jews, who were not only allowed, in ordinary cases, to conduct their synagogue services as they pleased, but to decide matters of dispute among themselves, according to their own laws. It is also stated that Churches were allowed to hold real estate before the profession of Christianity by the Emperor. When Constantine declared himself a Christian, he expressed the relation which was henceforth to subsist between the Church and state, by saying to certain bishops, “God has made you the bishops of the internal affairs of the Church, and me the bishop of its external affairs.” This saying has ever since been, throughout a large portion of Christ- endom, the standing formula for expressing the relation of the civil magistrate to the kingdom of Christ. According to this statement, it belongs to the Church, through her own organs, to choose her officers, to regulate all matters relating to [ *Article, same title, Princeton Review, 1863, p. 679.] RELATION OF THE CHURCH AND STATE. 107 doctrine, to administer the word and sacraments, to order public wor- ship, and to exercise discipline. And to the state to provide for the support of the clergy, to determine the sources and amount of their incomes, to fix the limits of parishes and dioceses, to provide places of public worship, to call together the clergy, to preside in their meetings, to give the force of laws to their decisions, and to see that external obe- dience at least was rendered to the decrees and acts of discipline. And this, in general terms, was the actual relation between the two institutions under the Roman emperors, and in many of the states which rose after the dissolution of the Roman empire. But. it is easy to see that the distinction between the internal affairs which be- longed to the bishops, and the external which belonged to the civil ruler, is too indefinite to keep two mighty bodies from coming into collision. If the magistrate provided the support of the bishops and sustained them in their places of influence, he felt entitled to have a voice in saying who should receive his funds, and use that influence. If he was to enforce the decisions of councils as to matters of faith and discipline, he must have some agency in determining what those deci- sions should be. If he was to banish from his kingdom those whom the clergy excluded from the Church, he must judge whether such exclu- sion was in itself just. And on the other hand, if the Church was recognized as a divine institution, with divinely constituted government and powers, she would constantly struggle to preserve her prerogatives from the encroachments of the state, and to draw to herself all the power requisite to enforce her decisions in the sphere of the state into which she was adopted, which she of right possessed in her own sphere as a spiritual, and, in one sense voluntary, society. Simple and plausible, therefore, as the relation between the Church and state, as determined by Constantine, may at first sight appear, the whole history of the Church shows that it cannot be maintained. Either the Church will encroach on the peculiar province of the state, or the state upon that of the Church. It would require an outline of ecclesiastical history, from Constantine to the present day, to exhibit the conflicts and vacillations of these two principles. The struggle though protracted and varied in its prospects, was decided in favor of the Church, which under the papacy gained a complete ascendency over the state. The papal world constituted one body, of which the Pope, as vicar of Christ, was the head. This spiritual body claimed a divine right to make its own laws, appoint its own officers, and have its own tribunals, to which alone its officers were amenable, and before whom all per- sons in the state, from the highest to the lowest, could be cited to ap- pear. All ecclesiastical persons were thus withdrawn from the juris- 108 CHURCH POLITY. diction of the state; while all civil persons were subject to the juris- diction of the Church. The Church being the infallible judge of all questions relating to faith and practice, and it being the obvious duty of all men to receive the decisions and obey the injunctions of an infal- lible authority, the state was bound to receive all those decisions and enforce all those commands. The civil magistrate had no judgment or discretion in the case; he was but the secular arm of the Church, with whose judgments, no matter how injurious he might regard them to his own prerogative, or to the interests of his people, he had no right to interfere. The Church, however, claimed the right to inter- fere in all the decisions of the civil power; because she only could judge whether those decisions were or were not inimical to the true faith, or consistent with the rule of duty. Hence arose what is called the indirect power of the Church in the temporal affairs of the state. Even without going to the extreme of claiming for the Pope, by divine right, a direct sovereignty over the Christian world, mod- erate Romanists of the Italian school claimed for the Pope, this indi- rect power in the civil affairs of kingdoms; that is, power of deciding whether any law or measure was or was not hurtful to the Church, and either to sanction or to annul it. And in case any ‘sovereign should persist in a course pronounced by an infallible authority hurt- ful to the Church, the obligation of obedience on the part of his ‘sub- jects was declared to be at an end, and the sovereign deposed. In most cases, the actual relation between the Church and state is determined historically, 7. ¢., by the course of events, and then a the- ory invented to explain and justify it; but in the case of the papacy, it is probable the theory preceded and produced the actual relation. On the assumption of the external unity of the whole Church under a visible head, and of the infallibility of that visible body when speaking through its appropriate organ, the relation of the Church to the state, which Gregory strove to realize, and which did for ages subsist, is the normal relation ; and it is therefore, at the present day; the very the- ory which is held by the great body of Romanists. In practice, however, it was found intolerable, and therefore, espe- cially in France, and later in Austria, the kings have resisted this dom- ination, and asserted that as the state no less than the Church is of divine origin, the former has the right to judge whether the acts and decisions of the Church are consistent with the rights and interests of the state. The kings of France, therefore, claimed indirect power in the affairs of the Church, and exercised the right of giving a placet, as it was called, to acts of the Church ; that is, they required that such acts should be submitted to them, and receive their sanction before taking effect in their dominions, “ RELATION OF THE CHURCH AND STATE. 109 II. As the Reformation involved the rejection of the doctrine of the visible unity of the Church under one infallible head, it of necessity introduced a change in the relation between the state and the Church. This relation, however, was very different in different countries, and that difference was evidently not the result of any preconceived theory, but of the course of events. It was, therefore, one thing in England, another in Scotland, and another in Germany. With regard to England, it may be said, in general terms, that the Reformation was effected by the civil power. The authority by which all changes were decreed, was that of the king and parlia- ment. The Church passively submitted, subscribing articles presented for acceptance, and. adopting forms of worship and general regulations prescribed for her use. This fact is so inconsistent with the high- church theory, that every effort is made by advocates of that theory, to evade its force, and to show that the change was the work of the Church itself. It is admitted, however, by episcopal writers them- selves, that in the time of Henry and Edward, the great majority both of the clergy and the people, 7. e., the Church, was opposed to the reformation. Henry rejected the authority of the Popé, though he adhered to the doctrines of Romanism. He declared himself by act of Parliament the head of the Church, and required all the bishops to give up their sees, suspending them from office, and then made each take out a commis- sion from the crown, in which it was declared that all ecclesiastical power flowed from the sovereign, and that the bishops acted in his name, and by virtue of power derived from him. The six articles were framed by his authority, in opposition to Cran- mer and the real Reformers, and enacted by Parliament, and made obligatory under severe penalties, upon all the clergy. These articles affirm all the distinguishing doctrines of Romanism. The clearest proof that they rested on the authority of the king is, that as soon as he died they were discarded, and a doctrinal formulary of an opposite character adopted. Under Edward the Sixth, the actual practice was for the crown to appoint a certain number of the clergy to prepare the requisite formu- laries or measures, and then these, if approved by the king, were pub- lished in his name, and enforced by act of Parliament. The convo- cation and the clergy then gave their assent. It was thus the Prayer Book was prepared and introduced. Thus, too, the Articles of Reli- gion were, under Edward, the act of the civil power alone. They were drawn up under Cranmer’s direction, and with the assistance of other divines, but they were not the work of the Convocation, as their pre- amble would seem to imply; nor were they set forth by any authority 110 CHURCH POLITY. but that of the crown. . Short, § 484. Under Elizabeth they were revised by the Convocation. The actual relation of the Church to the state in England, is suffi- ciently indicated by these facts. The king was declared to be the. supreme head of the Church; 7. ¢, the source of authority in its government, and the supreme judge of all persons and causes ecclesi- astical, of whatever kind. The clergy were brought with great diffi- culty to make this acknowledgment, and therefore it cannot be said to be the spontaneous act of the Church. It was rather a usurpation. It is said that the acknowledgment was made with the saving clause, quan- tum per Christi legem licet, with regard to which, there is a dispute, whether it was in the first acknowledgment. The preponderance of evidence, so far as we know, is against it; and certain it is, it is not now in the oath. And it can make little difference, because the very end of the oath was to declare that Christ did allow the king the power which he claimed and exercised. The king then, as head of the Church, changed the form of worship, introduced new articles of faith, suspended and appointed bishops, vis- ited all parts of the Church to reform abuses, issued edicts regulating matters of discipline, grantéd commissions to the bishops to act in his name, and by act of Parliament declared that all jurisdiction, spiritual and temporal, emanates from him, and that all proceedings in the episcopal courts should be in his name. These principles have ever been acted on in the Church of England; though with less flagrancy of course in the settled state of the Church than at the Reformation. All the proceedings, however, of Elizabeth; all the acts of James I. against the Puritans; of Charles I. in Scotland, in the introduction of episcopacy into that country; of Charles II. at his restoration, and even of William III. at the Revolution, when the non-juring bishops were excluded, were founded on the assumption of the absolute power of the state over the Church. And everything still rests on that foundation. The king still appoints all the bishops, and has the legal right to suspend them; all the binding authority of the Articles and Prayer Book rests on acts of Parliament. No man can be refused admission to the Church, no matter what his opinions or character, against the will of the state; and no man can be excommu- nicated but by civil process; and the ultimate decision, even in the trial of a bishop for heresy, is rendered by the king in council. Whiston. Different theories have been devised to justify this entire subordina- tion of the Church to the state. The early Reformers, Cranmer espe- cially, were thoroughly Erastian ; and held that the king was intrusted with the whole care of his subjects, as well concerning the administra~ tion of the word, as in things civil and political; and as he had under RELATION OF THE CHURCH AND STATE. 111 him civil officers to act in his name, so he had Church officers, the one class being assigned, appointed, and selected by the authority of the king, as much as the other. Cranmer did not even hold to the neces- sity of any ordination by Church officers, considering the king’s com- mission all sufficient. This whole theory rests on an exorbitant notion of the regal power. A second theory supposes that there is no difference between a Christian state and a Church. A Church is a people professing Chris- tianity, and they may adopt what form of government they please. This supposes not only that the details of Church government are not prescribed in Scripture, but that there is no government in the hands of Church officers at all ordained by Christ; but in whatever way the will of the sovereign power, 7. ¢., of the people, is expressed and exer- cised, is, as to its form, legitimate; and hence the best and most health- ful form of Church government is that which most fully identifies the Church with the state. This is the doctrine of Dr. Arnold. Though this theory, if sound, might justify the existing state of things in Eng- land, it cannot justify the Reformation; for that was not carried on by the people, 7. ¢. the Church in its state capacity, but by the civil authority, in despite both of the clergy and the people. High-churchmen take different grounds. Some admit the irregu- larity in the mode of proceeding under Henry and Elizabeth, but justify it on the ground of necessity, or of extraordinary emergency, calling for the exercise of extraordinary powers. Others, as Mr. Pal- mer, deny that the Church is responsible for those acts, or that she is to be judged by the preamble of acts of Parliament, or by the claims or acts of the crown, but exclusively by her own declarations and acts. And he endeavours to show that all the leading facts of the Reforma- tion were determined by the Church. To do this, however, he is obliged to maintain that what the king did on the advice of a few divines, was done by the Church, which is as unreasonable as to refer the sanatory or legal regulations of a kingdom to the authority of the physicians or lawyers who may be consulted in drawing them up. Mr. Palmer falls back on the theory suggested by Constantine, which assigns the internal government of the Church to bishops, and the external to the king. He accordingly denies that the king can, either by himself or by officers deriving their authority from him, pro- nounce definitions of faith, administer the word or sacraments, or ab- solve or excommunicate. He may, however, convene Synods, and preside in them; sanction their decisions, and give them the force of laws; he may refuse to sanction them, if contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic Church, or injurious to the state; he may receive appeals from Church-courts; preserve subordination and unity in the Church ; 112 CHURCH POLITY. prevent, by civil pains and penalties, all secession from her communion, and found and endow new bishoprics. This doctrine rests on the assumption, 1. That it is the design of the state, and the duty of its officers, to promote and sustain religion by civil pains and penalties; 2. That the Church is a divine institution, with a prescribed faith and discipline; and 3. That the marks of the true Church are so plain that no honest man can mistake them. The only point in which this system differs from the papal doctrine on this subject is, that it allows the civil magistrate discretion whether he will enforce the decisions of the Church or not. This difference arises from the fact that tractarians do not pretend that provincial synods are infallible; and with such only has the king anything to do; whereas Romanists maintain that the pope, speaking ex cathedra, is infallible. There is room, therefore, for discretion in reference to the decisions of the former, but none in reference to those of the latter. Mr. Palmer, however, is far from maintaining that the actual state of things corresponds with his theory, and most tractarians are loud in their complaints of the bondage under which the Church in England is now groaning. III. Lutherans. In Germany the course of the Reformation was very different from what it was in England, and consequently the re- lation between the Church and state received a different form. The movement took its rise, and was guided in all its progress, in the for- mer country, by Luther and his associates, and was sanctioned cordially by the people. He did not wait to be called up by the Elector to de- nounce the errors of popery, or to reform its abuses. He did both, and the people joined him. They besought the civil authorities to sanction these changes, and to protect and aid them in carrying them out. And the Electors slowly and cautiously granted their sanction. The Re- formation here, therefore, did not proceed from the state, but really and truly from the Church, 4. ¢., the clergy and people, and the state sanctioned and joined it. Had the bishops generally codperated in the work, it is probable, from the frequent declarations of Luther and Me- lancthon, they would in Germany, as in Sweden, have been allowed, not as a matter of right, but of expediency, to retain the executive power in their hands. But as they had not only greatly neglected all disci- pline in the Church, and finally sided with Rome, the Reformers called on the electors to appoint consistories, to be composed, as they expressed it, “of honest. and learned men,” to supply the deficiency. These bodies were at first designed simply to administer discipline. They were to be Church courts, for the trial and punishment of spiritual offences. As, however, the bishops withdrew, the powers of the consis- tories were enlarged, and they became on the one hand the organ of RELATION OF THE CHURCH AND STATE. 113 the Church. As the members of these consistories are appointed by the state, and as they are the organs of administering both the internal and external affairs of the state, the prince is, in Lutheran countries, the real possessor of Church power, %. ¢., it is regarded as inhering in him. The whole administration of its affairs are in his hands, and whatever changes are introduced, are made by his authority. Accor- dingly, the union of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches and the introduction of a new liturgy, was the act of the late king of Prussia. At first it was only advisory on his part, but he subsequently began to coerce compliance with his will. This extreme exercise of authority, however, met with great opposition, and was, by a large part of the Church, considered as transcending the legitimate power of the state. The present king disclaims such power, and says he wishes to know the mind of the Church, and stands ready to carry out her wishes, if consistent with his conscience. The actual power of the state in Lutheran countries was the result of the Reformation, and not of a theory of what ought to be the rela- tion of the Church and state. Different theories have been suggested, in order to give form and intelligibility to this relation. The most common is, that the prince is there, and, by the will of the Church, heir to the power of the bishops. His power is therefore called an episcopate. This theory includes the following points. 1. Civil and ecclesiastical government are distinct. 2. The object of Church gov- ernment is mainly the preservation of the truth. 3. Church power belongs by the ordinance of God to the Church itself, and to the prince as the highest member of the Church, and since the religious peace, by the legal devolution on him of the power of the bishops. 4. This authority is, however, only external, a potestas externa, in the exercise of which he is bound to act according to the judgment of the clergy, and the people have the right of assent or dissent. This is the doctrine of the three orders, as it is called, that is, that Church power belongs to the Church as composed of prince, clergy, and people. 5. Hence the Prince possesses civil and ecclesiastical power in differ- ent ways and on different subjects. This is considered the orthodox, established doctrine of the Lutheran Church on the relation of the Church and state. It is the doctrine of all the older, eminent theolo- gians of that Church. Stahl’s Kirchenverfassung, p. 20. The other theories are the Territorial, 7. ¢., Erastian; the collegiate (voluntary union) and the Hegelian—that the state is God’s kingdom ; the Church but a form of the state. The prince, the point of unity; having the full power of both. He appoints, (not merely confirms bishops,) pre- scribes liturgies, and gives the contents as well as the binding form to all ee decisions. Stahl, p. 125. 114 CHURCH POLITY. IV. Reformed Church. According to the Reformed Church of Geneva, Germany, France, Holland, and Scotland, the relation of the state and Church is taught in the following propositions as given and sustained by Turrettin. Lec. 28, Ques. 34. 1. Various rights belong to the Christian magistrate in reference to the Church. This authority is confined within certain limits, and is essentially different from that of pastors. These limits are thus determined. a. The magistrate cannot introduce new articles of faith, or new rites or modes of worship. 6. He cannot administer the word and sacraments. c. He does not possess the power of the keys. d. He cannot prescribe to pastors the form of preaching or administration of the sacraments. e. He cannot decide on ecclesiastical affairs, or on controversies of faith, without consulting the pastors. On the other hand, a. He ought to establish the true religion, and when established, faithfully uphold it, and if corrupted, restore and reform it. 6. He should, to the utmost, protect the Church by re- straining heretics and disturbers of its peace, by propagating and de- fending the true religion, and hindering the confession of false reli- gions. ¢. Provide proper ministers, and sustain them in the adminis- tration of the word and sacraments, according to the word of God, and found schools as well for the Church as the state. d.See that ministers do their duty faithfully according to the canons of the Church and the taws of the land. e. Cause that confessions of faith and ecclesiastical constitutions, agreeable to the Scriptures, be sanctioned, and when sanctioned adhered to. jf. To call ordinary and extraordinary synods, to moderate in them, and to sanction their decisions with his authority. The question, “whether the state can rightfully force its subjects to profess the faith,” is answered in the negative. The question, “whether heretics should be capitally punished,” is answered in the af- firmative, provided their heresy is gross and dangerous to the Church and state, and provided they are contumacious and malignant in the defence and propagation of it. The Westminister Confession, as adopted by the Church of Scot- land, taught the same general doctrine. The 23d chap. of that Con- fession contains the following clause: “ The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the faith of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline be prevented or reformed, and all ordinances of RELATION OF THE CHURCH AND STATE. 115 God duly settled, administered, and observed ; for the better effecting whereof he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.” When this Confession was adopted by our Church in 1729, this clause was excepted, or adopted only in a qualified manner; and when our present constitution was adopted in 1789, it and the corresponding passages in the Larger Catechism were omitted. It has, however, al- ways been part of the Confession of the Church of Scotland, (and was, it is believed, retained in the Cambridge and Saybrooke Platforms as adopted in New England). In words, this clause seems to cover all the ground taken by Mr. Palmer. History shows, however, that the Church in Scotland has even been, in a great measure, independent of the state, and for gene- rations in conflict with it. The practical interpretation, therefore, of the doctrine here taught, has been to deny to the civil magistrate any real control in ecclesiastical affairs. The late Dr. Cunningham, in one of his tracts, occasioned by the re- cent controversies, thus expounds the doctrine of this passage. 1. He says, by the civil magistrate is to be understood the supreme civil power; and that the Confession merely teaches what the civil ruler will find to be his duty when he comes to the study of the word of God. 2. That the rule of all his judgments is the word of God. 8. That the Confession denies to the civil magistrate all right to the ministration of the word and sacraments, or to the power of the keys, that is, to the management of the ordinary affairs of the Church of Christ ; and states, that as it is the duty of every private person to judge for himself whether the doctrines, discipline, and decisions of a Church, are according to the word of God, and if so, then to receive, obey, and promote them ; so also it is the duty of the civil magistrate, in his sphere, and in the exercise of his legitimate authority and influ- ence, to do the same. , In that branch of the Reformed Church which was transported to this country by the Puritans; and established in New England, this same doctrine as to the duty of the magistrate, and relation to the Church and state, was taught, though under a somewhat modified form. The New England theory was more that of a theocracy. All civil power was confined to the members of the Church, no person be- ing either eligible to office, or entitled to the right of suffrage, who was not in full communion of some Church. The laws of the Church became thus the laws of the land, and the two institutions were in a measure merged together. The duty of the magistrate to make and 116 CHURCH POLITY. enforce laws for the support of religion, for the suppression of heresy and punishment of heretics, was clearly taught. John Colton even wrote a book to prove that persecution was a Christian duty. . The theory on which this doctrine of the Reformed Church is founded, is, 1. That the State is a divine institution, designed for pro- moting the general welfare of society, and as religion is necessary to that welfare, religion falls legitimately within the sphere of the state. 2. That the magistrate, as representing the state, is, by divine appoint- ment, the guardian of the law, to take vengeance on those who trans- gress, and for the praise of those who obey ; and as the law consists of two tables, one relating to our duties.to God, and the other to our duties to men, the magistrate is, ex officio, the guardian of both tables, and bound to punish the infractions of the one, as well as of the other. 3. That the word of God determines the limits of the magistrate’s office in reference to both classes of his duties; and as, under the Old Testa- ment, there was a form of religion, with its rites and officers prescribed, which the magistrate could not change, so there is under the New. But under the Old, we find with this Church government the kings were required to do, and in fact did do much, for the support and reformation of religion, and the punishment of idolators; so they are now bound to act on the same principles, making the pious kings of the Old Testament their model. V. Relation between the Church and state in this country. The doctrine current among us on this subject is of very recent origin. It was unknown to the ancients before the advent. In no country was religion disconnected with the state. It was unknown to the Jews. The early Christians were not in circumstances to deter- mine the duty of Christian magistrates to the Christian Church. Since the time of Constantine, in no part of Christendom, and by no denomi- nation, has the ground been assumed, until a recent period, that the state and Church should be separate and independent bodies. Yet to this doctrine the public mind in this country has already been brought, and to the same conclusion the convictions of God’s people in all parts of the world seem rapidly tending. On what grounds, then, does this novel, yet sound, doctrine rest? This question can only be answered™ in a very general and superficial manner on the present occasion. 1. In the first place it assumes that the state, the family, and the Church, are all divine institutions, having the same general end in view, but designed to accomplish that end by different means. That as we cannot infer from the fact the family and the state are both designed to promote the welfare of men, that the magistrate has the right to in- terfere in the domestic economy of the family; so neither can we infer from the Church and state having the same general end, that the one RELATION OF THE CHURCH AND STATE. 117 can rightfully interfere with the affairs of the other. If there were no other institution than the family, we might infer that all the means now used by the Church and state, for the good of men, might properly be used by the family; and if there were no Church, as a separate in- stitution of God, then we might infer that the family and the state were designed to accomplish all that could be effected. But as God has instituted the family for domestic training and government; the state, that we may lead quiet and peaceable lives, and the Church for the promotion and extension of true religion, the three are to be kept dis- tinctive within their respective spheres. 2. That the relative duties of these several institutions cannot be learned by reasoning a priori from their design, but must be deter- mined from the word of God. And when reasoning from the word of God, we are not authorized to argue from the Old Testament economy, because that was avowedly temporary, and has been abolished; but must derive our conclusions from the New Testament. We find it there taught, (1.) That Christ did institute a Church separate from the state, giving it separate laws and officers. (2.) That he laid down the qualifications of those officers, and en- joined on the Church, not on the state, to judge of their possession by candidates. (3.) That he prescribed the terms of admission to, and the grounds of exclusion from, the Church, and left with the Church its officers to administer these rules. These acts are utterly inconsistent with Erastianism, and with the relation established in England between the Church and state. 8. That the New Testament, when speaking of the immediate design of the state, and the official duties of the magistrate, never intimates that he has those functions which the common doctrine of -the Lutheran and Reformed Church assign him. This silence, together with the fact that those functions are assigned to the Church and Church officers, is proof that it is not the will of God that they should be as- sumed by the state. 4, That the only means which the state can employ to accomplish many of the objects said to belong to it, viz. pains and penalties, are inconsistent with the example and commands of Christ; with the rights of private Christians, guarantied in the word of God, (i. ¢., to serve God according to the dictates of his conscience,) are ineffectual to the true end of religion, which is voluntary obedience to the truth, and productive of incalculable evil. The New Testament, therefore, does not teach that the magistrate is entitled to take care that true re- ligion is established and maintained; that right men are appointed to 118 CHURCH POLITY. Church offices; that those officers do their duty; that proper persons be admitted, and improper persons be rejected from the Church}; or that heretics be punished. And on the other hand, by enjoining all these duties upon the Church, as an institution distinct from the state, it teaches positively that they do not belong to the magistrate, but to the Church. If to this it be added that experience teaches that the magistrate is the most unfit person to discharge these duties; that his attempting it has always been injurious to religion, and inimical to the rights of conscience, we have reason to rejoice in the recently dis- covered truth, that the Church is independent of the state, and’ that the state best promotes her interests by letting her alone. CHAPTER VIII. PRESBYTERIANISM. [*] Mucg time was devoted, at the late meeting of the General Assembly at Rochester [1860], to the discussion of the question, What is Presby- terianism? That question, indeed, had only a remote connection with the subject before the house. That subject was the Boards of the - Church. These, on the one side, were pronounced to be not only inex- pedient, but unscriptural and unlawful; not only useless excrescences, but contrary to the divine rule prescribed in the word of God, and a reproach to our blessed Saviour. We were called upon to reject them as a matter of duty, or forfeit our allegiance to Christ. On the other side, it was contended that the Boards were not only highly useful, as experience had proved, but that they were entirely within the discre- tion which Christ had granted to his Church, and therefore compatible with obedience to his will, and with our allegiance to his authority. To make out any plausible argument in support of the doctrine that the Boards are anti-scriptural, required, of course, a peculiar theory of Presbyterianism; a theory which should exclude all discretionary power in the Church, and tie her down to modes of action prescribed as of divine authority in the word of God. That theory, as propounded by Dr. Thornwell in his first speech on the subject, was understood to embrace the following principles: 1. That the form of government for the Church, and its mode of action, are prescribed in the word of God, not merely as to its general principles, but in all its details, as completely [* Article, same title, Princeton Review, 1860, p. 546.] PRESBYTERIANISM. 119 as the system of faith or the moral law; and therefore everything for which we cannot produce,a “ Thus saith the Lord,” is unscriptural and unlawful. 2. Consequently, the Church has no more right to create a new office, organ, or organization, for the exercise of her prerogatives or the execution of her prescribed work, than she has to create a new article of faith, or to add a new command to the Decalogue. 3. That the Church cannot delegate her powers. She must exercise them herself, and through officers and organs prescribed in the Scrip- tures. She has no more right to act by a vicar, than Congress has to delegate its legislative power, or a Christian to pray by proxy. 4, That all executive, legislative and judicial power in the Church is in the hands of the clergy, that is, of presbyters, who have the same ordination and office, although differing in functions, 5. That all power in the Church is joint, and not several. That is, it can be exercised only by Church courts, and not in any case by indi- vidual officers. In opposition to this general scheme, “the brother from Princeton” propounded the following general principles: Ist. That all the attributes and prerogatives of the Church arise from the indwelling of the Spirit, and consequently, where he dwells, there are those attributes and prerogatives. 2d. That as the Spirit dwells not in the clergy only, but in the people of God, all power is, in sensu primo, in the people. 3d. That in the exercise of these prerogatives, the Church is to be governed by principles laid down in the word of God, which determine, within certain limits, her officers and modes of organization; but that beyond those prescribed principles and in fidelity to them, the Church has a wide discretion in the choice of methods, organs and agencies. 4th. That the fundamental principles of our Presbyterian system are first, the parity of the clergy; second, the right of the people to a sub- stantive part in the government of the Church; and third, the unity of the Church, in such sense, that a small part is subject to a larger, and a larger to the whole. Without attempting any development of these principles, the re- marks of the speaker in reply to Dr. Thornwell’s first speech, were directed to the single point on which the whole question in debate turned. That was, Is the Church tied down in the exercise of her pre- rogatives, and in the performance of her work, to the organizations or organs prescribed in the New Testament? In other words, is every- -thing relating to the government and action of the Church laid down in detail in the word of God, so that it is unlawful to employ any organs or agencies not therein enjoined? If this is so, then the Boards 120 CHURCH POLITY. are clearly unlawful ; if it is not so, the having them, or not having them, is a matter of expediency. * * * * * * * * As to the first of the above-mentioned principles, it was not pre- sented as anything peculiar to Presbyterianism. It is simply an axiom of evangelical religion, admitted and advocated in every age of the Church by all opponents of the ritual or hierarchical theory. As no man is a Christian unless the Spirit of Christ dwells in him,so no body of men is a Church, except so far as it is organized, animated and con- trolled by the same Spirit. We may be bound to recognize men as Christians who are not really such, and we may be bound to recognize Churches who are, in fact, not governed by the Spirit. But in both cases they are assumed to be what they profess. We might as well call a lifeless corpse a man, as a body without the Spirit of God a Church. The one may be called a dead Church, as a lifeless human body is called a dead man. Nevertheless the Spirit makes the Church, as the soul makes the man. The Bible says that the Church is a tem- ple, because it is the habitation of God through the Spirit. It is the body of Christ, because animated by the Spirit of Christ. It is said to be one, because the Spirit is one. “For,” says the apostle, “as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.” It is the baptism, or in- dwelling of the Spirit, therefore, which constitutes the Church one body. And as (so far as our present state of existence is concerned,) where the soul is, there the body is, so in like manner, where the Spirit is, there is the Church, and where the Spirit is not, the Church is not. The motto inscribed on the banner which the early evangelical fathers raised against the assumption of ritualists was, Upsr Sprritus Det, IBI ECCLESIA. ‘That banner Popes and Prelatists, Patriarchs and Priests have for a thousand years striven in vain to trample in the dust. It has been handed down from one band of witnesses for the truth to another, until it now waves over all evangelical Christendom. The dividing line between the two great contending parties in the Church universal, is precisely this—Is the Church in its essential idea an external body held together by external bonds, so that membership in the Church depends on submission to a hierarchy ? or is it a spirit- ual body owing its existence and unity to the indwelling of the Spirit, so that those who have the Spirit of God are members of the Church or body of Christ? The Papists say we are not in the Church, be- cause we are not subject to the Pope; we say that we are in the Church if the Spirit of Christ dwells in us. Of course Dr. Thornwell believes all this as firmly as we do. He has as fully-and clearly avowed PRESBYTERIANISM. 121 this doctrine as any man among us. In the very latest published pro- duction of his pen, he says: “The idea of the Church, according to the Reformed conception, is the com- plete realization of the decree of election. It is the whole body of the elect con- sidered as united to Christ their Head. As actually existing at any given time, it is that portion of the elect who have been effectually called to the exercise of faith, and made partakers of the Holy Ghost. It is, in other words, the whole body of existing believers. According to this conception, none are capable of being Church members but the elect, and none are ever, in fact, Church members, but those who are truly renewed. The Church is, therefore, the communion of saints, the congregation of the faithful, the assembly of those who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. That this conception is fundamental in all the Reformed Confessions, and among all the Re- formed theologians worthy of the name, we will not insult the intelligence of our readers by stopping to prove. The Church was co-extensive with faith. As true faith in the heart will manifest itself by the confession of the mouth, it is certain that the children of God, wherever they have the opportunity, will be found pro- fessing their faith; and as there is no method of searching the heart, and dis- criminating real from false professors but by the walk, all are to be accepted as true believers whose lives do not give the lie to their pretensions. The body of professors, therefore, is to be accepted as the Church of Christ, because the truly faithful are in it. The gospel is never preached without converting some—these will profess their faith, and will vindicate to any society the name of a Church. As to those professors who are destitute of faith, they are not properly members of the Church; they are wolves among sheep; tares among the wheat; warts and excrescences upon the body. The visible Church is, accordingly, the society or congregation of those who profess the true religion; among whom the gospel is faithfully preached, and the sacraments duly administered. And it is simply be- cause such a society cannot be destitute of genuine believers that it is entitled to the name of the Church. Profession must be accepted in the judgment of men as equivalent to the possession of faith, and the body of professors must pass for saints, until hypocrites and unbelievers expose themselves.” * This is the idea of the Church almost totidem verbis, which was pre- sented years ago in this journal: Dr. Thornwell derived his doctrine from the same source from which we drew ours, viz. the Scriptures and the Confessions of the Protestant Churches, and writings of the Re- formed theologians. This is the doctrine which was presented in few words on the floor of the General Assembly, where it was stated that the indwelling of the Spirit constitutes the Church, so that where the Spirit is, there the Church is. * * * * * * * * * * * *x * It has been strangely inferred that if we hold that all the attributes * Southern Presbyterian Review for April, 1860, p. 15. 122 CHURCH POLITY. and prerogatives of the Church arise from the indwelling of the Spirit, we must also hold that nothing relating to the organization of the Church is prescribed in the word of God. It might as well be inferred from the fact that the soul fashions and informs the human body, that the body may at one time have the form of a man, and at another, the form of a beast. There are fixed laws assigned by God, according to which all healthful and normal development of the body is regulated. So it is with regard to the Church. There are fixed laws in the Bible, according to which all healthful development and action of the external Church are determined. But as within the limits of the laws which control the development of the human body, there is endless diversity among different races, adapting them to different climes and modes of living, so also in the Church. It is not tied down to one particular mode of organization and action, at all times and under all circum- stances. Even with regard to doctrinal truth, we may hold that the Spirit dwells in the believer as a divine teacher, and that all true di- vine knowledge comes from his inward illumination, without denying that a divine, authoritative rule of faith is laid down in the word of God, which it is impossible the inward teaching of the Spirit should ever contradict. We may believe that the indwelling Spirit guides the children of God in the path of duty, without at all questioning the authority of the moral law as revealed in the Bible. A Christian, however, may believe and do a thousand things not taught or com- manded in the Scriptures. He cannot rightfully believe or do anything contrary to the word of God, but while faithful to their teachings and precepts, he has a wide field of liberty of thought and action. It is pre- cisely so with regard to the organization of the Church. There are certain things prescribed, to which every Church ought to conform, and many things as to which she is at liberty to act as she deems best for God’s glory, and the advancement of his kingdom. All we contend for is that everything is not prescribed; that every mode of organiza- tion or action is not either commanded or forbidden; that we must produce a “Thus saith the Lord” for every thing the Church does. We must indeed be able to produce a “Thus saith the Lord” for everything, whether a truth, or a duty, or a mode of ecclesiastical or- ganization or action, which we make obligatory on the conscience of other men. But our liberty of faith and action beyond the prescrip- tions of the word of God, is the liberty with which Christ has made us free, and which no man shall take from us. What we hold, therefore, is, that the leading principles thus laid down in Scripture regarding the organization and action of the Church, are the parity of the clergy, the right of the people, and the unity of the Church. With respect to these principles, two things PRESBYTERIANISM. 123 were asserted on the floor of the Assembly. First, that they are jure divino. That is, that they are clearly taught in the word of God, and intended to be of universal and perpetual obligation. By this is not meant either that they are essential to the being of the Church, for nothing can be essential to the Church which is not essential to salva- tion: nor is it meant that these principles may not, under certain cir- cumstances, be less developed or called into action than in others The right of the people, for example, to take part in the governmem of the Church, may be admitted, and yet the exercise of that right be limited by the ability to exercise it. We do not deny the right of the people in civil matters, when we deny the exercise of that right to minors, to felons, or to idiots. The other position assumed was, that the three principles just mentioned are the fundamental principles of Presbyterianism, in such sense as that those who hold those principles in their true intent are Presbyterians, and that those who deny them forfeit their claim to be so regarded. That the above-mentioned principles are, in the sense stated, jure divino, may be proved, as we think, in very few words. If the Holy Spirit, as dwelling in the Church, is the source of its several preroga- tives, it follows that there can be no offices in the Church, of divine authority, to which he does not call its members by imparting to them the appropriate gift. The apostle informs us, that the Spirit distributes his gifts to each one as he wills. Apart from those sanctifying influ- ences common to all the children of God, by which they are incorpo- rated into the body of Christ, he made some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers. Some had the gift of speaking with tongues, others the gift of healing, others the gift of miracles, others of government, others of helpers. Of these offices thus created, some were extraordinary and temporary, others perma- nent. Ofthose connected with the ministry of the word, were the apostles, prophets, and presbyters. The question, therefore, whether there is any permanent class or order of ministers higher than these presbyters, depends on the question, whether the apostolic and pro- phetic offices were permanent or temporary. It is admitted that in the apostolic Church the apostles and prophets were superior to pres- byters. If, therefore, we have now apostles and prophets in the Church, then there are still two orders of the clergy above ordinary ministers. But if there are now nosuch offices, then the parity of the clergy is a necessary consequence. That the apostolic and prophetic offices were temporary, is rendered certain from the fact that the pecu- liar gifts which made an apostle or a prophet are no longer imparted. An apostle was a man endued with plenary knowledge of the gospel by immediate revelation, and who was rendered infallible in the communi- 124 CHURCH POLITY. cation of that knowledge by the gift of inspiration. A prophet was a man who received partial revelations and occasional inspiration. It is not necessary that we should stop to prove that such were the gifts of the apostles and prophets. It is proved by the fact that they claimed them, that they exercised them, that their claim was divinely authenticated and universally admitted, and that the possession of those gifts was essential to their authority as teachers and rulers, to which all men were required to submit on the pain of perditfon. It requires no proof that these gifts are no longer possessed by any order of men in the Church, and therefore it requires no further proof that the apostolic and prophetic offices are no longer extant. This conclusion as to the temporary nature of those offices is confirmed: 1. By the considera- tion that there is no command to continue them. 2. That there is no specification of the qualifications to be required in those who sought them. 3. That there is no record of their continuation. They disap- peared from the stage of history as completely as the prophets, judges, and high priests of the Old Testament economy. On the other hand, the gifts of teaching and ruling, which constituted a presbyter, are continued; the command to ordain such officers is on record; their qualifications are minutely laid down; the account of their appoint- ment is found in the Scripture, and they continue in unbroken succes- sion wherever the Church is found. These presbyters are therefore the highest permanent officers of the Church for which we have any divine warrant. If the Church, for special reasons, sees fit to appoint any higher order, such as are found in bishops of the Lutheran Church in Europe, and in the superintendents, clothed with presbyterial power (4. e, the powers of a presbytery,) in the early Church of Scotland, this is merely a human arrangement. The parity of the clergy is a matter of divine right. They all hold the same office, and have the same rights, so far as they depend on divine appointment. As to the right of the people to take part in the government of the Church, this also is a divine right. This follows because the Spirit of God, who is the source of all power, dwells in the people, and not exclu- sively in the clergy; because we are commanded to submit ourselves to our brethren in the Lord ; because the people are commanded to exercise this power, and are upbraided when unfaithful or negligent in the dis- charge of this duty ; because the gift of governing or ruling is a perma- nent gift; and because, in the New Testament we find the brethren in the actual recognized exercise of the authority in question, which was never disputed in the Church until the beginning of the dark ages. This right of the people must, of necessity, be exercised through repre- sentatives. Although it might be possible in a small congregation for the brotherhood to act immediately, yet in such a city as Jerusalem, PRESBYTERIANISM. 125 where there were five or ten thousand believers, it was impossible that government or discipline should be administered by the whole body of Christians. And when the Churches of a province, or of a nation, or of all Christendom, united for the decision of questions of general inter- est, the people must appear by their representatives or not appear at all. Under the Old Testament, in the assembly or congregation of the people, in the Synagogue and in the Sanhedrim, this principle of representation was by divine appointment universally recognized. By like authority it was introduced into the Christian Church as a funda- mental principle of its organization. This is the broad, scriptural jure divino foundation of the office of ruling elder, an officer who appears with the same credentials, and with equal authority as the minister in all our church-courts, from the session to the General Assembly. The third principle above-mentioned is the unity of the Church. This unity is not merely a union of faith and of communion; not merely a fellowship in the Spirit, but a union of subjection, so that one part is subject to a larger, and-a larger to the whole. This also is jure divino. 1. Because the whole Church is made one by the indwelling of the Spirit. 2. Because we are commanded to be subject to our brethren. The ground of this subjection is not proximity in space, nor a mutual covenant or agreement, but the mere fact that they are our brethren, and, therefore, it extends to all brethren. 3. Because in the apostolic, as in the Old Testament Church, the whole body of professors of the true religion were thus united as one body. 4. Because by the instinct of Christian feeling the Church in all ages has striven after this union of subjection, and recognized its violation as inconsistent with the law of its constitution. This, again, by necessity and divine appointment is a representative union, and hence the provincial, national and cecu- menical councils which mark the whole history of the Church. We hold, therefore, to a’ jure divino form of Church government, so far as these principles go. The second position assumed in reference to the points above stated was, that those principles constitute the true idea of Presbyterianism. Dr. Thornwell’s second speech was devoted to ridiculing and refuting that position. He objected to it as altogether illogical. It was a defi- nition, he said, without any single distinctive characteristic of the sub- ject. Let us look, he said, at these principles. 1st. Parity of the clergy. Why, sir, this is not a distinctive mark of Presbytery. All the evangelical sects except the Episcopal hold to it. 2d. The power of the people. That is not distinctive of Presbyterianism. The Congre- gationalists carry this further than we do. 38d. The unity of the Church. Is this peculiar to us? Is it a peculiar element of our sys- tem? Rome holds it with a vehemence which we do not insist upon. 126 CHURCH POLITY. “That Presbyterianism!” he exclaimed, “a little of everything and anything, but nothing distinctive.” This is extraordinary logic. And the more extraordinary, consid- ering that Dr. Thornwell had just informed the Assembly that he had studied Aristotle, and every other great master of the science; that he had probably the largest private library of works in that department in the country, and felt prepared to measure swords on that field with any man alive. We do not question either his learning or his skill, We only know that the merest tyro, with logic or without it, can see the fallacy, of his argument. He assumes that the only mode of definition is to state the genus of the subject and its specific difference. Thus we define God by saying that he is a Spirit, which states the genus, or class of beings to which he belongs; and we distinguish him from all other spirits by saying he is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. An- other method, however, equally legitimate and equally common, is to enumerate the attributes of the subject which complete or individualize the idea. We may define man to be a rational creature, invested with a material body. Should any professor of logic ridicule this definition, and say it includes nothing distinctive, he would only show that his logic was in abeyance. Should he imitate Dr. Thornwell, he would say, “ Rationality is no distinctive characteristic of man. God, angels, and demons are all rational. Neither is a dependent created nature such a characteristic. There are other creatures in the universe besides man. Nor is the possession of an organized body anything peculiar. Birds and beasts have bodies. Here, then, we have a little of every- thing and anything, and nothing peculiar. Is that aman?” Never- theless, so long as, in the sphere of our knowledge, man is the only rational creature invested with a living body, the above definition is perfectly logical, all the followers of the Stagirite to the contrary notwithstanding. Now, as the principles above stated, the parity of the clergy, the right of the people to a substantive part in the govern- ment of the Church, and the subjection of one part of the Church to a larger, and a larger to the whole, are recognized by Presbyterians, and are not found among Papists, Prelatists, and Independents, or any other historical body of Christians, they are, in their combination, the characteristic or distinguishing features of the Presbyterian system. Dr. Thornwell stated his own as an antagonistic theory of Presby- terianism. 1. That the Church is governed by representative assem- blies. 2. Those assemblies include two houses, or two elements, the preaching and ruling elder. 3. The parity of the eldership, all elders, preaching and ruling, appearing in our Church courts with the same credentials, and having the same rights. 4, The unity of the Church, as realized in the representative principle. PRESBYTERIANISM. 127 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Every one of his four principles is involved in those stated on the other side. 1. The principle of representation, as we have seen, is of necessity included in the doctrine of the unity of the Church, and the subjection of a part to the whole. This theory can be carried out only through representative assemblies. 2. The union of two elements in these Church courts is also embraced in the assertion of the right of the people to take part in the government of the Church, for this right can only be exercised through their representatives sitting as consti- tuent elements in ecclesiastical courts. 8. The parity of the elders and ministers in these representative assemblies, is also included in the one system as well as in others. 4, The unity of the Church was avowed on both sides, and was not claimed as peculiar to either. This is not an after thought. All these principles were presented years ago, in the tract, “ What is Presbyterianism?” and shown to be involved in those which Dr. Thornwell repudiated as any just description of our system. The true peculiarities of the new theory, Dr. Thornwell left out of view in his rejoinder. Those principles are, 1. A new doctrine con- cerning ruling elders. 2. The doctrine that all power in the Church is joint and not several. 38. That every thing not prescribed in Scrip- ture is forbidden. We shall say a few words on each of these points in their order. First, as to the eldership. There are only two radically different theories on this subject. According to the one, the ruling elder is a layman ; according to the other, he isa clergyman. According to the former, he belongs to a different order from the minister, holds a dif- ferent office, has a different vocation and ordination. He is not a bishop, pastor, or teacher, but officially a ruler. According to the latter, the reverse is true. The ruling elder belongs to the same order with the minister. He is a bishop, pastor, teacher, and ruler. This is all the minister is. They have, therefore, the same office, and differ only as to their functions, as a professor differs from a pastor, or a missionary from a settled minister. It is to be noticed that the point of difference between these theories is not the importance of the office of ruling elder, nor its divine warrant. According to both views, the office is jure divino. The Spirit who calls one man to be a minister calls another to be an elder. The one office is as truly from Christ as the other. Nor do the theories differ as to the parity of elders and ministers in our Church courts. Both enter those courts with the same credentials, and have the same right to sit, deliberate and deter- mine. The vote of the one avails as much as that of the other. On 128 CHURCH POLITY. all these points, the theories agree. The point of difference between them which is radical, affecting the whole character of our system, re- lates to the nature of the office of the ruling elder. Is he a clergyman, a bishop? or is he a layman? Does he hold the same office with the minister, or a different one? According to the new theory the offices are identified. Everything said of presbyters in the New Testament, this theory applies equally to elders and ministers of the word. What constitutes identity of office, if it be not identity of official titles, of qualifications, of vocations, of duties, of ordinations? This new doc- trine makes all elders, bishops, pastors, teachers, and rulers. It applies all directions as to the qualifications and duties, as to election and or- dination of presbyters, as much to the ruling elder as to the minister of the word. It therefore destroys all official distinction between them. It reduces the two to one order, class, or office. The one has as much right to preach, ordain, and administer the sacraments, as the other. The conclusion cannot by any possibility be avoided on the theory that elders are pastors, bishops, and teachers, in the same sense with ministers. The first objection to this theory is that it is entirely contrary to the doctrine and practice of all the Reformed Churches, and especially of our own. In those Churches the ruling elder isa layman. He has a different office from the minister. He has different gifts, different training, duties, prerogatives, and ordination. The one is ordained by the minister, the other by the Presbytery. The one ministers in the word and sacraments, the other does not. The one is appointed spe- cially to teach and to preach the gospel; the other to take part in the discipline and government of the Church. Secondly, in thus destroying the peculiarity of the office, its value is destroyed. It is precisely because the ruling elder is a layman, that he is a real power, a distinct element in our system. The moment you dress him in canoniéals, you destroy his power, and render him ridiculous. It is because he is not a clergyman, it is because he is one of the people, engaged in the ordinary business of life, separated from the professional class of ministers, that he is what he is in our Church courts. Thirdly, This theory reduces the government of the Church to a clerical despotism. Dr. Thornwell ridiculed this idea. He called it an argument ad captandum. He said it was equal in absurdity to the argument of a hard-shell Baptist, who proved that his sect would universally prevail, from the text, “The voice of the turtle shall be heard in all the land.” Turtles, said the Hard-shell, are to be seen sitting upon logs in all the streams, and as you pass, they plunge into the water, therefore, all men will do the same. Such, said Dr. Thornwell, was the logic of the brother from Princeton. What- PRESBYTERIANISM. 129 ever may be thought of the wit of this illustration, we cannot see that it proves much. Does it prove that all power in our Church is not in the hands of ministers and elders? and if elders and ministers are all alike bishops and teachers, all of the same order, all clergymen, does it not follow that all power is in the hands of the clergy? But, says Dr. Thornwell, the people choose these elders. What of that? Suppose slaves had a right to choose (under a veto,) their own masters, would they not be slaves still? If, according to the Constitution of the United States, the President, senators, representatives, heads of depart- ments, judges, marshals, all naval and military men holding commis- sions, in short, all officers from the highest to the lowest, (except over- seers of the poor,) must be clergymen, every one would see and feel that all power was in the hands of the clergy. It would avail little that the people choose these clergymen, if the clergy had the sole right to ordain, that is, to admit into their order. All power, legislative, executive, and judicial, would be in their hands, the right of election notwithstanding. This is the government which the new theory would introduce into the Church. This doctrine is, therefore, completely revo- lutionary. It deprives the people of all substantive power. The legis- lative, judicial, and executive power, according to our system, is in Church courts, and if these courts are to be composed entirely of cler- gymen, and are close, self-perpetuating bodies, then we have, or we should have, as complete a clerical domination as the world has ever seen. It need hardly be said that our fathers, and especially the late Dr. Miller, did not hold any such doctrine as this. There was no man in the Church more opposed to this theory than that venerable man, whose memory we have so much reason to cherish with affectionate reverence. We do not differ from Dr. Miller as to the nature of the office of the ruling elder. The only point of difference between him and us relates to the method of establishing the divine warrant for the office. He laid stress on one argument, we on another. That is all. As to the importance, nature, and divine institution of the office, we are faithful to his instructions. x * * * * * * * It is only as to the point just indicated that we could sanction dis- sent from the teachings of our venerated and lamented colleague. Dr. Thornwell himself, in the last extremity, said that he did not hold the new theory. Then he has no controversy with us, nor we with him, so far as the eldership is concerned. The dispute is reduced to a mere logomachy, if the only question is, whether the ruling elder is a presbyter. Dr. Thornwell asked, If he is not a presbyter, what right has he in the Presbytery? You might as well, he said, put any other ged man there. Itis on all sides admitted that in the New 130 CHURCH POLITY. Testament the presbyters are bishops—how then are we to avoid the conclusion that the ruling elder is a bishop, and therefore the same in office as the minister, and the one as much a clergyman as the other? This is the dilemma in which, as we understood, Dr. Thornwell en- deavoured to place Dr. Hodge, when he asked him, on the floor of the Assembly, whether he admitted that the elder was a presbyter. Dr. Hodge rejoined by asking Dr. Thornwell whether he admitted that the apostles were deacons. He answered, No. But, says Dr. Hodge, Paul says he was a é:dzovoc. O, says Dr. Thornwell, that was in the general sense of the word. Precisely so. Ifthe answer is good in the one case, it is good in the other. If the apostles being deacons in the wide sense of the word, does not prove that they were officially deacons, then that elders are presbyters in the one sense, does not prove them to be presbyters in the other sense. We hold, with Calvin, that the official presbyters of the New Testament were bishops; for, as he says, “ Quicumque verbi ministerio funguntur, tis titulum episcoporum [Scriptura] tribuit.” But of the ruling elders, he adds, “ Gubernatores fuisse existimo seniores ex plebe delectos, qui censure morum et ex- ercende discipline wna cum episcopis preessent.”’ Institutio, &c. IV. 8. 8. This is the old, healthful, conservative doctrine of the Presbyterian Church. Ministers of the word are clergymen, having special training, vocation, and ordination ; ruling elders are laymen, chosen from the people as their representatives, having, by divine warrant, equal au- thority in all Church courts with the ministers. The second point of difference between the new and old theories of Presbyterianism is, that all power in the Church is joint, and not’ several. The objection to this doctrine is simply to the word all. It is admitted, and always has been admitted, that the ordinary exercise of the legislative, executive, and judicial authority of the Church, is in Church courts; according to our system, in Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and Assembly. About this there is no dispute. But, on the other hand, it is contended, that according to the theory and practice of our own, and of all other Presbyterian bodies, ordination to the sacred office confers the power or authority not only to preach the gos- pel, but to collect and organize Churches, to administer the sacraments, and in the absence of a session, to decide on the qualifications of candi- dates for admission to those ordinances; and when need be, to ordain, as is done in the case of ruling elders. This is a power which our ministers and missionaries have, and always must exercise. It can never be denied by any who are not the slaves, instead of being the masters of logic. On this point it is not necessary to enlarge. The third point of difference between the two systems is the extent to which the liberty of the Church extends in matters of government PRESBYTERIANISM. 131 and modes of operation. According to the old, and especially the genuine American form of Presbyterianism, while it is admitted that there is a form of government prescribed or instituted in the New Tes- tament, so far as its general principles or features are concerned, there is a wide discretion allowed us by God, in matters of detail, which no man or set of men, which neither civil magistrates nor ecclesiastical rulers, can take from us. This is part of that liberty with which Christ has made us free, and in which we are commanded to stand fast. The other doctrine is the opposite of this. It is, that every thing that is lawful as to the mode in which the Church is to be or- ganized, and as to the methods which she is to adopt in carrying on her work, is laid down in Scripture. It is not enough that it is not forbidden ; it is not enough that it is in accordance with the principles laid down in the word of God. Unless it is actually commanded, un- less we can put our finger on a “ Thus saith the Lord,” in its support, it is unlawful. God, it was said, has given the Church a particular organization, a definite number of offices, courts, organs, agencies; and for us to introduce any other, or even any new combinations, is an indignity to him, and to his word. On this ground, as we have said, the Boards were pronounced unscriptural. Their abrogation was made a matter of duty. It was urged upon our conscience as demanded by our allegiance to God. It is our firm belief that there were not six men in the Assembly who held this doctrine. There were sixty who voted for some organic change in the Boards, but so far as we know, there were only two who took the ground of this superlative high-churchism. It is utterly repugnant to the spirit of the New Testament, to the prac- tice of the Church universal, to the whole character of Protestantism, and especially of our Presbyterianism; it is so preposterous and suicidal, that we have no more fear of its prevalence among us, than that the freemen of this country will become the advocates of the divine right of kings. We have no intention of discussing this question at length, which we deem altogether unnecessary. We shall content ourselves with a few remarks on two aspects of the case. In the first place, this theory never has been, nor can be carried out, even by its advocates. Consistency would require them to repudiate all organizations, not Boards only, but Committees also, and confine the joint agency of the Church to Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods and General Assemblies. They hold these only to be divinely instituted organs for joint action. And it is perfectly clear that if these be de- parted from, or if other agencies be adopted, the whole principle is given up. Accordingly, the first ground assumed by the advocates of the new theory, was that missionary operations could be carried on only by the Presbyteries. The law of God was said to forbid every- 132 CHURCH POLITY. thing else. When this was found impracticable, then it was discovered that a board or court of deacons, was the divinely instituted agency, and the word of God was made to forbid any other, This, however, ‘would not go. Then followed other discoveries, and at last it was found out that a committee was the thing. God permits a committee, but to institute a board is an act of rebellion. But what is the difference? A committee is no more commanded than a board. The one is as much a delegated body as the other. Both continue as a living organ- ism after the Assembly appointing them is dissolved and dead. We were referred to the Committee of Church Extension as an illustration of the radical difference between the two organizations. The only dift ference, however, is that one is larger than the other. There is not a single principle involved in the one, which is not involved also in the other. It may be said, and it was said in the last extremity, that an execu- tive committee appointed directly by the Assembly, is a simpler device than a board, and that the Church is limited in her choice of agencies to what is absolutely necessary. But, in the first place, this is an ad- mission that everything necessary is not prescribed in Scripture which is contrary to the theory. In the second place, the Committee of Church Extension, which was held up as the model, is not.the simplest possible, by a great deal. A single executive officer is a simpler device than an executive committee, and much more so than‘a committee of thirty or forty members. In the third place, when it is said we are forbidden to adopt any means not absolutely necessary, the question arises, Necessary for what? For doing the work? or, for doing it in the best and most effectual manner. If the latter, which is the only rational view of the matter, then again the whole principle is aban- doned ; for it must rest with the judgment of the Church to decide what measures are best adapted for her purpose, and this is all the dis- cretion any body desires. It is obvious that the principle advocated by these brethren is one which they themselves cannot carry out. The Church is getting tired of such hair-splitting. She is impatient of being harassed and impeded in her great operations by such abstrac- tions. If, however, the principle in question could be carried out, what would be the consequence? Of course we could have no Church- schools, colleges, or theological seminaries; no appliances for the edu- cation of the heathen, such as all Churches have found it necessary to adopt. The boards of directors of our Seminaries must be given up. No one pretends that they are commanded in Scripture, or that they are absolutely necessary to the education of the ministry. We had educated ministers before Seminaries were thought of. So far as we heard, not a word was said in the Assembly in answer to this argumen- PRESBYTERIANISM. 133 tum ad hominem. The brethren who denounced the Board of Missions as unscriptural, had nothing to say against the boards of the Semina- ries. Any one sees, however, that if the one is unlawful, the others must be. The grand objection urged against this new theory, the one which shows it to be not only inconsistent and impracticable, but intolerable, was, that it is, in plain English, nothing more or less than a device for clothing human opinions with divine authority. The law of God was made to forbid not only what it says, but what may be inferred from it. We grant that what a man infers from the word of God binds his own conscience. But the trouble is, that he insists that it shall bind mine also. We begged to be excused. No man may make himself the lord of my conscience, much less will any man be allowed to make himself lord of the conscience of the Church. One man infers one thing, another a different, from the Bible. The same man infers one thing to-day, and another thing to-morrow. Must the Church bow her neck to all these burdens? She would soon be more trammelled than the Church in the wilderness, with this infinite difference, the Church of old was measurably restricted by fetters which God himself im- posed ; the plan now is to bind her with fetters which human logic or caprice forges. This she will never submit to. Dr. Thornwell told us that the Puritans rebelled against the doctrine that what is not forbidden in Scripture is allowable. It was against the theory of liberty of discretion, he said, our fathers raised their voices and their arms. We always had a different idea of the matter. We supposed that it was in resistance to this very doctrine of inferences they poured out their blood like water. In their time, men inferred from Romans xiii. 1, (“ Let every soul be subject unto the higher pow- ers. Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation,”) the doc- trine of passive submission. From the declaration and command of Christ: “The Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat; all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do,” they inferred the right of the Church to make laws to bind the conscience. On this ground tories and high-church men sought to impose on the Church their trumpery vestments, and their equally frivolous logical deductions. It was fetters forged from inferences our fathers broke, and we, their children, will never suffer them to be rewelded. There is as much difference between this extreme doctrine of divine right, this idea that everything is forbidden which is not commanded, as there is between this free, exultant Church of ours, and the mummied forms of medix- val Christianity. We have no fear on this subject. The doctrine need only be clearly propounded to be rejected. CHAPTER IX. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND PRESBYTERIAN ORDERS. [*] THE question, whether the Church of England recognizes the validity of the orders of non-episcopal Churches, is one which concerns it much more than it does them. They are not the worse for non-recognition. They are not thereby curtailed of any spiritual power or advantage. They enter no claim to be regarded by Romanists or Anglicans, as constituent portions of the Church visible and catholic. They can as well afford to have their Church standing denied, as the United States could bear to have their national existence called in question. The case is far different with the Church of England itself. To re- fuse to recognize those as Christians who are Christians; to refuse communion with those in whom Christ dwells by his Spirit; to un- church the living members of Christ’s body; to withhold sympathy, fellowship, and co-operation from those in whom Christ delights, and who are devoted to his service; to take sides in the great conflict, be- tween true and false religion, between the gospel and ritualism, against the truth and against God’s people, is a very great sin. It is the sin of schism which all Churchmen profess to regard with special ab- horrence. It supposes wrong views of the nature of the Church, of the plan of salvation, and of the nature of religion. We do not wonder, therefore, that the evangelical spiritual members of that Church are anxious not only to free themselves from the imputation of this sin and heresy, but to prove that the Church to which they belong is not justly chargeable with either. This, to say the least, is not a work of supererogation. There is much to render plausible the charge in question. Not only is the schismatical principle of making episcopal ordination essential to the ministry, and a valid ministry essential to the being of the Church, to the efficacy of the sacraments, and to union with Christ, the avowed doctrine of a large and controlling portion of the Anglican Church in England and in this country, but that Church, as a Church, stands [* Article, same title, reviewing “A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Church of England on the Validity of the Orders of the Scotch and Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches.” By W. Goode, M. A., F.S.A., Rector of Allhallows the Great and Sa Review, 1854, p. 377.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND PRESBYTERIAN ORDERS. 135 isolated in the Christian world. It is excommunicated by Rome, and it in its turn refuses official recognition of other Protestants. An Epis- copal minister communing in a Presbyterian Church, would, in our days, be almost as rare a sight as a Romish priest communing with the Church of England. The difference between the relation of the Epis- copal clergy to those of other Protestant Churches, and of the clergy of those Churches to each other, is palpable. Mutual recognition, in the latter case, is open, cordial, and undoubted; in the other, it is always dubious and hesitating, and often explicitly denied. That Church, therefore, as a Church, stands aloof. It has no practical communion with other Churches. It rebaptizes, in many cases, Pres- byterian children, and reordains Presbyterian clergymen. It sends no corresponding members from its Conventions, either state or general, to the Synods or Assemblies of any other Church. It does not invite the ministers of other denominations to minister in its pulpits, or to take part in its religious services. It draws a distinct and broad line of demarcation between itself and all other Protestant bodies. We are speaking of the acknowledged and unquestioned animus and status of the Church as a body. We know there are hundreds of her ministers, and thousands of her people, who have none of this spirit, and to whom the exclusiveness of their ecclesiastical canons is a burden and an offence. We know that many cases have occurred in which this ex- clusiveness has been triumphed over, and Episcopal churches lent to Presbyterian ministers. We know, too, that this isolation of the Church of England is inconsistent with the avowed principles of her own standards, and contrary to the spirit and practice of her Re- formers and immediate successors for a hundred years. Nevertheless it isa fact. There must therefore be something in her constitution which tends to exclusiveness, and which leads her thus to stand aloof from the great body of Evangelical Christians. This can hardly be merely Episcopacy; because the Moravians, and some Lutheran Churches, are episcopal, and yet are completely identified with other Protestant communions. Neither can it be either the use of a Liturgy, or its peculiar character; because other Protestant Churches have liturgies, and some of them less evangelical than that of the Church of England. The isolation of that Church is no doubt to be referred, in a measure, to the outward course of her history; to her having been framed and fashioned by the king and parliament, established by the law of the land,and made the exclusive recipient of the wealth and honours of the State. But besides these outward circumstances, there must be something in the system itself, some element essentially anti-Protestant and exclusive, to which the effect in question is principally to be re- ferred. This, we doubt not, is in general, the subordination of truth to 136 CHURCH POLITY. form; the making what is outward more important than what is in- ward. The question how a company of Christians is organized; what is their form of government; what their mode of worship; what their ecclesiastical descent, is of far more consequence in determining the ques- tion whether they are to be recognized as a Church, and to be com- muned with, and regarded as Christian brethren, members of the body of Christ, than either their faith or practice. Ifa body of professing Christians is organized in a certain way, it is a Church, no matter whether it isas heretical and idolatrous as Rome, or as ignorant and superstitious as the Greeks or Abyssinians. If organized in a different way, it is no Church, it has no ministry, no sacraments, and no part in the covenant of mercy. This is the legitimate consequence of the idea of the Church on which the whole Anglican system is founded. The Church is regarded as an external society, with a definite organization, perpetuated by a regular succession of ordinations. Of course, in searching for the Church, the seareh is not for truth and holiness, but for organization and succession. Hence, Rome is a Church, because she has prelates and succession; the Free Church of Scotland is no Church, because it has no bishops. The one is indeed heretical, schis- matical, and idolatrous, the mystical Babylon; the other, one of the most orthodox, exemplary, and devoted body of Christians in’ the world. Still, the former is our Latin sister, whose orders and sacraments are valid and efficacious; the other is an apostate communion, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and from the covenant of promise, forming no part of the Church catholic and apostolical. There is not only more of outward recognition, but of inward cordial sympathy and fel- lowship with prelatical Churches, no matter how corrupt, than with non-episcopal Churches, no matter how pure. The form is made of more importance than the substance. Such is the necessary conse- quence of making the Church an external society, and prelatical ordi- nation essential to the ministry. This is the element which has been infused into the Episcopal Church of England and America, and which has produced its legitimate fruit in the isolation of that body from other Protestant communions. Though not original in its con- stitution, it is so congenial with it, that it has ever been adopted by a large portion of its members, and its influence can hardly be resisted even by those who see its‘unscriptural character, and are shocked by its legitimate effects. There are certain radical points bearing on this whole subject, incor- porated in all Protestant confessions, the denial of which is a deuial of Protestantism, and the ignoring of which, on the part of any Church, necessarily leads that Church into an unnatural and anti-Protestant position. One of these, as just intimated, relates to the idea of the THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND PRESBYTERIAN ORDERS. 137 Church. All Protestant Churches rejected the Popish doctrine, that the Church is, in its essential nature, an external society, and espe- cially that it is such a society organized in any one definite form. Every confession framed at the time of the Reformation defined the Church as the body of Christ, to be the company of believers, the coetus sanctorum, the company of faithful men; or, as the doctrine is ex- pressed in the Westminster Confession, “The Catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered in one, under Christ, the head thereof, and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him who fill- eth all in all.” By this is meant that the body to which belong the attributes, prerogatives, and promises pertaining to the Church, consists of true believers. And this is only saying that the characteristics, prerogatives, and promises, which, according to the Scriptures, belong to Christians, pertain not to the nominal, but to the real disciples of Christ ; and whatever of absurdity and evil is consequent on confound- ing the distinction between nominal and real Christians, is inseparable from making the external Church, a body of professed believers, the possessor of the attributes and prerogatives of the true Church. The great corruption, apostasy, assumption, and tyranny of Rome consisted in appropriating to herself, as an external society, the attributes and powers of the body of Christ; and the leading Protest of those who rejected her authority was directed against that all-comprehending assumption, and consisted in the affirmation that the true Church was composed of true believers, and that every man united to Christ by a living faith was a member of his body and an heir of his salvation, no matter what his external ecclesiastical relations might be, and despite of all that pope, prelate, or presbyter, might say or do. This is one fundamental principle of Protestantism. A second, scarcely less important, is, that the visible Church catholic consists of all those throughout the world, that profess the true religion, together with their children, and that particular Churches consist of any number of such professing Christians, together with their children, united together for the maintenance and protection of the truth, and mutual watch and care. A particular Church may be one worshipping assembly, or any number of such congregations collectively considered as united under some one tribunal.* The obvious meaning of this defi- nition of the visible Church is, that as true believers constitute the true Church, so professed believers constitute the apparent or visible Church ; * Ecclesia visibilis est vel universalis, omnium Christianorum societas, nullo quidem ‘federe externo juncta, ex iisdem tamen originibus nata, notisque communibus ub ali- enigenis diversa; vel particwaris, singularis Christianorum societas, externo foedere junta. 138 CHURCH POLITY. and consequently, the question, whether any external organized body, or particular Church, is to be recognized and treated as a constituent member of the visible Church catholic, depends on the question, not whether they are organized in this or that particular way, nor whether they are derived by regular descent from the apostles, but simply and solely whether they profess the true religion. The second great ques- tion, therefore, between Protestants and Romanists, in reference to this whole subject, relates to the criteria or marks by which we are to de- termine whether any particular Church is really a constituent portion of the visible catholic Church. The Protestant confessions, without exception, declare the word and sacraments, or simply the word, #. ¢., the profession of the true religion, to be that criterion.* As among’ nations there may be good and bad governments, that is, political insti- tutions more or less in accordance with the principles of right and with the revealed will of God, yet every independent state, no matter what its political organization may be, whether a pure despotism or a pure democracy, is entitled to be received into the family of nations; so every organized body professing the true religion and associated for the maintenance of the truth, and for the worship of God, is entitled to be recognized as a part of the true visible Church. Protestants have ever acted on this principle, and they must do so, or forfeit their character and their spiritual life. The Churches of Switzerland, of France, of the Palatinate, of Saxony, of Holland, of Sweden, of England, of Scotland, had each their own peculiar mode of organization or form of government; yet each recognized all the rest. IZf a body professed the true religion, it was received into the sisterhood of Churches, whether it was Erastian, Prelatical, Presbyterian, or Congregational. The only Church which has stammered and faltered in this matter, is the Church of England, which has always acted as though it was at least an act of condescension or concession, to recognize non-Episcopal denominations * The Protestant confessions generally make the word and sacraments the crite- rion of a Church, and sometimes, as in the Westminster Confession, it is simply the word. On this point Turrettin says :—“Quamvis autem in assignandis veree eccle- sie notis quedam in verbis occurrat diversitas inter orthodoxos, in reipsa tamen est con- sensus. Nam sive unica dicatur, doctrine scilicet veritas et conformitas cum Dei verbo, sive plures, pura scilicet verbi preedicatio, cum legitima sacramentorum administratione, quibus alii addunt discipline. exercitium, et sanctitatem vite seu obedientiam verbo pre- stitam, res codem redit. . . . Porro observandum circa notas istas diversos esse neces- sitatis gradus, ef alias aliis magis necessarias esse. In primo gradu necessitatis est pura verbi predicatio et professio, utpote sine qua ecclesia esse non potest. Sed non parvum habet necessitatis gradum sacramentorum administratio, que ita ex priore pendet, ut abesse tamen ad tempus possit, ut visum in ecclesia Israelitica in deserto que caruit circwmeisione » eadem est discipline ratio, que ad tuendum ecclesice statum perti- net, sed qua sublata vel corrupta non statim tollitur ecclesia.” Vol. iii. p. 98. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND PRESBYTERIAN ORDERS. 139 as true Churches. The subjective reason for this faltering has been the dread of detracting from the importance of the Episcopate. If ad- mitted less than essential, the fear was, it might be utterly disregarded. The objective reason, as before stated, is to be found in the doctrine so congenial to her system, that external organization enters into the essence of the Church. The Protestant doctrine which makes the profession of the true reli- gion the only essential criterion of the Church, is neither arbitrary nor optional. It is necessary and obligatory. We must hold it, and must act upon it, or set ourselves in direct opposition to the word of God. It arises necessarily out of the undeniable scriptural principle, that’ nothing can be essential to the Church but what is essential to salva- tion. This principle is held alike by Romanists and Protestants. It is because the former regard baptism and submission to the pope as necessary to salvation, that they make them necessary to the Church; and it is because Anglicans hold there can be no salvation without communion with bishops, that they hold there can be no Church without a bishop. So long, therefore, as Protestants hold that faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the only indispensable condition of salvation, they must hold that faith is the only essential condition of the being of the Church. To make anything else essential is to alter the conditions of salvation; and to alter the conditions of salvation is the greatest act of presumption, folly, and wickedness of which sinful worms can well be guilty. It follows necessarily from what has been said, that by “the profes- sion of the true religion” as the criterion of the Church, is meant the profession of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel. Unless the Bible teaches that the knowledge and belief of all the doctrines con- tained in the word of God, are essential to salvation, it cannot be assumed to teach that the profession of all those doctrines is essential to the existence of the Church. No man believes the former of these propositions, and therefore no man can consistently believe the latter. We are bound to recognize as a Christian any man who gives satisfac- tory evidence of piety, and who professes his faith in the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, even though he be ignorant or erroneous as to non-essential points. In like manner, the question whether any body of Christians is to be recognized as a Church, does not depend upon its ‘being free from error, but upon its professing the doctrines essential to salvation.* * Romanists objected to this criterion of the Church, that the common people are not competent judges of doctrines. To this Protestants replied—Agitur hie de examine non cujusvis doctrine, et qucestionum omnium, que cirea eam moveri ‘possunt sed tantum doctrine necessarie ad salutem, in qua essentia fidei consistit, que per-. 140 CHURCH POLITY. Tt need hardly be said that in making the true religion the only essential condition of the Church, and in limiting the demand to funda- mental doctrines, Protestants do not intend that other things are un- revealed or unimportant. They readily admit that much is revealed and enjoined in Scripture, which, though not essential to salvation, is necessary to the perfection of Christian character, and to the well being and purity of the Church. But as perfection is not necessary in the individual to substantiate his claim to be regarded as a Christian, so neither is a perfectly scriptural creed or form of government neces- sary to the being of the Church, or to the existence of an obligation on our part to recognize it as such. If it be asked, what is involved in this recognition? the answer is easy. To recognize a man as a Christian, is to admit his right to be so regarded and treated; it is to feel and act towards him as a Chris- tian, and to acknowledge that he has all the rights and privileges of a Christian. In like manner, to recognize a body of men as a Church, is, 1. To admit their right to be so regarded and treated. 2. It is to feel and act towards them as a constituent part of the visible Church catholic; and 8. It is to acknowledge that they have all the rights and privileges which belong to a Church of Jesus Christ. That is, that they have a right to receive members into the communion of the Church, or to exclude them from it; to administer the sacraments, to ordain and de- pose ministers, and, in short, to do everything which Christ has com- missioned his Church to do. If it be asked further, whether all other Churches are bound to re- cognize and give effect to the acts of every body which they recognize as a sister Church, that is a very different question. It is the confu- sion of these two things, although so distinct, which alarms some con- servative minds, and leads them to renounce the simplest principles of Protestantism. They fear that if they recognize a certain body as a Church, they must receive all their members, give effect to all their acts of discipline, recognize their ministers as their own, &c. This is a great mistake. We may recognize Austria as a nation, and yet not regard her sentence of banishment on one of her citizens for holding republican principles as binding on us. We may regard the Seceders as a Church, and yet not be bound to refuse communion with those whom they may excommunicate or depose for singing our hymns, or uniting in our worship. It is one thing to recognize the possession of ° certain rights by a particular body, and another to endorse the wisdom or the propriety of the exercise of those rightful powers in any given spicue exstat in Scriptura, et potest a quolibet fidelt percipi.—Turrettin, vol. ili. » p. 106. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND PRESBYTERIAN ORDERS. 141 case. As we are not arguing, but simply stating what are the first principles of Protestantism on this whole subject, we cannot enter fur- ther into details, or attempt to specify the cases when one Church is bound to recognize the acts of another as though they were its own. This would require a treatise ; our present object is far more limited. We wish merely to state those principles which have in fact led all evangelical Churches to recognize each other as constituent members of the Church universal, and the neglect or denial of which has led to the isolation of the Church of England from other Protestant commu- nions. Tt is easy to see the intimate connection between the principles above stated, and the whole system of evangelical religion and doc- trine. If any one form of external organization or mode of ordina- tion be essential to the Church, it must be essential to religion ; and if necessary to religion, it must be the exclusive channel of grace and salvation. This is the essential feature of Ritualism. These two things are historically as well as logically related. To whatever extent any body make prelacy and episcopal orders essential to the being or well being of the Church, to the same extent have they also made them essential to piety, and regarded them as the channels of grace. It is not, therefore, anything merely adventitious to Protestantism, but something which arises out of its very nature, when it teaches that the profession of the true religion, or sound doctrine, is the only ne- cessary condition of the being of the Church ; and, therefore, that we are bound to regard as Christian Churches all those bodies which pro- fess the true religion, no matter what their external organization may be. A third distinctive principle of Protestantism relates to the minis- try. On this subject all the Protestant Confessions teach, 1. That there is no such distinction between the clergy and laity as the Romish Church affirms. The former do not constitute a distinct class, separated by internal and indelible peculiarities of eminence from their fellow Christians, and exalted over them, not merely in office but by inward grace. 2. Those Confessions teach the universal priesthood of believers’; that through Christ all have liberty of access by the Spirit unto the Father ; and consequently that Christian ministers are not priests in- tervening between the people and God, as though through them and their ministrations alone we can become partakers of the benefits of redemp- tion. The people do not come to God through the- clergy as their me- diators, nor are they dependent on them for grace and salvation; and therefore it is not the vital question with them, whether their clergy have the true succession and the grace of orders. “ Hine patet,” says the venerable Turrettin, “ ecclesiam non esse propter ministerium, sed 142 CHURCH POLITY. ministerium propter ecclesiam, et ecclesiam non pendere a ministerio ; sed ministerium ab ecclesia.” Vol. iii., p. 253. 3. Protestants unite in teaching that all Church power vests radi- cally not in the clergy as a class, but in the Church as a whole. In other words, that the great commission by which the Church was con- stituted, by which its powers were defined and conveyed, and its duties as well as its prerogatives determined, was addressed and given not to the clergy as a class, but to the whole Church. The power of the keys, therefore, vests ultimately or primarily in the people; of which power they can never rightfully divest themselves. In the articles of Smalcald, Luther, expressing the common doctrine of Protestants, says: “ Necesse est fateri, quod claves non ad personam unius hominis, sed ad Ecelesiam pertineant. Nam Christus de clavibus dicens, Matt. xviii. 19, addit : Ubicunque duo vel tres consenserint ete. Tribuit igitur principal- iter claves Ecclesie, et immediate.” In the same document, he says: “ Ubicunque est Ecclesia, ibi est jus administrandi evangelii. Quare necesse est, Ecclesiam retinere jus vocandi, eligendt et ordinandi minis- tros.” Turrettin, in speaking of the right to call men to the ministry, says: “ Nostra sententia est, jus vocationis ad ecclesium ORIGINALITER ET RAD- ICALITER pertinere, apud quam illam deposuit Christus.” This he proves first, “A TRADITIONE CLAVIUM; quia ecclestis data est potestas clavium, que in se complectitur jus vocationis. Patet ex Matt. xvi. 19, ubi claves regni celorum promittuntur Petro, et in ejus persona toti eccle- sie, et Matt. xviii. 18, Christus dat ecclesie potestatem ligandi et solven- di: Vol. iii. 251. Licet corpus ecclesie exercitium juris vocandi pasto- res commiserit Presbyterio ad vitandam confusionem ; non ideo se abso- lute et simpliciter eo jure spoliavit, ut dicatur eo carere nec possit amplius in ullo casu eo uti. Quia ita commisit juris illius exercitium Rectoribus, qui nomine suo illud administrant, ut illud tamen originaliter tanquam sibi proprium et peculiare reservarit. Nec exemplum societatis civilis hue pertinet, ubi populus ita resignat jus suum Principi, quem eligit, ut eo absolute et simpliciter excuatur. Quta longe hac in parte differt societas politica et sacra. In illa populus potest resignare absolute jus suum principt, ili se subjiciendo, ut Domino. Sed ecclesia jus suum non transfert pastoribus quoad proprietatem tanquam dominis, sed tantum quoad usum et exercitium tanquam ministris, qui illud administrent, non proprio nomine, sed nomine ecclesie. Ratio discriminis est, quod in so- -etetate civili, ubi agitur tantum de bonis temporalibus, nihil obstat quominus populus possit resignare absolute jus suum, imo expedit aliquan- do ad vitandam confusionem et anarchiam. Sed in ecclesia.ubi agitur de salute, fideles non possunt sine crimine absolute se exuere jure illo, quod habent in media, que illi dantur ad promovendam salutem suam, THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND PRESBYTERIAN ORDERS. 143 quale est ministerium. Licet enim fides et -pietas ipsorum non absolute pendeat a pastoribus, tamen exercitium ministerti, quod purum est et in- tegrum, magno est ad pietatem adjumento, et contra fide conservatio difficillima est in corrupto ministerio.” Vol. iii. p. 260. This doctrine, that Church power vests not in the clergy as a class, but ultimately in the people, does not imply that the ministry is not an office, as the Quakers teach ; nor that it isnot an office of divine ap- pointment. Neither does it imply that any man may of his own mo- tion assume the office, and undertake the exercise of its functions, any more than the doctrine that all power in the State vests ultimately in the people, implies that any man may assume the office of a magistrate of his own will. Neither does the doctrine in question at all favour the theory of the Independents. That theory rests mainly on two principles, both of which we regard as manifestly unscriptural. The one is that which the name implies, viz., that each congregation or or- ganized worshipping assembly is independent of all other churches; and the other is, that the ministerial office may be conveyed and with- drawn by the vote and at the option of the people. The function of the people is not to confer the office, but to join in the exercise of a judgment whether a given person is called of God to be a minister, and to decide whether he shall exercise his office over them, as their spir- itual guide. But while the doctrine in question teaches neither Quakerism nor Independency, it is none the less one of the radical principles of Pro- testantism. The Reformers protested not less against the Romish doc- trine of the ministry, than they did against the Romish doctrine of the Church ; the two being inseparably connected. They protested against the doctrine that Christ gave the Holy Spirit to the apostles as a per- manent class of officers in the Church, to be by them transmitted by the imposition of their hands to their successors, and through them conveyed in ordination to presbyters, imparting to them grace and supernatural power. According to this theory, the grace and power which constitute a man a minister, and which authorize and enable him to execute ministerial functions efficaciously to the salvation of men, are derived solely from the hands of the ordaining bishop. Without such ordination, therefore, no man can be a minister. He can have neither the authority nor the power to discharge its func- tions. A failure in succession is of necessity a failure in the ministry, and a failure in the ministry is a failure in the Church. In opposition to-all this, the Reformers taught that while the Holy Ghost is the fountain of all Church power, the Spirit is not given to the bishops as a class, but to the Church as a whole. He dwells in all believers, and thereby unites them in one as the body of Christ. To them he divides, 144 CHURCH POLITY. to each severally as he wills; giving to one the gift of wisdom, to an- other the gift of knowledge, to another that of teaching, to another that of ruling. Every office in the Church presupposes a gift, and is but the organ through which that gift is legitimately exercised for edi- fication. It is, therefore, this inward call of the Holy Ghost which constitutes, in a manner, a minister; that is, which gives him the authority and ability to exercise its functions for the conversion of sinners and the edification of believers. The fact that a man has this inward call, must be duly authenticated. This authentication may be either extraordinary or ordinary. The extraordinary authentication may be given either in the form of miracles, or in such a measure of the gifts of the ministry and such a degree of success as places the fact. of a divine call beyond all reasonable doubt. No Protestant questions the call of Calvin and Farel to the work of the ministry, and no Pro- testant cares to ask for any authentication of that call beyond the approbation God so abundantly manifested. But in all ordinary cases the authentication of the inward divine call is by the judgment of the Church. There is a right and a wrong, a regular and an irregular way of expressing this judgment; but the main thing is the judgment itself. The orderly scriptural method of expressing the judgment of the Church, is through its official organ, that is, the Pres- bytery. Ordination is the public, solemn attestation of the judgment of the Church that the candidate is called of God to the ministry of reconciliation ; which attestation authorizes his entrance on the public discharge of his duties. It is on these principles the Reformers answered the objections by which they were constantly assailed. When the Romanists objected that the Reformers had no valid call to the ministry, they answered, ad hominem, that many of them had been regularly ordained in the Romish Church; and, as to others, that they had the call of God duly authenticated both by the extraordinary manifestations of his approba- tion and by the judgment of the Church. When it was further objected, that any man might claim to have the call of God, and thus the door would be open to all manner of con- fusion and fanaticism, as among the Anabaptists, they made two an- swers ; first, that a great distinction must be made between an orderly and settled state of the Church, and times of general corruption and confusion. As in a State, in ordinary times, there is a regular and prescribed method for the appointment of magistrates, which it would be a sin and evil to disregard, but when the magistrates turn tyrants or traitors, the people resume their rights and appoint their magis- trates in their own way; so in the ordinary condition of the Church all are bound to abide by the regular and appointed methods of action ; THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND PRESBYTERIAN ORDERS. 145 but if the rulers of the Church become heretical and oppressive, the people have the right to renounce their authority, and to follow those who they see are called of God to the ministry. When it was still further urged that this was to do away with the ministry as a divine institution, and to make it a mere creation of the Church, and supposed the people to have the power to make and depose ministers‘at their pleasure, it was answered, that the Protestant doctrine and practice were indeed inconsistent with the Romish theory of the ministry, which supposed that orders are a sacrament, that the Holy Ghost, conveying both authority and super- natural power, is communicated by the imposition of the hands of the bishop, and can be communicated in no other way. This ren- dered the Church entirely dependent on the ministry, by making grace and salvation dependent on an uninterrupted succession of valid ordinations. But this view of the nature of the ministry was declared to be unscriptural and destructive. On the other hand, it was denied that the Protestant doctrine conflicted with any thing taught in the word of God on the subject, or with the practice and faith of the Church in its purest ages. It was admitted that the ministry was a divine institu- tion; that ministers receive their authority from Christ, and act in his name and as his representatives; that the people do not confer the office, but simply judge whether a candidate is called by God to be a minister ; that in the expression of this judgment, those already in the ministry must, in ordinary cases, concur; and that to them, as in all other matters connected with the word and sacraments, belongs as the organs or executive officers of the Church, the right to carry the judg- ment of the Church into effect, 7. e., to them belongs the right to ordain. At the same. time, however, they maintained two important principles, perfectly consistent with this view of the ministry as a divine institution, the appropriate organ of the Church for the examination and ordination of candidates for the sacred office. The one was that already referred to as so clearly expressed by Luther when he said, “ Ubicunque est ecclesia, ibi est jus administrandt evangelii ;” and there- fore, if we acknowledge any body of men as a Church, we must admit their right to take their own course in the election and ordination of ministers. We may believe, as the great body of Christians do believe, that there isa right and a wrong, a regular and an irregular, a scrip- tural and an unscriptural method of proceeding in this matter. But as no Protestant believes that any thing connected with such externals is essential to salvation or to the being of the Church, he cannot, on the ground of any such irregularity, refuse to acknowledge an organized body of the professors of the true religion as a true Church or their ministers as true ministers. Hence, although in the great Protestant. 10 146 CHURCH POLITY. body one class believed that bishops were the only appropriate organs of the Church in ordination; another considered the Presbytery was, according to the Scripture’, the appointed organ ; and others, and they perhaps the majority, held that the jus vocandi ad ministerium vested jointly in the clergy, the magistrate, and the people; yet as all agreed in the principle above stated, viz., that wherever the Church is, there is the right of administering the gospel, they universally acknowledg- ed the validity of each other’s orders, The second principle, which secured unity and mutual recognition in the midst of diversity both of opinion and practice, is nearly allied to the one just mentioned. The Reformers distinguished between what is essential and what is circumstantial in a call to the ministry. The essentials are, the call of God, the consent of the candidate, and the consent of the Church. The circumstantials are, the mode in which the consent of the Church is expressed, and the ceremonies by which that assent is publicly manifested.* However important these circum- stantials may be, they are still matters about which Churches may differ, and yet remain Churches. While the principle was thus clearly inculcated that every Church could decide for itself as to the mode of electing and ordaining minis- ters, it was no less strenuously held that every Church had a right to judge for itself of the qualifications of its own ministers. Hence, the fact that a man was recognized as a minister in one denominational Church, was not regarded as proving that he had the right to act as a minister in the churches of another denomination. We may admit a Baptist or Independent minister to be a minister, and yet, if he wishes to act as such in our Church, we have a perfect right, first, to be satis- fied as to his personal fitness; and, secondly, that his call to the min- istry should be ascertained and authenticated in the way which we believe to be enjoined in Scripture. * Essentia vocationis, says Turrettin, consistit in triplict consensu, Dei, Ecclesic, et vocati. . . . Modus vocationis, consistit in actibus quibusdam vel preecedaneis, vel con- comitantibus, sine quibus vocatio confusa foret et inordinata, qualia sunt examen fidei et morum, testimonium probe vite, benedictio, et manuum impositio. Quoad prius, cum essentiale vocationis possit esse in coetu, ubi desunt pastores, certum est populum fidelem posse vocationem facere in casu summa necessitatis. . . . Sic non desinit vocatio esse plena et sufficiens quoad essentialia sine pastoribus. Quoad ritus et ceremonias voca- tionis, que non sunt de essentia vocationis, obtinere debent in ecclesia constituta, sed non semper observart possunt in ecclesia constituenda et reformanda, Vol. iii. 261. Again, Dum in ecclesia viget ministerium, ila debet quidem eo uti ad vocationem pastorum,, nec pastores ordinarie instituere potest nist per ministerium jam constitutum. Sed deficiente. ministerio, vel misere corrupto, potest ipsa sibi ministros eligere ad sui cedifi- cationem, etiam ‘sine ministerti interventu ; tum quia hoc jus habet a Deo, tum quia omni tempore et loco.tenetur ministerium conservare, THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND PRESBYTERIAN ORDERS. 147 It is easy to see how the denial, or oversight, by the Church of Eng- land of the three great Protestant principles, to which we have referred, has led to her present isolated and anti-Protestant position. Regarding the Church as essentially an external organization with a definite form of government, she is slow to recognize as Churches any societies not organized according to that model. The profession of the true religion is not sufficient to sustain the claim of any communion to be regarded as a Christian Church. As no man can be a Christian if not subject to a bishop, so no society can be a Church, unless episcopally organ- ized. The ministry is an office continued in‘the Church by a regular succession of prelatical ordinations, and therefore cannot exist when such ordination is wanting. It is the object of Mr. Goode’s book to prove that such is not the original and genuine doctrine of the Church of England; that these anti-Protestant principles are foreign from her original constitution, and that her present anti-Protestant position is due to the perverting influence of the Romanizing party within her pale. The occasion for the publication of the treatise before us, was the printing of a private letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury, obtained under false pretences, by a convert to Romanism. In that letter the Archbishop said, in reference to “the validity of the orders of the foreign Protestant non-episcopal churches,” “I hardly imagine there are two bishops on the bench, or one clergyman in fifty throughout our Church, who would deny the validity of the order of those pastors, solely on account of their wanting the imposition of episcopal hands.” This avowal caused a great outcry. The Tractarians were shocked to hear the Primate of all England deny their fundamental doctrine of apostolic succession and grace of orders. A cloud of publications is- sued from the press, assailing the Archbishop in terms such as those only could use who regarded him as a fallen archangel. ‘The higher the reverence due to him if faithful, the greater the execration justified by his apostasy. Mr. Goode, so extensively and so favourably known by his able and learned work on the “ Rule of Faith;” here undertakes to vindicate the Archbishop, and to prove that it is not “a doctrine of the Church of England, that episcopal ordination is a sine qua non to constitute a valid Christian ministry.” His first argument is drawn from the fact, that under Henry VIII. the bishops and clergy put forth a document containing the very doctrine on which the validity of Presbyterian ordinations has been chiefly rested, namely, the parity of bishops and presbyters, with respect to the ministerial powers essen- tially and by right belonging to them. In the Institution of a Chris- tian Man, put forth by the bishops and clergy, in 1537, we read as fol- lows: “*As touching the sacrament of holy orders, we think it convenient 148 CHURCH POLITY. ~ that all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach the people com- mitted unto their spiritual charge, first, how that Christ and his apos- tles did institute and ordain, in the New Testament, that besides the civil powers and governance of kings and princes, (which is called potestas gladii, the power of the sword,) there should also be continually in the Church militant certain other ministers or officers, which should have special power, authority and commission, under Christ, to preach and teach the word of God unto his people; to dispense and adminis- ter the sacraments of God unto them, &c., &c.’ “«That this office, this power and authority, was committed and given by Christ and his apostles unto certain persons only, that is to say, unto priests or bishops, whom they did elect, call, and admit there- unto, by their prayer and imposition of their hands.’ “ And, speaking of ‘the sacrament of orders’ to be administered by the bishop, it observes, when noticing the various orders in the Church of Rome: ‘ The truth is, that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only of deacons or min- isters, and of priests or bishops. And throughout, when speaking of the jurisdiction and other privileges belonging to the ministry, it speaks of them as belonging to ‘priests or bishops.’ “Again in the revision of this work set forth by the king in 1543, entitled, A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, in the chapter on ‘the Sacrament of Orders,’ priests and bishops are spoken of as of the same order.” Again, “In the autumn of 1540 certain questions were proposed by the king to the chief bishops and divines of the day, of which the tenth was this: ‘Whether bishops or priests were first? and if the priests were first, then the priest made the bishop.’ With the wording of this question we have nothing to do, and should certainly be sorry to be made answerable for it; but our object is to see what views were elic- ited in the answers. Now to this question the Archbishop of Canter- bury (Cranmer) replied: ‘The bishops and priests were at one time, and were not two things, but both one office, in the beginning of Christ’s religion.’ The Archbishop of York (Lee) says: ‘The name of a bishop is not properly a name of order, but a name of office, signifying an over- seer. And although the inferior shepherds have also care to oversee their flock, yet, forsomuch as the bishop’s charge is also to oversee the shepherds, the name of overseer is given to the bishops, and not to the other; and as they be in degree higher, so in their consecration we find difference even from the primitive Church.’ The Bishop of London (Bonner) says: ‘I think the bishops were first, and yet I think it is not of importance, whether the priest then made the bishop, or else the bishop the priest; considering (after the sentence of St. Jerome) that in THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND PRESBYTERIAN ORDERS. 149 the beginning of the Church there was none (or, if it were, very small) difference between a bishop and a priest, especially touching the signifi- cation.’ The Bishop of St. David’s, (Barlow,) and the Bishop elect of Westminster, (Thirlby,) held that bishops and priests ‘ at the beginning were all one” Dr. Robertson, in his answer, says: ‘Nec opinor absur- dum esse, ut sacerdos episcopum consecret si episcopus haberi non potest.’ Dr. Cox (afterwards Bishop of Ely) says: ‘Although by Scripture (as St. Hierome saith) priests and bishops be one, and therefore the one not before the other, yet bishops, as they be now, were after priests, and therefore made of priests.’ Dr. Redmayn, the learned master. of Trinity College, Cambridge, says: ‘They be of like begin- ning, and at the beginning were both one, as St. Hierome and other old authors show by the Scripture, whereof one made another indiffer- ently.’ Dr. Edgeworth says: ‘That the priests in the primitive Church made bishops, I think no inconvenience, (as Jerome saith, in an Epist. ad Evagrium.) Even like as soldiers should choose one among them- selves to be their captain; so did priests choose one of themselves to be their bishop, for consideration of his learning, gravity, and good living, &c., and also for to avoid schisms among themselves by them, that some might not draw people one way, and others another way, if they lacked one Head among them.’” In turning to the divines of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, when the for- mularies of the Church of England were finally constituted and estab- lished, our author quotes in the first instance the learned bishop of Exeter, Dr. Alley, who in his Prelections on 1 Peter read publicly in St. Paul’s, in 1560, says: “What difference is between a bishop and a priest, St. Hierome, writing ad Titum, doth declare, whose words be these: “ Idem est ergo presbyter, qui episcopus,” &c.; a priest, therefore, is the same that a bishop is, &e.’ _“ And having given Jerome’s words in full, he adds: ‘These words are alleged, that it may appear priests among the elders to have been even the same that bishops were. But it grew by little and little that the whole charge and cure should be appointed to one bishop within his precinct, that the seeds of dissension might utterly be rooted out.” (Alley’s Poor Man’s Library, 2d ed. 5571, tom. i. fol. 95, 96.) “Tt could hardly be doubted, then, by one who held this, that if the circumstances of the Church required it, Presbyterian ordination would be valid. “ About the same period, namely, in 1563, we have a much stronger testimony from Dr. Pilkington, then Bishop of Durham: ‘Yet remains one doubt unanswered in these few words, when he says, “that the government of the Church was committed to bishops,” 150 CHURCH POLITY. as though they had received a larger and higher commission from God of doctrine and discipline than other lower priests or ministers have, and thereby might challenge a greater prerogative. But this is to be understood, that the privileges and superiorities, which bishops have above other ministers, are rather granted by men for maintaining of better order and quietness in commonwealths than commanded by God in his word. Ministers have better knowledge and utterance some than other, but their ministry is of equal dignity. God’s commission and commandment is like and indifferent to all priest, bishop, archbishop, prelate, by what name soever he be called... . . St. Paul calls the elders of Ephesus together and says, “the Holy Ghost made them bish- ops to rule the Church of God.” (Acts xx.) He writes also to the bishops of Philippos, meaning the ministers... .. St. Jerome, in his commentary on the first chapter Ad. Tit., says, “that a bishop and priest is all one.” . . . . A bishop is the name of an office, labour, and pains.” (Confut. of an Addition. Works, ed. Park Soc.- pp. 493, 494.) “Both these were among the bishops who settled our Articles, on the accession of Queen Elizabeth. “ Our next witness shall be Bishop Jewell, of whose standing in our Church it is unnecessary to add a word. On the parity of order in priests and bishops, he says: ‘Is it so horrible a heresy as he [Harding] maketh it, to say, that by the Scriptures of God a’bishop and a priest are all one? or knoweth he how far, and unto whom, he reacheth the name of an heretic? Verily Chrysostom saith: “ Between a bishop and a priest in a manner there is no difference.” (In 1 Tim. hom.11.) §S.Hieromesaith. .. “The apostle plainly teacheth us, that priests and bishops be all one.” (ad Evagr.) S. Augustine saith: “What isa bishop but the first priest ; that is to say, the highest priest?” (In Quest. N. et V. Test. q. 101.) So saith 8S. Ambrose: ‘‘ There is but one consecration (ordi- . natio) of priest and bishop; for both of them are priests, but the bishop is the first.” (In Tim. c. 3.) All these, and other more holy Fathers, together with St. Paul the apostle, for thus saying, by M. Harding’s advice, must be holden for heretics.’ (Def. of Apol. Pt. ii. c. 9. div. i. Works, p. 202. See also Pt. ii. c. iii. div. i. p. 85.) “ But there is a passage in his writings still more strongly bearing on the point in question. Harding had charged our Church with deriving its orders from apostate bishops, &c. Jewell replies: ‘Therefore we neither have bishops without Church, nor Church without bishops. Neither doth the Church of England this day de- pend of them whom you often call apostates, as if our Church were no Church without them.. . . . If there were not one, neither of them nor of us left alive, yet would not therefore the whole Church of England flee THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND PRESBYTERIAN ORDERS. 151 to Lovaine. Tertullian saith :—“ And we being laymen, are we not priests? It is written, Christ hath made us both a kingdom and priests unto God his Father. The authority of the Church, and the honour by the assembly, or council of order sanctified of God, hath made a difference between the lay and the clergy. Where as there is no assembly of ecclesiastical order, the priest being there alone (with- out the company of other priests) doth both minister the oblation and also baptize. Yea, and be there but three together, and though they be laymen, yet is there a Church. For every man liveth of his own faith.”’ (Def. of Apol. Pt. ii. c. v. div. i. p. 129.) “Tt is needless to point out how much this passage implies. “We proceed to Archbishop Whitgift. “ And first, as to the parity of order in bishops and priests, he speaks thus : “Every bishop is a priest, but every priest hath not the name and title of a bishop, in that meaning that Jerome in this place [Ad Evagr.] taketh the name of a bishop. . . . Neither shall you find this word episcopus commonly used but for that priest that is in degree over and above the rest, notwithstanding episcopus be oftentimes called presbyter, because presbyter is the more general name.’ (Def. of Answ. to Adm. 1574, fol. p. 383.) ‘ Although Hierome confess, that by Scripture presbyter and episco- pus is all one (As IN DEED THEY BE quoad ministerium), yet doth he acknowledge a superiority of the bishop before the minister. . . . . Therefore no doubt this is Jerome’s mind, that a bishop in degree and dignity is above the minister, though he be one and the self-same with him in the office of ministering the word and sacraments.’ (JO. pp. 384, 385.) “Secondly, as to the form of government to be followed in the Church. His adversary, Cartwright, like the great body of the Puri- tans, contended for the exclusive admissibility of the platform of Church government he advocated; and, like Archdeacon Denison, maintained that ‘matters of discipline and kind of government are matters necessary to salvation and of faith.’ And this is Whitgift’s reply :— ‘T confess that in a Church collected together in one place, and at liberty, government is necessary in the second kind of necessity; but that any one kind of government is so necessary that without it the Church cannot be saved, or that it may not be altered into some other kind thought to be more expedient, I utterly deny, and the reasons that move me so to do be these. The first is, because I find no one certain and perfect kind of government prescribed or commanded in the Scrip- tures to the Church of Christ, which no doubt should have been done, if 152 CHURCH POLITY. it had been a matter necessary unto the salvation of the Church. Secondly, because the essential notes of the Church be these only; the true preaching of the word of God, and the right administration of the sacraments: for (as Master Calvin saith, in his book against the Ana- baptists) : “This honour is meet to be given to the word of God, and to his sacraments, that wheresoever we see the word of God truly preached, and God according to the same truly worshipped, and the sacraments without superstition administered, there we may without all controversy conclude the Church of God to be:” and a little after: “So much we must esteem the word of God and his sacraments, that wheresoever we find them to be, there we may certainly know the Church of God to be, although in the common life of men many faults and errors be found.” The same is the opinion of other godly and learned writers, and the judgment of the Reformed Churches, as appeareth by their Confessions. So that notwithstanding government, or some kind of government, may be a part of the Church, touching the outward form and perfection of it, yet is it not such a part of the essence and being, but that it may be the Church of Christ without this or that kind of government, and therefore the kind of government of the Church is not necessary unto salvation.’ (Jb. p. 81.) : ‘1 deny that the Scriptures do... . set down any one certain form and kind of government of the Church to be perpetual for all times, persons, and pluces, without alteration.”” (Ib. p. 84.) The next testimony is that of Hooker, who says: “‘There may be sometimes very just and sufficient reasons to allow ordination made without a bishop. The whole Church visible being the true original sub- ject of all power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than bishops alone to ordain; howbeit as the ordinary cause is ordinarily in all things to be observed, so it may be in some cases not unnecessary that we decline from the ordinary ways. Men may be extraordinarily, yet allowably, two ways admitted unto spiritual functions in the Church. One is, when God himself doth of himself raise up any .... Another .... when the exigence of necessity doth constrain to leave the usual ways of the Church, which otherwise we would willingly keep.’—Eecle- siastical Polity, vii. 14. See also iii. 11. “Tn a former passage of the same book,” says our author, Hooker “distinctly admits the power of the Church at large to take away the episcopal form of government from the Church, and says: ‘Let them [the bishops] continually bear in mind that it is rather the force of custom, whereby the Church, having so long found it good to continue the regiment of her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and honour them, in that respect, than that any true and heavenly law can be showed by the evidence whereof it may of a truth THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND PRESBYTERIAN ORDERS. 153 appear, that the Lord himself hath appointed presbyters for ever to be under the regiment of bishops;’ adding, that ‘their authority’ is ‘a sword which the Church hath power to take from them.’” Jd. vii. 5. See also i. 14, and iii. 10. When we remember that Hooker is the greatest authority on eccle- siastical polity in the English Church, these extracts have special interest. They contain the clear assertion of the principle, which is, after all, the turning point between Protestants and Romanists, that all Church power vests ultimately in the whole Church, and not in the clergy, much less in the bishops. If the reverse were true, then the Church depends on the episcopate; derives its spiritual life through that channel as the only bond of connection with Christ. A corrupt bishop or presbyter could never be deposed or changed unless by others, who might be themselves corrupt. God, according to this theory, has not only left his sheep in the power of those who, as the apostle says, may be grievous wolves, but he has, if we may reverently so speak, debarred himself from giving the gifts of the Spirit in any other way than through the line of apostolical succession. There was a time when a similar theory was held in reference to the state, and when men believed that the kingly office was instituted by divine command ; that subjects could not depose their sovereign, nor change the succession, but were shut up to passive submission. But men have since discovered that the doctrine that civil power vests ultimately in the people, is perfectly consistent with the doctrine, that “the powers that be are ordained of God, and that whoso resisteth the power re- sisteth the ordinance of God.” This was a lesson which princes and people were slow to learn, and it is well for statesmen, who sometimes forget their obligations and speak with small respect of the clergy, to remember that this great emancipating truth was first effectually taught to the world by the Protestant ministry. It was not until they had avowed and acted on the principle, that although the ministry was a divine institution, and obedience to ministers, within their appropriate sphere, is a matter of divine command, yet as all Church power vests ultimately in the people, they have the right to reject any minister, even though an apostle, who preached another gospel, that the nations awoke to the consciousness of a like power with regard to their civil rulers. Another most important principle here avowed by Hooker is, that nothing binds the Church but an express law of Christ; that any office the Church has created she may abolish. This he applies to the epis- copate, though he labours to prove it was instituted by the Apostles. But as it was instituted by them, according to his doctrine, not as something commanded and necessary, but simply as expedient, he con- 154 CHURCH POLITY. sistently admitted the Church might abolish it. Of course these prin- ciples are utterly inconsistent with the doctrine that there can be no Church without a bishop. Our author proceeds to quote several of the bishops, and other wri- ters of that period, who in their controversy with the non-conformists maintain the ground, that no one form of Church government is laid down in Scripture as essential or universally obligatory. Thus Dr. Bridges, afterwards Bishop of Oxford, in his “‘ Defence of the Govern- ment Established in the Church of England,” 1587, says—if the form of government in the Church “‘be not a matter of necessity, but such as may be varied,’ then ‘there is no reason why we should break the bond of peace, and make such trouble in the Church of God, to reject the government that is, in the nature thereof, as much indifferent, as’ the solemuizing this or that day the memorial of the Lord’s resurrec- tion.” p. 319. In opposition to the same class, Dr. Cooper, Bishop of Lincoln, then of Winchester, says, in his Admonition to the People of England, 1589: “*Only this I desire, that they will lay down out of the word of God some just proofs, and a direct commandment, that there should be in all ages and states of the Church of Christ one only form of govern- ment.’” p. 61-63. Dr. Casin, Dean of Arches, in 1584, in a work, “published by au- thority,” asks: “‘Are all the Churches of Denmark, Swedeland, Poland, Germany, Rhetia, Vallis Telina, the nine cantons of Switzerland re- formed, with their confederates of Geneva, France, of the Low Countries, and of Scotland, in all points, either of substance or of cir- cumstance, disciplinated alike? Nay, they neither are, can be, nor yet need so to be; seeing it cannot be proved, that any set and exact form thereof is recommended unto us by the word of God.’ ”—Answer to An Abstract of Certain Acts of Parliament, 1584, p. 58. Of course men who held that no one form of government is essential to the Church, could not maintain, and did not pretend, that episcopal ordination was necessary to a valid ministry. Our author next appeals to the Articles and other Formularies of the Church of England, which were drawn up by the school of theolo- gians, whose writings are quoted above. The 28d Article: “It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preacher, or ministering the sacraments in the con- gregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.” That this article does not teach the necessity of episcopal THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND PRESBYTERIAN ORDERS. 155 ordination, our author argues from the obvious import of the works, from the known opinions and practice of the authors of the 39 Articles, and from contemporary and subsequent expositions from sources of authority. Again, in the 55th Canon of 1604, all the clergy of the Church of England are required to pray for the Church of Scotland, which was then, as now, Presbyterian. The third argument of our author is from the practice of the Church. From the Reformation until the Restoration of Charles II., Presbyterian ministers were admitted to the cure of souls in the Church of England without re-ordination. At the Restoration a law was passed, requiring episcopal ordination in the case of all who were admitted to prefer- ment in the English Church, and a clause to the same effect was intro- duced into the preface to the ordination service. This rule, however, as our author urges, proves nothing more than that in the judgment -of those who made it, the ministers of an Episcopal Church should be episcopally ordained. With the same propriety any Presbyterian might insist on Presbyterian ordination for all its own ministers, with- out thereby unchurching other denominations. Mr. Goode, therefore, insists there was no change of doctrine as to this matter at the time of the Restoration. As to the previous admission of non-episcopal ministers to office in the Church of England, the evidence is abundant. In 1582 the Vicar- General of the Archbishop of Canterbury granted a license to John Morrison to the effect—“‘Since you were admitted and ordained to sacred orders and the holy ministry, by the imposition of hands, ac- cording to the laudable form and rite of the Reformed Church of Scotland—we, therefore, approving and ratifying the form of your or- dination and preferment—grant to you, by express command of the reverend father in Christ, Lord Edmund, Archbishop of Canterbury, to celebrate divine offices, to minister the sacraments,” &c.—Strype’s Inge of Grindal, Bk. 2. ¢ 18. The High Church Bishop Cosin, writing from Paris in 1650, says:— “«Therefore, if at any time a minister so ordained in these French Churches came to incorporate himself in ours, and to receive a public charge or cure of souls among us in the Church of England, (as I have knows some of them to have so done of late, and can instance in many other before my time,) our bishops did not re-ordain him before they ad- mitted him to his charge, as they must have done, if his former ordination herein France had been void. Nor DID OUR LAWS REQUIRE MORE OF HIM THAN TO DECLARE HIS PUBLIC CONSENT TO THE RELIGION RE- CEIVED AMONGST US, AND TO SUBSCRIBE THE ARTICLES ESTAB- LISHED.”—(Letter to Mr. Cordel, in Basire’s “Account of Bishop + 156 CHURCH POLITY. Cosin,” annexed to his “Funeral Sermon ;” and also in Bishop Fleet- wood’s Judgment of the Church of England in the case of Lay Baptism, 2d ed. Lond. 1712, p. 52.) And the same testimony is borne by Bishop Fleetwood, who says that this was “certainly her practice [i. ¢., of our Church) during the reigns of King James and King Charles L., and to the year 1661. We had many ministers from Scotland, from France, and the Low Coun- tries, who were ordained by presbyters only, and not bishops, and they were instituted into benefices with cure. . . and yet were never re- ordained, but only subscribed the Articles.” (Judgment of Church of England in case of Lay Baptism, 1712, 8vo. pt. ii. Works, p. 552.) Mr. Goode follows up these proofs with a series of quotations from the leading English theologians of a later date, all going to show that even those who took the ground of the divine right of episcopacy were far from adopting the principles of the Tractarian school, or from making Episcopacy essential to the being of the Church. We think he has succeeded in proving his point, though doubtless many of his au- thorities might be, as they have in fact been, called into question. We know that Tractarians are famous for their Catena Patrum, quoting, as we think most disingenuously, detached sentences from the writings of men in support of principles which they expressly repudiated. We do not believe that our author is chargeable with any such offence. We, however, give the quotations selected from his pages on his authority, as our only object was to show how the evangelical members of the Church of England vindicate her from the anti-Protestant and schis- matical principles of the modern Anglo-Catholic school. CHAPTER X. PRESBYTERIAN LITURGIES. [*] Ir is a very prevalent impression, that the use of liturgies in public worship, is one of the peculiarities of prelatical Churches. Not only Episcopalians, but many Presbyterians are in the habit of specifying Episcopacy, confirmation, and the use of a liturgy, as intimately associ- ated, and as the distinguishing characteristics of prelacy. As to con- firmation, it is true that considered as a sacrament, or a rite conferring grace, it is peculiar to the ritual and hierarchical system. The grace conferred in baptism is, according to that system, confirmed and in- creased by the imposition of the bishop’s hands in confirmation. For such a service there is no warrant in Scripture; and it is entirely in- compatible with the whole evangelical theory of the Church, and of the method of salvation. But confirmation, as a solemn service, in which those recognized in their infancy as members of the Church, on the faith of their parents, are confirmed in their Church standing, on the profession of their own faith, is retained in form or in substance in all Protestant Churches. In the Lutheran, and in most of the Reformed, or Calvinistic Churches on the continent of Europe, children baptized in infancy, when they come to years of discretion, are publicly exam- ined as to their knowledge of Christian doctrine, and, if free from scan- dal, are called upon to assume for themselves their baptismal vows, and are recognized as members of the Church in full communion. In most Presbyterian Churches in Great Britain and Ireland, and especially in this country, something more than competent knowledge and freedom from scandal being required, in order to admission to sealing ordi- nances, baptized youth are not as a matter of course admitted to the Lord’s supper, on their arrival at the years of discretion. It is our custom to wait until they are prepared to make a credible profession of a ohange of heart. When this is done they are confirmed ; that is, they are recognized as members of the Church in full communion, on their own profession. The same examination as to knowledge, the same profession as to faith, the same engagements as to obedience—in short, the same assumption of the obligations of the baptismal cove- nant, and the same consequent access to the Lord’s table, which in [* Article, same title, Princeton Review, 1855, p. 445.] 157 158 CHURCH POLITY. other Churches constitute confirmation, in ours constitute what we are accustomed to call admission to sealing ordinances. The only dif- ference is, that we require more than knowledge and freedom from scandal as the condition of confirming baptized persons as members of the Church in full communion. It is a great mistake, therefore, to represent confirmation as a prelatical service. In one form or another, it is the necessary sequence of infant baptism, and must be adopted wherever pedo-baptism prevails. It is a still greater mistake to represent liturgies as an adjunct of Episcopacy. The fact is, that the use of liturgies was introduced into all the Protestant Churches at the time of the Reformation, and that in the greater number of them, they continue in use to the present day. x * * * * * * * * ' Why has the use of liturgies by the Reformed Churches been either wholly, as in the case of the Scotch and American Presbyterians, or partially, as in the case of the Dutch Church in this country, been laid aside? The reasons are various, and some of the most influential pe- culiar to Presbyterians. One reason, no doubt is, the general dislike to be trammelled by forms; which dislike is the natural product of the spirit of liberty, which is inseparable from the principles of Presbyte- rianism. The consciousness of the essential equality of allin whom the , Spirit of God dwells, and the conviction that those whom Christ calls to the ministry, he qualifies for the discharge of its duties, naturally produces a revolt against the prescription by authority of the very words in which the public worship of God is to be conducted. Those who can walk are impatient of leading strings. It cannot be doubted that the theory of Presbyterianism is opposed to the use of liturgies. In the ideal state of the Church—in that state which our theory con- templates, where every minister is really called of God, and is the or- gan of the Holy Ghost in the exercise of his functions, liturgies would be fetters, which nothing but compulsion could induce any man to wear. How incongruous is it with our conception of the Apostolic Church, that John, Paul and Peter should be compelled to read just such and such portions of Scripture, to use prescribed words in prayer, and to limit their supplications and thanksgivings to specified topics! The com- pulsory use of liturgies is, and has ever been felt to be, inconsistent with the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. It is inconsistent with the inward promptings of the Spirit of God, as he dwells and works in the hearts of his people. As no genuine, living Christian can bear to be confined to a prescribed form of prayer in his closet, so no minister, called by the Spirit to the sacred office, can fail to feel such forms an impediment and a constraint. They are like the stiff, con- straining dress, imposed on the soldier, for the sake of uniformity and PRESBYTERIAN LITURGIES. 159 general effect, which he is glad to throw off when in actual service. The Scriptures, therefore, which in all things outward, conform to what is the inward product of the Spirit, do not prescribe any form of words to be used in the worship of God. There are no indications of the use-of liturgies in the New Testament. There is no evidence of the prevalence of written forms during the first three centuries. They were gradually introduced, and they were never uniform. Every im- portant Church had its own liturgy. The modern Anglican idea of having one form of worship for all Churches, never entered the minds of the early Christians. We fully believe, therefore, that the compul- sory use of a liturgy is inconsistent with Christian liberty; and that the disposition to use such forms, as a general rule, decreases with the increase of intelligence and spirituality in the Church. Without ques- tioning or doubting the sincere and eminent piety of hundreds and thousands of the ministers and members of Churches which continue in the trammels of prescribed liturgical forms, we still believe that one of the causes why the Church of Scotland never submitted to the author- itative imposition of an unvarying form of public worship, and grad- ually dispensed with the use of aliturgy altogether, is to be found in its superior intelligence and piety. Another cause of the fact in question, is to be found in the essential or unavoidable inadequacy of all forms. They aré not only incon- sistent, when authoritatively imposed, with the liberty of Christians, but they are, and must be, insufficient. Neither the circumstances, nor the inward state of the Church, or of any worshipping assembly, are always the same. It is true, adoration, confession, thanksgiving, sup- plication, and intercession, are always to be included in our addresses to God; but varying inward and outward circumstances call for different modes of address, and no one uniform mode can possibly satisfy the spiritual necessities of the people. Sometimes the minister goes to the house of God burdened with some great truth, or with his heart filled with, zeal for some special service in the cause of Christ, the conviction of sinners, the edification of saints, the work of missions, the relief of the poor; but he is forbidden to give utterance to the language of his heart, or to bring his people into sympathy with him- self by appropriate religious services. Sometimes general coldness or irreligion prevails among the people; sometimes they are filled with the fruits, and rejoicing in the presence of the Spirit; sometimes they are in prosperity, sometimes in adversity. It isas impossible that any one form of worship should suit all these diversities, as that any one kind of dress should suit all seasons of the year, or all classes of men; or that any one kind of food, however wholesome, should be adapted to all states of the human body. 160 CHURCH POLITY. Besides these general causes there are others, perhaps still more in- fluential, of a specific character, which produced the distaste for litur- gies in the minds of the Presbyterians of Great Britain and America. The real question in their case, was not liturgy or no liturgy, but whether they should submit to the use of the liturgy of the Church of England. Besides, therefore, the general objections to any prescribed, unvarying form of public worship, all the specific objections enter- tained by Presbyterians against the services of the English Church operated in this matter. The English liturgy was framed on the avowed principle of departing as little as possible from the Romish forms. It was designed to conciliate those who were yet addicted to the papacy. It retained numerous prescriptions as to dress and cere- monies, to which conscientious objections were entertained by the majority of Protestants. It required the people to kneel in the recep- tion of the Eucharist, which was so associated with the worship of the host, that many left the Church of England principally on that ac- count. Its baptismal service could not be understood in its natural sense otherwise than as teaching the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. It required the minister to commit to the grave all baptized persons who did not die by their own hand, or in a state of excommunication, “in the sure hope of a blessed resurrection,” no matter how heretical or how profligate they may have been.* It was constructed on the platform of the Romish Calendar. Not only the great Christian festi- vals of Christmas, Good Friday, and Easter, which Protestants on the continent continued to observe, were retained, but particular services were prescribed for a multitude of holy days. There was a special ser- vice for the first, second, third, and fourth Sundays in Advent; then for Christmas, and the first Sunday after Christmas; then for the circum- cision of Christ; then for the Epiphany; then for the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth Sundays after Epiphany; then for Sep- tuagesima; then for the second and first Sundays before Lent; then for each of the Sundays during Lent; then for Good Friday, Easter, and the five Sundays after Easter; then for Ascension-day ; then Whit- sunday ; then Trinity Sunday, and each of the twenty-five Sundays after Trinity; then St. Andrew’s-day ; St. Thomas’s-day; Purification of the Blessed Virgin; St. Matthias, St. Mark, St. Philip, St. James, and the Apostles, St. Barnabas; Nativity of St. John the Baptist, St. Peter, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, St. Michael and all Angels, &c., &c., All Saints, the Holy Innocents, &c. How foreign is all this to the simplicity of the gospel! It would seem impossible to live in ac- * This objectionable feature of the English liturgy has been removed from the Book of Common Prayer, as adopted by the Episcopal Church in this country. PRESBYTERIAN ‘LITURGIES. 161 cordance with the spirit of the English service-book without making the Christian life a formality. In perfect consistency with these and similar objections to the English service-book, as a whole, we feel bound to say, that we fully and cordially agree with the celebrated Robert Hall, at least as to the Morning and Evening Prayers, that for evangelical sentiment, fervour of devotion, and majestic simplicity of language, it is entitled to the highest praise. And as to the Litany, ' which is at least a thousand years old, and no more belongs to the Church of England than the Creed does, we know no human com- position that can be compared with it. These excellencies, however, which, in a great measure were derived from forms already drawn up by the Reformers on the continent,* do not redeem the character of the book considered as a whole. This book, so objectionable us a whole, in its origin, adjuncts and character, was forced on the English Church and people by the civil power, contrary to their will. Bishops, clergy and parliament for years endeavoured to have it rectified, but at last submitted. The attempt to enforce its observance on the Scotch Church, led to one of the most wicked and cruel persecutions the world has ever seen. Is it wonderful, then, that a strong repugnance to the very name of a lit- urgy, should be roused in the minds of the Presbyterians of Great Britain and of their descendants in America? Of the liturgies of Calvin, of Knox, of the Huguenots, of the German and Reformed Churches they knew nothing. A liturgy in their minds meant the Book of Common Prayer, framed for the comprehension of papists, enforced by the will of Elizabeth, rejected at the cost of property and life, by their pious ancestors. It would be contrary to the laws of our nature, if such a struggle as this did not lead to some exaggeration of feeling and opinion on the other side. No candid man can blame the non-Conformists of England, or the Presbyterians of Scotland, if their sad experience of civil and ecclesiastical tyranny in enforcing an ob- noxious prayer-book, led them to the extreme of denouncing the use of all forms. That one extreme produces another, is the tritest of apho- risms. The extreme of insisting that certain forms should alone be used, begat the extreme of insisting that no forms should be allowed. It is ob- vious however to the candid, that between these extremes there is a wide and safe middle ground. That safe middle ground is the optional use of a liturgy, or form of public service, having the sanction of the Church. If such a book were compiled from the liturgies of Calvin, Knox, and *On the extent to which the English Liturgy is indebted to the continental Reformers, see pp. 187-200 of the work under review :—Eutazia ; or, the Presby- byterian Liturgies : Historical Sketches. By a Minister of the Presbyterian Church. New York: M. W. Dodd, Brick Church Chapel. 1855. pp. 260. 11 162 CHURCH POLITY. # of the Reformed Churches, containing appropriate prayers for ordinary public worship, for special occasions, as for times of sickness, declension, or public calamity, with forms for the administration of baptism, of the Lord’s Supper, for funerals and for marriage, we are bold to say that it would in our judgment be a very great blessing. We say such a book might be compiled ; we do not believe it could possibly be writ- ten. It may be difficult to see why it should be so; but the fact can hardly be doubted, that prayers written by individuals are, except in cases of uncommon religious exaltation, or in times of the powerful effusion of the Spirit, comparatively worthless. A prayer to suit the Church must be the product of the Church. It must be free in thought, language and feeling from everything which belongs to the individual. It must be the product, in other words, of the Holy Ghost. The only way to secure this result is either to take the prayers recorded in the Scriptures, or those which the Spirit, whose office it is to teach us how to pray, has uttered through the lips of the children of God, and which have in the process of ages, been freed from their earthly mixture, and received the sanction of those in whom the Spirit dwells. For a man to sit down and write a volume of prayers for other people to use, and especially a liturgy for the service of the Church, seems to us very much like John Wesley’s making his five volumes of sermons a creed. These two conditions being supposed, first, that the book should be compiled and not written; and secondly, that its use should be op- tional—we are strongly of opinion that if would answer a most im- portant end. The great objections to the use of liturgies are, that the authoritative imposition of them ‘is inconsistent with Christian liberty ; secondly, that they never can be made to answer all the varieties of experience and occasions; thirdly, that they tend to formality, and cannot be an adequate substitute for the warm outgoings of the heart moved by the Spirit of genuine devotion. These objections we consi- der valid against all unvarying forms authoritatively imposed. But they do not bear against the preparation and optional use of a Book of Common Prayer. The advantages which we would anticipate from the preparation of such a book, or of a return to the usage of the early Churches of the Reformation, are principally the following: In the first place, it would be a great assistance to those who are not specially favoured with the gift of prayer, and thus tend to elevate and improve this important part of public worship. We believe that ex tempore preaching, when the preacher has the requisite gifts and graces, is the best preaching in the world; without those gifts, in no ordinary measure, it is the worst. So, as we have already admitted, ex tempore prayer, when the spirit of prayer is present, is the best method of praying; better than any form PRESBYTERIAN LITURGIES. 163 prescribed by the Church, and better than any form previously pre- pared by the man himself. We have also admitted that the disposi- tion to use written forms, as a general rule, decreases in proportion to the increase of intelligence and spirituality of the Church. All this being conceded, it is nevertheless lamentably true, that the prayers are, in general, the least attractive and satisfactory part of our Church ser- vices. This may arise partly from the fact that the qualifications for this part of public worship are more rarely possessed than those requi- site for acceptable preaching. It is certain that many eminent preach- ers have been remarkably deficient in the gift of prayer. This is said to have been the case with President Davies, Robert Hall, and Dr. Chalmers. It is evident, that to pray well requires a very unusual combination of graces and gifts. It requires a devout spirit; much religious experience; such natural or acquired refinement as is suffi- cient to guard against all coarseness, irreverence, and impropriety in thought or language; such inward guidance or mental discipline as shall render the prayer well ordered and comprehensive. These gifts, alas! are not common in their combination, even among good men. Another reason for the evil in question, is that so little attention is commonly given by our ministers to previous preparation for conduct- ing this part of divine worship. They labour hard to prepare to address the people; but venture on addressing God without premedita- tion. Dr. Witherspoon says that the Rev. Dr. Gillies of Glasgow, who in his judgment exceeded any man he had ever heard in. the excel- lency of his prayers, was accustomed to devote unwearied pains to preparation for this part of his ministerial work, and for the first ten years of his pastoral life never wrote a sermon without writing a prayer appropriate to it.* This was Calvin’s habit, and many of the sermons printed in his works, have prayers annexed; an aid which Calvin found needful, and no man living need be ashamed of employing. We have assumed that as a general thing the publie prayers in our Churches do not meet the desires and exigencies of the people. We him the opportunity of correct judgment, was so sensible of this evil, that he devoted the last labours of his useful life to the preparation of a work on Public Prayer. Of the faults which he laments, he says, have felt this so often ourselves, we have heard the feeling expressed so often from all clasess, that we presume the fact will not be denied. The late venerable Dr. Miller, whose long and wide experience gave in his fourth chapter, he will mention only a few, and then enumerates no less than eighteen! Among these are the following: the frequent occurrence of set phrases: ungrammatical, or low colloquial forms of * See Dr. Miller’s “ Thoughts on Public Prayer,” p. 294. 164 CHURCH POLITY. expression; want of order; minuteness of detail; excessive length ; florid style; party or personal allusions; humorous or sarcastic ex- pressions ; turning the prayer into a sermon or exhortation; extrava- gant professions; want of appropriateness ; want of reverence, &c., &c. If such evils exist, it is a sin to disregard them. It is a sin not to la- bour to correct them. As one means of such correction, not the only one, and perhaps not the most important one, would be a collection of prayers for public worship of established character, sanctioned by long approbation of the people of God, and by the authority of the Church ; something sanctioned and not prescribed, as in the case of our Book of Psalms and Hymns. Such a book would afford models, guides, and helps which we all need. It would be something which those who felt their weakness could fall back upon, and which even the strongest would in hours of depression be glad to resortto. It has often been said that there is no more propriety in a minister’s using prayers pre- pared to his hand, than in his using sermons written by others. If he is fit to preach, he is fit to pray. There is, however, very great differ- ence between the two cases. In preaching, the minister is not the or- gan of the people, in prayer he is. They listen to his preaching, they join in his prayers. It is of great importance to their spiritual edifica- tion and comfort that there should be nothing with which they cannot sympathize, or which offends or disturbs their feelings. Ifthe preacher offends them, that is one thing, but when they themselves draw near to God, and are made to utter incoherent, wandering, or irreverent prayers, it is a very grievous aflliction. It is, however, quite as much in the celebration of the sacraments, and in the marriage and funeral services, as in public prayer, that the evils Dr. Miller complains of, are experienced. The sacraments are divine institutions intimately connected with the religious life of the Church, and inexpressibly dear to the people of God. A communion service properly conducted and blessed with the manifested presence of the Spirit of God, is like an oasis to travellers in a desert. It is not merely a season of enjoyment, but one in which the soul is sanctified and strengthened for the service of God. How often is the service marred, and the enjoyment and profit of the people hindered by the injudicious and unscriptural manner in whith it is conducted. We do not now refer to the tedious length to which it is often protracted, or to the coldness or deadness of the officiating minister, but to the inap- propriateness of the exercises. The true nature of the sacrament is lost sight of; incongruous subjects are introduced, and the communi- cant is forced either to strive not to listen to what the minister says, or to give up in despair all hope of really communing. Very often the introductory prayer is just such a prayer as might be offered in a PRESBYTERIAN LITURGIES. 165 prayer-meeting. It has no special reference to the Lord’s supper. It includes such a variety of subjects—petitions for young and old, con- verted and unconverted, for revivals, for temporal blessings—that it is absolutely impossible for the people to keep their minds on the service in which they are about to engage, and no less impossible that they should be in a proper frame of mind for it. Such a prayer is fre- quently soon followed by an address on any topic which happens to suggest itself; any truth of Scripture, or any duty, no matter whether it has any special reference to the Lord’s supper or not. Sometimes in the very midst of the service the minister undertakes to explain the or- dinance—to refute the doctrine of transubstantiation, or to establish the true doctrine concerning Christ’s presence—or, he sets forth the quali- ficaticns for acceptable communion, and calls upon the people to ex- amine themselves—or to do something else which is absolutely incon- sistent with their doing what they then and there ought to do. The service is often ended with protracted prayer, embracing all the usual variety of topics and carrying the mind far away from the proper ob- ject of attention. We know from our own experience and from the testimony of innumerable witnesses, that this is a common and a very sore evil. The people of God are defrauded of their spiritual nourish- ment. They sit down to the table of the Lord, only to have the food withdrawn or withheld, and other things offered in itsstead. This pro- duces almost a feeling of resentment. It seems such a wanton injury. It is absolutely essential to the proper and _ profitable celebration of the sacraments, first, that their true nature should be apprehended ; and-secondly, that the unity and harmony of the service should be pre- served ; that is, that nothing should be introduced into the prayers, or other portions of the service, which tends to divert the attention of the people from the one object before them. The celebration of the Lord’s Supper is an act of worship. It is an approach to God in Christ; it is a drawing near to the Son of God as the sacrifice for our sins. The soul comes with penitence, faith, gratitude, and love to the feet of Jesus, and appropriates the benefits of his death, and spiritually feeds on his ‘body and blood. To disturb this sacred communion with the Saviour, by inappropriate instructions or exhortations, is to frustrate the very design of the ordinance. It produces the same effect upon a devout mind as is produced by sermonizing prayers which render devotion impossible. It is a very mistaken zeal for our Church, which leads any man to deny or to defend these frequent blemishes in her sacred services. The Presbyterian order of worship does not need such apolo- gists. The same general remarks are in a measure applicable to the mode of celebrating marriage and of conducting funerals. Our ministers 166 CHURCH POLITY. and people feel the need of some practical directory and appropriate form for these solemn occasions, which are often rendered unimpressive and unedifying by the manner in which they are conducted. One great advantage, therefore, which we think would attend the introduction of such a book as has been described, is the improvement it would tend to produce in the conduct of public worship, and in the celebration of other religious services. There is another advantage of scarcely less importance. There are literally thousands of occasions on which public worship should be conducted and the dead buried, when no minister is at hand. In vacant Churches, destitute settlements, in the army, the navy, in merchant vessels, there is a demand for some authorized forms. For the want of a Presbyterian work of the kind intended, the English Prayer Book is used in all parts of the world. Our army and navy officers, when there is no chaplain, and when dis- posed to secure for those under their command the benefits of religious worship, no matter what their denominational connection, almost uni- versally resort to the liturgy of the English Church. That book, therefore, has gone wherever the English language is used; and it will continue to be resorted to, even by Presbyterians, until their own Church provides a book better suited to their necessities. We are not unmindful of the excellent “Manual for Sailors and Soldiers” pub- lished by our Board; but it is evident we need a work of a wider range, and one having the sanction of antiquity and Church au- thority. In the purity of our doctrine, in the scriptural character of our ecclesiastical polity, in the simplicity of our mode of worship, the Pres- byterian Church has an exalted position, and a hold on the affections of her people, which nothing can destroy. But she has suffered more than can well be estimated from those faults in the conduct of her simple services, which our most venerable ministers have so often pointed out, and from failing to supply her scattered children with those aids for religious worship which their exigencies demand. We do not desire to see anything introduced which would render our public services less simple than they are at present—but merely that means - should be taken to secure that what is done should be done well. If God would put it into the heart of some man of large experience in the pastoral life, who has dwelt long upon the mount; a man familiar with the literature of the subject, and with the high intellectual gifts the work demands, to compile a book containing prayers for public wor- ship, and forms for the administration of the sacraments, marriage and funerals, he would do the Church a great service, whether the book ever received the sanction of our ecclesiastical judicatories or not. As public attention, among Congregationalists, the Dutch Reformed, the 4 PRESBYTERIAN LITURGIES. 167 German Reformed, and Presbyterian Churches, has become more or less turned to this subject, it is hoped that something may be done which shall be for the interest of the great non-episcopal portion of the Protestant communion. It is a very common impression that any attempt to construct a Book of Common Prayer would be playing into the hands of the Epis- copalians. First, because it would imply a concession in favour of liturgies ; secondly, because no book which could now be framed, would be likely to compare favourably with the English Prayer Book ; and thirdly, because it would be impossible to give to any new book the authority and sacredness which ages have conferred upon that. We cannot believe that anything which would really improve our public service, could operate unfavourably to the interests of our Church. There would be no concession to Episcopal usages, even if Presby- terians should return to the custom of their forefathers, and introduce a liturgy into all their Churches. But this we regard as impossible and undesirable. We might as well attempt to restore the costume or the armour of the middle ages. There is a very great difference be- tween the uniform and universal use of a form of prayer, and the pre- paration of forms to serve as models, and to be employed when no minister is present. As to the second consideration above mentioned, we are not disposed to admit the unapproachable excellence of the English forms. The best parts of the English Prayer Book are de- rived from sources common to all Protestants. We believe a book could be prepared, without including anything not found in the litur- gies framed by the continental Reformers, which, as a whole, would be far superior to any prayer-book now in use. As to the want of the sacredness which belongs to antiquity, this, of course, for the time, is an unavoidable defect. The most venerable tree, however, was once a sapling. It is no good reason for not planting a tree, that it has not, and cannot have, the weight of centuries on its boughs. No man objects to founding a new college because it cannot at once be an Oxford or a Harvard. Besides, this objection would be in a measure obviated, by including in such a book nothing which had not been in the use of the Protestant Churches ever since the Reformation. Let it be remembered, that we have not advocated the introduction of a liturgy, but simply the preparation of a book which may be used as the occasion calls for it. PART IL APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. 169 CHAPTER XI. HISTORY AND INTENT OF CONSTITUTION. [*] WE shall endeavour to show, from the origin, from the constitution, and from the uniform practice of the Church, that the theory of Pres- byterianism here presented [see note] is altogether false. The leading points of the case as presented in this Review, are: 1, That the General Assembly, in order to its proper organization, must em- brace all the delegates in attendance who are furnished with the proper evidence of their appointment. 2. That the commissioners from presbyteries within the bounds of the four synods, were fully entitled to their seats as members of the Assembly. 8. That the Assembly has no authority to judge of the qualifications of its own members. The first of these positions, properly explained and limited, we have no disposi- tion to dispute. The second is the one most largely discussed. The right of the delegates from the four synods to their seats, is founded: on the assumption that certain acts of the Assembly of 1837, are nugatory. In proof of the invalidity of those acts, the reviewer argues that they are inconsistent with the principles of Presbyterianism ; that they rest upon a false basis; and that they are void from uncertainty. In carrying out the first of these arguments, he lays down a new theory of Presbyterianism ; the leading features of which are, 1. That our several judicatories are merely courts and advisory councils. 2. That “as to their ex- istence and action they are entirely independent of each other.” ‘ One judicatory has no power over another,’ and one has no right to try or condemn another. 8. The synods and the General Assembly “are merely appellate courts and ad- visory councils. 4, The General Assembly has no constitutional power to abolish or dissolve a synod; nor asynod a presbytery; nor a presbytery a session, 5. Though certain acts of an inferior court may be reviewed in a higher one, yet if a presbytery recognize a church; or a synod form « presbytery; or the Gen- eral Assembly erect a synod, the act is forever valid. * 2K * * * * * * * 1. What then was the origin and history of our present constitution ? It will be remembered that at the period to which it is so common to refer, as the birth-day of the great principles of civil and religious liberty, a convention of divines assembled at Westminster, who, after long de- liberation, prepared and published a Confession of Faith and a Direc- [# Article reviewing “ Review of the Leading Measures of the Assembly of 1837, by a Member of the New York Bar;” Princeton Review, 1838, p. 463.] 171 172 CHURCH POLITY. : tory for Worship, Government, and Discipline. This Confession and this Directory were adopted by the Church of Scotland, and have ever since continued in authority in that Church. Under that constitution, the General Assembly of that Church has always acted as its par- liament; exercising legislative, as well as judicial powers; making rules binding on synods, presbyteries, and churches, restrained by nothing but the word of God, the laws of the land, and its own written constitution. This fact is too notorious to need proof.* A greater absurdity could not be put into words, than the assertion that in Scot- land, the General Assembly is “a mere appellate court and advisory council.” That American Presbyterianism was originally the same with that of Scotland is proved by two incontestible facts; first, that our Church adopted identically the same constitution as the Church of Scotland ; and secondly, that under that constitution, our highest judi- catory claimed and exercised the same powers with the Scottish Gen- eral Assembly. The Presbytery of Philadelphia was formed about 1704; in 1716, there were four presbyteries who erected themselves into a Synod. In 1729, this Synod passed what is called the “ Adopting Act,” by which the Westminster Confession of Faith was declared to be the confession of the faith of the Presbyterian Church. Various causes led to a schism in this body, in the year 1741, when two synods, one of New York, the other of Philadelphia, were formed. They continued separated until 1758. When a re-union was effected, they came to- gether upon definite terms, both as to doctrine and discipline. The first article of the terms of union is as follows. ‘ Both synods, having * See Hitz’s Instirures, pp. 229-241. This writer, who is the stanaard au- thority on the constitution of the Church of Scotland, describes the powers of the General Assembly as judicial, legislative, and executive, and says, p. 240, “In the exercise of these powers, the General Assembly often issues peremptory mandates, summoning individuals and inferior courts to appear at its bar. It sends precise order to particular judicatories, directing, assisting, or restraining them in the ex- ercise of their functions, and its superintending, controlling authority maintains soundness of doctrine, checks irregularity, and enforces the observance of general laws throughout all districts of the Church.” + It is not necessary to enter into the controversy regarding this Act; as the dispute relates to doctrinal matters. We think it evident from various sources that the grand reason for qualifying the assent given to the Confession of Faith, was the doctrine which it then taught concerning civil magistrates. In 1786 “The Synod of New York and Philadelphia” declare that they “adopt, according to the known and established meaning of the terms, the Westminster Confession of Faith as the confession of their faith; save that every candidate for the gospel ministry is permitted to except against so much of the twenty-third chapter as gives authority to the civil magistrate in matters of religion.” This solitary ex- ception is certainly very significant. See Digest, p. 119.—[ Digest of 1873, p. 50.] HISTORY AND INTENT OF CONSTITUTION. 173 always approved and received the Westminster Confession of Faith, larger and shorter Catechisms, as an orthodox and excellent system of Christian doctrine, founded upon the word of God; we do still receive the same, as the confession of our faith, and also the Plan of Worship, Government, and Discipline, contained in the Westminster Directory ; strictly enjoining it on all our members and probationers for the minis- try that they preach and teach according to the Form of sound words in the said Confession and Catechism, and avoid and oppose all errors contrary thereto.” In another article it was declared that no minister was to be licensed or ordained, unless he “ promise subjection to the Presbyterian Plan of Government in the Westminster Directory.” Digest, p. 118. [Digest of 1873, p. 49.] Here is the first formal con- stitution of American Presbyterians, as a united body. This constitu- tion, both as to faith and government, was precisely the same with that of the Church of Scotland. Has American Presbyterianism entirely lost its original character? Has the infusion of Congregationalism affected not only the principles of our members, but the essential fea- tures of our system? Do we live under an entirely different form of government, from that which was so solemnly adopted by our fathers? If this be so, if a revolution so radical has taken place, it can be, and it must be clearly demonstrated. This is not a matter to be asserted, or assumed. We shall proceed to prove that no such change has taken place. ‘ The constitution, ratified at the time of the union of the two synods in 1758, continued in force about thirty years. In 1785, on motion, it was ordered, that Dr. Witherspoon, Dr. Rodgers, Mr. Robert Smith, Dr. Allison, Dr. Smith, Mr. Woodhull, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Latta, and Mr. Duffield, * with the moderator, be a committee to take into con- sideration the constitution of the Church of Scotland and other Pro- testant countries, and agreeably to the general principles of Presby- terian government, compile a system of general rules for the government of the Synod, and the several presbyteries under their inspection, and the people in their communion, and to make report of their proceedings therein at the next meeting of Synod. In 1786, it was resolved, That the book of discipline and government be re-committed to a committee, who shall have powers to digest such a system as they shall think accommodated to the state of the Pres- byterian Church in America—and every presbytery is hereby required to report in writing to the Synod, at their next meeting, their observa- * We believe all these gentlemen were Scotch or Irish, either by birth, or im- mediate descent. Certainly they were not men to change Presbyterianism all of a sudden into Congregationalism. 174 CHURCH POLITY. tions on the said book of government and discipline. Dr. Witherspoon was the chairman of this committee also. In 1787, the Synod having gone through the consideration of the plan of government and discipline presented by the committee appointed the preceding year, ordered a thousand copies to be printed and sent down to the presbyteries for their consideration, and the consideration of the churches under their care. Finally, in 1788, “The Synod having fully considered the draught of the Form of Government and Discipline, did, on the review of the whole, and hereby do, ratify and adopt the same, as now altered and amended, as the ConsTITUTION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN America; and order the same to be considered and strictly observed, as the rule of their proceedings, by all the inferior judicatories, belong- ing to this body. “ Resolved, That the true intent and meaning of the above ratifica- tion by the Synod is, that the Form of Government and Discipline and Confession of Faith, as now ratified, is to continue to be our constitu- tion, and the confession of our faith and practice unalterably, unless two-thirds of the presbyteries under the care of the General Assembly shall propose alterations or amendments, and such alterations or amend- ments, shall be agreed to and enacted by the General Assembly.” Di- gest, p. 117, &c., LDigest of 1873, p. 51]. ‘We may commend, in passing, this minute to the special attention of those who are so fond of appealing to the liberal Presbyterianism of our fathers.. Here we see the Synod, not merely making laws, but forming a CONSTITUTION by their own authority, and ordering all inferior judi- catories to make it the rule by which to govern their proceedings. This constitution was not submitted to the presbyteries, except for their obser- vations, exactly as it was submitted to the churches. Neither acted with any authority in the matter; it was formed and ratified by the Synod. * * * * * * * * And this is not all; this constitution was fixed UNALTERABLY, unless two-thirds of the presbyteries should propose alterations; and even then they could only propose; the alterations were to be ENACTED by the General Assembly, then just determined upon. Here, then, at the very birth of American Presbyterianism, we have the highest toned Scottish doctrine, of which the history of the parent Church can furnish an ex- ample. What higher exercise of ecclesiastical authority can there be, than the formation of a constitution ? * * * * * * * * ‘ The first American constitution of the Presbyterian Church was form- ed, as already stated, in 1788. The only general principle in which it differed from that of the Church of Scotland, was the denial of the right of civil magistrates to interfere in matters of religion. Accordingly .HISTORY AND INTENT OF CONSTITUTION. 175 those portions of the Confession of Faith which assert magistrates to have this right were altered; and in the answer to the question in the Larger Catechism, What is forbidden in the Second Commandment? the clause, “tolerating a false religion” was stricken out. The two leading points of difference as to government between our system and the Scottish are; first, that we have no body analogous to the “ Com- mission of the General Assembly,” which continues to meet, at certain times, after the adjournment of the Assembly, and exercises all its powers, subject, however, to the review of the next General Asssmbly. Originally this feature belonged to our system. In 1774, a minute was adopted by a large majority of the Synod, declaring the powers of such a commission, in order to remove the doubts which had prevailed on this subject. In this minute it is said: The Synod “do determine that the commission shall continue, and meet whensoever called by the mod- erator, at the request of the first nine on the roll of the commission, or the major part of the first nine ministers, and when met, that it shall be invested with all the powers of the Synod; and sit by their own ad- journments from time to time; and let it also be duly attended to that there can lie no appeal from the judgment of the commission, as there can be none from the judgment of the Synod; but there may be a re- view of their proceedings and judgments by the Synod,” &c. Digest, p. 45. Thus thorough-going was the conformity of American Presby- terianism in its origin to the Scottish model. This provision was not adopted in the new constitution. A second source of difference consists in the close relation which exists in Scotland between the Church and state. This has very materially modified their system. There are also various differences as to matters of detail. The ratio of representation of ministers and elders in the General Assembly is not equal, as it is with us; the universities and certain royal burghs send delegates, either ministers or elders; and ministers without charges, with a few excep- tions, are not allowed to sit in presbytery. There is also considerable difference in practice between the two churches. The General Assem- bly here has not been accustomed, especially of late years, to interfere so much with the proceedings of the lower courts. As to all general principles and arrangements, however, the constitution of 1788 con- formed to that which we had derived from Scotland. There are the sare courts; the same subordination of the lower to the higher judica- tories; and the same general statement of their respective powers and privileges. . The constitution of 1788, which was, in all its essential features, the same as that which had been previously in force, remained almost with- out alteration until the year 1804. In that year a committee appointed for the purpose, proposed a number of amendments, which they say in 176 CHURCH POLITY. their report, “are of such a nature, that if the whole of them should be adopted, they would not alter, but only explain, render more practica- ble, and bring nearer to perfection, the general system which has al- ready gone into use.” These amendments received the sanction of a majority of the presbyteries, and may be seen in pages 56 and 57 of the printed Minutes for that year. Most of them are merely verbal correc- rections, and not one makes the least alteration in any one general prin- ciple of our system. The revision of the constitution made in 1821, resulted. in very nu- merous alterations. These, however, related either to mere phraseology, or to matters of form and detail; or were explanatory of preceding rules; or consisted of additional directions as to forms of process. There-was no alteration designed or effected in the relation of our sev- eral courts to each other, or in their general powers——Though we do not believe that there was any intention to enlarge the power of any of the judicatories, yet it so happens that the changes made, so far as they have any significancy, tend to increase the authority of the higher courts. Thus in the section on the power of synods, which state that they have authority to take such order respecting presbyteries, sessions, and people under their care, as may be in conformity with the word of God, the clause “and not contradictory to the decisions of the General Assembly” is stricken out, and the words “the established rules” put in its place. This alteration isan obvious improvement, as it is much more definite and intelligible, since the decisions of the Assembly may not have been uniform or consistent. And again, in the section on the powers of the Assembly, the comprehensive clause, (the power) “ of su- perintending the concerns of the whole Church” is inserted. We are giving ourselves, however, a great deal of unnecessary trouble in proving a negative. Let those who assert that Presbyterianism has, in this country, been completely emasculated, show when, how, and by whom it was done. Let them point out the process by which one form of government, known of all men as to its essential features, was trans- muted into another. This pamphlet does not contain a shadow of such proof, either from the constitution, history, or practice of the Church. It is all bald assertion; assertion unrestricted by any knowledge of the subject, or by any modesty on the part of the writer. The reference made on p. 11 to our constitution, calls for no modification of the above remark ; for the passage which is there imperfectly quoted has no rela- tion to the point which it is cited to prove. We are told that, “The church session and presbytery alone have original jurisdiction. The synods and Assembly are merely courts of review,—appellate courts. They have none of them legislative powers. ‘ All Church power,’ says the constitution, ‘is only ministerial and declarative. The Holy Scrip- HISTORY AND INTENT OF CONSTITUTION. 177 tures are the only rule of faith and manners. No Church judicatory ought to pretend to make Jaws. The right of judging upon laws al- ready made must be lodged with fallible men, and synods and councils may err, yet there is more danger from the usurped claim of making laws.’ I am thus particular upon this point,” adds the writer, “ because the ‘usurped claim of making laws’ was actually set up, and these pro- ceedings (of the Assembly of 1837) justified as legislative acts.” We are far from supposing that the above passage from the constitution, printed as a continuous quotation, was garbled and patched with a design to deceive; but the fact is, that it is so garbled as to make the constitution assert the very reverse of what its authors intended, and what from their lips would be the height of absurdity. The passage stands thus in the introductory chapter, § 7. “That all Church power, whether exercised by the body in general, or in the way of representa- tion by delegated authority, is only ministerial and declarative: That is to say, that the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and man- ners; that no Church judicatory ought to pretend to make laws, to bind the conscience in virtue of their own authority; and that all their de- cisions should be founded upon the revealed will of God. Now though it will be easily admitted that all synods and councils may err, through the frailty inseparable from humanity; yet there is much greater danger from the usurped claim of making laws, than from the right of judging upon laws already made, and common to all who profess the gospel; although this right, as necessity requires in the present state, be lodged with fallible men.” What is the power which is here denied ? and to whom is it denied? It is the power “ to make laws to bind the conscience” in virtue of human authority. Why? Because the Scrip- tures are the only rule of faith and manners. The framers of our con- stitution meant to deny the claim set up by the Romish, and some other Churches, to legislate authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. The power of the Church, in such matters, is merely ministe- rial and declarative. She may declare what, according to the word of God, truth and duty are; but she cannot make any thing a matter of duty, which is not enjoined in theScriptures. The laws of which they speak are “ common to all those who profess the gospel ;” such laws the Church can neither make nor repeal, she can only declare and adminis- ter. This power is denied not merely to our judicatories, but to the Church as a body. According to this writer, however, the power de- nied, is that of making laws of any kind. To sustain this assertion the proposition is made general ; “ No Church judicatory ought to pretend to make laws;” leaving out the restrictive clause “to bind the conscien- ces in virtue of their own authority ;” thus perverting the whole para- graph from its obvious meaning and design. This introductory chapter 12 178 CHURCH POLITY. to the Form of Government was prefixed to it in 1788, where it has stood ever since. We wonder that the absurdity did not occur to the writer, or to his clerical endorsers, of making a set of sane men gravely deny to the Church collectively, and to all of its judicatories, all legis- lative authority, while they were in the very act of ordaining a code of laws for the government of the Church. Is not our constitution a set of laws? Was it not enacted by the Church judicatories? Have they not the power to repeal, or modify it at pleasure? Yet they have no legislative authority! This is the kind of reasoning which we are called upon to answer. Haying shown that our Church at first adopted identically the same formulas of faith and government as the Church of Scotland; and that the successive modifications of the constitution in 1788, 1804, and 1821, left the essential principles of the system unchanged, we might dismiss this part of the subject entirely. But it is so important, and the ignorance respecting it, as it would seem, is so great and general, that we will proceed to the other sources of proof, and demonstrate from the constitution as it now stands, and from the uniform practice of the Church, the utter unsoundness of this new theory of Presbyte- rianism. This theory is, that our judicatories have no legislative power; that they are severally independent of each other, as to their existence and action; and that the higher courts are merely appellate courts and advisory councils. In the 31st chap. of the Confession of Faith, sect. 2, it is said, “Iv BELONGETH to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of mal]-administration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his word.”* It is here taught, as plain as language can speak, that synods and councils have power to set down rules for the government of the Church, which, if consonant to the word of God,.are to be received with reverence and submission out of respect to the authority by which they are made. With regard to matters of faith and conscience their power is ministe- rial; with regard to matters of discipline and government it is legisla- * The proof passage cited in the margin is Acts 16: 4. “And as they went through the cities they delivered unto them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained by the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.” HISTORY AND INTENT OF CONSTITUTION. 179 tive. “To set down rules” is to make laws, as we presume no one will deny. Let it be considered that this is not a passing declaration. It is an article of faith found in the Westminster Confession, which our Church has always adopted as the confession of her faith; and to which every Presbyterian minister and elder has subscribed. This is the faith of the Church as to the authority of synods. Yet we are told in the very face of this first principle of our system, that synods or councils have no legislative power; that they cannot “set down rules” for the government of the Church; that their only power is judicial or advisory ! This power of the Church resides, according to our Confession, in synods or councils, and is inherent in them. This is not indeed a pe- culiarity of our Church ; it is, with the exception of the comparatively small body of Congregationalists, the faith of the Christian world, and always has been. Provincial, national, and ecumenical synods have always claimed and exercised the right of making canons, or ecclesias- tical laws, obligatory on all within their jurisdiction. In our system we have councils of various kinds, the Session, Presbytery, Synod, and General Assembly, and they all, in virtue of their very nature, as councils, have this authority, limited in all cases by the word of God, and restricted by the peculiarities of our constitution. A Session is a parochial or congregational council charged with “ the spiritual government” of a particular church. They may make what rules they see fit for the government of the congregation, not inconsist- ent with the constitution. This power they exercise every day ; making rules about the admission of members, and other matters; which are nowhere prescribed in the constitution, and which are probably not al- ways consistent with it. The next highest council is the Presbytery. It has charge of the government of the churches within a certain district. It makes rules binding on them; as for example, forbiding a congregation to call or to dismiss a pastor without its consent. This power is not derived from the constitution. It existed when there was but one presbytery; and would exist if all the presbyteries were independent of each other. To them it belongs to license, ordain, install, remove and judge ministers. So far from deriving this power from the constitution, it is thereby greatly restricted. They cannot license and ordain whom they please, but those only who have certain prescribed qualifications. The Synod is in fact a larger presbytery, and would have precisely the same authority, did not the constitution, for the sake of convenience make a distinction of powers between it and the presbyteries, A synod is not called to exercise the power of licensing, ordaining, &c. &c., be- cause this power can better be exercised by smaller councils. It has 180 CHURCH POLITY. jurisdiction not only as an appellate court, but as a court of review and control, It can order the presbyteries to produce their records; it can “redress whatever has been done by presbyteries contrary to order; and take effectual care that presbyteries observe the constitution of the Church . . . and generally take such order with respect to the pres- byteries, sessions and people under their care, as may be in conformity with the word of God and the established rules, and which tend to pro- mote the edification of the Church.” Chap. 11. § 4. The General Assembly is the highest judicatory of the Presbyterian Church, and “ represents, in one body, all the particular churches of this denomination.” To it belongs, therefore, the power which the Confession of Faith ascribes to all synods, restricted by the provisions of the constitution. It can make no regulation infringing on the privi- leges of the lower courts; nor can it in any way alter or add to the code of constitutional rules. But its power as the supreme court of appeals, review and control continues. It is charged with “ superin- tending the concerns of the whole Church,” and with “suppressing schismatical contentions and disputations.” See chap. 12. “It may send missions to any part to plant churches, or to supply vacancies; and, for this purpose, may direct any presbytery to ordain evangelists, or ministers, without relation to particular churches.” Chap. 18. This would be strange language in reference to a mere advisory council! The power, here recognised as belonging to the General Assembly, will appear to be the greater, if we remember that the ordi- nation of any minister sine titulo was considered as hardly consistent with presbyterial principles; and that the presbyteries were very adverse to admit it. Yet the Assembly is acknowledged to have the power to direct them to do it. In exercising the right of supervision and control, the higher courts, depend, in general, on the regular means of information which they possess in the review of the records of the inferior judicatories, and in the exercise by those aggrieved of the right of appeal, reference and complaint. In case, however, of neglect, unfaithfulness, or irregularity | of a lower court, a higher one has the right, when well advised of the existence of these evils, “to take cognizance of the same; and to ex- amine, deliberate and judge in the whole matter, as completely as if it had been recorded, and thus brought up by the review of records.”* That is, it is incumbent on them, as the constitution expresses it, to take effectual care that the lower judicatories observe the constitution of the Church. Such is Presbyterianism as laid down in our Confession of Faith and Form of Government. Such it was in the days of our fathers, and * Book II. chap. 7. 2 1. par. 5 HISTORY AND INTENT OF CONSTITUTION. 181 such we trust it will long continue to be. We shall now proceed to adduce some small portion of the overwhelming evidence with which our records abound, that this has always been the interpretation put upon our system of government; and that this modern theory of mere appellate jurisdiction and advisory power is unsustained by the prac- tice, as it is by the standards of the Church. No one can open the records of the proceedings either of the old Synod, or of the General Assembly, without being struck with the fact that the phraseology adopted is inconsistent with the idea that those bodies claimed merely advisory powers. It is competent to a body having authority to command, to recommend or advise; but it is not competent to a body having power only to give advice, to “ direct,” “order,” or “enjoin.” Yet such language is used from the beginning to the end of our records. These orders relate to all manner of sub- jects, and are given not only when the higher judicatory acted as a court of reference or appeals, but also in its character of the superin- tending and governing body. It is not worth while, however, to adduce evidence of this kind, because this phraseology will be found incorporated in passages cited for a more important purpose; and because it is so settled that we find even the New School Assembly, at their late meeting, resolving, 1. “That presbyteries are hereby RE- QUIRED to cause each church and congregation under their care and jurisdiction to make an annual contribution to the contingent fund of the General Assembly. 2, That the presbyteries are ENJOINED to send a copy of the above preamble and resolution to the several churches under their care, &c.” This is certainly strange language in which to convey advice. : The examples we shall cite of the exercise of authority on the part of the higher judicatories, do not admit of being arranged under dis- tinct heads. The same example will often prove all the several points in dispute; the legislative power of Church courts ; the authority of the higher over the lower ; and the right of the supreme judicatory to take effectual care that the constitution be observed in all parts of the Church. In 1758, by a joint act at the time of their union, the old synods of Philadelphia and New York, ordered “That no presbytery shall li- cense or ordain to the work of the ministry any candidate, until he give them competent satisfaction as to his learning, and experimental ac- quaintance with religion, and skill in divinity and cases of conscience, and declare his acceptance of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and Catechisms, as the confession of his faith, and promise subjection to the Presbyterian plan of government in the Westminster Directory,” Digest p. 119. (Digest, of 1873, p. 49.] As this resolution, which was one 182 CHURCH POLITY. of the terms of union between the two synods, was adopted first by one synod and then by the other; and then unanimously by the two united, there could hardly have been a man in the Church who denied the leg- islative and.controlling power of the higher courts. In 1764, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia “ established a rule,” giving particular directions to the presbyteries, with regard to candidates for the ministry; in 1792, the Assembly confirmed it, by enjoining, “in the most pointed manner, on the Synod of Philadelphia, to give particular attention that no presbytery under their care depart, in any respect, from that rule of the former Synod of New York and Philadelphia, which is,” &c. Then follows the rule, p. 63. In the same year the old Synod adopted another rule, which we com- mend to the attention of those who long for the Presbyterianism of for- mer times: “Though the Synod entertain a high regard for the Associ- ated Churches of New England, yet we cannot but judge, that students who go to them, or to any other than our own presbyteries, to obtain license, in order to return and officiate among us, act very irregularly and are not to be approved or employed by our presbyteries ; as hereby we are deprived of the right of trying and approving of the qualifica- tions of our own candidates; yet if any cases shall happen, where such conduct may be thought necessary for the greater good of any congre- gation, it shall be laid before the presbytery to which the congregation belongs, and approved by them.” p. 65. In 1764, the old Synod also adopted a rule for the government of Presbyteries in the reception of foreign ministers and licentiates. This rule was explained in 1765; and in 1774 they adopted a set of regula- tions which were unanimously approved. The following is an extract: “Tn order more effectually to preserve this Synod, our presbyteries and congregations from imposition and abuse, every year, when any pres- bytery may report that they have received any minister or probationer from a foreign Church, that presbytery shall lay before the Synod the testimonials and other certificates, upon which they received such minister or probationer, for the satisfaction of the Synod, before such minister or probationer shall be considered as a member of our body. And if the Synod shall find such testimonials false or insufficient, the whole proceedings held by the presbytery on the admission shall be held to be void; and the presbytery shall not, from that time, receive or ac- knowledge him as a member of this body, or as in ministerial commu- nion with us,” p. 286. Let it be observed that these regulations were unanimously approved ; and yet what power do they suppose the Synod to possess over the presbyteries; denying to the lower courts the right of judging for themselves whether a member was qualified or not; and HISTORY AND INTENT OF CONSTITUTION. 183 pronouncing their decision void ab initio, if it should meet the approba- tion of the higher court. * * * * * * * * In 1794, at the request of the Synod of Philadelphia, the Assembly divided the Presbytery of Carlisle ; in 1802 the Presbytery of Albany requested to be divided, which request the Assembly granted (see pp. 55, 57); and in 1805 the Assembly divided the Presbytery of Oneida, constituting the one portion into the Presbytery*of Geneva, and the other into the Presbytery of Oneida, directing them where to hold their first meeting, &c. See Minutes, vol. II. p. 82. We do not pretend to give more than specimens of the jurisdiction and power unhesitatingly exercised by the Assembly in former days. * * * * * * * * In 1795, a request was overtured that the synods of Virginia and the Carolinas have liberty to direct their presbyteries to ordain such candi- dates as they may judge necessary to appoint on missions to preach the gospel; whereupon, “Resolved, That the above request be granted. The synods being careful to restrict the permission to the ordination of such candidates only as are engaged to be sent on missions,” p. 48. In 1798, the Synod of the Carolinas presented to the Assembly cer- tain references and inquiries relating to a creed published by the Rev. H. B.; which were referred to a committee, of which Dr. M’Whorter, of Newark, was chairman. This commitiee made a report, stating that Mr. B. is erroneous “in making disinterested benevolence the only defi- nition of holiness,” and that he “has confounded self-love with selfishness.” On the third article the committee remark, “ that the transfer of personal sin or righteousness has never been held by any Calvinistic divines, nor by any person in our Church as far as is known to us; and therefore that Mr. B.’s observations on this subject appear to be either nugatory or calculated to mislead.” They condemn, however, his doctrine of original sin, as “in effect setting aside the idea of Adam’s being the federal head or representative of his descendants, and the whole doctrine of the covenant of works.’ They say also, “that Mr. B. is greatly erroneous in asserting that the formal cause of a believer’s justification is the imputation of the fruits or effects of Christ’s righteousness, and not that righteousness itself.” These are the principal errors specified. The committee recommend, “that Mr. B. be required to acknowledge before the Assembly that he was wrong in publishing his creed; that in the particulars specified above, he re- nounce the errors therein pointed out; that he engage to teach noth- ing hereafter of a similar nature, &c. &c.; and that if Mr. B. submit to this he be considered in good standing with the Church.” This re- 5 184 CHURCH POLITY. port was adopted,* and Mr. B. having been called before the Assem- bly, and allowed time for consideration, made a declaration containing the required acknowledgments, retractions, and engagements, and was then pronounced in good standing. Digest, pp. 129—134, [Digest of 1873, pp. 220—222. J This case is cited as an illustration of the kind of supervision for- merly exercised by our supreme judicatory. On the mere reference by a lower court, in relation to a certain publication, itis taken up and ex- amined, certain erroneous propositions extracted, and the author imme- diately called up and required to retract them on the penalty of being turned out of the Church. * * ok * * * * o* In 1799, a committee presented a report containing sundry recom- mendations and injunctions respecting the qualifications of candidates for the ministry; the support of ministers; contributions to missions, &c. This report being read it was resolved, “That it be approved and adopted; and ordered that the several synods, presbyteries, and indi- vidual churches, as far as they are respectively concerned, govern themselves accordingly.” p. 81. The Presbytery of Cumberland having “licensed and ordained a number of persons not possessing the qualifications required by our book of discipline, and without explicit adoption of the Confession of Faith,” it was for these and other irregularities dissolved by the Synod of Kentucky, and the irregularly ordained ministers suspended with- out process. When these facts came up before the Assembly, on a re- view of the records of the synod, the Assembly addressed that judica- tory a letter, in which their zeal and decision were commended, but the opinion expressed that the suspension of ordained ministers with- out process, was “at least of doubtful regularity.” This letter was written in 1807. We find no mention of this case in 1808, either in the Digest or in the printed Minutes for that year. But in 1809 there is a record to this effect: “That the Assembly took into consideration a letter from the Synod of Kentucky; and having carefully reviewed * Two members only dissented, of whom one was Mr. Langdon, a delegate from the General Association of Connecticut. This record is in many points of view instructive. We see that doctrines, which are taught in our day with per- fect impunity, were formerly regarded as entirely inconsistent with a good stand- ing in the Church. It is foreign from our present purpose, but we should be glad to have an opportunity at some future time, to produce some of the evidence with which our history abounds, that our Church was for a long series of years more strict in demanding conformity to our doctrinal standards than it is now ; and that as it became lax in matters of government, it became part passu lax in doctrine. HISTORY AND INTENT OF CONSTITUTION. 185 the same, and also having read another letter from their records, which by accident was detained from the last Assembly,” d&c., they declared themselves “perfectly satisfied with the conduct of the synod; and thank them for their firmness and zeal.” p.140. Here then is a sy- nod receiving thanks for dissolving a presbytery, which, according to the new theory of Presbyterianism, was entirely independent of it, and for exercising the right of suspending, instanter, ministers irregularly ordained. In 1809, the Assembly resolved, “That it be again solemnly en- joined on all presbyteries and synods within the bounds of the Gene- ral Assembly, on no account to interfere with the instructions given by the Committee of Missions to missionaries.” p. 50. What a control- ling superintendence and authority is assumed in this resolution! In 1809 the Assembly resolved “That it be and is hereby required of all presbyteries within the bounds of the General Assembly, annu- ally to call up and examine the sessional records of the several churches under their care, as directed in the book of discipline.” In the following year “the presbyteries were called upon to report what attention they had severally paid to the order of the General Assembly in relation to sessional records. Upon inquiry it appeared that the presbyteries had almost universally complied with the order.” A com- mittee was appointed to consider this subject, who brought in a report, which was read and adopted, and is as follows: “The Assembly, after seriously reviewing the order of the last Assembly, can by no means rescind the said order; inasmuch as they consider it as founded on the constitution of the Church, and as properly resulting from the obliga- tion on the highest judicatory of the Church, to see that the constitution be duly regarded, yet as it is alleged that insisting on the rigid execu- tion of this order with respect to some church sessions would not be for edification, the Assembly are by no means disposed to urge any presby- tery to proceed under this order beyond what they may consider pru- dent and useful.” p. 73. It is here taken for granted, and appealed to as a justification for a particular act, that the obligation rests on the highest judicatory of the Church “to see that the constitution be duly regarded.” In 1810, the Presbytery of Hartford requested leave to ordain Mr. Robert Sample sine titulo, whereupon the Assembly resolved ‘That said presbytery be permitted to ordain Mr. Sample, if they judge it expedient.” Page 214 of the Digest contains this record. “The following ex- tract from the minutes of the Presbytery of Oneida was overtured, viz.: ‘Ordered that our commissioners to the next General Assembly be instructed to request the Assembly (riswm teneatis amict) to permit this 186 CHURCH POLITY. presbytery to manage their own missionary concerns.’” Was this humble request granted? Not at all. The presbytery was referred to the Board of Missions! This was so recently as 1818, and ‘proves how much of the old spirit of Presbyterianism was still alive in the Church, * * * * * * x * * ox So rapidly and so completely has the spirit of our Church changed, that we do not believe there is now a presbytery in our land, which would not consider itself insulted by a proposal that they should request permission to manage their own missionary concerns. The whole history of this subject of missions is full of instruction as to the relation in which the Assembly was regarded as standing to the Church. That judicatory, for a long time, appointed the missionaries by name, assigned them their field of labor; if” they were pastors, the Assembly either appointed supplies for their pulpits, during their tour of duty, directing such a minister’ to preach on such a Sabbath, or they directed the presbytery to make the requisite appointments for this purpose.* In short they exercised without let or contradiction, a su- perintending control of the whole Church, ordering synods, presbyte- ries and individual ministers as familiarly as any presbytery ever does its own members. * * * * * * * * The power of the Assembly to make rules for the government of the Church, is assumed, in the clearest manner, in that section which for- bids their making “constitutional rules” without the consent of the presbyteries. That section, in the old book, is labeled “ Restriction of the power of the Assembly.” Why restrict the exercise of a power which does not exist? Why say the Assembly shall not make a par- ticular class of rules, if it can make no rules at all? There is however an authoritative exposition of the meaning of this section which estab- lishes the legislative power of the Assembly beyond dispute. In 1798 the General Assembly adopted certain “regulations intended to em- brace and extend the existing rules, respecting the reception of foreign * See, for example, pp. 132, 183 of vol. II. of the Minutes. “Resolved, That Rev. John H. Rice spend two months as a missionary, &c. That Rev. John Lyle serve two months, &c. That the Presbytery of New York be authorized to employ a missionary to be paid out of the funds of the Assembly. That the Presbytery of Geneva take measures for appointing supplies for Mr. Chapman’s pulpit. That Mr. Alexander, Mr. Todd, and Mr. John H. Rice, be a committee to appoint supplies for Mr. Rice’s pulpit,” &c. &c. &. And on p. 16, “Re- solved, That the following ministers be appointed, and they hereby are appoin- ted, to supply the pulpits of Dr. Read and Mr. Arthur during their missionary tour—Mr. Collins first Sabbath, Mr. Latta the second,” &c. &, HISTORY AND INTENT OF CONSTITUTION. 187 ministers and licentiates.” These regulations* effectually control the action of the presbyteries, forbidding them to receive any foreign minister or probationer “on a mere certificate of good standing ;” pre- scribing the kind of trials to which he shall be subjected; directing that he should be received in the first instance, only on probation, and not be allowed to vote in any judicatory, or accept of any call for settlement; requiring this probation to continue for at least one year; directing the presbytery then to take up the case, renew the examina- tion, and determine “to receive him, to reject him, or to hold him under further probation.” In case the applicant was received, the presbytery was to report the case with all the evidence to the synod or General Assembly, who were “to come toa final judgment, either to receive him into the Presbyterian body agreeably to his standing, or to reject him,” notwithstanding his reception by the presbytery. Here then is the exercise of legislative authority over the whole Church; here is control of presbyteries as to the exercise of their own rights; here is an instance of the way in which the supreme judicatory felt authorized to take care that the constitution should be observed in all parts of the Church. Was this exercise of power sustained ? We shall see, In the following year, that is, in 1799, the Presbytery of New York objected to these regulations, and requested the General Assem- bly to rescind them. This request was refused. The principal objec- tion urged against them by the presbytery was, that the constitution provides that before any standing rules should be obligatory on the churches, they must be submitted to the presbyteries. To this the Assembly answered ; that “standing rules,” in the sense of the Book, were “articles of the constitution, which when once established are un- alterable by the Assembly.” Such rules the Assembly cannot make. But to say that it cannot make of its own authority any rules binding on the churches, “would be to reduce this Assembly to a mere com- mittee to prepare business upon which the presbyteries might act. It would undo, with few exceptions, all the rules that have been estab- lished by this Assembly since its first institution... ... Besides stand- ing rules, in the evident sense of the constitution, cannot be predicated of any act made by the Assembly, and repealable by it, because they are limited from their very nature to the duration of a year, if it please the Assembly to exert the power inherent in it at all times to alter or annul them, and they continue to be rules only by the Assem- bly’s not using its power of repeal.” In order to prevent all doubt on this subject in future, the Assembly proposed to the presbyteries this article of the constitution for “their interpretation,” and advised them to strike out the word standing and to insert the word constitutional. * See printed Minutes for 1798. 188 CHURCH POLITY. This alteration the presbyteries accordingly. made; and the expres- sion “constitutional rules” remains to this day.* Can there be a clearer proof than this of the legislative authority of the Assembly, or of its official acknowledgment by the presbyteries? Let it be remem- bered that this was no new claim on the part of the Assembly of 1798. The same power had been always claimed and exercised by the old Synod and by the General Assembly from its first institution. It is time, however, to bring these citations to an end. We should have to transcribe the records of the Church bodily, if we were to exhi- bit all the evidence which they contain on this subject. The origin, the constitution, the uniform practice of our Church, therefore, prove that our judicatories are not independent of each other; that the high- er bodies are not mere courts of appeal and advisory councils; but that it belongs to them to set down rules for the government of the Church, which, if consonant with the word of God, and our written constitution, are to be received with reverence and submission out of regard to the authority of these courts. It is their duty to take effec- tual care that the constitution is observed in all parts of the Church. The doctrines of this pamphlet are not only inconsistent with the origin, constitution and practice of the Church, they are moreover absolutely destructive of its character. According to the constitution, the General Assembly is the bond of union and confidence between all the churches. It makes us one denomination. It is such a bond, by enabling the whole Church, of which it is the representative, to take effectual care that the constitution, as to doctrine and order, is ob- served within all our bounds. But according to the new theory, we are not one denomination; we are an aggregate of a number of inde- pendent presbyteries. “If a presbytery license, ordain, or receive a minister, or organize or acknowledge a church, * * * * the act must be forever valid, however ill-advised or censurable it may be.” p. 9.+ The whole Church then is completely at the mercy of one presbytery. * See Digest, p. 285—290. [Digest of 1873, pp. 325, 326]. t+ Wesee on p. 29 of this Review a reference to a decision of the General Assem- bly in 1816, in support of this doctrine. The Presbytery of Geneva having im- properly admitted a minister, were ordered by the synod to reconsider its deci- sion. The Assembly disapproved of this order, and say, “That the right of deciding on the fitness of admitting Mr. Wells a constituent member of the Pres- bytery of Geneva, belonged to the presbytery itself, and that having admitted him, no matter how improvidently, their decision was valid and final . .. . the presbytery could not, though it should reconsider, reverse its own decision, or in any way sever the member so admitted, from their body, except by regular pro- cess.” Digest, p. 324. This decision has nothing to do with the case in hand. There is all the difference in the world between an improvident act, and an un- HISTORY AND INTENT OF CONSTITUTION. 189 Certain presbyteries in the northwest have formed or acknowledged some three or four hundred Congregational churches; and in spite of the constitution, in spite of the contract between the presbyteries, in defiance of the authority of the General Assembly, these churches must forever remain invested with all the privileges of Presbyterian congregations; thus introducing into our judicatories and into the con- stituency of the General Assembly, three or four hundred men who do not adopt our standards either of doctrine or government. On this principle, if the Third Presbytery of New York, in the excess of its liberality, were to acknowledge all the Baptist churches of its own city, or all the Unitarian churches of Boston, the act would be valid, and these churches be forever entitled to representation in the Presby- terian body. Or if a presbytery become Socinian there is no help for it. They would not sustain charges against their own members; and they cannot be tried, dissolved or disowned as a body. Neither synod nor General Assembly has power to enforce the constitution. They can only look on in silence, and see this presbytery increase year after year, and sending Socinian ministers and elders to the General Assem- bly of a Calvinistic Church. It is enough to awake the ashes of our fathers to have such doctrines set forth as Presbyterianism, in the bosom of the Church which they founded with so much care, and guarded with so much strictness. This is not Presbyterianism; and those who maintain these opinions are not Presbyterians. * * * * * * * * x * * * * * * * * constitutional one. The member in question was objected to as of “suspicious character.” It is one thing to turn a man out of the Church or presbytery on the pround of character, without process; and another to set aside his admission as unconstitutional. Because a presbytery has a right to judge of the qualification of its own members, it does not follow that it may admit a man without ordina- tion, or without the adoption of the standards. Any such act may be declared void at once; and the member be excluded. It was thus that the Synod of Kentucky suspended from the ministry in our Church, men ordained without having adopt- ed the Confession of Faith, and were thanked for so doing by the General As- sembly. And in 1798 it was decided that elders unconstitutionally ordained, remained private members of the Church. See Digest, p. 322. [See Digest of 1878, p. 337.] CHAPTER XII. A PARTICULAR CHURCH. 21. The Session says who are Church Members.[*] [Form of Gov., chap. ix., sec. vii—Comp. Digest of 1873, pp. 127, 129, 574.] [Overture No. 3] was a memorial from the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia asking the General Assembly to take such action in the case of members of the Church who remove, without certificate, or who fail, for a length of time, to attend upon the ordinances of the gospel, as will secure constitutional and uniform action throughout the Pres- byterian churches. “ As there is no provision in our Form of Government, or Discipline, to meet such cases, and as it would be inexpedient for the General Assembly to make a regulation on the subject, which would have the force of a constitutional rule, the Committee on Bills and Overtures recommended that the following be sent down to the presbyteries for their decision: , “Shall the form of government be amended by adding this clause at the end of chapter 9? “Sec. 6. They shall also have power to remove from the list of communicants, those who by long continued absence, without a regular dismission or other equiv- alent causes, are improper persons to be retained as members of the Church.” [The recommendation was laid on the table.] * * * ok * * * * It seems to us that there is a wrong principle in this overture and in the answer which it was proposed should be given to it. There are two distinct theories respecting our ecclesiastical constitution. The one is that it is the grant of powers; the other is that it is a limitation of powers, 4. ¢., a treaty entered into by primary Church organizations as to the manner in which they shall exercise the powers inherent in them and derived from Christ. The latter is unquestionably the true view. A Church session does not derive its power to admit members or exercise discipline from the constitution. The constitution simply states that such and such powers pertain to a Church session; and the various Church sessions embraced under the constitution agree to ex- [*From Article on “ The General Assembly” ; Topic, “ Overture No. 3.—On Church Members : ” Princeton Review, 1850, p. 468.] 90 VALIDITY OF ROMISH BAPTISM. 191 ercise those powers in a certain way. Neither does a presbytery derive from the constitution the right to ordain or to depose from the ministry. If independent it could exercise those rights at discretion; but when associated with other presbyteries interested in its acts, it stipulates that it will ordain only under such and such circumstances. The reason of this is obvious, a man ordained by one presbytery becomes, as a mem- ber of synod, a judge over the members of other presbyteries. They therefore, have a right to a voice in the matter. Hence all presbyte- ries thus associated enter into an agreement as to what qualifications they will demand in candidates for ordination, and in general as to the principles on which they will exercise their presbyterial powers. And such an agreement is their constitution. Itis not therefore a grant of powers, but a stipulation between the associated presbyteries as to the manner in which they will exercise the powers inherent in them. It follows from this that a session or presbytery is simply bound by con- tract not to violate the constitution, but the exercise of its prerogatives is not circumscribed by that instrument. It can do what it pleases, as a Church court, provided it infringes on no article of its contract with other courts, and on no principle of the word of God. It has no need therefore to go to the General Assembly to ask power to do what from its very nature as a Church court it has the right todo. A session must have a right to say who are the members of the church over which it presides. It might as well ask for power to erase from its roll the names of the dead, as to seek authority to say that those who have left them and wandered off no one knows where, have left them, and are no longer under their watch and care. The memorial, however, seems to assume that no session has any power in the premises but what it de- rives from the constitution; and the committee of Bills and Overtures proposed to add a section to that instrument to the effect that Church sessions “shall have power to remove from the list of communicants those who from long absence,” &c., as though such assumption were correct. According to our view the sessions have all the power they need in this matter inherent in themselves, and we therefore rejoice that the overture was rejected by the Assembly. 22. Walidity of Romish Baptism. [*] [Directory for Worship. chap. vii., sec. 1—Digest of 1873, pp. 660-663.] The question as to the validity of baptism as administered by a Ro- man Catholic priest was brought before the Assembly, by an overture from the Presbytery of Ohio, which gave rise to a long and interesting [* From Article on “The General Assembly ;” topic same; Princeton Review, 1845, p. 444.] 192 CHURCH POLITY. debate. Drs. Junkin and N. Rice, Professor Thornwell, Dr. McGill, and others advocated the negative of the question; Dr. Lord, Mr. Ait- ken, and a few others the affirmative. In favour of returning a nega- tive answer to the question, the votes were 169, against 8, non liquet 6. We feel almost overwhelmed by such a vote. Any decision of the Gen- eral Assembly is entitled to great respect, but a decision sustained by such a majority, almost imposes silence on all dissentients. And yet we believe it will take the Church by surprise. Men will be disposed to ask what new light has been discovered? What stern necessity has induced the Assembly to pronounce Calvin, Luther, and all the men of that generation, as well as thousands who with no other than Romish baptism have since been received into the Protestant Churches, to have lived and died unbaptized? The suddenness with which this decision has been made will add not a little to the surprise and regret with which it will be received. The judgment has come before the argu- ment. We do not doubt that the brethren who urged the course adopted by the Assembly, have examined the subject, but we are very sure the Church has not. We question whether one in twenty of our ministers have ever given it more than a passing consideration. Yet as the Assembly professes to speak in the name of the whole Church, it would seem proper that no decision so important and so deeply affect- ing the character of the whole body in the eyes of Christendom, should be pronounced, until means had been taken to ascertain the views of the Church generally. The Assembly has indeed the right to resolve all questions of casuistry, regularly presented, and to give advice to the lower courts when requested. We do not question the right. We only venture to question the wisdom of giving an answer suddenly, in oppo- sition to all previous practice, and to the principles of every other pro- testant Church. The fact that the answer is new, creates a reason for being slow to pronounce it. Hada judicial case been presented in- volving such a question, the Assembly would have been bound to give judgment according to its conscience. But we conceive the cases to be ' rare, in which it can be right to take up a question in thesi, and to enunciate a dictum at variance with all previously adopted principles and usage. We are very sure the United States court would be very slow to enunciate, without necessity, a principle of law in opposition to all precedent in that and all similar courts. We shall very briefly and respectfully state the reasons, which con- strain us to dissent from the decision that Romish baptism is invalid. We could do this, to our own satisfaction at least, by simply asking, What is baptism? “It is a sacrament, wherein the washing of water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our engrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of VALIDITY OF ROMISH BAPTISM. 193 the covenant of grace, and our engagements to be the Lord’s.” There are three essential points included in this definition. Ist. Baptism isa washing with water. Hence a washing with sand, wine, oil, or milk is not baptism. Instances are recorded in which men baptized in the desert with sand, have been re-baptized; and great surprise was expressed at Beza’s declaration; Ego quovis alio liquore non minus rite, quam aqua baptizarem, Epist. I. ad Tillium. Water, however, by common consent is essential to the ordinance, because it is commanded, and because it belongs to the significancy of the rite. 2d. But not every washing with water is the Christian ordinance of baptism, it must be a washing in the name. of the Trinity. Hence washing with water by an anti-trinitarian, is not baptism. When the controversy first arose in the Church about the baptism of heretics, there were two extreme opinions. Cyprian, and those African bishops who were under his influence, took the ground that the baptism of all those who separated from the outward communion of the Catholic Church, whether for heresy or schism, was null and void. In this view the bishops of Asia Minor generally coincided ; a fact easily accounted for as all the heretics with whom they were in conflict denied the very essentials of the gospel. Stephen, bishop of Rome, went to the opposite extreme, admitting the baptism of all kinds of heretics to be valid. Both parties soon settled down upon middle ground. In the council of Arles, A. D, 314, when nearly two hundred bishops were present, it was determined; “Ifany one return from his heresy to the Church, let the Catholic priest question him about the creed; and if they perceive that he was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, only the imposition of hands shall be given him, that he may re- ceive the Holy Ghost. But if upon examination, he answers not the Trin- ity, (that is, that he was not baptized in the name of the Trinity,) let him be re-baptized.” To the same effect was the decision of the great council of Nice, which directed that the Novatians should be received without baptism, but required a repetition of the rite in the case of the disciples of Paul of Samosata. There. was subsequently a dispute whether baptism by those Arians who retained the orthodox formula was valid or not. ‘The more general and prevailing interpre- tation of the Nicene eanon was, that.the baptism of all heretics and schismatics, who did not reject the Catholic form of baptizing in the name of the Trinity, was to be received, however they might be hete- rodox in their faith and opinions. This.was certainly the sense of the council of Laodicea, of the second general council of Constantinople, and the second council of Arles and Trullo; as also of St. Austin, St. eS Gennadius, Ursinus Afer, Siricius, Leo, Innocentius, the 194 CHURCH POLITY. author under the name of Justin Martyr, and the generality of the ancients.” * Protestants have not gone to this length, as they require a professed faith in the doctrine of the Trinity, in order to the validity of baptism, because it is from its nature an act of worship of the Triune God. With one accord, however, they have acquiesced in the judgment of the ancient Church, that the baptism of heretics is not void on account of heresy, provided they retain the doctrine of the Trinity, and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. This is the doctrine of the Lutheran Church, see Gerhard’s Loct Communes, vol. 9. L. 21. ¢. 4., where he sustains the practice of his Church, by quoting the words of Anselm: “ Baptisma a quocunque datum fuerit, sive a bono sive a malo, sive a Catholico, sive ab haeretico juata morem ecclesie in nomine Patris, Filit et Spiritus sancti, tantundem valet.” The same doctrine as to baptism by heretics was held by the French and Geneva Churches. See Turrettin, vol. iti. p. 442. “Some here- tics,” he says, “ corrupt the very substance of baptism, as the ancient Arians, modern Socinians, rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity ; others, retaining the essentials of the ordinance and the true doctrine of the Trinity, err as to other doctrines, as formerly the Novatians and Do- natists, and now the Papists and Arminians. The baptisms of the for- mer class are to be rejected; those of the latter are retained, although ‘they err as to many doctrines, and their baptisms, in circumstantials, are polluted by various ceremonies.” See also Pictet, La Theologie ‘Ohretienne, Lib. xv. c. 18. The Church of Holland adopted the same ‘view ; see Morus, Commentarius Perpetuus, &c., vol. v.p. 448. Docetur esse distinguendam heresin; a. abditam et professione externa expressam ; b. retinentem essentialia baptismi, et evertentem eadem: adeo' ut baptis- ‘mus administratur in nomen Dei Triunius vert agniti vel fiat luto, quo perit analogia inter signum et rem signatam aut non fiat in nomine Dei Tri- unius, sed in coetu antitrinitario. In posteriori casu baptismus repetendus censetur, nonin priori. No one questions this being the doctrine of the Church of England, since her practice on the subject has been uniform, and sustained by the highest judicial decisions. It is, therefore, the doctrine of the universal Church, that baptism administered in the name of the Trinity, by one professing faith in that doctrine, is not void on account of heresy. Such is the doctrine of our standards which declares baptism to be a washing with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The ground of this universally received view of the subject is obvious. The validity of baptism depends upon the * See Bingham’s Scholastic History of Lay Baptism, c. I. in his Origines Eccle- siae, and Neander’s History, vol. I. pp. 565—577, German edition. VALIDITY OF ROMISH BAPTISM. 195 appointment of God, and not upon the character or faith of the admin- istrator; and therefore, any baptism which is administered according to His appointment, the Church has felt constrained to admit to be baptism. 3. There is, however, a third particular included in this definition of baptism ; it must be with the design “to signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking the benefits of the covenant of grace and our engagements to be the Lord’s.” There are two things includ- ed in this statement; participation of the benefits of the covenant, and the avowal of our purpose to be the Lord’s. No washing with water, even if in the name of the Trinity, is Christian baptism, unless admin- istered with the ostensible design of signifying, sealing and applying the benefits of the covenant of grace. This is what the ancient Church meant by “intention” as essential to this ordinance; and which the papists have characteristically perverted. By intention, they mean the secret purpose of the priest; against which view of the doctrine, all Protestants protested, as one of the devices of the man of sin, to make the people dependent on the priesthood. The ancient and true doc- trine is that intention refers to the ostensible and professed design of the administration. No washing with water, in the name of the Trini- ty, therefore, is baptism, if done in sport, or mockery, or with the pro- fessed design of healing the sick, or raising the dead. It must be with the professed, ostensible intention of complying with the command of Christ, and of doing what he requires to be done, by those who accept the covenant of grace. From this it follows, that no baptism adminis- tered by a Jew, a pagan, a child, or an idiot, can be valid, because in all such cases, the requisite design must be absent. A Jew cannot, be- ing such, join in an act of Christian worship, for he would thereby cease to be a Jew. As baptism includes the invocation of the Trinity, as a religious act, no man who does not profess to believe in the Trini- ty, can profess to join in such act. The doctrine of our standards, therefore, is the precise doctrine of the ancient Church, viz., that there are three things essential to baptism; the matter, form, and intention. The matter, is the washing with wa- ter; the form, washing in the name of the Trinity; the intention, not the popish notion of the secret purpose of the priest, but the professed ostensible design of the act.. When these three things are found, there, according to our standards, and the common doctrine of the Church, is baptism. , - : Such being the formal and authoritative definition of the rite, in order to determine in any given case, whether any particular baptism is valid, all we have to do is, to ask whether it has these essential cha- racteristics. Is it a washing with water? Is it administered in the 196 CHURCH POLITY. name of the Trinity? Is the professed design of the rite to signify, seal and apply the benefits of the new covenant? If so, then, by our standards, it is baptism. To determine the question before us, we must, therefore, ascertain whether, 1st. Romish baptism is a washing with water? The Romish cate- chism defines baptism to be “The sacrament of regeneration by water with the word.” In answer to the question, What is the matter of baptism? the Romish theologians answer; Est omnis et sola aqua natu- ralis, seu elementaris, “any and only natural water.” One of their favourite dicta is the saying of Augustine: Quid est Baptismus? Lava- crum aque in verbo: tolle aquam, non est baptismus; tolle verbum, non est baptismus. Water, therefore is, according to the Romish Church, essential to baptism, and as far as “the matter” is concerned, nothing else is. The water may be marine, or rain, or river, or from a spring, or mineral; it may be clear or turbid, warm or cold, but it must be water. Baptism with mud, wine, milk, oil, saliva, tears, &., the Ro- mish theologians pronounce invalid.* Their doctrine on this point is identical with our own. ‘We were therefore greatly surprised to see that it was stated on the floor of the Assembly that Romanists did not baptize with water, but with water mixed with oil. Suppose this to be true, water with oil thrown on it is still water. How many things are mixed with the wine we use at the Lord’s supper? Is wine adulterated with water no longer wine? Did not our Saviour call the paschal cup wine, though mixed with water? This objection is trivial. So long as the element used is water, and so long as the significancy of the rite is made to consist in washing with water, the matter of the ordinance is retained. But, as far as we know, the objection is unfounded in fact. There are various ceremonies which precede, attend and follow the rite as admin- istered in the Romish Church; among which is Chrism, or anointing with oil; but these ceremonies are not represented as entering into the nature of the ordinance, or making any part of it} They are treated of and explained separately. First, Baptism is declared to be a wash- ing with water; and then the ceremonies accompanying this washing * In answer to the question, what kind of water may be used in Baptism, “R. Talis est aqua marina, pluvialis, fontana, fluvialis, mineralis ; sive turbida. sit sive clara, frigida vel calida sive benedicta se non. . . . E contra invalidus est Baptis- mus collatus in luto, vino, puingut cerevisia, lacte, oleo, saliva, sudore, lacrymis,” &e.— Dens’ Theology; tom. v. p. 158. + The preceding ceremonies are, exorcismus, signum crucis, salis gustus, et linitio salive ; Concomitantes, abrenunciatio, unctio baptizandi oleo catechumenorum, catechis- mus, et inquisitio voluntatis suscipiendi Baptismum ; Subsequentes, unctio baptizati per chrisma vestis candidee donatio, et ceret ardentis traditio. Dens. vol. y. p. 205. VALIDITY OF ROMISH BAPTISM. 197 are stated and explained. In treating of the “matter of baptism,” not one word is said of oil or anything else, but water vera et naturalis is declared to be necessary and sufficient. As far therefore as the first point is concerned, Romish baptism is baptism. It is a washing with water. 2. Is it then correct as to the form? Is it administered in the name of the Trinity? The form prescribed by the council of Trent, is in these words, “ Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.” The form therefore is identical with our own. It is not in words, merely, that this form is scriptural, the avowed sense in which they are used is correct. There is not a Church on earth which teaches the doc- trine of the Trinity more accurately, thoroughly or minutely, according to the orthodoxy of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, than the Church of Rome. The personal and official relations of the adorable Trinity, are also preserved. The Father is represented as the author of the new covenant, the Son as redeemer, the Spirit as sanctifier.. There is no such thing as baptism in the name of the Trinity in any Church, if Romish baptism is not. 3. Then as to the third essential part of the ordinance, the design, in this also their baptism agrees with that of Protestants. According to our standards the design of the Sacrament is to signify, seal and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant. This is the precise doc- trine of the Romanists, so far as this. 1. They say it is essential to a sacrament that it should be a sensible sign of spiritual blessings.. 2. That it should be instituted by Christ. 3. That it should have a prom- ise of grace.* Hence the sacraments signify, seal, and apply the bene- fits of redemption. According to both parties, by baptism we are for- mally constituted members of the visible Church, and partakers of its benefits. The great difference relates not to the design of the ordinance, but tothe mode and certainty with which that design is accomplished, and the conditions attached to it. In other words, the difference re- lates to the efficacy, and not to the design of the ordinance. The de- sign on either side is stated to be to initiate into the visible Church and secure its blessings. But how and to what extent, and under what con- ditions these blessings are secured by baptism, there is a great differ- ence of opinion. As to the efficacy of the sacraments there are these three general views. First, that of the Zuinglians who make them mere naked signs. Secondly, that of those who teach that they certainly convey to all infants the blessings signified, and to adults if rightly dis- posed ; and third, the middle doctrine maintained by our Church, and the Reformed generally. Speaking of baptism, our Confession of * Cardinal Tonnere, Institutcones Theologice, vol. III. p. 276. 198 CHURCH POLITY. Faith says: “By the right use of this ordinarce the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited (¢. e. conveyed) and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the council of God’s own will, and in his own appointed time.” According to our doctrine then, baptism does not uniformly convey the benefits which it signifies, and secondly its efficacy is not limited to the time of its administration.* With regard to adults, the difference between us and Romanists is much less. Ac- cording to our standards the sacraments are made effectual as means of grace to believers, or “to worthy receivers ;” and Romanists say, that in adults to the profitable use of baptism, there are requisite, the influ- ence of divine grace, the act of faith, of hope, of love, and of penitence or contrition.t The error of the Romanists concerning the absolute necessity and uniform efficacy (in the case of infants) of baptism, is very great, but it cannot invalidate the nature of the ordinance. Ii is out of all rea- son to say that the rite is valid, if it is supposed to be effectual to some and at an indefinite time, and invalid, if supposed to be always effectual when there is no opposition. Besides, if baptism is null and- void when administered by those who hold the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, what shall we say to the baptism in the Church of Eng- land, in the strict Lutheran Churches, and in all the Churches of the East? On this plan, we shall have to unchurch almost the whole Christian world; and Presbyterians, instead of being the most catholic of Churches, admitting the being of a Church, wherever we see the fruits of the Spirit, would become one of the narrowest and most bigot- * In the old Scots Confession it is said, “ And thus we utterlie damne the vanities of they that affirm Sacramentes to be nothing ellis bot naked and baire signes. No, wee assuredlie beleeve, that be Baptisme we ar ingrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his justice, be quhilk our sinnes ar covered and remitted.” In the Book of Common Order, “ approved by that famous man John Calvin, and received and used by the Reformed Kirk of Scotland,” this idea is expressed with some limitation. “The venomous dregs’? of sin, it is said, remain in the flesh, “yet by the merites of his death (they) are not imputed to us, because the justice of Jesus Christ is made ours by Baptisme; not that we think any such virtue or power to be included in the visible water, or outward action, for many have been baptized, and yet were never inwardly purged; but our Saviour Christ, who com- manded baptism to be administered, will, by the power of the Holie Spirit, effect- uallie worke in the hearts of his elect, in time convenient, all that is meant and signified by the same.” + Quenam (dispositio) requiritur ad fructuosam hujus Sacramenti susceptionem ? R. Illam late describit Cone. Trid. sess. 6. cv. 6. ut videre est: Summatim dicimus ex eo requiri motum divine gratic, actum fidet, spet et amoris ac penitentia sew cons tritionis. Dens, vol. v. p. 187. VALIDITY OF ROMISH BAPTISM. 199 ed of sects. Indeed we cannot but regard this sudden denunciation of Romish baptism, as a momentary outbreak of the spirit of Popery; a disposition to contract the limits of the Church, and to make that es- sential to its being and sacraments, which God has never declared to be necessary. We have now shown that Romish baptism fulfills all the conditions of valid baptism, as given in our standards. It is a washing with water in the name of the Trinity, with the ostensible and professed design of making the recipient a member of the visible Church, and a partaker of its benefits. On what grounds then is it declared to be null and void? The grounds are two. First, it is not administered by ordained ministers of Christ; second, the Church of Rome is not a true Church, and therefore its ordinances are not Christian sacraments. The former of these arguments stands thus: No baptism is valid unless administered by a duly ordained minister of Christ. Romish priests are not such ministers. Therefore Romish baptism is invalid. It may be proper, before considering this argument, to ascertain the precise point to be proved, or what is meant by the words valid and invalid in this connection. They seem often to be used in the sense of regular and irregular. Christ has appointed a certain class of men to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. For any one not be- longing to this class, to perform either service, is irregular, and in that sense invalid. Valid, however, properly means available, (able to effect). A thing is valid when it avails to its appropriate end. Thus a deed is valid which avails to convey a title to property; a marriage is valid, which avails to constitute the conjugal relation. Sometimes the validity of a thing depends upon its regularity ; as a deed if not regular, if not made according to law, does not avail for the end for which it was made. Very often, however, the validity of a thing does not depend upon the rules made to regulate the mode of doing it. Many marriages are valid, which violate the rules of decorum, order, and even civil society. When Romish baptism is pronounced invalid, it is not declared simply irregular, in the sense in which lay-preaching is unauthorized ; but it is said not to avail to the end for which baptism was instituted; it does not avail to make the recipient a professing ‘Christian. Though a sincere believer should be baptized by a Roman- ist, such baptism would not signify or seal to him the benefits of the new covenant, nor express his purpose to obey Christ. Such is the declaration. The first argument in support of this position is founded on the assumption that no baptism is valid, in the sense just explained, unless administered by a duly ordained minister of Christ. We do not mean to contest this proposition, and must not be understood as de- nying it, but we say its truth ought to have been proved and not taken 200 CHURCH POLITY. for granted. Our standards do not affirm it. They say indeed that “neither sacrament may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the word lawfully ordained.” Con. of Faith, c. 27,§ 4. But they say the same thing of preaching. Larger Cat. ques. 158. Both are irregular; but irregular and invalid are very different things. Again, this prop- osition is not contained in the definition of baptism. That ordinance is declared to be a washing with water, in the name of the Trinity, to signify our ingrafting into Christ. To say, it is a washing with water, by a minister duly ordained, in the name, &c., is to give a new definition, essentially different from the old one. The insertion of this clause may be authorized, but the authority ought to be given. Again, the princi- ple in question, cannot be inferred from the nature and design of bap- tism. Baptism was instituted to constitute or declare the recipient a disciple of Christ, and to signify and seal to him the benefits of the new covenant. It does not necessarily follow from this statemeni, that it does nof avail to this end, unless administered by an ordained man. If ordination did, as Puseyites say, convey grace and impart su- pernatural power, it would be more apparent, why baptism by uncon- secrated hands should fail to have any efficacy. Puseyites, therefore, are very consistently anabaptists, both here and in England. Again, the principle assumed is contrary to the belief and practice of the great body of the people of God in all ages. The common doctrine of the Church has been, that baptism and teaching belong properly to minis- ters of the word; in cases of necessity, however, baptism by unordained persons, was regarded as not only valid, but proper ; in all other cases, as irregular and censurable, but still as baptism and not to be repeated. At the time of the Reformation this doctrine was retained by the whole Lutheran Church, and by the Church of England. Calvin, Beza, the French Church,-and the Church of Holland rejected it, and so we pre- sume did the Church of Scotland. Though, therefore, the Reformed or Calvinistic Churches have generally maintained the position assumed by the Assembly, as to the invalidity of lay-baptism, yet, as it is not as- serted in our book, and has been denied by so great a majority of Chris- tians, it ought not to be made the ground of an argument, without some exhibition of the grounds on which it rests, This is a subject to which we presume less attention has been paid in our Church, than it merits. We repeat the remark, that we are not to be understood as denying that baptism must be administered by an ordained man, in order to its va- lidity ; we are willing to concede that point in the argument, the conclu- sion however utterly fails, unless the minor proposition above stated can be proved. Admitting that baptism must be administered by ordained ministers of Christ, it must be proved that Romish priests are not such ministers, before it can be shown that their baptisms are invalid. VALIDITY OF ROMISH BAPTISM. 201 Let us inquire then what is an ordained minister, and then see whether the Romish priests come within the definition. According to the common doctrine of Protestants, an ordained min- ister is a man appointed to perform the sacred functions of teaching and administering the sacraments in any community professing Chris- tianity. There is aright and a wrong way of doing this; there is a way agreeable to scriptural precedent, and there are many ways which have no such sanction. Still whether it be done by a prelate, a pres- bytery, by the people, or by the magistrate with the consent of the people, if a man is recognised by a Christian community as a minister, he is to be regarded as having due authority to act as such. It does not follow from this that we are bound to receive him into ministerial communion, or to allow him to act as a minister in our churches. That depends upon his having the qualifications which we deem requi- site for the sacred office. Should a prelate or presbytery ordain an ignorant or heretical man, we should be under no obligation to receive him to the sacred office among ourselves. And if the people should elect a man to that office, we are not bound to receive him on the ground of that election, since we believe that ordination by the presby- tery ought to be required. Since, however, Christ has not made the ministry essential to the Church, much less any particular method of inducting men into that office, we have no right to say that a body of Christians are no Church, and have no valid sacraments, because they differ from us as to the mode of ordaining ministers. It is one of the Popish principles which have slid into the minds of some Protestants, and which was openly avowed upon the floor of the Assembly, that the ministry is essential to the Church. Such a sentiment is directly op- posed to our standards, and to the word of God. According to the Scriptures, a church is a congregation of believers, or of those who profess to be believers; according to the hierarchical system, it is “a congregation of believers subject to lawful pastors.” An intrusive ele- ment, which is the germ of the whole hierarchical system, is thus intro- duced into the idea of the Church, which changes and vitiates the whole thing. SBellarmin has the credit of being the first writer who thus corrupted the definition of the Church. The being of a Church does not depend upon the ministry, nor the being of the ministry on the rite of ordination. Any man is a minister in the sense of the pro-. position under consideration, who is recognised as such by a Christian community. The soundness of this principle appears, 1. From the consideration already referred to, that we have no authority in this matter to go be- yond the Scriptures. If Christ or his apostles had said that no man should be recognised as a minister, nor his official acts accounted valid, 202 CHURCH POLITY. unless ordained in a specified manner, we should be bound by such rule. But the Scriptures contain no such rule, and we have no right to make it. All that the Bible does, is to make known the fact, that ministers were examined and authenticated as teachers by other teach- ers, but that it must be so, they nowhere assert. 2. This doctrine flows from what is one of the distinguishing princi- ples of the evangelical, as opposed to the hierarchical system, viz.: that all Church power belongs originally to the Church as such. The ori- ginal commission, the promises and prerogatives were given, not to the Church officers as their peculium, but to the people; and they may ex- ercise those prerogatives not regularly, not orderly, or wisely, it may be, but still validly under any form they see fit. They ought, indeed, to follow scriptural examples, as to the mode of making ministers, but still as the power to make them was involved in the original commis- sion granted to the Church, we cannot deny it. 8. To reject the principle in question is to involve ourselves in all the difficulties, absurdities and assumptions of the doctrine of apostol- ical succession. Every Church would have to prove that its ministry had been regularly ordained in a specific manner from the apostles to the present time. This, from the nature of the case, can no more be done, than a man can prove that all his ancestors were regularly mar- ried from the time of Adam. It may be assumed, but it cannot by possibility be proved. And since there is in Scripture no promise of any such unbroken succession of ordinations, to assume it, is gratui- tous; and to make such assumption the basis of ecclesiastical claims, or of religious hopes, is absurd and ruinous. 4. We all act upon this principle. What Presbyterian feels called upon to trace up historically to the apostles, the ecclesiastical genealogy of every minister whose act he is called upon to recognize? Or who ever thinks of inquiring whether every candidate for the admission to the Lord’s supper, if from among the Methodists or Baptists, was bap- tized by a man ordained in a particular way? Itis always considered enough if the applicant was baptized by one having public authority in the body whence he came, to administer the sacraments. 5, All Protestant Churches have recognised the same principle. The language of the twenty-third Article of the Church of England may be taken as expressing the general sense of the age of the Refor- mation on this subject. That article says: “Those ought to be judged lawfully called and sent, who are chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them, in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.” This asserts the necessity of a call, without prescribing any particular mode as essential toits validity. Accordingly, the validity of the orders which many of VALIDITY OF ROMISH BAPTISM. 203 the reformers received in the Romish Church, was universally ad- mitted ; while at the same time, no objection was made to the vocation of those who had received nothing more than election by the people. It was held, indeed, that under ordinary circumstances, no one should as- sume the sacred office to himself, and that besides election by the peo- ple, there should, in a regular state of the Church, be an examination ‘and imposition of hands by the presbytery. But it was denied that these things were essential. Do, then, the Romish priests come within this wide definition of or- dained ministers? Are they appointed by public authority to teach the Christian religion, and to administer its ordinances? The question is not whether they are good men, or whether they do not assume sacer- dotal and other powers to which they have no claim? or whether they are correct in doctrine? but simply, whether in a body professing to hold saving doctrine, they are appointed and recognized as presbyters? If so, then they are ministers within the sense of the received Protes- tant definition of the term.* The only ground on which this can be denied is, that they do not in any sense profess the Christian religion any more than Jews or Pagans, and therefore this argument, though presented first and separately in the minute adopted by Assembly, really resolves itself in the second presented in that document, viz: That the Church of Rome is in no sense a Christian Church. Without antici- pating that point, however, we maintain that as the Romish priests are appointed and recognized as presbyters in a community professing to believe the Scriptures, the early creeds, and the decisions of the first four general councils, they are ordained ministers in the sense above stated; and consequently baptism administered by them is valid. It has accordingly been received as valid by all Protestant Churches from the Reformation to the present day. Calvin, in his Institutes, Lib. iv. c. 15 and 16, after saying that bap- tism does not owe its value to the character of the administrator, adds: “By this consideration, the error of the Donatists is effectually refuted, who made the force and value of the sacrament commensurate with the worth of the minister. Such are our modern Katabaptists, who stren- uously deny that we were properly baptized, because we received the rite from impious idolators in the papacy; and they are therefore fero- cious for re-baptism. We shall, however, be sufficiently guarded against * This is the ground on which the Reformed Churches defended the validity of the orders received from the Church of Rome. “ Talis autem est,” says Turrettin, “‘emiscoporum et presbyterorum vocatio in ecclesia Romana, quae quoad institutionem Dei bona fuit, sed quoad abusum hominum mala facta est. Unde resecatio errorum et corruptelarum ab hominibus invectarum, non potuit esse vocationis abrogatio, sed correctio et restitutio.”’—Vol. iii. p. 265, 204 CHURCH POLITY. their nonsense, if we remember we were baptized not in the name of any man, but in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and therefore baptism is not of man, but of God, no matter by whom it was administered.” The first canon of the chapter on baptism, in the Book of Discipline of the French Church, declares, “ Baptism administered by an unor- dained person is wholly void and null;” yet the twenty-eighth article of their Confession of Faith declares Romish baptism to be valid. In the National Synod of 1563, John Calvin presented, in the name of the pastors and professors at Geneva, a letter in reply to reasons pronounc- ed by them “very feeble and impertinent,” in behalf of lay-baptism, one of which was derived from the assumption that Romish priests were not true ministers, and yet their baptisms are valid. To this the re- ply made was: “Popish baptism is grounded upon the institution of Christ; because the priests as perverse as they are, and utterly corrupt, are yet the ordinary ministers of that Church in which they so tyrannically demean themselves.”* To this view the French Church steadily ad- hered long after the council of Trent, whose decisions were assumed by some of the members of the Assembly, to have wrought such a change in the character of Romanism. The illustration used by Calvin, de- rived from the fact that those circumcised by apostate priests under the old dispensation, were never recircumcised, or treated as not having received that rite by the inspired prophets, we find repeated by all sub- sequent writers. The Church of Holland agreed with the French Church in regard- ing the Romish priests as authorized to administer baptism.f Such, too, has been the constant doctrine of the Lutheran Church,{ and of the Church of England. Indeed, we know of no Church that has ever taken different ground. The Assembly, therefore, has taken a position on this subject in opposition to the principles of the whole Protestant * Quick’s Synodicon, vol. i. p. 48. + Morus, tom. v. p. 449. Hine passim judicant Nostri rebaptizandos esse qui ad mos transeunt ante in coetu Socinianorum antitrinitario baptizati. . . . . De baptizatis in ecclesia Romana hodierna mitius judicium Nostri ferre solent, ob re- tentam illic cum elemento visibili aque baptismatis, fidem Trinitatis et administra tionem baptismi in Dei triunius nomen, He quotes the acts of the Synod of Dort, which forbid Romish baptism to be repeated where “the form and sub- stance” of the rite have been retained. Doubts, it seems, were entertained as to baptisms performed by vagrant priests, as a question relating to that point was presented to the French Synod of 1581, who replied: “Since authority to baptize belongs to them according to the order of the Romish Church, baptism adminis- tered by them is not to be repeated; but baptism by monks, to whom no such au- thority belongs, is void.” { Gerhard, vol. x. p. 93. VALIDITY OF ROMISH BAPTISM. 205 world. A fact which of itself creates a presumption almost over- whelming against their doctrine. The second great argument in favor of the decision of the Assembly, which indeed includes and supercedes the one just considered, is: The Church of Rome is not a true Church of Christ, and therefore its sacraments are not Christian ordinances. This is a very plausible argument, and has the advantage of being short and syllogistic. To its influence we doubt not is principally to be referred the decision in ques- tion. To us, however, it appears to be only another of the innumerable instances of fallacy and false reasoning founded upon the ambiguity of the word Church. We know of no subject in theology on which it is more difficult to attain and preserve distinctness of thought, and precision of language, than this. The word Church has meanings so allied and yet so different, so well authorized and yet so indefinite, that it is almost impossible to avoid using the term in one sense in the premises of an argument, and another in the conclusion. Almost every treatise on the Church which it has been our lot to read, has been more or less a saying and unsaying, affirming and denying the same things of the same subject. This is the fault not so much of the writers as of the vagueness of the terms, You may, with equal truth, affirm or deny that a given body isa Church; you may say that the Church is a con- gregation of saints, and yet composed, in great part, of sinners; that it is infallible as to matters of faith, and yet may fatally apostatize ; that all its members shall be saved, and yet that many of them will be lost. The whole system of Popery and Puseyism owes its logical pow- ers toan adroit management of this word. To the Church are pro- mised in the Scriptures the continued presence of Christ, and influ- ence of his Spirit, by which it is certainly guided into the knowledge of saving truth, preserved from fatal errors, and effectually prepared for heaven. But, according to our standards, the Church consists of the professors of the true religion; therefore, to professors of true re- ligion is promised this continued presence of Christ and the saving guidance of his Spirit. This argument is just as good as that used by the Assembly ; and yet, unless it is false, the whole doctrinal system of Romanism is true. It is obvious, therefore, that extreme caution is necessary in constructing any argument, the validity of which depends on the idea attached to the word Church. The question whether the Church of Rome is a true Church? can- not be intelligently answered without previously fixing the meaning of the term. The word ézzdyora in its application to Christians, is in the New Testament a collective term for