BV 600 .D3 1905 Dargan, Edwin Charles. 1852 1930. Ecclesiology ECCLESIOLOGY A STUDY OF THE CHURCHES SECOND AND CAREFULLY REVISED EDITION BY EDWIN CHARLES DARGAN, D.D., LL.D. Professor of Homiletics and Ecclesiology in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky. Author of A HISTORY OF PREACHING. THE DOC- TRINES OF OUR FAITH, Etc. LOUISVILLE. KY. CHARLES T. DEARING. 1905. COPYRIGHT 1897, 1905, By EDWIN C. DARGAN. PREFACE. The first edition of this work appeared in 1897. It was prepared primarily as a text-book for the author's own nse with his class in Ecclesiolooy, and has been so used continuously since then. Constant employment in the class room, as well as the valued criticism of friends, has pointed out many minor errors both in statement and style. The first edition was prepared hastily (by dictation to a stenog- rapher) from the author's lecture notes, and it bore the marks of that method of composition. The present edition has been most carefully re- vised, in fact almost rewritten ; and while the author has not seen reason to alter his opinions on any essential points, there has been some modifica- tion of language here and there in the interest of clearer statement and more careful expression. A few chapters have been added, a few omitted, all has been condensed ; so that the bulk of the present edi- tion is not so great as that of the former. In its improved form the author again submits his work to the judgment of his brethren, and to the use of his students, in the hope that it may prove useful to the cause of truth, and. serve the best interests of the Kingdom of God. The two following paragraphs are quoted from the preface to the first edition : *'The bibliography at the end of the book will show 5 the principal sources from which help has been de- rived. Originality in this field is impossible, and any claim to it must be absurd. I have studied many books and parts of books in preparing these chapters, but I have honestly tried to form my own opinions, and to express them in my own way. Where I have consciously and directly borrowed either thought or language, I have made acknowledgment in the text or notes; but it may easily be that, here and there, either from inadvertence or lapse of memory, I have failed to do so." "It is my earnest hope and prayer that the book may do good. While necessarily controversial, it carries no ill-will toward those who do not hold the Baptist faith ; and members of other denominations, who may chance to read it are respectfully invited to give candid consideration to this restatement of views commonly held among Baptists. To my Bap- tist brethren I trust the book may be of some service in promoting the great work of the churches of our own faith and order." E. C. D. Louisville^ Ky., Sept., 1905. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PACE. Preface 5 Introduction 11 PART I. POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. CHAPTER 1. Some Preliminary Considerations 17 CHAPTER II. Church Polity in the New Testament— The word Ecclesia. 37 CHAPTER III. Church Polity in the New Testament— Character and Functions of the Churches 55 CHAPTER IV. Church Polity in the New Testament— Officers of the Churches 70 CHAPTER V. Church Polity in the New Testament— Officers of the Churches (Continued) 84 CHAPTER VI. Church Polity in the New Testament — Light from Out- aide Sources 98 CHAPTER VII. Church Polity in History— Developments to the Refor- mation 116 7 CHAPTER VIII. Church Polity in History— Developments since the Ref- ormation 133 CHAPTER IX. Church Polity in History— Progress of Baptist Principles. 150 CHAPTER X. The Baptist Churches of To-day — Their Conformity to the New Testament 166 CHAPTER XI. The Baptist Churches of To-day — Their Organization. . .186 CHAPTER XII. The Baptist Churches of To-day — Advisory Councils 204 CHAPTER Xtll. The Baptist Churches of To-day— Their Mutual Rela- tions 218 CHAPTER XIV. The Baptist Churches of To-day— Their Position as to Christian Union 232 CHAPTER XV. The Baptist Churches of To-day— Their Relation to Civil Government 252 PART II. ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. CHAPTER I. The Christian Ordinances 272 CHAPTER 11. The Obi igation of Baptism • 284 CHAPTER III. The Act of Baptism — Argument from the Meaning of the Word 293 CHAPTER IV. The Act of Baptism — Argument from History 308 CHAPTER V. The Act of Baptism — Argument from Concession 331 CHAPTER VI. The Act of Baptism — Objections to Immersion 344 CHAPTER VII. The Agent in Baptism — Scripture and History 360 CHAPTER VIII. The Agent in Baptism — The Baptist Problem 380 CHAPTER IX. The Recipients of Baptism — The Teaching of Scripture. .396 CHAPTER X. The Recipients of Baptism — Historical Sketch 411 CHAPTER XI. The Recipients of Baptism — Arguments for and against Infant Baptism 435 CHAPTER XII. The Significance of Baptism . . 465 CHAPTER XIII. The Lord's Supper in Scripture 484 CHAPTER XIV. The Lord's Supper in History 501 9 CHAPTER XV. The Lord's Supper in the Churches SIQ- PART III. WORK AND WORSHIP OF THE CHURCHES. CHAPTER I. The Church as a Working- Force in Society and the King- dom 535 CHAPTER II. The Church Working for Itself 551 CHAPTER III. The Evangelistic Work of the Church— Soul Winning and Missions 571 CHAPTER IV. The Humanitarian Work of the Church — Education — Charity — Reform 585- CHAPTER V. Worship of the Churches— Scripture Teaching 61T CHAPTER VI. Worship of the Churches— Historical Sketch 63T CHAPTER VII. Worship of the Churches — Its Place in Modern Church Life 661 Conclusion 677 Bibliography Scripture Index General Index 10 INTRODUCTION. 1. Ecclesiology is the doctrine, or study, of the church in its constitution, ordinances and activities, the last including both work and worship. The rela- tion of the study to the other branches of Theolo- gical Discipline is vital. Ecclesiology may be re- garded as a topic under the general subject of Sj'steniatic Theology, and is often so treated. But it has equally manifest and important relations to Biblical (or Exegetical) Theology, to Historical Theology (Church History, History of Doctrine), and to Practical Theology (Homiletics, Pastoral Duties). The breadth and importance of the sub- ject, however, justify, if they do not require, separate treatment and a fuller discussion than could be given to it in treatises on the more general subjects under which it would fall only as a topic. 2. The subject of Ecclesiology is one of surpass- ing interest and moment. JThe great debates that have been and still are going on in the world on the questions of the constitution and ordinances of the church demand consideration from the well- informed theologian. The remarkable and ap- parently increasing attention that is paid in our times to activity in all the varied methods of church work, together with the vast interest of the age in social problems, makes it necessar}- that the i)astor and preacher should give careful study to church work in all its phases and relations; nor shinild the 11 weighty matter of worship escape his thoughtful and reverential notice. Neglect of the worship of God, even on the part of professing Christian people, is a painful phenomenon of our times. The earnest pastor of today faces no more momentous question than that of restoring worship to its rightful place in the thought and life of his people. 3. The proper method of study for Ecclesiology is a combination of the scriptural, historical and practical, (a) The teachings of the Scriptures, as being both originative and authoritative, should be carefully investigated and clearly and unflinchingly set forth. As far as possible both the developments of history and existing institutions should be left out of the account, and the Biblical data, with in- ferences from these, should be exclusively used in discovering and presenting just what the Scrip- tures themselves teach as to the church and its various elements of life and action, (b) Proceeding from this scriptural basis the student should pur- sue the development of church organization and life through the history of Christianity, bearing well in mind the constant changes both in ecclesiastical cus- toms and in the significance of ecclesiastical terms. (c) At last when the present time is reached the student should know how to criticise and compare existing institutions in the light both of their scrip- tural origin and their historic evolution, and thus be able to determine for himself how far the church constitutions with which he is familiar accord with the teachings of the Bible— or, to speak more defi- nitely, with the intentions of the divine Founder of Christianity. 12 4. The point of view occupied by the investigator is of prime moment. Few, if any, can take up the study of the church without biases and preposses- sions which inevitably influence the judgment, (a) The influence of present-day conditions, modes of thought and use of terms is both subtle and power- ful. For exami)le, when we say "church" or 'bishop" we naturally and almost inevitably have first in mind the things which those terms stand for in the language of today rather than in that of whafever period we may at the time be studying. The best cure for this is a thorough knowledge of history and a constant use of the historic imagination, (b) An- other strong bias is that of the sect or denomina- tion. Very many students prosecute this study with their minds already made up in favor of the institutions of the church or sect to which they themselves belong, and their purpose is largely po- lemical or apologetic. It is amusing to observe how all are quite ready to see this in their opponents and are curiously unconscious of -it in themselves. Now one should endeavor to keep from being unduly in- fluenced by his previously formed and firmly held opinions, but it is utterly impossible and in great degree undesirable to lay them entirely aside in the study of any subject. It may be reasonably (lues- tioned if the absolutely impartial mind does or can exist. At the same time we must remember that some degree of partiality may be a stimulus to investiga- tion, and so result in the discovery of truth rather than in the distortion of it. We must not commit the absurdity of claiming to be wholly free from a preference for our own denominational views, nor 13 at the same time must we allow these to hinder us from seeing and frankly acknowledging the truth from whatever quarter it may come with sufficient credentials, (c) Still another bias is that of his- torical or critical prepossession. A man may be as thoroughly sectarian, dogmatic and intolerant in favor of his theory as of his church. Unhappily neither scholars nor scientists are immune of preju- dice, and in the sphere of ecclesiology as well as in others the "scientific" historian or critic has been known to hold the advocate's brief, instead of de- livering the judge's opinion. Recognizing the extreme difficulty, not to say im- possibility, of escaping wholly from one or more of these biases or prepossesions we should be con- stantly on guard both toward ourselves and others. We must not claim to be infallible ourselves, and we cannot allow it in others. Let us be fair. Call it a balancing of accounts, one against the other, and let us seek earnestly to know the truth. 5. The plan of the present work is to study the church in the threefold light of Scripture, history and the conditions and needs of the present time. Each element of the life of the church is to be con- sidered under these three heads, as far as may be necessary or appropriate in each case. It is held to be of the first importance to ascertain as clearly and present as fully as possible the teachings of God's word as to every department of the subject. But the historical development of church organiza- tion and life will receive careful attention; and the application of both Scripture doctrine and historic precedent to the church life and problems of the 1-4 present age will also have earnest consideration. In Part I. the Polity of the Church will be so studied; in Part II. the Ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and in Part III. the Activities of the Church, including both its Work in all phases, and its Worship. 15 16 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. OUTLINE OF CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. I. Definitions and explanations. 1. Church Polity defined. 2. Various meanings of the word "church." 3. '^'Polity" the preferable term. II. Various forms of Church Polity. 1. The Baptist view. (1) As to the nature of the church. (2) As to the government of the church. 2. The opposing views. As based on — (1) Church authority, (2) Expedienc}^ (3) Scripture. III. Value of the study of Church Polity. 1. In general. (1) A question of religious interest. (2) A subject of historic debate. (3) Important to know the mind of Christ. 2. More particularly. (1) Polity' related to doctrine and life. (2) Much ignorance on the subject. 3. Especially for Baptists. (1) In the light of their past. (2) In the light of their present. (3) In the light of their future. PART FIRST. POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. CHAPTER I. SOME PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. Church polity may be defined as the method of or- ganization and rule under which a church, or group of churches, lives and acts. It will be necessary then to give separate attention to the two words which go to make up the naming of our subject — ''church" and "polity." Here we consider the meaning of the word ''church" as determined by its etymology and its past and present use. Hereafter, and more par- ticularly, the usage of the New Testament will be discussed. The English word "church" finds its nearest neigh- bor and sister in the Scotch "kirk," and next to that its cousin in the German "kirche." If it would find its mother it would look to the old Saxon "circe," "cirice" or "cyrace." It is evident at a glance that all these are different forms of the same word. \Yhence did it come? Almost certainly from the Greek KvpiaKov (Jiurialcon) . This word, to KvpiaKov {to kuriakon), was used by the Greek Christians to designate the house of Avorship, and it seems clear that the Goths, and other Teutonic races, got the 18 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. word, as they got their first Iviiowledge of Christian- ity, from the Greek Christians.* Now the word KvptaKov {kiirialcoii) is simply the adjectiv'e neuter from Kvpiof {Icurios), Lord, and means that which is the Lord's, that is. the Lord's place, the Lord's house. This adjective is found in the New Testament, though not with reference to a place. [The pas- sages are in 1 Cor. 11 :20, in connection with the Lord's Supper, and in Rev. 1:10, the Lord's day.] In early Greek Christian literature the neuter ad- jective with the article came to be applied to the house of worship. In usage the transition was easy from the building to the assembly which wor- shiped in the building. Thus the word ^'church" literally means the Lord's place, or the Lord's house^ and from that it has been extended to all the various significations which it has acquired in the progress of language. But interesting, as its etymology is, the uses of the word in our own day chief!}' concern us here. Of these uses we may notice at least five: (1) A particular body of Christians organized for re- ligious purposes and commonly meeting in one place for worship. This is the "local church," and we shall hereafter see that this is the prevailing use of the Greek word e/cKXijcria (ecclcsia) in the New Tes- tament. (2) The general body, or sum total, of Christians, conceived of in the largest inclusive sense, or partially as represented in those under consideration at the time. This is the "universal *Gieseler's Ecclesiastical History, vol. I, Introduction, § I, note. Skeat's Etymological Dictionary, second ed.,s v. church. rUELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS, 19 chnrf'h." a sense of the word which occurs in a few passai>es in the New Testament. As we shall see these two uses embrace all the New Testament mean- inji's of the word ccclrsia, or congregation. (3) The building where the local assembly meets for wor- ship or other purposes. This does not occur in the New Testament, but as we have seen is the original meaning of kiiriakon, "church,'' and arose very early in Christian history. (4) A body or sect or denomi- nation of Christians having the same general doc- trines, organization and history, including and con- trolling local bodies of the same faith and order. This use of the word is not found in the New Testa- ment, and very seldom in the times preceding the Reformation. It is distinctly a modern usage aris- ing from the divisions of Christians. It is not ac- cepted by all. Congregationalists, Baptists, and others who hold to the independency of the local churches do not designate any one of their co-opera- tive bodies as a ''church." nor call their total mem- bership by that term, but reserve it to describe their local bodies. (5) A group of secondary and derived meanings, more or less vague, and growing out of the preceding, may be put together: (a) From the local sense, as in such phrases as ''a member of the church," ''going to church,'' and the adjective uses, as, "church meeting," "church affairs," etc. (b) From the general sense, as "the Church," meaning the whole unorganized mass of Christians, "church and state," "church history," "church enterprises," ^'church people,'' and the like, (c) Somewhat waver- ing between the two, as "church order," ''church polity," etc. 20 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. We come now to consider the phrase, "church polity." Various terms have been employed to set forth the thing meant by this expression. Some- times it is called ''church government" to express the notion of authority or regulation exercised in or upon a church, or churches. Some prefer the phrase, "church order" to denote the arrangements by which churches give expression to their organiza- tion, life and work. Others prefer the terms "or- ganization," or "constitution," meaning the system of rules, or method by which the activities of a church are directed. In this treatise, the term "church polity" is preferred, as it may be extended to include all the rest. Sometimes, however, the others will be employed for variety as being prac- tically synonymous with "polity." Every society of believers in Christ, whether large or small, which calls itself a church is, by virtue of its being a body, somehow organized and governed. In calling themselves churches of Christ, these va- rious bodies all virtually claim in some sense the warrant of Christ's authority for their existence and their polity ; yet, among them we find a great and confusing variety of organization and govern- ment. Even classification is somewhat difficult. The books usually classify the different forms of polity under three: prelatical, presbyterial and con- gregational. The prelatical churches are those which are governed by prelates, or the clergy, or the ministry, usually called bishops; hence, the adject- ive "episcopal" is sometimes used instead of "pre- latical." The manifest objection to this general term is that it would include such totallv different PRELIMIXARY CONSIDERATIONS. 21 bodies as the Roman Catholic and the Methodist Churches. The presbyterial churches are thosse which are governed by elders, and there is more unity and definiteness in this designation than in the first. The congregational bodies are those in which each separate congregation governs itself without refer- ence to higher organizations. Of course the Baptist churches belong under this designation, as well as those which bear the denominational name of Con- gregationalists. In addition to these two great rep- resentatives of this class there are a good many smaller bodies which adopt the congregational polity. While mis general classification has some merits, it seems to be better for our purposes as Baptists to consider the matter of church polity from our own point of view; to explain first the principles which prevail among Baptist churches, and then to discuss the opposing views, with special reference to the ground upon which such opposition is based. The view commonly held among Baptists as to the church may be found in the confessions of faith put forth at various times by Baptist bodies, and also in numerous treatises by Baptist writers upon this subject. The main points may be summarized somewhat as follows: There are, strictly speaking, only two correct and scriptural meanings of the word "church," that is, the local congregation, and what is commonly called the church universal. The language of the Baptist Confession of 1689, known in this country as the Philadelphia Confession, in regard to the church universal is as follows: ''The catholic, or universal church which (with respect 22 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are and shall be gathered into one under Christ the head thereof: and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all." This general aggregate of all true Christians is not an organized body. It is, as Dr. Broadus expresses it, "An ideal assembly."* Conse- quently, the theory of church polity as understood by Baptists does not apply to the church universal or invisible. Church polity properly understood re- fers only to the organization of the local churches and their relation to other bodies. A church, then, in the Baptist view of the matter, is a local body or society of baptized believers in Christ, where the true worship of God is observed, the word of God is preached and the ordinances of the New Testament are properly administered. In the New Hampshire Confession, which was drawn up by the Rev. John Newton Brown about the year 1833, this view of the church is set forth in the following language: "We believe that a visible church of Christ is a congrega- tion of baptized believers associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the ordinances of Christ; governed by his laws, and exercising the gifts, rights and privileges invested in them by his word ; that its only scriptural ofiflcers are bishops, or pastors, and deacons, whose quali- fications, claims and duties are defined in the Epis- tles to Timothy and Titus." The view of the church set forth in the fundamental articles of belief adopted for the Southern Baptist Theological Semi- *Commentary on Matthew, chap. 16:18. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 23 nary aiul drawn up by the revered Dr. Basil Manly, Jr., is as follows: ''The Lord Jesus is the Head of the church, which is composed of all his true disci- ples, and in Him is invested all supreme power for its government. According to his commandment, Christians are to associate themselves into par- ticular societies or churches; and to each of these churches he hath given needful authority for ad- ministering that order, discipline and worship which he hath appointed. The regular officers of a church are bishops or elders, and deacons." As to the government of the church the following views are commonly accepted among the Baptists. In regard to external government these local bodies own no earthly superior. Their allegiance and re- sponsibility are directly and only to Christ the great Head of the church ; and their rule of faith and prac- tice is the word of God and that alone; yet, these churches as holding a common faith are closely re- lated to each other and may unite for the further- ance of their common aims, but not so as to form a hierarchy, or representative assembly, or any gen- eral governing body. For their own internal regu- lation and the carrying out of their ]>urposes, the churches may adopt in addition lo tlie scriptural re- quirements such forms and methods as are not for- bidden by Scripture, or contrary to its spirit : but any and all of the things so adopted are purely dis- cretionary and may be altered or abolished at the pleasure of the churches.^ These views are set forth in the Philadelphia Confession in the following words : 'To each of these churches thus gathered, according to his mind declared in his Word, he hath 24 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. given all that power and authority which is any way needful for their carrying on that order in wor- ship and discipline which he hath instituted for them to observe, with commands and rules for the due and right exerting and executing of that power." The opposing views may be conveniently classi- fied according to the ground upon which their oppo- sition is based, viz., upon church authority, expe- diency and Scripture. We will first consider those who oppose us on the ground of church authority. Here the authority of the church itself, as supple- mentary to Scripture, is called upon to decide the form of organization and government. Those who appeal to this ground are the Roman Catholics, the Greek Church and usually the high-church Episco- palians, with possibly some others. The theory may be briefly stated in the following terms: The form of government found in the New Testament was designed for the church only in the beginning of its existence, and was, therefore, only a germ; the Apostles committed to the church thus imperfectly organized the authority and the power to develop this germ un&er the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit; hence, the church, as historically developed under these sanctions, is in the true apostolic suc- cession, and is, therefore, still divinely organized and governed, although it has departed more or less widely from the form found in the New Testament. But at this point division occurs among the ad- herents of the ecclesiastical theory. The Greek Church, after long conflicts, having finally separated from that of Rome in the ninth century, maintains that it is the true and "orthodox apostolic church." PRELIMINAUY CONSIDERATIONS. 25 It presents a state of arrested development. It is still nominally under the control of Patriarchs and Metropolitans, though as a matter of fact, the civil authorities in the countries where it prevails, exer- cise a very important control over the church. The English Church, having left Rome in the sixteenth century, largely for political reasons, endeavors to shake off the Romanist errors of the Middle Ages and of modern times, and to found itself in the older and less corrupt tradition of the first three or four centuries. It still, however, claims to be in the true apostolic succession, and, therefore, to be the true church of God. Some Anglicans, as is natural, are more strict in their views than others, making more or less exclusive claim for their church according to their ecclesiastical opinions. As is well known, the English Church is a state institu- tion, while in its strictly ecclesiastical affairs it is governed by the bishops and the Houses of Convoca- tion. The Roman Catholic Church maintains the supremacy of the bishop of Rome as the pope, or father, of the whole church universal, he being con- sidered the direct lineal, historical successor of the Apostle Peter, the primate among the Apostles. The pope is held to be the head of the universal church on earth and the vicegerent of Christ in the management of church affairs. Along with, and under, the pope the other bishops constitute a su- preme hierarchy for the absolute government of the "one holy Catholic Apostolical Church" in all the world. The decisions of popes and councils are held to be of equal authority with the Scriptures, and the claim of the Roman Church to infallible eccle- 26 POLITY OP THE CHURCHES. siastical supremacy rests upon its unbroken historic tradition. To this doctrine of church authority' Baptists do not subscribe for good and sufficient reasons. They claim that tradition, no matter how ancient and clear, has no authority to develop, amend or alter the scriptural mode of church government. They insist that there is no adequate proof that the New- Testament polity was intended solely for the early church. If there was no hint in Scripture that the mode of government existing in apostolic times was intended to be universal and permanent, equally true is it that there is no hint of any other form which was to be such, and no suggestion that the apostolic polity was designed to pass away with the apostolic age. They further maintain that there is no proof in Scripture, and no valid proof in his- tory, for the apostolical succession in bishops, or for the primacy of Peter and the succession of the popes from him ; and finally, they argue that the historical developments of the church are unscrip- tural, and often corrupt. Another line of objec- tion to the development theory of the church is that it compels its advocates to fall into a dilemma. Either they must maintain that all the developed forms of church polity are of equal authority and value, or that their particular one is the only mode which can claim to be the true church. If they take the former view they are landed into what might be called comprehensive confusion; and if the latter, who is to judge by the historical evidence whether the Greek, Roman or Anglican hierarchy is the true apostolic church? PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 27 We take np now those who controvert the Baptist view of church government on the ground of expe- diency. The word ''expediency'' is not used as a term of reproach, nor does it do full justice to those whom it is meant to describe; for we must not say that the advocates of this view with con- scious purpose exalt mere expediency above Scrip- ture, or even put it on a level with Scripture in de- termining church organization; yet, as they give much value to expediency, allowing a larger discre- tion than Baptists are accustomed to grant in ques- tions of church polity, it may not be unfair to de- scribe this class of thinkers under the term pro- posed. Here would be included the low-church Episcopalians, who do not greatly exalt church au- thority and apostolic tradition, but they rather say that the Episcopal Church as historically developed is as good as any, and upon the whole is more expe- dient than any other. Here, too, would belong the Methodists of all names, and the Lutherans, to- gether with some Presbyterians and a few others. Obviously these do not agree in details. If expe- diency is to determine the form of church govern- ment it at once appears that the forms of church government so determined will be almost infinitely various. Attempt may be made to state the theory in general terms somewhat as follows: The advo- cates of expediency would admit that Scripture au- thority is supreme, so that what the Bible clearly reveals is binding, and what it clearly forbids is to be rejected. They maintain that the authority of Scripture as to church polity is not definite, either that no special form of church government is dis- 28 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. tinctly revealed in the Scriptures, or that the form given is not binding; or both together, that is, that the form of government is not clearly enough re- vealed to be binding. Thus the low-church Episco- palians need not maintain that episcopacy is en- joined in the Scripture, but that it arose so early in Christian history, and has been for centuries so good a means of maintaining church government, that its expediency is demonstrated by its great and long- continued usefulness; so they maintain that epis- copacy is the best form of government even though it may lack adequate scriptural foundation. The Lutherans press the principle of expediency to a considerable degree, and so it comes about that their government differs widely in different countries and localities, ranging from episcopacy in Sweden, and a State-Church in Germany, to almost a congrega- tional, or presbyterial, form of government among many of the American Lutherans. The government of the Lutheran churches in America is difficult to describe. They have no united body, and the sev- eral synods do not agree among themselves as to all points of church government. The Lutherans who have been longest in this country are more inclined perhaps to the congregational form of government, though others among them resemble more nearly the Presbyterians. The Methodists hold that gov- ernment is provided for in the Scripture, but that the particular form of it is left discretionary. Their episcopate is merely a superintendency — a minis- terial function, growing out of the early needs of their societies, or churches, and justified by its use- fulness. The great body of their people is governed PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 29 by conferences, ranging from the local church con- ference up to the General Conference, but the actual government of the church is principally in the hands of the bishops, presiding elders and preachers. They claim no apostolic succession. Their general regu- lations are devised according to what is best for their people and for the times. Among the advo- cates of expediency must also be reckoned a few Presbyterians who base the claims of presbytery upon use rather than Scripture; and even some Baptists, or Congregationalists, put more stress upon their form of government as expedient than as being clearly binding by scriptural command or precedent. To the general principle of expediency as a basis of church government some objections may be noted. It would be diflficult to prove that the form of church government is left wholly discretionary with the churches. The binding nature of New Testament precedent and of apostolic appointments cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand as if these ap- pointments were appropriate only in the apostolic age. Again, the Baptists and their Congregational brethren may claim with much reason that the out- lines and the general features of church polity are clearly revealed in the Scriptures, and are, there- fore, binding upon us, although many details are necessarily left to the discretion of the churches; but the most serious objection that can be lodged against expediency is that mere fitness and useful- ness ought not to alter, and certainly cannot im- prove, the scriptural model of church government. If this principle be pressed, not only the precedents 30 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. but the even the commands of the Scriptures will not be safe. Passing- now to those who oppose the Congrega- tionalist and Baptist view of chmrch government on the ground of Scripture, we must mention Pres- byterians of all sorts, and besides these there may be some others, reckoning the Reformed churches as Presbyterians. As is well known the Presbyterians derive their uame-from the Greek word 7rp€a0uTepo icaleo), to call, denoting in good Greek usage the assembly of citizens when called out from their homes to the gat^iering places for the discus- sion of public business.* Some writers hold that *Cf. Liddell & Scott, s. v. 38 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. the idea of a selection of certain persons from among the people generally is involved in the word, but this view is not certainly sustained by the Greek etymology— the assembly not being called out in the sense of being selected from a larger mass, but sim- ply summoned to attend to the public interests. Then the word iKKXrjaia (ecclesia) came to mean in a general sense a gathering^ or assembly, of peo- ple, even though they might not be summoned spe- cifically for the transaction of public business: From this more general use the word passed to its employment in the Septuagint and^the New Testa- ment. In the 8eptuagint it is often used to trans- late the Hebrew qahal, congregation. In the New Testament its usage may be best di'scovered by studying the passages in which it occurs. There are a few passages in which the word does not mean church. In Acts 7:38 Stephen mentions the assembly, or congregation, of the people in the wilderness, most probably having in mind the great gathering of the people at Sinai when the law was given. To translate the word ''church" in this con- nection is manifestly wrong, and the Revised Ver- sion has very properly used 'Congregation" instead. In the 19th chapter of Acts in refeijence to the up- roar at Ephesus the word occurs several times, but certainly not in the sense of the church. In verses 32 and 41, as is evident from the connection, the word simply means the coming together of the peo- ple— the crowd. This is not strictly speaking a proper use of the word and does not seem to occur elsewhere. In verse 39 there is reference to the law- ful assembly as opposed to the confused crowd, and THE WORD ''ECCLESIA.*' 39 this usage accords with the common classic signifi- cation of an assembly of the citizens. In Hebrews 2 :12 there is a quotation from the Septuagint ver- sion of Psalm 22:22, ''In the midst of the congre- gation will I sing praise to thee." Here there is no description of the New Testament church as such, but simply of a worshiping congregation. Still it \^ is a suggestive fact that the word occurs in this quotation from the Greek version of the Old Testa- ment. In all the remaining passages of the New Testament the word iKKXrjaiai cedes ia) is correctly translated church. By far the larger number of these passages de- scribe the church as a_![ocal assembly of Christian - believers. There is a smaller number, however, of very important places in which the word has a more general meaning. It is common to distinguish these two classes of meanings by the terms "local church" v/' and "universal church." It seems, however, in some few passages that, while the local sense of the word is not clearly retained, and a more general significa- tion is intended, still the church universal in the broadest sense is not meant. Besides the "church universal" is not itself a New Testament term, and there is no binding reason why it should be em- ployed otherwise than as a convenient designation. The better way is to distinguish between a local and a general meaning of the word church, rather than to press an unscriptural distinction between "church local" and "church universal," as if entirely differ- ent things were meant. We shall take up first those passages of the New Testament in which the word eV/cX?7crja iceelesia) de- 40 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. scribes the church as a local assembly, or iu other words is used in the local sense. For convenience of discussion the passages may be divided into those which refer to some particular church, or churches; and those which do not point to any specified church, and yet retain the local meaning of the term ; and these may further be subdivided into passages where the word is used in the singular and in the plural. It will not be necessary to discuss all the passages, but enough to serve as fair samples of the whole. In some cases there will naturally be difference of opinion as to the classification or interpretation of the passage, but in most cases the meaning is clear beyond doubt. The passages which describe some particular church, or churches, are as follows: a) Singular: Acts 5:11; 8:1; 11:22,26; 12:1,5; 13:1; 14:27; 15:3,4,22; 18:22; 20:17; Rom. 16:1 (23?); 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:4; 2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; 3 John 6,9,10; Rev. 2:1,8, 12,18; 3:1,7,14. Add here Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem. 2. b) Plural: Acts 15-41; 1 Cor. 16:1; 2 Cor. 8:1 (18?), 19 (23?); 11:8; Gal. 1:2,22; 1 Thess. 2:14; Rev. 1:11; 2:7,11,17 (23?), 29; 3 :6; (22:16?). The Revised Version is used here in the references and quotations. In Acts 5:11 it is said: "Great fear^ came upon the whole church." It would be impos- sible to say from this one passage whether the as- sembly had yet been definitely organized or not. The "^word may be used here in a somewhat loose sense for the general body of believers, but it is clear that the body of Christians at Jerusalem is meant. In Acts 8 :1 the designation is definite, where after the death THK WORD "eCCLESIA." 41 of Stephen it is said : "There arose a great perse- cution against the church wh_icli_v\'as in Jerusalem." In Acts 11 :26 it is evident that the church at An- tioch is described, where it is said that Paul and Barnabas were "gathered together with the church and taught much people, and that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.'' Most of the passages in the earlv part of Acts describe alter- nately the churches at Jerusalem and at Antioch. In Acts 18 :22 it is said of Paul that when he landed at Csesarea he went up and saluted the church and went down to Antioch. The reference there may be to the church at Jerusalem — that is, that he went up from Ciesarea to salute the church at Jerusalem and from there went down to Antioch ; but it is pos- sible that there was a church at Caesarea which is intended . In either case it is clearly the local church. In Acts 20:17 Paul is related to have sent from Miletus to Ephesus and "called the elders of the church" — that is, the church at Ephesus. In Romans 10 :1 the church at Cenchreae is mentioned.. In the 23d verse the Apostle speaks of the remark- able hospitality of Gains, whom he describes as the host of the "whole church." Here the reference may be to tlie church at Corinth (whence the Apostle was writing), which found a home in Gains' house; or it may mean the church in the more general sense of the whole body of Christians, meaning not abso- lutely every one of them, but any of them as they came along, who were the recipients of Gains' large- hearted kindness. In several places in the Epistles to the Corinthian church that organization is speci- fied, while in Col. 4:16 the church at Laodicea is 42 POLITY OP THE CHURCHES. named. In the Third Epistle of John 6,0,10, the reference is probably to the local church of which Gains was a member. In the first two chapters of Revelation the seven chnrches of Asia Minor are re- peatedly mentioned, — Ephesns, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. We should add here the three passages. Rom. 1G:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15 and Philem 2, where occurs the phrase ''the church in the house" of some one named or meant. Interpreters are not agreed as to the meaning here, being divided between two opinions. Some hold that a portion of the local church is meant, — a smaller body of the general church in the place, which might have worshiped at the house of the person named, or that the whole local church, being small, may have been described as meeting in the house. Others hold that the house- hold, or family of the person is meant in cases where they were all believers, and are thus by a figure of speech described as a church. The first interpretation is preferred as being upon the whole the most natural ; and this designation already sug- gests a division of the great town churches into smaller sections for worship in particular localities. In passages where the word is used in the plural it is very clear that the conception of the local church is intended. Thus in Acts 15:41 it is said of Paul that ''he went through Syria and Cilicia, con- firming the churches," meaning of cour^^e the (local y assemblies in these two countries, which had been established by him on a previous visit. In Galatians, the first chapter, he speaks in one place (v. 2) of the churches of Galatia, and in another (v. 22) of THE WORD "ECCLESIA.'' 43 the churches of Judjea. This last passage would indicate that at the time of the writing of this epistle, or of Paul's visit to Jerusalem, which he is describing, there wag^ more than one church in Judaea. This passage taken in connection with ^cts 9:31, where the local church of Jerusalem seems to be referred to, gives us an interesting point in the development and growth of the churches in that region. We now notice passages which do not refer to any specified church, and yet clearly exemplify the local meaning. Here again the word is used both in the singular and plural : a) Singular: Matt. 18:17; Acts U:23; 1 Cor. 4:17; 11:18.22; 14:4-35; Phil. 4:15; 1 Tim. 3;5; 5:16; Jas. 5:14. b) Plural: Acts 16:5; Rom. 16:4; 1 Cor. 7:17; 11:16; 14:33,34; 2 Cor. 8:18,23,24; 11:28; 12:13; 2 Thess. 1 :4 ; Rev. 2 :23 ; 22 :16. In Matt. 18 :17 our Lord speaks of dealing with an offending brother, and says, in case he will not yield to the previous treatment, ''Tell it to the church." Evidently here there is no allusion to any particular church, and certainly not to the church universal, but to the local body of which the persons were members. This is a sort of generic use of the word. We again find the local use of the term in Acts 14:23, where Paul and Barnabas are said to have "appointed elders in every church." In 1 Cor. 4 :17 the Apostle alludes to his teaching "everywhere in every ,'hurch.-' In 1 Tim. 3:5 Paul asks, "If a man snoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?'' that is, the 44: POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. local church, not the general body. Other passages may be consulted with the same result. In a similar way the texts where the word is used in the plural may be noticed. In Acts 16:5 it is said: ''So the_, churches were strengthened in faith, and increased in number daily;" also in Rom. 16:4 the Apostle alTudes to the gratitude felt Toward Aquila and Priscilla, not only by himself, but by all the churches of the Gentiles; and in 1 Cor. 11:16, in speaking of certain disorders in the church at Corinth he says: "We have no such custom, neither the churches of God." We proceed now to study those passages in which the word "church" is used in a niore general sense. ' ^ ^^ It is a question of some interest, but of little im- portance, whether the local sense of the word pre- ceded and gave rise to the general, or the reverse. It may be that the general idea of the whole mass of Christ's people — the kingdom of God, the spiri- tual Israel — was first in the minds of the New Testa- ment writers ; ^M^ that the portion of this general body at any particular place was conceived of as the whole "church," so far as there represented. But on the other hand, the dominant conception in the minds of the Greeks was that of a local "as- sembly"— the citizens of a town gathered for some public purpose. Looking at the usage from the Jewish side, then, there may have been a localizing of the general conception of the ccclesia, but look- ing at it from the Greek side there may have been a generalizing of the local sense. And it ought to be remembered that the existence of synagogues in different places would hav^e rendered a local use of THE WORD ''p^COLESIA.'' 45 ecclesia perfectly natural and intelligible to Jewish Christians, without regard to so abstract a concep- tion as that of a localized general body. In fact, the two senses may have been parallel from the first in Christian use, and it matters little which we begin with. While in a great majority of passages where the word eKKKrjcria {ecclesia) occurs the meaning is unmistakably that of the local church, there are yet a few weighty passages where this well-defined conception gives place to one that is more general and indefinite. This is in accord with a well-known phenomenon of languages. Of many terms is it true that when once they pass from the specific sense in which they are chiefl.y and clearly employed, they take on a number of sec- ohdar}' meanings which shade into each other by degrees. It is thus with the wordeV/cA,7;crta'(eccZesMi). Passing from the definite conception of the local assembly it becomes by siiades of meaning more and more general ; nor are these shades of meaning alwa.vs clearly defined. For convenience they may be designated as generic, collective, and universal. There seem to be a few j)laces where what is called a ''generic'" sense of the word appears. These are 1 Tim. 8:15, with probably Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 12:28; James 5:14. It must be acknowledged that many scholars reject this generic sense, and explain these passages by reference either to the local or universal church. The most that can be claimed is that the generic sense is here probable and allow- able. It is here that we notice the first shade of de- parture from the strict local sense. Where our Lord says : '*Tell it to the church ;'' and where James 46 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. bids, in the case of sickness, to ''send for the elders of the church." the sense is still clearly local, but with just a trace of suggestion toward the generic sense, that is to saj, any church, the church which may be reached, the church as an accepted and well- understood institution. In 1 Cor. 12 :28 where Paul says: "God hath set some in the church, first apos- tles, secondly prophets," and so on, the local sense is still possible, meaning any local church, and so all the local churches. But the mention of the Apos- tles, who were not officers in the local churches, but leaders over the whole body of Christians, makes it possible that even a more general sense of the word is here intended. A very interesting passage is 1 Tim. 3:15, where Paul saj^s: "The church of the liv- ing God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Here the generic sense is more probable. It is impossible to restrict the meaning here to any local church, "ffint yet the local coloring is so strong that the phrase can hardly be considered to mean either the whole g:eneral body of Christians, or the church uni- versal in its broadest sense. These latter two are of course possible meanings, but rather there seems to be in the Apostle's use here a general sense of the local church for which we have analogy in many fa- miliar expressions. For example, we say, ''The family is the social unit, the school is the hope of the country." Here we do not mean any particular family or any particular school, and certainly there is no "universal" sense in which such language could be employed. We mean the institution, "the family," ''the school," used in what might be described as both a particular and a general sense at the same THE WORD "ecclesia. 47 time. Thus it appears that in the phrase, "the chinch of the living God, tlie pillar and ground of the truth," the conception is that of the local church as an institution intended for the support and main- tenance of the truth of Ood throughout all time. But leaving this generic sense as somewhat open to question, we come now to notice those passages in which the word church is used in a collective sense. Here the conception is of the unorganized mass of professed believers in Christ more or less widely extended. It is common to call this the "church visible'' as distinguished from the "church invisible""— the sum total of Christians in the world, or in any locality. We first notice the group of pas- sages in which the church is mentioned as the ob- ject of SauTs persecution: Acts 8:3; 1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1 :13 ; Phil. 3 :G. These might be taken to mean the church at Jerusalem, there being as yet no other organization, but it seems more natural to see here a more general signification for the word; that is, it is used to describe the followers of Christ col- lectively. The Apostle persecuted Christ's people wherever he found them. All who professed the name of Christ were the objects of his rage. Another group of passages represents the church as more or less extended abroad : Acts 9 :31 ; Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 10:32. The passage in Acts 9:31 is worthy of special notice: "So the church through- out all Judea, Galilee and Samaria had peace." In the Authorized Version the word is in the plural, "The churches throughout," etc.; and in former times the passage was used as an example of the local sense, but the best texts, which have been fol- 48 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. lowed by the Revised Version, give the word in the singular, and there is no reasonable doubt that this is correct. How then are we to explain the passage? It is possible to take it as meaning the church at Jerusalem whose members were scattered through the region named, just as it is possible to interpret the church of Saul's persecution as being the Jeru- salem church whose members were scattered about; but it seems better here to understand a more gen- eral conception of the word, viz., that it means Christian people throughout those regions — the body of Christ's followers considered collectively. Of course those who believe in a great organized body, a visible church universal, will find here already an indication of that use of the word, but there is no trace of any organized general body elsewhere in the Scriptures, and it would be a violent assumption to take this one passage as indicating the formation of such a body in the apostolic times. It is also pos- sible to give to the phrase the most general meaning of all, the "church universal," considered as repre- sented in all Christians throughout the districts men- tioned ; but on the whole the collective use of the term here better fits all the facts. We may here again mention the use of the word in Rom. 16:23, whei*e Paul compliments Gains as the "host of the church." He hardly means here the local church; for Gains would not probably be entertaining the brethren of his own place, unless it means that the church met for worship at his house; but the con- nection (compared with 3 John 5-8) indicates a large hospitality for any of Christ's people when they came along upon the Lord's business as Paul THE WORD "eCCLESIA."' 49 himself had done. This general collective sense, the whole body of Christians, appears very plainly in 1 Tor. 10 :S2. where as a class of persons capable of being ''offended" the church is reckoned along with the Jews and the Greeks: "Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God." Here it is neither the "church uni- versal" in the broadest sense, nor the local church. Evidently a meaning somewhat between the two, which embraces the collective number of professing Christians, is the most appropriate sense. We now notice those few, but important passages, in which the word "church" is used in its broadest meaning, and denotes the whole body of true be- lievers in Christ on earth and in heaven and in all ages. This use of the word is found more especially in the Episile to the Ephesians (1:22; 3:10,21; 5:23-32) ; it also occurs in Col. 1:18,24, and in Heb. 12:23. It is noteworthy that in Ephesians the word is used only in this general sense, and this coincides with the view that this ejustle was addressed to no one local church, but was a sort of circular letter to all the churches. The broad sweep of the Apos- tle's thought in this noble passage is remarkable. He says that "Christ is head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that tilleth all in all." and in another place that "the niany-colored wisdom of God was made known through the church" — and in beautiful language the church is described as the bride of Christ whom he loved and sanctified and intends to present to him- self without a spot or wrinJvle.* The jiassage from *Cf. Rev. iy:7,8; 21:2,9. 50 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. Colossians is very similar in its general scope and meaning to that from Ephesians. In Heb. 12 :23 oc- curs the remarkable saying, "The general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven,'' where the reference is clearly to the re- deemed who share the blessedness of the immortal life with God. This is commonly spoken of as the "church triumphant'' — the saints who have gone be- fore. There are two notable passages where the exact interpretation of the word "church'' occasions con- siderable difficulty. In Matt. 16:18 our Lord says to Peter: "On this^ rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.'' Certainly the strict local sense cannot here be under- stood; but is it generic, collective, oc-Uttirersal? Any one of these is possible, and each has its de- fenders. But the generic meaning seems rather forced, and is unnecessary. As between the col- lective and universal senses there is not much to choose, but on the whole the latter is preferable. It is as if Jesus would say that on the great truth "which Peter had just declared, he would construct as an edifice all those who should in all time accept him as Lord — not the church local as sample of a class, not merely the aggregate of professed Chris- tians at any place or time, but the whole body of Christ's redeemed in all ages. The other passage is Actj. .20 :28 j_!^Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood." Here the generic sense seems entirely inappropriate, and the univer- THE WORD ''eCCLESIA." 51 sal much too broad. We are left to choose, then, between the local and the collective senses. Some- thing can be said for the local meaning, as the Apostle is especially addressing the elders of the Ephesian church ; but the expression "all the flock," and the general tone of the passage incline one to adopt the collective sense here as best giving the meaning — ''Tend the people of Christ as pastors, wherever the Spirit may set you in that ofifice.'' From this survey of the various meanings of the word iy.y.f^i(Tia {ecclcsia) in the New Testament we may derive the following conclusions: (1) There is no need of the common appellations "universal," "invisible," "visible," > "militant," "triumphant," as describing the church. All these phrases were made in later times, and are not found in Scripture. They are convenient designations, somewhat poet- ical, but they may become a trifle confusing if they be allowed to suggest to our minds different bodies or organizations. As has appeared from the pre- ceding discussion, the church, in the New Testament senses of the word, is a local body of believers in Christ, and then more generally, the collective num- ber of professing Christians, and then most gener- ally of all, the sum total of all true believers every- where, and in all times. (2) There is no trace whatever of any organiza- tion beyond the local church. There is no hierarchy, no governing power on earth, no pope or gradation of priests; there is no presbytery in the inodern sense, meaning an association of local elders pre- scribing for the various local churches; there is no trace of higher courts. In the Gth chapter ot 1 52 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. Corinthiaus the Apostle does, indeed, exhort the brethi'eu not to go to law before the heathen, and to refer their disputes to one another, but he is evi- dently here referring to the local church and not to any higher court over it. There is no national or territorial body. The only possible place for such interpretation is Acts 9:31. In all other places where regions or places are mentioned the word is used in the plural, and as we have seen, this one passage does not afford sufficient ground to infer the existence of a territorial church, inasmuch as the general collective sense of the word is there ap- propriate. And of course there is no suggestion of any sectarian bodies which take to themselves the word "church.'' There is no hint that even the Judaizers spoke of themselves as the ''Judaistic" church as distinguished from their more liberal Gen- tile brethren. In Rom. 16 :3 Paul speaks of "churches of the Gentiles/' but not of a Gentile church. The New Testament affords no sort of suggestion of such sectarian divisions and claims. (3) What should be the influence of the New Tes- tament usage of ecclesia upon our own use of the word ''church?'' For answer we must say that we ought to retain and still employ the two-elearly de- fined New Testament meanings — the local and the general. We must also allow the signmcation of a building as a derived sense of the word. As we saw when we discussed the etymology, the English word itself originally meant the building and came to de- scribe the assembly. Now precisely the opposite course has been followed in those languages which retain the word ecclesia. In both_Greek and Latin, THE WORD "^ECCLESIA." 53 for instance, ceclesia soon oanie to mean the biiild- Jng_as_\veJl_as the assembly, and the Latin deriva- tives, the French eglise and the Italian chicsa, re- tain both significations of building and assembly. There is, therefore, no impropriety in using the word "church'' to designate both the building and the con- gregation, though it is sometimes inconvenient be- cause of the ambiguity. But what shall we say of the other modern uses of the word? Certainly these are not New Testament uses, but the present state of the language requires their employment; and then by courtesy, where certain bodies of Christians call themselves a church, and are commonly so denomi- nated, we may apply the name to them, but without implying that bodies of Christians improperly or- ganized are a true New Testament church. 54 POLITY OP THE CHURCHES. OUTLINE OF CHAPTER III. CHARACTER AND FUNCTIONS OF A CHURCH. I. The church in itself. 1. Organization. No account of the act. (1) An organism, not a loose assembly. (2) Members — actual believers in Christ. 2. Functions. (1) Regulation of the membership. (2) Election of officers, (3) Maintenance of worship and ordinances. (4) General management of afifiairs. II. The church in its relations. 1. To other churches. (1) Negatively. (b) No common human superior. (c) No territorial union. (d) No general organization. (2) Positively. Contact and community. (a) Common faith. (b) Common life and customs. (c) Common relation to Apostles and other leaders. 2. To society. (1) To government. (a) No organic connection. (b) Submission as far as right. (2) To the life of men — active not ascetic. (3) To men as sinful. Effort to save. CHAPTER III. CHURCH POLITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. CHARACTER AND FUNCTIONS OF THE CHURCHES. Passing bv the cases of doubtful ineaniuji. and leaving out the notion of the church universal, we may now confine our attention to the local bodies which are described, or mentioned, or at least under- stood, in most of the passages noticed in the pre- vious chapter. Our problem now is to ascertain what we can from the New Testament itself as to the character and functions of these churches. We are to consider how and of whom they were comi)OseJ, what were the rights and duties of the members of the church, what actions the church itself performed, and how these various local bodies were related to each other, to the civil government and to society. In a word, we are to consider the local church in itself and in its relations. Considering the church itself, we first inquire how the New Testament churches were formed and of whom they were composed. We have no account of the act or mode of procedure by which any church mentioned in the New Testament was organized, or constituted. The probabilities are that the method was very simple, that Jjie Apostles, or_leaders au^. ^^ thorized by them, merely recognized the believers in ^^ / Clirist in any one place as a church without any formal or ceremonious act of constitution. We 56 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. should infer that there would be services of worship, and doubtless something in the nature of a cove- nant, or agreement of the members with each other to serve the Lord and maintain the worship and ordinances of his appointment. But this is simply inference; there is no explicit statement. Each church was an organism, a society', and not simply a loose assembly or meeting. One or two passages may possibly bear the meaning of a ''con- gregation,'' or ''meeting," as the significance of the word ccclesia. but the overwhelming implication, where the churches are mentioned, or even alluded to as such, is that they were organized bodies, and not mere aggregations of followers of Christ. This appeal's from the usage of the word ecclesia, dis- cussed in the last chapter, and more especially from the names, location and other characteristics of the New Testament churches. For example, the churches at Jerusalem and Antioch mentioned in Acts could not be regarded as mere gatherings, or meetings, of the believers who lived at those places. They are mentioned in such a way as to make the invariable impression that they were a definite body of persons. Even more clearly does this appear from the epistles to individual churches which are addressed as if they were organized bodies, as at Corinth, Philippi, Thes- salonica, Rome; so also the seven churches so often mentioned in the early chapters of the Apocalypse. The members of the church are in every case, either by direct statement, or necessary implication, rep- resented as actual disciples of Christ. This in- cluded, no doubt, in every instance, four particu- lars, namely, conversion (including regeneration and CHARACTER AND FUNCTIONS. 57 repentanco). faith. i)rofession and baptism. It is not necessary to cite all the passages which bear on these points, a few on each will suffice. As to the requirement of conversion see John 3:3,5; Acts 2:47; Rom. 1:6,7; r'Cor.'l:2. That faith was a necessary condition of membership appears from John 3:16,18,36; Acts 2:44; Rom. 1:8; Col. 1:2,4. It is also apparent that the believers must make public confession, or profession, of Christ as their Lord. Cf. Matt. 10:32; Rom. 10:9,10; 1 Tim. 6:12; 1 John 4 :15. That baptism was also a necessary prerequisite of membership appears from the great Commission, Matt. 28:19; and from Acts 2:41; 8:12; Rom. 6:1-4. Our next inquiry is as to the functions of the local church. What acts did it perform as a church? What were its rights, duties and privileges of man- agement and direction? We may note here four points of interest: (1) The regulation of its own members. This in turn involves three things: (a) Their reception. This is argued from the fact that it is the natural right of any society to pass upon the applications of those who would become mem- bers and determine the matter by vote. There is no reason to suppose that a church would decline to exercise this usual custom. Besides it is in- volved in the right to exclude from membership, which was sometimes a duty of the church, as we shall presently see. Further, the right of deciding upon meml)ers is distinctly implied in Acts 9:26, in the case of Saul of Tarsus, who experienced some difficulty in being received by the brethren at Jeru- salem until Barnabas took up his case and urged 58 rOLITY OF THE CHURCHES. his reception : and in Rom. 14 :1, where the Apostle exhorts the church to receive even those who were weak in the faith, provided of course that their faith was genuine, (b) Their discipline. Cf. Matt. 18:17; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:1-5; 2 Cor. 2:6-8; Gal. 6:1; 1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6,14,15; Revelation, chapters 1-3. A careful study and comparison of these various passages will indicate that it was the duty of the church to exercise a watchful super- vision over its own members, to punish their delin- quencies, to rebuke them, and in some cases even to withdraw from them, or cast them out of the fel- lowship of the church, (c) Their edification. Cf. Eph. 4:11-16; 1 Cor. chapters 12-14; Col. 3:12-17. Here the church is commanded to edify itself in love, to purge itself from disorders, and to hold fast to the Head, even Christ, making increase of the body. Clearly it is the duty of the church to attend to its own orderly growth and to the spiritual nur- ture and development of its individual members. (2) The election of its officers, servants and mes- sengers. This is shown in Acts 6:1-6, where the seven appointed to look after the distribution of the funds at Jerusalem, were chosen by the whole body of the brethren; also in Acts 15: 22, where Judas and Silas were selected by the church to go with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch concerning the ques- tion raised about circumcision; again in 1 Cor. 16:3, where the Apostle expects the church at Corinth to select messengers to go with him to Jerusalem bear- ing their bounty to the poor saints residing there; also in 2 Cor. 8 :32, where in reference to the same matter the Apostle speaks of Titus and others as CHARACTER AND FUNCTIONS. 59 messengers of the cluirches. implving tlieir appoint- ment by the brethren; and finally in I*liil. 2:25, where Epaphroditns is spoken of as '*yoiir messen- ger and minister to my need." There are two pas- sages which may be considered as somewhat ad- verse to this view. One is Acts 14 :23, where in re- gard to Paul and Barnabas on their first mission- are tour it is said : '"^And when they had appointed for them elders in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom they had believed." This much discussed passage seems to imply that Paul and Barnabas appointed the elders for the churches; but the word here ren- dered "appoint" is somewhat difficult, and the opin- ions of commentators are somewhat divided as to its exact meaning. It most probably refers to the solemn induction into office of those who had been chosen by the people, perhaps at the advice and sug- gestion of the Apostles ; or it may be that the Apos- tles simply superintended the election of elders and confirmed it by a public appointment, somewhat like our modern ordination. If, however, it means that these Apostles actually appointed men to the office of elders over the churches, we can hardly conceive that they did so without consultation with the brethren. We should infer this certainly from the passages before quoted, particularly seeing how care- ful Paul was in regard to the appointment of mes- sengers concerning the bounty he was to carry to Jerusalem. The other passage is Titus 1:5, where Paul says: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave 60 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. thee charge/' Here the word translated "appoint" is not the same as that used in the passage in Acts, and may more easily be taken to mean the simple induction into office, without implying selection on the part of Titus alone. (3) The maintenance of worship and the ordi- nances. That this was one of the recognized func- tions of the local church appears from a number of places in Acts and Epistles. See Acts 1:13,14; 2:1,42,46,47; 11:26; 13:l,2f.; 1 Cor. 14th chapter. Noticing only a few of these we observe in Acts 1 :13 the first reference to the body of the disciples after the ascension of our Lord, where it is said that they ''went up into the upper chamber," and that they '^continued stedfastly in prayer." In the second chapter of Acts they are described as being all to- gether in one place when the pentecostal blessing came upon them ; and in another place it is said that the new disciples "continued stedfastly in the Apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and the prayers." In 1 Cor. 11, the Apos- tle gives extended directions about the observance of the Lord's Supper, rebuking the Corinthian church for their misconceptions and unseemly con- duct in regard to that sacred rite. (4) In general, the management of its own af- fairs. Each church judged for itself and acted for itself as a unit, and attended to its own business. The one passage of Scripture which sums up the whole duty of a church in regard to its own work- ings is that in which Paul says to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 14:40), "Let everything be done decently and in order." We infer this general management CHARACTER AND FUNCTIONS. 61 from the natural reason that any organized body is properly charged with the management of its own affairs ; besides that, the general tenor of the Scrip- ture language is such as to show this; then the de- scriptions of the churches, the responsibilities en- joined upon them and the commands given to them indicate that they were charged with the direction and control of their own concerns. We pass now to consider the church in its outer relations. Its ministries were not to be confined to itself, but were to reach out toward others. Its life was not to be self-centcrc-10) by the leaders at Jerusalem, and they are together designated as apostles (Acts 14:14). Thus the divin*> call and the churchly or fraternal recognition seem both to be requisite; and this view is strengthened by the references to the '"false apostles," or those who lacked these things. (b) Another qualification was that the apostle must be able to render personal testimony to the fact of the Lord's resurrection. In case of Matthias (Acts 1:22) this is distinctly required. It may be reasonably assumed for Barnabas (Acts 4:33,36), Andonicus and Junias (Rom. 16:7), and is earnestly claimed by Paul (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8.0) as being true of himself. In the case of Matthias, again, this seems to have gone along with the requirement of acquaintance with the Lord from the beginning of his public ministry (Acts 1:21,22) ; but whether for others cannot be said. Certainly Paul had not been a disciple of Christ from that date, though he may have known him (2 Cor. 5:16) by sight. But however this may be, the main thing was that an OFFICERS OF THE CHURCHES. 77 apostle must be able to say that be had seen and recognized Christ after his resniTection. (c) A further qualification of the office was in having- ^'tlie signs of an apostle." This seems to mean the power to work miracles as a voucher of apostolic authority. Along with it went of course the spiritual work and fruit of a divinely author- ized and empowered messenger. Paul claimed these signs in 1 Cor. 9 :2, and 2 Cor. 12 :12. They are in- volved in the original call and empowering of the Twelve, and are exhibited in many instances in the Acts. While miraculous and spiritual powers were not confined to the Apostles, they were a conspieious and necessary part of their qualification. (d) One more qualification, but a difficult one to define, is that of the authority and privileges en- joyed by the apostles. This appears in the promi- nence given to the Twelve by our Lord, in his special training of them for their work after his departure, in their assumption and their brethren's recognition of their leadership among the disciples after the Ascension, and in many other familiar tokens found in Scripture. More particularly Paul in several well known instances claims this authority for himself, and once takes Barnabas in with him (1 Cor. 9:4-6) as having right to the consideration enjoyed by other apostles. The foregoing discussion shows plainly, without detailed study, that the office of apostle was not local but general. More important is it to consider whether the office was designed to be permanent among the churches. On this it is to be noted: (a) That there is no hint anywhere in the New Testa- 78 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES, nieut that the oflfice was to be passed on to others, eitliei' for the perpetuation of a body of twelve, or of the hirger number of this rank, (b) On the con- trary, the fact that personal witness to the resur- rection of our Lord was an indispensable qualifica- tion made it impossible to continue the office, as it was then understood, after the witnesses to that event should have died. Paul mentions (1 Cor. 15:G) that some of these valuable witnesses had al- ready fallen asleep, and of course the range of se- lection for vacancies would narrow to disappear- ance with the lapse of time. Nor, in fact, is there any record or trace of further appointments to the office after those already mentioned. And it is fur- ther to be said that no indication is to be found that the functions of an apostle without the name Avere to be transferred to any other set of officers and per- petuated in the churches after the apostolic age. The question as to the succession in bishops belongs to the post-apostolic age. We pass now to consider other general officers : the prophets, evangelists and teachers. And first, the prophets. The Scriptures which allude to ^his office are: Acts 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 21:10; 1 Cor. 12:28; 14:29-10; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11 (compare James 5:10); Rev. 10:7; 11:10,18; 16 :G; 18:20-24; 22 :G,9. Compare with these Rom. 12 :6 ; 1 Cor. 13 :2. In regard to the prophets of the New Testamei't dis pensation and their office we have very interc'^ting questions which are not without their difficullies. A full discussion of the matter is not practicable here, but the teachings of the foregoing passages may be summarized as follows: (a) The prophets were not OFFICERS OF THE CHURCHES. 79 officers elected by the churches. There does not ap- pear in any of the passages noted, a trace of election to office. Rather were they men especially qrifiiified and inspired of God for the benefit of the churches. (b) They are next in rank to the Apostles — r.re so mentioned in both of the passages where lists are given, and are generally noticed in such a way as to indicate that they stood next to those who bad been personally appointed Apostles by the T-ord. It is possible that all the Apostles were prophets, but cer- tainly not all the prophets were called apostles. (c) Their qualification was that of inspiration, sometimes of foretelling the future, as in the case of Agabus, who is mentioned in Acts 11 :28 as pre- dicting the famine, and in 21 :10,11 as foretelling the trials of Paul at Jerusalem. Generally, how- ever, their function seems to have been, by divine inspiration, to receive and make known new truth, or to give to the brethren better insight into truth already known In the fifteeenth chapter of Acts Judas and Silas are mentioned as prophets who ex- horted the brethren. Prophecy was, therefore, rather a gift than an office, and was probably not confined to any office, but was given to individuals according as God chose and inspired them. There were also female prophets, as the daughters of Philip the Evangelist, and those mentioned in the fourteenth chapter of First Corinthians. In regard to evangelists, there are only a few Scriptures. In Acts 21 :8 Philip is designated as ''the Evangelist." This we easily suppose to be the same Philip who preached in Samaria and to the Ethiopian treasurer. In the list of officers given 80 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. in Eph, 4:11 evangelists are mentioned, and in 2 Tim. 4 :5 the young preacher is exhorted to "do the work of an evangelist.'' The notices of the oflSce are, therefore, very slight, and about all that we can say is that the evangelists seem to have been travel- ing preachers authorized by the Apostles and the churches; that they went about preaching but with- out apostolic rank, and probably in most cases with- out prophetic inspiration. Their relations to indi- vidual churches are unknown, though it is likely that they were supported in their missionary tours by the contributions of their brethren at home, at least in part. In regard to the teachers there are a few passages : Acts 13:1; 1 Cor. 12:28,20; Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1 :11 ; 4 :3 ; Heb. 5 :12 ; James 3 :1. A study of these passages will reveal the probability that the teacher was not properly speaking an officer, but his teaching was rather a function wliich might be joined with other offices and not confined to a spe- cial office. Doubtless many besides those who were elders, or evangelists, or prophets, exercised this function. James exhorts that it is not best for too many to aspire to be teachers. The writer to the Hebrews suggests that considering the time they had been converted his readers ought to be teachers, in the first mention of them it is said that in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers. In some cases it may have been an official designa- tion; but if so, it is hard to find the exact relation to the other offices, or whether it was held by the formal appointment of the church. We pass on now to notice what may be called the OFFICERS OF THE CHURCHES. 81 doubtful offices. In 1 Cor. 12:28 along- with the officers are mentioned "helps, governments." In this much-discussed verse we have the offices of apostles, teacliers, prophets; and the gifts, or charisms, of healing, of working miracles, of tongues. These last can hardly be considered as offices in any sense — certainly not as distinct and separate ones. The question is whether the remaining two terms, "helps, governments," constituted separate and dis- tinct offices, and if so, what were they? It must be admitted that no entirely satisfactory interpreta- tion has been found for this passage, but the best is that which takes the expression "governments," as expressing the duties of the elders in the general oversight of the church, and the phrase "helps" as expressing the duties of the deacons in the care of the poor, the sick and others. So that the offices of elder and deacon, which are not mentioned by name in the text, are at least brought in by notice of their functions. We may notice here again the "messen- gers of the churches," mentioned in 2 Cor. 8:23, where the word in the Greek is "apostle," but they may be regarded simply as those who were sent by the church upon a special mission. They were not permanent officers, but were appointed to collect and bear the gifts of the churches to the poor saints at Jerusalem. We must also add here the difficult designation "the angel of the church," occurring so often in the first three chapters of Revelation — "the jLUgel of the ^Imrch ^ JEphesus," "Smyrna," and so on. This is also a very difficult matter, and no satisfactory' explanation has yet been offered. Three interpretations deserve attention: (a) Some 82 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. maintain that the bishops or elders of the churches are meant, but it must be admitted that no other place is found where either bishops are called angels or angels bishops, and so this is not certainly the proper interpretation. Yet it has in its favor the fact that an officer of the synagoguie, who was charged with conducting the worship, was some- times called a "messenger," the equivalent of "angel" in Greek. But even this is open to some question, (b) Another suggestion is that the designation is to be regarded as a mere symbol or personification of the church itself, as a sort of synonym for the church — the church itself looked upon as an angel — to the angel which is the church. This is rather a vague suggestion and it does not appear why angel should have been chosen rather than some other term as a synonym of church. (c) The other interpretation is that which regards it as an allusion to the doctrine of guardian angels, that each church is considered as having a guardian angel who is ad- dressed on its behalf. Some plausibility is lent to this view by what our Lord says concerning the little ones whose "angels" always behold the face of the Father in heaven, and by the fact that when Peter knocked at the door of Mary's house in Jerusalem after his release from prison, some thought it was his "angel" instead of himself who was knocking. This, too, is rather a strained interpretation, but it is at least possible. OFFICERS OF THE CHURCHES. 83 OUTLINE OF CHAPTER V. OFFICERS OF THE CHURCHES (CONTINUED). I. Elders — bishops — pastors. 1. The term employed. (1) Derivation and meaning. (a) Elder. (b) Bishop. (c) Pastor. (2) Same officer meant by all. (a) Acts 20:17. (b) Titus 1:5-7. (c) 1 Peter 5:1,2. 2. Nature of the office. (1) Duties. (2) Numbers. (3) Qualifications. (4) Appointment. (5) Tenure. (6) Emolument. (7) Authority. II. The deacons. 1. Origin and meaning of the office. 2. Were there female deacons? 3. Qualifications. 4. Duties. CHAPTER V. CHURCH rOLlTY IN THE NEW TESTAMFXT. OFFICERS OF THE CHURCHES ELDERS AND DEACOXS. CoxTixuixG oiir study of the officers of the New Testament churches, we come in this chapter to those that were local and designed to be permanent. These were the elders, called also bishops and pastors, and the deacons. With regard to the first of these groups we notice that three separate terms are em- ployed. Until lately it has been generally admitted among scholars that the same officer is intended by all three words. 8ome recent critics, following Harnack, have denied the identity, but not with suc- cess, as will appear further on. We shall first no- tice the derivation and meaning of the three terms, and then consider whether they were meant to de- scribe the same or different officers. First, as to the term elder. There are many places in the Gospels and some in the Acts where this word is applied to certain officials among the Jews, and there are a few places where it simply means an old person. Somewhat doubtful is the reference in 1 Tim. 5 :1, where Paul says, ''Rebuke not an elder, but exhort him as a father; the younger men as brethren.'^ Here the word elder may be the official term, or it may simply mean an older man, we cannot say posi- tively which, though the probabilities are that it refers to the office, and that the younger men are OFFICERS OF THE CHURCHES. 85 mentioned simply by the natural law of association. In 1 Pet. 5 :o the reference is also somewhat doubt- ful where Peter savs, ''Likewise, ye younger, be sub- ject unto the elder.'' Here, however, the official sense of the term is less probable than in the pas- sage just considered. Leaving out these two places as somewhat doubtful, the passages in which the elders clearly appear as church officers are as fol- lows : Acts 11 :30 ; 14 :23 ; 15 :2,4,G.22,23 ; 16 :1 ; 20 :17 ; 21:18; 1 Tim. 5:17,19; Titus 1:5; Jas. 5:11; 1 Pet. 5 :1 ; 2 John 1 ; 3 John 1. This term is by far the most frequently used of them all. This probably grew out of the fact that it was already an estab- lished word among the Jews, and while it describes the same office as the other two, it has rather the idea of age and of the respect due to age, as its etymology and common use would suggest. Of course, a young man might be officially an elder, but there lay in the term itself something of a cau- tion like that which Paul expressed to Timothy where he says that the ''bishop must not be a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the devil." At any rate, the special appropriate- ness of the term lies in the thought of experience and wisdom, of maturity and strength of judgment. Another term for this office is "bishop." There are only a few places where this title occurs : Acts 20 :28 ; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1.2; Titus 1:7. In the first pas- sage, addressing the elders of the Ephesian church, Paul tells them to "take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops." This is the first mention of the office under the title of bishop in the New Testament. In 86 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. Phil. 1 : 1 the Apostle writes to the church at Philippi, ''with the bishops and deacons." In 1 Tim. 3 :1,2, he speaks of the office of the bishop which "if a man seeketh, he desireth a good work," and pro- ceeds to lay down the qualifications for the office. The passage in Titus 1 :7 is similar in purport. We should compare here also the passage in 1 Pet. 2 :25 where the Apostle says, "For ye were going astray like sheep ; but are now returning unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls," where our Lord is de- scribed in the use of both terms, pastor and bishop. The word bishop from the Greek iTzcaxa-o^ {epis- copos) means literally an overseer, and in the mar- gin of the Revised Version is so rendered. It would be desirable to give it this rendering in the trans- lations of the New Testament, because in its progress though history the word bishop has acquired a thoroughly unscriptural signification, and in modern use connotes far more than in strict New Testament usage it denotes. This title of overseer as applied to an officer in the church looks rather to the func- tions of the office than to the character of the officer, describing his care, his outlook upon those who were committed to his keeping as a leader, guide and teacher. It carries with it more of the idea of au- thority and rule than does that of elder. The third term of this set of synonyms is that of pastor. It is interesting to notice that there is only one passage where the word is used, that is Eph. 4 :11, where, in describing the gifts bestowed on the church by the ascended Christ, the Apostle says, "and some pastors and teachers." It is not a little curious that the word which we now most commonly OFFICERS OF THE CHURCHES. 87 V use to describe the leader in the church is the one which the New Testament least used ; but this prob- ably grew out of the unscriptural associations which have been connected with the terms elder and bishop. But while this is the only passage where direct use is made of the terra, there are others which justify the application of this word to the office of elder and bishop. Let us recall the beautiful passage in John 10:11, where our Lord calls himself ''the good Shepherd," and Heb. 13 :20, where he is spoken of as ''that great Shepherd of the sheep," and 1 Peter 2 :25, where he is described as the "Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." Concerning our Lord, this indicates the care, the loving, affectionate oversight which the great Shepherd has over his flock. It was thus the familiar word for spiritual care. Now in John 21 :16 our Lord says in his threefold question and charge to Peter, "Feed my sheep," that is, Be a shepherd to my sheep — to my lambs. In Acts 20 :28 Paul enjoins this solemn duty upon the Ephesian elders, "Feed (or tend) the church of God;" and Peter also in his first Epistle, fifth chapter, verses 1-4, charges the elders to "tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of restraint, but willingly." Thus the term pastor, "shepherd," involves the personal tendance and spir- itual concern which the bishop-elder should exer- cise over his flock. From a comparative study of some of these pas- sages it is evident that the same officer is described in the three terms. In Acts 20 :17 we are told that Paul sent for the ''elders" of the church at Ephesus, then in the 28th verse, as just noticed, he bids them "take 88 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. heed to the flock," as pastors, in which the Holy Ghost had made them "bishops,'' or overseers. In Titus 1 :5-7 Paul first speaks of Titus' duty to ap- poin ''elders'' in every city, and then goes on to say that the '"bishop" must be blameless as God's stew- ard, describing- under another name the same office and laying down qualifications for it. And again, in 1 Peter 5:1,2 that Apostle exhorts the "elders'' to "take heed to the flock'' as pastors, and then goes on to say "exercising the oversight," that is, acting the "bishop," or overseer. It is fair to add that some authorities omit from the text the expression "ex- ercising the oversight," but it is very probably genu- ine. Thus it appears that in one of these passages bishop and elder meant the same, and in the other two the three terms are so blended in the use of language as to make it practically certain that both Paul and Peter understood one office by tliese three terms. Bishop Lightfoot (Commentary on Philip- pians, page 05) says: "It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion that in the language of the New Testament the same officer in the church is called indiff'erently bishop, elder or presbyter." More recently some scholars have questioned this conclusion, but not success- fully. The duties of the office were oversight, the general direction of affairs, especially spiritual, of the church. This is involved in all three of the terms emploj^ed, and in much else; such as the directions given, the qualifications required and work enjoined. Another function Avas teaching, preaching, edifying the church. This especially appears in the passage OFFICERS OF THE CHT'HCHES. 89 in Ephesians where it is said, "some pastors and teachers for the edifying of the church," and in 1 Tim. 3 :2 where among the qualifications of the bishoj) it is said that he must be ''apt to teach," and in 1 Tim. 5:17 where the ''elders that rule well" are mentioned, and then thej are described as those who ""labor in word and doctrine." This last passage requires a more special consid- eration inasmuch as it has been made the founda- tion of a distinction between "teaching" and "rul- ing" elders. Let us quote the passage in full: "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especialh^ those who labor in the word and in teaching." Now it may possibly be true that some of the elders were charged only with the oversight and were not specially preachers, but this seems quite unlikely in view of many other passages. Rather the meaning is that while the general work of oversight belonged to the elders, there were some who especially distinguished them- selves in that part of the work which included teach- ing; that is, all were both teachers and rulers, but some gave especial attention to teaching. It is said that they "labored" in the word and the teaching. Now this word "labored" in the original expresses earnest, hard, toilsome labor, and the idea seems to be that they made teaching especially laborious work. It appears to be well-nigh certain that in the apos- tolic churches generally there was a plurality of elders. They are commonly mentioned in the plural. If there be any exception to this it would be the case of Archippus mentioned by Paul in Philemon, 90 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. verses 1 and 2, and in Col. 4 :17. In the first in- stance Archippus appears as the leader of the church in the house of Philemon, and in Colossians, writ- ing to the church, Paul says: "And say to Archip- pus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast re- ceived in the Lord, that thou fulfill it," as if he were the special one in charge of the whole church. The inference, however, is uncertain. There may have been other elders in the church besides Archippus, though no others are mentioned. We cannot say positively, therefore, that there was in all the churches a plurality of elders, but it is more than likely that this was the fact. The qualifications for the office were exceedingly important. The}' are especially insisted upon in the directions which Paul gives to Timothy and Titus in regard to the office of elder and bishop. Their moral qualifications were to be of the highest order. They must be blameless, men above reproach, free from grievous faults, and besides this they must be capable men who knew how to lead, who could manage things, men who could teach others the truth of God and be in all things an example to those who were under their spiritual oversight. Appointment to the office seems to hav^e been by election of the church. In the first instance it may have been at the suggestion of the Apostles, as in the case of Paul and Barnabas already discussed (Acts 14:23). Likewise Titus (Titus 1:5) was di- rected to appoint elders in every city, though this passage more probably described the solemn investi- ture, or setting apart to the office, than the original election to it. In regard to what we now call ordi- OFFICERS OF THE CHURCHES. 91 nation, it must be confessed that the light in the Scripture is meagre. The Apostles laid their hands upon the seven mentioned in the sixth chapter of Acts, some of whom preached afterwards ; and when the church at Antioch separated Paul and Barnabas for the special work of evangelizing as missionaries, it was done by the laying on of hands. Again, Tim- othy is exhorted to "lay hands suddenly on no man." But some interpreters take this to apply not to the induction of elders into office, but rather to the reception of members into the church. In 2 Tim. 1:6 Paul speaks of the gift of God which had been imparted to Timothy through the laying on of his hands, but whether that referred to his induc- tion into office, or to the impartation of special miraculous gifts is a question we cannot settle. The most that we can infer from this instance is that there was some solemn ceremony of induction into office; and from a comparison of these various passages it seems to have been by the laying on of hands with prayer by the elders or the Apostles. In 1 Tim. 4:14 the gift is referred to not as coming from the Apostle Paul alone, but as coming to Timothy "through prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," or eldership. Another important matter regarding the office of elder is as to the tenure of the office, and of this there is no intimation in the Scripture. In the ab- sence of direct statement we would naturally infer that it was for life, or good pleasure, oi "during good behavior." There is no clear intimation of a "call" from one church to another, unless the case of Apollos (Acts 18:27; 1 Cor. 16:12) be an excep- 92 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. tion. Bnt on the face of it such a procedure is not improbable. In 1 Tim. 5 :19 there is a significant al- lusion to dealing with unfit elders, urging care in the matter. As to the emolument of the office, we are sure from a number of passages that the elders received pay for their services. In 1 Cor. 9 :1-18, the Apos- tle discusses the matter at considerable length as a right of the apostolic office and, by analogy, of the office of elder, too, and distinctly asserts, "Even so did the Lord ordain that they which proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel." Again, in Gal. G :6, he says : "Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things," meaning that those who enjoy the services of a pastor must share with him the good things of this life, and in what follows it is inti- mated that this remuneration should be generous and cordial. In the famous passage about the rul- ing elders in 1 Tim. 5:17,18: "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor," it is not at all unlikely that the Apostle meant double pay — remuneration; for he goes on immediately to say, "For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn," using the same quotation that he did in First Corinthians where the subject of ministerial support was directly in hand, and adds our Lord's words to the Twelve when he sent them forth to preach: "The laborer is worthy of his hire." Further, the caution in 1 Pet. 5 :2 Avhere the Apostle urges the elders that they should not take oversight "for filthy lucre but of a ready mind," indicates that there was sufficient pe- OFFICERS OF THE CHURCHES. 93 cuniary reward in the office to attract the cupidity of the selfish and the sordid. It seems, therefore, very plain that the elders were rewarded, and some of them even entirely supported by the brethren. It is possible that some like Paul worked for their own living while they preached to others. It is pos- sible that others received only partial remuneration as they gave only a part of their time; but it seems a reasonable inference, if not a direct teaching, that those Avho gave their wliole time to the service of the ministry were supported by the voluntary gifts and offerings of those over whom the}^ had the over- sight. Whether this support was given in the way of a stipulated sum may be doubtful, but the pas- sages about the laborer being worthy of his hire, and the elders that rule well being counted worthy of double pay, suggest that a fixed salary was not un- known. As the illustration used by Paul is drawn from the support of the priests in the Old Testament we infer that the support was not to be scanty; for we know that the Old Testament priests and Levites were amply provided for by the regulations of the Mosaic law. As to the nature and extent of the authority vested in the elders we cannot speak with definite- ness. The people are exhorted to respect their au- thority. In 1 Thess. 5:12,13, Paul says: "We be- seech you, brethren, to know them that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for their work's sake ;' ' and in Heb. 13 :17 a stronger note is heard, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them, for they watch in behalf ■94 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. t)f your souls, as thev that shall give account ; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief." Here the responsibility of the office is urged as a reason why the people should be easily led, not con- tentious, but reasonably submissive to the guidance of their teachers. On the other hand the elders are Bxhorted to exercise their authority with great mod- deration. Inasmuch as their office was one of elec- tion by the church they were officers over it by con- sent, and hence their rule could not be independent nor rigid. Yet, the very name of elder among the Jews and that of episcopos or overseer among the Greeks carried the notion of some degree of author- ity. It was not, however, despotic, which would he contrary to the spirit of the gospel, but a mild rule or leadership, and hence the high character and superior wisdom of the elders were to be ac- septed by the church in the spirit of love and confi- dence, not in fear or unseemly submission. The authority was executive and moral rather than arbi- trary or severe. Lastly, we take up the second group of local and permanent officers,that is, the deacons. Very little, indeed, do we find bearing upon this office in the New Testament. The word otd/.o-^o'? (diaconos) sim- ply means a servant, and in that sense it is often found. From it also is derived the verb to serve. But there are two passages, viz., Phil. 1 :1 and 1 Tim. 3:8-13, where the word is certainly used in the official sense. The Apostle writes to the Philip- pian church, ''with the bishops and deacons," and in the passage in Timothy, after giving instructions as to the character and qualifications of the bishops, OFFICERS OF THE CHURCHES. 95 he proceeds immediately to add those which are necessary for the office of deacon. So that while the word in its general signification means a serv- ant, it is clear that it came to be used of a church officer, and this very probably originated in the event mentioned in the sixth chapter of Acts, where the seven were set apart to attend to the distribu- tion of the common fund for the benefit of those who needed it. Perhaps it would be going too far to say that these seven were actually deacons, in the later sense, of the church at Jerusalem. Two of them, Philip and Stephen, also preached. But thus early in the history of the church it was felt that serv- ants, or officerSj to look after the business afifairs, were needed, so that the spiritual teachers and guides might give more of their time and attention to the ministry of the word and the devotions of the church. Two places (Rom. 16:1 and 1 Tim. 3:11) are held by many to give a fair inference as to the existence of female deacons. In the first of these passages the good Phoebe who had some business on hand for the Lord and had been the "succorer of many," is described as the servant, or deacon, of the church at Cenchreae. It is not positively certain here whether the word means simply servant, or has its official sense. It might easily be the latter. In the other passage, where the qualifications of the office of deacon are being laid down the Apostle inserts, ''Likewise must their wives" have such and such qualifications, but it might as well mean the women who were deacons as the wives of deacons. Good qualifications for the office of deacon are 96 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. firmly insisted upon in Paul's instructions to Tim- othy; and in the selection of the seven in the sixth chapter of Acts the Apostles said, '^Choose you seven men of honest report." It appears from this pas- sage also that appointment to the office was by the election of the church and perhaps with a ceremony of setting apart to it by the Apostles or elders. Nothing whatever is said as to the tenure of the office, the number of deacons, or whether they re- ceived any reward for their service. The fact that seven were appointed to look after the distribution in Jerusalem affords no certain inference for the appointment or continuance of that number in the churches. The duties of the deacons, as we infer from the appointment of the seven in Jerusalem, and some other indications, were primarily the care of the finances, looking after the business affairs of the church, attending to the poor, and probably the care of any other matters of administration which should be devolved upon them by the church. The name deacon, meaning servant, indicates that the duties of the office might be interpreted with some breadth. And the fact, as reported by Justin Mar- tyr early in the second century, that the deacons commonly ministered at the Lord's Supper, possi- bly points to an earlier origin of that well-accepted and sacred duty of the office. LIGHT FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES. 97 OUTLINE OF CHAPTER VI. LIGHT FROM OUTSIDE ON NEW TESTAMENT POLITY. I. The Old Testament. 1. The congregation. (1) Translated by both synagogue and ec- clesia. (2) Took action in both civil and religious affairs. 2. The elders. (1) Government by elders common. (2) They early appear in the Old Testament. II. The synagogue. 1. The facts. (1) Uncertain origin. (2) Meaning of the word. (3) Government by elders and others. 2. Inferences. (1) Elements involved. (2) Extent of influence on polity. III. Gentile institutions. 1. Gentile element in early Christianity. 2 Societies and guilds very common. 3. Probably not much influence on church. IV. Early Christian literature. 1. Preliminary considerations. (1) Difficulties of the study. (2) Caution against prepossession. (3) Necessary distinction. 2. Teachings of the literature. (1) As to the churches. (2) The officers. CHAPTER VI. CHURCH POLITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. LIGHT FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES. Hitherto we have been regarding the chnrch of. the New Testament solely from the point of view of the New Testament itself, that is, we have tried to find what the word of God itself teaches as to the organization and government of the apostolic churches; but the question naturally arises, Are there not other sources besides the New Testament from which we may get some information as to the constitution and customs of the earliest Christian churches? The industry of scholars has not left this field untilled, and results have been gathered which give us some information in regard to the apostolic polity. There are at least four sources of information and inference outside of the New Testament. These are the Old Testament, the syna- gogue as it existed in the time of the Apostles, the customs and institutions among the Gentiles at the period of the formation of the Christian churches, and the statements of the earliest post-apostolic Christian literature. Before entering into the discussion of what light we may get from these sources it is proper to say that information thus obtained is not regulative, but simply illustrative, that is, whatever we may learn has not the force of binding authority, but LIGHT FUOil OUTSIDE SOURCES. 99 may only show us what the Apostles actually did establish; or may at least confirm what we have learned from the New Testament; or may throw some light upon its dark places. The synagogue, for example, is in itself no authority for our prac- tice; yet if we find certain customs existing in the synagogue it may afford us a reasonable inference that something like them may have been established in the Jewish-Christian churches. Again, if the earliest Christian writers mention certain things, we shall have to judge whether these existed in the apostolic churches or grew up soon after the apos- tolic era was closed. The mere fact of finding an institution described even in the earliest Fathers does not prove its existence in the New Testament churches themselves, though it may yield an in- ference in that direction. Let us first notice what light we may receive from the Old Testament. In the interest of infant bap- tism and of government by elders the Presbyterians have exaggerated the authority of the Old Testa- ment in the matter of church order under the new dispensation; but repelled by this use of the Old Testament to back up theories not supported by the New, Baptists and others are possibly apt to under- rate the value of Old Testament teaching upon many matters of Christian life. Without attempt- ing here to define the exact limits of the question we may say in general that the polity of the churches under the New Testament dispensation is so utterly different in conception and purpose from the order of things which prevailed under the Old Testament- economy that inferences must be made with t^x- 100 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. ceeding caution, Christianity is not a reproduction of Judaism ; the local church of the New Testament was not to be a continuation in miniature of the Old Testament theocracy ; nor was any aggregation or organic union of the local churches to renew and perpetuate on a larger scale the Israelitish com- monwealth. No warrant for such views as these can be found in any of the passages from the New Testament which we have studied. Much positive teaching to the contrary could be adduced; yet, the influence of the institutions of the old dispensation upon those of the new is not to be wholly denied. Two things especially under the Old Testan^ienit economy seem to have had some formative influence upon the organization of the Christian churches. These were the congregation and the elders. Frequently in the Old Testament ''congregation"^ is mentioned. There are various phrases, such as ''the congregation" simply, "the holy congregation," "the congregation of the people," "the congregation of the Lord," "the congregation of Israel," and others. . There are two Hebrew words for congre- gation, qalial and edhah. These are rendered in the Septuagint by the two Greek words (Tw^ayojyrj (synagoge) and t/./.krjaia (ecclesia), but in both cases the terms seem to be interchangeable, that is, one is sometimes translated by one word and some- times by the other — either Greek word is used for either of the Hebrew words indifferently. The con- gregation took action both in civil and religious matters. It cannot be proved that as a rule such action was performed by the elders as representa- tives of the people, and not by the people collec- LIGHT FROM OUTSIDE SOFRCES. 101 tively, though this iiiav have been sometimes the case. The point is that here in the Okl Testament there was in the politico-religious affairs of the people action by the congregation, and that the Greek translation of the names for this congrega- tion have come down to us in the two words syna- gogue and ecclesia. This does not prove much re- garding the New Testament congregation, or ecclesia, but it is at least suggestive of the congre- gational authority and activity which we find in the New Testament churches, and also of the col- lective conception of the whole people of God as a body. Action by the congregation was in harmony with well known Old Testament precedent. In regard to the government by elders as exhi- bited in the Old Testament several matters deserve attention. In general the government by elders is no strange thing in the world's history. It is natural that mattei's concerning the weal of the people, or tribe, or family, should be regulated by the older men among them; so we find in many of the little Greek republics the gerousia, or body of elderly men. Rome had her senate, originally com- posed of the senes, or old men. Our Saxon fore- fathers had as officers in their towns or tribes, aeldermen, whence our modern aldermen; so in the Old Testament we find abundant notice of the elders as rulers and judges among the people. They ai*e mentioned (Ex, 3:16) as early as the days of the Egyptian bondage. The seventy elders appointed at God-s command (Num. 11 :11 f.) even while Israel was yet in the wilderness were to assist Moses in hearing cases. All through the subsequent history 102 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. there is frequent mention of the elders of the peo- ple, of the congregation, of the cities, and so on. Civil and religious functions were not so sharply separated under the Israelitish theocracy as among us, and so in the case of the elders these two classes of duties were no doubt combined. Their functions were largely civil and especially judicial. It was in this capacity that we find them so often men- tioned in the Gospels and Acts. But in the elders of the synagogue we probably have a class of offi- cers whose duties were chiefly religious, and this will be noticed in discussing the synagogue. Now it was perfectly natural that when churches came to be formed among Jews converted to Christianity the officers appointed to leadership and over- sight in the churches should have the name of elders. But there is no proof that the authority of the church elders^ was equal to that of the Jewish elders, or that the judicial functions of the latter were in anj^ sense exercised by the elders of the New Testament churches. The name and some general notion of authority seems to be all that can be safely inferred from the Old Testament eldership in regard to the officers of the apostolic churches. In regard to the synagogue, scholars have not yet determined the exact time of the origin of that in- stitution among the Jews. After the return from the Babylonish captivity it is said that in Judsea numbers of synagogues were established. In the time of the Maccabees the land was dotted with these institutions. There is frequent mention of them in the New Testament, and they have been ever since those days a firmlv established and well LIGHT FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES. 103 known feature of Judaism in all the world. The word synagogue, as before mentioned, is of Greek origin and means literally a coming together, or gathering. As we have seen, it was sometimes used by the Septuagint to translate certain Hebrew words for congregation. But in the Greek and Roman periods of the Jewish history the word synagogue ceased to be used for the general congre- gation and came to be restricted to the special in- stitution which it has ever since designated. For this the Jews had made a new Hebrew word, k'nescth, from a verb meaning to assemble, so as to distinguish the new institution from the oldtime congregation of the people. By a perfectly natural process the word which originally meant an as- sembly came to mean the place of worship, and so we find that "synagogue," like our ''church," has this two-fold sense. In our Lord's time the syna- gogue was a place of worship, with constant refer- ence to the assembled, or organized, body of wor- shipers. With the worship we are not at present concerned, but we may notice that it consisted of the reading of Scripture, prayer, praise, and some- times of a word of exhortation, or a speech, by some one who volunteered or was invited to speak. The government of the synagogue is our present con- cern. There were elders who seem to have been mainly charged with the administration of affairs and with discipline. Rulers of the synagogue are also mentioned. But whether this was simply an- other name for the elders, or meant the president of the council of elders, or was another officer alto- gether, is not certainly known. There were also 104 POLITY OP THE CHURCHES. other olficers subordinate to these, whose duties are not clearly made out. Just how much authority was lodged with the elders and rulers, and how much was exercised by the congregational body, we cannot say, but it is certainly not proved that the sole authority was vested in the eldership. When we come to sum up the points about the synagogue we find four that yield some inference as to the formation of the Christian churches, viz., (a) The place of worship and the worshiping con- gregation with some kind of organization; (b) Four elements of worship, praise, prayer, Scrip- ture reading and speaking; (c) Discipline con- ducted, members cast out; (Cf. John, 9th chapter) and probably also taken in, though how we cannot say; (d) Administration with some degree of authority in the hands of a set of elders, and along with these such subordinate oflBcers as may have been needed. Now not only in Judaea but in almost all places among the Jews of the Dispersion these institutions existed when the Apostles and others went forth to preach the gospel and to found churches. The in- ference is strong that to a considerable extent the organization of the church was influenced by that of the synagogue; but still we cannot see that the synagogue was in any sense an authoritative model for the church, then or now, because the synagogue itself was not strictly speaking of divine appoint- ment ; nor can we affirm with any certainty that the Apostles conformed the church exactly to the model of the synagogue. Even if the elders of the syna- gogues were invested with very large authority it LIGHT FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES. 105 would not therefore follow that the elders of the i'hiirches would be charged with the same, or a similar degree of power. Another line of inquiry takes in the influence of the contemporary Gentile institutions upon the formation of the earliest Christian churches. Gathered into these Christian churches were many Gentiles of various races. We know of Philip's preaching at Samaria and of his baptizing the treas- urer of the Ethiopian queen. We read of Peter's visit to the centurion Cornelius, and we have a com- paratively full account of the great work of Paul among the Gentiles. By tradition we have some glimpses of the work of John at Ephesus. Concern- ing the work of other apostles and workers we have little or no information in the Acts and Epistles, and no trustworthy record or tradition outside of Scripture ; but we may be sure that while Paul and his co-laborers worked, the rest of the apostolic band were not idle. In the second century' there were a great many Christians, as we know from Pliny's 'etter to Trajan, and from other sources. In the earliest centuries Christianity became Gentile rather than Jewish, and so remains to this day. Without doubt, therefore, there was Gentile influence, as well as Jewish, upon apostolic Christianity. Our question here is whether that influence was felt in the matter of church organization, and if so to what extent. As to the character of the Gentile elements in early Christianity, we have some traces in the New Testament itself. In the first chapter of 1 Cor- inthians we are told, "Not many wise after the 106 POLITY OP THE CHURCHES. flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called." Still this leaves us room to infer that some of these classes were called. There are also accounts of various classes in the Acts. Cornelius, for example, and the jailer at Philippi represent the military; Sergius Paulus, the official ; Lydia, the mercantile ; Dion^'sius of Athens, the philosophic ; Gaius and Philemon, if they were Gentiles, the respectable and wealthy; Aquila and Priscilla, the working; and Onesimus, the slave class. No doubt there were more of all these, and other classes too; but chiefly then, as ever since then, in all lands, the majority were from the humbler walks of life. In organiza- tions thus composed of the various elements of society it is usual for the minorit}' of Avealth and culture to have authority somewhat dispropor- tionate to their number, and the outcome is usually a compromise, or resultant of forces. We may con- jecture, therefore, that these first societies of Chris- tians, composed of all the various elements of the Gentile world, together with a sprinkling of Jews and i)roselytes, Avould be not exactly like, and yet not wholly unlike existing institutions. We may further infer that the Apostles in founding churches among the Gentiles would naturally adapt them as far as was consistent with Christian principles, to organizations with which the people were already familiar; and so the character of the people would influence in some measure the organization of the churches. As a matter of fact it is known that there were numerous societies of various sorts existing in the Eoman empire at this time. The subject was LIGHT FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES. lOT thoroughly investigated by the late Professor Edwin Hatch, following Moinnisen and others, more par- ticularly in the study of the inscriptions. There were trade guilds, workmen's unions, literary socie- ties, benevolent orders and various others, all very like those which prevail so extensively among us to- day. In addition to these there were religious as- sociations devoted to particular kinds of worship. Thus the organization of Christian believers into societies for the purposes of worship and pro- pagandisni was nothing strange in that age; it fell in with the established custom. In these societies among the people there were of course differences as to organization and government, but at least two general features are analogous to those of the New Testament churches. These were self-government and elected officers. These societies managed their own affairs, and were independent both as regards each other and any supreme authority over them all. Each had its officers, usually a president, and often also an ofticial body of some kind. Thes<* officers were variously named so as to designate their duties of administration. It has been claimed, but not satisfactorily proven, that one of the names for the presiding officer was cpiscopos. Were the Apostles, in forming the churches among their Gentile converts, influenced much, or even at all, by the nature and organization of these secular and religious societies? There is no trace of such influence; still it is conceivable, perhaps even probable, that the Apostles may have somewhat conformed the internal arrangements of the churches to those of institutions with which the 108 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. people were already familiar, so far as these were not contrary to the spirit of the gospel. Further than this we cannot safely go. It is more likely that in the succeeding age the influence of these Gentile societies brought into the churches un- scriptural elements than that the Apostles con- sidered them in the foundation of the churches. Altogether, then, we may say that the Gentile in- fluence upon the organization of the apostolic churches must have been very slight in fact, and is mostly a matter of conjecture. Much more to our purpose, and greater, is the light which we have from the early Christian litera- ture. That which is referred to in this discussion consists of the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers, that is, the works, or fragments, of Clement ■of Rome (aboiit A. D. 97), the Epistle to Diogne- tus, (130), the Epistle of Polycarp (about 150), the Epistle of the Church at Smyrna concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp, the Epistles of Ignatius, (the seven in the shorter Greek form, date probably about 112 to 117), the Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, (probably not later than 160), the Shepherd of Hermas, (about 100) ; and the writings of Justiu Martyr (110-165) and Irempus, (120-202). In studying this early literature with a view to discovering what light, if any, it throws on the organization of the Ncav Testament churches, we must keep in mind several preliminary considera- tions: (1) The difficulties of patristic studies in general are great. There is much reading for little fruit. It is hard to estimate the value of the state- ments made, and there are many obscurities both LIGHT FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES. 109 of text and of interpretation. (2) In following the great scholars who have worked over the field, we must remember that in one way or another nearly all their works are what Germans characterize as tendency ivritings, that is to say, they were written to establish a theory, either churchly, or critical. We OAve grateful recognition to such men as Bing- ham, Coleman, Neander. Ritschl, among the older writers, and Lightfoot, Hatch, Harnack and others among the more recent. (3) We must distinguish between what this literature reveals concerning the existence and character of the church polity pre- valent in its own time, and what it teaches us con- cerning the polity of the New Testament. The former bears upon the historic development of church polity, which will be considered later, and the latter is mostly inferential; for the early Christian writers have little or nothing directly bearing upon the Xew Testament polity. But from their statements as to the institutions of their own times Ave may gather much to confirm or modify our conclusions drawn from the New Testament it- self, and from the other sources already considered. In regard to the churches themselves we shall find some information. In the relations of the churches to each other, the early literature exhibits no trace of a higher ecclesiastical or governing body. A dis- puted passage in Irenaius {Against Heresies, c. III.^ Sec. 2) gives a hint that already the church at Rome, with her distinguished line of bishops reaching, ac- cording to tradition, back to the Apostles, was ac- corded a sort of leadership among the churches ; but as to lordship, that was not yet heard of; nor is 110 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. there any mention, or even hint so far as is known, of any general authoritative body. The two New Testament senses of the word church distinctly ap- pear; even the expression "Holy Catholic (that is, universal) Church" occurs in the Epistle of the Church at Smyrna. And in a number of other pas- sages in the Apostolic Fathers the general collective sense of ecclesia is found. As yet, however, there is no trace of a great general organization ; that was to come later. On the other hand the local sense of ecclesia is still, as in the New Testament, the more common one. The independence of the local churches is clearly recognized in the Apostolic Fathers, though these churches corresponded with each other and had many interests in common. This is commonly admitted by scholars. In fact this in- dependence lingered long after the establishment of the episcopacy, and thus leaves a strong inference that it was the rule of the New Testament. In regard to the functions of the local church we have some confirmation of the inferences hitherto made from the New Testament. Clement of Rome and Polycarp distinctly teach that the churches acted in the reception and discipline of members, and this is confirmed by the later witness of Tertullian and Cyprian. In the Epistle of Poly- carp, chapter 11., there is mention of Valens, a pres- byter who had fallen into error; and the church is exhorted to exercise discipline in his case. In re- gard to the election and removal of officers the evi- dence is emphatic. This power inhered in the local church. In regard to the officers there is considerable men- LIGHT FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES. Ill tion of both "apostles" and "prophets'' in the Didachc. as missionaries; but in most of the other writings the tendency to restrict the term "apostle" to the Twelve and Paul already appears; and the larger use of the word now disappears. The gradual, or local, or sporadic rise of the episcopac3% and the elevation of the diaconate into an order of clergy, may both be traced as beginning in the i)atristic period. Now the inferences from this fact back to the New Testament will be made according to the prepossession, or general habits of thought of the in- vestigator. A believer in bishops and apostolic suc- cession will see in this early rise of episcopacy an inference that it existed at least in germ in the apos- tolic age. Ltghtfoot suggests, though he does not press the point, that it originated in the neighbor- hood of Ephesus, and may, therefore, have had the sanction of the Apostle John. Those who deny epis- copacy, however, will say that its rise in the post- apostolic age is -proof that it did not exist in the apostolic age itself. If j^ou show that it actually began 150 years after Christ you prove an alihi against its earlier origin. As to the pastoral office, the identity of bishop, elder and pastor is confirmed. The term pastor does not seem to occur in the writ- ings of the Apostolic Fathers. There is coming to be just a trace of distinction between bishop and elder, but in most cases they are evidently the same. This is generally admitted.* Polycarp in the salu- tation of his Epistle to the church at Philippi says : "Polycarp and the presbyters with him to the church *Cf Clement of Rome, U 21, 42, 44 and 45; the Epistle of Polycarp, in the salutation and in chapter 6. 112 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. at Philippi." And in the 6th chapter he says: ''Let the presbyters be compassionate and merciful to all, bringing back those that wander, visiting the sick and needy, including the widow, the orphan and the poor, always providing that which is becom- ing in the sight of God and man." These are evi- dently the duties of the bishop, but the officers are called presbyters.f The authority of the office as being merely spiritual and subject to that of the church is clearly shown. Clement of Rome, chap. 1, says: ''For ye did all things without respect of persons and walked in the commandments of God, being obedient to those who had the rule over you, and giving all fitting honor to the presbj'ters' among you." Also in chapter 21 he says : "Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ whose blood was given for us; let us esteem those who have the rule over us." Similar indications may be found in Polycarp, chap. 5; in the Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2, § 4, and in the fourth chapter of the Didache. The functions of the office are shown to have been teaching, the ex- ercise of discipline and the oversight of the flock, the latter two being the more insisted upon. Indi- cations of this may be found in the Didache, chap. 15, and in the sixth chapter of Polycarp's letter already quoted. The plurality of elders in the churches is also abundantly confirmed in these writ- ings and generally admitted by scholars. The deacons are mentioned in a good many places.^ tCf. Didach6, chap. 15. +Cf. Clement of Rome, chap. 42; Polycarp, chap. 5; Igna- tius to the Magnesians, chap. 6, to the Trallians, chap. 7; Di- dache, chap. 15, and Justin Martyr's Apology, chaps 1, 65, 67. LIGHT FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES. 113 In one of these Justin Martyr is speaking of the ad- ministration of the sacraments and says: "There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and wine mixed with water, and he taking them gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe through the name of the Son and the Holv Ghost. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their as- sent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water, over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who were absent fhvy carry away a portion." It thus appears that the distribution of the elements was early a pn"t of the deacons' work. They also had the care of the poor, or assisted the pastor, who is often called the presi- dent, in caring for the widows, the orphans and the poor. In some passages of these writings the dea- cons are associated with the elders in the exercise of discipline. This connection with charities and discipline caused, in later times, the deacons to be raised into an order of the ministry; but it is evi- dent that this is a later development and is without Scripture foundation. In reviewing the evidence afforded by the four sources of information which we have considered in this chapter we may say that the argument from this quarter is very precarious and only inferential. It has been used with force and learning in favor of Episcopacy, Presbyterianism and Congregation- alism. The last, however, seems the most reason- able, inasmuch as it coincides with what the New Testament itself indicates concerning the polity of 114 POLITY OP THE CHURCHES. the churches. In brief, all the evidence from out- side leaves the New Testament order unshaken, but teaches us emphatically that our only trustworthy dependence is the Word of God. DEVELOPMENTS TO REFORMATION. 115 OUTLINE OF CHAPTER YII. DEVELOPMENT OF CHURCH POLITY TO THE REFORMA- TION. I. The second century to Constantine: 150-325. 1. Gradual development of Episcopacy, 2. Conception of the ''Church Universal," 3. Synods, or provincial assemblies. II. Council of Nicaea to Gregory I. : 325-590. 1. State and Church under Constantine. 2. Council of Nicaea. 3. The Patriarchate. 4. Papacy. (1) Tradition of Peter, primate of the Apos- tles, as founder. (2) Only Patriarch in the West. (3) Prestige of Rome. (4) Less importance of the other three. III. Gregory I. to Gregory VII. : 590-1073. 1. Development of the Papacy. (1) Territorial, or missionary. (2) Political. (3) Hierarchical. 2. Schism with the East. (1) Rivalry of the Patriarchs. (2) Diflferences of doctrine, etc. IV. Gregory VII. to the Reformation: 1073-1517. 1. Further development of the Papacy. 2. The Greek Church. 3. Monasticism. 4. The Sects. CHAPTEK VII. CHURCH POLITY IN HISTORY. DEVELOPMENTS TO THE REFORMATION. In the preceding chapter we found not much light on the New Testament polity, but we began to ob- serve in the post-apostolic times some indications of a development toward a new order of things. Leaving now the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, we take our point of departure at about the middle of the second century to trace the his- toric course and development of church polity on to the beginning of the Keforraation in the sixteenth century. Only a hasty survey will be made in order to get our bearings and connect modern church polity with that of the New Testament. In making^ this survey it is proper to remark that we are not now seeking any authority whatever for church polity. The authority for our practice resides solely in the New Testament itself. We are simply seeking^ the facts regarding the developments, that they may assist us to a clearer understanding of the present conditions of church polity among the leading Chris- tian sects, and with the special view of exhibiting^ hereafter the correspondence between Baptist ideas of church order and those which we find in the New Testament. It will be convenient to divide the time set apart for discussion in this chapter into four periods, as follows: (1) From the second century DEVELOPMENTS TO REFORMATION. 117 to Constantine, 150-325; (2) From the Council of Nictea to Gregory I., 325-590; (3) From Gregory I. to Gregory VII., 590-1073; (4) From Gregory VII. to the Reformation, 1073-1517. We take up, then, the first period, from the second century to Constantine, A. D. 150-325. This ground has been much and ably contested in the interest of Episcopacy, Presbyterianism and Congregational- ism. Whichever theory one takes up he can find support for it in the literature of this period. It was an age of transition, and the line of development was not yet fixed, though its tendency in the direc- tion of episcopacy is already apparent. Three points of interest are to be noticed : the officers, the church and the councils. In regard to the officers of the church within this period we find the germ, and a fair degree of development, of the episcopacy. In the Epistle of Clement of Rome, the Didache and other writings of the earliest period it has been noticed that as yet the bishops and elders are the same, and the dea- cons are not recognized as an order of the ministry ; but in the writings of Ignatius, Irenaeus and others, just about the beginning of the period we now have under discussion the bishop appears as one apart from, and above, the presbyters, and the deacons are coming to be regarded as an order in the minis- try. As yet, however, the bishop is only the pastor of one church with elders and deacons under him. In the more populous towns and cities the churches are large and probably-, though this point cannot be regarded as certainly settled, they are divided into several congregations with different meeting places 118 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. and under the direction of the presbyters. Thus the bishop, while pastor of the one church in a place, has the oversight of several different congre- gations, with, possibly, meeting places in different parts of the same city; but this does not prevail in the country and in the smaller towns, where the bishop is yet the pastor of a single church. Now also the rites of ordination and confirmation are reserved to the bishop. By ordination it becomes an exclusive episcopal function to set apart candidates for the ministry. What was before the work of the eldership as a body becomes now the exclusive right of the president of the board of elders, that is, the bishop, and thus the idea of receiving an episcopal ordination in direct succession from the Apostles becomes important. Confirmation arose from the practice of the elder's laying his hands upon a con- vert immediately after baptism. Some suppose that this practice is indicated in 1 Tim. 5:22 where the Apostle says: ''Lay hands hastily on no man;" though that is doubtful. It is true, however, that early in Christian history the practice appears, and, as in the case of ordination, what was originally the office of the elders indiscriminately now comes to be reserved for the leading elder or bishop. This rite of confirmation comes afterward to have great importance in the episcopal churches. It reserves to the bishop the right to pass upon all applicants for church membership, and thus gives him great power in determining the char- acter of the membership in his churches. Baptism was, so to speak, validated by the laying on of the hands of the bishop, and so we see how in DEVELOPMENTS TO REFORMATION. 119 the case of children who were baptized in infancy the ceremony was not considered complete until they afterwards made confession and were thus confirmed. And in I'egard to irregular baptism by heretics and other improperly qualified adminis- trators the act of confirmation on the part of the bishop was supposed to cover all irregularities. We thus see that these two important rites of ordina- tion and confirmation were already beginning to be placed exclusively in the bishop's hands, and thus his power was greatly enlarged and his importance was magnified. In regard to the church, let us observe some mat- ters of importance. With this advance of the bishop there was also a development in the conception of the church. The local churches were still independ- ent, though they corresponded with 'each other. There was still no great organization, no general governing authority, no national or territorial body; but the idea of the church universal, that all genu- ine Christians are really one body, begins to take more definite shape, and the church comes to be conceived of as an actually unified and visible whole. We find the phrase "Catholic (that is, universal) Church" in this sense already in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smjjrnaeans, chap. 8, and in the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna on the Martyrdom^ of Polycarp. When we come to the writings of Cyprian about the year 251, the term is yet more definite. Up to this time, however, it means only the general body of believers as distinguished from the local congregations and including them. It founds itself upon one of the meanings of the word 120 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. church as used in the New Testament, but shows a tendency to grow into the conception of a grand organism, of which, as we have seen, there is no trace in the Scriptures. The Councils, or Synods, of this age assisted in giving more definite external form to the idea of the church as one visible body of believers in the world. The need of co-operation among the various local churches, together with the strongly felt neces- sity for doctrinal accord in the face of the multitu- dinous heresies of the time, gave rise to church councils. At first these bodies were called synods, a word which simply means "a. coming together." This was a Greek term, and the use of the Latin word concilium in later times is an indication of the growing influence of the Latin church. The synods or councils were composed of representatives of the churches within certain localities or provinces, and so were not universal but provincial. The members were at first bishops, elders and even lay- men. Gradually these bodies grew in power, helped on by the tendencies already described. Originally they had no control over the churches, but were simply meetings for conference. Early in the fourth century there were held three large provincial synods, one at Elvira in Spain, another at Aries in Gaul and the third at Ancyra in Galatia. These three synods exhibit growth in the importance and power of provincial assemblies and pave the way for the great Council of Nicaea, the first general council, which was called by the emperor Constan- tine in 325. The next period is from the Council of Nicaea to DEVELOPMENTS TO REFORMATION. 121 Oregory I., 825-590. In this very interesting and fruitful ijeriod in church history four things bear especially on our topic of church polity, viz.: (1) State patronage of the church; (2) The Council of Nicaea; (3) The patriarchate, and (4) Progress toward the papacy. Very important are the relations of state and church as they are established within this epoch. The first Christian emperor. Constantine, took the Christian religion under his protection and made it the religion of the state. This had a wonderful effect on the church in many directions, particularly as to polity. It tended to define still more the visi- ble unity of the church as a grand organization, and it made the emperor as the supreme ruler in the state, the natural head of the church also, in tem- poral aff'airs, with a strong tendency to govern it even in spiritual affairs. Laws were made for the government of the church, and generally its position as a world-power, a commonwealth within the com- monwealth, was firmly fixed. The Council of Nicfea gave to the development of church polity a powerful impulse. This great and renowned assembly was summoned by the emperor in the year 325 to consider especially what should be the doctrine of the church on the question of the divinity of our Lord; but while primarily called to settle a doctrinal question, the council wonderfully helped on the idea of the catholic unity of the church. A remarkable fact about the council was that its membership consisted only of bishops. Athanasius, who had so much to do in shaping the work of the council, was not a bishop; he was only a presbyter, 122 POLITY OP THE CHURCHES. and did not have a vote in the body, which yet car- ried out his own opinions. The council decided matters of polity as well as of doctrine, and passed rules (canons) for the gov- ernment of the church at large, and even a few for the regulation of church matters within the prov- inces. Thus the precedent was established of a general council acting in legislative capacity for the whole church, or body of Christians, in their con- gregations throughout the provinces of the empire. This precedent was of course followed and con- firmed into rule by all the great councils which came after; so that from this time on we may say that the visible organization of the church universal has swallowed up the independent congregations, and has consolidated and brought to the minds of men as a definite earthly institution the rather vague no- tion of the earlier times concerning the church uni- versal. To all intents and purposes the state-pro- tected hierarchy is now the church. The New Tes- tament distinction between the local and general meanings of the word ''church" now almost entirely disappears from Christian literature until the Reformation. The third important step in ecclesiastical devel- opment within the period under consideration is the Patriarchate. An order of bishops of superior rank grew up in this way : A large city in any consider- able region of the empire having smaller cities or towns dependent upon it was called the metropolis, or mother city. Naturally bishops of the churches in these large cities came to be called metropolitan bishops, and they had the oversight not only of the DEVELOPMENTS TO REFORMATION. 123 churches of their own city, but in the adjacent cities, towns, and even villages contiguous to the capital. The district throughout which the influ- ence of the metropolis extended was called a diocese. This word was derived from the usage of the em- pire. Some of the smaller divisions of the provinces in the empire were called "dioceses," the word indi- cating the territory under the administration (diokcsis) of the civil officers, and by an easy transi- tion it passed over to the church and signified the district comprising the churches under the care of a metropolitan bishop. Thus the metropolitan bishops became great lords ruling over many con- gregations, the inferior clergy, and even o\^r the bishops of the smaller churches of the towns, and over country pastors. The next step was easy. For convenience of administration the empire had been divided into four departments, of which the capital cities were Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch. The imperial representative in each one of these capitals was called a prefect, and his terri- tory a prefecture. Now, as was natural, the metro- politan bishop in each one of these four capitals came to have a commanding influence. Further, because of its sacred associations and the pres- ence of the holy places, the city of Jerusalem had also a position of great prominence. The churches at all five of these cities, except Constanti- nople, according to the then well-accepted tradition, had been founded by Apostles; and they were, there- fore, called scdcs apostolicae, that is "apostolic seats," or ''sees." These five metropolitans were ac- cordingly honored above all the rest, having the 124 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. ■oversight of all the churches, bishoprics and dio- ceses in their respective provinces. Already the terms ''father" and "patriarch" had been applied to bishops and other prelates. But now the term "pa- triarch"— father-ruler — is given by pre-eminence to the metropolitan bishops of the five cities: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. The next step, the fourth in the course of progress, was very easy ; for among these five patriarchs, there heing an odd number, one must be in some sense the leader and chief; and so in the natural course of things the leading place fell to the one who presided at the ancient capital, Rome. Thus we come to the papacy. Many circumstances conspired to make the patriarch of Rome the head of the visible organiza- tion known as the Catholic Church. Tradition as- signed to both Peter and Paul the establishment of the church and bishopric at Rome, and direct apostolic succession from Peter was very early claimed by the Roman bishop. About the year 440, the then bishop of Rome, Leo I., gave the necessary doctrinal basis to this assumption of supremacy by his interpretation of the famous passage in Matt. 16 :18, "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church," etc. He took this, as Rome has ever since taken it, to assert and make permanent the primacy of Peter among the Apostles, and, there- fore, of all the successors of Peter among the suc- cessors of Apostles. Again, the patriarch of Rome was the only one for the western division of the empire, and his some- what monarchical position in that part of the world was easily won and retained; that is, while the east- nEVELOPMENTS TO REFORMATION. 125 ern portion of the empire was divided into three parts, the western and more progressive portion was still only one part; and thus, both in territory and influence it had a commanding position in the di- vided empire, and so the church ruler within that portion of the world would have a correspondingly important position. And still again, the old tradi- tions as to the city of Home itself, and its proud prestige as former mistress of the world gave force to the development. Nor must the decay of political government in the West, and its final collapse in 476, be left out of the account. The bishop of Rome loomed large when the emperor ceased to be. All these things Avere used by the Roman bishops in as- serting their claims to supremacy in the church. And finally, the comparatively less importance of the other three patriarchates, narrowed the contest for ultimate supremacy to Rome and Constantinople, with the odds decidedly in Rome's favor. And this brings us to the time of Gregory the Great. Within the next period from Gregory I, to Gregory VII., 590-1073, the development of the church goes on. This long period, including as it does the epoch known as the Dark Ages, presents two g-eneral fea- tures of great interest to the student of church polity, viz., the continued growth of the papacy, and the schism with the Eastern Church. Continuing our discussion of the development of the papacy from the time of Gregory I., we must take account of three lines of extension : territorial or missionary, political and hierarchical. The first of these, the territorial or missionary development of the church in this period is of the utmost impor- 126 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. tance in regard to the history of subsequent ages; for in this period comes the great missionary work of the Roman Church among the European nations. England, France, Germany, Denmark and Sweden, were brought under the sway of the Cross within this period. One of the chief sources of Catholic power to this very day lies in the fact that the new barbaric nations of Europe were brought in their fresh and hardy youth under the control of the Roman ideas of the church, without ever having had of them- selves any knowledge or tradition of apostolic Chris- tianity. In addition to this missionary enlargement of the church, we must take account also of its political growth ; and here again, there are some points of special interest. The gradual severance of Rome, ecclesiastically and politically, from the Eastern Empire, and the decay of the latter, served to em- phasize the importance of Rome. The bishops of Rome were compelled to have a certain political in- fluence within the city, and therefore in the prov- inces of Italy and all the West. They often treated with the barbarian invaders in matters of state. Thus their political power was strengthened. Then the complicity of the pope in the establishment of the new Western Empire under Charlemagne, about the beginning of the ninth century, led to the close alliance of the two great powers, ecclesiastical and imperial, in the western world. To this must be added the acquisition by the Roman see of actual territory in Italy by the grants of Pepin and his son Charlemagne. The bishops of Rome thus not only exercised influence through the whole of the DEVELOPMENTS TO REFORMATION. 127 Western Empire, but actually as temporal princes had a considerable portion of Italy under their con- trol. These provinces, or states, of the church were a great figure in the subsequent history of Rome and all the world. In addition to the missionary and political growth of the papacy, its hierarchical development must also be considered ; for this is what chiefly concerns us, though the other elements of growth helped it along. The two Gregories, I, and VII., mark very important epochs in the establishment of the papal hierarchy. Gregory T., 590, was a good and able man. He was the patriarch of Rome in the trying days of political turmoil consequent upon the Teu- tonic conquest. He was in sharp rivalry with the patriarch of Constantinople, but he recognized the other four patriarchs, at least nominally, sl^ his equals. He was wise enough to decline with em- phasis and even with feeling the title of pope or supreme bishop over the whole church, but none the less did he grasp at the power. We are reminded of the tactful way in which the Caesars, both Julius and Octavius, declined the royal title and accepted a new one, emperor, while they concentrated in their own hands all the powers of the old Roman republic. As a matter of fact, a certain supremacy was ac- corded to the bishop of Rome throughout the world, and his supremacy was unquestioned in every quarter except Constantinople. So that from the time of Gregory I. the papacy may be considered as an established institution. There is no turning back. The schism with the Eastern Church and the unholy alliance with the Western Empire consoli- 128 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. dated the strength of the Roman see; yet, while within this period from 590 to 1073 the external power of the papacy is permanently established, the tenth century witnesses its deepest and most shameful moral degradation; but that the papacy could still live, and even reform in some measure, through all this horrible moral corruption, shows how great was its force and vigor, and what a supremacy it had over the minds of men! Now when the ambitious and able Hildebrand ascended the papal throne in 1073, and took the name of Gregory VII., the power of the papacy had reached a towering height. Completely vanish- ed now is the notion of separate congrega- tions with their bishops and pastors. The great Roman hierarchy with the pope at its head is now in the minds of men the Church ; and this historic- ally developed human organization with all its tyranny and corruption, arrogates to itself the note of exclusive catholicity, and claims with daring as- sumption over all other forms of Christian belief to be the one Church Universal, the mystical Body and holy Bride of Christ. Another important matter of church polity in this epoch is the final separation between the Eastern and Western churches. As was before pointed out, the natural tendency of having five patriarchs over the church would be toward the recognition of one as supreme, and the question lay for its final settle- ment between the sees of Constantinople and Rome. Constantinople could claim, though not without pro- test, political superiority from the days of Constan- tine, but Rome could claim on the contrary its great DEVELOPIMENTS TO REFORMATION. 129 aiitiqiiitj and its then unchallenged tradition of apostolic foundation. The rivalry between the two capitals and their patriarchs was keen. It was (piickened by personal differences between the in- cumbents of the sees at various times, and memora- bly in the ninth century between Nicholas of Rome and Photius of Constantinople. As Schaflf cleverly expresses it, "Photius would tolerate no superior, Nicholas no equal." Added to this there were cer- tain differences of doctrine and worship, and deeper yet lay the diversity of character and temper be- tween the people of the East and the West. After various attempts to patch up peace, the schism was finally comi)leted about the middle of the eleventh century, and though serious efforts were made as late as the thirteenth century to reunite the two bodies, the breach remains unhealed to this day. We come now to the last period assigned for study in this chapter, viz., from Gregory VII. to the Refor- mation, 1073-1517. During this time the principal things to be considered in reference to church polity are four : the papacy, the Greek Church, monasti- cism, and the sects. We consider first the further development of the papacy. The energetic and able Gregory YII. made large claims for the papacy, and these Avere pushed to their farthest point by Innocent III., 1198-1216, of all the popes the greatest. But soon there fol- lowed decline and dissension, the seventy years' so- journ of the popes at Avignon, and other abuses, which church history records. The point which spe- cially concerns us as students of church polity is the fact that the papal hierarchy in western Europe 130 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. is now virtually synonymous witli the church. We should also give attention to the Greek Church. Within this time it makes no special advance, ex- cept that in 986 Russia is nominally brought into the fold of Christianity by the conversion of Count A^ladimir, and placed under the patriarchate of Con- stantinople. This conversion of Russia was a sig- nificant and fruitful event in the history of the Greek Church. The Crusades during this period brought the churches of the East and West into closer touch, but to the good of neither party. The shameful pillage of Constantinople in 1204 by an army of Crusaders, and the temporary establishment of a Latin government there, induced the pope to make claims of supremacy which were bitterly re- sented, and served only to intensify the already ex- isting breach between the churches. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 was a grievous blow to the Greek Cliurch, and ever since then its growth and progress have been seriously hindered by the Turk- ish rule in the East. A significant movement in its effect upon the Christian life and doctrine and also upon the polity of the church was the rise and growth of monasti- cism. Far back in the early centuries men disgusted with the world had withdrawn to live in asceticism, but this had apparently exercised no influence on the government of the church. Later the mission- ary monks had done excellent service in Scotland and Germany, but chiefly as zealous propagandists had they helped Rome. Now, however, within the period under discussion, monasticism has a great revival, and its contribution to the power of the DEVELOPMENTS TO REFORMATION. 131 papacy is large and lasting. There was a great spiritual revival after the disgraceful degradation of the last period. The rise of the Dominican and Franciscan orders of mendicant preaching monks, the reorganization of the older orders, the spiritual and doctrinal influence of the monasteries of Clugny and Clairvaux were great helps to Romanism. The monks were bound to the papacy by the most solemn vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, and this with their zeal, their popularity, and at first their moral elevation, did much to strengthen the papal power. Finallj^, in this revival, partly as cause and partly as consequence, and always as evidence, may be noted the rise and multiplication of sects and heretics. In all the long and steady evolution of the papacy the Greek Church had not been its sole op- ponent. Here and there along the course of that wonderful development some reformer would ap- pear, found a sect, or at least gain a following, and raise a protest at the price of persecution against the corruptions and assumptions of the papal hier- archy. How much of pure Christianity remained hidden away during the long night which aided the growth of Rome, we shall perhaps never certainly know, but these movements become more frequent and permanent within this period, and prepare the way for the great Reformation of the sixteenth cen- tury. 132 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. OUTLINE OF CHAPTER VIII. DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. I. The Greek Church. 1. Changes in I'olity. (1) The Patriarchate of Moscow, 1589-1700. (2) The Holy Synod, since about 1723. 2. Present status. (1) The Synods in different countries. (2) The Hierarchy. II. The Roman Churcli. 1. Earlier development. Three forces : (1) The Jesuits. (2) The Inquisition. (3) The Council of Trent. 2. Present status. (1) The people have no voice. (2) The Hierarchy. III. The leading Protestant Churches. 1. Lutherans. (1) In Europe, state churches. (2) In America, sj'nods. 2. Presbyterians. (1) Ruling and teaching elders. (2) Representative bodies and courts. 3. Episcopalians. (1) In England, state church, bishops. (2) In America, bishops, councils, vestry. 4. Methodists. (1) In England, conferences, no bishops. (2) In America, conferences and bishops. 5. Congregationalists. CHAPTER VIII. CHURCH POLITY IX HISTORY. DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE REFORMATION. In October. 1517, the monk Martin Luther nailed to the door of the church at Wittenberg, in Saxony, ninety-five theses, or propositions, which lie proposed to defend against all coiners. They were especially directed against the sale of indulgences and other Roman Catholic errors, and this daring act is justly considered to have been the opening of the great Re- formation. It was a new and fruitful era for Chris- tianity and for the world— the greatest movement in history since the days of the Apostles. In the general upheaval of Christendom new attention was given to church polity, and the developments since the Reformation have been of the utmost interest and importance. One great exception, however, must be made as to the far-reaching influence of the Reformation. It had no appreciable effect on the Greek Church ; yet within the modern period several interesting events have occurred in the polity of this ancient church. The most important changes were in regard to the patriarchate of Moscow, and the Holy Synod. In 1.580, on account of the great growth and importance of the church in Russia, the patriarchate of Moscow was established as an offset to that of Rome, which had been swallowed up in the papacy; so that for 134 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. a time the Greek Church again had five patriarch- ates as in the early ages. This, however, did not last much more than a century. The patriarchate was suppressed early in the eighteenth century during the reign of Peter the Great. That astute and power-loving monarch wished to extend his own authority, and at the same time provide a better government for the Russian church; he, therefore, called into being the ^'Holy Synod." This was an as- sembly of bishops, and he was its real governor. Ever since in Russia the Holy Synod has been the governing power within the church, and the Czar governs the Synod. Other European countries where the Greek Church is strong, as Greece, Aus- tria-Hungary and others, have followed Russia's example, and have synods which are appointed by the various civil authorities. These synods are nom- inalh' under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople. In Constantinople itself, of course, the power of the patriarch is much limited and over- shadowed by the tj'ranuous Turkish rule; and this is true also of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Jeru- salem and Antioch. The hierarchical government is in theory by the patriarchs of the four ancient sees; next below these are the metropolitans and archbishops; then the bishops, the priests and the deacons. In Russia the titles of metropolitan and archbishop are only honorary. The bishops are nominated by the Synod and appointed by the government. It is perhaps needless to remark that the Synod is careful to nomi- nate those who would be acceptable to the govern- ment. The people have no voice whatever in the DEVELOPMENTS SINCE REFORMATION. 135 governnieut of the church. Monks and orders exist, but: they have no ecclesiastical control, and probably not much inliuence. Such is the polity of that an- cient and venerable institution which calls itself the "Holy Orthodox Apostolic Church.'' We turn now to the Roman Catholic Church. The effect of the Reformation on the papacy was imme- diate, profound and far-reaching. Its moral effect was good; for not since those days has the papacy sunk to such degrading depths of iniquity as be- fore, but the effect on the theology and polity of the Roman Church was only to confirm its anti-scrip- tural errors. In the earlier stages of development in the Roman Church after the Reformation there was a strong effort to counteract that movement, and this coun- ter-Reformation was helped on by three great forces : the Jesuits, the Inquisition, and the Council of Trent. The Order of Jesuits was founded by Igna- tius Loyola in the early part of the sixteenth cen- tury, in 1540 it was established by papal sanction, and has been in all its checkered history a potent factor in the consolidation of the power of the pope. Another great force in the papal development has been the Inquisition. This infamous tribunal was founded in Spain and Italy, to inquire, as its name indicates, into the faith of suspected persons; and so it became a court for the detection and punish- ment of heresy. Its crimes and enormities are mat- ters of history, but it greatly helped to fix the Roman polity and to strengthen the power of the ])apacy. The third great influence was the Council of Trent, 136 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. which met, with some intermissions, during the 3'ears from 1545-1562. This was the most impor- tant of all the so-called ecnmenical Roman councils. It was called bv Pope Paul III., at the instance of the emperor. Charles V., to act upon the troubles of the times, which meant the suppression of the Ref- ormation, if possible. The bishops were assembled from all parts of Europe, but the Italian and papal element predominated, as they have usually done in the Roman councils, and won the day. This coun- cil not only gave to the Roman Church a standard of orthodoxy, but also a polity strengthened, defined and consolidated, with the pope firmly entrenched at its head. In the profession of faith based on the decisions of the Council o'f Trent and put forth in the year 1564. a candidate for admission into the church has to declare ( ^^ec. 10) : "I acknowledge the Holy Catholic, Apostolical, Roman Church for the mother and mistress of all churches, and I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to Saint Peter, prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ.-' In the later development of the Roman Church several points are specially noteworthy. First among these was the conflict of the papacy with Na- poleon I. Xapoleon was not the man to brook too much interference with civil concerns on the part of pope, priest or anybody else, and he held down the Catholic pretensions with a firm hand. The Con- cordat between him and the pope defined the limits of the ecclesiastical and civil authority in France, and as was to be expected, very much to the inter- est of the imperial government. As long as Xapo- DEVELOrMENTS SINCE REFOUMATIOX. 137 leon was in poAver the civil ooverument in France and most of the countries of Europe under the em- peror's influence made great encroachment upon the authority of the pope, but without accomplishing much that was permanent, except that the political power of Rome was weakened. Another event of great importance was the con- solidation of Italy into a kingdom under the House of Savoy, the reigning dynasty. The dissensions of the Italian states were great, and their lack of unity was a marked feature of Italian history from the Middle Ages down to our own century. Italian pa- triots, authors like Mazzini, statesmen like Cavour, and soldiers like Garibaldi, with a patriotic king like Victor Emmanuel, seeking ever to expand and strengthen the union of Italy under one govern- ment, finally accomplished their purpose. The po- litical rule of the pope was completely overthrown in consequence of the events of 1870-'71. The de- feat of France at Sedan caused the swift withdrawal from Rome of the French troops which had been the main stay and guaranty of the pope's political sovereignty. The French troops being withdrawn there was nothing for the pope to do but submit to the inevitable. Victor Emmanuel entered Rome September 20, 1870, and took possession of the Capi- tol amid the plaudits of the people of Italy and of all Europe, except the Catholics. The pope has since considered himself a prisoner in the Vatican, though he has had his personal liberty. The States of the Church have been absorbed in the united Italy under the House of Savoy, and it is not likely that 138 POLITY OP THE CHURCHES. the papacy will ever again have actual territorial power. Another great event in modern Roman Catholic development was the General Council of 1870, known as the Vatican Council. This bod}^ put the finishing touch to the long evolution of the ages and formally decreed that the pope is the supreme liead of the church, eternal pastor of the flock of Christ, divinely appointed successor of Peter in the primacy, and that when he speaks to the whole church on a ques- tion of doctrine or morals the deliverance is infalli- ble. It is one of the most striking coincidences of all history that in the very year and almost at the very -time when the Vatican Council was solemnly decreeing the supremacy and infallibility of the pope, the last vestige of his political power, so far as based on the possession of territory, was swept from under his feet. The council met in May, the decree of infallibility was passed July IS, France declared war against Prussia July 19, Sedan was fought September 1, and Rome was entered Septem- ber 20. It may be useful to give some attention to the pres- ent status of the Roman Catholic Church, and its mode of government. Throughout all this long growth one thing has been chiefly prominent — the steady advancement of the bishop of Rome to his present prominent position. What a distance we have traveled from the simple pastor, Clement, to Pius X. ! From the fraternal and humble epistle of Clement to the church at Corinth to the audacious and arbitrary deliverance of the Vatican Council of 1870! In regard to the church itself, long since the develop:mexts since reformation. 139 people have ceased to have any voice iii the inanage- meut of affairs. The Church, in the Roman Catholic sense, is now the body of the faithful everywhere under the earthly headship of the pope, the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ. The people are divided into congregations, or parishes, dioceses, provinces, nations, all under the supervision and control of the appropriately graded officers. The whole government, however, has long been swal- lowed up in the all-ruling hierarchy. Concerning this hierarchy, it would be tedious to trace the complicated details of official government and function. The main features are as follows: Beginning with the lowest order of clergj', there are the deacons. These are the assistants of the bishops, especially charged with the care of the poor and the finances; but they are in the line of promotion to the higher orders of the clergy. Next above are the priests in charge of congregations, or parishes; be- sides nmny who are appointed to special missions and various kinds of work. Next above these are the bishops, who preside over dioceses of greater or less extent. In the larger dioceses there are assist- ant bishops who are called suffragans. There are many bishops whose title is only nominal, ''titular bishops.-' They are made bishops of dioceses which have no actual existence and were formerly called bishops in partihus inpdcVmm, that is, in the coun- tries of unbelievers. Next above the bishops are the archbishops, who are appointed over the provinces of the church in various parts of the world. These are called ]>rincps of the church. Besides these regulai-ly graded officers there are many special ones IttO POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. who are appointed for various purposes. These are the papal legates, imncios, ablegates, vicars apos- tolic, and the like. Next above the archbishops come the cardinals, that is, members of the pope's council. This council usually but not necessarily or always consists of seventy members; fourteen dea- cons, fifty priests and six bishops ; but these titles are nominal, as a cardinal deacon may be a priest in fact, and cardinal ])riests may be bishops and even archbishops. The word ^'cardinal" is derived from the Latin cardo, a hinge, and in its adjective form primarily meant that which belonged to the hinge, that upon which anything hinged; just as we use the word "pivotal." Thus we speak of "cardi- nal virtues." "cardinal principles," as the most im- portant. In early times the most important clergy in any diocese or see were called cardinal deacons, priests or bishops; later the term came to be re- stricted to those of the clergy at Kome who consti- tuted the papal council and elected the pope. The cardii^als, besides having various other official duties, meet at the call of the pope for any emer- gency which requires their consultation, and on the death of the i)ope they meet in solemn conclave and elect one of their own number to the sacred office. The pope is the papa, that is, the father, of the church, the title being derived from the childish name in many languages for father. He is the bishop of Eome, archbishop of Italy, and the patriarch of the West, though the titles of archbishop and patri- arch have long been practically discarded for those of eternal bishop, eternal pastor, vicar of Christ, and others. DEVELOPMENTS SINCE REFORMATION. 141 We must now give attention to the Prostestant churches from the Reformation to the present time. The Keformatioii broke with Rome, and in the tur- moil Avhicli followed there was inevitable confusion of views among the reformers. Those who renounced allegiance to the po[>e did not agree among them- selves either as to doctrine or polity, and their "va- riations" are henceforth in marked and striking con- trast with the Roman Catholic unity. It would be a bewildering and profitless task to trace in detail the numerous systems of church polity which have been in vogue since the Reformation. Reserving the Baptists for a special chapter, let us briefly consider the five leading Protestant denominations. We naturally begin with the Lutherans. In theory Luther believed in the simple polity of the New Testament, but in practice he was led by cir- cumstances to adopt a different method of church government. The idea of a "free church in a free state" was too revolutionary. Neither the people nor their leaders were as yet quite ready for it. The fanatic excesses of some extremists — among them, unfortunately, some Anabaptists — in their advocacy of these views and of others not so scriptural as these, forced Luther to recede. At one time good order in the state was threatened and the Reforma- tion seemed to him to be in danger of going to wreck. He thought he needed the protection and help of the secular power to carry out his reforms and to save from tyranny and oppression the people who followed him. Tliis leaning upon the civil au- thorities, together Avith the principle (adopted as protection from Rome) that every country should 142 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. have its own religion, gave the secular princes too much authority in church affairs. Hence, the Lutheran churches have been, and in Europe con- tinue to be, essentially state churches, taking on complexion from the different states in which they exist. In Germany, with various modifications of detail in dilferent portions of the empire, the civil government appoints superintendents from among the pastors, and these have certain powers of over- sight over the congregations in their districts. It is in fact a sort of modified episcopacy without the name. Besides, there are certain ecclesiastical bodies called synods and consistories in which lay- men as well as pastors have a part in the regula- tion of affairs which are distinctively religious. In Sweden the name and to a certain extent the func- tions of the bishops were retained in the Lutheran churches, and the bishops are appointed by the civil government. In America where the civil power has nothing to do with church government considerable diversity prevails among the Lutheran churches, but they mostly hold to a form of polity somewhat be- tween the Presbyterian and Congregational. We next notice the Presbyterian churches, or as they are known on the Continent of Europe, the "Re- formed." Closely identified with Luther in many things, though quite different in others, were the Swiss reformers Zwingli and Calvin. In polity, though much mixed up with the civil powers, they recurred to the government of the church by elders, presby- ters, believing that this order was founded in Scrip- ture and sustained by the history of early Chris- tianity and of some of the sects. These views spread DEVELOPMENTS SINCE REFORMATION. 14:3 from Switzerland and France to Germany, Holland, Scotland and England, and subsequently to our own country. Among the Presbyterians again, there were, and remain, minor differences in different countries and places; but their general character- istics are much the same. At various times they have leaned to the state-church and theocracy. This was true in Geneva in Calvin's time, and in Scotland under John Knox, who was an ardent dis- ciple of Calvin; and in the time of the Common- wealth strenuous efforts were made to have the Presbyterian religion adopted in England instead of the episcopacy. The theory of the Presbyterian polity is that government is representative. The people elect their leaders to govern as representatives of the people. Calvin, it seems, fell upon a distinc- tion between lay, or ruling, and clerical, or teach- ing elders; but all congregational action and the general standards of doctrine and discipline are sub- ject to review by the various representative bodies, the Presbytery, the Synod, and General Assembly as the court of last resort. We next notice the Episcopal Church, as it is called in this country, though in England they speak of it as the Church of England and commonly describe it by the adjective Anglican. The English Reformation took a very different course from that of Germany and Switzerland. The Norman and Plantagenet kings had on various occasions resisted the encroachments and assumptions of the papacy, and the sturdy English people usually sympathized with their rulers in these conflicts. But it was re- served for the fiery and headstrong Tudor, Henry 144 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. VIII., to break with Kome. It was largely a per- sonal quarrel. But tyrant as he w^as he could never have severed England from Kome unless there had been a powerful sentiment among the people back of him. Having forsaken the old church and made the breach irrevocab'e, he assumed to be head of the church in his own dominion. The conflict of opinion was great in his own reign and in those of his three succeeding children, Edward, Mary and Elizabeth. There were many changes back and forth. The episcopal form of government was retained, but not without i)rotest. Cranmer, it is said, was not favorable to it, but he was Overruled, as was com- monly the case with him. There was a party favor- ing episcopacy and a party against it. Compromises were made, but there was then, and has ever con; tinued to be, ?iiuch dissent. The scheme as finally Avorked out is that the soverign and parliament rule the church as part of the body politic, but the two Convocations of York and Canterbury, under their respective archbishops, pass on many matters which are distinctly ecclesiastical. The bishops and in some cases the lower clergy are appointed by the government. Some of the benefices, or livings, among the lower clergy are in the appointment of the proprietors on whose estates the parishes may be situated. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the primate of all England. Many of the bishops sit in the House of Lords and in general there is a great, and to an outsider, a confusing mixture of civil and ecclesiastical government. In America the Protestant Episcopal Church, which is of course an olf-shoot of the Anglican, has DEVELOPMENTS SINCE REFORMATION. 145 developed a singular combination of all three of the leading polities. They have bishops who are elected by their conventions, but the local churches and separate congregations are governed by a board called the vestry, elected by the congregation; and then the conventions and convocations are repre- sentative bodies which legislate for the churches. Thus there are episcopal, presbyterial and congre- gational elements in the polity of the Protestant Episcopal Church. We next notice the Methodists, or as they are called in England, Wesleyans. The Methodist Church is a vigorous daughter of the Church of England, and has a history and character, all its own, Avith various modifications and subdivisions in different times and places. Methodism originated about the middle of the eighteenth century with the great revival movement under the lead of John and Charles Wesley. While students at Oxford these brothers formed a society for holier living and more vigorous Christian work within the Church of England; but later under the revival as the '^Societies" for these purposes grew and spread, lay preachers and exhorters arose, and after a time the people who had been gathered into these "Societies" began to demand that they should receive the ordinances from their own preachers, and not at the hands of the priests and bishops of the Church of England. Thus it was that the "So- cieties" became churches. Then "Conferences" of the preachers were instituted to look after the in- terests of these "Societies." Wesley himself never separated from the Church of England, but after his 146 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. death the Wesleyan ''Societies" withdrew and or- ganized on their own plan. In England they have no bishops. The Conferences, composed of preach- ers, regulate the concerns of the church. They have officers corresponding to the presiding elders of the American polity. In America affairs took quite a different turn. T>r. Thomas Coke was ''ordained'' by John Wesley as "Superintendent of the Societies" in America, and was authorized to confer a similar ordination upon Francis Asbury, who was already in this country. In the city of Baltimore in 1784 Coke and Asbury met with the preachers from all over the country, though they were comparatively few then. Asbury had declined to accept Mr. Wesley's appointment unless it was confirmed by the elec- tion of his brethren; so at this famous conference Coke and Asbury were elected to the superintendency of the Methodist Societies in America and received the title of bishop ; thus the episcopate has remained a fixed institution of American Methodism. These officers have been gradually increased in number to keep pace with the growth and divisions of the church. They are elected when vacancies occur, or when additional ones are needed, by the General Conferences, which meet every four years. Methodism is a great organism, essentially hierarchical, as the government was originally and still is chiefly with the preachers, though of recent years lay delegates have been appointed to the Con- ferences and have a vote in the management of affairs. The system consists of five orders of con- ferences: the church conference, for the local con- DEVELOPMENTS 8IXCE REFORMATION'. 147 gregation ; quarterly conferences, also for the local churches under the presiding elders; the district conferences, for still larger sections; the annual conferences, for still larger territories in some cases corresponding to the different States of the Union; and the General Conferences, for the larger bodies North and South, and for the other divisions of Methodism. The bishop and presiding elders have considerable power in the appointment of preachers over the various charges. The itinerant ministry is a marked institution of the Methodist Church. In early times a man could be preacher in charge of a circuit or station only for six months ; the term was then lengthened to a year, subsequently to two years, and tlnally to four j^ears, or less as occasion demands. The northern branch of the Methodist Church in May, 1900, by vote of the General Con- ference abolished the time-limit. Lastly we notice the Congregationalists, also known as Independents. In the general loosening of old church ties at the Reformation, it would have been strange had none thought of returning to the simple congregational polity of the New Testament. It seems to be the distinguished honor of the hated Anabaptists to have insisted upon restoring the first principles as laid down in the New Testament polity; but it is said that John Hooper, who rather inconsistently accepted a bishopric under Edward VI,, only to be martyred under Bloody Mary, held and taught that there should be no connection be- tween church and state, and that each local church should rule itself, co-operating only with others. Later in England the.*;e ideas were more definitely 148 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. asserted by Robert Browne, about the year 1580. His followers were at first called Brownists, then Independents; as yet being connected with the Church of England, though soon they separated from that body. In this country they are called Cougre- gationalists. Persecuted in England for their non- conformity to the English Church, they fled to Hol- land, and thence under John Robinson came the Pilgrim Fathers to Massachusetts. As to polity they have always insisted that the New Testament principles should govern ; that there should be no hierarchy of priests, no representative bodies of elders, but that each local congregation should man- age its own affairs independently of others, with sole responsibility to Christ. PROGRESS OF BAPTIST PRINCIPLES. 149 OUTLINE OF CHAPTER IX. PROGRESS OF BAPTIST PRINCIPLES. Difference of opinion among Baptists as to the question of church succession. I. Sects before the Reformation. 1. Earliest sects. 2. Mediaeval sects. (1) Before the twelfth century. (2) During and after the twelfth century. II. Anabaptists of the Reformation period. 1. Swiss. Huebmaier and others. 2. German. Some, but not all, were extremists. 3. Dutch*. Mennonites. 4. English. Probably connected with the rest. III. Baptist Churches since the Reformation. 1. In England. Confessions of faith. (1) In 1611. (2) In 1644. (3) In 1689. 2. In America. Four points of interest. (1) The officers. (2) Independency of the churches. (3) Correspondence and co-operation. (4) Relation of church and state. CHAPTER IX. CHURCH POLITY IN HISTORY. PROGRESS OF BAPTIST PRINCIPLES. Having traced the general defelopmeuts of church polity through the centuries, it is fitting that we should consider now w^hat has been the history of those New Testament principles of church gov- ,ernment which are held to-day by the Baptists, though not by them alone. We are not here con- cerned to prove or disprove what is known as ''Bap- tist succession" or "church perpetuity." Baptists may be divided into three classes of thinkers on this question: (1) There are those who believe that a historic succession of scripturally organized churches may with reasonable probability be proved as existing in various sects through all the time from the Apostles until now; and while the name ^'Baptist'- is of comparatively modern date, these various sects yet held in the main, the principles which have ever characterized the Baptist people. Our Lord's promise in Matt. 16:18, ''On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it," is held by this class of think- ers to guarantee the continuous existence of properly organized churches throughout all time. They think this view is supported by other passages also, and by the establishment of Christianity as a permanent institution in the world. (2) Another group are those who hold to this interpretation of our Lord's PROGRESS OF BAPTIST PRINCIPLES. 151 promise, but they admit that the historical evi- dence of continuity is not sufficient. Tliey main- tain, however, that the exi.'^tence of properly or- ganized churches in all ages can never be disproved, though it may not be historically proved ; and, there- fore, we are warranted in holding by virtue of our Lord's promise that there has been an orderly suc- cession of churches. (3) Another class of Baptists are those who do not interpret our Lord's promise to guarantee absolutely the continuous existence of organized churches, but only of the church universal or collective, that is, of true believers in Christ united to him by faith whether properly organized or not. These, like the preceding class, consider the historical proof of any thing like a continuous succession to be inadequate. Of course all classes will gladly Avelcome whatever light the most patient historic research may be able to throw upon the historic continuity of Baptist principles; but our present task is briefly to consider the history and settlement of the views which Baptists now hold as to church polity. We shall take all at once the long period of time before the Reformation, that is, from the middle of the second century, A. D. 150, to the beginning of the sixteenth, 1517. While the papacy was work- ing out its development of perversion and departure from the apostolic constitution of the churches, various sects arose from time to time to challenge the Roman supremacy and assert a more scriptural doctrine, life and government for the churches. It is convenient to distinguish between the earlier and later of these sects. 152 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. So far as appears the very earliest of these bodies, if they may be considered to have had any organiza- tion, did not differ much in their polity from the contemporary stage of development in the so-called Catholic Church ; but it must be remembered that this body was not yet so far away from the scrip- tural model as it came to be. The sects which are especially worthy of mention are the Montanists of the second century, the Novatians of the third century and the Donatists of the fourth century. Concerning this, as intimated above. Baptist au- thors differ as to whether they had a church polity that would now be recognized as scriptural, and therefore, as corresponding to that which prevails among the Baptists. The probabilities are that these sects were more nearly in accord with the Scripture than were the prelatical churches, though the details of their polity are not as yet fully dis^ covered. Whether they ever can be clearly made out is perhaps doubtful. The sects which flourished in the mediaeval period may be divided by the twelfth century. Prior to that time sects with various names appear. Among these may be mentioned the Paulicians, the Bogo- miles, the Cathari and the Albigensians. These ■seem to have been more or less closely connected with each other and to have held, along with some grave errors, many views like those of tjie modern Baptist churches. Their principles of church gov- ernment, if not exactly scriptural, were at least mor-e so than those of their prelatical opponents and critics. It is proper to say that these sects, or some of them, have been claimed with fair show of PROGRESS OF BAPTIST PRINCIPLES. 153 reason by the Presbyterians, as well as the Bap- tists. They had some opinions in common with both the congregational and presbyterial forms of government, and yet were not exactly like either of these modern bodies. During and after the twelfth century we come to clearer light and find that many reformers and sectaries arose to oppose the pretensions and errors of Rome. How far the sects which appear after the twelfth century were indebted to previously exist- ing ones for their views of truth, we do not know. Three of these sects may be named, called respec- tively from their leaders: (1) Petrobrusians and Henricans, that is, followers of Peter of Bruys and Henry of Lausanne. These were great and good men, and they had many followers, especially in France, who were almost certainly under congrega- tional church government. (2) Arnoldists, follow- ers of Arnold of Brescia in North Italy. Arnold was a great soul. He taught the doctrine of a converted church membership and insisted upon a complete separation of church and state. His work, how- ever, was chiefly that of a political reformer. He revolted from Rome and tried to overthrow the political power of the pope. He was defeated and executed, but his name should live as long as there are lovers of civil and religious liberty in the world. (3) The Waldenses, that is, followers of Peter Waldo, sometimes called Vaudois from the ^wiss canton of Vaud. They were found in France, Switzerland and North Italy. They arose about 1150 and were earnest religious workers. They were not always clear of psedobaptism and seem to have 154 POLITY OP THE CHURCHES. had a sort of ruling eldership among them ; and on this ground they are claimed by the Presbyterians. It seems also that they had a kind of superintend- ency among their elders which gives them some af- finities with our modern Methodists; but their in- fant baptism was probably a later development. Their churches were certainly congregational, and on this ground they are justly considered to have preserved in a measure at least the principles of church order which are held by the Baptists* We now turn our attention to the Anabaptists of the Reformation era. These were found in many of the European countries, the objects of persecution by both Catholics and Protestants. Four different groups are to be distinguished: the Swiss, German, Dutch and English. (1) The Swiss Anabaptists were led by Grebel, Mantz, Huebmaier and others. They were persecuted by Zwingli and other reform- ers because of their opposition to infant baptism and the union of church and state. It appears that they had pastors and deacons for officers, and a congregational polity. (2) There were also Ger- man Anabaptists. Here we must distinguish care- fully between those who were led into the excesses of Zwickau and Muenster, and the sober party who abhorred those extremes and abode by the good way of the scriptural church order. (3) We must notice the Dutch Anabaptists under the wise leader- ship of Menno Simons, and called Mennonites from him. These good folk rejected the fanatical doings of a part of their German brethren, and were con- tent to be governed by the simple polity of the New * Cf. Newman's History of A nti-paetobaptirim, passim. PROGRESS OF BAPTIST PRINCIPLES. 155 Testament. (4) We should observe the English Anabaptists. Before the Keformation Wiclif and his followers held many sound scriptural views, in- cluding those of the composition and government of the churches; but they were probably hindered by persecution from giving effect to their opinions in any openly organized Avay. At any rate, the Ee- formation brought to light the existence of sectaries in England who were like their brethren on the Continent, and were called Anabaptists, and as such were persecuted by both Catholics and Protestants. In general it appears that some of these Anabap- tists were like the modern Baptists, and some were not; for they were not in all details like each other. They were alike in opposing infant baptism, but not all of them practised immersion. Their polity so far as appears was generally congregational, though no doubt some vagaries existed among them. They adhered to the Scripture as their only rule of faith, and formed their churches with elders, pastors and preachers as leaders, and with deacons as lay officers. They recognized no hierarchy of themselves or others; each congregation ruled itself, subject to the supreme headship of Christ, and yet they had relations with each other. How much of actual con- tact and sympathy there was between these sects, it is difiicult to say. But it is not improbable that they had relations with each other in different parts of the Continent and in England. ^Ve turn now to consider the Baptist churches since the Keformation period doAAu to our own times. This is the most flourishing and fruitful 156 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. period in the growth of the Baptists and in the spread of their principles. These principles, includ- ing those of church government, became during this period firmly fixed and fairly well understood, both hj themselves and others. The sufferings and triumphs of the Baptists in the advocacy of their principles, both in Europe and America, are mat- ters of glorious history. Not much is known of the persecuted and diminishing Baptists on the Con- tinent of Europe in the earlier part of this period, and their revival and progress in our own time do not offer much that is distinctive in the matter of church polity. We are, therefore, chiefly concerned with the Baptists of England and America. Taking a view of the English Baptists, we find that in the year 1611, the memorable year of the publication of King James' Version of the Bible, a church in London set forth a declaration of prin- ciples in which the scriptural organization of the churches is distinctly aflirmed. In 1644 seven Bap- tist churches in and near London united in a con- fession of faith in which the true scriptural doctrine of the church finds unmistakable expression. In 1653 and several following years various organiza- tions arose among the General, or Arminian, Bap- tists. These bodies, however, tampered too much with the independency of the churches. In 1689, the year of the Act of Toleration under William and Mary, occurred a memorable event in Baptist his- tory. It was the adoption, with changes suited to Baptist views, of the Westminster Confession of Faith. In the preamble of this famous declara- tion of principles occurs the following interest- PROGRESS OF BAPTIST PRINCIPLES. 157 ing laugnage: "The niiuisters and messengers of, and concerned for, upwards of one hundred bap- tized churches in Enghind and Wales denying Arniinianism, etc." Several points of this descrip- tion are worthy of special notice. One is the great increase in churches. In 1611 it was one, in 1644 it was seven churches near London, and in 1689 it is upwards of one hundred in England and Wales. Another point is the carefulness with which they explain that they are both ministers and messengers, and while not all of the churches are personally represented, they are authoritatively so; for these ministers and messengers are "concerned for"' those who have not actual representatives present — which may be taken to mean that they were authorized to represent the absent. The title which they give themselves is of remarkable interest. This is not Baptist, nor Anabaptist, but "baptized churches." They had been called Anabaptists as a term of re- proach, and this term they always resented, in- sisting that they did not rehaptke, that the cere- mony performed upon infants was not baptism, but that performed on believers was in reality the only baptism they had received. They, therefore, with great logical consistency, resented being called Ana- baptists, or re-baptizers. But conceiving that they had the proper mode of being baptized, the}^ took to themselves the name of "baptized churches,-' from which the expression "Baptist"' is easih* drawn. Another point of interest in the language above quoted is the clause which expressly stated that they denied Arniinianism. This declaration of 1689 was the basis of the Philadelphia Confession 158 POLITY OF THE CHT'RCHES. adopted in the early part of the eighteenth century, and has thus come to be the standard of the largest number of Baptists, both in England and America. During the eighteenth century there does not seem to have occurred among the English Baptists any- thing of special interest as to church order, unless it was the formation of the associations. During this time the Baptists of Wales increased greatly. They formed associations and held all the accepted Baptist doctrines as to church polity and the ordi- nances. In 1789, one hundred years after the adop- tion of the Confession of Faith, Carey preached his famous sermon at the Northampton Association, which led to the formation of the Baptist Mis- sionary Society for evangelizing the heathen. Be- sides this historic society, which still exists and labors, there have arisen various other co-operative bodies in England which held the churches together. Let us observe now the progress of Baptist church order in America. As to the officers of the churches there are some items of interest. Among the earlier Baptist churches of this country we sometimes find four sets of officers, viz., pastors, teachers, elders and deacons. As to the office of deacon little need be said, as it has been substantially the same in all Baptist history, except that its modern tendency has been to encroach upon and absorb that of the lay eldership. As to the eldership we may note that the title was always inclusive of the pastor even up to a very recent date. But in some of the earlier churches there were ruling elders between the pastor and the deacons. But this does not seem to have been general, aiid gradually the functions PROGRESS OF BAPTIST PRINCIPLES. 159 of the non-preaching elders, have been combined with those of the deacons. But there seem to have been teaching elders also, not strictly pastors, and perhaps not regular preachers, who yet exhorted, and possibly administered the ordinances. Some- times there was more than one pastor, and the as- sistant w^as often called ^'teacher." The New Testa- ment term bishop was wholly discarded, probably because of its association with prelacy. Many of the preachers were in fact, if not in name, evange- lists, but the terms, pastor, preacher, minister, have gradually taken the field. As to the origin of the extra-scriptural officers of clerk, treasurer, trustees and the like, nothing definite is known. The most curious thing in the history of this subject is the attempt of the Virginia General Association of Separate Baptists (a body which must be carefully distinguished from the present General Association which came into being later) in 1774 to revive the office of apostle, to which Samuel Harriss was solemnly elected and ordained.* But the brethren soon became convinced that this office was not alto- gether scriptural or expedient, and it was allowed to lapse. Gradually things settled down to the present arrangement — one pastor, with the deacons, and with such other officers as the needs of the churches required. The independency of the churches has ever been a marked and steadfast Baptist principle. Not only the confessions of faith but the almost uniform traditional practice of Baptists is clear on this * Cf. Semple's History of the Virginia Baptists, Beale's edition, pp. 80,81. 160 POLITY OP THE CHURCHES. point. A few departures, or attempted departures, here and there only emphasize it the more. The earlier churches were no doubt informalh' organized bodies of baptized believers. They claimed the right of Christians to think for themselves, to organize in church relation according to the Bible, and to call themselves churches of Christ. Where there was diversity of doctrine, division of organization was alloAved in the spirit of fairness. Any encroach- ment on this independency of the churches has been jealously resented and most carefully guarded against. In respect to the correspondence and co- operation of the churches there have been some in- teresting developments. The intimate and neces- sary relations of '"churches of the same faith and order" early became apparent. Doctrinal agree- ment, similar sufferings, common needs and perils, fraternal intercourse, traveling preachers, minis- terial interchanges and general sympathy all united to foster and develop correspondence and co-opera- tion among Baptist churches that were near each other, and thence gradually among the more remote. The Six Principle Baptists of New England early' in their history had a ''Yearly Meeting," mostly for social and religious intercourse. In 1707 the now venerable Philadelphia Association was organized and speedily became a tower of strength to the Baptists of the whole land. In 1751 the Charleston Association in South Carolina was organized; then in 1767 came the Warren Association in New Eng- land, and from these and others have been derived a glorious company of daughters throughout the country. These bodies have become a standing and PROGRESS OF BAPTIST PRINCIPLES. 161 significant Baptist institution. At first tliey iri- chKled a great extent of territory and churches widely separated, and thus thev occupied the place of the more general bodies of later times. In tlie develrtpiiient of the country, and of the cliurche;S, more associations were formed I5y subdivision, and this left the field open for the organization of larger bodies, as will be presently noticed. Councils and conferences for special purposes have also been, from the earlier times, parts of the denominational working. The history of the general bodies is also note- worthy. The Separates of Virginia, before their union with the Regulars, had a General Association, composed of many churches, but not of all in that Commonwealth. After the division of this general body into district associations, from which the name of "district associations'" has been per- petuated, a General Committee was formed es- pecially to guard the interests of the Baptists and to fight for liberty of conscience in the Old Dominion. But this noble and ever memorable body served its purpose. Having accomplished the secur- ing of religious liberty in Virginia, and the enact- ment of the first amendment to the Federal Consti- tution, guaranteeing religious freedom, it was left with nothing to do, and so passed out of existence. There was a blank of some years before the present General Association of the Baptists of Virginia was formed. The Baptists in Georgia in imitation of their brethren in Virginia also tried a General Com- mittee, but the same reason for its existence did not prevail in Georgia as in Virginia. It had some oj)- 162 POLITY OP THE CHURCHES. position and did not accomplish much, except to prepare the way for the Georgia State Convention of later times. The earliest State organization of Baptists was the Massachusetts Domestic Mis- sionary Society formed in 1802, but it extended its work beyond the State limits and was thus a pioneer in time but not exactly in plan of the later State organizations. Meanwhile the conversion of Judson and Rice to Baptist views in far-off India, whither they had gone as missionaries of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (Congrega- tional), came as a call to the Baptists of the United States to organize for foreign mission work. The call was heard and heeded. On May 18th, 1814, in Philadelphia (most suitable place) thirty-three dele- gates, representing the Baptists of eleven States, met and organized The Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America for Foreign Missions. This body met every three years, and was, therefore, called the Triennial Convention. In the interim of its meetings affairs were managed by a committee or board. It lasted until 1845 when the Baptists of the North and South divided on the slavery question, and the American Baptist Missionary Union and the South- ern Baptist Convention were organized in the re- spective sections. The founding of the Triennial Convention led to other organizations and especiall}^ stimulated the formation of the State Conventions to draw to- gether the Baptists of the several States to work for Home and Foreign Missions and education, es- pecially the education of the ministry. Massa- PROGRESS OF BAPTIST PRINCIPLES. 163 chiisetts, as we have already seen, had organized in 1802; South Carolina followed in 1821; Georgia, in 1822; Connecticut, Virginia and Alabama, in 1823; Maine, in 1824; New York and Vermont, in 1825; New Hampshire, in 1826; Pennsylvania, in 1827, and the others later. The reason why Pennsylvania was comparatively slow in organizing a general con- vention is perhaps that the Philadelphia Association was such a large and powerful body that it long rendered unnecessar}- the organization of a State Convention. All these bodies, from the association up, are simply voluntary and co-operative, with no control whatever over the local churches. This point has been most jealously guarded in their constitutions, and for the most part in their practice. The basis of representation in these bodies is various. In the missionary conventions it has been almost always financial, that is, churches, or societies, sometimes even individuals, have been accorded seats in pro- portion to the amount of money contributed to carry on missionary operations. In the associations the basis has nearly always been numerical, the dif- ferent churches represented in the body being en- titled to membership according to the number of members in the churches. And then there has been some mixture of methods. In the Southern Baptist Convention, besides the financial basis, each associa- tion within the teritory has been entitled to elect one representative. In the Societies in the North the system of life membership was adopted, that is, by the payment of a certain amount a person will be entitled to membership as long as he lives. 164 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. The seitaratiou of cluircli and state has beeu a caidiiial i>iiiici}>le of the Baptists and of their simi- lars in all ages. The few trivial exceptions, and tliere have been some all along, only prove the rule. In our country Massachusetts and Virginia were the special battlegrounds of this great principle; and it was fitting that in those two oldest common- wealths of our country this prime conflict should have beeu fought to its triumphant conclusion. The "Standing Order," as the State Church was called in ^lassachusetts, ])ersecuted and exiled Roger Wil- liams and his sympathizers. The l>aj)tists of New England suffered and fought long and well. The Warren Association and Isaac Backus were in the forefront. Yet, it was not until 1833 that the la^t vestige of State control of the churches was sw^pt from the laws of Massachusetts. In A^irgiuia also the battle was fought, and more speedily won. Here the Episco]»al Church was established by law, all citizens were taxed for its support, and other modes of worship were made illegal, and tolerated only by special license. Ba]»tists refused to apply for license; and holding that the state had no right to grant or refuse permission to worship God, pro- ceeded to do so in their own way. As a consequence they were fined, imprisoned, whipped and perse- cuted in other ways, but they won the day. In 1787, by their efforts, powerfully aided by Madison and Jefferson, the General Assessment Bill was defeated in the Virginia Legislature; and in 1789 by the same influences the first Amendment to the Federal Con- stitution was adopted. This has finally settled the question of state churches in this country. CONFORM ITY TO XEW TESTAMENT. 165 OUTLINE OF CHAPTER X. BAPTIST COXFORiMlTY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. I. How far is the c-onfoimity real? I. Resemblances. (1) Character of the membership. (2) Self-government. (3) Independency. (4) Officers. 2. Differences. (1) Things omitted. (2) Things added. II. Why maintain conformity? 1. The Scripture is the rule of faith. 2. Apostolic precedent. 3. This polity more accordant with other Chris- tian principles. 4. Departures have been evil rather than good. 5. Best polity in itself. Til. How explain and justify divergencies? 1. Some unavoidable. 2. Some desirable ; but — 3. Some doubtful ; and — 4. Some harmful. CHAPTER X. THE BAPTIST CHURCHES OF TODAY. THEIR CONFORMITY TO THE MODEL OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Having considered the polity of the New Te5;ta- raent churches, and the deviations from that form of government which have arisen in the progress of Christian history, and having traced the progress of Baptist principles in many lands and ages, we come now to compare the Baptist churches of to-day with the scriptural model. In what respects they re- semble the apostolic churches, and how they differ from them, and the reasons, respectively, for these resemblances and differences, we are now to con- sider. The main points of the New Testament polity, as they were brought out in the beginning of this discussion, are these: societies composed of baptized believers in Christ, independent of each other in government, but having many common in- terests and important relations, self-governed, yet with officers for the general direction and manage- ment of affairs. These officers were regularly of two kinds, elders and deacons, the former of whom are also called bishops and pastors. On a candid study of the New Testament only, with what reflected lights could be had from other sources, we reached the conclusion that these were the main elements of the 166 CONFORMITY TO NEW TESTAMENT. 167 New Testament polity. The question for us now is, Are these elements of church government repro- duced in the Baptist churches of to-day? If they are, why are Baptists so careful to reproduce these outlines of church organization as exemplified in the New Testament Christian bodies? and if the Bap- tists, with a sincere desire to reproduce the polity of the New Testament churches, fail in some measure so to do, what are the reasons for such falling short? These are the principal questions which will oc- cupy us in the present chapter. Of these inquiries, the first to which we need to give attention is. How far is there among the Bap- tist churches of to-day a real conformity to the New Testament model? It is the avowed, honest pur- pose of the Baptist people to reproduce in their churches, as far as is possible and obligatory, the form of church organization and government which prevailed among churches founded by the Apostles. To what extent they succeed or fail is a simple ques- tion of fact and observation. We may easily trace the principal points of resemblance and of dif- ference. It is apparent from the summary state- ment just made that there is a striking, and even essential resemblance between the Baptist churches of to-day and the churches of apostolic times. In the matter of membership there is evident similarity. In the New Testament we have no ac- count of any being members of churches except such as were considered to be truly regenerated believers and had actually submitted to the rite of baptism. Now the Baptist churches insist as one of their fundamental principles that only truly regenerated I;(j8 ,POLIT>: OF, THE ("HURCHES, believers in Christ, afte;r having been pvQperly bap- tized on ])rofessiou of their faith in the Lord, should be. received as members of the clnirch. Th^re is sqiiie diversity of opinion as to the method of a ^jtjiitpment of Christian experience from applicants fQi^< membership, and of course mistakes a.re some- times made; but in the niain, and to the extent of hpmau knowledge. Baptist churches earnestly adhere to this as one of their fundamental principles, yi^., a, ,coiiverted and baptized membership. Again, in the matter of self-government, there is ^ very clear case of similarity. There is no trace in tl^! Ke>y Testament of any higher governipg, body imiking laws or rules for the independent churches of the Lord. It is also, a marked characteristic of ^ifptists in our own day that each one of thieii' cluirches shall be a selfgoverning unit. Each church j^ifielf, by a majority vote, determines its own. action in all cases. There is naturally difference of custom as, to ii quorum, as each church has its own constitu- tion and rules of order. Nor is there absolute uni- formity of practice in regard to the voters. In some churches neither women nor nuuors have a vote, and perhaps in a large nund)er the younger mem- bers are not expected to vote on questions of ini})ortance, though there may not be any rule on this point. It is true, also, that in very many of the churches, perhaps with regret we might say a majority of them, the larger part of the members do not attend the business meetings, and it is prac- tically a fraction of the church Avhich regulates its business concerns. But the theory ujton which the churches proceed is, that all the members of the CONFORMITY TO NEW TF:STA:klENT. ,1'69 ohuTch. assembled in business, meeting;, shall b.v a majority vote determine the action of the body. This action includes a number of things, suck as the reception of members and the decision of all diffi- cult cases connected with that.im])ortant function, the discipline of members, election of officers, ad- ministration of all business affairs, regulation of worship, adoption of doctrinal views, and, in fact, all things connected with church order and church life. Another well-defined element in Baptist chureli life is that of independency. In all their history the Baptist churches have been very jealous of their independence. It may be granted that sometimels ^hey may have erred in a.^serting this to the detri- ment of the general interests of the denomination, but certainly the theory is valid, even if practice has sometimes been unreasonable. Baptist churches recognize no earthly authority above that of the local church. They bow to no hierarchy, they elect no representative or judicial body over themselves, they repudiate all such control in religious matters; yet there is a denominational life and unity. The churches recognize each other as churches of a com- mon Lord and Master. They unite for common work, they rejoice in common principles, they observe to a large extent a common standard of life, doctrine and customs. Their unity in inde- pendency is one of the most remarkable j»henomena of their history. And though often ])ut to severe strain, this unity is in the main ])robably as well preserved as that of other bodies in which there is more apparent and external unity. 170 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. Still another point of similarity between Baptist churches and those of the New Testament lies in the important matter of the church officers. The Baptist churches retain the two scriptural officers, elder (or pastor) and deacon. The pastor is es- pecially charged with the spiritual concerns of the church, — the preaching, the conduct of worship, the spiritual oversight of the members, the administra- tion of the ordinances, and all matters pertaining to these. The deacons look after the temporal af- fairs of the church, assist the pastor in many ways, and are especially charged with the care of the poor. The churches recognize these officers as executive only. The seat of authority is in the church, and to the church all its officers are directly responsible. Any candid observer will surely see that the re- semblances pointed out are not fanciful nor over- strained. They are striking and important, and if not exact in all details, they clearly are so in funda- mental principles. It is true, however, that there are differences between the Baptist churches of to- day and the bodies of Christian believers mentioned in the New Testament. Some things practised by the apostolic churches are not found among the Baptists; and it must be admitted that some things have been added to the Baptist church order of modern times which we do not iiud in the New Testament. It is right that we should give a candid consideration to these points of difference. We will notice first some things omitted. There are some matters of custom which are not repro- duced , such as the weekly observance of the Lord's Supper, and possibly other church actions, as well CONFORMITY TO NEW TESTAMENT. 17I as many social customs. The supernatural gifts which were granted to the churches of the New Testament Baptists do not of course attempt to re- produce, such as the gift of prophecy, together with the order of prophets, the gift of tongues, of healings and the like. Some bodies of Christians here and there have tried to reproduce all these in their churches, but not particularly the Baptists. In regard to the general officers among the- churches, we must also note some differences. Bap- tists have no apostles. It is true, as elsewhere men- tioned, that the General Association of the Separate Baptists in Virginia did in the year 1774 appoint Samuel Harriss to be an apostle, but this office was of short duration, and was never recognized by any other body of Baptists. Tlier^ are no prophets, in the scriptural sense of that word. Evangelists and teachers are recognized, but not in the same sense as in the apostolic churches. Baptist churches have discarded the plurality of elders. It is the custom now, even in the very large churches, to have only one active pastor, or elder, while it seems clear that in the New Testament churches, certainly the larger ones, there were several or even many elders. Nor do many churches recognize the office of deaconess, though there ma}' be some intimation that such an office existed in the New Testament churches. It may be that in the matters of the support of the elders, and of the authority exercised by them, there are also differences. These seem to be the principal things in which Baptist churches to-day fall short by way of omission when compared with the churches of the New Testament. What mav be said 172 POLITY OF THE CHTRCHES. in justification of the.-ie omissions will appear later; but let us not fail to observe that as compared with the resemblances before pointed out these diUferences are few and not vital. When we come to things which have been added to the modern churches, things which had no ex- istence, so far as the records go, i,i the apostolic churches, the differences are much greater than in case of the omissions. In the local churches the additions are considerable. Among these are to be found additional officers. Every well organized church nowadays must have a clerk, treasurer, trus- tees and various committees for the proper regula- tion of its business affairs. Then there are many customs prevalent in the modern churches of which we can find no trace in the New Testament, such as Sunday-schools, various societies under the direc- tion of the church composed of different groups of the membership, and other things of like nature. Then there are some matters of church order, such as the adoption by many churches of a creed, or declaration of principles, and a covenant, with many other details too numerous to mention. In the relations of the churches to each other, many things have been added. All the general bodies of the denomination, from associations up to conventions, all sorts of meetings, special or stated, all the general committees, or presbyteries, or coun- cils, and other expedients for maintaining different parts of the denominational life, find no visible analogue in the New Testament churches. In the general religious and denominational life of our times there are many institutions which had no COXFOU.MITY TO NEW TESTAMENT. 1 T3 existence in the apostolic age. Here belong all our colleges and seminaries, our charitable institutions, our well organized and eqniiiped missionary and publication agencies. While many of these institu- tions are of great im])ortance in themselves, and make modern churches seem very different from those of the apostolic age, they do not de])art from, nor destroy, the essential [ninciples of church jtolity as outlined in the New Testament. The next important question is, Why do the Bap- tists endeavor to maintain conformity to the Xew Testament model? It is admitted that there is no express command, as in the case of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, making the form of church govern- ment perpetual. We cannot point to a distinct and emphatic injunction of either our Lord or his Apostles on this subject. To many this has seemed sufficient reason for de|»arting as far as may seem expedient, even from the clear practice of the XeAV Testament churches, but to Baptists it seems far otherwise; for neitlier is there any authority, ex- press or implied, which makes church government a matter of inditference, or sanctions departure from the New Testament model. The reasons for the Baptist position may be very simply unfolded. The general argument between Protestants and Catholics, between evangelicals and rationalists, that the Scriptures fairly interpreted and intelli- gently applied to the different conditions of our modern life are the only sufficient rule of faith and I)ractice in regard to matters of religion, is the one fundamental and all-embracing reason why the Bap- tists conscientiously prefer to maintain as far as 174 POLITY OF THE CHfRCHES. they can the form of government exemplified in the ^ew Testament church. Baptists maintain that apostolic custom, even without a definite command, is a precedent of the utmost value. If they be re- quired to show cause why they follow this prece- dent, then must those who deviate from the practice -of the Apostles give stronger reason for their course. Again, the Baptist form of church government is more accordant with the general principles and practices of the Christian religion than are the opposing theories. Xotice some particulars, such as the supreme headship of Christ, the equality of all believers, the freedom and responsibility of the individual Christian, a converted church member- ship, and submission to the state, but not union with it. Furthermore, the departures written in history from the scriptural mode of government have cer- tainly been no improvement upon it, but have the rather wrought much evil. Observe among the more noticeable of these departures the fearful errors ■and perversions which have characterized the papacy throughout its marvelous development. Consider, too, the evils of state churches, and notice how, even in the older countries where such institutions have long prevailed, and have been in a measure sanctified by the dearest associations, there is a rising tide of opposition to a state-governed church. We should also not fail to observe that even among evangelical Christians, among Ptedobaptist denomi- nations in our free country, some of these evils have been perpetuated and still call for argument and •correction. CONFORMITY TO NEW TESTAMENT, l75 lu addition to all this the advantages of the Bap- tist mode of church government are such as to com- mend it even if it had no scriptural basis. Its practical advantages are great. These put it into favorable comparison with the others. If in some respects it does not work well, it has at least done as well as any other. It has shown its power to unite, and that verj-- freely, gi'eat numbers in pur- suit of a common end. It develops the local church and the individual member quite as well as any other system. It conserves the moral and doctrinal purity both of the ministry and of the separate con- gregations just as well as any other mode of church government. Baptists have had their troubles, are having them now, and are going to have them to the end of time, no doubt. But upon the whole, with their theory of church government, they have managed their difficulties about as well as their brethren of other denominations, with a more cumbrous and clanking ecclesiastical machinery, have been able to manage theirs. While some practical difficulties cannot be de- nied, the theoretical advantages of this polity are very clear and striking. If all the people in a com- mon region or country were actually church mem- bers, and all these church members were soundly converted and actively at work, would not this be for them a supremely good mode of church govern- ment? Would there be need of any other, if Chris- tians were what Christians ought to be? This polity recognizes and encourages the highest spiritual at- tainments of its adherents with the very least ap- peal to ambition and other worldlv motives. 176 POLl-TY OF THE CHURCHES. Keeurring noAV to the admitted fact, that,, not- withstanding their efforts, they do not exactly and in all ])oints reproduce the model of the New Testa- ment, the question arises, How do the Baptists ex- l>lain and justify their departures from the Xew Testament model? We must .lace. The Convention is also vitally connected with the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at Louis- ville. Kentucky, receiving reports from the institu- tion and having the right to nominate trustees to till vacancies as they occur. Representation in the body is according to contributions made to the two Boards for home and foreign missions. Of late years the various associations in the territory' of the Convention have been permitted to choose each a representative, apart from the financial considera- tion. As said before, these societies and conven- tions have no control whatever over the churches. They are simply voluntary associations of Bap- tists maintained on plans of their own for the prosecution of great Christian work at home and abroad. Like the State conventions, they repre- sent the churches only in a derived sense, not ac- tually. Besides these there are some other general bodies which might be mentioned, such as the National Educational Society and the \A\)men's So- cieties spoken of before, and the Baptist Young People's Union; all of which are voluntary societies. 230 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. of the classes specified, for the purposes of Chris- tian work. There are also other "societies," "unions," "meetings," "conventions," "congresses," "conferences," "committees," and the like. These have special objects of local or general interest, and like the permanent bodies, they are in no sense eccle- siastical, or authoritative, assemblies. In May, 1905, a number of representative Bap- tists from all parts of the country met in the city of St. Louis and organized "The General Baptist Convention of North America," to meet tri-ennially for conference upon matters of general interest, but with no purpose to change or supersede the existing organizations. Churches, associations, conventions, and societies will appoint the messengers. In July of the same year a "World's Congi'ess" of Baptists assembled in London, consisting of repre- sentatives from all over the world. Greetings and speeches characterized the large assemblies, and steps were taken toward the organization of a "Bap- tist World Alliance," to meet once in five years for conference and fraternal intercourse. AS TO CHRISTIAN UNION. 231 OUTLINE OF CHAPTER XIV. CHRISTIAN UNION AND THE BAPTISTS. I. What is Christian union? 1. Doctrinal. 2. Organic. 3. Co-operative. 4. Spiritnal. II. The Baptist position. 1. Application of preceding : (1) Doctrinal, possible only on basis of Scripture rule of faith. (2) Organic, possible only on basis of pre- ceding. (3) Co-operative, practicable to some extent. (4) Spiritual, greatly to be desired. 2. Bodies with which such union may be had. (1) Denominational organizations, or churches. (2) Undenominational organizations of vari- ous sorts. CHAPTER XIV. THE BAPTIST CHURCHES OF TODAY, THEIR POSITION AS TO CHRISTIAN UNION. The relation of Baptist churches to other bodies of professed Christians is one of peculiar interest and importance. There are many sects of Chris- tians, called by custom and courtesy churches and denominations, with which Baptist churches • have more or less in common, and from which also they differ more or less widely. Very delicate and diffi- cult questions grow out of these relations, and it requires thought, tact and principle to adjust our conduct to the needs of the situation. We have of course the principles of the New Testament, but from the nature of the case, no clear precepts, or even examples, to guide our conduct. There were differences of opinion among the early Christians, but no such division into sects and parties as is the unhappy condition of the Christian world to-day. The divisions among Christians, especially in free countries like ours, are very many. It is easy to exaggerate the real evils of sectarianism and the fancied glories of Christian union, but on the other hand, it is easy to depreciate both and to rest in a state of endless and minute sectarian varieties, as if these were the normal, or at least the inevitable, state of Christians. The enthusiast for unity on 232 AS TO CHRISTIAN UNION. 233 the one side, and the bigoted sectarian on the other, must be our monitory extremes, while we attempt to hold the safe, conservative, middle way. There can be no question that the idea of union among Christians has been growing for many years, and that the sharpness and asperity of denominational polemics have been much softened. There is a warmer feeling, a more generous toleration among the sects toward each other than was the case a few generations ago. Much has been written on the subject of Christian union, and it behooves us to give earnest and prayerful consideration to this great matter. In 188G the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church of America, in session at Chicago, sent forth proposals for Christian union. These overtures were afterward amended by the bishops of the Church of England, in a conference held at Lambeth, in 1888. They are sometimes called the Quadrilateral, or four articles of church unity. They are as follows :* "1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as containing all things necessary to salvation, and as being the rule and legitimate stan- dard of faith. "2. The Apostles' Creed as the baptismal symbol, and the Nicene Creed as the sufiScient statement of the Christian faith. ''3. The two sacraments ordained by Christ him- self— Baptism and the Supper of the Lord — ad- ministered with the unfailing use of Christ's words of institution and all the elements ordained by him. ''4. The historic episcopate, locally adapted in * Shields' United Church of the United Stales, p. 82. 234 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples, called of God into the unity of his church." These proposals called forth much discussion in many of the denominational bodies, as well as in the periodicals of the various churches. The Southern Baptist Convention, at its session at Fort Worth, Texas, in May, 1890, adopted resolutions proposing the Scriptures as the one rule of faith, and stating that in order to secure anything like proper grounds of union the various assemblies should ap- point representative men to meet and consider on what basis substantial agreement among the lead- ing denominations might be reached. Such move- ments as these show the drift of thought in our days regarding the desirability of some sort of union among Christians of various names. Yet it must be acknowledged that the proposal for Christian union is somewhat vague. Exactly what is to be attained by it has not been made very clear. It is more a sentiment than a well-defined and commanding pur- pose. In this discussion it is desired to define and clarify the rather vague ideas as to Christian union, and to consider the proper attitude of the Baptist churches, both toward the other Christian sects and toward certain undenominational, but still pro- fessedly Christian organizations. Is it possible to get any clear idea of what is really meant by the phrase? Sometimes it seems hopeless, because of the great variety of opinion. There is more than irony in the suggestion that the initial impossibility of agreeing as to what Chrisian union is cannot be regarded as a hopeful sign of securing AS TO CHRISTIAN UNION. 235 the thing itself; but we may at least come face to face with the inherent difficulties of the subject, and thus help to clear the way somewhat, by considering Christian union under the various descriptions of doctrinal, organic, co-operative and spiritual. In regard to entire doctrinal accord among Chris- tians, it is obvious at once that no such thing can ever be obtained as long as there is thought, or free- dom, in this world. Absolute identity of view among men on any subject where there is room for difference of opinion is as chimerical as anything can be ; and of course the advocates of church unity fully realize this. Professor Shields says (p. 7,) "Perfect consent in theological views, were it at- tained between the different denominations, might indeed issue in their perfect union, if not in their homogeneous organization, since among their doc- trines it would include the same doctrine of church polity; but it may be doubted if such consent is in the nature of the case attainable." Theoretically, it would be a consummation devoutly to be wished, if all Christians should be able to get and hold all the truth of God, to see it just alike, to combine it in the same systems, to express it in the same symbols; provided such a union should be at the same time free, live and genuine; for it had better not be at all then to be forced, dead and false. Some may even question whether such doctrinal unity, even if attainable, would be desirable; yet we must grant that, though variety in unity is greatly to be de- sired, agreement upon truth is more desirable still. If we could know all the truth upon any subject, it would be well that all should know it. and if all 236 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. should know the truth, then there would be agree- ment upon it, so that we need not say that differ- ences of opinion in matters of doctrine are de- sirable. We may only say that as our minds are at present constituted they are inevitable. We believe that one of the glories of the future state will be the clear perception of truths which are now only partially understood. This matter may be illustrated in the domain of science, as well as that of religion, Mr. Lester F. Ward writes as follows concerning scientific truth: "The great desideratum is not unity of opinion, but correctness of opinion. It is true that the latter embraces the former, but it certainly is not true that the former embraces the latter. In making correct opinions universal, we make all opinions on the same subject identical, but the latter result is not the end, it is merely the incident. The end is to render opinions true, and this secured, the con- sequence may safely be left to take care of itself." And again he says: .'"But it may be said that the settlement of opinion in complete harmony with truth must be dismissed as an impossibility; that such is the constitution of the human mind that all cannot be made to see truth from the same point of view, and differences of opinion must needs exist. Practically this may be true, but not theoretically. It may be that as a matter of fact there will always be certain problems unsettled, and about whose so- lution different minds, though perhaps of equal ability, will hold opposite views. But it is., neve- theless, true that certain other problems may be- come settled, and so settled that they can never AS TO CHRTSTIAX UNION. 237 again be unsettled."* What is true of seience may be also in a measure said concerning religious opinion. To know the exact and complete truth is surely desirable, but whether it is actually attain- able is quite a different question. The next consideration is as to organic union. Granting that there may not be doctrinal uniform- ity, may there not be organic union of Christians? What is true of the individual members of any local church, and of different local churches, in effecting an organization upon the basis of their agreements and afliuities, might presumably be true of all the Christian sects and denominations; that is, as Christians who have different opinions may yet unite in one church because they are more alike than they are unlike, and as different churches may form a great denomination, though these churches do not agree among themselves on every point of doctrine or practice, so all the denominations of Christians might form a kind of grand organization on the basis of commonly accepted truths and for the accomplishment of common ends. Theoretically this might come to pass, but such an organization of all Christians in one body, even if it were possi- ble, would necessarily have its limitations, which would increase with the greater complexity of the body. In order to include all Christians of what- ever name, the doctrinal basis would have to be nar- rowed down to such leading generalities as to make it a vanishing quantity. Wherever the differences of opinion and principle are greater in number and significance than agreements, no organization com- * Dynamic Sociology, Vol. II, pp. 402, 404. 238 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. prehending those who hold these different views can be anything more than nominal. What sort of organization could bind together a Romanist and a Presbyterian, an Episcopalian and a Baptist, a Methodist and a Congregationalist? In some gen- eral respects all these agree, and yet an organiza- tion of persons holding such diverse views in im- portant details as these do, could scarcely be effect- ive, because its foundation on truth accepted by all must necessarily be narrow. Again, it may be asked, What purposes could a grand organization of all the Christians in the coun- try be likely to effect which would not be better effected by the different denominations, working through their own established institutions and methods? Find a suitable purpose for such an or- ganization and get all to agree on it, and it might in some way come into being; but where is such a unifying purpose? What great work or sentiment, apart from the idea of unity itself, can ever have such an overmastering influence as to mould these various denominations into one organic unity? As a matter of fact, it is difficult to get all the churches and individuals of any one denomination united on one purpose within the denomination itself, and the more extended and varied in its parts such an organization becomes, the more difficult will it be to find for it this unifying purpose. Such a princi- ple of union must be definite, it must be practical, it must be overpowering. It will not succeed, if it be vague, sentimental and feeble. It cannot be made to order simply with the desire of securing unity as a thing in itself desirable. It must come, AS TO CHRISTIAN UNION. 239 if it ever comes at all, from a growing approxima- tion in doctrine, because of a clearer apprehension of truth, and from a growing concentration and unity of effort in promoting the great ends for which the separate denominations are striving. Besides these difficulties concerning doctrine and purpose, there is another, namely, that of con- venience or effectiveness. Even if such organic union or organization of Christians were feasible, would it really be desirable? Would it not be a large, unwieldy affair, crushed to death by its own weight? How could such a great organic union be made effective if it has no practical Christian pur- pose, unless it becomes centralized as in the Roman Catholic Church? It would be a big, cumbrous ma- chine unless strongly centralized, and if strongly centralized, it would become a menace to freedom. Upon the whole, there seems to be no need and no prospect of the union of all the Christian sects in one organized body, and therefore no occasion to weep over its absence. There may be, however, various degrees and forms of co-operative union, even though doctrinal and organic union can scarcely be hoped for. Grant a common end, in the pursuit of which there is no sur- render of principle, no disloyalty to truth, no sacri- fice of self-respect, and there may be, and- should be, co-operative union among Christians to advance that common end. Such a union may be more or less general, according to circumstances. There are, for example, some things in which Protestants and Catholics may co-operate in certain localities, or throughout the country at large. Here we may 240 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. mention temperance reform, social purity leagues, and various measures of local beneficence; but these things are comparatively few, and may perhaps be better advanced by the existing denominations, without the union of bodies so unlike that friction might occur. There would be a larger number of purposes in which Protestants might unite, leaving out Catholics ; and a still wider area of co-operation might be found for two or three of the Protestant bodies, according as they approximate to each other in doctrine and practice. Let all, or most, of the Christians in any district or country find some com- mon end which strongly calls for co-operation, an end which can only be reached in this way, and in- volving no sacrifice, no compromise of principle, and who doubts that the co-operation would come? But some things proposed by the enthusiastic advo- cates of church unity, as matters in which different Christians might co-operate, seem to involve some sacrifice of principle, or of loyalty to the scriptural revelation. Froude somewhere eloquently' com- mends the martyrs in the days of Bloody Mary by saying that they went to the stake because they could not be induced to say that was true which they believed to be untrue; and how can persons for the sake of a sentiment do what our fathers re- fused to do in view of the flaming fires of Smith- field? Various proposals in the way of of co-opera- tive unity have been made, but doubtless they are open to man}^ objections and practical diflficulties. They seem to be suggested mostly for the sake of co-operation and unity ; but unity just for unity, and co-operation just for co-operation, would be a sickly, AS TO CHRISTIAN UNION. 241 sentimental sort of thing that would scarcely de- serve to live; for this could be no real unity. That must be a growth from within, or to speak more ac- curately, from above. But even if there cannot be doctrinal unity, and if there ought not to be organic unity, and if there should be only a certain amount of co-operative unity, there ts ample need and room left for the best of all — that is, spiritual unity. That there can be, and that there is among all true Christians, a high degree of spiritual union, would seem to be evident. This spiritual oneness consists in one pre- eminent thing, namely, the union of each individual believer with Jesus Christ, the great Head. That it should be more deeply felt and more fully exempli- fied is the ideal of such passages as John 17:20-23 and Eph, 4:1-16. In the first of these our Lord prays, in the well-known supplication of that last night of his life, that his followers might be one; and in the other the large-minded and eloquent Apostle to the Gentiles speaks of the desirable unity among Christian people, but it is the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." This high and highly spiritual unity may be pro- moted and illustrated by things common and things mutual existing among true followers of Christ. There is common obedience to the one Lord, and common consecration to the one work of his king- dom. These supremely spiritual elements may unite the spiritually minded to common ends, and give them, over their honest differences of opinion, a truer unity than any enforced organization or co- operation could ever achieve. Growing out of these 242 POLITY OP THE CHURCHES. common principles are two others which expand more and more under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, namely, mutual respect and mutual love among the different parties into which Christians are divided. Let us be grateful that there is among the different sects more mutual respect than there was formerly. Christians do not now despise and hate each other, but there is much inclination to seek and to see the good that each denomination represents. And then of course the highest unity of all is in mutual Christian love. The fires of Bmithfleld have been quenched never to be rekindled. Fierce recriminations, angry polemics, harsh and un- brotherly attacks are more and more discountenanced among Christian people. There is a growing senti- ment of mutual love among the Christian denomina- tions, and by all means let us promote this kind of unity; for as a matter of fact, if this can be se- cured, greater and greater approximations may be continually made toward those which have already been sketched. Common interests and mutual re- gard will render co-operation less and less difficult, and these two, helping each other will tend toward a larger and more correct apprehension of truth, and make increasingly possible, if it should be proved to be desirable, something like organic union. It is proper that we should now give our atten- tion to the position more particularly of the Bap- tist churches, as to this question of union among Christians. Baptists are not less desirous than any other body of Christians that there should be as complete and perfect a state of unity among all the AS TO CHRISTIAN UNION. 243 followers of our Lord as it is possible to attain. Owing to their convictions on matters of baptism and the participants of the Lord's Supper they seem to occupy a somewhat more exclusive and less tol- erant position than that of their brethren of the Psedobaptist denominations, and doubtless many of these believe that the Baptists are more sec- tarian than they really are. Any one who is well acquainted with the Baptist denomination ought to know that the things referred to are matters of principle, of logic and of consistency, and that they do not indicate any less strong, sincere or large- minded desire for Christian union than prevails among other denominations. It is perfectly natural that there should be nearer approximations in doc- trine and in co-operation between Paidobaptist de- nominations than between these and the Baptist churches. As to doctrinal union, the only way that Bap- tists can act in accordance with their principles is to assert with all earnestness and vigor that the Scriptures alone are the rule of faith, the final ap- peal in all doctrinal differences. Of course, there must be difference of view as to the interpretation of the Scriptures. Men will never agree as to" the meaning of certain passages; but it seems, at least to most Baptists, very doubtful if any of their tra- ditional and current interpretations can be aban- doned without sacrifice of truth. The intelligent Baptist who studies over and over again the dis- tinctive beliefs of his denomination is more and more deeply- convinced that they are based on essen- tial scriptural truth ; and here is a point upon 244 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. which no intelligent and conscientious Christian man can fairly be asked to make a compromise. We must have more and more of the Bible in all our creeds. Show the Baptists that any of their ac- cepted tenets are untrue to the letter or spirit of the divine revelation, and they will be the first to yield ; but until this can be shown they cannot be expected to surrender any of their doctrinal opin- ions and long-accepted truths. At the same time Baptists cheerfully accord to other denominations the right to study for themselves and to differ from them. The freedom of the Christian mind and the liberty of the individual conscience are as thor- oughly understood and applied among Baptists as among any people on earth. If in the free exercise of mind and conscience Christians will make a closer and closer adherence to the clear teachings of the word of God, there will be no difficulty as to their coming nearer and nearer together in their beliefs, and in the practices which grow out of those beliefs. As to organic union, the principles, as well as the policy, of the Baptists are directly opposed to it. Baptists could not consistently enter into any or- ganic combination with those who believe that in- fants, incapable of exercising repentance and faith, should be baptized into the fellowship of the churches, nor could they enter into organic church relation with those who disobey the plain command of our Lord to be immersed on a profession of faith. These are important ; and unless there is real agree- ment of mind and heart upon them, any forced or- ganic union would be a sham. Besides that, the AS TO CHRISTIAN UNION. 245 evident tendency in all history of organic unions has been toward the centralization of power and the control of local churches by such power. The "baptized churches" of our Lord, as the denomina- tional fathers were wont to call their organizations, cannot submit to the control of any centralized power, whether lodged in one person or in a repre- sentative assembly. They believe it is contrary to the genius and teachings of Christianity; and they could not accept an organic union which in their opinion inevitably tends toward the overthrow of their views of the New Testament church polity. There is, therefore, no reasonable prospect of in- ducing the Baptist churches to enter into any or- ganic union with other Christian denominations until they accept what the Baptists themselves con- sider to be fundamental Bible truths on those im- portant points in which differences now exist. If any choose to call this ''narrow sectarianism'' they are perfectly welcome to entertain that opinion. Taking up the matter of co-operative union, we come to easier ground, and it may be said without reserve that the Baptist churches and their indi- vidual members should not refuse to co-operate with their brethren of other denominations, so far as they can do so without prejudice to the truth of Scrip- ture and to denominational self-respect. It must be admitted, regretfully, that the experience of the Baptists has not generally been encouraging in re- gard to co-operative union, in various enterprises of common Christian interest, with their brethren of other denominations. Illustrations may easily be given, some of them general and some only par- 246 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. ticular and local, where Baptists for the love of unity, having agreed to co-operate with their brethren, have been reminded rather unpleasantly of the differences which separate them from other Christians. In the matter of spiritual union, Baptists find no difficulty and no objection in the way of cultivating the highest and purest fraternal feeling and union of heart and hope that it is possible to reach. Their sense of duty to Christ and to the world, their cherished principles of soul-liberty, their glorious history as against persecution for conscience' sake, all should put them in the forefront in promoting and practising the highest possible degree of spir- itual union among all true children of God. Bap- tists have no right to be bigoted. While loyal to all clear spiritual truth, they must not be disloyal to the spirit of the Master who inspired the truth. Laying aside all unworthy prejudices, seeking for fuller light, rejoicing in the widening circle of re- ligious freedom the world over, praying with all earnestness for the coming of the kingdom of God, with love for all who truly love the Lord, the Bap- tists should have a conscientious and constant de- sire more and more for a true spiritual union of all the followers of Christ. As a rule Baptists do seek this union and try to promote it. Of course, here and there may be found among them, as among other Christians, some whose spirit is not in har- mony with this divine and glorious consummation, some who emphasize differences and contend angrily even over truths, some who may be narrow- minded and prejudiced, but after all, these ills and AS TO CHRISTIAN UNION. 247 frailties are not the peculiar heritage of Baptists. I'erhaps it may be well before leaviug the subject to mention more specifically some of the Christian bodies with which union is to be cultivated. These bodies for convenience of discussion may be classed as denominational and undenominational. By the denominational bodies is meant those which are called churches, such as the Roman Cath- olic Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Protest- ant Episcopal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the like. In using this well-accepted term let it, of course, be understood that the Bap- tists do not regard these bodies as being scrip- turally composed and organized churches. They could not do that without denying their own defi- nition of what a scriptural church is. But the word "church" has come by custom to be applied to the various ecclesiastical bodies of all denomina- tions, and it would be discourteous not to use the term, in the general way which habit sanctions. The two great principles of especial importance here are those of charity on the one hand, and of loyalty to truth on the other. Baptists must love their brethren of other denominations, but must not partake in their errors. Now, it is often an ex- ceedingly delicate thing to draw the line in the right place here. Sometimes logical consistency and sound denominational policy seem to conflict with Christian love and sentiment. In all such cases good sense, tact. Christian courtesy, combined with firm adherence to principle, should rule. Besides the various churches there are certain undenominational organizations with which co- 248 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. operation and union of sentiment may be culti- vated. These organizations are very numerous and varied, and there is no need here to attempt any complete mention of them. Some are very general in their nature and work, as the Evangelical Al- liance, which has local subdivisions and is founded upon the most general Christian principles. Some of these bodies are both local and general, as the Young Men's Christian Associations, the Young People's Societies of Christian Endeavor, the va- rious Bible Societies, and the like. Some are only local, as Ministerial Unions in the various cities, or Sunday school Unions. Again, some of these bodies are permanent, as those which have been mentioned, and some are only temporary, as various kinds of conventions, union meetings, and so on. As to Baptist co-operation with these bodies sev- eral remarks may be ventured. Since these org'ani- zations do not call themselves churches, we are re- lieved from embarrassment on this score. As they usually have only very broad doctrinal standards, there is commonly little or no difficulty on the point of doctrinal union; yet it is true that there is room here for trouble to arise, and there is need that with denominational loyalty Baptists should be cir- cumspect in their co-operation with undenomina- tional bodies. Usually whatever union these may call for is not a matter either for local church ac- tion, or for the denomination at large; it is rather the concern of the individual Christian whether he shall take part in these undenominational organiza- tions or not. Sometimes, however, in various ways the churches as such may have occasion to recog- AS TO CHRISTIAN UNION. 249 nize to a greater or less extent some of these so- cieties. When such action is called for, and does not contravene denominational principles, it is well that it should be taken, in the spirit of Christian courtesy and co-operation. As a rule these various organizations have in view some definite practical end, and so they call at the most only for co-opera- tion in the particular purpose for which they were called into existence. The Young Men's Christian Association, for example, does not celebrate the Lord's Supper or administer the rite of baptism. It seeks to promote the spiritual and moral good of the young men in the respective communities where its branches exist. Some people object to co- operating with this great institution on the ground that the churches themselves ought to do the work which the Association is striving for. Perhaps they ought, but as a matter of fact, they are often strangely negligent in making provision or special appeal for the young men of our larger towns and cities. So, illustrations might be given in regard to various other organizations. We can only say that as a general rule we must use judgment and conscience, not letting sentiment run away with loyalty to truth, nor allowing sectarian bigotry to poison and undo the broadest and sweetest exercise of Christian charity. In the most general terms, let the Baptists be true to Christ, true to the prin- ciples revealed in the word of God, true to the church universal, composed of all the sincere be- lievers in the risen and ascended Lord, and true to their own dearly bought and highly prized convic- tions of scriptural truth, and they will have no 250 POLITY OP THE CHURCHES. great diflSculty in applying to any special cases that may arise the principles which tend to the develop- ment and maintenance of all practicable union among the diversified bodies which profess and call themselves Christian. RELATIONS TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 251 OUTLINE OF CHAPTER XV. RELATIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE. I. The true theory — entire but friendly separation. 1. Negative aspects — no organic union. (1) State must not control in spirituals. (a) Doctrine. (b) Worship. (c) Polity. (d) Works. (2) Church must not seek to control state in any way. 2. Positive aspects. (1) State to church. (a) Control in seculars. (b) Protection. (2) Church to state. (a) Right of petition. (b) Duty of submission in general. (c) Duty of wholesome influence. II. Difficulties in application. 1. As to worship. Chaplains, etc. 2. As to taxation. Some reasons for exemption. 3. As to grants. Direct donations should not be sought nor accepted. 4. As to education. Parallel institutions. 5. As to charities. Both must work. CHAPTER XV. THE BAPTIST CHURCHES OF TO-DAY. THEIR RELATIONS TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT. The history of Baptists has been a continued pro- test against ecclesiastical or civil tyranny over the consciences of men in religious concerns, and not a protest only but a brave and gloriously successful resistance. The Baptist churches of to-day have, in soul-liberty, a priceless and dearly bought her- itage from their forefathers, and it should be theirs to maintain it intact both for themselves and all the world. It is not to be denied that Baptists, like all other human beings, have been sometimes and in some points, inconsistent with their principles in this matter; and it is also true that even here in America, where largely as the result of Baptist agi- tation and endeavor the fullest religious freedom is enjoyed under the fundamental law of the land, there are occasional violations, and tendencies to violation, of the spirit, if not the letter, of that law. It was, for instance, the custom of the United States Congress to include in its Indian Appropriation Bill certain grants for the furtherance of education among the Indians in the various denominational schools, and Baptists once or twice accepted these grants, being no doubt influenced by the example of others, and being unwilling to be discriminated 252 RELATIONS TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 253 against by refusing to accept appropriations which were made to almost all the leading denominations. But these departures from the established princi- ples of the Baptists were very few, and were speed-' ily abandoned. The other Protestant denomina- tions soon waked up to the inequality and injustice of these distributions when they discovered that the Roman Catholic Church was getting more of the public money than all the rest of the denomi- nations in America put together. In 1896 a bill was passed in the Lower House refusing aid to sec- tarian Indian schools. On all these accounts it is well to define and afiirm anew the Baptist theory of the proper relation of church and state, and to consider carefully some difficulties which arise in the practical application of the principle to details. It is important at the outset to explain the true theory as to the relation between religion and civil government, or as it is commonly expressed, be- tween church and state. A brief statement of the theory would say that there should be in their special functions entire, but friendly, separation and independence between church and state. This, of course, does not mean, and cannot mean, that they should have no connection whatever with each other, but that in their special sphere of action they should not interfere with each other's working. The matter requires fuller statement and explanation. Religion and the state are great and important in- stitutions, directly concerned with the temporal and ■spiritual interests of the same people. They must, therefore, have many interests in common, and in fact their relations are very real and very inti- 284 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. matej hut there is not and should not be complete identity of life, sphere or function; yet there is no call for hostility between them, but for the largest and fullest mutual sympathy and help. We shall look first at the negative aspects of the relations between church and state. There should be no such organic union of the two as to make the church the state exercising spiritual functions, or the state the church exercising secular functions. There must be no government of the church by the state in church affairs, and no government of the state by the church in state affairs. These two propositions will be considered separately. The state must not control the church in spiritual affairs. The civil government must have absolute and impartial respect for the rights of conscience in regard to religion, as well as other matters. The government has no right to enforce upon its citi- zens religious doctrines, worship, polity or works. In regard to religious beliefs, it is no part of the duty, or rights of the state, to declare by law, or enforce by penalty, what a man shall believe — what, religious views he shall hold. As a matter of fact, no earthly power can enforce opinion and belief. The state can only take cognizance of actions. It cannot presume to dictate the inner motives of outer acts, nor prescribe the opinions upon which actions are based; hence, the state cannot enforce doctrine. Wherever the civil government has as- sumed to set up a doctrinal standard, wicked and bloody persecution has followed. In regard to worship, the right of the state to im- pose forms of worship is denied. It must not pre-. RELATIONS TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 255 sume to prescribe to its citizens where, how or when they shall lift up their souls in adoration of the Creator. The spiritual worship which God requires must be free, and the divine requirement is sover- eign over human law. These principles as to doc- trine and worship were well brought out in the Vir- ginia Declaration of Rights, which declares (Art. 16) : ''That religion, or the duty which we owe to the Creator, and the manner of discharging it can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." These words were quoted in a Memorial and Remonstrance presented to the Gen- eral Assembly of Virginia against the existing es- tablishment of religion in that commonwealth in 1785. This instrument was drawn by James Madi- son, afterward president of the United tSates. It is an admirable presentation of the principal objec- tions to the union of church and state. The emi- nent author, after quoting the Declaration of Rights, goes on to say : "The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man, and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men. It is unalienable also because what is here a right toward men is a duty toward the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such honor as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent both in order of time and in de- gree of obligation to the claims of civil societv. Be- 256 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. fore any man can be considered as a member of civil society he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the universe We maintain, therefore, that in matters of religion no man's right is abridged by the institution of civil society, and that religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance." During the same memorable time, the General As- sembly of Virginia in 1785 adopted an act to estab- lish religious freedom. This was drawn by Thomas Jefiferson, and is in these words: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly that no man shall be com- pelled to frequent or support any religious worship, belief or minister whatsoever; nor shall be en- forced, restrained, molested or burthened in his body or goods ; nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess and by argument to main- tain their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities."* These sentiments were afterwards embodied in the first amendment to the Federal Constitution, which was adopted at the in- stance of James Madison and others who were in fluenced very largely by the remonstrances of the Baptists of Virginia. The article reads : ''The Con- gress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." A further extension of the negative relations of government would include the matter of church polity. The state has no right to set up or enjoin any plan of organization by which believers and ^Quotations from the Appendix to Beale's edition of Semple's History of the Baptists of Virginia. RELATIONS TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 257 worsliipers of God shall govern themselves in their religious concerns. In the state churches of Europe the idea was that the church was really the state acting in religious matters and for religious ends. Consequently episcopacy was established in England by act of I'arliament and at first and for many years was enforced; but, as is well known, the attempt to enforce episcopacy upon Scotland led to great disturbances and brave resistance. It may be said that the attempt to enforce episcopacy in Great Britain has failed. Now, of course, episcopacy is established and dissent is tolerated ; but even this is wrong; for it is but a logical and proper exten- sion of the correct principle to deny the right of the state to compel its citizens to support a church es- tablishment of which they do not approve. It was never right that dissenters, who were conscien- tiously in favor of their own forms of religion, should have iiad to su])port these by voluntary con- tributions, and at the same time pay taxes for the support of the state religion. Little by little this ini(iuity has been removed, until now the revenues of the Church of England come chiefly, if not wholly, from endowments and voluntary contributions; but still the church enjoys many privileges and advan- tages not accorded to others. On the other hand we must bear in mind that an^- organization pro- fessing to be religious which should use its religious institutions for treasonable or criminal purposes would justly fall under the punishment of the state. Clearly the civil government would have the right to forbid or suppress any institution of this char- acter, but this would not be an infraction of re- 258 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. ligious rights properly speaking — it would only be the state's exercising the right to maintain itself and to protect its citizens, and these two are funda- mental rights of government. As to religious works, we should say further that the state has no right to compel distinctively re- ligious works; yet here careful discrimination must be made; for it is evidently the state's duty to sup- press and punish crime and to protect its citizens in their personal rights. If, now, these personal rights should be invaded, or crime should be com- mitted, in the name of religion, the state must in- terfere to prevent or punish such action. But this is a very different thing from undertaking to enforce distinctively religious conduct. Sometimes diflS- culty would arise here, as in the matter of Sabbath observance. While the state has no right to en- force this, yet it may with entire propriety protect the people in their enjoyment of a religious rest day, and it may forbid acts which are abhorrent to the religious sentiments of a majority of the citizens. There can be no hard-and-fast line drawn in regard to these actions. Sometimes such prohibition of actions might approach dangerously near to an at- tempt to compel the people in matters of conscience. Ordinarily, however, the leaning is the other way, and the state may intervene to accord just religious freedom to all its subjects. We must now look at the other side of our prob- lem, which is that the church must not seek to con- trol the state in things secular. This is the just and logical converse of the other proposition. No church must seize the reins of secular authoritv and rule RELATIONS TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 259 in her own interests. This experiment has some- times been tried, but has not met with long con- tinued success. Human reason and the sense of liberty revolt afjainst this method of procedure. In the great conflicts l)etween the popes and the em- perors, the pope claimed superior sovereignty over the civil government. This contention of the papacy has been ably argued and constantly practised whei'ever Rome has had the power to carry out her theories. The following argument from Thomas Aquinas is quoted from Professor Willoughby's Nature of the State, p. 47: ''The highest aim of mankind is eternal blessedness. To this chief end all earthly aims must be subordinated. This chief aim cannot be realized through human direction alone, but must obtain divine assistance, which is only to be obtained from the church; therefore, the state, through which earthly aims are attained, must be subordinated to the church.'' Even Prot- estants have not always escaped the clutches of this argument. The theocracy established in Geneva under Calvin, and various other similar institutions, show how slowly the true idea of religious liberty gained upon men even after the Reformation ; and in our own country the unhappy attempts in the commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia to make the church dominant in the state illustrate the same difficulty of escaping from Romanist views on the subject. After more than a century of trial in our country the principle is firmly fixed in mod- ern civilization. Bismarck's famous declaration in the Reichstag, ''We go no more to Canossa," showed the feeling of triumphant Germany after the French 260 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES, war of 1870. It is true that there has been some reaction in Germany, but recent events in England and France touching the control of public education by religious bodies show unmistakably the trend of thought in Europe. It seems beyond all question that in the progressive civilized nations of the world any attempt to subordinate the civil government to the control of any church, sect or hierarchy would now be impossible of accomplishment. Certainly in our own free land there seems to be no danger of such a catastrophe. At the same time our people should remember the political watch-word that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance;'' for doubtless there are those who would like to impose upon our own free institutions the manacles of ecclesiastical tyranny. Turning now to the positive aspects of the con- nection between church and state, we may observe that these two great institutions must of necessity have very close relations, and between them there must be mutual benefit. Absolute independence is of course impossible. Church and state occupy the same territory, they minister to the wants of the same body of citizens, they seek in different ways to promote the welfare of the same people. Thus, they must have many and close connecting bonds. Sometimes difficulties will arise in the proper ad- justment of the respective duties and rights of re- ligion and government, but some things at least are clear and beyond dispute. We may say that the state has positive relations to the church. And among these we should mention state control in things secular. This is clearly a RELATIONS TO CIVIL GOVEUXMEXT. 261 well-defined principle of religion. Our Lord taught that we must "render unto Ca'sar the things that are Ctpsar's," and I'aul declared that Christian peo- ple must render allegiance and oliedience to the powers that be; the apostle Peter likewise enjoins respect and obedience to the civil magistrates; so that there is clear Scripture teaching as to the con- trol of the government over the church in things secular. No church should be allowed to act ad- versely to the highest interests of the commonwealth. The government must defend the rights of citizens against ecclesiastical tyranny. This involves the right of government to interfere in religious dis- putes where the peace of the state is endangered, to forbid ecclesiastical penalties that are unjust or cruel, and to ])revent i)ersecution. It also involves the right to grant or annul ecclesiastical privileges, according as these ju-oinote or im])eril the good of the state. The question of taxation of church prop- erty comes u]) here, and so far as the state is con- cerned, there can be no doubt of its right to tax re- ligious institutions, but there nuiA^ be reasons why for the good of all concerned it may decline to ex- ercise this right. In the matter of holding prop- erty and payment of debts, and all such matters, the state's right of control must not be denied. Another line of the state's relation to the church is that of prote(^tion. One of the ]>rimai'y duties of the body politic is that of protection to its citi- zens in all their just rights and ])rivileges, and so Christians and other religious persons have a right to claim, as citizens, jtrotection by the state. This right was exercised in a notable manner bv the 262 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. Apostle Paul himself on several occasions. Nor is it to individuals only that the state must extend her protecting arm. Societies, corporations, educa- tional and charitable institutions all have a right to the common protection of government, and surely this protection could not be denied with any show of justice to the churches. Whatever protection, therefore, the church needs in ways not inconsist- ent with the rights and privileges of others the state should cheerfully grant. As great moral and hu- mane institutions the churches, in the accomplish- ment of their beneficent purposes, deserve syinpathy and all reasonable help from the state. Hence the state must protect the churches in the orderly con- duct of worship, and against any injury in persons or property from ill-disposed persons. A disturber of religious worship is either willfully or thought- lessly invading the rights of the good. If a man can claim to be protected in the peace and quietude of his home, so churches may claim the kindly pro- tection of government in the peacefful exercise of their religious customs. If a man has a right to hold property and to resist with the help of the state any invasions of his vested rights, even so has a church the privilege to claim the protecting care of the state in the proper enjoyment of its acquired possessions. Particular applications of the general principle may sometimes occasion difficulty, but it seems hardly necessary to argue that the principle of governmental protection over the churches is in itself a perfectly sound one. We pass on to notice that the church has positive relations to the state. There is, for example, the RELATIONS TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 263 right of resolution and petition. Any body of citi- zens, or even any one citizen, has a right to present petitions setting forth grievances and praying to the lawfully constituted authorities for redress. It would be the greatest absurdity to deny to churches the privilege of making outcry if their sacred rights are invaded. The action of the Baptists in Virginia and Massachusetts, as well as in other lands and countries, in making such appeals to the legislative authority will surely not be condemned by those who are enjoying the fruits of their timely and tem- perate, but firm and successful, assertion of the right of resolution and petition. It is true that churches may carry too far this sound principle. They may vex the government with petty grievances, or they may act against their own interests by seek- ing state interference in matters which should con- cern themselves alone. As in the working of every other great principle, so here there must be some points of uncertainty in the application to details. It is better that sparing use should be made of this great right, that churches should appeal as little as possible to the secular arm for help in their work and movements. Corresponding to the state's right of control is the church's duty of submission and obedience in things secular. Scriptural authority for this duty has already been noticed. Churches should be loyal upholders of law and order. They should teach and exemplify the soundest principles of subjection to rightly constituted civil authority. In return for the exceptional privileges which most enlightened states grant to the churches, they ought to be emi- 264 POLITY OF THE CHUIICHES. nent defenders of the state's rights and hiwful powers. Another duty of the church to the state is that of exerting a wholesome influence within the body of citizens. By her prayers, her teaching, her chari- ties, and by the active personal interest and efforts of her members, the church should be a purifying and beneficent power within the state. Without assuming or desiring control, her influence should be as a blessed leaven within the bod}- politic. The mutual rights and duties of church and state as thus expounded need not, and should not, inter- fere with that wise and proper separation between them which has been defended as a cardinal princi- ple. At the same time it is admitted that in many points of detail some difficulties in adjusting the proper connection between the government and re- ligion will occur, and it is proper that we give our attention to these. In the matter of worship, for example, there some- times occurs difficulty. The appointment and pay of government chaplains is one of these knotty ques- tions. In the army and navy of the Ihiited States and in Congress, chaplains are appointed and paid by the government. The same thing holds in some of the state institutions, as the legislatures, univer- sities, and charitable or reformatory institutions. Who is to decide as to the religious beliefs of these chaplains? What denomination shall they repre- sent? Is it right to support them with money raised by taxation of all the people? These questions are not very easy to answer, and they seem to be opposed to the idea of entire separation of church and state; RELATIONS TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT, 265 but on the other hand it must be said, that while the inconsistency is apparent, it is but slight, and the benefits derived are reasonably supposed to be greater than the evils involved; for how else is proper provision to be n>ade for a regjular ministry to the religious net'ds of the persons concerned? In the case of such public institutions as have been named, could these be safely left to the voluntary principle? In the army, for example, no one thinks of setting up churches of the different sects, and yet there is often need for the ministries of religion. The men themselves, excei)t in rare cases, would be glad to accept the services of a minister not of their own denomination, and any person who was fit to be appointed an army or navy chaplain would surely not be a narrow sectarian, but would endeavor, while loyal to his own views of truth, to have a large- minded charity for those who might differ from him. Other such instances might be mentioned to show that in some small matters of detail inconsistencies with the general theory must be tolerated for the sake of some special good. Naturally here, there would be difference of opinion as to how far such inconsistencies ought to be allowed, or whether they ought to be allowed at all. Another point of difficulty in the adjustment of the relations of church and state is in the matter of taxation. Ought church property to be exempt from taxation? If it be granted that church edifices and furniture specially devoted to the worship of God should be exempt, and if it be granted that charitable institutions which minister to the needs of the destitute should be exempt, does it follow 266 POLITY OP THE CHURCHES. that educational institutions and all other church property should be held exempt from taxation for municipal, state or general governmental purposes? The broad theor3' of separation between church and state, if consistently carried out here, would leave no church property exempt from taxation; for this exemption, though indirect, is really to some extent state aid, if not support, of the church. What is the difference between making outright a grant from government funds, and simply declining to exact taxes? Is not the amount of taxes so remitted vir- tually a contribution from the state to the institu- tion enjoying the exemption? Upon the face of it this is true, and is a serious objection to the ex- emption of church property of any kind from tax- ation. But as a matter of fact in most of the States of our Union such property is held to be exempt, and there is considerable latitude as to the kinds of property which religious corporations may hold without paying taxes. Let us notice the argu- ments which may be urged in support of these ex- emptions. The first is that the state gets a fair re- turn for this exemption in the good which is done by the churches. The influence of religion, and the charitable work of religion, are held to be of so great value that the commonwealth is simply doing good to itself by releasing these institutions from taxation. The argument has some force, but there are necessary limitations to its range. The state obviously cannot afford to declare as a general prin- ciple that it will not tax any institution or corpora- tion from which the citizens of the state derive benefit. Yet, of course, the kind of benefit must be RELATIONS TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 26T taken into consideration, and with careful watch- ing as to details the argument may be admitted to have some force. Another principle by which it is sought to justify the exemption of church property from taxation is that this kind of property is not financially pro- ductive to its owners, who already pay taxes on their productive property. A church member is a property holder. He pays taxes to the state on his individual property which brings him income. As a member of the church he receives no income. It was not intended to bring him income, and all that does minister to his income has already been taxed. In a sense, therefore, he would be taxed twice, if he had to pay for his interest in the church property. Besides that, the church members also pay for the support of the church and its religious institutions, which are not found self-supporting, much less profitable, as investments. There is, therefore, here a difiference between churches and their institutions, and business corporations. On the ground that edu- cational and charitable institutions may be held exempt from taxation, so also may churches. An argument for exemption may be also derived from the consideration that the supporters of the churches by voluntarily assuming the burden of all religious establishments have thus relieved the state of what was formerly its care, and is one of the most im- portant elements of a people's welfare. So the state really profits. Another reason is found in practical trouble in the way of ceasing these exemptions, since they have so long existed. This would be man- ifest injustice to large vested interests which have 268 POLITY OF THE CHURCHES. grown up under the principle of exemption. It would not be right to make any sudden changes. In many cases it would almost amount to confiscation by the government to impose taxes upon churches and religious institutions; so that if these laws are ever changed in the direction of non-exemption, they ought to be changed slowly and with as little injury to existing relations as possible. The matter of grants was alluded to in the be- genning. Here the donation from the state is direct, and as no established property Interests can suf- fer, such grants ought to be declined. Years ago Carey accepted '^grants in aid" from the British government for his schools and missions in India, and in this country the Indian schools, as before remarked, of the various denominations have at times received government aid. Such direct grants are, however, clearly opposed to the principle of separation of church and state, and there is no need that they should be made. In the matter of education there are some very, delicate and difficult questions which will receive fuller consideration in another part of this work. There was a time when education was principally the function of the church, but the state has more and more in modern times been encroaching, or as some would say, gaining, in this direction. There is no question that the denominational schools have still a mission to perform in this country, and they should be loyally and earnestly maintained by their respective adherents. For the present. at least there must be co-existence of state and religious educa- tional institutions. Their rivalries, ditferences and RELATIONS TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 2fi9 clashes must be adjusted as best they can. Certainly religious people would make a great mistake to abandon the tield. l*erhaps there is room for all and patronage enough for all, without the necessity of animosity or unlovely competition. The church cannot surrender wholly to the state the privilege and the duty of educating the young; because the churches have, and in the nature of things can have, no direct control of the state colleges, and they can- not sit idly by and run the risk of having their youth trained in schools which are not only under the control of religion, but may very conceivably be even opposed to religion. One other point of difficulty must be here con- sidered, and that is in regard to charitable institu- tions. Here again, there is in a measure at least occupation of the same ground by the church and the state, and there are consequent difficulties. Charities supported by taxes, such as the asylums for the insane, alms-houses and the like, are good things, and they deserve the interest and sympathy of Christian jj^ople. In fact they are the outgrowth and expression of the sentiments embodied in a Christian civilization, and would probably never have existed but for the beneficent progress of the Christian faith. But how far Christians should turn over all this to the state, how far they should send their own needy to these institutions, and how far they should attempt to maintain similar institu- tions along with those which are supported by the government, are ditticult questions. As a matter of fact, the state has taken to itself certain forms of charitable and reformatorv work and left the 270 POLITY OP THE CHURCHES. churches to maintain others. This has not been the result of any design or conference, but simply the outgrowth of circumstances; for example, the state usually provides asylums for the insane, and the religious denominations most commonly support the orphanages. In fact this whole question of the re- lations of the church and state in matters of charity, education and the like, needs a careful study and adjustment. The existing arrangements can hardly be regarded as final. More will be said on the sub- jest in the discussion of charities and reforms as a part of church work. THE CHItlSTIAN ORDINANCES. 271 PART SECOND. OUTLINE OF CHAPTER I. THE CHRISTIAN ORDINANCES. I. General View of the Ordinances. 1. Definition, (1) Meaning of "ordinance'' and "sacra- ment." (2) Acts symbolic of truth. 2. Number. (1) Protestant view — two only. (2) Romanist view — seven. 3. Purpose. (1) Erroneous views. (2) True view. 4. Keepers. (1) Christians; not as individuals, etc. (2) The churches. (a) Their duty as to Baptism. (b) Their duty as to the Supper. II. Controversies over the Ordinances. 1. As to Baptism. (1) The Obligation. (2) The Act. (3) The Agent. (4) The Recipients. (5) The Significance. 2. As to the Lord's Supper, (1) Meaning. (2) Participants. PART SECOND. ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. CHAPTER I. thp: christian ordinances. It is obviously a matter of great importance that we should have sound and scriptural opinions and clear convictions regarding the ordinances of our religion; for all through the Christian history, even from the earliest times until now, these sacred rites have been the occasion of great and long, and often fierce, debates. It is a mournful fact that Christians in all times, and even now, should dis- agree and contend in regard to the most sacred observances of their religion. Doubtless this arises in part from the sinful side of human nature ex- pressing itself in mere contentiousness. But the other side must also be remembered. The very sacredness of the things in dispute, and the fact that they belong to the Lord and not to men have had the effect of making Christians extremely jealous concerning their right interpretation and ad- ministration. The rancorous spirit and the evil words and actions which have accompanied these controversies merit only condemnation; but the 272 THE CHRISTIAN ORDINANCES. 273 courage, the loyalty to truth, the intense conviction of duty to the Lord and Master, which also have been part and parcel of these contentions can only excite our admiration. It would be a great mistake^ unjust alike to noble men now gone and to the character of many now living, to condemn off-hand and in the cheap way of many an all-informed and sneering critic, the earnestness and sincerity which in large measure have characterized the controversies on the ordinances of religion. In this chapter we first take a general view of the ordinances, and then of the controversies which have been waged about them. First of all we have to inquire, What are the ordi- nances? And at the outset we must reckon with the terms employed. The word "ordinance" is de- rived from the Latin ordo, a row, or order, and so ordinarc meant to put in the right place in the row, or set in order, and then consequently to es- tablish, to command; so that "ordinance" comes to mean something established, commanded, enforced by proper authority, and the term has been applied to the sacred rites of Baptism and the Lord's Sup- per as institutions, or commandments of the Lord. We have, therefore, in the word ordinance a glance at the authority of the Master by whom these sacred institutions have been established and laid upon the observance of his people in all time. Sometimes the word "sacrament" is used instead of "ordinance;" but because of Roman Catholic associations Bap- tists and some others generally discard that term. But the word "sacrament" in its origin, and as properly understood, presents the other side of the 274 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. matter, that is, the voluntary acceptance of the authority which is expressed in the word ''ordi- nance;" for the sacramentum was the Roman sol- dier's sacred oath of allegiance to his commander, and so it came to denote the Christian's act of con- secration to his Lord. This seems to have been the origin of the word, and yet, because of the principal element in the term, it soon came to signify merely a holy thing, that is, a sacred rite or observance without reference to the vow of the offerer. In this sense every element of religious life, or worship, might be called a sacrament. But leaving etymologies, and looking at present custom and association, we observe that the word ^'ordinance" is the most common in Protestant use; and it is well that it should be so, since the word itself leads our thought to him who has ordained, or commanded, these sacred observances of his own origination. Neither "ordinance" nor any other term is used in the New Testament to describe col- lectively Baptism and the Supper. In 1 Cor. 11 :2, according to the King James Version, the Apostle «ays : ''Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remem- l)er me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." The margin, however, renders, "traditions," which has been accepted by the Revisers, and is undoubtedly the correct render- ing. The context shows that there is here no certain, still less exclusive, reference to Baptism and the Supper, but rather to customs and proprieties which the Apostle had enjoined. But there is no objection to using "ordinance" as a convenient designation. The ordinances, then, are certain symbolic acts THE CHRISTIAN ORDINANCES. 275 which Christians are commanded to observe as set- ting forth great truths of their religion. The ele- ments of this definition are important. Notice that these are acts or observances — things to do, as well as to keep. They are not simply keepsakes which may fade or deca}', but actions which may per- petually be performed. Again, we must emphasize the point that they are symbolic acts, done with a view to setting forth truth. The acts are of no consequence in themselves. Their whole force lies in their symbolism. Looked at simply as actions, both ordinances are not only useless but somewhat inconvenient. It is a very notable thing, that actions so simple should be made the N'lehicles of such supreme and far-reaching truths. Moreover, they are commanded acts, positive divine institu- tions. In these days of overmuch ''evolution" it is well to remember that some of the best things in life are not the chance developments of untrust- worthy human nature, but are distinctly and mightily enjoined by the Power above all nature, and enshrined in a love and devotion to which the human heart untouched by the divine Spirit is a stranger. Distinctly then, do these institutions recognize the authority and lordship of the Son of God, and they are performed in simple and loving obedience to his will. Among the Protestants generally and the Bap- tists, the terms "ordinances" and "sacraments" are applied only to Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The Tunkers ("Dunkards") and a few others hold that John 13:1-17 enjoins the practice of feet-wash- ing as a perpetual ordinance; but most inter- 276 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. prefers regard the passage as giving only a noble ob- ject-lesson in bnmility. Passing now to the purpose of the ordinances, we first notice some errors. The Romanist view that in some way the mere performance of these acts itself brings a blessing, or confers spiritual grace, is a grave error. We hold that there is nothing in the acts themselves to bring grace, nothing mysterious, nothing miraculous, but that God blesses the per- formance of these acts as he blesses obedience and worship in other things. Another error is the notion that somehow these rites were an intended means of impressing the world. This possibly grew out of the saying of Paul in 1 Cor. 11 :26, "As oft as yet eat this bread and drink this cup ye do proclaim the Lord's death till he come." But the "proclaim- ing" here need not be to the outside world, but rather means the exhibition, to those who are taking part in the ordinance, of the perennial grace and love of Christ in salvation. It is true that the suitable performance of the ordinances may, and often does, have a happy spiritual effect upon those who look upon it, but this effect is incidental to the true design of the ordinances. Another serious error is of course not held as a theory — the merely formal or ritualistic use of the ordinances, observing them as a custom, or churchly performance, with- out any true conception or hearty realization of their intent or force. The true view or the ordinances may be set forth in three parts, all of which are essential to a com- plete statement: (1) They symbolize by vivid ac- tion essential Christian truth, expressing in an out- THE CHRISTIAN ORDINANCES. 277 wardly observed rite, inwardly accepted and funda- mental Christian doctrine; (2) Tliey are to be kept as observances for the sake of the Lord Jesus, in simple obedience to his positive commands, and in grateful recognition of his claims to our love and duty; (3) They are, therefore, distinctively Chris- tian ceremonies, marking those who rightly observe them as the true followers of Jesus Christ. We pass on to consider the keepers of the ordi- nances. Upon whom lies the obligation to keep and administer these commanded observances of the Christian religion? We may somewhat clear the ground by exclusion, by considering upon whom it does not lie to keep these sacred and distinctive Christian rites; for certainly it is not the duty of any and everybody promiscuously to observe Bap- tism and the Lord's Supper. The command to re- pent and believe applies to everybody, but not the command to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and not the command to partake of the bread and wine in remembrance of the self-sacrificing love of the Saviour. It would be monstrous irreverence and impropriety for persons not owning Christ as Lord and Saviour to take upon themselves the observance of these holy things. But further, we may say that not even the people of Christ, indiscriminately and generally, are to ob- serve the ordinances. It is true that every believer should be baptized and should then observe the Supper with his brethren, but not any and every be- liever by himself, or even in company with others, is to observe or administer either one of the ordi- nances. There obviously should be some restrictions 278 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. and safeguards about the celebration of these holy rites. We have no reason to suppose that in chance meetings, or mere social assemblies, it was intended for Christians to observe the ordinances. Again, we should notice that it is not the duty of any in- dividual Christian to go about on his own responsi- bility baptizing people, or presuming to administer the Lord's Supper to whomsoever he might meet. Nor, finally, is it to be regarded as the exclusive privilege of ministry or priesthood. This is de- batable and debated ground, and it must be acknowl- edged that there arises here some difficulty. It was probably true that in many cases the Apostles and the evangelists of the New Testament times ad- ministered these rites in their discretion; and so those who believe in apostolic succession in bishops consider that the authority to administer the ordi- nances was thus handed down. Baptists, however, do not believe that the Apostles transmitted this authority through individuals, or constituted any order of men their successors, either in name or function. They also deny that any present day in- dividual can show his apostolic succession and vindi- cate his credentials to perform the sacred mysteries. Where, then, lie the duty and the authority in re- gard to the observance of the ordinances? Our answer is ready. It is the duty and privi- lege of the organized churches of Christ. And inas- much as these are separate local bodies of believers, and no grand aggregated organization, the duty of observance lies upon each local church in particular. If question should be raised as to the scriptural authority for holding that the local churches are the THE CHRISTIAN ORDINANCES. 279 proper depositaries and keepers of tlie ordinances, we reply that this is a fair inference from : (1) The fact of the establishment of churches, as the custo- dians of Christian truth and customs; (2) From the absence of continuous apostolic authority in the churches; and (3) From the principle that definite observances are more properly performed by reg- ularl}' organized and accredited bodies than by un- organized and unaccredited individuals. We can- not say that there is any definite command which lays the performance of these two ordinances upon the churches, yet it appears to be the natural, if not necessary, deduction from the whole trend and tenor of the New Testament teaching. We must take one of three positions in regard to the matter, namely, that of apostolic succession in bishops, or that of general and ill-defined performance, or that of church observance. Only a few choose the middle one of these, and the question practically narrows itself to a choice between apostolic succession in bishops and the responsible action of the local churches. To Baptists the latter seems to be clearly in accord with New Testament principles and practice. We notice now the duty of the churches as keep- ers of the ordinances. In regard to Baptism, it is the duty of the church in all cases to satisfy itself that a real Christian baptism has been received be- fore admitting any applicant to its membership. There is difference of opinion as to what constitutes, a real Christian baptism in some cases, and there- might also arise difference of opinion as to what evidence would satisfy the church in cases of doubt;. 280 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. but leaving these matters aside, the principle as an- nounced is generally recognized as sound. There are some exceptions, of course. Some sectaries and others have not considered baptism a prerequisite to church membership, but a great majority of Chris- tian people in all times have had no question as to this point. Baptism, while it is not the "door of the church" in any proper sense, is a necessary pre- requisite to admission through the door, which is the vote of the church itself. It is also the duty of the church to provide for the observance of Bap- tism, both by having a proper administrator and suitable appliances. As to the Lord's Supper, the duty of the church is to keep it as a church action, and with due solemnity and decorum. It is an action solely for church members, presumably ''in good standing and full fellowship," as the current phrase has it. It is an action to be performed in regular and orderly as- semblies of the church held for that purpose ; though it may be done in different places and at different seasons as the church may by vote direct. It is the privilege of the church to appoint any of its mem- bers to preside and direct the observance of the Supper. It does not require the presence and action of an ordained minister, though for the sake of regularity and propriety this is customary and de- sirable. Controversies over the ordinances have marked the entire course of Christian history, and they have not ceased. In the following chapters parti- cular attention will be paid to these, and earnest effort be made to see and state the truth according THE CHRISTIAN ORDINANCES. 281 to the Scriptures; but to prepare the way for fuller treatment and clearer understanding, it is de- sirable to give here a brief and comprehensi\'e state- ment and explanation of the principal points of con- troversy in regard to each ordinance. As to Bap- tism there are five: (1) The Obligation; (2) The Act; (3) The Agent; (4) The Kecipients; (5) The Significance. As to the Lord's Supper there are three: (1) The Meaning; (2) The Participants; (3) The Observance. In regard to Baptism a few parties and indivi- duals here and there have for one reason or another been led to deny that it was intended to be a per- petual institution, or that it is in every case neces- sary to membership in a Christian church; but the consensus of opinion among the vast body of Chris- tian professors in all ages is that it is the duty of the individual believer to receive and of the churches to require baptism as obedience to the command of Christ, and as the indispensable token of a Chris- tian profession. Greater diff"erence of opinion has prevailed as to the act of Baptism — whether it is the immersion of the body in water, or the applica- tion of water to the person by sprinkling or pouring, and whether the act is to be performed once only or three times successively. The more common but less accurate phraseology describes this discussion as regarding the "mode" of baptism, but "act" is the better word and will be used throughout this treatise. The next topic of debate is that regard- ing the agent, or "administrator," of baptism, i. e., who is properly authorized to perform the act? and is the baptism invalid if performed by an unsuit- 282 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. able agent? Next we have the great debate as to the recipients, or ''subjects," of baptism : whether it should be performed on believers only or also on infants with a view to their future profession of faith. Lastly, discussion has been very sharp as to the significance or ''design" of baptism : whether it is only a symbolic and declarative act, or has also spiritual efficacy, either as removing the taint of natural sin, or as being the condition of the divine remission of sin. In regard to the Lord's Supper the various dis- putes may be summed up under the three points previously mentioned, meaning, participants, obser- vance: What was our Lord's purpose in instituting the rite? and what did he mean by saying, "This is my body"? Is there a "real presence" of Christ in some miraculous way in the elements, or is the rite one of solemn and worshipful memorial only? An- other question is in regard to the proper partici- pants in the celebration. Are baptism and regular church membership necessary to such participation ? or may any one at his option take part when the ordinance is observed? And lastly, various ques- tions of detail arise as to the observance of the Supper, as ,Who should administer the rite? How often it should be observed? and under what con- ditions, methods, etc.? All these matters will be fully considered in their proper place. THE OBLIGATION OF BAPTISM. 283 OUTLINE OF CHAPTER II. THE OBLIGATION OF BAPTISM. I. Ground of the ObligatioD. 1. The will of Christ. (1) His example. (2) His practice. (3) His command. 2. The authority of the Apostles. (1) Their practice. (2) Their teaching. 3. The consensus of Christendom. II. Historical View of the Obligation. 1. The patristic era. 2. The Middle Ages. 3. The Reformation period. (1) The Catholic Church. (2) The Reformers. (3) The Anabaptists. 4. Modern times. (1) Rejected by Quakers. (2) Denied by some others. III. Recognition of the Obligation. 1. As a Doctrine. Defence. (1) Against denial. (2) Against neglect. 2. As a Practice. Parties to it. (1) The church. (2) The agent. (3) The recipient. CHAPTER II. THE OBLIGATION OF BAPTISM. Taking up in the order announced in the last chapter, the controversies on the ordinance of Bap- tism, we begin with that upon the obligation of the practice. Did Christ intend that Baptism, as an outward and ceremonial act, should be perpetuated in the practice of his people through time? And consequently is it the duty of his people so to ob- serve and practise it? While the great majority of Christians in all times have so understood the mind of the Master and have endeavored to carry out his will, there have been some here and there in the course of Christian history who have failed either through misunderstanding or neglect to recognize the obligation; and accordingly it is well to devote at least a short chapter to the consideration of this fundamental matter. We first consider the ground of the obligation resting upon Christians to practise Baptism as a religious rite. The primary reason and all-sufficient cause is that it is the will of Jesus Christ. How may we be sure of this? In the first place there is his own example. In Matt. 3:13-15 we have the familiar record : "Then cometh Jesus from Gali- lee to the Jordan unto John to be baptized of him. But John would have hindered him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to 2S4 THE OBLIGATION OF BAPTISM. 285 me? But Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it now ; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteous- ness. Then he suffereth him." Now our Lord ac- cepted the baptism of John as a divinely authorized institution (Matt. 21:23-27), and the reason he as- signs for receiving it in face of the remonstrance of John — "thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteous- ness"— shows the high importance he attached to the act, though in his case it did not signify "re- pentance for the remisison of sins." What was it then for Christ but the definite and public and solemn entrance upon his ministry? It was in his case, as nearly as the circumstances admitted, the equivalent of the believer's entrance upon the Chris- tian life and service. Upon this act of consecration and obedience on the part of the Son the Father then and there spoke his approval. As far, then, as the parallel extends the example of Christ teaches that baptism, as the initial act of outward Christian profession, is an act fulfilling righteousness and as such acceptable to God. But John's baptism was introductory to that of Christ himself. For our Lord also employed that ceremony in making dis- ciples to himself (John 4:1,2). While he did not personally perform the act he had his disciples to do so. Thus his practice followed his own example and established baptism as the initiatory rite for those who would profess themselves his followers and enter the service of his kingdom. That nothing may be wanting to the completeness of the argument we have, finally, the explicit command of Jesus in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19): "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, bap- 286 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. tizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Here as the cere- monial part in the making of disciples baptism is placed between the proclamation of the gospel and instruction in its duties. Surely it would be diffi- cult to conceive a more explicit and emphatic ex- pression of the Lord's will than these facts present. That the Apostles and their co-laborers under- stood and carried out the Lord's will in regard to the requirement of baptism is clear both from their practice and their teachings. The facts in regard to the baptism of the three thousand at Pentecost (Acts 2:41), of the Samaritan converts and the Ethiopian treasurer (8:12,36,38), of Saul of Tarsus (9:18), of Cornelius (10:46,48), of Lydia and the Philippian jailor (16:15,33), of the twelve imperfectly taught men (19:1-5), are surely sufficient evidence as to the uniform practice of the early Christians. The aposolic teaching is to the same effect. Paul (Rom. 6:1-4; Col. 2:12) assumes the fact and urges the symbolism of baptism in a way to indicate its im- portance as the initiatory Christian rite. His re- marks in 1 Cor. 1 :13-17 so far from showing a slight regard for baptism really indicate how highly it was esteemed. The Corinthians in their party zeal were making a wrong use of the names of Paul, Apollos and Cephas as leaders to whom they were attaching themselves, and Paul is led to congratu- late himself that he had baptized only a few of them since this would have intensified the feeling, show- ing that the performance of baptism was so highly regarded as to constitute a claim of affection or loyalty for the agent from the recipient. Again the THE OBLIGATION OF BAPTISM. 287 obscure passage in 1 Cor. 15 :29 about being bap- tized for the dead shows the high, even superstitious, regard in which the ordinance was already held by some. Discouraging these misuses Paul shows by his very mention of them how highly baptism was held in the minds of the first Christians, and this esteem — though of course not the perversions — was the effect of apostolic practice and teaching. This teaching is further illustrated in the diflScult passage in 1 Peter 3:21, where baptism is called *'the interrogation (or demand, or appeal) of a good conscience toward God." Whatever difficulty must be felt as to the exact meaning of the term variously translated ''answer," "requirement," ^'interrogation," etc., it evidently describes baptism as an act in which the conscience deals with a duty toward God. Thus in various ways the practice and teaching of the Apostles accept and enforce the will of Christ in regard to baptism as the ceremonial initial act of allegiance and profession on the part of a Christian believer. It only remains to say that the overwhelming consensus of opinion and practice in the Christian world during all the ages to this day accepts this view of the matter. There has been much dispute over the form, administration and recipients of the rite, but very little as to whether the act of baptism should be required as a condition of membership in a professedly Christian body. The few excep- tions only emphasize the parctical unanimity of Christians on the point in question; and to these exceptions it is well to give some attention, in the way of a slight historical sketch of the subject. 288 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. As early as the patristic age (during the first six centuries) there appear to have been some who de- nied the necessity of baptism. Bingham (Anti- quities, Book II., chap. 2, sec. 1) says: "Though the church always maintained an honorable opinion of baptism as a divine and heavenly institution, yet there wanted not sects and heresies who in the earliest ages spoke very diminutively and con- demnatively of it; and either in whole or in part upon various reasons rejected or corrupted it." He goes on to give an account of some of these sects and their reasons for rejecting baptism. Some were a sort of Gnostic rationalists who said that religion was a matter of the intellect, and that baptism, be- ing a mere external performance, was of no service. Others maintained that Christian baptism was no water baptism at all — that was John's baptism; for John himself said he baptized with water, but Christ would baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire. These evidently anticipated the modern Quakers and others. Still others held that as baptism was not essential to salvation the performance of it was a matter of indifference. In the Middle Ages there does not appear to have been much discussion as to the obligation of bap- tism. Certainly in the Roman Church the necessity of it was fully accepted, and if it was rejected at all it must have been among some obscure sects whose tenets are not well known. During the period of the Reformation (1517-1648), along with every other element of Christian faith and practice, baptism came up for a full share of discussion. The parties to it were chiefly three: THE OBLIGATION OF BAPTISM. 289 the Catholics, the Reformers and the Anabaptists. But all these accepted the obligation. The Council of Trent by putting its approval on the doctrine of baptismal salvation, and authorizing baptisms by heretics, emphasized in the strongest manner the Church's insistence on the practice. Likewise the teachings of the leading Reformers, the catechisms and confessions of faith, show that these also con- sidered baptism as necessary to church membership and the outward profession of Christianity. Of the Anabaptists it must be remarked that their in- sistence upon believers' baptism as opposed to that of infants clearly shows their acceptance of the importance of baptism as the initiatory rite of Christian profession. So here again, as in case of the Middle Ages, we have to say that if there were any to reject the obligation of baptism it must have been among obscure individuals or sects who are not of any historic importance. In modern times (1648 till now) the only con- siderable sect to deny the obligation of baptism have been the Quakers, or Friends, who took their rise in England about the middle of the seventeenth century, and spread both there and in America, not- withstanding the inexcusable persecutions to which they were subjected. Their view was that the ordi- nances did not need to be perpetually repeated ; that they were merely spiritual and symbolical rites ; and that only the baptism of the Spirit was of per- petual force, and that was to be sought and found by prayer and communion with God. In England some Baptists have been led by their views in favor of unrestricted communion to adopt 290 ORDINANCES OF THE CHUROHES. also the view that baptism is not required for church membership. Once in awhile in this coun- try also some mav be found to advocate such opinions. But this is a virtual denial of the need of baptism at all, and is the outcome of loose views either of church polity or of the authority of our Lord in general. We come now to the recognition of the obligation of baptism, both as doctrine and duty. As a clearly taught doctrine of the New Testament it is to be maintained against those who on principle deny it, as the Quakers. This is to be done, as in the case of all doctrines, by careful study and unfolding of the doctrine and by enforcing upon the attention of opponents the Scripture proofs. Against those who slight the ordinance as unimportant urgent enforce- ment of the supreme authority of the Lord himself is necessary. But alas, there be many nowadays to whom even this appeal has little force. All who truly believe in Jesus as Lord should need no urging to carry out his commands in detail, and therefore to obey him in this solemn rite which he has him- self sanctioned and ejnoined. In maintaining baptism as a practice it is proper to consider the parties to the act. Here first we place the church. It is the duty of the church to see that the commands of her great Head and Lord are scrupulously carried out. And so it is evident from the Scriptures before noticed that the church must always require baptism as a condition pre- cedent to membership. Difficulties in regard to what constitutes a valid baptism in some cases will arise. These are to be treated later when we take THE OBLIGATION OF BAPTISM. 291 Up the subject of the agent or administrator of bap- tism. Suffice it here to say that in no case should a church receive as a member a person who has not a defensible claim to a valid baptism. But besides requiring baptism as a condition of membership, the church should regulate the performance of the act. It should provide for the orderly and regular ad- ministration of the ordinance at the hands of authorized officers, for the decent conduct of the rite with due solemnity and decorum, and gen- erally for the management of all such details as are necessarily left to the discretion of the people of God. The other parties to the act of baptism are the performer and receiver of the action. The agent certainly should have a clear conviction of his authority both directly from the Lord and indi- rectly through his church, and should clearly under- stand just what baptism means in order that he may intelligently do his Lord's will. It should not be necessary to say that he should perform the act solemnly, skilfully, both to the edification of the witnesses and of the recipient. He who follows his Lord in baptism also owes it to the Master, his brethren and himself to have a correct conception of what he is doing and a reverent spirit in the per- formance itself. There is no call for misconceptions of the merit of the mere act of baptism, but there i? imperative need for a reverent and intelligent per- formance and acceptance of the act on the part of those chiefly concerned in its administration. 292 ' ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES, OUTLINE OF CHAPTER III. ACT OF BAPTISM — MEANING OF THE WORD. I. Definitions in dictionaries. 1. The three best are enough. (1) Liddell & Scott for classical Greek. (2) Thayer for New Testament. (3) Cremer for theological terms. 2. Value of this argument. (1) Convenient and etfective. (2) Definitions in spite of controversy. (3) Definers not Baptists. (4) Inductions of many scholars. II. Literary Usage of the Greek Language. 1. Outline of Conant's argument. (1) Literal use — 86 examples. (a) Element implied. (b) Element expressed and construed with or without preposition. (2) Figurative use — 65 examples. (3) In compound with a preposition — 17 ex- amples. In all 168. 2. Strength of the argument. (1) Breadth of the induction. (2) Completeness of the reasoning. III. Religious Usage. 1. The New Testament. (1) No reason for changing usual meaning. (2) Circumstances require immersion. (3) Figurative uses correspond. (4) Apparent difficulties explained. 2. The Fathers. 3. Modern Greek. CHAPTER III. THE ACT OP BAPTISM. THE MEANING OF THE WORD. What is the act of baptism? Sprinkling, pouring, immersion, or all three? In the light of the teach- ings of Scripture, the truth of history and the pres- ent duty of the people of Christ it is important to settle this question. The means of deciding it are at hand. When a word in another language de- scribes an act and we want to know what the cor- responding word describing the same act is in our own language we must consult the best available sources of information. There are two places of appeal in this matter, though in reality they are but one. These are the dictionaries which have been made by competent scholars, and the usages of the language which lie behind the dictionaries. This latter really is the final court of appeal, be- cause it is clear that the dictionaries themselves have "been made by induction from the usage of the language. Our first appeal is to the dictionaries. Citations from a multitude of inferior authorities would be little to the purpose; a few of the best can settle the question as well as all of them. Definitions are here given from three great lexicons: one for the classical Greek, one for the New Testament Greek, 293 294 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. and one for theological terms in the New Testament. For classical Greek the authority universally recognized among English speaking scholars is the great lexicon of Liddell & Scott. The seventh edi- tion of this work is the last revision, and up to this date is the final authority in this country. Its defi- nitions of the word haptizo are here quoted. Cita- tions from Greek authors are omitted, but the conclu- sions are given in the exact words of the dictionary itself: 1, "To dip in, or under water; of ships, to sink or disable them; metaphorically of the crowds who flocked into Jerusalem at the time of the siege; passive, to be drenched; metaphorically, soaked in wine, over head and ears in debt, being drowned with questions, or getting into deep water. 2. To draw wine by dipping the cup in the bowl. 3. To baptize. Middle, to dip oneself, to get oneself bap- tized." For the New Testament Greek the accepted stand- ard in the world of schilarship to-day is a lexicon which bears the name of three authors. Originally it was Wilke's Clavis, 1. e., key, to the New Testa- ment. It was written in Latin and was intended to discuss, especially, the Greek words found in the New Testament, and those only. It was worked over later by Grimm, and this edition was known as Grimm's Wilke's Clavis, and was recognized among scholars as the best New Testament Greek Lexicon in existence. It was later translated into English from the Latin with valuable additions by Professor J. H. Thayer, of the Harvard Divinity School, and in its American-English dress is known as Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Tes- MEANING OF THE WORD. 295 lament. Bevond all doubt it is the best New Tes- tament Gi-eek- English Lexicon that we have. Exact quotation of its definitions is here given, citations omitted as before: "I. 1. Properly to dip repeat- edly, to immerse, submerge. 2. To cleanse by dip- ping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water ; in the mid. and the 1 aor. pass., to wash one- self, bathe. 3. Metaphorically to overwhelm ; and alone, to inflict great and abounding calamities on one, to be overwhelmed with calamities, of those who must bear them. II. In the New Testament it is used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution, first instituted by John the Baptist, afterwards by Christ's command received by Christians and ad- justed to the contents and nature of their religion, viz., an immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and administered to those who, impelled by a desire for salvation, sought admission to the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom, a. The word is used absolutely, to administer the rite of ablution, to baptize. Pass., to be baptized. Pass., in the reflex sense, to allow oneself to be initiated by baptism, to receive baptism ; followed by a dat. of the thing with which baptism is performed, water, b. With prepositions; aa. eis, to mark the element into which the immersion is made; to indi- cate the eff'ect. bb. en, with dat. of the thing in which one is immersed; of the thing used in bap- tizing; with the simple dat. cc. Pass, epi, relying on the name of Jesus Christ, dd. hupcr, on behalf of the dead, in 1 Cor. 15 :29." The third dictionary to be noticed is one which devotes itself especially to the subject of theological 296 ORDINANCES OP THE CHURCHES. terms used in the New Testament. This was by Professor Hermann Cremer, of Germany. We quote from the English translation of Professor William Urwick, published by T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, and in New York by the Scribners. The definition is as follows, somewhat abbreviated, as the discussion is rather long for complete quotation : ''The peculiar New Testament and Christian use of the word — to denote immersion, submersion for a religious pur- pose, to baptize — may be pretty clearly traced back to the Levitical washings." It proceeds to discuss at length the relation of these Levitical washings to baptism and then discusses the design of baptism, which is not here in question, and goes on to say, "metaphorically used haptizein occurs in many pas- sages of Scripture." It thus appears that the best lexical authorities coincide in defining the proper meaning of the word "baptize" as immerse.* Now we notice the value of this argument. It has the merit of brevity and convenience. And it must be observed that these definitions were framed in full view of the controversies concerning bap- tism. If the opponents of immersion had discov- ered a really new meaning of the word "baptize" and had demonstrated their success, it is incredible that the best authorities should have left it out of their works. Further, it must be borne in mind that these definitions are the opinions of scholars who are not Baptists. Liddell and Scott .were * Definitions from other lexicons, ancient and modern, may be found in Hiscox's A'i'Tt/ Directory for Baptist churches and in Christian's Immersion. MEANING OF THE WORD. 297 clergymen of the Church of England; both Grimm and Wilke were German Lutherans; their translator, Professor Thayer, was a Congregationalist, and Professor Cremer is a German Lutheran. It is cer- tain, therefore, that in framing their definitions these scholars were not led by ecclesiastical preju- dice or preference, but by scholarly knowledge of the real meaning of the word. Again, we must ob- serve that these definitions are inductions from the long continued patient accumulations of scholars, who have made the study of the Greek language their special care. No great dictionary is the off- hand work of one man — each must be based upon many predecessors and upon a wider induction and comparison of the facts of the language behind it. Thus while these three great dictionaries bear the names of eminent scholars, they are the contribu- tions of a host of other scholars through all the centuries, and represent the consensus of opinion of those who have made special investigation in this department of learning. For all these reasons the argument is one of great force, and to every candid mind it should be convincing. Let us take up now the usage of the word as it appears in the Greek authors. As has just been ob- served, lexical definitions are only briefly expressed inductions from linguistic usage, which must some- times be taken into account. Usually it is not neces- sary to resort to this method of treating a subject, as the definitions of linguistic specialists will com- monly be accepted. But the importance and inter- est of the controversy on Baptism have caused Bap- tist scholars, as well as some others who are inter- 298 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. ested in the subject, to make this special investiga- tion into the usage of the language in order to verify and confirm the inductions of the lexicographers. I>r. Alexander Carson made good use of this method in his day, though he fell into some errors, but Dr. Thomas J. Conant in his Meaning and Use of Bap- tizein has left nothing to be done or desired in this matter — he has covered the ground. An outline of Dr. Conant's argument will now be given. The student is referred to the book itself for a complete statement.. (1) Dr. Conant gives eighty- six examples of the literal use of haptizo from dif- ferent Greek authors to show that they always used the word in the sense of putting under water or other liquid, (a) Fifty-eight examples are first quoted where the element is not expressed, but im- plied. By the way of illustration two of these are here given : Polybius, in his History, book III., chap- ter 72,4, speaking of the passage of the Roman army^ under the Consul Tiberius, through the river Tebia,^ which had been swollen by heavy rains, says : "They passed through with difficulty, the foot-soldiers im- mersed (baptized) as far as to the breasts." Achilles Tatius, in his story of Cliptophon and Leucippe, book IV., chapter 18, describing the manner in which the Egyptian boatman drinks water from the Nile, says : "And lets down his hand into the water ; and dipping (baptizing) it hollowed, and filling it with water, he darts the draught towards his mouth, and hits the mark." (b) The literal use is further exemplified in cases where the element in which the act is performed is mentioned and construed with or without a preposition. Here twenty-eight exam- MEANING OF THE WORD. 299 pies are quoted aud all to the same effect. Julian in his Ode to Cupid says: ''As I was once twining a garland, I found Cupid in the roses; and holding by the wings I immersed (baptized) him into wine, and took and drank him ; and now, within my mem- bers, he tickles with his wings." Strabo, in his Geography, book XII., chapter 5, section 4, speaking of the water of a certain lake, says: ''The water solidifies so readily around everything that is im- mersed (baptized) into it, that they draw up salt crowns when they let down a circle of rushes." (2) Dr. Conant i^asses on to the -figurative use of the word, where the notion of being overwhelmed, or dipped, or plunged is expressed. Here there are sixty-five quotations, all illustrating the original meaning of the word. For example, Libanius, the teacher of Chrysostom, refers to the earthquake in which two of his friends had perished, and in speak- ing of this affliction says: ''And I myself am one of those submerged (baptized) by that great wave." (3) Dr. Conant next gives the use of the word in composition ivith a preposition, and under this head quotes seventeen passages. One of these, where the word is compounded with the preposition "in," is found in Plutarch, Life of Sylla, XXI., where speak- ing of some dying soldiers he says : "And dying they filled the marshes with blood, and the lake with dead bodies ; so that until now, many barbaric bows, and helmets, and pieces of iron breast-plates, and swords, are found immersed (baptized) in the pools." Altogether there are given one hundred and sixty-eight examples from Greek authors in every age and of every sort, and Dr. Conant thus 300 ORDINANCES OP THE CHURCHES. sums up: "In all the word has retained its ground meaning without change. From the earliest age of Greek literature down to its close, a period of about two thousand years, not an example has been found in which the word has any other meaning." The strength of this argument lies in the breadth of the induction and the completeness and finality of the reasoning. The entire range of Greek litera- ture has been covered. Every reference made in any known lexicon of the language was diligently hunted up and verified, and many others were added from the author's own reading and investigation ; so that it is reasonably certain that few if any passages bearing upon the usage of this word in any extant Greek author have been overlooked. So much for the literary usage. We turn now to consider the religious usage of the word, and the question before us is as to the meaning of the word baptizo, when it is employed to denote the religious rite of baptism and not any ordinary act of dipping. Does it still preserve the original meaning of dip- ping or immersing? Here, to determine the Greek usage, we must examine three different sources: the New Testament, the Greek Fathers and the use of the Greek Church in modern times. As to the New Testament usage, a careful induc- tion and classification of all the passages in the New Testament, where the word is used of the Chris- tian rite of baptism, will show that the general usage of the language has been faultlessly adhered to by the New Testament writers. Attempts to prove any- thing else have failed, and must fail. No exhaustive presentation of the matter can here be attempted, MEANING OF THE WORD. 301 but a few points it is necessary to notice. There are some passages where the act is merely mentioned. What are we to say of these? Was there any reason why in their use of this word the New Testament writers should depart from the established classical use? When the word was taken up into the higher sphere of religious usage did it therefore leave be- hind it the actual meaning it had? Is it conceivable that the religious usage of the word 'baptizo, de- scribing a religious ceremony, should change the meaning of the word from dip to sprinkle? and were there not words for sprinkling and pouring at hand if the New Testament writers desired to say sprinkle and pour instead of dip? In truth, in the actual use of the word the meaning of dip or plunge is al- ways appropriate in the New Testament for bap- tism; the substitution of any other word would be inappropriate in most cases and impossible in some. Again, the circumstances attending the act are such as to justify or require the meaning of im- merse. For example, where "John was baptizing at Enon because there was much water there." (John 3:23.) The effort to make this mean that there was much drinking water there to slake the thirst of the crowds attending, is so evidently a makeshift as not to require serious consideration. In Mark 1 :9 it is said of our Lord's baptism that he was "baptized into the Jordan," and that he "came up out of the water." Surely the attending circum- stances here not only coincide with the meaning of dip, but seem absolutely to require it ; and the same thing is true of the famous passages in Acts 8 :38,39, 302 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. concerning the baptism of the eunuch by Philip. Here is an exact and minute description of the act, and nothing but immersion can fit into the language used; for it is said that "both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him, and when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip." Fur- ther, there are two passages, Romans 6 :l-4 and Col. 2:12, where the symbolism of baptism is set forth as a burial and resurrection, and these naturally demand the classical and original meaning of the word, to put under. Various attempts have been made to break the force of these passages, but they have appealed to the candid mind of many a Psedo- baptist divine and scholar, notable among whom are Calvin and John Wesley, who both gave the meaning of immerse at these and other passages.* The few passages of the New Testament which have been used as against immersion are easily ex- plained to accord with that meaning. In Mark 7 :3,4, and Luke 11 :37,38, the dipping does not mean baptism, but is easily shown to have been in ac- cord with the custom of the Jews at that time. They were accustomed actually to dip articles men- tioned, washing them thoroughly, as well as to take a complete bath when they returned from the mar- ket places. (See the various commentaries, even of Psedobaptist scholars, especially Meyer, upon the passages in question.) In Acts 2:41 the statement is made that three thousand were baptized in one day in Jerusalem, and this has been often shown to have been feasible, both on account of the abund- *Cf. Wesley's and Calvin's admissions Ch. V, below. MEANING OP THE WORD. 303 ant water supply, which is well known to have ex- isted in the city, and on account of the number of the administrators. A modern parallel case is that of the baptism of the Telugus, where two thousand two hundred and twenty-two were baptized in one day. The baptism of the jailer recorded in Acts 16 :33, has sometimes been used as if it made against the meaning of immerse, but the immersion may have been performed in the river which was adja- cent to the city. We know there was a river there beside which Lydia and others had a praying place ; but more probably the baptism was performed in the bath in the jailer's apartments. The Romans were accustomed to having baths in their houses, and it is not at all unlikely that the jailer's house was so furnished. The mention of the fact that he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes would be in harmony with this view. All that we are required to do in this case is to show that immersion is possible, this being the proper meaning of the word. If it were impossible we might have to seek another meaning. Thus, exam- ined at every point with careful and minute investi- gation, the New Testament usage of the word is seen to coincide with the ordinary classic meaning, as there is every reason that it should do. We notice now the usage of the word among the Greek Fathers. When the early Christian writers spoke of baptism they did so in a way to indicate that immersion was the act. The passage in the Didache, Chapter vii., by the very exception which it allows shows that immersion was the usual and proper act. The passage is as follows: ''Now con- 304 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. cerning baptism, baptize thus : Having first taught all these things, baptize ye in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost in living (running) water, and if thou hast not living (run- ning) water, baptize in other water, and if thou canst not in cold then in warm; but if thou hast neither, pour thrice upon the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Evidently here the ground meaning of baptize is to immerse. An emergency is recognized in which it was impossible to procure water for immersion. Now, then, in such emergency the writer says "pour;" whereby it is plain that in his mind "pour" and "baptize" are not synonymous terms. In other words, in an emergency where the proper act of baptism is recognized as impossible some other thing is substituted for the right thing. This document was discovered after Dr. Conant wrote his treatise. He quotes from the Greek Fathers twenty-eight pas- sages in which they speak of the Christian rite of baptism in such a way as to show that they under- stood the word to mean immersion. Basil the Great is quoted as saying: "Imitating the burial of Christ by the immersion (baptism) ; for the bodies of those immersed (baptized) are, as it were, buried in the water." Others are to the same purport. Dr. Conant adds fourteen passages from the Latin Fathers, who used such Latin words about the rite as to show that they understood the Greek word to signify immersion. For example, Tertullian has the word tinyo, which originally meant to dip and then to dye, from which our words tincture and tint came. In another place Tertullian used mergo; Am- MEANING OF THE WORD. 305 brose and Jerome also used mergo. In addition to these Dr. Conant gives nineteen quotations from the Greek Fathers in which they employ the word in some illustrative or figurative way, but in harmony with the idea of dipping or plunging. For example, Chrysostom, in explaining the words of our Lord about his having a baptism to be baptized with, says: ''For as he who is immersed (baptized) with water, rises again with great ease, not at all hin- dered by the nature of the waters ; so also, he having gone down into death, with greater ease came up; for this cause he calls it an immersion (baptism)." In regard to the meaning of the word in the Greek Church of modern times we can only say that this is in harmony with the ancient usage.* Dr. Conant quotes from Alexander de Stourdza, Russian State- Councillor, who says : "The verb 'baptizo has, in fact, but one sole acceptation : It signifies literally, and always, to plunge." Dean Stanley in his Lec- tures on the Eastern Cliurch, p. 117, says : "To this form (that is, immersion) the Eastern Church still rigorously adheres, and the most illustrious and ven- erable portion of it, that of the Byzantine empire, absolutely repudiates and ignores any other mode of administration as essentially invalid." This cus- tom is of course based upon their understanding of the word baptize. The usage of the modern Greek Church clearly proves the same. Hence, we see that in all the range of usage from the earliest appearance of the word in Greek litera- ture to its survival and continuance in the Greek of to-day the word haptizo means to immerse, dip, * See Christian, Immersion, p. 192f. 306 ORDINANCES OP THE CHURCHES. put under or into water or some liquid, or in its figurative sense into other substances. Tlie argu- ment, then, from the meaning of the word is simply unanswerable. Various attempts are, made here and there to refute it, but so far as the mean- ing of the word "baptize" is concerned the question may be regarded as finally settled for all those who have no motive for seeking and maintaining a dif- ferent view. Some of the pleas of the opponents of immersion will be considered in a later chapter. LIGHT FROM HISTORY. 307 OUTLINE OF CHAPTER IV. THE ACT OF BAPTISM ) LIGHT FROM HISTOEY. I. The Historical Study of Baptism. 1. Value. (1) Why appeal to history. (2) How use the argument. 2. Materials for the argument. II. Outline of the History. 1. The Patristic Age: 100-604. (1) Immersion the act. (2) Trine immersion usual. (3) Emergency cases of afifusion. 2. The Middle Ages : 604-1517. (1) Trine immersion general practice. (2) Cases of single immersion. (3) Progress of pouring and sprinkling. 3. The Reformation : 1517-1648. (1) Among Romanists. Both immersion and affusion, both single and trine. (2) Among Reformers. Immersion admitted as theory ; affusion adopted as practice. (3) Among Anabaptists. Some adopted im- mersion, some used affusion. 4. Modern Times : 1648-present. (1) Romanists theoretically admit all forms, but single affusion prevails. (2) Greek Church practises trine immersion. (3) Paedobaptists recognize immersion, but practise single affusion. (4) Dunkards practise trine immersion. (5) Baptists and others use single immersion. CHAPTER IV. THE ACT OP BAPTISM. LIGHT FROM HISTORY. The course of reasoning developed in the previous chapter in regard to the meaning of the word haptizo and its use in the New Testament to signify the Christian rite of baptism is amply sufficient and satisfactory so far as the Christian duty of baptism is concerned. The New Testament requirement of an immersion of the whole body in water is suffi- ciently -established without reference to any other mode of argumentation. The purpose of the present chapter is to study the history of the act of baptism, with a view to exhibiting what has been the practice of professing Christians through the centuries in re- gard to this important rite. We should consider, first of all, the nature and value of this argument from history. The question may be raised, Why appeal to history at all? Does not the argument from the meaning of the word settle the matter? We do not discuss this subject with a view to proving what baptism is, but for other reasons. The prevalence of a custom even in the earliest centuries does not prove that it is au- thorized by the New Testament; because it may have arisen in a subsequent age and very soon have become thoroughly imbedded in the practice of Christians. We cannot say, therefore, that the prevalence of immersion among early Christians 308 LIGHT FROM HISTORY. 309 necessarily proves it to have been the practice of the New Testament. That is established, as we have before seen, on other grounds. We ad- mit that history presents a divided testimony. Sprinkling and pouring did originate subsequently to the apostolic times and .steadily gained upon im- mersion until a majority of the Christian world adopted that unscriptural practice. It is evident, therefore, that our appeal to history is not to prove immersion, but only to see, having demonstrated immersion from other sources, how history corrobo- rates the meaning of the word in New Testament usage by showing that the actual practice for a long season did conform to the New Testament require- ment. Another reason for appealing to history is because of the interest of the subject. It is right that we should see how Christians in all subsequent ages understood and observed this ordinance. The light which is reflected back upon the New Testa- ment by the progress of history is both interesting and valuable. Another question is as to the use we should make of this argument. If, as has just been admitted, the historical argument is logically incomplete, is it worth anything to us as a practical argument? Our answer is that we should use it for no more than it is worth. Our first and last appeal is to the Scrip- ture as the only rule of faith and practice. Now trine immersion and infant baptism were early prac- tised among Christians, but we reject these because they have no foundation in the New Testament. Im- mersion early existed and long continued among the followers of Christ, and it has a foundation in 310 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. the New Testament, and not only so, but is clearly demonstrated to have been the constant New Testa- ment practice. There is here a clear distinction. We do not place any value upon the historical ar- gument for immersion other than as confirmatory and illustrative of what is proved from the New Tes- tament itself. On the other hand, we may, and ought to, use the historical argument for all it is worth. While not conclusive it is helpful. The long prevalence of immersion and the exceptional and unfavorable reception given to sprinkling and pour- ing certainly count far more for than against im- mersion ; and however imperfect the historical argu- ment may be, it certainly can never dislodge us from the ''^impregnable rock of holy Scripture." The materials for constructing the historical ar- gument in favor of immersion are so very full and rich that the investigator is embarrassed by the ex- tent of his riches. This has been one of the greatest controversies in Christian history, and the literature of the subject is overwhelmingly abundant. As in all such cases the materials should be divided into two — sources and authorities. In regard to the sources of information for the historical notices of baptism these are again twofold — the literature and the monuments. For any period of history the literary sources are the contemporary writers. For example, if we de- sire to know what was the practice in the early Christian ages, we must study the writings of the Fathers; and for this we are happily well equipped in our days, because many translations of the Fathers have been made and published. For the LIGHT PROM HISTORY. 311 Middle Ages no general collection or translation of the church writers has been made, or is likely to be made, as the literature is very abundant. For the Reformation and the modern times the same thing is true. The contemporary writers are in any age the sources of information. Thus what was an authority in one period would simply by process of time become a source in the next period. For their own days the Fathers were authorities, but to us they become sources. Light is also thrown on baptism by the monu- ments. These again are of two sorts — baptisteries and paintings. Numerous baptisteries of all ages exist in various parts of the world, and in the cata- combs and pictures of ancient times there are many representations of the act of baptism showing the method of baptizing prevailing at the time such baptistery or picture was made. Not many of us are likely to make personal use of these monuments, so we are dependent upon the books which describe them. Good work has been done in these directions, especially in modern times by Dr. W. N. Cote in his book on the Archaeology of Baptism. There is still room here, however, for investigation and study, and the whole subject of the monumental and pic- torial representations of baptism needs, and will repay, careful investigation. When we turn to the authorities on the history of baptism we shall be greatly perplexed by their mul- titude. In fact, all the best church historians and archaeologists will be in evidence. Specially worthy of mention are the church historians: Neander, Guericke, Hase and Schafif: the famous work of 312 ORDINANCES OP THE CHURCHES. Bingham on the Antiquities of the Christian Church; Smith & Cheetham's Dictionary of Chris- tian Antiquities, and the articles on Baptism in Herzog's Encyclopaedia. Of Baptist historians spe- cial mention should be made of Crosby, Armitage, Newman and Vedder. Of books directly on baptism in its relation to history, one of the most notable is Robinson's His- tory of Baptism. This was a very excellent contri- bution for its time, and though now out of date, is still valuable to the student in making investiga- tion. The book of Dr. Cote on Archaeology of Bap- tism, is one of great value. There is likewise a little work by Dr. Cathcart on the Baptism of the Ages which contains valuable information. Also the small but exceedingly useful, judicious and scholarly work of Dr. Henry S, Burrage on the Act of Bap- tism deserves mention. It has been mainly followed in preparing the outline which is now to be given. The plan of Dr. Burrage is to give an account from the various authors and sources as to the practice of baptism in their particular age, and then to sum up the results in a few brief remarks at the close of each chapter. In presenting an outline of the historical argu- ment for immersion let us see first what light the patristic period of Christian history throws upon the subject. The literature of this time reveals three things: (1) That baptism was immersion; (2) That trine immersion was commonly practised; (3) That in rare cases exceptions were allowed from the requirement of immersion. On the first point, that baptism was by immersion, LIGPIT FROM HISTORY. 313 the testimony of the patristic ag^e is unanimous. The Dklache, in Chapter VII., as was pointed out in our last chapter, plainly shows that immersion was the prevalent practice by directing that it be performed in running water or in a bath. To the same effect may the writings of the Fathers be quoted.* Bingham, Book XI., Chapter 11, Sec, 4, after quoting Rom. 0:1 and Col. 2:12, says: "And as this was the original apostolic practice, so it con- tinued to be the universal practice of the church for many ages, upon the same symbolical reasons as it was first used by the Apostles." He then proceeds to quote the author of the Apostolical Constitutions, who says that "baptism was given to represent the death of Christ, and the water his burial," and Chrysostom, who says, "our being baptized and im- merged in water, and our rising again out of it, is a symbol of our descending into hell or the grave, and of our returning from thence." Cyril of Jeru- salem is quoted as saying that "as he that goes down into the water and is baptized, and surrounded on all sides by the water; so the Apostles were bap- tized all over by the Spirit: the water surrounds the body externally, but the Spirit incompre- hensibly baptizes the interior soul." Bingham also quotes from the fourth Council of Toledo as fol- lows : "The immersion in water is as it were the descending into the grave, and the rising out of the water a resurrection." Likewise he quotes from Ambrose who speaking to a Christian says : "Thou wast asked. Dost thou believe in God the Father * Most of these citations are taken fi-om Bingham. Bur- rage and Cote. 314 ORDINANCES OP THE CHURCHES. Almighty? And thou didst answer, I believe: and then thou wast immerged in water, that is buried." Burrage (Act of Baptism, Chapter 2) gives a num- ber of quotations from the early Fathers on this same point. A few will be noted. In the so-called Epistle of Barnahas (probably about 119 A. D.) are found the following words: "We go down into the water full of sins and pollutions, but come up out again bringing forth fruit, having in our heart the fear and hope which are in Jesus by the Spirit." The first detailed description of the act of baptism is by Justin Martyr, who wrote his first Apology about A. D. 139. His language is given as follows: "But we will also describe the manner in which we consecrated ourselves to God, having been made new by Christ, that we may not seem by omitting this, to deal dishonestly in our exposition. As many as are convinced and believe those things that are taught and said by us to be true, and as a promise that they are able to live thus, are taught to pray and to ask God with fasting the forgiveness of their former sins, we ourselves fasting and pray- ing with them. Thereupon they are led by us where there is water, and are regenerated by the same mthod of regeneration with which we also ourselves were regenerated; for in the name of God, the Father of all and Lord, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, they then receive the bath in water," To the same effect is quoted the Shepherd of Hennas, believed to have been writ- ten about the middle of the second century, (book iii., sec. 4, chap. 16 : "For before a man receives the name of the Son of God he is consigned to death; LIGHT FROM HISTORY. 315 but when he receives this seal he is set free from death and delivered unto life. But this seal is water into which we go down devoted to death, but come up assigned to life." Irenaeus (Against Here- sies, book iii., chap. 19) says: ''Our bodies through this bath (lavacrum) have received that which leads to an incorruptible unity." Tertullian in his tract, Concerning BajjUsm, has a good many things to say. Among others is this : ''The law of immersion has been imposed, and the form has been pre- scribed;" and in another place: "With so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation — finally, without expense — a man is let down into the water, and while a few words are spoken, is immersed;" and in regard to the place of baptism Tertullian says: "There is no difference whether one is washed in the sea or in a pool, in a river or in a fountain, in a lake or in a canal." He makes no mention of a pitcher or a bowl. In the time succeeding the Council of Nicsea we find the same consensus of witnesses. Athanasius is quoted by Burrage as saying of a newly made Christian : "Thou didst imitate, in the sinking down, the burial of the Master ; but thou didst rise again from thence before works, witn'essing the works of the resurrection." A description of the rite of baptism is given by Cyril, bishop of Jeru- salem, about 350, who says: "After these things ye were led by the hand to the sacred font of divine baptism, as Christ from the cross to the prepared tomb. And each was asked if he believed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 316 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. Spirit, and ye professed the same profession, and sunk thrice into the water, and again came up, thus by a symbol shadowing forth the burial of Christ." The next passage is quoted from Basil, bishop of Csesarea, where he speaks of emersion from the water as well as immersion into the water, as follows: "But concerning the emersion in bap- tism, I hardly know why it should occur to you to ask if you received immersion to fulfill the figure of the three days. For it is not possible to be im- mersed thrice unless one emerges as many times." Gregory Nazianzen is quoted as saying: "Coming to the water, the element cognate to the earth, we hide ourselves in it as the Saviour hid himself in the earth." And Jerome speaks to the effect that "we are dipped in water that the mystery of the Trinity may appear to be but one, and therefore, though we be thrice put under the water to repre- sent the mystery of the Trinity, yet it is reputed but one baptism." The eloquent Chrysostom, the famous preacher of Antioch and Constantinople, in his 25th Homily is cited as saying : "In this symbol (baptism) are fulfilled the pledges of our covenant with God: death and burial, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once. For when we sink our heads under the water, the old man is buried as in a tomb below and wholly sunk forev^er ; then, as we raise them up, the new man rises again." Augustine in his sermon on the mystery of baptism is quoted as saying: "In this font, before we dip your whole body, we ask you, Believest thou in God, the omnipotent Father ? After you averred that you believed, we immersed three times your head in the LIGHT FROM HISTORY. 317 sacred font." Citations similar to these might be multiplied. These are only illustrative examples, and so far as the patristic authors are concerned their mentions and descriptions of baptism are such as to indicate that all through the patristic period the regularly accepted act of baptism was the same. As to the practice of trine immersion, many of the passages already cited show that this also was the common custom. Tertullian early in the third century distinctly so declares. As quoted by Bing- ham (Ant., book xi., chap. 11, sec. 6) he says: "Non semel sed ter ad singula nomina in personas singulas tinguimur;" and in another place distinct- ly, "ter mergitamur" — thrice are we immersed. Burrage says (pp. 77,78) in quoting from Gregory the Great : "Let the priest baptize with a triple im- mersion, but with only one invocation of the Holy Trinity." Leander, Bishop of Seville, wrote to Gregory in regard to the matter, saying that the Arians in Spain claimed that the Trinitarians by using three baptisms virtually acknowledged three Gods, and Gregory in reply spoke as follows : "Con- cerning the three immersions in baptism, you have judged very truly already that different customs do not prejudice the holy church whilst the unity of the faith remains entire. The reasons why we use three immersions is to signify the mystery of Christ's three days' burial, that, whilst an infant is thrice lifted up out of the water, the resurrection on the third day may be expressed thereby. But if any one thinks it is rather done in regard to the holy Trinity, a single immersion in baptism does in no way prejudice that; for so long as the unity of 318 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. the substance is preserved in three persons, it is no harm whether a child be baptized with one im- mersion or three, because three immersions may represent the Trinity of persons and one immersion the unity of Godhead. But forasmuch as heretics now baptize the infant with three immersions, I think you ought not to do so, lest the immersion be interpreted as a division of the Godhead." This decision of Gregory was confirmed as the law of the church by the council held at Toledo in 633, which declared that a three-fold immersion is not neces- sary. Cote* says : ''The custom of trine immersion, which began as early as the third century, and was, according to the admission of Tertullian, 'more than the Lord prescribed in the gospel,' continued until the Reformation." In regard to the third point of interest concern- ing baptism in the patristic age, it appears that in rare cases exception was allowed from the require- ment of immersion. The Didache, as we have seen, admitted pouring, but only when it was not pos- sible to get water enough to immerse. Likewise Cyprian is quoted by Burrage (p. 45) as making answer to an inquiry in regard to the legitimacy of affusion in the following terms: "You have in- quired also, dearest son, what I think of those who in sickness and debility obtain the grace of God — whether they are to be accounted legitimate Chris- tians in that they are poured upon, not washed with the saving water In the saving sacraments, when need compels and God vouchsafes his mercy, his compendious methods confer the whole benefit * Archaeology of Baptism, p. 49. LIGHT FROM HISTORY. 319 on believers. Nor should it disturb any one that the sick seem only to be sprinkled or affused with water when they obtain the grace of the Lord Whence it is apparent that the sprinkling also of water has like force with the saving washing, and that when this is done in the church, the faith both of the giver and the receiver is entire. All holds good, and is consummated and perfected by the power of the Lord and the truth of faith." This very diplomatic letter of Cyprian expresses with marked caution his opinion. The letter referred to Novatian, who afterwards became famous. He was nearly dead and was poured upon. He lived and was afterwards presbyter, when the question of the irregularity of his baptism was brought up against him. It is evident from this letter that anything else than immersion was considered to be very ex- ceptional, very doubtful, and only under circum- stances of dire necessity to be admitted, and the necessity for baptism was intensified by the exist- ing belief that it was essential to salvation. There • is little question, therefore, that if baptism had not been believed to be thus efficacious, the substi- tution of afifusion for immersion would not have arisen. Passing over into the mediaeval period, we shall find here also three lines of inquiry to be pursued. In regard to trine immersion, this continued to be the generally accepted practice. This appears from the writings (quoted by Burrage) of such men as John of Damascus, 750; Venerable Bede, 673; Rabanus Maurus, 847; Hincmar of Eheims, 845; Bernard of Clairvaux, 1150 ; Bonaventura, 1274. All 320 ORDINANCES OF THE CHUECHES. these writers show in various ways that immersion in the threefold form was the accepted practice of their times. We come now to the evidence offered by bap- tisteries. Dr. Cote gives (p. 151) the following: "During the dark days of imperial persecutions the primitive Christians of Rome found a ready refuge in the Catacombs, where they constructed bap- tisteries for the administration of the rite by im- mersion. The most remarkable of these is the bap- tistery in the Catacomb of San Pouziano, on the right side of the Via Portuensis, and at a short dis- tance from the modern Porta Portese. Through this cemetery a stream of water runs, the channel of which is divided into a reservoir, which was used for administering baptism by immersion from the first to the fourth centuries." After Constantine's conversion it was possible to make these baptisteriea public, and they were usually built apart from the church, though connected with it. Dr. Cote re- marks that in the fifth and sixth centuries bap- tisteries were generally of good size, and sometimes very large. "The Church of Santa Sophia, at Con- stantinople, had a most spacious baptistery attached to it, in which one of the councils of the church as- sembled." An idea of the size of some of these edifices may be formed when we remember that once at Antioch three thousand persons received bap- tism at one time. As infant baptism grew upon the church, baptisteries were made small enough for the immersion of infants and were placed near the doors of the churches ; many of larger size, however, were still preserved for the immersion of adults. There LIGHT FROM HISTORY. 321 is a baptistery at a sliort distance from the church of St. John Lateran in Rome, which is sometimes spoken of as the bath of Constantine. This, of course, is a mistake so far as Constantine is con- cerned, but there is the baptistery, and it is very ancient. Cote describes it thus : *'In the centre of the building is a magnificent circular basin, three feet deep, lined and paved with marble. It occupies a large proportion of the building, being about twenty-five feet in diameter The water was conducted to the font from the adjoining Claudian aqueduct, the remains of which are still seen." On page 172 Dr. Cote says: ''At Nocera dei Pagani, on the railroad from Naples to Castellamare, is a very interesting church, named Santa Maria Mag- giore, Avhich was formerly a Roman bath, restored and employed as a baptistery in the fourth cen- tury. ...... A descent of three steps leads to the bottom of the basin, which bears a strong re- semblance to that of the baths of Pompeii, and was evidently used for the administration of baptism by immersion." These examples will suffice. The student is referred to Dr. Cote and others for more elaborate descriptions of these ancient baptisteries. In the Middle Ages there seem also to have been some cases of single immersion, though this does not appear to have been at all common. Dr. Burrage mentions one case of a proposal to depose a pres- byter for practising single immersion, but this must have been exceptional. In some respects the latter part of the mediipval period was an age of transi- tion in regard to the practice of immersion for bap- tism. Some very important advances were made 322 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. during; this time toward the acceptance of pouring and sprinkling in the room of immersion. Robinson {History of Baptism, pp. 428, 429) states that in the year 754 Pope Stephen III., who had fled into France, was questioned by the monlis of Crecy as to whether it was lawful to pour water upon an infant in danger of death, and Stephen answered: "If such a baptism were i)erformed in such a case of necessity in the name of the Holy Trinity, it should be held valid." Chrystal* and Burragef followed Robinson in this statement; but its authenticity has been denied and it cannot be accepted as certainly true. If it be true, this was the entering wedge for the admission of pouring and sprinkling within the Catholic church. It is not until many years later that we find anything definite as to the substitution of pouring and sprinking for immersion. The cele- brated Thomas Aquinas, who died in 1274, devotes an article of his great work, Siimma Thcologiae. to the question of the form of baptism.! He here dis- cusses the question whether immersion in water is necessary to baptism, and defends the negative, though he admits the importance and binding nature of immersion as the more fitting form and the more common. He concludes that as water is the neces- sary element, and washing the symbol, therefore, in case of necessity, on account of the weakness of the child, or the impossibility of securing enough water, a pouring might be admitted. He argues that such * History of the Modes of Baptism, p. 101. t Act of Baptism, p. 94. I It is found in Part III., Question LXVI., Article VII., Vol. VI., p. 566, Drioux's Edition. LIGHT FROM HISTORY. 323 an aspersion may have taken place at Pentecost on account of the number that were baptized. Un- doubtedly the opinion of this great theologian had much weight in forming the customs of the Catholic church. We see that the decision of Pope Stephen and the teaching of Thomas Aquinas prepared the way for the change which speedily followed. The Council of Ravenna, which was not, however, a gen- eral, but only a provincial council, in 1311 decided that aspersion could be admitted as an alternative. Burrage* says: "At the Council of Ravenna, in 1311, it was made allowable to administer baptism either by sprinkling or immersion: 'Baptism is to be administered by trine aspersion or immersion. " He likewise quotes Brenner, a Roman Catholic writer, as follows: ''Thirteen hundred years was baptism generally and regularly an immersion of the person under the water, and only in extraordinary cases a sprinkling or poijjnng with water; the latter, moreover, was disputed as a mode of baptism— nay, even forbidden."' The decision of the Council of Ravenna is justly taken to be the turning point in the practice of the Roman Catholic Church, and that decision greatly influenced the Protestant Re- formers, because in their time affusion had been in Europe for two hundred years the alternative form. It was perfectly natural that the easier method •should gain on the more difficult, especially in the case of infants and persons of weak constitution. The statement of the case in the words of Dean Stanley (Christian Institutions, p. 21) is as fol- lows: ''For the first thirteen centuries the almost * P. 119 f. 324 (HiDlXANl'KS OK '11 1 K (MH'KCIIKS. universal jn-julicc of haplism was (lial of which wo read in llic New TcslanHMil, aiui whicli is the very incaiiinii of llic word 'ha|tli/,o/ thai lhos(^ who were I»ap(iy,iii('in w a (('!'." Al (h<' h('i;iimiiiii of liio lioloriiial ion itoiiod I hci'c liad Itccn an interval of I wo hundred yeais since I he decision of liie <'ouiH-il of Ixavcnna. NN'ilhin lliis lime (he |>ra»(ice of allusion had sleadily gained upon llial (d' ininiersion; so llial when (he Kid'ornia lion came Ihe practice (d' spi-iiiUIinj;' and pouriu<>- lor l>a|>(ism w as excry where, (houi^h no( ex(dtisi\ears dial in the be- j;innin^ of (he Iveformation ]»eriod trine imnnMsion was still Ihe ])revah>nl pi-actice of the K'oman Church. The Council of Ti-ent ( Iturra.ue, p. I I If.) put forth a ca(<'(hism wliich admils that there were three ways of administerino bapt ism ; (he candidates were immersed into the wat<'r. or had (he waler jtouit'd U|>on (Iwui, or were sprinkled w i(h (lie water; LIGHT FROM HISTORY. 325 and niakos it a niattor of inditference which ono of these ways was areatly important. It also stated that whether the ablution were perform- ed once or thrice was a matter of indifference, and the directions conclude by say i no- that the rite which any one tinds })i*(n'ailini>' in his own con<»reping of (he back jyart of the infant's head. Among (he Reformers there was great diversity of sentiment, though pei'haps not nuu^h in practice. Their leaders, Luther, Zwiiigli and Talvin admitted that inuiH'rsion was the ])rimitive jiractice and was still valid, if not ]>referable, but they acijuiesced in the existing custom of alTusion. The Confessions of Faith have little or nothing to say on this i)oint. For instance, the Augsburg Confession, Article 9, teaches that baptism is necessary to salvation and that children ought to be baptized, condemning the Anabaptists who teach otherwise; but it says noth- 326 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. ing as to immersion or pouring. Luther's Small Cateciiism in Part TV. treats of the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. The answer to the question, ''What is baptism?'' is, ''Baptism is not simply common water, but it is the water comprehended in God's command, and connected with God's Word." He goes on to sa^' that it "works the forgiveness of sins and delivers from death and the devil, not that there is any power in the water, but that it is the w^ater with the Word.'' In answering the fourth question, however, there is an evident leaning to immersion. The question is, "What does such baptizing with water signify? Answer: It signifies that the old Adam in us is to be drowned by daily sorrow and repentance, and perish with all sins and evil lusts; and that the new man should daily come forth again and rise, who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever." For this opinion he adduces Romans the sixth chapter and fourth verse. We see how diplomatically the question as to the act is evaded, though we know from other sources that Luther preferred immersion. The same is true in regard to the Helvetic Confessions, both the first and the second, "where the necessity of baptism and infant baptism are taught, but the question of the act is left without definite statement. Likewise the same thing is true of the Heidelberg Catechism. These statements may be verified by consulting Schaff's Creeds of Christendom in the appropriate I)laces. Calvin" says: "Whether the baptized per- son is wholly immersed, and that three times or once, or whether water is only poured or sprinkled upon * InstiLutes, b. iv., chapter xv., i 19. LIGHT FROM HISTORY. 327 him, is of no coii^eciiienco. lu that matter the church ought to be free according to the ditferent countries. The very word 'baptize/ however, signifies to im- merse, and it is certain that immersion was observed by the ancient church." We thus see how closely Calvin in this regard followed the practice of the Roman Church, the opinions of Thomas Aquinas and other theologians of that communion. It is clear, therefore, that the reforming Protestants of the six- teenth century did not throw off this error. It is greatly to be regretted that they did not recur to the original practice of the New Testament, which they themselves admitted to be immersion. The Protestants by endorsing the error of Rome in this regard entailed upon the Christian world a con- troversy which has not yet subsided. A -very interesting question is in regard to the practice of the Anabaptists. It is certain that not all of these practised immersion. It is equally cer- tain that some did. Among the Swiss Anabaptists it appears that at first there was no attempt to re- instate immersion, ^tantz. Blaurock and Huebmaier practised affusion; but Grebel, it seems clear, in- sisted on immersion (Burrage, p. 180 f.) There like- wise seems to have been difference in the practice of the Anabaptists in Germany, in Holland and in England. In regard to the Mennonites, there seems to be some doubt so far as their statements are con- cerned, but it is commonly admitted that some of them practised immersion. Burrage quotes Dr. H. S. Osgood as saying : ''In all of Menno's writings he has found only two passages which seem to in- dicate the mode of baptism practised by Menno, in 328 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. both of Avhieh lie refers to a handful of water, as though it was performed bv pouring or sprinkling." Says Professor Yedder: "Early English Baptists like those of the Continent, practised both affusion and inunersion, laying stress rather on the nature of the church, and the unscripturalness of infant baptism than on the outward act."* Doubtless some of the English Anabaptists did not practise immersion, like their brethren on the Continent ; but just Avhen they began the practice has been much debated. It is a fact beyond ques- tion, however, that the confession of the seven churches in and about London in 1644 shows that by that time immersion was their regular practice. Professor Yedder {Short Histonj, p. 115) says of this confession that it specifies: "That the way and manner of dispensing this ordinance is dipping or plunging the body under water. The conf elisions issued before this time are not so explicit in defining baptism as immersion, but they are eelief on the part of the eunuch before he was baptized. In Acts 9:18 we have the description of the baptism of Saul of Tarsus, and to this he himself makes a touching allusion in Acts 22 :16. Certainly he was converted and professed his faith before he was baptized. This is also true in the case of Cornelius mentioned in the tenth chapter of Acts, especially verses 44, 48, Here it is said that the Holy Ghost fell on those who heard the word, and they spoke with tongues and magnified God, and then Peter said: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." Cer- tainly here faith and a spiritual change of a very marked sort take place before baptism and the bap- tism was grounded distinctly and emphatically upon the reality of such spiritual renewal. In Acts 16 :14, 15 we have the case of the baptism of Lydia and her household. As to Lydia the matter is without dis- pute, for it is clear that she had received spiritual renewal before baptism. In regard to her house- hold, which is sometimes assumed to imply the probability of infant baptism, more will be said later, only it may be remarked here in passing that 404 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. there is no direct mention of infants, and the implica- tion from the general course of the narrative is that those who were baptized had repented and believed. The same thing may be said concerning the jailer whose case is mentioned m Acts 16 :33, 34. He and his household were baptized, but it is distinctly said that he ''rejoiced with all his house having believed in God," and we safely infer that those who were included in the baptism were likewise included in the rejoicing and believing. In Acts 18:8 we have the statement, "And Crispus, the ruler of the syna- gogue, believed in the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." It is not said here that Crispus was bap- tized, but Paul mentions the fact in 1 Cor. 1 :14 that he himself baptized Crispus, but it is said that all of Crispus' family believed with him, and we are to understand of course either that those who were capable of believing believed, or that all were so capable. Concerning the Corinthians, however, it is distinctly stated that after hear- ing and believing they were baptized. Next we have the case of the twelve persons men- tioned in the nineteenth chapter of Acts who had formerly received John's baptism, but now it is said of them in the fifth verse that "when they had heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus," that is, when they had heard Paul's explanation concerning baptism and its require- ments. In 1 Cor. 1 :14-16 says Paul : "I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius ; lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name. And I baptized also the household of THE RECIPIENTS OF BAPTISM. 405 Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." Concerning Crispus, as we have already seen, it is said that he and his household believed, and if this Gains is the same one who exercised hospitality towards the saints, and is mentioned with commendation both by Paul and John, he is known to have been an earnest believer. In regard to the household of Stephanas, Paul speaks of them in 1 Cor. 16 :15 as being ''the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have set themselves to minister to the saints," where it is clear that they were persons who were capable of service. These are all the descriptions of the act of bap- tism that we find in the New Testament. In three cases household baptisms are mentioned, — Lydia, the jailer and Stephanas. It will be shown when we come to consider the arguments for infant baptism that these do not constitute exceptions to what all the others indicate, viz., that the recipients of bap- tism in every instance were those who were capable of making, and did actually make, profession of repentance and faith, or performed other such mental and spiritual actions as indicate some maturity of life and judgment. The only case among all these where there is not something in the context or elsewhere which distinctly implies some spiritual change or action in the recipient of bap- tism is that of the household of Lydia^ On this Ingham (p. 80) wisely remarks: "If the commission of the Saviour could be construed to allow of any baptism but that of believers, and if the records respecting the baptized households of Scripture supply evidence that infants and little children be- 406 ORDINANCES OP THE CHURCHES. longed to those households, something more plausi- ble than all now in existence might be pleaded in favor of the baptizing of infants; but if in every instance save one where a baptism is recorded, the faith or professed faith of the baptized can be proved, and if there is no proof in this one instance that any other than believers were baptized, it is surely fair in destitution of all evidence to the contrary, to conclude that this baptism was like the rest." So far then as appears from the descriptions of the act of baptism in the New Testament, what is commonly known as believers' baptism is substanti- ated by an exhaustive induction of all the instances mentioned. We pass now to another class of passages, namely, those in which baptism is set forth as a duty or doc- trine; and the first of these to be noticed is the commission of our Lord in Matt. 28:19: "Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you." Here evidently the command is to make disciples, and then to baptize. It is possible, of course, to in- terpret the baptizing and making disciples as simultaneous acts, and if there were any compelling reason why this should be done, it might be admit- ted, but in the absence of any such reason, the order in which the words stand must be accepted as that intended by the Lord; for it is the natural, intel- ligible and grammatical order in which the actions described should come. The whole order of thought is exceedingly instructive, — first make disciples, that THE RPX'IPIENTS OF BAPTISM. 40" is, induce to repentance and faith, then baptize upon a profession of such faith, then teach the baptized all the ordinances and commandments of the Lord. Here certainly there is no lack of clearness, and any tampering with this easily understood arrangement of the terms is perilous. We should compare here the account of the commission given in Mark 16 :16. Textual critics do not now usually admit the genuineness if this passage, but even if it is not ac- cepted, it at least shows how a very early writer understood the teachings of our Lord : "He that be- lievBth and is baptized shall be saved," where belief is spoken of as coming before baptism. Along with this we should notice the passage in Acts 2 :38, where reter, addressing himself to those who had ex- pressed compunction for their sins, says: "Kepent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins." These persons felt conviction of sin,— they were "pricked in their hearts." They came asking what they must do, and Peter's first command was to repent, which of course here implies faith, the whole process of spiritual renewal, so far as it is the human duty; and then to be baptized. So then in the passages which enjoin baptism as a duty we find the same thing true as in those which describe it as an act. Those who are urged to be baptized are believers, and believers only. Now there are a few passages which speak of baptism as a doctrine, or somewhat in a doctrinal way, and upon examination it will be found that these will support the induction already made. In the beautiful passage concerning baptism in Rom. 408 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. 6:1-4 it is clearly spoken of as the act of Christian believers who were buried with Christ through their baptism into death, and were raised up from that death that they might walk in newness of life. They were united with him in the likeness of his death that they might be also in that of his resurrection, and so they are described as true Christians who had submitted to this ordinance as a token of their new life and purpose toward the Lord Jesus. The same thing is true in Col. 2:12, where Christians are described as having been buried with Christ in baptism and raised uj) with him through faith in the working of God. So is it with the difficult passage in I. Pet. 3 :21, where occurs the language, "After a true likeness doth now save you, even bap- tism." While there is some difficulty in interpreting the word "save," still the persons involved in the baptism and the saving are impliedly at least those in whom the spiritual change requisite to baptism has occurred, because the baptism is described as "not the putting away the filth of the fish, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God." Evidently, therefore, it is the act of one who is capable of repentance and faith. So far as the New Testament evidence is con- cerned this survey covers the ground in regard to the recipients of baptism. Only a few passages have been omitted, which do not seem to have any bear- ing upon the question. It may be asked, Why take up all these passages, as all will admit in the cases mentioned that there was believers' baptism, and nobody denies the duty of believers' baptism now? The answer is that we simply wish to discover from THE RECiriEXTS OF P.Al'TISM. 409 New Testament teaching and practice who are the proper recipients of baptism. What does the stu- dent of these passages learn as to the age, character and profession of those who were baptized? In all these cases the onlj- possible exception is the house- hold of Lydia; but as we have seen this does not really constitute an exception. We reach the con- clusion, therefore, that in no case was there any baptism except of those who gave evidence and made profession of a change of heart and of repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Be- sides this, the general tenor of the New Testament teaching and the character of the New Testament dispensation, insisting as they do upon individual spiritual acts, are opposed to the baptism of any others than those who are capable of faith in the Lord and obedience to the gospel requirements. The l';odoba{)tisls admit, of course, that the baptism of believers is taught in the New Testament; but they assert along with that the baptism of the children of believers and others. In the light of the Scrip- tures examined we have to say that, if in all cases believers' baptism is taught and nothing else is clearly taught, or positively enjoined, it is necessary to conclude that there can be no valid baptism with- out the personal, voluntary repentance and faith of the recipient. 410 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. OUTLINE OF CHAPTER X. RECIPIENTS OF BAPTISM. HISTORICAL SKETCH. I. The Obscure Period, A. D. 70-253. 1. Some disputed statements. 2. Probable origin. II. Period of Prevalence; 253-1523. 1. Cyprian to Peter of Bruys; 253-1104. (1) Growth and prevalence. (2) Some opposition. 2. Petrobrusians to Anabaptists ; 1104-1523. (1) Catholic practice well established. (2) Growth of anti-paedobaptism. III. The Anabaptist Controversy; 1523-1689. 1. In Switzerland ; rise and persecution. 2. In Germany and Holland. 3. In England. Persecution till 1689. IV. The Modern Situation; 1689 to present time. 1. Great growth of Baptists, and other op- ponents of infant baptism, 2. Spread of Baptist principles among Psedo- baptist denominations. 3. Continuance of Paedobaptism. CHAPTER X. THE RECIPIENTS OF BAPTISM. HISTORICAL SKETCH. When we leave the plain precedents and declara- tions of the Scripture and betake ourselves to his- tory, we find through the long centuries which have followed the close of the New Testament 6anon a varied and interesting course of events in regard to the recipients of baptism. As we saw in the chapter on the baptismal controversies, this topic occupied much attention among the contestants in the theo- logical arena. Infant baptism has not lacked learned and earnest investigators on both sides, who have traversed every inch of ground on the disputed field. From the close of the New Testament canon to the time of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (A. D. 70-253), may be called the obscure period in the history of this subject. From the time of Cyprian on to the outbreak of the Anabaptist controversies during the Reformation (A. D. 253-1523), may be regarded as the period of the growth and general prevalence of infant baptism. The stormy epoch of the Reformation, during which the struggles and persecutions of the Anabaptists took place, down to the Act of Toleration under William and Mary in England, when persecution of the Anabaptists ceased (1.523-1689), might well be characterized as 411 412 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. the period of the Anabaptist controversy. And the modern period of division and debate without per- secution may be considered as prevailing from 1689 until the present time. We take up first the obscure period. The earliest undisputed reference to infant baptism in the writings of the Fathers is found in a letter of Cyprian, of date about the year 253. This, there- fore, is taken as a good ending place for the obscure period. In regard to the time from the days of the Apostles to the middle of the third century, what is to be said? Evidently infant baptism had its origin within this period; for we find it a well-understood practice, at least in North Africa, at the date above given. But no man can say just when, where or how the practice arose; nor are we prepared to affirm just how widelj^ it may have been prevalent. On all these questions men are likely to differ ac- cording as they favor or disapprove the doctrine of infant baptism. A leading authority for Psedo- baptists is the learned and useful work of Wall, The History Infant Baptism.* Following him comea the great work of Joseph Bingham, commonly known as Bingham's Antiquities. On the other side Gale's Reflections upon Wall's History was the work of a brilliant and scholarly young Baptist minister. It subjects Wall's conclusions to a severe review. Robinson's Historij of Baptism likewise contains much that is useful, and Ingham on The * The edilion used and quoted in this discussion is that of the Rev. Henry Cotton, which contains, besides the original history, Gale's Reflections and Dr. Wall's Defense, published in four volumes at Oxford. INFANT BAPTISM IX HISTORY. 413 Subjects of Baptism has reviewed with great force the Poedobaptist arguments from history. Wall and Bingham with their followers endeavored to show as early an origin for infant baptism as possible within this period, but some Paedobaptist scholars refuse to follow these authorities in their interpre- tation. Among these may be reckoned Dean Stanley, who in his Christian Institutions (pp. 23,24) says: "In the apostolic age and in the three centuries which followed, it is evident that as a general rule those who came to baptism came in full age of their own deliberate choice. We find a few cases of the baptism of children. In the third century we find one case of the baptism of infants." This one case is doubtless the one referred to in the letter of Cyprian already mentioned. Professor A. V. G. Allen {Christian Institutions, p. 40Gf.) says: ''It is possible that infant baptism was practised to some extent from the first, or even that it was admin- istered by the Apostles. But there is no demonstra- tive evidence on this point to which we can appeal. That the prevailing custom in the early church was adult baptism is admitted." The opponents of in- fant baptism have little or no difficulty in showing that the passages from the Fathers relied on to prove the very early origin of paedobaptism are at least very doubtful for the practice, if they may not be interpreted as being against it. A few of these disputed passages from the Fathers are now to be considered. Bingham's argumentf is about as follows: That Clement of Rome "while he does not directly mention infant baptism yet says a thing t Antiq., b. xi, c. iv, 'H 5-12. 414 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. that by consequence proves it ; for he makes infants liable to original sin, which in effect is to say that they have need of baptism to purge them from it." This is a large assumption, truly. He brings in a similar argument from the Shepherd of Hermas, that because the author teaches the necessity of bap- tism to salvation, he therefore teaches infant bap- tism. Again, Bingham argues from Justin Martyr's saying that there were persons in his time "seventy years of age who had been disciples from their in- fancy." But observe here that he puts an interpreta- tion upon Justin's words which they will not bear. Justin says that these had been "discipled unto Christ from children." The word used in the Greek is -ai<; — the phrase is, ex -aOiuj-^ — from the time they were boys. The word, as is well known, does not mean a babe, but a boy. There is another word, the diminutive from the same root, which indicate* a child or babe ; and besides that, the expression that they were "made disciples to Christ" involves pre- vious instruction. The argument is, therefore, over- strained. Bingham further argues from the Clemen- tine Recognitions (a work which is certainly of a later date), to the same effect, that since this author is "an asserter of the general necessity of baptism to salvation he must be an asserter of infant bap- tism." He again argues from Irenseus (A. D. 176, Agaitist Heresies) on the same general line, namely, that he teaches baptismal salvation, and especially in the passage where he speaks of Christ as being the Saviour for all by having been himself at every age (infanSj, parvulus, pncr, juvenis), the Saviour of all who are born again (renascuntiir) . This being INFANT BAPTISM IN HISTORY. 415 ''born again" he makes refer to baptism. This is possible, but all scholars do not agree with this interpretation, and it is a forced inference to make it teach infant baptism. Again, from the well known passage in Tertullian {De Baptismo) Bingham, fol- lowed by Schaff, argues that Tertullian in opposing paedobaptism indicates that this was the practice of the church, but most historians of to-day draw a contrary inference. Besides, Robinson* shows that Tertullian was probably not speaking of infants, but of children, who, he argued, were too young to be baptized. Finally, Bingham quotes several passages from Origen in which that author is quoted as say- ing that infants were baptized, and that the church received this practice as a tradition from the Apostles; but these passages are not found in the Greek text of Origen, but only in Ruflnus' Latin version. It is doubtful, therefore, if Origen ever said that at all, and if he did, the passages are not clear enough to prove much. This seems to be about all that Wall and Bingham are able to adduce from the ancient Fathers prior to the time of Cyprian. Their deductions have been ably reviewed by Gale, Robinson and Ingham, to whom the student is re- ferred for a full and complete discussion of the mat- ter. Inghamf sums up by saying: "Before Cyprian we have evidence that little children were baptized, but no record of the baptism of infants, and not a single statement from which the existence of such practice can be certainly pro^^d." * History of Baptism, chapter 21. t Subjects of Baptism, p. 470. 416 ORDINANCES OP THE CHURCHES. If we raise the question as to the origin of the practice, it will be answered differently according to the point of view. The advocate of infant bap- tism will say that because it is found so early it must come from the Apostles or from the apostolic age. The opponent will answer, There is no trace of it in the New Testament, nor in the earliest Chris- tian literature; therefore, it must have originated later. Both admit that baptism was regarded by the early Christian Fathers as essential to salva- ion. Wall and Bingham argue from this that the Fathers taught and practised infant baptism.* Other PaedobaptistSjf however, consider that this belief in the efficacy of baptism was the reason, or one of the reasons, for the origin of the practice. This was the opinion of older scholars also,| though Bingham speaks slightingly of their views. Baptist writers have not been slow to seize this vantage ground and to allege, with excellent reason, that we have in this early error as to the saving efficacy of baptism the most probable source of the practice of infant baptism. The case is well put by Newman :|| "When Christians had come to believe that water baptism possessed magical efficacy, and that all man- * By implicatioa in Wall's first pages, and directly by Bingham twice, b. 11, c. 4, §| 6, 8. t estanley. Christian Institutions, p. 24, and Steitz in Her- zog. Vol. XV, p. 222, who says: "Das Dogma von der Not- wendigkeit der Taufe zur Seligkeit hatte die Kindertaufe zu seiner unvermeidlichen Konsequenz," — the dogma of the necessity of baptism to salvation had infant baptism for its inevitable consequence. t Salmasius and Suicer, as adduced by Bingham, 1. c, § 5. ll History of Antipsedobaptism, p. 8. TNFAXT BAPTISM IN HISTORY, 417 kind were so involved in sin that no salvation was possible apart from baptism, it was inevitable that infant baptism should be introduced. The wide- spread prevalence of infant lustrations among Pagans made the introduction of infant baptism easy and natural. At first it would be confined to infants in danger of death; but when the idea had taken firm hold on the Christian consciousness that it was the necessary means of securing cleansing from hereditary sin, its progress could not fail to be rapid," We pass now to the second period, that of the growth and prevalence of infant baptism, extending from the middle of the third century to the Re- formation; or, to be more exact, from 253 to 1523. We may fairly say that from the time of Cyprian on to the Reformation the general practice of Chris- tians as represented in the Catholic Church was that of infant baptism ; yet this is not by any means say- ing that the practice was universal. Not even all Catholics, particularly in the early part of this time, practised it, and there was some opposition to it among the sects. This opposition becomes more evident towards the Reformation; and came to the full in the glorious work of the Anabaptists of that era. We may, therefore, fittingly close the period with the rise of the Swiss Anabaptists which may be taken to begin about the year 1523.* It will be convenient to subdivide this long period into two shorter ones, taking the beginning of the twelfth century as the dividing line, that is, from Cyprian's time (253) to that of Peter de Bruys (1104). * Cf. Newman, p. 88. 418 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. The letter of Cyprian to Fidus, of date probably the year 253, has a distinct and undisputed reference to infant baptism. The letter is fully quoted by Wall.* A certain Fidus, otherwise unknown, wrote a letter to the bishop of Carthage inquiring whether it was right to baptize an infant before it was eight days old. To this inquiry Cyprian replies at some length, stating that sixty-six bishops in council agreed with him as to the point involved. His de- cision was that the eight-day requirement, suggested by the rite of circumcision, was not necessary in the case of infants, but the sooner they were bap- tized the better. Other citations from Cyprian are given to show that the practice was prevalent in his time, at least so far as regards North Africa, where he lived. Wall gives a decree of the Council of Elvira, or Eliberis, in Spain, about the year 305, in regard to taking back persons who had strayed from the Catholic churches, and as infants are mentioned in this connection, it is supposed that they had been baptized. The inference, however, is somewhat doubtful. The same is true of the Council of NeocfBsarea in 314, but Baptist writers consider this to be against the practice. Gregory Nazianzen, about 360, preached a sermon on baptism in which in several places he speaks of the baptism of infants. He believed they should be baptized in case of danger of death, but otherwise they would better "wait till they were three years old, and could say some words of the creed." This passage plainly shows a transition state — that the practice w^as not *Vol. 1, page 125 f. INFANT BAPTISM IN HISTORY. , 419 fully and finally settled. This is confirmed by the fact that we know of some who were children of Christian parents, and yet were not baptized in in- fancy. Ambrose, Bishop if Milan, mentions in one instance parvuli who were baptized, but this ex- pression does not necessarily mean infants. It means '^little ones," and may be infants or children of a larger growth. Concerning Chrysostom, Wallf says: "As for the passages in his genuine works, he has not many on this subject : for orators love only such subjects as may be adorned with flowers of rhetoric." Still Chrysostom's mention of the matter is such as to show that it was well understood in the great preacher's time. It also appears from the works of Jerome and Augustine that the practice was well established in their days, but was not universal, since these Fathers were not themselves baptized until maturity of life. Wall quotes pas- sages from Bishop Leo I. of Rome, about 440, in which the question concerning those who had been carried away captive in early life and were now re- stored, is discussed. The question was whether, if they could not remember their baptism and no record of it had been preserved, they should be bap- tized. Leo decided that they should now be baptized lest their salvation should be endangered for the lack of baptism. This shows that the practice was cur- rent in his time. ]Many other such passages have been collected by Wall and others, and they show that infant baptism did prevail to a very large ex- tent through all this i^eriod. t Vol. 1, page 227. 420 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES, But was it universal? Dean Stanley* says: "Even amongst Christian households the instances of Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Ephrem of Edessa, Augustine, Ambrose, are decisive proofs that it was not only not obligatory but not usual. All these distinguished personages had Christian parents and yet were not baptized until they reached maturity." Wall's labored attempt to break the force of this point is not successful. Were there not also some sects during this time who opposed infant baptism? This is a difficult question. Wall denies that the Donatists, Pauli- cians, and others opposed infant baptism. Newmanf admits that there is no evidence to show that any of these mediseval sects before the twelfth century op- posed infant baptism. Other Baptist writers, how- ever, find more or less of resemblance to Baptist principles among them, including opposition to in- fant baptism. t Concerning the Donatists Newman says : "The Donatists seem to have laid even greater stress than did the Catholics of the time on infant baptism; and so intense was their belief in the neces- sity of baptism to salvation that in their view Christ himself needed to be baptized in order to secure the remission of hereditary sins." He further thinks that while Vigilantius was more evangelical than the Donatists, he too, did not reject infant baptism, and this was also the case with the British, Irish and Scotch evangelical movements within this period. We may say, therefore, that between the * Christian Institulions, p. 24. t Page 18 f. X As Cramp, Jarrel, Armitage and others. INFANT I'.Al'TISM IN HISTORY. 421 fifth and the twelfth centuries the evidence for the prevalence of infant baptism is very strong, while that for the existence of any who opposed the practice is confessedly scanty, if it is to be found at all. Yet it is hard to believe that even in such dark times there were none to uphold the true scrip- tural doctrine on this point ; while the rise of oppo- sition to infant baptism in the early part of the twelfth century seems presumptive evidence that, though the opposition was weak and unrecorded, it had not wholly died out; for Newman himself says (p. 34) : "It is by no means certain that no evan- gelical life existed in Southern France before the appearance of Peter," that is, Peter de Bruys. He goes on to mention some similar movements to that of Peter which broke out about this time in another part of France, in the Netherlands, and in the Rhine Provinces. It is difificult to account for this sudden rise of Antipsedobaptism in several different quarters unless there had been something to prepare the way for it. But leaving this doubtful time, we come now to the twelfth century, and take up the period from the rise of the Petrobrusians in 1104 to that of the Swiss Anabaptists about the year 1523. Whatever uncertainties may encompass the age before the twelfth century we have definite and un- mistakable evidence of the rejection of infant bap- tism by many from this time on. The practice of the Roman Church may be regarded as finally settled; and it is not necessary to claim that all the heretics who, for one cause or another, opposed Rome in this time, rejected the article of her creed which relates 422 ORDINANCES OP THE CHURCHES. to infant baptism. But admitting infant baptism to be the general practice, we must take account of the growing and formidable opposition to it, based on the Word of God, which we meet from the twelfth century forward. In 1104 Peter de Bruys appeared in Southern France, near the borders of Switzer- land. He preached pure evangelical doctrine, and opposed infant baptism. About the same time came also Henry of Lausanne, in Switzerland, near the scene of Peter's work. He was no doubt a disciple of Peter. This man had a large following and ex- cited the hostility of the Roman authorities. Con- cerning Peter, Wall writes:* "Then at the year 1146, Peter, abbot of Clugny, writing against one Peter Bruis and one Henry, his disciple, and their associates charges them with six errors : the first of which was their denial of infant baptism." Again (p. 273) he says: "I take this Peter Bruis (or Bruce perhaps his name was) and Henry to be the first Antipsedobaptist preachers that ever set up a church or society of men holding that opinion against in- fant baptism, and rebaptized such as had been bap- tized in infancy." He then proceeds in a slighting way to give the history of them, so far as it has been recorded. It is thus clear that these two men and their followers preached the pure gospel, rejected infant baptism, and set up churches. Contemporary with these, Newman, mentions a reformer named Tanchelm who worked in the Netherlands; also one Eudo, who labored in the French province of Breton ; also a similar movement in the Rhine Provinces ; also the career of Arnold of Brescia in North Italy. * Vol. ii, p. 256. INFANT BArTlSM IN HISTORY, 423 It is probable that all these rejected infant baptism, and that they had a considerable following among the people, though they were persecuted by the Roman Catholics. Newman devotes a chapter to the Waldenses and related parties. From all accounts it appears that there were differences among them at different times and places in regard to the practice of infant baptism — some rejected it and some practised it. The same thing may be said of other sects and reformers — they were not quite clear in their practice. In regard to the state of things in the British Isles, Newman says (p.55) : "Lollardism was the forerunner of all that was best in the English Puritanism, from which, in an important sense, modern Baptists have derived their origin. But we have searched in vain for any satisfactory proof that it embodies distinctively Baptist prin- ciples and practices. We find views of truth that would seem logically to involve the Baptist position, but alas ! men are not always logical. It is possible, nay, probable, that some of the mediaeval British evangelicals rejected infant baptism and insisted on believers' baptism, but adequate proof has not yet been presented." These various movements prepared the way for the powerful influence of the Anabaptists about the Reformation. Among the people, in various lands, there was the preparation of evangelical thinking and practice, and when once the opposition to Rome became pronounced and irrevocable these sentiments found bold expression and a large following in the much maligned but glorious work of the Anabaptists of the Reformation. 424 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. This brings us, then, to consider the period of the Anabaptist controversy, which may be estimated to extend from the beginning of the Swiss Anabaptist movement, about the year 1523, and to conclude with the adoption of the Act of Toleration under William and Mary in 16S9. It was to be expected that so great a movement as the Reformation would be ac- companied by errors and excesses such as those which occured at Zwickau under the leadership of Thomas Muenzer and Nicholas Storch, together with the horrors of the Peasants' War. It is not fair to hold the Anabaptists responsible for either of these movements, and the follies of the Zwickau prophets ought not to be charged to the principles and per- sons represented in the uprising of the peasantry. Probably some Anabaptists were concerned in both movements, but their leaders were not, nor can they as a body be held .justly responsible for these irregu- larities. Neither Muenzer nor Storch was, properly speaking an Anabaptist at all. Newman says (p. 88) : "A radical movement of a widely different type we meet in Switzerland from 1523 onward." This was the beginning of the Anabaptist controversy in that country. It will be proper to consider briefly the progress of the Anabaptists in Switzerland, in Germany and Holland, and in England. We accordingly begin with the movement in Switzerland. Balthasar Huebmaier was pastor in the German town of Waldshut, then belonging to the Austrian province just across the Rhine from the Canton of Aargau in Switzerland, and in the neighborhood of Schafifhausen and Zurich. Huebmaier was a man of excellent learning, with clear percep- INFANT BAPTISM IN HISTORY. 425 tious of Scripture teaching, and ready and formi- dable in debate. He had disputations on the sub- ject of infant baptism with Zwingli in May and Oc- tober of 1528. Associated with Huebniaier were Con- rad Grebel, Felix Mantz and others. These were men of education, ability, zeal and piety. They clearly saw that the Scriptures contained no war- rant for the practice of infant baptism, and by teach- ing among the people and debating with the leaders of the Reformation in Switzerland they endeavored in the fear of God to set forth the New Testament truth on this subject. For a time they had great success. Multitudes of people were led to embrace views in opposition to the practice of infant bap- tism. Zwingli, however, and the secular authorities became alarmed at the growth of the Anabaptists' principles, especially as, among some of them, these w^ere associated with what they considered radical and dangerous political measures, and like Luther, Zwingli drew back. At first he came very near ac- cepting the Anabaptist position, admitting that there was no suflScient Scripture for infant bap- tism; but he was as much of a political as religious reformer, and fearing for the foundations of good order if the Reformation went too fast, he began to look for Scripture justification of infant baptism, finding it, as Pa^dobaptists have ever since done, in the Abrahamic covenant and in the household bap- tisms mentioned in the book of Acts. Difiference led to disputation, disputation to feeling, and feeling to persecution. When Zwingli and the secular authori- ties came out in opposition, persecution of the Ana- baptists began, and they henceforth encountered 426 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. overwhelming difiSculties. They were hunted, im- prisoned, almost starved, and some of them, even women, were drowned. The persecution had it3 de- sired effect. The movement was stamped out in Switzerland. It is regrettable to say that Huebmaier in a moment of weakness recanted, and was spared at this time only to suffer martyrdom under new circumstances and in a new place at a later time. As is the case so often in persecution, the persecuted sect dispersed, and scattered their views abroad, and it was as true of the Swiss Anabaptists as of the martyrs of the early days that their blood was the seed of the church. We cannot here trace the progress of the Anabaptists in the rest of Europe. Some were found even in Poland and in Italy, but it is necessary to take note of the extension of the movement in Germany and Holland. The influence of Huebmaier and of the other Swiss Anabaptists was profound. The leaven spread inta Silesia and the Tyrol, to some extent in Austria, in Bohemia and Moravia and others of the German provinces. On his banishment from Waldshut, Huebmaier went to Moravia, where he did a noble work and spread the gospel as he understood it with zeal. He was detained in prison for a long time and was then martyred by burning at Vienna, in March, 1528. His motto was : "Truth is immortal." His name should live among all who love the truth of God and detest persecution. The Anabaptists were charged with the excesses of the *'mad men of Muenster" under John of Leyden and his associates. As in the case of Muenzer, this was an unjust accusation, though no doubt some per- INFANT FAPTISM IN HISTORY. 427 sons who held Anabaptist views were mixed up with the Muenster affair. Professor Vedder. in his ^Short History of the Baptists, quotes the striking testi- mony of Fnesslin, an impartial German scholar, who speaking of the Anabaptists says: "There were those among them who held strange doctrines, but this cannot be said of the whole sect. If we should attribute to every sect whatever senseless doctrines two or three fanciful fellows have taught, there is no one in the world to whom we could not ascribe the most abominable errors." There were in Moravia about the middle of the sixteenth century seventy Anabaptist churches. They had spread into other provinces also, and were men much esteemed for their character and good works. "Fifty years later, however, persecution had done its work only too well, and early in the seventeenth century we find the Anabaptists disappear from the history of Ger- many." , In Holland, however, the case was somewhat dif- ferent. Under the wise and mild leadership of Menno Simons, who labored chiefly in Friesland and the adjoining regions,the Anabaptists of Hol- land flourished, though often persecuted. Menno differed widely in character from the German fanatics of his neighborhood. He had no complicity whatever with the Muenster doings, and yet even in Holland his people were persecuted. From other countries they came into Holland, and from Holland some went over into England. There must have been considerable interchange of movement among them. Persecution abounded everywhere. Turning our attention now to England we find that 428 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. at an early date Anabaptists appear there. Wall* quotes from a quaint old chronicler the following language concerning the time of Edward VI. : "At the same time the Anabaptists, who had kept them- selves unto themselves in the late King's time [Henry VIII.], began to look abroad and to dis- perse their dotages; for the preventing of which mischief before it grew unto a head, some of the chiefs of them were couvented." Wall also men- tions (p. 314) that about the sixteenth year of Queen Elizabeth a congregation of Dutch Antipsedo- baptists was discovered without Aldgate in London, twenty-seven of whom were taken and imprisoned, and two were burned at l!?mithfield. The celebrated Foxe, the author of the Book of Martyrs, interceded with the Queen to spare the lives of these two and not disgrace Protestantism by burning them, but Elizabeth was determined to stamp out the Ana- baptist heresy. Wall further adds (p. 315) : "At what time it began to be embraced by any English, I do not find it easy to discover. But it is plain that no very considerable number in England were of this persuasion till about sixty years ago." From the time of Wall's writing this would bring the date back to about 1640. The Anabaptists had great growth during Crom- well's time. The same author mentions that in his time "this opinion increased mightily; many own- ing it out of conscience (we must in charity judge) as thinking it to be the truth; but many also for advantage." He goes on further to say that the number of Anabaptists had considerably increased « Vol. ii.,p.311. INFANT P.-VrXISM IN HISTORY. 429 about the time of the restoration of Charles II., but that on the settinfj up again of the Eng;lisli Church, numbers who had restrained their chilaren from bap- tism brought them now to the churches to be bap- tized. Some Anabaptists from Holland early in the six- teenth century made their way to England, and at the beginning of the seventeenth century (ICll) we find a church in London which opposed infant bap- tism. This church is sometimes considered to have been a regular Baptist church, but there is some doubt of its full acceptance of all the principles which Baptists now hold. The sentiment grew, how- ever, until in 1644 there were seven Baptist churches in and near London; and in 1689, as was mentioned in a former chapter, one hundred churches were represented in the assembly which put forth the Confession of Faith. During all this time they suf- fered great persecutions in England. Cromwell protected the Baptists. He was himself an Independent in his religious views, favoring neither episcopacy nor presbytery. Among his of- ficers there were Baptists. Some of his views, how- ever, were distasteful to many of that body, and while he did not persecute or allow others to perse- cute them, they were not always in favor. They were again persecuted both under Charles 11. and James 11. After the Revolution of 1688, the dethronement and banishment of James and accession of William and Mary, in the next jear (1689), under the Act of Toleration, religious persecution ceased in England. This may, therefore, be taken as an appropriate close for the period of the Anabaptist controversy. 430 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. The last period proposed for this discussion might be characterized as "the modern situation/' extend- ing from the year 1689 to the present time. Macaulay* gives a full and interesting account of the famous Act of Toleration. He shows that, while the severe statutes passed from the accession of Elizabeth to the Revolution w^ere not repealed, they were considerably relaxed. "It was provided that every dissenting minister should, before he ex- ercised the function, profess under his hand his belief in the Articles of the Church of England, with a few exceptions. The propositions to which he was not required to assent were these: that the Church lias power to regulate ceremonies ; that the doctrines set forth in the Book of Homilies are sound; and that there is nothing superstitious or idolatrous in the ordination service. If he declared himself a Baptist, he was also excused from affirming that the baptism of infants is a laudable practice. But, un- less his conscience suffered him to subscribe thirty- four of the thirty-nine Articles, and the greater part of two other Articles, he could not preach without incurring all the punishments which the Cavaliers, in the day of their power and their vengeance, had devised for the tormenting and ruining of schis- matical teachers." Many Baptists could without scruple sign the thirty-nine Articles with the excep- tion of four or five, because they are notoriously Calvinistic in tone, and almost any evangelical min- ister might sign them. Of course a Baptist would make exception with reference to the doctrines con- * In the eleventQ chapter of his History of England, Har- pers' Edition, Vol. iii, p. 74 f. INFANT BAPTISM IN HISTORY. 431 ■ning the church and the ordinances — the rest he lid swallow. In this way the Baptists finally ured toleration in England. [jet us notice now the growth of the Baptists since ; Act of Toleration. Vedder says that they did t grow as fast after persecution ceased as before; it they could not stand prosperity as well as ad- 'sity, but still they grew in England, and to some :ent in other lands during the latter part of the ^enteenth and early part of the eighteenth cen- 'ies. But their most marvelous growth has been our own liberty-loving land since the War of Inde- Qdence. They have grown to be a great people in s country, and have extended their principles far d wide. Other and similar sects derived from, or in to, the Baptists have also spread here, and the mber of bodies of Christians professing Anti- dobaptist sentiments is considerable. Through ?ir missionary operations at home and abroad 3y have extended these sentiments over the wide trld, and in all lands to-day the principle of be- vers' baptism is not without advocacy. Scarcely ything in the spread of religious views is more uarkable than the triumphant extension, since the )se of the Anabaptist persecutions, of the prin- )Ies for which many of those noble people suffered d died. Besides the remarkable growth of the Baptists d other bodies which deny Pjedobaptism, we ould also take account of the extension of these inciples among denominations professedly Paedo- ptist. Man}' members of Paedobaptist churches, ding no Scripture for infant baptism, refuse or 432 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. neglect to have their children sprinkled. Statistics are hard to get and are to some extent unreliable, and it would not be just to claim too much. Still, unless observation is wonderfully at fault, the facts are as stated. By family ties, mistaken opposition to "Baptist bigotry" and "close communion," per- sons who really hold Baptist sentiments often prefer to remain in the Paedobaptist denominations. More than forty years ago the Rev. Thomas F. Curtis published his notable book on the Progress of Bap- tist Principles, and he pointed out even then a marked decline in the practice of infant baptism among the Paedobaptist denominations in this coun- try. Ministters and assemblies of thei various churches took notice of this falling off and endeav- ored to stir up their people to continue in the ways of their fathers. The Episcopal and Lutheran churches have perhaps maintained the practice with more tenacity than the Presbyterians, Methodists and Congregationalists. In 1882 Mr., now Professor, H. C. Vedder, pub- lished in the Baptist Review an article in which he showed that in the fifty years previous the propor- tion of infant baptisms to communicants among the Episcopalians of this country had decreased from one in seven to one in eleven ; among the Reformed, from one in twelve to one in twenty; among the Prsbyterians, from one in fifteen to one in thirty- three; among the Methodists, from one in twenty- two to one in twenty-nine; among the Congrega- tionalists, from one in fifty to one in seventy-seven.* There is no doubt still further decline in the * See Strong's Systematic Theology, p. 537. HISTORICAL SKETCH. 433 practice. Attentiou is often called to it in the Paido- baptist papers. Let us notice in conclusion the continuance of PaBdobaptism. Though the Baptists and their views have had a great growth in the last two hundred years, yet it is still true that the number of those who practise infant baptism is enormously great. The ancient churches, both the Greek and the Roman, still observe the rite, believing that baptism is essential to salvation, and that infants ought to receive it. State churches in Germany and England maintain the practice with all the power which these organizations have, and the Reformed or Calvinistic churches in Europe have also continued with great conservatism to observe the baptism of infants. In this country also Protestant P^edobaptists abound. The Congrcgationalists fail to cast off this error, though many of their people do not practise it. The Episcopalians and Methodists brought it from the Church of England, endeared by the tenderest as- sociations, and the sturdy Presbyterian stock, mostly from Scotland, where the hard-headed John Knox had deeply impressed the views which he had received from Calvin, have maintained their tradi- tional practice with great tenacity. The Lutherans, who have come over in large numl)ers from the Fatherland, ha\-e come thoroughly imbued with the custom which prevailed in their old home. It has been, and is still, argued with great learning and ability by Piedobaptist preachers and theological professors, and although many of these admit the inadequacy of the Scripture proof, yet so strong is the influence of association and tradition that they 434 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. have been led to defend and retain the doctrine. It is really wonderful how an error so often exposed, and so utterly unfounded in Scripture and reason, should be so persistent. ARGUMENTS OX INFANT r.AI'TISM. 435 OUTLINE OF CHAPTER XI. ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM. I. Arguments for Infant Baptism. 1. From Scripture. (1) The covenant of circumcision. (2) Household baptisms. (3) Relation of the church to children. 2. From history. (1) Early rise. (2) Long continuance. 3. From church authority. 4. From the efficacy of baptism. 5. From established custom. 6. From sentiment. II. Arguments against Infant Baptism. 1. Xot proven by its advocates. (1) Proof inadequate. (2) Disagreements among advocates. 2. Unsupported by Scripture. (1) Unscriptural. (2) Anti-scriptural. 3. Objectionable on other grounds. (1) Lowers the authority of Scripture. (2) Fosters other errors about baptism. (3) Weakens distinction between church and world. (4) Makes improper distinction between church members and communicants. (5) Helps the error of church and state. CHAPTER XI. THE RECIPIENTS OF BAPTISM. ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM. Having studied the Scripture teachiugs as to the recipients of baptism, and having followed through history the progress of Christian opinion and prac- tice regarding this matter, we are now prepared to give specific attention to the arguments which are commonly advanced for and against the doctrine of infant baptism. One of the most remarkable phenomena in the history of this controversy is the diversity which exists among Pnedobaptists themselves as to the grounds and defences of their position. It would be interesting to a Baptist to overhear, being himself only a spectator and not a participant, a symposium on infant baptism between well-informed disputants i-epresenting, respectively, the Romanists, the Epis- copalians, the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, the Lutherans and the Methodists. The listener would be surprised, and if the matter were not so serious, amused, by the inconsistent and even con- tradictory grounds upon which the practice com- mon to all these was based and defended; yet they would sometimes use each other's arguments. The Catholic defender of church authority would bor- row the Lutheran argument from sentiment, and 436 AUGrMENTS OX IXFAXT r.AI'TISM. 437 the Methodist would joyfully appropriate the Cal- vinistie view of the Abrahamic covenant, so far as it suited his purpose. In such a confusion exact classification of the arguments is difficult, but we may describe them according as they are drawn from Scripture, from history, from Church authority, from the efficacy of baptism, from custom, and from sentiment.* The argument from Scripture is usually presented by the advocates of the practice in a three-fold form, viz., the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision, the household baptisms, and the relation of the church to the children of believers and others. We accordingly take up first the argument from the covenant of circumcision. It will be impossible here to discuss this argument in all its details. A summary of it is presented from the Presbyterian point of view by Dr. Charles Hodge. f It will be well to state the argument exactly in Dr. Hodge's words, by quoting the headings or propositions under which it is more fully unfolded. Before stating his propositions, he says: *'In order to justify the baptism of in- fants, we must attain and authenticate such an idea of the church as that it shall include the children of * The arguments for infant baptism have been very satis- factorily reviewd by many Baptists, both English and Am- erican. One of the best discussions, both for candor and abil- ity, is that given by Dr. John L. Dagg in his Church Order, p. 144 f. There is also the outline of an excellent discussion in Dr. A. H. Strong's Theology, p. 534 f. The exhaustive and able work of Ingham on the Subjects of Baptism has already been often noticed. One of the clearest and best discussions is given by Dr. W. C. Wilkinson — The Baptist Principle. t Systematic Theology; Vol. III., p. 547. 438 ORDINANCES OP THE CHURCHES. believing parents." It is scarcely necessary to re- mark that thus the distinguished author begins by begging the question, and it may also be said that Paedobaptists have no trouble in "attaining" this idea ; the trouble with them is to "authenticate" it. We shall follow the great theologian, then, in his endeavor to authenticate what he has already at- tained. His propositions are as follows: "(1) The visible church is a divine institution. (2) The visible church does not consist exclusively of the re- generate. (3) The commonwealth of Israel was the church, (4) The church under the new dispensation is identical with that under the old. (5) The terms of admission into the church before the advent were the same that are required for admission into the Christian church. (6) Infants were members of the church under the Old Testament economy. (7) There is nothing in the New Testament which justi- fies the exclusion of the children of believers from membership in the church. (8) Children need, and are capable of receiving, the benefits of redemption." This argument is likewise held by the Methodists.* It may be found succinctly stated in Rosser on Baptism (p. 227) in the following propositions: "(1) The church in all ages is under the same great covenant of grace, though it may be under different dispensations. (2) Hence the seal of every dis- pensation is the seal of the general covenant of grace. (3) Therefore baptism, the seal of the cov- enant under the Christian dispensation is substi- tuted for circumcision, the seal of the covenant * Cf . Dr. T. O. Summers, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 392 ff. AltCjir.MF.NTS (»N INFANT HAI'TISM. 439 under the Jewish dispensation. (4) Hence infants oujjht to be baplized/'t In these propositions of Dr. Hodge and Dr. Rosser the inconclusiveness of the argument is apparent. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, e\-en if the premises be admitted. Thre is much irrelevant reasoning under each proposition, and the propositions themselves are not logically stated. The force of the argument (if it has any) lies in two great assumptions \vhich are laid down as premises: (a) That the Hebrew theocracy under Abraham and Moses was ''identical with the Christian church," (Hodge), (b) That bap- tism under the second took the place of circumcision under the first. We deny both premises. How any man can read the IS'^ew Testament and assert that the Jewish nation, which he chooses to call the church, was "identical" with the Christian church, is a marvel. If the Scriptures teach anything con- cerning the Christian church, they teach that it wa.^ a new thing altogether, that the old covenant had passed away and this was a new institution — a new dispensation. Of course, some things were the same. God was the same, God's grace the same, God's gen- eral dealings with the i)eople the same ; but the in- stitutions themselves were certainly not "identical." If the Jewish commonwealth under the old dispen- sation was ''identical" with the church under the new dispensation, Peter and Paul might as well have remained under the old. They both had received t The Episcopalians also sometimes use this argument, as Hodges on Infant Baptism, chaps, v., vi. It is also urged, though not extensively, by the Lutherans, as Dr. C. P. Krauth in his Conservative Beformation and its Theology, p. 577. 440 ORDINANCES OP THE CHURCHES. the sign of circumcision and were, therefore, mem- brs of the church, according to Hodge. Where was the need, then, for the Apostle Paul to be baptized and come into the Christian church? Did he not write concerning himself: "Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; as touching zeal, persecuting the church; as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless?" Why should he, after such per- fect submission under the old covenant, find it neces- sary to add: "Howbeit what things were gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ?" Again, we read that the Apostle, presumably after Timothy's conversion and baptism, took that young man and circumcised him; while on the contrary, he refused to circumcise Titus, who was a Gentile. If circum- cision and baptism meant the same thing, or one was substituted for the other, it is hard to under- stand the actions and language of the Apostle Paul. Moreover, in announcing the coming dispensation John the Baptist distinctly proclaims : "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves. We have Abraham to our father." Could he thus have spoken if the covenant with Abraham, sealed by circumcision, was all-suffi- cient, and identical with the new? In whatever sense it may be true that the Old Testament economy, or the commonwealth of Israel, or the descendants of Abraham, represent God's people in the earth, it is only a huge assumption to say that these were "identical with the Christian church" under the new dispensation. ARGUMENTS ON INFANT BAPTISM. 441 Psedobaptists say that circumcision was no longer necessary because baptism was put in its place; but we deny this premise also. The only passage which lends any countenance to this theory is Col. 2:11,12: "In whom ye were also circumcised with a circum- cision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; hav- ing been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with liim through faith in the work- ing of God, who raised him from the dead." But there is no mention here of any substitution of bap- tism for circumcision. But suppose we grant the two premises that the Jewish commonwealth is identical with the Chris- tian church, and that baptism came in the room of circumcision, do the advocates of infant baptism then follow their own theory? No; for they do not restrict baptism to male children, nor do they ex- tend it to the servants of the household, both of which were required, or customary, in regard to circum- cision. Dr. AYayland* points out that baptism must be substituted for circumcision either physically or spiritually, and says: "If it be said that baptism takes tlie ])laee of circumcision in the physical sense, then religion comes by hereditary descent." But as this will not be admitted, he goes on to say : "If, how- ever, it be said that baptism takes the place of cir- cumcision in the spiritual sense, then hereditary descent is thrown out of the question. Abraham is a tj'pe of a believer. Every true believer is a child * rrindj)les and Practices of the Baptists, p. y6. See also Wilkinson. The Baptist Principle, p. 232, for a clear and vig- orous presentation of the same point. 442 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES, of Abraham, and is for this cause entitled to bap- tism,— 'If ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.' To this doc- trine we do not object. It is what we believe, though we suppose ourselves to have a much more direct way of arriving at the same conclusion," We take up, in the second place, the argument from the household baptisms of the New Testament. Though the preceding argument be the main reliance of many Paedobaptists, they endeavor to fortify it by appealing to the cases of household baptism men- tioned in the Acts and the Epistles. There are only three of these, — that of Lydia, Acts 16:15; that of the Philippian jailer. Acts 16:33, and that of Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1:16. Paedobaptists differ as to the use they make of this argument. Lutheran com- mentators, as Meyer for instance, see no trace of infant baptism in these passages, and the Lutheran theologians do not seem to press the point. Dr. Hodge only brings it in incidentally in his seventh proposition, "that there is nothing in the New Testa- ment which justifies the exclusion of the children of believers from membership in the church." He declares that the burden of proof rests on those who deny this proposition (a very convenient way to settle this, sur-ely) ; for the relation of the children to the Old Testament church was that of member- ship, and as a matter of course the Apostles in bap- tizing would act on the princple to which they had always been accustomed. "When under the Old Testament a parent [proselyted, he must mean, of course] joined the congregation of the Lord he brought his minor children with him; when, there- ARGUMENTS OX INFANT BAPTISM. -i-tS fore, the Apostles baptized the head of the family it was a matter of course that they should baptize his infaiit children. We accordingly find several cases of such household baptism recorded in the Acts and the Epistles." So while Dr. Hodge uses this argument as corroborative, as fitting in with the con- ception of the Abrahamic covenant, he yet commits himself to the 0])inioii that these household baptisms support infant baptism. He tries to explain the few- ness of the instances on account of the brevity of the history. Dr. Summers, on the contrary, places this first among his arguments. He says (Systematic Theology, p. 384) : "That the baptism of young children was practised by the church from the be- ginning is easily shown. It is not said, indeed, in so many words in the New Testament that the Apostles baptized young children. There was no occasion to say this any more than there was occasion to say that they administered the Lord's Supper to women; but both are implied in what is said. When Paul baptized Stephanas and Lydia he baptized also their families." Dr. Summers goes on to make distinction between "family'' (»r/.,K) and "household" (ot/.iu) and maintains accordingly that in each case it was the "family," that is, the children who were baptized; and that it was only the "household," including the servants, of Stephanas, who "were addicted to the ministry of tlie saints;" besides, he declares that "this was said six or eight years later." Thus he tries to break the force of the statement in regard to the household of Stephanas. This reasoning is more shrewd than solid; for the distinction between household and familv is unwarranted. Liddell and 444 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. Scott do not recognize any such distinction in classical Greek; nor does Cremer's Lexicon of the New Testament. More distinctly does Thayer's Lexicon say : "In the sense of family, »}y.entance. the 468 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. personal acceptance of Christ (Matt. 3:5,12; Acts 19:1-7; Rom. G:3) ; (b) Obedience; that is, submis- sion out of love and gratitude to the positive com- mand of the Lord (Matt. 28:19; John 11:15) ; (c) Consecration; that is, devoted allegiance and ser- vice to the Lord ( Matt. 28 :19 ; Rom. 6 :l-4, Gal. 3 :27 ; Col. 2:12; 3:1). Thus, to sum up, we may say that according to the Scriptures the act of baptism does not work any spiritual change in the recipient, but is symbolical or figurative of his regeneration by the Spirit of God> and declarative of his faith in God and purpose to serve him through Jesus Christ the Lord. This view of the significance of baptism is pre- sented in a number of Baptist books; and particu- larly with admirable force and clearness by Dr. H. H. Tucker in his sermon on "Baptism in the Christian System" in the volume entitled The Old Theology Restated. There is also a book on the Design of Baptism, by the late Dr. J. A. Kirtley; and good treatment in Dagg, Strong and others. When we come to consider the opposing views, we shall have to say that these have the disadvantage of being obscure, confusing, inconsistent and un- scriptural. According to these the act of baptism is in part symbolical and declarative, but is also efficacious, in some spiritual sense or senses. Here is the knot of difficulty. For just how far and in what exact sense or senses baptism is held to be spiritually efficacious, these views do not make clear. We notice first the Roman Catholic position. This assigns a saving efficacy to the ordinances in gen- eral. The Council of Trent distinctly declared SIGNIFICANCE OF BAPTISM. 469 {Session vii., Canon 8) : "If any one saith that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed {ex opere operato), but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace, let him be anathema." Hence, Romanists hold that baptism is essential to salvation and actually effects it in the recipient; yet when pinned to the logical conse- quence of this position they will try to explain it away. Moehler, for example,* on the doctrine of the Catholics regarding the sacraments in general says: "As regards the mode in which the sacraments con- fer upon us sancitifying grace, the Catholic Church teaches that they work in us by means of their char- acter as an institution prepared by Christ, y as an instrument for our salvation; that is to say, the sacraments convey the divine power merited for us by Christ, which cannot be produced by any human disposition, by any spiritual effort or condition, but is absolutely for Christ's sake conferred by God through their means." Again, ^Md'hlert in contrast- ing the difference between the Catholic and Lutheran positions on baptism, thus expresses the Roman doc- trine : "According to the Catholic doctrine, original sin in children, in adults original sin together with actual sins, is by the due reception of baptism re- mo^•ed So that the belie\'Ter having become a member of Christ walketh no more according to the flesh, but interiorly quickened by the divine Spirit showeth himself a new man." * Syinbolism, Sec. 28. t It is thus that he explains the phrase ex opere operalo. . X Symbolism, Sec. 32, on Baptism and Penance. 470 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. We come now to consider the Ang;lican doctrine of baptism. The general doctrine of the efficacy of the sacraments as set forth in the Thirty-nine Arti- cles of the English Church is as follows (Article XXV.) : "The sacraments ordained by Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and ef- fectual signs of grace and God's good will toward us, by the which he doth work invisibly, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him." Of baptism, Article XXVII. says that "it is not onlj^ the sign of profession, but it is also the sign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby as by an instrument they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the church; the promises of our forgiveness of sin and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed ; faith is confirmed and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God." This language is general, vague and diplomatic as to the real efficacy of baptism. The doctrine is more plainly brought out in the Anglican Catechism, where to the ques- tion, "Who gave you this name?" the answer is, "My sponsors in my baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." The answer to the (piestion concerning the number of the sacraments is. "The only, as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say. Baptism and the Supper of the Lord." While the language of the Catechism is thus more explicit than that of the Articles, it still admits of being explained away when one insists that it teaches baptismal regeneration. If jon say that the prayer SIGXIFTCAXCE OF IIAI'TISM. 471 book teaches that baptism is necessary to salvation, you will be asked to define ''necessary," and your attention will be called 1o the qualifying word, "gen- erally.'' If you .-^ay that the candidate for confirma- tion declares that in baptism he was made a "mem- ber of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven," reply may be made tiiat this is said only of connection with the clmrcli, and symbolically; and so it goes. No doubt one of the best expositions of the doc- trine of the Anglican Church on this relation of bap- tism to regeneration is found in the discussion of Waterland on Titus 3:4-6*. He takes the position that our Lord in John 3:5, and Paul in this passage in Titus, mean the same thing, and goes on to say: "The general doctrine both of our Lord and Saint Paul in those texts is that water applied outwardly to the body, together with the grace of the Spirit applied inwardly to the soul, regenerate a man, or in other words, the Holy Spirit in and by the use of water baptism causes the new birth." "Every one must be born of water and the S])irit, not once by the water and once of the Spirit, so as to make two new births, or to be regenerated again and again, but be once new born to both, once born of the Spirit in or by water ; while the Spirit primarily or effectually, and the water secondarily or instru- mentally, concur to one and the same birth, ordi- narily the result of both in virtue of the divine ap- pointment." Waterland goes on to instance the four cases of adults, infants, apostates and hypo- crites, and the efl"ect of baptism upon each class: * Waterland's Works, Oxford edition, Vol. IV. 427 f. 472 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. (a) In regard to adults repentance and faith are re- quired, *'but according to the ordinary rule faith and regeneration were to be perfected by baptism both in the making regeneration and the giving of a title to salvation." (b) In regard to infants the position is that they are indeed in baptism regen- erated and made Christians, and that afterwards, if they show any signs of spiritual life, their case is like those who fall away and who only need to be renewed, (c) In case of those who fall away after they have once been ^'savingly regenerated" it is not that there was never any new birth, but only the loss of health (p. 441). "If such persons fall away by desertion and disobedience, still their baptismal regeneration and their covenant state abide and stand; but without their saving efifect for the time being." (d) In "case of those who receive baptism (like Simon Magus, suppose) in hypocrisy, or im- pentience, have these been regenerated, born of the Spirit?" To this question he makes answer, "That is a point which I apprehend can never be affirmed or denied absolutely, but with proper distinctions." The Holy Spirit "some way or other has an hand in every true and valid baptism ;" as he "sanctifies the waters of baptism, giving them an outward and relative holiness ; so he consecrates the persons alsc» in an outward and relative sense;" and thus "they must be supposed to have pardon and grace and all gospel privileges conditionally made over to them, though not yet actually applied by reason of their disqualifications;" but if they repent, "their regen- eration begun in baptism and left unfinished comes at last to be complete." Such is the Anglican doc- SIGXIFICAXCE OF BAPTISM. 473 trine as expounded bv one of the ablest and clearest theologians of that school. It is assuredly neither scriptural nor clear. The next position to be discussed is that of the Lutheran Church. This does not materially differ from the Anglican view. The statement of the Augs- burg Confession is more explicit than that of the Thirty-nine Articles. It is as follows (Article IX.) : "Of baptism they teach that it is necessary to salva- tion, and that by baptism the grace of God is offered; and that children are to be baptized, who by bap- tism being offered to God, are received into God's favor. They condemn the Anabaptists who allow not the baptism of children, and affirm that children are saved without baptism." This language literally interpreted is plain enough, but the Lutheran theo- logians explain it away somewhat (as the Catholics and Anglicans do) when its literal and logical meaning is pressed upon them. Thus Dr. Krauth* in commenting on the words, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," says : "We are not to separate what God hath joined together. Who shall be saved? (1) He only that believeth. That is de- cisive against the idea that the sacraments operate apart from the spiritual state of the recipient. It is the deathblow to formalism; the deathblow to Rome and to Oxford [High Church Anglicanism]. W^e are justified by faith. That is written with a sunbeam in the words, 'he that believeth . . . shall be saved.' But is that all the Saviour said? No! He adds, 'And IS BAPTIZED, shall be saved.' Who dares read a NOT in the words and make our Saviour say, 'He * Conservative Reformation and its Theology, p. 553. 474 ORDINANCES OP THE CHURCHES. that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved?' But the mau who says that baptism is in no sense necessary to salvation does contradict the words of our Lord."' In explaining (p. 557 f.) what the Augsburg Confession means by "necessary to salva- tion," he says. "It is necessary to determine what the Confessors meant," that is, to explain their state- ment so as to make "necessary" mean only "condi- tionally necessary" and not "absolutely essential." Baptism is not water baptism only, but involves the presence of the word and the Spirit, so that there may be baptism without regeneration; also there may sometimes by the sovereign mercy of God be regeneration without baptism, but the "ordinary rule" is that baptism is necessary. Xow in regard to faith being necessary to salvation, in the case of adults it is clear; but in the case of infants the view of the Lutherans is necessarily confused and con- tradictory. Their great doctrine of justification by faith forces them to the conclusion that infants in baptism exercise faith. This absurd position is boldly stated by some of the Lutheran theologians as quoted by Hodge,* but is rather indefinitely and vaguely put by Dr. Krauth in the following lan- guagef : "This grace [presumably saving grace, — salvation] is offered whenever baptism is admin- istered, and is actually conferred by the Holy Spirit whenever the individual receiving it does not pre- sent in himself a conscious voluntary barrier to its efficacy. This barrier, in the case of an individual personally responsible, is unbelief. In the case of . * Systematic Theology, Vol. liL., p. 6U8. t Conservative Reformation and its Theolotjy, p. 4.19. siGXiKicANft: or p..vrTisM. 475 an infant there i.^ no conscious volnntarv barrier, and there is a divinely wrought receptivity of grace. The objector says an infant cannot voluntarily re- ceive the grace; therefore, grace is not given. We reverse the proposition and reply. The infant cannot voluntarily reject grace; therefore, the grace is given.'' To such inipal]»able dust as this is the grand "article of a standing or falling church" reduced under the upper and nether millstones of infant bap- tism and bai)tismal regeneration I The Presbyterian or Reformed view of the efficacy of baptism is set forth at length by Dr. Charles Hodge in his ^ijstcmatic Theology, Vol. iii., pp. 579-004. With this Presbyterian denial of baptismal regeneration, and with much of the reasoning by which it is supported, P>aptists can heartily agree. But when Dr. Hodge states positively the Presby- terian i)()sition as to the efficacy or meaning of baptism, we are able to agree with him only up to a certain point. His doctrine is that baptism "is in one sense the condition of salvation," that is, it "is the necessity of precept and not that of means." This we can understand and accept in the sense that baptism is necessary to obedience. "Baptism does not make a man a Christian, — it is the ap- pointed means of avowing that he is a Christian." "Baptism is a duty." This he argues from the com- mand of Christ, from the conduct of the Apostles, from the uniform practice of Christians in all ages, and from its manifold advantages. So far, with some exceptions as to details, we may agree. Next he argues that baptism is a "means of grace." This he states in three points, with the first of whicli. on 476 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. our own understanding of the terms, we may agree, but dissent from the other two: (1) "It is a sign." If this is equivalent only to what we hold as to the symbolic teaching of baptism, we may accept it. (2) ''Baptism is a seal or pledge." The Scriptures do not so declare. This is only an inference. We may say that the proper performance of baptism is, or should be, an impressive reminder of God's gracious promises; but where is it taught that God himself seals those promises in baptism? (3) "Bap- tism is, ho^-ever, not only a sign and seal, it is also a means of grace, because in it the blessings which it signifies are conveyed, and the promises of which it is the seal are assured or fulfilled to those who are baptized, provided they believe." Here we part company; for if the words "conveyed" and "ful- filled" mean what they ordinarily mean in common speech, this doctrine is not essentially different from the Anglican and Lutheran view, which Dr. Hodge has elsewhere refuted. Baptism, according to Dr. Hodge, is a sign of regeneration. If the thing signi- fied, that is, regeneration, is "conveyed" in baptism, wherein does this differ from the Anglican doctrine? Baptism is a "seal or pledge" of the promise of salva- tion. If this promise of salvation is "fulfilled" in the act of baptism, wherein is this different from the Lutheran position? Nor is the matter helped by inserting the saving clause, "provided they believe ;" for the Anglicans and Lutherans both make faith in the recipient the condition of the efficacy of the rite. In the case of infants, as we have seen, the Anglican supposes their faith by the representative faith of their sponsors; the Lutheran, by boldly affirming SIGNIFICANCE OF HAPTISM. 4:77 that somehow thoy have faith; but the Pi'esbyterian is not so fortunate as either of the others. Hear Dr. Hodge : ''But if the saving benefits are suspended on the condition of faith in tlie recipient, what bene- fit can there be in the baptism of infants?" To a Baptist this seems a very pertinent question, but we must not in fairness omit to give Dr. Hodge's answer to it : (1) ''That it is the command of God." But wiiere is the proof of this assertion? (2) "In- fants are the objects of Christ's redemption, — they are capable of receiving all its benefits." Even if this be true (as in a general sense it may be of the first clause, and in a qualified presumptive sense of the second) the question is, What has it to do with baptism? Are all who are the "objects of Christ's redemption," and "capable of receiving all its bene- fits," therefore and without anything else to be bap- tized? Not if we read the Scriptures aright. We are to observe next the doctrine of the Metho- dists on this point. The sixteenth Article of the Methodist Church on the sacraments is in the first paragrayjh almost exactly the same as the corre- sponding one of the Anglican Church, from which it was derived. That on baptism (Article 17) says: "Baptism is not only a sign of profession, a mark of difl'erence whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized, but it is also of regeneration, or the new birth. The baptism of young children is to be retained in the church." The forms and prayers prescribed at the administration of baptism do not throw much light upon the sub- ject. The congregation are exhorted to pray "that God will grant to these persons (or to these children 478 ORDIXAXCES OF THE CHURCHES. in case of infants) what bv nature they cannot have, that they may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost and received into Christ's holy church, and be made lively members of the same." This language might seem to imply the doctrine of baptismal re- generation, or the engrafting into the church, and is only a slightly modified form of that of the Anglican Church. But the Methodist theologians repudiate the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and do not claim even that baptism is ''a means of grace" in the Presbyterian sense. Their position, therefore, as to the significance of baptism is very near that of the Baptists; that it is simply a symbolical and declarative ordinance ; for thus Ave interpret the lan- guage of their Article that "baptism is a sign of regeneration and profession."* It remains for us to consider the view of baptism held by that body of Christians who call themselves the Disciples of Christ, or Christians, but are known in common speech as Campbellites. This term is not here used with any disrespect, but simply for definiteness. The literature of the Campbellite controversy is considerable. It has been published in many news- paper and magazine articles, in debates between disputants, and in other treatises on all the points in dispute, including that of the significance of bap- tism. A recent book on this topic is by Mr. L. B. Wilkes, and entitled 'The Designs of Christian Bap- tism." The purpose of the author in giving the sub- ject a plural form is indicated on pages 12, 32 and 34 of the book. He holds that there are seA'^eraL * Cf. Summers' Systematic Theology, Vol. ii., p. 354-356. SIGNIFICANCE OF KAPTLSM. 479 designs in baptism and not one only. His laniinage at page 32 is as follows: "Baptism was no doubt pnt into the remedial system for a reason or reasons. Indeed it is plainly taught in the Bible that there are two designs; one as a mere ordinance, or as a condition in order to a specified end. In this case it is for remission of sins. Besides this it is a sign or symbol. As a symbol it does (and it was so in- tended to do) declare a burial and a resurrection. As a mere ordinance or condition no other outward and formal thing would have served the purpose as well as the thing selected. As a teaching or declara- tory symbol nothing else than baptism would have been so sufficient." In this introductory statenT^nt we observe that in part what has been laid down as the Baptist view is accepted, and the difference lies in the addition wherein baptism is said to be de- signed also as a ''condition precedent to the remis- sion of sins." The general statement of Mr. Wilkes' position is found on pages 13 and 14 of the Introduc- tion: ''The reader is requested to note carefully and to bear in mind constantly that I do not hold, and that I do not attempt in the following pages to prove, that baptism has any virtue in itself to take away sins. God only has power on earth to forgive sins; therefore, when I say that baptism is for re- mission of sins I do not mean that it does the for- giving, but that God forgives the sinner's sins in it, or that God has put baptism as a condition i)re- cedeut to the remission of sins." Another statement is made on page 57: "What is the meaning of the proposition, Baptism is for the remission of sins? I mean by it, (1) That God has a law for the for- 480 ORDINANCES OP THE CHURCHES. giveness of sins; (2) That the sinner who is re- sponsible for compliance with the law is not par- doned till he complies; (3) That baptism is in this law of God. I mean to assert that the predicate of the proposition is, by the will of God, so related to the subject that it must be affirmed of it, and not denied. I mean that remission of sins is conditioned in the law of God upon being baptized. I mean that one of the purposes or designs of being baptized is remission of sins." It must be said of Mr. Wilkes' book in general that its tone is that of a sincere and candid man and not of a rancorous controversialist. At the same time his explanations are scarcely suffi- cierrt; for the logical consequences of the positions taken must be insisted on ; yet it is fair to accept his statement that the Disciples do not usually teach that baptism alone, or by itself, accomplishes salva- tion. They are in this precisely upon the same plat- form with the Lutherans and Anglicans who insist that faith and repentance are necessary along with baptism. The position of Mr. Alexander Campbell himself on the significance of baptism may be gathered from his book on Baptism, and from the Debate ivith Rice, and his other works. At page 249 of the work on Baptism, in speaking of John's baptism for the remission of sins, Mr. Campbell says: "Nor is it only casually intimated that New Testament bap- tism was ordained for this purpose ; for it is the only purpose for which it was ordained, whether in the hands of John, or of the twelve Apostles It was not a baptism, but the baptism of repentance. It was not for remission of sins, but for the remis- SIGNIFICANCE OF P.APTISM. 481 sion of sins. The fixtures of language could not more safely secure the intention of the institution. It was not because .vour sins had been remitted, but it is for and in order to the remission of sins." In the report of the debate of Mr. Campbell with the Rev. N. L, Rice (p. 436), in comparing Peter's language at Pentecost with that in the Gospel of Mark, ''he that believeth and is baptized," we have the following: "Now the salvation of the soul be- ing distinguished from the salvation of the body, and from the eternal salvation of the whole man, must simply indicate the remission of sin, its guilt and its pollution. And so it would seem that Peter and Mark must have been guided by the same Spirit in expressing the mind of Christ under the remedial economy, the latter by connecting it with salvation, and the other with the remission of sins. This harmonizing of the two witnesses teaches the true doctrine of Christianity, to-wit : that a saved man is one whose sins are pardoned. To say, then, that a sinner is saved, is equivalent to saying that he is pardoned. He that is pardoned, is saved, and he that is saved, is pardoned." It is true that Mr. Campbell's language in some other of his writings appears to deny the necessary connection between remission and salvation, and that he is not always clear upon the point. That of his apologist and disciple, Mr. Lard, in his Revi&iv of Jeter's Camphellism Examined is more explicit. On page 183 Mr. Lard says: ''Mr. Jeter maintains that a person's sins are remitted the instant he be- comes a penitent believer, and consequently before and without baptism. From this we dissent. We 482 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. believe that a sinner, though a believer, is still re- quired to repent and be baptized in order to the re- mission of his sins, and consequently, that they are not remitted before and without baptism." Further, on page 185 he says: "Where salvation is promised to a person, or affirmed of him on certain named con- ditions, though it may depend on more conditions than those named, it can never depend on less." Further, he says : "It follows that, although salva. tion, or which is the same thing, remission of sins, may depend on more than belief and baptism, the two named conditions, it can never depend on less." In speaking of Peter's exhortation in Acts 2:38, on page 193, Mr. Lard further says: "Now we aflSrm that this passage teaches that baptism with re- pentance ... is necessary to remission of sins^ that it makes remission depend on baptism in pre- cisely the same sense in which it makes it depend on repentance, and that a connection is thus es- tablished between them of a nature so permanent that remission is in all cases, previous exceptions aside, consequent on baptism and never precedes it." Now as Mr. Lard in the previous quotation has made remission and salvation synonymous terms, he appears distinctly to teach that baptism is neces- sary to salvation. Mr. Campbell, while his language strictly interpreted means that, yet qualifies it in other passages; while Mr. Wilkes denies this con- clusion, though admitting that some of his people taught or implied it. It will be very hard for a person who teaches that "baptism is a condition precedent to the remission of sins" not also to teach Ihat it is a condition precedent to salvation. And KIGNIFICAXCE OF FJAPTISiM, 483 the explanation that baptism itself does not accom- plish this, but is only the necessary instrument through which God accomplishes it, is the same ex- planation which the Roman. Anglican and Lutheran theologians all make when pressed in the same way. We may perhaps sum up by saying that there seem to be three classes among the Disciples: (a) Some, as Mr. Lard, who really believe that baptism and regeneration are the same thing, and that remission of sins, or salvation, is actually received in bap- tism, and not until the person is baptized. ( b) Some who are not clear in their minds and not exact in their language, who seem to hold one way at one time and another at another, or who, like Mr. Wilkes, teach that baptism is symbolical and declarative, but is also a condition precedent to remission of sins. (c) Some perhaps who hold with the Baptists that regeneration is the act of the Holy Spirit; that re- pentance and faith come before baptism, and that salvation is dependent on these, and not in any sense on the external act, which is only symbolical of the change effected by the Holy Spirit, but is necessary to a complete obedience to Christ, and is an outward profession of faith and loyalty to him. 484: ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. OUTLINE OF CHAPTER XIII. THE lord's supper IN SCRIPTURE. I. Passages Describing the Institution of the Rite. 1. Comparison and study. (1) Relation to Passover. (2) Meaning. (3) Perpetuity. 2. Inferences, as to frequency, participants, etc. II. Passages containing allusion or mention. 1. Doubtful allusions. Several passages. 2. Undoubted mention. (1) Survey and study. (2) Inferences. (a) As to i^articipants. (b) As to observance. (c) As to meaning. CHAPTER XIII. THE lord's supper IN SCRIPTURE, Our study brings us now to the other great ordi- nance of the Christian religion. Sometimes this is spoken of as the "communion." As this name refers only to a subordinate and incidental part of the ob-. servance, namely, the common participation of those who observe the rite, it is not a fortunate or properly descriptive term. It is true the term is found in I. Cor. 10 -.W, "The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?" But the Revised Version gives it in the margin more cor- rectly "participation in the body of Christ," and the word does not refer to the fellowship of the brethren, but to communion with Christ ; so that the name "communion" is based upon a mistake, and is not a desirable term. Another name that has been given to it is the "eucharist." This comes from the fact that our Lord "gave thanks," and the Greek verb describing that act is the word from which "eucharist" is derived. Afterwards in early Chris- tian history the bread and wine came to be regarded as thank offerings, and so the name "eucharist" was held to be appropriate on that ground also, but this was clearly an unscriptural usage; so that the ex- pression "eucharist" is open to some objection. Neither one of these designations is used in Scrip- ture, and can be justified only by remote inference 485 486 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. from Scripture. They are, therefore unnecessary and somewhat misleading terms, and there is no good I'eason why they should be used. As to the Catholic terms of "mass," "elevation of the host," ''unbloody sacrifice" — these are far out of the range of scriptural or appropriate designations. They rest upon churchly and not upon Biblical usage. One of the names by which the Scriptures refer to the rite, "the breaking of bread," found in Acts 2:42 and in 20:7, though used by some, has never been generally appropriated by the churches. The proper designation, therefore, for this sacred ordinance is that which is used by the apostle Paul (I. Cor. 11:20), "The Lord's Supper." In studying the Lord's Supper, we shall do well to pursue the same course as in regard to the sub- jects considered hitherto ; that is, to investigate the Scripture teachings, the developments of history, and the views and practices of the churches of to-day. And in this way the three principal topics connected with the Lord's Supper will be brought out, namely, the Meaning, the Participants, the Observance. This chapter deals with the scriptural teaching, and its purpose is to present with care all in the New Testa- ment that bears on the Lord's Supper, deriving such inferences and applications as appear to be justi- fied by the meaning of the passages themselves and by the general harmony of revealed truth. The order observed is first to consider the Scriptures which de- scribe the institution of the Supper; then those in which it is brought up either by direct mention or remoter allusion. The Scriptures in which the institution of the Sup- lord's supper in scripture. 487 per is described are Matt. 2G :26-29 ; Mark 14 :22-25 ; Luke 22:17-20, and 1. Cor. 11:23-26. Of these ac- counts, tliose in Matthew and Mark are almost ex- actly alike, and that given in Luke is almost the same as the one which we find in Paul's letter to the church at Corinth. Dr. Broadus, in agreement with Godet and others, thinks that the striking ex- pression of Paul in I. Cor. 11 :23, 'Tor I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you," means that our Lord himself gave to Paul this ac- count of the institution of the Supper. Whether it was in the vision which he had in the temple, or in some other special revelation, we cannot know. We first notice the relation of the Lord's Supper to the Pasover meal. As a devout Israelite, and in accordance with the habit of his life in regard to such things, our Lord would celebrate the Passover. It was customary for the people to arrange them- selves in companies of between ten and twenty to keep the feast as a family. It was, threfore, per- fectly natural that our Lord and the twelve Apostles should constitute such a company. It was also customary that persons living in Jerusalem should permit those companies to have rooms to meet in without charge. Thus Jesus sent Peter and John to arrange for the celebration at the house of some one in Jerusalem. The name of the man is not given. They were told to go into the city and follow a man whom they should meet bearing a pitcher of water to the home, and request the use of a room for the Master and his disciples. The two disciples went as they were instructed, made all the necessary arrangements, including no doubt the slaying of the 488 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES, lamb at the temple and the preparation for the feast at the designated house. The bread, the wine, the bitter herbs and the other things customary were all provided. At the appointed time our Lord and the ten others arrived to join these two, and the feast proceeded probably in the usual order. Jesus presided and acted as the host, or father of the family. We need not follow the usual details of the Passover feast. Some of the Commentaries and Lives of Christ explain these details.* Toward the close of the Passover feast proper, and doubtless after the traitor Judas had left the company,-]- our Lord institutes the Memorial Supper. He did not use the whole meal, and probably not any part of the usual Paschal feast. It is rather to be supposed that he added this to the rest — only used the bread and wine which were before him. Some think, how- ever, that he used a part of the regular Passover feast. Be this as it may, he now takes a loaf and blesses it, and with this act enters upon what is distinctive, and intended to be perpetual, in the Christian observance. | Let us now consider the meaning of the action and of the emblems which our Lord employed. Matthew says that he "blessed" the loaf. Luke says he "gave thanks," as also Paul. It may be the same act differently described : that the blessing included the giving of thanks, or that he actually did both. * Cf. Life of Christ by Andrews, Farrar, Edersheim, and the Commentaries, Broadus on Matthew, Godet on Luke, Bliss on Luke, and others. t Cf. Broadus' comment in loco. % Cf. Andrews' Life of Christ, p. 488. lord's supper in scripture, 489 As Dr. Broadus explains, "to bless the loaf is of course to invoke God's blessing upon it, to ask that God will make it a means of blessing to those who partake." He also "brake it." This was for the purpose of distributing it among the disciples that all might partake. The idea that the act of break- ing was also typical of the sufferings of Christ, the slaying of his body, is derived from the reading, "broken for you," in I. Cor. 11 :24. The best authori- ties, however, omit "broken" in that passage; so that it is not wise to use the expression, especially to insist upon it as a part of the emblematic signifi- cance of the loaf. Then he said, "Take, eat; this is my body." Of course, this language is figurative; equivalent to saying, This represents my body, is g, token of my body; and it is strange that any other interpretation could ever have been put upon it. We shall see hereafter that some insist on the literal meaning, but the figurative language here is in per- fect harmony with that which our Lord often uses in other connections ; as in John 10 :7,9, he says : "I am the door;" in 14:6, "I am the, way;" in 15:1, "I am the true vine ;" and more to the point still, in 6 :35, "I am the bread of life." In these passages we do not thiiiji of making a literal interpretation. The figurative meaning is too evident for the other to be thought of; so here we must interpret his words to mean. This represents, stands for, is a picture, emblem, token of my body. Paul adds the words, "which is for you," and some of the authorities add in Luke's account, "which is given for you," but this reading is somewhat uncertain. This means that the body is for your benefit, — it is used, slain for your 490 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. salvation. And then, in the added words, ''This do in remembrance of me," our Lord enjoins upon his disciples that they should use this token in remem- brance of his sufferings on their behalf. The lan- guage may also contain reference to what he had said of himself in John 6:35, ''I am the bread of life." If we accept the reading in Luke, ''which is given (or being given) for you," the meaning is that he M'as the bread of their life, the sustaining spiri- tual force of their life, in process of being offered up as a sacrifice to God on their behalf. Dr. Bliss says the "body" is probably used here by figure, (as in Rom. 12:1, "Present your bodies a living sacri- fice,") for his person, himself. Even now while he speaks, he is being given up to unspeakable sorrow to work out their salvation, and this bread which he holds in his hands and distributes among them is the token of his sacrifice on their behalf. Next he took the cup and gave thanks, and blessed -it in like manner as the bread, and passed it on to them that they all might drink of it. It was, in accordance with the usual custom, a light wine, probably mingled with water. In giving them this he calls their attention also to the symbolism in- volved, "This is my blood of the covenant." It was customary in ancient times to seal covenants with the shedding of blood. The covenant between God and his people at Sinai was ratified by sprinkling, the book with the blood of the sacrificed victims. The blood was the token of the life, and the shed- ding of the blood was the life spent, or poured out, or given up; and so here the blood is shed -for many for the remission of sins," that is, for the remission, lord's supper IX SCRIPTURE. 491 or pardon of the siiis of many. Many would enjoy the forgiveness and putting away of their sins be- cause of the shedding of his blood, or the giving up of his life, which is here typified by this poured out wine. In the record of Luke and Paul the covenant thus ratified is described as "new." In Jeremiah 31 :31-34, God had promised to "make a new covenant with the house of Israel," and this was to be not like the old covenant, but inward, spiritual, written on their hearts, and was to involve the full forgiveness of their sins. It may be that our Lord refers to this prophecy, and is fulfilling it. In regard to the perpetuity of the observance, there is some indication in the various passages. According to Matthew our Lord said, "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." The language thus points forward to the final consummation of his kingdom in glory, and the implication is that they were to keep on observ- ing the Supper in his absence until he should come again. Though this is not definitely brought out in Matthew's record, it is made clear in the language of Paul, who adds (I Cor. 11:26) : "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come." The command of the Lord that it should all be done in remembrance of him likewise indicates the perpetuation of the ordi- nance through the frequent repetition of its ob- servance. Besides these more direct and clear teachings, there are some inferences which we may draw from these passages. From the silence as to details, we 492 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. may infer that these would be left to the pious dis- cretion of those who were to observe the ordinance. It is not specified how often the memorial should be celebrated. Paul simply says: "As often as ye eat this bread . . " Whether it was to be observed as the closing part of the Passover meal among Jewish Christians, or was to be among any Chris- +ians connected with a social meal, is not said. Nothing is commanded here as to the posture of the participants, or the place of observance; nor does it necessarily follow that the bread should be unleavened bread, as that is not commanded, being simply a custom connected with the Passover. The preference for unleavened bread, however, is natural, and there is nothing against it. Nor is there any- thing said in regard to the character of the wine that should be used. Sanctified good taste would surely prefer a very light wine. It seems to have been the custom at the Passover to mingle the wine with water. Another inference is, that from the withdrawal of Judas and the presence thus of none but true disciples, only real Christians, the baptized, the members of the Lord's own flock, should partici- pate in this observance. This is merely suggested, but is confirmed by the general teachings of Scrip- ture. So much for the passages which describe the institution of the rite. There are others which allude to it, and these will now claim our attention. We first notice some where the allusion is im- probable, or at best extremely doubtful. One is the passage in John G :4:8-5S, where our Lord in dis- coursing with the multitude in the synagogue at lord's STTPER IX SCRIPTITRE. 493 Capernaum, having spoken of himself as the bread of life, goes on to say : ''Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.'' Some have seen here a prophetic allusion to the institution of the Supper which was afterwards to take place. Others hold that the eating and drinking here re- ferred to is a continuous process, and is, therefore, not properly to be understood of the Supper, but of daily spiritual communion with Christ; and this, upon the whole, is the preferable view\ Another passage sometimes supposed to imply the Lord's Supper is Acts 27 :35, where after the long fast on board ship the Apostle Paul persuades his fellow- voyagers to eat, — "And when he had said this and had taken bread, he gave thanks to God in the presence of all, and he brake it and began to eat." There is no reason to see any reference here to the Lord's Supper, — it is simply a breaking of bread and the asking of Cod's blessing upon it. Another supposed allusion to the Supper is in Hebrews 13 :10, "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle." The passage is somewhat difficult, but the more probable interpretation of the "altar'' is that it does not refer to the table of the Lord, but either to the Lord himself (Speaker's Commentary), or to the cross on which he was crucified (Dr. Kendrick, in American Commentary). There are some other passages, however, that have plainer allusion, and the probable mention becomes almost certain. The first of these is found in Acts 494 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. 2 :42, '^\ud they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers ;" and in yerse 46, ''And day by day, continuing steadfastly, with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they did take their food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having fayor with all the people." The forty-sixth yerse perhaps does not so certainly as the other refer to the Lord's Supper, though this is the common opinion among interpreters. It says, ''breaking bread at home," as the Reyised Version has it, though the rendering of King James is also permissible, "from house to house." Neander, as referred to by Hackett on the passage, thinks that this languag-e indicates a division of the disciples in Jerusalem into a number of small companies which met in different houses for worship, and that in connection with the family or social meal the Lord's Supper was commonly observed. There is also no sufficient reason to doubt the reference to the Supper in Acts 20:7, "And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight." After the uproar at Ephesus, Paul went to Macedonia, and thence re- turning into Asia Minor, he and his companions re- mained a week at Troas, and while there the occur- rence narrated took place. We should observe that the Revised Version gives the correct text here, "we were gathered together," instead of "the disciples were gathered together." Of course the "we" in- cludes the disciples, the resident ones, probably, with lord's supper in SCRIPTl'RE. 495 the visitors, comprising Paul and his associates. The question has sometimes been raised whether there was a church at Troas or not. We can only say that most probably there was, but if not the presence of the Apostle Paul gave all necessary authority for the observance. An interesting thing here is that this observance occurs on the first day of the week in connection with what seems to have been the habitual worship, as if the celebration gave both name and purpose to the assembling for worship. There are two highly important passages in Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth, where there is direct mention of the Lord's Supper, and ap- propriate instructions are given in regard to its suitable observance. The first one is 1 Cor. 10 :1G,17, and is as follows: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion (margin, participation) of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion (or participation) of the body of Christ? seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body : for we all partake of the one bread." The whole context here is important to understand the words. The Apostle has been arguing against the propriety of eating meat which had been offered to idols. There was danger that those who did so might be led into idolatry, by association of ideas. He contrasts their celebration of the Lord's Supper with the heathen idolatrous feasts. This brings him to speak of both the cup and the bread. Here a com- munion or fellowship occurs, but as has been re- marked, it does not seem to mean the fellowship with one another, but the participation of the body and blood of Christ, as he himself means in the 496 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. passage in the sixth chapter of John, which was dis- cussed elsewhere; that this body and blood of his were symbolized in the elements of the Lord's Sup^ per. The partaking of them was thus the portraiture, or representation of a spiritual partaking of him. This is put in contrast with the communion with demons, "Ye canoot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and the table of demons." The Lord's Supper is here emphasized as a distinctive service of the Christian religion, and its true spiritual nature is very earnestly insisted upon. The passage contains a warning that those who partake should be exceed- ingly circumspect. A worldly or idolatrous life is wholly inconsistent with a proper participation in the Lord's Supper; indeed this would be impossible, if there were real communion with him, such as is indicated in the text.. The other passage is I. Cor. 11 :17-31. In studying it we should remember that Paul was writing to correct certain grave errors both of doctrine and of conduct into which some of the Christians at Corinth had fallen, and among these was the way in which they celebrated the Lord's Supper. The Apostle tells them that when they come together for worship, so great was their disorder that it was not possible to eat the Lord's Supper in any proper way; for in their eating one Avould take before another his own supper, and while one would be hungry, another would sometimes be drunken. This indicates that they observed it as a social meal, or in connection with a social meal, and that their festivity was more secular than spiritual, virtually destroying the ordi- lord's supper in scripture. 497 nance. He sharply reproves them for this disorder, and then gives his account of how our Lord insti- tuted the Supper. He then makes, in tlie 27th verse, the solemn statement, '"Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord." In making a riotous banquet in connection with the Lord's Supper, these Corinthians did away with its real purpose. The prime object of the Supper being to recall the loving sacrifice of Christ, any celebra- tion of it which does not have that, and that su- premely, in view is an unworthy one. He who takes the Lord's Supper for personal gratification, or for any other reason than devoutly and grate- fully to remember the Lord, eats and drinks un- worthily; so the Apostle exhorts that a man should examine himself as to his motives for so doing; for he who eats unworthily, eats and drinks condemna- tion, or judgment, upon himself; that is, he who eats or drinks for the gratification of bodil}^ ap- petite, or for pride and riotous indulgence, or for any other evil motive, rather than for the purpose of remembering the Lord's loving work, brings con- demnation on himself, incurs the displeasure of the Lord. Now this is made perfectly plain by the ex- planatory clause, "not discerning the Lord's body." He eats unworthily who does not see in the bread which he eats an emblem of the Lord's body given for him. This is the evident meaning of the passage as a whole. ]More particularly let us examine the expression, "Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of 498 ORDINANCES OF THE QHURCHES. the body and the blood of the Lord." Notice here, as a matter of simple grammar, that the word "un- worthily" does not and cannot describe the person who eats and drinks, but describes the act of eating and drinking. This will be plainer if we adopt the rendering of the American revisers, "in an unworthy manner;" so what the Apostle means is that he is guilty who celebrates the Supper in an unworthy manner, that is, in a manner out of keeping with the solemn and blessed meaning of the ordinance. It refers, therefore, only remotely and secondarily to the state of the person who partakes, and not at all to his feelings of personal unworthiness in the sight of God. The other part of the verse also calls for explana- tion. What is meant by the expression, "guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord"? The word "guilty" is used in three ways: (1) In regard to the crime committed, as guilty of murder, theft, or anything of that sort. This is the common, and with us, the almost exclusive use of the term. (2) But in the New Testament we find that it is some- times used with reference to the punishment to be inflicted, as "guilty of death," that is guilty enough to be put to death (Matt. 26:66). (3) Again, it is used in regard to the thing or person sinned against, as in the expression "guilty of the whole law," that is, of breaking the law (Jas. 2:10). This last is of course the meaning here. The one who eats and drinks unworthily is guilty in regard to the body and blood of the Lord, — he has sinned in not perceiving and appreciatiing this ordinance in its true and solemn significance of setting forth the J^OP.d's supper IX SCRIPTURE. 499 sacrificed body and the shed blood of his Lord and Redeemer. In this connection we should recall the remarkable passage in Jude 12, where even worse conduct is rebuked, and evil intruders are called "spots (or hidden rocks) in jour love-feasts;" but the reference is not certainly to the Lord's Supper. It remains for us to consider some inferences which may be drawn from the passages we have studied. In regard to the participants it is clear that only baptized believers were intended to take part in this observance. The reference is clearly to the meeting together of the church at Corinth for the purpose of worship, and in connection with that the celebration of the Supper of the Lord. It is true, as we have seen, that they held it in connection with the social meal, at which some disorders were un- happily indulged in; but still they are addressed as Christians, who ought to turn away from their in- consistencies and celebrate the memorial ordinance with entire propriety. In regard to the observance of the Supper, some of the details are to be noted. The place is indicated to have been different from their own homes: for the Apostle asks: "What, have ye not houses to eat and drink in?" There must have been, therefore, some common place of meeting where they met for worship and the observance of the Lord's Supper. This appears also in the use of the upper room at Troas, where the disciples met together. In regard to the frequency of the observance, we have various indications. In Acts 2:42,46, it seems to have been every day. At Troas it appears to have been everv week — on the Lord's day, — the first day 500 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. of the week. At Corinth there is no note as to the frequency. As to the manner of the observance, in Acts 2 :46 it seems to have been in their homes, and possibly in connection with domestic worship, others being gathered in. At Troas the indications are that "breaking bread" was a part of the regular worship; for in connection with it Paul went on with his preaching far into the night. The passages impress us with the importance of seemliness and devoutness in the observance of this sacred rite. The inference as to the meaning of the ordinance is very clear and definite. It is distinctly and pre- eminently a memorial observance in regard to the great sacrifice of Christ, the atoning work of the Redeemer. Other things may be subsidiary to this, as worship and fellowship, but this is the main thing. Any other use of this observance would be to some extent, and more or less according to circum- stances, unworthy. In all cases we must "discern the body," that is, we must perceive the right mean- ing of the ordinance, and keep it in the spirit of that sacred intent. LORD^S SUPPER IN HISTORY. 501 OUTLINE OF CHAPTER XIV. THE lord's supper IN HISTORY. I. The Meaning. 1. Memorial and symbolic. Never wholly lost sight of. 2. Sacrificial. (1) Origin and growth. (2) Catholic developments. (a) Adoration of the host. (b) Masses for the dead. 3. Doctrine of the Real Presence. (1) Patristic views. (2) Mediaeval Catholic doctrine. (3) Ideas in the Greek Church. 4. Efficacy. Compare views on baptism, II. The Participants. 1. The usual practice. (1) The baptized only. (2) Good standing also required. 2. The English Baptist exception. (1) Early Baptist practice no exception. (2) Rise of open communion. III. The Observance. 1. Worship. Development of ritual. 2. Frequency. Practice varied. 3. Some details. (1) Love feasts. (2) Posture, etc. (3) Withholding wine from laity. CHAPTER XIV. THE LORD^S SUPPER IN HISTORY. As IN case of the twin ordinance of baptism, there have been interesting historical developments in the belief and practice of Christians in regard to the Lord's Slipper. Some of these customs have fallen out of use, others have persisted, and survive in various forms among the different divisions of pro- fessed Christians. Along with this progresss of views and observance there has been the inevitable accompaniment of controversy. It is sad that the most sacred rite of the Christian religion should have been, and should continue to be, the subject of angry polemics among those who, in this holy ordin- ance, profess to commemorate the dying love of their common Redeemer and Lord. Yet we should not forget that the very importance and sacredness of the rite led to earnest attack upon errors regarding it. No elaborate account of these controversies will here be attempted. The student is referred to works on Christian Archaeology, Church History, and System- atic Theology for more complete discussion.* The plan of treatment will be, not to divide into periods as before, but to present the matter rather by sub- jects, as the belief and practice of Christians de- veloped through the centuries, and as they present * The practices of the first four or five centuries are well described in Bingham's Antiquites, b. xv. See also Stanley's Christian Institutions, and the Church Histories. 502 lord's supper in history. 503 themselves to day. In this chapter we study the history, touching upon the Meaning, the Partici- pant, and the Observance of the Supper, through the centuries. The meaning of the Supper, as unfolded and ex- emplified in history presents a subject which ought to be carefully studied, both for its inherent in- terest and for its momentous effect upon the external character of Christianity, as shown in the various churches and organizations. Theories of the mean- ing cluster around three essential points: the me- morial and symbolic character of the ordinance, the sacrifical conception of it, and the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the consecrated elements. In respect to the first of these, let it be said that the symbolic and memorial character of the ordi- nance has nerer been wholly lost sight of. The changes have been made in the way of additions to this scriptural idea, and of perversion of it. They have not amounted to a denial of the original and scriptural intent of the rite. Well may we say with Stanley:* "That so fragile an ordinance should have survived so many shocks, so many superstitions, so many centuries, is in itself a proof of the immense vitality of the religion which it represents, of the prophetic foresight of its Founder." In it, through many strange lands and places and times; through many hurtful errors and surprising misconceptions and unauthorized additions; through many variously organized assemblies of those who professed Christ as their Saviour; through all the noisy din of un- seemly disputation and strife, the immortal words of * Christian Institutions, Harper's edition, p. 59. 504 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. our Lord are heard: 'This is my body which is for you ; . . . This is my blood which was shed for the remission of sins; . . This do in remembrance of me." The sacrificial conception of the Supper early came to be held in the Catholic Church, and has been a very presistent and harmful addition to the true scriptural idea. Many Protestants — Lutherans and Anglicans, and even some Presbyterians — hold, to a greater or less extent, that the idea of a sacrifice or offering to God is contained in the Lord's Supper. They consider it the fulfillment of the type contained in the Passover lamb, and with that comes also the notion of offering ourselves to God in the observance of the ordinance. There is not, however, any scriptural warrant for even this simplest form of the sacrificial conception of the Supper. It is a sym- bolic memorial of the great sacrifice of Christ, but is not itself such a sacrifice or offering to God. Some- how in the early centuries men began so to regard it.* At first it was the idea of a thank-offering with which the name of eucharist, derived from our Lord's giving thanks and blessing the cup, was in natural harmony ; for the word also denotes a thank-offering. It was the custom among the early Christiansf to bring thank-offerings to the altar in connection with the celebration of the Supper. From these offerings gifts were made to the poor, and also the bread and wine used in the Supper were selected. Out of these Thank-offerings came also the idea of offering up one- * Cf. Schaff's Church History, Vol. ii., p. 245 f. t Cf. Bingham's Antiquities, b. xv., ch. ii., §M, 2, 5: ch. iii. i-okd's suiter in iiistoky. 505 self, that of renewed consecration. Now, when once this idea of the Supper — as a sacrifice or offering — was introduced, along with its development there was corresponding growth in the belief of a real presence of Christ in the elements; and thus the notion that the Supper was a repetition of Christ's sacrifice of himself took firm and final hold of the Catholic mind.* It was designated the "unbloody sacrifice," and a pious Catholic was led to believe that in the "sacrifice of the mass," as it came to be called, our Lord was actually offered up for him as a sacrifice for sin. From this followed two other very hurtful errors. One was what is known as the "adoration of the host," and the other the celebration of "masses for the dead." The word "host" is not at all connected with the ordinary English word for an army, but is derived from the Latin word Jiostia — a victim, an animal sacrificed. The consecrated wafer being regarded as the actual Christ, was looked upon as the sacred victim, or offering; and hence, when this was elevat- ed or lifted up in the hands of the priest, he held in his hands Christ himself, who, as being thus present, was regarded as the object of legitimate worship. This is what is meant by the elevation and adoration of the host. The English word "mass," and the German messe, are corruptions in popular speech of the Latin missa, by which name the service is always called in the Roman Church. Now, this word missa is derived from a practice in the worship of the early church. * Cf. Schatf, Church, History, Vol. iii., p. 504; also Vol. iv., pp. 397, 398. 506 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. At a certain point unbelievers were requested to with- draw, that is, the general congregation was sent away, or in Latin, missa est. At another stage the catechumens and penitents likewise retired, and to the Supper itself only baptized believers were allow- ed to remain, all others having been dismissed. From this dismission, the service in which believers only participated came to be called missa ■fidelium, or the "missa of the faithful"; and then by pre-eminence the celebration of the Lord's Supper came to be call- ed missa, or mass. Celebrating masses for the dead grew out of one of the prayers that was offered in consecrating the holy elements. It was customary for the worshipers when they made their offerings at the altar, to pray not only for themselves, but for the whole church uni- versal, both believers on earth and those who had departed. These prayers for the dead arose very early in Christian history. It was thought that the sacrifice of Christ being offered again every time the mass was celebrated would avail to help the souls of departed saints; and out of this notion have come all the errors concerning purgatory and masses.* The next important error, which went hand in hand with the former, is the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the consecrated elements. Very soon the notion obtained that in the bread and wine used in the commemorative Supper, the body and blood of Christ were not only symbolized, but were in some sense actually present. As early as the time of Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus germs of this doctrine begin to appear. The Council of Trent * Schaif, Church History. Vol. iv., p. 398. lord's SUri'ER IX HISTORY. 507 declared that the church of God had always from the beginning held this view, seeing in these somewhat mystic and vague statements of the early Fathers a positive declaration of the later dogma of transub- stantiation.* But while it may be granted that these writers held mystical views of the saving eflScacy of the eucharist, and that their utterances lean in the direction of the real presence, it cannot be held that their views were clear. Cyril of Jerusalem makes use of such language as the following : ''Under the type of the wine is given to thee the blood ; that thou mayest be a partaker of the body and blood of Christ and of one body and blood with him." "After the invocation of the Holy Ghost, the bread of the Eucharist is no longer bread, but the body of Christ."f Gregory of Nyssa, and even Chrysostom, though in his peculiar rhetorical fashion, likewise leaned to this view. Bingham quotes the prayer of offering as given in the Apostolic Constitutions, but this was a later work containing how much of earlier liturgical forms it is impossible to say.S The language of the petition is : "And we beseech thee to look propitiously upon these gifts here set before ^ thee, and to accept them favorably to the honor of thy Christ, and to send thy Holy Spirit upon this sacrifice, the Spirit that is witness of the suffering of the Lord Jesus, that it may make this bread become the body of Christ ; that they who partake of it may be confirmed in godliness and obtain remission of sins." * Cf. Schaff's Church History. Vol. iii., p. 492 f. t Quoted by Schaff, 1. c. X Cf. Bingham, b. xv., ch. iii., ^ 11. 508 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. This idea kept gaining ground througli the centu- ries, that somehow the body and blood of the Lord were really in the bread and wine, and that thus he was actually offered anew in sacrifice and actually partaken of by the participants in the Supper. In the ninth century the two leading views, one of a spiritual presence, the other of a "real," or ma- terial, presence, resulted in controversy.* In the language of Dr. Schaff: "Paschasius Radbertus (from 800 to about 805), a well-known, devout and superstitious monk, and afterwards abbot of Corbie, or Corvey, in France, is the first who clearly taught the doctrine of transubstantiation, as then believed by many and afterwards adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. He wrote a book 'on the Body and Blood of the Lord,' composed for his disciple Placi- dus, of New Corbie, in the year 831, and afterwards re-edited it in a more popular form, and dedicated it to the Emperor, Charles the Bald, as a Christmas gift (844). He did not employ the term transubstant- iation, which came not into use until two centuries later, but he taught the thing, viz., 'that the substance of bread and wine is effectually changed into the flesh and blood of Christ'; so that after priestly consecration there is 'nothing else in the eucharist but the flesh and blood of Christ, although the figure of bread and wine remain to the senses of sight, touch and taste.' " He defended his theory by the usual arguments, from the Scripture, and also from tradition; but he had as an opponent Ratram- nus, who was also a monk at Corbie. He, according * Schaff, Vol. iv., p. 544 f. LORD^S SUPPER IN HISTORY. 500 to Schaff, was the first to give the symbolical theory a scientific expression, and he defended this against the book of Radbert; and it is also said that John Scotus Erigena, a famous theologian, took a hand in this controversy and opposed the view of Radbert. On the other hand, Radbert's doctrine was espoused by Hincmar of Rheims, by Haimo of Halberstadt, and other leading Catholic teachers. In the eleventh century the doctrine of a symbolic or spiritual presence was reasserted by Berengar. He was a very able thinker. He denied the doctrine of Rad- bert, and upheld the scriptural and symbolical mean- ing of the ordinance. He was opposed by Lanfranc, the famous abbot of Bee, in Normandy, and after- wards Archishop of Canterbury under William the Conqueror. Berengar and his doctrine were also condemned by the celebrated Hildebrand, who was now Pope Gregory VII. This decided the Roman Catholic doctrine in favor of transubstantiation, as it was afterwards affirmed by the Council of Trent. The Greek Church held to the doctrine of the real presence, not in the definite form brought out in the mediaeval debates in which Radbert and Berengar figured, and as afterwards defined in the Tridentiue formula, but rather in the vague, indefinite and mystical language of the early Fathers. This Church also accepted the sacrificial idea, the adora- tion of the host, and prayers for the dead. At the time of the Reformation, as was the case with so many other doctrines and practices, various views were held concerning the Lord's Supper. The Reformers differed widely, both from the Catholic doctrine and among themselves. Luther rejected the 510 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. mass and other errors connected with it; but in re- gard to the meaning of the Supper his view differed only slightly from that of Rome. He maintain- ed that the real body and blood of the Lord were still present with the elements, though these were not changed into the body of Christ. Zwingli held that the bread and wine were only emblems of the body and blood of Christ. Calvin's position was rather peculiar. He did not agree exactly either with Zwingli or Luther, holding a sort of compromise view between the two. He taught a real dynamical presence of Christ, though regarding his glorified body as being in heaven, and not actually present in the elements. The notion is that Christ is in some special spiritual way present at the Supper and bestows gi*ace upon the believer as he receives the tokens of his body and blood ; while to an unbeliever these are only bread and wine. The Anabaptists coincided rather with the Zwinglian idea of the symbolic and commemorative teaching of the ordi- nance. It does not appear that their views on this subject were the occasion of any special conflicts, since many of the Reformers themselves sympathized with the Zwinglian doctrine. Hiibmaier's teaching, according to Newman.* sets forth that the Supper is "a public sign and testimony of the love through which Christians oblige themselves before the church, just as they together break the bread and drink the cup, so also to give up their lives and their blood for each other, and this according to the example of Christ whose suffering they memorialize in the break- ing of the bread. Bread and wine are not the body * History of Ayitipcedobaptism, p. 178. lord's supper IX HISTORY, 511 and blood of Christ, but mere memorials of the suffering and death of Christ for the remission of our sin, — the greatest sign of his love that he has left us.'- Along with the doctrine of the real presence of Christ was naturally discussed the efficacy of the ordinance of the Supper. This point need not detain us long, as the general efficacy of the sacraments was discussed in connection with baptism; and making the necessary changes, the doctrines apply to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. Thus the Catholics maintained that the ordinance is spiritually effica- cious, and to partake of the actual body and blood of Christ brings, ex opcre operato, by virtue of the act itself, certain spiritual blessings to the participant; not regeneration, as this has been provided for in baptism, but remission of sin and spiritual support, sanctification and blessing. Naturally the Lutheran and High Church doctrine inclines in the same way, while the Reformed opinion is that, as in the case of baptism, the Lord's Supper is a ''sign and seal" of the blessing set forth in the symbols, and in some sense likewise ''conveys and fulfills" these blessings to the worthy participant. The Zwingiian doctrine was much more simple, though Zwingli also inclined to the "sign and seal" idea. The simplest view concerning the efficacy of the rite was that held by some Zwing- lians and the Anabaptists, that it was merely a symbol or token of our Lord's death, and was spiri- tually efficacious only as an act of obedience and worship, and not in any miraculous way. We now take up the topic of the participants in the ordinance. These were only the baptized, and this 612 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. from the verj earliest history. In the New Testa- ment this was evidently the case. According to Bingham* this was the practice of the church in the earlier centuries. The catechumens and penitents were dismissed, and only baptized believers, in full fellowship remained to the eucharist. Though here- tics and schismatics were not permitted to partake, infants were admitted as soon as baptized and ever afterwards, until debarred by sins committed as they grew up. Infant communion continued to be the practice of the Roman Church for several centuries, but was finally discarded. The Council of Trent for- bade infant communion, but with a clause refusing to condemn the practice of the ancient church. The Greek Church continues the practice. It is a logical consequence of infant baptism, which this venerable body alone of all P?edobaptists is consistent enough to maintain. In the case of communicants who could not be present on account of sickness, or other pro- vidential hindrances, a deacon was despatched with the elements, that these believers might receive them at their homes.f Of these, the sick, and martyrs under sentence of death, were especially considered. From this arose what the Romanists styled the "sacrament of extreme unction," the practice of anointing the sick with oil, derived from the well known direction in the Epistle of James. The com- municants were expected to prepare for the celebra- tion of the eucharist. Baptism and its accompany- ing obligations of repentance, faith and the presum- able regenerate life, were understood in every case. * Antiquities, b. xv., ch. iv., § 1 i. t Cf. Bingham, 1. c, M 8, 9. lord's supper in history. 513 All crimes, and many other sins, debarred even the baptized from the eucharist. Before communicating they had to do penance, and this is the origin of con- fession before mass — it was originally the prepara- tion for taking part in the Lord's Supper. These principles of both a baptismal and religious preparation for the ordinance continued through the ^Middle Ages and thus it appears that baptism and good standing in the church have always been generally recognized as prerequisite to communion. Dr. Wall the famous historian of infant baptism, somewhere asserts that among all the heresies that have come up, none were ever found to teach that the unbaptized might partake of the Lord's Supper. This distinction was reserved for the open com- munion Baptists, who have lived and flourished since Dr. Wall wrote. There is no reason to suppose that any of the sects before the Reformation, which more or less resemble the Baptists of to-day, ever practised anything of the kind. The Anabaptists of the Re- formation time believed that the Lord's Supper should be restricted to the baptized. Professor Vedder* mentions a confession of faith which was put forth by some of the Swiss Anabaptists at a little village near Schaffhausen in the year 1512, and says: ''It teaches the baptism of believers only, and break- ing the bread by those alone who have been baptized ; and inculcates a pure church discipline." In regard to the later practice of the Baptists Vedder also says:-;- ''One of the most important revolutions in the practice of the English Baptist churches was the * iShort History of the Baptists, pp. 84, 85. t Short History, p. ]4;i 514: ORDINANCES OB^ THE CHURCHES. change from strict to open communion." The change was made about the time of John Bunyan, and was" largely due to his influence ; but even then it was by no means generally accepted. Early in the nine- teenth century the powerful influence of Kobert Hall, aided by the sentiment of union among Dis- senters, led large numbers of English Baptists to practise open communion. We proceed now to study the history of the observance of the Supper. From the earliest times, dating back even to the little band at Troas, who came together on the first day of the week to break bread, we find that the celebration of the ordinance was intimately connected with public worship. The eucharist was regarded as the highest act of worship. The first suggestions that we have of a liturgy are in connection with it and baptism. It was part of the early social worship, of the Sunday worship, and of the special worship of feast days. In one way or another this has been a notable part of its history in all sects and through all controversies. Bingham, in the fifteenth book of his Antiquities, gives ac- counts of the worship associated with the eucharist in the early churches. He quotes from a canon of the Council of Laodicea, as follows: "After the homily of the Bishop, first the prayer of the catechu- mens is to be made, and after the catechumens are gone forth, then the prayer for the penitents; and when they have received their benediction by im- position of hands and are withdrawn, then the three prayers of the faithful are to be made, the first of which is to be performed in silence, the second and third by the bidding [that is, of the deacon] ; after lord's SUrPER IN HISTORY. 515 this the kiss of peace is to be given, the presbyters saluting the bishop." In Justin Martyr's time the deacons distributed both elements to all, beginning with the bishops, but later the bishop, or presbyter, began the distribution. The people received in these early times, both the bread and the cup and each dis- tinctly and not mixed, as became the custom in the Greek Church ; the people all standing or kneeling, never sitting. There was no elevation of the host for adoration for many ages, before about the twelfth or thirteenth century. The service closed l)y a form of words from the deacon, to which the worshipers responded, "Amen." Sometimes Psalms were sung by the choir while the service was going on. In later tims there was sometimes afterwards a short service of dismissal. From these early ceremonies the elaboi rate ritual of the Roman Church was subsequently developed. In the Episcopal and Lutheran Churches many of these forms of service were retained, and are still retained. The Reformed churches, hating the abuses that • had grown up, reverted to a much simpler method of worship, in which they had the entire sympathy of the Anabaptists and other evan- gelical sects. In regard to the frequency of the celebration of the Supper, something must be said. According to the accounts in the Book of Acts it seems to have been celebrated sometimes daily, sometimes weekly. So in the early church, for the first three centuries, according to Bingham, the people were expected to come every liOrd's day, sometimes every day, though many neglected to come. Later the council required the people (the priests communicating 516 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. every dav) to come at least three times a year, — at Christmas, Pentecost and Easter, Of course masses were celebrated more frequently. But afterwards by the Lateran Council only one day in the year was required, that was Easter, when the people must come for confession. Thus the Catholic practice, from being a daily observance on the part of the people, has come to be that only an annual participa- tion is requii-ed; whereas, the priests are expected to communicate every day, and oftener as they may be required to celebrate masses. In other churches the celebration of the Supper has varied greatly as to time. There are various details of more or less interest connected with the observance of the Lord's Supper. In early times there was an agape, or love feast, con- nected with it. In the Corinthian church it seems that the celebration of the ordinance followed this feast. There is mention of love-feasts also inJude 12. This custom was retained for many centuries, but abuses grew up around it, and it was abandoned pro- bably as early as the fourth century. Sometimes the elements were kept over in what was called a, sacrarium, either for subsequent use, or to send to the sick. This custom became subject to abuses, and was somewhat debated. One of the most singu- lar customs was that which grew up in the Roman Church of withholding the wine from the laity. This practice is peculiar to Rome. Various reasons have been assigned for it. One was that the bread only could be conveniently carried home from the public celebration for the family communion. Another was that in giving children wine they were sometimes in- lord's supper IX HISTORY. 517 toxicated. Another was that the wine being re- garded as the actual blood of the Lord after con- secration, fear was felt that some of it might be carelessly spilled. But the real reason probably was to increase the dignity and power of the priesthood by making this distinction. In the thirteenth cen- tury the custom was established and justified by the idea that the consecrated bread, being the actual body, must contain the blood also. This doctrine was much resisted by the sects, and was one of the controversies that helped on the Reformation. It occasioned great disputes within the Roman Church and led to a war in Bohemia in the four- teenth century, because the people protested against being so deprived. This also was a part of the con- tention of the famous Bohemian reformer John Huss, who suffered at the stake in the fifteenth century. 618 ORDINAXCES OF THE CHURCHES. OUTLINE OF CHAPTER XV. THE lord's supper IN MODERN OPINION AND PRACTICE. I. The Meaning. Four theories. 1. The Catholic Doctrine; transiibstantiation. ( 1 ) Statement. (2) Objections. 2. The Lutheran Doctrine; consubstantiation. (2) Statement. (2) Defence and difficulties. 3. The Calvinian Doctrine; dynamic presence. Lacks clearness. 4. Zwinglian Doctrine; memorial and sym- bolic. Generally accepted among evangelicals. II. The Participants. 1. Psedobaptist views. (1) Majority restrict. (2) Some exceptions. 2. Baptist views. (1) Open communionists. (2) Close communionists. III. The Observance. 1. Preparation. 2. Worship, 3. Frequency. 4. Details. CHAPTER XV. THE lord's supper IN MODERN OPINION AND PRACTICE. Having passed under review the principal his- torical developments in regard to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, we now proceed to consider the state of modern opinion and practice in regard to the rite. We shall pursue the same course as in regard to the history, remarking upon the meaning, par- ticipants and observance of the ordinance, as these are now exemplified among the principal denomina- tions of Christians. In regard to the meaning, history has shown how the four leading theories grew up, but it is better now to state them in the language of the various creeds and some of the best theologians of the different denominations. (1) The Roman doctrine. This is commonly called trausubstantiation, from the idea that the substance of the bread and wine is changed oyer into the actual body and blood of Christ. It was fully developed and stated in the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent.* In the thirteenth session of the Council, held October 11th, 1551, the "Decree concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucha- rist" was adopted, and the canons condemnatory of the opposing views were added. This decree is too long to quote entire, but the sense is brought out * Cf. Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, Vol. ii., p. 12(i f. 519 520 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES, perhaps as well as in any other place in the state- ment of chapter iv., which is as follows: ''And be- cause that Christ our Redeemer declared that wjiich he offered under the species [appearance] of bread to be truly his own body, therefore, has it ever been the firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that by the con- secration of the bread and of the wine a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood : Avliich conversion is by the Holy Catholic Church suitably and properly called transubstantiation." The canons following proceed to condemn those who deny any of the doctrines set forth in the various chapters of the decree. The first canon is as follows : "If any one denieth that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and sub- stantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and conse- quently the whole Christ, but saith that he is therein as a sign, or a figure, or in virtue ; let him be anathe- ma." This doctrine is expounded by Moehler in the thirty-fourth section of his ^SymhoUsm, where he speaks of it as being ''a matter of so much difficulty to Protestants to form a clear conception of this dogma." We might answer that it is not a difficulty in understandinc) what the Tridentine theologians have so clearly and forcibly expressed, but the diffi- culty lies in Relieving their forbidding and unscrip- tural doctrine with its consequences. The objections to the doctrine scarcely need to be more than briefly stated, (a) It is unscriptural, THE ST PPER IN MODERN PRACTICE. 521 founded on an enforced literal interpretation of what was clearly figurative language in our Lord's in- stitution of the rite, (b) It is absurd and preposter- ous that a priest should change a bit of wafer into the actual body and blood, soul and divinity, of the Lord Jesus Christ, without a stupendous miracle; and we have no right to assume by any promise of Scri|)tui'e that such a miracle as this would be wrought for such a purpose, (c) It is repulsive that a priest, oftentimes unfit, should be the agent through whom so great a miracle should be wrought, or should be the ministrant of such holy things as the "body and blood, soul and divinity'" of the God- man himself, (d) It virtually defeats the true de- sign of the Supper as a memorial ordinance, making it a sacrifice, and elevating a piece of wafer as an object of worship, and even as a propitiation for the dead. Of course the Romanist does his best to meet these objections bj' denying them ever}- one and asserting the contrary. (2) Tlie Lutheran doctrine. This commonly goes under the name of consubstantiation. The following is the language of the Augsburg Confession, Article X. : "Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the bod}' and blood of Christ are truly present and are there communicated to those that eat in the Lord's Supper." The German edition adds after the words, "are truly present." the phrase, "under the form of bread and wine." In Luther's small catechism to the question, "What is the sacrament of the altar?" the answer is. "It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus under the bread and wine, given unto us as Christians to eat and to drink as it was instituted 522 ORDINANCES OP THE CHURCHES. by Christ himself." In Article VII. of the Formula of Concord the doctrine is more fully explained in contrast with the teachings of the Catholic and Re- formed churches. Under the affirmative statement of the doctrine it is said : ^'We believe, teach and con- fess that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and that they are truly distributed and taken together with the bread and wine."* Putting together the differ- ent prepositions used in these statements a condens- ed popular statement of the Lutheran belief is that the actual body and blood of the Lord are received "in, with, and under " the bread and wine. The Lutheran doctrine is fully discussed by Dr. Krauth.y In stating the theory of the ''true presence," he says : "We oppose the true presence: (1) To the Zwinglian theory, that the presence of those objects is simply ideal, — a presence to our memory or contemplation. (2) To the theory set forth by Bucer in the Tetrapoli- tan Confession, further elaborated by Calvin, and now generally known as the Calvinistic, to- wit : that the body and blood are present in eflflcacy through the working of the Holy Spirit in the believing elect." Dr. Krauth's arguments for this doctrine of the real presence are: (a) It is demanded by the types of the Old Testament concerning Christ as the true Paschal Lamb. As the lamb was partaken of so must he be, and as he suffered in his humanity as a lamb, so must he in his humanity, that is, body, be partaken of. (b) The types of the sacrifices in general require this, because these were offered to * Cf. Schaff's Creeds of Christenclom,'V6\. iii., pp. 13, 90. 135. t Conservative Reformation and its Theology, p. 535 ff. THE SUPPER IN :\IOr)ERX PRACTICE. 523 God and also partaken of by the offerer; so here in the eucharistic elements Christ is offered to God and must be partaken of by the offerer, but he can- not be partaken of unless he is present, (c) The words of institution, 'This is my body.'' ''This is my blood," must be taken literally and not figura- tively. This last he elaborates by the following line of thought : The Eucharist is a supper, therefore the language must be literal. The Lord did not of- fer to the disciples the symbols of food, but some- thing real. It is a testament or will. Now a will must contain something real and not simply a symbol. And it is a covenant, and therefore, must convey real things, and not simply symbols of things. The fallacy in this mode of argumentation is ap- parent. To say that the fact of its being a supper requires that the language be literal simply assumes the point at issue; and the other two statements re- garding the testament and the covenant amount to the same thing; and the answer is that it is a spiri- tual testament betokened by symbols. Our Lord did not bequeath to his disciples the actual bread and wine which they then and there consumed ; nor did he covenant to proxide for their physical neces- sities through life in these elements. As to the mode of the Lord's presence in the eucharist there seems to be some difference of opinion. Luther taught, and high Lutherans ac- cept, the omnipresence, or nhiquity, of Christ's body by virtue of the communication of his divine and human attributes; but others try to evade this logical consequence of their doctrine. They say that this is a mystery comparable to that of the Trinity, 524 ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCHES. that is, God is both one and three; so Christ's body may be in heaven and on earth at the same time, but in different senses. The decisive objection to this doctrine is that the arguments urged in sup- port of it are unsatisfactory, not to say incompre- hensible. Moreover, it is unscriptural, as the Catholic doctrine is, and it involves the subject of the Lord's Supper in unnecessary mysteries with im- possible explanations. (3) The Calvinistic doctrine. The doctrine of the Keformed churches, as distinguished from the Lutheran at the time of the Reformation, was divided between the views held by Calvin and those held by Zwingli, and consequently in the Presby- terian churches, generally, there remains something of wavering between the views held by these two reformers. It is proper, therefore, to distinguish between the Calvinian and Zwinglian conceptions of the Supper. A full discussion of the Reformed opinions will be found in Hodge's Systematic Theol- ogy (Vol. iii., p. Oil ff.). A good statement of Calvin's view is found on p. G2>ta Christi. p. 2 18. 585 586 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. Christendom. Firstly, episcopal schools in towns; secondly, village schools, and, thirdly, wherever necessary." Charlemagne took great interest in education. In the eighth century he established grammar schools all over his empire, and adopted the principle of compulsory education, requiring the children of rich and poor alike to attend the schools. It is well known that the monasteries in the Dark Ages were sometimes the only places of culture. To the quiet cell of many a monk learning fled, and in these retreats flourished in the times of ignorance and barbarism. During the Middle Ages many of the great universities had their origin, and these were for the most part founded and maintained by dis- tinctively Christian influences. The character of education was, of course, defective when judged by modern standards, and the quality of the religion which found expression in these schools was not such as Protestants would now be willing to accept ; but the general truth is apparent that Catholic Christianity favored education, and that a large pro- portion of the culture of the world was allied with Christianity as it was understoood and interpreted in the Roman Catholic Church. Since the Reformation the Catholic Church has continued in all lauds its work of education. One of its most important and powerful means of sus- taining itself is its great system of schools. Nor have the Protestants failed to recognize education as an essential part of church work. Luther and Calvin both favored public schools under the state- church system. Thus the public schools of Europe have, by means of the different governments, come EDUCATION,, CHARITY, REFOltM. 587 more directly under chnrch infinence Tliaii is the case in the United States. In the universities also this is true. Not only are theological faculties a part of the state establishments, but the church through government is largely inliuential in the management the universities. Tn addition to these great gov- ernmental institutions there have been various de- nominational schools, especially in England, sup- ported as among us by the voluntary contributions and endowments of the dilTerent Christian sects. In our country there is a very different situation in regard to the relation of the Christian denomina- tions to education. Owing to the separation of church and state, the great multiplication and rivalry of the sects, the rapid development of the country, the vast increase of the population, and in general the peculiarities of our civilization, a widely different state of affairs exists. Here, as elsewhere, we have our own problems to meet without much help from the traditions and precedents of the Old World. Denominational and state schools co-exist in our country, from the academy uj) to the uni- versity. The general government maintains mili- tary and naval academies, but no great university. The various States have different kinds of educa- tional establishments. On the whole American Chris- tianity has shown itself decidedly spmpathetic with education, and American education has been pre- dominantly under Christian influence. The denominational schools in the United States have a very interesting and important history. The two oldest colleges established in America, viz.: Harvard in 1636-9, and William and Marv in Vir- 588 WORK AND V/ORSHIP OF CHURCH. ginia, in 1693, grew, as was natural, out of the state- church arrangements then existing in their respec- tive commonwealths. The States of Massachusetts and Virginia have made appropriations from time to time to these ancient institutions, but on the breaking up of the state-church in these old com- monwealths religious sentiments did not wholly lose their control of the colleges. Harvard was captured by the Unitarians in 1805. and while it is undenomi- national it still is decidedly Unitarian in its man- agement and sentiments. William and Mary, while never controlled by any one denomination, has been, as was natural, rather more closely connected with the Episcopal church than with any other denomi- nation. Leaving out these two ancient colleges, most of the others have been distinctively and avowedly denominational from the very beginning, though there has been more or less admixture of local and civil control in their management. Every important sect in the United States, and many of the smaller ones, has its own school or schools, commonly one, but sometimes several in each State. In their strug- gles, their undue multiplication, their rivalries and quarrels, their rise and fall, and their substantial achievements as well, these denominational schools are a remarkable phenomenon in the history of our country. First of all, there is the academy or high school. There are many such schools under denominational control, and more of this sort are needed as feeders to the higher institutions. Many denominations have bestirred themselves to establish colleges rather prematurely, and have absorbed their means and Eni'CATION. CHARITY,, REFORM. 589 efiforts in trying to build up stronger institutions than they could manage, to the neglect of primary and secondary schools. Next come the colleges. These are for the different sexes. Sometimes the col- leges for males and females are located in the same town. In recent years the question of co-education has received much attention, and for the sake of economical management and better facilities for girls many of the denominational schools have become co-educational. There are undoubted advantages in co-education, and undoubted disadvantages also. Among our people some prefer co-education, and some the separate education of the sexes, and there should be schools to meet both these demands. Next comes the university. Not many of these are needed. Many so called universities have named themselves in advance of their actual achievements. It is de- sirable, however, to have a few real universities under denominational control. Next comes the theological seminary. Of these, two sorts must be recognized. Sometimes the theological department of a university gives a good course of theological in- struction, and siicli ;ui arrangement, where there is large endownment. might be desirable for the sake of unity of management and for the contact of young men with each otlu-r in preparation for the various pursuits and callings of life. On the other hand, the separate theological .seminary, based upon the whole denominational foundation and confining itself strictly to theological education, has numerous ad- vantages. In this matter, as in i-egard to co-educa- tion, there is room for both kinds, and it is likely that there will be both kinds of theological schooh. 590 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. Mention might be made here also of technical schools, thono-h few if any of these are especially denominational. If there must be schools of tech- nology there is no good reason why these also should not be included under denominational control, both in the way of being departments of the universities and of having a separate existence of their own. Some serious problems confront the denomina- tional school at present. Many dispute their neces- sity. It is natural for those who are opposed, or in- different, to Christianity, to look upon the state as the only proper authority in education and to dis- parage the reasons for having denominational col- leges; and it must be admitted also that some Chris- tians are not thoroughly satisfied that it is the duty of the different sects, at so great an expenditure of money and energy, to maintain denominational schools parallel with the state schools. Some say there is no need for the denominational schools since the state is richer than any one denomination, and has the power and resources to establish schools of better grade. Others urge that it would be better for all the people to unite on their colleges and uni- versities than to be divided out among so many struggling institutions. There is undoubted force in these views. But on the other hand, many are pro- foundly convinced that there is still a place and a need for the distinctively denominational school. This grows out of the reason for the existence of the denominations themselves. Waiving the ques- tion, which has been discussed elsewhere, of organic Christian union, we may safely assume that different denominations of Christians will exist as long as EDUCATION, CriARTTY, REFORM. 591 men do not think the same way npon religious problems and duties. Each denomination, if true to its beliefs, has every reason for maintaining it- self. So the ([uestion of denominational enterprises thus becomes wrapped up with the separate ex- istence of each sect. No iron-clad rule can be laid down in regard to this matter, but u])on the Avhole it is certainly desirable that in imparting knowledge the Christian churches should have some schools which they can control, and where their own tenets shall at least be respected and exy)lained, if not dis- tinctly taught. P»esides all this, and what is far more important, the Christian school, is needed as a wholesome check and influence upon other schools and upon the progress of thought and culture within human society. There is danger always that the public schools, being undenominational, may be un- christian, if not anti-Christian. But as long as the denominational schools exist, the state and other non-Christian schools cannot afford to be distinctly anti-Christian. Another serious question which confronts the de- nominational college is in i*egard to its relaitions and rivalries. Schools of the same denomination, if there be more than one or two in the State, will often be thrown into undesirable rivalry with each other. Then again, the schools of the different de- nominations competing for the undenominational patronage may sometimes intensify rather than al- lay sectarian prejudice and conflicts. But there is every reason that the different denominational schools in the State should have sacred regard to each others interests, and work along in friendlv 592 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. co-operation, rather than in sinful and useless com- petition. A more serious difficulty, however, is the question as to the relation the denominational school should sustain to the state institutions, and the in- evitable rivalries growing out of these relations. Mutual jealousies and friction over patronage, with resultant unfriendly criticisms too often occur. There should rather be sympathy, co-operation, mutual respect. Granting that both state and church must educate, and that state and church must be separate, then both kinds of schools must exist. As things are in the United States the only distinctly Christian education in this country must be under denominational auspices. It would be a calamity past computation for Christianity to leave to wholly ■secular influences the education of our youth. Other problems of the denominational schools in general may be quite as well discussed under the relation of the Baptist churches to their schools, a topic which we now take up. Baptists have no need to apologize for their re- lations to education in this country. No doubt many mistakes have been made. There have been resulting losses and disasters. Some schools have gone down and have been forgotten, others have been badly located, wretchedly equipped, made too pre- tentious ; and various other wrong things have hap- pened; but granting all these things there is no good reason why Baptists should mournfully charge themselves with any pre-eminence of failure and mistake in these respects. The truth is that the Baptists of this country hold an honorable place along with the other Christian denominations in the EDUCATION, CIIAUITV. RKFORM. 593 establishment and maintenance of schools of manr kinds. The proper relation of the Baptist cliurches to their schools is a question of very j^reat im- portance, and it has several branches, whicli may be called those of foundation, maintenance, and con- trol. First of all, there is the question of foundation. There are three ways in which Baptist schools have commonly been founded, but often these three have been variously combined with each other: (1) There is the foundation by the denominational assemblies, or bodies. Sometimes State Conventions and As- sociations have taken up the question of education, and by concerted action and appeal to the people have established, endowed and maintained the various schools. This, as in the case of missions and charities, is the princi])le of co-operation ; the repre- sentatives of the clMn-ch coming- to<»ether in some stated or special convention have seen tit to es- tablish the schools. (2) Local enterprise. It has not infrequently hapi)ened that some town or place would take the initiative in establishing a school and would then make certain pro])osals to the denomination to adopt the school as its own, to patronize it, and to assist in its further endowment and enlargement. This method has sometimes had its difficulties, leading to the unnecessary multipli- cation of schools, and to various controversies and competitions in their establishment and mainten- ance. (3) Individual endowments. It has also been common for benevolent individuals to give large sums for the establishment of denominational schools. Sometimes these schools have been ade- 594 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. quately endowed by their patrons, but quite as often their funds have needed supplementing by other gifts, either local or general. In regard to the founding of aditional Baptist institutions there are grave questions for the future to determine. How many more there should be; whether it would not be better to weed out some of the weaker ones and concentrate forces upon some of the stronger ; whether we have not gone too fast in establishing denominational schools; are all ques- tions of importance. It is no easy matter to found and maintain a well-equipped school. Hasty enter- prises of this sort may well be regarded with sus- picion and caution. Probably, as in the past, there will be, and can be, no settled policy as to the initiative, but wisdom and consideration are greatly needed in the founding of schools. Next to be considered is the problem of main- tenance, and this involves endowment, enlargement, and patronage. No school can now maintain itself and successfully compete with others without some endowment. The schools which derive their in- come in part from invested funds have a great ad- vantage over those which have to depend exclusively upon patronage. They can make the instruction cheaper, and if not cheaper, they can give a higher grade of instruction at the same cost to the student. While free tuition is perhaps not desirable, while there ought to be some income from patronage, still the need of liberal endowments is most keenly felt, and there will be need of increasing gifts for this great purpose. Popular subscriptions have been the principal dependence in the past, and these will still EDUCATION, CIIAUrry, REFORM. 595 be needed, but after all the main dependence in the future must be upon large individual gifts. Popular subscriptions are too uncertain, too ex- pensive and difficult to raise to meet with undivided approval. It may not be possible to get entirely away from this method ; besides it gives opportunity to many small givers to become interested in the endowment of the college, and this is well ; so upon the whole we must look to both popular subscrip- tions and large personal donations for the endow- ment of our Baptist schools. Another matter under the head of maintenance is that of enlargement. This should be accepted as a constant demand, and not as an affliction. The school that is worth establishing and endowing is worth enlargement. In the nature of things there cannot be any fixed limit to the enlargement of a school. It is exactly parallel to the enlargement of a business. A prosperous business man always wants to enlarge his operations, and so a prosperous college naturally extends its departments, widens its course of instruction; and then to enlarge its capacity demands an increase in its teaching force. There is always room for improvement in a Baptist college. The churches need to realize this. Many of our people seem to think that after they have once contributed to the establishment of a college it is positive impudence in the college authorities to ask for more; but the necessity of enlarged life demands a continual appeal to the benevolence of the churches and of individuals. Still another matter in regard to the maintenance of the colleges is that of patronage. Very delicate 596 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. and difficult questions arise in regard to this sub- ject. The general proposition may be laid down, that Baptist people ought to patronize Baptist schools. Other things being equal it would seem to be clearly the duty of Baptist families to send their children to those schools which have been es- tablished and maintained by their own denomina- tion. But many exceptional cases occur, and there cannot be any unbending law to compel Baptists to send their children to the denominational schools. Often there are questions of locality and of per- sonal preferences which constitute just and reason- able grounds for a different choice. The problem of control is also one of serious im- portance. It is a live question, and One that needs especial and delicate attention. First of all let us say that there should be control. What is the use of calling a school Baptist when the denomination has no control of it? In some way or other the people who -have established the school, and in whose name it is conducted, should be able to make their views respected, and their controlling influence felt in its management. This is simple justice as well as en- lightened policy; but when we come to consider the nature and extent of that control and influence, we shall have to admit that these may greatly vary. Local necessities sometimes require that others who have been interested in the founding and main- tenance of the college should have a voice in its management. But as long as a school bears the Baptist name and appeals to the denominational patronage, it has no right to surrender utterly to local influence the control of the college. Again, EDrCATlOX. CHARITY. REFORM. 597 there may be some provisions in the wills and charters by which institutions have been established that must be respected so as to limit or define the nature and extent of the denominational control. It is not possible here to give this matter very extended consideration. Circumstances will largely direct and shape the policy of the denomination in secur- ing and holding its control over the institutions which bear its name. In general, the most feasible and satisfactory method by which the churches should control their schools is that the co-operative assemblies of the denomination should in some way have power over the boards and trustees. In many schools the trus- tees are elected annually, or at various periods, by the State conventions, or by educational conven- tions. Sometimes the trustees are composed of three or four classes, a certain number being elected each year so that the board is never suddenly changed. The problem is to find the medium between a stable management and a direct touch with the whole de- nominational life. If popular assemblies have too much influence there is dang-er of revolutions; and sudden changes may prove disastrous both to the patronage and to the resources of the colleges. If on the other hand the influence of the denomination is too remote, and the corporation perpetuates and manages itself, there is danger of its departing from the denominational standards, and of getting out of sym]»athy with the denominational life and thought. Boards of tnistees for denominational in- stitutions should not be wholly self -perpetuating. In cases where thev fill vacancies by their own elec- 598 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. tlon, these elections should be guarded either by charter regulations, or else the denominational as- semblies should have the right of nomination, leav- ing the board to elect. Of course it need not be said that boards of trustees for denominational institu- tions should have no close relations with the state. This has sometimes occurred with other denomina- tions, and has been the cause of serious friction and trouble. It does not suit the genius of Baptist in- stitutions to have entangling alliances with the state. From education we pass on to the other two phases of the church's work for social welfare, namely, charity and reform. Charity may be defined as the effort, more or less systematic and organized, to give relief, either temporary or permanent, to the individuals and classes of society which are in special need of help. There is a very large number of dependent and de- fective members of society, those who have through fault or misfortune, been cast for their support upon the help of others, and there are not a few problems connected with the giving of needed relief. It is of the utmost importance that the churches should face these problems, and should be found in the front rank in lending a hand toward the alleviation of human misery, and in bringing to bear upon the great suffering mass of humanity the gentle streams of a kindly charity, whose great source is in the senti- ments inspired by the example and teachings of the Son of Man. It is proper that we should take a look at the historical connection between Christianity and charity. It is one of the chief glories of Christianity EDTJCATIOX, CHARITY, RKFORM. 699 that in every age of its unfolding power among men it has reached out a helping hand to the help-need- ing class of mankind.* In the times of the Apostles we find that they had learned the lesson from their Master, and gave much attention, both in example and precept, to the relief of the poor, the sick, the destitute. We have no reason to doubt that the teachings of the Apostles were carried on in the obscure period up to the mid- dle of the second century ; for we find in the early Fathers frequent reference to the giving of charity and the care of the poor. One of the earliest forms which charity took was for the help of the children ; and houses for the care of orphans and abandoned children were not un- common. Widows also received especial care; and hospitals, especially for incurables, were early founded and maintained. In the Middle Ages the various forms of charities which the church had begun in the earlier times were carried forward. The monasteries were often places of refuge for the distressed. It is true that certain fearful abuses were sometimes found in con- nection with these institutions, but making no ex- cuse whatever for any wrongdoing, it remains true that the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages did a vast amount of pure and beneficent work. In modern times Christianity has continued in the line of its earlier work in this great field. The great charities of the Roman Catholic Church have * Books that bear on this subject are W. E. H. Lecky's History of European 3forals; C.Schmidt's Social EesiiUs of Early Christianity; C. L. Brace's Gesta Christi, and others. 600 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CIITTIICH, been continued, and have extended tlironghout the worhl. Of course, Protestantism could not leave this work alone to Rome. State-church institutions on the continent of Euroj)e and in England may liave had some influence in turning over to the state a larger share of charitable work. The famous Orphan House in Halle was founded by the cele- brated preacher and philanthropist, A. H. Francke, in the latter part of the seventeenth century. This institution has been the model for many similar ones in Ihe Protestant denominations. The piteous ap- peal of neglected and orphan children has been heard, and almost every denomination has its orY)han house in most of the countries, and in the States of our Union. Along Avith aid for the children tliere has been help for the forlorn of other classer<. There are homes and funds for tlie aged ])oor of both sexes, and for aged and indig^ent ministers. There are also a few hospitals and sanitariums under denomina- tional management. In the days of the early Christian emjterors there was co-operation between church and state in the founding and maintenance of charitable institutions. In the Middle Ages the Church had j)i'rha])S taken the most of them under her care. Since tlie Ke- formation the various states of the civilized world, acting now under direct and now under indirect stimulus from the church, and hap])ily imbued with Christian sentiments, have done extensive works of charity. Where there is separation of church and state, as in the case of education, th<'re are both denominational and i)ublic institutions. The (pies- tion immediately arises, as with the schools, whether KltrcA'I'ION'. CIIAIM'I'Y. KIOI'OIOI. 601 thero is iicimI for liolli. Sonic su^-^csl lli;it llic in- stitutions of clijiiily should iill Ix' tui-ucd over si(l(>s I'Ciisons of dcnoniiuiit ional ])oli('y, tlici'c is si ill ;uhi:il room and ^rtsil need for all llial now exist an«l more Ix'sidcs. Nor is it wise or Christian to turn over all i»hilanlhro|>i(' woi'k to Hie secular anlhorities; for in addition to thi' elmck on inisniaua^])orl unity and the stimulus for Cliiislian i;i\iiii;' which these institutions brinj;'. Ther<' niiiilil lie some sort of state supervision wliich would not inlei'fere with individual or rt'li^ious liberty, and in some places the presence of some notable ])ublic cliaiily may well i-ender unnecessary the establisliment of any similar denominational institutions; but on tlu' whole there seems thus far to be ami>le just ilical ion for the chui'ches to j^o on with their cliarilable work, and vvvu <'Xleii(l it. Regard in <;■ the local ch.nrch as an instrunient of ])ower in the promotion of all (Mirislian enterprises, it is lilt inn' that we should lizaliou, upon the individual Clirislian. No combiiuitious of in- dividuals into societies or churches, nor of these into lai'£;er assoeiations can release each sejtarate Christian fi-om his duly to extend helj) to his fellow- nien who need assistance. T.ul we are here espiM-ially concerned with the matter of chai-ity from the church i»oint of view, and much that is to be said will a]>ply eipially well to Hie duly of llie individual 602 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. Christian ; for in addition to personal and individual help, the church as an organization also has its work in this field, gathering up and directing each sep- arate activity and gift on the part of its members. The larger co-operation with other churches in general work does not relieve the local church from the duty of caring both for its own poor and for those who have no immediate claim upon its bene- ficence. The question of how to perform the duty is one of paramount interest and importance. There are several principles to guide us. In the first place,, there must be the giving of money, or of the neces-^ sities of life; actual gifts of things that are needed, food, raiment, shelter, medicine, — all of which cost money. Whether the money itself should be given,, or the things needed bought for the recipient, would depen'd, of course, upon the circumstances ; but there must be the giving of those things which are needful for the body. "If a brother or a sister be naked, and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled, and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body, what doth it profit?" (James 2:15,16). But along with this giving of necessities there- must be wisdom in the giving, and in the adminis- tration of the gifts. In the sixth chapter of Acts,. we find that the administration of charity occupied the attention of the Apostles when in the daily min- istration of the common fund ot the church at Jerusalem some widows were neglected. The Apostles desired the community to set apart seven men of good report who should be over that business. (Acts 6:1-6.) Thus suitable care was taken in the EDUCATION_, CHARITY, REFORM. 603 very earliest nio\'ement of the church's charities that they should be wisely and impartially distributed. In 2 Cor. 8:10-23, Paul gives us valuable hints as to the care which should be taken in administering the fund for the necessity of the saints. He shows how Titus and other brethren were chosen by the churches to assist in the distribution of this bounty, and that he did this to avoid any criticism, ''provid- ing honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men." Another phase of this subject, too, is presented by the Apostle in I Tim. 5:3-16, where he lays down some very sensible regulations as to the character of the persons who should receive the bounty of the church. The aged, the destitute and the worthy widows were to be ac- cepted without hesitation, and eared for, but in cases of families who had widows among them, they were to i)r()vide for their own, the Apostle distinctly de- claring that the man who provides not for his own household has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. The church was not to be burdened with those who wei^ not actually in need of its help, or who were unworthy to receive it. Again, Paul seems to have anticipated the modern tram]) evil in 2 Thess. 3 :10, where he declares that those who were unwilling to work, should not eat. We thus see that the duty of the churches to exercise wise care in the administration of their charities is very plain. The deacons are usually charged with the ad- ministration of charities, and very rightly; for that seems to have been the i)rimary intention of their office, but tile j.astor also will naturally be con- cerned in this matter; and, moreover, it should not ■604 WORK AM) WOUSIIIP OF CHURCH. be confined to the pastor and deacons, but the mem- bers of the church, and the church in its official capacity, ought to exercise some care. Great deli- cacy is needed in the administration of charities. Sometimes persons who actually need help are too proud to ask for it, while others who do not need it, are only too forward in seeking it. To reject the unworthy and to find out the really worthy is one of the church's delicate and peculiar duties. It is not right that everybody who asks for help should receive it. Churches, as well as individual Chris- tians, often do harm by giving to impostors who ought to be at work instead of being allowed to beg. Often it is mere sentimentality and unwillingness to look into things, which allows Christian people and churches to be careless in the distribution of alms. In modern times the Associated Charities Societies have been found very helpful both to churches and to individuals in relieving them from the incessant appeals of impostors and unworthy, beggars. It is well for the pastors and some of the leading members of the churches in cities to be conected with these associations, and when appli- cants who are unknown present themselves as ob- jects of aid, they should be promptly referred to the Associated Charities Society. Usually, however, the <;hurch will find among its own and well known members those who need occasional, and some who need permanent, help. In the case of the aged and the sick, there can be little question as to the church's duty; but sometimes it is necessary to withdraw help when it is found that the persons re- ceiving it are becoming pauperized, that is, depend- EDUCATION, CHARITY, REFOIIM. 605 ing upon the church rather than upon their own exertions. In addition to giving- and administering the things that are necessary for the body, there must be per- sonal contact. In the wonderful description of the Final Judgment given by our Lord in Matt. 25:34-40, there is a vision of those who come and are rewarded because tliey have ministered to the Lord when he was sick and in prison and distressed; and when the^^ express their surprise, he says to them ; "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye liave done it unto me." No one who has ever r6ad or heard it can ever forget the beautiful saying of the apostle James (1:27) : "Pure religion and undeliled before God and the Father is this: To visit the fatherless and widoAvs in their atHiction, and to keep himself un- spotted from the world." Notwithstanding this classic passage, so often quoted, it yet remains de- plorably true that this branch of Christian charity is greatly neglected by our churches. Too often the duty of personal visitation is relegated entirely to the pastors and the deacons, together with the women's societies or committees of the church. Yet the pastor will have the larger share of this kind of work, and he should unhestitatingly and lovingly perform his duty in this regard. In regard to the relations which the churches sus- tain to Ihe denominational charities a few words must be said. As in the case of missions and edu- cation there must be co-operation among the churches to sustain their benevolent institutions. The work is carried on in the familiar wavs of 606 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH, taking collections in the local cliurclies, having the work of charity discussed in the conventions and as- sociations, and having the institutions managed by boards, committees, managers and the like. As in the case of schools, there is need that these institu- tions of charity be kept in close connection with the churches, and that the churches should exercise suitable control in their management. In addition to this support it is possible for some of the churches to have more immediate contact with special charities. This may sometimes occur in the way of sending their own needy to these institutions. Some churches may have orphans or the aged of their own membership who receive benefit from these institutions, and they have thereby personal interest in their management and success. Sometimes also some member of the local church may be connected with the board of management. And yet again, the churches which are located near any institution of charity have a peculiar privilege in connection with it. Their members may by visits and personal in- spection become familiarized with the workings of the charity, or may be enabled to perform kind of- fices for the inmates, and in various other ways may have such local touch and sympathy as to conduce greatly to their own spiritual growth and to the good of the institution. In addition to the denominational charities which have been mentioned, the churches may sometimes come in contact with public charities, and church- members as citizens will be interested in institu- tions of general public interest. It is right, there- fore, to give some consideration to these. EDUCATION, CHARITY. REFORM. 607 The term "public charities" is usually restricted to those which are supj)orted by taxation; but in the larger use of the phrase it would moan those charities in which the public generally is interested, instead of any special denomination or church, and in this larger sense it is here employed. We might classify such public charities under four leading varieties, viz., tax-supi»(»i (ed institutions, endowed in- stitutions, asssociated charities societies, and occa- sional appeals. Taking up these in their order, we notice first tax-supported institutions. There are many kinds of these, — asylums for the blind, the deaf, the insane and feeble-minded, hospitals, houses of reform, various plans for outdoor relief, that is, for bringing help to the homes of the needy instead of congregating these into houses. Some of these are upon a large scale and supported by the various States. And in addition there are county and muni- cipal institutions, alms-houses, hospitals and local orphanages which are supported by taxation. Next, there are the endowed institutions which are semi- public. They are open to the public, and if well managed the whole people have a pride in them; yet they do not appeal either to taxation or to sub- scription for their support, but derive this from in- vested funds supplied by their founders. There are many of these in different parts of the country, and of all sorts. Some are denominational, but many are not. Usually all are open for any needy without question as to sectarian affliation. Some mention ought to be made of the Associated Charities. These differ somewhat in the different States as to the details of organization, but the general purpose of 608 WORK AND AYORSIIIP OF CHURCH. these societies is not directly to dispense alms, but rather to investigate cases of need and put these in connection witli individual or church charities. Sometimes these societies dispense fuel and other things. They have had a very happy effect in many of our cities as regards both local impostors and the general army of tramps that infest the land. And thus, as we have seen, they may be valuable auxil- iaries to the churches. Besides these forms of charity, mention ought to be made of those appeals occasionally made, which come not to any one class, or church, or individual, but to the public at large. These are usually extra- ordinary needs, calamities; cases like the Charles- ton earthquake of ISSG, the Johnstown flood of 1889, and more recently the Galveston storm, and other similar disasters. Sometimes contributions are called for by public meetings, speeches and appeals of various sorts, and the whole public is interested in these occasional demands for charity. When we raise the question as to what is the proper relation of the churches to these public charities, the answer will vary according to the circumstances. Of course there is no organic con- nection. The churches have no control over public charities and no direct relation to them, as churches; but there is a sympathetic relation, which as Chris- tian bodies they ought to feel in all institutions for the good of humanity. There ought also to be com- prehension of these great works on the part of pas- tors, and of the more intelligent members. Besides all this, it is obvious that sometimes there may be a degree of active co-operation which will be de- EDUCATION_, CHARITY. UKKORM. 60^ tprmined In' the nature of the charity itself and by the circumstances of the case. Sometimes, for ex- ample, there will be call for personal interest and work on the part of the i)astor and members. No one knows how much good may be done by an oc- casional visit from some Christian person to these institutions. Oftentimes what the inmates need more than material hel}) is a sympathetic touch, a reminder of the i)romises of God, or a word or two of fervent and helpful prayer. Sometimes when public meetin<;s, in the interest of these charities, are needed they will naturally be held in churches, and s])!M'ra(tical duty of a church in such cases will necessarily be largely determined by its <>p]»orfuuities and capacities. Some churches for varittus reasons have a greater call than others for work in reformatory measures; yet, in some degree, all the churches are concerned, and their general duly toward these movements may be indicated in the three words — comprehension, sympathy and ef- fort. It is the duty of (Miristian peoi)le to take an intelligent interest in reformatory movements. Christians cannot afford to be ignorant of any good that is going on in their neighborhood. It is not to be ex])ected that all the members of any church would be equally interested in such movements, and naturally the pastors themselves will differ in the amount of knowledge and interest which they have as to these matters; but upon the whole it can be safely said that the churches, through some of their re])resentatives, should have adeipiate knowledge of tlie great movements for human good which are pro- ceeding in the world. It might sometimes be well for certain members of a church interested in social science, or in jtractical social efforts to meet together, read, and have discussions regarding some of these reforms. Occasionally it would be well for the pas- tor to preach sermons that bear ujxm them. If the churches are to be connected in any wise with these modern movements of reform, it ought to he 614: WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. on the basis of a clear intelligence and of as wide knowledge as possible. There ought also to be a deep and real sympathy on the part of the churches toAvard all good reforms. Of course this will be limited by the extent to which any given reform is in accordance with the gospel of Christ, and sometimes also by the character and the methods of the reformers. If a given reform is in accordance with gospel teaching and precedent, and is promoted in ways that commend themselves to the conscience and intelligence of Christian peo- ple, a most earnest and thorough-going sympathy should be felt. How far the churches should take active part in the promotion of reforms will depend upon a good many things, and their course should be guided by the principles just laid down. With a thorough understanding and ready sympathy on the part of the churches of Christ all active effort should be wisely guided. If the reform is good, and the church has opportunity to help it on, this help should be given in accordance with the church's own methods and ideals. Let it not cease to be a church, or to pursue church methods in its help toward reforms. There are many ways in which a church can help on reforms. One of the most common is that of sup- plying from its membership those who will take in- telligent interest along with others in giving en- couragement and success to these enterprises. An- other way is in offering its building sometimes for the use of societies for reform. There is no reason why the anniversary of a temperance society, or of an associated charities organization, should not be EDUCATION, CMIAUITY. REFORM. 615 hospitably entertaiued by a clnii-eh. Sometimes, too, oeeasiou might arise for tinancial help iu the way of taking up collections for the benefit of certain so- cieties of reform. Let it be emphasized in conclusion, that the very best way in which a church can do good in human society is to carry on its work with a high and holy consecration to its divine mission. If a church would be what it ought to be in its worship, its doc- trines, its influence upon the community, in the character of its leaders and members, it Avill do more for human good than it will by abandoning the old- time lines ui)()n wliidi ils activities have been laid out and turning aside into some new by-]»ath of sensationalism and noise. The best reform which any church can seek or hope to effect is to bring in- dividual souls into living contact with Jesus Christ. 616 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. OUTLINE OF (^HAPTER V. SCRIPTURE TEACHING AS TO WORSHIP, I. Old Testament Worship. 1. Survey of its history. (1) Earliest times. (2) Mosaic institutions. (3) The obscure period. (4) Flourishing period. (5) The divided nation. (6) The captivity. (7) Post-exilian times. 2. Inferences. (1) Underlying principles. (2) Component parts. (3) Character of the worshiper, II. New Testament Worship. 1. Its character. (1 ) Related to Old Testament and synagogue. (2) Exemplified in Christ, (3) Taught by Apostles, 2. Its law. (1) Fundamentals permanent. (2) Spirit obligatory. (3) Elements remain. (4) Forms may vary. CHArTER V. WORSIIir OF THE CIirUCHES. SCRII'Tl'RE TEAnilXG. OxE purpose of ohurclips jind of cUm-cli life is to provide for and maintain tlie worship of God. Hence, in our study of Ecclesiology, or tlie doctrine of the church, it is important, not to say indis])ensa- ble, that we take some account of worship. The subject is not commonly treated in books about the church, but in se])arate treatises, or in connection with other subjects, as preaching or pastoral duties. But the matter has an important relation to the church as such, as well as to preaching and the preacher, and therefore, from tlie church ])oint of view, it seems desirable to consider the great duty and i»rivilege of worship. The primary notion of worshi]), involved in the word, is that of giving honor ( worthship) to any per- son deserving it, or worthy of it, and so pre- eminently to God as entitled to all the "worship" which a creature can pay. In Latin it is called cultus, whence our borrowed word "cult." This comes from the verb colere, to care for, to respect; and hence, intensively, to regard as an object of veneration. In Greek several words are used to ex- press the thought, of which one is 'w.zoupyia (Utiirpia), from which comes our word 'liturgy." In the Greek word the thought of service ^f>y<> 617 618 WORK AND WORSHIP OP CHURCH. ergon) comes in. This was true also in the case of the Hebrew al)hodJioh, from a verb meaning to serve. To this conception corresponds the German Gottes- dienst, service of God. These etymologies convey the true idea of worship a.s being reverential service toward God expressed in acts of devotion usually in an assembly, and in a place set apart for the purpose. We need not here take account of the most gen- eral notion of worship which seems to exist among all men; nor discuss at all the various forms of wor-. ship among the heathen nations, ancient i)r modern. Our view is confined to the Avorship of Christian churches, especially Baptist churches; and so we must look for our teaching on this subject first of all to the Word of God. The main question for us is, What does the Bible teach us concerning wor- ship? In seeking an answer to this question we are at once impressed with the fact that, along with great likeness, there is remarkable dift'erence be- tween the teachings of the Old and New Testaments on this subject, and so Ave must study them separately. Students of Scripture are well aware that in the difl'erent periods of Old Testament history different modes of worship prevailed, and it will therefore be necessary to pay some attention to these. Let us first make a survey of the periods of worship in the Old Testament, and then draw such inferences from the descriptions and injunctions as may be helpful to us. In making this brief preliminary surA^ey we are struck with the appearance of worship in the earliest history of the race. Let us recall the sad story of Cain and Abel, of one who offered fruits SCRI PTU RE TE AC II I N (i. 619 of the ji-nmiul with pride and self-righteonsness, and the other who offered the more acceptable sacrifice of a slain lamb, whose shed blood probably be- tokened the need of giving- life as atonement for sin. Let us observe the statement in Gensis 4 :2G, where after the notice of the birth of Enoch, it is said: "Then began men to call npon the name of Jehovah." Whatever difficulties, historical and exegetical, the language in this passage may have, it indicates with emphasis the existence in antediluvian times of a marked epoch in which man worshiped God. This dim, far-off period is further enlightened for us by the singular character of Enoch (Gen. 5:26), the one who '"walked with God and was not, for God took him." Amid the corruption just before the Flood we find Noah (Gen. 6:8) a "'preacher of righteousness," who found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Thus we clearly see traces of worship even in these dark and briefly noticed times preceding the great overthrow of the Flood. Just after the Deluge we observe the sacrifice which Noah offered (Gen. 8:20), where the altar is first mentioned, though it must have been in use be- fore. In Gen. 12:l-.'> we have the mementous occa- sion of the call of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees to go out from his kindred, who were idolaters, and to establish afresh the true worship of God. In obedience to this divine command the old Patriarch pursued his westward journey, and almost every time mention is made of him it is said that "he built an altar and called on the name of the Lord." When Jacob was fleeing from the wrath of his justly of- fended brother, he lighted upon a certain place 620 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. where, we are told, there was vouchsafed to him, conscience-stricken as he must have been, and sin- ning as he certainly was, a vision of the divine glory. In the morning, awaking from his dreams, with an awe and reverence that speak to the heart of every reader of the narrative, he said, "This is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven." Returning from his wanderings and suf- ferings, a chastened and subdued man, not now with his staff alone, but made by divine grace and bless- ing into two bands, he is found at the lonely ford of Jabbok wrestling all the night long with the angel of God, giving us a picture of the faithful seeker of God in prayer, that lasts through all the centuries to this day. And later we find him urging his neglectful household to put away the strange gods that were among them, and to arise and go up to Bethel, and call sincerely and powerfully once more upon the name of the true God of his father and grandfather. So we see in the patriarchal age, not very many, but marked and beautiful traces of the ■sincere worship paid, not to the multitudous divini- ties of the heathen mythology, but to the one God, Creator of heaven and earth. Concerning the worship of the Israelites in the days of the Egyptian bondage, there are scanty, if any, traces. But we may safely infer that the true worship of God was much dei)ressed among the downtrodden and sorely afflicted Israelites. It was perhaps injured also by contact with the peculiarly repulsive and gross idolatry of the Egyptians. Yet, we should perhaps be very far astray if we deem that the worship of the true God was wholly lost. SCRIPTCRE TEACHING. 621 even in such a time as that. There were doubtless those who waited for the consolation of Israel even then, and preserved in their times the traditional worship of their fathers. Are we not safe in imagin- ing that in the home of Amram, the brothers who were to be the future priest and lawgiver of the Tsraelitish race, were taught from their youth, the one in his constant abiding and the other in his occasional visits, in the parental home, something of Jehovah and his worship? When the children of Israel emerge from Egypt under the leadership of Moses, and receive at his hands the laws from God concerning their future national life and religious worship, a very different state of affairs dawns upon us.* So we come now to consider Avorship as it is displayed in the Mosaic institutions. The divine revelation came through Moses, and Israel was very largely occui)ied with the ordinances of worship. The elaborate sacriMces and offerings, the laws con- cerning the ])riesthood, the vows, the great feasts, the tabernacle with its furniture, the altars, the ark of tlie covenant, kejit in the most holy ]»lace — all these show how large a ]»lace the worship of God oc- cupied in the provisions of the Mosaic economy. Soon after the Exodus these institutions were es- tablished as a part of the very life of Israel, and in their main features, with seasons of neglect and re- vival, they held sway through all the subsec|uent Old Testament history. After the death of Aaron and Moses we fall upon * The author is greatly indebted throug-hout the subsequent discussion to the profound and suggestive work of Oehler, Old Testament Theology. 622 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. an obscure period in Israel's history-, especially as regards the matter of worship. From the time of Joshua to the establishment of the kingdom under David, the notices of worship are not very frequent or full. There were some grave irregularities, as in the case of Micah and the Danites, mentioned in the seventeenth and eighteenth chapters of Judges, and some fearful abuses, as in the case of Eli's sons (2 Samuel 2:12-25), but upon the whole the indications are that the Mosaic worship was fairly well kept up. Yet there was not absolute strictness about it; for we find that Samuel, who was not a priest, though a Levite, offered sacrifices, and at other places than at the tabernacle, yet he sharply rebuked Saul for pre- suming to offer sacrifice contrary to law. We might say that this assumption on the part of Samuel was due to his prophetic character, or was authorized by special command or intimation from God. It was, however, exceptional. After Samuel's time we come to the flourishing period in Israel's life and worship. With the es- tablishment of the kingdom under David and Solo- mon, the worship of Jehovah took on a new phase, and had a larger place in the national life than it had probably e\^r held. Two things of special interest mark this period. One was the great atten- tion given to music, both vocal and instrumental, in the worship of David's time. Numerous singers were appointed. David himself was a musician and poet of great genius. The melodies of the Psalms are set to various kinds of instruments. The trumpets, the stringed instruments, the psalteries, and possibly something akin to the pipe, were in SmiPTrUK TEACHING. 623 •common use in the temple services. The other thing was the removal of the tabernacle to Jerusalem and the building and consecration of the temple of Solo- mon. The establishment of the temple upon Mount Zion as the central feature of national life was an event of the utmost importance, not only to Israel, but to the true worship of God in all subsequent ages. From the Acropolis at Athens a stream of culture and art has flowed in rich profusion through all civilization; from the Forum and the Capitol by the side of the Tiber, government and law have wrap- ped the earth in their embrace; but from the holy hill of Zion the I'salms of praise unto God, and the Law that is above all laws; yea, the excellency of God himself hnth sliined forth in perpetual blessing to all mankind. After this period of glory and power, we come to the sad time of the divided nation. In Judah, with lips and downs according to the influence of the court. ])ublic worship was still maintained, but certainly not on so splendid a scale as under David and Solomon. Jeroboam, seeing the political influ- ence which the worship at Jerusalem must exert, with shrewd instinct, but with a sinful heart that is painfully depicted in every mention of him there- after, set up calves in Bethel and JDan, and invited the people to worshi]) there, making priests even of ^^the lowest of the ])eople. and set^king to divert his subjects from the true worship at Jerusalem ; for this mournful refrain describing his sin recurs again and again in the Scripture narrative, "■Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin." He also made high places, and provided a priesthood and sacrifices. 624 WORK AND WORSHIP OP CHURCH. He undertook to sap the vei\y foundation of the religion of the people, and to turn their hearts from the rightful worship of their fathers. However much we might sympathize with his revolt from the absurd and wicked folly of Rehoboam, Ave can find only condemnation for his corruption of the people. In both parts of the divided nation during this corrupt and declining period of its history, it is interesting to note the rise and influence of the prophets. They were the preachers of their age. And in this and the following times the use of speech in teaching, exhortation and warning becomes a more important element in the religious life of the people, and probably in some connection with the worship. This brings us to the mournful epoch of the Capti- vity. In the prophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel we have some references to the worshij). private and perhaps also in assemblies, of the people. As to music, we have a very pathetic, and at the same time suggestive, reference in the 137th Psalm : "By the rivers of Babylon, There we sat down, yea, we wept, When we remembered Zion. Upon the willows in the midst thereof We hanged up our harps. For there they that led us captive required of us songs. And they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the Lord's song In a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, SCRIPTURE TEACHING. 625 Let my right hand forget her cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth. If I remember thee not ; If I prefer not Jerusalem Abore my chief joy." In later times, notices in the Book of Esther, though there is no direct mention either of God or of worship in the book, indicated that the Jews of the Dispersion had forms of worship, for we find that they were gathered together upon certain days, and that Esther and her companions and Mordecai were to fast before she went in to the king. Possibly the synagogue came into being during the Captivity, or at least the suggestion of it arose in the assemblies of the people during this sad time. Coming to the post-exilian times, we have several items of great interest in regard to the worship of Israel. There was the rebuilding of the temple, and the re-establishment of the stated and local worship. In the 8th chapter of Nehemiah an important occur- rence is related. The people were gathered together in one great assembly "into the broad place that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel. And Ezra, the priest, brought the law before the congregation, both men and women, and all that could hear with under- standing, upon the first day of the seventh month. And he read therein before the broad place that was before the water gate from early morning until mid- day, in the presence of the men and women, and of those that could understand; and the ears of all the f'626 WORK AND WORSHIP OP CHURCH. people were attentive unto the book of the law. And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood which they had made for the purpose And they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading." Here we have the reading and exposition of the law — a. kind of preaching — to the assembly, a great con- gregation outside of the temple. Whether this was an entirely new thing, or had been begun during the experiences of the Captivity, it is impossible to say. It is commonly supposed, too, that about this time the synagogue, as a permanent institution of Judaism, was established, and that throughout the length and breadth of the land after the return from captivity these places and assemblies for worship were henceforth a permanent institution. Passing from this hasty survey of the history of the Israelitish worship, we may proceed to draw some inferences for our own instruction. Let us try to discover the underlying principle of worship and its expression. Oehler says that worship recognizes the divine ownership, and must be the people's 'expression in act of that recognition ; that is, worship Is the act of communion between a God who has chosen a people for himself and a people who conse- crate themselves to God. The outward acts of wor- ship, prayer, sacrifice and praise are expressions of this double truth. Thus prayer and praise require a God who hears, and sacrifices require one who accepts. These acts are not mere symbols, but are also means divinely appointed by which that com- munion between God and man may be realized to the worshiper, though not effected as by a cause. This SCRIPTURE TEACHING. 627 seems to be the underlying principle of worship as it exists in the Old Testament economy. We should notice also the component parts of Old Testament worship as these were finally completed after the Captivity. Gathering them up in order, we find sacrifice; and prayer, both private and public; and praise, vocal and instrumental ; and reading of the law; and exhortation, either direct (prophetic) or expository and hortatory, based upon the Scriptures. All these, except sacrifice, were es- pecially characteristic of the synagogue worship, and they are worthy of notice for the important influence which they had upon the subsequent developments of worship. Now when we come to consider the character of this worship, we may naturally infer that it would vary with the character of the worshiper, according as that avoided or approached insincerity and formal- ism. There was always danger here, but these abuses were often powerfully rebuked by the prophets. Some of their sternest denunciations, as in Jeremiah and Micah, were against the insincerity and hollow- ness of worship. We might say that the idea of a devout and spiritual worship under the Old Dispen- sation was about like this: It was the act of one who deeply felt and earnestly strove to give suitable expression to three pairs of truths, namely, God's sovereignty and his dependence; God's holiness and his sinfulness ; God's grace and his gratitude. And these things remain and must ever remain the basis of any true worship of the living God. Let us now consider the worship that is unfolded to our view in the New Testament. There is no 628 WORK AND WORSHIP OP CHURCH. sudden jar in passing from the worship of the Old Testament to that of the New; still less do we find any antagonism between the two. Yet there is great and marked difference which we must feel. We here consider the character of the New Testament wor- ship; and its law, imposing obligation upon Chris- tians, both as churches and individuals, in all times. In discussing the character of the New Testament worship we first consider how it was related to the worship of the Old Testament and of the synagogue ; for in this evidently lies both the historical and religious basis of the New Testament worship. In fact the actual worship described in the New Testa- ment is a transition from that of the Old Testament to that of the Christian church. It is not exactly like either, and yet is vitally related to both. While the principal element in the Old Testament service is sacrifice, in the New Testament the didactic and hortatory elements are emphasized. Elaborate ritual marks that of the Old Testament, severe simplicity that of the New. The depression of the idea of sacri- fice in the New Testament is due to the emphasis placed on spirituality, and also more definitely to the fact that the Fulfiller of the types and symbols of the Old Testament had now come and opened the New Dispensation, and offered himself as a sacrifice. Just after New Testament times, the destruction of the temple and the scattering of the Jews through- out all nations, historically ended the era of ritual and sacrifice. When that momentous event occurred it found the Christian church, the new spiritual I-srael; substituted ■ for the ancient theocracy, and ready for a change in the mode of worship. No doubt SCRIPTURE TEACHING. 629 also the coming of Gentile elements into the churches had inflnenoe in doing away with the notion of sacri- fice; though this statement is perhaps to be qualified, when we remember that in many of the heathen religions there were also elaborate sacrifices. Yet in abandoning idolatry and realizing its degrading features, the Gentile Christian had probably come to entertain considerable repugnance toward heathen festivals and feasts. Both in Romans and in 1 Cor- inthians, the apostle Paul discusses the matter of eating meats that had been offered to idols, in such a way as to show that there were many who regarded this practice with abhorrence, while others looked upon it as a matter of indifference, because the idol was nothing in the world. The form of worship in the synagogues of course omitted sacrifices, as these were legally offered only at the temple. This also prepared the way for the worship of the Christian churches. The parts of the service of the synagogues were the four elements of prayer, praise, reading of the Scriptures, and exhortation ; and these all easily, naturally and permanently passed on into the Christian churches and are preserved among us to this day. The first Christians were Jews, and as such they observed the sacrifices of the law until the destruction of Jerusalem; but already the Epistle to the Hebrews shows us that the great sacrifice of Christ annulled by fulfillment the older sacrifices of the Mosaic law; and of the Gentile converts, of course, no sacrifices were required. The observance of the ordinances, especially the Lord's Supper, pointed back to that great sacrifice to which the ofiferings under the law pointed forward, and these 630 WORK AND WORSHIP OP CHURCH. simpler rites displaced the more elaborate ceremonies of the temple. The second question in regard to the New Testa- ment worship is, How was it exemplified in the* actions and teachings of Christ? Our Lord as a worshiper would be good subject for investigation and exposition. No doubt the twelve-year-old boy engaged in the worship of the temple on his visit there with his parents. He was a frequent, doubtless an habitual, attendant at the synagogues; for we are told that "as his custom was on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue to worship." He twice, with the fiery zeal of an old prophet cleansed the temple of unspiritual traffickers who degraded its holy precincts ; yet we find him teaching the woman Samaria that particular places are not essential to spiritual worship. He paid the temple tax and at the same time declared his exemption from the claim. He preached from a passage in Isaiah in the syna- gogue at Nazareth, but apparently without a text in that of Capernaum; and so, on the mountain, by the sea, in his walks, in the homes of the people, sometimes to the multitudes, sometimes to a few, and sometimes even to one inquirer, we find him pro- claiming the great truths which he had come into the world to establish and send on. No doubt he often prayed with others, but we know how he loved to pray alone. So he teaches his disciples to pray together, and carefully enjoins secret devotion. As to the matter of singing, who can fail to recall the closing scene at the Last Supper when "they sang a hymn and went out into the Mount of Olives"? We surely infer that our Saviour himself joined in SCRIPTURE TEACHING. 631 the song. Is it wrong to imagine that he even led it? Is it wrong to imagine sometliing of tlie (piality. the softness, the expressiveness of his voice as he led in sacred song? Shall not holy song be for ever sanctified to us in the thought that Jesus sang? If at the close of the Supper, may we not also infer that he sang at other times, and that with him, as with his ancestor David, it was one way in which he poured out his soul unto God? We have the strongest impression,both from his example and his teaching, that the worship which he enjoins and exemplifies, should be at once genuine, simple and spiritual. Another question of importance is. How do we find the New Testament worship set forth in the example and precepts of the Apostles? Early in the history (Acts 1:12-14) we find the little band of believers worshiping together in an upper room at Jerusalem. The distingiiishing feature of this first worship was prayer and sui)pli('ation, but soon (Acts 1 :15-2:14) we find Peter gx)eaking and exhorting from Ihe Scrip- tures, addressing himself first to the brethren and then to the multitude. We find that they continued to wor- ship in the temple (Acts 2:46-3:lf.), and to meet with their Jewish brethren in the synagogues (Acts G:9) to ^'dispute," but no doubt to worship. It was Paul's established custom to go to the synagogues of his fellow-countrymen; and toward the close of his career he goes to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices^ and is found and assaulted in the temple. But there- was also other worship. Remember Lydia and the little band on the river's brink on a Sabbath morn- ing near Philippi, where a place of prayer was^ and where the Lord opened her heart that she attended 632 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. unto the things that were spoken by Paul; nor let Uj3 forget the gatherings in private houses, in upper rooms, in hired dwellings and in schools. Paul went to the ''school of one Tyrannus." That might have been the first, but certainly it has not been the last time that Christian worship was conducted in a school-house. In all this we find by statement and inference that the use of Serii)ture — reading, exposition, exhorta- tion, was a part of the worship; also that prayer was; but what of singing? Nothing is said of this especially in regard to the worship, but how can we forget those songs of praise at mid-night in the inner prison at Philippi, where with lacerated backs and feet fast in the stocks, but with joyous hearts and loosened tongues, Paul and Silas sang praises unto God? We cannot doubt that what was done in the prison was a reminisence of the public worship of God. They had sung with their brethren the songs of praise connected with their worship. We cannot doubt that this was an accepted and well established part of the earliest Christian worship. When we come to the Epistles of Paul, we find clear light. He charges Timothy as to the prayers, those of public worsliip (1 Tim. 2:1,2), and also as to the reading, exhortation, the teaching (1 Tim. 4 :13). The reading here referred to, is very properly regarded by many commentators to be the public reading of the Scriptures in worship. In two well known passages (Eph. 5 :19,20 ; Col. 3 :1G) he emphati. cally enjoins the worship of song: "Speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songa, singing and making melody with your heart to the SCRIPTURE TEACHING. 633 Lord." Some think that Paul twice quotes hymns (Eph. 5:14) : "Awake, thou that sleepest, And arise from the dead, And Christ shall shine upon thee," and in 1. Timothy 3:16: "He who was manifested in the flesh. Justified in the Spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world. Received up in glory." This may not be j)oetry, but the clauses have a certain relation to each other, and it is not impossi- ble that these are fragments of early Christian Jiymns, which have under the Apostle's pen become part of the divinely inspired Word. So there can be no question as to what were the elements of New Testament worship; prayer, praise, reading of the Scriptures, and teaching or exhortation. As to the observance of the ordinances, these were probably held in connection with the worship. At Troas we find that after the celebration of the Supper, which was doubtless connected with other parts of the worship, Paul preached on far into the night. In regard to baptism we do not know, but it is not unlikely that some worship was held in con- nection with this ordinance also. As to the spirit of this service of worship, it is hardly necessary to adduce passages of proof; that 634 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH, lies upon the surface, and yet penetrates to the bosom of it all. No reader of the New Testament can fail to mark the qualities that characterize its worship. It was sincere, reverent, devout toward God; and toward man it was eminently practical and tending to edification. Would it were ever so ! A few things must be said concerning the law of the New Testament worship. By this is meant whether the worship set forth in Scripture is still the law for Christian people and Christian churches. If this be granted, then to what extent must there be reproduction of the elements of that worship, and to what extent may additions and changes be admitted? The fundamental principles of worship as ex- hibited in the Bible, bath the Old and the New Testa- ments, are perpetual and unchangeable. True wor- ship must ever be based, as we saw in speaking of the Old Testament service, upon the recognition on the part of the worshipers of God's power and our dependence, of God's holiness and our sin, of God'g grace and our gratitude. Nothing can disturb this sacred foundation of worship, and there can be no true worship of Almighty God without the recogni- tion of these six respectively corresponding princi- ples. Likewise the spirit of scriptural worship is of perpetual obligation. Our Lord teaches us this very plainly, and as was said awhile ago, it lies upon the surface of the whole New Testament description and teaching. To be acceptable to God worship must be sincere, simple, devout and reverential. The four great elements of worship must remain : SCRIPTURE TEACHING. 635 prayer, praise, the reading of the Scripture, and teaching or preaching. They are the well established custom of all Christian churches in all ages and coun. tries, with occasional and eccentric exceptions. Of course in some cases one or more of these elements may be omitted according to the circumstances, and they may be variously combined, but there is no good reason for change. Whatever novelties we may intro- duce to render the service attractive, or to save it from being monotonous or ritualistic, they must be in the re-arrangement or combination of some or all of these four essential parts of Christian worship. As to forms of worship, there is no New Testament rule prescribing these. There is here the greatest room for differences of opinion and practice. There has been and there continues to be every variety among the different Christian bodies. Still it hardly admits of question that elaborate ritual is contrary to the simplicity of the New Testament worship, and formalism is certainly beyond all doubt utterly opposed to its spirit. On the other hand there is no requirement demanding the extreme of bareness and the absence of all form. We ought not to forget that our Lord gave to his disciples a model of prayer, and yet in the very same eoniieclion warned them against bareness and vain repetitions. We do not know just how the first Christians wor- shiped, and so cannot establish a perfectly clear pre- cedent from the New Testament in this regard, but one thing is certain, the necessities of a becoming public worship demand order and not confusion. 636 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. OUTLINE OF CHArTER VI. HISTORICAL SKETCH OP WORSHIP. I. The Early Centuries, 70-590. 1. Importance of the period, 2. Facts as to worship. (1) Places. (2) Seasons. (3) Elements. (4) The ordinances. II. The Middle Ages, 590-1517. 1. Architecture. 2. Scripture reading, and preaching. 3. Liturgies. 4. Music. 6. Festivals. 7. Perversions and superstitions. III. Modern Times, 1517 — present time. 1. The Greek and Roman Churches. 2. The liturgical Protestant churches. 3. The non-liturgical churches. CtlxVPTEK VI. WORSHIP OF TUB CHURCHES, HISTORICAL SKETCH. It is scarcely possible to overestimate the im- portance of the historical point of view in studj'ing (Mii-istian woi-sliip. \>\' ( aiuiot understand the great subject at all without some knowledge of the history. Here of course we can only take a brief and very hasty survey of the principal matters involved. Great works on Church History usually give tolerably com- plete accounts of the customs prevalent in each age in regard to public worship; and besides there are numerous special treatises on Christian Antiquities wherein worship finds more detailed discussion. The works of liinglunii, Coleman, Kiddle. (Tuericke and others, may be studied with profit. In addition to these there are various works devoted especialh' to different parts of worship, hymnologj% architecture, liturgies, preaching and otluM- iiiarters. For the brief ontliiie Iumc pi()i»osed the hislory of worship falls within the three large periods of cliurch history. The Early Centuries, A. 1).. 7(>-.')!)(); the Middle Ages, 590-1517; and Modern Times, 1517 to the present time. We accordingly give our attention first to the development during the early centuries, that is, from the fall of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, to Pope Gregory the Great, in 590. The general im- portance and interest of this period in its bearing 637 638 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. on the history of the church and of the world is universally admitted; and in nothing does the great significance of the age appear more impressive than in relation to Christian worship. In A. D. 70 the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed by the victorious Romans. The Christian Jews henceforth had no more a divided worship — Christianity was all to them. The synagogues, indeed, remained, but the sacrifices were ended forever. It is fair to regard, therefore, the dispersion of the Jews after the de- struction of Jerusalem as a turning point in the char- acter and modes of Christian worship. Looking at the other terminus, A. D. 590, we find at Rome the great bishop, Gregory I. He was not only active in con- solidating the power of the papacy, in settling many of the doctrines and canons of the church, but he was also very influential in fixing that elaborate liturgical worship that had been slowly growing up through the preceding centuries. Between the limits of the periods thus marked out lies a wonderful age of transition, of development, of preparation for coming ages, in regard to worship, as well as to life and doctrine in the church. About midway, that is, in the year 325, was held the Council of Nicaea. From this time Christian history, life, doctrine and worship entered upon new lines of development. When the Emperor Constantine took Christianity under the imperial protection and patronage a new era dawned upon the church and the world. It afl'ected the life of the church in every way, and not less notably in worship than in other things. When Christianity became fashionable its worship took on a new phase. It became more worldly and less HISTOUICAL SKETCH. 639 devout, more showy and less simple, more formal and less genuine. The influences thus started have been unhappily permanent. Christian worship in the Catholic Church and in liturgical bodies has never recovered its pristine simplicity and pui-ity. We must notice more in detail some of the elements of worship within this period. In regard to tbe place of worship there is much to interest us. In apostolic times the Christians worshiped in synagogues and private houses. In times of persecution they had places of worship in fields, mountains, caves and catacombs; but these were not all. Coleman says.* "There is satisfactory evidence of the existence of such churches [he means buildings] in the latter part of the second century, and that Christians were allowed to appropriate to themselves such places of worship undc^r the emperors from A. D. 222 to 235, and again from 260 to 300." These intervals were those in which persecution was allowed to lapse. According to Riddlef houses of worship were called by different names. He says the word curiacon from which, as we have seen, our English word "church" is derived, occurred first in writings of the fourth century and then in official and public documents. Corre- spondingly in Latin the building was called domini- cum, both words meaning the Lord's place, or the Lord's house. Sometimes the place is called domus Dei, the house of God, in Latin. In Eusebius' day it was sometimes called, the "house of the church," the word ccclesia being confined to the assembly. * Priviitice Christiavity, ch. xiii., ^ 1.. t Christian Antiquities, b. vi„ chap, 1, 640 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. But the word ecclesia soon come to denote the build- ing as well as the assembly. There were many Christian churches in various provinces of the Roman empire during the third century. Early in the fourth century, that is, about the year 302 and following, when the Diocletian persecution broke out, man}' houses of worship were leveled to the ground. This shoAvs that there had been considerable building before that time. When Constantine became emperor his encouragement of Christianity led to the rebuilding of many churches ; besides that, he himself is said to have founded and constructed a great many ; and some of the heathen temples were turned into churches. In regard to the sacred seasons there was develop- ment. Sunday, "the Lord's day," so called in the book of Revelation, early became the regular day of worship. In Pliny's famous letter to Trajan, written early in the second century, concerning the Christians in Bithynia, the fact is mentioned that the Christians met stato die, on a stated day. No doubt this was Sunday, '^'the Lord's day." Justin Martyr tells us "that on Sunday all the Christians, living either in the city or country, met together. The leading presbyter, after the Scriptures had been read, addressed the congregation; then they cele- brated the Lord's Supper, offered up pra^-er, and sent some portions of the consecrated elements to those who were sick at home." Tertullian describes the principal parts of Christian worship as "the solemnities of the Lord's day." The day was regarded as a festival. It commemorated the resur- rection of our Lord from the dead, and wa"s"thus HISTORICAL SKETCH. 641 fraught with holy joy. It was commonly called among Christians themselves ''the Lord's day," in order to distinguish it ; but among the heathen it reserved its common name of Sunday. In the early ages it was never called the Sabbath, as that term was reserved for the Jewish Sabbath. Under Con- stantine and his successors some legal restrictions were thrown around the Lord's day, and its sanctity was preserved. Some say from this that Constantine really established the Christian Sabbath, but such an inference is wide of the mark. He only legalized under civil law what had already been established as a religious institution from apostolic times. The other festivals of the church grew up slowly. Easter was the earliest of the church festivals, and the observance of it dated back to very ancient times. Early in the second century the time of the observ- ance was the subject of dispute. Pentecost (Whit- sunday) was the next in order. It is mentioned by Irenreus and Tertullian in the second century. The fifty days (quiuquagesima) were spent as a "con- tinuous Sunday" (Schaff.) The feast of Epiphany, (January 6th), was also of early origin, in the second or third century, and originally commemo- rated, as its name indicates, the appearance of the Lord in the flesh, and thence his baptism, to which other items were added later. Says Riddle (p. 656) : ''The feast of the Nativity, or Christmas, was intro- duced during the fourth century. After the establishment of this festival a kind of system was introduced by which the different festivals of the church began to be regarded with reference to their object rather than, as formerly, to their date and 642 WORK AND WORSHIP OP CHURCH. origin." Before the close of the fourth century we find a three-fold cycle of sacred seasons, by which the personal history of our Saviour was represented in a kind of chronological order. Each of the three different feasts represented some leading idea, and stood in connection with other festivals, before and -after it, by way of preparation or companionship. These three principal feasts were Christmas, Easter and Whitsuntide. The parts of worship were the four scriptural ones of prayer, praise, Scripture reading, and preaching. In the period before the Council of Nicaea the prayers were not liturgy, but mostly free; yet even in these earlier times there were germs of liturgical worship, as we see from the Didache and other sources. But the events of the fourth century gave wonderful im- pulse to this development, and forms of prayer soon came to be the established custom, and they have never been dislodged from the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches, nor from some of the Protestant bodies. It seems that the earliest form of prayer arose in the use of the Lord's Prayer. It is men- tioned in the Apostolical Constitutions. That work cannot be placed earlier than the third century ; but Tertullian, Cyprian and Origen show that the Lord's Prayer was beginning to be used as a form in their time. Up to and including the fifth century, the use of this prayer was restricted to actual communi- cants in the church, as it was felt that no other had a right to address God as "our Father." The earliest regular forms used in worship were ejaculatory, such as "amen;" "hallelujah;" "the Lord have mercy on us" (Kyrie eleison) ; "glory to God in the highest" HISTORICAL SKETCH. 643 (Gloria in excelsis) ; "the Lord be with you" [Dominus voUscum) ; "lift up your hearts" {Sursum corda), and others. The Kyrie cleison "Lord have mercy," early l)ecame a response in the church among the worshipers, and remains in both Greek and Koman churclips of to-day. It was not trantslated into the Latin, but the Greek form was preserved somewhat corrupted, as in the case of the Hebrew, "amen," hallelujah," and "hosannah." One of the most solemn and beautiful of these early forms is the Swsum corda, "Lift up your hearts," address- ed to the worshipers, just before the Lord's Supper, and to which the congregation responded, Hahemus ad Dominum, "We have them toward the Lord." Cyprian is said to be the earliest writer who men- tions the use of this formula in public worship, and on this account it has been commonly attributed to him as its author; but the manner in which he speaks of it in his treatise on the Lord's Prayer .^hows plainly that it had been introduced before his time, and was in general and well-known use when he wrote. The Apostolical Constitutions mention a form of prayer, first for the catechumens; then for energumens; then for the candidates for baptism, called competentcs ', then for the penitents, and finally when these all had been dismissed, the prayer for the faithful — missa fidclium. Of praise, or psalmody, there was early mention, as we saw in the preceding chapter. Undoubtedly it was of Hebrew origin, from the temple and syna- gogue services. Tn the earliest ages the psalms ^-ere chanted. There were also "responses," as they were called, which were perhaps verses chanted in 644 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. unison by the people. The letter of Pliny to Trajan, before mentioned, written about the year 114, men- tions a sort of antiphonal singing on the part of the Christians in Bithynia. His language is that "they sang together a hymn to Christ as to God." The word translated "together" {invicem), however, may also mean they sang in turn, or responsively, to each other. Riddle says : "It is remarkable that not only have no hymns of the first and second centuries come down to us, but not even the name of any hymn writer belonging to that period has been recorded." Later, however, there were both hymns and hymn writers, and the singing of hymns was a part of the worship. The heretics made hymns and endeavored to propagate their doctrines in that way. They were met in two ways. One was by composing orthodox hymns, and the other was, in some places, by wholly forbidding the use of hymns in public worship, other than the Psalms. Responsive choral singing seems to have originated in the East. It was introduced, or at least encouraged, in the West by Ambrose, the celebrated bishop of Milan, who took great interest in singing, and from whom the Ambrosian mode of singing is named. From the Latin Church there remain no hymns of an earlier date than the middle of the fourth century. Hilary of Poitiers was the first, or among the first, to compose Latin hymns; but the Roman Catholic Church, as we shall see in the next period, made wonderful strides in this department of Christian worship after it had once been introduced. Gregory the Great also, at the close of the early period, paid much attention to the psalmody of the church. The style of music HISTORICAL SKETCH. 645 which he favored and helped on was of a more solemn and stately kind than that of Ambrose, and is called from him the ( Jregoi-ian melody. In ref^ard to the reading of the Scriptures, this came, as we have seen, directly from the synagogue worship into the Christian churches, and has existed probably without a break from the apostolic times. And in the earliest account we have of worship after the Ai)ostles — that of Justin Martyr in the second century — the reading of the Scriptures by an appointed reader is mentioned. In the Apostolic CoustifutionJi the reading of lessons out of the Scripture is reckoned among the chief parts of public worship. Origen also mentions the use of Scripture in public and private, and Chrysostom seemed to regard the public reading of the Scriptures as the center of the whole worship. (It may be permitted here to remark that the most eloquent preacher of ancient times, and possibly of any time, sets the modern preacher a good example in emphasizing the reading of God's word more than his own performance.) Chrysostom also indicates that the reading of the Scriptures was by regular appointment, so that certain parts were read in course and according to certain appointed divisions. We know that the division into chapters and verses arose much later; but ali-eady, probably in imitation of the custom of the synagogue, certain portions were appointed for particular times, and out of this speedily grew the habit, yet retained in the liturgical churches, of having portions of Scripture appointed for all the feast days, and even all the days of the year. In earlier times the selection was left to the 64:6 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. discretion of the bishop, but later it was appointed by church authority. It was the practice for both the reader and the congregation to stand during the reading of the Scripture, certainly in some places and periods. This custom still survives in places in Germany and Switzerland. As to preaching, this consisted in the earlier times of reading a passage of Scripture and commenting upon it, and these expositions were called homilies, "talks," from which our word "homiletics" is derived. But the homily grew into a more orderly and set speech, and in the times of Chrvsostom, following the patronage of Christianity under Constantine, the sermon blossomed out into a great oration founded, however, still upon a passage of Scripture, though the passage chosen gradually dwindled into the modern brief text. In regard to the celebration of the ordinances, these were esteemed of especial importance in wor* ship. There were services at baptism — prayers and some ceremonies. It is probable that the reciting of the creed originated in this way. The candidate was required to profess his faith, and it was very easy to drop into the recitation of what is known as the Apostles' Creed. Before receiving baptism, the candidate was made to turn his face to the west and to speak a form of words renouncing the devil and all his works and pomps. In connection with the celebration of the Lord's Supper, as we saw in dis- cussing that subject, there was a very elaborate liturgy. Thus it appears that mainly in connection with the two ordinances the liturgical service of the church arose. This shows us that in the early ages HISTORICAL SKETCH. 64T the ordinances were regarded as centers of worship, and not as mere appendages to it, as is too often the case with us. We pass now to the worship which i)rpvailed dur- ing the Aliddle Ages, tliat is, from 500 to 1517 — from the pontificate of Gregory the Great to the outbreak under Martin Luther. The impulses given to worship in the first six centuries were carried on and perfected in the forms and ceremonies of the two great hierarchies of the East and West — the Greek and Roman churches. Developments went on in the directiotis marked out in the early period. ThG?*e is much that appeals to reverence and de- votion ami to the historic and poetic sense, but much also that repels the devout worshiper and makes him yearn for the simpler and purer worship of the New Testament and of the first Christian ages. Were there none through all these long centuries who preserved the simj)licity and directness of scrip- tural worship? Did men find God only through the complicated and elaborate ceremonies of the Roman Church? We cannot believe it. Hidden away from historic notice, we may believe that many devout souls in the quiet of their homes and hearts, and possibly in some secret assemblies in the dens and caverns Qf the earth,- sought and found God, not through prescribed ceremonies, but as Jesus taught the Samaritan woman, ''in spirit and in truth." From the times of Gregory through the Middle Ages there was wonderful development in church architecture. Toward the close of the preceding epoch, that is, in the year 557, the emi)eror Justinian completed his restoration of the famous church of 64-S WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. St. Sophia in Constantinople. He was so charmed with the success of his undertaking that he is said to have exclaimed in gazing on the beauty of that finished work of art : "I have outdone thee, O Solo- mon!" He built many other churches also; but for many succeeding centuries there does not seem to have been any great development in this regard. There are few traces of church building from the fifth to the eighth centuries. Kiddle states that during this period many heathen temples were turned into churches. He says further (p. 711) : "During the sixth and seventh centuries many churches were erected in Italy, France, Sp^iin, England, Scotland, Germany in the Byzantine style and taste with which these western countries had become acquainted through the instrumentality of the Goths, especially Theodoric, and which for this reason obtained the appellation of Gothic," Owing to the general expectation in the tenth century that the world would come to an end with the thou- sandth year after Christ, church building, as well as other things, was greatly neglected, but after that it sprang up again with renewed interest, and it is said that already in the eleventh century money to build churches was obtained from the sale of in- dulgences. To quote again from Riddle (p. 713) : "In the thirteenth century, ecclesiastical archi- tecture attained to the height of its perfection. After the introduction of the pointed arch, at the beginning of this period, buildings were erected which exceeded in size and architectural beauty all which had hitherto been dedicated to the service of the church. The style of architecture which ob- HISTORICAL SKETCH. 649 tainod at this time has been usually denominated Gothic, or new Gothic; but it may more properly claim the title of German, or English. It prevailed in Germany, the Netherlands, England and Den- mark; and from those countries it was introduced into Italy, France and Spain. Some suppose that Saxony is the country to which its origin may be traced." In regard to the reading of the Scriptures and preaching, something must be said. The multiplica- tion of the manuscripts of the Scriptures and the settlement of Ihe canon, together with the ai)point- mejj of prescribed readings in the churches, all had important relation to the reading of the Scriptures. So, too, the publication of the Vulgate, or Latin translation of the Bible, had a good deal to do with this portion of the service; but toward the latter part of the Middle Ages reading in the churches greatly declined, and the reading of the Scriptures by the people in their homes, which was so earnestly urged by Chrysostom and otliers, was practically unknown. It was one of the glories of the Reforma- tion to have placed the Bible back into the hands of the people. Preaching had various fortunes. The homily early developed into the sermon, as we have seen before. The famous group of Greek preachers in the fourth and fifth centuries, with their con- temporaries, Ambrose and Augustine in the West, gave great impulse to preaching, but after these there was a notable decline. There were some great preachers during the Middle Ages — some who at- tracted wonderful crowds. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries pi-eachiug rose to a great 650 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. height. The preaching orders of the Franciscans and Dominicans greatly encouraged it, and some great popular preachers arose, as Antony of Padua, Berthold of Regensburg, and others. There is not much to say in regard to the liturgical forms of the Middle Ages. They remained sub- stantially, with various alterations and additions in detail, as Gregory left them. In the West the liturgy was in the Latin tongue, and as the people lost that language they ceased to take any active part in the worship of the church, being rather spectators than participants. In music, there was great and wonderful develop- ment. It would take us too long to describe the growth of those mangnificent hymns of the Middle Ages, which remain the admiration of poets and Christians through all times. It is one of the most remarkable things in literature that when the Latin came to be virtually a dead language, under the in- fluence of the Christian religion, Latin poetry, of a new and different sort from that which had existed in the classical periods blossomed out with a rich- ness and fulness equally surprising and admirable. Some of the noblest hymns ever written were the productions of these mediaeval Latin poets. What can compare with the Dies Irae in stately grandeur and tremendous impressiveness? What appeals to the poetic sensibility with tenderer grace than the Stahat Mater? What arouses the martial spirit in the church militant like the Yexilla Regis, or claims the abiding presence of God with such poetic fervor as the Veni, Creator Spiritus? The organ seems to have come into use, between HISTORICAL SKETCH. 651 the eighth and ninth centuries. It grew out of the so-called pipe of Pan, consisting of pipes or tubes of different lengths, into which the performer blew from the top, but was gradually developed into an instrument of church music. At first the instru- ments were very cumbrous and hard to manage. The first one known in the West is said to have been sent by the emperor of Constantinople as a gift to Pepin, the father of Charlemagne, about the middle of the eighth century. Bells and chimes came in later. The origin of these is somewhat uncertain, but the bell which called the mediaeval monk to his devotions figures largely in the romance and poetry of that strange time. In all this there was evil as well as good. Bells became connected in some way with superstitions. They were blessed, and venerated in various ways. As to rites and ceremonies, there was a vast growth. The two original ordinances were expanded into the seven sacraments of the Roman Church, with all the ritual accompanying their solemniza- tion. The mass and the doctrine of transubstantia- tion gave a mystical and awful aspect to the cele- bration of the Lord's Supper. The accessories of worship became more and more elaborate. There were robes, banners, images, processions, postures, genuflexions, and all such things as added their various kinds and degrees of impressiveness to the ceremonies of the church. The festivals, as we saw in the former age, became fixed, and around each of the three principal ones there was a cluster of minor feasts. To these, numerous days were added, and the so-called "Chris- 652 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. tion year," with all its Sundays and many other days set apart for certain observances, became settled. A very important addition was the adoption of saints' days, which began in the earlier period, but was considerably extended during this, wherein parti- cular saints were especially honored, and an interest in their petitions was sought, leading to saint wor- ship. All these feasts and fasts had of course more or less of elaborate ritual, and have been a great element in the stated worship of the Catholic and ritualistic churches ever since those days. In regard to some perversions and superstitions it is necessary to speak. We may trace the origins and a fair state of development in this direction far back into the former ages ; but as they come to their full growth in this period and up to the Reforma- tion, it is convenient to discuss them here. There were many of these. We may note especially the fol- lowing: (a) The saving efficacy of the ordinances. This error began much earlier, but reached its full growth in the Middle Ages when the doctrine of transubstantiation was developed and fastened upon the belief of Roman Catholics, (b) The worship of the Virgin Mary, which also began in a much earlier time, together with that of the saints and martyrs, grew into fixed and final form in the Roman church during this period, (c) Besides these there was the veneration of images. This caused a great commotion in the Eastern Church. Some of the Greek emperors, especially Leo the Isaurian, were much opposed to the worship of images. The people rose in mobs and broke the images, whence is derived the word "iconoclast," that HISTORICAL SKETCH. 653 is, iiiia^e breaker. In the West, however, the worshi]) of iiuajjes caused little trouble, it grew gradually but surely. Along with that there was the veneration of relies and shrines, and going upon pilgrimages to sacred places. Many went to Palestine, and from that grew the great movement of the Crusades, (d) A word nnist be said also in regard to fasts, penances and various self-imposed works, with such horrors as flagellation (whipi)ing) which arose during this period, (e) The early prac- tice of praying for the dead became greatly de- veloped, and was subject to fearful abuses in the masses which were celebrated in the Middle Ages. In all these things what a marked and fearful de- parture do we find from the beauty, simplicity, power and truth of the earliest Christian worship! It is time for us now to consider Christian wor- ship in modern times, that is, from the Reforma- tion in 1517 on until the present day. It was in- evitable that the Reformation, which brought such great changes in the polity and doctrines of the churches, should also afifect profoundly their wor- ship, for these things go together. The history of Christian worship since the Reformation naturally falls into three separate divisions, relating to the ancient churches, the Protestant liturgical churches, and the churches without liturgies. The ancient churches need not concern us long, for as regards their worship they are both essentially medijpval. and no changes of note have been made in the Roman liturgy since the Council of Trent. These refer to matters of detail, which it would be useless and to a Protestant uninteresting to follow 654 WORK AND WORSHIP OP CHURCH. out. The Greek Church differs from the Roman less in matters of worship than in those of doctrine and polity. It has an elaborate ritual and a vast amount of ceremony. The Roman Church preserves as a thing holy and inviolate the traditional worship, retaining even yet the Latin ritual, together with all the developments and perversions of the past. For the use of the people in this country the Missal has been translated into English, but the Latin is kept in parallel columns. The priests, of course, read the Latin, and the people follow along as well as they may with their eyes on both. There are a great many ceremonials, and the pomps and processions are numerous and imposing. Taking up the liturgical Protestant churches, we find a number of interesting matters in regard to worship. In both Germany and England the state churches held on to many of the old religious cus- toms, though they were greatly modified. The liturgy was retained in both these churches, but translated into the vernacular and greatly simpli- fied. The Lutheran liturgy is less elaborate than the English. It must have been a great delight to the people of Germany, not willing to break entirely with the traditions of the past, and yet yearning for more liberty in worship, to have received the best results of the ancient liturgical service in their own tongue. This was true also of the English people. The liturgy of the English Church retained more of the Roman cast than did the Lutheran. It is even yet, though much shortened and changed in the course of years, especially here in America, an elaborately striking, solemn and beautiful service. HISTORICAL SKETCH. 655 The language of the Prayer Book, in the English of the Elizabethan era, is itself noble and impressive. The prayers are very solemn and devout. To one who really means it, the Anglican is undoubtedly a ver}' impressive and solemn mode of worshiping God. The Presbyterian Churches have at various times had a liturgj-, though very much simpler than either the Lutheran or Anglican. Calvin had a ser- vice book in Geneva. And Knox drew up one for Scotland, but the Scotch did not fancy a ritual— the book did not suit them. The German Reformed Churches and the Huguenots in France also had a simple prescribed service. In regard to the reading of the Scriptures and preaching, the appointed lessons for each Sunday, with selections from the Psalms, have heen retained in the liturgical churches. xVmong the Lutherans preaching occupies a very large place, and is con- sidered to be a very important part of the service. In the Episcopal Churches, especially where high church opinion prevails, the sermon 13 often reckoned a very inferior part of the service, and is treated accordingly. Yet many of the greatest preachers of all time have been connected with the Church of England; so that preaching has not been wholly neglected even by those who lay greater stress upon the service. It is very commonly the habit, particularly with the German preachers, to select their texts from the portion of Scripture as- signed for the day. In regard to music, the liturgical Protestant churches have made great contributions to sacred «ong, both in the way of poetry and of music. The 656 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. Christian world is forever indebted to the Lutheran and English churches for glorious hymns and tunes. Luther, as is well known, was a great singer and also a writer of hymns. In the Reformation the people also found a voice, and the hymmology of Christianity was permanently enriched and power- fully stimulated by the movement. The use of the organ was retained without scruple, and the in- struments have been greatly improved within the last two or three centuries. In the English church, also the service of song with the organ has occupied a large place. The "Christian j^ear" has been retained in both the Lutheran and English churches, though it -was modified in its more objectionable features. It has very dear associations to persons brought up in the state churches. The holidays, feasts and fasts, and sacred seasons have very impressive lessons to those who appreciate them at their true religious value. To one who is unaccustomed to observe days it seems as if they were mere formalities, but doubtless to many a devout soul within the liturgical churches the sacred seasons are times of real worship and ap- proach to God. Lastly, many of the rites and ceremonies of the ancient times were retained, but most of the more objectionable errors of Rome were discarded; still to one who prefers a simpler mode of worship there seems to be quite enough ceremony in the worship of the Lutheran and Anglican bodies to-day. We may now consider the churches without liturgy in the modern times. The Presbyterians for the most part rejected the liturgy; so did the Ana- HISTORICAL SKETCH. 657 baptists, likewise the Baptists, the Methodists, the Congregationali^ts, and many of the smaller sects. These have endeavored to get back of all traditional dovplopments, even those of the first centuries, to the simple, apostolical New Testament worship. Of course, t]iey have not done so with perfect success, but in principle, and to a good degree in ])ractice, the non-liturgical churches have done much in that direction. Yet there is great room for improvement. Following the same line of thought as under the previous discussion, we observe concerning the I)ra3'ers that these are without set written forms, but none the less are they often formal, and what professes to be extempore prayer is often a medley or vain repetitions and traditional modes of expres- sion. The prayers in our churches are intended to be free, spontaneous and devout. Would that they came more nearly realizing this excellent purpose! In regard to the reading of the Scripture, no regu- lar lessons are appointed. The selection is usually left to the preacher; and unhappily oftentimes this part of the service is spoiled by inapt selections on the preacher's part, by his wretched reading, and the consequent culpable inattention on the part of the people. Nowhere is a reform more imperatively demanded in our worship than in the impressiveness and spirituality which should mark the reading of God's holy word. As respects preaching, the sermon was restored by the lieformers to its rightful place in the wor- ship, but it easily happened that the reform went too far, and the sermon has in many churches come to be the main thing in the whole service. It has. 658 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH come to be the habit of many persons to speak of the worship, or service of God's house, as ''preach- ing," as if there was nothing else, — and too often, it must sadly be admitted, there is little else. There is need of thoughtful effort to bring to a suitable and proportionate place in the regard of the people the whole service of the house of God. , The subject of sacred song has had a varied ex. perience in the non-liturgical churches. Sometimes it has been wholly rejected, and many Baptist churches in the earlier days refused to sing, and some even divided into singing and non-singing. After awhile the Psalms were allowed, and then hymns, and gradually throughout almost all churches hymns came to be freely sung. Instru- mental music has likewise had a strange history. Sometimes the instrument has been fought as if it were the device of the devil; and sometimes it has been allowed. In some churches the music has been too much thought of to the exclusion of better things; in others it has been shamefully neglected. Choirs have been retained in some churches, and in some churches they, too, have been rejected. In truth, all .sorts of things have happened to church music. There has not been any uniformity of prac- tice or sentiment among the various denominations of Christians in modern times. Finally, in regard to ceremonies in the churches that use no liturgies, these have been reduced to the New Testament minimum, that is, the observance of the two scriptural ordinances. These are usually celebrated in connection with the other services, and in a very simple manner. Sometimes they have been HISTORICAL SKETCH. 659 made the main features of special services, and other elements of worsliij) have been adapted to them. It is greatly to be desired that without going to any- thing that savors of ritualism, the two ordinances should be celebrated with more of worship, more of solemnity, more of decorum. 660 WORK AND WORSHIP OP CHURCH. OUTLINE OF CHAPTER VII. WORSHIP IN MODERN CHURCH LIFE. I. Neglect. 1. Causes. (1) Pressure of other interests. (2) Decline of spirituality. 2. Remedies. (1) Mistaken. (2) Sound. II. Faults. 1. In estimate. (1) Of its true value and meaning. (2) Of its externals. (3) As compared with other things. 2. In appliances. (1) Church buildings. (2) Other appointments. 3. In conduct. On part of (1) Church. (2) Pastor. (3) Choir. III. Value. 1. Toward God. 2. For the worshiper. 3. To the unsaved. CHAPTER VII. WORSHIP OP THE CHURCHES. ITS PLACE IN MODERN CHURCH LIFE. Comparisons are not always safe, and it would not be wise to aflfirm that as compared with former times our days show either great im]U'ovement or great decline in the matter of worship. But it is at least safe to say that there never has been, and is not now as great a realization of the value and power of worship in church life as there should be. It is right, therefore, that we earnestly give some atten- tion to this supremely important subject. We shall take some account of the neglect of worship, of some faults in its conduct, and of its true value, as these topics apply to the churches of our own times. Whatever we may think of the causes, we cannot mistake the fact that in our modern church life there is great neglect of worship. It is not only true that the people generally do not largely attend, but the most serious and sad thing is that professing Christians are themsolv^es conspicuously at fault in this regard, especially in respect to the evening ser- vice in the cities. One of the principal causes, no doubt, for this neglect is the pressure of many other claims and in- terests in the stress and strain of modern business and social life. The pursuit of business and the 6fil 662 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. distractions of social pleasures in our time are simply appalling. The demand upon attention, upon nerve force, upon every resource for effort is over- whelming. Attention and strength are drawn away and dissipated from religious pursuits, and par- ticularly from public worship. Along with this we must sadly note the slackening of interest in the realities of the Christian faith. Skepticism, both as to the historic foundations and as to the experi- mental verities of Christianity, is deeply and ruinously at work in many minds that have not definitely broken with these things, and do not wish to do it. But they are left with little real desire for spiritual things, and even less of resolute efifort to seek and maintain the devout attitude of a genuine and profound faith in spiritual religion. Of remedies sought for the neglect of worship there are many and various, but without going into details we may say in general that some are mis- taken and some are sound. It is surely a mistake to resort to sensational methods to attract the people — whether professedly Christian or not. For the members of the church to need the attraction of mere novelty, and the device of excitement to bring them to the house of God for his worship, is surely wrong in principle and can only have an unhealthy reaction. Our young people especially have been too much taught that unless the services of the church minister to the craving for amusement they may be excused from attendance. And the people at large, who have a superabundance of theatres and shows to supply the demand for spectacular and emotional pleasure, surely do not need to find in the worship IN MODERN CHURCH I-IFE. 663 of God a similar attraction, A church cannot com- pete with a theatre in that direction, and is despised in its failure. The true remedy is to make the worship what it ought to be as worship. It has a place of its own to fill, a place that nothing else can fill. It offers what no other institution can offer, and here is the hiding of its power. To obscure that with unseemly at- tempts to rival worldly amusements in attractiveness is one of the most deplorable and ruinous of all mis- takes. But this does not mean that worship cannot and must not be made attractive — surely it must be that. But that by being itself! Let it be real, up- lifting of heart and mind to God, let it be true guid- ance and help to doubtful and distressed souls, let it be food to hungry and cheer to aspiring hearts oppressed with the strife and care of this world, and longing sometimes for the better, let worship be this and all the more than this that it is intended to be, and there will not be so mucli reason to com- plain of its neglect. We are to endeavor to point out some helps in this direction in what now follows. We must carefully consider some of the more evi- dent and removable faults in our worship as too often conducted to-day. The first group of these is vhat may be called faults of estimate ; and the first point is rating worship too low. Underestimate of worship leads to the inattention which we often observe on the part of many who do come to church — a lack of serious and rex-erent at- tention to the worship of God. It seems that various other reasons, habit, sociability or something of the kind, bring people to the church rather than a 664 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. sincere desire and purpose to worship God. This inattention is exhibited toward all parts of the ser- vice, but more especially to the reading of the Scrip- tures and the praj'ers. Singing and preaching in a measure compel attention, and even this is bestowed as often because of the merit of the performance, as because of the spiritual worship rendered to God. On the other hand, a fault arises from an over- estimate of the externals of worship. Some make the mistake of thinking that careful attention to the forms and. proprieties of worship may perhaps be worship. This is a serious error and leads to ritualism. Elaborate ceremonies may attract and delight many, and they may mistake for devotion their fondness for pageantry. But aids to devotion, however elaborate, are not devotion, and they often become hindrances rather than helps. So, too, this overestimate leads to formalism. This is commonly supposed to go hand in hand with ritualism, and so it may; but alas, it can ,and does, exist where there is no ritual. We have a current phrase about ''going through the motions" of things. It is a most mournful and fatal thing to "go though the motions" of worship without the worship. Of course this finds its extreme in the hierarchical churches, but even among those where there is no priest and no ritual, there is such a thing as having regard to the preacher and his performance rather than to the grace and glory of God. Another fault is to have a wrong estimate of the place and the parts of worship. Many Christians have a very inadequate conception of the place which worship should hold in comparison with the other IN MODERN CHURCH LIFE. fi65 elements of the church's life and activity. The busi- ness, social, benevolent, and even the recruiting work of the church range in their conceptions far bej^ond the services of prayer and praise. To some, no doubt, wor.^hip seems too sentimental, not prac- tical enough in this tremendously practical age. To them the active work of the church, its outward evi- dences of life seem more important. But there is no conflict between work and worship. It is also very common to have wrong notions of the proper relation which the various parts of worship should sustain to each other and to the whole. Some ]yec- sons may put emphasis too much on the services, some on the music, some on the sermon, few, if any, on the reading of the Scriptures; but all these have their proper relation to each other, and to the idea of worship as a while. A second group of faults concerning worship is in regard to the provisions that are made for it. It is the duty of the church to provide suitable places and appliances for the orderly performance of wor- ship; but here grievous mistakes are often made. In regard to location, for instance, many houses of worship are situated in places utterly uncongenial to quiet and devotion. Worship has also been much hindered and in- jured by unsuitable architecture. There are three varieties of church buildings which ought to be avoided; the cathedral, the barn and the club-house. Many magnificent and imposing buildings are not adapted to purposes of Christian worship. They are splendid architecture, triumphant monuments to the glory of men, admirable to look upon, but poorly 666 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. appointed as places for preaching and hearing, for singing, reading and praj^er. On the other hand there is surely no need of going to the opposite extreme, and in escaping archi- tectural excellence, to have buildings or ''barns" equally ill-suited for worship without the coi> responding advantage of architectural magnifi- cence. Of course churches ought not to be built for the pride and glory of man, but neither should they be so poor and bare and unsightly in comparison with our own houses as to be an insult to the King of kings. In undertaking, however, to hit a happy medium between the stately and pretentious cathedral on the one hand, and the unsightl}' and bare ''barn" on the other, let us not make the mistake of falling upon the "club-house" variety of church buildings. Some- thing is due to the dignity of worship even in the matter of architecture, and the building which does not look like anything particular in the way of a house, and whose main purposes and associations are suppers and fairs, social parties and cooking, sewing and the like, is robbed of some of its highest glories. Let the church, indeed, be a spiritual home; let it be a place where the children of God are made welcome and comfortable; but let it not become a social draAving-room, and, least of all, a kitchen. Let us remember our sad and indignant Master, with his scourge of small cords, in the temple. Another trouble is in the matter of appointments. Worship is sometimes hindered, or even spoiled by awkward, not to say wretched, appointments. It is amazing how much unnecessary discomfort is al- IN MODERN CHURCH LIFE. 667 lowed to discournge the worship in some of our churches. Bad light, worse heating arrangements, and positively detestable \'entilation, may be ruinous to any real worship. There is no need, or sense, in being studiously, and persistently, and obstinately uncomfortable while engaged in wor- shij). A tortured body is not conducive to spiri- tual worship. It was the mistake of asceticism to think that a hair shirt, kneeling on pebbles and lacerations of the back might help a man to get close to God. Asceticism, however, was a well-meant mistake; but stupid cai-elessness is an unmitigated fault. Again, a frequent hindrance is an insufficient sup- ply of song books and other helps to the service. A bad instrument — a wheezing, discordant, blatant or- gan, and other trials in the conduct of music, can- not be edifying to the average worshij)er. And further, the irapressiveness of our services is often grievously mari-ed by awkward arrangements for administering the ordinances. The solemnity and beauty of these are greatly impaired by lack of the proper furnishings. In regard to baptism, it is strange that Baptist churches of all others should be as negligent as they often are in ])roviding a baptistery, suitable attire for the candidates, and other matters which are essential to the decent and comely administration of the ordinance. A third set of faults is in regard to the conduct of worship; and these are chargeable mainly to three parties: the church, the pastor, and the choir; and responsibility rests upon them in the order given. First of all it is the fault of the church ; for surely 668 WORK AND WORSHIP OP CHURCH. it is the indispensable duty of the church of our Lord Jesus to see that his worship is properly con- ducted. If the churches would take an active and intelligent interest in the regulation of their own services, things would be very different among us. Few churches, as such, take any active oversight of the worship. The whole responsibility is usually left to the pastor, to the persistence of old cus- tom, or to the care of a few interested individuals. Active interest among all, and active management by committees, on the part of the church itself would greatly help the cause. Again, there is consequent failure to regulate the details of worship. Most of these details are proper matters for congregational action ; or at least indirectly, through its officers and committees, should the church see to these things. It is the duty of the church to see that the decorum of the worship is maintained. It is all wrong for the aroused, excited preacher to have to look out for the behavior of the congregation. De- tails, such as the notices, the collections, and other matters which are not directly parts of worship and are often interruptions to it, should have the care and attention of the church, so that they may be attended to in the proper way and not mar the continuity and impressiveness of the service. Ushers should be appointed by the church and made to feel the responsibility of the position. Many a church suffers in the power and beauty of its service on ac- count of the neglect of these matters of detail. iS^ext to the church itself, and some would even say before the church, the pastor is to blame for an improper conduct of worship. Pastors have many IN MODERN CHURCH LIFE. 669 faults and shortcomings, not the least of which is their failure suitably to discharge their duty as the conductors of the public worship of God's people. This comes from several things. Sometimes there is lack of conviction. Like the people, and perhaps more than the people, the pastor may look upon the sermon as the principal thing and fail to have any realization of the importance of worship as worship. Again, sometimes the pastor's fault in this matter may be bluntly charged to a lack of sense. His knowledge of the matter in hand may be painfully little. Some men know how to preach fairly well, but are \-ery ill-informed and unintelligent in re- gard to the other parts of worship. They do not know how to read, that is, to read well ; and as for taking any interest in the singing, that is not to be thought of. Sometimos wherc the preacher has some theoretical knowledge of the subject, be may be Badly wanting in the practical intelligence, tact and skill that are needed for the proper management of worship. Trobably, however, the greatest fault of the pastor in this connection is a lack of purpose. Sometimes a pastor may have conviction and knowl- edge in regard to worship, and yet through mere indolence, or shrinking from responsibility, or dread of criticism, or something of the sort, he lets things go on in their old ruts without having a godly pur- pose and determination to take hold of this matter of worship and impro\ne it, so far as in him lies. We must not fail, however, to take into our cen- sures that other party to the service of the church, the choir. Let it be emphatically observed that the church and pastor are both to blame for the irregu- 670 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. larities and difficulties which befall them in the matter of the choir. It is the dutj' of the church and the pastor by some means to control the choir. But the faults of choirs are well known, and they should be properly guarded against. The funda- mental difficulty is in getting singers to realize that they have any spiritual responsibility as to the wor- ship. This is sometimes charged to the fault of paid choirs, but the objection is superficial. It is just as true of voluntary choirs as it is of those whose services are remunerated properly, and whose time, therefore, belongs to the church. Very often unsuitable persons, for love of notoriety, or because they think they can sing, volunteer to lead the music, and a sad failure they make of it! Oftentimes the voluntary choir is more difficult to control than that which is paid. They come, or fail to come, as they feel like it, to the practice. They feel themselves greatly injured if any one makes a suggstion as to the singing. And it by no means follows that they will behave themselves. Another fault of the choir is the unsuitable selection and rendition of the music. Too often art crowds out devotion, and some choirs have been known to object to congrega- tional singing, preferring to select such music as only they themselves can perform. And last but not least, choirs are sometimes chargeable and justly so, with bad behavior. Their inattention to other parts of the worship is notorious. The giggling and whispering choir during prayer, Scripture reading and preaching is an abomination. It is the impera- tive duty of the church to co-operate with the pastor in kindly, but firmly, finally and forever putting a IN MODERN CHURCH LIFE. 671 •stop to this kind of thing. All these and other faults would be far on the way to being cured if there were on the part of pastors and people a just realization of the real worth and power of worship. Let us turn now to discuss the value of worship in church life. There are some notable elements of power in the right conduct of worship, and they demand of every thoughtful pastor and church mem- ber earnest consideration and practical employment. One of these elements of power is that true wor- ship is acceptable service to God. Do we appreciate the significance of this statement, that in worship we do something which pleases God? In fact, this is the prime motive and proper characteristic of true worship, and both the ideas of service and of accept- able service are important. We must keep in mind that true worship is in all its parts real and direct service to God. There is little that we sinful mortals can do for God. Our activities are more a privilege to us than a needful means with him. The angels would and could do better service than we. Our gifts and so-called sacrifices, again, are more of a privilege on our part than needed instruments in the hand of God. The gold and the silver are his, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. Our giving does not enrich him, and our Avithholding does not impoverish him. He permits our service in activity and in gifts; and so far from regarding working for God and giving to God's cause as burdens, we ought to look upon them as high and holy privileges. God does not need these things at our hands; but he en- courages us to believe that worship offered by de- vout hearts is actual service rendered to him. If 672 WORK AND WORSHIP- OF CHURCH, we may dare so to express it, in worship we do some- thing for God that he cannot do for himself; and this is not true of our works. Moreover, true spiritual worship is acceptable to God. It pleases him for his people to offer him the sacrifices of praise, and to come to him as One that heareth prayer. There can be no mistake here. We are absolutely certain of doing what God likes when we offer to him sincere and spiritual worship. Some years ago a devout and highly useful Christian physician had a little patient who was ill for a long time with typhoid fever. The child's parents were poor and somewhat uncouth, and so were unable to render suitable nursing. The good doctor not only attended the little boy, but spent hours at a time in careful nursing at his bedside. There was no ques- tion of financial remuneration, the family was too poor to give that, and the doctor did not expect it. One day, in passing the little cabin by the roadside, the doctor was hailed by the boy, who expected him to come that way, and the little fellow ran down the hill with a bag of half ripe apples in his hand, which he emptied with pride into the bottom of the doc- tor's buggy. The good old man, looking at his com- panion, with his eyes full of tears, remarked : "Grati- tude, my brother, is worth more than money."* Thus to our heavenly Father grateful worship may be more than all our rich gifts or painfuly active deeds. * It is a pleasure to pay this simple tribute to the cher- ished memory of a good and much loved man — Dr. John S. Tompkins, formerly of Hollins, Va. IN MODERN CHURCH LIFE. 67S "Say, shall we yield him, in costly devotion. Odors of Edom, and offerings divine? Gems of the mountain, and pearls of the ocean, Myrrh from the forest or gold from the mine?" "Vainly we offer each ample oblation. Vainly with gifts would his favor secure; Richer by far is the heart's adoration, Dearer to God are the prayers of the poor." Again, we should consider the power of worship as a help to the worshiper. It is one of the com- raonplaees of religious teaching that the services of religion are a means of grace to him who takes part in them, but we can hardly suppose that the full power of this thought is realized among our people generally. There are many ways in which worship brings a blessing upon him who offers it in spirit and in truth. One is by quickening interest in the church in all its concerns. It is very hard for any man to keep up a real interest in his church, if he neglects or slights its worship. The active members of a church are not always devout, but the devout are nearly always active, while those who neglect worship are com- monly neither devout nor active. Another way is by strengthening and developing the Christian intelligence. One of the many needs of our complex church life is a larger Christian in- telligence on the part of the members. The few who take a really intelligent interest in the affairs of the church, and of the denomination, and of the Chris- tain world at large, are usually found among the true worshipers. We often think and speak of wor- ship from the sentimental side, but it is not all, or only, feeling. It is a highly intellectual exercise and 674 WORK AND WORSHIP OP CHURCH. a great helper to the noblest intellectual life. All the parts of worship may be instrumental in pro- moting the intellectual life of the people. Victor Hugo has somewhere said, with great force, that the value of prayer depends very much upon the amount of thinking that is put into it. Now, pious intel- ligence is a great force in the church, and needs all the encouragement and development which it can have. A droning, monotonous worship may stifle rather than kindle intellectual vigor, but a worship that calls into play the highest intellectual faculties, and at the same time lifts the devotional soul to- wards God, will surely be a blessing to him who offers it. But most powerfully does the worship influence church life in the way of promoting spirituality. This is the most important point in the discussion, and is at the same time the most obvious. The worship we ofl'er to God comes back in twofold measure as a pro- moter of our spiritual life and power. It is simply impossible to overestimate the power of worship as a factor in maintaining the true spiritual life of the church. We might perhaps form some faint con- ception of its value by imagining a state of affairs where worship is utterly wanting. A church which is truly alive to its own interests, to say nothing of higher motives, cannot afford to make little of worship, and it should by all means see that the ser- vice in every part and form shall minister to spirituality. Another very striking and important element in the power of worship is that it may be, and often is, a means of saving souls. It is common to think IN MODERN CHURCH LIFE. 675 solely of the preaching in this connection, but un- speakably valuable as that is, we should not regard it as the only means of reaching the unconverted in the congregation. The prayers, the Scripture, the singing, may well be employed by the Holy Spirit as instruments of bringing salvation. Are they com- monly offered to the service of God with this end in view? How differently would the preacher read his passage of Scripture if he would try to think while performing this sacred service that thereby some listening soul might be saved! How different would be the singing, both by the choir and the con- gregation, if all could be made to realize that thus immortal souls might be brought unto the Saviour! How different would be the tone of the language in prayer, if while we prayed we felt that thereby a sinner might be brought to the feet of Jesus! And why not these things? Why should not God use the other parts of the service just as well as the preach- ing in regenerating the souls of men? It surely ought to be our business to offer them to God with this end in view, and thus the whole service of God's house, while primarily worship to him, may be a means of salvation to those who look on. The apostle Paul describes such a possibility in the four- teenth chapter of 1 Corinthians where, after rebuk- ing some disorders in worship, he says (vv. 24,25) : "But if all prophesy, and there come in one unbe- lieving or unlearned, he is reproved by all, he is judged by all; the secrets of his heart are made manifest; and so he will fall down on his face and worship God, declaring that God is among you in- deed." 676 WORK AND WORSHIP OF CHURCH. As a means of bringing the unsaved and indif- ferent where they can hear the gospel, a real and fervent worship surpasses all other attractions. Sensational preaching, highly artistic singing, *'catchy" advertising, and sundry other devices have been used for far more than they are worth to draw the multitude. Is not the drawing power of a highly devotional worship worth trying? Where there is true warmth of piety, a sound and sensible worship, a true spiritual life, people will go. Kindle a fire and the cold will come to it. Make it bright within doors, make the welcome sincere, and the outcasts will come in to be fed and blessed. The lightminded crowd is easily drawn by claptrap, and quickly dis- solves when the sensation is over. But a more •serious and a more steady class of people will be drawn, held and helped by a live worship. If our churches and preachers would adopt this means of attraction and give it a faithful trial, with only a moderate use of other means, there would be a great and blessed change for the better in the attendance upon worship. It thus appears for many reasons and from many points of view that worship has a place and a power in our church life, second to nothing else in all the range of churchly activity, and for all these reasons it is greatly to be desired that new interest should be awakened in all our churches in this matter of rendering to God sincere and spiritual worship. CONCLUSION. CONCLUSION. 677 In closing this study of the polity, ordinance.^, work and worship of the ohnrchos of our Lord, it is desirable to consider afresh the significance of the local churcli. It is a body of believers in Christ, baptized into his name, and consecrated to his ser- vice; independent of earthly authority, but closely related with others of like mind in promoting the great purposes of God in this world. Each local as- sembly of God's people is "the church of tlie living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." As such it is in duty bound to comprehend the divine revela- tion, and to hold forth through darkness and trial, through weariness and even persecution, the sacred light of God's blessed gospel. The church must obey the commands of its Lord and Master, and keep in their sweet .simplicity and in their momentous im- port the sacred rites of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The church by itself and in co-operation with others must work for the improvement and for the eternal salvation of mankind. It must labor to make this world better, and to make heaven sure, for all whom it can reach. The church, in its orderly assemblies week by week, or oftener if oc- casion demands, must lift up pure worship toward the true and living God, even the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. How noble a mission is that of each separate church of our Lord and Master ! In view of its responsibilities and of its glorious privi- leges, no true church of our Lord, however obscure 678 CONCLUSION. and feeble it may be, can be an insignificant thing. Whether located in the crowded city, at the center3 of busy life, or in the straggling suburbs; whether planted in the midst of some populous and pros- perous country district, or in some far away secluded place, a true church is still *'the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." It can reach the throne of grace with its prayers. It can girdle the world with its benevolence. It can re- member the Lord in his ordinances. It can main- tain inviolate the faith once for all delivered unto the saints. How responsible a position, how holy a privilege to be the pastor and guide of a flock of Christ! Let every man who desireth the office of a bishop remember that he desireth a good work ; and may the Spirit of God rest upon him and guide him in his labors I Amen. BIBLIOGRAPHY. [A complete bibliojiTaphy of this subject would itself fill volumes. The followino- list does uot in- clude all the books known to the antliov. nor even all that have been actually used in the i)i-o]>aration of the work; but it is hoped it will be found suffi- ciently full to indicate the authorities which have been chiefly employed, and to guide students who may wish to pursue the subject further.] I. GENERAL WORKS. 1. History. — Tu general Church History the works of Neander, Guericke, (lieseler, Kurtz, Schaflf, New- man. The American Church History series on the several denominations. Of Baptist Histories those by Crosby, Benedict, Cramp, Armitage, Jarrell, New- man, Yedder. 2. Archaeoi.oov and Early Christian History. — The Church Fathers in various editions, especially the translations in the Christian Literature series: Hastings, Bihlc Dictionary (the appro])riate arti- cles) ; Smith and Cheetham, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities; Bingham, Antiquities; Ooleman, Anti- quities, and Apostolical and Pritnitive Church: Rid- dle, Antiquities; Neander, Planting and Training of the Christian Church; Dollinger, First Age of the Church; McGitfert, The Apostolic Age; Stanley, Christian Institutions ; Allen, Christian Institutions. 3. Theology. — Sciiaff, Creeds of Christendom; 679 680 Bir.LIOGRAPHY. works on Svsteinatie Tlieology by Strong', Johnson (Baptist) ; Calvin (Lustitiites) , Hodge, Sliedd (Pres- byterian) ; Watson, Summers (Methodist) ; Fair- brain (Congregationalist, Place of Christ in Modern Thcolof/i/) ; Knapp, Kranth (Lutheran) ; Moehler {i->ijitihoIism) , Gibbons {Faith of Our Fathers — both Catholic). II. CHURCH POLITY. 1. Critical and General.- — Hort, The Christian Ecclesia; Lightfoot, note on The Christian Ministry in his Contmentary on Philippians ; Hatch, Organiza- tion of the Early Christian Churches: Whitley, Church, Ministry and Sacraments in the New Testa- ment; Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries. 2. Denominational. — (a) Baptist. Carson, Rea- sons for Separating from the Synod of Ulster; Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles; Wayland, Principles and Practices of the Baptists; Bagg, Church Order; Harvey, The Church; Hovey, Re- ligion and the State; Hiscox, New Directory for Baptist Churches; Ripley, Church Polity; Marsh, The New Testament Church; Boardman, Ecclesia; Pendleton, Church Manual; Venable, Baptist Lay- man's Handbook; Rothwell, Denominational Self- Examination. (b) Congregational. Owen, Church Government ; Wardlaw, Congregational Independency ; Davidson, Ecclesiastical Polity of the Neiv Testament; Ladd, Priticiples of Church Polity; Dexter, Congrega- tionalism. (c) Preshyterian. Smyth, Presbytery and Pre- p.ip.LioonAriiv. 081 lacy; Hodjje, Discussions in Church Polity; ^Morris, Ecclesioloyy ; ^liller, Ruling Elders. (d) Methodist. I*orter, Compendium of Meth- odism; Abbey, Ecclesiastical Constitutions. (e) Episcopal. Hooker. Ecclesiastical Polity; Stilling-fle^t, Irenicum; Whately, The Kingdo)ii of Christ; Jacob, Ecclesiastical Polity; I'aliiier, Treatise on the Church; Gore, The Church and its Ministry. (f) Catholic. Dollinger, The Church and the Churches; Murphy, The Chair of Peter; Kenrick, The Primacy of the Pope. (g) Greelv Church. Stanley, Lectures on the Eastern Church; ^Inravieff, The Russian Church. III. THE ORDINAXrES. Many of the g^eneral authorities above given. 1. Baptism. — (Larson, Baptism; Conaut, Meaning and Use of Baptizein; Ford, Studies in Baptism; Cole, Archaeology of Baptism ; Cathcart, Baptism of the Ages; Rurrage, Act of Baptism ; Christian, Im- mersion; ^[('Lendon, Baptism in the Bible; Robin- son, History of Baptism; Ingham, Hand-hook of Bajttisni ; Rosser, Baptism; Fairfield, Letters on Baptism; Dale, Classic, Judaic, Johannic. Christie Baptism; Chrystal, Modes of Baptism; Wall. His- tory of Infant Jhiptism with Gale's Reflcitions ; Newman, History of Antipaedohaptism ; Ingham, Suhjects of Baptism ; Forrester, The Baptist Posi- tion ; \N'ilkinson, The Baptist Principle; Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles ; Howell, Erils of Infant Baptism ; Kirtley. Design of Baptism; Tucker, Position of Baptisn) in the Christian Sys- 682 BIBLIOGHAPHY. tern; Hovey, Baptism as Related to Regeneration and Forgiveness (appendix to commentary on John) ; Water-land, Works (discussion of Titns 3:5) ; Campbell, Dehate ivith Rice, and Works; Jeter, Camptyellism Examined; Lard, Repli/ to Jeter; Wilkes, Designs of Baptism. 2. The Lord's Supper. — Works on History and Theology before mentioned; works on Baptist prin- ciples above given. Hovey, The Holy l^upper in Scripture and History; Christian,- Close Com- munion. lY. WOKK AND WORSHIP. 1. Work. — Morris, Ecclesiology ; Stall, Methods of Church Work; Mead, Modern Methods of Church Work; Judson, The Institutional Church; Bruce, The Kingdom of God; Westcott, Social Aspects of Christianity ; Ely, Social Aspects of Christianity; Lorimer, Christianity and the Social State; Com- mons, Social Reforms and the Church; Abbott, Christianity and Social Prohlcms; Hyde, Outlines of Social Theology; Strong, Our Country, The New Era ; many similar works dealing with the relation of the churches to social and missionary movements and problems. 2. Worship. — On the historical side the general works on History and Archaeology; on the practical side many works on Pastoral Theology. Pattison, Puhlic Worship; Pratt, Musical Ministries in the Church; Dickinson, History of Music in the Western Church ; Breed, History and Use of Hymns and Hymn Tunes; many similar works on Music and Hvmnologv. INDEX OF SCRIPTURES. [Note.— Only Passages discussed in the text are given, not those merely referred to.] OLD TESTAMENT. Gen. 4:i6 Neh. 8:- Jer. 31:.31-34. PAGE. ....619 ....626 ....491 Mt. Mk. PAGE Ac Ac. NEW TESTAMENT. 3:6 335,399 3:13-15 284ff 16:18 50 18:15-17 561 18:17 43. 45,185 Is :13-15 447 20:28 71 25:34-40 605 26:26-9 487,491 28:19 285,362,406 1:9 301 7:3,4 302, 334,a50 16:16 407 Lu. 11:37,38 302 Jno. 3 :6 464, 471 3:22 401 3:H3 .301 4:1,2 362,402 6:48-58 492f 10:11 - 87 2 :38,39 407, 448f , 465 2:41 302, 351,402 2:42,46 494 5:11 40 6:1-6 95,6u2 7:38 38 8:1 40 8:12,13 402f 8:36-39 302,40; 8.38 364 9:10-18 365 9:18 403 9:26 57 9:31 47 10:44-48 365,403 11:16 400 11:26 41 13:24 401 14:23 59 15:— ....- 61 15:41 42 16:14,15 403, 442ff 16:33,34 303, 404,442ff 18:8 404 18:22 41 19:1-7 - 363 19:4 401 19:5 404 19:32 38 20:7 494f 20: 20: 22:1 27: 17 41.85 28 50,85,87 16 485 35 493 Ro. 6 :l-4. .334, 335f 387, 338, 354, 407 1 67,95 42 16; 16 16 ICor. 1 1 7 10 10 23 41,48 13-17 365 14-16 404,442fl 12-14 449 16,17 485,495 32 49 11:2 11:17-34 11:23 274 496ff 487 11:24 489 12:28 16:15 46,81 405 2 Cor. 16:19... 8:16-23 42 603 8-23 81 Gal. 6:1-2 564 6:6 92 Eph. 4:11 86 5:26 465 6:1.. . . 450 Col. 1:25 71 1 Tim 2:11,12 2:12 4:17 3:5 338,398,441 408, 467 90 43 3:11 95 3:15 46 5;1 84 2 Tim 5:3-16 5:17,18 1:6 603 89,92 .... 91 Ti. Phlle Heb. Jas. IPe. 8 Jno. 1 :5 59, 90 1:5-7 88 8 :4-6 .... ■ .. .. 571f 3:5 ... 466 1,2 42, 90 2-19 39 12:23 50 13:10 493 13:17 93 13:20 87 5:14 45 2:25 87 3:21 5:1-3 287,408. 466 88, 92 5:5 85 8 fS 9 67 683 GENERAL INDEX. Abraliaiuic Covenant, 437-342. Achilles Tatius, 298. Act of Toleration. 411, 429f. Affusion, see Baptism, Act. Aged, Homes for, GOO. Alford, Dean. 400. Allen. A. V. G.. 413. Ambrose. 304. 313, 419, 420, 044. 049. Amer. Baptist Home Mission Society, 228, 578. Amer. Baptist Missionary Union, 162. 228. Amer. Baptist Publication So- ciety. 228. American Commentary, 493. Anabaptists. 141. 147. 154f., 289. 327f., 373. 374, 411, 417, 421. 423, 424-429, 510, 511, 513. 515, 527, 656. Andi'e\YS, Samuel J., 488. Angel of the Church, 81f. Anglican Church, see Episcopal Church. ■ Antony of Padua, 6507 Apostles, 72-78. Va. Gen. Assoc, 159, 171. Apostolical Constitutions. 313. 507. 642, 643. Apostolical Succession, 77f., 278. 368, 386. Aquinas, Thomas, 250. 322, 323. 325, 351, 372. Canterbui-y, 144, 509. Roman Catholic, 139. Archbishop : Archippus, 89f. Armitage, Thomas, 312, 420. Arnold of Brescia, 153, 422. Asbury, Francis, 146. Associated Charities, 604, 607. Associations. 178. 201, 224-227. Charleston, 160. General, see State Conven- tions. Philadelphia, 160. Warren. 160, 164. Athanasius. 121, 315. Augustine, 316, 371, 372, 373, 377, 419. 420, 649. Backus, Isaac, 164. Baptism, 283-483. act, 292-358. meaning of word, 292-306. history, 307, 329. concessions, 330-342. objections, 343-358. agent, 359-394. Scripture, 361-369. Histoi-y, 369-378. Bap. problem, 379-394. alien immersion, see agent, design, see significance, controversies, 280-282. efRcac.v. see significance, essential, 416, and see signi- ficance, household, 403, 404. 405, 409. irregular, see agent. -Tohn's, 361. 363. 399, 400, 401. lay, 378. mode, see act. obligation, 283-291. parties to it, 290f. prerequisite, 280, 527-530. recipients, .395-461. Scr. teaching, 395-409. History, 410-434. arguments for and against infant baptism, 436-461. significance, 4.51f., 402-483. Baptist view, 403-468. 684 GENERAL INDEX. 685 Campbellite aMcw. 478-483. Catholic view. 4r,8f. Episcopal view, 470-473. Lutheran view. 473-475. Methodist view. 477f. I'l-eshyterian view, 475- 477. subjects, see recipients. validity, see agent. Baptismal regeneration, see Baptism, significance. Baptist Churches. l(!5-270. conformity to N. T., 105-184. constitution, 180, 103. co-operation. 224-230. denominational life, etc., 218. divergencies from N. T.. 170-184. efficiency, 220. government, IfiSf. independence, 150, 1G3, 109. officers, 170. organization, 18.5-inO. recognition, 100-202. relation to civil government, see Church and State, 251-270, 508. relation to each other. 172. 217-230. relation to other denomina- tions, 52, and see Chris- tian union, relation to undenominational organizations, 247. unity, 210, 220. usurj)ati()n of power. 182f. Baptist Conf(>ssions of Faith, 15(>-1.58. 328. 375. Bajttist ^Missionary Society. 1.58. 22S. Bai)tist ])rinciples, progress of, 140-104. Baptist Schools, 592,598. foundation. 593f. ma in ten. •nice, 594ff. control. 7>'.MM't Baptist succession, 150f.. 380, 302. Baptisteries, 311, 320f. Paptists, American, 158ff. English, 289f., 374f., 513f., 527. German, see Dunkards. open communion. 513. 527, 528-.5.30. Separate, 150, Kil. Six I'rinciple, 100. Bantizo. 202-300. 334, 337, 345-352. Barnabas, Epistle of, 314. Basil, the Great. 304. 310. Beale. (ed. Semple's Hist.), 250. Bede, Venerable, 319. Benedict. C. W., 338. Berengar, 500. Bernard of Clairvaux. 310. Bingham, .Tos('i)h. 100. 288. 312, 313, 412, 413f., 41.5, 410,502, 505. 507, 512, 514. 51.5, 037. Bishop : local. 85f.. Ill, 117f., see Elder. Roman Catholic. 139. Bismarck. 250. Blaurock, Georg. 327. Bliss. Dr., 488. 400. Blount, Richard, 370. Blunfs Dictionary, 378. Boards. 578f. Brace. C. L., 509. Bona Ventura, 319. Brenner. 323. 333. Broadus, John A.. 22. 487. 488, 489. Brown. C. C, 380. Browne, Robert. 148. Bucer. ^Martin. 522. Bunyan. .John. 514. Burkitt. William. 399. Burrage. II. S.. 312. 313-315. 317. 318. 319. .321. 322. .323,. 324. 327. Bushnell. Horace, 444f.. 4o6f. Calvin, .John. 148. 259. 302, 325. 32(5, 3:{4. 353, 374, 510, 522, 524. 5S»i. 0.55. Cami)be]l. Alexander, 480fT. 686 GENERAL INDEX. Cami)lji'llites, i.j-t. 478-483, 530, 531. Cardinals. 140. Carey, William. 158, 268. Carson. Alexander. 298. Catacombs. 320. Faith. Catbcart, 312. Cathecliisms. see Confessions. Catholif Churc-h. "Old," 119. Catholic Church. Roman : baptism, act. 322-325, 329, 332f., 353. agent, 372, 373, 377, 384. efficacy. 453f.. 4(i8f. recipients. 417, 433. 452f.. 450. 459. charities, 599f. co-operation with. 241. development. 121-131. 135- 139. . education, 586f. hierarchy, 25. 139. 223. Indian appropriations. 253. influence of Reformation, 135. Lord's supper. 504f., 508f.. 511f., 515, 516, 519-521. 531. worship. 639, 642f.. 044. 047. 051, 053. Chalmers. Thos.. 335. Charities. 598-009. definition. 598. denominational, 600-606. history. 598-000. public. 000-009. Roman Catholic. 599. 000. State and Church. 209f.. 000. OOS. Charlemagne. 586. Choirs. 058. 00)9-071. Christian. John T.. 290. 305, 332. 335. 338. 353. Christian Year, 651, 656. Christmas, 041. Chrysostom, 299, 305, 313, 310. 419. 420. 507. 645. Chrystal, James, 322, 336,452. "Church :" Baptist use, 21-24, 247. Etymology, 17f. present use. 18-20, 52f.. 247. Church authority, 26. 332 353* 354. 368. 309. 384, 385. Church buildings, 639, 647f 605f. Church of England, see Epis- copal Church. Church, "institutional." 548. Church letters. 195. 190. 393. Church, local. 39-44. 537f. constitution, mode of. 55f, definition, 18. 21-23. 538. ' functions, 55-68, 110. government, 28f. independence. 51f.. OOf 110 159, 393. location, 543. membership, 50f., 544. one in each city. 179. relation to other churches 01-07. 110. relation to civil government, see Church and State, relation to God and man, 540-543. relation to ordinances. 278- 280. i-elation to reforms. 611-615. relation to the world. 67f., 533f. unit of power, 537-554. working force of the king- dom. 535-549. working for Itself, 551-569. Church members, culture. 557-560. discipline. 560-569. increase, 551-557. instruction. 188f.. 673f. qualifications, 56f., 557. reception. 57. 279. 556. Church officers, see officers. Church polity. 17-270. Baiitist view, 21-24. 166-184. definition. 17. 20. historical survey, 115-164. GENERAL INDEX. 687 iiiipoi'tance, 32-o."). New Testament survey. 3(5- lU. (i])]iusins views, 24-31. riiurcli ami State. r.T. 121. Ulf., 104. 2.")1-27(). 4C)()f.. r.n2. 000. 008. riiurcli universal. IS. 21. 4!tf.. 110. .-.r,7. CMi-cnnicision. 308. Clark.'. A., 338. f'leineiit. of Alexandria. 300. Clenicnt. of Home. 108. llOf.. 413. Clementine Recognitions, 414. Clerk. ir>0. 178. 102. 'ACk 'Clo.se Coninninion."* r)20f.. and see Lord's Supper, partiei- l)ants. Coke. Thomas, 140. Colenian. Lyman. 100. 037. 0.30. Committees, 102, 547. r)07. 508. Communion, 485; see Lord's Suiijicr. Conant. Tlios. J., 208-300, 304, 3(15. .".32. 340. Confessions of Faith. .\naOai)tist. 513. Anglican Catechism. 454. 47(>. Ajtostles' Creed. 040. Ani.'sl.urir. 325. 454. 473f.. 5-Jl. F.aj.tist. 150ff.. 328. 375. I'uiiiiula of Concord. 522. Ilcidclljcri]: Catechism. .320. 525. Helvetic. .320. .525. Luther's Catechism. 326,521. Xew Hampshire, 22. Philadelphia. 21. 1.57. Sou. Rap. Theol. Sem., 22f. Tetraiiolitan. .522. Thirty-nine Articles, 470. 47.-!. Westminster. 1.5<;. 222 ,"'.35 377. Confirmation. 118, 440. ■Con,srre.2;ationalists. 21, 147, 337. 432. 057. Constantine. 121. 320. 321, 0.38. 040. 041 Consubstantiation. .521 -.524. Controversy. 272f.. 280. .502. Conyhe;\re and Howson, .337. Co-o])erati()n of churches. 64, 570. .581 f.. 507, 001 f.. 00.5. Cote. W. N., 311. 312, 313.318, :520f. Councils. 120f. : see Synods. P.a).tist. 107-200. 203-210. Elvira. 418. Laodicea. 514. Lateran, 516. Xeocjpsarea, 418. Xicjea. 120. 121 f.. 0.38. Ravenna. 323f.. 371. Toledo. 318. Trent. 135f.. 222. 280. ,324f., 373. 377. 418. .506f., 512, 510. Vatican. 1.38. Covenant. 100. Covenant meeting. 531. Cranmer. 144. 444. 526. Creed. lOOf. Crenier. H.. 205f. Cromwell. Oliver. 420. Crosi»y. Thomas. 312. 375. Curtis. Thomas F.. 4.32. 457. Cyprian. 110. 31 8f.. 370f.. 411. 412. 415. 41 7f.. 450f.. 042f. Cyril, of Jerus.ilem, 31,3. 315. 507. Dagg. .John L.. 437. 408. Dale. .T. W., .340.340. Dayton. A. C. ,380f.. 388f. Deacon. 04-00.. .540. American Baptists. 158. duties. 04. '.»<;. 112f.. 101. 103. 514f.. 507. 0,(>3. (|ualilications. 05f. Rom.an Catholic, 140. Deaconess, 0.5, 181. T>ictionaries. Greek. 20.3-207. Did.ache. 108. 111. 112. .-{(Ci. 313 318. 642. Diocese. 123. 68 8 GENERAL INDEX. Dionysiiis. of Alexandia. 370. Disciples, see Campbellites. Disoii)line, 182. 189. 211. 213, nnoff. Disputes between churches, 215. Dollin^er, T. von. 332. 453. Dnnkards. 275, 329. Easter, (341. Ecclesia. 30-53. Education. 268f., 585-598. Elder of the Church, 84-94. American Baptists. 158f. authority, 93f., 112. liishop (syn. ). 85f.. 111. duties, 88. 112. election, 90. emolument, 92. functions, 87. 112. Old Testament. 30. 99, lOlf. ordination. 90, 91. pastor (syn.), 86. 111. 158. plurality, 89f., 112, 158, 171, 179f. Presbyterian. 30f. ruling, 30, 89, 158. synago.cue. 103f. tenure of otlice, 91. term, use of, 84ff. Elizabeth. Queen, 52G. Episcopacy, 111, 113, 117-119. Episcopalians. 25, 27, 143-145, 104. baptism, 329, 330f.. 377f., 432. 440, 453, 459. 470-473, 515. Church and State, 164. Lord's Supper, 504, .525, 520f., 531. worshij), 054-050. Erigena. John Scotus, 509. "Eucharist," 330. see Lord's Snipper. Eusel)ius. 370. 639. Evangelists, 79f. Evangelization, 571-583. Exi)ediency, 27f., 3.35, 353. 393. Evangelical Alliance, 248. Extreme unction, 512. Festivals of the Church, see seasons. Firmilian, 370. Foxe. 428. Francke, A. H., 000. Friends, see Quakers. Froude, 240. Fusslin. 427. Gale, John, 412. 415. General Bajt. Convention. 230. Gentile element. 105f., 629. Influence, 107f. institutions. K)Of. Gibbons. Cardinal, .332, 453, 4.54, 456. Gieseler, 18. Godet. 487, 488. "Governments," 81. Greliel, Conrad. 1.54. 327, 425. Greek Church, 24. 128f.. 130, 133-135. 222. 305. 329. 433, 509, 512, 515, 053. Gregory I.. 125, 127, 317, 318, 038, 644f. Gregory VIT.. 128. 509. Gregory Xazianzen, 310, 418. 420. Gregory of Nyssa, 507. Grinnn. C. L. AV., 294. Guericke, 311. 637. ILackett. IT. B.. 494. TTaimo, 509. Hall, Robert, 514. Ilarnack, 84, 109, 334. ITarriss. Samuel. 1.59, 171. Harvard Universitv. 587f. Ilase. 311. Hatch, Edwin, 107, 109. "Helps." 81. Henry VIIT., 143. 428. Henry of Lausanne. 153, 422. Henry, IMatthew, 400. Hernias. Shepherd of, 108. 112, 314, 414. Ilerzog, 369. 372ff.. 410. Hilary of Poitiers, 644. Ilildebrand. see Gregorv VII. Hincmar, 319. Pliscox, E. T.. 296, 332, 333, (JENEUAI. INDEX. <589 834. a:'.o, XM. 1 lodge, ('has.. 877. 4:37f.. 439f., 4-18. 4."0. 474. 47r.-477. 524. linages, 480. 444. 448f. Hooper. John, 147. Hospitals, r>9r>. (i07. '•Host," 5or>. r.ir>. Ilovey, A.. 4(50. Howell, 453. 459. 401. Tluluiiaier. 154. .8'27, 424-426, 510. Humanitarian work of the Church. 571. 585-()15. Huss. John. 517. Ignatius. 117, 119. Ignatius Loyola, 135. Images, 052. Hmnersion. see Baptism, act. alien, see Baptism, agent. ol).ieclions to, 348-358. trine, see Baptism, act, his- tory. In(1(>i)en(Ients, see Congvega- tinnalists. Infant Bajttism, see Baptism, reci]iients. 895ff. Ingham, 899. 402. 405. 412, 415, 487. Innocent III.. 129. Iniiuisition. 185. Trcnams. lOS, 109. 815, 414, 500, 041. Jefferson. Thomas, 250. Jerome. 805, 419. Jerusalem : ratriarchate, 122. water supply, 351f. Jeter, J. B., 481. John of Damascus. 319. John of Leyden, 420. Johnson, W. B., 389. Judaism and Christianity, 80, :'.1. 99f.. 487-442. Julian. 299. Justin Martyr. 90. 108, 112f., 314. 414. 500, 515, 040, 045. Justinian. (!47. Kendrick. 493. Kidd. Benjamin, 538. Kingdom of (Jod. re!:i1ion to Ciiurch. 58(;f. Kirtley, James A., 4(!8. Knapp, C., 377. Knox. John, 433, 055. Krauth, C. P., 439, 454, 478-475, 522f. Lamheth articles on Christian I^nion, 233. Lanfranc. 509. Lard, M. E.. 481 ff. Leander of Seville, 317. Lecky. W. E. H.; 599. Leo I.. 124. 419. Lihanius. 299. Liddcdl & Scott. 87. 294. 290, 44:?f. Liddon. Canon, 337. Lightfoot, John, 384, 335. Lightfoot, J. B., 28, 109, 111. Tiiterature, early (^hi-istiau, 108-113,310. Liturgy, 514. 515. «'!42f.. 040f., 050f., Tiord's Sni>per. 275, almses. 490f., 510. (il/dpc. 510. C;ilvinistic theory, church duty, 280. consubstanitiation, 521-024. design, see meaning, edicac.v, see meaning, elements, 492, 515. \ fretinencv, 491f., 499. 515^ \ 581. individual cup. 532. meaning, 500, 503-511, 519- 527. observance, 514-517. 030-533. open conuniuiion. 528ff. participants. 282, 499, 511-514, 527-530. pt>rpetuity, 491. prereiiuisites. 513, 527, 530, 581. presence of Christ, 50(i-511, 523, 525. restriction, see prerequisite- ritual. 514f., 531. 017. 0.35, 053. 054f. 484 ff. ->22. 524f. ■«90 GENERAL INDEX, sacrificial conception, 504f. symbolic character, 503f. transubstantiation. 508f., 519-521. unleavened bread, 532. "imfermented wine," 532. withholding cup. 516f. Zwinglian doctrine, 522, 525, 527. Luther, Martin, 133, 141, 325f., 333, 373, 510, 523, 58G, 656. Lutherans, 28, 141, 333f., 377. 432. 433, 486, 439, 442, 446, 454. 469, 473-475, 511, 515, 521-523, 571. 654-656. Macaulay, 430. McClintock and Strong. En- cyclop., 378. Madison. James. 255, 256. Manly. Jr.. Basil, 23. Mantz. Felix. 154, 327, 425. Mass, 486, 505f. Mass. Domestic Missionary Society. 162. Menno, Simons, 154, 327, 425. Mennonites, 154, 327. Messengers, 81. Methodists, 22, 145-147, 223, 329, 337ff.. 378, 432, 433, 436, 439. 446. 454. 456, 477f., 527, 528, 656. Metropolitans, 122f. TNIeyer. 302. 334, 442. Milan, 324. Missions, 571-579. district, 576f. foreign. 578f. home, 577f. local, 576. state, 577. Moehler, 469, 520. Monasteries, 586. 599. Monasticism, 130f. Monuments, 311. Munzer, Thos., 424, 426. Music, 624, 630f., 632, 643f., 650f., 655f., 658, 669f. IMational Educational Society, 229. Neander, 109, 311, 333. Newman, A. H., 154, 312, 416, 417. 420, 421, 423. 510. Nicholas of Rome, 129. Novatian, 319. Oehler, 621, 620. Officers, 69-96. classification, 71f. difficulties, 70f. doubtful, 81f. election, 58, 110. Old Testament : baptism, 379f. congregation, 99, lOOf. elders, 100. worship, 618-627. Olshausen, 333. Ordinances. 271-533. controversies. 280-282. etymology, 273f. keepers, 277-280. number, 275. purpose and meaning, 276f. sacraments, 273. Ordination, 118. 204-211. Organ, 650. 656, 658. Origen, 415, 642. Orphanages. 599f. Osgood. Prof. H. S., 327. Pfedobaptists. 328. 329, 332, 339, 377, 381, 382, 384, 389, 409, 412, 416. 431, 432f., 436-461. 527. Paintings, 311, Papacv, development, 124- 128, 129, 131, 136, 138, 139, 140. election. 140. infallibility. 138. Passover, 487-492, 502, 522, 532. Pastor, 86-88, 555, 567, 668f. Patriarch, 124f. Patriarchates, 122-124. Alexandria, 122. Antioch, 122. Constantinople, 122. 127, 128, 129. Jerusalem, 122. GENEKAL INDEX. 691 Moscow. 132f. Konio, 122, 124, 127. 129. Personal work, ."ioo, r>00, 570, r.70f. Peter of Bruys. 153. 421 f. Peter of Clugny, 421. Peter the Great, 134. Photins, 129. Pliny. G40, 044. Plutarch, 299. Poindexter, A. M., 392. Polybius, 298. Polycarp, 108, 110. Ill, 112. Pope, see Papacy. Porter. J. J., 380, 391. Pouring, see Baptism, act. Prayer-meetiugs, 583. Preaching. 020, 030, G31f., 040, 049. 055, 057. 075f. Presbyterians, 27, 29. 30. 142f, 154. 222, 329, 334ff., 377, 432f, 4.30, 445, 453, 450, 475- 477, 5(H, 512, 515, 524f.. 525, 527, 055, 050. Prophets, 78f., 024. Quakers, 289, 329. Rabanus Maurus, 319. Radbertus, 508. Ratramnus, 508. Reform, see Church, relation to. Reformed Churi-h. see Presby- terian. Reforms, 009-015. Bice, N. L.. 481. Riddle. 017. 041, 044, 048. Ridley, 520. Ritsohl, 109. Ritual, see Litiu'gy. Robinson. Robt.. 312. 322, 412, 41.5. Rosser, 4.38f. Rufinus, 415. Sadolet, James, 324. Schaff. 129. 311. 321. .3.3.5. 374, 415. 505. 500, .507. 508. 509, 519. 522. .52.5. (Ul. Schmidt, C, 599. Schools : Baptist. 592-.59S. denominational. 587-592. denominational control, 591, 590f. wState schools, 587, 590, 592. Scriptiu'e authority. 173. 357. Seasons, sacred, 040-042. 051f, 050. Sects, 131, 151-154, 232, 420ff. Albigensians, 1.52ff. Anabaptists, see sep. entry. Arnoldists, 153. Bogomiles, 152. Brownists, 148. • Cathari, 152. Donatists, 152. 371, 420. Henricians, 15.3. Lollards. 423. Montinists, 1.52, 371. Munster. Anabaptists. 154, 35(1, 420f. Novatians. 152. 371. Piwlobaptists. see sep. entry Paulicians. 1,52. 420. Petrobrusians. 1.53. 421. Vaudois. 1.53. Waldenses, 153, 423. Sees, apostolic. 123. Semple, Hist. Va. Bap., 159, 250. Septuagint : ecrlesia. 38. 100. ftinwfjoffe, 100. Shedd, 440. Shield.s, Chas. W., 233, 235. Smith and Cheetham, 312. Smyrna. Epistle. 108. 110. 119. Societies. lOOf., 183, 545. 583. Society. I'elation to the Church 535ff. Soul-winning, see Evangeli- zation and Personal Work. Southern Baptist Convention. 102. 228f. 2.34. 578. Southern Baptist Theol. Semi- nary. 22, 229. Sprinkling, 331, and see Bap- tism, act. Stanley. Dean, 305, 323, 331^ 1)1 2 GENERAL INDEX. 85ntf.. 4i:',. 41(5. 420. 455f., 450. 502, 508, 52Gf. State Convention, 162f., 227. Steitz: 3(>0, 3T2tf., 373, 374, 41(5. Stephen of Rome, 370f. Stephen III., 322. Storch. Nicholas, 424. Stourdza, Alex, de, 305. Strabo, 299. Stronir. A. H., 390, 432, 437, 459, 4('58. Stnart. M., 337. Suffi-Qigans, 13D. Summers, T. O., 378, 438, 443, 447. 459f.. 478. 528. Sumter, Discussion, 380, 391, 392. Sunda.y, (540f. Synagogue, 102-104. influence, 104. officers. 102. worship. 103. Synods, 120 ; see Councils. Ancyra, 120. Aries, 120. Carthage, 371. Elvira, 120. Holy Synod. 134f. Taxation of chiu'cli property, 205ff. Teachers, 80, 159. Telugus, 303, 352. Temperance, 610, 612, 614. Tertullian. 304. 315, 317. 318, 369f., 415. 450, 640. Thayer, J. H., 294, 297. Theological Seminaries. 589. Transubstantiation, 506-509, 519-521. Triennial Convention. 162. Trine immersion, see Baptism, act. Tucker, H. H., 468. Tunkers, see Dunkards. Tyerman, L., 338. TTnion, Christian, 231-250. Baptist position, 242ff. Unitarians, 588. Universities. 586, 587, 589. Tedder, H. C. 312. 328. 427, 431. 432, 513. Yirginia : Declaration of Rights, 255. General Assembly, 255. General Association, 159, 161.. 163. Virgin Mary, 541. Waldo. Refer, 153. Wall. Wm., 336, 412-416, 418, 419. 420, 422. 428, 451, 453, 459. 513. Waller, J. L., 388. Ward, Lester F., 236. Waterland, 378, 471tf. Wayland. Francis. 389, 441. Wesley, John, 145. 302, 338. Wesleyans. see Methodists. Whately. 455. Whitby, 399. Whitsitt. W. H., 375. Wiclif, 155. Wilke, 294, 297. Wilkes, L. B., 478-480. William & Mary College, 587f. Wilkinson, W. C, 437, 441. Williams, Roger, 376. Willoughby, Prof., 259. Women : baptism by, 373, 374. public speaking, 182. societies, 228, 229, 583. World Alliance, World Con- gress (Baptist), 230. Worship, 514, 560, 581, 617-676 elements. 627, 634, 642,ff., 664. etymology, 61 7f. faults and difficulties, 661- 671. New Testament. 627-635. Old Testament, 618-627. Place and Power, 661-672. Young Men's Christian Asso- ciation. 248. 249. Young People's Societies, 229. Zwingli. 142, 154, 325, 425, 51 Of.. 524, 525. Date Due PRINTED IN U. S. A.